HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2009-05-05FILE
J
DATE zy�
REGULAR MEETING
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2009
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK
Board Members Present
Rod Howe, Chairperson; Fred Wilcox, George Conneman, Hollis Erb, Jon Bosak,
Susan Riha, Kevin Talty, and Ellen Baer, Alternate.
Staff Present
Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Bruce
Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Christine
Balestra, Planner; Debby Kelly, Bookkeeper to Supervisor.
Others
Rich DePaolo
Call to Order
Chairperson Howe declared the meeting duly opened at 7:03 p.m., and noted for the
record that there were no public hearings that evening.
Chairperson Howe stated the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by
the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
AGENDA ITEM
Persons to be heard
Rich DePaolo came before the Board and noted for the record that he was not speaking
on behalf of the Town Board, but would be speaking from his perspective as a Town
Board member.
Mr. DePaolo stated that he listened to the Count's Route 96 Corridor Study
presentation made to the Board at their April 21 s meeting. He noted that a couple
things stuck out in his mind; the question arose as to whether or not one could consider
the entirety of the development on West Hill when considering the resolution of support
for the Route 96 Corridor study. Mr. DePaolo had a problem with looking at the study in
isolation when one considers that it represents approximately less than half of the
development that may be occurring on West Hill within the next 10 -20 years. He felt
that it was legitimate to ask questions with respect to how the cumulative impact relate
to other proposed developments on West Hill. Mr. DePaolo stated that the Planning
Board had asked a question regarding development in a confined area resulting in
Single Occupancy Vehicle trips; he did not think the question was sufficiently answered.
He noted that the Board also asked whether hospital employees would live in the node
or elsewhere and that Overlook had been used as an example. Mr. DePaolo thought it
would be helpful to know how many people living at Overlook work at the hospital. He
Planning Board Minutes of
May 5, 2009
Final
felt that the time to answer these questions was now rather than later because the
Study will be used to leverage support for the nodal concept. Mr. DePaolo stated that if
the Board is comfortable with the node then they should advance the resolution to the
Town Board. As a Town Board member, Mr. DePaolo would be more comfortable
knowing that some of the outstanding questions were investigated further before being
asked to consider supporting the Study. Mr. DePaolo stated that the Town may end up
with a node at Cayuga Medical Center, but thought that the discussion of the node has
to be done in a broader context. He suggested that the Comprehensive Plan was a
legitimate place to have the discussion. The Study should not be considered in isolation
because it does not exist in isolation.
Chairperson Howe thanked Mr. DePaolo for his comments and stated that Board
Member Conneman has raised the question of whether or not it makes sense to
consider the Route 96 Corridor Study before the Board informally discusses training on
nodal development later in the meeting.
Board Member Conneman stated that he agrees with Mr. DePaolo and it is unclear to
him that the Board knows what a node is. He felt strongly that if the Board approves the
Study then it will basically be taken as the Gospel and it will be tough for the Board to
say, "No, that's not the way we do it ". Board Member Conneman would like to have
examples of where a node has been successful.
Chairperson Howe asked the Board if they were comfortable having the Route 96
Corridor Study discussion separate from the later agenda item requesting feedback on
what may go into a training session on nodal development. Board Member Riha
thought that Board Member Conneman raised legitimate questions in terms of the
discussion of whether or not to approve the Route 96 Corridor Study.
Board Members were comfortable with the agenda as set up.
AGENDA ITEM
Consider Resolution of Support for Route 96 Corridor Management Study
Chairperson Howe directed the Board's attention to the proposed resolution and stated
that the resolution implies that the Planning Board supports the general concept of an
intermunicipal agreement to look at ways of reducing traffic by focusing on nodes.
Chairperson Howe was comfortable with the proposed resolution, but realized Board
Members have different interpretations. He then asked Mr. Kanter how he saw the
resolution setting the stage as the concept moves forward.
Mr. Kanter clarified that the proposed resolution does not say that the Planning Board is
approving the Route 96 Corridor Study. It says that the Board supports the concepts
and approach of the Study, and hopes the Town can use the Study in conjunction with
the work that will be done with the Comprehensive Plan update. Chairperson Howe
asked if moving forward with the proposed resolution would help the Comprehensive
Plan Committee to look at the issue more fully than they might otherwise. Mr. Kanter
Page 2 of 18
Planning Board Minutes of
May 5, 2009
Final
did not necessarily think so and stated that the Town Board would be dealing with the
issue as well. He said that it is a question of getting the ball rolling, in a sense. Mr.
Kanter was hopeful that the Town will do something with the Study because it has been
a very valuable Study. He explained that the Study has produced exactly what was set
out in the Memorandum of Understanding. Mr. Kanter went on to say that the idea of
looking at how nodal development and the corridor would change the transportation
systems has been looked at very closely. He thought that there are good answers
regarding what the differences in the transportation system would be between nodal
development and sprawl.
Board Member Conneman directed the Board's attention to the 4th Whereas Clause of
the proposed resolution. The clause states, "...impacts of traffic by promoting a nodal
pattern of development..." He interpreted that statement to mean that a nodal pattern of
development was being promoted. Mr. Kanter suggested that the language be changed
if the Board was not comfortable with it. Board Member Conneman went on to say that
he thought that the Hawkins letter was appropriate.
Board Member Riha stated that the idea of the Study was to determine current and
projected transportation patterns as they relate to development in the corridor, and, to
make recommendations for mitigation of future traffic congestion. She commented that.
Route 96 was going to be the only corridor and more housing was going to be
developed resulting in a lot more cars. The cars would be driving into the City to get to
Cornell or Ithaca College for work. She did not grasp how having the development in
nodes versus spread out would reduce traffic.
Mr. Kanter stated that the number one contributor to traffic on Route 96 is not
development in the Town of Ithaca; it is development in surrounding areas. That will
occur regardless of what the Town does and the Town does not have any control over
it. He explained that the node concept allows enhanced transit to occur. It has been
demonstrated in studies that transit gets enhanced by densifying population and making
it occur in a way that is convenient to get to.
Board Member Conneman asked why a node had to be limited to half a mile. Board
Member Bosak explained that Mr. Marx's concept was to have amenities within walking
distance.
Mr. Kanter asked if the Board could avoid using the word "node" because when some
members use the word "node ", there is automatically a negative connotation to it. He
gave Trumansburg as an example of being a successful node. Board Member
Conneman argued that Trumansburg was much larger than half a mile. Mr. Kanter
explained that the core village of Trumansburg was approximately 1 square mile.
Board Member Conneman argued that in addition to walking, a node may be big
enough so someone could drive from one location to another within a mile and use a
service without going to downtown or Trumansburg. He said that he does not have
Page 3 of 18
Planning Board Minutes of
May 5, 2009
Final
anything against a node or the word "node ", but thought that if node was defined too
narrowly then they weren't doing the right thing.
Board Member Riha recalled that 2,000 persons were needed to support infrastructure
and services of a node. She asked if nodes would limit development over time. Mr.
Kanter responded that there are a lot of ways to approach it. One approach is when
one area is being densified, another area can have reduced density. The Route 96
Corridor Study discusses that possibility. He went on to say that there might be areas
where development might be less appropriate and on more environmentally sensitive
land where the Town could look at reducing densities. Mr. Kanter said that the Town
could look at developing a new mixed use, village -type of zone in core areas and
reducing densities in outlying areas. Board Member Riha stated that those are the
types of things she would like to see appear because otherwise it seemed as if other
development could still occur in outlying areas. Mr. Kanter added that in the Town of
Ithaca portion of Route 96 it is mostly developed with single - family homes and
institutions. The Study addresses zoning changes that would restrict further
redevelopment of single - family parcels. Mr. Kanter explained that 2,000 people are the
theoretical threshold to make a node successful. He noted that when employment
centers are destinations, it makes it easier to create a node and it could possibly work
with a smaller threshold.
Board Member Riha stated that it would be nice to have something like Carrowmoor at
the hospital and have it integrated with the area. Mr. Kanter responded that it is difficult
at this point because the Carrowmoor project has come along on its own and is not part
of the Route 96 Corridor Study, but yet is a significant part of West Hill Development.
He thought the Town Board and Planning Board will have to figure out how to address
the proposed developments. The Town needs to figure out how to get the
Comprehensive Plan update process to look at all of it together. He was not saying that
the Town should do nothing with the Route 96 Corridor Study; it is a study the Town can
use any way it wants to. Mr. Kanter thought it made sense for the Boards to get
together and discuss the study. He added that the Board can choose what
recommendations it wants to use from the study.
Board Member Bosak stated that he understands the concept of nodal development
and in principle is strongly in favor of it. He did look forward to having an in -depth
discussion of what nodal development means. Board Member Bosak agreed with Mr.
DePaolo in that it is premature to be considering the study in isolation; he thought that it
should be part of the Comprehensive Plan discussion.
Alternate Member Baer stated she was in favor of nodal development, but did not want
to develop an area just to have people move in from all over. She thought it made the
most sense to have people who live and work in the area. Alternate Member Baer
added that someone needs to work with Cayuga Medical Center and conduct a survey
to see whether employees are interested in the idea.
Page 4 of 18
Planning Board Minutes of
May 5, 2009
Final
Board Member Talty expressed support for nodal development, but did not believe West
Hill was the right location for it. He did not feel West Hill was going to be an area of
nodal development. Board Member Talty thought that people working at Ithaca College
and Cornell were still going to live on West Hill and there was still going to be issues
with traffic, safety, speed, etc. He was not sure that there was going to be a build -out
on West Hill.
Board Member Talty went on to say that he has not really heard of park- and -ride areas
being discussed. He commented that the park- and -ride areas in Rochester are very
successful. He suggested working with TCAT to create a successful park- and -ride
system. Board Member Talty felt strongly that if the Town builds a node around Cayuga
Medical Center that people would not come.
Board Member Erb found herself frustrated when listening to the conversations that
were going on. She was interpreting that people are talking in black and white and she
did not see nodal development as black and white. Board Member Erb stated the 2006
County housing survey expressed the need for 4,000 housing units in the County by
2014. She did. not think that suddenly having a node meant that no one was going to
drive any more. Technical Report II hoped for a 14% reduction in single occupancy
vehicle trips relative to the current expansion situation. Board Member Erb did not think
for one minute that by putting a 400 -unit nodal development in any location on West Hill
that suddenly people who weren't going to come and live here any way are suddenly
going to come. She thought it might be true that people would come from farther out if
there is affordable housing, but she thought that those people would still be traveling
through anyway. Piggy- backing this report onto Cornell's T -GEIS, she believed that
traffic was going to increase anyway. Board Member Erb was simply looking at it from
the perspective that 4,000 houses are needed some place and traffic is going to
increase. She was in favor of looking for locations for nodal development and she
thought that Cayuga Medical Center was a sensible place for people to start working on
a node. Board Member Erb clearly saw the idea of nodal development with some
offerings of allowing denser building here to go hand -in -hand with what she assumed
would be maintenance or more severe restrictions on sprawl development. Board
Member Erb recapped that increased traffic is going to happen any way and the County
needs a lot of additional housing units. She stated that whether or not hospital
employees live in Overlook, is not the Litmus Test.
Board Member Wilcox stated that he likes the term "hamlet" and he was going to use
that term. He noted that the resolution before the Board does not ask that the Board
endorse or approve the report; it asks that the Board support the report's use as a
planning tool. The proposed resolution also recommends that the Town Board support
the report and encourages the Comprehensive Plan Committee to use the report as
appropriate.
Board Member Wilcox stated that the Board needed to consider what would happen on
West Hill under the current zoning versus what could happen if the Town plans a
hamlet. He said that the area has a large employer, a regional attraction, available
Page 5 of 18
Planning Board Minutes of
May 5, 2009
Final
open space, and an opportunity to build single - family units, affordable units, and rental
units. Board Member Wilcox went on to say that the Overlook issue is a red herring; he
thought that there were very few people who lived at Overlook and work at the hospital.
Board Member Wilcox stated that the purpose of Overlook was to provide affordable
housing for people who needed housing (though representations were made that
people could work at the hospital and live at Overlook). Housing could be built that
people who work at the hospital might want to live in.
Chairperson Howe asked if someone would like to move the proposed resolution.
Board Member Riha stated that when Mr. Marx made his presentation, he alluded that
the County was also looking at areas in Dryden and Lansing. She thought it made more
sense to put housing in those areas because the major employer is Cornell. Board
Member Riha felt that she needed to understand better why people would say West Hill
was the next place Tompkins County needed to grow.
Chairperson Howe explained that looking back at Tompkins County historically, the
County had a lot of hamlets. He commented that the County might just be getting back
to the historical precedents.
Mr. Kanter directed the Board's attention to the County housing study. He said that the
study came out approximately 4 years ago and it was projecting the need for 4,000 units
over the 10 -year period from then. Mr. Kanter stated that they are almost 50% through
that period of time and only a small percentage of the 4,000 units have been built. They
are talking about a range of 200 to'300 dwelling units realistically on the Route 96
corridor in the Town of Ithaca and if the Holochuck project is approved it would provide
100 units. Mr. Kanter commented that there are several other parcels around the core
of the hospital and County properties. He proposed the question of whether or not the
available parcels were going to develop anyway regardless of what the Town does. He
thought that the answer was "yes" and was a question of how long it was going to take.
Mr. Kanter did not think that when the Board was talking about encouraging nodal
development that the Board was necessarily saying that this node was going to develop
within a 5 -year period. He thought that they needed to look long term and if they would
like to be able to have some say about how the development would occur, the ideas in
the Route 96 Corridor Study go beyond nodal development. It talks about coordinating
access to the road; building design, configuration and setup; integration of transit stops.
Mr. Kanter emphasized that it is not only an issue of densification,. but the other things
that the study talks about, too. He commented that the study does recommend setting
up a park- and -ride lot in conjunction with some of the development that could be
happening. He added that by encouraging nodal development, the chances for a park -
and -ride lot work better.
Chairperson Howe asked again if someone would like to move the resolution.
Board Member Bosak asked if he could respond to Board Member Wilcox's comment.
Board Member Bosak stated that he supports the idea of nodal development in the
Page 6 of 18
Planning Board Minutes of
May 5, 2009
Final
abstract, but thought that the County and those who put the report together are being
overly optimistic in thinking that the housing was going to be filled any time soon by any
sizable percentage of hospital staff. He noted that almost all the hourly employees live
at some distance away and are not in a financial position to move and that the
physicians at the hospital would not want to live there. Board Member Bosak reiterated
that he was in favor of the concept, but wanted to be clear of the expectations. He
noted that some day this could happen and that the Board could come up with wording
for the resolution.
Board Member Erb added that whether or not people choose to live in the node or not,
the light commercial development would serve the several hundred employees and
visitors coming in and out of the hospital. She thought that the modest income elderly
might enjoy living in the area of the hospital.
Board Member Erb moved the proposed resolution and Chairperson Howe seconded.
Chairperson Howe solicited changes from the Board. The Board discussed changes to
the proposed resolution and agreed upon the following changes:
First Resolved, change "utilized" to "consider".
Second Further Resolved, change paragraph to state "...the Town Board of the Town of
Ithaca continue the cooperative efforts ... and encourage the Comprehensive Plan
Steering Committee to take into consideration the findings of..."
With no further changes, Chairperson Howe called for a vote. Carried unanimously.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2009 -036: In Support of Route 96 Corridor Management
Study, Recommendation to Town Board
MOTION made by Hollis Erb, seconded by Rod Howe.
WHEREAS, pursuant to General Municipal Law Section 119 -0, the County of Tompkins,
the City of Ithaca, and the Towns of Ithaca and Ulysses entered into an agreement to
complete a corridor management study of New York State Route 96 within Tompkins
County to determine current and projected transportation patterns as they relate to
development in that corridor and to make recommendations for mitigation of future
traffic congestion and safety issues; and
WHEREAS, a consultant team was hired and completed Technical Reports # 1, 2 and 3
with technical information, analysis and recommendations, and
WHEREAS, a survey of residents in the Route 96 Corridor was conducted, focus group
meetings with businesses /institutions in the Corridor were held, and two area -wide
public meetings were held at the Museum of the Earth regarding the Route 96 Study in
2008, and comments received from the public participation process were factored into
the Route 96 Corridor Management Study reports, and
Page 7 of 18
Planning Board Minutes of
May 5, 2009
Final
WHEREAS, Draft Technical Report #4 (dated 416109) was prepared by the
representatives of the Route 96 Corridor Technical Review Committee, including
representatives from the participating organizations. Technical Report #4 draws from
the three earlier technical reports to develop an inter - municipal strategy for mitigating
the impacts of traffic by promoting a nodal pattern of development in the Corridor and
utilizing related strategies of enhanced transit opportunities, improved pedestrian and
bicycle connections and systems, better management of access within the Corridor,
traffic calming measures, infrastructure improvements, and zoning and land use
modifications where applicable, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed Draft Technical Report #4
(dated 416109) at its regular meetings on April 21 and May 5, 2009, and suggested
revisions to Draft Technical Report #4, as shown in a document prepared by Planning
staff entitled "Suggested Revisions on Pages 3, 7 and 8 based on Comments by Town
of Ithaca Planning Board at April 21, 2009 Meeting'; now therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby supports the Route
96 Corridor Management Study and the principles therein as a useful planning tool that
can be considered by the participating organizations, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommends
that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca continue the cooperative planning efforts
begun during the Study among participating organizations and encourage the
Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee to take into consideration the findings of the
Route 96 Corridor Management Study as it updates the 1993 Town of Ithaca
Comprehensive Plan.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Howe, Conneman, Bosak, Riha, Tally, Erb, Wilcox.
NA YS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Mr. Kanter wrapped up discussion by stating he thought the Study was going to be a
helpful document for the Town to use. He stated that it is much easier to work together
on a concept as opposed to fighting about wording.
AGENDA ITEM
Consider Authorization to Hire a Consultant to Review Verizon Cell Tower
Application
Chairperson Howe directed the Board's attention to the additional information before
them. He commented that the Board would not be discussing aspects of the project
and asked that an update be given on selection of a consultant.
Page 8 of 18
Planning Board Minutes of
May 5, 2009
Final
Ms. Balestra stated that the Consultant Selection Committee met and discussed the two
candidates. She explained that Mr. Kirby was qualified, but he had worked for Verizon
Wireless in the past and his company had worked with several telecommunications
corporations. Board Member Talty added that Bill Johnson has never worked for a
telecommunications company.
Board Member Erb asked if Mr. Kirby would be an acceptable consultant if Mr. Johnson
was not able to perform the consulting work. Board Member Talty did not think so.
Board Member Wilcox followed up by asking if the Selection Committee was unanimous
in their recommendation. Ms. Balestra responded that it was.
Chairperson Howe asked for a motion on the proposed resolution. Board Member Riha
moved and Board Member Wilcox seconded. With no changes to the resolution,
Chairperson Howe called for a vote.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2009-03: Authorization to enter into contract with a
Wireless Telecommunications Consultant to evaluate the Proposed Verizon Cell
Tower at 651 Five Mile Drive, Tax Parcel No. 31 -2 -25.2
MOTION made by Susan Riha, seconded by Fred Wilcox.
WHEREAS:
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board wishes to retain the services of a wireless
telecommunications consultant to assist with the evaluation of the technical
documentation provided to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board by Upstate
Cellular Network (d /b /a Verizon) and to evaluate the radiofrequency data and
other data related to the installation and operation of the proposed
telecommunications tower located at 651 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 31 -2 -25.2; and
2. Section 270 -219 K(4) and (5) of the Town of Ithaca Code authorizes the
municipality, at the expense of the applicant, to employ its own consultant to
examine the application and related documentation, to make recommendations
as to whether the criteria for granting the special permit have been met, including
whether the applicant's conclusions regarding need, co- location, safety analysis,
visual analysis, and structural inspection are valid and supported by generally
accepted and reliable engineering and technical data and standards, and
whether the telecommunications facility as constructed is in compliance with the
approved plans and in accordance with generally accepted good engineering
practices and industry standards, and
3. A Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was prepared and sent to individuals and
firms who provide engineering analysis of telecommunications radiofrequency
Page 9 of 18
Planning Board Minutes of
May 5, 2009
Final
data and was also posted on the consultant page of the American Planning
Association; and
4. The RFQ requested information, including: (a) a statement of the firm's
qualifications, demonstrating that the firm has the appropriate background,
experience, staff and technical capabilities to adequately provide the services; (b)
a narrative statement including a description of the firm's proposed approach to
providing the range of requested services, (c) documentation of GIS and other
mapping capabilities; (d) the names and resumes of the project manager and key
personnel who would provide the services to the Town of Ithaca, along with their
background, experience, and qualifications; (e) a listing of similar services
(including the sources of funding) performed by the project manager and any key
personnel over the past twelve years; (f) hourly billing rate of the project manager
and key personnel who would be providing the requested services, and standard
billing rates for other related expenses, and (g) a preliminary estimate of the total
cost of providing the requested services, and
5. The Planning Board set up a Consultant Selection Committee to review all
submitted Statements of Qualifications from potential consultants and to make a
recommendation on a consultant to the Planning Board at the May 5th, 2009
Planning Board meeting, and
6. The Consultant Selection Committee met on April 27th and reviewed the two
submitted proposals, and has determined that William P. Johnson is a well
qualified and capable consultant, based on an assessment of his staffing
expertise and qualifications, his proposed approach to the study, his experience
with similar projects, his mapping abilities, and his cost estimates,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board authorizes the Chair of the Planning
Board to execute a contract with William P. Johnson to conduct the requested
services, and
2. The funds for this study, which will be conducted in May -June 2009, are to be
provided at the expense of the Verizon applicant, to be deposited in the escrow
account established for the project, per the requirements of the Town of Ithaca
Code, Section 270 -219 K (4) & (5) Engineering and Maintenance.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Howe, Conneman, Bosak, Riha, Talty, Erb, Wilcox.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN. None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Page 10 of 18 . .
Planning Board Minutes of
May 5, 2009
Final
AGENDA ITEM
Discussion Regarding Board Procedures Relating to Revisions to Draft
Resolutions
Board Member Bosak stated that he thought about this, but did not come up with a
compelling solution. Board Member Riha asked Attorney Brock to weigh in and asked
how minor changes (such as the wrong date or a wrong reference to a figure) should be
handled. She understood that if there was a concern about how language is worded
and what it means that everyone needs to discuss it; she did not understand why
punctuation errors, spelling errors, or a wrong date needed to be discussed. Board
Member Bosak commented that is how the minutes are handled and wondered if
resolutions could be handled in the same way. Board Member Bosak and Board
Member Riha agreed that substantive changes needed to be discussed, but thought the
Board should distinguish between substantive and nonsubstantive changes.
Chairperson Howe asked Ms. Brock to comment. Attorney Brock thought that all Board
members should see the proposed changes. She stated that changes in punctuation
can change the meaning of sentences. Board Member Riha asked how time spent on
minimal changes could be minimized. Board Member Bosak stated that in the case of
the minutes, the Board has been willing to delegate the judgment to the Clerk. He
asked if that judgment could be delegated to Attorney Brock.
Board Member Wilcox suggested that the Board not be supplied with proposed
resolutions and that the Board constructs resolutions from scratch during the meeting.
He explained that he was bringing up the extreme in order to make it clear that the
resolutions are the Board's resolutions, not staff's resolutions or the attorney's
resolutions. Staff does the Board a great favor by preparing a draft resolution. The
Board needs to own them, read them, proof them, change them, and approve them.
Board Member Riha responded that the Board needs to rely on the proposed staff
resolutions as a first draft. Board Member Bosak asked if he could pass his changes to
a proposed resolution around to the Board while the item is being discussed. Board
Member Riha thought that was a good idea. Board Member Erb did not understand
why the Board was having this discussion. She stated that it does not take very long to
review the resolutions; she thought that changes should be made openly and clearly in
front of the public.
Board Member Conneman wanted to make sure that references within resolutions are
correct. Board Member Bosak thought it boiled down to the Board only making
substantive changes. Board members agreed.
Board Member Wilcox added that if he has trouble understanding a resolution he calls
the staff person responsible for the project and discusses the resolution.
Chairperson Howe recapped that the Board was going to take a reasonable approach
and make changes to resolutions at meetings. He then reminded the Board that when
Page 11 of 18
Planning Board Minutes of
May 5, 2009
Final
they communicate with each other via email, they have to be careful not to give opinions
in the email. The Board should share its opinion in the public venue.
The Board briefly discussed calling staff with questions or clarifications before the
meeting. It was decided that this practice was okay and Board Members were
encouraged to contact staff with questions.
Referring to Board Member Riha's earlier question, Attorney Brock explained that the
Board has more latitude to communicate and discuss items by email than the Board
wants to do as a matter of policy. She went on to say that a quorum of the Board could
not be in a chat room at the same time because it would be deemed a secret meeting.
The Board also cannot send email to one another to reach a decision in a serial fashion.
She noted that she was not aware of any court cases regarding the use of emails and
the Open Meetings Law in this context, but the Committee on Open Government has
Opinions on it.
Attorney Brock further explained that it is not forbidden to express opinions via email
except to the extent that the opinions might be read as the Board prejudging the
outcome of an application before being given all of the information. She cautioned the
Board against putting opinions in email because it could be grounds for the applicant to
request a Board Member to recuse himself or herself.
Board Member Bosak stated that he has sent messages via email to the entire Board
and he considers all those messages as part of the public record. He asked if he
should consider messages to the Board as part of the record. Attorney Brock
responded that it depends upon what is in the message. She stated that if he has
information that is not already part of the record that is being shared with the Board and
then want the Board to base their decision in part on that information then it should be
part of the record. She noted that information cannot be considered in making
decisions if it is not part of the record. Board Member Bosak gave the scenario that he
rationally expressed an opinion that an applicant could later consider as prejudicial, he
assumed that it would be discoverable since it was emailed to the Board. Attorney
Brock stated that disclosable under FOIL and discoverable in litigation are two different
things. She explained that under the FOIL law, intra- agency communications do not
have to be disclosed, but in litigation it would have to be turned over in discovery.
Board Member Talty stated that he agreed with Board Member Wilcox. Board Member
Wilcox added that he had a discussion with Attorney Brock previously about
communications and Attorney Brock had stated that the public accuses the Town of
making deals behind their backs with developers; she suggested that the Board should
not give the public any potential reason to think that. Attorney Brock agreed with Board
Member Wilcox, but didn't want the Board to have the impression that it was legally
mandated. She said that the Board had a lot more latitude, but there are practical
considerations and it is easier to adhere to a bright -line rule.
Page 12 of 18
Planning Board Minutes of
May 5, 2009
Final
Board Member Conneman asked if email is more dangerous than a telephone call.
Board Member Riha commented that it definitely is.
With no further discussion, Chairperson Howe introduced the next agenda item.
AGENDA ITEM
Update /Overview of Comprehensive Plan Committee's Work on Plan Update
The Board and staff briefly discussed the make -up of the Comprehensive Plan
Committee and whether or not the City representative had voting rights on the
Committee. Board Member Erb recalled that the Committee had voted not to give the
City representative voting rights.
Mr. Kanter directed the Board's attention to the information provided to them in their
packets. He gave an overview of the surrey mailed to residents and commented that
the survey results re- enforce elements of the 1993 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kanter
then gave examples of answers to various survey questions.
Board Member Talty asked if the Committee felt the survey missed any information or
areas. Mr. Kanter answered that the Committee initially struggled with whether or not
the survey should be a written mail survey. He thought that more questions could have
been asked if a written survey was conducted, but the responses would have been
different because generally the most interested and those with extreme points of view
respond to written surveys. The phone survey provided a random sample with a range
of people. Board Member Erb added that the survey tried to avoid surveying
dormitories and that the respondents varied in age, years of residence, type of housing,
and geographic location.
Chairperson Howe thanked Comprehensive Plan Committee members for their hard
work. Mr. Kanter stated that the Committee projects the plan update to go well into
2010. The Committee hopes to have another public information meeting later this year.
Mr. Kanter went on to explain that focus groups have been developed to focus on
certain subject areas that will be particularly relevant to the plan. He added that staff is
currently writing background and existing conditions chapters of the plan.
Mr. Kanter. then directed the Board's attention to the timeline provided to them in their
packets. He noted that the Committee is starting to review the goals and objectives of
the 1993. Cornell will be coming to the next Comprehensive Plan Committee meeting
to give a report on the East Ithaca Village project in the context of the Campus Master
Plan. Cornell will also be discussing its growth issues with the Committee.
Board Member Conneman stated that he thought it was important that the Plan include
protection of neighborhoods against encroachment.
Page 13 of 18
Planning Board Minutes of
May 5, 2009
Final
Board Member Bosak commented that he is impressed with the work of the Committee.
He noted that he saw a very serious procedural problem on the horizon; he stated that
the Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the Planning Board September 1993 and then
adopted by the Town Board. Board Member Bosak stated that the plan includes an
entire page on revising the Comprehensive Plan and within that page it states, `The
Planning Board shall determine and authorize all changes to be made in the
Comprehensive Plan including changes to text, maps, figures..."
Mr. Kanter explained that there has been a change in Town Law that authorizes the
Town Board to adopt Comprehensive Plans and to set up committees to review the
plan. He noted that it does not preclude a Planning Board being assigned to update the
Comprehensive Plan.
Attorney Brock and Board Member Bosak discussed the procedure of adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Board Member Riha asked how the SEOR process enters into the review of the plan.
Mr. Kanter responded that the Committee discussed the SEOR process and came to
the conclusion that a Generic Environmental Impact Statement would probably be the
best way to conduct an environmental review of the Comprehensive Plan. The Town
Board will be the lead agency, but Mr. Kanter thought that a lot of work would be
delegated to the Comprehensive Plan Committee.
With no further discussion, Chairperson Howe introduced the next agenda item.
AGENDA ITEM
Informal Discussion Regarding a Possible Follow -up Forum on Nodal
Development - What Questions/issues Would the Board Like to Have Addressed
at a Forum?
Chairperson Howe explained that a few years ago Gary Ferguson approached Cornell
with his concern about nodal development countywide. A small group of individuals met
to figure out how to engage municipalities on the topic of nodal development. Those
discussions lead to a training session last fall at the Tompkins County Public Library.
The group then discussed how to move forward with the concept and they are still
looking for the right entity to pull together regular trainings for Planning and Zoning
Boards, and Town Officials. He mentioned that the group is in discussions with the
Cooperative Extension to play that role.
Chairperson Howe stated he viewed this discussion as finding out what type of
information the Planning Board would be interested in receiving or learning about at
another session. Would the Board be interested in case studies, examples from other
communities, etc? Board Member Bosak thought it was important to have tutorial
information. He noted that www.tclocal.org has a piece on nodal development. Board
Member Bosak felt that a forum was needed to field questions about nodal
development. Chairperson Howe thought that it was important for the discussion to be
Page 14 of 18
Planning Board Minutes of
May 5, 2009
Final
Countywide and the Board agreed. Board Member Talty added that it would be
interesting to hear the opinions of other municipalities.
Mr. Kanter stated that it would be beneficial to get the Municipal Planning Coalition
going again; it provided a way for officials and planners from all municipalities together
to discuss issues. He thought it would good to establish another coalition. Chairperson
Howe agreed and stated that he is talking with the Cooperative Extension about making
that happen.
Board Member Bosak thought that it was important to be able to discuss Carrowmoor
and whether or not it is a node, and whether it does or does not matter. Attorney Brock
cautioned the Planning Board because it is the Town Board that decides the policy as to
whether they want to support nodal development. If the Town Board does want to
support nodal development, the tools they use to support it will probably be zoning
changes. The Planning Board takes the zoning as it is. She explained that
Carrowmoor was planning a Planned Development Zone. Board Member Bosak
understood Attorney Brock's point, but thought the Planning Board was doing a little bit
more than interpreting zoning. He stated that the Planning Board was supposed to be
interpreting zoning based on a certain set of principles in the Comprehensive Plan.
Attorney Brock responded no, the Planning Board does not interpret zoning. Board
Member Bosak argued that the Planning Board was supposed to be exercising certain
principles. When Carrowmoor was presented to the Planning Board, it was presented
to them with the reason that it was in -line with the nodal development policy. Attorney
Brock stated that the Board could not base a decision to approve or not approve a
subdivision or site plan approval on whether or not it fits in with a nodal development
policy. Board Member Bosak asked why the project was presented to them as one of
the reasons to be taken into consideration. Attorney Brock responded that it may be
something the Town Board is looking at. She explained that the Town Board ultimately
has to decide whether it wants to rezone the land. Through the EIS process, the
Planning Board will be looking at the environmental impacts of the proposal. The
Planning Board may decide proposed densities, layouts, number of units or mix of uses
as proposed presents unacceptable impacts in some area and not approve the project
as proposed, but based on the Environmental Impact Statement and changes were
made then the impacts would be mitigated. She reiterated that the Planning Board
would be looking at the environmental impacts and whether they are unacceptable
impacts that will flow from the proposal.
Board Member Riha stated it is difficult to look at environmental impacts of a project in
isolation. Attorney Brock responded that that cannot happen with the Carrowmoor EIS
because they know that Holochuck homes are proposing a major subdivision. The
scoping document for the Carrowmoor project spells out in great detail the alternatives
that need to be looked at. When the Board receives the draft EIS, it does not have to
release it for public review and comment until the Board feels that the draft document
covers what the scope said it has to. The Board may not agree with the conclusions,
but the topics_ have to be covered. She explained that the Town Board has to decide
whether or not they want to rezone the property and allow the project as proposed.
Page 15 of 18
Planning Board Minutes of
May 5, 2009
Final
Chairperson Howe asked if a question and answer forum should be avoided because
the Carrowmoor project will be brought up by people in the audience. Attorney Brock
did not think that was a reason to not hold a training session. She thought the Board
needed to be clear whether Carrowmoor fits a particular definition of a node or not.
Attorney Brock added that it might be good to notify the Carrowmoor applicant and the
neighbors of the training.
Mr. Kanter stated he discussed with Chairperson Howe whether the Planning Board
should sponsor the proposed training or whether it should be an independent
organization. Mr. Kanter strongly suggested that the Planning Board not host the
training session.
Board Member Erb stated that if there are examples of nodes that were created by
intention out in open space alongside a major artery, would be very informative. Board
Member Bosak added he would also like information regarding the difference between a
node and a planned community.
Board Member Conneman thought that the training should be hosted by a neutral party;
he felt that the County was already very supportive of nodal development.
Board Member Bosak asked why new nodes should be created instead of putting the
same amount of resources into Varna, McLean, etc. Board Member Erb responded that
it may not be, "only this or only that." She envisioned 3,000 housing units needing to be
in a more dense area; she imagined dividing the housing units up into several different
locations.
Board Member Wilcox wrapped up discussion by moving to approve the minutes of April
21, 2009.
AGENDA ITEM
Approval of Minutes: April 21, 2009
Board Member Wilcox moved and Board Member Erb seconded approval of the
minutes with corrections.
Board Member Bosak asked that the tape be listened to in order to clarify the second
paragraph on page 9. He then directed the Board's attention to page 13, second
paragraph from the bottom, fourth line. He questioned whether the sentence made
sense. Board Member Conneman felt that the minutes reflected what he said.
With no further discussion, Chairperson Howe called for a vote. Carried unanimously.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2009-038: Minutes of April 21, 2009
Page 16 of 18
Planning Board Minutes of
May 5, 2009
Final
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Hollis Erb.
WHEREAS:
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from April 21, 2009,
and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, with corrections, to be the
final minutes of the meeting held April 21, 2009.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Howe, Conneman, Bosak, Riha, Tally, Erb, Wilcox
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
The Motion passed.
AGENDA ITEM
Cancellation May 19, 2009 Planning Board Meeting
Board Member Wilcox moved and Board Member Talty seconded to cancel the May
19th meeting.
Chairperson Howe called for a vote — carried unanimously (Board Member Erb
abstained in order to allow Alternate Member Baer the opportunity to vote).
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2009-039: Cancellation of May 19, 2009 Planning Board
Meetincr
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Kevin Tally.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby cancels the May 19,
2009 meeting and directs the Director of Planning to notify the press of the meeting
cancellation.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Howe, Conneman, Bosak, Riha, Tally, Wilcox, Baer.
NA YS: None.
ABSTAIN. Erb.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM
Other Business
Page 17 of 18
Planning Board Minutes of
May 5, 2009
Final
The Board briefly discussed upcoming informational meetings.
Adjournment
Upon motion, Chairperson Howe adjourned the meeting at 9:2? p.m.
Rerspectful Submitted,
rrie oat itmore
First Deputy Town Clerk
Page 18 of 18
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
AGENDA
7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes).
7:05 P.M. Consider Resolution of Support for Route 96 Corridor Management Study.
7:15 P.M. Consider Authorization to Hire a Consultant to Review Verizon Cell Tower Application.
7:30 P.M. Discussion Regarding Board Procedures Relating to Revisions to Draft Resolutions.
7:45 P.M. Update /Overview of Comprehensive Plan Committee's Work on Plan Update.
8:05 P.M. Informal Discussion Regarding a Possible Follow -up Forum on Nodal Development -
What Questions /Issues Would the Board Like to Have Addressed at a Forum?
7. Approval of Minutes: April 21, 2009.
8. Other Business: Consider Cancellation of May 19, 2009 Meeting.
9. 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
Sign -in Sheet
Date: May 5, 2009
Print Name Address e-mail