Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2008-05-06FILE DATE 5-22-clEx PLANNING BOARD TOWN OF ITHACA 215 NORTH TIOGA ST. ITHACA, NY 14850 TUESDAY, MAY 612008 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: Rod Howe, Chair; Members: Eva Hoffmann, George Conneman, Larry Thayer, Fred Wilcox, Susan Riha, and Hollis Erb Alternate; Kevin Talty STAFF: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Creig Hebdon, Assistant Town Engineer; Darby Kiley, Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk. OTHERS: Nick Schipanski, Tompkins County Water Resources Council Hal Martin & Don Rakow, Cornell Plantations Melinda Staniszewska, Coddington Road Call to Order Chairperson Howe opened the meeting at 7:06 The public hearing notices have been duly published and posted. One of the public hearings will be postponed, cancelled. We will not be discussing the proposed trailer replacement at the turf -grass facility at Cornell. Cornell has pulled that, and I think eventually it will come back before us. Persons to be Heard Person #1 It can be an item not on the agenda? Chairperson Howe — Yes, if you are here to talk about something that we are not... Person #1 — I am Melinda Staniszewska, 220 Coddington Road. I've been working at possible cooperation between county, town and the college, I've suggested, could cooperate. It was mentioned that Cornell University contributed to the walkway on Mitchell Street, up to East Hill Plaza, and I explained to Brian McCree this afternoon that, it's possible that, since they own eight of the properties along the way ... they own 60% of the properties in my block between Hudson and the east entrance ... so it would be good for them to contribute as well because the path behind my house isn't going to accommodate everybody. Students who live on Coddington, on Kendall and Pennsylvania, they still cross Coddington Road, they still walk Coddington Road down to Hudson .... So, the path that the College is presenting may be of minor safety for people at some point, but the real problem is still the students who will always be traveling along Coddington and living along Coddington. And this one block is so unsafe that I hope that, as Ms. Hoffmann said, there could be cooperation. Mr. McCree...does anybody know his name ?...he said, you know, if something could be PB 5 -6 -08 Pg 2 done soon, before they commit to their project, that he would consider my suggestions here. And, truthfully, he also admitted that the reason that they wanted this path behind our homes was to connect it so that students could go to the Athletic & Events Center, but that isn't even constructed yet. So I had a proposition that we focus on the sidewalk issue, which is going to benefit everybody, students as well, and postpone the path behind our homes until the Events Center is underway and students will actually be using this path to go there. Presentation Regarding Wetlands Protection in Tompkins County — Nick Schipanski representing Tompkins County Water Resources Council, Mr. Schipanski had a PowerPoint presentation and accompanying handout entitled "Wetland Protections in Tompkins County: Existing Status, Gaps, and Future Needs. (Attachments 1 & 2 ) Board Question and Answers Board Member Wilcox — I have two. You said the court determined that the wetlands were not worth protecting, in the two decisions.. that they weren't scientist... and I am wondering if what the court determined is that federal law didn't grant the right to... Mr. Schipanski — That's exactly right, yeah ... and, these court cases are based on law, they are not based on science. Board Member Wilcox — The other thing ... do you have any ... you Ire a consultant here ... do you have experience with wetland replacement? Mr. Schipanski — Yeah, I've done some. Board Member Wilcox — What makes them work? What makes them not work? Mr. Schipanski —Well, it's ... well, if we knew that, then we wouldn't fail. Uhmmm...some programs don't work because there's just not a lot of maintenance of them. You put in a lot of plants and some die and there's a lot of invasives that come in that affect the wetland. The biggest thing is, when we're doing wetland creation and mitigation, is, functions aren't really looked at. What they do look at is type of vegetation cover and survival, whether or not there's water in there. But a lot of these processes are soil processes. They're bio -geo- chemical, they're depending on the soil developing, and those, during mitigations are very rarely even looked at because it's expensive to do so. But, I guess to more closely answer your question; why do they fail? They fail either because they weren't put in correctly, just the specifications, they didn't meet their permit requirements, somebody was trying to save money or they got lazy or whatever...and the second biggest failure is hydrology. A lot of times these wetlands are created not in old wetlands that were degraded ... a lot of these wetlands are created in upland, and there's a reason it's upland, and that's probably your number one failure right there. Board Member Conneman — How long does it take to mitigate something like this? I mean, if you sort of mess up.... Mr. Schipanski — Do you mean mitigation failure or just mitigate? Board Member Conneman - Just mitigate. I mean.... Board Member Erb — Do you mean remediate? P8 5 -6 -08 Pg 3 Board Member Conneman — Well, one of our, I think one of our discussions with Ithaca College was that they had...l don't want to say it the wrong way, but that there had been some disturbance of the wetland. The question is, are they going to try to upgrade that or whatever you want to call it, how long will that take? Mr. Schipanski W- Depends on what functions you're talking about. So, for vegetation, you can actually replace vegetation and have it look pretty normal within 5 -10 -15 years. Hydrology, you can, if you do it right, it can be like it within a couple of years. But, there are a lot of functions, a lot of recent studies for a lot of functions that require on soil processes. Things like nitrogen removal, that's a big one. Those processes actually, those soils will not look like the wetlands you destroyed for 50, 100 years. Some of these curves, they go out for a long time, before they start looking like a naturally occurring wetland. So any process that's associated with those soils, and all that carbon that's in that soil, and the fact that those soils actually suck up a lot of water because of all the organic content in them, those kind of functions you're not going to get back for a long time. Board Member Riha — A couple questions... in the case, in the IC case, the wetlands they were going to disturb were these ephemeral woodland wetlands and I got the sense that they're going to replace those with probably phragmites upland wetlands... that gets at your point of function... that you're not replacing one wetland with a similar type of wetland. Mr. Schipanski — Yeah, that is a real problem because a lot of times wetlands that are created are deeper water than the ones that existed. Sometimes I have found that.. because people like duck ponds and things like that and they are pretty to look at and so there is kind of an incentive to create those but they do not create the same functions that those emergent wetlands that are being destroyed. Board Member Riha — So another question then is; what's your take on this kind of replacing wetlands versus doing...asking for some kind of conservation easements on existing or vulnerable wetlands, or, mitigating, working on wetlands that may have been destroyed but could be remediated? Mr. Schipanski — Right. I think that the science really states that creating wetlands in uplands is really not the way to go. That you're much more successful if you try to restore a degraded wetland. The problem with that is you are losing functions because even though degraded wetlands are often providing some kind of function, maybe not at as high a level as they could have been, but they are providing some function. So you're not completely replacing your function in that way, but, the failure rate for these upland wetlands is pretty high. You're much better going to degraded wetlands and trying to restore them. 1. PB 5 -6 -08 Pg 4 Board Member Riha — Another question would be, is there any kind of ranking for the importance of various wetlands in Tompkins County from a functional point of view? Mr. Schipanski — We don't have that, and that's probably, that's something that the WRC, you know, if the time and resources are available, we would like to do that, prioritize wetlands for conservation... Board Member Riha — And one last question, about this ruling, so, if you, there's a lot of feeling now that whenever you put in roads and drainage ditches in upland areas, you're going to really impact the hydrology, form new streams, or that, those ditches will take over as the new stream network. So, but they are not then regulated as streams? Those ditches are essentially then streams. Mr. Schipanski — Yeah and our landscapes are completely plumbed, right, but, my understanding of the law is that if that ditch, even if it is an upland, if it has continuous flow or it flows seasonally, continuously, it could still be regulated by the court. But if it is ephemeral, well, I doubt if it will be. Board Member Riha — Okay. Board Member Erb — Nick, is there some mechanism for an automatic capturing of wetland knowledge? Or knowledge of wetlands? Like, we got a wetlands map with the IC project, so does that automatically get captured by the Water Resources Council or somebody as a, to add to your knowledge base? To a database? Mr. Schipanski — We actually don't but that's a really good idea. We don't do that really, and technically, every Corps permit now, since 2005, is supposed to be actually posted online, so that you can actually find out. They are trying to make them more transparent, however, you look at the documentation and it's hardly clear....you can't really tell why they made a particular determination on a certain wetland. So I don't know how useful that will be, but, at least nationally they are trying to do that, and locally, that's a good idea, we should probably.. because every land use project basically has a wetland map or something associated with it and like I say, because these NWI maps are so inaccurate, if I recall right, the IC wetlands up there, none of them are on the NWI map. Board Member Erb — The other thing that struck me about the IC maps was that in fact, they had changed across seven years and I wondered whether that, in your mind, is probably attributed to an inaccuracy in the earlier set of, in one set of maps or the other or whether, let me see...you did say there's an over- reporting sometimes of wetlands that are still on the list because they've been filled in, but, do wetlands also simply go away? Mr. Schipanski -- Yeah, wetlands change over time and that's kind of a natural process and that makes it a challenge because you are trying to change a wetland that, if it had it's druthers, in 50 years it may not be there but would like to be where that subdivision is, or, there's more wet water comes into it ... anyway, they do change over time and that's a natural process, so, whether or not the change in the wetland maps at IC was due to different mapping techniques or got changed, I wouldn't know, but it's possible. PB 5 -6 -08 Pg 5 Chairperson Howe — This has been very educational and I thinks it's part of an ongoing discussion. I believe you are presenting to the Conservation Board? Or perhaps you already have... Mr. Schipanski — I already have. Chairperson Howe — And are you also presenting separately to the Town Board? Mr. Schipanski — I haven't actually scheduled that, so, I think I was going to guage interest and whether or not... Chairperson Howe — Because at some point it would be interesting to talk about the strategies for filling that regulatory gap. I think that this Board would be very interested in... Mr. Kanter -- We did invite Town Board members to both this and the Conservation Board presentation and I think one or two did go to the Conservation Board ... I think Herb was there... yeah... Chairperson Howe — So it's something that I think we do want to track. Board Member Riha Yeah, maybe it would be good to get the Conservation Board's input on this issue of building kind of these replacement wetlands versus trying to get easements on existing or degraded wetlands. Chairperson Howe — Any other questions, comments or .. . Ms. Brock -- I noticed in the report, it said the Water Resources Council is working on a model wetland protection ordinance. What's the status of that? Mr. Schipanski — There is one kind of written but the wetland committee has to still go over it and make some revisions, so, I'm guessing it's several months out yet. Board Member Wilcox — Is a draft available online? Mr. Schipanski — No but I could...weIre having a wetland meeting next week, so, after that committee meeting, I will make sure it's okay with the committee. Board Member Wilcox — It may not make sense to look at the draft. It may make sense to wait until they are finished...) don't know the answer to that... Mr. Schipanski — It is based on wetland ordinances of other New York municipalities Chairperson Howe — Thank you very much for your time and presentation. Board Member Erb — I also appreciated some of the definitions you had in here. Chairperson Howe announced the next agenda item. PB 5 -6 -08 Pg 6 SEAR Determination Cornell University Plantations Greenhouse Demolition, 1 Plantations Road Don Rakow, Director and Hal Martin, Protect Manager; Cornell Plantations Mr. Rakow — So this is a request to demolish an antiquated and no longer utilized, production greenhouse at Cornell Plantations. As some of the members of the committee will recall, we requested and received approval to construct new greenhouses. In fact, have now been constructed along Forest Home Drive, across from Flat Rocks, those greenhouses are now operational. So this is a request to demolish the old greenhouse located in the Botanical Garden, officially at 1 Plantations Road, and then to regrade the site to remove the hummock that the old greenhouse was sitting on. Chairperson Howe — And why don't we address any issue we have now and not wont' about SEQR. Just any questions, any comments.... Board Member Wilcox — Regale us on how you will deal with the asbestos -laden caulk. Mr. Rakow — I'm going to let Hal address that. Mr. Martin — We had Environmental Health & Safety from Cornell do the analysis, which is pretty standard for any demolition in this day and age, and found that the caulk was asbestos - containing and at a level high enough that it had to be dealt with as a toxic. And we'll have, I think it's Sunstream Corporation, Sunstream Corporation will come in and remove the caulk with probably the glass. That will be disposed of, they're certified abatement corporation, they've worked on campus quite often, they will remove that asbestos and glass and as well take down the aluminum framing, stack that to the side for anything that comes off.. The idea is to remove all of the caulk from the aluminum frame so that we can recycle the aluminum frame. Board Member Wilcox -- I'm all set. Board Member Erb — I know it might be too early for you to know the truck- debris routes ... the routes that those trucks are going to take... Mr. Martin — I'm looking at about five truckloads of material. One will be a dumpster for the asbestos and the glass, one will be the aluminum recycle, we'll bring one in and just put all of that into a recycle bin, so a truck will come and pick up a roll -off for that. I am looking at one for, or actually, two to three for the concrete foundation that will be left after the greenhouse aluminum is gone. The top ... all those will go down, across campus, through Forest Home, and up East Ave. Board Member Wilcox — Wait, wait. ..say that again. Mr. Martin — No, no ... not through ... on Forest Home Drive... Board Member Erb — So it's going to circle up onto... PB 5 -6 -08 Pg 7 Mr. Martin — So go down Plantation Road, take a left toward East Ave, and Stewart Ave bridge there. ..no, we won't let any trucks go through Forest Home... Board Member Erb — They're going to come up and cross between Morrison Hall and the Dairy Bar and go out to 366? Mr. Martin — Yes, yes. They'll go down and out East Ave and across. Board Member Erb — That's what I wanted to hear. Chairperson Howe — Eva.... Board Member Hoffmann — I was confused about what will happen with the foundation, the concrete foundation... not what's called the Headhouse, I understand that's staying, but the rest of the foundation. Mr. Rakow — The rest of the foundation will be basically broken up and loaded into a couple of trucks and go to a clean -fill site actually out of the Town of Ithaca, into the Town of Dryden, is what our ... our plan is to contract with a hauler that's got a registered clean -fill site, so... Board Member Hoffmann — So those concrete blocks in the foundation and in the floor are considered to be "clean "? There's no residue there, pesticides, herbicides... Mr. Rakow — It's... anything that's rock or soil, concrete block and that type of thing.. 'MY understanding is it can go to a clean -fill site. It's not, it shouldn't go into the waste stream, I think, is I heard. ,the sanitary downtown... Board Member Hoffmann — Right, I understand that, but I guess ... let me ask more specifically; do you know of any hazardous materials that would be in that floor and the foundation walls of the greenhouse, based on the use? Mr. Rakow — The greenhouse was tested completed by EH&S and they didn't find anything else but the asbestos in the caulk. I mean, they test for lead paint and asbestos and that type of thing... Board Member Hoffmann — But they did a test for pesticides and herbicides that must have been used in the greenhouse? Mr. Rakow — We will be doing some soil - boring in that site, before we grade, actually, am going to have them come in and do some soikborings, but no soil will leave this site, just the concrete block. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay ... but are you talking about the soil that's under the floor then? Or, which soil are you talking about? Mr. Rakow — Well this particular greenhouse has a gravel floor in it, there isn't a concrete floor in this greenhouse. PB 5 -s -o8 Pg 8 Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, I couldn't tell. I looked in through the windows and I saw that, you know, the floor was somewhat below the exterior grade, but there is about a course and a half of the concrete block on the outsides, J would guess there would be twice as much on the inside, and I couldn't tell what the floor was like but, because of greenhouses being used to...for plants, where there is often herbicides and pesticides used, I was concerned about what might be there, whether it's floor or... Mr. Hebdon — Eva, the concrete doesn't normally absorb a lot of those pesticides and stuff. That's what you're worried about ... the concrete absorbing the pesticides and that getting moved off-site ... the concrete is not going to absorb a lot of the pesticides. It sits on the top and then, when they clean it up and stuff, it gets all cleaned up at that point. It doesn't generally permeate the concrete and become a part of the concrete structure. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Good. Because I am concerned about where that goes, depending on what it has in it. That was the reason for my question. But if you're saying it is clean and free of all those things that might cause hazards, then... Mr. Martin — We will be doing some soil testing under the greenhouse as.,. But yes,... Board Member Thayer — Just out of curiosity, they're going to take the caulk and the glass up to the Ontario Lake...Seneca County landfill ... I'm just wondering, what, how do they dispose of it at that point? Mr. Martin — I don't know. I can't answer that question simply because I don't know. The site, apparently, that they take it to is one that Cornell allows them to take it to, it's a certified site, and I don't know how they deal with it. I'm sure they capsulate it somehow and bury it. Mr. Rakow — Our original hope with this greenhouse structure was to sell it to someone for $1 and have them remove it and it seemed to us that that would have been a much better example of recycling. Once we discovered the asbestos, that no longer was a viable consideration. So that was a real disappointment and another example of why asbestos should never have been used. Chairperson Howe — It was a nice thought. Board Member Hoffmann — I have one more question, actually, about the amount of asbestos. On the second page of the letter from Dennis Shaw ... I thought for sure you would mention this one Hollis...it says "the project is to manually remove all the glass panels and associated caulk. Results for the caulk indicate it is between 1.5 and 3.8 asbestos by weight. Now, what does that mean? Is it percentages or what? I'd like to know that ... it doesn't say any unit. Mr. Martin — I can only make the assumption that it says 1.3 to 3.8 by weight that that's a percentage of the weight, but that is an assumption. Basically we hire DH&S to come in do the testing, we hire them to come in and run the asbestos part of the project and they do all the air monitoring in that area so that there's no exposure. So, I didn't ask that question, what the parts per million or what that measurement meant. I'm just making an assumption that it's a percentage of a pound. PB 5 -s -o8 Pg 9 Mr. Hebdon — Usually it's a percentage, it usually means it's 1.5 to 3.8 percent of the weight of whatever you've got. If you've got a pound, it's going to be 3.8% is going to be asbestos. Board Member Hoffmann — I don't like assumptions in things like this. I would like to know what it is. Chairperson Howe — But in some ways, I mean, they're going to take care of it in appropriate manner that it has to be disposed of. Board Member Riha — Right. The more important thing is that it went over the limit that is required by law. Board Member Wilcox — I move the SEQR motion. Board Member Riha — Second. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, there were a couple of things, also, on the SEQR form. Board Member Erb — On the SEQR, the typo, did we all catch the big typo? Under the 4th whereas... where it calls it the "trailer replacement project'?,. copy and paste is great, but... Chairperson Howe — We caught it now... Board Member Wilcox — Susan had already seen it, but... Board Member Erb — I'm sure she did, but I had to get in there, because I messed up the other one, I had to come in here with it.... Board Member Wilcox —That change is acceptable. Chairperson Howe — And Eva, did you, there was something on the SEQR form you wanted to... Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, now let's see ... there are two copies here and one has had additions made by our staff and one is the clean one... Board Member Wilcox — Which one is going to be signed? Board Member Hoffmann —They both look identical... Board Member Wilcox— Which one is going to be signed? I'm looking at Rod... Chairperson Howe — Well, I'm not sure the difference between the two ... I'm going to sign the one she has in front of me... PB 5 -6 -08 Pg 10 Board Member Wilcox — Which is the one with additions that have been made by Staff I believe. .. yes. .. yes. . . (Everyone starts talking over each other and shuffling papers.) Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. There are still two things missing. Point 6 doesn't say how much land is affected and there are some figures for total land area in the papers but they are two different figures. Mr. Rakow — There are, And it pleases me that people actually read these and caught that. That was an oversight on my part, Board Member Hoffmann -- So which is the right figure? Mr. Rakow — The 9,000 square foot. ..it's 91375 is the correct figure. Board Member Hoffmann — So we have to change what it says in Point 6 ... we have to change that to read square feet. Mr. Hebdon — 9,375 square feet. Board Member Hoffmann — And then, under... Mr. Kanter — Put 9,375 square feet, cross off acres, in each of those 0 -5 years, 6 -10 years and over 10 years, Board Member Hoffmann — Under Point 10, it lists all the different present land uses in the vicinity and it does not have commercial checked off but I think it should because there is a shop thereat the Plantations... Mr. Martin — You're correct that we do have a gift shop in that area that's a part of that piece of property...l kind of generically covered that under "public garden" but you're right, certainly, that there is a gift shop in the area... Board Member Riha — But it's not a privately -owned gift shop... Board Member Hoffmann — No, but I noticed in the other SEQR form for the other project we are not talking about tonight, commercial is checked off there, which I assume is the gift shop at the golf course, which is also not privately owned. Chairperson Howe — So we will just go ahead and check... Board Member Hoffmann — Just to be consistent, I think we should... Board Member Erb — So just check it, let's be consistent... Chairperson Howe — We have a first and a second... Board Member Hoffmann — There is something else... Point 11, no, I'm sorry, Point 12 also has not been filled out. PB 5 -6 -08 Pg 11 Board Member Thayer — That would be a no. Board Member Hoffmann — Whether it should be yes or no. Chairperson Howe — It's a no. Okay, we have a first and a second, all those in favor, say aye., any oppositions.. Anyone abstaining...it passed unanimously. ADOPTED RESOLUTION PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2008 - 041 SEQR Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval Cornell University Plantations Greenhouse Demolition Tax Parcel No. 67. -1 -6 1 Plantations Road May 6, 2008 MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Susan Riha. WHEREAS. 1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Demolition of the Cornell University Plantations Greenhouse, 1 Plantations Road, Town of Ithaca, Tax Parcel No. 67. -1 -6, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the removal of the existing greenhouse building and regrading the site to match the surrounding area. Cornell University, Owner; Hal Martin, Cornell Plantations Project Manager, Agent and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which th e as Lead Agency in project, and this uncoordinated Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting environmental review with respect to this 3. The Planning Board, on May 6, 2008, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, a Site Plan (Received date March 17, 2008), a Simple Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (dated March 31, 2008), and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Cornell University Plantations greenhouse demolition project, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the information in the PB 5 -6 -08 Pg 12 EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part Il, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Howe, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Erb and Wilcox. Nays: None Abstentions: None The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Howe — And now we will open the public hearing, at 7:54p.m. Is there anyone in the public who would like to address this issue of the demolition of the greenhouse at the Cornell Plantations? There is not. So we will close the public hearing at 7:55p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of demolition of th Plantations Road, Zone. The prop building and rec University. Owne Agent. -1 su Board Member Wilcox — I move the resolution as drafted. Board Member Thayer — Second. oval Tor ine propo5ea nhouse located at 1 xisti r Board Member Erb — So now my question is, we have the truck routing issue in Darby's cover letter. We have Hal's statement to us tonight, is that sufficient, or does it need to be part of the resolution? Board Member Riha — For five trucks to run through Forest Home? That's an issue? Board Member Erb - -. I still don't want those five trucks running through Forest Home when they don't need to. Board Member Riha — Yeah, I guess, but I think at some point we need to discuss then if they're not running through Forest Home, they're going to run through somewhere else, or how far are we going to apply this? Board Member Erb — But they can go from campus to Route 366 and that gets them onto the State highway. Board Member Riha — Yeah, I guess, but then the people of Route 366 have to... Board Member Erb — Yes, but that's a State highway. PB 5 -6 -08 Pg 13 Board Member Wilcox — That's a State highway, it's intent is to move... Board Member Riha — So basically, no Town roads, we're going to keep any Cornell trucks off Town roads ... that's our general principle? Board Member Erb — No, not at all. It's just ... the principle is that if it's possible to take construction debris through campus and immediately to a state highway, I would like to see that done rather than routing it through any residential area that doesn't have to have it. Board Member Riha — I would agree. So it is nothing specific to Forest Home, it's just ... right, but they've already said they're going to do that. Board Member Erb — Well, that, I'm just bringing it up to be sure. Board Member Hoffmann — It's something that should be 'for the record" as we talked about last time. Chairperson Howe — And it is on the record now. Ms. Brock — Well, if you want to make it legally binding, you should put it in. If you are willing to accept... because it's five truckloads, if you're willing to accept their statement, that's fine... Board Member Riha —, Make it legally binding that we're not going to monitor... Mr. Kanter — I think for five truckloads, five truckloads max, I don't think it's necessary to go through the whole paperwork process that we usually do. Board Member Thayer —Agreed. Chairperson Howe — So folks are okay that it's on the record, we won't add anything. Board Member Erb — On the record works for me, for the five. Chairperson Howe — Are there any other changes to the resolution? Board Member Hoffmann — I thought that Mr. Rakow started to say something... did you want to say something? Mr. Rakow — Oh, I simply said that we would have no objections to that being on the record. Chairperson Howe — All those in favor ... aye...anyone opposed... anyone abstain... passes unanimously. PB 5 -6 -08 Pg 14 ADOPTED RESOLUTION PB RESOLUTION NO, 2008 - 042 Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval Cornell University Plantations Greenhouse Demolition Tax Parcel No. 67.A=6 1 Plantations Road Town of Ithaca Planning Board May 6, 2008 MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer, WHEREAS: 1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Demolition of the Cornell University Plantations Greenhouse, 1 Plantations Road, Town of Ithaca, Tax Parcel No. 67. -1 -6, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the removal of the existing greenhouse building and regrading the site to match the surrounding area. Cornell University, Owner; Hal Martin, Cornell Plantations Project Manager, 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 the project has, on May 6, 2008, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on May 6, 2008, has reviewed and accepted as adequate application materials, including a Site Plan (Received date March 17, 2008), a Simple Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (dated March 31, 2008), 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 Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Demolition of the Cornell University Plantations Greenhouse, 1 Plantations Road, Town of Ithaca, Tax Parcel No. 671-1 -6, Low Density Residential Zone, as shown on Site Plan (Received date March 17, 2008) and Simple Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (dated March 31, 2008). A vote on the motion was as follows: PB 5 -6 -08 Pg 15 Ayes: Howe, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Erb and Wilcox. Nays: None Abstentions: None The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Howe announces the next agenda item. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding the proposed Small Wind Energy Facilities Law. Chairperson Howe — There's not going to be any sort of formal presentation, but there are several people in the room who have been very involved in working on this...Fred, Eva, Jon, Susan...I got involved at the tail -end of this, ..so... Board Member Wilcox — We have spent years of our lives on this. Chairperson Howe — So I don't know if...why don't we open the public hearing at the same time. ..we will open that officially at 7:58p.m. So do we have questions about this... Board Member Conneman — I have a question about it. You sent us to training, and you paid for it, I assume, in some fashion.. 'at the training we went to on wind, they say "an increase of 6 decibels over the ambient noise level may cause complaints." According to the DEC...why is it 10 in here? Mr. Kanter — Well, we looked at a lot of sample regulations and basically, they were sort of all over the place, and there were some samples of what 10 decibels equates to, and I don't have those with me, but, you know, it seemed like a reasonable level. We heard from a lot of experts also that the noise type that's generated by these kinds of facilities is generally not a disturbing kind of a noise to neighbors, so ... It was recognized as something that we should put in the law, but it wasn't really a big concern. Board Member Conneman — Why does the New York State Department of State recommend 6 or less? Mr. Kanter — Because they're in Albany and we're here. Board Member Conneman — Come on Jon. Ms. Brock — George. ..where are they measuring that increase from? Board Member Conneman — I have no... Ms. Brock — 1 think some of the laws were measuring it at the neighboring residences. We're not doing that. We're actually measuring it at the property line, so the increase in decibel noise would be less at the residences, presuming they're not sitting directly on the property line. PB 5 -6 -08 Pg 16 Board Member Riha — Wasn't the issue, when the Forest Home people came to talk to us about it, was it all depends which 10 decibels. Is it 10 decibels from 0 to 10, or from 50 to 60. Mr. Kanter — It's relative to the ambient noise levels, which is why we wanted to get it into this law. Board Member Conneman — Well, it just seems to me, someone else had some experience with it... Mr. Kanter — So have a lot of others. Board Member Conneman — Okay. All right. Mr. Kanter — We looked at a whole range of places, believe me. Board Member Conneman — Well, I think it ought to be raised with the Town Board and then... Board Member Hoffmann — I just wanted to comment on what George said. I think very often what happens is we look at all these reports, George, and then we try to come up with a reasonable number and it's not necessarily a number that's set in stone at that point, this is a draft, and this is why we need people like you or people on other boards, the Town Board, the Planning Board, Zoning Board and so on, to give input and say why is it a 10 instead of 6... Board Member Conneman — Well, I want to know. Chairperson Howe — I think a key issue is where it's going to be measured, George, and this is at the property line, so I think that's pretty significant. Board Member Conneman — I think you're opening yourself up to a lot of complaints, but anyway.. . Mr. Kanter — Rod. We actually had some specific samples that the Committee looked at and Esther, who had helped us collect research on this... Board Member Erb — Sample ordinances? Mr. Kanter — Sample ordinances. Put together a chart and there were a number from around the state that we looked at. The ones that she included on her chart had 50 decibels, the Town of Westfield New York 50 decibels; the Town of Eden New York, 50 decibels; the Town of Henderson... Board Member Talty — Those are all rural. All those ones you're naming are rural... Mr. Kanter — 55 Decibels, Town of Dryden, which is the one that was adopted in Tompkins County so far. So, those are... PB 5 -6 -08 Pg 17 Board Member Erb — We fought so... Ms. Brock — Those aren't increases... Board Member Erb — ....the neighbors fought so hard over the AHDC maximum emergency increase of 5 or 6 decibels. Do we remember.... Ms. Brock — Yes. Board Member Conneman — Well, if I were the public, I would ask how you arrived at 10 and I don't think that your answer would be satisfactory for me, anyway. 1 would read this thing. Ms. Brock — The thing is the from the James Coon technical series ... it's the Department of State publication on Municipal Regulation on Wind Energy that George had ... it says "an M ncrease of 6 decibels over ambient noise level at receptor may cause complaints according to the DEC /EPA" so that's at the receptor whereas we've set it at the property line. I'd have to go back and look at our materials to see why we did settle on 101 1 think we had a more specific reason, but I can't remember what it is tonight. Board Member Wilcox — The point being, the point being ... if it's 10 at the property line, it's going to be less than 10 at the receptor, assuming he or she is not standing at the property line. Board Member Riha — And it does seem reasonable to do it at the property line rather than the receptor. That seems like it gets a lot more complicated... Mr. Kanter— (inaudible)....a definite measurable place to take the reading. Board Member Riha — Right. Board Member Talty — There's a mathematical equation on the drop -off, I remember seeing that, so I don't know if it goes from 10 to 611. Board Member Riha — It depends on how far the house is. (Multiple people talking) Mr. Kanter -- ....shorter distances... Board Member Wilcox - Inverse square or something like that.. . Board Member Talty — There you go... Mr. Kanter — I mean, this is all assuming that noise is actually a big issue of these facilities and the committee determined that it really wasn't, but yet we should have some measurable standard in there. All the research we found was that yeah, Sometimes people do complain about the noise, but it's really not the noise they are complaining about, it's other things. PB 5 -6 -08 Pg 18 Chairperson Howe — I think that ... okay...you have more... Board Member Talty — I have many. Chairperson Howe = You have many... okay... go ahead. Board Member Talty — Just going through the initial document, I will just go in a row in descending order... I have a comment with regards to determining if the wind is prevalent in that area, are we going to allow any type of testing apparatus like Ithaca College is utilizing, or going to utilize, or are people just going to be wing -it and put up a structure? Or affix something to a house? How are they going to know, they'll go out and spend the money, I mean, how are they going to determine, or is there going to be a determination on if it will be a viable alternative? I think you should look at that. In other words, are they going to put up something, measure the wind, take it down, and then put up their wind mechanism....do you understand what I'm saying? Because that's what Ithaca College is doing. Mr. Kanter — I think it's possible. I think the amount of investment that Ithaca College is looking at warrants a much more in -depth study than a homeowner is going to do, but certainly homeowners are going to be spending a significant amount for a homeowner. Board Member Talty — I'm just wondering if we need to take a look at a measuring apparatus prior to putting up a wind gathering... Mr. Kanter — Well, I mean ... I think if the homeowner wants to do that they certainly can, and if they erect a structure that's higher than thirty feet or whatever that's required, they would have to come in for Town approvals. Board Member Talty —Okay. Mr. Kanter — I don't know that we want to require such a thing in a law, it's just... Board Member Talty — I just don't want a lot of potential wind collector towers that all of a sudden people ... and that's somewhere else in here, I'll get to it...that they'll just leave up ... that ... oop, it's not collecting enough wind or I've spent enough money on this wind - gathering mechanism and I'll just leave it up. Which I am going to in the other points that I will get to in a second. Chairperson Howe — Eva wants to respond to that. Board Member Hoffmann — Just one comment Kevin, based on what we saw that has happened already, the few people who have these wind turbines up, it seemed as if they relied on the advice of the installer as to whether there was enough wind and the right kind of wind in the place that they had set aside to put this wind tower. Board Member Talty — It's very subjective though. Ms. Brock — Okay.... PB 5 -6 -08 Pg 19 Board Member Hoffmann — But presumable the installers have a little bit more knowledge than the homeowners... Board Member Talty — I don't know, I've seen a lot of satellite dishes where I wouldn't put them either and those guys are professionals, but, go ahead... Ms. Brock — There are also financial incentives available through NYSERDA and I would assume that NYSERDA has certain criteria that have to be demonstrated before the facility would be eligible for the financial incentives. Board Member Talty — That's a good point. Ms. Brock — So I believe you would have to demonstrate through maps or other information that in fact this would be a viable facility. I can't believe the State would let anybody put up a windmill wherever they wanted to and give them money for it. I . Board Member Riha — Like solar panels... Ms. Brock — Well, solar panels are a little different... Board Member Riha — But you could put them up in a place that wouldn't be very useful, if you wanted to. Board Member Erb — Yeah, you could put them up in the middle of the library roof instead of on the farthest north side where it isn't going to be blocked by the garage... Board Member Riha — And you have to have... Ms. Brock — The garage wasn't planned when they put that up, but, anyway ... we digress. Board Member Talty — Okay. That's a good point. Ms. Brock — I think NYSERDA has enough safeguards that you wouldn't have to wont' about that. Board Member Talty — Okay, moving down into one of the other areas, it says, "there could be a need to add to the law in the future to allow mid-scale "...I don't know what a mid -scale is ... like, what's a small - scale, what's a large -scale and what's a mid - scale? I think that needs to be determined. The vocabulary, just what exactly a mid -scale is. Because my mid -scale and your mid -scale might be two different mid - scales. Mr. Kanter — Well, we know what small -scale is by definition in this law. From there, what we were referring to and what the Committee talked about was there may be other types of facilities, like Ithaca College, as a good example, which is proposing if their metrological studies work out, if it's feasible, that would probably be considered and institutional, mid- size facility, whatever that's going to be. ...what are they proposing, over 200 feet.... Board Member Talty — So what's a large- scale? Mr. Kanter — Large -scale we're talking about the utility windfarms.. . PB 5 -6 -08 Pg 20 Board Member Thayer — Multiple.... Board Member Talty — See, that's what needs to be determined... Mr. Kanter — Well, again, this by definition is what we are talking about now. Whether we are even going to think about getting into these other categories is up to you guys, the Town Board, the people who make these decisions, this, again, the point was that this is a limited law that will encourage and allow these residential -scale facilities to be erected fairly easily without a lot of regulatory process. Board Member Talty -- Oka_ y. I just want all the Boards, moving on, maximize height of 145.... Board Member Conneman — Kevin, wait a minute...one of the points this young lady made, when we went to this training, was that you should specifically be sure you address the use you expect this to be ... residential, specifically, because if you don't do it specifically, someone is going to come around the comer and do something else... Ms. Brock — Well, we didn't want to limit it to just residential. I mean, you could have a commercial use on a property.... Mr. Kanter — It's basically allowed in just about every zone in the Town except for... Ms. Brock —Agricultural uses.. . Board Member Conneman —Well... Ms. Brock — We... Chairperson Howe — It's more the size limitation at this point... Ms. Brock — And that it's supplying the power primarily to on -site structures. That's going to be the limitation as to how much power's being produced. You're not going to have a utility -scale production facility going in if all the power, or most of the power has to be provided to on -site structures. Board Member Talty — Oh, I actually have that question later ... like, if the power is only going to be to that home or business or is it going to be supplied to the grid? Ms. Brock — Well, we do permit for net - metering to the grid, but the primary use has to be to supply to on -site structures. Board Member Talty — One - hundred - forty -five feet, just so everybody knows, that's approximately 10 -12 stories, so, keep that in mind,., 145 feet as these go up, I mean, we're always talking about viewsheds...that's 10 -12 stories, approximately so everybody should keep that under advisement. There's no limit to the number on a roof, so there's a limit to a tower, per acreage, as read, but you could have 4,5 or whatever on a roof? PB 5 -8 -08 Pg 21 Board Member Thayer —That caught my attention too. Board Member Talty — I mean, that's kind of bizarre. Ms. Brock —They are very small facilities. I forget the height.. they can't be more than 10 or 15 feet above the roof... Board Member Thayer —15 feet.. . Ms. Brock —And Eva, I think she can speak to the... Board Member Hoffmann — This is a different situation. It's not going to be as high as 145 feet or anything like that.. . Board Member Talty — No, I know that.. . Board Member Hoffmann — And they are also not as expensive. You can get one of these little wind generators to put on a roof for about $2,000 and they are meant not to supply a house with electricity completely, and I would think the towers wouldn't do that either, it would be supplemental... Board Member Talty — Well, it all depends on the amount of wind and how much power is generated by the.... Board Member Hoffmann — Right. So if you don't have a windy day, you need to be hooked up to the grid anyway. But, even as a supplemental source, it's useful to have it, and so... Board Member Thayer — They should have some sort of storage battery... Board Member Hoffmann — Right... Ms. Brock — We actually have a number of... Board Member Talty — I'm just concerned about ... when you put no limit, that means that it's upwards of 1 and up, right? Mr. Kanter — Well there are other parameters in here... Board Member Talty - It says "there is no limit to the number of roof or building Board Member Wilcox - Go ahead. Bruise `em. Mr. Kanter — There is a provision dealing with the structural integrity of the roofs so, I mean, that is a limit right there and most roofs aren't going to be able to handle more than a couple of these things. Alternate Member Talty — But there's different types. I mean there's just not the windmill type. There's the... PB 5 -6 -08 Pg 22 Ms. Brock -- Vertical axis. Board Member Wilcox — Cylindrical type. Alternate Member Talty — That's correct. Ms. Brock — I wish I'd brought my whole packet from COC. We actually had photographs of what these look like on roofs. They're actually used in certain countries and Europe, I think, Holland, among other places has them. And we saw photographs where there were several on a roof and it really did not look disturbing or particularly obtrusive at all. And the committee really debated a lot of these issues. The prevalent view of the voting members of the committee was that we need to, we the Town of Ithaca need to encourage alternative clean sources of energy just as we did with the solar ordinance that the Town Board enacted. And that it was important to recognize the impacts on views and the aesthetic impacts, but that we need to take very seriously our dependence on oil and foreign oil and look to help promote other sources of energy. And so that's why they ended up going to 145 feet for the height of the towers and not putting limits on the amount on the roof. In fact, this law parallels what the Town did with solar panels. They don't limit the square footage of solar panels that are on a building at all. There's no limit. The only limit was on ground mounted or pole mounted solar panels. Alternate Member Talty — Okay. The other one is who is going to enforce if it's not being 12 consecutive months. I know you have to put something in there, but I mean, who's going to stand out there and go "well, it's spinning today, it's not spinning tomorrow"" I mean then the clock starts running for 12 months. Ms. Brock — It's the exact same provision we have for the solar panels, on the ground mounted or pole mounted. It's the exact same provision we have in our telecommunications ordinance for a telecommunications tower that is not being used. Alternate Member Talty — But they're not moving. They're not moving, though. These are moving objects. Solar panels don't move. Primarily they're on an angle. They're not... Board Member Wilcox — It means enforcement is easier. It means it's easier to tell if it hasn't been used. Alternate Member Talty — But who's going to... Chairperson Howe — Usually it would be a neighbor who might call. Board Member Erb — Yeah. I think it's going to be a neighbor. It think that exactly. Board Member Conneman — Who's going to take it down? My concern is what if the people with this facility go bankrupt and they leave town? Who takes it down? Board Member Wilcox — Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. The next homeowner is going to... PB 5 -6 -08 Pg 23 Mr. Kanter — So the bank will own it and then they will sell it to someone else. And then that person to get a CO will have to take it down. Board Member Conneman — Well... Chairperson Howe — Let's finish up with Kevin and then we'll... Ms. Brock — It seems it's the same issue you have with any code enforcement issue. If somebody has property that doesn't meet State code and they don't have a lot of money, who's going to make it come up to code. I mean it's the same type of issue. Alternate Member Talty — That's exactly right. So I don't want to heap onto the pile stuff that's already not being enforced because obviously... Ms. Brock — So we shouldn't regulate something because somebody potentially may not have money to follow our law? So we just shouldn't regulate it at all? Alternate Member Talty — Well, I just think all things have to be considered like it was ... as these things get put up, as always happens, get abused and things are not monitored. Things that...and there's...l'm preaching to the choir on this, laws that aren't enforced and here's something that... it's a trade off. It's a trade off of viewshed in the things get over looked. Things ...laws that are on the books Susan, that there's all kinds of basically what we've outlined is area versus alternative fuel. That's basically what it is. So as way before I was on this board, it's always been the viewshed, the viewshed, the viewshed, the viewshed. Always. And now there's a trade off and 1 just want to be sure that everybody understands that people are concerned about alternative fuel. There's no question about it. It is certainly a buzzword now, but will it be a buzzword in 5 years? Will it be a buzzword in 10 years? And like it was in the 70s, in '79, 1 mean people would lining up to go over to Canada for fuel, but all of sudden 1985 came around and they were coming over the bridge to the United Stated for fuel. So I just want to make sure that when we are putting laws into the books and updating laws and trying to energize our efforts that we cover everything. Ms. Brock — So do you propose a bond or something like that to assure removal? Which will increase the costs to the landowner. I mean, what is your proposal? Alternate Member Talty — I don't have a proposal. I'm just pointing out things that I saw that were not covered ... that I believe weren't covered well enough. Board Member Conneman — Well I think one way to cover it, Kevin, is for the Town to take it down and then put the cost of taking it down on the property. Alternate Member Talty — That could very well be. Board Member Conneman — You could do it that way, ..(not audible)... some people are going to put up this thing to feel good and that doesn't solve any problem. Ms. Brock — To feel good? PB 5 -6 -08 Pg 24 Board Member Conneman — Yeah. They feel good. Ms. Brock — They're going to spend $20,000 or $30,000 to feel good? Board Member Conneman — Yes. The City of Ithaca or whatever it is, built, put solar panels on the library. Ms. Brock -- That was Tompkins County, Board Member Conneman — Tompkins County put solar panels on the library and then they built a garage next to it... Ms. Brock — The City built the parking garage, a different... Board Member Wilcox — Wait a minute. That's important. The County did this; the City did that; they didn't talk. Be careful. Ms. Brock — They did talk. The County objected and the City... Board Member Conneman — The principle is all I'm talking about for not some specific situation; I'm giving you an example of it and if you let that ... I have a friend who has solar panels on this house. And you know what? He says it doesn't do much but it makes me feel good. Well... Board Member Wilcox — Great. Chairperson Howe — And let's avoid ... I don't know if you want to have a philosophical discussion... Alternate Member Talty — I just wanted to point out things I know were discussed, but... [many talking at once] Chairperson Howe — Eva, did you have...Eva has the floor. Board Member Hoffmann — One of my biggest concerns about all of this has been the impacts on the views, the potential impact on the views. I think there are enough limitations on where you can put these towers up and in the dense, more densely populated areas where the lots are small it is not going to be possible to put up a wind tower that tall enough to be effective because there's not enough lot space for a fall zone. Board Member Riha — That's correct. Board Member Hoffmann — So I think it's only going to be practical in certain areas, probably not as many area as one would wish. And my hope is that there's going to be new technology fairly soon that will allow us to use wind power and solar power and whatever it is in other ways than what we have now, which are less problematic for PB 5 -6 -08 Pg 25 things like impact on views and such. That's what I'm hoping. In the meantime, I think we have to try this. Board Member Wilcox — Rod, if I may follow up on that. I did the arithmetic sitting here. If you want to put up a 145 foot tall structure, you need a lot that is a minimum 1 and two- thirds acres. Minimum 1 and two- thirds acres. I don't know, most of our lots are 30,000 square feet, which is two- thirds of an acre... 1 and two- thirds. If you want 100 foot tower, which requires 110 foot fall zone, you need .8 acres of land. Ms. Brock — With no structures. Board Member Wilcox — Right. You need ... in order to inscribe that circle. Right. That's just the circle. Ms. Brock — So you need more land than that. Board Member Wilcox — So you need reasonably substantial sized lots to put up 100 foot or maximum 145 foot towers. You're not going to see them in the denser, . 'You Ire unlikely to see them in the denser parts of the Town of Ithaca where the zoning encourage 15,000 or allowed 15,000 or 30,000 square foot lots. You are going to tend to see it out in the more rural areas of the Town where you have sufficient lot size. Board Member Conneman — And that's where the viewsheds are. Board Member Wilcox — Understood. Board Member Conneman — The viewsheds are not downtown Ithaca Board Member Wilcox — But the people who complain are the ones who...well the neighbor will look at this tower and ... the neighbor will see it next door on his lot to the north or the south, east or west and complain about this visual obstruction. And again, the lot sizes in those areas probably won't allow for any substantial tower to be built. Chairperson Howe — Larry, I think you were next. Board Member Thayer — I have a question on the lighting. On d7 it says all on -site lighting shall conform with the Town's outdoor lighting law. Right? Then in f3 it says no wind energy facility shall be artificially lighted. So it's kind of a contradictory... Ms. Brock — Except to the extent where required by the FAA. If it's over 200 feet, the FAA will require it to be lit or if it's within the flight safety zone. Board Member Thayer — So in other words, if it's required then it has to be...it has to conform with the Town' outdoor lighting law. That's what you're saying? Because d7 says they will conform with it... Mr. Kanter — Well, d7 talks about all on -site lighting. I'm not quite sure why we're that all inclusive in it in the wind energy law, but it's just kind of stating the obvious. Any lighting on your site is supposed to conform to the outdoor lighting law. P8 5 -6 -08 Pg 26 Chairperson Howe — But it is confusing the way ... I can see his point. Board Member Wilcox — The lighting must be in conformance, but you can't put any lighting on it. Chairperson Howe — Unless it's... Board Member Wilcox — Yeah. Unless the FAA requires it. Board Member Riha — And then it may not be shielded. Board Member Wilcox —And the FAA... Ms. Brock — No. No. That's lighting of the facility itself. I mean if you have some other building associated with this you might have a security light over the door or something like that. And those need to meet our outdoor lighting law requirements. Mr. Kanter — I think the reason is.. . Ms. Brock — There might be lighting associated with a facility other than lighting the tower itself. Mr. Kanter — Eva might be able to help me with this, but I recall that there was a specific discussion about bird collisions and the way lighting on sites can sometimes cause more birds to fly into facilities like this if the lighting isn't carefully done. So this has to do not with the structure lighting itself, but general site lighting to be careful it didn't cast light on to the structure in a way that would cause birds to fly into it. That was this particular provision. Board Member Hoffmann — I remember very clearly a talk given by a man who's name I have forgotten, maybe it's Evans, who's is up at the Lab of Ornithology, who said that in certain conditions when there are low lying clouds or little tiny water droplets of fog in the air around the light, those little water droplets will reflect that light in a cloud and if you have a tower, which has guy -wires coming from it, the birds flying around that light will get confused by all these little droplets that are essentially lit up and fly around and around and will collide with the guy- wires. It's not so much the single tower, but the guy -wires that hold it up and you will find lots of dead birds on the ground in the morning if you are out early enough before the cats get them. And so, that was the...the problem with lights. Its not the light itself, but the ... in certain weather conditions. Board Member Thayer — But we're saying they can't be lit so... Board Member Wilcox — But the site can be lit. Mr. Kanter — We're talking about flood lights and how our lighting law ended up saying you really can't have lights on the ground shining up at something, well, that's what this was trying to get at. PB 5 -6 -08 Pg 27 Board Member Wilcox — So you could have an electrical box of some sort on a small pole next to it, for example, right that it somehow in as a demarcation point between the towers and your house electricity system or something and you can't light that in a way that's not consistent with our lighting law. Board Member Riha — I'm sensitive to the issue of the impact on the viewshed, but I think it's important to remember that Milliken Point impacts our viewshed. I see it every day and although and in theory the more we reduce, we look for alternative forms of energy here, the less smoke is going to be belching out of Milliken Point. In reality that is probably not going to happen, but that's the idea. So I think you have to realize that other...the current forms of electricity generation have an enormous impact on the viewshed of the whole lake. Chairperson Howe — And this is just before I forget. I don't think our two colleagues in the audience want to speak to us tonight, so we are going to close the public hearing. Board Member Wilcox — Oh, come on. Get them up here. Get them up here. Chairperson Howe - ...at 8:28 p.m. Who had their hand up? Eva? Board Member Erb — I did. A few things. First I'm just curious about whether we feel that there's enough wind in this Town for the roof mounted facilities to be interspersed in some of the denser neighborhoods. I completely understand that the towers, 145 foot tower, is going to be extremely limited, but I'm just curious: does anyone know whether there's enough wind in most parts of the Town for use to anticipate the possibility of a lot of the roof mounted facilities? Board Member Hoffmann — I think my roof would be a perfect candidate. Board Member Erb — I'm just curious and I just wanted to know. Mr. Kanter — The installers that we heard from and we actually sent a draft version of this law out to about 20 different people including probably 5 or 6 different installers, most of the installers said they don't even deal with roof mounted facilities and that they just don't think they're very viable in this area. And so if you listen to them we're probably not going to get a proliferation of roof mounted facilities. It's possible on taller buildings. You know, I mean, Ithaca College has some, ..two towers, you know, maybe they should just focus on putting their facility on the towers instead of building a tower. Board Member Erb — Okay. Well that answers one. One of my other questions was was curious about the statement that the turbine blades may be painted black and I'm looking at Q. Is that so they heat up in the winter time to avoid ice build up. I mean, why paint it black? Because my other question was, do they ever throw ice and presumably if they do this fall zone would also cover that. Ms. Brock — They do throw ice. Yes. And that's why you can't have an occupied building within the fall zone, for example. Board Member Erb — Now that occupied building can be ... there can be if it's the owner's building? PB 5 -6 -08 Pg 28 Ms. Brock — I think NYSERDA has some waivers like that, but don't believe we put that in our... Board Member Erb — Because that wasn't clear to me. Ms. Brock — Let me look at that. Hold on. Board Member Erb — Because when we had the ham radio towers there was some exclusion like that. All of sudden it was well, it's okay if it's the person who owns the tower. Ms. Brock — We didn't do that. We did not say that the owner can ... as long as the owner is in the building it's okay. We said there cannot be any human occupied buildings in the fall zone. Board Member Erb — I wanted that clarification because as I said we had this thing with the ham radio towers where I thought it was okay if it was the owner's home. Board Member Wilcox — Because they are connected to the side of the house. Ms. Brock — That's right. And there are no moving parts or not major moving parts. Board Member Erb — So they do throw ice in the winter, but the fall zone takes care of that also? Board Member Conneman — The State Department says the greatest danger of the ice is under the tower ... when falling on somebody. Board Member Erb - So then again, I've already impressed Kevin, now, tonight, which pleases me. I can go home a satisfied woman, but... Alternate Member Talty — Geez, is that all it takes? [laughing] Board Member Erb — I was curious, why the statement about the blades being black? The only thing I could think of was heat capture on the blades themselves? Board Member Hoffmann — I can't remember, and I was surprised, actually, when I read this... Board Member Erb — Because for all tall facilities, we have made this effort to have them in more neutral sky color and I don't consider black a neutral sky color. Alternate Member Talty — Well, at night it is. Mr. Kanter — I can't answer this fully, but I know it was based on research that we did that a lot of turbines are black... Ms. Brock — We can find out. PB 5 -6 -08 Pg 29 Mr. Kanter - ...and need to be black for the technical reasons that they are, which we don't... I'm not a... Board Member Erb — Oh, okay. I mean, really, honestly was just curious because black is not typically a blending color except that I could see black blending against a wooded hillside. Board Member Hoffmann — I think the turbine blades need to be up above the trees in order to be effective. Board Member Erb — Well, I `m talking about from a distance with the hillside behind it. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, but even so I think... Board Member Erb — It just struck me as a curiosity and I was curious about the reasoning. Chairperson Howe — If we move forward on the resolution and there's little things like this that the Town Board changes ... what does that ... are we saying we're approving it as it is worded now or... Ms. Brock — We can change the resolution to make suggested changes. Chairperson Howe — Or just say if minor things come up like maybe they don't need to be painted black ... I mean... Board Member Erb — I mean the truth is if they don't need ... right now we're completely... we would have no control over saying well "we don't really want them black. We'd like them to be a more neutral color' If it's in here as "may be painted black", we wouldn't have that option I would think. [several talking] Board Member Erb — It says may, which implies that they are permitted to be black, which means we couldn't then turn around and say "no we'd like them to be a nice sky gray color". Board Member Hoffmann — And there's also a contradiction within that same paragraph because it starts off by saying all small wind energy facilities shall be painted with a non - obtrusive color and then it comes about the black... Board Member Erb — So I was curious about whether there's a real reason to allow black or whether we could remove that and... Mr. Kanter — I suspect the answer is yes, there is a real reason, but what it is we can't tell you. Ms. Brock — We'll find out. PB 5 -6 -08 Pg 30 Board Member Conneman — Will a transcript of this go to the Board Members of this discussion? Mr. Kanter — I believe the Town Board... Ms. Brock — But will they have them by Monday? Mr. Kanter — The Town Board is not voting on anything Monday. Ms. Brock — Perfect. They'll get it. Mr. Kanter — I was going to say the Town Board always gets the Planning Board minutes, but I'm not sure exactly when they will be ready for the Board. Chairperson Howe — So what do we do about moving forward on any resolution? Is this a big issue that we don't want to... Board Member Erb — Its not an issue sufficient to hang the whole thing up, but it just seemed to me that it takes away any possibility of muting the color if we should get into a situation where we would like the color muted and that bothered me without a clear explanation that black needs to be an option for a good scientific reason, not a commercial reason like most of them are black because some guy is selling black ones. Chairperson Howe — So moving the resolution would show our support and the Town Board chooses based on some feedback, changes the color, it would need to come back to us. Board Member Wilcox — Its not a substantial change. Ms. Brock — Well, it would need to be come back... [several talking at once] Chairperson Howe — First Larry, seconded by Hollis. Board Member Hoffmann — I just wanted to make a we went to, I went to it, too, and so did Hollis, an disappointed because the State representatives ess about this and I was wondering why they were there. Any further discussion? comment about the workshop that I I must say that I was extremely ;ntially said we don't know enough Board Member Erb — They were presenting someone else's material and clearly did not know... Board Member Hoffmann — What they said to us is the best advice was be careful when you set up these regulations, but when we asked specific questions about things or when they talked about specific things they said well there's not enough research about this yet so we don't really know and it was all very vague. They were no help. Board Member Conneman — Eva, that's a little hard on them. They said... PB 5 -6 -08 Pg 31 Board Member Hoffmann — Well... Board Member Conneman - ...that thing that they know, everything that has come to them as they've made these presentations various places is included...(not audible)...I mean they said it's all the knowledge we have. We don't have experience in 25 communities or something. They didn't say that. Board Member Hoffmann — Anyway it wasn't very useful. Chairperson Howe — We have a first and second, all those in favor... Board votes. Chairperson Howe — Anyone opposed? Anyone abstaining? Its unanimous. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 = 043 Recommendation to Town Board Regarding a Proposed Local Law Amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Entitled Zoning, Regarding Small Wind Energy Facilities Town of Ithaca Planning Board May 69 2008 Motion made by Larry Thayer,. seconded by Hollis Erb. WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee has drafted a proposed local law amending. Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code, entitled Zoning, regarding small wind energy facilities for the Town Board's consideration, and WHEREAS: The purpose of this local law is to foster the small -scale development of the Town's wind power resources, and provides standards for the safe provision of small wind energy facilities, and WHEREAS: The above - described amendment would add small wind energy facilities as a permitted principal and accessory use in most zones in the Town of Ithaca, subject to specific development standards, and WHEREAS: The Town Board has reviewed the above - described proposed local law at it's meeting on April 7, 2008 and has referred this matter to the Planning Board and Conservation Board for recommendations, and WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board held a public hearing on this matter and has reviewed and discussed this proposed local law at it's meeting on May 6, 20081 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town Board adopt the proposed local law amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code, entitled Zoning, regarding small wind energy facilities. PB 5 -6 -08 Pg 32 A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Howe, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Erb and Wilcox. Nays: None Abstentions: None The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Howe — We have a gift in front of us ... oh, by the way we won't be approving the minutes from April 22 "d because they were just in front of us tonight. So probably just talking about the next meeting, right, Jonathan? OTHER BUSINESS Board Member Conneman asked for the "story" on Burger King, Mr. Kanter explained that Burger King is now under new ownership and the new owner contacted the Town because he wanted to repaint the building. Mr. Kanter researched the minutes and resolutions of the Burger King approval and found that the resolution did not explicitly state the building needed to be specific colors. However, there was enough information provided in the minutes so that Mr. Kanter was able to make the determination that the proposed color changes were significant and would need site plan approval. Mr. Kanter gave a brief overview of the upcoming agenda for the May 20, 2008 Planning Board meeting. Board Member Erb reported the Comprehensive Plan Review Committee met and discussed how to cant' -out a resident's survey. They discussed the possibility of having the Survey Research Institute perform a telephone- based, true probability survey. Councilman Stein, Dave Mountin, Kate Lunde and Board Member Erb are working on topics to bring back to the committee of things to include in the survey. Diane Conneman suggested having a separate broadcast survey, which would have more open -ended questions. The committee is also planning a tour of the Town for committee members. Adiournment Upon motion, Chairperson Howe closed the meeting at 8:46 p.m. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, May 6. 2008 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. Presentation Regarding Wetlands Protection in Tompkins County — Nick Schipanski representing Tompkins County Water Resources Council, 7:25 P.M. SEQR Determination: Cornell University Plantations Greenhouse Demolition, 1 Plantations Road. 7:25 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed demolition of the Cornell University Plantations Greenhouse located at 1 Plantations Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 67 -1 -6, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves completely removing the existing greenhouse building and regrading the site to match the surrounding area. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Hal Martin, Cornell Plantations Project Manager, Agent. 7:35 P.M. SEQR Determination: Cornell University Trailer Replacement, Bluegrass Lane. 7 :35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Prel mmary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Trailer Replacement Project at the Cornell University Turf and Landscape Research Center located on Bluegrass Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 69 -1 -1, Low Density Residential Zone. The project involves the removal of two existing 596 +/- square foot trailers and replacing them with a new 1,056 +/- square foot trailer in the same location. The trailer will contain a bathroom and coffee bar and is used to support the field research, extension, and teaching activities. New York State (Department of Horticulture, Cornell University), Owner /Applicant; Ronald A. White, Agent. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding the proposed Small Wind Energy Facilities Law, 89 Approval of Minutes: April 22, 2008, 9, Other Business: 10, Adjournment, Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273 -17478 (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday. May 6.2008 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, May 6, 2008, 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 Site Plan Approval for the. proposed demolition of the Cornell University Plantations Greenhouse located at 1 Plantations Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 67 -1 -6, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves completely removing the existing greenhouse building and regrading the site to match the surrounding area. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Hal Martin, Cornell Plantations Project Manager, Agent. 7:35 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Trailer Replacement Project at the Cornell University Turf and Landscape Research Center located on Bluegrass Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 69 -1 -1, Low Density Residential Zone. The project involves the removal of two existing 596 +/- square foot trailers and replacing them with a new 1,056 +/- square foot trailer in the same location. The trailer will contain a bathroom and coffee bar and is used to support the field research, extension, and teaching activities. New York State (Department of Horticulture, Cornell University), Owner /Applicant; Ronald A. White, Agent. 7:45 P.M. Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding the proposed Small Wind Energy Facilities Law, 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, April 28, 2008 Publish: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 tednpsdayj :ApdI 30, 2008. I The Ithaca Journals:, PUBLIC;HEARING'.': •: Tugpdaji, Ma y t;',' 20086 By direction of the Chaii -• person . of . the ,Planning 011 vI V LM mule. I wn� Hearingi will'be• held ,by Ithe:Plariiiing Board; of the Town: of, Ithaca on,'Tues- day, M(ax' '6, • 2008;. at; 215' North: Tip" a Street, Ithaca, N.Y.; at the follow- ing' times . and on'tfie' fol lowing, matters: . 7 :252.0.k Considera- tion of; Preliminary' "''and: Fi;• rial,'Site.Plan,Approval for the proposed demoli0q`likof,' the - Cornell Univefsitrj,!N6n -' tations Greephou`se;�;loe'at•' ed: at; l Ilaritations ".Road','' .Town 'of lthoca Ta JarceF1 "No. 67-1ll6'' bow 'Density :Resideniial''L ilt ;. Tfe pro-, posal` involves',. completely on bluegrass, Lane,. , sown of':lthacb rTaz'!Parcel.'4 . 69- 1= 1,`LOw %:Deiisiiy ffes '`dential.Zone:.;;Tfie� rojecl mvolvesV the removal Hof' two existing, r596,,';t +[ l. s ugre,foot:hpileril nd re Placin l p m V_'. - with'" new. 1 056, + / squq're )foot. laroiler. in ;.the . rsame;;;locq = tiorir' Th'e'trailei'wi(f cori -';, tain;:a fiathrooiir and cbf - -' fee'bai.an8' is- used } to sup A. White;:A enfi; r: 0 11tH onsrdera• I' firin' rii� "gin �.Rnr•nmmon�'riiinn r.. Said- ;Planning Bodi at -sdid' time ;place;,hear'•all perst support of such, ryial objections' thereto:. sons:may'appearfiY; or ",in :person. 'Indiv ,With- ivisualt';impain : a. request, riote less •thc hours. O'hor to .the' `tii tlie' public: hearings Jonathan Kanfe�; AretMrof'Plar %7 173ml Dgdeci :Mond�aayy„ I nb.28, 3008 "" "P6 46h. W,ednesdi `APrfG30 Name Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street May 6, 2008 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN -IN Please Print Clearly, Thank You Address fizi1w TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Dani L. Holford, 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 May 6 2008 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 April 28, 2008 April 30, 2008 0 i �tA LA er I X r Dani L. Holford, Senior Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30th day of April 2008. Notary Public CARRIE WHITMORE Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 W H6052877 Tioga County O Commission Expires December 28, I .