Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2017-07-18 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, July 18, 2017 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox, Linda Collins, Joseph Haefeli, John Beach, Yvonne Fogarty, Liebe Meier Swain, and Jon Bosak Town Staff Present: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Dan Thaete, Town Engineer; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Debra DeAugistine, Deputy Torn Clerk Call to Order Mr.Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. He explained that this subdivision was approved by the planning board in 2012 as the Holochuck Homes subdivision. Since that project has already gone through an EIS process, the planning board will need to decide whether the Ithaca Tom nhomes project contains one or more significant adverse environmental impacts that were not addressed, or were inadequately addressed, in the final Holochuck EIS. If it does, the applicant will need to prepare a supplemental EIS; otherwise, the SEQR will close and the board will move on to the final subdivi- sion approval. AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: SEQR Determination: Ithaca Townhomes Development(formerly Holochuck Homes Subdivision) Modifications, NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road). The Planning Board will consider if a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement will be required for the proposed modifications. Applicant team members present: Chris Dirr, NRP Group; Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects; Mark Parker, Keystone Associates; and Adam Walters, Phillips Lytle. Mr. Dirr said that the applicant team discerned that there are a number of things they can do to enhance and improve the plan. The development was approved as a 106-unit subdivision; they don't plan to modify that. He elaborated on the primary design changes: 1) They would like to use one of the units as a clubhouse,which will be situated at the intersection of the main entrance. It will be a fully amenitized community room space with office space, laun- dry facilities, a kitchen. Outside there will be a playground and resident gardens.Their hope is that this will reduce the need for residents to have these amenities and encourage social engage- ment among the residents. 2) The prior approval anticipated two-story townhouses. They're proposing a modification: on the high side of the development, the fronts of the units will be one story, and, as the slope drops down in back, the units will be two stories. So, by the road, the units will appear to be a single story. This design reduces the overall massing and visual impact of the development. 3) Their plan introduces sidewalks on both sides of the road, as opposed to only one side in the approved subdivision, again to encourage social engagement among neighbors. This will increase the pervious surface by a couple hundred square feet over the approved plan.They spoke with the town to make it a private road instead of a municipal road,which will reduce maintenance re- quirements on the part of the torn. Planning Board Minutes 07.18.2017 Page 2 of 12 4) They would like to eliminate the garages to shrink the building envelope and reduce the visual impact. Storage space is incorporated within the units. 5) They propose developing in the two phases that were approved. The the first phase would be rental units built around the main U-ring road and developed concurrent with the development of the infrastructure over a 16-month period.The second phase would be the cul-de-sac to the left. In compliance with the affordability requirements of the approved design, this development will be mixed income and will exceed the initial requirements of a minimum percentage of the units being affordable. In the first phase, the income strata will be 50% to 130% area median income (AMI). They don't project any units being affordable to households earning under 50%AMI. They're hoping the second phase will have a more immediate for-sale component, and they're working out the economics of how they would do affordable, for-sale units. Mr. Parker said the building widths have increased slightly, from 27.69 feet to 28 feet. They're proposing to hold the middle lot line, and each line adjacent would bump out 3.75 inches.The rationale is that from a construction perspective, 28 feet is more efficient than 27.69. Mr.Wilcox said the approved subdivision was filed with the county, and they're proposing revising all the lot lines, which means revising the plat. Mr.Walters said they discussed it with staff and provided revised plat plans; it will not be noticeable to the eye. There will be an as built survey done after everything is designed, and they would ask that this approval allow them to refile an updated plat. Mr. Dirr said that from an architectural design perspective, it's easier to design and construct to a whole number.When the laborers are cutting boards, it's a lot easier to cut to 28 feet, and when they do the foundation, it's much more likely that they'll hit the number. Even if they didn't alter the building widths, at the end of the day, when final as-built surveys are performed, the numbers won't all be exactly the same. The contractor's best effort will yield some variation. Mr. Hugo said that as you drive off route 96 into the development, you drop in elevation almost onto a plateau, and the street the neighborhood is on is relatively flat. From the lake side of the street, the grade drops again. So on the street side, the units are one story sitting on grade (no basement).As the project was initially proposed, the buildings would have been two stories coming up from the grade with basements below, which would have made them look like three stories.All units on high side will be accessible. On the ends of the buildings, there's a small hip roof. Every unit will have a usable front porch. Some of the buildings step front to back while others step side to side with the topogra- phy, so the roof lines will step down to work with the topography of the slope. There were comments on the original proposal about how you could see these buildings from Route 13 and across the lake. This will provide differentiation between the units and greatly reduce the massing. Mr. Dirr said he met with the town board and received feedback, particularly with respect to their concern for greater rent variation.With regard to landscaping, their intention is to enhance the plan with native species and to use the landscaping as a buffer for the mechanical equipment, such as air conditioning units, which will be pad-mounted on the ground. The county asked for consideration on two points: 1)That a portion of the units be oriented to accommodate solar,but this is in contrast with staff's direction to the design team, which was to make as few modifications to the already- approved subdivision plan; and 2) that heat pumps be used.The buildings will be designed and Planning Board Minutes 07.18.2017 Page 3 of 12 constructed energy efficiently and will have energy efficient lighting and appliances. It's a balance between trying to make units energy efficient with tight envelopes while also making the construction affordable. They don't anticipate using heat pumps, but their intention is that the buildings will be designed and constructed to be as energy efficient as possible. Mr. Hugo added that a new energy code was adopted a year ago that is more stringent. Under Green Communities, they'll be looking at things like spray foam, which will lead to a tighter envelope. Ms. Fogarty said she was not here for the original approval. She likes the idea of the stepped buildings and that they will have a better viewshed. She wondered why they were not intending to use heat pumps. She pointed out that the Maplewood development will use renewable energy. Mr. Dirr responded that one of the challenges is that they're developing 28 acres of land for 66 units, so the infrastructure costs are significant. That has to be balanced with the overall development cost. A heat pump system is more expensive than a 95-percent efficiency furnace with an exterior-mounted condensing unit. Mr. Hugo said that a study done by the county found in a very general way that they cost the same. The same firm that performed the study (Taitem Engineering) did an analysis for HOLT of a townhouse project in Varna. Quotes from three different vendors showed that heat pumps, on average, cost$3000 per townhouse more. For this project, the rough math would be 100 units times $3000, or $300,000 for this project. He has not found a case in which heat pumps cost the same or less. HOLT is implementing them a lot, so he's not against them. Ms. Fogarty asked if that was just the initial cost or the cost of the heat pump over time. Mr. Dirr said the challenge of total cost is that the lenders don't recognize the utility cost savings, so we're left with a hole since we don't have any way to charge more rent to pay for the up-front cost of heat pumps. Mr.Walters said the critical difference is that this is an affordable housing project; this is not a situation where the developer can just charge more rent. It's not, No heat pumps because it's going to cost our profit; this is about the funding mechanism and the tax credits that go into structuring an affordable housing deal. It's trying to balance the costs on the front end with what you're able to take to the market for affordable housing tax credits. Mr. Dirr said they would propose a split system: forced hot air, 95-percent efficient natural gas furnace for heating, with exterior pad-mounted compressors for cooling. Ms. Fogarty didn't think one playground was going to satisfy the needs of upwards of 58 children. She thought there should be a play area for older kids as well as for younger kids. Mr. Dirr said the torn board asked them to consider a play area for older kids. The development will also have open areas, like fields or meadows, for other types of recreational activities. They think one play structure for the residents is sufficient. The play structure they propose is comparable to the structure at the K-8 school his children attend. They'll hire a playground firm. They're open to including a play area for older kids, such as a half court for basketball. Planning Board Minutes 07.18.2017 Page 4 of 12 Ms. Fogarty asked about gardens. Mr. Dirr said there are multiple gardens on the 28 acres. The extent of the gardens will be determined by the interest of the residents.They envision two separate garden areas,both resident-driven: one for fruits and vegetables and the other for flowers. It makes sense to have the fruit and vegetable garden behind the clubhouse because kids can play in the playground while the parents garden. The size will be entirely generated by the residents. Ms. Fogarty asked if they were planning to offer a dog park and said that the original Holochuck approval didn't allow dogs and cats to run free. Mr. Dirr said that's the first time he's been asked about a dog park with respect to this development. They've done dog parks in other developments,but never in a townhome subdivision. They're trying to promote the social engagement that comes with people out walking, so his initial thinking is that they would not do a dog park. He said they'd be happy to ask the architect to identify an area to locate a fenced area for dogs. Ms. Fogarty said the original approval had bus passes, van pool service. They were offering one bus pass per unit, but what if there are two adults in that unit? Mr. Dirr said that the Holochuck subdivision went through a significant review and approval process and included elements dealing with transportation, such as the agreement to provide one bus pass per household.The applicant team will adhere to those requirements. If a household is interested in another bus pass, they can buy one.That wasn't part of the original approval, nor do they anticipate providing that. His reading of the prior approval was that should the need be identified, the devel- opment would provide a van service for the residents, and that obligation will be fulfilled. Ms. Fogarty asked about building materials. Mr. Dirr explained that the buildings are going to be stick frame construction. The exterior of the buildings will be low maintenance: a combination of stone or brick around the base and at entryways, and vinyl siding on the balance. The roof will be a 30-year asphalt shingle, the interior will be drywall, the flooring in the common areas will be vinyl plank, and there will be environmentally sensitive carpeting in the bedrooms. Ms. Fogarty said she finds that owner-occupied housing is better built and maintained than rental housing and that Holochuck was approved as owner-occupied. Mr. Dirr said the financing mechanism requires that they own the development for at least 15 years and that they have sufficient operating and replacement reserves to make sure it is well maintained. The investors who buy the tax credits to invest in the development are interested in the units being well maintained because they're putting cash up front as equity and taking the tax benefits over a 15- year period.They have far greater oversight than a typical for-sale development, from both a long-term maintenance and a management perspective. Investors find it comforting to know that there is one owner responsible for maintaining the entire subdivision, as opposed to, say, 66 different owners. Planning Board Minutes 07.18.2017 Page 5 of 12 Mr.Walters added that the long-term goal is to create affordable, owner-occupied units. It's necessary to wait out the 15 year period, at the end of which they can be transferred to ownership. Phase II is to do affordable for-sale units from day one, but that is very tricky because there are no tax credits available. Mr. Bosak said energy use is an issue salient for him. The three points he wanted to cover were: 1)Why we should require a supplemental EIS; 2)justification for requiring a supplemental EIS; and 3)why requiring a supplemental EIS would not impose a significant hardship on the applicant. His comments follow: He's not convinced that we're mitigating energies to the greatest extent practicable, even within the economic constraints of the project. To be convinced, he'd need to see a proper formal analysis, and the only way to do that is with a supplemental EIS. He wanted to make it clear that he was not trying to impede this project; in fact, the issues he raises won't significantly affect its progress. He was opposed to approval of the Holochuck project. He still believes that construction of over 100 units on West Hill will exacerbate traffic problems at the bottom of the hill during rush hour and that the traffic study used in an attempt to minimize this problem contained a serious methodological flaw. He has no new information that would justify reopening that issue or any other issue raised during the consideration that led to approval of the project. His concern is with the environmental issues that never got looked at, namely, energy use and the resulting greenhouse gas emissions. Development of 105 new housing units will result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to the increased use of energy.The planning board issued a positive declaration of environmental significance regarding Holochuck in 2007.That declaration says nothing about energy consumption; consequently, the scoping document and final EIS also say nothing. He believes this omission constitutes a serious procedural defect in our initial approval of the project, and now we have a chance to fix that. Let's consider what the law requires us to do in issuing a positive declaration: "To determine whether a proposed Type I or Unlisted action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment, the impacts that may be reasonably expected to result from the proposed action must be compared against the criteria in this subdivision. The following list is illustrative, not exhaustive. These criteria are considered indicators of significant adverse impacts on the environment:" of which(VI) is "a major change in the use of either the quantity or type of energy;" and adding upwards of one million kW of electrical use at that site plus x-amount of increased use of fossil fuel is a "major change" in the quantity of energy use. So the law says this is considered an indicator of a significant adverse impact and the law says we must consider it.We didn't do that. What are the possible consequences of that omission? The courts of New York have handed down decades of decisions affirming that there are three things we have to do to determine significance under SEQR: 1) identify the relevant areas of environmental concern; 2) take a hard look at them; and 3) make a reasoned elaboration of the basis for our determination. In this case, we not only didn't take a hard look at the energy issue called out specifically in the law, we didn't take any look at all. This is in sharp contrast to our recent consideration of the Maplewood project.As a result, there are no mitigations of energy use in either the original or the proposed new project. Fortunately, the SEQR process gives us a remedy for this omission: we can require a supplemental EIS to address "significant adverse environmental impacts not addressed, or inadequately addressed, in the EIS." Planning Board Minutes 07.18.2017 Page 6 of 12 1) Why require a supplemental EIS?To remedy what appears to be a glaring omission in the original process. He thinks it should be focused specifically on quantifying increased energy use and proposed mitigation to reduce the impact of such use to the greatest extent practica- ble. 2) Procedural justification: "The lead agency may require a supplemental EIS, limited to the specific significant adverse environmental impacts not addressed or inadequately addressed in the EIS that arise from: (a) changes proposed for the project; or (b) newly discovered infor- mation; or (c) a change in circumstances related to the project." Either (b) or (c)would pro- vide a legitimate basis for requiring a supplemental EIS. Is there (b) newly discovered infor- mation? Since we didn't consider information related to energy use, any information we got would be new information.An enormous amount of scientific data has been discovered on the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on the environment over the last ten years. There are also new developments in energy efficiency and new strategies for coping with the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. He thinks it likely that had this board been given this new scientific information back in 2007, it would have realized much earlier the mistake it made in not in- cluding the issue of energy use in the scoping document. Regarding (c) changes in circum- stances related to the project, he thinks we've got a very good reason here, too. In the SEQR Handbook: "a change in circumstances means any change in the physical setting of, or regula- tory standards applicable to, the proposed project." Is there change in the physical setting? Yes, the climate is decidedly different from what it was ten years ago: the average temperature is higher, catastrophic rainfall events are becoming more common, and the injection of more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is going to have a proportionally more damaging effect on the environment than it would have had ten years ago. 3) Regarding the impact on the applicant of requiring a supplemental EIS, we just went through everything involved in such a study when we approved the Maplewood project, and the Maplewood developers did a great job digging up the relevant research and identifying the most likely practices to look into. If the applicant takes the Maplewood EIS as a template, the job of creating a supplemental EIS for Ithaca Townhomes will be pretty straightforward: calcu- late the energy use and greenhouse gas impact of the units as now designed, then perform a market analysis to see which of the known mitigations are practicable within the economic constraints of the project. He would be surprised if it took more than a week to draft a sup- plemental EIS covering the same ground that was covered in the relevant sections of the Maplewood EIS. Ms. Collins said she was interested in learning more about where their funding comes from and what investors take into consideration. She doesn't see Arbor Housing and the NRP Group as typical developers like the developer of Maplewood.A well-respected local organization, INHS, is very similar to what we're looking at here. Mr. Dirr responded that the NRP Group is a national multi-family developer of workforce and market-rate (predominantly rental) housing and is the country's largest developer of affordable housing. Since the mid-90s, they've developed 30,000 units of multi-family housing. Until seven years ago, the predominant amount of that development was workforce housing. They started doing market-rate housing seven years ago, and the volume of their development went from 1600-1800 units per year to 3000 units per year. They develop both by themselves and with local partners. They had Planning Board Minutes 07.18.2017 Page 7 of 12 originally proposed this development with Arbor, based in Corning, but they're very focused on the rehabilitation of a property they own, so the partnership is unlikely on this development. NRP Group's driving force is that they see a significant need for middle-income workforce housing. INHS is also working on other projects right now. NRP Group manages 15,000 of the units they've developed, so they have significant management expertise. They act as the general contractor for the majority of the work they build.Their financing mechanism is similar to what INHS uses: They get an allocation of tax credits from New York State Homes and Community Renewal(HCR) and sell the credits to investors, who give them cash up front and use the tax credits to offset other income.The tax credits comprise about 60 percent of the total project cost for the development. The balance is permanent debt, subordinate debt, and deferred developer fee, so NRP puts a portion of their fee back into the deal as a long-term loan. The flip side of the tax credits is that the developer agrees that the rents will be limited and targeted to an income bandwidth, which, in this development, ranges from 50 to 130 percent of the AMI. The federal credits are eligible only up to 60 percent of the AMI. State credits are eligible up to 90 percent. There are no tax credits above 90 percent of the AMI. In those instances, the developer pays for those units purely out of equity and permanent debt. So the rents are capped by the state and those rents anticipate both the utilities and the rents. The developer needs to charge enough rent to pay the debt service, but not more than the AMI threshold. Investors put their cash in on day one so the developer can afford to build the development. Investors take the credits over ten years to offset their income and have to remain in the transaction for 15 years. They are interested in ensuring that the developer remains compliant for those 15 years. If the property isn't maintained or if units are rented to people who aren't income-eligible, that would jeopardize their tax credits and the developer would have a hard time paying their money back because it's been used to build the development. That's why there are also operating and reserve requirements.At the end of the 15 year compliance period, the development can be opened up to sale.To encourage long- term tenancy, residents are given credits for the duration of their residency so they can purchase the units more cheaply. NRP Group has done 7500 units across the country that are designed to convert to home ownership at the end of the tax credit compliance period. Since they started in the mid-90s, they've seen that transition start to happen with some of the initial developments: 75 to 80 percent of the units convert fairly rapidly. This development is not targeted to very low-income households, but they can't prevent someone from using a Section 8 voucher if they want to live in the development: it's against the law. This is a for-profit organization. Mr. Haefeli asked for clarification on why it would be a problem to finance heat pumps. Mr. Dirr said that when HCR looks at the rents, it looks at a utility allowance, and that utility allowance is a standard allowance. Even if we show them studies that show it will be half that cost, they will not allow us to increase the rents above the maximum rent threshold. Mr.Walters said there is a detailed scoping process that decides what's examined in the EIS.The developer at the time did a draft EIS, and the board then required a supplemental about five years ago. He agreed with Mr. Bosak that none of the changes being proposed will result in any significant adverse impacts that were not examined in the EIS.As a SEQR lawyer, he would take the position that it would be inappropriate for a board to say that the real change is the board itself. He would disagree that the changes in our society relative to climate change in the last five years trigger the need for a supplemental EIS. He would also disagree that it could be done in a week; a supplemental EIS has to go through the same process an EIS must go through. There are a number of rounds and a Planning Board Minutes 07.18.2017 Page 8 of 12 number of comment periods. He once did an EIS that took six months, and that was as fast as humanly possible based on every timeframe in SEQR, and in that case, there was no scoping. Mr. Haefeli noted that the supplemental EIS done five years ago was about the dump site. Mr.Walters agreed, but said that any issues the board felt were not adequately examined in the draft EIS should have been examined at that time: it was the board's obligation to raise those issues. Mr. Haefeli argued that it is a function of increased awareness based on what people knew and understood at that time, and not just an oversight. Mr. Hugo said there's a lot of dialog going on in this community about getting off fossil fuels, and he supports that. For this project, they are pursuing Green Communities,which ties into the funding. There are requirements they have to meet that are much like LEED.They will be pushed to meet higher R values, better insulate the buildings, better seal the buildings. The project doesn't have to pursue Green Communities funding,but it is. This project is better environmentally than Holo- chuck. Mr. Haefeli said he doesn't just want to see things meet minimums. On the particulars of energy use, what we were concerned about with Maplewood was getting locked into gas. Electricity is more flexible because you can change the source of it in many ways. He would encourage that. Mr. Dirr responded that this is where they have multiple competing interests. HCR, the agency that allocates the tax credits, hates electric as a heat source because their mentality is still that electric is very expensive. There's a little chink in HCR's flexibility in that they don't have an absolute prohibi- tion against electric. The developer is in the middle, finding the best way to design and move forward and negotiate compromise. These are federal tax credits allocated to the state based on population, and the state allocates them to development projects, either as 4% credits, which are as of right, or 9% credits,which are allocated via a competitive process. That enables the development to charge 50- and 60-percent rent because the debt is less. Tax credits came out in 1986. NRP Group applied for 9% last year for this development and did not get it.When they applied, they anticipated using the approvals that were in place. Because there's a need, the agency encouraged them to reapply. Since they had the time, they went back to the design professionals to see if the product could be improved. HCR is a bureaucracy that is slow to change. NRP Group will reapply for the credits in October, and an allocation will be made in December. Ms. Collins asked whether they would still be able to do the project if they did not get the 9%, but got the 4% as of right, and if so, whether it would narrow the range of AMI. Mr. Dirr said it would force them to charge higher rents because they'd have to support more debt. They would have to have more rents in the 90-to 130-percent range. Mr. Haefeli remarked that since he wasn't on the board in 2011, he doesn't know why the project wasn't looked at carefully as it relates to energy, but he thought that the fundamental arguments made by Mr. Bosak were sound. He wondered whether there might be a way to achieve the goals outside another supplemental. Planning Board Minutes 07.18.2017 Page 9 of 12 Mr. Bosak said that Mr.Walters had mischaracterized his argument. The reason we should consider a supplemental is not because we're a different board. His argument in favor of another supplemental EIS is based on two things: 1) In 2007,we failed to consider an environmental impact the law requires us to consider. He considers that a glaring defect. 2)We are allowed under state law to create a supplemental EIS on one of three possible grounds, any one of which would be sufficient. He pointed out that two of them were sufficient: 1)We have a lot more information now than the board did in 2007; and 2) the physical environment has changed. This has nothing to do with this being a different board. Mr. Haefeli agreed: he's not trying to fix something that did not happen in 2007. He doesn't think it's an omission; it was based on information they had at the time. Mr. Bosak suggested that it might suffice if they provided the equivalent of the kind of analysis we would get in a supplemental EIS.We could have a discussion of the things that could be done and the reasons they're being done or not being done. Mr.Walters said that Mr. Bosak's characterization is that there's a change in circumstance; his own is that it's not a change in circumstance: it's a change in the view of the board, with the central premise being that it should have been looked at. From the legal side, the statute of limitations is four months to challenge a SEQR determination that you view as defective. Nobody can challenge the failure to address that issue. He would also suggest that staff's directive to the applicants was: don't make significant changes, because it could trigger a supplemental EIS. The reason this is back before the board is because the applicant requested changes. It would be very easy to rely on the original, but you wouldn't get the value that's been proposed. If a supplemental EIS were required, they could simply withdraw the request for changes and rely on the original approvals. They don't want that to happen. However, if the board wants additional information, the developer can provide it. Ms. Fogarty said that part of the approval was van pooling. Her understanding is that people will be attracted to the development because there's van pooling, but she did not see that as an option here. Ms. Brock responded said that van services have minimum requirements; they won't run vans with one person. It's in the draft resolution. Ms. Balestra stated that her research shows that van pool services need a critical mass of people in a residential community in order to supply a van. It is not the case that a community will have a van pool service and then if people don't use it, they no longer supply it.With the Holochuck project, it was not going to be part of the HOA; rather, the HOA was going to contract with an outside service that would not have provided a van pool unless they had a certain number of people sign up for it. Mr.Wilcox said they've agreed to abide by the same conditions as applied to Holochuck. He asked if the board thought it was inconsistent with the comp plan: they did not. The board also did not think that there would be any new visual or traffic impacts from the proposed project. He asked if the changes would negatively affect the community character relative to the owner/renter issue. Ms. Meier Swain thought there would be no impact to community character given that there are other rental units in the area, both across the street from the hospital and down the street from the hospital. There are also changing residents in the senior communities. Planning Board Minutes 07.18.2017 Page 10 of 12 Mr.Wilcox commented that the way he thinks planning board members should operate is to read the materials, think about them, and then come to the meeting and listen to everyone else, including members of the board, our experts, the applicant, and members of the public, and take all the information in and then form an opinion. He's concerned that when a board member comes in with an opinion already formed,you haven't heard from others who could influence your opinion. It's better to come in with an open mind and then form an opinion. Mr. Bosak said that if he already has a position, he likes to let everybody know what that position is so they can respond to it. Mr.Wilcox responded that maybe Mr. Bosak shouldn't have a position until he's heard others. He asked Ms. Brock to weigh in on the energy issue. Ms. Brock said that Taitem Engineering did a study in January and followed up in May with a 34-page study that was much more specific than the study Mr. Hugo mentioned regarding the Varna project. Their conclusion for townhouses was that the installation cost for a condensing gas furnace and air conditioning system was the same as for an air-source heat pump system. They estimated the cost for both types of system at$10,000 each. That did not take into account any potential federal or state incentives that might be available for the heat pump systems nor that the cost of heat pump systems has been falling over the years and that they anticipate they will continue to fall, whereas for the condensing gas furnace and air conditioning system, the prices are stable. She asked Mr. Hugo to comment because he said the cost was $3000. Mr. Hugo responded that the county study for Varna happened after the updated study from Taitem. The fact that the study says both systems cost$10,000 indicates that Taitem wasn't just looking at first costs; their study was dealing with many variables. It seems that Taitem was faced with writing a study about general practices, and so they used general terms.Taitem is also the engineer of record in the Varna project, so even more recently, they got pricing from three contractors, and none of the heat pump costs were lower. The lowest bidder's price for heat pumps was $3000 more per townhouse. So, one was a study that was not about a particular building and this one was. He agreed that the cost of heat pumps is coming down as they're becoming more of a general practice. Ms. Brock asked whether there's a savings in appliances for electric versus gas that might offset the higher cost of heat pumps. Mr. Hugo did not know the answer. They also looked at the energy usage by the tenants for both gas and electric systems. In terms of tenant cost, it's not an issue because it was a difference of about$15 per month for the total electric bill. He believed the heat pump system had a slightly higher utility cost. Mr. Dirr said they buy all Energy Star appliances. The feedback is that people have a preference for gas stoves and gas dryers because electric dryers take longer. In the clubhouse, they plan to provide washers and dryers for everyone to use and provide hookups in the townhouses. Ms. Brock said that Mr. Bosak correctly stated the standards for a supplemental EIS. He made a statement regarding newly discovered information: since the board didn't consider energy usage and Planning Board Minutes 07.18.2017 Page 11 of 12 greenhouse gas emissions in the EIS, all the information is new. She doesn't think that would be the correct way to look at it. But he had a separate line of reasoning, which was that the amount of scientific data discovered in the last x years is relevant, and now we have new strategies to deal with greenhouse gas emissions. She did not know whether we could use that as a basis for requiring a supplemental EIS. She would have to research the issue. The same would apply with a change of circumstances: the climate conditions in the last few years have changed so dramatically that is a change in the physical setting of the project. The SEQR Handbook doesn't talk much about what that means; it mentions only any change in the physical setting or regulatory standards. If that were enough to justify an SEIS, then it seems that for virtually every large project that hasn't been con- structed and comes in with some changes, it the energy use and greenhouse gas emissions weren't looked at before,you could say there's been a change in the physical setting because our climate change is happening faster than anybody expected, therefore we have to have an SEIS. She'd have to look at case law for guidance. Mr. Bosak said that it's not the case that the changes in the proposal are sufficient to trigger a supplemental EIS. It's not because of changes; it's because of(b) new information and (c) a change in the physical circumstance. He would be satisfied with a formal written analysis before we sign off on the project: he'd like to see the numbers. Mr.Wilcox said he thinks that Mr. Bosak has been clear on what he wants and that the rest of the board would like to see this information also.What he wants to hear from the applicant is:We want to build workforce housing; it's a priority of this county and of this town.And we want energy efficiency, which is also a priority of this county and this torn. But there seems to be a problem doing both things at the same time. Here's what the alternate systems cost. Here's the impact on rents. Here's what we can charge for rents based on tax credits. Mr.Wilcox would like them to provide the numbers that support what they're saying, and we may be able to avoid the need for a supplemental EIS. Ms. Collins said she agrees with many of the points Mr. Bosak brought up, but pointed out that we have a crisis in this area for affordable housing. The environmental issue wasn't on our radar screen back then. She wants board members to look at the concerns in the context of what's being proposed and look for a compromise. She asked that the applicant elaborate on the green standard that was mentioned. Mr. Dirr responded that it's called Enterprise Green Communities. Their deadline for financing is October, and if they don't get the approval this time, they'll have to wait another year in order to get the 9% credits. That doesn't help the community respond to the need. In some jurisdictions, they're doing Passive House, and are getting complaints from residents who report that it's too tight of an envelope and it's causing people to be sick.The investors are unhappy with Passive House and would rather that developers use mechanical systems that are tried and true. He's very sensitive to unintend- ed consequences. NRP Group likes using best practices and while they want to improve the way they do things, they don't want to be the canary that dies in the coal mine because they're trying some- thing out, and it ends up being a significant problem. They hired a talented and progressive design team who will help them respond to specific requests from the board. Ms. Meier Swain stated that she understands and respects the need for additional information, but wanted the board to consider that if it does not change the viability of the project, what is the Planning Board Minutes 07-18-2017 Page 12 of 12 information worth? If it does not allow the project to continue and meet the eligibility requirements we're looking for from workforce and affordable housing, is the additional information worthwhile? Mr. Bosak thought it would be because we're not just here for that. We're required to take a hard look at the energy issues and to make sure those issues are mitigated to the greatest extent possible. Mr. Wilcox pointed out that one of the ways to mitigate the energy impact is through the availability of affordable workforce housing. Mr.Walters requested a copy of the Maplewood EIS to use as a roadmap and said they will provide additional information. Mr. Dirr commented that there's no chance that a workforce housing development is going to be able to achieve the same standard as a student housing development for Cornell. Mr. Wilcox agreed that Maplewood can charge a lot more money. He thinks the changes in this proposal will improve the subdivision. Mr.Wilcox gave the public the opportunity to speak. Mr. Harlan spoke in favor of the project. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - No one came forward to address the board. AGENDA ITEM PB Resolution No. 2017.049: Minutes of June 6, 2017 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by John Beach RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of June 6, 2017, as amended. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Haefeli, Beach, Meier Swain, Bosak Abstentions: Collins, Fogarty Adjournment Upon a motion by Leibe Meier Swain, the meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, " [U bra DeAugisti-fte, DeputyTo�pClerk