Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2011-12-20FILE DATE 2 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, December 20, 2011 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox (Chair), Linda Collins, George Conneman, John Beach, Jon Bosak, David Slottje, Hollis Erb Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Chris Balestra, Planner; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and accepted the secretary's posting of the public hearing notice. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard No one came forward to address the Board. AGENDA ITEM SEAR Determination: Temporary Parking Lot, 380 Pine Tree Road Jim Polakawicz, Hayner -Hoyt Corporation, and Herman Sieverding, Ithaca College, were present. Mr. Wilcox pointed out that there's been some mention of SEQR segmentation; i.e., why this was not part of the City's deliberations. He also wanted those present to be aware that this parcel is very sensitive to the Planning Board. When the fitness center was demolished, the Board included a condition in the resolution that stated that the site would not be used as an interim parking lot, construction storage area, or any similar use without going through site plan approval. Approximately two years later, Cornell used it to stage materials for the modifications at the heating and cooling facility, which angered the Board. Eventually, it was determined that they needed a variance, but before they got the variance, construction materials were removed from the site. The Board has made it very clear that they don't want it to be a parking lot. Mr. Wilcox stated that he didn't want to guess why the City didn't deal with the parking issue as part of their process, and said that he didn't want it to be part of the discussion unless it would help the Board make a decision or determination, such as if there's relevant information in the City's EIS. Ms. Erb stated that although she didn't think it would help the Board make a decision, she doesn't want to be put in this situation again. Mr. Conneman was concerned about the effect a parking lot might have on the neighborhood: the traffic it generates would create an environmental impact. Mr. Slottje agreed with Mr. Conneman, saying the answer to C1 of the SEQR, Part 2, may not be accurate. He asked for clarification on the park- and -ride aspect of the request. Mr. Polakawicz responded that the plan would be to transport workers to and from the work site in a carpool van. The workers are from Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and all over New York State. Planning Board 12 -20 -2011 Page 2 of 10 Mr. Slottje stated that it is probably not accurate to say that the park- and -ride idea would reduce the number of vehicles traveling on area roads during project construction. He could see an argument to that effect if the people were local, but this does nothing but move ,traffic, air pollution, and noise to that area. Mr. Sieverding pointed out that an argument could be made that the cars would be traveling through that area to get to the job site anyway. Mr. Slottje said that that would depend on where the cars are coming from. It could be a coincidence that people would be driving through there. He said this is different from other park - and -ride lots in that it appears that the applicant does not have the right to do this as a right — it doesn't appear to fit the definition of park and ride. Mr. Wilcox said that public parking lots might be allowable in this zone, but what's being proposed is a private parking lot. It may require the applicant, should they get approval from the Board, to go to the ZBA for a use variance. He also asked whether the dumpster and the port -a -john make it other than a parking lot — such as a construction staging area. Mr. Polakawicz responded that the dumpster was his idea, because when people come to a parking lot, they use it to get rid of their garbage, either in a garbage bin, or they dump their garbage on the ground. He would get a dumpster that could only hold garbage: it would have a small hole on the top and be lockable. The bathrooms he proposed would be a convenience so no one in the community would get upset — the portable toilet would have a lock on it and workers would have the combination to the lock. He stated that he's okay with not having them. Mr. Slottje commented that the whole thing is confusing. "Temporary" is legally accurate, but he pointed out that it would be for three years. He respectfully disagreed that it's possible or likely that most of the traffic would be going through this neighborhood otherwise. He does not assume that the traffic would be in that area anyway. The materials stated that they had looked at other places for parking. He asked whether they had looked at the Buffalo Street parking garage, for example. That's a parking facility almost on the same street as the project, and only one block away. The top floor is not often used. He's in the parking lot five days per week. Mr. Bosak concurred, saying that he parks on the top level every time he attends a meeting at Town Hall, and there's usually only one other vehicle on that entire level. Mr. Slottje took issue with the whole approach that was taken, citing a memo claiming that the applicants have exhausted all opportunities in the City and elsewhere for parking, while the closest parking facility — which he knows first -hand has available spaces and which is in the city where the project is — was not considered. Mr. Polakawicz stated that right now, he's accommodating the 100 workers on site. At the peak, minimally, there will be 500 people. The idea of the parking lot is to have the vehicles in one spot, instead of having everyone park on their own. Mr. Slottje stated that the other alternative is to have a true park- and -ride lot. If there are going to be 500 people, what they will really need is more than 84 spaces. Mr. Polakawicz responded that there will be a parking garage under each building. As a building goes up, the parking lot will become available, and there will be spots for the people to park their vehicles. So there's not a need for all 500 people in one lot. Come July, other buildings will be knocked down, creating more area for parking. Planning Board 12 -20 -2011 Page 3 of 10 Mr. Slottje stated that the Board should focus on the fact that temporary in this context is three years, and that he doesn't think this fits the definition of a park- and -ride lot in the zoning code. Ms. Erb enumerated her concerns. She stated that she was very upset with the idea of a dumpster, but less so upon hearing Mr. Polakawicz's description. She is also very concerned about screening the port -a -john. In the past, she was told there wouldn't be a port -a -john for the playing fields, and the port -a -john is now there during the entire season. She's concerned about how they arrived at the number of parking spaces, and how the lot will be monitored so that only the workers use the lot, since this neighborhood suffers greatly from on- street parking by people who work at Cornell and don't want to pay parking fees. She stated that she wanted to hear why 84 spaces is enough, because if it's not, there might be an additional 40 to 50 trucks parked willy- nilly in that area. She's concerned about the screening, generally, not just of the facilities in the back corner, but of the appearance of the parking lot itself. She said that 84 vehicles means 84 bodies: that is not a van, that is 10 or 15 repeated van trips back and forth to the work site. Cornell's own Transportation Environmental Impact Statement states that some of the worst intersections for level of service in the Town are intersections to conceivably be affected by this traffic. Regarding routing, she sees two residential neighborhoods, especially Mitchell Street, severely damaged by a construction van service. The route goes by an elementary school and a nasty turn into an intersection. The worst intersection crash data in the Town is for Pine Tree Road and Route 79. She suggested a possible van circulation route that stays out of Mitchell Street (but further damages Pine Tree) that makes only right -hand turns until the right turn onto Route 79. The FEIS from the City says it will take 22 months to construct, although it does acknowledge a three -year time frame. Since all the demolition is done, she doesn't understand the need for three years when they're already in the construction phase. She also picked up from Ms. Balestra's letter that it is not a park- and -ride lot in the traditional sense. She asked what time of day this repeated van service will be traveling back and forth: she sees the van running 10 or 12 times in the morning and in the afternoon, and there is already seriously damaged level of service at the prime intersections. The Board sometimes likes seeing smaller- than - standard parking spaces, but construction workers don't drive small cars — they drive pickup trucks. Mr. Polakawicz said he thought screening the bathrooms and dumpster was a great idea. The planned route is on Mitchell Street, which is nine - tenths of a mile to the job site. The vans will hold 12 or 15 passengers. Each company is allowed one or two vehicles at the job. There will be over 20 subcontractors. The work hours are 7:30 to 7:30. They're in Phase 1 of a three -year job, and are currently constructing three buildings out of seven; the 22 months is for the three buildings. Mr. Sieverding added that July 2014 is when the last phase is scheduled to be complete. The request is through December to allow schedule slippage. The plan is to use the driveway behind Rite Aid to access Mitchell Street, and take Mitchell down to the job site. To a question from Mr. Slottje, Mr. Sieverding stated that they inquired whether they could use the old Crispell's parking lot, but that the site is not available. Mr. Polakawicz stated that they used a P &C parking lot on another job, and the owner didn't charge them because of all the business the workers brought to the store. Mr. Slottje pointed to Mr. Thurston's letter in which he claims to having conducted an exhaustive search for off -site parking within a reasonable distance from the City of Ithaca. So far he hasn't looked at anything in the City, and he only looked at one site in Brooktondale. No one has even talked to the City about the parking garage. Mr. Slottje stated that it's not appropriate to lead with a letter that says they've searched when they've looked at one place, and when they didn't even talk to the municipality where the project is located. He stated that he doesn't think it's appropriate Planning Board 12 -20 -2011 Page 4 of 10 that they now want to dump all this traffic on a neighborhood in a municipality that's not even where the project is. Ms. Erb stated that she came very close to phoning Mr. Bates a couple months ago because it looked like several dump trucks of gravel were parking in the back of the lot. She has previously phoned the Cornell police to get truck parking stopped there. It has happened repeatedly in this location. She sees it escalating from 84 trucks to 140, and she doesn't understand how it will be policed. She is also concerned about 10 to 20 vans going down that narrow residential street at rush hour past the school. Mr. Bates reminded the Board that the Belle Sherman project will be starting up on Mitchell Street. This doesn't regard parking, but it does involve construction traffic. Mr. Bosak stated that he supports the development of housing in the City, but that if he were a resident in the City, he would be very concerned with the adequacy of the SEQR process that apparently didn't even consider this issue. This looks like a great big hole in the middle of that consideration. He disagrees with the last sentence in C1 that says it will reduce the number of vehicles traveling on area roads; if the van trips are factored in, at best, it will be a wash. Ms. Balestra responded that the thinking behind that sentence was that there will be fewer construction cars traveling on that road with 15 people in a van rather than 15 people in cars driving through. It's fair to assume that some of the traffic will be coming from the east, especially with the people coming from Syracuse. Mr. Polakawicz said the thought process was to have consolidated parking to eliminate the number of vehicles in the City, but every company is prepared to pay for their workers to park in the public lots. Mr. Sieverding said that the issue with the City parking garage is that when you buy a permit, you don't get a guaranteed spot — it's a license to hunt. They oversubscribe. Mr. Bosak responded that he has quite a bit of experience with this parking garage: twice a month for the last three years, he has parked up there in the middle of the day on the top level, and there is usually one other vehicle up there. He knows it can accommodate large vehicles because he drives a long -bed Ford F150, and the other vehicle is a longer F150 with a club cab. There are not possibly less than 50 spaces on that level alone. He rejected the assertion that this is necessary to reduce traffic. It's a lot shorter to get from that parking structure to the work site than from the proposed lot, especially if parking is being built as part of the project. Mr. Slottje mentioned a property on Route 79 in Caroline where there is a big truck business that advertises parking for rent. That would allow them to run straight up Route 79. He questioned how much time Mr. Thurston spent looking at parking. Mr. Polakawicz said the Cornell lot is convenient to the stores, the restaurants, and the bank, and is on the driving route of most of the people coming to the job site. Ms. Erb and Mr. Slottje agreed that it's almost impossible to make the left turn into the plaza at the peak of rush hour. Ms. Erb suggested looking at NYSEG, which would be convenient for the people coming from Cortland and Syracuse. Mr. Conneman argued that they should stay on State roads. If they come down Route 79 or 366, then they won't interfere with neighborhoods, or they should stay on the main roads and park in the City. It's an environmental impact if they drive through a neighborhood. Planning Board 12 -20 -2011 Page 5 of 10 Ms. Brock stated that the Findings Statement for the City's EIS requires that the applicant prepare a Maintenance and Protection of Traffic Plan to minimize construction- related traffic impacts. Mr. Sieverding said he had it in hand. It was approved by Tim Logue. It does not address construction parking. Mr. Wilcox reminded the Board that for the past 45 minutes everyone had expressed opinions on what should have been done, but that the Board needed to address the proposal before them. Ms. Erb said that she couldn't see how they would limit parking to their workers. There are people in those neighborhoods that have cars practically parking across their driveway mouths because they're so desperate for free parking to get to Cornell. There are already people parking in the East Hill Plaza parking lot, and as soon as they see a new parking lot, they'll use it. Mr. Sieverding stated that that could be addressed through issuing stickers and having the lot monitored. He said that, given the nature of the conversation, it would be pointless to pursue those sorts of things if the general sense of the Board is that they're not particularly interested in seeing this particular piece of property used for what is proposed. He said they will look at other alternatives, and that there was no point in belaboring the issue. Mr. Wilcox offered an alternative route for the vans to avoid the use of Mitchell Street; it would entail making a left turn out of the parking lot and staying on Route 366, which is a State highway. Ms. Erb stated that she would be happier with that. Mr. Wilcox said that with regard to enforcement, it's self policing. The contractors and subcontractors want to make sure there's room for their employees, and they'll make sure others don't park there. He stated a concern about overflow parking going to the fitness facility. He suggested putting a time limit of a year on the use of the lot, contingent on factors such as if there's trash on the site, tire ruts, vans using Mitchell Street, etc. Mr. Bates wanted to remind the Board that this is not a parking lot; it is a lot. The layout, as they have it currently, doesn't meet the setbacks — it borders a residential property. Mr. Wilcox argued that this is a reintroduction of a previous use. He would take that into account. The traffic would be making up for traffic that was removed when the fitness center was there, and will occur slightly before rush hour and after rush hour. He sees the issue as routing these vans away from Mitchell Street. Mr. Slottje responded that this is assuming the conclusion by focusing just on the vans. He didn't agree with the analysis that because there were cars in that lot two years ago, that it's apples and apples. He is also not comfortable with the one -year solution, saying he couldn't imagine what that would look like. They're in the middle of the project, and the Town has pictures of ruts and people parked on the side of the road and garbage, etc, and decides they're going to pull it. He asked what would happen: would they shut down the project for a month? There would be a war. He stated that the Board is trying to be creative, but the applicant was not creative. If they come back and say that they have really looked at this and this is the only solution, then it will be time to be creative. He does not see how the Town could back out of a one -year solution. Mr. Conneman stated that he agreed with Mr. Slottje. When Cornell wanted to build fields and said they had looked at 27 different sites, they hadn't actually looked at anything. He said that the applicant needs to find a spot someplace away from the neighborhood. Planning Board 12 -20 -2011 Page 6 of 10 Mr. Sieverding stated again that they will withdraw this application. They will take a look at their other options, and if they think they've exhausted their other options, they will come back with an alternate plan. He also said that if this involves going to the ZBA for a zoning variance, they're not interested. Ms. Brock responded that the applicant would have to ask the ZBA for an interpretation regarding whether the lot has to be open to the public, and if so, they would have to ask for a use variance. Ms. Erb pointed out that if the railroad trestle replacement has evolved enough to get underway within the next three years, that would kill Mr. Wilcox's routing. Mr. Beach said that he realized the application had been withdrawn, but he was having a difficult time trying to understand how the traffic generated by the construction workers wasn't taken into consideration as a mitigation factor for this project that was under discussion by the City planning board for upwards of four years, and that it flabbergasted him that the Town has ended up trying to deal with it when it should been taken into account as part of the City's site plan approval process. AGENDA ITEM Clarification regarding condition "p" from the April 5, 2011 Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution (PB Resolution No. 2011 -033) for the Holochuck Homes Subdivision project. Part of condition "p" requires that the Holochuck Homes owners reserve a strip of land along Trumansburg Road (NYS Route 96) for future sidewalk and other improvements and to show future easements for the improvements on a revised set of plans. However, they only own a few small sections of road frontage and it is unclear what the Planning Board's intent was. Mr. Wilcox recalled that it was the Planning Board's intent for Holochuck to do that on the land that they control. Ms. Erb said the point was to grab every little easement possible for the future. AGENDA ITEM Discussion of the revised (dated November 7, 2011) noise measurement study for the Cornell University Animal Health Diagnostic Center. Mr. Wilcox pointed to the materials in the packet, including memos from Bruce Brittain and Doug Brittain and some email exchanges. Mr. Bosak said that since this is a discussion item, and that the Brittain's input is relevant, he would like time to read it. There was a motion by Mr. Wilcox, seconded by Ms. Collins, to defer the discussion. Ms. Erb said that one comment made by Bruce Brittain is irrelevant: the emergency generator is an emergency generator. Running it during the test period is all that has to be done. To raise that as an issue is silly. Mr. Wilcox said the issue is whether the Board would like to have a further discussion with one of the Brittains present. Mr. Bosak said that the only issue is that methodology they used before: the same thought coming in to the meeting that the y seem to be making is that they haven't. Planning Board 12 -20 -2011 Page 7 of 10 the Board said the applicant had to use the same instruments, the same location, the same time. He had accomplished that, and the point the Brittains Ms. Ritter said that she missed the detail that receptor 2 was placed on a house lot at the corner of Caldwell and Forest Home Drive for the 2007 study, and that the same location is shown on the map for the followup study, but the description says that for the 40 -hour continuous recording, they moved it across the street to the southeast corner. Mr. Brittain thinks it might not be a big deal, but was bothered that they moved it across the street. There may have been some issue with the homeowner and the company, but she's not privy to that. Mr. Wilcox stated that the Board was very careful to reject the post- construction analysis because they did not replicate the pre- construction analysis. Ms. Erb wanted to be assured that the new location is not on the other side of the bank and that the sound wave travel lines are not going to be so affected that they get into the noise shadow of the hillside. They haven't documented that. Ms. Ritter said the methodology explained that there's a noise when a car goes over the bridge, and if this is graphed, you'll get a peak every time, and what they want to do is eliminate those peaks — separate out that periodic noise — and tune in to other noises that are up, but not up that high. Ms. Erb said that they failed to address whether that the same process was followed in the pre - construction sound analysis, rather than being averaged in to the background noise level. Mr. Slottje asked what would happen if they do it perfectly, and that the result is that the numbers are dramatically higher than what was modeled. Probably nothing would happen since there are no conditions that say if the noise is exceeded by x percent, the Town is going to do something differently. Ms. Ritter described her understanding of what the Planning Board at the time was looking for. It was raised that there might be noise issues associated with this project. The applicant submitted a noise study to say that they needed to provide some insulation around the generator. The Planning Board wanted to see if the sound analyses were correct, and that when the project was done, it wasn't going to create any significant sound, and that things would be mitigated. Mr. Bosak agreed with Mr. Slottje that the issue is purely procedural. Looking at the figures, he thinks it unlikely that even an exact duplication will show enough difference to be concerned about, and suspects that the difference will be lost in the statistical noise. He doesn't think the real level is the point — even if it were huge, the Town wouldn't actually do anything. The point is that this was very explicitly a condition. Mr. Slottje recommended that next time the Board requires one of these, they do two things differently: 1) Build in a condition that if the test doesn't happen (either it's not timely or it's not properly conducted), the Town will get their own consultant and charge the applicant; and 2) if the test deviates by a certain percent, then it's also a condition that they'll do something such as screen it. That's the lesson. Ms. Ritter agreed that this was a learning lesson, and that in the future, the Town should be more specific. She noted that the Brittains also brought up the issue of what the current baseline is for Planning Board 12 -20 -2011 Page 8 of 10 Forest Home. She said she gets the sense that they'd like to speak with the Board after they meet with the homeowners' association to discuss the baseline issue. Ms. Erb stated that she wants the applicant to document about the bridge noise. She would also like sufficient detail to know that the land itself is not screening that slightly altered location of the receptor. This does not require a lot of new analysis, it just requires them to better document those things. She's content with an email query. Mr. Bosak agreed, saying he'd rather hear from them than the Brittains. This will also give them an opportunity to rebut what the Brittains are saying. Board members also wanted to know why the receptor was moved, and were concerned about the lack of transparency in the report. Ms. Ritter will seek responses from the engineering company. Ms. Erb said the building is beautiful inside, and noted that it won LEED Gold certification. Mr. Wilcox withdrew his motion to defer the discussion. AGENDA ITEM Consideration of Approval of the 2012 Planning Board Meeting Schedule PB Resolution No. 2011 -103: Planning Board Schedule of Meetings for 2012 Moved by John Beach, seconded by Hollis Erb RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby adopts the following as its schedule of Regular Meetings for the Year 2012. Unless otherwise noted, all meetings will be held on the first and third Tuesday of each month, commencing at 7:00 p.m. and ending by 10:00 p.m. FIRST MEETING OF THE MONTH January 3, 2012 February 7, 2012 March 6, 2012 April 3, 2012 May 1, 2012 June 5, 2012 Cancelled August 7, 2012 September 4, 2012 October 2, 2012 Cancelled December 4, 2012 Vote: SECOND MEETING OF THE MONTH January 17, 2012 February 21, 2012 March 20, 2012 April 17, 2012 May 15, 2012 June 19, 2012 July 17, 2012 August 21, 2012 September 18, 2012 October 16, 2012 November 20, 2012 December 18, 2012 Planning Board 12 -20 -2011 Page 9 of 10 Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Conneman, Beach, Bosak, Slottje, Erb AGENDA ITEM Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board regarding the Chairperson of the Planning Board for 2012 PB Resolution No. 2011 -104: 2012 Planning Board Chair, Recommendation to Town Board Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by Linda Collins Resolved, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommends to the Town Board that Fred Wilcox be appointed as Chair of the Planning Board for the year 2012. A vote on the motion was as follows: Vote: Ayes: Collins, Conneman, Abstentions: Wilcox AGENDA ITEM Approval of Minutes Beach, Bosak, Slottje, Erb PB Resolution No. 2011 -105: Minutes of November 1, 2011 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on November 1, 2011; now therefore be it RESOLVED, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, with corrections, to be the final minutes of the meeting on November 1. Vote: Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Baer, Bosak, Erb Abstentions: Collins PB Resolution No. 2011 -106: Minutes of November 15, 2011 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on November 15, 2011; now therefore be it RESOLVED, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, with corrections, to be the final minutes of the meeting on November 15. Vote: Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Baer, Bosak, Erb Abstentions: Slottje Planning Board 12 -20 -2011 Page 10 of 10 AGENDA ITEM Other Business Susan Brock noted that for the Belle Sherman Cottages project, there was a condition of approval stating that they had to submit certain documents regarding the homeowners' association with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office and provide a copy of the receipt of filing to the Planning Department. They've since learned that these documents actually get filed with the NYS Department of State. The documents are voluminous, and it would be very expensive to file a duplicate copy with the County. Guy Krogh, who has been handling the homeowners' association documents, suggested filing the receipt of approval from NYS with the County Clerk's Office. Ms. Brock is okay with that solution as long as it complies with the spirit of the condition. The Board agreed. Mr. Wilcox reported that Ms. Baer said that would serve as an alternate Board member, but could not commit to attending every meeting. The Board thought this would be a problem. Ms. Brock said Ms. Baer will continue to serve until she gets a successor. The full -time slot will be advertised, and Mr. Slottje has already applied. Mr. Slottje will continue to serve until reappointed or replaced. Cancellation of Meeting of January 3, 2012 On a motion by Ms. Erb and seconded by Mr. Beach, the Board voted unanimously to cancel the meeting of January 3rd. Ms. Ritter reported that in 2012, Planning Staff will consider and possibly revise the requirements in the code for site plan modification. For example, an applicant needs to come in with a site plan if their project is more that $20,000, an amount that was set ten years ago. Mr. Wilcox said that the Codes and Ordinances Committee might look at removing the requirement for the Planning Board to look at minor lot line modifications in which the lot line in between properties is simply moved, which is technically a subdivision. Adjournment Upon a motion by Ms. Erb, the meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra DeAu ' tine, Deputy Tj o .0 Clerk (7 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, December 20, 2011 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Temporary Parking Lot, 380 Pine Tree Road. 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for a proposed temporary parking lot located at 380 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -1 -5, Community Commercial Zone. The proposal involves utilizing a portion of the former Courtside Racquet and Fitness Center property for a temporary, 84- space contractor parking lot that also includes a dumpster and port-a john. The lot will be used by employees of the Hayner -Hoyt Corporation (general contractors for the Collegetown Terrace apartment project on East State Street) until December, 2014. Cornell University, Owner; Jeremy Thurston, President, Hayner -Hoyt Corporation, Applicant. 4. Clarification regarding condition "p" from the April 5, 2011 Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution (PB Resolution No. 2011 -033) for the Holochuck Homes Subdivision project. Part of condition "p" requires that the Holochuck Homes owners reserve a strip of land along Trumansburg Road (NYS Route 96) for future sidewalk and other improvements and to show future easements for the improvements on a revised set of plans. However, they only own a few small sections of road frontage and it is unclear what the Planning Board's intent was. 5. Discussion of the revised (dated November 7, 2011) noise measurement study for the Cornell University Animal Health Diagnostic Center. 6. Consideration of Approval of the 2012 Planning Board Meeting Schedule. 7. Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board regarding the Chairperson of the Planning Board for 2012. 8. Approval of Minutes: November 1, 2011 and November 15, 2011. 9. Other Business: 10. Adjournment Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, December 20, 2011 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, December 20, 2011, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following time and on the following matter: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for a proposed temporary parking lot located at 380 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -1 -5, Community Commercial Zone. The proposal involves utilizing a portion of the former Courtside Racquet and Fitness Center property for a temporary, 84 -space contractor parking lot that also includes a dumpster and port-a john. The lot will be used by employees of the Hayner- Hoyt Corporation (general contractors for the Collegetown Terrace apartment project on East State Street) until December, 2014. Cornell University, Owner; Jeremy Thurston, President, Hayner -Hoyt Corporation, Applicant. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters 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. Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, December 12, 2011 Publish: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 ;Wednesday,, ffinAft ffiffllfflAL TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday, December 20, 2011 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: December 12, 2011 Date of Publication: December 14, 2011 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 14th day of December 2011. L� Notary Public CARRIE WHITMORE Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 WH6052877 Tioga County Commission Expires December 26,�G�