Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2017-08-15 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, August 15, 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,Jon Bosak, Melissa Hill Town Staff Present: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Dan Thaete, Town Engineer; David O'Shea, Civil Engineer; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Torn; Debra DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr.Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Ithaca Townhomes Development(formerly Holochuck Homes Subdivision) Modifications, NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road). The Planning Board will consider if a Supple- mental Environmental Impact Statement will be required for the proposed modifications Mr.Walters gave an overview of what the applicant had submitted in response to the discussion at the last meeting. They agreed to hire Taitem Engineering to do an analysis to look at the difference between the impacts and the costs associated with installing electric heat pump versus HVAC natural gas systems.The report concluded that the difference would be between$3500 and $4600, depending on the size of the units; as you go up in size, they get more expensive and the cost differential gets greater. The total approximate difference for the project was $428,000. The report outlines a reduction in operating cost of between$226 and$248 per year, depending on the size of the unit. Because this is an affordable housing project, rents are based on income, so the higher initial cost can't be passed along to the tenants.To make the project viable with heat pumps, the applicant discussed the possibility of a PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes)with the torn supervisor. Mr. Dirr said the PILOT would enable the developer to borrow more money to pay for the increased cost of the heat pumps. Mr.Walters asked the board to keep in mind that this is an affordable housing project with a competitive process. They applied for affordable housing tax credits last year and didn't get them. If they can't offset the cost of heat pumps, it's less likely that the application will be approved by the state. So they're suggesting that they do the heat pump approach and that the board approve the subdivision contingent on the applicant getting a PILOT to offset the costs. Mr. Dirr said they have not met with the town board yet. He had asked the supervisor if he thought the torn board might be amendable to a PILOT. Mr. Goodman said that the torn board shares the sentiments of planning board to reduce fossil fuel usage, and he thought they might be positively inclined. Ms. Brock said she didn't think it would be appropriate to approve a project contingent on tax abatements that may or not be received.The board needs to know what the project is that's being proposed and make your determination of environmental significance.As proposed, is there the Planning Board Meeting 08.15.2017 Page 2 of 16 potential for a significant adverse environmental impact that's related to any of the criteria that exists for requiring a supplemental environmental impact statement? Mr. Bosak said he was really disappointed. He was glad to see movement on the heat pump question and a good faith effort being made in that direction,but heat pumps were just a small part of what we were talking about. The list was in the Maplewood EIS. There's an estimate of the impact, a baseline, how to maximize solar access, the window-to-wall ratio, wind energy systems, aspects of the building envelope, solar thermal feasibility, solar PV installation, and Table 5-2, a list of relevant ECMs.We already know these are relevant because Maplewood is building to these specifications.We need an estimate of the energy use and resulting greenhouse gas emissions from the project.We need a consideration of every ECM that stands a reasonable chance of mitigating the environmental impact; from each of those ECMs, we need to know the impact on energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, the cost of implementing that ECM, and the effect of that incremental cost on the affordability of the units. For example,you could conclude that this ECM would reduce energy use by 5%, but that it will raise monthly rents by x amount. That way, we have a clear picture of what the impact is without mitigation,what the impact is with a certain mitigation, and whether or not that mitigation will work economically. That's the information we need in order to say that we've taken a hard look at this. He's cognizant of the problem they have with funding the project. Obviously they're operating within a certain constraint, and it's entirely possible that when we've gone through this entire exercise,we'll say that they're doing everything they can do and still build this project.We need to see it document- ed and analyzed in order to demonstrate that we aren't being arbitrary in applying one set of expecta- tions to somebody like Maplewood and completely different ones to Ithaca Tom nhomes.We made Cornell jump through hoops of fire, and in this case, it's received no consideration whatsoever. The Taitem study doesn't take into consideration the cost of construction itself, so it's not complete, but the figures they came up with are good enough to start with for the impact.And the impact is huge. It says that the way they plan to build it, they're going to be producing 353.1 metric tons of CO2 per year from this project. So qualifying the impacts is covered, and now we just have to run through the ECMs. The choice of the board is whether the social good outbalances the damage to the environ- ment. By changing from high-end market-rate housing to workforce housing, they've changed the balance a bit. His concern is that they observe the process properly in terms of SEQR, which means taking a hard look at every major environmental impact. So we can either go through this process and do the calculations during the planning board meeting or require a supplemental EIS. Ms. Brock responded that the standard is not whether they've mitigated all environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable; in fact,we don't even look at mitigations right now, and we do not do any balancing of social and environmental impacts.All of the things you're talking about are things you do for an EIS process.We're not at that stage;you only do that if you've made a pos dec. The only thing you are supposed to be looking at right now is: Is there a potential for a significant adverse environmental impact, and you have to show that one of the circumstances exists that triggers the need for a supplemental EIS. So we should be walking through these factors first,because if none of these factors apply, that's the end of this;you don't do anything else. You were talking about requiring them to supply all kinds of information, which is information you require in an EIS.And you're saying that if they come back with this information,you might neg dec this. It doesn't work that way. Mr. Bosak said he thought we issued a pos dec about ten years ago. Planning Board Meeting 08.15.2017 Page 3 of 16 Ms. Brock said there was an EIS for this project, and this board, through scoping, did not list energy use or air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions as something that needed to be looked at in the scoping. That was done, and now you have to look at whether there's something under the SEQR regulations for when a supplemental EIS can be required that triggers their need to go back and do that now. That's what the board should be looking at. Mr. Bosak maintained that two of those criteria are met in this case: 1) it's changed since last time, and 2)we have received new information showing this to be a major environmental impact. Ms. Brock responded that it has to be information that was not reasonably available to this board when it made its determination. Back when they made their decision on scoping, greenhouse gas emissions were known to be a problem.The DEC had, in fact, come out with their policy on how to evaluate greenhouse gas emissions in EISs before accepting them as adequate. Various state agencies had been requiring EISs to look at greenhouse gas emissions back in the early-to-mid 2000s; the NYS Department of Transportation has been requiring greenhouse gas analyses since November of 2003, and they've issued draft guidance documents on how to look at carbon dioxide emissions from proposed projects, transportation improvement programs, and long-range plans. Even though they never finalized it, they've been applying these in all their project reviews since 2003. Back in February 2008, the DEC, in looking at plan amendments to a state-run ski center and at a development right alongside of it, required a very detailed discussion of climate issues in the EIS. For a big development in Sullivan County, in 2007, the DEC cited greenhouse gas emissions as a basis for declaring itself lead agency for the review, and they looked very much at remote ex-urban subdivisions that might be contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. So all of this was known and being looked at prior to scoping being done on Holochuck. The scoping was accepted in 2008, and DEC had their guidance out there when the EIS was done. She thinks it would be very difficult to say that there is newly discovered information that wasn't available to this board. People knew the effects of greenhouse gases on climate change.We now have more data, but she doesn't think the fact that there will be emissions from this project was anything we didn't know. It's not like we went from zero to these numbers; it's just that this board did not consider it important at the time. That decision was made and that EIS was done. So she personally doesn't think that the standard of newly discovered information has been met.As to the other standard regarding whether there's been a change in circumstances related to the project, DEC is very clear that those have to be "related to the project." What exactly that means isn't clear. There's a question as to whether a change in circumstances must really be with this project or whether it can be a global problem. There haven't been new regulations, there's no zoning changes in terms of the project. She's researched New York State and federal court cases and found nothing dealing with climate change and SEQR and how to look at these criteria, but she thinks it would be difficult for the board to justify a supplemental EIS by saying that what's happening here fits under those. The third criteria the board discussed at the last meeting and didn't think it applied was whether there are impacts arising from changes proposed to the project that might be a significant adverse impact. So we're looking at newly discovered information or a change in circumstances related to the project. She said at the last meeting that she would need to do some research to see what guidance she got from cases, and there isn't any, but she did find all this other information about what was going on at the time or before this board approved the scoping. That's informing her view. Mr.Wilcox commented that Ms. Brock started out by stating that the idea of balancing environmen- tal, social, and economic factors wasn't relevant in this case. Planning Board Meeting 08.15.2017 Page 4 of 16 Ms. Brock said all you're supposed to look at if you find that one of these three criteria is met is whether there's a potential for a significant adverse environmental impact. That's all you look at. Don't balance. Don't ask whether they're doing all the mitigations they can do. She said she should have stressed that at the last meeting. Some of the things that were discussed then are now being brought up again, and she should have stopped it at the time. Ms. Fogarty wondered whether the board can ask for this information if we vote that it's not neces- sary to have a supplemental. Ms. Brock responded that you can ask, but you can't require it under SEQR. She asked whether Ms. Fogarty was asking for information they could give right now or information they'd have to research and come back with. If you're talking about greenhouse gas emissions, on what basis are you applying the request? Mr.Wilcox asked why this would be relevant in this specific instance. Ms. Fogarty said even if we can't require it under SEQR, it is relevant how the energy is being used and what the emissions are. If you're saying we don't have sufficient reason to go back and get a supplemental, are you saying we can't ask for the information? Ms. Brock said it would be inappropriate to delay approval or consideration of approval for infor- mation that you are not going to be able to do anything with in terms of making your decision on whether to approve or disapprove the project. It's not relevant if you determine that an SEIS is not required. Ms. Fogarty asked whether it was relevant to making our decision to have requested the information on heat pumps. Ms. Brock said no, she should have cut it off at the last meeting. She told Mr. Bosak after that meeting that he was applying the wrong standard, and she thought he understood it.The standard is not whether they've mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, which is what you're trying to get at when you want all this information on heat pumps and energy conservation. Mr. Bosak said it's about taking hard look at it. Regarding balancing, he was only trying to explain why he was so much friendlier to this project than the last one.With regard to new information, Ms. Brock gave us a long list on why this board should have been concerned,but he could not find one word to indicate it had even crossed this board's mind. So she's building his case when she says there are all these reasons they should have thought about it, but they didn't. Ms. Brock asked whether he was suggesting that this board had been unaware that greenhouse gas emissions exist and would be emitted from this project with the type of fuel source they proposed and that greenhouse gas emissions might be contributing to climate change. Mr. Bosak said you certainly can't tell from the record that they were aware of it. He's trying to explain why he's concerned; that's not the reason for going to an SEIS. There are two reasons for that: one reason is that we have new information which points out that the project, as proposed, will Planning Board Meeting 08.15.2017 Page 5 of 16 result in 78% more greenhouse gas emissions than going with electric. He didn't know that; he bet this is new information that has just come to our attention. Ms. Brock said that's not the standard. The standard is: Did the project, as proposed, have potential for significant adverse environmental impacts?You don't look at how much they could decrease emissions by if they did something else. This board determined that it was not concerned with greenhouse gas emissions from the project, as proposed, using natural gas.That decision was made. Mr. Bosak said he's not challenging that authority. He pointed out that with regard to the third criterion, if all these factors have to be local to the project to be relevant, there's no business having either energy usage or greenhouse gas emissions in the SEQR process because greenhouse gas emissions are never a local problem; they're always a global problem Ms. Brock responded that she's only talking about SEIS criteria, not the EIS criteria. The DEC specifically added the words "related to the project" in 1996 when considering a change in circum- stances. It has nothing to do with whether there's a problem. In an example in the SEQR handbook, they talk about a change in zoning related to where the project is located, and they talk about new regulations that might apply to the project. They're fairly local examples. She did research and couldn't find anything specific about that. DEC always gives the most obvious examples in the handbook, so we're always struggling with harder questions.Would a court find that global changes are a change in circumstance related to the project? She didn't know. Mr. Bosak said the fact that the SEQR form even lists things like greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption means that we are concerned with more than what relates to this project. Mr.Wilcox said this is a first for this board to look at a previously approved project that had a draft, final, and supplemental environmental impact statement that has come back with a project change. His interpretation is that he's looking at the project being proposed vis a vis the project already approved, and he's looking at the changes that this project has over the approved project, and based on those changes, whether there's a potential for a significant adverse environmental impact.And the answer is no. The units are generally smaller. Newly discovered information seems to be the debatable standard. Did we know about global warming when we did the environmental review?Yes, global warming has been known. It's higher up on the list now, and people are paying more attention to it, but he's not worried about that. A change in circumstances related to the project: what circumstances related to the project?Just think if they built what was approved; we wouldn't be here discussing this. Mr. Haefeli concurred, saying that it's not the project's fault. It was obviously on people's radar back then, and why they chose not to pursue it, he doesn't know. But that's not what's in front of us. We do have the opportunity to ask the applicant to pursue better practices using what leverage we can. There's a limit to what we can do. They'd like it approved, and we'd like to see electric heat. There's what we we're allowed to do and what's legal, so all we can do is seek the goodwill of the applicant. Mr.Wilcox asked how we balance the need to protect the climate while at the same time trying to build affordable housing in Tompkins County that everyone says is so desperately needed. The cost of these energy-saving devices is coming down, and maybe it will come to a point where we can satisfy two goals at the same time: build workforce housing where a couple making $50,000 a year can buy a house and live near where they work instead of having to drive from a neighboring county and clog Planning Board Meeting 08.15.2017 Page 6 of 16 up the roads and burn gasoline and spew emissions out of their tailpipe. He doesn't think we're there yet. Mr. Haefeli said the irony is that by switching to all electric, it makes the housing more affordable for the people living in it. He asked whether HCR takes utility costs into consideration. Mr.Walters responded that there's a utility allocation: they don't actually look at cost; they use a range of numbers the state has set as the standard. Mr. Dirr added that one of the challenges is that HCR, notwithstanding that they say they want to be innovative, balance that with needing to look at past practices to justify things.When they look at what utility allowances they allow, they look at the history of what utilities have cost them; they don't consider what it will cost the people to live there.We could make the argument that by doing it with heat pumps, the project is going to be more cost effective. They hear that and discount it, pointing to their historical data.And because it's going to cost more money, they're not going to give us as many points. So, even though it's going to save money down the road, they ding us because it's going to cost more money up front. Our motivation in coming to the planning board was to constructively offer more enhancements to the project.We were unaware of the heightened desire not to use fossil fuels. We've absorbed that and have come up with a vehicle that would allow us to be responsive to that local priority. One more hurdle for heat pumps to overcome with HCR is that up until a couple years ago, there was a prohibition to do electric-heated units.We're now proposing eliminating all natural gas in the development. Mr.Walters apologized for not providing what the board wanted and said he thought it was estab- lished at the last meeting that the Maplewood analysis took six months and a lot of money and that the applicant would provide an analysis from Taitem to identify the cost differential and quantify the emissions. Ms. Brock said the contingency wouldn't work, but the board might want to approve the project with the requirement that we seek a PILOT. Mr. Dirr can take it to the torn board and work through the process. If that can't be accomplished, we'll have to come back. Mr.Wilcox said he doesn't want them back again. To a question from Ms. Fogarty, Mr. Dirr said the utilities are not included in the rent. Ms. Fogarty commented that the second part of going all electric is to have the electricity come from renewable resources. Mr. Dirr said there is no way they can provide that assurance because HCR would never agree to it. It locks them in and reduces the ability for the development to get the best cost for the units.The tenants are paying the utilities, and the utilities and the rent are capped at a maximum level so the units remain affordable. If the utility costs are, say, $120 using a renewable source for the electric and $100 on the open market, the development would be taking a$20 hit for the difference, and there's no way an investor will absorb that uncertainty because they could be boxed into a corner.The other component is that the tenants are free to choose their utility provider, although that wouldn't be mandated. One of the reasons we meter the utilities separately is so the tenants only pay what they use and so they're encouraged to be more efficient with their use. Planning Board Meeting 08.15.2017 Page 7 of 16 Mr. Haefeli said he understood why they're using a traditional model and that hopefully market forces will address this issue. Ms. Fogarty said it's possible to encourage people moving into the development to seek out renewa- bles. She suggested they go to the county as well for money because they wrote the GML letter. Mr.Walters said the PILOT would involve county money. Mr. Dirr said they are pursuing both 9% tax credits and 4%. His objective is to build the structures as soon as possible, and he believes the quickest vehicle to doing that is via the 9%, which would enable them to start construction in May or June; they'd have to wait until the end of the summer with the 4%.With the 9%, they're capped at how many tax credits they can get in one application, and that's why the initial 66 units are mentioned. If they get the 4%, they could build the entire 105 units. His priority is to provide workforce housing as soon as possible, so he's providing two options to HCR and letting them decide. Ms. Balestra said she re-read the GML letter from the county. Normally, the county tells the board that they have to incorporate the recommendations, which usually include modifying the proposal accordingly.When she re-read it, it says they "recommend the applicant explore, and document, options including but not limited to" solar PV and heat pumps.And specifically in terms of heat pumps, the recommendation is simply "the consideration of ground-or air-source heat pumps," not that the project has to include them. In terms of solar PV, they "recommend that at least half of the area of each rooftop be oriented to allow" solar panels. PB Resolution No. 2017-052: SEQR, Ithaca Townhomes (formerly Holochuck Homes Subdivision), 115+/-Tax Parcels (see Whereas #1 below), Between NYS Route 96 &NYS Route 89 Moved by Fred Wilcox; Seconded by John Beach WHEREAS: 1. This project is the Consideration of Modifications to the Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed Ithaca Tov nhomes Development(formerly Holochuck Homes Subdivision), located to the east of NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24.2-1-1.1 through 1.6, 24.2-1-2.1 through 2.6, 24.2-1-3.1 through 3.4, 24.2-1-4.1 through 4.2, 24.2-1-5.1 through 5.4, 24.2-1-6.1 through 6.6, 24.2-1-7.1 through 7.6, 24.2-1-8.1 through 8.6, 24.2-1-9.1 through 9.3, 24.2-1-10.1 through 10.3, 24.2-1-11.1 through 11.6, 24.2-1-12.1 through 12.6, 24.2-1- 13.1 through 13.6, 24.2-1-14.1 through 14.6, 24.2-1-15.1 through 15.6, 24.2-1-16.1 through 16.6, 24.2-1-17.1 through 17.6, 24.2-1-18.1 through 18.6, 24.2-1-19.1 through 19.6, 24.2-1-20.1 through 20.6, 24.2-1-23.1 through 23.8, 24.2-1-24, Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residen- tial Zones. The proposed modifications include replacing one of the proposed townhome units with a community clubhouse, adding a playground and community gardens, adding additional sidewalks, modifying the building elevations to provide a variety of building facades and unit types, reducing the building heights, and eliminating the garages. The subdivision roads are pro- posed to be maintained as private facilities and at least the first 66 units of the 105 townhome units will be for rent, affordable to those making between 50% and 130% of Tompkins County Planning Board Meeting 08.15.2017 Page 8 of 16 Area Median Household Income. Holochuck Homes LLC, Owner; NRP Properties LLC, Appli- cant; P. Christopher Dirr, Vice President-Development, NRP Properties LLC,Agent; and 2. The Holochuck Homes Subdivision proposal went through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process, including Draft, Supplemental and Final EIS's, which concluded with the Torn of Ithaca Planning Board adopting the Findings Statement on April 5, 2011; and 3. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board granted Final Subdivision Approval for the Holochuck Homes Subdivision on April 17, 2012; and 4. The current Ithaca Tom nhomes application includes changes from the approved Holochuck Homes project; and 5. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has examined the current application, comparing the application with the Holochuck Homes Subdivision EIS and Findings Statement in conjunction with the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617.9 (a) (7) NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Torn of Ithaca Planning Board hereby finds that the Ithaca Townhomes development proposal will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of changes proposed for the project, based on the information and reasons in the memo from Christine Balestra, Planner, to the Planning Board, dated August 9, 2017 and the additional information provided by the applicant, dated August 10, 2017. Therefore, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement does not need to be prepared for the project. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak, Hill AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Modifications to the Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed Ithaca Tom nhomes Development(formerly Holochuck Homes Subdivision), located to the east of NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24.2-1-1.1 through 1.6, 24.2-1- 2.1 through 2.6, 24.2-1-3.1 through 3.4, 24.2-1-4.1 through 4.2, 24.2-1-5.1 through 5.4, 24.2-1-6.1 through 6.6, 24.2-1-7.1 through 7.6, 24.2-1-8.1 through 8.6, 24.2-1-9.1 through 9.3, 24.2-1-10.1 through 10.3, 24.2-1-11.1 through 11.6, 24.2-1-12.1 through 12.6, 24.2-1-13.1 through 13.6, 24.2-1- 14.1 through 14.6, 24.2-1-15.1 through 15.6, 24.2-1-16.1 through 16.6, 24.2-1-17.1 through 17.6, 24.2-1-18.1 through 18.6, 24.2-1-19.1 through 19.6, 24.2-1-20.1 through 20.6, 24.2-1-23.1 through 23.8, and 24.2-1-24, Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential Zones. The proposed modifications include replacing one of the proposed tom nhome units with a community clubhouse, adding a playground and community gardens, adding additional sidewalks, modifying the building elevations to provide a variety of building facades and unit types, reducing the building heights, and eliminating the garages. The subdivision roads are proposed to be maintained as private facilities and at least the first 66 units of the 105 tom nhome units will be for rent, affordable to those making between 50% and 130% of Tompkins County Area Median Household Income. Holochuck Homes LLC, Owner; NRP Properties LLC,Applicant; P. Christopher Dirr, Vice President-Development, NRP Properties LLC, Agent Planning Board Meeting 08.15.2017 Page 9 of 16 Mr.Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Mr.Wilcox noted that there was discussion at the last meeting about a half basketball court and additional playground area for older kids. He thought it was a good idea. Ms. Ritter said she did not think a basketball court was a good idea.We've had complaints from people living next to basketball courts who don't want to hear basketballs dribbling all night. The play area should be something quieter and more open where kids can play soccer. Mr. Dirr said they're happy to put one in. The impact of noise on neighbors might be mitigated because it's downhill and far away from neighbors. He thought it should be located near the club- house, fairly removed from the neighbors, and that there be low-level lighting, if any. They acknowledge the need for more play areas for teens. Behind the clubhouse is an open meadow. He would suggest using the meadow for soccer, Frisbee - that it be versatile. Mr.Wilcox said he's not a dog person, but he thinks it's reasonable to delineate an area that can be used as a dog park if the residents want one and if it's okay with the homeowners' association. Mr. Dirr said there will be a tenant association. He's open to putting in a dog park, but the question is: how big? He's not advocating an acre of fenced area for dogs. In other locations, they've mounted both receptacles for dog waste and baggie dispensers on the sidewalks. They've worked hard to promote engagement, and in his neighborhood, people walk their dogs. Ms. Fogarty said it doesn't have to be an acre, just big enough to throw a ball. Ms. Hill commented that having a dog park is a big deal for some people. Mr.Wilcox asked whether the board should make them build it or just show a place on the plat where they can build it. Ms. Fogarty asked how anybody who lives there will know it's on the plat. What's the process if they want it? Is there money set aside to do it, or do they have to spend three years getting it to happen? Mr. Dirr said they wouldn't be inclined to include a dog park if it has to be fenced because of the cost. He keeps hearing that it needs to be cost effective, and the board keeps adding costs in. He asked the board if they had a higher preference for a half basketball court or a dog park. Mr.Wilcox said he'd take the community garden and the basketball court and the soccer field and bag dispensers. Board members agreed. Ms. Brock noted that a plat had not been submitted to put these elements on. Mr.Walters said there are concepts associated with the project that have changed and now with new conditions, they will revise the plat. These will be an open playing field, a basketball court, and community gardens. Planning Board Meeting 08.15.2017 Page 10 of 16 Mr.Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. PB Resolution No. 2017.053: Final Subdivision Approval, Ithaca Townhomes (formerly Holochuck Homes Subdivision), 115+/-Tax Parcels (see Whereas #1 below), Between NYS Route 96 &NYS Route 89 Moved by Yvonne Fogarty; seconded by Linda Collins WHEREAS: 1. This project is the Consideration of Modifications to the Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed Ithaca Townhomes Development(formerly Holochuck Homes Subdivision), located to the east of NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24.2-1-1.1 through 1.6, 24.2-1-2.1 through 2.6, 24.2-1-3.1 through 3.4, 24.2-1-4.1 through 4.2, 24.2-1-5.1 through 5.4, 24.2-1-6.1 through 6.6, 24.2-1-7.1 through 7.6, 24.2-1-8.1 through 8.6, 24.2-1-9.1 through 9.3, 24.2-1-10.1 through 10.3, 24.2-1-11.1 through 11.6, 24.2-1-12.1 through 12.6, 24.2-1- 13.1 through 13.6, 24.2-1-14.1 through 14.6, 24.2-1-15.1 through 15.6, 24.2-1-16.1 through 16.6, 24.2-1-17.1 through 17.6, 24.2-1-18.1 through 18.6, 24.2-1-19.1 through 19.6, 24.2-1-20.1 through 20.6, 24.2-1-23.1 through 23.8, and 24.2-1-24, Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential Zones. The proposed modifications include replacing one of the proposed townhome units with a community clubhouse, adding a playground and community gardens, adding addi- tional sidewalks, modifying the building elevations to provide a variety of building facades and unit types, reducing the building heights, and eliminating the garages. The subdivision roads are proposed to be maintained as private facilities and at least the first 66 of the 105 townhome units will be for rent, affordable to those making between 50% and 130% of Tompkins County Area Median Household Income. Holochuck Homes LLC, Owner; NRP Properties LLC, Applicant; P. Christopher Dirr, Vice President-Development, NRP Properties LLC,Agent; and 2. The Holochuck Homes Subdivision proposal went through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process, including Draft, Supplemental and Final EIS's, which concluded with the Town of Ithaca Planning Board adopting the Findings Statement on April 5, 2011; and 3. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board granted Final Subdivision Approval for the Holochuck Homes Subdivision on April 17, 2012; and 4. The current Ithaca Townhomes application includes changes from the approved Holochuck Homes project; and 5. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board examined the current application, comparing the application with the Holochuck Homes Subdivision EIS and Findings Statement in conjunction with the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617.9 (a) (7) and found that the Ithaca Townhomes development proposal will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of changes pro- posed for the project, and, therefore, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement does not need to be prepared for the project; and 6. The Planning Board, at their meeting on August 15, 2017, has accepted as adequate a narrative, a set of plans entitled "Ithaca Townhomes,Arbor Housing and Development, NYS Route 96, Planning Board Meeting 08.15.2017 Page 11 of 16 Town of Ithaca, NY," prepared by HOLT Architects, P.C., Keystone Associates, Arbor Housing and Development, and the NRP Group, LLC, including a Site Location Plan Sheet G002, and Sheets G101, G104, G105, G107, G109 and G110, dated 05 Oct 2016; Sheets G102 and 103, dated 27 Sept 2017; Conceptual Site Plan Sheets C 100 and C 110, dated 10/03/2016; Sheets A001, A101, A104, A105, A107, A109 and Al 10, dated 05 Oct 2016; Sheets A102 and A103, dated 27 Sept 2017; Exterior Elevation Sheets A201, A204, A205, A206,A207,A208,A209 and A210, dated 05 Oct 2016; Sheets A202 and A203, dated 27 Sept 2016; Sheets A301,A302,A311 and A312, dated 05 Oct 2016; Sheet A401, dated 28 Sept 2016; Sheets A402, A403 and (dupli- cate number)A403, dated 05 Oct 2016; Sheet A451, dated 28 Sept 2016; Sheets A452, A453 and AP001, dated 05 Oct 2016; and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed Ithaca Tom nhomes Development(formerly Holochuck Homes Subdivision), located to the east of NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road), as described in Whereas #6 above; subject to the following conditions: a. Submission and full execution of any sanitary sewer as-built easements between the property owner and the Torn of Ithaca, satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town and the Torn of Ithaca Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of final Certificates of Occupancy, b. Submission and full execution of any water as built easements between the property owner and the Torn of Ithaca, satisfactory to the Attorney for the Torn and the Torn of Ithaca Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of final Certificates of Occupancy, c. The NRP Group, LLC shall provide one annual bus pass per unit and shall advertise to the residents on an annual basis that it will pay for commuter vanpool services as long as the min- imum requirements set by the vanpool service provider are met, , d. As required by the Findings Statement, at least 10% of the units (11 units if 105 units are built) shall be priced for their initial sales so they are affordable to households earning on an annual basis no more than 120% of the Tompkins County median income for their respective household sizes. Affordable shall mean no more than 30% of a household's gross income is spent on mortgage principal and interest, utilities, real property taxes, homeowner's insurance and common area charges. For the initial sales of these units, the NRP Group, LLC shall veri- fy that the households of the initial purchasers meet these income and expenditure require- ments at the time of purchase, utilizing (i) the then-most current data published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban development regarding annual Tompkins County Household median incomes, (ii) the then-most current information regarding real property taxes, and (iii) reasonable estimates by the NRP Group, LLC regarding the costs for real prop- erty insurance and utilities. In addition, at least 66 of the units that are for rent shall be af- fordable to those in the 50-130% income range. Prior to issuance of any building permits for any townhouses, the applicant and Town shall enter into an agreement, satisfactory to the At- torney for the Town,between the NRP Group, LLC and the Town to assure these require- ments are binding on and enforceable against the NRP Group, LLC, e. Any failure to meet the income and expenditure requirements described in the first sentence of condition "d" above, shall result in a liquidated damages payment from the property owner to the Torn in an amount as set forth below, to be exclusively used by the Town to offset the Planning Board Meeting 08.15.2017 Page 12 of 16 intended loss of affordable housing and to be used to promote affordable housing elsewhere in the Town. The liquidated damages shall be calculated as follows: the number of units com- plying with the affordable housing requirements shall be counted, deducted from the required 10% number of units required to comply, and the resulting sum shall represent the number of units short of the defined goals, with all fractions to be rounded up to the next highest whole number. Such whole number shall then be multiplied by$50,000 and such total amount shall be paid as liquidated damages, f. Submission of evidence of the necessary approvals of the Tompkins County Health Depart- ment on the final plat regarding the realty subdivision, prior to the application for any build- ing permits for any townhouses, g. Prior to application for any building permits for any townhouses, review and approval by the Attorney for the Torn and Director of Public Works of the draft operation, maintenance and reporting agreement for the stormwater management facilities, specifying the ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the stormwater system, including: (i) Submission of a stormwater "Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement"be- tween the owner of the Ithaca Tom nhomes Development and the Torn of Ithaca, (ii) Submission of a drainage easement or other mechanism to assure the Torn of Ithaca access to all stormwater facilities, (iii) Town Board authorization to allow the Town Supervisor to sign any necessary ease- ments and the stormwater Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement associ- ated with the project, and (iv) Filing and full execution of any necessary easements and the stormwater Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, h. Construction of the private stormwater facilities in a manner satisfactory to the Town of Itha- ca Public Works Department, prior to application for any building permits for any townhous- es, i. Construction of all roads to a level suitable for emergency vehicle access, construction of all stormwater facilities per the schedule in the approved SWPPP, and completion of sanitary sewer mains and water mains to the satisfaction of the Town of Ithaca Public Works Depart- ment, prior to the issuance of any building permits for any tom nhomes, j. Submission of proof of receipt of the necessary curb cut permit(s) from New York State for the accesses onto Route 96 (Trumansburg Road), prior to any site work, k. Submission of record of application for and proof of receipt of all necessary permits from county, state, and/or federal agencies, prior to the issuance of final Certificates of Occupancy for any townhouses, 1. Submission of easements or other agreements satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town neces- sary to ensure ingress and egress for all of the parcels in the subdivision, to guarantee future access over any roads owned by the property owner to guarantee access to public roads and ac- cess to all private utilities, drainage and stormwater facilities, recreational amenities, common open space and other common or shared facilities, and to ensure that future owners and leaseholders of all parcels have full rights to use all of the above-mentioned facilities, prior to the issuance of final Certificates of Occupancy, Planning Board Meeting 08.15.2017 Page 13 of 16 m. Submission of record of approval for the water and sewer infrastructure by the Tompkins County Health Department and by the Torn of Ithaca Public Works Department, prior to construction of said facilities, n. Adherence to the Construction Operations procedures described in the EIS. Also, as re- quired and explained in the Findings Statement, noise-related construction activities shall be limited to lam to 7pm Monday through Friday. Work shall not be routinely scheduled for Saturdays, but will be permitted if required by extenuating circumstances, such as severe weather, subject to approval by the Director of Code Enforcement. Construction shall be prohibited between 7pm and lam, and all day on Sundays and federal holidays, except emer- gency repairs (such as to stormwater facilities)will be allowed on any day, o. All construction parking, staging, and storage must occur on site, p. Prior to the application for any building permits for any townhouses, submission of documen- tation to the Planning Department that includes a plan to educate residents about the need to control pets in the Unique Natural Area and other natural areas, and to educate and com- municate to residents the importance of using the public transit bus passes and vanpool ser- vices; such plan shall be carried out through semi-annual written or electronic communica- tions to the residents, q. Establishment of an escrow agreement funded in the amount of$10,000 to assure that the NRP Group, LLC pays a fair share contribution for any signal, roundabout, or similar traffic device at or near the northern entrance required by NYS DOT,with said agreement subject to the approval of the Attorney for the Town, prior to the issuance of any building permits, r. There shall be no consolidation of any lots within the approved subdivision, s. Prior to any work on site, applicant's contractor will hold a pre-construction meeting with the Department of Public Works to discuss the project and SPDES permit implementation, t. Submission of a revised final approved subdivision plat for signing by the planning board chair, said plat to be filed in the Tompkins County Clerk's office, and a copy of the receipt of filing provided to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, prior to the application for any building permits. The revisions shall show: (i) The area where a basketball half court will be built and open area suitable for recrea- tion, and the location of the community gardens, and (ii) Revised lot lines that shift those in the currently filed plat by no more than 2 feet, u. Submission of a revised landscaping plan acceptable to the Town Director of Planning, to increase landscaping along the south side of the development to mitigate the visual impact of the development on the neighbor directly to the south, v. The development will use only electricity to heat, cool, and power the tom nhomes, as de- scribed in Scenario 2 of the report prepared by Taitem Engineering, dated August 10, 2017, titled "Ithaca Townhomes Comparison of Natural Gas and Electric Utilities and Energy Use Estimate," w. Establishment of an escrow agreement funded in the amount of$10,000 to be applied toward the expenses for a future park and ride lot on the Route 96 corridor or toward other transit- related improvements,with said agreement subject to the approval of the Attorney for the Town, prior to the issuance of any building permits, and Planning Board Meeting 08.15.2017 Page 14 of 16 x. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall provide the Department of Public Works with an impervious coverage analysis to confirm conformance with current SPDES coverage. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak, Hill AGENDA ITEM Consideration of a recommendation to the Ithaca Town Board regarding the establishment of an open development area for 185 Kendall Avenue, in which a structure exists, but where no street or highway giving access to the structure has been placed on an official map or plan (NYS Town Law Section 280-a, Permits for buildings not on improved mapped streets). Mr. Bates said we're dealing with only this property because the planning committee didn't want to open up a can of worms in that area. Ms. Ritter added that this is the application in front of the town board. Mr.Wilcox explained that an open development area is a process the state has come up with to deal with situations where structures don't have frontage on a town road shown on the map. Ms. Ritter said this is to allow the property owner to get a building permit because the law says he can't get a permit unless it's on a town road. Ms. Brock said you have to look and see if the circumstances create some kind of danger to health, safety, and welfare. There may be situations that are inappropriate for lots to be developed, such as if emergency vehicles can't get to them. In this case, there's already a house on the lot. It already has a variance on it for a single-family house. She thinks if the ZBA granted a variance and it was never challenged, it's a valid variance, and that any properties that have a 280a variance from back then don't need open development areas.The torn board has approved open development areas before, such as for a property on Warren Road that already had a building on it, and for all the properties across the tracks on East Shore Drive because the railroad owns the strip between them and the road, so they don't have any frontage. Mr. Bosak said the law says, We prohibit you from making this right by an easement unless you declare it an open development area, and then you can declare it as right with an easement. His problem is:who owns the thing to which an easement is to be granted?Who owns the strip between these properties that's at the end of the road?Who is the easement going to be made with? Mr. Bates said that's one of the problems in that area.Nobody can identify who owms those paper roads. He doesn't know if the applicant has anything in his deed. Mr. Bosak asked whether this says he has to get an easement if we do this or simply that we've made it possible for him to get an easement. Mr.Wilcox said the town board is going to deal with it. Planning Board Meeting 08.15.2017 Page 15 of 16 PB Resolution No. 2017-054: Recommendation to Ithaca Town Board Regarding Proposed Establishment of an Open Development Area for 185 Kendall Avenue, Tax Parcel No. 54.4-19 Moved by John Beach; seconded by Yvonne Fogarty Whereas, pursuant to New York Town Law§ 280-a(4), on July 24, 2017, the Ithaca Town Board referred the potential establishment of an open development area for the 185 Kendall Avenue parcel to the Ithaca Planning Board for its advice, and Whereas, the 185 Kendall Avenue parcel,which has been improved with a residential structure built in 1986, is landlocked and does not directly abut a street that is on the Town of Ithaca's Official Map, and Whereas, access from the 185 Kendall Avenue parcel to Kendall Avenue, which is on the Official Map, is achieved by a driveway located approximately 35-feet from the parcel to the edge of the official paved portion of Kendall Avenue, and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered maps and other materials regarding this matter, Now, therefore, be it resolved: That the Planning Board recommends to the Ithaca Town Board that an open development area for the 185 Kendall Avenue parcel be established, subject to the following conditions: a. No future subdivision of the parcel shall occur, b. The access to the parcel shall remain paved or be constructed of gravel or other hard surface and be sufficient to support the passage and weight of emergency vehicles, and C. All future deeds, easements, and rights-of-way for all or part of the parcel shall contain the following provision: "This conveyance is made and accepted subject to the open development area conditions approved by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca on Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak, Hill AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - No one came forward to address the board. AGENDA ITEM PB Resolution No. 2017-055: Minutes of July 18, 2017 Planning Board Meeting 08.15.2017 Page 16 of 16 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by John Beach RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of July 18, 2017, as amended. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak Abstentions: Hill PB Resolution No. 2017-056: Minutes of August 1, 2017 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by John Beach RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of August 1, 2017, as amended. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Bosak, Hill Abstentions: Fogarty Adjournment Upon a motion by John Beach, the meeting adjourned at 9:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk