Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2022-06-07 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca,New York 14850 Tuesday, June 7, 2022 Due to COVID-19 and the NYS Legislation allowing virtual meetings(Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2022 signed by Governor Hochul on 4/9/22),the meeting will be held via the Zoom audio/visual application with no in- person attendance permitted. Members of the public may listen to (call in on cell or landline: (929)436-2866 and enter the Meeting ID: 836 4376 4382) or view(by computer go to httns://us06web.zoom.us/i/83643764382)the Board meeting through Zoom. If the public would like to attend the meeting for viewing purposes only,it is recommended to watch the livestream video on YouTube(httys://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC9vvcXkJ6klVIibihCv7NO/live). AGENDA 7:00 P.M. SEQR Determination: T-Mobile Wireless Telecommunications Facility Collocation, 649 Five Mile Drive. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed T- Mobile telecommunications collocation located at 649 Five Mile Drive.The project involves collocating telecommunications antennas and other equipment onto an existing telecommunications tower. This is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Donn K. Carroll, Owner; T-Mobile USA,Applicant; Adam Wolfrey, Centerline Communications LLC,Agent. 7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: 2012 Holochuck Homes Subdivision potential preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a time extension for the 2012 Holochuck Homes Final Subdivision Approval for all lots that have not been transferred since final subdivision approval was granted. The project is located off NYS Route 96(Trumansburg Road)and is bordered by the Cayuga Medical Center property to the north, and the Paleontological Research Institution, Cayuga Ridge, Seventh Day Adventist Church, and People of the State of New York properties to the east. On April 17, 2012,the Planning Board granted final subdivision approval for a project involving the construction of 106+/-town home type units in a clustered neighborhood development with two entrances proposed from NYS Route 96(Trumansburg Road). As part of the project, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation purchased 68+/-acres of the eastern portion of the property adjacent to NYS Route 89 (Taughannock Boulevard). Pursuant to Town Code Chapter 234,Article VII, §234-39, the subdivision approval has expired for all the lots except the lot transferred to New York State, and the applicant has requested an extension of the approval. The proposal involves a SEQR action to deterinine whether there is newly discovered information or a change in circumstances related to the project that requires the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Holochuck Homes LLC, Owner/Applicant; Raymond M. Schlather, Esq., Agent. 5. Persons to be heard. 6. Approval of Minutes: May 17,2022 7. Other Business. S. Adjournment. Susan Ritter Director of Planning 607-273-1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND,PLEASE NOTIFY CHRIS BALESTRA AT 607-273-1747 or CBALESTRA(a-),TOWN.ITHACA.NY.L1S. (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(htty://www.town.ithaea.nv.us/meeting-agendas). TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The Planning Board will hold public hearings on Tuesday,June 7,2022,at the following times and on the following matters: 7:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed T-Mobile telecommunications collocation located at 649 Five Mile Drive. The project involves collocating telecommunications antennas and other equipment onto an existing telecommunications tower. This is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Donn K. Carroll, Owner; T- Mobile USA,Applicant; Adam Wolfrey, Centerline Communications LLC,Agent. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of a time extension for the 2012 Holochuck Homes Final Subdivision Approval for all lots that have not been transferred since final subdivision approval was granted. The project is located off NYS Route 96(Trumansburg Road) and is bordered by the Cayuga Medical Center property to the north, and the Paleontological Research Institution, Cayuga Ridge, Seventh Day Adventist Church,and People of the State of New York properties to the east. On April 17, 2012, the Planning Board granted final subdivision approval for a project involving the construction of 106+/- town home type units in a clustered neighborhood development with two entrances proposed from NYS Route 96(Trumansburg Road).As part of the project,the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation purchased 68+/- acres of the eastern portion of the property adjacent to NYS Route 89 (Taughannock Boulevard). Pursuant to Town Code Chapter 234, Article VII, §234-39, the subdivision approval has expired for all the lots except the lot transferred to New York State, and the applicant has requested an extension of the approval.The proposal involves a SEQR action to determine whether there is newly discovered information or a change in circumstances related to the project that requires the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Holochuck Homes LLC, Owner/Applicant; Raymond M. Schlather, Esq.,Agent. Due to COVID-19 and the NYS Legislation allowing virtual meetings(Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2022 signed by Governor Hochul on 4/9/22), the meeting will be held via the Zoom audio/visual application with no in- person attendance permitted. Members of the public may listen to(call in on cell or landline: (929)436-2866 and enter the Meeting ID: 836 4376 4382) or view (by computer go to https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83643764382)the Board meeting through Zoom. If the public would like to attend the meeting for viewing purposes only, it is recommended to watch the livestream video on YouTube (https://www.youtube.coin/channel/UCC9yycXkJ6klVlibjhCy7NQ/live). Any person wishing to address the board will be heard. In addition, comments can be sent via email to townclerkLa)town.ithaca.ny.us up to the end of business the day of the meeting and all comments will be forwarded to the board. Additional information is available at www.town.ithaca.ny.us. Susan Ritter,Director of Planning TOWN OF ITHACA NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 215 N.Tioga St 14850 607.273 1747 www,town,ithaca,ny us AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND POSTING & PUBLICATION STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS.: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) 1, Abby Homer, Administrative Assistant for the Town of Ithaca being duly sworn, depose and say, that deponent is not a party to the actions, is over 21 years of age with a professional address of 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca,New York. That on the 27th day of May 2022, deponent served the within Notice upon the property owners within 500 ft. of the properties and projects identified below for: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed T-Mobile telecommunications collocation located at 649 Five Mile Drive. Consideration of time extension for the 2012 Holochuck Homes Final Subdivision Approval for all lots that have not been transi'erred since final subdivision approval was granted. The project is located off NYS Route 96. By depositing same enclosed in a postpaid addressed wrapper, in a post office under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Post Office Department within the State of New York, and that the attached notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca on May 27, 2022, and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, Ithaca Journal on June 1", 2022. Abby ter, Administrative Assistant Sworn to before me on 2022, N*oAPUbl*i FERFBECKY L.JORDAN NOTARY P(JUIC,STATE OF NE YORK Registration No 01106186381 Quaiified in Tompkins county Commission Expires APRII.29,20 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD June 7, 2022 Minutes Due to COVID-19 and the NYS Legislation allowing virtual meetings,this meeting was held via ZOOM and live streamed via YouTubeLive Present: Liebe Meier Swain, Chair; Ariel Casper, Bill Arms, Liz Bageant, Greg Lindquist, Cindy Kaufman and Yvonne Fogarty Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Marty Moseley, Codes; Chris Balestra and Sue Ritter, Planning; Dan Thaete and David O'Shea, Engineering and Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk ITEM 1 Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed T- Mobile telecommunications collocation located at 649 Five Mile Drive. The project involves collocating telecommunications antennas and other equipment onto an existing telecommunications tower. This is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Donn K. Carroll, Owner; T-Mobile USA, Applicant; Adam Wolfrey, Centerline Communications LLC, Agent. Liz Bageant recused herself due to being a close neighbor and muted herself and turned her video off. Adam Wolfrey gave an overview and showed the drawings submitted. Mr. Lindquist asked if the generator would run only during the daytime. Mr. Wolfrey responded that it would only run for about 30 minutes once a month to calibrate and check the system and it would be during daytime hours. SEQR DETERMINATION Minor changes were made to the SEQR form. PB Resolution 2022-022: SEQR Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval T-Mobile Telecommunications Facility Collocation 649 Five Mile Drive, TP 31.-2-25.3 Whereas: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed T-Mobile telecommunications collocation located at 649 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31.-2-25.3. The project involves collocating telecommunications antennas and other equipment onto an existing telecommunications tower. Donn K. Carroll, PB 2022-06-07 (Filed 6/28) Pg. 1 Owner; T-Mobile USA, Applicant; Adam Wolfrey, Centerline Communications LLC, 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 the project; 3. The Planning Board, on June 7, 2022, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part 1, submitted by the applicant, Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff, along with a narrative, an RF analysis, a structural analysis study, eligible facility forms, a set of drawings titled "T-Mobile Coverage Strategy Collocation Plan, ATC Site Number 415966, ATC Site Name Coy Glen NY, T- Mobile Site Name ATC_415966_Coy_Glen, Site Address 651 Five Mile Drive, Ithaca, NY, 14850,"prepared by American Tower, T-Mobile and Colliers Engineering & Design, dated 08/05/2021 and most recently updated 10/14/2021, including sheets G-001, G-002, C-101, C-201, C-401, C-501, C-502, C-503, E-101, E-501, E-601, R-601 through R-607; 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 action as proposed,based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Moved: Greg Lindquist Seconded: Ariel Casper Vote: ayes—Lindquist, Casper, Meier Swain, Kaufman, Arms and Fogarty PUBLIC HEARING Opened at 7:19 p.m. Donn Carroll spoke, as a neighbor, and this is the first time there has been a fossil fuel generator on site and he is interested in how that is going to be handled for fuel deliveries and this is the first time there will be a light and how will that be handled. Ms. Swain responded that the lighting meets the Town's dark sky regulations and Mr. Moseley stated that they would look at the flood protection during the building permit process, but they do not look at delivery methods. Ms. Fogarty asked if the light is switched and is there a reason for the lighting? Mr. Wolfrey responded that TMobile does lighting with their installations, and he did not know any more than that. PB 2022-06-07 (Filed 6/28) Pg. 2 Ms. Balestra stated that the lighting is very typical for these and that this type of lighting has been reviewed and approved in all previous applications by other carriers and meets the Town's night sky requirements. Public hearing closed at 7:27 p.m. DETERMINATION Mr. Moseley spoke to the fuel delivery question, saying that the Town does not regulate delivery and the flooding preventions would be looked at as part of the building permit inspections. There was some discussion on whether the light was switch operated or will be set as motion detected. A switch is shown in the plans. PB Resolution 2022-023: Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval T-Mobile Telecommunications Facility Collocation 649 Five Mile Drive, TP 31.-2-25.3 Whereas: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed T-Mobile telecommunications collocation located at 649 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31.-2-25.3. The project involves collocating telecommunications antennas and other equipment onto an existing telecommunications tower. Donn K. Carroll, Owner; T-Mobile USA, Applicant; Adam Wolfrey, Centerline Communications LLC, Agent; 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as lead agency in the environmental review with respect to the project, has, on June 7, 2022, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff; and 3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing held on June 7, 2022,has reviewed, and accepted as adequate a narrative, an RF analysis, a structural analysis study, eligible facility forms, a set of drawings titled"T-Mobile Coverage Strategy Collocation Plan, ATC Site Number 415966, ATC Site Name Coy Glen NY, T-Mobile Site Name ATC_415966_Coy_Glen, Site Address 651 Five Mile Drive, Ithaca,NY, 14850," prepared by American Tower, T-Mobile and Colliers Engineering & Design, dated 08/05/2021 and most recently updated 10/14/2021, including sheets G-001, G-002, C- 101, C-201, C-401, C-501, C-502, C-503, E-101, E-501, E-601, R-601 through R-607; and other application materials; now, therefore be it Resolved: PB 2022-06-07 (Filed 6/28) Pg. 3 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in a significant alteration of neither the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board; and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed T-Mobile collocation on the existing tower at 649 Five Mile Drive, as described in the set of site plan drawings noted in Whereas #3 above, subject to the following condition: a. At all times, T-Mobile's facilities must not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable FCC safety standards. T-Mobile shall submit with any future application for facility modification a safety analysis by a qualified professional certifying that all applicable FCC safety standards for human exposure to radiofrequency radiation will be met. Moved: Ariel Casper Seconded: Liebe Meier Swain Vote: ayes—Lindquist, Casper, Meier Swain, Kaufman, Arms and Fogarty ITEM 2 Consideration of a time extension for the 2012 Holochuck Homes Final Subdivision Approval for all lots that have not been transferred since final subdivision approval was granted. The project is located off NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road) and is bordered by the Cayuga Medical Center property to the north,and the Paleontological Research Institution,Cayuga Ridge, Seventh Day Adventist Church, and People of the State of New York properties to the east. On April 17, 2012, the Planning Board granted final subdivision approval for a project involving the construction of 106+/- town home type units in a clustered neighborhood development with two entrances proposed from NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road). As part of the project, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation purchased 68+/- acres of the eastern portion of the property adjacent to NYS Route 89 (Taughannock Boulevard). Pursuant to Town Code Chapter 234, Article VII, §234-39, the subdivision approval has expired for all the lots except the lot transferred to New York State, and the applicant has requested an extension of the approval. The proposal involves a SEQR action to determine whether there is newly discovered information or a change in circumstances related to the project that requires the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Holochuck Homes LLC, Owner/Applicant; Raymond M. Schlather, Esq., Agent. Ms. Swain stated that she would like to propose having a review from the applicant's Agent followed by questions from the Board, a public hearing and then a decision on whether there is sufficient information to grant an extension or not. The Board agreed. OVERVIEW Mr. Schlather stated that this project started with his firm under his partner David Parks, who is now deceased and went through many internal meetings and approval processes. PB 2022-06-07 (Filed 6/28) Pg. 4 The project was approved in 2012 and shortly thereafter, Mr. Hollochuck's wife died and this was a hard time for him and he became a single parent. Eventually, they were able to find an appropriate developer for the project, who wanted build affordable housing on the site. Remember that this project, when it was approved, required the installation of all infrastructure, meaning literally$2- $3M in roads, sewer,and sidewalks and basically the physical infrastructure. This was all required as a condition of final approval before they were able to start selling these homes. Acting in good faith, they conveyed 68 acres of land to the State of New York, and the 10 foot right away required in the project and stayed as compliant as possible with the other conditions given that many of them cannot be satisfied until there is a viable owner/developer on board. Beginning in 2016, the non-profit group came forward with the affordable housing plan, and started the review process, but they were relying on tax credits, and in 2000 or so, after investing upwards of$500K and updating the Environmental Review, they found out they were not able to get the tax credits and they abandoned the project. Since then, and with the start of COVID, there has been zero interest in this property. We are hoping that now that we are coming out of the pandemic, we can find an appropriate developer,bring everything up to date and get this project going for some affordable housing which is extremely important in the town of Ithaca. This project was designed in a way that involve clusters, preserve lots of green space, connected to the Black Diamond Trail and involved the use of bus transportation and passes. What you have here is a number of just very, very progressive and important components. Under Chapter 234-39 criteria, we clearly fall under subdivision, in that one lot has been transferred, that's the 68 acre parcel that went to the State of New York, but as to the facilities, they have not been substantially completed, so that's where we fall. So, then the question is, have we been able, or are we able to show that there has been significant economic hardship to the developer, or any other personal hardship and the answer, I think, is yes. There's been upwards of a million dollars invested to make this happen, which is a considerable amount of money, and these are not wealthy people and it represents an important investment on their part There has not been any change in the zoning of this area; there have not been any changes in the subdivision regulations, and yes, you have an updated Comprehensive Plan, but that's not part of the Statute. PB 2022-06-07 (Filed 6/28) Pg. 5 So, really, the question is, have we established significant hardship, and a significant hardship would mean that the subdivider would suffer some substantial monetary and there has already been upwards of$IM spent on initial project process and then updating. Then there is the inability to proceed because of the adverse economic climate, of the past two and a half years of pandemic, after the personal reasons of the loss of his wife prior to that. The stormwater needs to be updated and some other areas, and those could be added as more conditions, but being able to get an extension of even 5 years, although we prefer 10, would give us the opportunity to properly market the project and turn this into very needed housing. Ms. Meier Swain thanked him and turned to the Board for questions. Mr. Lindquist said he had a couple of quick points, saying to Mr. Schlather that he threw out two $500,000 figures and according to the County recorded deed,the property owner was compensated $230,000 for the property transferred to New York State Parks, correct? Mr. Schlather responded that he was compensated but he didn't know the number and if Mr. Lindquist had it in front of him,he had better information than he did. Mr. Lindquist responded saying he did a quick search and had the information and the other $500,000 number thrown out was from the RPP investors, and if they invested $500,000 without title to the property, and RPP is not likely to let go of that kind of investment after just one go at getting tax credits, so I am wondering about the significance of throwing that number out because it is irrelevant. Mr. Schlather responded that he begs to differ, and it is relevant because the product that was produced for that 500,000 was an updated environmental.... I see people shaking their heads, so maybe I am mistaken, but it is still relevant because it is funds that have been spent on the development of this project. He said he would defer to Ms. Balestra on the tax credit aspect and attempts. Ms. Balestra stated that the RPP Group tried three times to get the tax credits and were unsuccessful, starting in 2017, so they were very disappointed but pulled out of the project. As for the environmental review SEQR process, we have an environmental impact statement and the Finding Statements from the original project and we compared those to the RPP Ithaca Townhomes project's elements and determined that that project was similar enough to not require a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, which is all outlined in the memo dated August 9, 2017. She added that she does not know if RPP spent $500,000 to do that, but Town staff did all the legwork regarding environmental review. Mr. Lindquist said then the Holochuck's are not out $1 M as has been insinuated. PB 2022-06-07 (Filed 6/28) Pg. 6 Mr. Schlather responded that he will accept the correction but what I am trying to say is that there has been a significant economic investment, in good faith, in the attempt to develop these lands. The developer transferred land to the NYS Parks and efforts to develop affordable housing in the area and those actions have a cost, in a global sort of way, and should be recognized. Ms. Fogarty stated that the project only has 11 affordable housing units in it and that does not make it an "affordable housing project." Mr. Schlather responded that it was originally intended as a market rate housing, but the market did not support that and so then that is what NPR came in to do, and they were unable to secure the tax credits to move forward. The hope is that in today's climate, there will be more funding for affordable housing and if the town is serious in supporting affordable housing, this is a factor and a way to prove that. Mr. Lindquist turned to Ms. Balestra and Ms. Brock regarding the compatibility of this project with the revised Comprehensive Plan which was adopted after the approval of this project. Ms. Balestra gave a summary, saying the Comprehensive Plan Committee and the process took 5 years and they were not necessarily aware of the Holochuck project, but they had identified the same area as appropriate for semi-rural neighborhood development which is not exactly dense townhouse development but more along the lines of what you see along Trumansburg Rd with larger lots and not a whole lot of housing. That said, the Comp Plan in effect at the time of the approval did identify the area as simply residential, which was vague. Mr. Lindquist said he is grappling about whether there has been a substantial change that would trigger a supplemental environmental review, which is where I am leaning to, because it has been over 10 years and things change; not only the Comp Plan but the neighborhood and area itself. Mr. Arms said that as a new member, there is an enormous amount of data in the packet and in almost every area, there has been substantial changes in 10 years. They are asking for a 10-year extension and then the changes will be even more pronounced. With climate change, storm water issues have increased; traffic has increased on that road; scenic views will be affected, and it is asking a lot of this board to approve this extension without the time to review many of these areas. Mr. Casper asked where the 10-year length in the Town Code came from. Ms. Balestra responded that she is not sure where it came from and she sees more of 3-year periods in researching other municipalities. PB 2022-06-07 (Filed 6/28) Pg. 7 Mr. Casper responded that he felt 10-years was way too long. Ms. Brock noted that she is not sure if NYS sets a length, but this Board is working under the Town of Ithaca Code, which is 10-years. She said she would caution the Board to make a distinction between information which we have which may or may not show significant changes to requirements versus a lack of information we don't have by which you can make a determination as to whether there has been a significant change. For example, traffic was mentioned and a statement that traffic is worse now on route 96; there is no information submitted to the board about current traffic conditions, so I don't know that that information is in the record, so we cannot say there is worse traffic or not. What we can say is that the applicant has not met its burden of showing no significant change to the traffic, which was extensively reviewed in the environmental impact statement and mitigation measures were recommended in the finding statement and the approval had conditions of mitigation related to traffic. Mr. Arms asked then, are we supposed to ask for more information if we have questions? Ms. Brock responded that the Board can ask for additional information because one of the criteria is that you have to find there has not been a significant change in certain aspects since the initial approval was granted, or, the Board can alternately vote to deny based on the fact that you cannot make a finding that there has not been a significant change. Ms. Meier Swain said she would like to talk for a moment about the generally adverse economic climates and the adverse events in the applicant's personal affairs, which have been the stated reasons for the significant hardship for the extension. What is the feeling on those two criteria. Mr. Lindquist said he felt the board had insufficient financial information to make a determination on the burden to the applicant, although he agreed that it is and has been a hard time recently,but the applicant did receive $230K for the land he transferred to the Parks. Ms. Fogarty said the financial aspect is just one part and the infrastructure and traffic are the changes we need information on. They are responsible for providing that information and the financial is negligible in her opinion,but the other is more important. Mr. Schlather said it seems what he is hearing is that the question is whether traffic has been changed or not and if so, what would be needed to address those changes. He suggested that the action be adjourned to another meeting to allow the applicant to gather that information. As to the financial hardship, I am a little concerned about what you feel is going to be sufficient to quantify that,but I think we can work through that. PB 2022-06-07 (Filed 6/28) Pg. 8 Mr. Lindquist asked if the Board felt that those few pieces of information were going to be sufficient to make a decision or are we considering a supplemental EIS. He said he was not comfortable implying that if he got this additional information, it is assumed he would then approve an extension without a supplemental EIS. He said until the question about a supplemental is answered, we don't know what information we are requesting to make a decision. Ms. Meier Swain wanted to clarify, saying she thought we were only going to accept a supplemental in the event we were moving toward an extension. The question is whether to extend or not. She asked Ms. Brock to clarify. Ms. Brock responded that if the board wants to give more time to the applicant to submit more information aimed at the criteria,you can do that. Or, if you want to decide to vote,based on what you have in front of you tonight, to grant or deny, you can do that. SEQR is not required if you deny because there is no action then that could affect the environment. If they submit more information or you find there is new information, newly discovered information or changing circumstances that you feel requires a supplemental review, then you could wait until that supplemental review is completed before acting on an extension request,based on the criteria in the Code. If you decide to ask for more information, you would be analyzing it at the threshold of deciding whether there was a change in circumstances that requires a supplemental review. For example, if they submit a new traffic study that shows that the traffic conditions and changes to road segments and changes to intersections has not led to worse traffic conditions than those that were included in the EIS analysis, then you could say there is no change in circumstances regarding traffic that would require any is supplemental review, you make that determination. So, you would make that determination on each environmental review item. Somebody mentioned stormwater and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has changed their regulations since the approval of this subdivision, and they would have to meet the new regulations, regardless of an extension or subsequent development applications. We don't know if that would necessitate changes to the layout,which we don't know. Many other NYS codes and regulations have changed and nothing in the proposed development is grandfathered in as nothing has begun, so there is a lot of information we do not have, and if the applicant wants to do that analysis, then you might have the information to determine whether there have been changes enough to warrant a supplemental review or not. Ms. Fogarty said that in listening to what has been said, it seems the applicant wants to be able to market this land as an approved development and gamble on not having to do a supplemental PB 2022-06-07 (Filed 6/28) Pg. 9 review and just be able to walk in and go; but it seems it will need a lot of changes and will most likely need many changes in design and so there is no real reason to keep going. Mr. Schlather responded that that approach is absolutely illegal; to say to an individual that they cannot sell the project once it has all the approvals is absolutely inappropriate and I'm sure that Ms. Brock would confirm that. I respect the fact that there is a concern among you that things need to be updated and I accept that, and I would strongly recommend to the developer that in fact they do an update,but to somehow draw the distinction between whether it's going to be the person before you who develops, or whether it's going to be somebody else who develops is totally inappropriate and... Ms. Meier Swain stepped in and said that is not what she took away from Ms.Fogarty's comment, but you are correct; the developer can do whatever they'd like. Our responsibility is to make sure that the projects before us adhere to our Town Code. As for the environmental review, if you would like to take on the burden of responsibility for providing all the information that indicates that this project is exactly the same as it was, I think that is a choice that the applicant has to make. What I think Ms. Fogarty was saying is that her speculation is that that is not true; it is or will not be exactly the same. Ms. Fogarty responded that it was her understanding that the action was request for an extension of an approval, so there is no approval at this very moment (correct) so I am not sure why you are saying what I said is illegal. Mr. Schlather said, I apologize. What I thought I heard you say is that because the developer himself wants to sell the project to another entity, that somehow that changes your analysis as to whether they have satisfied the criteria. Ms. Meier Swain said that is not what she said. Mr. Schlather responded Okay, then I stand corrected. My point is simply this, there are some very clear statutory requirements; I am asking for an opportunity to meet the requirements that have been outlined. We just received the outline of your concerns from Ms. Balestra about 5 days ago and we will respond to that and provide you with the data that you need. Frankly, I tend to agree with Mr. Lindquist and that we probably do need to do a supplemental environmental impact statement. I think that's a reasonable request and so, my suggestion is that we go through a twostep process; we satisfy you that an extension would be warranted, subject to the EIS and the implementation of whatever mitigating steps would be required. I think that is pretty standard and I think that many of the concerns Ms. Brock has laid out are legitimate,but they are also concerns that are routinely addressed as conditions of approval. In other words, and I think the folks at Keystone Associates acknowledged that they talked about the storm water changes and stormwater management, and some highway issues, and those would be addressed in a supplemental EIS. PB 2022-06-07 (Filed 6/28) Pg. 10 I think that an outright denial would be wrong, and I think that the developer has laid a sufficient foundation,but if you believe that we haven't even reached the threshold, then give us another month and I will give you the financials and show that in fact we have satisfied the criteria for an extension, subject to certain reasonable conditions, one of which may very well be a supplemental environmental impact statement. Mr. Schlather apologized to Ms. Fogarty if his comments were taken offensively, they were not meant that way. Ms. Kaufman stated that she is leaning towards the extension with the supplemental EIS as a condition but asked what would happen if another developer purchased the property and wants to change the site plan and layout to meet their vision. Are they able to do that without coming to this Board for approval? Unidentified—No. So, it would be exactly the layout that is shown Okay, then my next question is that in reading through the past conversations, there was some concern about what the development looks like from an aesthetic aspect and the light color buildings,the type of buildings that are being proposed, etc., and will there be an opportunity for the board to have input on that in the future design? Ms. Balestra responded that there was a visual impact analysis as part of the environmental impact statement that was done for this project. If they are not changing the design or the layout, the board would not have any further input as that was already analyzed. Ms. Brock responded that that was correct, as long as there are no new or changed standards or requirements that might drive that reanalysis of the visual impact. For example, if the Town had adopted a viewshed protection law, that would warrant a reevaluation, but I am not aware of anything like that, although I am not a planner, and they may be aware of something. Ms. Kaufman said there were some comments about whether the buildings could be darker color so they don't pop out as much. Ms. Balestra responded that approval included the design submitted that showed all of the different types of facades for the buildings and trees that would be planted as a buffer or screen to mitigate any impacts from across the lake so that was already analyzed and approved. Mr. Lindquist asked if the Board is tied to a 10-year extension or do we have the authority to modify that timeframe. Ms. Brock quoted the code "the planning board, after a public hearing, may extend the time limits for such additional periods and upon such conditions as the planning board may reasonably determine." PB 2022-06-07 (Filed 6/28) Pg. 11 Mr. Lindquist said then he would throw out for discussion offering a severely shortened extension, based upon the speedy and timely receipt of any and all documentation that is requested of the Board and staff. Ms. Brock stated that the Board should focus on the criteria that is in the Code and not speculate on what they may or may not approve prior to a public hearing. If all the new information comes in,you still have to make a finding there has not been a significant change in these requirements and standards since the initial approval, and based on the information that comes in, if you say cannot make that finding, then you would have to vote to deny the extension. She added that we've been talking about the significant change, and we've talked some about the significant hardship; our law does provide a definition of what significant hardship includes. Significant economic loss if an extension we're not granted is one possibility but,the law also says, "or the sub dividers inability to timely proceed because of and then it lists three factors: a generally adverse economic climate, the subdividers own economic circumstances have changed detrimentally, or an adverse event or events or the subdividers personal affairs. They do not have to prove all three of those, they just have to prove any one of those. We do not need financial statements and some of those criteria doesn't even talk about their own finances, and I am not really comfortable having that submitted to the Planning Department and whether it could be kept confidential, and we typically have not done that in evaluating financial hardship or circumstances. Ms. Meier Swain said it is a question of whether the subdividers economic circumstances have changed and what is the criteria for that. There were adverse events that happened in the beginning of this period but is it still a hardship. Mr. Lindquist asked what will happen to the current approval that is expired if we table this and wait for more information. Ms. Brock responded that nothing happens given the way the law is written. She added that Ms. Balestra had begun a year ago communicating with a paralegal in counsel's office about what would be needed, so they have had this longer than 5 days, and I also remember talking to Mr. Schlather a few months ago about what would be needed. Ms. Meier Swain asked about the 6-month period to file... Ms. Brock said they have to apply for the extension and as long as they are diligently processing it, there is no legal limitation. Mr. Schlather stated that he did recall talking to Ms. Brock, but he had no idea about this project as it was his former partners, and he was trying to wrap his head around it and did not understand the importance of what he was being told and all of this information had to be submitted now. PB 2022-06-07 (Filed 6/28) Pg. 12 He added that he agreed with a previous comment that personal loss of a loved one never goes away, but Mr. Holochuck had been able to find a developer and negotiated in good faith and thought it was going to work, which took a significant amount of time in the 10-year period we are talking about. Mr. Schlather stated that he had taken decent notes and will work with Ms. Balestra to make sure he didn't miss anything and will provide any additional material to meet the threshold requirement and then, if you determine that you need to approve based on a supplemental EIS, then we will go ahead and do that as well. PUBLIC HEARING: Ms. Meier Swain opened the public hearing at 8:23 p.m. There was no one present wishing to speak and Ms. Balestra noted for the record that we had received on email from Ms. Prosperi and Ms. Stefanucci which she forwarded to the Board and the applicant this afternoon. Ms. Meier Swain paused a moment to allow any members who had not read it could do so and noted for the record that it was read by members. Public hearing was closed at 8:24 p.m. DETERMINATION Ms. Meier stated that there are a few options on what to do. 1. Do we stay tonight's meeting and give the applicant time to gather information to present to us so we can make a determination on whether or not to grant an extension because we find the imposition of the time limit set forth and subsections B & D would create significant hardship on the sub divider and there has not been a significant change in zoning, subdivision, engineering, environmental or other relevant review requirements or standards, or 2. Do we decide to deny the extension request because we believe that neither of those two conditions have been met, or 3. Do we decide to grant the extension because we believe that both of those requirements have been met. Ms. Meier Swain called on each member to ensure all gave their opinion. Mr.Arms stated that the Code says the burden falls on the applicant to demonstrate that this should be approved and the discussion we've had today, from my point of view, and reinforced by Ms. Brock, is that we don't have enough information from the applicant to approve. If I were asked to approve today, I could not, but I also think that would be unfair to the applicant, and we should PB 2022-06-07 (Filed 6/28) Pg. 13 give the applicant the opportunity to provide the information before making any determination. Ms. Kaufman stated that she agreed with Mr. Arms. I feel strongly that this project should move forward, and I would like to see the information that shows us that that the changes in the environment and nearby are going to be addressed in the new construction and development of this property. Ms. Bageant stated that she generally agrees and thinks we do not have enough information to vote tonight for or against and extension and she was in favor of giving the applicant more time to submit information so we can make an informed decision. Ms. Fogarty said she don't see the point of going through a supplemental but if they want to bring the information, that's fine. Mr. Casper stated that he was torn. The first email was over a from Ms. Balestra was two years ago, then another one and another one and they are overdue already and although I am pretty lax about deadlines,but 10 years is a long time, and although I realize there was a change in lawyers, I am torn. How long would the extension be to allow for additional information? Ms. Meier Swain said that would be up to us if we decide to go that route. Mr. Casper then asked how quickly some of these studies take,because this could be another year or two years to get some of the information. Ms. Meier Swain said she imagined that Ms. Balestra reached out two years ago because some may take quite a while. Mr. Casper said that would mean a 6-month deadline would not even be possible. He has seen a lot of projects in and around the area in the last 10 years with some of the same circumstances, and he was not sure the applicant meets the burden of proof and he was not sure another long-term extension for a project of this magnitude was in the best interests of the Town. He said he could vote for an extension with a limited timeframe,possibly. Mr. Lindquist said he is not averse to giving time for the additional information, but with strict parameters and list of required information so action could be taken then. Ms. Meier Swain said she felt that the request should be denied because in doing so, it will allow a project to come forward that meets the current standards, current codes, and Comp Plan and for the right studies to be done for the right project. She said she hears and respects everything that everyone says, and this is the majority of the board wants to go ahead, she could support that,but in saying no we actually give chance for something better. Ms. Brock noted that that is not the criteria; the criteria isn't whether something better could come along right, we just need a criteria decision. PB 2022-06-07 (Filed 6/28) Pg. 14 Mr. Arms said Ms. Meier Swain, you have a lot more experienced than I have, if this is your instinct, I would go along with your suggestion. Ms. Meier Swain responded that it is not her instinct but rather she would say that this is my opinion. There are new environmental factors at play and not wanting something to be shoehorned in. She added that it is interesting that the project has not yet come to be,but the environment around it appears to have changed, and I have not seen in the submitted material that either criterion has been met,but I would be willing to support a very defined maximum six-month timeframe to see if either those two items are then apparent. If they are not, the only thing that we can do is to deny the request for extension and the proposal and associated approvals would stop. Ms. Brock responded that that is correct, with a few processes, but as a practical matter, a subsequent developer could probably use the existing information to date to submit a site plan process. All the other involved agencies and the Planning Board would have to do the Findings and do that process. Ms. Kaufman said she felt that was unfair to make someone have to go through all again and if we thought this project was bad for the town, that would be one thing,but it was approved in the past and it seems very onerous to have someone have to start all over again. Ms. Brock responded again,we have to just follow the criteria in our Code,because after 10 years, I expect the rationale behind that time limit is things change and you don't want old approvals hanging around forever, and that is all that has happened here. Instead of asking is this a good project or a bad project, you ignore all of that, and just look at the criteria. What is the imposition of the 10-year limit and would denial of the extension create a significant hardship on the subdivider and has there been a significant change in all these standards and requirements since the initial approval. That is the only thing you are supposed to be looking at and making findings about. Mr. Lindquist asked if they have to meet both criteria. Ms. Brock responded that the Planning Board has to make these findings, "the Planning Board shall grant requests for such extension if the board finds a) significant hardship, b) no significant change and then the law defines significant hardship or lists certain elements that could be included in in significant hardship, but you have to make both findings; either that they met both if you grant it or how they didn't meet one or both if you deny it. Mr. Lindquist said he didn't have sufficient information to make that determination and he would like Ms. Brock to find out what information is needed to make that determination. Ms. Brock noted that it is not only personal economic hardship, it could be general adverse economic climate, an adverse event, etc. PB 2022-06-07 (Filed 6/28) Pg. 15 Ms. Meier Swain said she looked up "adverse economic climate" and this is a squishy term, and many comments from scholars say it is basically what we have been in for the past two years. Mr. Casper made a motion to give the applicant 6-months to provide information to the Board for consideration, Ms. Meier Swain seconded it. Ms. Brock responded that 6-months isn't really a long time, and this could be done by adjourning the request to a future meeting. Mr. Schlather thought 6-months is a reasonable amount of time. Discussion followed on the time frame and whether there was any additional information the Board would like to see. The focus was a traffic analysis or updated information on traffic impacts of developments in both the City and the Town since the approval and the realignments to the base of the hill where the feeder roads meet. There are traffic volume counts they could look at. Ms. Bageant said she was trying to understand under what circumstances we would ask for a supplemental EIS. Ms. Meier Swain responded it would be if we choose to extend the approval. Ms. Brock clarified, saying, if the Board says it looks like we are going to grant an extension,then before you do that, you have to complete SEQR determination, which usually is a positive or negative declaration of environmental significance. In this case, what you are determining is whether there is enough of a change in circumstances that a supplemental EIS is required, and that is what your determination would be. Ms. Bageant said, then, this has nothing to do with the information that comes back to us? Let's say they come back in a few months, and we find that things have substantially changed, then we have to deny and there is no avenue to do anything else? Correct? Ms.Brock responded yes,but we do not know right now with the information in front of us whether there is or isn't; maybe COVID reduced the traffic significantly because people are working from home,we simply don't know what the effects of the development that has happened in the past 10 years had, has or will have on this development. We know the stormwater regulations have changed, but we don't know if the project could continue with just a few changes that are not significant, lot sizes and shapes may need to change, but we do not know that now. Ms. Brock said, once they bring that information, then you decide whether or not they need a supplemental EIS; if you decide they do not, then you vote then on whether to grant or deny the extension. If you decide yes, then you wait for that process to run its course and then consider granting or denying the extension based upon that process. PB 2022-06-07 (Filed 6/28) Pg. 16 Mr. Schlather spoke, saying that Subdivision F says, "the planning board, upon request of the subdivider, after public hearing, may extend the tine limits for such additional periods and upon such conditions as the planning board may reasonably determine," Then it says "the Planning Board shall grant the request, if the board finds—," and then there are these conditions you are talking about. I read that as it is mandatory that you grant the request if you find significant hardship and no change. However, even if you don't find those two conditions, you still may extend the time limits upon such conditions as the board reasonably may determine. That is why there's talk about a supplemental EIS. It's a recognition that in the infori-nation gathering process upon the request for an extension that there may in fact be cause or good reason to file a supplemental EIS, in order to determine whether there should be an extension. That's not the extension, which is the mandatory extension, that's the extension, which is the discretionary extension. I think I'm right about this is, and I would ask you to give that some thought before we to running into the weeds on this. Mr. Moseley spoke, saying that the changes to the Code have happened at least twice that would apply to this development, and at some point, an analysis of the fire/emergency access needs to be done to ensure the changes in NYS Fire Code are being addressed. Ms. Meier Swain stated that the Board has heard quite a lot of information and she felt they should come back with the additional information based on the criteria in the Code. Discussion followed on the amount of time needed to gather the additional information and the process for the next step. Motion made by Ms. Meier Swain, seconded by Mr. Casper, to adjourn the matter to a future meeting to be held no later than 4 months from this meeting. Persons to be heard None Other Business Motion made by Ms. Meir Swain to cancel the July 5"' meeting, seconded by Mr. Lindquist, unanimous. Informal discussion on the history of subdivisions and extensions with Ms. Ritter noting that revisions are planned, and this will be one of them. She added that in the 20+ years she and Ms. Balestra have been with the Town, this is the first tirne an extension has been requested. Motion made by Ms. Meier Swain, seconded by Mr. Casper, to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 p.m.; unanimous, Submitt by Paulette Rosa, Town/ P13 2022-06-07 (Filed 6/28) P& 17