Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2016-09-20TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hal! 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. September 20. 2016 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. SEQR Determination: Pete Subdivision, 300 & 310 Culver Road. 7;00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision located at 300 and 310 Culver Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 28.-I- 32.2, 31.-1-1, and 28.-1-32.5, Low Density Residential and Conservation Zones. The proposal involves subdividing three parcels, totaling 3.36 +/- acres, from Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-32.2. The three parcels include a 1.67 +/- acre parcel (Parcel A) to be conveyed to 300 Culver Road and a 1.39 +/- acre parcel (Parcel B) and a 0.30 +/- acre parcel (Parcel C) to be consolidated with 310 Culver Road. Stephen J. and Paula M. Pete, Owners; Paulette Terwilliger, Agent. 7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: Murray Subdivision, 306 & 308 Coddington Road. 7;15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision located at 306 and 308 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 42.-1-1.2 and 42.-1-1.1, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing 0.418 +/- acres from 308 Coddington Road, which will be consolidated with 306 Coddington Road. William E. and Jeanette M. Murray, Owners/Applicants. 7:30 P.M. Continuation of determination of adequacy for public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for 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 Apartments 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, storm water facilities, and a community center. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; EdR Trust, Applicant; Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC, Agent. 6. Persons to be heard 7. Approval of Minutes: September 6, 2016 8. Other Business 9. Adjoumment 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.ITHACA.NY.US. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) Accessing Meeting Materials Online Site Plan and Subdivision applications and associated project materials are accessible electronically on the Town's website under "Planning Board" on the "Meeting Agendas" page (http://www.town.ithaca.nv.us/meeting-agendas). TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday. September 20.2016 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, September 20, 2016, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision located at 300 and 310 Culver Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 28.-1-32.2,31.-1-1, and 28.-1-32.5, Low Density Residential and Conservation Zones. The proposal involves subdividing three parcels, totaling 3.36 +/- acres, from Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-32.2. The three parcels include a 1.67 +/- acre parcel (Parcel A) to be conveyed to 300 Culver Road and a 1.39 +/- acre parcel (Parcel B) and a 0.30 +/- acre parcel (Parcel C) to be consolidated with 310 Culver Road. Stephen J. and Paula M. Pete, Owners; Paulette Terwilliger, Agent. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision located at 306 and 308 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 42.-1-1.2 and 42.-1-1.1, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing 0.418 +/- acres from 308 Coddington Road, which will be consolidated with 306 Coddington Road. William E. and Jeanette M. Murray, Owners/Applicants. Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 Dated: Monday, September 12,2016 Publish: Wednesday, September 14,2016 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. September 20. 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: September 12, 2016 Date of Publication: September 14, 2016 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 14^*^ day of September 2016. Notary. Public :: DEBPRAKKELLEY r Pu6Nc, Ststerof New York - No~D1KEoG25073 Qualified in Schuyler County fO Commission Expires May 17, 20 ' ' THE ITHACA JOURNAL WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday. September 20, 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, September 20, 2016, at 215 North Tloga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision located at 300 and 310 Culver Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 28.-1-32.2, 31.-1-1, and 28.-1-32.5, Low Density Residential and Conservation Zones. The proposal involves subdividing three parcels, totaling 3.36 •♦•/- acres, from Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-32.2. The three parcelsInclude a 1.67 +/- acre parcel (Parcel A)to be conveyed to 300 Culver Road anda 1.39 •*■/- acre parcel (Parcel B) and a0.30 +/- acre parcel (Parcel C) to be con solldated with 310 Culver Road. Stephen J. and Paula M. Pete, Owners; Paulette Terwllllger, Agent. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and FinalSubdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision located at 306 and 308Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 42.-1-1.2 and 42.-1-1.1,Medium Density Residential Zone. Theproposal involves subdividing 0.418 -^/- acres from 308 Coddington Road, which will be consolidated with 306Coddington Road. William E. andJeanette M. Murray, Owners/Applicants. Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hearall persons In support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual Impairments, hearing Impairments or otherspecial needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must makesuch a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 Dated: Monday, September 12, 2016 9/14/2016 Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street September 20,2016 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN-IN Please Print Clearly. Thank You Name Address I TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, September 20, 2016 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox (Chair), Joseph Haefeli, John Beach, Liebe Meier Swain, Yvonne Fogarty, Jon Bosak Town Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Mike Smith, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Dan Thaete, Town Engineer; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Debra DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Ms. Herleman announced that she is resigning her position as planning board alternate. AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Pete Subdivision, 300 310 Culver Road Mr. Wilcox noted that Ms. Terwilliger is the Ithaca Town Clerk. Ms. Terwilliger explained that Mr. Pete owns the property behind her and Mr. Palascak's houses. A spur of Mr. Pete's property that runs between their two properties will be subdivided into two parcels; Parcel A will be sold to Ms. Terwilliger and Parcel B will be sold to Mr. Palascak. The purpose of the subdivision is for the two property owners to have control over the property next to theirs and to protect it from development. Ms. Meier Swain asked about the reference to Coy Glen in the resolution. Ms. Balestra said the parent parcel is located partially within the Coy Glen Natural Area, which is the only critical environmental area in the town, having local and state rare and endangered species of plants and animals. The parent parcel won't be affected at all in terms of development. The subdivid ed properties are not in the UNA. PB Resolution No. 2016-049: SEQR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Pete Subdivision, 300 &. 310 Culver Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 28.-1-32.2, 31.-1-1, and 28.-1-32.5 Moved by Joseph Haefeli; seconded by Yvonne Fogarty WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision located at 300 and 310 Culver Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 28.-1-32.2, 3I.-1-1, and 28.- 1-32.5, Low Density Residential and Conservation Zones. The proposal involves subdividing a property into three parcels, totaling 3.36 V- acres, from Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-32.2. The three parcels include a 1.67 V' acre parcel (Parcel A) to be conveyed to the owner of 300 Culver Road Planning Board Minutes 09-20-2016 Page 2 of 16 and a 1.39 +/' acre parcel (Parcel B) and a 0.30 +/- acre parcel (Parcel C) to be consolidated with 310 Culver Road. Stephen J. and Paula M. Pete, Owners; Paulette Terwilliger, Agent; and 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 Subdivision Approval; and 3. The Planning Board on September 20, 2016, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Survey Map, No. 310 Culver Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York", prepared by Shelve Land Surveying, dated 8/8/2016, and other application materials; and 4. Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision 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, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Meier Swain, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing; Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision located at 300 and 310 Culver Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 28.-1-32.2, 31.-1-1, and 28.-1-32.5, Low Density Residential and Conservation Zones. The proposal involves subdividing three parcels, totaling 3.36 +/- acres, from Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-32.2. The three parcels include a 1.67 +/' acre parcel (Parcel A) to be conveyed to 300 Culver Road and a 1.39 +/- acre parcel (Parcel B) and a 0.30 +/- acre parcel (Parcel C) to be consolidated with 310 Culver Road. Stephen J. and Paula M. Pete, Owners; Paulette Terwilliger, Agent Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Mr. Haefeli asked whether Parcel A will be consolidated with 300 Culver Road. Mr. Wilcox said there's no requirement that Parcel A be consolidated with 300 Culver Road, just that it be conveyed. It is a legal lot; we cannot subdivide off an illegal lot. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. PB Resolution No. 2016-050: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Pete Subdivision, 300 &. 310 Culver Road, Tax Parcel No.*s 28.-1-32.2, 31.-1-1, and 28.-1-32.5 Moved by John Beach; seconded by Liebe Meier Swain Planning Board Minutes 09-20-2016 Page 3 of 16 WHEREAS: 5. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision located at 300 and 310 Culver Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 28.-1-32.2, 31.-1-1, and 28.- 1-32.5, Low Density Residential and Conservation Zones. The proposal involves subdividing a property into three parcels, totaling 3.36 +/- acres, from Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-32.2. The three parcels include a 1.67 +/- acre parcel (Parcel A) to be conveyed to the owner of 300 Culver Road and a 1.39 +/' acre parcel (Parcel B) and a 0.30 +/- acre parcel (Parcel C) to be consolidated with 310 Culver Road. Stephen J. and Paula M. Pete, Owners; Paulette Terwilliger, Agent; and 6. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on September 20, 2016, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environ mental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by the Town Planning staff; and 7. The Planning Board on September 20, 2016, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Survey Map, No. 310 Culver Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York", prepared by Shelve Land Surveying, dated 8/8/2016, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, hav ing determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in a significant alteration of neither the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision located at 300 and 310 Culver Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 28.-1- 32.2, 31.-1-1, and 28.-1-32.5, as shown on the survey map noted in Whereas #3 above, subject to the following conditions: a. Submission, for signing by the Chairperson of the Planning Board, of one original and three dark lined prints of the final subdivision plat, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Depart ment; and b. Within six months of final approval, consolidation of Parcels B (1.39+/- acres) and C (.30+/- acres) with Tax Parcel No. 28.01-32.5 (310 Culver Road), and submission of a copy of the consolidation request to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Meier Swain, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak AGENDA ITEM Planning Board Minutes 09-20-2016 Page 4 of 16 SEQR Determination: Murray Subdivision, 306 & 308 Coddington Road Mr. Murray stated that he owns the two properties. His son lives at 306 Coddington Road, and Mr. Murray would like to make that parcel larger so his granddaughter has more space to play. The portion of the lot being subdivided that has a house on it will remain large enough to be a legal lot. The long thin piece being left on that lot will provide a path to the college, so a future tenant or owner affiliated with the college can walk through on their own property. The path lets out by the tennis courts. Mr. Bates said the topography of the land has a lot to do with how this subdivision has been laid out, mostly because of the creek that runs through. Mr. Murray's original plan would have required variances. PB Resolution No. 2016-051: SEQR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Murray Subdivision, 306 &. 308 Coddington Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 42.-1-1.1 &. 42.-1-1.2 Moved by Jon Bosak; seconded by John Beach WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision located at 306 and 308 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 42.-1-1.2 and 42.-1- 1.1, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing 0.418 +/- acres from 308 Coddington Road, which will be consolidated with 306 Coddington Road. William E. and Jeanette M. Murray, Owners/Applicants; and 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 Subdivision Approval; and 3. The Planning Board on September 20, 2016, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Survey Map Showing Lot Line Adjustment for No. 306-308 Coddington Road Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York", prepared by T.G. Miller P.C., dated 12/10/2015 and amended 9/2/2016, and other application materials; and 4. Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision 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, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Meier Swain, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak Planning Board Minutes 09-20-2016 Page 5 of 16 AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision located at 306 and 308 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 42.-1-1.2 and 42.-1-1.1, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing 0.418 +/' acres from 308 Coddington Road, which will be consolidated with 306 Coddington Road. William E. and Jeanette M. Murray, Owners/Applicants Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Hearing no one, he closed the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. PB Resolution No. 2016-052: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Murray Subdivision, 306 308 Coddington Road, Tax Parcel No.*s 42.-1-1.1 & 42.-1-1.2 Moved by Yvonne Fogarty; seconded by Joseph Haefeli WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision located at 306 and 308 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 42.-1-1.2 and 42.-1- 1.1, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing 0.418 +/- acres from 308 Coddington Road, which will be consolidated with 306 Coddington Road. William E. and Jeanette M. Murray, Owners/Applicants; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on September 20, 2016, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environ mental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by the Town Planning staff; and 3. The Planning Board on September 20, 2016, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Survey Map Showing Lot Line Adjustment for No. 306-308 Coddington Road Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York", prepared by T.G. Miller P.C., dated 12/10/2015 and amended 9/2/2016, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, hav ing determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in a significant alteration of neither the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision located at 306 and 308 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 42.-1-1.1 and 42.-1-1.2, as shown on the survey map entitled "Survey Map Showing Lot Line Ad justment for No. 306-308 Coddington Road Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York", subject to the following condition: Planning Board Minutes 09-20-2016 Page 6 of 16 a. submission for signing by the Chairperson of the Planning Board of an original and three dark lined prints of the final subdivision plat, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Depart ment. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Meier Swain, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak AGENDA ITEM Continuation of determination of adequacy for public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for 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 Apartments housing complex and redeveloping the V-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, storm water facilities, and a community center. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; EdR Trust, Applicant; Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning Design, LLC, Agent Mr. Wilcox said the purpose of the action is to determine whether the DEIS is sufficiently detailed for release to the public for them to comment on. He said we need to base our discussion on the revisions we received in the mail on Thursday or Friday. He called attention to the SEQR Handbook, paragraph 7 on page 134: "... a lead agency should provide sufficient guidance in the initial descrip tion of deficiencies to enable the project sponsor to develop an acceptable draft EIS with one revision effort, and only reject a resubmission if that resubmitted draft EIS still contains errors or omissions which are essential to the public's understanding of the proposed project." Mr. Wilcox went on to say that the DEIS is still sloppy; for example, in the revised materials, the first map (page 2-6) has street names labeled incorrectly. The same problem occurs in the third map. It makes one wonder: if he can catch an error that is not substantial, are there other things that staff or the board might not have caught that might be substantial or substantive? He is truly unhappy with the response to alternatives. He wants to see an alternative that's significantly different in some way, whether it's fewer units, a different architecture, expanding Maplewood across the street into the 3 to 4'acre parcel upon which the relic of a building stands. Ms. Brock said that wasn't identified in the scooping and it's not clear whether the applicant has access to that parcel. Mr. Wilcox added that just because he's unhappy doesn't mean that the document should not be released to the public so they can comment. If the public is unhappy, they will comment, and the applicant team will respond to it as part of the final EIS. Ms. Meier Swain said the thing she found difficult was receiving another full EIS with no indication of what had changed; there should have been a redlined copy outlining specifically what had changed, rather than her hunting and pecking at 2 a.m. It was not a good use of her time. She agreed that the alternatives section was lacking. Some of the residential analysis was lacking. They stated that the new rents for the project would constitute between 39.5 to 40 percent of a grad student's salary, whereas Planning Board Minutes 09-20-2016 Page 7 of 16 under real market conditions, no more than 30 percent of a person's salary should go to rent. It puts into question how affordable this development is. Ms. Brock said this doesn't go into adequacy. Ms. Meier Swain agreed. Regarding telecommunications, she had asked at the previous meeting where cell service falls into this. Some construction materials dampen cell phone reception. Cell phones were not addressed in the utilities section. Other than that, she felt she would be able to give the determination that the document was sufficiently complete to release to the public. Mr. Haefeli said receiving this at such a late date, he was not able to pour over the revisions, but he would assume it is as requested, with the exception of staff notes. He didn't remember discussing the quality of cell phone reception inside buildings. Ms. Balestra said the resolution stated that "The discussion about existing cable TV and high speed internet infrastructure is missing." Also the staff memo mentions internet but not telecommunica tions facilities and whether the project will impact existing telecommunications facilities in the area that serves the project. We weren't specific about inside buildings. She agreed that cell service is part of telecommunications facilities. Mr. Haefeli said that's true by the modern definition of telecommunications, especially the reliance on cell as the primary phone. The issue of being able to penetrate buildings and the applicant guaranteeing reception inside buildings is an interesting new wrinkle. He doesn't think it's the applicant's job to make cell-phone compatible buildings. Whether the neighborhood has suitable capacity for that many more people should be addressed by cell providers. He restated his frustration with architectural issues and the ongoing lack of preserving the character of the neighborhood. Minor tweaks to the building aren't sufficient. He thought the document was adequate to release to the public. Mr. Beach said "complete" isn't a word he would use, but that he was ready for the public to make comments. Most of his comments are better suited to site plan review. He mentioned page 1-8, and how the taxes went from $1.5 million to $2.5 million with no explanation. As for reasonable alternatives, the section on reduced-scale alternatives sounded good, but it was determined by the applicant that the reasonable-scale alternative wasn't acceptable. Page 5-5: "incorporating all of the Passive House requirements at this time would require the design team to restart the design process and cause a significant delay in the timing of the project. We do not plan to follow the Passive House criteria for this project." That was brought up early on in our discussions. Ms. Fogarty said in many places they say it will be incorporated, but in other sections they say it's under consideration. That doesn't give us any information. Are they doing it or are they not doing it? At what point do those questions get answered? It doesn't feel like information. Are they using LEED or aren't they? That seems like an important question to answer. In that sense, it doesn't feel finished. Is it okay to give the DEIS to the pubic without those things answered? If she were the public, she would want those things answered. They're not telling us what they're going to do. Mr. Wilcox asked whether it's sufficient for the public to understand so they can weigh in on it and ask questions. Will they be able to understand the potential environmental impacts? Planning Board Minutes 09-20-2016 Page 8 of 16 Ms. Fogarty said the public can read it and see the things being considered, but they don't have answers as to what is going to be done. She asked whether at some point, the applicant team is going to have to say what they're going to do. Mr. Wilcox said that will happen only if the public asks them or if the board asks them. The public's comments and the responses from the applicant team form the final EIS. If the public asks them to respond to something specific in more detail, they can respond or they can say. We don't know exactly what we're going to do; once we get through the environmental review and get to site plan, then we'll make those decisions. If we don't know exactly what they're going to do, do we have a way to measure the potential environmental impacts? That's important now. Mr. Haefeli asked Ms. Fogarty whether she thinks all the questions have been asked, even though she's not thrilled with the responses. He would be concerned about omissions - whether it's on the table. He doesn't want to slow the process down. It's their risk they're taking by not providing information. If they're concerned about speed, it would behoove them to answer the questions. Mr. Bosak said he received the document on Friday afternoon, and had not had a chance to study it in enough detail to make the determination Mr. Wilcox was asking for without making too many assumptions. He got the impression that other members of the board also had not studied it in enough detail to make the determination. However, he had glanced at the staff s recommendations and saw some things that made him suspect that if he took the next two weeks to study it, he would conclude that some aspects are not satisfactory an cannot be accepted. We were asking for analyses. An analysis is not just a statement of. We don't care to do this. An analysis supplies reasons. The question is more than whether this is enough for the public to respond to. It has to be something they can respond to knowledgeably, and that means it has to have real analyses. Also, this is not just a document for the public; it's a document for the board. Eventually, we'll say. Here's the project and here are all the mitigations we can think of; here are all the benefits to the town for doing this. Does the one outweigh the other? He needs these aspects analyzed in detail sufficient to make that determination. He also doesn't think it's okay to say. This is just a draft; we can revise this. The thing itself that we accept doesn't change, it just gets added to unending appendices that nobody has time to look at. When we're talking about a document that concisely sets forth the information we need to make our determination, this is it. We have to get it right. He added that he is not impressed with the quality of the work; he thinks it's because the applicant is trying to get things moving as quickly as possible. He asked whether what he received were change pages or complete replacement. This is not how change pages work. They work with a set of instructions detailing which pages replace which pages. He wanted to table it, go home, take time to read it, compare it point-by-point with what staff has said, and come to a determination at the next meeting. What he didn't want was to have the applicant pick up stray comments that have been made, and then find in his email five days hence a hurried response, which would give him two things to review. That is version control madness. Mr. Wilcox said Mr. Bosak makes a good point. At the last meeting, there was a 30-page rebuttal. We don't want to see that. It serves no purpose. They aren't replacement pages. It's not official rebuttal and just gives us more to read. Mr. Haefeli said he was inclined to declare this is how the applicant wants it, but it's unfortunately going to be a problem when it gets a lot of rocks thrown at it. That's the consequence. Planning Board Minutes 09-20-2016 Page 9 of 16 Mr. Wilcox asked if it's a stubbornness on the part of the applicant team with regard to alternatives; technically they've given us alternatives. They've changed the buildings on Maple and Mitchell and put smaller townhouses along Maple. Fewer units; same number of beds, but it's an alternative. He's not happy with it. Ms. Brock said they did not want to further decrease the units below the 2%, because that won't meet their objectives. Are you going to make them look at an alternative that doesn't meet their objectives? Mr. Bosak asked whether it could be argued that any alternative wouldn't meet their objectives or they would have made that the plan in the first place. Ms. Brock said we're talking about how many people they want to house. Mr. Bosak said he was looking for something materially or substantially or meaningfully other. He can't believe the people who wrote SEQR meant just some alternative. He thinks they meant a real alternative. Mr. Wilcox said they're being stubborn and they've given us an alternative. Mr. Thaete said he wanted to state that from a public works and engineering perspective, his department tends to focus on utilities. The town in the unique situation where we have just complet ed our water study on East Hill and have made it known all along. Engineering staff just started to digest some of the options, and he shares the board's sentiment that the applicant has provided a very general statement in response to the water issue, in that the tank will be upsized in conjunction with the town project. It's a very broad stroke. In the applicant's defense, they're slightly ahead of our study. We're starting negotiations with the applicant on what we can potentially do. He doesn't think the EIS answers all the questions as it regards water. Sewer doesn't seem to be an issue. Ms. Meier Swain asked about the tank expansion. Mr. Thaete responded that we've determined that the tank that feeds the area is undersized. The current solution with our water provider that is a band aid to the system, which makes it work so we meet the requirements. With this development coming on board, it would put a larger strain on the system and put us over the tipping point where we'll need a larger tank. We might need more than one tank and it might involve water main work as well. The DEIS doesn't answer the question. Right now, our Pine Tree tank is 200,000 gallons and we need 400,000 gallons. You don't want to oversize a system ahead of development, because it creates water quality issues. The band aid is a pressure reducing valve that feeds off a different tank. It's not the idea situation, but it works. With the applicant coming on board, it would put more strain on the system and our redundancy wouldn't be there. We're probably looking at a two-tank scenario; putting one new tank up that can serve this development and the current demand in the neighborhood without the band aid, and once that tank is up and running, we're looking at another tank siting. Mr. Haefeli asked if there was a discussion about Cornell supplying the tank. Planning Board Minutes 09-20-2016 Page 10 of 16 Mr. Thaete said we're in a town-wide benefitted area, and for Bolton Point to give up some of that and for Cornell to take over some of that, that's action beyond the town board; it would have to go to the commission. We don't know whether Cornell has the pressures and flows to do it. Mr. Bosak said he felt railroaded. We said at the last meeting that we had two meetings to discuss adequacy, plus the possibility of a third, if needed. This is meeting number one. There is no problem with the schedule if we make this determination at the next meeting after he and other board members have the chance to take a better look at the document. This is not just a matter of saying. My gut tells me it's about cooked. We passed a resolution with a long list of stuff we said they have to do before we accept it. If any single one is not done, we have to reject it. It's not just whether it's sufficient for the public; it's a matter of whether they did everything we said in our resolution that they had to do. He said he is not in a position to make that determination this evening. Mr. Bosak moved to table the issue until the October 4th meeting. Mr. Haefeli seconded the motion. Ms. Balestra said the clock started ticking on the 13th of September and 30 days is October 13th. Mr. Haefeli said that he agreed with Mr. Bosak's point that the conditions of the resolution we passed have to be in the document, although he didn't think he'd change his opinion regarding overall adequacy. Mr. Wilcox said that we have to balance whether or not we like the document; we have to balance that with whether or not it's adequate. He's disappointed in the alternatives. We've asked; they've declined. The planning board has spent a lot of time on this document. It's never going to be perfect, so let's get it to the public. Mr. Haefeli asked Mr. Bosak if he'd be willing to defer to staff s opinion if they said things got integrated properly. Mr. Bosak said if the clock were running out tonight, he might be convinced to do that, but we're well within the time limit, and he'd like to make his own determination. He's keenly aware of the difference between assessment for adequacy and assessment for what he thinks of the project. He thinks he's been careful, beginning with the scoping document, to make that distinction. With a project of this size, he doesn't know what he thinks of it until it's all over. That's why he needs a good analysis; without that, he won't and he can't rely on the public to give him that. Mr. Wilcox said what Mr. Bosak can't count on is the public to ask the question, and the applicant's response to give you that information. Mr. Bosak said he can't count on that and, he found out with the Holochuck project, that the way these things are structured, if the question does get asked and answered, it's going to be 2000 pages into comments that he can't find and nobody can remember. He would like to devote all or most of the next meeting to this, if possible, and for the board to go through it the way we did the first round; they had plenty of time to respond. Ms. Ritter said there are other agenda items for the October 4th meeting. Planning Board Minutes 09-20-2016 Page 11 of 16 Mr. Haefeli said he initially concurred with the motion because we would simply make sure all the conditions of the resolution were integrated. Now Mr. Bosak is saying he wants to provide more comment. Mr. Bosak said the reason he was favorable to staff comments at the last meeting was that they covered things he didn't have to say, and then the board spent time talking about things that were not included in the staff analysis. He was not totally relying on staff. Mr. Haefeli said that might change where he stood on his second. Mr. Wilcox stated, reading from the SEQR Handbook, that "The goal of the lead agency in its review of the submitted draft EIS should be to advance the review of the proposed project to the public review phase." Board members were polled on their availability for a special meeting on the 28th. There was a quorum, but Mr. Wilcox didn't want only a quorum. Ms. Brock said the SEQR regulations say that one of the things that can be included with the final EIS is any revision or supplement to the DEIS. It's not just responses to comments: "The Final EIS must consist of the draft EIS, including any revisions or supplements to it; copies or a summary of the substantive comments received and their source, and the lead agency's responses to all substantive comments." We control the content of the final EIS, as stated in the SEQR Handbook: "9.Who is responsible for the preparation of the final EIS? The lead agency is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the final EIS. A project sponsor may be requested to prepare draft responses to some or all of the substantive comments received on a draft EIS. However, the lead agency must still review any responses prepared by the sponsor to ensure that the analyses and conclusions accurately represent the lead agency's assessment. The lead agency may need to edit a sponsor's draft responses." Mr. Bosak said that the problem is that, in most of the document, we were relying on experts employed by the applicant to do this. If we determine that neither in the comments nor in any other way we failed to get enough technical detail on one particular point, and the applicant doesn't feel like providing it, we have to hire someone to do that analysis. Ms. Brock said if the sponsor doesn't give you the information you need to respond to the comments, you can say you don't have the information and take that into account when you move on in the process. Mr. Haefeli asked if they're providing numbers that are made up, whether we're ultimately responsi ble for those numbers. Ms. Brock said this isn't new; you rely on numbers that applicants give you all the time. If you find out there's a mistake and it's substantive and it affects the project, you can require a supplemental EIS. Mr. Bosak said that in real life, what will happen at that juncture is that certain people will want to say. We've spent so much time on this. Planning Board Minutes 09-20-2016 Page 12 of 16 Ms. Brock said that the Holochuck project required a supplemental EIS because of a dump that was discovered. We have done this before. She added that she went through the checklist and tried to independently verify the document and found things Ms. Balestra didn't find. Mr. Bosak said he wasn't comfortable at this point saying the document is adequate. He said that for those people who think it's adequate, that it will be equally adequate on the 4th. Mr. Wilcox said we need to get this to the public. They have sat there quietly and want to tell us what they think. They want the public hearing to be scheduled. Mr. Bosak said he did not want to speed the process up just because the public is anxious to register an opinion. Mr. Wilcox reiterated that our purpose is to advance this to the public review phase. Mr. Bosak countered that it is our purpose is to observe a process that gives us 30 days to make this determination. He wondered whether board members would consider postponing the determination of adequacy until October 4th, and to use the time remaining in the meeting to continue the discussion. Mr. Bosak withdrew his previous motion and proposed the following motion: Mr. Bosak moved that the board reserve the vote of final determination of adequacy for the October 4th meeting. No one seconded. Ms. Meier Swain asked when the final version would be available. She wanted to make sure the public had adequate time to review the document. Is a two-week study period sufficient for the board and the public? Mr. Wilcox said the original version has been available to the public since the 2nd or 3rd of Septem ber. Mr. Whitham said if they could concentrate on rewriting and focus on editing and collating, they could have it ready in a few days. The board agreed that the public hearing would be held October 18th. Ms. Balestra said the public generally has ten to 14 days after the public hearing to submit written comments. The board agreed that the comment period would end on October 31st. The applicant will then respond to the substantive comments. There was a discussion regarding the alternative site design. None of the board members liked the proposed alternative. Mr. Bosak said it is not a meaningful alternative. He wondered whether there are meaningful alternatives in terms of energy impact. The proposed alternative has the same number of beds and Planning Board Minutes 09-20-2016 Page 13 of 16 just changed what it looks like from the outside; that's not a significant alternative, either. How can we require that a real alternative be provided, and it's not provided, and we accept it? Ms. Brock said she didn't think the board should continue with the resolution if they didn't think a real alternative was provided. The alternatives are the heart of the DEIS. The board asked for fewer units, and the applicant provided fewer units, but kept the same number of beds. The board didn't ask for fewer beds in the scoping document. Mr. Wilcox said his sense of the majority of the board was that they didn't like the alternative, but that they agreed there was an alternative, and they were comfortable with it. Mr. Bosak said it boils down to whether the board feels that what they provided constitutes a difference. Ms. Meier Swain asked what magnitude of change constitutes an alternative. Ms. Ritter responded that they changed the massing. They changed the number of units. The design is questionable; it's very subtle. Mr. Wilcox said the question is. Is a lousy alternative an alternative? To him, it's still an alternative. If we liked the alternative, whether it was substantial or not, we'd probably be happy there was one. Ms. Fogarty said they might have proposed an alternative we liked, but it doesn't mean they're going to build it. Mr. Wilcox said they're alternatives that "nibble at the edges." It's frustrating, but they're alternatives. Ms. Ritter offered that she has no doubt that they will get a lot of public comments about the buildings. There will need to be responses to that. There is a finding statement at the end of the process that the planning board will be responsible for. Mr. Bosak asked whether it will be possible after this decision to require the analysis of another alternative. Ms. Ritter said no. Mr. Bosak said that means these are the only alternatives we get. Ms. Brock said the board will make their findings on them. The town board will also be making their findings because this is a planned development zone and it needs to be rezoned. Mr. Haefeli added that the risk to the applicant is that we say no. Mr. Wilcox said if the decision is tabled, we will have made the determination that the alternatives offered are not substantial enough to be viable alternatives and that others need to be introduced. Planning Board Minutes 09-20-2016 Page 14 of 16 Mr. Bosak said this is an occasion in which we required that something be done, and they have said they're not going to do it. And we're saying, That's okay with us; we didn't mean it. Mr. Wilcox said that they know what we wanted, and this is how they responded. PB Resolution No. 2016-053: SEQR - Acceptance of Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) as Complete for Public Review and Comment &. Scheduling a Public Hearing Regarding Said DEIS, 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 Fred Wilcox; seconded by Liebe Meier Swain WHEREAS: 1. This project is the proposed Cornell University 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.-2-3, and 63.-2-14, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves de molishing 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; 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 I 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. The Planning Board, on April 5, 2016, declared its intent to serve as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review for the proposed Maplewood Redevelopment project; and 4. The Planning Board reviewed the Full Environmental assessment Form (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 environmental review of the 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 proposed, and, con firmed that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) will be prepared; and 5. 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 DEIS for the Planning Board Minutes 09-20-2016 Page 15 of 16 project, after distributing the Draft Scoping Document to potentially involved and interested agencies and the public; and 6. The Planning Board, on July 19, 2016, accepted the revised Final Scoping Document as being adequate to define the scope and content of the DEIS for the Maplewood Redevelopment Pro ject, after amending the document at its meetings on July 5, 2016, July 12, 2016 and July 19, 2016; and 7. The applicants have prepared a DEIS, dated August 2, 2016, regarding the proposed Maplewood Redevelopment Project, and submitted said DEIS to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for con sideration of acceptance as complete; and 8. The Planning Board reviewed said DEIS on September 6, 2016 and adopted a resolution that found the DEIS was not satisfactory with respect to its scope, content, and adequacy for the pur pose of commencing public review because of the deficiencies and corrections listed in the resolu tion; and 9. On September 20, 2016, the Planning Board reviewed a revised DEIS dated September 13, 2016; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board hereby finds that the DEIS for the Maplewood Redevelopment Project, dated August 2, 2016 and revised September 13, 2016, is adequate with respect to its scope and content for the purpose of commencing public review, and hereby accepts said DEIS as complete, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.9; and 2. That the Planning Board finds that the DEIS still contains deficiencies and will invite public comment related to them, as well as public comments on the DEIS itself, as follows: a. Correct the error or provide a better explanation of the discrepancy for Northbound- Ithaca Road in the Mitchell Street/Ithaca Road intersection analysis on page 3-39. b. Provide consistent information about property taxes throughout the document. c. Provide appropriate mitigation measures for the water capacity issue. d. Provide responses for the waste reduction and management measures in the greenhouse gas emissions analysis. e. Explain the meaning of this sentence, which appears under a number of mitigation measures: "This would be included under LEED if that is determined to be used as the sustainability metric." f. Please add the quantitative analysis of GHG emission reductions for each relevant mitiga tion measure. 3. That the Planning Board hereby determines that a public hearing will be scheduled for Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 7:05 p.m. to obtain comments from the public on potential environmental impacts of the proposed Maplewood Redevelopment Project as evaluated in the DEIS, and that written comments from the public regarding the DEIS will be accepted by the Planning Board until October 31, 2016; and Planning Board Minutes 09-20-2016 Page 16 of 16 4. That the Planning Board hereby directs the Town of Ithaca Planning Staff to take those steps, including filing a Notice of Completion of the DEIS and Notice of SEQR Hearing, as required under 6 NYCRR Parts 617.9 and 617.12, distributing the DEIS to involved and interested agen cies and the public, as may be necessary or appropriate to commence the public review of the DEIS, and to publish a notice of the public hearing at least 14 days in advance of the hearing date, in a newspaper of general circulation in the area of the potential impacts of the action. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Meier Swain, Haefeli, Beach Nays: Fogarty, Bosak AGENDAITEM Persons to be heard - No one came forward to address the board. AGENDAITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by John Beach, the meeting adjourned at 10:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted. ebra-DeAugis^iaifi^eputyTomi Clerk