Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2014-10-07TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. October 7. 2014 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. SEQR Determination: Lesser 2-Lot Subdivision, 403 Coddington Road. 7;00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two-lot subdivision located at 403 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 52.-1-20, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 0.911-acre property into an 18,485+/- square foot lot that contains an existing residence at 403 Coddington Road, and a 21,186+/- square foot vacant lot. William H. and Susan B. Lesser, Owners/Applicants. 7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: Ithaca Beer Company Addition, 122 Ithaca Beer Drive. 7:15 P,M« PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed addition to the Ithaca Beer Company located at 122 Ithaca Beer Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33.-3-2.10, Planned Development Zone No. 14 (Limited Mixed Use, Ithaca Beer Company). The proposal involves the construction of a 23,800 +/- square foot addition on the north side of the existing building to increase production and storage space. The project will also include new loading docks, 33 employee parking spaces, a materials storage area, outdoor lighting, and stormwater facilities. Tompkins County IDA, Owner; Dan Mitchell, President, Ithaca Beer Company, Applicant. P.M. Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed Chain Works District development located at 810 Danby Road (620 South Aurora Street in the City of Ithaca), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40.-3-3 (City of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 106.-1-8), Industrial Zone. The project is a mixed-use development consisting of residential, offices, commercial, manufacturing, and open space within the Town and City of Ithaca consisting of four primary phases on the 95-acre property: 1) the redevelopment of four existing buildings (building 21 - 43,340 sq ft, building 24 - 129,570 sq ft, building 33 - 22,000 sq ft and building 34 - 148,600 sq ft); 2) the repurposing of the remaining existing Emerson Power Transmission/Morse Chain Factory; 3) potential future development within portions of the site adjacent to the existing buildings/parking areas; 4) future new development within areas of the remainder of the site. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board will also consider concurrence with the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board as the lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed Chain Works District project. Emerson Power Transmission Corporation, Owner; David Lubin / UnChained Properties, LLC, Applicant; Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC & Jamie Gensel, Fagan Engineers & Land Surveyors, PC, Agents. 6. Persons to be heard 7. Approval of Minutes: September 2, 2014 8. Other Business 9. 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 MEETING Tuesday, October 7, 2014 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox(Chair), Linda Collins,John Beach,Yvonne Fogarty, Paula Wedemeyer,Jon Bosak, Hollis Erb Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Mike Smith, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Creig Hebdon, Town Engineer; Susan Brock,Attorney for the Town; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. and accepted the secretary's posting of the public hearing notices. AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Lesser 2-Lot Subdivision, 403 Coddington Road Mr. Wilcox disclosed that Dr. Lesser is a former member of the town board,which means that he most likely voted for Mr.Wilcox's appointment to the planning board. Ms. Collins disclosed that Dr. Lesser served on her graduate committee. Dr. Lesser said he and his wife are seeking a 2-lot subdivision on the property, which is directly across the road from their current residence at 406 Coddington Road. They were looking for a project, and when this property came on the market, they purchased it. They intend to put on a duplex or add to what's there presently,which is a small cottage, plus they might add a garage so he can pursue his hobby of antique cars. It's too large a property for the purposes they intended, so they want to subdivide. They don't anticipate doing anything with it in the foreseeable future, but the board's decision might affect how they use the rest of the property. They manage their property well, and Dr. Lesser thinks their plan fits in with the character of the neighborhood. It is an odd-shaped lot - narrow and deep - left over from a subdivision that was put in many years ago on Northview Road. Ms. Balestra said that the town doesn't have any record of how the lot was formed. PB Resolution No. 2014.050: SEQR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Lesser 2-Lot Subdivision, 403 Coddington Road, Tax Parcel No. 52.-1-20 Moved by John Beach; seconded by Jon Bosak WHEREAS: 1. This is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two-lot subdivision located at 403 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 52.4-20, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 0.911-acre property into an Planning Board Minutes 10-07.2014 Page 2 of 20 18,485+/-square foot lot that contains an existing residence at 403 Coddington Road, and a 21,186+/-square foot vacant lot. William H. and Susan B. Lesser, Owners/Applicants; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is the lead agency in the environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval; and 3. The Planning Board on October 7, 2014, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Survey Map, No. 403 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., dated 4/25/2014, revised 8/21/2014 to show Parcel A&B, and other application materials; and 4. Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance 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 action as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty,Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two, lot subdivision located at 403 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 52.4-20, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 0.911-acre property into an 18,485+/-square foot lot that contains an existing residence at 403 Coddington Road, and a 21,186+/-square foot vacant lot. William H. and Susan B. Lesser, Owners/Applicants Mr. Wilcox called the public hearing to order at 7:12 p.m. Ms. Erb asked which property the tree line is on. She feels it's important to protect the tree line to respect the neighbors. It's a healthy line of trees that visually separates the properties. Ms. Balestra said the tree line is dead center on the lot line, so it's owned by both properties. Dr. Lessor said that Parcel B will own the strip the shared driveway is on. Mr. Wilcox stated that he is not opposed to flag lots and has voted for them in the past: infill is good. What he doesn't like about flag lots is that by creating one, it makes the existing lot deficient in some way, but he's not supposed to consider that because it's a ZBA issue.Although the existing lot will still meet the number of square feet required for a lot, it will force Parcel A to get a variance. This also Planning Board Minutes 10-07.2014 Page 3 of 20 creates the need for a shared driveway, which he personally doesn't like. That might be fine for this owner, but it will not be the same in the future when the two lots are in separate ownership and there will be questions about who maintains the driveway and who removes the snow, etc. Mr. Bosak said doesn't have a problem with flag lots either; in fact, Ms.Wedemeyer owns a lot next door to him like that and it doesn't bother him at all. But some day, he would like to have a discus- sion about lot width and setback requirements: the planning board is supposed to respect the policy implied by the town board, and he would someday like to know what is implied by these require- ments.Why does anybody care? Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. PB Resolution No. 2014.051: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Lesser 2-Lot Subdivision, 403 Coddington Road, Tax Parcel No. 52.4-20 Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by Linda Collins WHEREAS: 1. This is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two-lot subdivision located at 403 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 52.4-20, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 0.911-acre property into an 18,485+/-square foot lot that contains an existing residence at 403 Coddington Road, and a 21,186+/-square foot vacant lot. William H. and Susan B. Lesser, Owners/Applicants; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on October 7, 2014, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmen- tal Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by the Town Planning staff., and 3. The Planning Board on October 7, 2014, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Survey Map, No. 403 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., dated 4/25/2014, revised 8/21/2014 to show Parcel A& B, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision located at 403 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 52.4-20, as shown on the survey map entitled "Survey Map, No. 403 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," subject to the following conditions: a. Submission of deed restrictions and/or a shared driveway agreement and easement for review and approval by the Attorney for the Town, and submission of proof of filing of the approved documents in the Tompkins County Clerk's office, prior to issuance of any building permits for Parcel B, Planning Board Minutes 10-07.2014 Page 4 of 20 b. Granting by the Zoning Board of Appeals of any necessary variances associated with the pro- posal, prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairperson of the Planning Board, c. Submission for signing by the Chairperson of the Planning Board of an original and three dark lined prints of the final subdivision plat in 11 x 17 size or larger, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, d. Submission of deed restrictions satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town prohibiting cutting of healthy trees greater than 4 inches in diameter at breast height within 10 feet of Parcel B's southeast boundary, and e. There shall be no new curb cuts onto Coddington Road. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Ithaca Beer Company Addition, 122 Ithaca Beer Drive Mr. Mitchell said this is Phase II of the project they started in 2011. They have been experiencing the growth they expected and have quickly run out of room. They want to build a warehouse to move all their packaging equipment. They will add a larger cooler and a new shipping and receiving area. It's roughly a 24,000-square-foot expansion. They determined this based on property lines and setbacks. The color scheme is the same. They're adding 4 loading docks and a shipping/receiving entrance. Basically it's a wide-open space. They'll be able to add a new canning line, keg line, and bottling line. There will be no change to the tap room/restaurant portion. They're adding employee parking around back. The existing loading docks will not be used. They have reversed traffic: it will come up the right side and go around and back into the new loading docks. Mr. Wilcox asked whether they will be increasing the brewing capacity. Mr. Mitchell said it's the same brew house; the way they'll increase capacity is by installing new fermentation tanks in the existing building.What's existing right now will be their fermentation warehouse. The new facility is almost exclusively for packaging. They will move the cooler, bottling line, packaging, shipping/receiving into the new facility. They have 12 fermentation tanks now. For their last installation, they replaced smaller tanks with larger ones.When asked how many tanks he will have room for, he gave a ballpark figure of 25. They are close to 30,000 barrels; this expansion will nearly triple their capacity and then they will start running up to the next threshold at 80,000 to 90,000 barrels. Ms. Erb was trying to figure out if they will make more beer because she can't figure out how the volume of water going in will be exactly the same as the volume of water going out, because she thought some needed to go into the beer. Mr. Mitchell said they will make more beer. Planning Board Minutes 10-07.2014 Page 5 of 20 Mr. Bosak asked if the making of more beer has anything to do with this proposal. It's in the existing facility. There is no request to increase the number of fermentation tanks in the existing facility: he pointed out that Mr. Mitchell can do that without coming to the board at all. Mr. Mitchell responded that when he came before the board the last time, the company had been growing by about 25% per year; they are currently experiencing 35% growth per year. He didn't need any planning board approval for the installation of tanks he just completed. Regarding water-in, water-out of the new warehouse, there will be no change since it's all packaging. Mr. Bosak said that since one of the possible consequences of increasing production would be increasing odors, that takes off the table one of the key issues the board might have had to deal with. Ms. Erb asked whether, since they are proposing 33 new parking spaces, they're adding that many new employees. Mr. Mitchell said they are. During the first phase, they had 17 employees; they are now over 60 employees. They certainly need more parking spaces for employees. Ms. Erb commented that they're anticipating 12 tractor trailers per week. She asked whether employees require ADA-compliant parking. Mr. Bates said the code doesn't differentiate between employee parking and patron parking: it just refers to parking, and so many of those spaces have to be handicapped accessible. The code says the ADA-compliant spaces need to be near the entrance. If Mr. Mitchell had a handicapped employee, he would be obligated to make accommodations. Does it need to be parking? Probably; it all depends on the job. The code doesn't specify that employees need accessible parking spaces. It's a ratio of how many parking spaces have to be ADA-compliant. Ms. Erb explained that she saw that there would be a lot of new parking spaces, but that none of them were designated as new ADA-compliant spaces. She wondered whether this was okay. Ms. Mitchell responded that they originally had three ADA spots and they upped it to five. Mr. Bates gave them the impression that they would all need to be in front, but they would like to put one in the back near their employee entrance, so she requested that they be able to move one or two of those spaces to the employee entrance in back. Mr. Mitchell stated that they're not adding any parking to the tap room. They originally planned to add the ADA spaces to the employee parking area in the back and they were told that they have to merge both spaces, therefore requiring 5 ADA spaces in the front. It seems more logical that if they're adding only employee parking, they should have ADA parking in the back. The way this business will grow is through the distribution of beer, so if he continues to have to add ADA spaces to the front when he's not adding any public spaces to the front, it makes no sense. Mr. Wilcox asked Mr. Bates whether the board can designate a split of the ADA parking spaces. Planning Board Minutes 10-07.2014 Page 6 of 20 Mr. Bates responded that without further investigation, he can only say that the code does not specify where the ADA spaces have to be other than saying near the entrance. The code says you have to have so many ADA parking spaces, but it doesn't say who those spaces are for. It says you have to have the spaces near the entrance. The code doesn't always make sense when you apply different reasoning - that's why there are variances. He said the board could specify that it has to comply with ADA requirements, and if we can prove that they can have them back there, then they can have them back there. Mr.Wilcox said they will assume it's perfectly legal and reasonable until they hear otherwise. Ms. Erb said the board received a noise complaint in a letter regarding ATVs. Mr. Smith said the noise is coming from private property. Regarding odors, Mr. Wilcox asked what the SEQR form applies to: the SEQR form and its contents and what results from the potential building of this addition? He said that although there will be no new fermentation tanks in the new building, it will allow for more fermentation tanks in the existing structure, which could exacerbate a potential odor problem.The odor will emanate from the existing structure, but the new structure will facilitate increased production. Ms. Brock said she thought the board could consider odor. Mr. Wilcox asked what the property use was before it was purchased. Mr. Mitchell responded that it was farmland a long time ago. Mr. Wilcox asked if it were farmland,what would we have? Mr. Bosak said he didn't think that was the question, but rather: is the expansion, and all of the consequences of it, contemplated by the PDZ that was approved in 2011? Because if it was, that train left the station in 2011, and it's not clear from the letter whether the odors being objected to are odors from the processing or odors from the restaurant. It is a legal question:was this not implied by a PDZ that allowed for expansion? Is the presence of some odor implied by what was approved by approving the PDZ? Mr. Wilcox said that odor can be an environmental concern. Mr. Bosak said when the SEQR was done on the PDZ, it was done on that question, in allowing them to produce however much the PDZ allows them to produce. Do we repeat that and when is a decision a decision? Mr. Smith said it did talk about the noise and odor impact from the brewery and the restaurant. Mr. Bosak maintained that it appears all to have been contemplated in 2011. Mr. Wilcox asked whether anyone thought there was a significant environmental impact being caused by the odors. Planning Board Minutes 10-07.2014 Page 7 of 20 Mr. Bosak countered that even if there is, the significance was already established. Having already assessed this exact question in 2011 and come to a decision on this exact question,which is the implication for noise and odor for this level of production, does the board repeat that, and how many times does the board repeat that?When is a decision a decision? It is to be assumed that there will be more odors. Mr. Wilcox asked if the board thought that was a significant environmental impact. The board has to make that determination. It was pointed out that two people had complained about the odor. Mr. Bosak said that if it boils down to whether it's a significant environmental impact, the only way to assess it is through a site visit.And the odor will not occur until the future. He maintained that this was covered when the environmental review was done on the PDZ. Mr. Mitchell said there is no way to scrub the odor. Mr. Collins agreed with Mr. Bosak: if the PDZ allows 65,000 square feet of total production space and if that was assessed back in 2011 to be permissible in this PDZ, then she thinks it has already been dealt with. Mr. Wilcox asked what the board did SEQR on before. Mr. Smith responded that there was a SEQR for the zoning change for the PDZ and for the site plan and subdivision for the first phase. The rezoning allowed for 65,000 square feet. Mr. Hebdon said that he works down the road from the facility between 6:30 a.m. and 3 p.m. and has never smelled anything. Ms. Fogarty said that she has visited the brewery a number of times and has never smelled the odor. Mr. Mitchell added that they get over 1000 visitors per week to the tap room - it's one of the most successful restaurants in town - and no one has complained. Ms. Brock asked if the town has received any complaints about odors. Mr. Bates said there have been no complaints. Regarding stormwater, Mr. Hebdon said they have grade A soils in that area. There will not be a problem with what is proposed. Mr. Bosak wanted to tie a ribbon around the odor issue. What he heard from other board members is that they were finding that there's not a significant environmental impact regarding the odor issue because there have been no complaints to the town or from visitors to the facility. Planning Board Minutes 10-07.2014 Page 8 of 20 Mr. Mitchell worried that if he is going to continue to grow, will he run into the potential of coming back before the board and finding there is an odor impact and he won't be able to continue to grow. He stated that the issue should have been decided before he built the first building. Mr. Wilcox stated that this board has no idea what a future board might do. Mr. Mitchell said he was asked to look out ten years and beyond to figure out everything he might potentially put into that new zone. He had to think about that before investing a lot of money into the project. Mr. Bosak said the board had to think about that when they approved the SEQR. Ms. Erb said that this surely comes with the territory. Ms. Brock said that under SEQR, there are times when a negative declaration can be amended, such as when someone comes in to increase the size of a facility or when new information is discovered. She doesn't think any statements should be made that odor is completely off the table. They can decide whether in this case, it is significant. PB Resolution No. 2014.052:SEQR, Preliminary&Final Site Plan Approval, Ithaca Beer Company Addition, 122 Ithaca Beer Drive, Tax Parcel No. 33.-3-2.10 Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by Yvonne Fogarty WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed addition to the Ithaca Beer Company located at 122 Ithaca Beer Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33:3-2.10, Planned Development Zone No. 14 (Limited Mixed Use, Ithaca Beer Company). The proposal involves the construction of a 23,800 +/-square foot addition on the north side of the existing building to increase production and storage space. The project will also include new loading docks, 33 employee parking spaces, a materials storage area, outdoor lighting, and storm, water facilities. Tompkins County IDA, Owner; Dan Mitchell, President, Ithaca Beer Company, Applicant; and 2. This is a Type 1 Action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 148 - Environmental Quality Review; and 3. The Planning Board proposes to establish itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above-referenced action; and 4. The Planning Board, at its meeting on October 7, 2014, reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff, the following drawings titled "Existing Site Plan" (C100), "Layout Plan" (C 101), "Grading and Drainage Plan" (C 102), "Erosion and Sediment Control Plan" (C103) and "Details" (C201 and C202), dated 09/30/2014 and prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., "First Floor Plan" (A101), "Mezzanine Plan" (A102), "Exterior Elevations" (A201 and A202), and "Perspec- Planning Board Minutes 10-07.2014 Page 9 of 20 tives" (AP 101), dated 09/05/2014 and prepared by HOLT Architects, and other application materials; and 5. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental signifi- cance with respect to the proposed project; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, having received no objections from other Involved Agencies, hereby establishes itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above-described action; AND BE IT FURTHER 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 information in the FEAF Part 1, and for reasons set forth in the FEAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed addition to the Ithaca Beer Company located at 122 Ithaca Beer Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33:3-2.10, Planned Development Zone No. 14 (Limited Mixed Use, Ithaca Beer Company). The proposal involves the construction of a 23,800 +/-square foot addition on the north side of the existing building to increase production and storage space. The project will also include new loading docks, 33 employee parking spaces, a materials storage area, outdoor lighting, and stormwater facilities. Tompkins County IDA, Owner; Dan Mitchell, President, Ithaca Beer Company,Applicant Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. Ms. Mitchell addressed landscaping. She said this is a big building, and there is not a lot she can do with plants to hide it. She tried to set the building in an open agricultural landscape in keeping with what was previously on the site; she has tried to keep the views open to maintain that feel. They did an elaborate planting plan originally, and ended up putting in twice the amount of plants than were proposed. She feels there is a sufficient planting plan in place already in keeping with the building. They received letters today and she has worked with the architect in trying to address some of those complaints. The neighbor across the pond has a direct view of the Ithaca Beer facility. These particular neighbors are the most impacted of anyone. There is existing mature landscaping on the Mitchells' side of the pond, and they are 90 percent owners of the pond, and in the first go-around, they requested that they be able to maintain some open views of the pond. In the last couple of years, some beavers have come in and impacted the vegetation and have opened up some of the view. She Planning Board Minutes 10-07.2014 Page 10 of 20 will add a few more plants, but doesn't think there's much she can do to stop the visual impact from that house to the site. Ms. Erb wondered whether some poplars on the far side of the west parking lot might break up the outline of the view for the neighbors up on the hill above.The letter from Ithaca Beer says landscaping will be simple, yet tasteful and elegant. Ms. Mitchell said that the view of concern is that of the neighbors across the pond: they have a legitimate view concern. She is proposing adding plants on the Ithaca Beer site where the beavers took down trees. Cary Sosebee gave handouts to the planning board. He stated that his is the red house directly across the pond from Mitchell Ventures, which is on the east side of the PDZ for Ithaca Beer. He stated that he is not against Ithaca Beer expanding;what he is against is Ithaca Beer expanding without certain conditions applied to the surrounding LDR environment. Everyone who bought property there bought into an LDR community, and they are not looking at an LDR community anymore. He showed photos of pre-2010 and post-2010 of the Ithaca Beer site from his picture window. He is looking at a major beer production facility; it is not a quaint neighborhood tavern. It has changed the tenor of the environment and of his life. He then discussed the changes that occurred between 2010 and 2014, the concerns that he has, and his request to the planning board. He showed bucolic photos of the four seasons outside his picture windows and said they bought the property in a great LDR community. They knew that at some point, people would buy the property and build a house - they never expected a major production facility. There is noise throughout the day and night. The garbage truck picks up at 4 a.m.; it backs up and it beeps and wakes him up every morning. They bought the home in 2008 for three reasons: privacy,view, and natural environment. Ithaca Beer was built in 2011 to 2012 during the time he was stationed overseas in Australia with the USAF; his family accompanied him. His tenants complained repeatedly about sound, lights, and work hours at Ithaca Beer.There wasn't much he could do about it. For the first three months he was overseas, he did not have mail service, so he missed preliminary site plan. He made a request for screened vegetation at the final plan review by mail. His request for screened vegetation to prevent the adverse effects on the surrounding neighborhood was not met by the planning board or Ithaca Beer Company. His property looks to the back of the production facility, which is a shipping dock, dumpsters, stacks of pallets, and employee parking. His privacy is impacted. There's no year-round screening vegetation. There is vehicular traffic seven days per week; as the applicant said, they have 1000 visitors per week, which means 2000 headlights swinging across his bedroom window. Because the entrance to Ithaca Beer and his driveway are so close, even with multiple signs he has in his driveway, he gets 3 to 5 cars per week that drive up his driveway, get up to his house, realize they can't turn around, and do a turn in his yard. In the winter time, they get stuck; in the summer time, they dig up the property. The only thing he can do is build a fence he has to pay for himself to protect his property.A friend of his visiting from Washington DC who heard him talk about how great Ithaca was, looked at the view from his property and said, You don't live in the country,you live behind Walmart. So Mr. Sosebee went behind Walmart to see what it looks like, and discovered that it's tremendously better. The view is completely blocked by big evergreens and a screened privacy fence, and everything they have is put nicely away. The trucks back in and disappear behind the fenced-in screening area. He would prefer to live behind Walmart than behind Ithaca Beer because Walmart does a better job of protecting things from the back. His concern is that Ithaca Beer is going to double its size for this sketch; that's more industrial builds, more employees, more shipping, and more adverse impacts: his view, his Planning Board Minutes 10-07.2014 Page 11 of 20 privacy,vehicular traffic, facility light trespass, and his property value is decreasing. He intends to live in this house until he dies and would like to pass this house on to his children. His property has increased stormwater from this project; stormwater flows into the shared pond.What nobody sees but him is that the shared pond flows across his property when the water rises and flows into his other pond.As a result, his property is cut in two because of the additional water. It's imperative to enforce design ordinances. There's no planting plan in the site plan, and that's particularly important to him because §271-15A.(2) [of the Ithaca Beer PDZ Findings] says, "The Plan calls for a limited number of small-scale, neighborhood-oriented commercial areas which are safe and attractive, set back from public highways, have good circulation and access, are well-landscaped (to provide buffering, shade, and character) and located so as to meet present and anticipated neighborhood needs while not adversely affecting surrounding neighborhoods, and of an architectural design that enhances their neighborhoods." One of the difficult things he had a hard time finding was the definition of a buffer in a PDZ. That PDZ was created from an LDR and an LI,which were smashed together. So, the PDZ says to look at the surrounding areas: does one look at the light industrial or the low-density residential? Either way, he's looking at a commercial production facility every day of his life. He'll have to defer this to the attorneys to decide what should be looked at, and he's very keen on hearing the answer to that. He requested that the planning board not vote on the final site plan approval until the applicant can present adequate buffer documentation to satisfy the ordinances and his family. He wants a visual impact study conducted; he wants a rendered perspective view for future timeframes of the proposed screenings. He offered to meet and work constructively with the applicant, saying, "We're all in this world together." He reiterated that he is not against Ithaca Beer expanding; he just wants it done with certain caveats and conditions. He also requested modification of Route 13A signage to better show the Ithaca Beer entrance so he does not get people driving in his driveway. He would like a restriction of the construction hours and no construction on Sundays. He pointed to photographs that showed how Ithaca Beer and his driveway are separated by about 50 feet, so it's easy to make the mistake. He pointed to how the Ithaca Beer loop road - as people are leaving Ithaca Beer - looks right at his property. It is not incumbent on him to plant trees: he was there first; it's his neighborhood. It is incumbent on the PDZ to build the buffer per the zoning ordinance. Because of the parking lot, he has unobstructed impacts. He gave as an example an evening when he had guests and they were dining outside on the picnic table. Every time someone left the Ithaca Beer parking lot, they flipped their headlights on, making it necessary for him and his guests to shield their eyes every time. Mr. Bosak said the town board created the PDZ. The damage to his quality of life was done due to a decision that was done back in 2011 when the PDZ was approved. But a lot can be done with buffering. Ms.Wedemeyer thought that a number of things Mr. Sosebee is asking for are reasonable and should be considered. She wondered whether there was anything the board could do to address signage. Mr. Hebdon responded that it's a state road and they determine what signage is allowed. The state might not allow a sign any closer to the road. Mr. Mitchell thought it was as close to the road as the state allows. Mr. Smith said the size of the sign was set in the PDZ. Mr. Sosebee said he thought there should be a sign on each side of Ithaca Beer Drive. Planning Board Minutes 10-07.2014 Page 12 of 20 Ms. Mitchell said they are allowed one freestanding sign and one on the building. They got a variance for an extra sign along Route 13; another sign along the road would require another sign variance. The board seemed willing to entertain a sign variance should that be brought to them. Mr. Bates suggested altering Ithaca Beer Drive to make it look more like a road than a driveway. The state road has a center line; he wondered whether the state could be approached to find out if they would consider cutting the line at Ithaca Beer Drive if it is not already cut. Ithaca Beer could also paint some lines to make their drive look more like a roadway. Mr. Wilcox thought the protocol would be that the planning board would ask the town board, who would ask the county,who would ask the state. The planning board could make the request to the town board. Ms. Fogarty said that from her own experience visiting Ithaca Beer, it's hard to find the entrance off Five Mile Drive. From the photos, you can see that there's a sign for the stop light that's coming up, there's a mailbox, there's another sign, then there's the Ithaca Beer sign. She wondered whether the other stuff could be gotten rid of. Mr. Hebdon said the state determines where the signs go, and the Ithaca Beer sign cannot go closer to the road. Mr. Sosebee's private drive sign was discussed. He said he experimented with different signs of different sizes and placement for 21/2 years. He has had a sign that said Private Property and another one that said This Is Not Ithaca Beer. Mr. Beach asked if there's lighting for that entrance after dark. It's been confusing for him. Ms. Mitchell responded that there's no streetlight, but they have solar lights on the sign. Mr. Beach asked what the town code says about construction hours. Mr. Bates responded that the noise ordinance defines daytime hours as 7 a.m. until 9 p.m. Board members agreed that that could be a condition. Ms. Fogarty asked whether Mr. Sosebee would be happy with a gate at the end of his driveway. She suggested he talk to Ithaca Beer; he agreed that he would do that if they were amenable. Mr. Bosak requested that Ms. Brock create verbiage requesting that the state change the striping in front of Ithaca Beer Drive. He also wanted it on the record that the board would be friendly to a future request from Mr. Sosebee for a more prominent sign. Mr. Beach said he can't be the only one who has had a problem finding the entrance after sundown. Some kind of a lighting structure could be put there to better delineate the entrance to their business. Planning Board Minutes 10-07.2014 Page 13 of 20 Mr. Hebdon responded that it's a private road, and the state does not allow lighted intersections at private driveways. Mr. Bosak countered that the sign is off the state right-of-way and its size is regulated by the PDZ language, so the board could address the issue by requesting that the town board revise the PDZ language to allow a larger sign. Mr. Bates said he doesn't think the size of the sign is an issue.When you're coming up Five Mile Drive to this, there's no issue, but coming off Route 13, there are trees and brush and you can't see the sign until you're upon it, so no matter what size sign you put there, until you change that visual, you'll have a problem. He didn't know whose property the trees are on. This is something that should be looked at. If the trees are in the state's right of way, neither the Mitchells nor the neighbor could address it. Board members discussed and agreed that the applicant constructing a gate would be a good solution. Mr. Bates said lighting would be an option and Ms. Erb said it's possible that adding additional solar lighting on the Ithaca Beer sign that would still meet town code would make the sign more obvious sooner. Mr. Sosebee wanted to close by saying the he has worked his entire life to get this for his wife and kids. He's lived all over the world - all over the U.S. - in service to his country. He asked the board to think seriously about his request and to please help satisfy his concerns. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 9:31 p.m. The board addressed Ithaca Beer. Ms. Fogarty said she could see why Mr. Sosebee is upset and why it would behoove the Mitchells to work with him - he's their neighbor - and the issues are not that significant in terms of what can be done to resolve them. There should be some buffering so he's not seeing people's headlights. The 4 a.m. garbage pickup has to change. Mr. Mitchell said the garbage pickup at that hour was not his request and asked whether it was even allowed in the town. Mr. Bates said it is not. He added that it is Mr. Mitchell's responsibility as the person paying for the service to let the hauler know it's a violation. Ms. Fogarty said regarding the visuals from Mr. Sosebee's house, the Mitchells' will have to put in a lot of trees or a big fence or go check out Wallmart. Ms. Mitchell said that it is their pond and they wanted to retain some views. There is quite a bit of existing vegetation. She has pinpointed areas where she can put in evergreens that will help with the problem, but it will take years. When Ms. Fogarty asked whether she had gone over to Mr. Sosebee's property to see what it looks like from his vantage point, Ms. Mitchell responded that she hadn't, but she had checked all the sight lines from the view to his window. Planning Board Minutes 10-07.2014 Page 14 of 20 Ms. Fogarty said that in her experience from being on this board, with an issue like this, it would be best if the Mitchells and the property owner got together to talk this over at his house, looking from his view. Have a conversation and see what you can do together: you're not adversaries. Usually people come up with great plans that everybody is happy with. But you have to work with him. Addressing the Mitchells, she said you have to go over there; you have to have a conversation.You have to look out at your property and see what he's seeing.You have to see what the lights look like that come off your property. Ms. Mitchell said she believed the request was for buffering plants. Ms. Fogarty responded that maybe they need to come back after they've had a conversation. Mr. Mitchell responded that Mr. Sosebee has reached out to him in the past to talk about the pond and that this is the first time he hasn't heard from Mr. Sosebee until he came to the town directly. This was a very big surprise. From the beginning, he knew that this house would have the biggest impact from the project. They talked about it and agreed to put in some landscaping. They are now agreeing to put in more landscaping based on the letter. He thinks that's a fair concession. The reality is that there is no way they will be able to block out the entire building.At one point, he offered to buy the house because he knew that there would be a visual impact. The answer was to "go ahead and do your project." So he's happy to do some concessions, but not to try to block the building entirely. Putting in buffers for headlights makes sense. He's okay with moving the 4 a.m. pickup,which must be very obnoxious. They can plant trees, but trees have to have time to grow. But with a 40 46ot building, he's limited in how much he can do. He's absolutely willing to work with Mr. Sosebee as he's been willing to work with every neighbor. He said he usually hears from neighbors at meetings even though he sees them at the restaurant eating. They tell him what a great place it is, but make complaints at board meetings. So he can only address it here. Mr. Bosak asked whether he was willing to build a gate for Mr. Sosebee. Mr. Mitchell said he is willing to work out a solution to resolve the problem. If he's going to enhance Mr. Sosebee's driveway with a gate, he'd rather enhance the entrance to Ithaca Beer. Ms. Fogarty pointed out that the issue is not enhancing someone else's property; the issue is not having your customers drive onto his property. Mr. Mitchell responded that he would rather direct people to Ithaca Beer's entrance than from going into Mr. Sosebee's. He said that it is another state DOT question, but if he could have a sign that said Ithaca Beer Next Left further up the road, that might resolve the problem also. He's willing to buy a sign that says Private Driveway that's bigger than Mr. Sosebee's current sign. He said he just heard about the problem that morning and has not had time to try to resolve it. Mr. Wilcox said that the sign Mr. Mitchell suggested would be an off-premise sign. It would have to go to the ZBA; the property owner would have to agree to it. Mr. Bates said that it is something the COC is considering. Planning Board Minutes 10-07.2014 Page 15 of 20 Mr. Bosak said this is an issue that transcends this particular application. There's a problem with traffic at this particular location. Maybe the town board should deal with this. Ms. Erb said that some dense landscaping to kill the loop lights from the customers is warranted and that a serious talk with the garbage pickup at 4 a.m. is warranted. She suggested finding a place to put an additional small copse of trees to interrupt the view of the massive side of the building. Ms.Wedemeyer said one of the things Mr. Sosebee suggested that seemed reasonable was limiting the time of construction. Mr. Mitchell thought his previous project was 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. and they probably did not work on weekends. He would ask for some wiggle room. Mr. Mitchell asked and was told that this would not apply to his own operation. Mr. Wilcox was concerned that the board might want to see the planting plan before final site plan approval, given the heightened level of concern. It would require writing lots of conditions on the preliminary. The alternative is to adjourn this approval and see the planting plan; otherwise, the board would be giving up their leverage. Ms. Erb asked Ms. Mitchell whether the planting sketch she created for the meeting addressed the site lines discussed by the neighbor because if it does, she is willing to let the landscaping go to the director of planning. Ms. Collins said the additional landscaping issue of the car headlights has not been addressed. Mr. Bosak was in favor of making use of staff. Ms. Fogarty said that ideally, the parties would go away and work out a plan and come back with something they agree on. Ms.Wedemeyer was in favor of passing the resolution and taking their word for it that they will work with the neighbor to come up with a reasonable resolution. Not doing so would add another month; then the construction would be delayed to the winter. Ms. Erb was in favor of going ahead with the approval. PB Resolution No. 2014.053: Preliminary&Final Site Plan Approval, Ithaca Beer Company Addition, 122 Ithaca Beer Drive, Tax Parcel No. 33.3.2.10 Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by Paula Wedemeyer WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed addition to the Ithaca Beer Company located at 122 Ithaca Beer Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31-3-2.10, Planned Development Zone No. 14 (Limited Mixed Use, Ithaca Beer Company). The proposal involves the construction of a 23,800 +/- square foot addition on the north side of the existing building to increase production and storage space. The project will also include new loading docks, 33 employee parking spaces, a materials storage area, outdoor lighting, and storm- Planning Board Minutes 10-07.2014 Page 16 of 20 water facilities. Tompkins County IDA, Owner; Dan Mitchell, President, Ithaca Beer Company, Applicant; and 2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in a coordinated environmental review, has, on October 7, 2014, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Plan- ning staff-, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on October 7, 2014, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, the following drawings: "Existing Site Plan" (C100), "Layout Plan" (C101), "Grading and Drainage Plan" (C102), "Erosion and Sediment Control Plan" (C103) and "Details" (C201 and C202), dated 09/30/2014 and prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., "First Floor Plan" (A101), "Mezzanine Plan" (A102), "Exterior Elevations" (A201 and A202), and "Perspectives" (AP 101), dated 09/05/2014 and prepared by HOLT Architects, and other application materials; 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 a significant alteration of neither 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 Ithaca Beer Company Addition project located at 122 Ithaca Beer Drive, as described in the drawings listed above, subject to the following conditions: a. Review and approval of the final Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Stormwater Man- agement Study) and associated drawings by the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department, prior to the start of any site work, and b. submission of one set of the final site plan drawings on mylar, vellum, or paper, revised to show i. three ADA parking places in front of the existing building, and ii. landscaping that conforms to paragraph 2.f below, signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor, engineer, architect, or landscape architect who prepared the site plan material, prior to the issuance of a building permit, and c. submission of an easement agreement between the Ithaca Beer Company property owner and Mitchell Ventures LLC for the parking space that extends onto the adjacent Mitchell Ven- tures property as shown on Sheet C100, satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town, and sub- mission of proof of filing of the approved easement in the Tompkins County Clerk's office, prior to the use of that parking space, and Planning Board Minutes 10-07.2014 Page 17 of 20 d. submission of an updated stormwater "Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement" between the property owner and the Town of Ithaca, satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town and the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department, and full execution of the updated agree- ment, prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy, and e. submission of record of application for and proof of receipt of all necessary permits from county, state, and/or federal agencies, prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy, and f. submission of a landscaping plan acceptable to the Director of Planning that screens vehicle headlights on the Ithaca Beer property from shining onto the residence at 850 Five Mile Drive and softens the visual impact of the addition as viewed from the residence at 850 Five Mile Drive, prior to the application for any building permits, and g. noise-related construction activities shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Fri- day.Work shall not be routinely scheduled for Saturdays, but will be permitted if required by extenuating circumstances, such as severe weather, subject to approval by the Director of Code Enforcement. Construction shall be prohibited between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., and all day on Sundays and federal holidays, except emergency repairs (such as to stormwater facilities) will be allowed on any day, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby authorizes, according to Section 270-227 (A) (4) of the Town Code, the standard 180 square foot parking space to be reduced to no less than 162 square feet, finding that the reduction will not cause any adverse effects on the project, on the surrounding properties, or on the neighborhood, and that the current situation using 162 square foot spaces has worked for the remainder of the property, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby authorizes the placement of three parking spaces along the entrance drive to be located in a required yard of the project site, pursuant to Section 270-227.B (2) and (3), finding that: a. The particular use, nature, or location of the proposed project or building, requires that park- ing be in one of such yards; b. It is not practicable to limit parking to areas outside of the required yards; c. Parking in such yards does not significantly adversely affect adjacent properties or the charac- ter of the neighborhood; and d. No such parking will occur in any buffer areas. Vote Ayes: Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb Nays:Wilcox Planning Board Minutes 10-07.2014 Page 18 of 20 AGENDA ITEM Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed Chain Works District development located at 810 Danby Road (620 South Aurora Street in the City of Ithaca), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40.:3-3 (City of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 106.4-8), Industrial Zone. The project is a mixed-use development consisting of residential, offices, commercial, manufacturing, and open space within the Town and City of Ithaca consisting of four primary phases on the 95-acre property: 1) the redevelopment of four existing buildings (building 21 - 43,340 sq ft, building 24 - 129,570 sq ft, building 33 - 22,000 sq ft and building 34 - 148,600 sq ft); 2) the repurposing of the remaining existing Emerson Power Transmission/Morse Chain Factory; 3) potential future development within portions of the site adjacent to the existing buildings/parking areas; 4) future new development within areas of the remainder of the site. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board will also consider concurrence with the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board as the lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed Chain Works District project. Emerson Power Transmission Corporation, Owner; David Lubin/UnChained Properties, LLC,Applicant; Scott Whitham,Whitham Planning & Design, LLC &Jamie Gensel, Fagan Engineers &Land Surveyors, PC,Agents Mr. Witham was main spokesperson gave a short overview of the project and he and others from the team fielded questions from the board. One of the themes of the project is live,work, play - not only will you be able to live here and have your business here, but there will be entertainment and recreation: this becomes a whole new neighborhood. The project is very close to downtown Ithaca and is part of a trail system that has a broken link that they intend to knit together as part of the project. It's only a ten-minute walk from their office on Cayuga Street. Mr. Beach asked whether there are plans to open Turner Place from this project down to the city. Response: Building 21 will be accessed from Turner,which it already is. But as for general circulation, they're not at that stage yet. Ms. Collins asked if there will be any attempt at historic preservation. Response: Some of the buildings are stunning and deserving of attention along those lines. They are also looking at a possible historic district. Ms. Erb asked what mixed-use means to them. Response: T4 means primarily residential with perhaps a corner store-like business or a small office space or coffee shop. T5 will be the inverse. Buildings 33 and 34 will be industrial; the rest of the development in the town will be mostly residential.The entire buildout will occur over decades. Mr. Bosak said he is delighted to see a proposal for the development of dense residential housing close to services. PB Resolution No. 2014-054: SEQR Lead Agency Concurrence, Chain Works District, 810 Danby Road/620-40 Aurora Street, Tax Parcel No. 40.-3-3 (Town) and 106.-1-8 (City) Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS Planning Board Minutes 10-07.2014 Page 19 of 20 1. Unchained Properties, LLC. proposes to develop the Chain Works District, a mixed use devel- opment located in the Town and City of Ithaca (8 10 Danby Road/620-40 Aurora Street) on the former Emerson Power Transmission/Morse Chain factory property. The proposed project in- cludes repurposing large portions of the former factory building,with distant future phases to involve enlarging the development footprint with new buildings on portions of the 90-acre prop- erty, and 2. Development of the project will require rezoning by the Ithaca Town Board and City of Ithaca Common Council, site plan approval by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, and potentially other approvals from State and County agen- cies, and 3. The Chain Works District project is a Type I action under SEQRA and will be conducted as a coordinated review amongst the various agencies that have discretionary decision authority to approve certain aspects of the project, and 4. Approximately two-thirds of the former Emerson Power Transmission/Morse Chain factory is located within the City boundary. Initial phases of the project will convert factory space within the City into residential, mixed use, and other functions,while the manufacturing aspects will remain the primary use in the Town. Subsequent phases propose new construction of residential and mixed use development within both the City and Town portions of the property, and 5. While both the Town and City will be affected by the repurposing of the former factory, certain environmental impacts are likely to be more concentrated within the City, such as traffic and stormwater runoff, and 6. The City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has indicated, in a letter dated September 23, 2014, its intent to serve as the lead agency for the environmental review of the Chain Works District project, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby concurs with the designation of the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board as lead agency under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the purpose of overseeing the environmental review of the Chain Works District project. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - Nobody came forward to address the board. Planning Board Minutes 10-07-2014 Page 20 of 20 AGENDA ITEM Other business Mr. Wilcox asked Ms. Brock to address the board regarding the letter he got regarding Briarwood II. Ms. Brock said it's a letter from an attorney for Rocco Lucente. Briarwood II was a proposed subdivision that came to the planning board and received preliminary approval in 2006. Then the town board imposed some moratoria while it studied drainage issues in the northeast. Mr. Lucente submitted an application for final subdivision approval, but then the initial moratorium was put in place. Meanwhile, Li\rry Fabbroni came to the planning department with several iterations of the subdivision to try and address some concerns. Then they didn't pursue the concept. Several years later, the town clerk receives a letter from the attorney saying that because the time to process and approve the final subdivision application has passed, it is deemed approved, which is what New York town law says. In response, a letter was sent to the lawyer saying that the clock doesn't start running until SEQR is done. Since the time preliminary approval was granted, there were a number of significant changes made to the project, so the planning board is going to have to take another look at SEQR. Among other things, they are completely changing how they're dealing with stormwater. Also there were conditions from preliminary that they haven't met; one being that they had to submit proof that Cornell was going to accept ownership of stormwater facilities and be responsible for their maintenance and repair, which they are now not willing to do. So we sent a letter back saying it is not being approved for these reasons. On a motion by Mr. Bosak and seconded by Ms. Wedemeyer, the board voted to cancel the meeting of October 21. AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by Hollis Erb, the meeting adjourned at 10:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra DeAug n C erk