Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2016-07-19TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. July 19. 2016 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Consideration of acceptance of a final scoping document for the draft Enyironmental Impact Statement (EIS) regarding the proposed Maplewood Apartments Redeyelopment project located between Maple Ayenue and Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63.-2- 10.2, 63.-2-1, 63.-2-2, 63.-2-14, and 63.-2-3, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal inyoWes demolishing the existing Maplewood housing complex and redeyeloping the +/- 17 acre site with up to 500 residential units (studios and 1-4 bedroom units) in a mix of townhomes, stacked flats, and multi-family apartment buildings. The project will also include some small retail, new interior streets, parking areas, pedestrian facilities, open spaces, stormwater facilities, and a community center. Cornell Uniyersity, Owner/Applicant; EdR Trust, Applicant; Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC, Agent. Copies of the current draft scoping document are ayailable at the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY (call 607-273-1747), or on the Town's website: wwvy.town.itiiaca.ny.us. 7:30 P,M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding the keeping of domestic animals in the Conseryation Zones and the keeping of chickens in the Medium Density Residential Zones. 7:45 P,!VI. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding reyisions to proyisions related to solar facilities. 4. Persons to be heard 5. Approyal of Minutes: July 5, 2016 6. Other Business 7. Adjournment Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273-1747 or SPOLCE@TOVVN.ITHAUA.N^ .US. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Plunnin|> 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 (hUp://ww w.town.ithaca.nv.us/mecting-aaendas). TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday. July 19. 2016 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, July 19, 2016, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:30 P.M. Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding the keeping of domestic animals in the Conseryation Zones and the keeping of chickens in the Medium Density Residential Zones. 7:45 P.M. Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding reyisions to proyisions related to solar facilities. Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Indiyiduals with yisual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be proyided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 Dated: Monday, July 11,2016 Publish: Wednesday, July 13,2016 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall. 215 North Tioga Street. Ithaca. New York, on Tuesday. July 19. 2016 commencing at 7:00 P.M.. as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board - 215 North Tioga Street. Date of Posting: July 11, 2016 Date of Publication: July 13, 2016 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 13*'' day of July 2016 Notary Public DEBORAH KELL^ Notary Public, State of New YorkNo. 01KE3025073 Qualified in Schuyler County^(:^Commission Expires May 17,20 THE ITHACA JOURNAL WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 2016 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING 80MD NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARINGS Tuesday. July 19.2016 By direction of the Chairper son ol the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HERffiY Gl\^ that Public Hearings wi# b? held by die Planning Board d the Town of Ithaca on Tues day, July 19, 2016, at 215 North lioga Street. Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters; 7:30 P.M. Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding the keeping of do mestic animals in the Conser vation Zones and the keeping of chickens in the Medium Density Residential Zones. 7:45 P.M. Consideratioit of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding revisions to provi sions related to solar fecU- Ues. Said Planning Board wH at said time and said {4ace hear all persons in suppon of sut^ matters or otifKtions there to. Persona may app^ by agent or in person. Indvidi^ ais wHh visual in^jainnent^ hearing irnpairments or other speaal rteeds. wHI be provid- ^ whh assistance as neces sary. tipon request. Persons dedtfhg assistance must such a request not less than 46 hours prior to the time of the public heertng. Susan Bitter Director of Ranning 273-1747 Dated: Monday. 2016 7/13/2)16 Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street July 19,2016 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN-IN Please Print Clearly. Thank You Name Address do. /»// /r 'if 1 ? iv oy !{/^ C ^o ^^cZ-e^^<-S'y4 ^^/2r / jy. /^y TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, July 19, 2016 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox (Chair), Linda Collins, Joseph Haefeli, John Beach, Yvonne Fogarty, Jon Bosak Town Staff Present: Chris Balestra, Planner; Dan Thaete, Town Engineer; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Debra DeAugistine, Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. AGENDA ITEM Consideration of acceptance of a final scoping document for the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) regarding the proposed Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment project located between Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63.-2-10.2, 63.-2-1, 63.-2- 2, 63.-2-14, and 63.-2-3, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves demolishing the existing Maplewood housing complex and redeveloping the +/-17 acre site with up to 500 residential units (studios and 1-4 bedroom units) in a mix of townhomes, stacked flats, and multi-family apartment buildings. The project will also include some small retail, new interior streets, parking areas, pedestrian facilities, open spaces, stormwater facilities, and a community center. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; EdR Trust, Applicant; Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC, Agent. Copies of the current draft scoping document are available at the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY (call 607-273-1747), or on the Town's website: www.town.ithaca.ny.us. Mr. Wilcox stated that the objective of the meeting was to resolve a few issues that were left unre solved at the previous week's special meeting. He asked Mr. Thaete to address questions about water and sewer and the potential impacts of the proposed development on the current town and city systems. Mr. Thaete spoke about the cumulative impacts of sewer. There are separate town and city sewer systems. The town generally flows into the city and the city treats our sewage. In conjunction with that are the jointly owned interceptors, which take flows from the town and the city. We originally asked the applicant to look at the town's system to make sure it has sufficient capacity. Our system goes through some turns and jogs as it goes through Walnut Street, hits a metering station at Mitchell, then turns into the city interceptor. We then asked the applicant to look at the city system, so they reached out to Erik Whitney, the assistant superintendent of the city water and sewer department. Mr. Whitney has verified that there are known capacity issues in some sections of the interceptor that leads to the wastewater treatment plant. Beyond that, the system has sufficient capacity. Mr. Thaete said that as the town engineer, he doesn't know their s^'stem intricately, but the applicant did exactly what he would do, which is to reach out to the experts in the city. He doesn't think questioning their expertise would be warranted. They've stated that the capacities are under half at this point. We'd have to double the density in that area to hit capacity, so it's his opinion that the applicant doesn't have to look at a broader development scheme. The short piece in the town is relatively new, so we Planning Board Meeting 07-19-2016 Page 2 of 10 asked the applicant to look at that section to make sure it has capacity. He stated that he's comforta ble with the language in the draft scoping document. Mr. Wilcox said the city's comments to the planning board from June 29th made no reference to sewage, which he interprets as meaning that they didn't see it as a concern. Mr. Thaete said that correspondence from Erik Whitney through TG Miller talks about there being a potential issue with an interceptor on State Street, but the city has slated to have that upsized in the future, regardless of this development. It has reached 90-percent capacity on a few occasions, but it hasn't reached an overflow. Ms. Brock asked whether it was reasonable to put this information in the EIS. The question is: what should go in the scope? We need to know that there's sufficient capacity in all the lines that will be conveying sewage from this project to the wastewater treatment plant. That's how it's referenced in the scope, and since Mr. Thaete said he's comfortable with the language, we'd leave in the scope that they would present this information in the EIS. Mr. Wilcox agreed that it would be important to state that there is sufficient capacity all the way through to the plant. Mr. Thaete reiterated that he likes the language; it's sufficient for the town. Correspondence from the city states that there is sufficient capacity through the city with a few constraints, but that they're slated to be upgraded in the near future. The applicant won't have to mitigate it. The city has issues just like the town has issues in that when it rains, we have infiltration; the infiltration tends to be what inundates these sewers. It's an ongoing process in both the town and the city to actively stop infiltration of stormwater from getting into our sewer systems. Ms. Fogarty pointed out that the East State Street main has been at 90-percent capacity at times and is slated for replacement in the next five years, but that this development may go online in two years. Mr. Thaete responded that he can't speak for the city directly, but in his professional opinion, you reach those 90-percent capacities during large rainfall events where you get infiltration. The letter is not stating that it's exceeding capacity, but reaching 90-percent capacity; 40,000 gallons mixed in with 200,000 gallons isn't a large amount of additional sewage. They have been actively upgrading their facilities. The applicant has reached out to the professionals in the city for an opinion and has been told that there is capacity; city experts aren't concerned. Mr. Haefeli asked how the infiltration takes place. Mr. Thaete responded that sometimes manholes are located in low points, joints in the sewer system separate over time, sump pumps and rain meters are illegally connected to the sewer system. We have a lot of monies in our budget every year to try to stop the infiltration. The sump pumps were acceptable in the past, but laws have changed and people have been asked to remove these devices: some have complied, some have not, and some have continued to make illegal connections. Regarding the cumulative impacts for water, Mr. Thaete said our Pine Tree tank is just feeding town residents. We have a consultant on board that is analyzing our East Hill tank system, which includes Planning Board Meeting 07-19-2016 Page 3 of 10 the Hungerford tank. We are having him look at our comp plan in conjunction with that to deter mine existing conditions and proposed conditions. Maplewood is one of the proposed conditions, along with East Hill Plaza. Water is trickier than sewer. You can overbuild a water system: if you build the tank too big, there's too much stagnation and your water quality goes down. You have to look at it in snapshots; you can't look too far ahead. We're comfortable with the way the scoping is worded. We'll have our results from the consultant by August 16th and will share those with the applicant. The pressure at Belle Sherman Cottages is sufficient. He wanted to make clear that there's sufficient pressure in that area, but we're seeing issues with the flow, which is independent but related. The pressure needed for the Maplewood development is there now. The issue is the long-term volume that's needed for fire protection, etc, which needs to be upgraded. We won't raise the tank any higher, just increase the size. He's comfortable with the current language in the scoping document. Ms. Brock pointed out a few changes the board agreed on at the previous meeting that were to be incorporated into the document, but did not get incorporated. Staff noted these changes. Ms. Balestra noted that another outstanding issue left over from the previous planning board meeting regarded Mr. Bosak's rewrite of Chapter 5, requiring that the applicant analyze certain performance standards. She spoke with Nick Goldsmith, the town sustainability planner, about the difference between LEED certification, NetZero construction, and Passive House. The applicant had requested that they be required to analyze only one of the three instead of all three. There was also a question about the difference between Passive House and Passiv Haus. Mr. Bosak said he didn't see any reason they shouldn't look at all three. The only thing to specify is Passive House or Passiv Haus. The intent in this enormous project with enormous environmental impacts is to study the major known ways of mitigating those impacts. According to his limited understanding, these are widely claimed to be important mitigation strategies for conserving energy. He wants to know how much energy could be saved, and if these practices are not adopted, he wants to know why they're not. Lou Vogel, president of Taitem Engineering, described the differences between Passive House (U.S.) and Passiv Haus (Germany). There was a conflict between the two organizations primarily because the U.S. wanted to have regional variations between the requirements, whereas the German organization had one requirement for the whole country. Passive House has come up with regional variations; the cooling requirement is more stringent and the heating requirement is less stringent. Passive House only looks at the building envelope and the energy requirements of the building. It doesn't care about solar produced on site or elsewhere. Net Zero says the amount of energy required needs to be offset by energy generated onsite. They've determined that it would not be possible to provide all the solar photovoltaic generation onsite. Mr. Wilcox said his quick reading is that Passive House is about building a tight structure. With Net Zero you can build anything you want as long as you have something onsite to offset it. It can be very inefficient, as long as it's made up for somehow on site. Mr. Bosak said he wanted to keep the reference to Net Zero, but that it would be fine for them to say they just can't do it and why. There's also the prospect of zero net energy with a distant source, but he's happy not to include it. Planning Board Meeting 07-19-2016 Page 4 of 10 Ms. Brock said they are already looking at photovoltaic installation onsite or remote net metered. Ms. Balestra said the applicant provided new memos, one that deals with transportation, the other with aesthetic resources. Mr. Wilcox noted again the unacceptably small font size on the handouts. Ms. Chesebrough said they have a memo from SRF associates the intersection at Mitchell Street and Cornell, which was added to the scoping document while is not in session, so they can't do a live traffic count. Historic data for that intersection is not available. Based on their overall modeling of traffic generated onsite, how it passes the school at that area doesn't have a significant impact. This is just confirmation. Ms. Fournier said two additional views were added from the original scoping process. View 0 (looking east along Mitchell Street halfway between East Hill Plaza and the site) and View I (looking west to the site from the intersection of Pearl and Worth). They don't have the leaf-off condition views from those. She proposed for G that they either allow for the point of view to be done without leaf-off condition or eliminate G since H is the same view from about 300 feet closer to the site, and for I that they either allow for leaf-off condition or allow them to use a view they already have that is one intersection over, which is Worth and Cobb. It was agreed that they would include leaf-on conditions for both G and 1 and add View J, showing leaf-off at Worth and Cobb. Mr. Wilcox noted that a group of union carpenters were in the audience and stated that although it was not a public hearing, they clearly had something to say. He pointed out that the public has had three opportunities to address the board on the Maplewood SEQR review. He invited a representative of the group to address the board and any other members of the public as well. Chuck Smith, Northeast Regional Council of Carpenters, said the group supports the project, but they have a concern that it's an $80 million dollar project and EdR is looking at hiring framing carpenters from outside the state. He noted that the group he represents are the best in the business. If our contractors are hired, they can be assured that the same guys are going to show up on the job every day and will the skillset to bring the project in on time and on budget. There will be no additional cost to the taxpayers since they have their own health insurance, pension, etc. By hiring local, they'll be supporting local families and supporting the local economy. No other audience members wished to address the board. Mr. Bosak stated: "I'll be voting no on accepting this scoping document, so 1 just want to be clear that it's not about the quality of the document, it's about the segmentation issue. In the discussion of cumulative impacts during the July fifth meeting it became clear that the crux of this issue is whether Cornell's published plans for the South Campus Precinct are "speculative." Whether something is speculative or not is, I maintain, a matter of fact, not a matter of law, and therefore open to individual judgement. Planning Board Meeting 07-19-2016 Page 5 of 10 I observe that the current proposal for Maplewood closely corresponds to the full development scenario for that area described in Cornell's Master Plan, and I see no rational basis for assum ing that development of the adjacent East Hill Plaza will not follow the same plan. I also ob serve that the parameters for East Hill Plaza development in the Master Plan are sufficiently detailed to make valid projections of its environmental impact. Indeed, the scoping document assumes that the descriptions in the Master Plan are sufficiently detailed to enable an analysis of the effect of the Maplewood development on the plans to develop the rest of the South Cam pus Precinct. In my judgement, Cornell's plans for the development of East Hill Plaza are no more specula tive than its plans for Maplewood development, and allowing creation of the EIS for Maple wood to take place without considering the cumulative impact of Cornell's plans for the entire South Campus Precinct puts us at risk of a challenge to the integrity of this process. I must therefore regretfully withhold my approval of what is otherwise a very competent document representing excellent work by both the town planning staff and this board." Ms. Collins said she was struggling with many of the same issues Mr. Bosak raised. She agrees that this project should be looked at as a whole, with East Hill Village, at least. Unless some of those issues are resolved, there will be a point where she'll vote nay. Mr. Beach concurred with Mr. Bosak and Ms. Collins, particularly in relation to the issue of the South Hill Precinct and East Hill Plaza area. At some point, he may also reach a point of saying nay. Mr. Wilcox said for him it boils down to a question that Ms. Brock asked: What mitigation measures would we impose on this site if we knew in more detail what Cornell may or may not develop on East Hill? He can't conceivably think of any mitigation he would impose on this site for future develop ment uphill. To him, it's not segmentation and it's reasonable to exclude those because they won't have an impact on this development and how we mitigate its environmental impacts. PB Resolution No. 2016-035: SEQR - Acceptance of Final Scoping Document, Maplewood Redevelopment Project, Tax Parcel No's. 63.-2-10.2, 63.-2-1, 63.-2-2, 63.-2-3, 63.-2-14, Between Maple Avenue &. Mitchell Street Moved by John Beach; seconded by Linda Collins WHEREAS: 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at its meeting on April 5, 2016, declared its intent to serve as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review for the proposed Cornell University Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment project (PB Resolution No. 2016-020), located between Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63.-2-10.2, 63.-2-1, 63.-2-2, 63.-2-3, and 63.-2-14, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves demolishing the existing Maplewood housing complex and redeveloping the +/- 17 acre site with up to 500 resi dential units (studios and 1-4 bedroom units) in a mix of townhomes, stacked flats, and multi- family apartment buildings. The project will also include some small retail, new interior streets. Planning Board Meeting 07-19-2016 Page 6 of 10 parking areas, pedestrian facilities, open spaces, stormwater facilities, and a community center. Cornell University, Owner/ Applicant; EdR Trust, Applicant; Scott Whitham, Whitham Plan ning &. Design, LLC, Agent, and 2. The proposed project, which requires site plan approval and special permit by the Planning Board and a rezoning to a Planned Development Zone (PDZ) by the Town of Ithaca Town Board, is a Type 1 action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding Environmental Quality Review, because the proposal involves a zoning change and the construction of 250 or more residential units (30 or more per Town Code) that will be connected to existing community or public water and sewage systems (§617.4 (b)(3) and (b)(5)(iii);Town Code Section 148-5.B(2)), and 3. A Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), Part 1, was submitted by the applicant, along with application materials and a letter from Whitham Planning & Design, LLC (agent for the appli cant), dated March 21, 2016, that stated that the applicant was "anticipating the production of an EIS" and was "planning to develop a Scoping Document after the April 5'^ meeting in which the Board declared its intent as Lead Agency'," and 4. The Town of Ithaca Planning Department, on behalf of the Planning Board, distributed a Lead Agency concurrence letter to potential involved and interested agencies on April 6, 2016, and received no objections to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board serving as Lead Agency on this mat ter, and 5. The Planning Board reviewed the Full EAF, Part 1, prepared by the applicant and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by the Planning staff, and established itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmen tal review of the proposed Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment project, as described above. The Board issued a positive determination of environmental significance at its meeting on May 24, 2016, in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, also known as the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, for the above referenced action as pro posed, and, confirmed that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared, and 6. The applicant and the Town of Ithaca Planning Board agreed that a public scoping process would be initiated to determine the scope and content of the draft EIS, and 7. The applicant submitted a Draft Scoping Document on May 24, 2016 for the Board's considera tion, and 8. The Planning Board held a Public Scoping Meeting on June 21, 2016 to hear comments from the public and interested and involved agencies regarding the scope and content of the Draft EIS for the project, after distributing the Draft Scoping Document to potentially involved and interested agencies and the public, and 9. The Planning Board, at meetings held on July 5, 2016, July 12, 2016, and July 19, 2016,amended the Scoping Document that was submitted by the applicant on May 24, 2016; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Planning Board Meeting 07-19-2016 Page 7 of 10 That the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby determines that the Draft Scoping Document for the Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment Project (dated May 24, 2016), amended by the Planning Board at its July 5, 2016, July 12, 2016, and July 19, 2016 meetings, adequately incorporates the relevant comments and concerns of the Planning Board, the public, and involved and interested agencies, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby accepts the above referenced, amended Scoping Document for the Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment project as the Final Scoping Document for the project. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty Nays: Bosak AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding the keeping of domestic animals in the Conservation Zones and the keeping of chickens in the Medium Density Residential Zones. Mr. Wilcox called the public hearing to order at 8:30 p.m. Ms. Brock said the ZBA is getting a slew of variance requests for chickens in the medium density residential zone, because the current zoning requires two acres to own chickens. The COC has been thinking of revising it for all the zones, but it was very controversial, with some members of the public wanting stricter regulations and some not wanting any regulations. So the COC decided to focus on the medium density residential zone for now. The law also allows only domestic animals in the conservation zone, so there's nothing that allows chickens at all. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:33 p.m. Mr. Bosak commented that New York City has never had a ban on chickens and neither has San Francisco. Ithaca isn't so urban that we should have a ban. He doesn't see why everyone shouldn't have the same rights. PB Resolution No. 2016-036: Recommendation to the Town Board Regarding a Proposed Local Law Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code Regarding the Keeping of Domestic Animals in the Conservation Zones and the Keeping of Chickens in the Medium Density Residential Zones Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Yvonne Fogarty WHEREAS: The Codes and Ordinances Committee has drafted amendments to the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding the keeping of domestic animals in the Conservations Zones and the keeping of chickens in the Medium Density Residential Zones, and Planning Board Meeting 07-19-2016 Page 8 of 10 WHEREAS: The Town Board has referred the proposed local law to the Planning Board for review and recommendations, and WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board held a public hearing on this matter and has reviewed and discussed the proposed local law at its meeting on July 19, 2016, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca adopt the proposed local law amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding the keeping of domestic animals in the Conservations Zones and the keeping of chickens in the Medium Density Residential Zones. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding revisions to provisions related to solar facilities. Mr. Wilcox called the public hearing to order at 8:35 p.m. Martin Hatch, Dryden planning board, said the Town of Ithaca planning board really gets at things in ways his board could learn from. Dryden is working on a solar law; they have many sites that are appropriate for large-scale solar. He thinks our document is impressive. He pointed out that this is a county-wide issue. He doesn't know if we're working in concert with other towns and suggests there should be an initiative among towns relating to what we might all want to do in this region. The county has sustainability goals, but no people working on a county-wide process to implement a plan. Mr. Wilcox said the county dare not tread there because it gets into local land use, which is the jurisdiction of the towns and the city. Mr. Hatch said that transmission is important, so locating sites with high generating capabilities and finding ways of linking them is important. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 9:41 p.m. Mr. Bosak asked to be reminded of the difference between accessory use and principal use in this context. Ms. Brock responded that principal use means it's the only use on the site; for example, a solar farm. Accessory use is if you have a house or business and you have panels to generate energy on site for use on site. An example of the small-scale principal use is if you have an empty lot next door to your house and the neighbor on the other side doesn't have good solar resources, so you work out a deal with them where you will place solar panels on the empty lot, making it a principle use, and the energy generated will be used by the neighbors. Planning Board Meeting 07-19-2016 Page 9 of 10 PB Resolution No. 2016-037: Recommendation to the Town Board Regarding a Proposed Local Law Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code Revising Provisions Related to Solar Facilities Moved by John Beach; seconded by Jon Bosak WHEREAS: The Codes and Ordinances Committee has drafted a local law amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270 Entitled "Zoning", to revise provisions related to solar facilities, and WHEREAS: The Town Board has referred the proposed local law to the Planning Board for review and recommendations, and WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board held a public hearing on this matter and has reviewed and discussed the proposed local law at its meeting on July 19, 2016, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca adopt the proposed local law amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270 Entitled "Zoning" to revise provisions related to solar facilities. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - No one came forward to address the board. AGENDA ITEM PB Resolution No. 2016-038: Minutes of July 5, 2016 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Yvonne Fogarty RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of July 5, 2016, as amended. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Colling, Haefeli, Beach, Bosak Abstentions: Fogarty PB Resolution No. 2016-039: Minutes of July 12, 2016 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by John Beach RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of July 12, 2016, as amended. Planning Board Meeting 07-19-2016 Page 10 of 10 Vote Aye: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarry Abstentions: Bosak AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by Joseph Haefeli, the meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, )ra DeAugistiTre^ Deputy "^wn^Ierk