Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2007-12-04FILE REGULAR MEETING DATE TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 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 (7:18); Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk. OTHERS. James Henry, 1118 Autumn Ridge Lane Klaus Beyenbach, 1024 Hanshaw Road Bernie Hutchins, 1016 Hanshaw Road 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 November 26, 2007 and November 28, 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 November 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. Welcome everybody. You may have noticed that Debbie Teeter is not here this evening, so Jon and Mike will be providing us with information on the proposed changes to the County Agricultural District when we get to it. Chairperson Wilcox announces the first agenda item at 7:06p.m. PERSONS TO BE HEARD If there is a member of the audience who wishes to address the Planning Board this evening on an issue, item, topic or concern that is not on this evening's agenda, we ask you to please come to the microphone, have a seat, be comfortable, give us your name and address and we will be very interested to hear what you have to say. If you are here for any one of the two public hearings, one having to do with the subdivision on Hanshaw Road, the other having to do with a recommendation from this PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 2 Board with regard to changes to the Town Zoning Law, then you will have an opportunity to speak at that time when we open the public hearing. Having said that, there being no one, we will move on to the next agenda item at 7:05p.m. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION Regarding the eight -year review of the County Agricultural District #2. Chairperson Wilcox — It states here that Debbie Teeter is the presenter. I have been informed that Debbie is unable to make it this evening, and Jonathan and Mike have put together a short presentation for us in Debbie's place. Mr. Kanter — I don't know if I would exactly call it a short presentation ... it will be short ... but, yeah, Debbie called at about 4:15 saying she was snowed in at here home, and I wasn't aware that there were any places that close that got that much snow, but I guess so. I know a lot of school districts were closed this morning... Chairperson Wilcox — You're stalling... laughter... Mr. Kanter — I was trying to stretch it out ... because our next item is at what, 7:20... anyway... So, what Debbie wanted to do was give the Board a little bit of an overview of what she's doing with the County Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board which is their eight year review of County Agricultural District #2 and we have the map behind us here, which shows, basically, it's the West Hill part of town and a little bit of South Hill is where that County Agricultural Districts are in the Town of Ithaca. So every eight years there's an opportunity to add properties to the agricultural district or delete properties and this time around, I think, the County is making a little bit more of an attempt to try to get around to municipalities and get actual Planning Board input on these changes. Debbie actually did come to the Town Board meeting last month and gave a little bit of background and overview of this and so, unfortunately, she's not able to attend, but, Mike and I met with her, oh, about a month ago, and went over some of the technical things that we recommended the County consider for changes and those have largely to do with properties that have actually been developed as part of subdivisions or there are a couple of cases of actual Town -owned parkland that are still in the agricultural district. There doesn't really seem to be any reason for them to be in there. I guess maybe, before I turn it over to Mike, I'll just say a little bit about the agricultural districts themselves, what they are and what they do. They are established by New York State, actually, under the Ag and Markets Law and, I can't remember exactly how long they have been in place, but, quite a number of years now, and they basically are intended to encourage agriculture. They provide certain benefits to farmers who are actively farming land and have certain minimum amounts of agricultural production each year. So one of the benefits that you get by, you can get by being in the Ag district is PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 3 tax abatements. You can also get those abatements even if you are not in an agricultural district if you're producing a certain amount, and Debbie probably could have told you a little bit more about what those are, maybe George actually probably knows these too, but.. Chairperson Wilcox — These are State tax abatements? Mr. Kanter — They are actual County tax abatements. Board Member Conneman — Agricultural value. Including development value... Board Member Thayer — Even if the property is rented? It can be... Mr. Kanter — It can be, if it's under active agricultural production, and there are a number of those around Town, actually there are quite a few. Another benefit of farmers being in that agricultural district is the right -to -farm provision that puts neighbors on notice that there are indeed farms there and there may be uses there that produce noise and odors that are typical to farms, but, they have a right to do that because the State has recognized their right to be there and so there's actually a real estate right to farm notification program that realtor's are obligated, or suppose to, tell potential buyers in and around agricultural districts of this right that farmers have. Another big thing that the Town has actually been involved in with Ag & Markets, is, being in a County Agricultural District, the Ag & Markets Law has certain restrictions on municipal land use regulations that unduly restrict agricultural uses in those areas and so, we've actually had some debates with Ag & Markets about that and thought there were certain thinks that were theoretical not supposed to do in our zoning, like, for instance, we can't prohibit farms in County Agricultural Districts, as one of the most obvious examples, and there are some others that I won't get into now. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, but what's the definition of "farm"? Mr. Kanter — There is actually a definition in the Ag & Markets Law. I didn't bring that with me, if anyone is interested in seeing what that is ... We also have a definition of "farm" in our zoning code, which I think, in the update, we tried to parallel what the definition of, what the State definition is. So anyway, those are some, there's probably a lot more that I left out, because I'm not Debbie, but, maybe Mike, if you want to sort of run through what we had talked to Debbie about and then we can follow up by indicating what Debbie's going to do with it next. Mr. Smith — So, I think in the Memo, I mentioned the different areas that we had discussed. I had given Debbie a list of the actual tax parcels. I can quickly just point out which ones are where, in case you are not familiar with them. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 4 The Sapponi Meadows one down on Seven Mile Drive is the Town parkland and it's right down in this area, right through here, right across from the Public Works Department and that one's actually actively farmed right now, but it is Town parklands and will be a park in the future. The lots off Amber Lane up Seven Mile Drive is this little section here. You can probably see in your map that there's just a little green dot there that there's six residential lots and those are all developed now with houses and everything on them. --- -T-he- areas -up- here -off - Mecklenburg -- Road- ar-e -- the - Lindermann- _Creek properties. There's five of those that we suggested on there. The Lindermann Creek Phase I and II along with the road right -of -way and a couple of those tax parcels right in there. And then just north of that is the other Town parkland and that was, you'll see a white spot above it, that st Town parkland too, there's two tax parcels, one is in the Ag District now and one isn't. The southern one of the two is the tax parcel that we are recommending to be excluded and that's a mix of just open space and wooded areas, but it is slated for Town parkland. And then the last area is off Perry Lane and there's 8 parcels up there that are all developed as well. Board Member Thayer - Will my taxes go up? Mr. Smith - So those are the ones that we had discussed with Debbie before. Chairperson Wilcox - While you're right there. I just want to reference a subdivision that we had last week on West King Road. Would you point out Claire Forest's parcel. It's pretty long, yeah, that's her parcel, and then the one that we actually dealt with last week was the one just to the south of it, which might be in a Town zoned agricultural district but is not in the State Agricultural District #21 Alternate Member Erb - Is there any State agricultural district land that is not within a Town agricultural zone? I understand the Town agricultural zone is ... might have lands that aren't State, but is there any State agricultural zone that isn't within Town agricultural zone? Mr. Kanter - There are a couple of properties, even on West Hill, for instance, the Perry Farm is in a County agricultural district but it's not in the Town agricultural zone and that's largely because it's really in the Town's future growth area, in a sense, it has water and sewer and it's right adjacent to Route 96 and there's even been development slowly happening on it, including the Alterra Sterling Cottage development. So there are a couple like that and then, actually, on the east side of Town, there's another, County Agricultural District #1, which is not shown on the map because that's not under PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 5 review now, but there are a few properties there, including the Six Mile Creek Winery, that are not in an agricultural zone. Mr. Smith -- There's a few more even in District #2 right along Seven Mile Drive that we're mentioning, a couple on Amber Lane and the park, but there's still others on Seven Mile Drive there, in the Town district. Mr. Kanter — So, the way the process will work is that the County Ag & Farmland Protection Board will take the technical recommendations that, you know, for instance, the Town of Ithaca, Mike and I made, they'll take into consideration any comments that the Planning Board might have... Debbie did mention that she already did meet with the Ag & Farmland Protection Board, gave them the recommendations that we had, that Mike had outlined in the Memo ... They were very receptive to deleting those properties, they didn't see any reason not to, and so we are waiting, basically, just to hear if the Planning Board concurs with that, and basically from there what they do then is to notify the property owners. So in other words, in these cases, where it's either the Town, because the Town owns the park parcels, or in most of the other cases, you know, homeowners on the new subdivision lots will be notified that they would be removed from the agricultural district. So that's the way the process works, is, basically by that kind of interaction. Chairperson Wilcox — Does the Town have, does the Town take a formal action? Mr. Kanter — No, we don't need to take a formal action. I think it's really just kind of we communicate back to Debbie what happened tonight, that's really all we need. Chairperson Wilcox — I mean, the bottom line is, we have, Staff has suggested that either lands that have been subdivided and built upon or lands that now or will be Town parks, may have been designated Town parks but are being used as... Mr. Kanter — Although they are, in the State's mind, dedicated park land, which is very difficult to change to something else. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, but sum are the lands that are to be proposed, suggested that be removed out of County Agricultural District #2. Okay. Alternate Member Erb — If I may, I'm just curious, has land ever been added to a district? Mr. Kanter — Yes, all the time, and, I probably should have mentioned that, this time around, in the Town of Ithaca, it doesn't look like there will be any of those. You know, if land owners request to be added, then the Ag & Farmland Protection Board definitely is receptive to those and actually, there is an annual process now for additions to the districts. It used to be only the eight year review period, but, because there were, probably, more rural areas, rural counties had a lot of changes going on and so they went to an annual addition process. Good question. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 6 Alternate Member Erb — Thank you. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't always attrition, or at least I had hoped to hear that it wasn't always attrition. Board Member Howe — In your discussions with Debbie, did she, I forget the name of the committee that we think is still in place, to review potential subdivisions related to Ag Districts... Did she express any concern that there's not enough communication, or... Mr. Kanter — No. Chairperson - Wilcox - -Let -me be careful here, I'm sorry; the - we dealt with the subdivision on West King Road last week, was zoned agricultural by the Town? It had to have been, t State Ag District ... So that came out of the belief that if land agricultural use in the Town of Ithaca was to be subdivided, reviewed by and informal slash ad hoc... issue- that -was raised when was that because the land Because the land is not in the zoned agricultural, for that it might have to be Mr. Kanter — The Town of Ithaca Agriculture Committee which Debbie, for the last couple of years, has served as Chair. Board Member Conneman — Claire could ask for that to be included in an ag district, I think... Mr. Kanter — She could. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, thought it turns out this particular parcel, though zoned agricultural, was not in the State ag district. Mr. Kanter — I think that's all we have on it. Chairperson Wilcox — So is the Town, I should say, is the Planning Staff, speaking for the Town, made a formal recommendation to the County with regard to the proposed changes? Mr. Kanter — I wouldn't say formal. It's basically, as formal or informal as what... Chairperson Wilcox — I assume it will be in writing, though, right? Mr. Kanter — Last year I think it was through an email, I mean, the process is under way now, I think basically Debbie was just waiting to hear back from Mike and me as to what happened tonight, even just as a consensus of the Board and we will relay that back to her if there are no objections to what we've outlined we will simply tell Debbie and that process is already underway. Chairperson Wilcox — We had ...we have 3 minutes to fill here..:) sit on the County Planning Advisory Board, and actually, we had some issues with, I think it was Ag PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 7 District #1 which came up for renewal last year, right, I think it was last year, and that had to do with the Town of Dryden, Village of Dryden and some disagreement over whether some large parcels on or near Route 38 as you come from Freeville into, towards the Village, and whether they should be included in the agricultural district or not, and I won't say it was heated, but certainly there was some disagreement amongst officials as to whether they should or should not be included in the agricultural zone, excuse me, in the ag district, the State Ag District. Alternate Member Erb — And again, what limitations does a property being in the ag district, limitations, place on Town Planning Board activities? Mr. Kanter — Well, one example would be, if it's a subdivision, for instance, where sewer or water would have to be extended, there are some, I don't know how we would put it, I'm not quite sure of the legal restraints, but they're, it makes it more of an environmental impact issue for the Planning Board to consider the impact on agricultural districts for that kind of development and infrastructure extension. So it definitely becomes a SEQR issue. Chairperson Wilcox — The presence of water and sewer, public water and sewer, can and often does, lead to loss of agricultural land, yeah, given the sudden increase in the value of the land for residential subdivision. Ms. Brock — The property owner could also argue that some of the things Planning Board routinely does, for example in site plan review don't apply because they unreasonably restrict their ability to farm. Buffer requirements are one that they often point to and say, no, these don't apply to us. We, in the not so distant past, had one property owner claim the Town Board really had no ability to impose site plan requirements on them. That that in itself was unreasonable. And that got kicked up to Ag & Markets and Albany and after they sat on it for about a year and a half, they sent us a letter saying that the owner had withdrawn its application for review, so, we're not sure if that's because of our brilliant reply that we made to Ag & Markets, or what happened, but, there really can be some real restraints on what we do. Board Member Conneman — That was the intention of ag districts. Chairperson Wilcox — And if I am not mistaken, if you've received tax benefits, and then subdivide your property.... Mr. Kanter — There's a certain period of time where you have to keep it in the abatement program and if you don't there are significant penalties. Chairperson Wilcox — You may have to pay back the tax relief that you received. Board Member Thayer — What about that property on Meck Road that we've seen proposals for and the Perry Farm and all that, that's all zoned District 2, is that going to stay the same or what happens when they come in with their proposal. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 8 Mr. Kanter — I assume you're talking about the Carrowmoore or the Rancich property... because Perry did sell about 65 acres of his farm to Rancich and consolidated it. Board Member Thayer — Yeah I know, we took a hayride through there. Mr. Kanter — That's a good question. Being in a County Agricultural district, I mean, the, it makes the likelihood of an environmental impact statement larger for the Carrowmoore development itself. It's such a large development that it would inevitably -would _have _an.environmental impact statement -any-way—The Perry_ Farm,_ I don't know, that will be an interesting question because I think the intention of the Perry family is to keep farming it, or having it farmed as long as possible, but, at some point that won't keep happening and at that point they'll have to really figure out.. Board Member Thayer — Well I've seen plans for a development there, that never got any approval that I'm aware of... Mr. Walker — Yeah, they have preliminary approval. Mr. Kanter — Yeah, there are like 21 lots that... Mr. Walker — There's a road paralleling Perry Lane that extends across and connects up with the road that Conifer Drive ... and that has preliminary approval, they've just never brought it to final. They brought Perry Lane as a first phase to final. Board Member Thayer — Right. Well when you said extend water and sewer in an agricultural district, that's what would have to be done there. Mr. Kanter — Not to mention the road because our official map actually shows that road from Conifer Drive going right through the Perry Farm up to Midaugh Road ... So that's all issues that will have to be considered as that property develops further and again, I would think at the next eight -year review there may be a lot more indication as to whether that property is ready to be developed or not. But again, on our Comprehensive Plan, on the other hand, it's shown as a development growth area and it's already got sewer and water and again, our official map is showing a future road there, so, there's sort of these contrasting benefits to that area going on. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you have water and sewer? Board Member Thayer — Yeah. Alternate Member Erb — Thank you. I find that interesting because it seems that some of this is sort of reactive rather than proactive so, just trying to catch up. Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else? Then we're all set. Thank you very much. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 9 I saw Mr. Henry out there ... yes, there he is ... We have a standing joke about a "simple Not subdivision" around here, and this thing has not only has morphed from simple to less simple, but has morphed from a Not subdivision to a 3 -lot subdivision and a pile of paper that's getting amazing. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 7:29p.m. SEQR DETERMINATION Henry 3 -Lot Subdivision, 1020 Hanshaw Road James Henry, 1118 Autumn Ridge Lane Chairperson Wilcox — Would you like to make a statement? Mr. Henry — I don't know where to begin. You've got ... as you know, it went to the ZBA, the Chair of the ZBA felt that the fact that this parcel had been consolidated for 5 years in the 1980's with Lot A, shown on the subdivision, was something that was significant and that the Planning Board should be aware of. After that meeting I put together an affidavit that you have before you regarding that issue, what I knew about that issue, what we checked on the stature about when the subdivision ordinance, as noted in there, that in 1993, which is 11 years after the parcels were consolidated by the Uris' and what 6 years after they were unconsolidated and 2 years after Lot A had been sold to Collins, the Town put in the subdivision ordinance's section that said if you consolidate parcels for tax purposes, for property tax purposes, and then later wanted to unconsolidated them, that you needed to get subdivision approval. As I said, that section was added to the ordinance several years after all of this happened. And I put in there the history of the thing. The fact that we should have, we should have, Uris' should have, Underwood's should have, there's lots of people who should have done something about getting this subdivision taken care of. As you know, originally it was divided out in a map in 1961 and then the parcels went out. I don't know. The information is in the affidavit, I don't know if anybody has any questions or anything. There's a couple of other things...We're back here ... the Planning Department advised me that they wanted to get all ' 3 lots into this as a 3-lot subdivision to get, as the proposed thing, to get them legalized. So, we're back as a S- lot subdivision on the original Underwood parcels. There's also, you have in front of you, I'm sorry it's so complicated, you have two maps because, as you may recall, the last time we were here, Mr. Hutchins in particular, a neighbor, was concerned about the western boundary and the fact that it did not match up, the newer map done by T.G. Miller, the '86 version and the '61 version were all consistent but those didn't match some survey stakes on the ground that are the basis of the deeds to Hutchins and Ptak and so, I had the surveyor draw up a new map using those stakes and have proposed to the neighbors a boundary line agreement to set the boundary where they wanted it, because, not only ... Mr. Hutchins was very adamant, but Ptak said they would just as soon have the boundary using the survey pin that they had always assumed was the PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 10 proper boundary and was in their deed. So that boundary line agreement is in the hands of Ptak's and Hutchins for their consideration. The problem I have for this is I've got two maps and I don't know which one, ultimately, if the Planning Board approves this and the neighbors sign the boundary line agreement, we'd like to use the one that sets, the newer map, that sets the boundary over and matches up with the surveys and survey stakes for Hutchins and Ptak. If they don't sign the boundary line agreement, and they have not yet signed it, then we would like to use the original map, which is consistent with the prior maps on these lots. So, I actually don't have a copy of the proposed resolution so I don't know ... it actually was sent to me but I don't have it, and so I don't know how it was written... Mr. Smith — The resolution was written to reference the new map. Chairperson Wilcox — We have one map in front of us, by the way. Mr. Henry — Oh. Everyone talking over each other discussing maps.... Chairperson Wilcox — We only have a map ... the only other map we have in front of us is dated 9/26/2007 and then has a revision date of 10/26/2007. That is the map in front of us that... Mr. Henry — Well my only concern is if, for any reason, the neighbors do not sign the boundary ... if this is approved and then the neighbors don't sign the boundary line agreement, then what am I supposed to do? Chairperson Wilcox — boundary line in questi boundary lines to be map ... I'm sorry ... what Is it the original one we Now, let me ask you a question ... the line in question, the on with the neighbors to the west, on this map says "proposed agreed upon " ... does that mean the boundary shown on this does that mean about the boundary that is shown on this map? saw previously? Or does it reflect... Mr. Henry — No, that is the new line ... this is the line that ... this is not the line that T.G. Miller's believes is the correct line for these lots, that was the first map, but, this is the line that will now coordinate with the surveys that Hutchins and Ptak have. It will use, it uses, where it says "pin found, pin found" you see that, there's one up at the top and one at the middle ... those are the Breshere survey pins for the Hutchins and Ptak surveys. So, this would set the line according to what they have in their deeds. Which is fine with us. Chairperson Wilcox — Susan. Ms. Brock — And as this Board probably is aware, the Town Engineer has the ability under our subdivision regulations to adjust... approve minor lot line adjustments,.,. right. "The Town Engineer is empowered to approve minor, practical modifications on behalf PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 11 of the Planning Board." And then he would then come and report that to you at a subsequent meeting and that's happened on occasion. Chairperson Wilcox — My experience is that Dan Walker has used it judiciously. Yes, in fact, it came up in our last meeting with regard to the proposed subdivision on the Southwoods area. I should also point out that I was at the zoning board meeting when this proposal came before them for the variances and, essentially, the Zoning Board's opinion was that there may have been information that this Board did not hear that may have been relevant or that this Board might consider relevant, and therefore the Zoning Board was concerned that it should come back to us so that we had full information available to us to make a, possibly the same determination, or a different determination, and it could go back to the Zoning Board for their review for the variances that would be necessary for the lot that's proposed to be subdivided. And then, somehow the 2 -lot subdivision became a 3dot subdivision, which is something that Attorney for the Town Susan Brock brought up when this was here originally and that was, the legality of the subdivision that created the lot for the house at 1024 Hanshaw Road. So, I assume that's why that has been added to this as well, to make sure that we have a record of granting the subdivision. Ms. Brock — Yes, otherwise the status of Parcel B would really just be in limbo and it's much better to have all of the property owners represented tonight and just have all of their lots considered. Chairperson Wilcox — We should point out that we have another affidavit from Mr. Henry, we have copies of legal documents, and indentures... We have a report from Chairman Kirk Sigel of the Zoning Board and the time line he put together and the documents that he obtained, presumably from the County offices, including more indentures, as they are labeled. Pretty amazing. As part of the environmental review, do we have any questions here? The only issue want to bring up is the size of the lot that is proposed to be subdivided. The zoning in this area is medium density residential, that would mean that the minimum lot size of 16,000 square feet, if I'm not mistaken, which is about a third of an acre, give or take, and the lot that's being proposed to be subdivided is slightly greater than an acre and a half. So it greatly exceeds the amount of land required in order to subdivide and build a house on it. That's a factor for me when I was, when we had this, back in October I think, when we were looking at the subdivision. Flag lots are certainly something that we don't encourage in the Town. Some Towns do, have provisions that encourage them, we don't. But the fact that the lot is an acre and a half plus, 6 -times larger than what would be required, to me mitigates the impact of having a flag lot and the minimal road frontage and the minimal, and also the minimum width at the setback requirement. I think that's an environmental issue. Anybody else? I want to know ... are the neighbors all here? We have this little cluster over here...) recognize a couple of the neighbors... good. In case you were not here before, we need to do two votes. One is the environmental review and whether we think there is a PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 12 significant environmental impact, that's what we're discussing now ... should we make a determination that there's not a significant environmental impact, which is the subdivision, by the way, it's not building a house, it's the subdivision, then we will get to the public hearing and give the neighbors who wish to speak a chance to speak. That's the process. Some people get upset when they see us vote, they think we've just excluded them for some reason. So.. Mr. Henry — I would just like to put, which is something that I advised Mike Smith of and, the agenda that was put out and the way that reads, one might believe, reasonably from that, that I'm representing all three lot owners and I am not. I am representing only Sherri Johnson Henry and so I am not the representative of the other owners and I just wanted to make that clear and when I got the agenda I thought... Mike, you received a copy of when I sent it to Klaus Beyenbach and Christa Maria and I just want to put that on record so that there's no confusion. I have not been authorized by the neighbors to represent them as well and so it's fortunate that they are here tonight. Chairperson Wilcox — Spoken as a true lawyer. Mr. Henry — Sorry... Chairperson Wilcox — No, no, don't apologize. All right. Board Member Howe — I'll move the SEQR.1. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Rod Howe, seconded by George Conneman. Any further discussion regarding environmental review? Changes Susan ... There being none, all those in favor please signal by saying aye ... anybody opposed? ... any abstentions? ... there are none. The motion is passed. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -129 SEAR Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Henry, Cowan, & Beyenbach Subdivision 1020, 1022; & 1024 Hanshaw Road Tax Parcel No.'s 71 -1 -66.2, 71 -1 -66.1, & 71 -1 -65 Town of Ithaca Planning Board December 4, 2007 Moved by Board Member Howe, Seconded by Board Member Conneman, WHEREAS. 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval (re- application) for the proposed 3 -lot subdivision located at 1020, 1022 and 1024 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71 -1 -66.2, 71 -1 =66.1 and 71 -1- PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 13 65, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdivision approval to legalize the existing lines for these three lots which were subdivided without the Town of Ithaca approvals. Sheri Johnson Henry, Kevin & Deborah Cowan and Klaus & Christa Beyenbach, Owners /Applicants; James R Henry, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and -31- The Planning Board -on December 4, -2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Survey Map — Showing Lands of Sheri Johnson Henry Located on Hanshaw Road", dated 9/26/2007 and revised 10/26/2007, prepared by T.G. Miller Associates, P.C., and other application materials, and 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the Environmental Assessment Form Part II referenced above, in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty, Riha. NAYS: None. Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 3= lot subdivision located at 1020, 1022 and 1024 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 71w1=66.2, 71=1=66.1 and 71 =1 -65, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdivision approval to legalize the existing lines for these three lots which were subdivided without Town of Ithaca approvals. Sheri Johnson Henry, Kevin & Deborah Cowan and Klaus & Christa Bevenbach, Owners /Applicants; James R Henry, Agent. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 14 Chairperson Wilcox — James R. Henry is acting as Agent for Sheri Johnson Henry only. Questions Ladies and Gentlemen with regard to the subdivision as proposed, given.that we have seen this before. There are none. Comments from staff. Mr. Henry, if you don't wish to say anything else, we will give the public a chance to speak. So if you would, collect your belongings and have a seat and we will give the public a chance to speak. Ladies and Gentlemen, I see you are all lined up....come on up ... name and address please. Klaus Beyenbach, 1024 Hanshaw Road Thank you Mr. Wilcox, Ladies and Gentlemen. Want to start by making sure that...l'm not an applicant. This is the first I heard that, through this call for this agenda, that our lot was not legally subdivided, so I don't consider myself an applicant and want to make sure that Mr. Henry does not go on record as representing us. I have a question about the process by which a home and a lot can be sold without there being proper records on subdivision. How is it possible that there can be a deed and surveys without prior subdivision? When we bought the property in 1979, 1 had a survey done myself and Thaler and Thaler examined all the records and cleared the property and we thought that everything was in order. Now, after living there for 30 years I find that I'm illegally subdivided. So, can you illuminate what has gone on there. For example, have you searched your records about subdivision? Chairperson Wilcox — The reason this came about was a search of our records. The Town records, if you will, which indicated that subdivision of Mr. Henry's, actually it's your wife's yes, but the Henry land had not been ... had not been processed as it should have been. The Town Attorney, I'm sorry, the Attorney for the Town then was concerned about your parcel and whether this Town of Ithaca, whether the Town of Ithaca had ever granted subdivision approval, formal subdivision approval and there's no record... Mr. Kanter — We, in the Planning Department went back through the records and could find no evidence of the Underwood subdivision ever having been approved and then we went back and we researched the subdivision regulations as they were originally adopted in 1956 and emended several times through the years, and the original requirements for subdivision approval under the wording at that time, in 1956, should have brought the Underwood subdivision, in 1961, to the Planning Board for approval. So, again, we had no record that that had happened. Those things happen occasionally. There are subdivision maps filed at the County Clerk's Office with deeds that have not received the necessary Town approvals. It doesn't happen too often, but it does, and occasionally there is an old one like this that we discover and the problem is, with a lot like yours, if you were to come in for, you know, say an addition on your house, and our code enforcement office does their normal historic check for records and they don't' find the subdivision approval, they won't be able to approve your building PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 15 addition. So, the reason that the Planning Staff added Parcel B to this and made it a 3- lot subdivision was to go back to that original 1961 Underwood subdivision to try and legalize the whole thing, back to the beginning. So, you know, to tell you the truth, it would be to your benefit to consent and agree to this happening tonight because if you don't, you know, you could have problems in the future. Chairperson Wilcox — It's also ... I should also point out, as Chair of this Board, I'm required to sign subdivision plats when they are finalized before they're submitted to the County, and there are ... it's not on this particular subdivision map that we have in front of us, but very often you will see them already on there, where there is a space for the Chair to sign. The 1961 map, the one map of F. O. Underwood lots which we have that is signed by a surveyor, this copy certainly has no signature, so. The other think I want to point out, to back up what Jon Kanter said, every once in a while we see, or we are asked to approve a subdivision where the landowner had a survey map, went down to the County office, filed it, and the County mistakenly accepted it and subdivided the land even though Town approval had not been given. It happens. Mr. Beyenbach — But these parcels have been paying taxes for all these years ... and that's all... Chairperson Wilcox — Well, you probably got a mortgage too, didn't you. Maybe you didn't but, we're trying to, I guess we are trying to formally legalize what's already there, right. There's a little piece of information missing and that is, we don't have record of this ever having been formally approved. Mr. Beyenbach — But then, but then we talk about this map here... Chairperson Wilcox — Again, we are talking about a map that down on the bottom is dated 9/26/2007 and then slightly to the right under the revised column, it says "revised 10/26/2007 ". Mr. Beyenbach — It seems to me that this map has surveyed the Parcels A & C but not Parcel B. Chairperson Wilcox — The purpose of this map is to facilitate the subdivision of the Henry parcel. It also shows your parcel on it because your parcel, again, is part of the original Underwood subdivision going back to 1961. Mr. Beyenbach — So the question I have, has Parcel B been surveyed? Chairperson Wilcox — Has Parcel B been surveyed... Mr. Beyenbach — Right, in this... Chairperson Wilcox — I do not know the answer to that question. I do not know the answer to that.question. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 16 Mr. Beyenbach — Because that map seems incomplete. It doesn't specify a pipe on the northeast corner, which I have on the survey that I requested in 1979, and it doesn't give dimensions either about the (inaudible) of the property. So, I don't think that this is an appropriate map or a complete... this has the information that needs to be on such a map. Mr. Walker — From looking at this information, it appears that Lots A & C were surveyed and they use a number of different references and the line they're determining for the subdivision is the lines between Lots C & B and Lot A and C. There's... Mr. Beyenbach — What is highlighted, right. Mr. Walker — Yes. Mr. Kanter — And then it references back to the original Underwood map of 1961. Chairperson Wilcox — Which is reference #1, yes. Mr. Walker — Apparently, from this information that I am seeing here, the map, look at, I'm not sure if they did look at it or not, They didn't use the deed map information from Parcel B and they didn't not survey the field, so that's why there's no actual dimensions on it. The only portions of your property that were surveyed were along the boundaries between, the common boundary between your parcel and the Cowen and Henry parcels. And it looks like they found lots of pipes out there. Chairperson Wilcox — Let me ask the question, Susan ... the gentleman raises a good point. That we don't have the, apparently we don't have a surveyed eastern boundary of what's labeled Parcel B on this map. Board Member Riha — But there are dimensions that are similar to the 1986 map. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, I see the length, but I don't see the heading, the direction of that line, for example, but it does reference the fact that it's 232 '/2 feet point -to- point, which is consistent wit the 232 feet shown on the '61 map... Board Member Riha — And the 116 on the road, and the.... Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah but we don't have a heading on the map, the direction, if you will, for example, is not shown. Alternate Member Erb — But we have the two pipes. Board Member Riha — Yeah. Alternate Member Erb — On both. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 17 Mr. Walker — So apparently they did look on the property and pick up, located those pipes that were in place, between... Board Member Thayer — There's a heading on the east side. It says 232.50. Chairperson Wilcox — Yup, but not on the other side. Board Member Riha — It says 205 feet, the same as the older one. Chairperson Wilcox — Susan... Ms. Brock — Do you believe that these measurements are wrong? Mr. Beyenbach —Well I'm not an expert in reading surveys... Chairperson Wilcox — Wait a minute, that didn't answer the question. Do you believe they are right or wrong? Mr. Beyenbach — I want to make sure that this is done right this time. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you have a survey? _Of your property? Mr. Beyenbach — I have this one. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, you have a survey of your property. Mr. Beyenbach — Yes, so I am not sure that this agrees with what is on here, and. again, I have a pipe here, it's not listed here. And it doesn't say the length along the east/west direction along the north side of our lot. Board Member Riha — Right, that's missing. Although, it would have to ... you would be able to calculate it from.... Ms. Brock — Well we could require submission of a final plat showing measurements for all of the property lines on Parcel B along with the coordinates. And since, if in fact Mr. Beyenbach agrees to be an applicant, that map would have to be subject to approval of all the applicants, before it's submitted to us. Chairperson Wilcox — And if he doesn't want to be an applicant? Ms. Brock — Then I think we have a real problem passing on a 3 -lot subdivision where one of the owners isn't agreeing to have their property considered by the Planning Board tonight. Chairperson Wilcox — We keep it in limbo. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 18 Mr. Beyenbach — Well I personally don't see what the rush is. Chairperson Wilcox — You may not, but I believe the applicant would like to sell his vacant land. Mr. Beyenbach -- Yes, but aren't we here to correct some maps, or correct something that... Chairperson Wilcox — we're here to find, we're here to do what's legal and right and reasonable. Legal, right and reasonable, I think, is the way I'll determine it. Yes. And clearly we've been in no hurry since this originally came before this Board back in October and it's back again. Mr. Beyenbach — Well, do I get the impression that you want to get this over with tonight? Chairperson Wilcox — I don't think you should have that impression. We're trying to do what's reasonable and correct. Mr. Beyenbach — Then I would prefer that a property map that my attorney and I can examine be presented and then I'll be willing to agree to the subdivision. Board Member Riha — Do you want to have your own survey? Because you have nothing that you are specifically objecting to in this particular survey. Mr. Beyenbach — No I am not buying this map without being the proper dimensions on that. Board Member Riha — Right, but there are dimensions, you would just like a few more. You don't object to anything per se that's on this map right now? Except you want more. Mr. Beyenbach — In general, the map here agrees with what I have, except for the location of the pipe. Board Member Riha — So maybe if we could get it down to those specifics as to the location of the pipe and the east /west dimension on the north side, if those were properly indicated on this map... Chairperson Wilcox — I would think that all the appropriate surveying information should be on the map... Board Member Riha— Right. But then... PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 19 Chairperson Wilcox -- ...for all the parcels, including Parcel B. Because this map would be filed with the County and should include all of the appropriate and necessary information. Mr. Kanter — Let me ask this then of the Board and the Attorney. Is it possible for the Board to approve a portion of the 3 -lot subdivision tonight, i.e. that portion that is accurately surveyed, having advertised it as something bigger, can we go to something smaller, I guess is the question. Chairperson Wilcox — And then deal separately with Parcel B. Board Member Riha — Well there's no indication this is an inaccurately surveyed. It is incompletely surveyed. Board Member Conneman —The western side of the boundary between C & A, I think everyone agrees on. Isn't that right? And that is what would affect the ability of Mr. Henry to sell the property, his wife. Chairperson Wilcox — Correct. But in essence we're also determining the boundaries, on this map, of Mr. Beyenbach as well and he has, he has reasonably stated that if this is going to show the properties, if his, if this is going to show the property lines, then it should have all of the necessary surveying information so that he can be sure that he and /or his agent, an attorney possibly, agrees with it, which is not unreasonable in my mind. The question is would he agree to... Board Member Riha — He'd have to hire an attorney... Chairperson Wilcox — Well, he could choose to hire an attorney if he wants... Board Member Riha — And a surveyor... Board Member Talty — A surveyor... Chairperson Wilcox — The question is, who needs to update this....either with additional information, or, you know, is that back to Mr. Henry, again, and I don't know if that's his responsibility or not, to have the surveyor go back and put the additional information on this map, possibly have to go back out into the field to obtain it, or whether that might be someone else's responsibility. This is new ground. Board Member Thayer — We didn't hear an answer from, for Jonathan's question. Can we separate it tonight? Ms. Brock — I don't think we can because if you're leaning ... if you do A & C, you defacto are doing B as well. B is either attached to something else and you are leaving it for another night to figure out how to detach it, or they all get detached at once, in my opinion. I really think that you have to do them together, and this was advertised as a 3- PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 20 lot subdivision and we have historically been very careful about not changing the action to be something other than what we've advertised and that's a legal requirement that we have to follow. So.. Mr. Kanter — Actually, historically, we have done cases, and they are not normally subdivisions with less lots, but it's normally like a site plan with a threshold number where we have a +/- figure and if the number ends up being something less, that fits within the parameters of the hearing notice but if it's something more then it doesn't. Ms. Brock — But that's completely different than a 3 -lot subdivision becoming a 2 -lot subdivision. That's just a different action. Board Member Riha — But we can't make it subject to the approval of an official map of these boundaries? t- Ms. Brock — We can, if all the owners agree that's what they want. I guess that's a question for you . Mr. Beyenbach, would you be willing to be considered an applicant tonight so that the Board can make a determination on this, but the determination would not become final until a map is submitted that all of the owners are happy with, and can sign off on? Mr. Beyenbach — So there is ... the Town could not be an applicant could it? Ms. Brock — No. The Town? No. The owners need to be the applicants in this case. Mr. Beyenbach — Right. So we have to be ... then who will be doing the ... so there will be a survey, then, required? Ms. Brock — Well I, my understanding was that you were not content with what information is on this map and it's possible that you already have a survey and if this map is consistent and it's just missing some information, it's possible that information on your map can just be transferred over here. I mean, that's really between all of you and you know, the preparer of the maps to decide what actually has to be done out in the field, what can be done. just by looking at existing documents. Mr. Beyenbach — But who's prepared this map? That's your agent isn't it? Ms. Brock — No this was prepared by TG Miller at the request of Mr. And Mrs. Henry. Mr. Beyenbach —Oh, I understand. Ms. Brock — I believe they hired TG Miller to do that. This was submitted to the Planning Board for it's consideration and this would end up being the final plat, or the final plat would be based on this. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 21 Mr. Beyenbach — So let me suggest that we ask Mr. Henry that he will get this map updated. If you're the one to be working with this map, is that right ... I mean, you will accept this map? Chairperson Wilcox — If, if we should approve, if we should approve this this evening, this is the map we have in front of us, yes, it's the only map we have in front of us... Ms. Brock — But we can make this... Chairperson Wilcox -- ...right. The question that the Attorney for the Town asked you was, would you be comfortable with this Board approving the subdivision, as published, conditionally, contingent upon an updated survey map with the appropriate meets ... excuse me, not meets and bounds, but with the appropriate information shown on the map subject to your approval? Mr. Beyenbach — I would be uncomfortable with that. Chairperson Wilcox — Because? Mr. Beyenbach — Because I don't know what the new map will show. Chairperson Wilcox — But the... Mr. Beyenbach — It says conditionally, right, so... Chairperson Wilcox — The condition would be is that... Mr. Beyenbach -- ...conditionally that it would have to be examined. I will not accept numbers in advance, or on a condition. Mr. Kanter — But it would be conditioned on your approval. In other words, it couldn't be completed unless you did give your approval. Mr. Beyenbach — Right. Board Member Talty — If you didn't sign -off on it, it would not be an accepted action. Mr. Beyenbach — Right, and then what happens with the subdivision for the entire parcel? Board Member Riha — Then you'd have to come back... Board Member Talty — You'd have to come back. There isn't any. Chairperson Wilcox — And then the neighbors start, frankly, getting angry with each other, which is not a good thing either. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 22 Mr. Beyenbach — Well, again, I am asking the question what's the rush? Why not get this done right the first place? Chairperson Wilcox — We are proposing a way which does it right, which is what we often do, which is to condition approval upon subsequent actions. Board Member Talty — Which is not rushing it. Chairperson Wilcox — Which is not rushing. Board Member Talty — It's at your leisure and his leisure. You got to work together and then if you don't sign off on it, you don't sign off on it. Mr. Beyenbach — So in other words, in principle, I'm of course for getting the subdivision down on record, in principle, of course. Chairperson Wilcox — No. Absolutely not. The subdivision would not... Mr. Beyenbach — What I'm saying, in principle, I would like to get this subdivided. Board Member Riha — Right, so we just need to get this map in a form that you find acceptable and then ... so we're going to say we'll approve, or we're thinking about approving it upon condition that numbers be put in and not until all the three lot owners approve of the map, will the subdivision be approved. So I think that's what you want. Mr. Walker — You have 5 property owners there. Board Member Riha — Oh yeah right, Board Member Talty — So all 5 have to say yes, yes, yes, yes... Alternate Member Erb — It would be a safe thing for you to do tonight. To accept it in principle and, but have it conditioned on your inspection and acceptance of the final survey. That would be safe. Board Member Riha — Right. Mr. Beyenbach — Fine by me. Board Member Riha —Good. Board Member Hoffmann — Susan, didn't you also ask Mr. Beyenbach if he would like to be considered an applicant? Ms. Brock — Yes. I did. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 23 Board Member Hoffmann - And is that necessary? Or what was the reason for that question? Ms. Brock - Well, he's an owner of one of the parcels and I think we've always required proof that all the owners consent to whatever action is being requested at the Planning Board. Board Member Hoffmann - I don't think he answered that question. Ms. Brock - Well, -I- think, ummm... - - - - - -- -- - - Board Member Talty - I think he did... Board Member Riha - Yeah, he did... Ms. Brock -- ...events have transpired since we, you know, that was asked and answered, so, if you are comfortable with us proceeding as we've explained, then I assume you will also be comfortable being considered an applicant. Mr. Beyenbach - Then I will be the applicant... Ms. Brock - right. Just so, that was a yes? I just want to make sure that it got caught on the tape. Mr. Beyenbach - Yes. Chairperson Wilcox - What's going to happen now, we are going to let everybody else speak and frankly, given the convoluted nature of this, I will give anybody a chance to speak again if they should so desire. The Attorney for the Town is now going to craft some language, while we continue to speak, and we will read it out loud so that you will be able to hear it, which is the condition that we would add to the resolution. Okay. So we will craft that right in front of you. Alternate Member Erb - If Professor Beyenbach became an applicant... Chairperson Wilcox - Professor... how'd you know that? Alternate Member Erb - Declaration. Klaus and I are in the same College at Cornell. We do not work together, we do not collaborate. Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. Alternate Member Erb - If he became an applicant, he might have, he potentially could have some expenditures associated with a lawyer, or with a survey, but does he PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 24 additionally, suddenly, develop expenditures involved in application fees? Is he, Is he uninformedly getting himself into that tonight? Ms. Brock — Jonathan, I assume the application fee is a one fee, it kind of doesn't matter how many applicants there are, it's for the action. Is that correct? Mr. Kanter — Correct. Ms. Brock — And that's already been paid? Mr. Kanter — Yes. Ms. Brock — So, the Town has already been paid. It's not really of concern to us at this point, if the neighbors want to try and work something out, that's between them, but we don't really need to be involved with that. And the answer is no, there won't be an additional bill sent to him from the Town for an additional application fee. It's already been paid. Chairperson Wilcox — By Mr. Henry, I assume. Alright. Thank you sir. Whoever wants to go next. It's between the two of you. Bernie Hutchins, 1016 Hanshaw Road The other line. The line on the west, is my concern. As it's shown on this survey.... Chairperson Wilcox — By the way, which survey? I just want to make sure, which survey are you referring to? Mr. Hutchins — I'm referring to the 9/26/2007 as revised on 10/26. Chairperson Wilcox — Very good. Thank you. Mr. Hutchins — That's gone back to the original pins. So, I have no problem with this map, except...you knew there'd be an except ... It says "proposed boundary line to be agreed upon." Now the question then, is who doesn't agree upon that. So, what we have here is, Mr. Henry dropped by last Thursday night with this boundary line agreement and, well, it's a bunch of legalese. So, we look and see who's involved here and the people that are involved are Sheri Henry, the Ptaks, my wife and myself. Five people. None of us, as far as I know, has had the slightest disagreement about where that boundary line ought to be. This agreement is with the surveyor, as it was when we were here before. Now, I'm not a licensed surveyor, but I can look at maps, I think it's probably your experience that many times, a land owner looks at a map very carefully, deciphering every little fly speck or whatever's on there, trying to decide what's there, much more carefully than, perhaps, the surveyor does. Likewise, we know our own land. And, why they got this wrong in the first place was because they did not find that pin up in the corner. This is the one that's about 2 inches from the left side and an inch down where it says 66 pin found". They did not locate that. They did not know it was PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 25 there. Secondly, they did not know about the Brashear map. Now, the Brashear map is now referenced, as reference number 5, this new map, this revised map. The third thing, I don't know whether they checked, but going back to the Crandall map, the 1961 map, there was a measurement on that map which they did not notice, and that was that the measurement gave the distance along the front of Collin's house from the southwest corner to the actual line. I think it was 103.8 or something like that. But it gave that distance and they didn't even notice that. Now that sets the angles. If they had checked that, they would have found out where the line would have been, where Crandall thought it was. I don't know whether they went back and checked it, so I don't know whether it proved that they're right or whether I'm right, but, we are happy with this map, I say, except that it says "this proposed boundary line to be agreed upon." Now, as far as the agreement paper here, we have no intention of signing this. It's too complicated. It's a double or mutual of quit claim deed, it appears to be anyway, and on the third page, well, what it does is, it wipes out the right -of -way on both sides, except, at the very end of the third page, it says that "nothing contained herein shall alter the 50- foot right -of -way easements for street and utility purposes." Now, that doesn't really worry me either, but it probably ought to worry the Ptak's where they have, they're using it for a driveway, the right -of -way. Not for a street, not for a utility, but they're using it for a driveway. So, I don't think this is necessary, to have this on here. We don't need to sign this agreement, neither do we need to have this proposed boundary line to be agreed upon on that map. And I'd like to see that removed. Now, I think there's two ways of doing it. One is using whiteout. Chairperson Wilcox — You're a funny man Mr. Hutchins. Mr. Hutchins — Well, I'm fairly serious. I'm saying you can go back and convince the surveyor that he really made a mistake here and did not look at all the evidence and perhaps would have done it differently if he tried it again. So that's one way of doing it. Now, another interesting way of doing it just come up here tonight ... to let the Town Engineer fix it, and that would be agreeable to us, to say that the Town Engineer has adjusted the line to this, or has determined that that's the correct line. So that seems like a reasonable compromise. Chairperson Wilcox — Before ... I want to make sure that I understand. The line as shown on the survey map, which is your eastern boundary line and is the western boundary line of the proposed subdivision, it's labeled "proposed boundary lines to be agreed upon." You agree that that is the correct boundary line, based upon your survey. Mr. Hutchins — Yes, but I want to see it removed from the map. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. What you want to see removed is the language. The language bothers you. The line you agree with. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 26 Mr. Hutchins — Yes. And I do not agree with the written agreement. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. That's fine. Okay. Do we care about the written agreement? Board Member Thayer — No. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't think so, but this is getting more complicated by the minute. Board Member Talty — Can Dan legally do that? Mr. Walker — Well, I'm not going to set a boundary line that's not been surveyed and set by a surveyor. What I can do is if a surveyor say we want to, we need to move this line over 2 feet because we want to put this tree on this side of the lot and it doesn't affect the legality... that's the kind of changes that we can make, or, oops, we put our driveway 2 feet over and we'd rather not have an encroachment and the neighbors are okay with it so we'll just shift it, you know, as long as it doesn't affect the tax or anything like that. Chairperson Wilcox — So what you have here is a survey line agreed upon by the owners. Mr. Walker — And that's what has to happen. That's what ... a surveyor has a legal responsibility, and I'm not a licensed surveyor. I'm familiar with the techniques and everything but licensed surveyors get into more deed searches and things than the rudimentary work that I would do does. When you get into a conflict and especially it works on properties where hedge rows and trees, like last week when we had a tree that now is three feet different than what they thought it was and ... part of the surveyor's job is to measure things and if there seems to be, appears to be conflict, help to bring the two parties together and say, this is where we agree the line is and, what's, the biggest concern that I would have is that if I was an attorney with a client that was searching the abstract for a clean title, I don't' think these are big issues on here, but these are questions that some attorney, who is very, very conservative might say, you don't have a clear title because it's fuzzy. Chairperson Wilcox — Let me interrupt you. It's also possible that the surveyor, Mr. Dresser, might not certify the survey if that language was removed. Mr. Walker — Harry Ellsworth would not certify ... he, he....apparently... Chairperson Wilcox — I'm just trying to short (inaudible) this. He believes the actual line is different from the one shown. He has shown a revised line based upon inform ... based upon request, so at the bottom of the survey, where he certifies that he's a licensed surveyor and this map correctly delineates dah, dah ... he may be unwilling to certify it given that that's an agreed upon line, not a line he surveyed. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 27 Mr. Walker — Possibly. I have not talked to Mr. Dresser directly, but if you notice on the newest survey map, when he's drawn this line where, based I believe upon on the information from the Brashear's survey, there is a pin found that he's used to terminate that line. He's got a pipe drawn on one end and a pin found on the other end, which terminates the line. Now, there's also a pin found that's not on that line, that may or may not ... it was not on the other boundary line either ... there are triangular points on here which I believe are just points that are calculated or set and no pins were set... Chairperson Wilcox — The one on the northern, northwestern corner of the Sheri /Hitchcock and Henry parcel, for example. Mr. Walker — Right. The fact that there was a stream that was probably used for a boundary line and center line of the stream was set as a boundary line, which, streams like to move sometimes ... I mean, that gets into a fuzzy area there too. I mean, there's nothing so tight that it's really going to hurt anybody there. Board Member Conneman — Does he not say, Dan, Mr. Dresser, that this is the boundary line proposed and if Mr. Ptak and if Mr. Hutchins and if Mr. Henry agree, it's okay? Isn't that why ...that's why it says to me "proposed line to be agreed upon." Chairperson Wilcox — Do we want that language on a map that we approve that is filed with the County? Ms. Brock — It sounds as if there is no disagreement that that's where the line is to be, correct? Chairperson Wilcox — Correct. Ms. Brock — So.... Chairperson Wilcox — At least, I'm sorry ... Mr. Hutchins has no disagreement. I'm not sure we've heard form the Ptak's yet. Mr. Walker — There would probably need to be deeds of correction drawn, to set that line because when he took the original deed information he had and drew the original map that we see, he had good reason to believe this was the boundary line from the deed descriptions that he was working from, that's my assumption. Now he's got more information about an adjoining parcel and apparently that could be a possible boundary line too. So when you get two deeds that are in conflict, you've got to have all the parties involved in agreement and generally that means that a deed of correction is drawn up and amended to each parcel. Ms. Brock — Well, I suspect Mr. Henry was trying to fix this through the boundary line agreement, which did, in fact, contain, it sounded like, quit claim deeds to each other ... where in fact the parties were saying we're not ... we'll give you whatever we own, if anything in this little piece and you'll give us whatever you own, if anything, in PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 28 this little piece, and we all agree this is the boundary. So while the parties' deeds right now, without that signed agreement, are going to be in conflict, the question really is can this Board approve a subdivision map where, we haven't heard from the Ptak's yet, but, where it appears the Hutchins and the Henry's at least, agree that that's where the boundary is. And to me it seems that that would be okay. That we could do that. Chairperson Wilcox — And remove that language. That is the line ... it is not a line to be agreed upon ... it is the line that this Board is approving. Everyone talks over each other.... Chairperson Wilcox -- Does this Board want to approve a subdivision map that has a line that may change? Mr. Walker — Well, do we have affidavits from all the adjoining landowners of that line? Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not sure we have affidavits from any of the adjoining landowners. Mr. Walker — Because I would not recommend something that's moving a lot line that... Chairperson Wilcox — Why are we simply making more work for all the attorneys in Town... laughter... Alternate Member Erb — Is there someone present for the Ptak's tonight? Because, in fact, we've heard from Mr. Hutchins that he agrees. He said it out loud in this meeting... Chairperson Wilcox — Yea, I heard him and I explicitly asked him and I'm hoping... Alternate Member Erb — Which is why you did, I mean, that section has been agreed upon between the Henry's and Hutchins and now the only issue remains that midway pin back out to the road and whether Ptak or Ptak's representative agrees with that. Board Member Thayer - ...Like Fred said, we got to get Mr. Dresser to agree...removing that statement, too. Chairperson Wilcox — That's correct. White -out wouldn't work. Alternate Member Erb - ...To be agreed upon ... we might be able to get that tonight on record. Chairperson Wilcox — Yup, yup, yup. Okay. Alternate Member Erb — So it does not have to be removed. Board Member Conneman — You can remove it if you get these three guys to agree. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 29 Ms. Brock — Well, it's more than saying this is the line. You really need that boundary line agreement that goes with it. That is why that language was in there. That there would be this formal agreement. Board Member Talty — And ultimately, all these folks have to rectify, one way or another. You won't be able to sell your property. Now that it is exposed, everybody's got to clean it up. So its in everybody's best interest to kind of have a neighborhood meeting. Board Member Conneman — Exactly. Board Member Talty — Its not just the applicant tonight; its everybody in the future. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Henry? Oh, not Mr. Henry. Mr. Hutchins, you all set for now? Mr. Hutchins — Yeah. Just let me reiterate, what I was not anxious to see is this map filed in the County and somebody would come across it, what's this dispute. Chairperson Wilcox — But your objection is the language... Mr. Hutchins — Or any papers. Any other that are filed for if somebody is searching a title to say what's this and go through. One final thing I want to say. I just really should point out that in insisting that this correct line, we are making our property smaller. We are not asking for more land. I think maybe that is clear. But we are not doing this and saying we want the line here because we are looking for more land. Its smaller. Ms. Brock — Mr. Hutchins, you had said you wouldn't sign the boundary line agreement. Are you willing to sign anything? Because if you not, then you are going to end up with this problem. Mr. Hutchins — Oh, you don't know the problem over on the other side either. There's far more problems than this. Ms. Brock — Because it appears there's a certain amount of land that's in dispute as to who actually owns it. Correct? Mr. Hutchins — Not on this side. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, when you were here in October, there was certainly a dispute between you and Mrs. Henry over the boundary line between your parcel and the Henry parcel. Mr. Hutchins — I understood it to be what you called a "gore" that was a no man's land. Nobody owned it. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 30 Chairperson Wilcox — I suggested that as a possibility, given that often 2 surveys don't match up exactly. Mr. Walker — I agree this language shouldn't ever be filed, "proposed to be agreed upon." I think what should happen is that if ... everyone get together and agree on the format and language of the deed and then have the surveyor redraw the map and ... or state ... an appropriate statement would be, "boundary line set by agreement dated such and such between ....". Chairperson Wilcox — Well, that went to Susan's question of Mr. Hutchins. Would you sign anything? Because apparently something will have to be ... language will have to be agreed upon in order to set that line. Mr. Walker — And I agree the proposed boundary line ... map that gets filed. It should actually be the boundary line set by agreement or something to that affect. Board Member Conneman — Fred, Kevin is right. You have a neighborhood meeting to solve the problem. You don't have to involve an attorney or a surveyor and they agree to it. Board Member Riha — But Susan said you're going to need some kind of deed agreement. Board Member Conneman — Well, but... Ms. Brock — Have you had an attorney look at this yet? The boundary line agreement? Mr. Hutchins — Not since we bought it. Chairperson Wilcox — No. I'm talking about the language that Mr. Henry gave you. Mr. Hutchins — Oh, no. No. Ms. Brock — Do you intend to have an attorney look at that? Mr. Hutchins — No. I mean until something comes up that would force me to because as I say, they have gone back to what my deed says and my survey map. So what happens on the other side.is of less concern to me. Ms. Brock — So if the agreement agrees with what your deed and your survey say, then why do you object to signing the agreement. Mr. Hutchins — Because it is a Quit Claim both ways plus it affects the right -of -way. Ms. Brock — It's not right -of -way. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 31 Mr. Hutchins - Because of the restriction on this street and the utility easements rather than just allowing me to go across and watch my crows. Chairperson Wilcox - Mr. Henry is shaking his head, but we will get to you. Mr. Hutchins, if you will have a seat I'd appreciate it. We've got one more back there. Come on up ma'am. Okay. I was pointing at Mrs. Cowan. Mrs. or Miss Cowan. She owns the parcel ... she owns Parcel A at 1022. 1 actually met her at the ZBA meeting and that is how I was looking to if she wanted to say anything. Anybody else? Okay. I'm going to formally close the public hearing (8:28 p.m.), but that doesn't mean that I might not give someone the chance to speak again if it proves to be reasonable and - necessary. -So- let- me-- close-the public- hearing -at -8:28 p.m.- -All right.- - -Mr -. -Henry, you have been animated back there. Oh, what a tangled web we weave ladies and gentlemen. I'll give you a chance to speak. Mr. Henry - Oh, where do we start. The boundary line agreement that I gave Bernie and Ptaks is a standard kind of boundary line agreement. And the standard boundary line agreement has in it, it says we quit claim on one side of the line and we quit claim on the other side of the line to set a boundary line. But Bernie says they're not going to sign. Chairperson Wilcox - Well, understand that you are a lawyer and he's not. Mr. Henry - Yes, and that makes it difficult to try to figure it out. But which means.. .it seems to me that there are a couple possibilities. One is to go back to the map that...you see Dresser, TG Miller believes the correct line is the shown on the first map. The one you say is not recorded and you have two surveyors that have set the line' Jt starts at the same place and it diverges. So ... but since you say we've only got this one map before you, I mean otherwise I would say well why don't we just approve on this map and it lives this, you know, the gore. The other possibility that I can suggest is I think and I don't know for sure, I would have to see with the surveyor, but the surveyor might be comfortable instead of saying proposed boundary line to be agreed upon, since the neighbor won't agree to a boundary line agreement, would be to have the surveyor put, "line per Brashear map "...per the Brashear survey. And allow the surveyor to use the Brashear line, that is the other surveyor, and set that and we could ... I think we could work with that, I think. If the surveyor is willing to do that. The other thing the surveyor might say is, "well, I can show the Brashear line, but then I'll show the line I think is correct." So then you would have two lines up there. Chairperson Wilcox - Don't do that. You don't want to see the two lines. Mr. Henry - We are trying to get a line that the neighbors on the left were happy with by using their surveyor's line. I think that probably TG Miller, and I'm just saying I think, would be willing to just put, "line per Brashear surveys ". Instead of proposed line it will show that it is a survey line that another surveyor did and is being used. Does that sound like something that...? PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 32 Board Member Riha — So why did they object to the line that TG Miller drew if it actually gave them more property? Chairperson Wilcox — You would have to ask Bernie that. Mr. Henry —Well, no. I know the answer to that. Bernie said... Bernie Hutchins said because he feels it's not correct. He feels the Brashear line is correct and that the TG Miller line is not. And he wants it to be correct even though its farther west than the other line. You know, if he wanted to agree to the other line he would gain 8 feet up there at the corner, but my understanding is that Mr. Hutchins does not want to do that. He wants to use the survey stakes that they have understood to be the line, which they are deeded. Board Member Riha — I understand. So he just thinks Brashear... Mr. Henry - ...and the answer is to have a boundary line agreement to agree on this one or this one or something in the middle and you sign a boundary line agreement and that sets is. But if you have somebody who won't sign a boundary line agreement, then that makes is difficult for resolving that and you can either, .one of the parties said well I'll go over that line and we'll deal with it or you can have the two parcels not meet. Ms. Brock — But it sounded like there is a little bit more, which is it is not just boundary line issue. It's also the right -of -way issue and that he felt that was inappropriate... Mr. Henry — The language says ... the boundary line agreement says nothing change...this does not change the right -of -way. He is misreading that...the right -of- way. The reason it says street and utility purposes is that the language in the deeds. He was talking about well it doesn't say driveway. Well driveway doesn't appear in the deeds. Susan, did you receive, .were you in your office? Did you get... Ms. Brock — I was in my office and your fax machine attempted to send my fax machine 18 pages and it tried at least 3 times, but I never got the complete transmission and many of the pages are cut off. So its...any way, I was not able to adequately review what you were trying to send me. Mr. Henry — Right. If you want the stuff right now, its right here, but it's... Ms. Brock — It was this afternoon at 4 o'clock or something like that so there wasn't time to get the complete transmission. Alternate Member Erb — Excuse me. When I heard Mr. Hutchins say ... read that it was utilities and street, in my head I thought ah -ha, it says street because we were originally told in October that there was the idea that in fact a street would go through that and connect to another part of the development. So I thought that's where the street language came from. Would it be so difficult to put the words like driveway in there because ... but that sounded to me... PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 33 [Alternate Member Erb and Mr. Henry talking over one another.] Alternate Member Erb — ...it sounded to me like Mr. Hutchins wants words like driveway in there just so that he feels that he's got his driveway right -of -way secure. Board Member Howe — Are we at a point where we're not ... we can't do anything until they get together and I'm just afraid they are going to talk in circles and... Chairperson Wilcox — But we're letting him speak. Board Member Hoffmann —But I was just going to say something like that. It is beginning to sound less like a Planning Board matter and more like a matter for the property owners and their lawyers. Mr. Henry — Accept that we want to get the approval. Board Member Howe — We understand that, but we can't sit here and guess what language might be appropriate to folks. Board Member Riha — But then these people are going to be stuck if the neighbors just say we don't want to say anything. Mr. Henry — And then you end up with 3 illegally subdivided lots. Then eventually if nobody is willing ... I mean we are trying to get it approved and if nobody is willing to approve it, what's the Town do then? We've got 3 lots with 2 of them have houses on them and they are illegally subdivided lots. Chairperson Wilcox — My... Board Member Talty — Can't you guys get an arbitrator or something? [laughter] Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on. I want to let the Attorney for the Town ... if this board has a proper certified survey map done by a licensed surveyor, then that may be sufficient for us to act. Ms. Brock — And that's what you did in October. Chairperson Wilcox — Correct. That is what we did in October, consistent with how we've acted in previous cases where there have been boundary line issues. Ms. Brock — The problem is this map does not show the line that the surveyor says agrees with all of his information. It shows a line that it says the parties will agree upon. The other map was before us on October 16 tH PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 34 Chairperson Wilcox — Had a boundary line between Ptak, Hutchins and Henry. Board Member Riha — So we could approve that. Chairperson Wilcox — Which was approved. Now... Mr. Kanter — Conditioned on getting the variance. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, conditioned on getting the variances. But then it became a - -3 -lot- subdivision- when- the - Beyenbach- became - part-of- this -as- well. -- - - Board Member Riha — I think Beyenbach is another issue and this we should move ahead then with the original map in October, saying okay we approve it. Chairperson Wilcox — We have the... apparently we have the neighbors sort of working together. They seem to have come to an agreement on the boundary line, but on the other hand no one wants to either pay for an attorney ... I shouldn't say no one. There seems to be some reluctance to expend dollars in order to help Mr. Henry or Mrs. Henry get the subdivision. Board Member Riha — But it ... Chairperson Wilcox — Right. But that's between them, not necessary ... not a Planning Board matter. Board Member Riha — Right and we had a survey Chairperson Wilcox — Which is actually approved Board Member Riha — Right. Its been approved. We don't know that its not correct. Chairperson Wilcox — Conditionally, with the other conditions. Board Member Riha — It gives Mr. Hutchins more land than he would otherwise have. Mr. Henry — Why don't we keep the survey that we... Board Member Riha — ...and ignores the Beyenbach plan. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, we have to deal with Mr. Beyenbach. He has a legitimate issue. Board Member Riha — But this one I think we should go ahead with the original. Chairperson Wilcox —Where have we kind of... PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 35 Board Member Riha — I'm comfortable with just saying we should approve the ... there is still the other issue, the Beyenbach, but in terms of the west side lines here, we should approve them based on the October ... the map we were seeing on... Chairperson Wilcox — The original map. Board Member Riha — Which we have already approved. Chairperson Wilcox — Which for the record is not in front of us tonight, but we know what it is. It is the survey dated 9/26/2007. Board Member Riha — We have no reason to think ... I mean. Chairperson Wilcox — And then we let the neighbors deal with it. Board Member Riha — Yup. Board Member Conneman — That's right. Ms. Brock — Why wasn't that other map in front of us tonight? Chairperson Wilcox — I'm saying we don't have a copy. I don't have a paper copy. That's all I'm saying. When I say in front of us, I mean... Ms. Brock — Because the applicant did ask that we approve their... Chairperson Wilcox — I understand that, but the 9/26 survey map was not in our packet. Mr. Henry — Do you need copies? [several talking at once] Chairperson Wilcox — Can we have copies of the 9/26 map? Ms. Brock — I have it. Chairperson Wilcox — Does everybody want a copy? Board Member Riha — No. Its okay. Board Member Talty — No. Board Member Conneman — This says 9/26. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 36 Chairperson Wilcox — No. No. No. Be careful. The map in front of us is dated 9/26 and then revised 10/26. Look to the right. There is a revision date. Board Member Conneman — Okay. Alternate Member Erb — We should be referring to that as the 10/26 map. Chairperson Wilcox I have in front of me what we approved in October, which is dated 9/26, but has no revision date. This we already approved. Board- Member- Riha — Right-. - And - -I think -we should just... Chairperson Wilcox — Larry? Larry, are you okay? Board Member Thayer — Well, its still got the certification by Mr. Dresser, 10/26/07. Chairperson Wilcox — That's correct. But it has that funny language along that western line. So this is what we approved. Does everybody want a copy? Board Member Howe — But what does that gain us if we go in that ... we have 3 -lot subdivision in front of us. So what does going back to that and saying we're going back to that. Does that help us move forward on a 3dot subdivision? Chairperson Wilcox — It allows us to move forward... Ms. Brock - ...conditional upon getting... Chairperson Wilcox - ...upon getting the appropriate surveying information noted... Board Member Howe - ...added to... Chairperson Wilcox — ...and the approval of the owner of Parcel B, which is noted as Beyenbach on this map. Board Member Riha — That's what I think. Ms. Brock — Mr. Henry? Can you verify the 9/26 survey ... the only difference between that and the 10/26 survey is the boundary line that says, "proposed boundary lines to be agreed upon ?" Mr. Henry — The west line and what that does with regard to your distance along the brook of course. Ms. Brock — Okay. But in terms of the Beyenbach property there's no difference? Is that correct? PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 37 Mr. Henry — No. Alternate Member Erb — Yes. There is no difference. Ms. Brock — Okay. In terms of Parcel A, is there any difference? Mr. Henry — I do not believe so. No. I think the only changes are ... I believe... Chairperson Wilcox — My cursory review indicates there is no change to Parcel A. -Mr: -Henry = T-he- only-thing was just - moving- that western line and what that does to the... Ms. Brock — So the corridor along the brook the dimensions have changed there, right? Mr. Henry — Right. Chairperson Wilcox — Correct. Yes, Ms. Brock — And does that affect Mr. Beyenbach's northern boundary? Chairperson Wilcox — No. Mr. Henry — No. Because its just at that northwest point that we are talking about because the line ... to the west. Ms. Brock — Yeah. I see where the pipe found is in his northwest corner. It looks like its all the same there. All right. Did everybody follow that? Does everybody have a copy now of the 9/26 map? Board Member Riha — We don't need it, I don't think. Ms. Brock — But you understand... Board Member Riha — Yup. Board Member Talty — We understand. Okay but getting back to what Rod just said, going back and we are going to move forward with that map, where does that put us? Board Member Riha — Subject to Mr. Beyenbach... Chairperson Wilcox - ...conditioned on his approval. Ms. Brock — And then if the parties can agree on a different lot line ... the western portion of Parcel C, they can request a minor application... application for a minor lot line modification to the Town Engineer and as long as its not considered... there are certain standards in the subdivision regulations and exceeded, he can approve that and record it. Board Member Howe — Let's do that. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 38 as long as those standards aren't Board Member Riha — Yeah. I think that sounds good to me. Chairperson Wilcox — For the record, Henry and Cowan are having a conversation back there. That's all. No. No. Have all the conversation you want. I just want to note you are having a conversation that is all. Ms. Brock — Does everybody in the audience who is interested in this matter have a copy of the map we are now looking at? The 9/26 map? Everybody's got one. Okay. Chairperson Wilcox — Again, I want to make absolutely certain. There are two maps now in front of us. There is one that is dated 9/26/2007 with a revised date of 10/26/2007. That is the map we started talking about. Now we are talking about a map dated, a survey map dated 9/26/2007 no revision date. Board Member Conneman — That is correct. Chairperson Wilcox — And that is the map we approved back in Oct ... that is the subdivision we approved back in October before it came back to us. Board Member Thayer — Right. Board Member Conneman — That is correct. Chairperson Wilcox — All right. Bernie, I'd love to let you speak, but we've run long already. Mr. Hutchins — May I have 2 minutes? Chairperson Wilcox — I will give Bernie 2 minutes. Board Member Riha - ...Fred, look at the clock. Chairperson Wilcox — I know. I know. I know. Because I think we have kind of figured out where we are going right now. Right? The attorney has got to write some ... YOU should be writing, right? [laughter] Chairperson Wilcox — Would you help us out here please? Why don't we give Bernie a chance to speak one more time? PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 39 Mr. Hutchins —Yes. I really ... I just didn't want an agreement. I don't want that confusing the issue of when somebody does a title search for something which I consider trivial. Chairperson Wilcox — But look at the position you've put us in? The reason I wanted to let him up here was so I could talk to him. Look at the position you have put us in. So ... I mean we are trying to find a compromise and essentially what we have done is, let's go back to what we approved before and then let you guys work it out. I mean that's kind of what we've coalesced to because you guys have to work it out anyways. It's not our job to make you work it out. We can try to facilitate it but it isn't happening. Mr. Hutchins — It isn't going to happen. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, then it may happen once somebody tries to sell their property. I don't know what is going to happen. I don't whether this is going to cloud titles. I don't know what it is going.to do. Mr. Hutchins — The point is, you say we have to have a boundary line agreement. You don't have a boundary line agreement on all the other ones. On all the other lines. There are probably a dozen lines here. Why don't you need a boundary line agreements on all of those? Chairperson Wilcox — Because there is nobody here presenting information that the boundary line shown may or may not be consistent with the neighboring property. Mr. Hutchins — And the surveyor isn't here to... Chairperson Wilcox — But the surveyor has certified ... we have the surveyor's written certification. He has signed it. Board Member Riha — So we are not using this any more one. We are doing the one from... Mr. Hutchins —Which we understand is wrong, and... Board Member Riha — The surveyor says it's correct. Chairperson Wilcox — The surveyor says it's correct. We are not going to do this Mr. Hutchins — Who gets the pie shaped piece? The gore? Chairperson Wilcox — We haven't seen your survey map, by the way. This board has not seen your map. Mr. Hutchins — It's this line right here. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 40 Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry. The board has not seen your survey map and that's not before us. What's before is this one [holding up map]. Correct. And as I think we mentioned when we were here in October, I have a survey map. Certified. Signed by a licensed surveyor in the State of New York. Licensed land surveyor. What more do I need? Mr. Hutchins — Well, my understanding is when there was a disagreement between survey maps that the surveyors got together and figured it out. Chairperson Wilcox — Maybe the surveyors get together. Maybe the landowners get together and resolve it. But as Chair of this Planning Board, I'm comfortable because it's signed by a licensed surveyor. My issue is dealing with the other neighbors to make sure their rights are protected as well. You guy, hopefully, will figure it out and solve it at some point. That will be a nice thing. Mr. Hutchins — Wishful thinking. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry. I gave you 2 minutes to speak and instead I spoke... Board Member Talty — You are going to have to fix it. Either you or your estate. One or the other. And the only way to do it is get together or do a quit claim deed where you meet somewhere in that gore or... Chairperson Wilcox — Or not meet. If they'd rather have a.gore, which is not owned by anybody than overlap, which is worse -case. Board Member Talty — You have to rectify or the State will have to rectify it. Mr. Hutchins — Well Mr. Dresser has told me that that would not become my land if that were opened up unless we hired them to survey it and then include it in our new survey map. So I understood that that wasn't ours anyway. Chairperson Wilcox — Good luck to you. Thank you, Bernie. I have given Mr. Hutchins a chance to speak. Therefore I have an obligation to give anybody else a chance to speak again as well. Just to be fair here. Okay. Good. Thank you. You are crafting language or have crafted language. Where are we? I opened the public hearing. I closed the public hearing. Okay. Board Member Riha — We passed the SEAR, right? Board Member Hoffmann — But we ... using the map that... Chairperson Wilcox — We need to go back and do SEAR again. Board Member Hoffmann — This to me is a problem. This whole application is based on this new survey. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 41 Chairperson Wilcox — The applicant requested approval of either. Board Member Hoffmann — Oh, is that what he did? Board Member Thayer — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. There was language in one of the ... it might have been Mike Smith's memo or maybe it was Mr. Henry 's language that he wished to have both of them in front of us this evening. All right. So we need to rescind our SEQR and redo it? Ms. Brock — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — All right. So I got to try to craft a motion. I'm not as good at this as other people so let me try this. Let me move that the Planning Board rescind a prior determination that the proposed subdivision has no significant environmental impact because this Planning Board has determined that the previous map used to make that determination, which was dated 9/26/2007 revised 10/26/2007 is now being replaced by a different survey map dated 9/26/2007. So moved. Seconded? Board Member Riha — Second. Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by Susan. All in favor? Board votes — passed. PB RESOLUTION NO 2007 -130: Rescind PB Resolution No. 2007 -129, Henry, Cowan, & Beyenbach Subdivision 1020 1022 & 1024 Hanshaw Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 71 -1- 66.2, 71 -1 -66.1, & 71 -1 -65 Moved by Chairperson Wilcox, Seconded by Board Member Riha. Be it Resolved, the Planning Board rescind a prior determination that the proposed subdivision has no significant environmental impact because this Planning Board has determined that the previous map used to make that determination, which was dated 912612007, revised 1012612007, is now being replaced by a different survey map dated 9/26/2007. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Tally, Riha. NAYS: None. Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 42 Chairperson Wilcox — We will not readdress the environmental review based on the map dated 9/26/2007 without any revision date. I need to pull the short environmental assessment form to see if we need to make any changes to the form. Alternate Member Erb — Under number 3 it does say, "and revised." Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Would someone want to move, Susan ... would someone move the SEQR motion as drafted? - Board Member - Howe I'll -move - -- -- Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Rod. Seconded by Kevin. Okay. We need to modify the SEQR motion as drafted to change whereas clause number 3 to remove, "and revised 10/26/20071" Is that the only change? Board Member Thayer — It looks like it. Chairperson Wilcox — I believe that is the only change. Acceptable gentlemen? Board Member Howe and Board Member Talty — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Alrighty. Susan? Are you okay, Susan? Ms. Brock — I'm okay with that. Does the EAF need any revision? Chairperson Wilcox — I looked at it and did not see any change to the EAF that was necessary. All those in favor signal by saying aye. Board votes — passed. PB RESOLUTION NO, 2007 -131: SEQR Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Henry Cowan & Beyenbach Subdivision, 1020, 1022, & 1024 Hanshaw Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 71 -1 -66.2, 71 -1 -661, & 71 -1 -65 Moved by Board Member Howe, Seconded by Board Member Talty. WHEREAS: 5. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval (re- application) for the proposed 3 -lot subdivision located at 1020, 1022 and 1024 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71 -1 -66.2, 71 -1 -66.1 and 714- 65, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdivision approval to legalize the existing lines for these three lots which were subdivided without the Town of Ithaca approvals. Sheri Johnson Henry, Kevin & Deborah PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 43 Cowan and Klaus & Christa Beyenbach, Owners /Applicants; James R Henry, Agent, and 6. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 71 The Planning Board on December 4, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled — -- "Survey- Map - Showing Lands of Sheri Johnson Henry Located on Hanshaw Road" dated 912612007, prepared by T.G. Miller Associates, P.C., and other application materials, and 8. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the Environmental Assessment Form Part 11 referenced above, in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty, Riha. NAYS: None. Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox - Susan, do I need to reopen the public hearing? Ms. Brock - I think you should just to be safe. Chairperson Wilcox - Alrighty Ms. Brock - It can't hurt. I'm not going to read... formality. Chairperson Wilcox - I know it can't hurt. All right. Should I read it? Let me reopen the public hearing at 8:51 pm. Chairperson Wilcox reads public hearing notice. Would anybody like to address the Planning Board this evening on this particular agenda item? Thank you. We will close the public hearing at 8:52. Alrighty. Boy. Board Member Conneman — You gotta change the back Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. So we've done that. Board Member Howe — I'll move the resolution. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 44 The first line on the back. Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the resolution for subdivision approval as drafted? So moved by Rod Howe. Seconded by Susan Riha. She got her hand up before you did, sir. All right. Now we make changes. Please be listening carefully so that you can hear what we propose. Ms. Brock — The third whereas clause remove the words, "and revised 10/26/2007" referencing the map. Make the same change at the top of the second page. The conditions, paragraph a. Revise it to read as follows, "submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the final subdivision plat in 3 dark lined prints, which plat shall be updated to show bearings and distances, agreed upon by all the applicants, for all of Parcel B's boundary lines, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department." Chairperson Wilcox — Acceptable? All right. Think about it. Please. I want to make sure you understand that language. I just want to make sure you understand okay. Would you read it again? Ms. Brock — So what we're adding is that that plat shall updated to show bearings and distances agreed upon by all of the applicants for all of Parcel B's boundary lines. Mr. Henry ( ?) — All applicants? There is only one lot and it's the corner, the northeast corner is involved. The other applicants don't have much impact on that. So is that necessary? Ms. Brock — I'm sorry. I couldn't hear the first part of what you said. You are questioning why all of the applicants need to agree? Chairperson Wilcox — Why do you all, yeah? Mr. Henry ( ?) — Why are you saying all applicants when only my lot is involved and in particular the northeast corner which does not impact the other applicants at all. Ms. Brock — Well I think that if it is a map that all of them representing as the subdivision ... I guess I'm confused because... Mr. Henry ( ?) — Aren't you already separating A and C from B. So now we are discussing B. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 45 Ms. Brock — Correct. Mr. Henry ( ?) — Right. So I don't think the applicants of A and C... Ms. Brock — But what if you want to put bearings or distances on here that the others don't agree with? Don't you all need to be in agreement as to what the... Chairperson Wilcox — You think we're going to get everybody in agreement? Ms. Brock — Well, hopefully on B we will. Hopefully there hasn't been any dispute. Chairperson Wilcox — Let me ask the question. Mr. Henry ( ?) — There has not been a dispute on B. Chairperson Wilcox — Who has to agree upon the additional information with regard to Parcel B? What are the parties that have to agree? Is it Cowan and Henry and Beyenbach? Are those the parties that have to agree? Ms. Brock — Well they all share boundaries. Chairperson Wilcox — Or is it Mr. or Mrs. Basu to the north or do they have to agree as well? Ms. Brock — No. We said the applicants. The owners of Parcels A, B, and C. They all have common boundaries. Correct? Chairperson Wilcox — Correct. Ms. Brock — Mr. Beyenbach's western boundary is shared in part by the Cowans and in part the Henrys. Mr. Henry ( ?) — So rather than all applicants, right? Then limit it to those specified. Ms. Brock — Oh, the word "applicants" means the owners of Parcels A, B, and C. That is all we are talking about. When I said applicants, I just mean the owners of the three parcels. Mr. Kanter — Why don't we say that? The owners of Parcels A, B, and C. Board Member Talty — I think that's what he looking for. Ms. Brock — If we change the word "applicants" to owners of Parcels A, B, and C would that address your concern? Mr. Henry ( ?) — Yes. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 46 Ms. Brock — I'm sorry. I wasn't understanding what your concern was and that's why it took me a little a while to get there, but we're there now. Okay. Would you like me to read that added language again? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, please. Ms. Brock — Which plat shall be updated to show bearings and distances, agreed upon by all of the owners of Parcels A, B, and C, for all of Parcel B's boundary lines, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office and the rest is as printed. Chairperson Wilcox — Understand? Comfortable? Mr. Henry ( ?) - Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Good. Thank you very much. Ms. Brock — And then I have actually some more changes. Chairperson Wilcox — All right. Go ahead. Ms. Brock — Because last time you had some additional conditions that we added at the meeting and I believe they would still be applicable here. So add a new condition c. "Delivery of a permanent easement from the owner of lot C to the owner of lot A granting the right to maintain the sewer line, subject to approval of the Attorney for the Town, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and d. submission of right -of -way agreements — with the 's' in parenthesis or deed restrictions, subject for the approval of the Attorney for the Town, among the owners of Parcel C and the Hutchinson and Ptak parcels, for the 50 foot right -of -way along the property boundaries of these parcels, to assure adequate access exists from Hanshaw Road to Parcel C." Chairperson Wilcox — Acceptable, gentlemen? I'm sorry. Rod and Susan? Acceptable? I'm sorry. Okay. Very good. Ms. Cowan has left so we can't ask her. She's not here so ... maybe I don't want to hear her answer. All right. Any further discussion? There being none all those in favor please signal by saying aye. Board votes — passes. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 47 ADOTPED RESOLUTION PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -132 Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Henry, Cowan, & Beyenbach Subdivision 10209 10229 & 1024 Hanshaw Road Tax Parcel No.'s 71 -1 -66.2, 71 -1 -66.1, & 71 -1 -65 Planning Board, December 4, 2007 Moved by Board Member Howe, Seconded by Board Member Riha. WHEREAS. 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval (re- application) for the proposed 34ot subdivision located at 1020, 1022 and 1024 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 71 -1 -66.2, 714-66.1 and 71 -1- 65, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdivision approval to legalize the existing lines for these three lots which were subdivided without the Town of Ithaca approvals. Sheri Johnson Henry, Kevin & Deborah Cowan and Klaus & Christa Beyenbach, Owners /Applicants; James R Henry, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on December 4, 2007, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part ll prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board on December 4, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Survey Map — Showing Lands of Sheri Johnson Henry Located on Hanshaw Road; dated 912612007, prepared by T.G. Miller Associates, P.C., and other application materials, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 3 -lot subdivision located at 1020, 1022, and 1024 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 71 -1 -66.2, 71 -1 -66.1, and 71 -1- 65, as shown on the map titled "Survey Map — Showing Lands of Sheri Johnson PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 48 Henry Located on Hanshaw Road" dated 912612007, prepared by T. G. Miller Associates, P.C., subject to the following conditions: a. submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the final subdivision plat and three dark -lined prints, which plat shall be updated to show bearings and distances, agreed upon by all of the owners of Parcels A, B, and C, for all of Parcel B's boundary lines, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's. Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and b, granting of the necessary variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chairman, and C. delivery of a permanent easement from the owner of Lot C to the owner of Lot A granting the right to maintain the sewer line, subject to approval of the Attorney for the Town, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and d, submission of right -of -way agreement(s) or deed restrictions, subject to the approval of the Attorney for the Town, among the owners of Parcel C and the Hutchinson and Ptack parcels, for the 50 foot right -of- -way along the property boundaries of these parcels, to assure adequate access exists from Hanshaw Road to Parcel C. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Tally, Riha. NAYS: None. Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Ms. Brock — Can you please mail me copies of the documents you were trying to fax? I suspect some of them may have been on legal size paper and so my fax machine... Mr. Henry — Do you want them right now? Ms. Brock — Do you have copies of all of them? Sure. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 49 PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding three proposed local laws associated with the enactment of the new Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Law, specifically: a. a recommendation regarding a proposed Local Law deleting Chapter 228 of the Town of Ithaca Code, titled "Storm Water Management," and adding a new chapter 228 titled, "Storm Water Management and Erosion and Sediment Control;" be a recommendation regarding a proposed Local Law amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code, titled "Zoning," to add Storm Water Plan Submission Requirements; ce a recommendation regarding a proposed Local Law amending Chapter 234 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled "Subdivision of Land," to add Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Submission Requirements. The three local laws are intended to implement the NYS mandated Phase 2 Stormwater Regulations for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System's (MS4). Chairperson Wilcox -- At 9 o'clock ladies and gentlemen, the next item is a public hearing. Chairperson Wilcox reads public hearing notice. Susan ... Susan is going to give a presentation... Ms. Ritter - If the board wants it. I'll just explain the ... Kristin Taylor, who is in the Engineering Department, and myself are putting together a public presentation, which will be next Tuesday, the 12th. So we put this together and we are really developing it right now, but I felt like the second half of the presentation that talks specifically about the law was done enough that I could present it to you, if that is maybe the way to start out with this conversation about the law. I don't think it would take real long. Does that sound... Chairperson Wilcox - You guessed 15 to 20 minutes, maybe. Mr. Kanter - Actually I think its Tuesday, the 11 th, is the date. Chairperson Wilcox — And Tuesday the 11th is the date for? Mr. Kanter — A public information meeting... Chairperson Wilcox — Open house if you will. Mr. Kanter — Kind of an open house with an informal presentation. So not a public hearing but an informal opportunity for people to hear what you are going to hear tonight. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 50 Ms. Ritter — So as I said, this is a presentation that we will be giving Tuesday if you want to see the first half. I kind of just want to introduce a couple of things. As I mentioned in my memo, this law came about initially drafted by looking at some laws that were locally drafted as well as some laws nationwide... kind of did a big research on these.:.local laws on stormwater. Then in addition to that, it was sort of more fully developed after staff from Code Enforcement, Planning, Engineering got together this summer. There were probably 7 of us that kind of more developing the law ... kind of talking about what the Town needed. Then following those meetings this summer, this fall the Codes and Ordinances Committee took a look at it and finally very importantly, the Attorney of the Town scrutinized it and given her advise. So that is where its at right now. The law itself needs to be as strict as the DEC model and I think we well surpassed that. It is actually stricter in places and I have given all of you a comparison of the DEC model with the Town of Ithaca law. So with that I am just going to kind of go through this presentation. I have to warn you I haven't actually been practicing this. It was sort of drafted as of today. So essentially we see it as the main goal of this Town proposed law is one, to comply with the NYSDEC requirements. That is probably the major motivator of getting this law done, but also it is to protect the water quality in the Town and the downstream watershed by reducing pollutants from entering the stormwater runoff. Thirdly, controlling and reducing stormwater rates and volumes, essentially flooding. And most importantly, provide the Town with enforcement authority. We do not really have the enforcement authority and I don't know if people realize that. Essentially if we have a real problem with an applicant or with someone who is moving a lot of dirt, if they have a permit with the Town if we are working with them, you know, we could hold up inspections if they are footers or something like that and tell them you get your footers... until you take care of your erosion problem, we're not going to examine your footers. But if they don't have a permit or we don't have any leverage like that, essentially we have to call NYSDEC to sometimes come in and help. And they have a very limited staff for all of central New York. So this is a really important point and it certainly is something DEC wants the Town to start having more force and authority over. So key elements in the law, we have pollution control plans. There are 3 types. I'll talk about those a little later. There's standard and design criteria that you probably saw in the law that includes the NYSDEC technical standards. So for instance with ponds and erosion and sedimentation control measures there are books that they will go to and this law basically says go look at these laws that are already written by NYS. There is a better site design requirement, also something written by NYSDEC. It is kind of something new and I'll talk about that a little bit more. It's a big document that talks about sort of non - structural good things you can do for helping more infiltration of stormwater. There is water quality standards meaning no turbidity should be found in the water if you ever go by a ditch or anything and you know there is a construction site up above if you see turbidity in the water that is something the Town as well as DEC, actually, would be very interested in that. General standards. We included the general PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 51 standards such as not using wetlands or creeks or, you know, particularly wetlands for stormwater treatment. Another key element of the law is maintenance inspection during and after construction; making sure that everything is implemented. Do they have the erosion and sedimentation control measures are in well and that the ... and this is during construction as well as after construction with your ponds and what not. And then of course the Town enforcement and penalties. So as I mentioned there are 3 levels of pollution control plans depending on the amount of disturbance. One is the simple erosion and sedimentation and control plan. The basic stormwater pollution and control plan also called basic SWP. I think you guys have heard the SWP term. Then there is the full pollution and control plan, the full SWP. And I am going to talk about the 3 of these. This is really the main point of this law. So this simple erosion and sedimentation control plan is for your smaller projects. So you can see here silt fencing and a kind of vegetative map. You might use this in a simple erosion and sedimentation control yet you could use it in the larger one, too. But this might be say a housing site. Because the simple erosion and sedimentation control plan applies to very small activity, land disturbance activities, planned development activities that disturb between 10,000 to 43,000 square feet, which is essentially an acre. The exceptions to that —you do not need to do a control plan if your particular project is essentially on level grade, if there are no nearby watercourses and if there is a vegetative perimeter around this site, but it must meet all 3 of these requirements. So just for reference 10,000 square feet is slightly less than a quarter acre. So there is a housing site and you can see what 10,000 square feet would be. So that's erosion and sedimentation control. Simple erosion and sedimentation plan also applies to excavation and filling between 50 cubic yards and 250 cubic yards. If that is the amount of disturbance or you're bringing in truckloads of dirt— between 50 and 250 cubic yards you also need to do a simple erosion and sedimentation control plan. Exceptions are the same. If it's on flat surface; if it's not near watercourses and if you have a vegetative perimeter. 50 cubic yards is about 5 of these truck loads. Mr. Walker – Actually those are 20 -yard trucks so you'll only need 2 of those. Ms. Ritter – Lets just say they are 10 -yard trucks so you'll need 5 of them. It's the best we could find. Mr. Walker – These are also the limits for administratively issued fill or excavation permit. Ms. Ritter – The simple erosion and sedimentation control plan we are still talking about that. This is all for simple again. Also applies to laying, replacing and enlarging of an underground pipe for a distance of 300 feet. You can see that on the left. Disturbance of a vegetative or roadside ditch or swale for 30 feet or more. You see that on the right. Ditches, you know we're concerned about the ditches especially if you are in a sloped area and they are cleaning out the ditches and you get a lot of erosion moving down the PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 52 ditch. So this is a tentative application form that an applicant would come in. So it is simple and it may not be something that the Planning Board would ever deal with to tell you truth. It might be more of an in -house thing when somebody comes in with a building permit or fill permit. So you may not see that too much. You're more like to see your basic and full SWPs, but the idea was we needed something simple. I think that was something that a lot of people recognize. That there are these little projects going on. Maybe they are putting a big pile of dirt right next to a road side ditch. We had no requirements. No nothing that we could do to tell them to do something to control erosion. So this is kind of the idea. We have steep slopes in the Town of Ithaca. We have lots of watercourses. We are trying to keep sediments out of those. So basic stormwater pollution prevention plan, again, here are some little -bit larger projects. The Rockcheck Dam and some vegetative anatomy and again you could find these in any project, but this is showing some bigger projects. So the larger projects requiring more detailed erosion control plans means submission of much more detailed erosion control plans and they require formal inspections meaning the applicant after rainstorms has to have somebody out there and check to make sure that erosion and sedimentation control, fencing, whatever it is is working properly, especially after rainfall events. The basic stormwater pollution prevention erosion control measures. This is where it things like that. This is just erosion control. to 5 acres in size. So there is just kind of are. Excavation of fill of greater than 250 loads. Essentially 25 more trucks that hold plan, again, its only dealing with temporary is not getting into the stormwater ponds and It applies to any land disturbance of 1 acre a rough idea of what 1 acre is and 5 acres cubic yards. So it's a whole lot more truck 10 cubic yards. The final 1 we have is that full stormwater pollution prevention plan. So here we have on the right we have a pond and on the left we have some of those underground treatment facilities that you started to hear a little bit more about. So the full stormwater pollution prevention plan that requires erosion control measures and your permanent facilities. So that is something to keep in mind. So again full SWP. The thresholds for this are it applies to a disturbance between 1 to 5 acres for anything other than a single- family development. So this could apartment. This could be commercial. Anything between 1 and 5 acres that is not single - family. For single - family, the disturbance is greater than 5 acres and its single or a two - family because in our zoning it is essentially its single or a two family. The thinking is with a single - family residential development you have a lot more yards and you have areas where you can get infiltration where with any other than single - family you are likely to be getting into issues with parking and, you know, its anything but single - family. So you are not maybe having as many areas to have natural infiltration take place. This is largely what the NYSDEC requires right now. Mr. Walker — Susan, just make sure they know that that doesn't mean one house on a 5 -acre lot. That means a 10 -lot subdivision that is covering five acres. Single- family homes... PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 53 Ms. Ritter — Right. Mr. Walker — But it's a subdivision that might have 10 houses on it that might cover 5 acres. Ms. Ritter — Okay. Thanks. So also another... something else that would require a full SWP is a smaller land development project but its part of a larger common plan that will exceed those thresholds listed above. The other thing that is required from NYSDEC is, is disturbance greater than 1 acre that is directly discharging pollution of concern into Cayuga Lake. Cayuga Lake is a 3O3D listed lake for phosphorous and sediment. This is really for direct discharge. We have had a lot of different conversations with DEC trying to get a handle on what is it that they are going after and its seems as though what they are looking for is a development that is right on the shore of Cayuga Lake or its next to a creek that goes directly into the lake. Not that it goes into a roadside and then a creek and then the lake. Its sort of a direct discharge. But that comes right from their law and that was something that is definitely required in our law. The one difference with requirements in the full SWP in the Town's law is that it applies to developments that is creating 10,000 square feet of impervious surface. So an example here if you've gone by Olivia Restaurant on Pine Tree Road that would include the building and the parking lot - - -is about 10,000 square feet. So again, I keep repeating this, but the full SWP is erosion control measures plus the stormwater ... permanent stormwater treatment facilities. That includes the ponds, your wetlands, your infiltration ... a lot of things you guys have been seeing through a lot of projects that come through here. So these permanent facilities are requiring a lot of maintenance. People have to keep these up. They require inspections. You know you have to mow them or clean out the sand or whatever it is. So some of this has been coming up a little bit more as this idea of nonstructural or you know other things that might allow infiltration in. So there is this document called Better Site Design. And this is from the DEC and it kind of gives a number of, you know, essentially reducing the amount of impervious surface you're putting your roof runoff or whatever runoff into an area where it will infiltrate naturally so you don't need as big a pond. I don't think this is going to necessarily negate having ponds and wetlands and things ... or manmade wetlands. But what it would is perhaps make ... reduce the amount of size that you have and what we are recommending in the Town law is that we are requiring an applicant who needs to do a full SWP to use 2 of these better site design practices. And they aren't really that hard. One of them is even just tree planting. And I think to some degree the thinking is we just want people to start reading this thing and get an idea of other things that they could do to improve and increase infiltration into the soil. And maybe minimize the amount of asphalt. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, that's clear. Ms. Ritter — I meant to give you all handouts and I can do this. This is a flow chart and I know it looks kind of funny from a distance, but this is the flow chart that you can see start and you kind of go through that if you were the applicant and you had a project and PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 54 go through this flow chart figuring out what do you need. Do you need to do a full SWP, a basic SWP, or not SWP at all? This is something I meant to handout and I can give this to you guys afterwards. But this is part of our educational component. I think that a key to a successful stormwater management program will be education. Chairperson Wilcox — And enforcement. Unfortunately. But I'm sure enforcement will be a part of it. Board Member Talty — So is there precedent for that where towns are asking for more enforcement around NYS and having granted it? Ms. Ritter — DEC is saying you must take on that enforcement authority. I think we welcome it because we haven't had it and we've had some situations where we've had to call DEC in and they've been very good about that, but they can't constantly do this. They have about 2 staff persons for all of Central NY and its difficult for them. Mr. Walker — This will be passed on down to the individual towns as they get the capability to do it ... (not audible) ... mandate to enforce it without ... (not audible)... Alternate Member Erb — Are the good practices up on the website some place? Ms. Ritter — Yeah. Mike is passing out two of the slides. But this better site design...) don't know how easy this is for you to find. But I have this in a pdf format and so I am happy to send any of these documents to you. Alternate Member Erb — Thank you. Is even this available? Ms. Ritter — That is in here essentially. This is considered kind of a white paper. So this is DECs technical document. Their staff is telling us that this document will go in this document some time soon. It is not really right now. It is a document that we have gotten from DEC, but its sort of...l don't even know if I would call it draft. Its just not part of their technical design manual at this time. Mr. Walker — The technical design manual has basically been in some form of process for over 30 years. When I was working for the Soil Conservation Service, the State of Maryland had basically the format that this book follows and now all the different states are adopting it. So its more than tried and true with the bigger ponds and bigger practices ... (not audible)... Chairperson Wilcox — Can I get you closer to your microphone, Dan? Thanks. Ms. Ritter — One of the things that is not in the presentation that is in the law is something called the use and implementation of stormwater credits. Again it is very similar to these nonstructural better site designs and what a person could do, an applicant, I think we would have to get somebody who knows what they are doing in terms of stormwater management. They could actually get credits for a number of PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 55 different practices that are nonstructural. Do some calculations to reduce the size of their stormwater ponds by doing something in particular. It kind of goes hand in hand with a better site design, but it's in the law that allows someone to actually use these credits. So to speak. Board Member Riha — I thought that was interesting. Ms. Ritter — So that's it in a nutshell. I did it in 15 minutes. Alternate Member Erb — I don't know what the term "stream daylighting11 means. Ms. Ritter — Are you reading that in the...? Board Member Howe — It's number 17. Ms. Ritter — I'm just going to go right to the source as opposed to trying to tell you what I think it is. Board Member Talty — We wouldn't have known the difference. Alternate Member Erb — That's true. Ms. Ritter — Day light— previously culverted pipes, streams to restore natural habitat better attenuated runoff and help reduce pollutant load where feasible and practical. Chairperson Wilcox — Meaning ditch instead of culverts? Is that the way I read that? Mr. Walker — If its been piped, open it up. In other words, no more closed ditches in the Town's road system. We've got to have all open ditches now. Chairperson Wilcox — Kevin? I just sensed the blood pressure rising. Board Member Talty — No sidewalks Ms. Ritter — Its not a no sidewalk. I saw that on there. What else? Board Member Talty — We'll just be an all cars... Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions? Comments? Anything else? Ladies and gentlemen, you've been very patient out there in audience. This is a public hearing this evening, though it was scheduled for 7:45 p.m. If you wish to address the Planning Board on this particular agenda item and what's before the Planning Board is simply a recommendation to the Town Board. Again, we invite you to the microphone. Name and address and we will be very interested to hear what you have to say. Anybody? Staff has recommended that we keep the public hearing open. I concur and the reason I concur is there has been no public outreach yet. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 56 Ms. Ritter — It's out there now. We've sent notices out to the media and to people we know who might be interested or its happening now. Chairperson Wilcox — It's gone through a formal process. Codes and Ordinances has come up with this. It's been reviewed by various people. It went to the Town Board who has referred it to the Planning Board for a recommendation, but we haven't had an opportunity for the public come to look at the maps, etc., etc., etc. So in some sense we might be premature in having the public hearing tonight. The reason for doing it I know was because the State has mandated that these all be in place by January 8th and we, the Town, is not going to make that. Ms. Ritter — I don't think so. It would be close, though. It could be very close. That's the idea of kind of moving this along the best we can. Chairperson Wilcox — So it makes sense to hold the public hearing open until our meeting on the 18t ". People may come to these open houses, these public information sessions and may see something and may want to then come back to the Planning Board on the 181H Mr. Walker— The Town Board will also be holding a public hearing. Chairperson Wilcox — In January, right? Ms. Ritter — As soon as they can. Chairperson Wilcox — They can't do it in December. Ms. Ritter — They're not going to do it in December. January at the earliest. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, Eva. Board Member Hoffmann — Could we have for the benefit of the public, too, that the time of day and place of this public information? Ms. Ritter — So it will be next Tuesday, and that is the 11th I've been told. It will be 7 o'clock. It will be here. The draft law is now on the website, but people can also pick up paper copies here if they are interested. Chairperson Wilcox — Susan, can I just unilaterally keep the public hearing open? Ms. Brock — As opposed to asking the Board? Chairperson Wilcox — As opposed to asking the Board or something like that. Do I need a vote? I mean I seem to have everybody's agreement that it is a good thing to keep the public hearing open. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 57 Ms. Brock — You seem to unilaterally close the hearings so ... [laughter] ... so I don't know why you couldn't just determine to keep them open. Mr. Kanter — We do have some alternate wording in a resolution if you wanted to do it that way. Ms. Brock — Oh, that references keeping the meeting open? Ms. Ritter —Yes. Mr. Kanter — So instead of using the recommendation wording, we have alternate wording. Chairperson Wilcox — I saw that at the bottom of the draft, but I figured I would like to just at this point... yeah... Ms. Brock — Because in a way you usually close the hearing before you consider the resolution. Chairperson Wilcox — That's right. So... Ms. Brock — But it doesn't matter. Chairperson Wilcox — So we agree ... the board agrees that we will continue to keep the public hearing open until our next meeting, which is Tuesday, December 18th of this month and then we will invite any public comment at that time before making our recommendation to the Town Board. Ms. Ritter —Great. Chairperson Wilcox — Very good. Okay. Thank you very much. Anything else? I'm sorry I don't mean to cut you off. Good. Okay. Lets move on. We are not doing anything with that. We will ... we have kept the public hearing open and we will defer our recommendation until after we close the public hearing. All right. Next item is: Consideration of Approval 2008 Planning Board Meeting Schedule Chairperson Wilcox — My only comment was for January the first meeting is shown under the second meeting column, but that's just my ... it says first meeting of the month, second meeting of the month. January 15th is not the second meeting of the month; it's the first, but I'm having fun. Don't worry about it. I understand why it's laid out this way. Mr. Kanter — If I could say a few words. This is assuming, of course, January 1St is a holiday so we won't be meeting that date. We do have an option of actually having a PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 58 first and second meeting of the month which would mean changing the dates to January 8th and January 22nd and there may be a reason that we might want to do that, which has to do with the number of items coming in and in particular the Ithaca College Athletic and Event Center environmental impact statement that you have copies of now. And because of the time of the timeframe for considering that as a complete document, January 8th actually falls right near the end of that 45 -day time period and January 15th would be outside of that time period. So one thing we might want to consider is modifying this proposed calendar to go with January 8th, which is the second Tuesday of the month and January 22 "d, which is the fourth Tuesday. Chairperson Wilcox — And it turns out that January has a fifth Tuesday, so actually we would still have two weeks until the 5th. Is that change acceptable ladies and gentlemen? Board concurs. Chairperson Wilcox — So we will modify the resolution as drafted. The first meeting of the month in January will be the 8th and the second meeting of the month in January will be the 22 "d. All the other months, February — December, the schedule meeting dates are the first and third Tuesdays. So moved by the Chair. Do I have a second? Seconded by Larry. Board votes. Motion carried. NO. 2007 -133: To Meetings --- 2008 MOTION made by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Thayer. @j RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board adopt and hereby does adopt the following as its schedule of Regular Meetings for the Year 2008. Unless otherwise notified, all meetings will be held on the first and third Tuesday of each month, commencing at 7:00 p.m. and ending by 10:00 p.m. FIRST MEETING OF THE MONTH January 8, 2008 February 5, 2008 March 4, 2008 April 1, 2008 May 6, 2008 SECOND MEETING OF THE MONTH January 22, 2008 February 19, 2008 March 18, 2008 April 15, 2008 May 20, 2008 PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 59 June 3, 2008 July 1, 2008 August 5, 2008 September 2, 2008 October 7, 2008 November 4, 2008 December 2, 2008 A vote on the motion resulted as follows: June 17, 2008 July 15, 2008 August 19, 2008 September 16, 2008 October 21, 2008 November 18, 2008 December 16, 2008 AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty, Riha. NAYS: None. Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Consideration of Recommendation to the Town Board Regarding Chairperson of the Planning Board for 2008 Chairperson Wilcox — You are living in a cave if you don't know that I have told the Town Board that I do not wish to be considered to be the Planning Board Chair in 2008. Even though I also think you are all aware that I also stated that I had 2 years left on my 7 -year sentence and looking forward to serving my remaining 2 years. Board Member Conneman — Before we go there, I would like you ... since we've never had another chair, I would like you to tell us what the responsibilities of the Chair of the Planning Board are. Chairperson Wilcox — That's fine. Board Member Conneman — I don't think everybody understands a lot things that you do beside run this meeting. Chairperson Wilcox — So let's talk about the meeting because that's the obvious thing. think my responsibilities are to be fair to every party concerned. That's the Planning Board members; that's the applicant; that's the public; that's Town staff; that's the Town attorney. I try to be fair to everybody and give everybody a chance to express their opinions, which is at odds sometimes with trying to be efficient and running a reasonable meeting. Clearly they're at odds and I saw the faces tonight when I allowed Mr. Hutchins to come back and speak one more time. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 60 Alternate Member Erb — That was fair. Limiting is not unfair. Chairperson Wilcox — Some people may not agree with you, Hollis, but thank you very much. What goes on behind the scenes? I work with Mike every 2 weeks to set the agenda. He does all the work; emails it to me. I review it. I may adjust the starting times for the public hearings based upon... [laughter] - Chairperson- Wilcox - ...based upon_ my feel, but here's what's interesting. Suppose I think that that was going to take an hour and what if it took half an hour. Then we sit here and twiddle our thumbs for a half an hour because the next public hearing has to start at its scheduled time. Alternate Member Erb — What you are saying is the public hearing can't start before. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. It can't start before. So if I think it will take 15 minutes or 30 minutes, I say 15 because we don't want to sit here for 15 minutes and twiddle our thumbs. Its an art and its tough. But Mike does most of the work. Well, I should say staff does most the work, but Mike is the one I work with on the agenda. As chair of this Planning Board, I have been a member of Codes and Ordinances. I don't know whether that will change next year or not. That group meets on the third Wednesday of every month. Eva is also on Codes and Ordinances either because you are a member of the Planning Board or you're a member of the Conservation Board. Board Member Hoffmann — I think it is also continued from a very long time ago. Chairperson Wilcox — Subdivision plats must be signed by the Chair. Now sometimes I come down to the meeting and I have information from Planning staff that there are a bunch of plats sitting out there in the back office waiting for me to be signed. Sometimes I get a frantic phone call at 1 o'clock in the afternoon because they want to close ... the lawyers want to close that afternoon and expect me to come running down here and sign the plats so they can file them and they can close the real estate transaction. That happens as well. I try to give good public service. Let me finish if I may. Other than that, I have occasional conversation with Jonathan either about upcoming projects ... he keeps me in the loop by cc -ing me on some email messages that he believes I think...he believes I'm interested in or important for me to know. We all got an email with regard to Cayuga Cliffs. I had been in on that from before. I had seen the original complaint by the resident living on Trumansburg Road. At Jon's discretion, he cc'd me on some of the correspondence that goes on. Other duties? Other duties are optional. I go to, as I think we all do, as many presentations that we feel we can go to that are reasonable that we have something to learn, ,where we have something to learn. I've gone to neighborhood meetings whether it's Bryant Park or Belle Sherman. I've got one coming up in January. I think the Chair represents the Town more than the other board members do. You become the face of the board, not PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 61 that you have to be. You don't have to do interviews for radio or tv or newspapers. That is up to each individual member whether they want to do it themselves. Clearly the press has an expectation that the chair would do that, but you don't have to. It's up to the chair. Anything else I do? And I pick on staff. That's the other thing. Mr. Walker— Buy all the staff at Town Hall lunch every third Friday. [laughter] Chairperson Wilcox — Did that answer your questions for you? Board Member Conneman — That answered my question. Chairperson Wilcox — Hollis, you had your hand up? Alternate Member Erb — My question was, when you sign all these various documents, are you at that point simply trusting staff to have presented you with an acceptable document or do you have to do any form of review? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes ... when I first started signing subdivision plats, which the chair must sign before they are filed with the County, I very often was presented with the ... with a copy of the resolution as finalized so that I could compare the subdivision plat with the resolution in case there were any conditions. Note this on the plat that sort of thing. Having working with this staff for 11 years now, I don't do that anymore. They know their job. They're professionals. They say this is ready to sign, I sign it. Alternate Member Erb — Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely. And you get paid an extra $2 a meeting, I think, to be chair. Whatever it is. That'll draw you right in. It'll buy you a hotdog at a Cornell basketball game. Board Member Conneman — I have another question about this. Chairperson Wilcox — Sure. Board Member Conneman — If I were the chair, if I were elected chair, there are two things I would do right away. I would go see Herb Engman and discuss this Planning Committee that he's talked a lot about. I've heard a lot about it. Other people have told me things about it and so forth. It seems to me it is not necessary, but if he has ... does that, it seems to me that we need to know what that committee is going to do, precisely what their responsibilities are. And I would also go to the Town Attorney and say to the Town Attorney, look it's your job to be sure that that committee doesn't take away power from this board that is legally given to us by the laws of the State of New York and I would expect her to watch that so that doesn't happen. I agree 100 percent with Herb on one thing and that's that I think they ought to know, maybe there ought to be some PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 62 agreement that Jonathan or Susan or someone from Planning staff tips them off to what maybe coming up, which I think is fine. But that's different than... Mr. Kanter — We do that already and I'll put that on the record. Board Member Conneman — Well, I assumed that you did, but I think that is one of the things that has to be done because it would appear from what he said publicly that you have no communication with him. I heard the radio this morning and I don't think that's correct, but any way it just seems to me that those are 2 things that whoever becomes chair has to be willing to do and I feel strongly about that because this is not a passing of the chair by somebody saying my term is up and I'm outta here and going fishing. It isn't even saying well I'm tired of doing this. It's a letter that was, by some people's interpretation, provocative. Okay? Board Member Thayer — Who wants to be chair? Board Member Hoffmann — I want to start since Fred has said a number of times that its usually the Vice -chair that becomes the chair and as I told Fred a while ago and some others of you, too, I really am not interested in being the chair any more and I don't have the energy any more. If I had been asked 5 years ago I might have thought about it differently, but today that is how I feel. Board Member Thayer — Well, that's why I asked. Board Member Hoffmann — I would consider staying Vice -chair because that happens so rarely that you have to do that. Chairperson Wilcox — If you're Vice - chair, you can't sit next to me. Board Member Hoffmann — No. [laughter] Board Member Riha — Where will you sit? Chairperson Wilcox — I'll sit wherever I want. I think I've heard that. Board Member Hoffmann — I just want to get that said so everybody understands where I stand. And I still don't feel it is necessarily true that just because you have been Vice - chair that you are sort of next in line for chairperson. It doesn't have to be that way. Board Member Conneman — I would be willing to be chair based on the experience I had on the Bolton Point Water Commission where I was the chair for 10 years and on the board for 16 years. I think I have also ... I know mentioned to many of you lots of times that sometimes I think we ought to tell our clients to go to Community Dispute Resolution because there is that provision here and I think that is a very important thing. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 63 I did that for 4 years and it seems to me that's a very important thing to do and if I were elected chair I would do the first 2 things I said, however, if you want to chose ... the other question you raise, who should be the chair? I say Susan or Rod. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. I just want to make sure we're clear that this board can only make a non - binding recommendation to the Town Board. Just as they have the discretion to choose anybody they want to serve on this board, they have the discretion to choose who they want as the chair. [many speaking at once] Board Member Thayer — I've only got one more year so I'm not eligible. Chairperson Wilcox — You're eligible you just don't... Board Member Thayer — I know. Chairperson Wilcox — We don't have to go in any order. Board Member Hoffmann — Since you mentioned who you might suggest as chairperson, you mentioned Rod and Susan. I think Rod would be a very good choice, but I believe Susan hasn't been on our board long enough yet to be able to do it. There are still lots of things you have to learn. Board Member Riha — I agree. I'm still on the steep part of the learning curve. Board Member Howe — I'm willing to be considered for chair. I agree, George, that whoever the chair is, I think there needs to be a discussion with Herb. I did start doing some homework just to investigate whether I might be interested. So I had informal conversation with Herb just to try to get more information and at the meeting last night I think it became clear, they are still sorting through and Jonathan, I don't know if you agree, what that Planning Committee would really be about. Mr. Kanter —Yeah, I agree. Mr. Walker — I think its pretty clear we're unclear. Chairperson Wilcox — That was clear. Board Member Talty — I don't have an interest at this time of being chair due to my work commitments although I appreciate ... [tape flipped] ... yeah, due to work commitments. I don't know where we got cut off there, but I make it to the meeting. I appreciate it. Although ... and I have not been accepted also for another 7 year term yet. So I think it is in advance that if I were to be interested in the Chair, which I'm not, I have to be re- upped yet. So that would be a condition based upon. So I'm not going to put the cart before the horse on something like that. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 64 Chairperson Wilcox — For the record, Kevin has sent a letter to the Town Board asking that he be reappointed to a 7 -year term and Hollis has sent a letter to the Town Board asking to be reappointed to her 1 -year term as alternate. Board Member Talty — So with that in mind hopefully I will have another 7 year term as of January '08 and I will be very satisfied with that position. Chairperson Wilcox — So who would you like to be the Chair? Board- Member - Talty -- I would go with Rod or George. Actually I sat behind Rod at the last meeting and I was teasing him about that very same thing. So... Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? Nobody has to speak, but just so we all know. Board Member Riha — No ... well, I wanted to speak because I really support Rod as Chair. We talked about it earlier in the week and I was fully happy when you say you would consider doing that. I think you would make a good chair. I'd like to see that happen. Chairperson Wilcox — His temperament is certainly different than mine, isn't it? Board Member Howe — Well, yeah. Whoever the new is [laughing - -- many talking at once] Chairperson Wilcox — And my job is to sit down there next to Hollis and citizen... Alternate Member Erb — And try to control us. [laughing] Mr. Walker — Rod, we can get you his recipe for coffee. [laughing] Chairperson Wilcox — And you can change policy. You can change procedure. You can make sure we follow Robert's Rules of Order. You can use a gavel if you want. About the only things that I do that I really have to do is I point out the fire exits, which I think I am mandated to do, which is a good thing. I'm not even sure the ZBA does it. Ms. Brock — They don't do. The Town Board doesn't do it. Mr. Kanter — It's a good idea to do it. Chairperson Wilcox — In fact someone said, "in was good idea to point out the fire exits ?" Yeah. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 65 your training session did they say that it Board Member Talty — I should have stated that training session, I don't think there is one thing that we don't do. Board Member Thayer — That's correct. Board Member Talty — They went through whole litany of everything you are supposed to do and I think we do everything except maybe video tape. Chairperson Wilcox — I learned on the job, by the way. I was on the Board for 2 years and was asked to chair. Board Member Howe — I will say that half way through tonight's 3 lot subdivision I said, "no way." Chairperson Wilcox — Remember what Mel Brooks said? It's good to be the king. Board Member Hoffmann — I would also add that I would also support George of the 2 people who had expressed an interest. I would be equally happy to have both of you as chairpeople. Board Member Talty — Is the a comi ... it's a 1 year up, right? Chairperson Wilcox — The Town Board appoints the chair annually. Again, at their discretion. Okay. Let me clear something up because I might have created some ill -will in my letter. I'm going to look at Susan, specifically. I mentioned a vote of the interviewing committee and then a vote of the Town Board. When I was turned down to be a member of the Planning Board...for those of you who don't know, I was turned down initially. In fact I was turned down twice. But the second time I was turned down to be on the Planning Board is because they took a member who lived in Forest Home. They have the right ... the Town Board has the right to appoint whoever they want and concur with that and they must do that. So my objection noted in my letter, which I sent to each of you is not that they did what they did. They have the right and the obligation is that they wasted my time in a political process thinking that we needed an interviewing committee to go through this yada yada yah to pick the best person and instead there was an agenda. This is not personal. I'm so glad you are here. Board Member Riha — Yeah ... no. My only statement I made that is to other people ... it was George who asked me to put my name in for the Planning Board. Board Member Conneman - ...both Hollis and Susan to do it because I didn't... Board Member Riha — The person, I think, you know, you think asked me to do it actually they did leave a phone message when I was in Australia, which my 21- year -old PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 66 son here at Ithaca College vaguely relayed it to me. It wasn't much of a ... so the fact that I applied really had to do with George. Board Member Conneman - I did not call you in Australia. Board Member Riha - Yeah, you didn't do that because we talked before I left. Chairperson Wilcox - All right. Would someone like to move a motion? I'll move a motion since I haven't expressed an opinion. So let me express an opinion. I move that this ... oh, we actually have something drafted, but I'll fill in the blanks. I move that the - Planning -Board - recommend Rod Howe -be- chairperson- next -- year.- -So moved by the Chair. Seconded by Susan. All right. Discussion? Any other discussion? There being none all those in favor please signal by saying aye? Is anybody opposed? Are there any abstentions? Do I have to? All right, under the rules dictated to us by the Town Board, Rod has abstained and under the rules I must therefore bring in the alternate to vote because any abstention must call for the alternate. Alternate Member Erb - I will state publicly that the 2 people I had in mind were George and Rod and I am in the interest of unanimity of the Board on this interest. I will tell George that I was very interested in his willingness to serve, but will go along with Rod quite happily. Board Member Thayer - Exactly. Alternate Member Erb - If I can say that the right way, George. Chairperson Wilcox - Is that a yes? Board Member Conneman - Fine. Alternate Member Erb - That's a yes, but I didn't speak before. Board Member Talty - That's right. Chairperson Wilcox - The motion is passed unanimously. Thank you all very much. Yeah the only thing you have to do is make sure you follow the rules like if somebody abstains you have to go to the alternate this board, when we recommended the not something that this board wanted language for the ZBA. PERSONS TO BE HEARD I hate that rule. That is not a rule we wanted, ...the Town Law that allowed alternates that is but it was done so it was consistent with the Chairperson Wilcox - Persons to be heard. Gentlemen, anybody wish to speak this evening? I have one nod of the head no or two. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 67 Approval of Minutes Chairperson Wilcox — Approval of minutes. We have none. Other Business Chairperson Wilcox — Other business. Let me go through mine rather quickly. Board Member Talty —Congratulations, Rod. Prematurely. Chairperson — Again, the Town Board will do what they think is best. I want to make sure everybody is aware of the Town End of Year Luncheon on the 31St essentially I think drinks at Noon and Luncheon starting at 1. 1 go every year. I love going. It's a way to celebrate the end of the year and meet the employees that maybe you don't interact with so if you haven't done that already, if you have the opportunity, if you can spare the time at a busy time of the season please consider it. Board Member Thayer — Its always a fun time, but it's a bad day. Chairperson Wilcox — It's a bad day, the 31s' and its at La Tourelle this year. And what is it? $21 or $22 bucks a person. That's the only thing on my list. I'm going to ask Mr. Kanter to talk about next meeting's agenda and a couple other things that have to do with the items that were on the table when we arrived. Mr. Kanter — December 18th ... weIre getting into the heavy stuff. 'Chairperson Wilcox — Now wait a minute, my last meeting is going to be smooth and easy. Board Member Talty — Just like tonight. Chairperson Wilcox — I set the agenda. Mr. Kanter — I was going to say that we don't have any simple 2 -lot subdivisions, but that would be lying because we have the Rite Aid subdivision coming back. [oohs and ahhs] Mr. Kanter — Then if you like that, we will have the first meeting regarding the Ithaca College DEIS to have them present it basically and discuss it. Alternate Member Erb — So that's the big white binder, Jon? Chairperson Wilcox — Yup. Mr. Kanter Subdivision their project They have DEIS would assessment . Then we on ... this is is likely to >ubmitted a be the wa form. We'll get that project going. PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 68 also ... it looks like we will have the Holochuck Cayuga Cliffs interesting. Don't grimace. They have basically agreed that have a number of significant, potentially significant impacts. letter saying that and that they acknowledge that preparing a y to go. So it will be basically reviewing the environmental do a Part II. We'll have a resolution for a Pos Dec and that will Ms. Brock — Do we have a proposed action in front of us? We need one. Mr. Kanter — We do. We absolutely do. Ms. Brock — They've submitted a preliminary subdivision? Mr. Kanter — A while ago. Ms. Brock — Okay. Good. This board has not seen that yet, right? They've only seen the sketch plan, I think. Right? Mr. Kanter — But we have a formal application. Ms. Brock — Okay. Good. Because you need an action on which to... Chairperson Wilcox — We saw a sketch plan presented by an attorney. Mr. Kanter — There is a set of materials now and we met going ... I mean we told them there was a whole list exaggeration, that indicated that if they were pursuini, considered complete, but thereby using that approach doing all that additional work through an environmental most logical way to go. with the applicant. Rather than of about 20 million items, an g a neg dec, it would not be they agreed very readily that impact statement would be the Board Member Riha — Is that the one up next to the Museum of the Earth? Mr. Kanter — Yes. Board Member Thayer — Behind it. Chairperson Wilcox — Chances are this will be controversial. Mr. Kanter — That right there is a good reason to do a DEIS. Chairperson Wilcox — Yup. Mr. Kanter — So we have the Stormwater Local Law's public hearing to be continued and it looks like we have that equestrian center. The Wedemeyer equestrian center that PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 69 you saw quite a while ago coming back for final site plan approval. So it's a heavy agenda. Chairperson Wilcox — It is. It is. I'll pare it down. Wait a minute. Who controls the agenda? The Chair. Mr. Kanter — Actually, that's not quite true. The law controls because when we get a complete application and its processed by the staff if the Chair does not agree that it goes on the agenda then the Town gets in big trouble. Chairperson Wilcox — Have a sense of humor. Alternate Member Erb — When is the Town Board meeting that is going to make these decisions? Chairperson Wilcox — The 2008 reorganization meeting. Alternate Member Erb — He's pretending it's his last meeting in December but I thought that the Town Board was likely not to meet and declare a new Chairperson... Ms. Brock — January 7th is their first meeting, right? Mr. Kanter — That should be their organizational meeting. Chairperson Wilcox — And we meet the 8th right now. Now you may remember at the beginning of this year they had not appointed a Chair when we started so they hadn't had their organization meeting yet so I filled in for the one meeting until they formally reappointed. Board Member Conneman — Do you want a motion that we do that again? Chairperson Wilcox — No. its up to them. Its up to the Town Board. If they do it by the 7 t then you'll come in and pledge your oath as chair and to do the right thing and we'll move on. Jon, I'm sorry. Mr. Kanter — So real quick, that's the agenda. On the table we had ... there's a memo on this waiver of Zoning Board application fees for these lots on Fairway Drive. I don't really want to get into it in any detail, basically what it is was a 1985 subdivision approval granted by the Planning Board and these lots were approved with insufficient lots widths through a procedure that Susan and I reviewing the minutes and all the history of this thing determined was not a correct procedure. So these items are going to the Zoning Board for the actual variances that they should have received back then. This came to light with a building permit application for one of the lots and our Code Enforcement Officer was very sharp in catching the fact that this happened and so caused us to do the research and so the Town is basically acting as the agent of these 4 owners to bring this to the Zoning Board. So... PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 70 Mr. Walker — And the Planning Board gets to choose which house gets torn down so.... [laughter] Alternate Member Erb — It's clustered housing, right? Chairperson Wilcox — That's right. Mr. Walker — That's what they thought. Chairperson Wilcox — The FYI is appreciated. Mr. Kanter — And then the final thing is we wanted to let you know because this is something really exciting that the Black Diamond Plan master plan is finally complete. It is also in the form of an environmental impact statement. There are 2 public hearings coming up this week. The one tomorrow is right here in Ithaca at the County Library. It starts with a workshop where the project will be explained in a good bit of detail at 5:30 pm and then that's followed by a public hearing at 7:00 pm. So I think a few of us from the Planning Department plan to attend it and we just wanted to make sure you were aware of it because its ... again I don't know that we would really have any substantive comments on it, but it has been so long in the making that this is something that, I think, at least us staff are really going to come out and try to support and try to help move it along. Board Member Talty — Is it in the comprehensive ... is that both City and Town? Chairperson Wilcox — And the Town of Ulysses. Mr. Kanter — And Ulysses is connecting ... Taughannock State Park up in the Ulysses coming down through Treman State Marina in the City and coming down through Buttermilk Falls State Park and winding up at Robert Treman State Park. Board Member Thayer — Finally using our bridge. Chairperson Wilcox — The bridge to nowhere. Mr. Kanter — The Bridge to Nowhere will now connect with the Black Diamond Trail. Actually, anyone who wants to take a look at this, it has got all the exact alignments and options in it that Bridge to Nowhere /Gateway Bridge, which will connect our Gateway Trail now very close to where the Black Diamond Trail will actually go just past the Gateway Bridge, just north of it. Just above Home Depot, Chairperson Wilcox — This Board over the last ... well, its been a couple of years now, but we have approved subdivisions which has allowed State Parks to add land or obtain land that they needed. We should point out that one of them, the Cortright Electric PB 12 -4 -2007 Pg. 71 subdivision we probably did 7 or 8 years ago maybe ... 5 years ago? And as far as I know that one has never been finalized because the estate is hung up in probate or bankruptcy or something and ... but there is certainly one piece of land that is necessary behind Cortright Electric as you go out 13/34/96 and still the State has not been able to acquire. Mr. Kanter — This is still going to be like a approval process and it still doesn't have all you know, the funding process. phased project once it gets through all the the funding it needs so it has to go through, __Board - :Member. Hoffmann--.. Is there just one property owner who is still holding out ... (not audible)... Mr. Kanter — Well, there's this gap at the Holochuck property, which as part of the subdivision would end up going to the State Parks. Chairperson Wilcox — At the bottom of the hill. Mr. Kanter — I think those are the 2 main gaps that I'm aware of. This is going to be a very long -term project that will be phased. There are actually some bridges that will be needed to cross the Inlet in a couple of places and I think there are some other spots maybe up in Ulysses that need some gaps being closed. But at least its moving ahead. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, Jon. regular suit? [laughter] Anything else? Shall I wear a clown suit or a Chairperson Wilcox - I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. We are adjourned at 9:58 p.m. wank you all very much. TRAME Paulette Neilsen Deputy Town Clerk TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, December 4, 2007 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. Presentation and discussion regarding the eight year review of the County Agricultural District #2. Debbie Teeter, Presenter. 7:25 P.M. SEQR Determination: Henry 3 -Lot Subdivision, 1020 Hanshaw Road. 7 :25 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 3- lot subdivision located at 1020, 1022 and 1024 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 714- 66.2, 71 -1 -66.1 and 71 -1 -65, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdivision approval to legalize the existing lines for these three lots which were subdivided without Town of Ithaca approvals. Sheri Johnson Henry, Kevin & Deborah Cowan and Klaus & Christa Beyenbach, Owners /Applicants; James R Henry, Agent. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding three proposed local laws associated with the enactment of the new Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Law, specifically: a. a recommendation regarding a proposed Local Law Code, titled "Storm Water Management," and adding a new Management and Erosion and Sediment Control;" b. a recommendation regarding a proposed Local Law Code, titled "Zoning," to add Storm Water Plan Submission C. a recommendation regarding a proposed Local Law Code, Titled "Subdivision of Land," to add Storm Water Po Requirements. deleting Chapter 228 of the Town of Ithaca chapter 228 titled, "Storm Water amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Requirements; amending Chapter 234 of the Town of Ithaca Ilution Prevention Plan Submission The three local laws are intended to implement the NYS mandated Phase 2 Stormwater Regulations for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System's (MS4). 6. Consideration of Approval of 2008 Planning Board Meeting Schedule. 7. Consideration of Recommendation to the Town Board Regarding Chairperson of the Planning Board for 2008. 8. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 9. Approval of Minutes: (none available) 10. Other Business: 11, 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, December 4, 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, December 4, 2007, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:25 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 3 -lot subdivision located at 1020, 1022 and 1024 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 71 -1 -66.2, 71 -1 -66.1 and 71 -1 -65, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdivision approval to legalize the existing lines for these three lots which were subdivided without Town of Ithaca approvals. Sheri Johnson Henry, Kevin & Deborah Cowan and Klaus & Christa Beyenbach, Owners /Applicants; James R Henry, Agent. 7:45 P.M. Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding three proposed local laws associated with the enactment of the new Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Law, specifically: a, a recommendation regarding a proposed Local Law deleting Chapter 228 of the Town of Ithaca Code, titled "Storm Water Management," and adding a new chapter 228 titled, "Storm Water Management and Erosion and Sediment Control;" b, a recommendation regarding a proposed Local Law amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code, titled "Zoning," to add Storm Water Plan Submission Requirements; C, a recommendation regarding a proposed Local Law amending Chapter 234 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled "Subdivision of Land," to add Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Submission Requirements. The three local laws are intended to implement the NYS mandated Phase 2 Stormwater Regulations for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System's (MS4). 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, November 26, 2007 Publish: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 & kWsday o nribei i 2007 1 THE ITHACA JOURNAL \ W ,ACA � ■�m�Gao�R2 NOTICE CIV a d } 0scmARm¢» °q m� » :11�ecRrdtt06< Vn # s t K2 2 ¥ 6( ; ` ,9 zee b : �4 :mom 4� ' W ¥, % %� . 2 #. . &�a:\ k�:% n:, \ 2 Pte.ƒ k: !±7&aan'w �� rG:/ / iubdiv@ 71 ydAe) 60v #d 2e T.__G, + +idI f �E o CA & ƒ �� w4 a+> k �d.ek.E - :c tiol, 2 ¥: c d2d« w a er-Management,, ffrimen propo Loc al s'upp&t; "of s6ch, ®f4edio: ere : � % r « irr�1 � � : c i e4 6 # &,e: special % mw s ' � /} q rsupest: 'soar w - . : b: $' n emn m rW CP j,' r �, n ©- .« : .:1 7\ Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street December 4, 2007 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN -IN Please Print Clearly, Thank You Name Address !t- bi�' C� (U1& i c� z2� 130 7 3 ) qa I %+O iA , Vkb.) TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday, December 4, 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: November 26, 2007 November 28, 2007 5000..� QPQ,c� Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 28`h day of November 2007. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20