Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2015-01-06TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. January 6. 2015 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. SEQR Determination: Ithaca Vacation Bed & Breakfast, 104 Pineyiew Terrace. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Special Permit for the proposed Ithaca Vacation Bed & Breakfast located at 104 Pineyiew Terrace, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 53.-1- 15.23, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal inyoWes using two bedrooms in the existing residence for a bed and breakfast. Jin Fang, Owner/Applicant. 3. Reyiew of the reyised Draft Scoping Document for the Draft Generic Enyironmental Impact Statement (GEIS) conceming the proposed Chain Works District Redeyelopment Project. The proposed Chain Works District Redeyelopment Project seeks to redeyelop the 800,000 +/- square foot former Morse Chain/Emerson Power Transmission facility and construct new buildings on portions of the 95-acre site that trayerses the City and Town of Ithaca's municipal boundary. 4. Persons to be heard 5. Approyal of Minutes: December 16, 2014 6. Other Business 7. 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 or SPOLCE@TOWN.ITHACA.NY.US. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) Accessing Meeting Materials Online Site Plan and Subdivision applications and associated project materials are accessible electronically on the Town's website under "Planning Board" on the "Meeting Agendas" page (httn://www.town.llliaca.nv.us/meeting-agendas'>. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday,January 6, 2015 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox(Chair),Joseph Haefeli,John Beach,Yvonne Fogarty, Hollis Erb Town Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Brock,Attorney for the Town; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and accepted the secretary's posting and publication of the public hearing notice. AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Ithaca Vacation Bed&Breakfast, 104 Pineview Terrace Ms. Fang stated that she wants to do a B&B in her own home. She believes in the opportunity for Americans to run their own businesses out of their homes. That is why she came to this country in 1987. She became a citizen in 1998. She pays her taxes on time and is a good citizen. She's appealing to the American spirit of fairness. The B&B will be at 104 Pineview Terrace, the house she has lived in since 1993. It will be two rooms on the east and the south side. She has enough parking. The rooms are very clean. One bedroom will have its own bath and the second will be shared with the owner. She will pay 8% NYS sales tax and 3%Tompkins County room tax. She will follow the food safety rules. She will keep the house and property beautiful and contribute to the Ithaca community. PB Resolution No. 2015.001: SEAR, Special Permit, Ithaca Vacation Bed and Breakfast, Tax Parcel No. 53.-l-15.23 Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by Yvonne Fogarty WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Special Permit for the proposed Ithaca Vacation Bed &Breakfast located at 104 Pineview Terrace, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 51-1,15.23, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves using two bedrooms in the existing residence for a bed and breakfast. Jin Fang, Owner/Applicant; 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 Special Permit; and 3. The Planning Board, on January 6, 2015, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Envi- ronmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff, floor plans labeled "Jin Fang, 104 Pineview Terrace, Ithaca, NY 14850," a survey map entitled "Re-Survey for Roger M. and Helen B. Spanswick, P/O Military Lot 97, Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York, Tax Map No. 53.1-15.23, deed L.507/P.402," Planning Board Meeting 01.06-2015 Page 2 of 12 prepared by Michael J. Reagan and dated 6-15-1993, photos of the property, and other application materials; and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental signifi- cance with respect to the proposed Special Permit; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Erb AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Special Permit for the proposed Ithaca Vacation Bed &Breakfast located at 104 Pineview Terrace, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 53.-1-15.23, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves using two bedrooms in the existing residence for a bed and breakfast. Jin Fang, Owner/Applicant Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Ms. Erb asked how long someone can be in a B&B room before becoming a tenant. Mr. Bates responded that the definition in the code says that after 30 days, a person becomes a tenant. Transient is under 30 days under the NYS building code. Mr. Wilcox said that the application materials indicated that guests would be occupying the rooms only on Friday and Saturday nights. Ms. Fang responded that it will possibly include Sunday, also, if the next day is a holiday. It would be limited to certain months because she doesn't like winter. She also operates her acupuncture business downstairs. She has had a sign on the street since 1993. Mr. Bates said that if she plans further signage, it will have to comply with what is permitted in the residential zone. Her current sign is compliant. Mr. Haefeli asked how she will promote a B&B. Ms. Fang responded that she will join the association. She will not participate in Airbnb. Ms. Balestra said her acupuncture business is a legal as-of-right business. Planning Board Meeting 01.06-2015 Page 3 of 12 Mr. Wilcox asked whether this B&B had been operating previously. Mr. Bates explained that it was illegally operated as weekend rentals. That has since stopped, and Ms. Fang is now before the board to make it a legal operation. Based on his inspection of the house, the only change required will be for windows that allow proper egress from the two bedrooms. The windows meet the height requirement in the code - it can't be over 14 feet from the windows to the ground. She has to install the proper egress windows because this is a change in occupancy. She also has to install smoke detectors. The size of window stems from the fire code: it is not only for people to get out, but also for the firefighter to get in, and is based on the size of a firefighter wearing a pack. Mr. Wilcox gave the public a chance to speak. Lydia Werbizky, 109 Juniper Drive, read from a statement she titled Confusion, Concerns, Ques- tions, and Requests. She felt confusion when she got the notice. The permit is being requested now; it's confusing because Ithaca Vacation Rentals has been advertising and renting this property to transient guests since as far back as the summer of 2013.Also in operation is the owner's other B&B right across the street from Pineview Terrace on Hickory Place,which backs right into her property. On the positive side, the owners have put their properties in very good condition. The guests have not made a lot of noise. She wanted to address both properties even though the notice was for one, because the impact is from both and will likely impact more people than if it was only Pineview Terrace. Both properties have a deck, and the web site advertises that these locations are equipped with deck and fire pit and are available for parties. They're not sure what the future holds in terms of noise and privacy for the permanent residents. On the negative side, it's unsettling that a small, quiet, and peaceful suburban neighborhood now has two houses in close proximity that are no longer owner-occupied, but operated as a business. Owners of businesses and owner occupants have different priorities that are often incompatible. For example, the business B&B on Hickory Place needs to keep its customers cool in the summer. However, the owners of the two houses behind this business would like to enjoy their quiet summer evenings in the back yard listening to the birds, as they have done for the last 12 years. This is no longer possible because the business installed a whole-house compressor, and in the summer months, the persistent, loud, buzzing noise drives them from their back yard into their house with windows down. She'd like to be able to use her back yard and open her windows in the summer, rather than hear that persistent noise to cool guests who don't live in the community. The business also benefits from having a deck, so last summer, the construction of the deck on the B&B on Hickory Place - the loud noise of hammers and power saws -went on past 10 p.m. and would have gone past midnight if the police had not been called. This has not been a tranquil transition; this has definitely impacted their neighborhood already, and they're not sure what's going to happen. Before granting a permit for another B&B in this neighborhood, the town needs to consider that in residential neighborhoods, its primary responsibility is to people for whom this neighborhood is a home as opposed to for whom it's primarily a business. She's not anti-business, but this is a different kind of business than the rentals that are permitted,where there's an owner, occupied unit and a rental. This is inviting potentially the air conditioner on, the parties; if you're there 12 months out of the year,you're not likely to have a party every weekend, but if it's a different set of people coming every weekend, it's more likely to be a much noisier proposition and a more impactful proposition. Steven Ehrhardt, 109 Juniper Drive, stated that he was on the city planning board and had to entertain similar requests, and when you grant them, it's an act of faith that the person getting the Planning Board Meeting 01.06-2015 Page 4 of 12 permit will do what they say and follow the law. He said that both 104 Hickory Place and 104 Pineview Terrace have been operating as B&Bs for a long time, even though, as Mr. Bates confirmed, no permits have been issued for such a use. The owner has not been obeying the law, and the board is making an act of faith that she will. Ms. Fang said she will rent two bedrooms,which is in conform- ance with the permissible uses in the medium-density residential zone. There's a limitation on the number of rooms a B&B can host because it has to be compatible. Logically, if there's a limit to the number of guests and rooms a B&B can host, there's got to be a limit to the number of B&Bs a little neighborhood should host. There have been two operating illegally, and the person operating them is now going to rectify the situation and promises to rent only two bedrooms. Mr. Ehrhardt read from a current ad he found on the web that says that both houses are B&Bs. He said that a person's credibility matters when they come to the board. The board is putting their faith that a person who's broken the law and is advertising the intent to break the law and compromise the quality of life in their neighborhood will follow the law. He thinks that there's reason to question that in light of this advertisement. Ultimately, if these properties were operated within the law, you're still talking about two B&Bs a stone's throw from one another in a small neighborhood. He thinks the planning board members should be concerned about whether or not they're being told the truth. Max Buckholtz, 106 Pineview Terrace, stated that he first met Ms. Fang in 1999 as an acupuncture patient and then in 2008, he purchased the home next to hers. She treated both his parents as well. He said she is very communicative. The first year the businesses were being conducted, there was a lot of noise, and he communicated that with her. She gave her support in contacting the police and authorities because she didn't want her houses trashed. On one occasion, he had to call the police, and when he met with Ms. Fang, she said she only wanted a certain number of people in her home and gave him her cell phone number so he could contact her immediately should he have any concern.The two bedrooms in the proposed B&B face his home, and he has no problem with her running this business. She's very hard working and is 100% committed to her business. She works hard on her landscaping; the outside of the homes is very beautiful.As far as people staying longer than 30 days, there are some tenants in the neighborhood that he is more nervous about than having people come into a home in which the owner is present. She's very strict with her clientele as far as them being clean, conserving energy, etc. He said he fully supports her. Daniela Bocioaga, 112 Juniper Drive, said that she is neighbors with Ms. Fang and runs a licensed daycare out of her home. About 10 cars drive in and out every morning and afternoon. When she saw the letter from the town regarding this application, she was worried that new regulations might put her business in danger. She knows there is a person in the neighborhood who has people in his house, one of whom has mental issues. He stopped one of the parents of her daycare over the summer and was very frightening; he was wearing camo and talking about guns and shooting. She believes there are very questionable people in the neighborhood when it comes to safety. She believes Ms. Fang renting out two bedrooms in her home will not be an issue for the neighborhood. Mr. Buckholtz said that he knows Ms. Fang understands that she needs to comply with rules and regulations. This business was her heart and soul.After she was unable to continue it, she was considering selling both homes and moving to China. He was extremely depressed in the fall because she is such a good neighbor. He doesn't know who will move into the neighborhood -who the new owner will rent to. The neighborhood benefits from Ms. Fang's presence. Planning Board Meeting 01.06-2015 Page 5 of 12 Mr. Ehrhardt said the question in front of the board is not whether Ms. Fang works hard at her business. The question is whether the business is compliant with the zoning and whether the board believes that she will rent only the two bedrooms, as has been stated, or whether they believe her own advertisement. You have no meaningful means of enforcement once you grant this permit; it's an act of trust.You have a responsibility not only to the hardworking people who want to run a business in the neighborhood, but also to the hardworking people who live there. The question isn't whether the properties are well maintained, but whether this is a permissible use in the neighborhood and whether it is likely that it will remain one if you grant the permit. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Ehrhardt handed an ad for the B&B to Mr.Wilcox. Ms. Erb said that she had been told by the previous attorney for the town that decisions cannot be based on the assumption of bad acts on the part of the applicants in the future. Mr. Barney made it clear that the planning board has to deal with the application in front of them and cannot presume that the applicant will commit bad acts. Ms. Brock said she would have to research that - that if, in fact, the applicant had violated the law and continued to do so after being told not to,whether or not that would still apply.And she does not even know whether that statement is true. If we were to assume that it's true, could the planning board take that into consideration in deciding whether or not to grant the special permit? She didn't know the answer to that. Ms. Erb said she knows there are several neighbors who will be watching and who know they can call code enforcement. They knew they could call the Sheriff on a noise complaint. Mr. Beach asked Mr. Bates for the status of the other residence that was referred to. Mr. Bates responded that the property under consideration did have six zoning violations that were resolved shortly after the end of July.The property at 104 Hickory also had violations, and Ms. Fang was cited for them and has since corrected them. He has received no further complaints since the violations were resolved. Part of her resolving those complaints was for Ms. Fang to come before the planning board for a special permit. There is an ongoing issue within the whole town with Airbnb and people renting homes for the weekend. The state attorney general has made an opinion that it is a violation of the NYS building code to rent your property for less than 30 days, unless you run a motel/hotel. Mr. Bates met with Airbnb just before Christmas and will meet with them again to discuss this issue.Just because they pay the sales tax to the county doesn't make it legal. Mr. Bates spent several weeks getting this mess straightened out and now has those two properties cleaned up. Ms. Fang has since put 104 Hickory Place on the market.A B&B has to be owner occupied. Once the owner is not occupying the house, it's a rental, and NYS says that if it's for under 30 days, it's transient, and the owner now has to meet the requirements of it being a hotel/motel. Mr. Beach asked whether the designation as an allowable use would go with the property if the property sells. Planning Board Meeting 01.06-2015 Page 6 of 12 Mr. Bates said that,yes, it goes with the property. The new owner would still have to apply for the permit and meet the requirements of our code. Ms. Fogarty asked Ms. Fang if she rents the property when she's not there. Ms. Fang responded that she does not. Ms. Fogarty said the ad reads that there are three bedrooms for rent. Ms. Fang said that she started renting it in 2012, but at that time she did not know the rules. She stopped in October 2014. Ms. Fogarty said that the current online advertising is not consistent with what is allowed. Ms. Fang responded that she will change it. Mr. Bates said that he doesn't know when that web site was put up and he doesn't know what's out there floating around. He can't regulate what she advertises - only what she does. She has been cited in the past, but she is currently in compliance. To his knowledge, the other property is still in compliance because it is empty; he has received no complaints to the contrary. She is here for the permit to run the bed and breakfast.All we are trying to do is bring her in compliance with the rules of the Town of Ithaca and the State of New York; that is what she is trying to do. She can rent out only two rooms - that is regulated by the town code; the number of people is regulated by New York State building code because you have to have a certain number of square feet per person. Previously, she was renting out houses for the whole weekend without being there. With a B&B, she has to be there, at least in the morning for breakfast. Ms. Erb asked Mr. Bates whether the second bedroom could legally be rented to three people based on the square footage, such as a couple and a small child. Mr. Bates responded that the law doesn't differentiate between a child and an adult. Mr. Haefeli mentioned that the ad states that events are allowed, and that it might be possible that people renting the house, say, for IC graduation, would want to invite their friends over for a party. Mr. Bates pointed out that with a B&B, the owner is present.And even if she allowed someone to throw a party, she would be on site and would be held responsible. If something gets out of hand, the Sheriff would have no problem writing an appearance ticket for the violation of noise. Regarding the ad, he thinks Ms. Fang simply hasn't updated the web site.Also, things get on the web and it's hard to get rid of them. Mr. Beach asked whether there is anything in the town zoning that regulates the number of owner, occupied businesses within a certain area. Mr. Bates said there is not. Planning Board Meeting 01.06-2015 Page 7 of 12 Ms. Brock asked whether owner occupancy is required by the NYS building code for a B&B, because it's not defined in our code. Mr. Bates said that it is. Regarding the ad, Ms. Fang said that she can't even access her web site. She has lodged a complaint and has been assigned a case number through Yahoo. Ms. Erb said that once something is on the web, it's there forever - so the fact that we can find an advertisement a month from now is irrelevant. The fact is that the neighbors are watching and will complain if there are too many people there or if there's too much noise. Ms. Brock said that regardless of what the NYS building code requires, it's reasonable to include a condition that Pineview Terrace be owner-occupied when the B&B is rented out, because with the owner on premises, that tends to minimize whatever issues might arise from noisy tenants. PB Resolution No. 2015-002: Special Permit, Ithaca Vacation Bed and Breakfast, Tax Parcel No. 53.4-15.23 Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by Yvonne Fogarty WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Special Permit for the proposed Ithaca Vacation Bed &Breakfast located at 104 Pineview Terrace, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 53.-1-15.23, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves using two bedrooms in the existing residence for a bed and breakfast. Jin Fang, Owner/Applicant; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in the environmental review with respect to the project, has, on January 6, 2015, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff., and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on January 6, 2015, has reviewed and accepted as adequate floor plans labeled "Jin Fang, 104 Pineview Terrace, Ithaca, NY 14850," a survey map entitled "Re-Survey for Roger M. and Helen B. Spanswick, P/O Military Lot 97, Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York, Tax Map No. 53.1-15.23, deed L.507/P.402," prepared by Michael J. Reagan and dated 645-1993, photos of the property, and other application materi- als; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. 1. That the Planning Board hereby finds that the considerations for approval of the requested Special Permit listed in Article XXIV, Section 270-200, Subsections A - L of the Town of Ithaca Code have been met, specifically that: Planning Board Meeting 01.06-2015 Page 8 of 12 a. the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, in harmony with the general purpose of Town Code Chapter 270, Article XXIII,will be promoted, because the proposed use will promote tourism and economic development for the Ithaca area and will provide a unique alternative to commercial lodging for those wishing to visit the area; and b. the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use because the home and extra bed- rooms already exist/are already being utilized for residential purposes and the proposed use will be similar to the existing use; the use will fill a neighborhood or community need because it will provide additional local lodging for tourists; and c. the proposed use and the location and design of any structures are consistent with the charac- ter of the district in which they are located, for the reasons noted above; and d. the proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devalue the neighborhood property or seriously inconvenience the neighboring inhabitants, because such use will only involve two bedrooms in an existing sin- gle-family home and its impacts to the neighborhood are expected to be minor; and e. operations in connection with the proposed use will not be more objectionable to nearby properties by reasons of noise, fumes,vibrations, illumination or other potential nuisance than the operation of any permitted use in the particular zone, for the reasons noted above; and f. community infrastructure and services, including but not limited to, protective services, road- ways, garbage collection, schools and water and sewer facilities, are currently, or will be, of ad- equate capacity to accommodate the proposed use, as the use will not generate the need for these services above the levels that a residential use would; and g. the proposed use, building, design and site layout comply with all provisions of Chapter 270, Zoning, and, to the extent considered by the Planning Board, with other regulations and or- dinances of the Town, with the Building Code and all other state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and with the Town Comprehensive Plan; and h. the proposed access and egress for all structures and uses are safely designed and the site lay- out provides adequate access for emergency vehicles; the structure will be modified to provide adequate egress windows for the bedrooms that will be used for the bed and breakfast, and the existing site and subdivision were designed and developed with emergency access in mind; and i. the general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole, including such items as traffic load upon public streets and load upon water and sewer systems, is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community, for the reasons noted above; and j. the lot area, access, parking, and loading facilities are sufficient for the proposed use; and access, parking, and loading facilities are adequately buffered to minimize their visual impact, as the existing driveway and parking area is already buffered and able to accommodate the number of cars required for a small(two-bedroom) bed and breakfast; and k. natural surface water drainage is adequately managed in accordance with good engineering practices and in accordance with any applicable Town local law or ordinance, and existing drainageways are not altered in a manner that adversely affects other properties, for the rea- sons noted above; and Planning Board Meeting 01.06-2015 Page 9 of 12 1. the proposed use or structure complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in Town Code Chapter 270,Article XXIII; and 2. The Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the proposed Ithaca Vacation Bed and Breakfast project located at 104 Pineview Terrace, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 51-1-15.23, with the following conditions: a. That the bed and breakfast serve no more than four guests at one time, in no more than two of the bedrooms; and b. That the property owner complies with any safety and building requirements outlined in the New York State Fire and Building Codes that pertain to the proposed bed and breakfast use, including the installation of appropriate egress windows in the two bedrooms that will be uti- lized for the bed and breakfast. c. The property owner must reside in the house and be present in the house overnight when guests are renting rooms. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Erb AGENDA ITEM Review of the revised Draft Scoping Document for the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement(GEIS) concerning the proposed Chain Works District Redevelopment Project. The proposed Chain Works District Redevelopment Project seeks to redevelop the 800,000 +/-square foot former Morse Chain/Emerson Power Transmission facility and construct new buildings on portions of the 95-acre site that traverses the City and Town of Ithaca's municipal boundary. Ms. Brock said that the updated scoping document addresses few of the board's comments. Ms. Ritter said that any additional comments have to be forwarded to the city planners by noon tomorrow. Ms. Erb had comments that she said she was planning to forward to Lisa Nicholas. To a question from Ms. Fogarty, Ms. Ritter said that the scoping document lays out what the applicant will talk about in the DGEIS; you don't, for example, talk about wetlands in the scoping document, you say you will talk about wetlands. The applicant took out some of the former in this version, but not all of it. It's not really a problem; it just adds a lot of extraneous material. This document was released to the public on December 22nd - the planning board also got a copy - and they were given two weeks to provide comment. Ms. Brock said she wasn't sure the city had a hand in drafting the document, or whether it's just the applicant's response to comments. They may not have addressed the city's and the attorney's comments yet. Mr. Wilcox said he thinks of a scoping document as a bunch of bullet points; i.e., these are the areas we are going to address in the EIS. Planning Board Meeting 01.06-2015 Page 10 of 12 Ms. Ritter said it's so we all have an understanding of what the expectations are when the GEIS comes out, and therefore if we feel like something is missing, if it's something that we did not say we needed to talk about, the applicant could say, You didn't tell us to put it in the scoping document, therefore we do not need to address it.. Mr. Beach asked to hear Ms. Erb's comments. Ms. Brock said that if other board members endorsed them, they could be submitted as comments from the whole board. Ms. Erb went through her comments, the main one being that she wanted to add one more intersec- tion: Route 79 and Pine Tree Road. She reasoned that if the argument is to check Coddington and Burns because of traffic going to Cornell, let's find out whether the traffic really is heading toward Cornell and not going east, instead, toward Route 81. The Pine Tree Road Neighborhood Associa- tion has been up in arms already about traffic issues, so let's find out. Mr. Beach said that he would go further because he raised a comment at the joint meeting about the Coddington/Burns intersection, and he really thinks it should be the Coddington/Burns/East King intersection in order to get a true picture. Coming off Burns onto Coddington and immediately turning onto East King is tricky, and they should look at all of that. Ms. Ritter said that one of the reasons you do this is to find out what's happening at that intersection and to see if there's so much traffic that you have to mitigate it. To some extent, she doesn't believe there will be so much traffic that it has to be mitigated, but she does think it keeps an eye on things like the traffic counts in those areas for future development.That's what she was looking for when she raised the issue of Burns and Coddington: to recognize that traffic is going in that direction and that for future traffic analyses, we need to be aware of it. Mr. Beach said he agreed, but that the other piece of that is the propensity for dangerous traffic patterns because of the blind curve coming around Coddington Road. Making the turn onto Coddington and then onto East King, and there's a car you can't see coming around that blind curve, it's an impact that will be exacerbated by additional traffic. Ms. Erb said that her argument for the intersection of Pine Tree and Route 79 is that they're already looking at the intersection of State and Mitchell, so she thinks it's perfectly acceptable to look at the other residential neighborhood that will be impacted by this traffic on East Hill, and that the easiest way to get to it is Pine Tree and Route 79. Mr. Haefeli moved and Mr. Beach seconded a motion for the full board to indicate their support for Ms. Erb's comments to the city planners. Ms. Brock stated that she would submit her own comments separately and copy the board. She said that one major problem she found was under the Transportation section,where they said that the city and town staff were consulted in developing a scope for a complete traffic impact study.They should attach that study to the scoping document because they don't give any of the details. This is where they should say what they will look at, so they should be listing what the major roads are,what the Planning Board Meeting 01.06-2015 Page 11 of 12 intersections are, what the time periods are, etc. If they attach the traffic impact study, they don't have to include the details in the scope. Mr. Wilcox pointed out that the scoping document specifies what will be covered and what will not be dealt with in an environmental review. Limiting what will be investigated and researched prevents opponents of the project from continually adding to the environmental review. Ms. Brock asked whether the board agreed with the applicant taking noise and odors completely off the table because they're not considered significant issues. She was very surprised. How will we know until they look at the issues? Mr. Wilcox pointed out that potential odors would mostly be in the town where the light manufac- turing is going to occur. Ms. Fogarty asked how they would look at that when they don't even own the property yet and they have no idea who they will be leasing the property to.Wouldn't that come up as they put tenants into place? Ms. Brock said that they can say that those specific issues need to be looked at later as they get specific proposals. But they say, "Phase I of the project will not have any operational noise impacts after construction is complete." Ms. Ritter said that Phase I is partly the manufacturing. Ms. Brock asked how they can pre-judge that.And then they say that "the project will not create additional odor impacts beyond existing ambient levels. Even though the Chain Works district will include industrial uses, it was determined that the Project will not create odors beyond the normal due to the mixed-use nature of the Project and the inherent policing by the residents of the Project." That should come out, and if they want to say that they can't look at specific noise and odor impacts now and will have to provide that later, that's fine. But they're affirmatively saying that Phase I will not have these impacts for noise, and you'll never have a problem with odors because the residents won't tolerate it. The board indicated their support for Ms. Brock's opinion. Ms. Erb said that if Ms. Brock sends her comments with the board's endorsement - that we think they're overstepping by making it a flat statement - then they're on notice if it comes up later with individual projects. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - Nobody came forward to address the board. Planning Board Meeting 01-06'2015 Page 12 o( 12 AGENDA ITEM PB Resolution No. 2014-070: Minutes of December 16, 2014 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on December 16; now therefore be it RESOLVED, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes to be the final minutes of the meeting on December 16. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Erb AGENDA ITEM Other Business Mr. Wilcox made a motion, seconded Ms. Erb, to cancel the February 3rd meeting of the planning board. The board voted in favor. AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by John Beach, the meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted. ebra DeAugilstine, Deputy Towii C