Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 2019-04-181 Town of Ithaca Planning Committee Thursday, April 18, 2019 Committee Members: Rich DePaolo, Chair; Rod Howe (arrived 4:15pm) and Pat Leary Board/Staff Members Present: Bill Goodman; Susan Ritter; Chris Balestra Guest: Ithaca Times reporter 1. Persons to be heard: None 2. Committee announcements and concerns: None 3. Consider February meeting minutes: Rich moved, Pat seconded; approved with minor grammatical edits (Rod not present yet). 4. Review and consider findings statement for the Chain Works District Generic Environmental Impact Statement: Rich asked Chris to explain the committee’s purview relative to the finding statement. He asked how the findings document relates to the GEIS and the information and data that were presented in the GEIS, and whether at this point the committee must take the contents of the EIS at its word. Chris explained that the Town Board as an involved agency must have its own findings statement, which can be different from the lead agency’s (City of Ithaca). Chris further explained that at this stage of the environmental review, with the GEIS finalized and adopted, the committee cannot propose GEIS changes or bring in new information to the findings statement. The findings and proposed mitigation must be based on information in the adopted GEIS. Chris described how the findings statement provided to the committee was developed, stating that it is largely the same document that the City adopted, with just modest changes and area highlighted in yellow that staff and the attorney for the town had questions about or suggested additional information. She encouraged the committee to review and modify the document as they see fit. Chris reported that the Planning Board began its review of the findings statement at their April 16th meeting. Board comments included a request for an acronyms list, grammatical corrections, and removal of superfluous statements. The Board only got to page 9 and are particularly interested in focusing next time on transportation, GEIS thresholds, and public health. Rich raised the issue of the ROD (Record of Decision; pertaining to the remediation plan) and that many of the mitigation measures identified in the public health and environment section refer to the amended ROD. Given that we have not seen an amended ROD, we have no idea what requirements will be included. Because of that, Rich questioned the wisdom of moving ahead with so many unknowns. He acknowledged that while many aspects of the project are not likely going to change, the amended ROD is still apt to result in some important modifications. Sue suggested moving the document along, but to not feel any pressure in adopting it. It’s unknown how much time will pass until there is an amended ROD and she felt that a long delay could make 2 recalling the substance of the these issues, and getting back into the editing, more difficult. In addition, once the ROD amendments are released, there will be pressure on the town to move the process along. Bill added that he would be reluctant to move this on to the Town Board until the Planning Board completes their review. Rich added that the GEIS dealt with “areas of concern” and he questioned whether locations on the site outside the “areas of concern” would be subject to monitoring. For example, the removal of buildings or other previously capped locations could be turned into public courtyards and public spaces. He raised questions on whether these newly exposed areas would be subject to monitoring to determine if they need to be managed differently. Rich stated his reservations about moving forward, but after additional discussion with the committee they agreed to proceed with an initial review of the findings statement. The following were changes the committee requested in the draft findings statement document: Pg. 4, bullet 3 – change “City of Ithaca Code Enforcement” to “City of Ithaca Building Division”. bullet 7 – change “Operating Certificates to “Operating Permits”. Pg. 6, section 10/11 – reverse the order so they are chronologically correct. Pg. 6, section 15 – delete several unnecessary adjectives. Pg. 6, section 16 – delete unnecessary paragraph. Pg. 6, Findings and Conclusion - in addition to adding descriptions for each of the development alternatives (per attorney note), add clarifying language stating that there was no thorough examination of the environmental alternatives, they were not really considered. Also, staff to look into the status of the ROD to allow residential use. Pg. 7, first paragraph, last sentence, fix to read “15” (“There are currently 15 PDZs”). Pg. 7, Potential Impacts: - solid bullet 2 - “Loss of character 96B” – What is the character along 96B? - indented square bullet 3 - Linkages – “would be strengthened by … link between them” change to “strengthen by developing site”. - indented square bullet 5 – Natural areas….change word “undeveloped” to “preserved”. - second bullet from bottom; remove “than other developments in the town”. Pg. 8, third bullet - add language about “LEED ND” in highlighted area. Pg. 8, CW4 Sub Area – the description seems odd given that none of the other subarea description are from the current zoning viewpoint. Pg. 9, first bullet – change “neighborhood” to “neighborhoods”. Pg. 9, third bullet – provide complete sentences and change references to “Design Guidelines” which is only relevant to the City PUD. Also, staff to check on accuracy of CW1 description stating that “no proposed specific mitigation (for contaminants)” is planned. Pg. 10, third bullet – no changes; issue of fugitive dust from exposed soils are discussed in the air quality section. Pg. 11 (under Mitigation), second bullet – “Subsoils will be tested…” What are they being tested for? Pg. 11 fifth bullet – “Excess soils ….will be utilized…” What if these soils are contaminated? Pg. 12, (under Mitigation), second to last bullet – states “2.992 acre-feet” which is roughly 1 million gallons (944,968 gallons). Add gallons since this is a more common volume usage. Pg. 12, (last bullet) – “Additional potential impacts include…..” Have these impacts or erosive velocities been determined? (Stormwater to be reviewed by the town PWF staff) 3 Pg. 13, first hollow bullet under Stormwater – it states that full extent of the system and connections is “currently unknown”. Clarify this statement. Pg. 13, second hollow bullet under Stormwater – the second sentences needs to be rewritten for clarity. Pg. 14, fifth bullet – regarding issuance of the amended ROD. Why conjecture about this, it seems like the cart before horse. Why make finding on something not yet articulated. Pg. 15, clarify that the table is identifying potential losses, by adding to the sentence “DGEIS Table 5.4-1 describes the maximum acreage of the potential vegetative cover lost….” Pg. 15, Table, the titles are confusing. Change “Developed Area” to the “Area remaining after development” or “Post-developed area”. In table under CW2 – Appalachian Oak-Hickory, described as having the highest value is being significantly reduced. Is there anyway for the Planning Board to minimize this? Pg. 16, under Mitigation, second bullet – the statement only refers to Phase I as being designed to minimize impacts. What about the subsequent/full build out? Pg. 17, Public Health, introductory paragraph – remove squishy language (i.e. “very comprehensive” - remove “very”, “sufficient data” to “information”). Pg. 18, second sentence from top, “within an 80 feet wide area”. Does this mean 40 feet on each side? Clarify Pg. 19, under Mitigation, first bullet, add “restricted” before “residential component”. Pg. 19, under Mitigation, second bullet, what does “further amendments of the ROD” mean? Are there sequential studies and ROD amendments? Is this referring to what we are doing now and was written previously? Pg. 20, first bullet, states that the SMP (soil management plan) will be developed by the property owner and approved by NYSDEC after completion of the IRMs and issuance of the amended ROD….. This again points to the fact that so much regarding the project is yet to be determined. So how can you develop findings on these unknowns? Pat suggested that acronyms be spelled out the first time they appear in the document. The committee ended at page 21, Historic and Archaeological Resources. 5. Staff Updates: Bruce Bates reported that the Building/Codes Department was proceeding with issuing operating permits. The hardest part has been getting in touch with property owners. They have had difficulty getting them to return phone calls to schedule inspections. Several recent issues included lack of fire separation and egress windows. Thus far, Bruce is aware of 15 properties that have failed to register. 6. Discuss next meeting date and upcoming agenda items: Next meeting is Thursday, May 16th at 4:00 pm.