HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2019-05-21TOWN O -F 1.1-17-lik, (:-A PLANNING BOARD
Shirley A, Raffensperger Board Room, Town 1-1.111
215 Norti, "rioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
..MAY 21 �''Q 19
AGt�.`NDA
TOO RM. SE.'QR Determination: Ccwnell University Moakley I louse Parking Lot Expansion and
Raving, 213-2 15 'Xwreti Road.
C111
P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminaryand Final Site Plan Approval and
Special Permit for the proposed ("ornell Lhiiversity Moakley House parking lot expansion
and paving proJeci locatedat 213-215 Warren Road,Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 68,-
1 •-9, Low I . )ensit} Residential Zone. T'he proJect involves, the expan,sion and
fornlaljzaation of' the existing parking amas for the golf course's Moakley House facility,
Cornell University, Owrier/Applicarw Janies N4, Tofte, Site Civil Engineer, Applicant.
Z,
T 15 P.M, Continuation ol'discussion and consideration of adoption of the Findings Statement for
the proposed Chain Works District Redevelopment PMJL'Ct. The proposed Chain Work's
District Redevelopment Project seeks to redtnelop the 800,000 +/- sqLlDre foot former.
Morse Chain/Finierson PowerTransmission fi,16hty and construct new bitildings, on
l.)ortions of the 95-,,icre site within the City .incl ,rowan of Ithaca.
4,, flersons to be heard
Approval ol'Nlinutcs� May 7, 2019.
Via. Other Business
T A(fjournnient
Susan Ritter
11.71reclor of Planning
273-1747
NOTF: IF ANS" MEMB: ER OHE PLANNING BOARD IS UNAMYTOATTEND, PLEASEN'OTIFY
SANDY POLCE AT273-1747 or SP0LCE6V1'0WN.1] HACAAY.Cs.
RA quorum offour (4) menibers is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
Accessing Meeting Materials Online,
Site, Plan and Subdivision applicatimis and assovialed project materials are accessible electronically on (lie Town*s
Nwlosile under "Ilanning Board" on (lie -Meeting Agendas- page (L
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday, Mn 21, 2019
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, May 21, 2019, 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 Approval and Special Permit for the
proposed Cornell University Moakley House parking lot expansion and paving project
located at 213-215 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 68.-1-9, Low Density
Residential Zone. The project involves the expansion and formalization of the existing
parking areas for the golf course's Moakley House facility. Cornell University,
Owner/Applicant; James M. Tofte, Site Civil Engineer, Applicant.
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. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing
impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons
desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing.
Susan Ritter
Director of Planning
273-1747
Dated: Monday, May 13, 2019
Publish: Wednesday, May 15, 2019
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAvrT OF POST-ING AND, PUBLACATION
1, Sandra Poke, being duly sworn, depose and say that I arca a Senior Typist I 'or the Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins Cocinly, New York-, that the following Notice has been duly posted on (fie sign
board cif' the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper,
The Ithaca Journal.
Notice Of 1-'L1hhC fjeariq-�.L�jp b lawn ot'Ithaca Planning. ard 'n the Town of Ithaca
Town flat],,, -215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, Nevv York,, on J'LjesdayMays 2LI,. 2019 comiriencin
at 7:00 P.M ,,..as p [.i!ttached,
Location of'Sign Bo,,ird used for Posting: Towyn. ..............C......A k—Si i Boar.d-- . 2...1.......5.......N....orth..Tioga Streel,
Date of Posting: May 13. 2(119
Date Of'PUblication: May 15, 2019
Sandra Polce, SeniorTypist
T own of Ithaca
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OFTOMPKINS)
Sworn to acrd SUbscribed before race. this 15"' (Jay of May 2019.
Notary Public
D79,C)f',"d-i KEL LEY
Wf�SQ YMAS" 16,40 -A
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
Tuesday, May 21, 2019
Minutes
Planning Board Members Present: Liebe Meier Swain Deputy Chair; Jon Bosak, Yvonne
Fogarty, John Beach, Cindy Kaufman and Joseph Hafeli; Alternate Jennifer Karius
Absent: Fred Wilcox
Town Staff Present: Susan Ritter; Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock,
Attorney for the Town; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk; David O'Shea, Engineering
Call to Order
Ms. Meier Swain called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
1. SEQR Determination: Cornell University Moakley House Parking Lot Expansion and
Paving, 213-215 Warren Road
Jim Tofte, Cornell, Pavement Operations Manager summarized the project saying Cornell does
annual paving at different locations and the proposal is to mill the loop entrance and there is
some perpendicular parking right off that loop that is mostly gravel and partially paved. In
starting to plan the project it was brought to our attention that that improvement or extension of
the parking lot was never approved. Staff at Moakley House explained to him that those spaces
just came into existence from people parking on the lawn and staff just put gravel down to
stabilize the area.
Mr. Tofte said the area in question is usually for the restaurant and catering functions of Moakley
House while the golfers usually park on the other side.
Mr. Bosak said he was just up there and it seemed there was a large function going on so he was
able to see it at its max capacity. He said he sees what is going on in that there should be real
spaces, but he also saw people parking along the driving range and he wondered if the same
thing would happen where staff will simply put gravel down and then come before this Board in
a year or to to extend the lot there.
Mr. Tofte responded that he thinks they have educated them to go through Facilities to follow
proper procedure. He added that there is one peak event every year and he would hate to add too
much parking and impervious surface for one event. He thought there are other ways to handle
the large event by allowing parking on the grass because that will come back.
Ms Meier Swain asked if the other spaces are striped and Mr. Tofte responded that they were but
probably need refreshing.
Mr. Bosak asked about the dry well and if there were several of them or just the one.
PB 2019-05-21 Pg. 1
Mr. Tofte responded that there is just the one and typically the water is returned to the ground.
The one existing has collapsed, and we have recommended repairing that, but it only covers a
small volume of water.
Ms. Fogarty asked Mr. Tofte to speak to the staff's recommendation of having some landscaping
in front of the cars.
Mr. Tofte responded that from his perspective, if the concern is about aesthetics, you need to
look at the view from the front of the building and there are some things that can be done as is
happening at the golf course. Cornell has some pretty talented landscape artist and he would not
like to propose something here tonight as that is not his specialty.
Some discussion followed on landscaping options with some board members concerned about
how bland the site was now.
Mr. Tafte noted that the silt fence is a temporary measure and he was confident the college
would be doing some landscape planning for the site.
Ms. Karius asked if the facility's use was going to change in the future and Mr. Tafte responded
that this is a historical place to Cornell and he can't see it changing from its current use of golf
and catering. He added that there he was sure the catering company would like to see more
events, but the size of the building is what it is and usually the lot is not full for the typical
retirement parties and similar functions they do.
Ms. Balestra suggested adding a condition for the submission of a landscaping plan to the
Director of Planning for approval as we have done in the past. This allows staff to work with
Cornell and address the concerns. The Board agreed.
There was discussion on the history of the building and design of the Moakley House and it was
thought this was built before zoning was enacted and it therefore would not have come before the
Planning Board for any type of approval. It was noted that this project is to improve the
aesthetics of the site and now there will be a condition to add some landscaping.
Ms. Meier Swain turned to the SEQR form and minor changes were made to the form.
Ms. Karius asked why green infrastructure principles for stormwater discharge might not have
been discussed as a possibility.
Mr. Tafte responded that that is not required at this small of a scale and he felt it would not be in
the best interests of the town because of the removal of fill and bringing it off site and the
trucking and disturbance would outweigh any minimal benefits.
Mr. Bates asked about the number of parking spaces and it is in fact 25 with two van -accessible
spots.
PB 2019-05-21 Pg. 2
PB RESOLUTION 2019-014: SEQR
Preliminary and Final Site Plan
CU Moakley House Parking Expansion & Paving Project
213-215 Warren Road
Tax Parcel No. 68.4-9
Town of Ithaca Planning Board, May 21, 2019
WHEREAS:
This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit
for the proposed Cornell University Moakley House parking lot expansion and paving project
located at 213-215 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 68.-1-9, Low Density
Residential Zone. The project involves the expansion and formalization of the existing
parking areas for the golf course's Moakley House facility. Cornell University,
Owner/Applicant; James M. Tofte, Site Civil Engineer, Agent;
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 Site Plan Approval;
3. The Planning Board, on May 21, 2019 has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part 1, submitted by the applicant, Parts 2 and 3
prepared by Town Planning staff, a narrative, drawings titled "Pavement Planned
Maintenance 2019, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York," including sheets C101, C301 and
C302, prepared by Cornell University Facilities Engineering, dated April 5, 2019, and other
application materials; and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental
significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan 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
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.
Moved: Jon Bosak Seconded: Yvonne Fogarty
Vote: ayes — Bosak, Fogarty, Meier -Swain, Beach, Kaufmann, Hafeli and Karius
Absent: Wilcox
2. Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special
Permit for the proposed Cornell University Moakley House parking lot expansion and
paving project located at 213-215 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 68.4-9,
Low Density Residential Zone. The project involves the expansion and formalization of
PB 2019-05-21 Pg. 3
the existing parking areas for the golf course's Moakley House facility. Cornell
University, Owner/Applicant; James M. Tofte, Site Civil Engineer, Applicant.
Ms. Meier Swain opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. There was no one wishing to address
the Board and the hearing was closed.
Ms. Balestra made some minor changes to the proposed resolution as well as adding the
previously discussed condition.
There was some discussion about possible lighting for the new parking lot and it was noted that
the Town has a Lighting Law that will have to be followed and the Cornell Facilities is aware of
that.
PB RESOLUTION 2019-015: Preliminary and Final Site Plan
CU Moakley House Parking Expansion & Paving Project
213-215 Warren Road
Tax Parcel No. 68.4-9
Town of Ithaca Planning Board, May 21, 2019
WHEREAS:
This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special
Permit for the proposed Cornell University Moakley House parking lot expansion and paving
project located at 213-215 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 68.-1-9, Low
Density Residential Zone. The project involves the expansion and formalization of the
existing parking areas for the golf course's Moakley House facility. Cornell University,
Owner/Applicant; James M. Tofte, Site Civil Engineer, Agent;
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as the lead agency
in the environmental review with respect to the project has, on May 21, 2019, made a
negative determination of environmental significance, after reviewing and accepting as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) 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 May 21, 2019 has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a narrative, drawings titled "Pavement Planned Maintenance 2019, Cornell
University, Ithaca, New York," including sheets C101, C301 and C302, prepared by Cornell
University Facilities Engineering, dated April 5, 2019, and other application materials;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board hereby finds that the special permit standards of Article XXIV Section
270-200, Subsections A — H, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, specifically that:
A. The project will be suitable for the property on which it is proposed, considering the
property's size, location, and physical site characteristics.
PB 2019-05-21 Pg. 4
• The property is sufficiently sized for the proposed improvements, which only involve re-
paving an existing asphalt loop road and formalizing an existing gravel parking area into
asphalt parking.
B. The proposed structure design and site layout are compatible with the surrounding area.
• The proposed parking lot design and site layout is not much different than the existing
parking lot design, which is compatible with the Moakley House and golf course
property.
C. Operations in connection with the proposed use do not create any more noise, fumes,
vibration, illumination, or other potential nuisances than the operation of any permitted use
in the particular zone.
• The proposed parking lot improvements will create noise during construction, but the
noise will be temporary.
D. Community infrastructure and services, such as police, fire and other protective services,
roadways, schools, and water and sewer facilities are currently, or will be, of adequate
capacity to accommodate the proposed use.
• The project will have no effect on the capacity of community infrastructure and services.
E. The proposed use, structure design, and site layout will comply with all the provisions of the
Town Code and with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan.
F. The site layout, with proposed vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian access, traffic circulation,
and parking and loading facilities, is sufficient for the proposed use and is safely designed
for emergency vehicles.
• The use of the premises will not change. There is already an entrance loop road and
gravel parking areas. The proposal will improve vehicle circulation, ADA access, and
access for emergency vehicles.
G. The project includes sufficient landscaping and/or other forms of buffering to protect
surrounding land uses. Existing vegetation is preserved to the extent possible.
• The existing vegetation on the site will be unaffected by the proposal. However, the
aesthetics of the project will be improved with additional landscaping in front of the
proposed parking along the loop road.
H. To the extent deemed relevant by the Planning Board, the proposed use or structure
complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in Chapter 270, Zoning.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
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 & Final Site Plan
Approval for the proposed Cornell University Moakley House parking lot expansion and
paving project located at 213-215 Warren Road, as described in the set of site plan drawings
noted in Whereas # 3 above, subject to the following condition:
PB 2019-05-21 Pg. 5
a. Submission to and approval by the Director of Planning of a Landscaping Plan to
soften the impact of the cars parked in front of the building.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
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 136
+/- square feet, finding that the reduction will not cause any adverse effects on the project, on the
surrounding properties, or on the neighborhood.
Moved: Jon Bosak Seconded: Yvonne Fogarty
Vote: ayes — Bosak, Fogarty, Meier -Swain, Beach, Kaufmann, and Hafeli
Abstention: Karius Absent: Wilcox
3. Continuation of discussion and consideration of adoption of the Findings Statement
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 Transmission facility and construct new buildings
on portions of the 95 -acre site within the City and Town of Ithaca.
Ms. Balestra stated that all the feedback from the last meeting has been incorporated into this
new draft and the redlining from those have been changed to black. Anything new is red, which
includes some changes form the Planning Committee. Items to discuss or that have questions
still to be answered are highlighted in yellow.
Ms. Meier Swain asked her to start with those highlights.
Ms. Brock added that she and Ms. Balestra worked through a lot of the questions so they are on
the same page and Ms. Balestra added that all of the highlights refer to when something should
be required.
Page 27 Phase I Specific Mitigation L(a) & (b)
DOT mitigations for traffic that needs to be done before or during Phase l; so should that be
done prior to getting a building permit for Phase II or before a Certificate of Occupancy?
The DOT is requiring these for Phase L The Board discussed and decided it should be prior to
the issuance of ANY Certificate of Occupancy for Phase I in both (a) and (b).
Page 36 Mitigation (4)
This is related to analyzing the soil and ground water within the building footprint for vapor
intrusion and one idea is to require it before Final Site Plan approval in those areas because it has
already been tested under number 3 so they would look at the data they have and analyze
whether any further mitigation will be needed and it makes sense to do that before Final Site
PB 2019-05-21 Pg. 6
Plan since changes may need to be made to mitigate. They wouldn't have to test again, but they
need to analyze the data they just did.
Ms. Kaufmann asked if there was any concern about testing needed to be done after the
disturbance of the building/renovating process.
Ms. Brock responded that the State is overseeing all of this. If the thresholds are exceeded,
remedial actions may be needed and if new information is found, a supplemental EIS may be
triggered.
The Board agreed to saying the analysis has to be done prior to Final Site Plan approval.
That was all the highlighted issues.
Ms. Balestra called out a minor changes in dates that were listed.
Ms. Brock turned to the top of page 12 where the words "for contamination" was added for what
subsoils would be tested for and this section seems to be for construction and maybe they really
meant they would be tested for stability or load bearing capability and she turned to Mr. O'Shea
for his comments.
Some discussion followed and the Board decided to remove the words "for contamination."
Mr. Bosak had a couple of minor changes. Ms. Meier Swain noted the word change in red on
page 22 and thought it was excellent and Mr. Bosak added that there were many changes made
by Ms. Balestra and Ms. Brock that were excellent and made the document clearer.
Page 28 Post Phase I Mitigation
(3) c. - add "providing " prior to "a clean..." approved
i. — Strike the works "and demographic" approved
k. — "offer" becomes "offering"
1. — new language: Developing a micro bike share system for the site or working with he
Town of Ithaca and City of Ithaca to promote a more robust system, i.e. limebike, to encourage
more transit ridership, provide additional public transportation options.
Pg 33 — Ms. Brock had a question about the sewer system and whether any of the discharges
from the town -side of the line end up in the City system in jointly owned sewer interceptors
because if so, the Town has some interest in that. The document says "there are no existing
connections to the Town's sewer collection system from the Site."
Mr. O'Shea responded that we look at it two different ways; we have our Town system, which is
solely owned by us and the joint interceptor which is partially owned by us.
Ms. Brock suggested adding to the end of that sentence "sewage from the portion of the site
located in the Town will travel through interceptors jointly owned by the Town and the City to
the IAWWTP." There may be capacity issues because capacity is allocated to each municipality
PB 2019-05-21 Pg. 7
Some discussion followed with Mr. O'Shea saying that because there are no final plans to look at
there is no way of knowing but all water and sewer eventually goes through the City either
through a jointly or singularly owned system. He added that this is listed on page 32 where
"systems will be evaluated" and the Town will evaluate all systems and flows. The term "jointly
owned" is not in the GEIS and Ms. Brock thought her suggested change should be in there just in
case. Ms. Brock also suggested adding "and Town" to the evaluation of the sewer systems on
page 32, under Potential Impacts, to read "as noted in the DGEIS, the capacity, pressure and flow
of the Town and City sewer systems will be evaluated as part of the site plan review process."
The Board agreed.
Page 34 Mitigation —1 (a) there is a question about who would pay in the last sentence. Ms.
Brock suggested adding changing the sentence to read: "If the tuberculation cannot be mitigated,
then a replacement watermain, paid for by the project sponsor, will be installed by the City or a
project -sponsored contractor approved by the City."
Ms. Brock thought this may be a big-ticket item and it is good to get it pinned down.
Page 38 (5) — The Planning Committee suggested this change: strike the last line. "It is expected
that this would ...." Board agreed.
Page 41 (5) Noise/Emissions — Ms. Balestra thought it was the Board's intention to follow the
Noise law which allows noise from lam — 9 pm. The Town's Planning Committee felt that for
their Finding Statement, they would like to see construction limited to the hours of lam -bpm,
Monday through Saturday. The Planning Board agreed with the Town Planning Committee. Ms.
Brock noted the DGEIS defines those times also. The Noise law does not exempt Sundays or
limit the hours as here and the Finding Statement does say "or" the City or Town Noise
ordinances.
Discussion followed and Ms. Brock read the section of the Town's Noise law for construction.
Ms. Brock suggested leaving what is said about exterior construction noise and refer to the
Town's Noise law for interior construction.
Mr. Bosak wanted to limit it other than the Noise law and Ms. Brock responded that we cannot
do anything that the EIS doesn't address and the only other thing we can do is fall back on our
Noise law because that is in the EIS. They have voluntarily limited themselves to 7 am — 6 pm
for exterior work which is more restrictive than our Noise law, so we will take that, because they
offered that; but they are saying interior work is Monday through Saturday 7 am — 11 pm and we
are going to say, no, we are falling back on our Noise law because it prohibits these various
pieces of equipment from being operated and there is also the generic no "unreasonable" noise
being permitted so we can get them to stop by using that.
To summarize, it will read: "Hours of operation for exterior construction will be limited as 7 am
— 6 pm, Monday through Saturday. Noise from interior construction occurring in the Town will
comply with the Town of Ithaca's Noise law.
PB 2019-05-21 Pg. 8
Ms. Brock noted that we have no control over what is done on the City -side of the project.
The Board agreed with this change.
Page 43- IV Thresholds
Ms. Brock summarized by saying that the language in A. assumes that in the EIS there are
thresholds that are numerical, and the words "in conformance with" just don't work. The
suggested change is:
"In the event that the then lead agency determines that:
A. Future project plans do not meet any of the conditions and thresholds established
below, then no further SEQR compliance would be required."
Ms. Brock explained that everything in the chart are thresholds that are telling you, if this
happens, you have to do more SEQR review, and we went through each and every one and the
suggested language change works in all instances.
Discussion followed and the suggestion was made to remove the word "threshold" from the chart
title and anywhere in A — D and the sentence immediately above the chart because these seem to
be more conditions than thresholds, and the word "exceed" right above the chart should be
changed to read "meet." This allows all the conditions to be a true or false and removes the
concept of numbers.
Mr. Bosak was concerned about removing the word "threshold" because it is used throughout the
document and Ms. Brock responded that she would do a word search and apply the same logic to
see if it worked. Ms. Balestra didn't think it appeared anywhere else. The Board agreed.
The Board turned to the chart itself. All redlined changes were accepted with the additional
changes of :
Land Use: Changes in the size change "and to "or" location.....
Water Resources Stormwater: Ms. Balestra went through the percentage which seemed
high at 70% and Ms. Brock noted that it is in a chart in the EIS and the number is correct.
All red line changes are removed and what remains is then "Future proposed action likely
to exceed total imperious site coverage rate of 70%."
Visual and Aesthetic and Open Space — Change "and" to "or"
Ms. Karius asked about the reference to the then Lead Agency being the one in charge and Ms.
Brock responded that the Town may be Lead Agency in some instances and that is why it
doesn't say the "city" or the "Town." This is procedural under SEQR.
Mr. Bosak asked about the check list in the addendum and Ms. Balestra said that is something
the City did and she found it to be very good.
Ms. Karius said she had an overall statement and reiterated what Ms. Kaufman said about what is
going to happen to these contaminants down the road and her question is shouldn't there be
PB 2019-05-21 Pg. 9
ongoing monitoring and implementation plans not just for traffic but for these contaminants
because there are going to be many phases and how do we get timely information on that
information. How do we keep focused on all of these mitigations and also, why isn't green
infrastructure mentioned specifically for mitigations?
Ms. Balestra responded that this is a generic impact statement and all of that will be looked at
with much more detail and much more closely as they come in with site plan proposals. The
applicant will come in with site plan documents for Phase I and that is when we get a chance to
hone in on what we are going to do with green infrastructure, stormwater management, sewer
and water infrastructure, traffic and everything else.
Ms. Karius was not clear on what are the benchmarks of these three critical areas and how do we
get the information enough in advance of site plan review that gives us clarity over making these
decisions?
Ms. Balestra responded that they will work with staff and they will submit materials and we, as
part of our j ob, will look at the Finding Statement and the GEIS and figure out what it is they
need to give us and then it comes to the Board as a package.
Ms. Meier Swain added that there are also the requirements under the ROD, the DEC and the
Environmental Protection Agency which have requirements above and beyond ours so she
understood that staff has another whole body dealing with some pieces.
Mr. Bosak stated that it is his understanding that somebody has monitoring that is going to be
happening for a very long time and anything that is identified before they begin construction
belongs to Emerson and anything discovered afterwards belongs to the applicant but somebody
is responsible for fixing anything that happens and there is continuous monitoring of that.
Ms. Kaufman thought it would be helpful to have a table of contents and Ms. Balestra said she
will work on that.
Ms. Brock noted that she completed the word search and there is the word "thresholds" in a
couple of instances and she suggested that it be thresholds/conditions which gets across the idea.
The Board agreed.
The Board read the proposed resolution adopting the Findings Statement and agreed with Ms.
Balestra and Ms. Brock making the changes reviewed and discussed and proceeded to move the
resolution.
PB RESOLUTION 2019-016: SEQR — Adoption of Findings Statement
Chain Works District Redevelopment Project
810 Danby Road/620-40 Aurora Street
Tax Parcel No. 40.-3-3 (Town) & 106.4-8 (City)
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
May 21, 2019
PB 2019-05-21 Pg. 10
WHEREAS:
Unchained Properties, LLC proposes to develop the Chain Works District Redevelopment
Project, a mixed use development located in the Town and City of Ithaca (810 Danby
Road/620-40 Aurora Street) on the former Emerson Power Transmission/Morse Chain
factory property. Approximately two-thirds of the existing factory complex is located within
the City boundary. Phase I of the proposed project includes repurposing and converting large
portions of the former factory buildings into residential, mixed use, and manufacturing uses
(residential and mixed uses in the City, manufacturing in the Town). Subsequent phases will
include new construction of residential and mixed use development within both the City and
Town portions of the property; and
2. The project requires 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 other approvals from State and County agencies; and
3. The Chain Works District project is a Type I action under SEQRA and has been conducted as
a coordinated review amongst the various agencies that have discretionary decision authority
to approve certain aspects of the project; and
4. In a letter dated September 23, 2014, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board
indicated its intent to serve as the Lead Agency for the environmental review of the Chain
Works District project; and
5. On October 7, 2014, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as an Involved Agency, concurred
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; and
6. On October 28, 2014, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, as Lead Agency,
made a Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance, directing the Project Sponsor to
prepare a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) to evaluate potential
impacts of the proposed project; and
7. On November 18, 2014, the Lead Agency held both an Agency Scoping Session and a Public
Scoping Session to identify issues to be analyzed in the GEIS; and
8. On January 6, 2015, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board submitted comments to the Lead
Agency on the Scoping Document; and on January 13, 2015, the Lead Agency approved the
Scoping Document; and
9. The applicants submitted a DGEIS for review by the Lead Agency and Involved Agencies;
and, on February 16, 2016, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board submitted comments to the
Lead Agency related to the adequacy of the DGEIS; and
10. On March 8, 2016, the Lead Agency reviewed the DGEIS submitted by the Project Sponsor
for completeness and adequacy for the purpose of public review and comment, and with the
PB 2019-05-21 Pg. 11
assistance of City Staff and the City's consultants, Adam Walters of Phillips Lytle LLP,
found the DGEIS to be satisfactory with respect to its scope, content, and adequacy; and
11. On March 29, 2016, the Lead Agency held a public hearing to obtain comments from the
public on the DGEIS, and written comments for the same purpose were accepted until May
25, 2016; and
12. On May 24, 2016, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board submitted comments to the Lead
Agency regarding the DGEIS; and
13. On December 6, 2018, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board reviewed and considered the Final
GEIS (FGEIS) for the project and submitted additional comments to the Lead Agency; and
14. On March 26, 2019, the Lead Agency accepted the FGEIS for the Chain Works District
project, as complete for filing, having duly considered the potential adverse environmental
impacts and proposed mitigation measures as required under 6 NYCRR Part 617 (the
SEQRA regulations) and Chapter 176 of the City of Ithaca Code (the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, CEQR); and also issued its Findings Statement
related to the project; and
15. At its meetings on April 16, May 7, and May 21, 2019, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
has reviewed and discussed a draft Findings Statement for the Chain Works District
Redevelopment Project;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as an Involved Agency in the environmental review of
the Chain Works District Redevelopment project, does hereby adopt the Findings Statement,
dated May 21, 2019, for the Environmental Impact Statement for the project.
Moved: Jon Bosak Seconded: Yvonne Fogarty
Vote: ayes — Bosak, Fogarty, Meier -Swain, Beach, Kaufmann, Hafeli and Karius
Absent: Wilcox
4. Persons to be heard — No one present
5. Approval of Minutes: May 7, 2019 —not available.
6. Other Business —
NCRE will be back on June 181h
Motion made to cancel the June 4, 2019 meeting, moved by Jon Bosak, seconded by Cindy
Kaufmann, unanimous.
PB 2019-05-21 Pg. 12
Ms. Karius asked about a mechanism to request information from Mr. Thaete about the 100 -year
flood related to stormwater runoff related to the NCRE. She said she wanted to hear his analysis
well before it comes before the Board. Ms. Balestra responded that she would relay the request.
Mr. O'Shea stated that they have given the Town additional information and have answered all
of our comments and concerns related to the SWPPP.
Ms. Karius asked for something in writing from Engineering or get that information.
Discussion followed and Ms. Balestra said that is usually considered internal staff information
including calculations and similar that the Board doesn't usually see and Mr. O'Shea added that
it is pretty technical.
Ms. Karius asked for a memo and Ms. Balestra asked if it should be a consensus of the Board to
request that information.
Ms. Karius said she would like to see a summary of the key elements that were looked at when
deciding whether this plan would be accepted.
Mr. Bosak said this is a problem for him and has been for years; they get this 100 -year data from
the State and the criteria is bogus and doesn't fit what is happening now but the problem is we
cannot require anything beyond that.
Ms. Karius responded that she doesn't mind that, but she would like to hear what makes it
approvable before she approves it.
Ms. Balsestra responded saying she thought Ms. Karius was asking for all of the calculations that
go into the SWPP and Ms. Karius said, no, what she wants is why the staff is making a
judgement that this is ok; we have a State regulation that is out of context with our environment
and our reality and she wanted to know why they are approving this SWPPP, in their own words,
why they are accepting this.
Ms. Meier Swain asked Ms. Karius that if they say we approve the SWPPP because it met the
federal requirements, yet you know the federal requirements are out of context for our
environment, but it's what is legal, does that make a difference?
Ms. Karius responded that she wants our staff to summarize that and for us to know that; what is
the requirement and what is really practicable here in terms of protecting the situation from
immense runoff over this long period of time. She said she wants to know what the impacts are,
State laws aside. Why is it legal to pass this? Why are we going to have to adhere to them and
what is the real thing we are looking at here. What is your view as staff? Is it possible to have a
summary of what you got and what you found out based on both the legal requirements of
Federal regulations and based on your better common sense about what is going to happen here
in the long term. Is that good or not.
PB 2019-05-21 Pg. 13
Mr. O'Shea responded that they could provide the comment letter, but all issues have been
satisfied at this point and we can't wonder above that State permit.
Ms. Brock responded that we always get that comment letter but it seems Ms. Karius is asking
for something else that isn't in the comment letter; their professional opinion on whether the
State requirements are sufficient given the realities on the ground.
Ms. Karius said yes, that is what I am asking.
Discussion followed and in summary, the Town has a legal standard they are allowed to apply
and can't do something higher than what the State requires, and staff shouldn't comment on their
opinions to the contrary. An explanation of the State standards and how the applicant met those
could be appropriate so the Board can understand what constraints staff has to work under and an
explanation why stricter requirements cannot be applied.
Mr. O'Shea added that it is not just a few numbers and there are four or five different "year"
storms that are analyzed for different parts of a plan. NY DEC General Construction Permit
outlines all the design criteria.
7. Adjournment --Meeting adjourned upon motion and a second at 9:07 p.m.
Submit d by
Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk
PB 2019-05-21 Pg. 14