No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2016-02-02TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hail 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. February 2. 2016 AGENDA 7;00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approyal and Special Permit for the proposed construction of a new 8,878 +/- square foot parish center at St. Catherine of Siena Church, 302 St. Catherine Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71 1-10, Medium Density Residential Zone. The project also includes the replacement of parking spaces along with new walkways, landscaping, outdoor lighting, utilities, and a roof mounted solar photoyoltaic system. The existing 10,275 +/- square foot parish center will be demolished once the new facility is completed. St. Catherine of Siena Church, Owner/Applicant; Richard McElhiney Architects LLC, Agent. 7:20 P.M. Presentation concerning the Draft Generic Enyironmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for 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. 3. Persons to be heard 4. Approyal of Minutes: January 19, 2016 5. Other Business 6. 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 SP()LCE@TO\VN.n IIAUA.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 (htlDt/Avww.toun.ithaca.nv.us/meeting-aeendas). TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday. February 2. 2016 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, February 2, 2016, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following time and on the following matter: 7:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approyal and Special Permit for the proposed construction of a new 8,878 +/- square foot parish center at St. Catherine of Siena Church, 302 St. Catherine Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71.-1-10, Medium Density Residential Zone. The project also includes the replacement of parking spaces along with new walkways, landscaping, outdoor lighting, utilities, and a roof mounted solar photoyoltaic system. The existing 10,275 +/- square foot parish center will be demolished once the new facility is completed. St. Catherine of Siena Church, Owner/Applicant; Richard McElhiney Architects LLC, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Indiyiduals with yisual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be proyided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 Dated: Monday, January 25,2016 Publish: Wednesday, January 27,2016 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall. 215 North Tio2a Street. Ithaca. New York, on Tuesday. February 2, 2016 commencing at 7:00 P.M.. as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board - 215 North Tioga Street. Date of Posting: January 25, 2016 Date of Publication: January 27, 2016 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 27'^ day of January 2016 Notary Public Ir Deborah l M]52 01KE&D25073 '-\ -.nnualified in Coun©erflmission bxpirss May 17, 20 J—- THE LTHACA JOURNAL WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27. 2016 TOWNOFrfHACA - PLANNING BOMO ^ NOTICE (^PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, Februarys, 2016 ^ ^Bcdbn ol the Chairper son of the Ptannlrtg Board. NOTia IS HEREBY GIVEN a PubkcHeertno vifll-be by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tjee- day. February 2.2016. at 315 North Tloga Street. Ithaca. N.Y.. at the foUowfng time and on the following matter: 7:00 P.M. Con^deratlon of fteiiminary end Final Site Plan Approval and Speciet Permit for the proposed con- Stnictitjn of a rww 8578 *!• square h»t parish center at ^ Catherine of Stene Church. 302 St. Catherine Cb^. Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel fto. 71.-I-I0. Medium pensi^ Residential Zone. The project also includes the replacement of partong spaces along with new walk- ways, landscaping, outdoor lighting, utilities, and a roof mounted adar photovoltaic system. Theexisting 10.275 -«■/- square foot parish center wiB be demolished once thepew ^lity la completed. St.Catherine of Sieiia Church. Owner/Applicant; Richard McBhlney Architects LLC. £aid Planning Board will at time and said place hear^ persons In support of suchjmaWs or obiectiot^ there to. Persons appear by agent or in person. Individu- with visual impairments, heating impairments or other special needs, will be provid ed with assistance as neces sary. upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less,than 48 hours prior to Ihe^ lime of the public hearing.Susan Rltter ^ Director of Planning >273-1747 IDated: Monday. [January 25.2016' '^1 1/27/2016 I Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street February 2,2016 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN-IN Please Print Clearly. Thank You Name Address <2\feio^pa_ OwJ /. M/h/] A ^'n herp ^ OdnJ:, \^aiiAeif T. 6-. ALl|^„ fc, f^ickald^ lA— McHlliiigiy ixc TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, February 2, 2016 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox (Chair), Linda Collins, Joseph Haefeli, John Beach, Jon Bosak Town Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Dan Thaete, Town Engineer; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and accepted the secretary's posting and publication of the public hearing notice. AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed construction of a new 8,878 +/- square foot parish center at St. Catherine of Siena Church, 302 St. Catherine Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71.-1-10, Medium Density Residen tial Zone. The project also includes the replacement of parking spaces along with new walkways, landscaping, outdoor lighting, utilities, and a roof mounted solar photovoltaic system. The existing 10,275 +/' square foot parish center will be demolished once the new facility is completed. St. Catherine of Siena Church, Owner/Applicant; Richard McElhiney Architects LLC, Agent Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. Mr. McElhiney gave a short presentation. The existing parish center will be demolished. The new parish center will be adjacent to and parallel to the main access of the church. Some parking will be added at the site of the existing parish center. The rooftop will have a low-profile photovoltaic display. They will match the materials and the fenestration with the church and keep the profile low to defer to the church itself. A low connector will be constructed between the two buildings. Donald Harner, TO Miller, said not much changed in the layout. There's a future parking expansion on the north side. A temporary parking lot in the northwest grassy area will be returned to grass once the existing parish center is demolished and the new parking added. He described the drainage and utility plans. Mr. Bosak asked what the maximum snow load is on the flat roof. Mr. McElhiney said it complies with the code, which Mr. Bates said is 40 pounds per square foot. Ms. Michaels described the landscape plan. It's a simple planting plan with plants that will thrive in the environment they're in, which is mostly parking lot, with some fruit trees that connect the church to the addition. Five trees will be removed and 12 replaced, in addition to the shrubs that are on the plan. Planning Board Minutes 02-02-2016 Page 2 of 10 Mr. McElhiney explained die phasing. The first step is a preconstruction phase in which they'll build the temporary parking and a construction fence around the site. They'll build a temporary roadway on the north side and a walkway on the parish center side of the roadway for pedestrian access to the church. They'll also build a connecting path from the existing parish center to the church. In the first part of the construction phase, the building will be under construction and utilities will be installed. Once the new parish center is completed, the existing one will be demolished. The area will be regraded and the balance of the parking will be installed and the temporary parking removed. Mr. Wilcox pointed out that there's an inconsistency in the materials regarding parking. Ms. Balestra said the town zoning code is very specific in its parking requirements for a church or religious use: one parking space per four seats. That's what staff looked at to analyze how many parking spaces they'd need. The applicant took into consideration NYS building and fire code, which doesn't look at parking requirements; it looks at the square footage of a building to determine the maximum occupancy and does not consider parking. That's the discrepancy between the applicant's numbers and staff s numbers. The board should use the numbers staff provided because they're consistent with our zoning. Ms. Balestra said that the parking spaces they're proposing are slightly smaller; she forgot to mention that in her memo. Mr. Haefeli asked how many people walk to services. Rev. Marcoux said he doesn't know the percentage of people who live in the area; it's a good many. At Sunday morning 11 a.m. mass, the parking lot is full with 150 cars, but the bike rack is full on sunny days and lots of people walk. Ms. Collins commented that she has never seen a more beautiful set of plans in her six years on the planning board. Mr. Bates said his only concern is the parish center name on the sign in front of the building. Our law allows only 36 square feet. He also wanted to make the applicant aware that the 911 address will change on all buildings; they'll have to readdress the church, parish center, and priest's quarters. To a question from Mr. Haefeli, Rev. Marcoux explained that there isn't anything going on in the church while there's something going on in the parish center. Even their social events usually happen in the evening, so there's never a time when both buildings would be full at the same time. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. PB Resolution No. 2016-010: Preliminary and Final Site Plan &. Special Permit, St. Catherine of Siena- Parish Center, 302 St. Catherine Circle, Tax Parcel No. 71.-T10 Moved Linda Collins; seconded John Beach WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed construction of a new 8,878+/' square foot parish center at St. Catherine of Siena Planning Board Minutes 02-02-2016 Page 3 of 10 Church, 302 St. Catherine Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71.-1-10, Medium Density Res idential Zone. The project also includes the replacement of parking spaces along with new walk ways, landscaping, outdoor lighting, utilities and a roof-mounted solar photovoltaic system. The existing 10,275+/- square foot parish center will be demolished once the new one is complete. St. Catherine of Siena Church, Owner; Richard McElhiney Architects, LLC, Applicant/Agent; and 2. Tliis is a Type II Action, as stated in 6 NYCRR Section 617.5(c)(2) of the regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, promulgated pursuant to the State Envi ronmental Quality Review Act, because the Action constitutes a "replacement, rehabilitation, or reconstruction of a structure or facility, in kind, on the same site, including upgrading buildings to meet building or fire codes," and thus approval of the site plan is not subject to review under SEQR; and 3. The Planning Board, at a public bearing held on February 2, 2016, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a narrative, a set of plans titled "New Parish Center, St. Catherine of Siena, Ithaca, NY," including Sheet No.'s T-OOl through T-005, PH-001 through PH-005, Old through C106, C201 and C202, L-101, DM-001, A-OOl, Aid through A104, A2d through A205, A4d through A403, and PV-lOl, prepared by Richard McElhiney Architects LLC, T.G. Miller, PC, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Ryan Biggs Clark Davis Engineering & Surveying, EC4B Engineering, PC, Taitem Engineering, PC, Robert A. Hansen Associates, Inc. and Baer and Associates, LLC, dated July 31, 2015 and most recently revised December 30, 2015, and other application materials; 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; a. the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, in harmony with the general purpose of Town Code Chapter 270, Zoning, will be promoted, as such use will fill a neigh borhood or community need because the existing parish center is deteriorating and the appli cant's objectives cannot be without a complete demolition and rebuild, and developing a new parish center on the same site as the existing one will not create an overcrowding of lands or an undue concentration of population. Rather, the project will be constructed according to the provisions in the Code; b. the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use because the use already exists and the proposed new parish center and parking lot will be located in a flat area currently maintained as parking lot and lawn that can easily accommodate the demolition/construction; c. the proposed use and the location and design of the proposed structures are consistent with the character of the district in which they are located, as the use of the site will not change from the existing St. Catherine of Siena church facilities; the site currently contains buildings and parking uses related to the church and the proposal will contain buildings and parking uses that are designed to match the existing facilities; Planning Board Minutes 02-02-2016 Page 4 of 10 d. die 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, as the church use and facilities related to the church use have existed in the same location since the early 1960's, approximately 15 years before all of the homes that surround the church on Siena Drive. Additionally, the proposed demolition and con struction period will be temporary with limited construction hours, thus mitigating any seri ous inconveniences to the neighboring inhabitants; 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 in "b," a w J 1c , and d above; 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; g. the proposed use, building, design and site layout comply with all provisions of Chapter 270 and 271, Zoning, and, to the extent considered by the Planning Board, with other regulations and ordinances of the Town, with the Building Code and all other state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and with the Town Comprehensive Plan; 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, as the plans provide for temporary relo cation of parking spaces for parishioners during construction as well as safe access for emer gency vehicles (noted on Sheet T-004); 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 in "a" through "h," above; j. the lot area, access, parking, and loading facilities are sufficient for the proposed use and ac cess, parking, and loading facilities are adequately buffered to minimize their visual impact, as the existing buffer of mature trees and shrubs that surround the church property will be main tained during and after construction; k. natural surface water drainage will be adequately managed in accordance with good engineer ing practices and in accordance with any applicable Town local law or ordinance, and existing drainage ways will not be altered in a manner that adversely affects other properties, because the proposal will result in a reduction of impervious surfaces and drainage will be will be miti gated with a Full SWPPP that has been approved by the Town Public Works Department; and 1. the proposed use and structures comply with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in Town Code Chapter 270 and 271, Zoning; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: Planning Board Minutes 02-02-2016 Page 5 of 10 1. Tliat 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 proposed construction of the new 8,878+/- square foot parish center at St. Catherine of Siena Church, along with the replacement of parking spaces, new walkways, landscaping, outdoor lighting, utilities and a roof-mounted solar photovoltaic system, referenced on plans listed in Wliereas #3 above, subject to the following conditions: a. Submission and full execution of a stormwater "Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement" between the developer of the St. Catherine of Siena Parish Center project and the Town of Ithaca, satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town and the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of any building permits; b. Submission of as-built drawings, per Bolton Point standards, for review and approval by the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; c. All outdoor lighting shall meet the requirements of the Town Outdoor Lighting Law (Town Code, Chapter 173); and d. Submission of a revised Sheet C106 Utility Plan to show a cut-in tee with gate valve in lieu of a wet tapping sleeve and revised Sheet C202 Utility Details to show Town of Ithaca standard trench details in the road right-of-way, prior to the issuance of any building permits; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby authorizes, according to Section 270-227 (A) (2) and (3) of the Town Code, a 5% reduction in the number of required parking spaces for the project, finding that the reduction in the required number of parking spaces: will not adversely affect traffic flow on the project site, will leave adequate parking for all of the reasonably antici pated uses or occupancies in the project, and will not otherwise adversely affect the general wel fare of the community. The Planning Board waives the additional conditions listed in Section 270-227. A (3) (a) through (e); and 2. 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. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Bosak Planning Board Minutes 02-02-2016 Page 6 of 10 AGENDA ITEM Presentation concerning the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for 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 Trans mission facility and construct new buildings on portions of the 95-acre site that traverses the City and Town of Ithaca's municipal boundary James Censel, Pagan Engineers, project manager on Chainworks, and David Lubin, principal management officer of Unchained Properties Chainworks, were present. Mr. Censel stated that since finishing the scoping document, they've been working on the DCEIS. Right now, the lead agency is determining whether the document is adequate. He said the project is a 95-acre site that spans the city and the town. The majority of undeveloped area is in the town. There are 35 buildings that have been interconnected over time, and they've numbered them as such on the plans. At scoping, they had a concept plan. Now they have a conceptual site layout in which some of the existing buildings will be redeveloped, some will be removed (mainly the metal buildings) to provide some community and open space, and there will be new development, a large portion of which is in the town. This is a concept and it will change. As part of the project as it is right now, they've submitted a Phase I site plan for buildings 21 and 24, and, in the town, buildings 33 and 34. The new building designations are N+number. Part of the DCEIS is that they have to analyze what they're proposing, but they also have to provide alternates. The first alternate they have to look at is the no-build alternate. The remediation would be based on what the existing record of decision (ROD) is, which means remediation to an industrial standard, and using the site as-is. The next alternate is developing the site in accordance with the existing zoning. There are pockets of different zones throughout that site, but because the ROD states that it's only going to be cleaned to an industrial standard, they focused on industrial development on the site. When they looked at that alternate, they came up with what size buildings they could add to the site and still develop it in accordance with the existing zoning, which mainly would be developing it in the industrial sense with some office space, but no residential whatsoever. Mr. Bosak asked, if this alternative were to happen, what the chances would be of actually renting or selling it. Mr. Censel said they don't know. The reason they're not planning any more industrial is because if it were going to be used as industrial space, somebody would have bought it by now, so they picked a feasible number. Emerson will have to clean it up to an industrial standard anyway. They're seeking a higher level of cleanup, which is residential. Ms. Brock said they could apply the existing zoning and change the ROD. Mr. Censel said that from a feasibility point of view, the amount of development you would need to make it cost feasible to go for the ROD would not be able to happen under the existing zoning. The applicant has sought to amend that ROD so they could do residential development. Mr. Bosak pointed out that they're going to have to clean it up to this level of remediation even if none of this development happens. He thinks any resident of Ithaca with a brain is going to be Planning Board Minutes 02-02-2016 Page 7 of 10 generally in favor of what the applicant is doing. The planning board's concern is to make sure they cross the t's and dot the i's to make this bullet proof. He thinks the line of questioning is relevant because they're trying to present this as an alternative. If it's going to be cleaned up to the level suitable for industrial use, why not just leave it that way? Do we know that nobody in the next ten years is going to be interested in moving a big factory up from Tennessee? Mr. Gensel said that it's possible. That's why the alternate is there. But when you look at the mitigations for each of the alternates, there are going to be some positives from leaving it as is, but there are more positives of their plan. Mr. Lubin pointed out that there is still industrial space with their plan. Mr. Gensel said the piece of land that's not developed now will be developable with their proposal, and that will be one of the biggest concerns for the town. He described the last alternative. They have 1.7 million square feet of space. The maximum potential in their existing conceptual layout plan is to increase the density by 25 percent, which makes a 2.1 million square foot project. Large green areas are undeveloped because of the slope. The density increase comes, not only from expanding the footprint, but by building extra stories. Ms. Brock asked how they determine maximum buildout when they're proposing a PDZ and city PUD. There is no maximum buildout; it just depends on what language ends up in the law. It seems arbitrary. Mr. Gensel said it was based on parking counts - going back to how much parking they need versus how many units they can build - so they balanced the parking and the buildability of the site. They looked at the developable areas and balanced parking counts with residential units, mainly for the town area. The parking they're proposing is a little lower than what's required for residential development. Mr. Wilcox asked whether he considers it a reasonable maximum buildout based on the constraints of topology, access, and everything else. Mr. Gensel said it's a feasible maximum buildout. They were originally looking at 2.5 million square feet, but when he calculated how many parking spaces would be needed, it just didn't work out. They're trying to reduce the parking and are talking about things like carshare and the eventual driverless cars. But there comes a point where you still need to have at least one parking space per unit. Mr. Gensel stated that there are a couple of components to the action. The determination of adequacy of the DGEIS is before the board now. Then the site plan portion and PDZ and PUD rezoning. Appendix C is the PUD/PEZ language. Then there's a piece that melds the two together, which they call the Design Guidelines, which he described. To a question from Ms. Collins, Ms. Ritter explained that they're trying to put aspects of transects and form-based codes in this. There needs to be an effort, parallel to this DGEIS review, that planning committees from the city and town will review. And the planning board will be asked to Planning Board Minutes 02-02-2016 Page 8 of 10 write a recommendation on it. The PDZ language must use the SEQR; both the site plan and the local law are looking at the SEQR process. Mr. Wilcox said there's also the Route 96B corridor study to take into consideration. Mr. Gensel said the applicant has received two grants. The first is a NYSERDA Cleaner Greener Category 11 grant to develop this site in accordance with LEED-ND. This will require separate public meetings to solicit comments and going through the LEED-ND design charrette process to certify the site. Instead of using the T1 through T5 transect zones as in form-based design, they changed that to their own Chainworks areas: CWl to CW4. CWl are natural areas, CW2 is a residential area with possible pockets of commercial -all within the town, CW3 is mixed use, and CW4 is the industrial core - the existing buildings 33, 34, and most of 35, which are in the town. These boundaries have changed since the scoping, and the DGEIS is based on the acreages applied to each of these revised sites. They don't plan to build any new industrial. They're looking to segment off the natural area upslope from the factory from the ROD so that area can become unrestricted use. It would be a boundary modification. Mr. Bosak asked if the basic reasoning for that is because it's upslope and things drained the other way. Mr. Gensel said it's natural area that hasn't been developed. Mr. Lubin said it's upslope and the factory wasn't there. The only thing is the sewer line. Mr. Gensel said that it's rock below, so when they trenched through there to put in the sewer line, even if there's groundwater, it would flow along that line instead of going through the rock. Mr. Lubin said they embedded the line in gravel and sand, so if it leaked at all, it would just continue to follow that. He said they're not developing the major parking areas above, so they have parking if they need it. They don't think it will be necessary to have that much parking in the future, so it could be developed into something else, like recreational use. Mr. Gensel said they'll use that area for construction staging. Mr. Lubin added that for LEED-ND, they can't have large open parking areas unless they're pre existing. The board discussed the process for making comments. It was agreed that planning board members can send their comments to Ms. Ritter by February 10th, and that she will compile them and include them in the packet for the next meeting. People can still bring comments to the meeting itself. Ms. Collins asked whether the window of opportunity for comments will close. Her biggest concern is that if there's something in the document she doesn't think is adequate, the comment period will be closed. She said she has a concern that is troubling her and she wants time to discuss it. Ms. Ritter referenced the "Chainworks DGEIS Timeline as of 1-19-16," which was in the packet. She pointed out that on March 9th, the public comment period begins. This is where the board as a body Planning Board Minutes 02-02-2016 Page 9 of 10 can comment or board members as individuals can comment. There are 60 days to do that. Ms. Ritter added that the final GEIS includes the responses to those comments. Mr. Wilcox said that the 60-day period is when substantive comments can be made, as opposed to comments regarding adequacy. The comments get included in the final; the responses to the comments get included in the final; possibly alterations to the draft based upon the comments get included in the final. He stated that one of the reasons for scoping documents and environmental impact statements is to prevent the public, specifically those who might be against the project, from continually adding things they need to study and dragging it out and adding to the expense. Once the scope is set and once the environmental impact statement is adopted as final, that limits the frame work of future environmental review. Supposedly all the environmental issues have been studied, addressed, and finalized in the document, so that as the developer moves through the various phases, they can point to the document and say that they've mitigated the environmental impacts. Mr. Bosak pointed out that part of the draft is a set of thresholds at which the impacts come back up. Ms. Brock said that the document will have thresholds and criteria, and if they stay within them, they don't need to come back for additional review. That is, unless certain conditions change; for example, if they assume certain baseline traffic, and if fifteen years from now, it's quite different, they might need to revisit it. Depending on how they've described their thresholds and criteria, there could be future development that happens that does not need additional SEQR review, as long as they stay within those thresholds and criteria. The EIS can set out other things that trigger additional SEQR review. Ms. Collins said she's concerned that somewhere down the line, there may be something that she or someone else on the board is concerned about, and the response will be. Oh no, you should have brought that up during the DGEIS. Mr. Wilcox said that is very possible. It could go all the way back to the scoping document as something that was never identified. Ms. Collins said she doesn't have the expertise to know which of the issues that are in this gigantic document fit into which of those buckets. She asked whether there will be another environmental review in that area when the planning board is looking at the residential portion in the town. Ms. Brock said there would not necessarily be a site-specific SEQR; it will depend on how they set this up. Mr. Gensel said it will be in compliance with the thresholds, and those thresholds are pretty specific on trip generation, square footage, number of units. Then there are items going back to scoping that they specifically excluded from needing to be studied. Noise and odor. If a threshold looks like it might be exceeded, they might have to do a supplemental GEIS, where they open it back up and resolve the potential impacts and mitigations. When they go through the DGEIS, each comment has to be answered. Filinning Board Minutes 02-02-2016 Page 10 of 10 AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - Nobody came forward to address the board. AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by Mr. Haefeli, the meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, a DcAugistincTDeputy Town (Xerk