Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2007-10-02FI LF DATE REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2007 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET ITHACA, NY 14850 7:00 p.m. PRESENT Chairperson: Fred Wilcox Board Members: Eva Hoffmann, George Conneman, Rod Howe, Larry Thayer, Kevin Talty and Susan Riha. Alternate Board Member: Hollis Erb. STAFF: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Dan Walker, Town Engineer (7:11 p.m.); Christine Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk. OTHERS. Robert Moore, 830 Hanshaw Road Tom Newton, East Shore Drive Lisa Goodberry, Conifer Realty, 183 East Main Street, Rochester, NY Andy Bodewes, Conifer Realty, 183 East Main Street, Rochester, NY David Harding, Carl Jahn & Associates, Syracuse Tom Parsons, Ithaca City Fire Department Al Gantert, Cornell, Humphreys Building Robert Blakeney, Cornell, Humphreys Service Building Robert Chase, Friends of Cornell Sailing David Schlosser, Schopfer Architects, Syracuse CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:05 p.m., and accepts for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on September 24, 2007 and September 26, 2007 together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and/or agents, as appropriate, on September 26, 2007, Chairperson Wilcox states the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. Chairperson Wilcox announces the first agenda item at 7:06p.m. PERSONS TO BE HEARD There was no one wishing to address the Board at this time. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 7:07p.m. Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 2 SEQR DETERMINATION Moore Dock Modification, 1028 East Shore Drive Michael Moore, 830 Hanshaw Road. Chairperson Wilcox — Are you prepared to give us a brief overview of what's being proposed this evening? Mr. Moore — Yes. I have a copy of a letter from T. G. Miller that I'd like to give to everyone. (Attachment 1) So, there is some question whether or not the dock is too far over the 10 - foot setback that was required and it7s... One of the main reasons that it looks like that is I believe the pin for the property line to the neighbors to the south, has been moved, either when the retaining wall was installed or the wall leaning and pushing the pin to the north and I have pictures of that here that I can show you, that the wall has been repaired many times and where the location of the pin is adjacent to the wall. (Attachment 2) So, in the ... so in the placement of the dock, it was installed by Ron Knewstub, and he goes by the ... on the second page of the TG Miller letter ... how you are supposed to figure out where the dock is supposed to come out according to the shoreline. So he originally had it 4 feet to the south, but I had him move it so it went straight out from the property line in correlation with the permit that was issued. So, it's hard to determine where the dock is or is not within that 10 -foot setback. So I guess what I am asking is to accept the position of the dock that was built to the current specifications that were allowed by the permit. Board Member Hoffmann — That was what? Mr. Moore — That the dock be accepted in the position that it was built as the permit stated, as far as size and position. Chairperson Wilcox — I want to say something like I would remind everybody that this is a SEQR determination, but I think we are going to find it very, very difficult to separate the SEQR determination from the actual discussion and review of what's being proposed but we will do the best that we can. Questions anybody with regard to the environmental review? Board Member Hoffmann — Well I have a question without having looked very carefully at those photos, and that is, if the dock was placed based on the placement of a pin that may have been moved since we saw the plans with the pin in a different location ... I don't think that's up to us to sit here and discuss whether the pin is in the right position or not. That's something for Mr. Moore to discuss with his lawyer and then come back to us when he knows where the pin is supposed to be. It's not in our, I don't know if jurisdiction is the right word, but, it's not included in what we do, to make decisions on things that are disputed. Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 3 Mr. Moore — The letter that TG Miller states that it's extremely complex to establish riparian rights into the lake and as a practice, they generally never do that. So the dock is built to specific size that was permitted, but it's...to the survey, if you take a ruler and look at it, it appears to be to the south, angled to the south a little bit where it's unable to determine that. Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to ask you to speak up a little bit, not just for us but for the rest of the audience. I have trouble hearing you. Maybe first I could ask you, which pin is it you're referring to? We are looking at a survey map and there is a pin set 2005 indicated along the northern border and there is a pin found indicated along the southern border. Which is the one you're talking about? Mr. Moore — The southern border. Board Member Hoffmann — And that is a pin which is in a different location than it was in plans that you showed us earlier, is that right? Mr. Moore — No, the pin is shown in the same spot, but the measurement from there, if you go out into the lake, if the pin has been pushed over approximately 6 — 8 inches, as the pictures show, that the wall has broken down, the pin is right next to a retaining wall that is on the property line. The wall, you can see, it's been repaired marry times and there's a big, large tree growing right next to... Board Member Hoffmann — Excuse me, how can you see that the wall has been repaired? Mr. Moore — In the pictures it shows all the cracks and all the repair joints that have been made. There are several of them. Board Member Hoffmann — And you said the pin has been moved over 6 inches? Mr. Moore — It appears, if you look at the wall, the corner of the wall and at the lake, that where the wall comes east, back into the property, the wall has been pushed to the north and the pin is set right against the wall. So the wall is leaning and angling away from its original position. Board Member Hoffmann — Is that your wall or your neighbor's wall? Mr. Moore — That's the neighbors wall. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Board Member Conneman — My question is, where did this come from? Mr. Moore — That came from the Town of Ithaca. Chairperson Wilcox — Nicole did that, back when Mr. Moore was here before. Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 4 Board Member Conneman — Well it indicates that ... it says TG Miller on there someplace if read it right this afternoon. ..TG Miller dated May 17, 2005... Ms. Balestra — It's based on information from the survey created by TG Miller. Board Member Conneman — So, okay, so, TG Miller is a reliable surveyor, is that correct... okay... so why isn't this appropriate? That's what I need to understand. Ms. Balestra — That was put in ... I actually added that to the Board member's packet so they had a point of reference as to what was originally approved for the dock proposal and this...the map shows dimensions and side yard setbacks and the information that you needed to determine where to go. Alternate Member Erb — So this is not something that the Zoning Board of Appeals would have seen? Ms. Balestra — Zoning Board of Appeals ... did they see that...) believe they did see that when they granted the variance. Alternate Member Erb — In other words, the applicant was using this, at that time? Ms. Balestra - This was created by the Town of Ithaca. Staff created this for the various Boards. Mr. Kanter — This was used for illustrative purposes only. Ms. Balestra — Right. Alternate Member Erb — But Mr. Moore...did Mr. Moore object to this? Mr. Moore — I didn't see that. Ms. Balestra — When ... we didn't exactly ask him if he objected to it. It was something that came up from ... between the. original proposal for the dock and then the modification and it's something that would have gone to him in his packet ... his packet as well as your packet. Board Member Riha — Just to be clear...) can't quite figure out is now the dock ...say this was approximately correct as to where it was going to be ... now the dock is 2 %2 feet to the south? Ms. Balestra — Correct. Board Member Riha — of where it would appear on this map? Ms. Balestra — Correct. Board Member Talty — And is that current? Is that current? Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 5 Ms. Balestra — Is what current? Mr. Kanter — The survey map... Ms. Balestra — No, the survey map is current... Board Member Talty — We actually have three snapshots... Mr. Kanter — This is an as -built drawing...this is current ... it's the best current map you will every see... Board Member Taity — Okay, so we have three separate, individual snapshots in front of us? Ms. Balestra — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — The original proposal, the modified proposal, and what was built. Ms. Balestra — Yes. Board Member Riha — But this is 2005, right? Chairperson Wilcox — No, this has been updated. ..the survey map in front of us... Board Member Riha — Oh, updated 07... Board Member Hoffmann — So, the first map ... if I can just state it so that I can find out if I understood it right. The first map is the map that the applicant... represents what the applicant came in with.... Board Member Thayer —That's what they wanted originally. Board Member Hoffmann —And we were very pleased, actually, with one of the aspect of it and that is, it was within the size limits for a dock that we have in our regulations, it was 300 square feet in size, or less ... I think it was 300 square feet in size. And then the matter went to the Zoning Board of Appeals because it needed some variances from them and the map on the right represents what they required, on that sheet that you're looking at. Chairperson Wilcox — And then Mr. Moore came back to us for Planning Board approval of the change necessitated by what the Zoning Board determined. Mr. Moore — Right. Chairperson Wilcox — And then we have, here's what got built. Board Member Hoffmann — Alright, and what we are seeing, today, on this survey map that we received that was update... Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 6 Chairperson Wilcox — August 15, 2007, Board Member Hoffmann -- ...is a dock which is not only placed differently than the Zoning Board had required and which we approved, but it's also a different size. It has suddenly grown so that instead of being 300 square feet, it is 454+ square feet. So it has grown by half as much. Mr. Moore — That's not correct. The dock... Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on, hold on... Board Member Hoffmann —Well that's what I got... Mr. Kanter — Chris can explain, I think, but, the basic summary is the measurement is from where the shoreline starts, and that's the dashed line not the... Chairperson Wilcox — Property line, or the beginning of the dock.... Mr. Kanter — Is that right? Ms. Balestra — That's correct. Board Member Hoffmann — Are you saying that from the shoreline it is actually the same size as was approved? Ms.. Balestra — Yes. It's the correct length... Board Member Riha —But it's a bigger width... Ms. Balestra — It is a larger width. They were approved for a 6 foot width and it's a .6.72 foot width... Chairperson Wilcox — It's 6 foot... yeah... what I might point out is, 6.72 on the eastern side, but notice on the western side where we have the L extension, that the approved width was 16 feet, and this is 16.17 feet, it's 2 inches ... Sol so, I'm not too concerned about the fact that it's 6 and 3/ feet on the eastern side, I'm more concerned that it's only sixteen feet on the western side, which is where it's off by 2 inches. That I don't care about. Board Member Hoffmann — But to me, the main concern is that it suddenly has moved closer to the property line to the south and the reason that is a concern is, it allows less space between the neighbors dock and this dock and so it allows for less space for them to maneuver their boat in and it also, I mean, there's a dock there now, but it doesn't mean that that neighbor might not want to build a different dock in the future and place it in a different way, depending on how it works, at the moment or what their needs are, or what another owner's need might be, and so ... When the Planning Board and the Zoning Board come up with certain requirements, they're not taken out of thin air, they come up for reasons, and I get kind of frustrated when I see that they are changed. Final PB 10-M7 Pg. 7 Chairperson Wilcox Remind everybody that we are doing the environmental review here. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, but I... Chairperson Wilcox — I know, I understand, I just kind of fell like I have to say that, that's all ... my job. Board Member Hoffmann — My main problem is, I don't see how we should concern ourselves about where the pin is placed and that the dock has been moved because a pin may have been moved. We don't even know, Mr. Moore says it appears as though it has. And also, I don't see the pin. There is one picture here that has an arrow and it says pin location and it point to a wooden stick in the ground, but I don't see the pin. Mr. Moore — The pin is right...because the fill came up to meet the wall, same height as the pin is right below that stake. Chairperson Wilcox — So the stick's purpose was to indicate where the pin is in the ground. Mr. Moore — Right and Steve Williams looked at it last week and he said, yup, that's exactly where the pin was. So, if the pin's been moved, then the property line going out into the lake is changed, and by... Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry, wait a minute ... the pin being moved doesn't move the property line... Mr. Moore -- The pin being moved, the line going out into the lake, if the pin is in the wrong spot, then that particular line is not... Chairperson Wilcox — some arbitrary line that doesn't reflect the actual survey boundaries of the lot but reflects a line .drawn to the pin, changes, but your actual boundary line doesn't change just because the pin moves. You know that. Mr. Moore — Right. But the surveyor, where they found the pin, if it was moved, then, it would show a new location. Board Member Hoffmann — But you're saying if it was moved which indicates to me you don't know if it was moved. Mr. Moore — No, it looks like it was moved. If you look at the wall and the tree next to it and all of the cracks in the wall, the wall is definitely moving in that direction, against the pin. Board Member Hoffmann — I'm sorry, I just, I can't handle this kind of problem here. I suggest that you go and get a surveyor to find out where the property line is and put in a pin in the proper place, and then come back. Chairperson Wilcox — We have a survey... Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 8 Board Member Thayer - We got that... Board Member Hoffmann -- But if he's basing his reasoning for us to change the location of the dock on the fact that he thinks the pin has been moved, then, we can't act on that, it seems to me. He doesn't know that it's been moved. Ms. Brock - Is the location of the pin on the survey dated August 15, 2007 the location ...does that reflect the location of the pin on that date? Or is this a representation of what was present in May of 2005? Mr. Moore - I would say 2005, but I'm not sure. Ms. Brock -So, if itIs... I guess we need to know. We need to have a survey that tells... Mr. Walker - Yeah, this would have been the date of the survey: There's no notation on here that they relocated that pin on a later date, so... Ms. Brock - So why is the fact the pin may have moved, relevant, if in fact, we have a survey and it shows the actual property line, regardless of where the pin is. If we've got the real property line,. why can't we follow the law, Section 27045 of our code that says "In the case of parcels bounding a substantially straight shoreline, docks and piers should be located in an area fixed by projection of parcel lines lakeward at right angle from the shoreline." Mr. Moore - A right angle from the shoreline... you could do that. If you would project it from a right angle of the shoreline, but the shoreline there.is angled so actually, the dock would be going right in front of the neighbors house. Board Member Talty - It would even be further. Mr. Moore - It would be even further in that direction, that's why the, the Town uses the arch, on the second page of the TG Miller letter, the same arch to determine where the dock and riparian.... Ms. Brock - No, ... Mr. Kanter - We don't use that... Ms. Brock - No, not yet... Mr. Moore - Well, you propose to use it. So,... Ms. Brock - Right, this is a draft law that was circulated to Mr. Knewstub for comment. The Town, this law is going to go back to the Codes & Ordinances Committee and then perhaps be referred to the Town Board for consideration,. but it has not become enacted. So right now we have the other version, which I just read to you, that's in place. Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 9 Alternate Member Erb — But right now it looks like the Zoning Board of Appeals was looking at this sort of a picture, which was a simple straight edge projection of the site property lines out into the lake. And when the ZBA made their determination, they were makingthe determination substantively based on this picture. Mr. Kanter — correct. Board Member Riha — Right, but you're saying that according to the Town ordinances, this isn't the way it should be built. Mr. Kanter -Right, Letter of the law. Board Member Riha -- It should have been at a right angle to the shoreline... Mr. Kanter — Well the law doesn't say at a right angle, the law says as extended from the side property line of the lot, which means you take a straight edge and you measure it out along the edge of the prope rty....That's what we were stuck with... Board Member Riha — I thought Susan just said at a right angle... Mr. Moore — Yes, she did... Alternate Member Erb — But it also said at a substantively straight shoreline which implies to me that you infer the substantively straight line to do it. Mr. Kanter — Well, there are obviously interpretations and I won't say problems but, questions, raised by the. current language of the law, which is why this drawing was drawn and presented... Board Member Riha — And everyone agreed to that? Mr. Kanter — And everyone agreed to that. The issue was, Mr. Moore did not, I believe, prepare a detailed survey, such as the as -built survey drawing, and so there were vary... Mr. Knewstub presented some kind of a little napkin kind of sketch and it was not very clear. Board Member Howe — My understanding is that we are really here to decide whether the 2'/2 feet difference is a big difference. Board Member Talty — Inches, right.... inches... Chairperson Wilcox — 2 1/2 feet. Board Member Talty — Oh, is it feet? I thought... Board Member Riha — So there's no SEQR issues here though. Chairperson Wilcox -- There is no environmental issue as far as I'm concerned, no. Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 10 Board Member Thayer — So I'll move the SEQR. Mr. Kanter — However, as our illustrious Attorney for the Town will tell you, if you have no inkling of approving the action, then you need not make a SEQR determination. So I think you want to sort of, again, tie the two together in some ways, although with something like this, you could easily make the SEQR determination and....it's up to you. Board Member Hoffmann — May I ask Mr. Moore a question. You mentioned Ron Knewstub and that he had placed the dock, did he also build the dock? Mr. Moore — He placed the pilings and they were at an angle, about 4 feet, so I had him rip all of the pilings out, move them over to have them of straight out from the property. The decking and the structure of the dock, other than the pilings, was built by a framer. Ms. Brock — I have another question. The survey shows a tie measurement along the approximate high water line, but that tie measurement is derived when you follow the procedure that's in the Town's draft law, correct? Mr. Moore — The ... which measurement? Ms. Brock — The tie measurement... the high water tie lines. Mr. Moore — Yes. Ms. Brock — So I guess one question I have is whether this line is actually... would look differently if we weren't applying what's in the draft law. There's a very specific procedure set out in the law for determining that line. But since... Chairperson Wilcox — But we don't care. Ms. Brock —That's right. So I am wondering if there is a different high water line that would be derived if one were not following this process ... Do you see what I am saying? How do we know that in fact this line is angled? Chairperson Wilcox — Alright, can I step back here. First of all, for the record, this document that people are referring to says Draft on it and is not part of Town law. End of that. Okay...end of that. So, is it... Ms. Brock — But Fred, the reason I am raising that is if in fact this high water line is drawn based on something the Town hasn't adopted yet, it may not look the same if this process weren't being followed. Chairperson Wilcox — Here's where I'm confused. Is that relevant or not, given this drawing, which was produced to aid all the parties involved in this dock proposal, which simple took the property lines and extended them out into the lake in order to compute what the side yard setbacks would be. Is the issue that simple? Did the Zoning Board rely upon this when they said, and pardon me while I find the Zoning Board's resolution here, I have a copy of it, as we all do ... the Zoning Board's resolution is very clear "there will be a Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 11 10 foot setback both to the north and the south for all structures proposed by the applicant." Okay. If this is the way you measure, by simply extending the property lines out into the water, then the Zoning Board's stipulation has not been followed, because instead of 10 yard, excuse me, instead of a 10 foot set back on either side, we have a 7'/z foot on one side. So that's where I am. So the question boils down to, is this the way you measure the setback? And that has nothing to do with a tie line, it has nothing to do with a high water mark. Yeah. Mr. Walker — It specifically references the property lines and then, with that drawing as a reference, it showed the extension of the property line, so I think the implication is that they met 10 feet back from the extension of the property line. Whether or not there were any riparian rights issues at TG Miller. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, the question is about calculating the setback. Mr. Walker — so basically, my interpretation, my engineering interpretation of this is that he's not followed what was approved by the Zoning Board. Mr. Kanter — And in addition to that, I believe this map represents what the Planning Board approved when it came back for modified site plan approval so it's not just the Zoning Board, it's also the Planning Board. Chairperson Wilcox — Right, because the Zoning Board made, set the, the criteria that they set changed the site plan we approved and therefore the applicant came back to this Board to have a site plan approved that was consistent with the stipulations set by the Zoning Board, yes, okay. Board Member Talty —And that leads us to... Board Member Thayer — Yeah, where are we? Board Member Riha = I'd like to hear if anybody is bothered by ... but the neighbors, I mean... Board Member Talty — If he had followed the letter of the law, he would have, well, based upon what you said, that's kind of what he did, I mean, he kind of said yes to the proposal that's in front of us to the right, the proposal on June 6`" and then when he built it, it was incorrect. That's it ... right? Board Member Conneman — Right. Board Member Riha — Right. Board Member Talty — Okay. So, where does that lead us? Board Member Hoffmann — Well, except as I hear it, Mr. Moore is here to tell us that the reason Mr. Knewstub moved the pilings and the dock was built where it was built was because they think that the pipe had been moved, and that's why they moved the location. Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 12 Board Member Conneman — Why didn't Mr. Knewstub come back to someone in the Town and say, look, this is what I found. I mean, I don't understand that. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, I'll be perfectly honest, this is a 50 foot wide piece of property, in fact, the measure of the diagonal is 46 foot wide. This is a difficult property to build upon in terms of setbacks. Therefore it is incumbent upon the applicant to pay attention to these things. You know. If you've got 100 foot of width and you're 2 feet off, it doesn't matter, but when you have 46 foot of width, as measured diagonally, between the property lines, you've got to be careful, and you've got to spend money in order to get it right, is the way I look at it, i mean, that's my feeling. Board Member Hoffmann — And, I already said it before, the reason we came up with the solutions we did, at both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board meetings is out of consideration for the neighbors on either side, who have rights too. Board Member Talty — I have a question. So, when you realized there was a mistake and you had the dock builder rip out the poles, and you put the poles back in, you know, drive them back down ... YOU 're basing it upon this? Mr. Moore — No. Board Member. Talty — What were you basing it upon? Mr. Moore — Basing it on I wanted to conform to the permit that was... Board Member Talty — So you were basing it upon the previous, what we passed before. Mr. Moore — Right, so I tried to get it to go straight out from the center, where it was supposed to go. Board Member Talty — Okay. Two questions. The first time, when he improperly put the posts in, what was he looking at? What was he taking his measurements from? Mr. Moore -- He was looking at the draft that he got from the Town of Ithaca. Board Member Talty — Okay. Which was not approved yet. So then he had to take them back out because that was totally not what was approved, right? Mr. Moore — That's right. Board Member Talty — So then he repositioned... Mr. Moore - So he repositioned all of the pilings to go straight out from the center of the lot, straight out, according to the property lines... Board that one corner post, which may have been Member Talty — Which leads us to shifted, and he took his positioning off that? Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 13 Mr. Moore — Yes. Board Member Talty — Which degrees out into the lake... Mr. Moore — 30 feet, 40 feet. Board Member Talty - ...threw his dimensions off. Mr. Moore — Right. Board Member Talty — Okay. Got it. That's what I'm hearing here. So basically, he tried to make it right, but when he took his position, the tree and the ice or whatever, moved the post, he wasn't taking it off this drawing, he was taking it off of the pin that was there at the time. Mr. Moore — Right. Alternate Member Erb — There are multiple pins... Board Member Talty — Yeah but he's taking it off of the southern property to make sure he's within his setback. So if that one pin is shifted, his transit is going to be off all the way out. Alternate Member Erb — If the pin has been shifted, yes, but I think it's incumbent upon the applicant to present us with that geometry and to present us with that proof and if the argument is that the pin. has been shifting because of multiple repairs to the wall, then that was already a condition inexistence back when this whole process started. Chairperson Wilcox — And there's been no, I haven't heard anything about a surveyor with a transit going out there in order to assist the dock builder in ensuring that it was located properly. Which, when you think about it, what was approved, had no margin for error. They had no margin for error, assuming that they built the boat lift, the dock and the extension. They had no room for error. Now, I'm not going to sit here and quibble about 2 inches or 5 inches, but they had no room for error in order to fit what they wanted, in the extension of their property lines out into the water, and still have 10 foot setbacks from these imaginary lines extended out in the water. Board Member Riha — So why couldn't this extension, which is now 10 feet, just be, 7 1/2 feet. Chairperson Wilcox —That, depending on where this Board goes, Mr. Moore might have 2 solutions, one is to rip it up and build it agaim..well, this Board could determine that ... and approve this, and then they would go back to the Zoning Board and they would have to make the same determination ... he could pick it up and move it, or he could lop 2'/2 feet off the L. I mean, that also would solve the problem too. Board Member Thayer When was the dock built? When did you do it? Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 14 Mr. Moore —Within the last 2... Board Member Thayer — Before or after this survey was approved the second time. Mr. Moore — The final survey is where it seems to be too far to the south. Board Member Thayer — Because this is dated 8115. Did you build the dock before or after that date? Mr. Walker — Before, because this survey shows it. Chairperson Wilcox — The survey is meant to reflect exactly where the dock wound up. Board Member Talty — And how is that determined after? Like, how did somebody know to go and look and know that you're off 2'!2 feet? How did that happen? Mr. Walker — I think.... Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on .... hold on...why did you have an updated survey done? That's the question. Mr. Moore — For the certificate of occupancy. In order to move in. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Mr. Walker — The Town requires that survey. Board Member Talty — I understand, and then when was it acknowledged that it was off? Like who acknowledged it? Who found the mistake? Ms. Balestra — Steve Williams in the Code Enforcement office was issuing the building permits and the CO's and processing it and he found some of the errors ... I believe. Mr. Moore — No, I thought that it looked, in the survey, off a little bit, so I went to the Barns brothers next door and said that it looks like the dock may be shifted a little bit to the left and I wanted to make them aware of that right off the bat. So then I came to Steve and you and let you know that and so, that's how that happened. So, in building the whole thing, I was very honest about what is there, I don't try to hide anything and that's why we're here. Board Member Riha — When they did this survey, they got the pins right? Mr. Moore — When they did the survey what? Board Member Riha - In the survey, they managed to extend correctly from the pins? Mr. Moore — Well, TG Miller's won't extend out into riparian rights, as the letter states. They don't do that because it is very confusing and hard to come to one single conclusion Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 15 where your rights are out into the lake, so there's different formulas that you can use to position a dock and that's why they don't do it. Chairperson Wilcox — I find it interesting that out in the water, there is a measurement that says 21.4 feet. There is no measurement to the south, and if that measurement were shown, it would be, roughly, 7'/2 feet. I don't know why the one to the north is shown and the one to the south isn't. Board Member Conneman — I don't understand why TG Miller didn't establish the pins first. Mr. Kanter — Because they probably weren't asked to. Board Member Conneman — I know but, knowing what the nature of the dispute was, Jonathan, you would think that they would say, now wait a minute Mr. Moore... Mr. Walker — In 2005 when this survey map was executed, when the survey was executed, that pin in the southwest corner was on the site and they found that pin in that location. That's where the pin was in 2005. If you notice, on the southeast corner, they set a pin. They found a pin on the northeast corner, and then they set a pin on the southeast corner. So they used the pin on the northeast corner and the pin on the southwest corner as reference points in place and based the rest of the survey on that information, I believe. Board Member Hoffmann — And I believe that it would have been fairly easy in the field, to take measurements form those three pins to find out if that pin in the southwest corner had been moved or not. Mr. Walker — I think they used that pin as the reference point that was the good reference point. Chairperson Wilcox —They assumed the pin was correct. Mr. Walker — they assumed the pin was the reference point... Board Member Hoffmann — No, I'm talking about now. Mr. Walker -- Well the pin hasn't, well... Board Member Hoffmann — When they believe the pin has been moved, they might have been able to find out if it had been moved or not, in fact, by using the other threes pins as reference points. And measuring from the northern boundary, for instance, to the south. Mr. Walker — Well I see no notation on this survey map that they found any discrepancy from where the pin was in 2005 to where it was... (everyone talking over each other) Chairperson Wilcox — Again, my take is that we made an...that an amateur determination was made, by agents of Mr. Moore... Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 16 Board Member Conneman — By TG Miller. Chairperson Wilcox — No, agents of Mr. Moore. I don't care whether it was TG Miller or not. Somebody made a determination about where the dock had to go. When TG Miller came out and surveyed, the dock is in the wrong place, so I am going to assume some sort of amateur determination was made. You know what, as I said before, when you have tolerances here of inches, you don't make an amateur determination. Again, that's where am. Alternate Member Erb — That's basically Where I was too with the statement that being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals seems to me to be a privilege that one should pay very careful attention to. Board Member Hoffmann — That's a good point. Chairperson Wilcox — Can I take a straw poll here please...who's in favor of allowing this? I got three in favor... everybody else against? ... okay ... Procedurally, there is the question of whether we do the SEQR or not. Does it matter? There's no SEQR impact here. Ms. Brock — I think you can do the SEQR if you want. Chairperson Wilcox — Procedurally do the SEQR and then actually open the public hearing, we'll give the public a chance to speak and then we will actually go through it. Ms. Brock — And just so you know, you need to base your determination on the matters within your jurisdiction which -are going.to be issues such as does the difference in location affect navigability or affect the users of the nearby dock, character of the neighborhood, that type of thing. You should not be considering the fact that he would need to go back for another...a variance modification from the ZBA, that's within their purview and you shouldn't be thinking about that. You should be thinking about the types of things that are in the Board's purview, and you have been I mean, that's been going on, but there was just the recent reference to the ZBA and the variance, so I just wanted to make it clear again that you need to look at the impacts of the dock to the surrounding area. Board Member Conneman — For the SEAR? Chairperson Wilcox — No, for the... Ms. Brock — No, well, for the final determination. For the SEQR you're just looking at environmental affects, you're not to think variance or no variance, you're. looking at environmental effects... Board Member Thayer — So for the SEQR, the fill in the front yard should have some bearing, right? Ms. Brock — There is nothing pending before you or before any, or before you, regarding the fill, isn't that correct? Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 17 Board Member Thayer — It makes a difference in the square footage of the dock. Ms. Balestra — No. Mr. Moore — The wall was already inspected by the Army Corp of Engineers, the DEC and the Town of Ithaca to be in compliance with the permit that was issued when it was built. Mr. Kanter — That is correct. Steve Williams did sign off on the shoreline work, other than the dock. Board Member Thayer — Okay. So I moved the SEAR... Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, Let's go back about 10 minutes... somebody moved the SEQR ... so moved by Larry Thayer, and Susan Riha seconded the SEQR motion ... Any further discussion with regard to the environmental review? Any discussion with regard to the environmental review? Board Member Hoffmann — The one comment that I already mentioned is, this lot is narrow but so are most of the other lots around there. I bet that this is not the only one that is only 50 feet or so wide and I don't know about the lot immediately to the south, but, since that is a common thing in this area, locating the docks, even slightly off, would really affect the way the neighbors would be able to navigate into their shore and their dock and it seems to me that that affects the surroundings, which is the environment. Board Member Conneman — Susan, it seems to me that SEQR does take into account how something affects the neighborhood. Ms. Brock — Yes, it does, you need to determine if there is a potential for a significant adverse environmental impact. Board Member Conneman But you're saying that we have to wait til we get to the general proposal before we do that? Ms. Brock — No, when you vote on the SEAR, that's when you just determine if there's a potential for, but, it's significant adverse, I'm soryy, yes, significant, that's the standard, significant adverse environmental impact. Board Member Conneman — Well, but we have not heard from the neighbors so far... Audience member — there is a neighbor sitting... Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on, hold on, you have been sitting patiently and if we get to the public hearing, we'll give you a chance. Ms. Brock — So, as you've done before, you can find there is no potential for a significant adverse environmental impact. Neg-dec the SEQR and yet still consider environmental affects of the project when you're considering site plan approval or the site plan modification, or any special permit modification, in this case. Just because there isn't a Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 18 significant effect, doesn't mean that there might not still be some effect, and it is within your rights to look at those effects and take those into consideration when you vote on the site plan and special permit modifications. Mr. Kanter — But there is precedence for the, Board, having gone through similar actions where it became clear there was going to be a denial of the request, and therefore, the Board has determined that it would not be necessary to make SEQR determination, going on to not approve the action, and there is precedent for that under SEQR regs. I know we've done it before with both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board. Chairperson Wilcox — The advantage, though, is, we make a SEQR determination, the application is considered complete, we can open the public hearing. And I do want to open the public hearing. Board Member Hoffmann — We have heard the public before the public hearing in other matters. Mr. Kanter — You can still hear from the public. Chairperson Wilcox — I have a motion and a second with regard to the SEQR determination. Any further discussion? Board Member Hoffmann — You're determined to do that before you hear the public? In this particular case, where you have allowed it in other cases? Chairperson Wilcox — It ... okay ... you're absolutely right. Let me explain why have I called for the motion. Very often, this Board allows residents to speak when we are doing the environmental review because their concerns are environmental, right? Right? And therefore, making an environmental determination, considering the application complete, going on either to the subdivision or the site plan, and opening the public hearing, giving them a chance to speak, defeats the purpose, because they want to talk about the environmental concerns, okay. The concerns here, as far as I'm concerned, are not environmental, it's the location of the dock, which is a site plan related issue. Okay, okay... the dock is there, it's the size that was allowed, okay, is there an environmental issue by having the dock being 2'/2 feet to the wrong side. In my opinion, no. There is no significant environmental impacts. Are there impact on the neighbors, because of where it was located? Absolutely, and we'll deal with that when and if we get through the environmental review, open the public hearing ... We have a letter from somebody, we have a gentleman in the audience ... but I think those are issues related to the plan, not issues related to the environment that we would deal with under environmental review. That's my opinion. Board Member Hoffmann — We might hear some environmental issues if we give people a chance. Chairperson Wilcox — WE could, absolutely. Do you think that we should? Board Member Talty — I don't. I think we should just vote and move on. Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 19 Board Member Thayer — Right. Alternate Member Erb — Let's vote and then have the public hearing. Chairperson Wilcox — We will have the public hearing and we will give everyone the chance to speak. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion regarding the environmental review ... there being none ... all those in favor, please raise your hand. Okay, I have 1,2,3,4...1 have everybody except George ... all those opposed... George opposes... there are no abstentions... Board Member Conneman — Because once you approve that SEAR, everything goes to hell. So... Chairperson Wilcox — To hell is a technical term ... (laughter).. I Board Member Conneman — that happened in a recent case if you remember... ADOPTED RESOLUTION. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 103 SEQR Site Plan & Special Moore Dock Permit Modification 1028 East Shore Drive Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 19.-2-16 Planning Board, October 2, 2007 MOTION made by Larry. Thayer, seconded by Susan Riha. WHEREAS. 1. This is consideration of Site Plan & Special Permit Modification for the previously approved dock at 1028 East Shore Drive (NYS Route 34), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel . No. 19.-2-16, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal involves a modification of the location of the dock from what was originally approved. Michael Moore, Owner/Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Site Plan & Special Permit Modification, and 3. The Planning Board, on October 2, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, a plan entitled, "Survey Map, No. 1028 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by T.G. Miller P.C, dated May 17, 2005, and most recently revised on August 15, 2007, and other application materials, and Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 20 4, The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan & Special Permit Modification; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the. reasons set forth in the Environmental Assessment Form Part II referenced above, in accordance with the New York State. Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Howe, Talty and Riha. NAYS: Conneman. ABSTENTIONS: None The Motion passed. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 7:55 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed modification of the previously approved dock at 1028 East.Shore Drive (NYS Route 34), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19.=2-16, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal involves a modification of the location of the dock, approximately 2.5 feet south from what was originally approved. Michael Moore, Owner/Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox — Question of Mr. Moore at this point with regard to the site plan? Board Member Talty — Mike, what made you do the L in that direction? Mr. Moore — Because most of the docks ... the dock to the north of me, Thayler's property, his dock starts about 2 feet off of his north property line and then L's to the left. The dock to his north starts about on that neighbors property line and the L goes to the left. So I was told to place mine in the center of my property, lot, and go straight out and I send the L to the left because there is a boat lift that is going to be installed on the right and to keep the space going in the same direction as the other docks, that was the best position to do it. Board Member Thayer — If he took 2 % feet off the L, this would be perfectly legal? Ms. Brock —hmm. Mr. Kanter — I don't know if I would use the word perfect but.. . Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 21 Chairperson Wilcox — If he took roughly 2.55 feet off, it probably would be within inches of what was granted, yes, of what was approved, both by the Zoning Board and by this Board. Mr. Moore — I would just like to point out that the, my neighbor's dock, to the south, starts on both property lines of his property, and it's the same way with his neighbor and his dock, also starts very close to his property line. So it's very crowded down there. I have a lot of pictures of the docks, if you want to see them, how it is... Chairperson Wilcox — Aren't those issues that came up when you were here before? Didn't we go through that before? Mr. Moore — Yeah, so my dock conforms more than most of them. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Any other questions. Board Member Talty — If we cut off 2'/2 feet, you have to drive new pinings, right? Mr. Moore — I have to drive probably 4. 1 have to take the whole end section off, pull out those two... Board Member Thayer — You only have two pilings on... Mr. Moore — I don't know if they can hold feet off, move it in. I don't think they cE moved farther in, maybe 4 feet, and the reattach the dock. Board Member Talty —(inaudible) up the dock while I take the 2 pilings out, cut 2 Y2 i pile right next to the dock, it would have to be i bring the barge in, put the 2 poles in and then Chairperson Wilcox — The alternative is to have a helicopter come in, lift the whole thing up and plop it back down, but I know, it's not that simple, no, I know it's not that simple. Board Member Hoffmann — We're not here to redesign his dock. We're here to approve or disapprove this particular application. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Moore, could you have a seat, and I will give the public a chance to speak. They have been waiting very, very patiently, extremely patiently ... it looks like somebody's blood pressure might be up a little bit too. Sir ... please come forward. Ms. Balestra — Before you get to that ... before you is an e-mail... Chairperson Wilcox — I was going to get to that... Ms. Balestra -- ..he requested that that his comments be spoken into the record. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, I will do that after every member of the public hear has had their say and then I will read this short memo. Name and address please sir. Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 22 Tom Newton, PO Box 216, Ithaca It's a very spacious PO Box and beautifully furnished'. My physical address is on East Shore Drive to the south of Mr. Moore's property. I've had the pleasure of walking by his property on a daily basis walking my dog. The property in question was a complete and utter eye sore. A rat infested property. He has taken this property, he has leveled it, in a methodical and respectful way to his neighbors put together a building that is a delight to behold. I have never met Mr. Moore prior to this, and I'm here to speak merely because think it's worth mentioning that we're all of the Town of Ithaca, we're here to support our neighbors when we can. 1f this can be passed, I know that I've had to go before various Boards and frankly, based upon.your discussion folks, the hour that it took to arrive at this point, is tough on people, and I would like to respectfully request that you grant what he's asking and applaud the fact that he's done a marvelous job, and move on to the next thing so that we can all move on. Thank you for letting me share. Chairperson Wilcox —Anybody else like to address the Board on this particular issue? There being no one else, I will close the public hearing at 8:02p.m. Ms. Balestra referenced an e-mail that she received and the attached letter and the applicant, the writer asked it to be read into the record. I will do it because it's short. We should note that it would be part of the record anyway, but I'll read it so that everybody can hear it and Mr. Moore does have a copy, by the way. To the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, We regret being unable to attend your meeting regarding the issue of Michael Moore at 1020 East Shore Drive, we believe the following: Mr. Moore extended and filled in his front yard beyond what is proper and certainly aesthetically pleasing. With Mr. Moore's extension of the shoreline into the lake and the length of his new dock any infringement of the original permit negatively impacts others' navigation and mooring capabilities especially since the lots are so narrow. Therefore we oppose granting a variance to the original permit for Mr. Moore's dock. Thank you. Signed Scott Barns, Stewart Barns, Larry Barns, owner's of 1022 East Shore Drive, directly adjacent to the south of 1028 East Shore Drive. Chairperson Wilcox — All right. Mr. Moore, you want to come back up just in case. Any questions with regard to the site plan in front of us. I think we kind of did that. The straw poll I took was that we had 3 in favor and 4 opposed, Has anything changed? Alright. Susan, I have to turn to you. You wanted to make a comment I believe. Ms. Brock — Is there any information missing that you think could help you make a determination, and if so, you can ask Mr. Moore to provide that and you could adjourn this matter to a future meeting. So I know you had a lot of questions about what was shown on the survey, what facts actually are, and if you think there Is.some information that's unclear, that Mr. Moore could clarify for you, you have the right to ask for that and have him come Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 23 back at a later meeting. So I just wanted to point that out to you as another option you have. Chairperson Wilcox -1 don't see anybody requesting anything. Jonathan. Mr. Kanter — I just have a comment or an observation to make on ... this, to me, sort of illustrates issues that we are going to have on these shoreline regulations, even, if and once' we do amend them, because surveying and measuring in water and offshore are different from measuring onshore and regardless of all that, if we do keep or amend these regulations, I would anticipate that we are going to be requiring detailed survey drawings of any shoreline proposal that comes in so that before it even comes to the first meeting of the Planning Board, the owner/applicant will probably have to spend several thousand dollars to put together an application to bring to the Board because as Staff, it's very difficult for us to do other than direct an applicant to do that, having gone through the number of applications that we've had. So I would just say that if the Town is really serious about pursuing these types of regulations for these kinds of situations, be prepared to have high costs associated with the applications. And again, I think because of the difficulties in exact measuring and surveying on these shoreline structures, you're always gonna run into these situations, even when you do have survey drawings, you're probably gonna end up with variations from what was approved, hence, you are going to be dealing with these a lot. Chairperson Wilcox — Let me counter that. If this was a 100 foot lot and the dock/boathouse/L extension were moved 2 1/2 feet, I really don't think this Board would care because the side yard set backs would still be sufficient. If, in this case of this lot, which is roughly 46 foot wide, I can check it again, if the proposal was simply to build a 6 foot wide dock, then we would have 40 feet to play with on both sides and you could have roughly 20 feet of setback on both sides. Again, if it wound up to be 22 and 18, I'm not so sure that I would consider that an issue. But when you have 46 feet and you propose to build a structure that is 26 feet across, that only leaves you 10 feet on each side and the Zoning Board and this Board, I thin were very careful to say, you know, you better put it where it's supposed to be. You don't have room for error. And that requires additional costs on the part of the applicant and their agent to make sure that it's done right. Board Member Talty — With all due respect, Fred, I don't think it matters. I don't think it matters if you have 200 feet on the lake or 50 feet on the lake. If you build something that is not approved and it's on your neighbors line, or, and it goes into your neighbors line, or it offends the rules that are on the books, I don't think it really matters. l think you have to judge them equally, you know, if it's 1/2 inch over or 12 feet over, it's still.... Chairperson Wilcox — Now why do you bring that up, because there's nothing here that's over... Board Member Talty — No, I'm just saying whether it's over your neighbors property or it's in the setback range, or whatever was approved, if the person builds it and it's not what's approved, it doesn't really matter whether it's a %2 an inch or 2 feet or whatever. I don't think it matters how much shoreline you have. It's all about the plan and it's all about what's approved. Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 24 Chairperson Wilcox — I agree with you, I agree with you, but, if you don't build it exactly as was approved, then what are the impacts on your neighbors by... Board Member Talty — You're absolutely right. Chairperson Wilcox — What are the potential impacts on your neighbor. Alternate Member Erb — And here the point is, it's off by 25%, in this direction. I mean, it's off by 25% in this direction. Board Member Hoffmann — And you could have a 100 foot shoreline and place a dock in such a way that you are asked to keep 10 feet from the nearest property line if the dock is off in one direction and that could have as big an impact on a 100 foot shoreline as 46 feet. We don't always require them to be centered on the shoreline. Chairperson Wilcox — That's correct. All Right. Susan, procedure, because we don't very often turn things down. It's the nature of the Planning Board because of the review process before it gets to us. We could simply just take a vote and I believe it will not be in favor of approving the dock and the L extension where it's been sited. Is that the end? Or do we need to make some sort of findings before we make that type of determination, based upon what you said before? Or have those findings been made simply by the discussion that has occurred as part of this review? Ms. Brock — You don't typically make findings, although I suppose you could if you wanted to.. Chairperson Wilcox — But we're on the record as part of the discussion, I believe, here... Ms. Brock — Right, so... Chairperson Wilcox — As to what the issues are and why it would appear that a majority of the members are not in favor. Ms. Brock -- Right. The information is in the record. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Board Member Howe — So do we take the vote or not take the vote... Alternate Member Erb — Is there any need for the record to just say that we are not caring at all about the questions that have been raised about the front yard of this property? We're just ignoring that completely, and just say that for the record? Ms. Brock — Yes, you can say that for the record. Board Member Talty — I think she just did... Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 25 Ms. Brock — Right, you are saying that for the record. Board Member Howe — I move the resolution. Board Member Talty — I second it. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Rod Howe, seconded by Kevin Talty. Okay. Any changes? No, no changes ... All right. The motion in front of us is to approve the site plan as revised. All those in favor, please raise your hand. All right, I have Larry, I have Rod, I have Kevin...All those opposed. I have Susan, Fred, I have Eva and 1 have George. The motion fails by a vote of 3 in favor and 4 against. Okay. Move it or chop it off, or sue us, but you know ... that's always....you know...Any questions from you Mr. Moore? At this point? ADOPTED RESOLUTION. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 104 Site Plan & Special Permit Modification Moore Dock 1028 East Shore Drive Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 19.-2-16 Planning Board, October 2, 2007 MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Kevin Talty. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Site Plan & Special Permit Modification for the previously approved dock at 1028 East Shore Drive (NYS Route 34), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19.-2-16, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal involves a modification of the location of the dock from what was originally approved. Michael Moore, Owner/Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Site Plan & Special Permit Modification, has, on October 2, 2007, made a negative determination of environmental significance, and 3. The Planning Board, on October 2, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, a Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, and a survey entitled "Survey Map, No. 1028 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by T.G. Miller P.C, dated May 17, 2005, and most recently revised on August 15, 2007; and other materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Site Plan Modification Approval, as shown on the Final Site Plan Checklist, having Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 26 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 Site Plan Modification Approval for the proposed Moore dock, located 7.55+/- feet from the southern property line, as shown on the survey entitled, "Survey Map, No. 1028 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by T.G. Miller P.C, dated May 17, 2005, and most recently revised on August 15, 2007, subject to the following conditions: a. Granting of any necessary variances or modifications thereof from the Zoning Board of Appeals; and b. That the boatlift have no roof structure and no side walls, and that it be located no less than 10 feet from the northern property boundary, in accordance with the Zoning Board of Appeals Resolution No. 2006-040, adopted on May 15, 2006. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants a modified Special Permit to allow the existing dock to remain approximately 7.55+/- feet from the adjacent southern property line, in a Lakefront Residential zone as provided for in the Town of Ithaca General Code §270-45 ("Accessory structures and uses authorized by special permit only," Lakefront Residential zone), subject to the conditions of Final Site Plan Modification Approval, finding that the standards of §270-200, Subsections A -L, of the Town of Ithaca Code have been met. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Thayer, Howe and Talty NAYS: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, and Riha ABSTENTIONS: None The Motion failed 4 to 3. Mr. Kanter— I guess a question from Staff would be, #1 this looks like it doesn't have to go to the Zoning Board now, because... Chairperson Wilcox — We didn't approve it. Mr. Kanter — Right, however, the question to the Board is, will a modification of the current configuration of the dock, one that meets the setback requirement that was established of 10 feet, require Mr. Moore to come back to this Board for yet another modification because the configuration will look different? Chairperson Wilcox ---That's to be determined. That will be determined. Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 27 Ms. Brock — Yeah, we would need to look at the Planning Board's prior approval. Mr. Kanter— Well, it's not going to be shaped as shown on the previous site plan so would direct Mr. Moore to come back to the Board... Chairperson Wilcox — AT 8:10... Mr. Kanter — If that's a maybe or a yes... Chairperson Wilcox— No, I mean, the determination will be made and if there is any question about whether it needs to come back to the Board or not, it will come back to the Board. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 8:19 p.m. SEAR DETERMINATION Conifer Bus Turnaround, 200 Conifer Drive. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you need an easel or did you bring your own...You know, the interesting thing about that hour and people will sit in the audience and wonder why things take so long, if that doesn't prove to the public at large that we don't discuss these things before hand ... I mean, you got to come away wondering why we spent over an hour on that dock is because, we get together, we discuss it, we express our opinions, you know, everything happens in public, and god bless us for doing that and taking that time necessary to do that, although some times it seems out of line. Welcome back, name and professional address and I assume you have a short presentation to make. David Harding, Carl Yaman Associates, 450 S. Salina, Syracuse, NY Andrew Bodewes & Lisa Goodberry, Conifer Realty, 183 E. Main S., Rochester, NY Mr. Harding — We're here tonight because, if you recall, the original plan for the Conifer Senior Apartments was for the bus service to run up into the parking lot that was designed to accommodate it and come back down into a simple pull -off lane in the vicinity of the existing bus stop and TCAT has changed their attitude about pulling up into that parking lot and I will describe what we are proposing instead. Chairperson Wilcox — Take the wireless mike with you if you would please. Mr. Harding — If you can read the inset map here where I've highlighted roadways, this is Route 79, this is Conifer Drive coming in and extending up into the senior complex that is under construction. This is the first phase of the Lindermann Creek apartments, and this is Phase II and III over here. The little orange highlighted area is the location of the current bus stop, which is a turnaround size to accommodate the N+ turning radius and the plan was to allow that bus to come up into the parking lot, come back down and then pull off to a pull -off lane to pick up passengers. What we are proposing, because they no longer Final PB ] 0-2-07 Pg. 28 want to go into the parking lot on a regular basis, but they have indicated that they will go there on an as -called basis, is to essentially re -utilize the existing bus stop loop, right at the intersection of Conifer Drive and Cypress Court/Conifer Circle. The pians that were submitted to you show that the loop would shift slightly to the west about 6 feet because of the new road geometry as we designed it for this extension and that would have required re -working a little bit of the asphalt walk going up to the Phase II area. Since we submitted these plans, we have communicated with TCAT and obtained a letter. that I understand was given to Jonathan...TCAT has indicated that they can work with the geometry of the bus loop as it currently exists. So we wouldn't need to shift that 6 feet to the west and chase the walk up the hill... Chairperson Wilcox — Before you go on...so the plans that we have reviewed stand in terms of what we are considering tonight? I just want to be sure. Mr. Harding — well, considering the discussion in the last application ... (laughter) ... we're talking about 6 feet here, but I think, you know, what we're here tonight for, is to discuss the general principle of the bus stop, and that is, you know, does the Planning Board agree that this is a sufficient location and you know, whether it's 6 feet one way or the other is an engineering issue, which I would think, would be handled as a final plan approval through the Engineering Department and by the Highway Superintendent. But that's your prerogative. We would like to, as you know, we're winding down on the site development for this project and we are getting close to the end of the fall paving season, so we would prefer to have an approval tonight and work out the final approval if we could. Part of the plan is that, you may be familiar that the condition of the existing pavement in that bus loop is pretty ragged. And that was because in the initial construction during the Phase II project, there was some poor sub -grade conditions that the contractor had not alerted anyone too and just paved over the top with a standard -duty asphalt pavement section. We recognize that that is an issue and part of this proposal, as you see in the plans before you, is to box out the entire pavement area down to sub -grade, 2 feet below and use runoff crush stone to bring it back up to the asphalt pavement coarse level and that will give it a durability of a similar nature as your public roads. That current problem will be addressed by virtue of that. As part of leaving the, or utilizing the geometry of the existing turn -around, it would enable us to leave the bus shelter where it is. I think the plans that were submitted do show it being relocated because of that 6 foot slide, but that is one of the advantages of TCAT's agreement to the more simplified. design. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, let me be careful here, David, so, you're asking us to consider something that that map depicts, the one that you're pointing to, which is different than the materials that we had to review before this meeting? Mr. Harding — No, actually this drawing matches what was submitted. Chairperson Wilcox — Then you're talking about the bus stop being moved ... YOU 're confusing me... Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 29 Mr. Harding — This bus stop currently exists approximately in the location that we're showing here, 6 feet further to the east and TCAT has agreed, by this letter that they issued today, I believe, and 1 apologize for not being able to update the drawings that quickly, but, they have agreed that they don't need it widened out to the west. They can use it just the way you approved it once before, as part of the Phase 11 project. Alternate Member Erb — We have... Chairperson Wilcox — I'm still confused... Alternate Member Erb — We have L2 which has a note made on it that says "relocate existing bus shelter on new concrete pad." That's on L2, that's what we were looking at. Mr. Harding — Okays ..we'll post up the old plans and... Mr. Bodewes — Can I just ... Maybe I can highlight kind of where we're at today and what we're asking... Chairperson Wilcox — No, no, no...let's be careful here ... you're in front....David should know better...you're in front of us to get approval, both preliminary and final, which is what you'd like to walk away with. It is incumbent upon us to be able to see plans that reflect what you want approved, and I'm confused, because I have plans here that have been reviewed, David's talking about move this 6 feet...here's the question ... If you are looking for an approval this evening that is in any way different from the plans that you submitted, then that's what we need to know about. What's different from the plans, having said that, go. Mr. Bodewes — Okay, thank you. I guess, just to trace this whole thing back, as you all know, and we're pleased to be here tonight because I think our project is well under way now and if anybody's gone up there, you know, the site work is really well underway and it's going to be a great project, so, what we're really here to do tonight is really try to enhance the project by adding this bus loop. As you all know, in the final plans that you approved, we did not have a bus loop going down, allowing both the City School, both the School District busses and the TCAT busses to have some sort of turnaround. The original plan that TCAT approved, when we dealt with them on the original approval and that you all approved, entailed TCAT coming to the top of the circle, going around our parking lot, picking up riders and then going back down. They agreed to do that at one point, during the development process, they came back to us as we started construction and expressed concerns about that. Over the last several weeks, and probably couple months, we've been working very closely with TCAT and with the School District as well as with Jonathan and his staff to talk about a solution that might work to help TCAT be able to do a turn around in the fashion that they would like to do, as well as the School District. We've been experiencing extreme budget difficulties through our project, as you all know, because we were back here previously to make some changes to the site plan. Those continue to be ongoing. However, we feel like this is an important enhancement. We want to keep TCAT as being available to our residents and so we've come to this point where TCAT has said essentially to us, to be able to continue to provide services to our residents, they're going to really need this bus loop. We said, well, geez, we'd love to be able to do Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 30 it, but we're having budget difficulties, it's a significant cost. So what we've proposed here is something that we think, well, we know TCAT finds acceptable and, I'll sort of get to the budget issues in a second, but I wanted to clear up this whole issue of what we are presenting to you tonight, with respect to the plans and what we're also adding in in terms of this recent letter that was sent to you from TCAT and what we'd ultimately like to do. They sort of, the budget issues and what we're asking you, sort of tie together and that is ... what we've presented you shows you a drawing that shows the current bus loop being pushed to the west, it actually is a bus loop that was existing in Phase II but was going to go away. We would take that bus loop that was going to go away and push it 6 feet, that's what you're presented with tonight. And we thought, originally, that we needed to do that. However, as the construction has been ongoing and we have needed to temporarily relocate TCAT and that sort of thing, with their turnaround, we've had the existing bus loop, as it exists, right now, today, which is essentially, I believe, what it was like in Phase II Dave, correct me if I'm wrong, is that right? Mr. Harding - That's correct and in fact, we have the demolition plan from this project that shows the configuration of the bus loop as it exists right now at the end of Conifer Drive... Mr. Bodewes — Which, the only deviation from what you're presented with tonight and the plan we gave you, is that it's 6 feet to the east and that's where it currently exists. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, okay, let me stop you. So the plans in front of us, that we received in the mail, do not reflect what they would like us to approve. Mr. Bodewes — That's correct. Board Member Talty — I do have a follow-up question. So you want to revert back to the original proposal, right? Mr. Harding — We do. Chairperson Wilcox — Correct. Thank you. Mr. Bodewes — But it's not the original proposal... there was no loop whatsoever in the Phase II plan. Board Member Talty — I understand. Are there any modifications to that as (inaudible) current (inaudible)? Mr. Harding — No there is not. Chairperson Wilcox —Thank you. Eva... Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I was just going to add that when Mr. Harding gave his presentation, he sounded as if there was no bus loop there, that this was something new. And the same when you started talking. But we all know, we've been in from the very, Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 31 very beginning ... We all know there's a bus loop there, that's why you threw us and confused us. Mr. Kanter — Hopefully this will further clarify and then I wanted to talk about.... Board Member Talty -- Is there a dock somewhere in here ... (laughter)... Mr. Kanter — There is a temporary bus loop there rightnow and TCAT is using it and as reflected in TCAT's letter, they are using it and are happy with it where it is. The approved site plan shows that bus loop as a temporary one that would be removed upon completion of the project. So, we are calling it an existing bus loop and it is because it's there but it is not, it was not meant to be part of the final plan. And there was some unclarity from TCAT and the school district because they thought that it was supposed to be there, so when they found out that it was going to be removed, that's when the concerns began to be raised. So getting back to the TCAT letter, the fourth paragraph says... Alternate Member Erb — Wait, wait, which TCAT letter? Mr. Kanter — The one you just got tonight. Chairperson Wilcox — The one dated October 2, 2007. Mr. Kanter — And the fourth paragraph says, "Operations and Safety Staff have observed TCAT busses using the existing temporary turnaround and they note that the turnaround functions well where it currently sits as long as the paved width isn't narrower than the existing gravel width, they expect that the bus will serve Lindermann Creek very well, To me that means that they are not necessarily recommending that what David is proposing, i.e. keeping the loop where it is, is what TCAT would prefer. They are merely indicating that whatever the configuration is, it be at least as good and as wide a lane as what is there now that they are using. So, Conifer has taken the TCAT letter to mean, well, maybe it's okay if they propose leaving it exactly where it is. But that is a modification of what they have submitted and it's a modification of what we have been discussing with them. So that is what the Board is going to have to figure out. Did that help? Board Member Thayer — No. Board Member Riha — But it might be cheaper for them to leave it precisely where it is. Mr. Bodewes — Well that's precisely the point and I appreciate your point, I appreciate your raising that because that's precisely why we're now saying, if it works, why would we play around with it. It is less expensive. Alternate Member Erb — Are you clearly saying that that...that what we went out and could see this weekend is where you are asking to have the more permanent loop. Mr. Harding — Absolutely. Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 32 Alternate Member Erb — That's it. Where we can see where it clearly was, that's... Mr. Harding — Correct. With new pavement. Board Member Conneman — And the minutes will reflect that. Board Member Talty — So in conclusion Fred, it goes back to your initial point. Is this exactly what is in front of us tonight.. Chairperson Wilcox — No. Not at all. Okay. for you, oh, go ahead, make your statement. Bear with me. Jon, Jon ... I have a question Mr. Kanter — This is a question, actually, for the applicant and we may not be able to resolve tonight. Does that further change affect the Town's road right-of-way that we supposedly have accepted, and I just don't know the answer to that. We looked at the proposal that you have in front of you and made some determinations and some recommendations. We haven't had a chance to look at what is now being proposed, so I don't know really what the answer is to that. Mr. Harding — Can I address that, perhaps outside the proposed road's right-of-way. Mr. Walker — Part of it does. The bus loop as it currently stands occurs Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Okay Hold on, we're going to change the tape ... Here's the problem David., YOU just said "it's outside" and then Dan said "only part of it" and then you said," you're right, only part of it"...Okay... l...you know what... Alternate Member Erb — Next meeting. Chairperson Wilcox — When I read this and I'm thinking about this and I'm going, you know, it's really nice of them to come back and spend their own money to make this change. 1 was so happy ... I figured this would get through in 10 minutes and they walk in and we haven't seen what they're proposing, Staff hasn't seen what they're proposing... you need to come back. Alternate Member Erb — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't have a nod from Rod, but I have nods from just about everybody else... Mr. Walker — But Fred, I would recommend that if this Board is willing to approve this configuration you approve what they designed and have them accept it. Chairperson Wilcox — Approve what? We have nothing in.... Mr. Walker — You have a design in front of you. Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 33 Mr. Kanter— And meaning approve what they've submitted. Mr. Walker— What they have submitted is what you are reviewing tonight. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. MR. Walker — If you like that then you can approve it. If they don't want to build it, they'll have to come back again, with the modifications. Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on, hold on ... what do you want to do. Mr. Harding — I think that's a good idea and I think there is some other discussion, too, concerning whether this, the entirety of the turnaround occurs within the road right-of-way or not. Mr. Walker— It doesn't matter. Chairperson Wilcox — It doesn't matter because we... Mr. Walker — (inaudible)...the Highway Superintendent the way it is. In this drawing. Chairperson Wilcox — So, ignore what you started out with. Concentrate on the plans and drawings that we were provided to review before this meeting. We can proceed down that path. Chairperson Wilcox — I want a nod from everybody... Mr. Bodewes — I think that's fine. I think that... Chairperson Wilcox — I want a nod from everybody. Is that fine?. Mr. Bodewes - Yes. Yes. I would like to... Chairperson Wilcox — Stop. Now, we are going to go back to the environmental review please. Okay. Yes, Board Member Riha — I just have a little bit of a problem with that Fred, because it seems like you are going to do less total disruption by leaving this turnaround where it is. Why, basically, rip up a whole bunch of new land and then you'll have to..,or is there something... Mr. Walker — Let me clarify something. The whole area has been disturbed. It's not new land. I mean, when they started Phase 11 and started the road, it was disturbed. It was not fresh ground. Board Member Riha — So it's not going to create more problems... Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 34 Mr. Walker — No, there's going to be a little more excavation... Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sure this Board... Board Member Talty — This goes against everything that we've done ... this is the second time I am going to say this in three weeks, I mean, we don't approve things, I mean, Eva's the, I don't know how many times I have heard you say it, correctly, is that we don't approve things that are not in front of us. Chairperson Wilcox — okay. So we have two choices. We can deal with the materials that were provided to us for review and approval. The ones that we've reviewed, Staff has reviewed...Or, you can come back with a revised plan at some future date. You have indicated, contrary to the way you started your presentation, that you are willing for us to consider the plans as submitted and reviewed. Mr. Harding — And I will defer to Conifer... Mr. Bodewes — I think that... Chairperson Wilcox — Make it short please. Mr. Bodewes — ...ultimately, if you approve this plan, and I decide I want to come back and revise it, I have to come back anyway. So at that point I'd rather just have you consider it. If 1 decide I want to do it, as Dan aptly put, we'll do it. If we don't, we want to revise, we come back. Either way we have to come back. So let's do this. Chairperson Wilcox — Good, good, thank you.. much better. Mr. Bodewes — But with that said, could I just make my one, the one really critical point here about this whole thing, and we appreciate you all working with us on this project, this whole thing is really an enhancement to our project. That's how we see it. I mean, we didn't have a bus loop in the plan. We're adding the bus loop because we think it helps TCAT and we think it helps our residents. We think it helps the school district busses and it helps our residents in that regard. So we think it's important. With that said, again, as you all know, we had all these budget difficulties, so the whole point in using the existing spot as it is now was to try and save some additional money to add this enhancement. We've experienced significant costs, particularly on getting the Town to ... road dedication standards, and, you know, we're paying that, , obviously, that's what we deal with, but, one of the things that we really, to be able to afford to do this bus loop, would also like to share with you, is that, we'd like to have your consideration of eliminating, to be able to add the bus loop, we'd like to be able to consider eliminating the sidewalk that was on the site plan going down to Phase I along Conifer Circle. Now, with that said... Chairperson Wilcox — STOP. Stop. Stop. Now wait a minute ... this is my meeting, I'm the Chair. Wait a minute, wait a minute. I'm getting so frustrated here. Guys. One more time... Consider what's ... do I have the backing here of the Board? ... Thank you....Consider Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 35 what's in front of us or come back with new plans. Please. I don't need to hear the PR stuff. I will tell you, this Board is happy that you are investing the money to put this in. We're happy: Let's get on to the plan. Is it this plan or not? Mr. Bodewes — It is that plan. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you! Forget the sidewalk, forget the... okay... is it this plan or not? This plan. Mr. Bodewes — This plan. Chairperson Wilcox — If you want to change the sidewalk, I want new plans for everybody to be reviewed. So, is it.... Mr. Bodewes — I thought I'd float that suggestion out there because... Chairperson Wilcox — Now is not the time to float the suggestion. Mr. Bodewes — Fine. I'm just saying. For us to legitimately consider, I will put this plan before you and I ask for your consideration. But for us to legitimately consider doing this, this addition, to enhance the residents and the TCAT and all that stuff, we may have to eliminate the sidewalks. So if we have to come back, we'll have to come back. But I will have you consider this plan please. Board Member Hoffmann — I don't consider this an addition, because I thought when we were talking about this, the busses, the TCAT busses were going to go up and swing by, through the parking lot, right by the building. Mr. Bodewes — That's correct. Board Member Hoffmann — So there was going to be TCAT service, even before having this new plan where the busses loop in and this loop only going up when they're called for. (people talking over each other)...But I mean there was going,. 'you're presenting this as if now suddenly you're proposing TCAT service as a service for the residents but, the way I heard it earlier, there was going to be TCAT service all along. Mr. Bodewes — You're perfectly correct. There was going to be TCAT service all along and they originally agreed that they would come up into our parking lot, pick up the residents and go back down, and as we were beginning construction; they came back to us and said, we can't do that, we need a bus loop. And we said, well, we never budgeted for a bus loop, the plan as presented to you while it was in development, had you going up around the parking lot, and they agreed, at the time, that's what they agreed to, and that's how it was designed. That's how Dave designed the parking lot, so it could accommodate their bus and then they came back to us when we're preparing for construction and said they wouldn't do that. So now we're trying to accommodate them. Board Member Hoffmann — And we knew that the bus loop was there and we knew that it served the other populations in Lindermann Creek too, not just this one, but anyway, I'm Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 36 completely with Fred. We can't deal with things when we don't have the materials that talk about the things that you are proposing and we don't actually see a drawing of what you're proposing. Mr. Bodewes — I understand. I hear all that and I'm not asking for anything other than the plan that's in front of you. Chairperson Wilcox — Back to the environmental review. That's where we are. Any questions with regard to the environmental review. Dan, any issues from the engineering side? With regard to the environmental review. Mr. Walker — No, sedimentation/erosions control is the biggest issue and stormwater management and they've handled all of that with the facilities that they've built. Chairperson Wilcox — And no significant issues with what's in front of us ... okay...Jon, you're nodding your head, you're comfortable, representing the Planning Department? ... Okay ... would someone like to move the SEQR....so moved by George Conneman, seconded by Susan Riha...any further discussion.... Ms. Brock — Fred... Chairperson Wilcox — Yes ... my apologies Susan, I forgot to look to the left. Ms. Brock — that's okay ... there's a typo in the third whereas clause after the description of all the drawings, it says "all revise dated 9/13/07" 1 believe it should be "revised" with a d on the end...or all "revisions" dated, maybe is what we intended. I'm not actually sure what we intended.../'// ask Jonathan... Mr. Kanter — I think revised with a d is fine. Chairperson Wilcox — Revised dated 9/13...that change is acceptable George and Susan I.. yes... okay... We all set Susan? ... that's it? ... Okay...all those in favor please signal by saying aye ... anybody opposed ... no one is opposed... there are no abstentions... the motion is passed. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 105 SEAR Site Plan Modification — Bus Turnaround Conifer Village - Ithaca Senior Living Community Tax Parcel No. 27-1-13.17 Conifer Drive and Cypress Court Planning Board, October 2, 2007 MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Susan Riha. Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 37 WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval for modifications to the previously approved Conifer Village at Ithaca Senior Living Community project, located off Conifer Drive, Tax Parcel No. 27-1-13.17 Multiple Residential Zone. The proposed modifications include constructing a new bus turnaround off . Conifer Drive to the west of the existing bus turnaround. The turnaround would be used by both TCAT and Ithaca School District buses. Conifer Realty, LLC, Owner/Applicant; Lisa Goodberry, Project Coordinator, Agent, and, 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in this environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on October 2, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, drawings entitled "Demolition/Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plan & Details" (L-1), "Layout Plan" (L-2), "Grading Plan & Details" (L-3), Storm System Plan & Details" (L-4), "Planting Plan & Details" (L-5), "Details" (L-6), "Site Details" (L-6.1), "Layout Plans & Details" (L-6.2), all revised dated 9/13/07 and prepared by Carl Jahn & Associates, and other application material, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan approval for the proposed project modifications. NOW THEREFORE BE. IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part II, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty and Riha. NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None The Motion passed. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 8:39p.m. Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 38 PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modification to the Conifer Village at Ithaca Senior Apartments project located at 200 Conifer Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27-1-13.17, Multiple Residence Zone. The modification includes constructing a new bus turnaround off Conifer Drive to the west of the existing bus turnaround. The turnaround would be used by both TCAT and Ithaca School District buses. Ithaca Senior Living, LLC, Owner, Conifer Realty, LLC, Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the site plan ladies and gentlemen? Comments that anybody would like to make... Board Member Talty — I'm scared... Chairperson Wilcox — You're scared? Of who? Me? Board Member Talty — No ... (laughter) ... I like it when you're animated. No I just don't want to say anything at this point. Chairperson Wilcox — Let me repeat what I said before. First, let me apologize to Andrew and to the applicants, I haven't been that animated for a while ... and I owe you an apology. As I said before, and I'm sincere, we know that there are budgetary constraints, we know that the applicant came before us because they wanted to do the right thing, and it is appreciated. I am concerned that they sat through the previous hour from 7 — 8 and thought maybe this Board had an attitude. No guys, we're with you on this one, I think, and frankly, probably could have gotten through this much quicker without the issues that came up at the beginning. All right. If there are no questions here, I am going to give the public a chance to speak. Anything you wish to say at this point? Mr. Harding — No, I've covered everything I'd like to say. Chairperson Wilcox — Good boy. So, if you would have a seat, we will give the public a chance to speak. There was no one wishing to address the Board. Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:42p.m. Any further discussion? Board Member Thayer — I'll move the resolution. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Larry... seconded by Rod Howe. Susan. Ms. Brock — The same change needs to be made in the third whereas, where the word revise appears, it should read revised, with a "d" on the end, and the same change also needs to be made in the paragraph right after the words Now Therefore Be I Resolved, Chairperson Wilcox — Before we go on. Andrew, can I have you step back up to the microphone. What do you think you're going to do? Clearly we're going to approve this. What do you think you're going to do? Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 39 Mr. Bodewes — We think we'll add it, I think that's what we want to do, and you know, appreciate the apology, obviously, you know, I understand that you've been through issues here tonight that are frustrating, and, having worked with this Planning Staff for the last several weeks on this issue, that was sort of what we came up with as sort of the best way to present it to you, because of, and you know, I know you've all heard about the issues with the budget and so I didn't want to come in and try to force it on you that that's something that we need to do, but it is a serious problem and we would like to have that as consideration. If you're telling me to come back and present that as a separate plan, that's what we will do. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, and, you understand the issue. It's difficult for us to approve something that we don't have plans for and haven't seen. Mr. Bodewes — Yeah, I completely do, and I really wasn't asking you to approve it, I was just trying to give you a flavor for sort of where we're coming from on this because we do want to do the right thing for the residents, to be able to have the TCAT service and the school district to be able to move around our site properly and that sort of thing, so... Chairperson Wilcox — And that is appreciated and I assume you will walk away with an approval and then it's up to you to decide whether to build what's approved or to come back and request modifications to it. And you make that determination. Board Member Thayer — Can I suggest that they don't come back with the sidewalk missing. Board Member Talty — I would second that. Alternate Member Erb — Yeah. Mr. Kanter — I would also request that if you are thinking about revising the proposal, that you first run it by Staff. It's a lot better to not surprise us as well as the Board with new information at a meeting. It's also, you know, I think we do, as Staff, have some real concerns about how it may affect the actual town road and right-of-way. So, those are things that we would be looking for before you submit something new to the Board, so, I think it's better for everybody to communicate a little better on these things. Mr. Bodewes — I agree and I think we've been doing a good job actually, Jonathan, communicating with you and Lisa and Sue have been speaking regularly I think and this is something that we've recently, you know, because it's been working, just discovered within the last couple few days that, you know, TCAT has essentially been saying that it's been working well for them and because, as you know, the budget issues we've had, we've been trying to do something that was more efficient, construction wise. So that's why we thought that it may be a possibility. Mr. Walker — The one concern that I would have on changing the configuration ... I think that David's group has drawn this up, but, highway standards, proper turning radius and so on, you gotta remember that TCAT right now is driving on an unfinished, unused road. Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 40 When this road becomes a public road with traffic. They're going to need a little bit more room. Believe me. I see the busses try to get around the corners with their bicycle racks on them and they end up stopping in the middle of the intersection more times than not and I don't we need to reduce the radius' to make it safe. I think we need to keep the radius' the way they are. That's what my recommendation would be on that. Chairperson Wilcox —But that, should revised plans come before... okay ... I have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? There being none ... all those in favor, please signal by raising your hand or saying aye,. I don't care ... anybody opposed? No one is opposed, there are no abstentions. The motion is approved. And again, my apologies Andrew. Mr. Bodewes — I hope you don't have anymore docks or bus loops... Chairperson Wilcox — Make sure you get on the agenda before the docks... ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 106 Site Plan Modification — Bus Turnaround Conifer Village — Ithaca Senior Living Community Tax Parcel No. 27-1-13.17 Conifer Drive and Cypress Court Planning Board, October 2, 2007 MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Rod Howe, WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval for modifications to the previously approved Conifer Village at Ithaca Senior Living Community project, located off Conifer Drive, Tax Parcel No. 27-1-13.17 Multiple Residential Zone. The proposed modifications include constructing a new bus turnaround off Conifer Drive to the west of the existing bus turnaround/circle. The turnaround would be used by both TCAT and Ithaca School District buses. Conifer Realty, LLC, Owner/Applicant; Lisa Goodberry, Project Coordinator, Agent, and, 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan approval and modification thereof, has, on October 2, 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 October 2, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate drawings entitled "Demolition/Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plan & Details" (L-1), "Layout Plan" (L-2), "Grading Plan & Details" (L-3), Storm System Plan & Details" (L-4), "Planting Plan & Details" (L-5), "Details" (L-6), "Site Details" (L-6.1), "Layout Plans & Details" (L-6.2), all revised dated 9/13/07 and prepared by Carl Jahn & Associates and other application materials. Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 41 NOW THEREFORE BE IT.RESOLVED. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval for the proposed modifications to the Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community project located off Conifer Drive, Town on Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27-1-13.17, as described in the drawings entitled "Demolition/Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plan .& Details" (L-1), "Layout Plan" (L-2), "Grading Plan & Details" (L-3), Storm System Plan & Details" (L-4), "Planting Plan & Details" (L-5), "Details" (L-6), "Site Details" (L-6.1), "Layout Plans & Details" (L-6.2), all revised dated 9/13/07 and prepared by Carl Jahn & Associates and other application materials, subject to the following conditions: a. Submission of revised site plan drawings for review and approval of the Director of Engineering and Director of Planning, showing the following details: (1) silt fencing along the existing ditch to encompass the work area and stockpiled topsoil; (2) erosion control measures to be implemented along the swale behind the bus shelter and in the island; (3) removal of the existing asphalt walk extended to match the limits of the new asphalt walk; (4) the detail of the lighting circuit to show the extension from junction box in lawn north of bus loop to new pole location; (5) the landscaping treatment proposed for the traffic island; (6) labeling of the relocated bus shelter; and b. All other conditions and elements of prior approvals for the Conifer Village at Ithaca Senior Living Community project shall remain in effect, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Planning Board supports the recommendation of the Town Highway Superintendent that the bus turnaround be owned and maintained by the developer as part of the private road system. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty and Riha NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None The Motion passed. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 8:48p.m. Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 42 PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Merrill Family Sailing Center located at 1000 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19-2-29, Lakefront Commercial Zone. The proposal involves the demolition of the existing sailing center building for the construction of a new, two-story, +/-6,787 square foot sailing center with observation deck. The proposal will also include the construction of a new +/-1,200 square foot boat storage shed located south of the existing bathhouse, expansion of the existing parking area, and improvements to the gravel boat launch. Cornell University, Owner/Applicants Robert Blakeney, Agent. Robert Blakeney, Cornell University Facilities Group, Humphrey's Service Bldg. David Schlosser, Schoff per Architects, 1111 James Street, Syracuse, NY Mr. Schlosser — I suggest that we just quickly run through the adjustments between the last meeting and final. Chairperson Wilcox — In terms of the conditions that were outlined in preliminary and what you've done to it. Mr. Schlosser — Correct and I'll put up any boards if requested. The first item, basically, the zoning variance was granted with respect to the storage shed. The Town Board enacted the zoning amendment. On the landscape drawing, we revised and added two additional evergreen trees to the north side, in addition to what we had already provided in the front of the building, or the roadside. We modified the grading sediment and erosion control plans, primarily in response to Staff and some additional adjustments that were necessary with respect to information provided by our civil engineers. Our civil engineers provided additional, as requested, peak flow numbers as well as percolation test. With respect to the fire department and the access and the curb cut. We had an interesting meeting with Norfolk Southern on-site. Very productive, I believe. We found out that the elevations between the road and the railroad will not change. They will be doing maintenance on the curb cut sometime next year, but they will to be adjusting the elevation changes. However, that said, we were able to engineer some, modifications that we think have positively affected the ability for the fire department to get in with their vehicles and in working with Tom Parsons, basically, he sent us photographs of his vehicles trying to get in there, we made some modifications, and they're reflected in a drawing which we have sent to you. Basically what's going to occur is on the south side of the curb cut, we will increase the angle of the radius along with putting in a small retaining wall, which will allow them to approach the curb cut at a more severe angle, and then as the vehicle heads towards the northwest, as it crosses the track, there's actually approximately another 7 or 8 feet of additional pavement going to be added so that they can make a turning radius across that. Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 43 With that, I believe you received a letter from Mr. Parsons basically acknowledging that that was probably the best that we could all hope to get. Additionally, with respect to fire department issues, we clarified the water tank, corrected the misinformation that we had given you previously on the size. Gave him calculations on the new size which basically indicates that the tank has a capacity in excess of 10,000 gallons of which we need approximately 8,400 gallons to support the code requirements for the sprinkler system. And we developed a concept for winter... means of maintaining the water in a non -frozen condition throughout the winter which we have basically given you and I believe all of that was given. The fire department, and again, I believe he is here, if there are any questions with respect to that. The, I think we responded in numerous occasions regarding the concepts on the contamination site that there are no contaminated soils on site, that all soils will now be retained on site. The Stormwater Operations Manual said there is a ... I do have a question for Dan I guess, in the memorandum, in the Engineering Memorandum that was issued, with respect to the Operations Maintenance and Reporting Agreement,. Jt was conditioned upon having that in place prior to issuance of building permit. We're getting to our end of season here and really would like to start our contractor. It's my understanding that there is an umbrella Maintenance Agreement that is being worked out between the Town and Cornell and I don't know exactly where that is in process, but I don't know if that's going to occur in the next two weeks. Mr. Walker — That probably won't occur, final, in the next two weeks, but it's close. Gone back and forth with the Town Attorney and Cornell's Attorney and I know it's sitting on my desk right now. It is on my desk right now, I know, and Bob Beyers from Cornell is after me to get that finalized so ... Normally we make that a requirement of the final CO. Mr. Schlosser — That's I guess what I was wondering. If we could change that to CO. Mr. Walker — Yeah, normally, because we don't have that completed yet and we usually like to describe it and make sure we have everything that's actually built in the agreement before we finalize it. So I'm comfortable with changing that to before CO. Mr. Schlosser — Okay. Ms. Brock — That's fine with me although, since it is a blanket agreement, it's not going to be specifically set out... Mr. Walker — There will be a specific section for each site that we approve. That's part of the terms. Ms. Brock — Okay, well, Mr. Walker — That's part of the terms, with Cornell. Ms. Brock — But the blanket agreement is to cover future projects as well. Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 44 Mr. Walker — Yes, but with an Appendix, listing the specifics for each. Ms. Brock — Okay. That's not how it's set up right now, so apparently we have more work to do. Mr. Walker — That's why l am saying, we will have a list of all the facilities and any site specific requirements. Chairperson Wilcox — Let me ask, let me look at the Board, is it reasonable or unreasonable to require the Maintenance Agreement to be in place before a certificate of occupancy and that seems to be the time where you have to have it in place by, is when you occupy, when you want people to actually occupy the building. So I don't have a problem with that. Mr. Walker — That's what we have done on most of the other projects. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Alright. Mr. Schlosser - I guess, that said, we did add additional notes on the landscape drawing indicating and clarifying that all existing foliage would remain on the site as well as, we put a note that basically, the water tank would be removed as soon as we had adequate flow for our sprinkler system. With that, I believe, that pretty much responds to all of the conditions of preliminary site plan approval. I did have one other question, or clarification, for Dan I think, on your Engineering Report. The, with respect to the filtration trenches and. the request for hydrograph calculations ... Originally, when we got into this, we were talking about trying to resolve the issue of the 24" line that comes across and dead -ends on the site to basically an open pit. We ... Our engineer has basically given information on that particular line and the, I guess that serves a 5 acre, about a 5 acre watershed on the east side of the road. In the report, in the comments and also in the resolution, that has come through, it is now requesting hydrodepth calculations for a 685 acre Renwick Brook, that's the major line that comes across towards the pavilion, and, again, I guess I'm wondering why that's, why we need to go to that extent, that's a huge acreage by comparison to what we're doing on this project. Mr. Walker — Actually, we've got the hydrograph information because we've done this, the model there, and there isn't any problem there, so, I apologize, I should have had Kristen correct that statement. We're comfortable with the way the site works. Mr. Schlosser — Oh, okay. Mr. Walker — As a... the last statement in the memo says there... Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry, look to me now and say that... Mr. Walker — The Engineering Department has received all of the information we need to determine that this, that everything is going to work. Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 45 Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. So that condition is, can be expunged, has been answered. Chairperson Wilcox — Has been answered, or need not be answered? Mr. Walker — Need not be answered because we have the hydrograph information ourselves from the main watershed. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. So Susan is looking at you now for which section can be eliminated... Board Member Thayer — Condition b... Mr. Walker — That was in condition e. Chairperson Wilcox — We're getting a little bit ahead of ourselves but... Ms. Balestra — It's on the proposed resolution as condition b. It was on the preliminary site plan resolution as a condition e I think. Chairperson Wilcox — Dan, and again, you don't need that information because you have that information. Mr. Walker — We've been expanding our watershed analysis for the whole northeast, as everyone knows, and... Chairperson Wilcox — Well, I'm not sure as everyone knows, but ... so, you have that, you no longer require the elements in the requirement. Mr. Walker — I no longer require that other hydrograph. Chairperson Wilcox - Susan is looking at me... Ms. Brock — Well, I spoke with Kristen today because she had made a statement in the Engineering Memorandum that says "the issue with the drainage on the site have been addressed, and for the most part, the Engineering Department is satisfied with the submittal." And I wanted to know what she meant by for the most part... Mr. Walker — Engineers are learning to be lawyers, so we never make a definitive statement. Ms. Brock — And she told me that if in fact the hydrographic information were submitted, and if the project were constructed in accordance with the most recent submittal, then she's satisfied. So my impression was that she still thought it was necessary to have that. So that's why I was looking puzzled. Chairperson Wilcox — But you're looking puzzled at me and not Dan. Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 46 Mr. Walker — I'm very comfortable with what we have already and what my knowledge of the area was and I'm signing off on this as the Town Engineer. Mr. Schlosser — I like that. Solves my problems ... my questions, I guess. Mr. Blakeney — So the plans as proposed then, meet with the approval of the Town and the Town Engineering... Mr. Walker — Yes, with the conditions, you know, that the (inaudible) filtration trench is being built properly and everything. Execution is the next... Mr. Schlosser — Sure. Based upon the latest revision that we've given you. Mr. Walker — Correct. Mr. Schlosser — Okay. I guess that ends my speel, any questions; I guess. Chairperson Wilcox — So, Tom Parsons is sitting out there, hold on, you're sitting out there, are you here to observe, or can I bring you up and ask you a question? Audience Member — I'm here to answer questions. Chairperson Wilcox — Can I ask one or both of you to take a seat, I really want Tom to come up if I can. He's... Chairperson Wilcox — Out of formality, I need to ask you for a name and a professional address. Tom Parsons, Deputy Fire Chief, City of Ithaca Fire Department, 310 W. Green St, Chairperson Wilcox — I've read the materials, I've read your email, in your words, how do the big trucks get ... how is it better, how is it easier or safer for the large trucks to get onto this site, given what they propose to do, and what you propose to do? Mr. Parsons — Right now our engines, which are the pumper trucks, the ones that carry the water, as they enter onto the site, they're bottoming out and when I say bottoming out,. the bumpers and the rear tailboards strike the street or the driveway as it comes across the railroad bed. The ladder truck can not even get down across, the ladder truck, because of it's length and by the pure size of it, it has to turn right angles and starts burying in the front jacks of the truck so it doesn't even make it coming across it. Part of that is that as you're coming straight down, none of our trucks will make it. What we have to do is we bring them at an angle so that we lengthen the angle of approach across the tracks to get across. What the architect has proposed will certainly meet the needs of the engine, so we shouldn't be bottoming out anymore. That's definitely a plus and that's our primary concern, about getting an engine on the site. Right now, we can, it seems like every time they do work on Route 34 and they raise a couple inches up on the highway, it makes our, and they just did a resurfacing out there not too long ago, which made it even worse, so, right with the solution they have will definitely make an improvement. The ladder truck, I, Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 47 based on what they've proposed, we really don't know if we are going to be able to get that truck across there. So, it's a judgment call. I've got, we got the 6,000 square foot structure that's sitting out there, wood frame, two stories, do we really need to have that aerial truck over there to be doing fire fighting operations. Being that the building is sprinklered, being that the building is the size it is, we feel pretty comfortable that if we can't get the ladder truck on site, that our fire fighting operations still will be effective in dealing with any situation that may occur on site with the existing building. If this was a different building, a much larger facility, where we were more concerned with having an aerial truck there, I'd probably not be supporting this, but considering what the University has presented here for a project, I feel pretty comfortable that we can live with the results of the modifications that they propose. Mr. Walker — Tom, is that assuming the Town approves the fire boat that you've put in for? ... (laughter).. . Mr. Parsons — No, we haven't put afire boat in, but are you suggesting that we should? Alternate Member Erb — Would that involve moving a dock?...(laughter)... Mr. Parson — There is one other comment ... The concept of putting the tank there as mitigation factor until the Town gets the new water line is certainly a big plus on this and we had some discussions early on, could we do without a sprinkler system and I looked at this project and I didn't deem that as being very feasible. If this was straight, a business occupancy, yes, but because of the nature of having larger groups of people, more than 50 people in an assembly type occupancy, I didn't feel that it was prudent to grant, I guess an approval of allowing that to happen, with some type of variance, I think it was appropriate that they did put the tank in, they do get a sprinkler system on this building so it is functional from the day they occupy it. Chairperson Wilcox — All set. Thank you for coming. Appreciate it. Board Member Thayer — It's a good thing Remmington didn't come back. Chairperson Wilcox — Excuse me ... good thing Remmington didn't come back ... yeah... well, I think someone realized that that was going to be a tough nut. Gentlemen, if you'd come back up just in case. Any other questions with regard to the final approval? Susan? Anything. Board Member Riha — Yeah, so the northern drainage, if the stormwater were to exceed that capacity for the northern drainage culvert to handle, where would the water go Dan? mean, would it go onto anybody else's property? Or would it just flow onto the Cornell... Mr. Walker — No it would just flow out and there's no way we're gong to change that 48" culvert anyhow under there. There's plenty of capacity. The worst case situation would be this facility would have more water running down the driveway and down the boat ramp. Board Member Riha — Right, so it wouldn't run really off the roadway... Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 48 Mr. Walker — No, the only other property... Board Member Riha —There's no place else to go. ..right? Mr. Walker— No, the Town pavilion is slightly higher than the rest of the land, it would just flow down into the lake. Chairperson Wilcox —Any other questions? Board Member Conneman — I have a comment to make, I wanted to say that last time I asked a question about windsurfing and Al Gantert and Mr. (inaudible) answered my question... it's in the minutes and I hope they will follow through and accommodate the windsurfers, because I think it's a very important, I don't know anything about windsurfing, but everybody who does says this is the place to windsurf. So they will add that to their Phys Ed program and since Al and I have negotiated things in the past, professionally, different things at the University, I think I can trust him, so. Al Gantert, 619 Caswell Road, Freeville. George, we will ... the Windsurfing Club is still operating there. They will continue to operate there, and if I can help them in their request that we'll continue for the future, I will. And, somewhere in the foreseeable future I will add windsurfing classes again, we have had them before. Does that help? Board Member Conneman — Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Stay right there. Any other questions? I need to give the public a chance to speak. All right. So I'll ask you one more time to step away and I will give the public a chance to speak. Ladies and Gentlemen, once again, this is a public hearing, I see two members of the audience, Mr. And Mrs. Chase who might want to step up here and make some comments. Bob, if you do, name and address Bob... Robert Chase, Danby But I want to applaud the Board for your diligence, you're extravagant use of time ... (laughter) ... because this project that I hope comes to fruition ... oh, l should say that I happen to be the treasurer of the Friends of Cornell Sailing which is the alumni group that's very interested in seeing this project go forward, and it is a long, long, way from the Remmington project. A long, long, way ... so thank you again for your diligence and bringing it to a conclusion. Thank you very much. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you Bob. Would anybody else like t address the Board this evening? There being no one, I will close the public hearing at 9:09p.m. Would somebody like to move the motion as drafted? So moved by Rod Howe, seconded by Susan Riha, there we go. Attorney for the Town, Susan Brock... Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 49 Ms. Brock — Yes. I have a number of changes. On page 1, whereas clause #5, states the Town Board, at a public hearing, held on September 10, 2007, enacted a local law... delete the word "at" before the words "a public hearing" and insert "after holding" a public hearing... Board Member Hoffmann — and then you want to take out the word held also... Ms. Brock — Yes, after holding a public hearing, delete the word held, thank you. And also, the second line from the bottom of paragraph 5, there is a quotation mark that should be deleted after the word "zone". Then, at the very top of page 2, 1 am going to add some dates for the drawings, so we have this list at the bottom of page 1 of all of the revised sheets and after the phrase revised sheet L4, titled Landscape Plan and Details, add ", all dated 8/28/07" ", continue with and sheet SS1, titled Site Section and insert "dated 9/7/07, and other application materials," Then delete paragraph b. regarding the hydrograph, based on Mr. Walker's representation. We'll renumber all of the subsequent paragraphs. So what was c. and now becomes b., delete in the second to last line, 'for the proposed water infiltration strips" and insert "for the proposed stormwater facilities and practices" continuing on with that line, it should now read "prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy" delete, "any building permit" What was paragraph d. will now become paragraph c. delete the underlining for the word "plan" What was paragraph e. now becomes d. insert the following, let me back it up ... we have the words "construction of the proposed entrance slope mitigation" and insert the following words, "as shown on Sheet SSV then you can continue with the comma and the rest of that sentence as shown. Paragraph f become e, I don't have any changes there ... g. becomes f., and the third line from the bottom, after the words "if applicable," insert the word "including" that just makes that sentence grammatical. What was h. become g. and then I have a new condition to add. This is based, again, on Kristen's engineering Memorandum, where she states "an erosion control blanket project may also be required." So I called her about that to find out what that was about and she did a little bit more review and she emailed me, and she's asked for the following to be inserted, which would be new condition h. "Revision of Sheet L3 to include a note that an erosion control blanket may be required by the Director of Engineering, if he determines, during construction, that such is necessary for the regarded ditch next to the parking lot." And the reason we can't, or shouldn't just require it up front is this is something that really needs to be determined in the field during construction. Chairperson Wilcox — Can I hear the Engineer say that instead of the attorney. Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 50 Mr. Walker — Yes, it depends on what the aridability of the soil is and how well the vegetation gets established because we need to get it established. Especially given the time of year that they are probably going to be finishing this, it won't give it a lot of time for grass to grow. Chairperson Wilcox — Changes acceptable... I've forgotten who we ... Rod and Susan, changes acceptable... okay... Susan Brock, you all set? Ms. Brock — I am. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, Hollis... Alternate Member Erb — WE have recently put a set of months in which the tank must be removed, and that isn't on condition g here. For instance, removal within 12 months of adequate water service by the Town. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, it just says removal... would we like to put a time frame on that? Did we have one on the ... Mr. Kanter — We don't know when the water improvement by the Town will be... Chairperson Wilcox — Well, I want saying, a time frame after it's completed because it says "removal of the temporary water tank and associated facilities..." Ms. Brock — Within 12 months. Chairperson Wilcox — Within 12 months after the Town's water main is approved to a level that is appropriate for fire fighting and water sprinkling purposes. Twelve months? Ms. Brock — Within 12months after water supply.. the way you read it you deleted some other words in here, I just want to make sure Paulette understands... Chairperson Wilcox — You're right, you're right, my apologies. Ms. Brock — I think the only change in new g. is remove ... is adding the words "after 12 months" .."within 12 months" after the words "temporary water tank and associated facilities. Chairperson Wilcox —Acceptable? So removal of the temporary water tank and associated facilities within 12 months after water supply ... Okay. I'm supposed to help you, not make it worse. Any further discussion? Alternate Member Erb — Could I say that I appreciate the new trees and that I appreciated SS1 that had the superimposed fire truck to help envision what was actually going on with the changes. That was very helpful. Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 51 Chairperson Wilcox — There being no further discussion... all those in favor, please signal by saying aye ... all those opposed ... no one is opposed, no one abstains ... the motion is passed... uh oh ... he has his hand up, what do you need... Mr. Blakeney — I would just like to say that we certainly appreciate all of the hard work on behalf of everyone on the Board and we look forward to getting underway with the construction of the project. I do want to just let you know that we are still hoping to begin construction yet this Fall. This is a project which we think will take approximately 8 months to complete, so, therefore, unlike much larger projects, it's not a project that has to go through winter construction. As we move forward with building permitting, we will assess whether it's prudent to get underway this Fall and then continue to work through the Winter or, to delaythe start of construction such that we would avoid winter construction and therefore it would be next spring. The preference all around would be to still get it underway and get it enclosed and build through the winter so that we can have the facility pretty much ready for occupancy for the start of the Spring 2008 program. And all this is to say that probably one of the things that we will do towards the end of construction would be to make that decision about when to bring the temporary water storage tank onsite. So if there is anything that the Town can help to share with us in terms of the timetable of the installation of the new water main, of course the ideal situation would be that everything comes together in a timely way and we can just avoid the whole business of having to put in this temporary 10,000 gallon water tank and I'm sure a lot of us would really like that. So if there's anything that the Town could offer to us at any point in time over the next few months as to when that new water main might and/or will be in place an in service, that would really be very helpful for us to know that. Chairperson Wilcox — Dan has heard you. Mr. Walker — I heard you and we are going into design this winter and depending on the money, Cornell threw $500,000 into our pocket, we could probably build quicker but... laughter... Chairperson Wilcox — We'll let you negotiate off-line... Mr. Kanter — He walked into that one... laughter... Chairperson Wilcox —Thank you very much. gentlemen... MINUTES None to approve. OTHER BUSINESS Couple more things here, ladies and Agenda Mr. Kanter — Relatively simple... unfortunately, there is something related to a dock... Two pilings, minus a dock, basically, two pilings being installed requires site plan approval and special permit under our regulations, sorry guys ... Then there is a 2 -lot subdivision that you actually approved once but, because of various situations, the applicant didn't file and the Final PB 10-2-07 Pg. 52 applicant is coming back ... that's on Hanshaw Road. And then we may have something from Ithaca College, and emergency alarm system which is a loud speaker system, basically to get warnings to students and others if some emergency happens. This actually went to the Zoning Board and it got height variances, it wasn't clear at that time that it would require site plan approval, but because of the costs thresholds that are triggered, it does. So those are the 3 potential items. Nothing too serious, one would think, but... Chairperson Wilcox - It's the beginning.of October ... do we know who's terms expire at the end of the year?.... Kevin, you will let the Town know what your decision is, as soon as you reasonably can ... so the appropriate action can be taken. Mr. Kanter — I assume you are interested in continuing? Alternate Member Erb — I would like to continue. Do you need it in writing? (yes) Chairperson Wilcox — The Town Board met last night? Mr. Kanter — No, tomorrow night. Chairperson Wilcox — I just noticed on the agenda is approval for 3 of us to go to the NY Planning Federation Conference. I assume that will be approved? I just noticed that it is on the agenda. There are no consent agenda items for that meeting, but I assume that will be approved... Mr. Kanter — Actually that is the one consent agenda item. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. So let's assume that will be approved. Any other business? Board Member Thayer — Dan, what's going on on Route 96 with all the huge holes? Mr. Walker — We're looking for gold ... No, we're replacing the water main along Route 96. It's an old 6" water main that dates back to the original Biggs complex. It's cast iron and it's failing so we are replacing it with a new 12" and 10" lines. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned, upon motion, at 9:23p.m. vauiene ivensen Deputy Town Clerk 607 273 6322 Received: TG MILLER PC Engineers and Surveyors Mr. Michael Moore P.O. Box 3904 Ithaca, New York 14852 Sep . 6 2007.12:14ym ..dd 11:24:53 a.m. 00-06-2007 2/2 September 4, 2007 Re: Survey Report — Premises of Michael Moore 1028 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Dear Mr. Moore: Allen T. Fulkerson, L.S. David A. Herrick, P.E. Lee Dresser, L.S: Frank L. Santelli, P.E. Andrew J. Sciarabba, P.E. Darrin A. Brock, L.S. T.G. Miller, P.C. has performed an as -built survey for the above -referenced property. Please note our standard of practice is to stop fee title at the apparent high water lines. Riparian boundaries are established independent of upland title lines. These boundaries are determined on an individual case-by-case basis and involved numerous acceptable methods of apportionment. It is noted that it is very rare that an extension of upland boundaries is acceptable in establishing offshore riparian boundaries, Typically, the long lake method or the proportional cove method are appropriate to use on property adjacent to large bodies of water such as Cayuga Lake. These methods are used in conjunction with grade profile shots along the lake bottom used to determine the location of the high water mark, and the States ownership at the mean low water elevation. As noted, riparian boundaries can be extremely complex to establish and frequently are impossible to arrive at a single location that is indisputable. Because of these factors, as well as cost and liability issues, T.G. Miller, P.C. rarely shows off shore boundaries on our New York State standard land title surveys. If you have any questions regarding this report, please feel free to contact me. LD Jmh Sincerely, 60;0 woo Lee Dresser, L.S. 203 North Aurora Street ■ Ithaca, New York 14850 Telephone (607) 272-6477 ■ Fax(1607)273-6322 ■ www.tdmillerpc.com Sep 06 07 08:41p Received: Ron Knewstub Sep 6 2007 06:31pm 607 277 1145 P.1 May 7, 2007 DRAFT requirement, such structures shall be centered between the water rights lines, and the maximum width of any pier, dock or wharf on such parcel shall not exceed three feet, including all extensions. Water rights lines are determined using the following method (see Figure 1 below): (a) Determine the four points where the mean high water line. intersects the property lines of the parcel and the two adjoining lakeshore parcels (indicated by square points in Figure 1 below). (b) Connect the points of intersection with straight lines. These lines are called mean high water tie lines (dotted lines in Figure 1). (c) Where two mean high water tie lines meet,, measure the angle on the waterside (i.e. 152° between Parcels E and F). (d) Bisect (or divide by two) that waterside angle measurement. The newly formed line projected out over the waterside is the water rights line (i.e. half of 152' is 76'). ure DPlinnatin_aq alter Rights laps ;-t .,:.; `` > . Intersectionof meanhigherwater r� �;s line and shoremfine oil ?; Fig Property Line Shore line ------------- Mean Higher Water Tie line rt! +'' � \ 'mss;., •;;"=_ ------- — — — Line bisection angle formed by ! , I adjacent water tie lines 1 water rights line i a;<< \ « water rights line 1 i � 1 ' 1 S• v, 1 -- - --- l 76• 6 � ro N 1 \` Parcel G i I \ Parcel K I Parcel 8 I P C I '- Parcel F I fi Parcel A I I+ Parcel + \ { i I Parcel D Parcel E .and�Lakesho,re -y 5 1 May 7, 2007 DRAFT requirement, such structures shall be centered between the water rights lines, and the maximum width of any pier, dock or wharf on such parcel shall not exceed three feet, including all extensions. Water rights lines are determined using the following method (see Figure 1 below): (a) Determine the four points where the mean high water line. intersects the property lines of the parcel and the two adjoining lakeshore parcels (indicated by square points in Figure 1 below). (b) Connect the points of intersection with straight lines. These lines are called mean high water tie lines (dotted lines in Figure 1). (c) Where two mean high water tie lines meet,, measure the angle on the waterside (i.e. 152° between Parcels E and F). (d) Bisect (or divide by two) that waterside angle measurement. The newly formed line projected out over the waterside is the water rights line (i.e. half of 152' is 76'). ure DPlinnatin_aq alter Rights laps ;-t .,:.; `` > . Intersectionof meanhigherwater r� �;s line and shoremfine oil ?; Fig Property Line Shore line ------------- Mean Higher Water Tie line rt! +'' � \ 'mss;., •;;"=_ ------- — — — Line bisection angle formed by ! , I adjacent water tie lines 1 water rights line i a;<< \ « water rights line 1 i � 1 ' 1 S• v, 1 -- - --- l 76• 6 � ro N 1 \` Parcel G i I \ Parcel K I Parcel 8 I P C I '- Parcel F I fi Parcel A I I+ Parcel + \ { i I Parcel D Parcel E .and�Lakesho,re -y 5 1 All 7f §t ,y. icy*404 t #Ojen ff T ?�''1 1, 1p rillIt r.. � 4 y-, IE7 piC .Spu-m"I- r44.0% > � Lp�L`T fr ., It,; q� Ii5 It r In,° P ad e. +M40es t.. 4 r �t8`,/,{frf. ,n, `✓ vsPiryaut. .r te,,.. ay+�T'�4Y t0. '^k� I � l+ ♦ Y w.. K �'A1 bJ. 1i�� tT s =_.'t' ey_ M{J Plyi . 4Y Ir IV �'rt.. u - L If inn, cl J_Iv I. lfn,In [-13ei'�v vLs 'n ,r' r ^"Ir I ..t k t t '} y`•y 1 r A. ! +9F x V +1. ri+'WrIn Jv, r .g.+� K?.�1ii f� �P �Fr.`� c a ub 1*3 In r1l''4�-.).'l�C. C'!..r L2 Y 1 �g .TW r�,ir'!w i }mo I • 1r�`t»v !;' Sinn ln l5d v •' Fil �."rMi'Oc' ffff r 4T iT, In1 h 4 J I Inin ori .•�j+�:•�i_ flnll tSCZ i In I174Inn In4 l l , 4 Inh If Inn.TI . '=- 4 maw fr ., It,; q� Ii5 It r In,° P ad e. +M40es t.. 4 r �t8`,/,{frf. ,n, `✓ vsPiryaut. .r te,,.. ay+�T'�4Y t0. '^k� I � l+ ♦ Y w.. K �'A1 bJ. 1i�� tT s =_.'t' ey_ M{J Plyi . 4Y Ir IV �'rt.. u - L If inn, cl J_Iv I. lfn,In [-13ei'�v vLs 'n ,r' r ^"Ir I ..t k t t '} y`•y 1 r A. ! +9F x V +1. ri+'WrIn Jv, r .g.+� K?.�1ii f� �P �Fr.`� c a ub 1*3 In r1l''4�-.).'l�C. C'!..r L2 Y 1 �g .TW r�,ir'!w i }mo I • 1r�`t»v !;' Sinn ln l5d v •' Fil �."rMi'Oc' ffff r 4T iT, In1 h 4 J I Inin ori .•�j+�:•�i_ flnll tSCZ i In I174Inn In4 l l , 4 Inh If Inn.TI . '=- 4 t _ Dec If f If .114 r 'fff +, M 4a _ � � t�L �1r - �+ �� �'� t.^PAY r ! •� 1 fryi. '. ,' i ..:n ,� ; i . J ,•y.. _•.'r402 10 r F"%f ��: u c' :i 'r•�i. t f.� � Y1- e 4 t � 51 4 � � r � .•.rs.A v,ry, 4 t"�� � ��' � I ♦ is _'�P �r p� I I i 14 44- i Tim; r IIs4+Y # + �a t .•:. ` f,. t FI p ( , dw 1. _ • : g I 1, iI 1 rIAL c` . ,r �"L i t a" i . t dd �ljlpA 0 1.,. R _ fft T 55 All � ', �� � � �in7 t•� � ��%iil � �£�4 ��., r a ��Y, r�+�Yn ,lA� N� r ! ♦ s ` 'k��y , yy ♦ A +a:F: -r \'- dT �l•' -.J IW ,� 6 �.: N r TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, October 2, 2007 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Moore Dock Modification, 1028 East Shore Drive. 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed modification of the previously approved dock at 1028 East Shore Drive (NYS Route 34), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19.-2-16, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal involves a modification of the location of the dock, approximately 2.5 feet south from what was originally approved. Michael Moore, Owner/Applicant. 7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: Conifer Bus Turnaround, 200 Conifer Drive. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modification to the Conifer Village at Ithaca Senior Apartments project located at 200 Conifer Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27-1-13.17, Multiple Residence Zone. The modification includes constructing a new bus turnaround off Conifer Drive to the west of the existing bus turnaround. The turnaround would be used by both TCAT and Ithaca School District buses. Ithaca Senior Living, LLC, Owner; Conifer Realty, LLC, Applicant. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Merrill Family Sailing Center located at 1000 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19- 2-29, Lakefront Commercial Zone. The proposal involves the demolition of the existing sailing center building for the construction of a new, two-story, +/-6,787 square foot sailing center with observation deck. The proposal will also include the construction of a new +/- 1,200 square foot boat storage shed located south of the existing bathhouse, expansion of the existing parking area, and improvements to the gravel boat launch. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Robert Blakeney, Agent, 7. Persons to beteard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 8. Approval of Minutes: September 18, 2007. 9, Other Business: 10. 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, October 2, 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, October 2, 2007, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed modification of the. previously approved dock at 1028 East Shore Drive (NYS Route 34), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19.-2-16, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal involves a modification of the location of the dock, approximately 2.5 feet South from what was originally approved. Michael Moore, Owner/Applicant. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modification to the Conifer Village at Ithaca Senior Apartments project located at 200 Conifer Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27-1-13.17, Multiple Residence Zone. The modification includes constructing a new bus turnaround off Conifer Drive to the west of the existing bus turnaround. The turnaround would be used by both TCAT and Ithaca School District buses. Ithaca Senior Living, LLC, Owner; Conifer Realty, LLC, Applicant. 7:30 P.M. Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Merrill Family Sailing Center located at 1000 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19-2-29, Lakefront. Commercial Zone. The proposal involves the demolition of the existing sailing center building for the construction of a new, two-story, +/-6,787 square foot sailing center with observation deck. The proposal will also include the construction of a new +/-1,200 square foot boat storage shed located south of the existing bathhouse, expansion of the existing parking area, and improvements to the gravel boat launch. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Robert Blakeney, Agent. 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, September 24, 2007 Publish: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 nWedttesday, . TOWN OF'RHACA September 26 206 j THE ITHACA JOURNAL ..PIA_ NNING:BOARD, .PUBLIC HEARING Qctobii,21 Tatters:'. =1.9 iael 1Moore,': in'sideration and, iFirial proposed,:moditication to the Conifer,�Yilloge at Ithaca- 4"Senior,,*rtments' project, I«cted aj;:200 ,.Conifer :Driv° e,Town Of Ithaca Tax: Parcel;No;'27-1= ,13.4170.: Wltiple'"Residence Zone'.- The=modificafion_in-' cludes4 con`strudng anew bus turnaroon&olt Conifer Drive- to'the".west :of the.ex- isting buOurnaround. -Jhe Wfhoioundswould, 6'4u -sed by both JCAT ;and °Ithaca School--r-.rDistrict •.. --buses. Ithaca 'Semor.; livingg LLC, Owner;+Conifer Realty ILC; Al pplicakdqk &A - - iipansion- of the" -.existing, arking.area; and'improvej- ents to',-the'g'ravel'•boat iunch..>Cornell °University,, Miner/Ap licant; .4R6beit, akeney, Agent:'' Said Planning ;Board will said time'and said;place aar.'_ l persons.:in support matter or objections ;Ipairmenrs; 4_nearing-- i mpair-: ,ments'_'orother ;special . needd, _will° -6e provided ;;with assistance as necessa ry" upon?;;request:, ;Persons ,;desiring: -assistance must ;make -:such .a request Inot 1ess'.than-48 hours --prior to the fime;wof tfie�'-public "hearing:.. - ;. ;Jonathan KaMer-AICP Director of 7plannin 27.3-1747 Dated:.M d'ayy, tember;24,'2007 Pubs►s►,: wea saaayy, Septen►ber2d,30D7, Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street October 2, 2007 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN -IN Please Print Clearly, Thank You Name Iwo ��%JtMFl//W"I&MI" C Address J. 10 ✓ t/ i TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall 215 North Tiog�a Street Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday, October 2, 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 September 24, 2007 September 26, 2007 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 26`h day of September 2007. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20