Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2017-09-05 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, September 5, 2017 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox, Linda Collins, John Beach,Yvonne Fogarty, Jon Bosak, and Melissa Hill Town Staff Present: Chris Balestra, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; David O'Shea, Civil Engineer; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Torn; Debra DeAugistine, Deputy Torn Clerk Call to Order Mr.Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Mountin 4-Lot Subdivision, Elm Street Extension& Coy Glen Road Mr. Mountin said he and his wife bought the 20-acre parcel ten years ago.They bought four lots and two of them are landlocked. He wants to re-subdivide the four lots into four legal lots.They currently have no plans to develop any of the parcels, but this makes it so that in the future, they will have legal lots they can sell or build on. Mr.Wilcox asked why lot D, with a 60-foot frontage on Coy Glen Road, won't need a variance whereas lot C,with a 60-foot frontage onto Elm Street,will. Ms. Balestra said that lot D is a preexisting lot; it's not being widened or narrowed, so you're not changing the existing non-conformity. Ms. Brock commented that she didn't think they needed to have the answer because the proposed resolution reads "receipt of any necessary variances" from the ZBA, so it doesn't need to be discussed. Mr.Wilcox added that the need for variances is something the planning board should not take into account when considering subdivisions; that's the zoning board's job. Mr. Bosak said it seems the motivation for this proposal is to give road frontage to all the landlocked parcels, but that could be accomplished just by consolidating the three lots into lot D. But this goes even further: he's moving lot lines, creating a new A, B, and C. Mr. Bosak was having trouble reconciling this additional and rather problematic subdivision with the assertion that Mr. Mountin doesn't have any plans. Mr. Mountin said there are four existing lots, two of which are landlocked, so he's asking for a re- subdivision to create four lots, all with road frontage: four lots to four lots. He could put a house on A or leave it green; he could put a house on B, where there was an existing house at one time and which he tore down because it was uninhabitable and an eyesore. Mr. Bosak asked which properties would remain landlocked if all he did was consolidate the three lots into D. Planning Board 09.05.2017 Page 2 of 12 Mr. Mountin responded that none would. Mr. Bosak said that in order to accomplish the stated goal, which is providing road access to all these properties, he could simply by consolidate those three lots. Mr. Mountin said that's one option; he can come up with a lot of options. He's going further because there are four existing lots; he's just re-subdividing them to make four new lots. Mr.Wilcox said he had four lots and will still have four lots. His goal is to get rid of the landlocked parcels and retain four lots. Mr. Mountin agreed. Ms. Fogarty suggested having a conversation about the letter from Jack Young. Mr.Wilcox said that we received a letter from Jack Young, who owns adjacent property to the south. In a late afternoon email, Ms. Balestra responded by providing excerpts from the planning board packet of February 24, 2004, when the board considered a subdivision proposal from Mr.Young to subdivide off a parcel of land for the pump station, a parcel of land for a future torn park, and a series of tiny parcels to be given to neighboring properties to resolve instances where buildings may have crossed property lines. • Jon Kanter's staff memo to the planning board stated that "the applicant has indicated that he has no immediate plans to further develop Lot 6 (32.5+/-acres) at this time. It has the potential to be developed with lots that could be served by a cul-de-sac road.There is adequate frontage on Coy Glen Road ... to construct an access road, although this will become the only access point for Lot 6.This will tend to minimize the number of additional lots that could be developed on Lot 6 ... which is probably desirable given the steep character of the site." • In the applicant's narrative, Mr.Young stated regarding Lot 6 that this "large lot will remain undeveloped in the immediate term. If a decision were made to develop this 32-acre parcel at some future date, it would probably feature a short cul-de-sac, accessed from Coy Glen Road where the lot has usable road frontage. There are, however, no plans to develop this portion of the property in the near term." • Finally, in Part 2 of the SEQR form used at the time, it was stated that the "Comprehensive Plan anticipates additional residential growth in this general area. Lot 6 has additional development potential. It is zoned R-15 Residence and could be served by a dead-end cul-de-sac road, since there will be only one remaining point of access to the parcel. Site-specific environmental impacts would have to be evaluated if and when Lot 6 is proposed for further subdivision. Based on the above, the proposed subdivision would not have any growth inducing impacts, but would include the opportunity for subsequent development of Lot 6." Mr.Wilcox stated that the point here is that Mr.Young knew 13 years ago that in proceeding with the subdivision, what he would end up with was a 32-acre parcel with access from only one point, and it was to be further subdivided and developed, he would probably need to build a cul-de-sac. Ms. Balestra said that the town restricts the length of cul-de-sacs to 1000 feet; that would reach into the middle of the property. Mr. Bosak asked why Mr. Young cares about Mr. Mountin's proposal. Planning Board 09.05.2017 Page 3 of 12 Mr.Wilcox said he was also confused; that's the point of looking at the notes from the meeting in 2004. Mr.Young has a concern, but we have information from 13 years ago which indicates that he was well aware of the situation at the time, and the subdivision went through regardless, creating this situation where he has that one piece of frontage left and would need to build a cul-de-sac. Mr. Mountin indicates that he talked to the previous owner of Mr. Mountin's property. Mr.Young is saying this would preclude him from getting access from Mr. Mountin's parcel. Mr. Bosak says that Mr.Young asserts that if the proposed subdivision goes through, he will be left with"a 33 acre property that will be primarily undevelopable due to the lack of a second access." Is that true? Ms. Balestra responded that it's not true. If he wants to do a major subdivision that wouldn't necessarily be allowed by zoning right now, he would be required to have two access points, but if he wanted to subdivide into, say, six lots off a cul-de-sac, we would do an environmental review and the board would go through their regular process. There's nothing illegal about it, and we're not preventing it from happening. To a question from Ms. Fogarty, Mr. Mountin said he met with Mr.Young and Supervisor Bill Goodman about two years ago. He didn't say Mr.Young could have access through his property. Mr. Young is a developer as a profession; he purchases land,builds as many houses as he can, and moves on. Mr. Mountin said he lives on West Hill, he lives on Elm Street, he lives in the neighborhood. He has no intention of doing what Mr.Young wants to do, which is to put in as many houses to make as much money as he can. It is zoned medium density,which would allow three houses per acre; he has no intention of doing that. Mr.Young came to that meeting with the expectation and understanding that he would be able to go through Mr. Mountin's land with a driveway. This is not in writing. Mr.Wilcox said it's clear from the materials from 2004 that he was well aware of what he was agreeing to then. Ms. Fogarty said she feels there's a piece of information about the meeting she doesn't know. Ms. Brock asked why it would matter, legally.We have all the information Mr.Wilcox read into the record that the applicant, Mr.Young, knew that he would be left with a lot with only one access point. What wasn't read was that in the planning board minutes, his agent said exactly the same thing: that it would have to be a cul-de-sac with a number of lots off that. She is not sure why anything else matters. He also said in his letter that his understanding from discussions with planning staff for the original subdivision in 2004 was that the board wouldn't approve any subdivision of what is now the Mountin property if it didn't leave future access for adjoining properties. The record completely belies that. She doesn't know why he's making those assertions, since we have a record of what was said and what was put in writing at the time. PB Resolution No. 2017.057: SEQR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Mountin 4-Lot Subdivision, Elm Street Extension/Coy Glen Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 29.-7-12.2, 29.-7-12.4, 29.-7- 12.5, and 29.-7-12.12 Moved by Linda Collins; seconded Yvonne Fogarty Planning Board 09.05.2017 Page 4 of 12 WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4- lot subdivision located on Elm Street Extension (between 517 and 531 Elm Street Extension) and Coy Glen Road(between 261 and 269 Coy Glen Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 29.-7- 12.2, 29.-7-12.4, 29.-7-12.5, and 29.-7-12.12, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves re-subdividing the four existing parcels to create a 1.644 +/-acre parcel off Elm Street Extension (Parcel A), a 0.409 +/-acre parcel off Elm Street Extension (Parcel B), an 8.2 +/-acre parcel off Elm Street Extension, and a 10.483 +/- acre parcel off Coy Glen Road. David Mountin &Sarah Locke Mountin, Owners/Applicants; 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting in an uncoordinated review with respect to the project; 3. The Planning Board on September 5, 2017, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Survey Map Showing Lands Of David Mountin&Sarah Locke Mountin, Located on Coy Glen Rd. & Elm Street Ext., Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York", prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., dated 7/5/2017, 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 Torn 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, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak, Hill AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4-lot subdivision located on Elm Street Extension (between 517 and 531 Elm Street Extension) and Coy Glen Road(between 261 and 269 Coy Glen Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 29.-7-12.2, 29.-7- 12.4, 29.-7-12.5, and 29.-7-12.12, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves re- subdividing the four existing parcels to create a 1.644 +/-acre parcel off Elm Street Extension (Parcel A), a 0.409 +/-acre parcel off Elm Street Extension (Parcel B), an 8.2 +/-acre parcel off Elm Street Extension, and a 10.483 +/-acre parcel off Coy Glen Road. David Mountin&Sarah Locke Mountin, Owners/Applicants Mr.Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. Planning Board 09.05.2017 Page 5 of 12 Gail Sakai, Coy Glen Road, asked what the applicant can develop on the land without further planning board approval. Her concern is the 10-acre lot on Coy Glen and how many more homes could be built there. Mr.Wilcox said if this is approved, Mr. Mountin can build one structure on parcel D, either a one-or two-family home. Ms. Balestra said he couldn't build an apartment building on parcel D with the way the zoning is written now. Mr.Wilcox added that he couldn't build multiple structures unless he comes back before this board and re-subdivides parcel D into smaller parcels. Ms. Balestra said that, in that case, in terms of how many houses he could put there, we would look at all the environmental considerations. Ms. Sakai said Coy Glen is having much more traffic at much higher speeds these days. It's a curving road. Mr.Wilcox said that if and when the owner of parcel D wishes to put a subdivision on the lot, they would have to come before the board; we would look at traffic, site lines on the road, slopes in the area - all considerations as to what's a reasonable number of individual homes that could be built. Right now, he has four lots, which means four residential structures. Pamela Peabody, Coy Glen native for the last 18 years, said she wasn't aware of the 2004 event. She didn't have enough opportunity to look over all the 60 pages of review that was online today. She requested that the board consider postponing any further progress because a lot of people didn't receive a mailer. She went all down her street and down Elm Street Extension, and nobody was aware this was happening. She received it on the Thursday before a holiday weekend, so she couldn't even begin to review it. She would like to have time to study of the magnitude of what they're asking to take place on Coy Glen because the environmental impact is huge. She doesn't believe the notice complied with the torn regulations to inform all the residents that this affects. She's well aware of the speed factor, the people walking, the animals, the change in the water lines, the high power lines that are off Elm Street Extension. The magnitude is huge and more people should be given the opportuni- ty of what we're getting into. Mr.Wilcox said responded that the town mails to owners within 500 feet of the proposed project, although it is not legally required. So the fact that property owners within 500 feet of this subdivision got a notice, that's a courtesy. He had the affidavit in front of him indicating that the notice of the public hearing was posted on the bulletin board and published in the Ithaca Journal last Wednesday, which is the legal requirement. There aren't 60 pages of materials. She may have seen a document with the materials for both applications, one of which is the cell phone tower.The materials for this proposal are ten or 15 pages at most. Ms. Peabody is also asking the board to consider the environ- mental impact of moving lot lines around. Mr. Mountin has four lots; he will still have four lots.We aren't approving building houses. That's another action. The only thing this action proposes is to move lot lines. This might make it easier for him to build houses in the future, but we are not Planning Board 09.05.2017 Page 6 of 12 approving him building houses; to do that, he would have to come back to the town to apply for building permits. Ms. Peabody said she did not know what they are trying to do on Coy Glen, and she's not just speaking for herself. Mr.Wilcox asked what she meant by "trying to do." Ms. Peabody responded that we're moving in a direction that the Mountins are looking towards. It was turned down at one point by Mr.Young, who wanted to do a large construction back there. Mr.Wilcox said Mr.Young has a 33-acre parcel and at some point in the future, he might come before the board and ask that it be subdivided so he can put in multiple structures. That's not in front of us tonight. Mr. Mountin is here for two reasons: the first is to deal with the fact that there are two landlocked parcels, and this board would be happy to eliminate landlocked parcels, and the other is to retain the four parcels in the future that he has now, with the potential for building four housing units in the future. But we're not approving him building anything.We're simply approving moving lot lines. Ms. Peabody continued to petition for a postponement to allow people to understand what's happening before it happens. Cathy Cook, 209 Coy Glen Road, said she is very familiar with Jack Young and what was done there. The pump station is in her back yard. She was fearful because of living in that beautiful portion of the town of Ithaca that is so close to town, but feels like you're far away, and we all want to protect it. But things worked out fine. She agrees with her neighbor regarding traffic issues. She realizes there is a process to go through, and she survived the process when the 50 acres owned by Jack Young was subdivided. She was a beneficiary of the last process. Ms. Collins said it's unfortunate that the technical term "subdivision" is part of the discussion. This has happened many times over the years she's been on the board. Any time any of us hears there's going to be a subdivision in our neighborhood, that term suggests that someone is going to come and build a lot of houses. That's not what's happening in this case. If a subdivision is going to be built on the property, it would be a lengthy process with many steps. That's not what this is about; it's simply moving some lot lines. The applicant said he has no plans at this point, but that's not what we're considering tonight. Concerns about traffic and other environmental issues are not part of what we're doing. They would be addressed in the future if any development were proposed. Mr.Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:51 p.m. PB Resolution No. 2017.058: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Mountin 4-Lot Subdivision, Elm Street Extension/Coy Glen Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 29.-7-12.2, 29.-7-12.4, 29.-7- 12.5, and 29.-7-12.12 Moved by Melissa Hill; seconded by Yvonne Fogarty WHEREAS: Planning Board 09.05.2017 Page 7 of 12 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4- lot subdivision located on Elm Street Extension (between 517 and 531 Elm Street Extension) and Coy Glen Road (between 261 and 269 Coy Glen Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 29.-7- 12.2, 29.-7-12.4, 29.-7-12.5, and 29.-7-12.12, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves re-subdividing the four existing parcels to create a 1.644 +/-acre parcel off Elm Street Extension (Parcel A), a 0.409 +/-acre parcel off Elm Street Extension (Parcel B), an 8.2 +/-acre parcel off Elm Street Extension, and a 10.483 +/- acre parcel off Coy Glen Road. David Mountin &Sarah Locke Mountin, Owners/Applicants; 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting in an uncoordinated review with respect to the project, has on September 5, 2017, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental 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 5, 2017, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Survey Map Showing Lands Of David Mountin&Sarah Locke Mountin, Located on Coy Glen Rd. & Elm Street Ext., Torn of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York", prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., dated 7/5/2017, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Torn 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 site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board; 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision located on Elm Street Extension (between 517 and 531 Elm Street Exten- sion) and Coy Glen Road (between 261 and 269 Coy Glen Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 29.-7-12.2, 29.-7-12.4, 29.-7-12.5, and 29.-7-12.12, as shorn on the survey map described in Whereas #3 above, subject to the following conditions: a. Receipt of any necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals, b. Within six months of this approval, consolidation of a portion of Tax Parcel No. 29.-7-12.2 with a portion of Tax Parcel No. 29.-7-12.4, in order to create "Parcel C," c. Within six months of this approval, consolidation of Tax Parcel No.'s 29.-7-12.12 (small par- cel along Coy Glen Road), 29.-7-12.5 (southernmost parcel near Coy Glen Road) and a por- tion of 29.-7-12.2 (large parcel in the middle) in order to create "Parcel D", d. 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 Office and submission of a copy of the receipt of filing to the Torn of Ithaca Planning De- partment. Planning Board 09.05.2017 Page 8 of 12 Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak, Hill AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: T Mobile Co-Location on Tompkins County South Hill Communication Tower, Ithaca College Campus Michael Baroody, project manager working on behalf of Network Building + Consulting and T- Mobile, gave a brief overview. T-Mobile is proposing to co-locate on the existing wireless telecommu- nications facility on the Ithaca College campus. The antennas will be installed at 123 feet, which is substantially lower than the existing top of the tower, which is 197 feet. The height of the tower will not change nor will the footprint of the existing compound. They're leasing a 10' x 26' area,which will house all their equipment. There will be no disturbance of the existing ground. The visual aesthetics of the site won't change. Mr.Wilcox asked what problem they're trying to solve. Mr. Baroody responded that they want to improve coverage for the surrounding campus and roadways. For the last year and a half, NB+C has done a large new site build program with T-Mobile, and they're looking to "paint the map," or aggressively trying to provide full coverage to current and future subscribers. In terms of their network, in-building is their preferred coverage. Outdoor coverage and in vehicle coverage is okay,but not good enough to keep subscribers happy and staying with that carrier. Mr.Wilcox asked whether any existing equipment on the tower will have to be moved to accommo- date the new antennas and whether it will interfere with the county system or radio station. Mr. Baroody responded that one piece of dead equipment will be removed. There will be no interference with the county equipment or the campus radio station.T-Mobile can only operate within the frequency that they purchase. Mr. Bosak asked whether their co-locators will physically take up the remaining real estate on the good parts of the monopole. Mr. Baroody responded that the tower was designed for two wireless co-locators; they are one and the second was going to be substantially lower. He doesn't know whether the lower spot will work for another carrier. Mr. Bosak said the plans call for three future equipment cabinets. Mr. Barooday said when they lease a 10' x 26' area, they give the board a ballpark approximate of the current dimensions of the equipment and what the space could be utilized for. Right now, that's what they put on the plan to identify their space. Ms. Brock pointed out that on sheet A-1, they have six proposed antennas listed: three are listed as open, and three are grayed-out as future. On sheet C-1, it made it look like there were nine antennas. Planning Board 09.05.2017 Page 9 of 12 She asked him to explain what they're actually proposing now and what they're reserving for the future. Ms. Baroody said they always zone for nine antennas. Each of the three 12-foot sectors on the plan can potentially house four antenna slots; they aren't utilizing all four at this time. The open sector shown on the antenna schedule is a space holder in terms of design. In the event that another technology comes out, that space could be utilized. These plans were drawn up before the L600 came out,which is the newest technology.They go through the zoning now just to get the space allotted for nine antennas, because technology changes quicker than they can go through the zoning process for all 1200 sites in the state. This way, they'll only have to go back for a second building permit. Ms. Brock asked how we will know what's approved for the other three. Will they have the same appearance, similar dimensions? Mr. Baroody responded that they'll all have the same appearance; the dimensions will be similar. Their largest antennas right now are 96 inches, so they try to keep within the size of their largest antenna. This way, no matter what, it's within the 8-foot range. If they deviate from that panel, it's clearly identified that they shouldn't have done so. To a question from Mr. Bates, Mr. Baroody said that they're showing the capability for nine antennas. The sectors are designed for 12, but their structural is for nine, so that's what they're proposing. Mr. Bates said that if they decide to utilize the other connection, they'll need to remove one of the other ones. Mr. Baroody said they would do that or they'd run a new structural analysis that they'd provide to the town for review. Mr. Bosak took issue with the energy usage calculation of 200 KWh per year, saying that common sense tells him it's an incorrect figure.We have to certify in Part 2 of the SEQR that the proposed action's impact on energy will not exceed 2500 MWhrs per year of electricity. He doesn't believe the project will exceed that figure, but the calculation they used is obviously incorrect. Ms. Brock said we've had other co-locations, and she doesn't recall energy use ever being an issue in SEQR. She doesn't think the others used enough energy to kick that into a large impact. Mr. Bosak said he doesn't know whether it does or not,but it changes the way we answer question 14 in Part 2 because answering No to the question "The proposed action may cause an increase in any form of energy" is false; it should be checked Yes, and he wants a figure in Part 1 D.2.k that lets us check"No, or a small impact may occur" in 14c. But he can't do that because he has not been given credible information. Mr. Baroody said a consulting group out of Rochester handled the SEQR form, and that he didn't have the expertise to revise the figure. PB Resolution No. 2017-059: SEQR, T-Mobile Telecommunication Facility Co-Location 953 Danby Road, Tax Parcel No. 41.4-30.2 Planning Board 09.05.2017 Page 10 of 12 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by John Beach WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed wireless telecommunication facility located at 953 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41.4-30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone.The proposal involves co-locating nine wireless telecommunications antennas onto the existing Tompkins County Emergency Communications Tower, located on the Ithaca College campus. The antennas will be mounted 123' above ground level on the tower. The proposal also includes leasing a 10'by 26' area within the existing fenced-in compound in order to install two equipment cabinets (each 2'by 2.3' in size), a 2.2' by 3.5' generator, and other related appurtenances. The leased space includes room for three future equipment cabinets. Ithaca College, Owner; T-Mobile Northeast LLC, Applicant; Michael Baroody, Network Building + Consulting, LLC,Agent; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Torn of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as lead agency in the environmental review with respect to the telecommunications proposal; and 3. The Planning Board, on September 5, 2017, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted and prepared by the applicant; Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Torn Planning staff; a narrative, drawings titled"T-Mobile Northeast LLC, Site Number: 3TOS670A, T Mobile L700 NSD Co-Location Plan, 953 Danby Road, Ithaca, NY 14850, Tompkins County" prepared by Network Building + Consulting, LLC and Burtner Engi- neering Services, PLLC, including sheets C-1,A-1, A-2,A-3, D-1, D-2, E-1, E-2, and G-1, dated 07/31/17, and other application materials; and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental signifi- cance with respect to the proposed project; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Torn 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, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Hill Nays: Bosak AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed wireless telecommunication facility located at 953 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Torn of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41.4-30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves co-locating nine wireless Planning Board 09.05.2017 Page 11 of 12 telecommunications antennas onto the existing Tompkins County Emergency Communications Tower, located on the Ithaca College campus. The antennas will be mounted 123' above ground level on the tower. The proposal also includes leasing a 10'by 26' area within the existing fenced-in compound in order to install two equipment cabinets (each 2' by 2.3' in size), a 2.2'by 3.5' generator, and other related appurtenances.The leased space includes room for three future equipment cabinets. Ithaca College, Owner; T-Mobile Northeast LLC, Applicant; Michael Baroody, Network Building + Consulting, LLC, Agent Mr.Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:34 p.m. and closed the public hearing at 8:39 p.m. PB Resolution No. 2017-060: T-Mobile Telecommunication Facility Co-Location, 953 Danby Road, Tax Parcel No. 41.4-30.2 Moved by John Beach; seconded by Melissa Hill WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed wireless telecommunication facility located at 953 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41.4-30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone.The proposal involves co-locating nine wireless telecommunications antennas onto the existing Tompkins County Emergency Communications Tower, located on the Ithaca College campus. The antennas will be mounted 123' above ground level on the tower. The proposal also includes leasing a 10'by 26' area within the existing fenced-in compound in order to install two equipment cabinets (each 2'by 2.3' in size), a 2.2' by 3.5' generator, and other related appurtenances. The leased space includes room for three future equipment cabinets. Ithaca College, Owner; T-Mobile Northeast LLC, Applicant; Michael Baroody, Network Building + Consulting, LLC,Agent; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in the environmental review with respect to the proposal, made a negative determination of envi- ronmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted and prepared by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by staff; and 3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing on September 5, 2017, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a narrative, drawings titled "T Mobile Northeast LLC, Site Number: 3TOS670A, T- Mobile L700 NSD Co-Location Plan, 953 Danby Road, Ithaca, NY 14850, Tompkins County" prepared by Network Building + Consulting, LLC and Burtner Engineering Services, PLLC, in- cluding sheets C-1,A-1,A-2,A-3, D-1, D-2, E-1, E-2, and G-1, dated 07/31/17, and other applica- tion materials; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in a significant alteration of neither the pur- pose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Torn Board; and Planning Board 09-05-2017 Page 12 of 12 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed wireless telecommunication facility located at 953 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41.4-30.2, as shown on the plans and materials referenced in Whereas #3 above, subject to the condition that if the three approved "future" antennas are installed, they shall be panel antennas and their length shall not exceed 100 inches. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak, Hill AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - No one came forward to address the board. AGENDA ITEM PB Resolution No. 2017-061: Minutes of August 15, 2017 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by John Beach RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of August 15, 2017, as amended. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak, Hill Adjournment Upon a motion by Melissa Hill, the meeting adjourned at 8:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted, '!bra DeAA-istifte'-DeputyT ow"h Clerk