Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2017-09-19 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, September 19, 2017 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Liebe Meier Swain, Linda Collins,Joseph Haefeli, John Beach, Yvonne Fogarty,Jon Bosak Town Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Mike Smith, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Brock,Attorney for the Torn; Debra DeAugistine, Deputy Torn Clerk Call to Order Ms. Meier Swain called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Dunkin' Donuts drive-thru window located at 302 Pine Tree Road, Torn of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62.4-2.1, Community Commercial Zone. The proposal involves adding a drive-thru window and order board to the existing Dunkin' Donuts restaurant. Yunis Properties, LLC, Owner; ESW Realty, LLC;Applicant; Timothy C. Buhl, P.E., Agent Mr. Buhl said that before Dunkin' Donuts occupied the space, the building was a bank with three or four drive-through windows; they've reduced it to one with no canopies. He believes they meet all the criteria for separation distances, setbacks, and stacking.The drive-up window is a major component of the Dunkin' Donuts chain, and they've been limping along without it.No construction will occur other than knocking a hole in the wall to install the window. Besides that, all they have to do is put in the order board on the back side of the building, which is not seen from the two main streets. Mr. Bosak asked what a stacking plan is. Mr. Buhl responded that the stacking plan shows the number of cars that can line up at the drive- through window. Mr. Bosak commented that a drive-through is an ugly thing. He takes the point about this being a service that will benefit the elderly and infirm, especially in bad weather,but thinks the plan includes more than is necessary in the way of signage to accomplish that goal. He doesn't think it needs side panels or the backlit panels; certainly not the top two that say "America Runs on Dunkin'." Ms. Brock said that's not your standard;your standards are the sign law design criteria that Ms. Balestra included in her memo.You need to tie all your conclusions to one of the standards in the law. Mr. Buhl said the order board is the menu for the restaurant.The side panels show the specials going on for a limited time, so they'll be changed out. The only people who can see the sign are the people in the line ordering from it.They like to make the order process as simple as possible. The sign conveys the information the people need to order. Planning Board Minutes 09.19.2017 Page 2 of 13 Ms. Meier Swain asked whether the sign would be parallel to the building or at an angle so oncoming cars could read it. She also asked about landscaping around the sign. Mr. Buhl said the sign is typically offset. Regarding landscaping, right now there's a concrete walk going from where the coolers are and also for deliveries.They hadn't planned on landscaping because it's in the back of the building and not fronting on either street, and there's vegetation between Mitchell Street and the drive-through location. Ms. Collins commented that according to the sign law criteria No. 2, this fits,while staff recommends eliminating the image panels. Ms. Brock said your analysis needs to follow these criteria and she wasn't clear that all the statements being made were tracking the criteria. She's not making a judgement as to whether it should be approved, as submitted, but she thinks if you want to make changes,you need to talk about what the criteria are and how elements do or do not fit the criteria. Mr. Haefeli doesn't think tacking promotional items onto the main body of the sign is orderly, and wondered whether the promotions could be incorporated into the body of the sign. He realizes there are company standards. Mr. Buhl responded that it would be difficult because of the menu list they have to have on the main menu board. Tom Santori, the franchisee, said there are typically 12 marketing windows in a Dunkin' Donuts sign. Every month, new products come out and the company sends out promotional products for the two side panels. That's how customers know what's new.The body of the sign contains the items, prices, and calorie count. People who frequent the drive-throughs don't come inside to see the menu boards that show the different products. Mr. Haefeli said he sees two issues: the aesthetic of the sign and promotions on the sides of buildings, which is essentially what this is. Can someone stick a sales ad on the side of the building for 2-for-1 donuts today? Ms. Balestra said you can in commercial and industrial zones; it depends on what type of sign it is. You can't put a banner sign up, but if they want to put up a wall sign that says 2-for-1 donuts, as long as it meets the criteria of the law, it would be allowed.We don't care about the content.They'd have to come before the planning board if there's a site plan because you're the sign review board. Ms. Brock said they could do it under the new law. To a comment from Ms. Collins, she said this is an illuminated sign, but it is not electronic. It's not changed digitally. To a question from Ms. Fogarty, Mr. Santori said the bulbs are LED. Ms. Collins said she feels better about the sign because it will not be visible from the street, especially if it has an angle to it. It doesn't violate our sign law. She asked about the traffic study. It looks as if we're about to accept the traffic study submitted when this originally went through. Does it make any difference that 800 people are going to be moving in a block away from this location? Planning Board Minutes 09.19.2017 Page 3 of 13 Ms. Balestra said there's no environmental review with this project. Ms. Brock said you look at traffic as part of the special permit criteria and you have to make a finding about it.Their study looks at the number of trips generated and then they break that down into pass- by trips (people who are driving by anyway)versus brand new cars that wouldn't have been coming to that destination. The number of pass-by trips was very low. Ms. Collins said the one issue that came up tonight is how many cars can fit in without being backed up into the street. Ms. Brock responded that the town's law has a minimum of eight vehicles required for a stacking lane, and they've shown nine will fit without encroaching into the parking area. More could fit, but it depends on how cars are parked as to whether they can fit well. Unless you have specific information showing it's likely that more than that will be waiting in line at one time ... Ms. Ritter said we discussed this issue at the planning committee,with regard to the psychology of drive-throughs. If there are cars lined up,would you go through the drive-through or would you walk through the door? It seemed like a reasonable number given that this type of drive-through moves more quickly than others. It self regulates. Mr. Buhl pointed out that there is room for more cars to line up in the parking lot, although it could be awkward. But once you get too long a line, people aren't going to sit in it; they'll just go in. Mr. Bosak said there are two issues. The stacking issue got thought through by the town board. That, and the fact that this used to be a bank with three lanes instead of one lane. The part about traffic on the street when combined with Maplewood, in light of the practice we follow when there is a SEQR, makes him think that he would reject this traffic study out of hand. How necessary legally is this traffic study to approving the site plan? Ms. Brock responded that they didn't base any of their information on the actual number of trips on Pine Tree Road and Mitchell Street; they just looked at the net change from the bank use. In the morning peak, there were going to be an extra 17 trips generated that were new as opposed to pass-by trips in comparison to the bank use. In the evening, there's a decrease of nine trips from what the site was seeing with the bank use.These numbers don't seem significant, so she would be very comforta- ble saying these numbers are fine. They did the analysis when they were first applying, with the assumption that there would be a drive-through because they were hoping to get a variance from the ZBA. Mr. Bosak said that his concern is formal, not with the actual numbers,because we usually look at a traffic study in the context of everything around it. Ms. Brock said it's so small that it doesn't matter whether the road is jam-packed all the time or empty all the time; we're talking about three cars per minute.Will that make a sizable difference? Ms. Meier Swain opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m.; hearing no one, she closed the public hearing at 7:37. Planning Board Minutes 09.19.2017 Page 4 of 13 PB Resolution No. 2017-062: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit; Dunkin' Donuts Drive-Thru Window&Order Board; Tax Parcel No. 62.-1-2.1; 302 Pine Tree Road Moved by Yvonne Fogarty; seconded by John Beach WHEREAS: 1. This action involves Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Dunkin' Donuts drive-thru window located at 302 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62.4-2.1, Community Commercial Zone. The proposal involves adding a drive-thru window and order board to the existing Dunkin' Donuts restaurant. Yunis Properties, LLC, Owner; ESW Realty, LLC; Applicant; Timothy C. Buhl, P.E., Agent; 2. This is a Type II Action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Section 617.5(c)(7) of the regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation promulgated pursuant to the State Envi- ronmental Quality Review Act,because the Action constitutes "construction or expansion of a primary or accessory/appurtenant, non-residential structure or facility involving less than 4,000 square feet of gross floor area and not involving a change in zoning or a use variance and con- sistent with local land use controls, but not radio communication or microwave transmission facilities," and thus approval of the project is not subject to review under SEQR; and 3. The Planning Board, on September 19, 2017, has reviewed and accepted as adequate application materials including a narrative, titled "Narrative For Proposed Dunkin' Donuts Drive-Through Window, Dunkin' Donuts Restaurant, 302 Pine Tree Road, Ithaca, NY 14850"; details on pro- posed signage, date-stamped September 11, 2017; a survey map of the property titled "Map of Lands of Yunis Properties, LLC, Located at 302 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Weiler Associates, Licensed Land Surveyors, dated Aug. 1, 2013; Sheet ST-1 titled "Site Plan, Proposed Drive-Through Dunkin' Donuts, 302 Pine Tree Road, Ithaca, NY, 14850," prepared by Timothy C. Buhl, P.E., dated September 8, 2017; Sheet ST-2 titled "Stacking Plan, Proposed Drive-Through Dunkin' Donuts, 302 Pine Tree Road, Ithaca, NY, 14850," prepared by Timothy C. Buhl, P.E., dated September 8, 2017; Sheet Al, titled "Floor Plan; Details," prepared by James D. Smith,Architect,AIA, dated 07-29-13; Sheet MA, titled "Exterior Elevations; Pylon Elevation; Finish Schedule," prepared by James D. Smith, Architect, AIA, dated 07-28-13; and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board hereby finds that that the special permit standards of Article XXIV Section 270-200, Subsections A - L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, specifically that: a. the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, in harmony with the general purpose of Town Code Chapter 270,will be promoted, for the reasons set forth in "b" through "1" below; Planning Board Minutes 09.19.2017 Page 5 of 13 b. (i) the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use, given that the proposed drive-thru is permitted in the Community Commercial zone and previously existed on the property for many years, and (ii) the proposed drive-thru fills a neighborhood or community need; c. the proposed use and the location and design of the proposed structures are consistent with the character of the district in which they are located; d. the proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devalue the neighborhood property or seriously inconvenience the neighboring inhabitants; e. operations in connection with the proposed use will not be more objectionable to nearby properties by reasons of noise, fumes, vibrations, illumination or other potential nuisance than the operation of any permitted use in the particular zone; f. community infrastructure and services, including but not limited to, protective services, road- ways, garbage collection, schools and water and sewer facilities, are currently, or will be, of ade- quate capacity to accommodate the proposed use, as the Dunkin' Donuts restaurant is already operational, the drive-thru lane and canopy already exists, and there are minimal changes pro- posed to existing infrastructure and services; g. if the Zoning Board of Appeals grants the necessary sign variances, the proposed use,building, design and site layout comply with all provisions of Torn Code Chapter 270 and, to the extent considered by the Planning Board, with other regulations and ordinances of the Town,with the Building Code and all other state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and with the Torn Comprehensive Plan; h. the proposed access and egress for all structures and uses are safely designed and the site layout provides adequate access for emergency vehicles; i. the general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole, including such items as traffic load upon public streets and load upon water and sewer systems, is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community; j. the lot area, access, parking, and loading facilities are sufficient for the proposed use, and ac- cess, parking, and loading facilities are adequately buffered to minimize their visual impact; k. natural surface water drainage is adequately managed in accordance with good engineering practices and in accordance with any applicable Town local law or ordinance, and existing drainageways are not altered in a manner that adversely affects other properties; and 1. the proposed use complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in Torn Code Chapter 270; 2. That the Planning Board hereby finds that the Torn Code Section 270-135.E criteria applicable to a restaurant with a drive-through facility are all met, as shorn in the aforementioned survey map and Sheets ST-1 and ST-2; 3. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Dunkin' Donuts drive-thru window and order board, as described in the materi- als listed in Whereas #3 above, subject to the following conditions: Planning Board Minutes 09.19.2017 Page 6 of 13 a. Before the application for any building permits, submission of one original large-sized set of the final site plan drawings (Sheets ST-1 and ST-2), signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor, engineer, architect or landscape architect who prepared the materials, revised to show the order board with the external speaker tower; and b. Before the application for any building permits, granting of any necessary sign variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Vote Ayes: Meier Swain, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Eddy 2-Lot Subdivision, 430 & 434 Bostwick Road Ms. Eddy said she's selling her farm to Mr. Baker and wants to keep her two houses. Mr. Bosak said there's a condition regarding further subdivision of the property. There's an existing conservation easement, so is the logic that if the conservation easement ever goes away,we want to make sure that any future subdivision observes the same limits on lot size as in the current zoning? Ms. Brock responded that it's not our easement. It's a requirement of our law that we not allow more than a certain number of lots. They're independent of each other. If the zoning changes, the density might also change; if it's no longer in the ag zone and it's a dense urban area, it could change. Mr. Bosak thought the idea was that if those new conditions came about, they'd still be limited to what it says in the condition. Ms. Brock said right now this is what our law requires, so this is what they need to do. Mr. Bosak pointed out that there is a family graveyard in parcel B, and he would like a condition protecting it. Something to the effect that if that lot were further subdivided, one lot would be dedicated to that. Ms. Brock asked: on what grounds?What's our legal authority to have anything to do with the graveyard? Mr. Bosak thought it was the same legal authority as the condition he was just talking about, but you're saying that's baked into our law. Ms. Brock said there's a section that talks about subdivisions in ag zones.Your general authority to review subdivisions entails looking at the layout of streets, the ingress and egress. She's not sure the subdivision review would extend to what Mr. Bosak is talking about. Mr. Bosak said he thought we'd been concerned about it in the past, such as with Maplewood. Planning Board Minutes 09.19.2017 Page 7 of 13 Ms. Brock said it was voluntary. Looking at our town subdivision law, there aren't any specific criteria; it just refers us back to the New York town law. Ms. Collins suggested that if a future subdivision were to be considered, they'd have to do SEQR; it would be unlikely this would be bulldozed. Mr. Bosak was glad to know there would be a mechanism to bring it back to the board. PB Resolution No. 2017.063: SEQR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Eddy 2-Lot Subdivision, 430 &434 Bostwick Road, Tax Parcel No. 32.4-18.2 Moved by Linda Collins; seconded by Jon Bosak WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision located at 430 and 434 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 32.4-18.2, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 115.81 +/-acre property into a 1.77 +�- acre property (Parcel A) containing the existing two residences (430 & 434 Bostwick Road) and a 114.04 +/-acre property (Parcel B) containing the existing barns and silos. Jacqueline Eddy, Owner/Applicant;James Baker, Jr.,Agent; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting in an uncoor- dinated environmental review with respect to the project; and 3. The Planning Board on September 19, 2017, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Survey Map Showing Portion of Lands of Jacqueline Eddy Located on Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York", prepared by Sheive Land Surveying, dated 2/6/2017, 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 Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced action as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Vote Ayes: Meier Swain, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak Planning Board Minutes 09.19.2017 Page 8 of 13 AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision located at 430 and 434 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 32.4-18.2, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 115.81 +/-acre property into a 1.77 +�- acre property (Parcel A) containing the existing two residences (430 & 434 Bostwick Road) and a 114.04 +/-acre property (Parcel B) containing the existing barns and silos. Jacqueline Eddy, Own- er/Applicant; James Baker,Jr., Agent Ms. Meier Swain opened the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. Taylor Peck said that his wife owns 433 Bostwick Road, the house directly across the street from 430, and they own the property across from the field with the agricultural easement to protect the watershed below. His understanding is that whoever owns the cemetery has to maintain it forever. The fact that the town recognizes and maintains it means to him that it's a known quantity and it's part of the agricultural land. He strongly supports this: it's neighbors taking care of neighbors. It keeps the land agricultural and will be part of Sweyolaken Farm,which is the last dairy farm in Ithaca. Mr. Baker leases six acres of land from them. They bought it to protect their view and to keep the land open because that particular section was zoned residential. This is a way for Mrs. Eddy and her daughter to have their homes and the land will go to a neighbor who will continue farming it. Gretchen Herrmann, 433 Bostwick Rd, has lived across the street from Ms. Eddy for 39 years and strongly supports the subdivision. Ms. Meier Swain closed the public hearing at 8:21 p.m. She noted that the packet contained a letter from the health department to the effect that the parcel with the houses will not be able to be further subdivided in the future to create a lot for each house. Mr. Smith said the location of the houses, the barn, and the easement limits how layout can occur. Someone could do an engineering study to show that two septic systems could work and a subdivision could happen.That would be someone's option in the future. He believes both houses have their own septic systems now. Mr. Bosak said presumably the applicants were aware of this and went ahead anyway. PB Resolution No. 2017-064: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Eddy 2-Lot Subdivision, 430 &434 Bostwick Road, Tax Parcel No. 32.4-18.2 Moved by Joseph Haefeli; seconded by John Beach WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision located at 430 and 434 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 32.4-18.2, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 115.81 +/-acre property into a 1.77 +�- acre property (Parcel A) containing the existing two residences (430 & 434 Bostwick Road) and a Planning Board Minutes 09.19.2017 Page 9 of 13 114.04 +/-acre property (Parcel B) containing the existing barns and silos. Jacqueline Eddy, Owner/Applicant;James Baker, Jr.,Agent; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting in an uncoordi- nated environmental review with respect to the project, has on September 19, 2017, made a nega- tive 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 19, 2017, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Survey Map Showing Portion of Lands of Jacqueline Eddy Located on Bostwick Road, Torn of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York", prepared by Sheive Land Surveying, dated 2/6/2017, 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 subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Torn Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision located at 430 and 434 Bostwick Road, Torn of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 32.- 1-18.2, 2:1-18.2, as shown on the survey map entitled "Survey Map Showing Portion of Lands of Jacqueline Eddy Located on Bostwick Road, Torn of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York", subject to the following conditions: a. granting of any necessary variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to signing of the plat by the Chairperson of the Planning Board, and b. submission of a revised subdivision map with a note stating that"pursuant to the Planning Board's September 19, 2017 Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the Eddy 2-Lot Subdivision (PB Resolution No. 2017-064), no more than fourteen (14) additional lots may be subdivided off of Parcel B, which together with Parcel A and the remainder of Parcel B will re- sult in a maximum of sixteen (16) lots", prior to signing of the plat by the Chairperson of the Planning Board, and c. submission for signing by the Chairperson of the Planning Board of an original and three dark lined prints of the final revised subdivision plat, prior to filing with the Tompkins Coun- ty Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Torn of Ithaca Planning De- partment, and d. submission of a letter signed by the property owners containing the same language as that in the subdivision map note described in paragraph b above,with the letter's language subject to review and approval by the Attorney for the Torn, to be filed concurrently with the signed subdivision plat in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of the letter's filing to the Torn of Ithaca Planning Department, and Planning Board Minutes 09.19.2017 Page 10 of 13 e. submission of a revised subdivision map with a note stating that"no further subdivision of Parcel A is to occur without approval from the Tompkins County Health Department". Vote Ayes: Meier Swain, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination:Alberta 2-Lot Subdivision, 751 Elm Street Extension David Mountin, a neighbor of the Albertas, was at the meeting to represent them because they were out of town. They're proposing to subdivide the property to create a parcel so their daughter and her husband can build a home next door and move back to Ithaca to raise their family. Ms. Meier Swain stated that this is a full EAF because of the property's proximity to the Coy Glen Critical Environmental Area. She asked Ms. Balestra to explain why the staff memo says the planning board is the only lead agency on the project. Ms. Balestra said that typically with a large Type I action, oftentimes another board or the DEC or state parks gets involved.When that happens, the planning board is required to declare itself lead agency and solicit comments from involved agencies. In this case, there's no other agency involved, so we don't have to ask for comments from anyone else. Regarding whether the board needs to take into consideration the intention for a house to be built on the property, Ms. Brock stated that we've encountered the same issue with the short form.Where you know what will be built, even generally, to the extent that you can answer the questions,you should answer them in the form. PB Resolution No. 2017-065: SEQR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Alberta 2-Lot Subdivision, 751 Elm Street Extension, Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-29 Moved by John Beach; seconded by Linda Collins WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2- lot subdivision located at 751 Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28.4-29, Low Density Residential and Conservation Zones. The proposal involves subdividing the 11.22 +/- acre property into a 7.45 +/-acre property containing the existing residence (751 Elm Street Extension) and a 3.77 +/- acre vacant property. William N. &Sharon P.Alberta, Owners/Applicants; 2. This is a Type I Action, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 and the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 148 (Environmental Quality Review),because it involves an Unlisted action which takes place in, or within 250 feet of, any Critical Environmental Area designated by a governmental agency pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.14(g), for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is the lead agency in the environmental review with respect to the proposed subdivision; Planning Board Minutes 09.19.2017 Page 11 of 13 3. The Planning Board on September 19, 2017, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full 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, No. 751 Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York", prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., dated 8/17/2017, 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 Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced action as proposed, based on the information in the Full 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: Meier Swain, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision located at 751 Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28.4-29, Low Density Residential and Conservation Zones. The proposal involves subdividing the 11.22 +/- acre property into a 7.45 +/-acre property containing the existing residence (751 Elm Street Extension) and a 3.77 +/-acre vacant property. William N. &Sharon P.Alberta, Owners/Applicants Ms. Meier Swain opened the public hearing at 8:47 p.m.; hearing no one, she closed the public hearing at 8:47. PB Resolution No. 2017-066: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Alberta 2-Lot Subdivi- sion, 751 Elm Street Extension, Tax Parcel No. 28.4-29 Moved by Jon Bosak; seconded by John Beach WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2- lot subdivision located at 751 Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28.4-29, Low Density Residential and Conservation Zones. The proposal involves subdividing the 11.22 +/- acre property into a 7.45 +/-acre property containing the existing residence (751 Elm Street Extension) and a 3.77 +/- acre vacant property. William N. &Sharon P.Alberta, Owners/Applicants; Planning Board Minutes 09.19.2017 Page 12 of 13 2. This is an Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in the environmental review, has on September 19, 2017, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full 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 19, 2017, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Survey Map, No. 751 Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York", prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., dated 8/17/2017, 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 751 Elm Street Extension, Torn of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28.-l- 29, 8:1- 29, as shown on the survey map described in Whereas #3 above, subject to the following condi- tion: a. Submission for signing by the Chairperson of the Planning Board of an original and three dark lined prints of the final subdivision plat, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk Office; and submission of a copy of the receipt of filing to the Torn of Ithaca Planning De- partment. Vote Ayes: Meier Swain, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - No one came forward to address the board. AGENDA ITEM PB Resolution No. 2017-067: Minutes of September 5, 2017 Moved by John Beach; seconded by Linda Collins RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of September 5, 2017, as amended. Vote Ayes: Meier Swain, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak Abstentions: Haefeli Planning Board Minutes 09-19-2017 Page 13 of 13 Jon Bosak moved to cancel the meeting of October 3 for lack of proposals. The board voted unani- mously in favor. Adjournment Upon a motion by John Beach, the meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra DeAuAltine, Deputy lerk I