Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2003-10-070 0 AW �� FILE DATE TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2003 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, October 7, 2003, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; George Conneman, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member, Kevin Talty, Board Member; David Dubow, Acting Attorney for the Town; Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning, Mike Smith, Planner; Christine Balestra; Planner ABSENT: Eva Hoffmann: Board Member ALSO PRESENT: Joe Fitzgerald, Vice President, Cayuga Medical Center; Leonard Newton, 2 Ascot Place; Larry Hoffman, HOLT Architects; Paul Levesque, HOLT Architects; Tessa Flores, 154 Compton Road; Ira Goldstein, 155 Compton Road; Juddson Leonard, 6 Schickel Road; Boris Simkin, 217 Buttermilk Lane; Carisa Vygram, 217 Buttermilk Lane; Jim Penwell, 101 East Woodlawn Avenue, Elmira; Dan Mitchell, 606 Elmira Road; Bill Albern, (address not given /found) Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:04 p.m., and accepted for the record, Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on September 29, 2003 and October 1, 2003, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on October 1, 2003, Chairperson Wilcox read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. Chairperson Wilcox - Before we get started, I want to let the Board know that member, Rod Howe was unanimously re- elected to the Board of Directors of the New York Planning Federation for another three year term. Board Member Howe — In my absence. Chairperson Wilcox — In my absence. We continue to be represented both by Rod and by David Kay, who was elected, he's now an officer of the Planning Federation. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:06 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — If there is a member of the audience who wishes to address the Planning Board this evening on an issue, an item, a topic or whatever that is not on this evening's agenda, we ask that you please come to the microphone, give us your name and address and we'll be very interested to hear what you have to say this evening. There being no one, we'll move on to the next agenda item, which is — I'm sorry. Board Member Mitrano — This gentleman raised his hand. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry sir. Juddson Leonard, 6 Schickel Road — I've come here to express my opinion on the Westview project, which is on the agenda. Chairperson Wilcox — Then I will let you speak at that time, okay? Thank you. Is there anyone else? Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:07 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination: Modification of Condition, Cayuga Medical Center, 101 Harris B. Dates Drive Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:08 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Would one of you just come and have a seat, just in case? Name, professional address works just fine and a brief overview of what you're proposing. Joe Fitzgerald, Vice President of Cayuga Medical Center —The reason why we are here is that the last meeting that we attended here on the second of September and I believe Susan Ritter outlined this well in her memorandum to you, dated the 29th There was an approval contingent upon submission of a copy of the Certificate of Need confirming that such approval be supplied prior to the issuance of the Building Permit. What we're asking tonight is that the submission of a copy of the C.O.M. be supplied prior to the issue of the final Certificate of Occupancy. The reason for that is a couple of reasons. Reason number one is that when we were here on September 2nd, the Health Department in Albany and we have been trying to work on getting this project before their Project Review Committee in Albany in October and, unfortunately, they weren't able to do that and they're not going to be able to do that until the later part of December. That would throw this project back a little bit from the standpoint of 2 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 timing and we are concerned about the weather, because of that however, the Health Department suggested and I believe, because I handed to Mr. Wilcox a copy of an approval that the Health Department gave us on what they call a limited review and the purpose of this limited review was the fact that, because they recognize that this is a project that they are supporting , that this would enable the hospital to get the site work and relocate utilities and everything else. That was what that letter was talking about that he has received last week. Since your committee meeting, we did discuss the question of need and I brought Dr. Newton with me. The Physician Organization in town met to review the proposal and I'll allow Dr. Newton, who is president of the organization, to discuss what the outcome of that meeting was. Leonard Newton, 2 Ascot Place — I'm a practicing ear, nose and throat physician in Ithaca, office actually in the Village of Lansing. I've recently taken on the position of president of an organization that we call FLMA, Finger Lakes Management Associates. We are the organization which represents the majority of the physicians in this community in private practice. A number of years ago we've come up with a mechanism by which we , as physicians with our partners, the hospital, would review requests of each others' group to determine if there was adequate need from an access and quality point of view to warrant engaging in these projects. Last week, Monday, the Finger Lakes Management Association met and, at that meeting discussed the issue of the Hospitals request for a radiation /oncology facilities. Present at that meeting were both representatives of the hospital, as well as representatives of the existing radiotherapy group. After a fair bit of deliberation and discussion, it was the unanimous decision of the Board and the majority of all those present at the meeting that we recommend that the hospital go ahead with the project, based on the needs of the community. I hope that you consider these facts in making a determination about allowing the hospital to proceed. Chairperson Wilcox — Discussion with regard to Environmental Review? Would anybody like to move the SEQR motion? So moved by George Conneman, seconded by Kevin Talty. All those in favor, please say "aye ". Anyone opposed? There are none, the motion is passed. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -083: SEAR: Modification of Condition 2.c. of Site Plan Approval Resolution, Cayuga Medical Center — Radiation Oncology Addition, 101 Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -3 -2.1 MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Kevin Tally. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of modification of Condition 2.c. of the Planning 3 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 Board Resolution, dated 912103, granting Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Radiation Oncology Addition to the Cayuga Medical Center located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -2.1, Residence District R -30. Said condition required the applicant to submit a copy of the Certificate of Need from New York State Health Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit from the Town of Ithaca. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner; HOLT Architects, PC, Applicant, and 2. The applicant has submitted a request to the Planning Board for modification of the aforementioned condition so that construction of the Oncology Radiation Building Addition can commence while the application to the New York State Health Department for the Certificate of Need is being processed, which may not be completed and approved until December 2003 or later, and, 3. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and 4. The Planning Board, on October 7, 2003, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and other application material, and 5. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Modification of Condition 2.c. of the 912103 Planning Board Resolution granting Site Plan Approval for the Cayuga Medical Center Radiation Oncology addition. F1001 S W92121:42001:40 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSENT. Hoffmann The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. 4 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of modification of Condition 2.c. of the September 2, 2003 Planning Board Resolution granting Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Radiation Oncology addition to the Cayuga Medical Center located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -2.1, Residence District R -30. Said condition required the applicant to submit a copy of the Certificate of Need from New York State Health Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit from the Town of Ithaca. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner; HOLT Architects, PC, Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 7:10 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and gentlemen, this is a Public Hearing. If there is a member of the audience who wishes to address the Planning Board this evening, please come to the microphone, have a seat, give us your name and address and we'd be very interested to hear what you have to say this evening. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 7:11 p.m. Board Member Thayer — I see no problems with it. Chairperson Wilcox — They're assuming the risk, we're not assuming the risk. If I'm not mistaken, I believe the Zoning Board did, as part of their approval, recommend that the Building Permit be issued sooner rather than later. Board Member Conneman — This will be approved at the December meeting of the Board? Chairperson Wilcox — I have to ask you to come up to the microphone. Board Member Conneman — You anticipate that this will be approved at the December meeting of the Medical Board? Mr. Fitzgerald — No. It's approved by the Project Review Committee of the Health Department. Board Member Conneman — And that would be in December? Mr. Fitzgerald — It would be on their December agenda. Because of that delay was why they suggested that we do a limited review approval and they gave us one very rapidly so that we could move forward. Chairperson Wilcox — Would you call this a preliminary approval? A conditioned approval? What would you call it? PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 Mr. Fitzgerald — In this case, I think it's one of those where they call it, under the law, a limited review approval, but we had conversation with them and obviously, they're not going to allow us to spend that kind of money and then not approve the project. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions? There being none, I will move the motion for modification of the existing site plan approval. Seconded by Larry Thayer. Any discussion? Comments? There being none, all those in favor, please signal by saying "aye ". Anyone opposed? No one is opposed. The motion is passed. Thank you very much. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -084: Modification of Condition 2.c. of Site Plan Approval Resolution, Cayuga Medical Center — Radiation Oncology Addition, 101 Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -3 -2.1 MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of modification of Condition 2.c. of the Planning Board Resolution, dated 912103, granting Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Radiation Oncology addition to the Cayuga Medical Center located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -3- 2.1, Residence District R -30. Said condition required the applicant to submit a copy of the Certificate of Need from New York State Health Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit from the Town of Ithaca. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner; HOLT Architects, PC, Applicant, and 2. The Planning Board, in granting Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the Cayuga Medical Center Radiation Oncology Addition on September 2, 2003, imposed certain conditions of approval including Condition "2. c." which required "submission of a copy of the approval of the Certificate of Need from New York State Health Department confirming the need in the community for such a facility, such approval to be supplied prior to issuance of a Building Permit" and 3. The applicant has submitted a request to the Planning Board for modification of the aforementioned condition so that construction of the Oncology Radiation Building Addition can commence while the application to the New York State Health Department for the Certificate of Need is being processed, which may not be completed and approved until December 2003 or later, and, 6 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 4. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on October 7, 2003, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 5. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on October 7, 2003, has reviewed and accepted a memo requesting said resolution modification from HOLT Architects, P.C., written on behalf of the Cayuga Medical Center. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants the modification of Condition "2.c.'; of the 912103 Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the Cayuga Medical Center Oncology Addition, to state that the submission of the Certificate of Need will be submitted to the Town prior to issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy rather than as initially written, prior to issuance of the Building Permit. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSENT.- Hoffmann The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination: Ithaca Beer Co. Expansion, 606 Elmira Road Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — I see Dan sitting out there. Jim Penwell, 101 East Woodlawn Avenue, Elmira — I'm with Streeter Associates. Chairperson Wilcox - I assume you have a presentation? Mr. Penwell - Brief. It pretty much follows along with the information that you already have in hand. I'll just go through the outline and the proposal quickly. Chairperson Wilcox — That's fine thank you. 7 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 Mr. Penwell — The owner wishes to expand his facility at 606 Elmira Road. He has a need for increased production. He is trying to get five things accomplished as readily as possible. He has an existing building currently in place since, approximately 1970 on Route 13. It fronts on the west side of the road. What we are proposing to do, the back area of the building currently is paved and we're proposing to put an approximately 31, 000 square feet square foot addition on to the back side of the building. The existing building is 14 feet high and we're going to have a 16 foot high bay, approximately 20 feet out and then it will step up to 24 feet and continue to 28 feet and continue the 28 feet to the back. With the area being on paved surface right now, we have enough changes in the topography of the pavement. We are replacing the pavement on pervious surface of the building so that there will be no increased drainage consideration to go along with that. Vegetation exists on three sides of the open area. We will be digging up the other area, none of the vegetation will be altered or modified in this process. So, we feel that we have no additional drainage considerations. We have no land use considerations, other than to pave the parking area that we currently have. We hope that you will consider our request for preliminary and final approval tonight. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not sure who's going to take questions, but, let me try it this way. Dan, you're going to have to give a name and address if you're going to speak. Dan Mitchell, 606 Elmira Road Chairperson Wilcox — How is that rear parking lot being used right now? Mr. Mitchell — Right now we are storing pallets, dirty kegs, before we bring them in and we've got a trailer that houses bottles. We've got our old system, we have radar systems, our old system is back there before we sell it. Chairperson Wilcox — How's business? Mr. Mitchell — Business has been good. Board Member Conneman — I believe when you were here the last time, you said that the pipe, you could not really see this addition from the road. Is that right? Mr. Mitchell — Yeah, if you're standing on the other side of the road, you can't see this. Mr. Penwell — From the optic vision point, a little bit more than five feet off the ground, a little bit higher than one seated in a car, with the elevation of the road and the elevation in the front fagade of the existing building, we do not believe that the high point of the addition will be visible. Certainly, if it is, you will only see a modest line of ridge across the top. 8 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 Board Member Conneman — So, you will notice it? Mr. Penwell — I don't believe so. You may have a certain perspective as you drive by as you come in from the north or south, where you can look along the side of the building and see that, but it will be completely with the view of the building. With the elevation, we fell it's not like it will stand out like a sore thumb. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions with regard to the Environmental Review. Board Member Thayer — I'll move the SEAR. Board Member Conneman — I'll second it. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Larry Thayer. Seconded by George Conneman. There being no further discussion, all those in favor, please signal by saying "aye ". Anyone opposed? There is no one opposed and there are no abstentions. The motion is passed. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 085: SEAR: Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval, Ithaca Beer Co. Expansion, 606 Elmira Road, Tax Parcel No. 33 -3- 2.1 MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS: 1. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed 3,100 +/- square foot addition to the Ithaca Beer Company located at 606 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33- 3 -2.1, Light Industrial District. The warehouse addition will be placed at the rear of the current building on the existing paved area and will be used to expand production, to house additional tanks and storage, and add a larger bottling line. Yunis Realty, Inc., Owner; Dan Mitchell, Ithaca Beer Company, Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on October 7, 2003, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, plans titled "Property Location," (Tax Map No. 33), "Survey Map No. 606 Elmira Road, " dated 9 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 February 13, 1998, prepared by T.G. Miller P.C., "Site Plan," (DWG C1) "First Floor Plan," (DWG A1) and "Elevations," (DWG A2) dated 9- 15 -03, prepared by Streeter Associates, Inc., and other application material, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSENT.- Hoffmann The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed 3,100 +/- square foot addition to the Ithaca Beer Company located at 606 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33- 3 -2.1, Light Industrial District. The warehouse addition will be placed at the rear of the current building on the existing paved area and will be used to expand production, to house additional tanks and storage, and add a larger bottling line. Yunis Realty, Inc., Owner; Dan Mitchell, Ithaca Beer Company, Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 7:20 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions? Then you may have a seat. Ladies and gentlemen this is a Public Hearing, if there is a member of the audience who wishes to address the Board this evening on this particular agenda item, we ask you to please come to the microphone, give us your name and address and we would be very interested to hear what you have to say this evening. 10 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 With no persons present to be hear, Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 7:22 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — I like it when a small business does well. Board Member Mitrano — Absolutely. I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Tracy Mitrano. Seconded by Rod Howe. Does anyone have any questions about the encroachment on the rear yard and a need to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. In my opinion, it's in the back yard, it backs up on the Mancini Industrial Park back there. To me, it's inconsequential. I have a motion and I have a second. Is there any other discussion? There being none, all those in favor, please signal by saying "aye ". Is there anyone opposed? There are no abstentions. The motion is passed. You're all done, thank you. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -086: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, Ithaca Beer Co. Expansion, 606 Elmira Road, Tax Parcel No. 33 -3 -2.1 MOTION by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by Rode Howe. WHEREAS: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed 3,100 +/- square foot addition to the Ithaca Beer Company located at 606 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33- 3 -2.1, Light Industrial District. The warehouse addition will be placed at the rear of the current building on the existing paved area and will be used to expand production, to house additional tanks and storage, and add a larger bottling line. Yunis Realty, Inc., Owner; Dan Mitchell, Ithaca Beer Company, Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on October 7, 2003, 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 a Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on October 7, 2003, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, plans titled "Property Location," (Tax Map No. 33), "Survey Map No. 606 Elmira Road," dated February 13, 1998, prepared by T.G. Miller P.C., "Site Plan," (DWG CI) "First Floor PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 Plan," (DWG A1) and "Elevations," (DWG A2) dated 9- 15 -03, prepared by Streeter Associates, Inc., and other application material, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca 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 neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed 3,100 +/- square foot addition to the Ithaca Beer Company located at 606 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33- 3 -2.1, as shown on plans titled "Property Location, " (Tax Map No. 33), "Survey Map No. 606 Elmira Road," dated February 13, 1998, prepared by T.G. Miller P.C., "Site Plan," (DWG Cl) "First Floor Plan," (DWG Al) and "Elevations," (DWG A2) dated 9- 15 -03, prepared by Streeter Associates, Inc., and other application material, subject to the following conditions: a. granting of the necessary variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to issuance of a building permit, and b. revision of sheet "DWG A2" to delete the Ithaca Beer Co. logo from the West Elevation, prior to issuance of a building permit, and C. submission of an original of the final site plan on mylar, vellum or paper, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None ABSENT: Hoffmann The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM : Consideration of a follow -up Sketch Plan review for the proposed 34 -lot Westview Subdivision located at the intersection of Schickel Road and NYS Route 96B (Danby Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 2 -3.2, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes 12 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 extending Schickel Road towards the east and creating a loop road for 32 residential lots and two lots totaling 2.4 +/- acres for parkland. Igor Cheikhet, Owner; Boris Simkin, Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox — Give me just a second please, ladies and gentlemen. Dan have you given a copy to the applicant? Ms. Balestra — I just did that. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you Christine. Alright, has everybody read it. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:24 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — To members of the audience who may be here, this is not a public hearing, but this Board has generally allowed the public to speak at presentations, such as these. So we will give the applicant a chance to give their presentation, assuming they have one. We will give the Board and opportunity to ask questions, and then for anyone who wishes to speak, we will give you that opportunity. The floor is yours. Bill Albern - I think I wish I was appearing before this Board this evening for an approval because you all seem to be in a very good mood. Unless, you have other desires, I will quickly highlight the changes since the last sketch plan. Chairperson Wilcox — That is fine. Mr. Albern — This is marked "preliminary" but it is actually the sketch plan for submission. The park. The park that we showed last time was a 3/4 acre park in this area. Chairperson Wilcox — May I ask you to stop for a second. Anybody may come up here around, if you would like. You are welcome to come up behind us and view this. Mr. Albern — We have changed the park. There was a Lot 13 in this area. That Lot 13 has been abandoned and it have become part of a park. We're now going to have 32 lots, instead of 33 and also, we have this area up here as a park of .9 acres. (Inaudible comments) Walkway. There was no mention of a walkway at the last meeting. Planning staff reviewed the drawing and brought up the question of a walkway and we have since added a walkway from this Schickel Road Extension, down toward Lisa Lane, so that people in this area and future development up here can walk through this area in order to get to the park. The walkway is not on any drawing and this is the first time anyone has seen it, but basically, the walkway looks 13 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 something like this. It's a 20 foot wide parcel with split -rail fences and eight foot wide. Woods. There was a big discussion of trees and woods. I believe all you people have a copy of an aerial photo in your packet and that shows the area, I think very, very well. That came from the County Archives. Here is my depiction of what you see there. There are heavy woods in this area, light woods here, some around here and around here. This area is pretty well shrubbed. We are proposing that for these lots, the rear setback yard, the rear 50 feet is wooded. In the rear yards, those trees may not be cut. Also, we're proposing that on this, these twelve lots in here, the trees may not be cut within 25 feet of the lot line. So, what we are proposing is you would have a 50 foot buffer of trees between these lots. In the 25 foot lot line separation, normally, a garage would be permitted. We are saying no that is 25 feet, except right near the garage here, we might have what looks less than 25 feet of separation. Interrupt me if you have any questions. Our storm water report, which has been completed and Mr. Walker has given you a review of it. Basically, the storm water, rather than having a huge pond down here, which everybody does not want, we are going to wind up with, we think, a small pond. Basically, we're proposing a small pond and then each lot line will have a swale, where there will be a dip between the homes and those swales will accumulate water during a storm. Those are shown on those drawings here with a swale on each lot line and those swales will have a barrier at the end and the water will come from this lot and down to here, be accumulated here and a trap will be at the end before the storm water can exit to the street. So, basically, we will have a whole series of very, very small one and a half or two feet deep swales. Phases. The owner expects to construct the first set of lots here, Phase I. Then work your way up here and around and probably turn this way, in four phases for the present plan. Sidewalks. The Board asked last time if we would consider sidewalks. On reflection, the owner and the developer would prefer not to have sidewalks, primarily from a maintenance standpoint. The cost of sidewalks is not that huge. It is not going to make or break this project, but we are afraid that in a few years, the sidewalks will start deteriorating and it will look like the devil or the Town is going to have to do a lot of enforcing to make the home owners repair or the Town is going to have to repair and add it to taxes. We are very reluctant to add sidewalks. The final item I have is sewer. The sewer has to come down from up here. Their sewer has to be extended from about 650 feet down here up to here. We are going to cross two private properties. There is not way to put that sewer in the Danby Road right of way. Water is already there and we can't use that right of way, there is a big, steep cliff in there. It is just impossible. So, we're proposing to put the water, the sewer in an easement and actually the Town already has an 14 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 easement on two homes north of where we are, 1141 and 1147 Danby Road. We're talking an easement on 1157 Danby Road and on 2 Schickel Road. So, we have to get those easements and Mr. Simkin has been talking to those two homes owners and he faxed me an agreement from the people at 1157 Danby Road today. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry, where is water? Where does water terminate right now? Mr. Albern — Water is right here, except the pressure is very low. These first seven homes may need booster pumps within the homes, if the Town cannot boost the pressure this year or next year. Originally, the Town was going to boost the pressure, I understand now it is maybe not. Chairperson Wilcox — You all done? Okay, who wants to start? George, I think should let you start. Board Member Conneman — Well, I admire the fact that you increased the park. I still think that the development is cookie - cutter and it doesn't impress me, but we'll fight that issue some other time, not with you. Your lots are about 6/10 of an acre, is that right? Mr. Albern — Yes, well- Board Member Talty — I thought they were bigger than that. Mr. Albern —Well, maybe .7. Chairperson Wilcox — Then lot size is 30,000. Board Member Conneman — Dan, what about the water? Is that true? Mr. Walker — Well, there is an improvement that we were planning for a number of years at the intersection of King Road. There is a pressure regulating valve there that reduces the pressure down to maintain pressure on the lower end of Danby Road at a reasonable amount. We're been looking at redoing that valve because it is underground right now. It actually was in the budget for next year. It is no longer in the budget for next year, based on other expenses and lack of funding right now. It's a very doable project. It's just not approved in our Capital Projects Program at this point. We're probably looking at somewhere around $100,000 to make it work. I do not this that the Health Department will allow an extension of the water main until that pressure is raised up. So, unless the Town comes up with another funding source, we're probably not going to do that for two or three years. 15 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 Board Member Thayer — Extending to the first seven houses you're talking about? Mr. Walker — They won't allow any more extension up there. No, I'm sure they won't. John Anderson, at the Health Department, we've talked to him and Jack at Bolton Point has talked to him also and he's not going to approve an extension of that water main until we have the pressure up over 35 pounds, which is the minimum that they are asking for at the end of the water main. So, I don't see booster pumps as being a viable alternative. There are several houses existing on Schickel Road that do have pressure booster pumps in there. That was an anomaly, we used to have a spring, if you look right about at the end of the pavement for the existing Schickel Road, there used to be a spring box there that was put in by the Schickel's, I believe when they first built those lots. That was supplying those three houses, four houses on that road with water. Of course, the reptile community loved the spring box also. It was actually part of the Town's water system and the Town was supposed to be maintaining it. So, for health reasons, we had to get approval from the Health Department to extend the water main up to that point with the lower pressures and since all those houses had booster pumps in them originally to feed from the spring, those were kind of grand- fathered in and that's why those houses are allowed to have booster pumps. Chairperson Wilcox — Could you explain the reptiles comment? Mr. Walker — At one time when we opened it up there were quite a few snakes swimming around in the pool so we decided that that was not a real healthy situation. Chairperson Wilcox — No alligators or crocodiles or anything? Mr. Walker — No crocodiles, just snakes, a few frogs. Board Member Thayer — So, this project can't go anywhere until the Town does something for the water? Mr. Walker — Let's say that a water improvement is needed to make this project work. We very often ask sub - developers to provide water improvements if it's going to be to their benefit. Chairperson Wilcox — Are you aware of any condition under which the County Health Department would approve the extension of the water main, other than increasing the pressure? Mr. Walker — Probably not. The conversation with John Anderson indicated that he does not see this as a viable water main extension until the pressure is increased. 16 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — He could change his mind. Mr. Walker — I supposed he could. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, just the realities here. Mr. Walker — I think the fact that we have three or four houses on there already that have booster pumps it is his feeling that we are at the limit of what would be tolerable up there. Mr. Albern — I gather you have a conversation with John Anderson in the past week or so. Mr. Walker — Jack Brookheim has too. Actually, Jack talked to him and passed the information on to me. Board Member Mitrano — Who owns the land off of the Lots 13, 14, 15 and 16? Mr. Albern — Pardon? Board Member Mitrano — Who owns the land at the end of the site, adjacent to Lots 13, 14, 15 and 16? Mr. Albern — The Flores on the east. The (inaudible) on the north and Tavelli on the south. Board Member Mitrano — Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Tracy, can I just ask you to make the microphone closer to you? Dan, since we've got you on the spot, would you like to comment on your review of the storm water management plan? Mr. Walker — The report and the analysis is very thorough. Chairperson Wilcox — Mind you, you looked at something that we have not seen. Mr. Walker — That's the report. Chairperson Wilcox — For the record, Dan is holding up something about an inch and a half thick. Mr. Walker — It's a very thorough report. It takes into account a lot of the new regulations that the State is requiring for storm water management. Basically, the 17 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 new guidelines say that you are not supposed to exceed 80 percent. The new development should not increase any pollutants. You take 80 percent of what it does do and you are supposed to control, let me get this right here. You have existing conditions and then you have the potential for sediment and so on from the new development, you take the difference between 80 percent of the new developments and what's happening now and that's what you have to control, is one interpretation of how it is. The configuration of swales is a very good concept along side each property line. Actually, each of those swales, I did some quick calculations, would hold approximately four inches of run -off from each of those lots, without letting it go off the site. So, it's very efficient. The thing is, part of those swales are not under - drained and supposed to percolate into the soil over a period of time, which is re- charge, I don't think it's going to work on the soils up there, based on what I've seen, is a concern. Having an under drain under part of it is what's shown on there and that will drain in into the ditch over a slow period of time, I think an additional under drain will be needed to make it really effectively work. The sediment basin at the lower end is a really good concept for first flush capture. Again, I don't' feel as justified, for the amount of pavement that we have and the low amount of use it really has as a residential road, the concentration of pollutants is pretty low. One thing that I am trying to stop is a precedent for every Town Road having to have siltation control because I don't think it's justified. This would set a precedent that I wouldn't want to see. The Highway Department is a little nervous about it. Again, the design of that infiltration basin is as an infiltration basin so there is no discharge, which is very appropriate for controlling pollutants from entering the surface water stream. Again, I don't think the soils have a high enough permeability rate to drain that down and not create a wet problem there with mosquitoes and things like that. Chairperson Wilcox — So, you would recommend some changes and revisions. In some ways it's over built and in some ways it's- Mr. Walker — In some ways it's over built. I think the bigger issue though is that each of these lots has it's own little drainage structure. It will require regular maintenance and most homeowners are not capable of understanding that. So, if these go in place, basically each building in going to have to have owner's manuals on how you take care of this maintenance and we are going to have to make sure they do it or it is going to create some problems down the line and I'm not sure exactly how we are going to enforce that. Chairperson Wilcox — So you see that as an issue? Mr. Walker — I see that as an issue. If you look at the northeast, there were drainage swales built in the northeast with no provisions to maintain them, 30 years later now, trees have grown up in them, they have not been kept clean, the ditches are filled up with sediment, people dump all their grass clipping in them and they start flooding other people's properties. Again, when you expect homeowners to understand drainage, you really have to provide some education 18 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 and follow through with it. I think the concept of this is a good way to handle the storm water and keep it distributed. You can probably modify these structures to be a little bit smaller and maybe require a little less maintenance. Mr. Albern's note or e -mail or whatever that some of these ditches are going to be too big and encroach on the building pad area. They are about 20 to 30 feet wide. You're really going to have to have a site plan that basically shows every building pad and how each ditch goes in to make sure that they all fit. So, from a concept, I think it's wonderful. From a practical standpoint, there are some limitations and you could probably scale them back a little bit. Chairperson Wilcox — How do we resolve the homeowner maintenance problem? Mr. Walker — Well, I suppose the first thing you do is you put a deed restriction on it. This is not a homeowner's association or anything like that to maintain that and it could lead to problems for the neighbors down below and things like that. Maybe I'm not giving the homeowners enough credit. Our concern is at some point, the Town, something is going to happen, one is going to fail and people are going to complain about it and the Town will be asked to correct the problem. Mr. Kanter — I guess one question would be, could there be something like a homeowner's association that could oversee the responsibility. That might apply to some other elements of the plan also that we talked about earlier. Mr. Walker — That's always a possibility. Being that this is a conventional subdivision, this might be an incorrect assumption, but I wouldn't think that the homeowner's association would be something that is expected right now. Chairperson Wilcox — David are you dying to say something? Mr. Dubow — One of the interpretations I think we're hearing, and I don't know whether Dan would agree is in the new requirements there is a greater responsibility on the municipality to make sure that the storm water systems work and I think what's being considered are the restrictions and maybe deed restrictions, I think create obligations on the part of the land owner, but what may also be required is their understanding that there is a right on the part of the municipality to go in and rectify a problem and charge that cost back to the land owner. That's about the most effective way that we can generally accomplish this. Mr. Walker - That would be, basically, you're created as a drainage district, suppose. Mr. Dubow — Either formally or informally, some mechanism by which that can be done because the municipality now has a much greater responsibility, so I don't think that they can simply leave it to the property owner. If the property owner fails to do it, the consequences of that really fall back to the municipality far more 19 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 than they did before. The issue would be how do you go about doing that? Some municipalities are considering requiring dedication of the land, actual conveyance so that there is access and then it becomes the responsibility of the municipality. There are certain costs associated with that, but the concern is always one property owner of two property owners who fail to do it and affect the whole operation of the system. It's becoming a little bit more of a difficult problem as to how you do that. There is the dedication and the conveyance of the property is one benefit, but is just then suddenly puts into the hands of the municipality a lot of land that they have control over and have to maintain. If you leave it in the private property owner's hands, I think you need a mechanism to ensure that if they don't do what's necessary, that the municipality can step in and expend whatever costs are necessary to do it and charge that back. Chairperson Wilcox — This raises some concerns in my mind — Mr. Walker — Keep in mind that the level of protection that this provides, the storm water of this quantity, this individual ditch system actually reduces the discharge off this site, according to the calculations, to about half of what the existing discharge is. So there's some leeway in there and it is possible that a lot of the same effect that we had with less significant structures and land grading that caused it, but then we would need a very specific site plan that would be built through building pads. You'd really have a 20 to 30 foot buffer between the buildings on the property line so it would have to be maintained and then the Town would have to keep that monitored and take action if necessary and then charge the home owners. Board Member Thayer — Did you mention some type of a drainage system pipe, that apparently that could solve the maintenance problem? Mr. Walker — All these swales have under - grades in them. It's and nice unique little system and if it was an industrial park, like up by the airport or something like that, to solve that kind of a heavier drainage situation, that this concept is really good. I just think that it is a little more complex than people would be ready to handle. You have people with septic systems now and they may not even know they have a septic system until it overflows at some time and then the Health Department gets involved and they're regulating that. We don't have any drainage ordinance or something like that that gives us the tools to do that right now. Right now on some specific things like this centralized pond, we have taken dedication of a parcel that has a pond on it and we can maintain it. When the guys at the Highway Department looked at this, they said "We don't want to maintain 35 systems, if we have to go in and maintain one system, that's one thing." If someone decided they don't want that hole there, they want to put their rock garden in there to fill it up, then we have an issue to deal with. Board Member Thayer — Does that consist of a drain at the end of the swale? 20 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 Mr. Walker — Do you have a big blow -up of this detail. Mr. Albern — No, I do not. You have a swale and at the end of each swale there's a stone area with an under drain under it, where the stone is acting as a sediment trap and water will seep out trough the stone and out the under drain and come to the road. Mr. Walker —Do you have this drawing? It's basically a diversion ditch, that's got a little rock dam in it or intermediate spillway and then an under drain to drain out, so that has to be kept clean. There's a number of — So, it holds it, it lets it just basically trickle in. It's like a French Drain. Board Member Talty — So, Dan, what kind of maintenance does a French Drain need? I don't get it. Mr. Walker — Well, you've got to make sure that it stays open and drains. Here they've got the under drain swale. There's a little overflow area that needs to be maintained in there. It's got gravel built into it. It's top - soiled and seeded so that people won't even notice that it's there. What you don't want to have happen is, somebody is going to say that there is a hole in their yard and they want to fill it in and put a flower bed in there. Board Member Thayer — Or a tree. Mr. Walker — Or a tree. Board Member Talty — Where a tree, the roots could affect the system. Mr. Walker — Mess it up. You've got this 20 foot wide structure that basically needs to remain cleared and be mowed. There is potential that it is going to stay wet longer because, like the weather that we had last week where we were getting 114 to and inch of rain every couple of days, that would probably be saturated for a week after a heavy rain. So, people are going to try to mow it when it's wet, they are going to get stuck in there with their lawnmowers and just make a mess of it. So, they're going to have to understand that they are going to just have to let that dry out before they can mow it. Board Member Talty — Don't they, on occasion, put PVC pipe up from the drain on the properties of golf courses? Mr. Walker — You mean as a riser on it, to drain out faster? These are sized large enough so that they will take the heavy rain and hold it all in the ditch, so you don't need a surface inlet, the water seeping trough the soil into the under -drain would drain it down over a period of time, but they will stay wet longer. Board Member Thayer — How far is that to the road? 21 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 Mr. Walker — It goes right out to the edge of the road. You see that little pipe there? Board Member Thayer — Yes. Mr. Walker — That goes right into road ditch. These swales basically start at the road ditch and go to the back of the property. Board Member Thayer — Why can't it just go right out into the road? Mr. Walker — It does, the pipe does. Board Member Thayer — Without a drain, I mean. Mr. Walker — Well, the idea is it's detaining the water. It is holding the water for a period of time and then letting it out. This is where we're getting the good retention to maintain the storm water. Again, I think they could be- these are very efficient to trap, like I said, up to four inches of rainfall. Board Member Talty — So, in your opinion, this can be tweaked? Mr. Walker — Yeah. This is not a killer problem. We just have to deal with the maintenance issues and maybe modifying them a little bit so that they are easier to maintain. They are holding so much water back that we can maybe make them a little bit more user friendly. Mr. Albern — There is question that we could consider deed restrictions, we could consider a home owner's association. Board Member Talty — Is there a culvert pipe in the front or is there just a ditch in the front of the property? Mr. Albern — There is just a ditch in the front of the property, except where the driveway is. Chairperson Wilcox- If I would summarize what Dan has said and add my opinion. I would want to be assured that these drainage structures would be maintained. I had some question about setting up an appropriate mechanism. Mr. Walker — At the very least, we would need to own the land. If these are going to go in place, the homeowners have got to be made clear and basically state it right in the deed that there is a drainage structure that must be maintained and there is an easement on it to grant the Town permission to have access to maintain them is necessary. We did the same thing with College Circle basically, they have the whole drainage system. They are maintaining it. We have the right 22 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 to go in there and take care of it if there is a problem to avoid other problems. The homeowners have to know that they are going to be charged for that work if we do it. Chairperson Wilcox — The issue with College Circle is that it is one owner and here it could be 30 owners. Mr. Walker — But it's better to have the easement so we can maintain it, whereas in other areas, we've got people on Muriel Street, Pinewood and other streets up in cigarette alley area where they built these drainage swales between the lots and behind the lots and the homeowners didn't think about it as they were filling it in and they started backing water up onto the other properties. The Town has no legal right to go in there at this point, even though it was part of the original subdivision plan. Board Member Conneman — So that would have to be incorporated into the deed? Mr. Walker — Into the deed also, an easement to the Town for maintenance on it. Mr. Albern — A deed restriction easement and a homeowner's associations are not impossible. Chairperson Wilcox — And it may take a combination of all of them. Mr. Albern — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — A deed restriction is not enough. Mr. Walker — I don't think it would be a deed restriction. It would be something in the deed about the structure. I wouldn't really call it a restriction, but a deed responsibility, I guess is what I would call it. Mr. Dubow — It would probably be a restrictive covenant or some covenant that obligates what the maintenance requirements are, on one hand and what they can't do on the other. I think those would have to be set out in the deeds. I think the easement would clearly be required so that the Town would always have access to that, under whatever circumstance to get in and that would require, I assume all these can be accessed from the road. Mr. Walker — They are all off of the road. Mr. Dubow — That is a much easier solution. 23 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — If you were a lawyer handling the sale of one of these properties and you saw that language in the deed, what would you advise your client? Mr. Dubow — I think the key would be to advise them. What happens is, very often property owners are not advised of those kinds of things. Utility easements, for instance, when there is a sewer easement, people don't understand that the municipality has the right to come in and they would be able to dig up their yard and then replace whether it's NYSEG or it's the Town. I think the key is to make that a matter of public record. I think you probably would wan to include that on the subdivision plat. You might want to file in miscellaneous records for the Town a document that would include all of those requirements so they would be indexed against every property owner when they search the title. I think the key is for people to be made aware. Board Member Conneman — That would include charging them? Mr. Dubow — Absolutely. That would be one of the conditions presumably, that would be made very clear. It would be one of the conditions, I assume on the Board's approval at some point. Mr. Albern — In that respect, it would not be too hugely different from the 20 foot utility I am showing outside the right -of -way. It would be that type of thing, the same thing. Chairperson Wilcox — So, I have the feeling that this system is workable. Mr. Walker — The system is workable as long as the care is there. The concerns we have is that this goes in and everybody forgets about it until they start to fail. Chairperson Wilcox — And those issues can be reasonably addressed? Mr. Walker — Yes. Board Member Howe — It's workable and do you think it's the best solution? Mr. Walker — The best solution on this site because it's gradually — you take care of the runoff where it's being graded at each house. It's a nice distributed -type process. It basically just slows the water down and tries to simulate the existing conditions of vegetation. You've got a 30,000 square foot lot, you've got about ten to 15 percent of that in impervious surface and you're handling that excess runoff on the site, which is the best way to do it. Board Member Thayer — The gutters from the house drain into that swale? Mr. Walker — Yes, everything would drain into that. 24 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 Board Member Talty — A little follow -on the gutters. Would the gutters be tied in to this? Or would the gutters just be free - flowing? Mr. Albern — The home gutters? No they would just go down the side of the house. They would go onto the land and then that runoff would go into the swale. It wouldn't go directly to the swale. Mr. Walker — I think that's really going to depend on the design of the houses and things too. If you've got enough slope away from the house, you can discharge the gutters with a splash tab and it will go away. You wouldn't want do that on the uphill side of the house. You could very easily extend drainage into these ditches too. Board Member Talty — I tied mine in because of that exact thing. Where I had splash back coming back to the house so I just ties them all in to the French Drain. Mr. Walker- That's not always a good idea either. If it gets plugged then it will back water up into your basement. Board Member Talty — Well, it's better than what I had. Chairperson Wilcox — But Kevin knows to maintain it. Mr. Walker — I believe right now the Building Code would not allow that to happen. You can put it into an underground drain and you can outlet it at the same location as the foundation drain, but it would have to be solid pipe as opposed to perforated pipe. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other discussion about either drainage or any other aspects? Larry? Board Member Thayer — The walkway that you are going to put in there, between the tow roads, is going to be maintained by whom? Mr. Albern — It will become Town property. Ms. Balestra — The Subdivision Regulations note that if an internal row in a subdivision is longer than 700 feet, you can require a walkway from one end to the other. Mr. Kanter — Does it say it has to be dedicated to the Town? Ms. Balestra — It doesn't, but I spoke to the Highway Department today and they mentioned that they were willing to maintain it. 25 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 Mr. Walker — It's best to make it part of the road right -of -way. Board Member Thayer — That means they've got to plow it in the winter? Mr. Walker — We do that now in certain areas. We're not looking for more to plow. If it's a walkway, if there's not a lot of winter traffic on it, maybe they want to be able to ski on it or something. Lisa Lane is an example. We have a walkway between Lisa Lane and the Texas Lane area. Board Member Thayer — The Town is willing to accept another? Mr. Walker — Yeah. They are the last thing to be cleared usually, but we do go in and maintain those. It's like the South Hill Trail, we're trying to make the Town more pedestrian friendly and give the communities connections. We've got the equipment to do it and we're doing it now and we're doing it so many places that.. It would be maintained along with the park. Board Member Howe — I would just concur with George and this came up last time. It's a cookie cutter and I'd like to see more imaginative designs come in. Board Member Conneman — Well, I want to go on record saying that because I don't want this to set a precedent. I believe Jon, the Town does have some requirement or at least some suggestion to do something other than cookie cutter- cluster housing? Mr. Kanter — Well, we can require cluster for subdivisions. Normally that would be appropriate if there was an open space characteristic of the site that we really want ed to preserve. We don't have, what you might call a new urbanist approach to subdivision which is just how the subdivision itself is designed. If that is something that people are interested in, then we will have to talk to the Town Board because that is something that we don't have right now. Board Member Conneman — Well, we could suggest to the developer that he come back with an alternate plan, is that right? Mr. Kanter — We could. Board Member Conneman -In this case, I don't think there is enough space to do it, but in some cases, there would be enough space. Mr. Kanter — I think, as we were talking about at the last meeting, if there were a consensus of the Board, even a majority of the Board, who wasn't happy with this current layout and wanted to see something else, I think we could do that, but if there is a clear message that the majority of the Board is willing to accept what is being proposed, that's basically where it is. 26 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — That's where we wound up. Mr. Kanter- So, it's one thing to suggest that a developer look at alternatives, but that's not really realistic when they're positioned to basically move ahead with developing the thing and they don't want to keep coming back to the Board with different sketch plans. Board Member Conneman — But when they come in to see you, you and the staff could suggest that, no? Mr. Kanter - No. What you are doing today is giving guidance to the applicant as to what they should bring in for a preliminary subdivision and site plan, which is, basically, engineered drawings. After tonight, if the majority of the Board says "Sure, this looks good, this is what you should move ahead with." There's not a lot of leeway for looking at alternative. Board Member Conneman- Well, the next time someone comes in with a cookie - cutter sketch plan, we could raise the question. Board Member Mitrano — I'm still a little confused about this as a matter of law. If as many of us were here and we said that we didn't want cookie - cutter and refused to approve a site plan, based on the cookie - cutter pattern and an applicant took it to court, where is the criteria that gives us the ability to say no cookie - cutter? Mr. Kanter — Basically, the State law. David, you might want to add to this. Mr. Dubow — There are sections of State law that provide for clusters, but believe that's generally on a voluntary basis. There is a section authorizing a municipality to include in their local zoning an opportunity for an applicant to come in and ask for the flexibility to do a cluster development for open space purposes. I don't know if that the Town- Mr. Kanter — In Town law, there is a provision that was added in, I think it was in the late 80's, not 1880's, 1980's, that allowed town boards to authorized planning board to mandate cluster development. But those would be in cases where there is some open space or environmental issue that really dictated that time of development. It's really not just for the heck of it because you don't like cookie - cutter subdivisions, it's because a cluster could effectively preserve portions of the property that would have qualities that need preservation. Whether it's strictly visual character, wetlands, steep slopes, stream buffers, those types of things. Agricultural land, I'm sure you could qualify as part of that. 27 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 Mr. Dubow — The intention is so that they can build at the same level of density that they would otherwise be entitled to. It is simply a design to how you would spread the number of units within the property. Board Member Conneman — So you could put them on half acre lots instead of two acre lots? Mr. Kanter — Right. Mr. Dubow — To maintain the greater open space and sort of design is more creative that the standard subdivision. Mr. Albern — An example of that is Buttermilk Subdivision, which is right off there, right across the street. It was bid about ten years ago, maybe not quite that long and that is a cluster subdivision, it is backed up to Buttermilk Falls State Park (inaudible) Mr. Kanter — It's hard to tell though because the lots were never built. Ms. Balestra — EcoVillage could also be considered a cluster subdivision. Mr. Kanter — But, the Town's actual subdivision regulations also include that mandatory cluster provision, so the Town Board has authorized this Board to do that. Mr. Dubow — The answer to that is that as long as that authorization has been implemented locally, then you have the power to direct a developer to come back and design a cluster basis as opposed to this. Chairperson Wilcox — Some discussion about sidewalks before and then this evening's comments. Sidewalks were brought up to the developers.. Board Member Talty — There is a sidewalk right on Burleigh that goes through Cayuga and into the Town of Ithaca and there is a sidewalks on both sides of the line . Board Member Conneman — Now, that's maintained by the Village of Cayuga Heights? Mr. Dubow — I think in the Village of Cayuga Heights it is an actually concrete sidewalk. When you get to the Town line it changes into asphalt pavement. Board Member Howe — I don't feel strongly about sidewalks. We're talking about a self- contained area. It's not like people are walking from one neighborhood to another. 28 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — I think of sidewalks as an urban feature. Board Member Thayer — Or a safety feature. Board Member Talty — I'll tell you what I'm not a big fan of is having no culvert pipe, or if you have a culvert pipe only where the driveway goes out. I'm not a big fan of that because my whole neighborhood has been putting railroad ties and they are deteriorating all over the place. Chairperson Wilcox — In terms of open ditches? Board Member Talty — That is correct. They don't dry as quick because that is the lowest point. They're a pain to cut the grass. More often, than not, a lot of people let the grass rise up around the ditches. I would prefer to have culvert pipes covered right over. I'm just telling you haw this Board Member feels because I don't like the neighborhood in the northeast, where I am right now with respect to that because now you are talking about no sidewalks. That means that the children are going to have to walk in the street because, if there is a ditch at the front of the property, they are going to have to walk in the street. They are going to have to, instead of walking onto the shoulder of the road. Mr. Albern — The shoulder of the road is still there. Board Member Talty — But it is going to be much narrower because if it were to go onto a person's property, it would be one long stretch traverses a short stretch of shoulder and then that's it. A limited access for children to walk. I'm not a big fan of having them walk in the street to begin with and I know I said at the last meeting, I was more in tune with having sidewalks at least on the outside perimeter. Now you come back in here to explain what your position is. My position is that if you're not going to put sidewalks in, then I want to see grass to the street, that's my position. Board Member Mitrano — Is there any plan for a little gravel walk? Or just no walks? Mr. Albern — There's no plan for any sidewalk or any walkway here. Mr. Kanter — You see, Tracy, if you get into a gravel walk or a dirt path then you are into the situation like you have up at Chase Farm which really is not what we want to see where this was supposed to be a walkway through the development at the individual homeowner's responsibility for maintaining and upkeep and, if you don't have an actually asphalt or concrete sidewalk, it just ain't going to happen. I think you have already had observations at these Board Meetings about the fact that the Chase Farm walkway or whatever you want to call it really isn't very successful. 29 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 Board Member Mitrano — My observations, if I recall, this specific application had to do with the actual developer who had promised them and then they didn't come about, that was my concern then. But, with respect to trying to answer about this site plan, now I do want to be sure I understand completely. Where will people walk? Mr. Albern — People will walk in the street, like the do in most other developments in the County. Chairperson Wilcox — Now that Dan is back, would you repeat your concerns so that Dan can respond? Board Member Talty — My concern is that a the past meeting we had, there was discussion with regard to either having a sidewalk on the interior or the exterior, leading up to the park. The developers have come back and indicated that they are not willing to include sidewalks, which I don't necessarily agree or disagree with. What I am indicating right now is that I am not a big fan of having these open ditches, which are all over Ithaca and the County, I am not in favor of them anywhere, but if we are going to have a new development, I would much prefer to have the lawn go to gravel and then the asphalt because where it stands right now, if we are not going to have a sidewalk, where are the kids going to ride their bikes and they are going to walk, they are going to do what everybody else does and walk in the middle of the street. How many times has everyone sat around and driven around kids in the street in the Town of Ithaca? I'm not a big fan of it. So, what I'm indicating is, instead of having a ditch, which also goes un -mowed most of the time because that is where the water settles and it is wet, have it go straight out and have a culvert pipe, not just under the driveway, but all the way along the entire stretch of the property. Chairperson Wilcox — So, ditches versus culvert. Mr. Walker — Ditches versus culvert. We have had a lot of requests from people to have underground drainage and it's just become more popular, especially in the upscale areas. I know Perry Lane has got that system in there. It's actually a narrower road up there because it's the gutter section and then the 18 feet of asphalt. I think up on Blackstone and Christopher Lane, the Town just went in and replaced all of the rotted out drain walls in their underground system and didn't put gutters in , they just put the shoulder down so that we've got a three or four foot gravel shoulder and then the asphalt. The gravel shoulder gives people a place to walk. Chairperson Wilcox — And the drainage is handled under that gravel shoulder. Maintenance issues, concerns from the Town's point of view? 30 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 Mr. Walker — Twenty years ago, they wouldn't have wanted to do it, but now we have the equipment. We've got a jet rod that we can clean them with, we have a vacuum machine to suck out the catch basin. Chairperson Wilcox — Ditches have maintenance too. I've seen the Town Trucks go up there and every couple of years they've got to go scoop them out. Mr. Walker — When we used to use sand on the roads, we would have to clean them out a lot more frequently. Now we are just using salt and the additive to the salt that makes it possible for us to use less salt. Chairperson Wilcox — The brewery stuff? Mr. Walker — We are using a beer waste. There are a lot of people who are in favor of that. It's not a real problem for us to maintain now because we're geared up to be able to do that. Board Member Mitrano — Well, I would say I favor Kevin's idea too. I just want to be sure that any remarks I made in the past are understood. I was concerned about the developer based on a promise. I don't mind at all that we have a walk in my neighborhood and I would much prefer that to kindergarteners walking in the street and so, they may do it all over the Town of Ithaca, but that doesn't make it right . Mr. Kanter — I think what I was implying was, I'll say it more specifically, is that if you want to require some area for walking and children to be safe, my recommendation would be something more concrete so to speak or asphalt, either one. I don't see why there is hesitation to require that because there are going to be a lot of children in this kind of a subdivision. Really, the reason that I think it is important is because of the park area that's going to be here. It's not going that people need to walk out and along Danby Road because that's kind of dangerous, but within the subdivision, there are going to be people wandering around. If we do have the Town parks, I guess that that is another question you want to talk about. They will be walking from one to the other. Definitely people will be walking around. One example, I think, across from Chase Farm is Deer Run where I think people really wish there were sidewalks and that had been built, of course that is a much larger development then this is going to be, but it's just so evident there that there are a lot of children playing there. Board Member Conneman — So, if you're going to the Northeast school, that is a pathway, is that right? Mr. Kanter —A walkway. 31 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 Mr. Walker — That is not a sidewalk, it is a walkway. That basically is there because a lot of children walk up from the Village of Cayuga Heights to the elementary school and the middle school. Chairperson Wilcox — So, what's the Board's pleasure? No ditches? Bury the culvert pipes? Mr. Kanter — If you have the closed ditches, then sidewalks go that much easier in that kind of a format. Mr. Walker — The problem with open ditches, especially, depending on the topography, you've got a two foot deep and based on if the road is below or above at the same elevation, you could have a three foot deep bank on the backside. So, by the time you get that there, your sidewalk is in the middle of the front yard for all these people. Chairperson Wilcox — So you're — Mr. Walker — I'm saying that it would work better if you had the underground drainage and then you'd have your shoulder and then your walk. Chairperson Wilcox — And then your gravel service to the shoulder. Board Member Mitrano — I think that's the kind of development that these folks want. Mr. Walker — On Perry Lane, there are those parking lots up there and you don't get the traffic, so people walk in the road. You've got the gutters and people walk on those. Again, I wouldn't expect a lot of traffic in here. Chairperson Wilcox — Do I see some consensus here? Board Member Thayer — Where do these drains take the water to. Mr. Walker — Check your basement lately? They empty out into the road ditch along Bundy Road. Board Member Thayer — I'm not talking about Perry Lane, I am talking about this. Mr. Walker — They would empty out into the ditch on Danby Road, that ditch is pretty deep. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other issues that we wish to discuss this evening with regard to the proposal? The parks, as proposed? Mr. Kanter — The park, yeah. 32 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 Ms. Balestra — I have a comment. Just from the Highway Department, the Public Works Department regarding the park. First of all the additional 3/4 acres park, it's in their opinion that it makes a lot more sense and is a little more useful for a neighborhood park, you can put some more structures in it. It's larger and it'll connect to the Compton Park, but the .9 acre park is, in their opinion, too long and too thin to be useful for anything unless there is another plan that is connected to that northern end of the parcel for additional development and it could be connected to further park land that would be dedicated, but that's not in this plan. So, they are not so interested in maintaining a .9 acres park. I just found that out today. Mr. Kanter — The developer could just retain it and call it open area. If, at some point, there was a public purpose for it, it could be dedicated. Mr. Walker — The better way would be to dedicate it the Town just as park of the road right -of -way, just general purpose land and then that would leave that area open. Mr. Albern — I had made a note on the drawing for that to be a potential future access. Mr. Walker — But if you dedicate that as a park, you are never going to be able to get a road through it. Mr. Albern — (Inaudible) Mr. Kanter — We can always make it a park later, but after we do make it a park, it is hard to un -do it. Chairperson Wilcox — We do want to give the patient members of public a chance to speak. Any other comments at this point then? Can you take a seat and then I will give the public a chance to speak. Ladies and gentlemen, as I said, this is not a public hearing. Should this project go forward, I would guess that there will be at least one, probably two actual legal public hearing where you will have a chance to speak. Nonetheless, this Board has always given the public a chance to speak at the earliest possible moment, so, given that, if you do have comments about this, we ask that you step up to the microphone, we ask that you give us your name and address, we ask that you address the Planning Board and not the applicant. Having said that, raise your hand and I'll call on you. I'm gong to let the gentleman in the front go first. Juddson Leonard, 6 Schickel Road — After listening to all the conversation and what the Planning Board is asking were some of the problem that I have. As far as the water system is concerned, we do have a booster pump. Every time that 33 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 the College Circle students and the general area come back, our pressure drops drastically. Our pump is constantly coming on to build up our pressure. We did have the old existing system. The old well there. It was a bad situation. The Fire Department used to have to come in and bring water in. As far as the drainage on Schickel Road, I'm talking on the north side where all the houses are. Whenever there is heavy rain, the water is so heavy that it washes over the road, the pipes and goes down the road. It used to be, until I put blacktop in there, wash out my driveway all the time. It's also gotten to the point that the road, itself, is in fairly bad condition. Further down, going toward Danby Road, the water gets so heavy that it goes over the sewage pipes and the first house, I believe it's 2 Schickel Road, again, the water goes over into the residents driveway and drains down into his yard. I have seen, on Danby Road, where the sewage pipe on Danby Road does not and can not handle the water. The water goes over top of the pipe and it goes it not he road. This is what our main concern is, it's our water and the drainage problems. We'd like to have it as a rural area, but progress is progress and this is it, but we'd like to have some area of isolation instead of seeing big buildings and houses and so forth, and see if we can keep that a little semi -rural area. Again, I appreciate your information and I hope that we can work everything out as far as the homeowners in that general area. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you sir. Anybody else? Yes ma'am. Tessa Flores, 154 Compton Road — So, I'm a neighbor to the proposed subdivision. I was walking on that land yesterday, the southeast corner is under water. This is where the proposed park would be. In that area, the trees have their roots above the ground, which I believe is a sign of the hydric soil, which can indicate a wetland. My place floods every spring. There is a lot of water in that earth. I can't imagine how it's going to percolate down, all the water in the in these swales. Also, just in regard to the swales, I don't see how it is possible to leave the trees if you have these swales that you have to go all the grading to get the swales and then you want sidewalks and then you've got a road. So, more formally, I request a formal wetlands delineation, completed in accordance with state and federal standards. According to the USDA Soil Survey for Tompkins County, over 90 percent of the site is covered with eerie chanry silt loam. Soils that are classified as potentially hydric by Federal Wetlands Regulators, the presence of hydric soils is a strong indicator that there are wetlands on the site. Without the information that a wetlands delineation would provide, the Planning Board will not have the necessary information to take the required, hard look at the environmental impacts of the project as required by the State Environmental Quality Review Act. SO, I urge you to take this really to heart and consider the condition of the soil and not get 32 home owners with their basements flooded and the Town with a huge problem with digging out these swales. Maybe a different configuration might work better. I don't know, I'm not an expert. Thank you very much for letting me speak. Just for the record, I have also submitted a letter for the Board. 34 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. We do have an undated letter, which was in front of us this evening. I have some comments, but I'll let everyone else speak first. Is there anybody else? They're just shaking their heads so. Just here listening? Okay. So, is there anybody else who wishes to make a comment? Thank you very much. Let's address the wetlands issue, it's a good issue. Chris, I'll look to you because you were the one here the last time talking about the soils and everything else. You have your engineer and other members of the Planning staff. Is this something reasonable, given the soils in this area. Ms. Balestra - Well, the Planning Staff talked about it the first time that they had come to this Board and we did discuss it. It is a potential. There is 100 percent poor soils on this site, hydric soils, so there are potential wetlands. Now, there aren't any that have been delineated, that we know of, but I don't know that it would be unreasonable to request a wetlands delineation or at least further study. Chairperson Wilcox — When you say delineated, you mean by DEC, Army Corps of Engineers or whoever. Ms. Balestra — There is a formal process that you can follow, but isn't there also just a study that you can have done. Mr. Kanter — Yes. I've seen short of full wetland delineations, you can have wetland ecologists go out and do basically a survey of the property, not in the sense of a formal survey by licensed surveyor, but a site characterization by a qualified topologist. Chairperson Wilcox — Do they look at the soils or the vegetation and they make a determination that there could be wetlands in this area, based upon — Mr. Kanter — And based upon that, you might very well get into a formal wetland delineation at that point. As part of the SEQR Review, that would certainly be a reasonable kind of a thing to ask and there certainly are several consulting firms in the area that would be qualified to do that. Chairperson Wilcox — We know how wet the site is. Everyone is agreeing that this is an extremely wet site. And if there are wetlands present or it's just the natures of the soils in that area, which prevent water from percolating down. But, you're right, that would be part of the environmental review to request that. My comment to Ms. Flores, I have your letter, we all have your letter. I'll try not to read too much into it. As Chairman, I am not going to allow this Board to use the Environmental Review as a weapon against the developer. I've seen that done before by other Boards, where the Board doesn't want to say no, so instead what they do is they require and environmental impact statement, which is very, very expensive. They use the EIS as a weapon against the developer. I'm in favor or an EIS when it's appropriate and when it is necessary and this Board will make 35 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 that determination, but I don't want to use it as a weapon, I want to use it as a tool, which this Board has done very often to make sure that we understand that site. Board Member Conneman — Is there any evidence that this place that is designated for a park is too wet, Christine, and it couldn't be a park? Ms. Balestra — I'm sorry, could you say that again? Board Member Conneman — Is there any evidence that the places designated as a park is so wet that it couldn't be a park? Ms. Balestra — I can't speak to that, only because I did not walk to that portion of the site because I wasn't able to access it. Mr. Kanter — That's your next step. Ms. Balestra — I wouldn't be surprised if it is pretty wet. Chairperson Wilcox — Actually, you made me think of something, thank you very much. We've had this issue before and that is with staged projects, very often, we as a Planning Board decide that the first residents should have access to the park now and that given, where the first stage is and given where the parkland is, some sort of access must be provided to that park land. Now, that can be some sort of an agreement between the Town and developer or something through the road right -of -way, before the road is built where the developer has to clear a path along the proposed road right -of -way to the park lands so that the residents can get access to it. Mr. Albern — For a car to drive through? Chairperson Wilcox — No, to walk to there, for example. You have to provide access to the park land for those people that inhabit the first houses that are built. Pedestrians, for example, yes. That's been important. In fact, it was very important in the development across the street. You have to have legal access to get to the park. Mr. Walker — One of the concerns again the Highway Department has is maintenance of the roadways and things. A bunch of little cul -de -sacs get difficult to maintain. The thing that they'd like to see is have the whole road built and the drainage system in place for the whole subdivision before any major building goes on or at least to a point where there is a logical turn around point on it. In this particular case, extending it up to the end of the first phase isn't going to make it a lot more difficult to maintain that road then it is now. It's a short cul -de- sac now. Their preference would be to build the whole road so that we could 36 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 maintain it the right way from the beginning. Again, that may not be reasonable for cash flow of the developer to do something like that. Chairperson Wilcox — But it also might mean large circles or hammer -heads at the end of each segment, which is a particular thing about snow plowing. Mr. Walker — For example, the Chase Farm project was one that we never got the park because the developer went belly -up half way through it and we ended up without having a through road through to Ridgecrest like it was supposed to be so that we could maintain them better. Then we had to deal with getting easements and so on from the new owner of the land to build our turn around at the end of it, which we didn't anticipate having to do. And, of course, that park never really happened. With the property across the street, the subdivision, that Mr. Albern mentioned, the condition was in there that we would have an easement to access the park site, because it was very similar to this, the park was half way down the subdivision, before any building permits were issued. That could work here too. It would be at the Town's advantage to, basically the road right -of -way is an access easement to the park site, so that if we ever wanted to build a driveway in there, the whole thing gets developed, we'd have the ability to do that. The other thing is that this is a park site being dedicated to the Town, we have quite a few sites that have been dedicated to the Town that have not been developed yet and I do not believe the Town would be developing that park until this subdivision was at least 50 percent complete and maybe not for a couple of years after the subdivision was complete, just based on budgetary limitations and schedules of other work. We want the ability to get there, but we are not guaranteeing that we are going to develop it at any time at this point. Chairperson Wilcox — It may turn our best to leave it undeveloped. Mr. Walker- We may put three or four bird boxes in there and cut a path through it and put a picnic table. You do notice there are quite a few ponds in the area, on the aerial photograph? That area is seasonally wet. Half of the trees in the heavily wooded area are in the process of drowning and dying. Salvaging those trees may not be as important as draining the areas and providing for new vegetation. There is going to be a lot of disturbance with the drainage and so on. Trying to salvage existing trees when you are doing a lot of land work, may not be the best thing to do. You really have to go out there and look at the topography and how the buildings are going to sit. I see quite a bit of site work on here that has not been detailed out. So, if you put at 20 foot wide swale along the property line, you are going to end up with a 60 to 70 foot wide disturbed area based upon the cross section of that. Chairperson Wilcox — 20 foot swale and at least 20 feet on either side. 37 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 Mr. Walker — And I would request for the subdivision that we follow the subdivision regulations and actually have all the earth work shown on the map prior to the final subdivision approval. Chairperson Wilcox — Because, in this particular case, it is extremely important. Mr. Walker — It is. They've got a lot of excavation here and it shows all those swales on the down hill side of all these lots, but it's not going to stay on that one side. We just build a water line and we took 60 feet to just get in there and construct it because of access. That's why we have the 50 foot right -of -ways for construction for a 20 foot easement for maintaining. My personally feeling is that those trees are not very valuable. I think tree are nice and I'm not saying that they are bad, but- Chairperson Wilcox — I know you are a tree - hugger. Mr. Walker — Trying to work around them and a little bit of my forestry background coming in here saying, you could try to save these trees, but you are probably going to end up cutting them down in a few years and replacing them anyhow. Unless, you really keep a 50 to 100 foot buffer. Chairperson Wilcox — That's why you are an engineer and not a forester. Mr. Walker — Forest engineer. They train us how to cut the trees down so that you can take them out of the woods safely. Mr. Kanter — Dan had a good point about re- landscaping or new landscaping. think we talked about that at the last meeting. I know normally in a subdivision plat, we don't require a landscaping plan, but I think we certainly can ask for some kind of a concept of what new trees, new landscaping would be like in the development. Actually, we have, from time to time, required, or had concept landscaping plans done with these types of developments. So, that wouldn't be out of the question to ask for something like that. It wouldn't be a lot by lot landscaping plan because, obviously, you can't dictate exactly what the homeowners are going to do, but you want to have some kind of guidelines for how the unified development of the site could work. Chairperson Wilcox — This is in response to the , again, the soil conditions and the drainage and everything else. You need solutions to the problems. Anything else? Board Member Conneman — Whose responsibility is it to put this language in about a drainage district or whatever? That's up to the developer or -? 38 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — That' s up to the developer in consultation with staff, professional staff to come to us with something that they think we will find acceptable. Mr. Walker -We would outline from a physical engineering standpoint what we need and then with a little bit of assistance from the legal department, we try to keep the bills down, but we can charge Mr. Albern for that. It really isn't that complicated, it's basically an easement to allow access, we have standard forms for that and we just have to incorporate it into the deed language. Mr. Dubow — I assume that if we get to that stage that one of the conditions of the preliminary plat approval would be that all of that documentation be approved by both the engineering staff, planning staff, and the Town Attorney for purposes of final site approval. Chairperson Wilcox — Are we all set from the Board's point of view? Are you all set for now? We can call it a night then? Thank you very much and I thank the public as well. There are a couple of things that we have left to do. AGENDA ITEM: Discussion of the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Before we start, I know Mike just left and I have to tell the Planning staff that this is a pretty impressive document. I'm impressed. You guys did your homework. And to the other people who are not here, this is pretty amazing. Mr. Kanter — It really was the whole Planning staff and others who helped put it together. Chairperson Wilcox — It almost looks like a labor of love. I'm not going to sit here and tell you I've read the whole thing, but I've read certain sections of it and skimmed through the rest of it. Mr. Kanter — If length of time it took to do it and /or thickness of document, are any measure of it, then it certainly is a full document. Ms. Balestra — We're all over achievers. Chairperson Wilcox — Discussion with regard to the DEIS? 39 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 Mr. Kanter — We didn `t put anything together for you because this is a sort of — It's king of up to you to decide if you want to make any further comments. We have the Planning Board resolution and the recommendation that went to the Town Board already. Chairperson Wilcox — Not, thinking, I was surprised, given the amount of details that went into it, you identified the potential impact on Pine Tree Road, a small office park facility to essentially be located around the old Genex. The potential negative implications of the rezoning were overwhelmed by the positive environmental implications. Reduced density, protection of farm land. Mr. Kanter — Thank you very much. I didn't want to say anything in particular except answer questions of anybody had any on how we did some of the analysis. Basically, the process is nearing a close. The Town Board held the public hearing on October 2nd, we actually only got, I think five people speaking at the public hearing, all of which were really talking about their specific properties and how they would be affected. So, public comments will be accepted until the 14th and then we will go on from there and take care of the final Environmental Impact Statement, so we're getting pretty close now. Chairperson Wilcox — All set? Mr. Kanter- Well, thank you very much. AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Minutes: September 16, 2003. Chairperson Wilcox — As I always do, moved by the Chair. Seconded by Tracy Mitrano. Ms. Balestra — Can I ask something? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, go ahead. Ms. Balestra — I don't know what was happening, but I need a bit of a clarification regarding the sidewalks. Is it yes for the sidewalks for Westview. Chairperson Wilcox — It's if you're going to have ditches, you better have sidewalks. But, I think, we kind of preferred, let's cover the culverts and then use that as a walking area along side the road. Board Member Talty — Well, the comment was that sidewalks could go back even further over the culvert pipes taking away more of the landowners yard. Mr. Kanter — Actually, when you think of the design and how it would work, it's not that it would take more room. It's actually when you have open ditches that you have to go back far enough away from the ditch because the ditches are so 40 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 wide. So, actually if you have underground drains and drainage structures, you can actually have the sidewalk, basically on top of it. That's what I thought we were getting at. Chairperson Wilcox — I want a pathway there, I'm not sure I want a sidewalk. Board Member Mitrano — I'm happy with the pathway too. Mr. Kanter — Again when you say "pathway ", it's really a design detail of what it would be. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not looking for concrete or asphalt. Mr. Kanter- I'm not sure that you don't want some solid surface because if maintenance is an issue, the cinder or the gravel is not going to keep up very well. Mr. Walker — It's better to have concrete. Board Member Talty — Just refresh my memory, why did they say that they didn't want sidewalks or did they just say that they didn't want them? Board Member Thayer — Because of maintenance. Mr. Kanter — They did not feel that the homeowner's would be able to maintain them properly and then they'll start looking bad. If this is going to be an upscale community, they'll maintain them very well. Board Member Mitrano — I agree with Jon. Mr. Kanter — I think they will actually be more able to maintain them if it is a concrete sidewalk o an asphalt walkway type sidewalk, but one of those, I think would be preferable. We can follow up with our Highway people and see what they would recommend. Chairperson Wilcox - I still have an issue with the rural character of that area and sidewalks, to me, seem to be more of a downtown type of think. Mr. Kanter — This development is not going to look very rural. Chairperson Wilcox — I know. Board Member Talty - Fred, the northeast isn't like that. Chairperson Wilcox — You guys can work on me. Some kind of area for kids and adults to walk that isn't on the road. 41 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 Mr. Kanter — The other question is will it be on both sides? Board Member Mitrano — Look at Chase Farm, they're on one side up on Chase Farm and people take care of them differently, granted. I'm probably one of the guiltiest of taking the least care of them, but people with younger children, who live on the other side of the street, will come over to walk. Board Member Talty — I think it's a real disservice to the community to make all these kids walk in the street. Board Member Mitrano — I agree with you. Mr. Kanter — Actually, if you have a hard surface, you can have the little kids on the tricycles or the mothers or fathers pushing the baby carriage have a much better surface to use. Chairperson Wilcox — I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of September 16th, is there any discussion? Board Member Conneman — I have to abstain because I was not here. Board Member Talty — How many do you need to approve? Chairperson Wilcox — I need four. All those in favor, please signal by raising your hand. I have one, two, three, four, two abstentions from Rode Howe and George Conneman. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -087: Approval of Minutes — September 16, 2003 MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Tracy Mitrano. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the September 16, 2003 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meetings as presented with corrections. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Mitrano, Thayer, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Howe, Conneman ABSENT. Hoffmann 42 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 The motion was declared to be carried AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS Chairperson Wilcox — I will not be here for the next meeting. Board Member Mitrano — Not allowed. Mr. Kanter — You know what, we have only , I think, one item for the next meeting. Ms. Balestra — A very important item. Mr. Kanter — A review of the Agricultural District Number One, it's the eight year review and Cooperative Extension is scheduled to come and talk to us about it and get out input as to area that we think should be removed or retained in it, which has actually become a pretty important topic for the Town lately. Because of the time frame of the review period, it kind of has to come in for that time frame. We may have on other item, but that may be the only one. Chairperson Wilcox — The other item is that subdivision that's proposed? Is that still floating around. Mr. Kanter- A subdivision. Board Member Mitrano — For the record, I will not be here the first week of November. Chairperson Wilcox — Also George Conneman handed out some materials which were in front of you when you arrived. Board Member Conneman — I wanted you to know that lots of other people have parking problems. The next thing that Ithaca College is going to ask us for is a place that they can have a Jacuzzi . You can't attract students if you don't have that type of stuff the University of Houston has decided. Also, when I was in Oklahoma City, the other article, I couldn't believe, I stopped in Dunkin' Donuts and I read the Elmira paper, that's where I got that quote. So Elmira College is scrabling. So Kevin did we approve 110 percent to so Ithaca College students can park their second car? Board Member Talty — It all becomes a blur after a while, but I do remember that they did come with two plans, one for the one that we asked and one for the one that I asked. 43 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2003 Board Member Conneman — I assume that their master plan is to just keep building parking lots. Board Member Talty — That's why I said, you know, let's cut to the chase here because, I'll tell you what they didn't really incorporate, this is a little off the topic for tonight, but snow removal and parties and guests. There is over flow from that and that's why they build in the rules and regulations for handicap. Did you ever go to a supermarket and there is 30 handicap and you are wondering why? That's the reason why, it's all based upon square footage for overflow. They're not doing overflow and that's why I asked them the first time, I said you might as well just go for 100 percent or more because you are not incorporating anything. As obscene as that may sound to this Board sometimes for more parking spots, but don't keep coming back in front of us. Chairperson Wilcox — What they did is address those concerns by pointing out where they could put more. Board Member Conneman — If they want to make an ugly campus, that's their problem. Chairperson Wilcox — Other business fro Mr. Kanter? There is a Cubs game on tonight. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the October 7, 2003 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 8:57 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, col x�� Lori Love Deputy Town Clerk • ,. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD • 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, October 7, 2003 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:04 P.M. SEQR Determination: Modification of Condition, Cayuga Medical Center, 101 Harris B. Dates Drive. 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of modification of Condition 2.c. of the September 2, 2003 Planning Board Resolution granting Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Radiation Oncology addition to the Cayuga Medical Center located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -2.1, Residence District R -30. Said condition required the applicant to submit a copy of the Certificate of Need from New York State Health Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit from the Town of Ithaca. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner; HOLT Architects, PC, Applicant. 7:10 P.M. SEQR Determination: Ithaca Beer Co. Expansion, 606 Elmira Road. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Sit 3,100 +/- square foot addition to the Ithaca Beer Company located • Tax Parcel No. 33- 3 -2.1, Light Industrial District. The warehouse of the current building on the existing paved area and will be used additional tanks and storage, and add a larger bottling line. Yunis Ithaca Beer Company, Applicant. e Plan Approval for the proposed at 606 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca addition will be placed at the rear to expand production, to house Realty, Inc., Owner; Dan Mitchell, 7:20 P.M. Consideration of a follow -up Sketch Plan review for the proposed 34 -lot Westview Subdivision located at the intersection of Schickel Road and NYS Route 96B (Danby Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 2 -3.2, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes extending Schickel Road towards the east and creating a loop road for 32 residential lots and two lots totaling 2.4 +/- acres for parkland. Igor Cheikhet, Owner; Boris Simkin, Applicant. 7:45 P.M. Discussion of the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions. 8. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 9. Approval of Minutes: September 16, 2003. 10. Other Business: 11. Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273- 1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, October 7, 2003 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, October 7, 2003, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of modification of Condition 2.c. of the September 2, 2003 Planning Board Resolution granting Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Radiation Oncology addition to the Cayuga Medical Center located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -2.1, Residence District R -30. Said condition required the applicant to submit a copy of the Certificate of Need from New York State Health Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit from the Town of Ithaca. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner; HOLT Architects, PC, Applicant. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed 3,100 +/- square foot addition to the Ithaca Beer Company located at 606 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33- 3 -2.1, Light Industrial District. The warehouse addition will be placed at the rear of the current building on the existing paved area and will be used to expand production, to house additional tanks and storage, and add a larger bottling line. Yunis Realty, Inc., Owner; Dan Mitchell, Ithaca Beer Company, Applicant. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections • thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Dated: Monday, September 29, 2003 Publish: Wednesday, October 1, 2003 is Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 • • �i The Ithaca Journal Wednesday, 'October 1, 2003 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, October 7, 2003 By direction, of the Chair - person of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, October 7, 2003, at 215 North T10 Street, Ithaca, N.Y., of the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of modification of Condition 2.c. of the September 2, 2003 Planning Board Reso- lution granting Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Radiation Oncology addition to the Cayuga Medical Center lo- cated at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -2.1, Residence District R -30. Said condition required the applicant to submit a copy of the Certificate of Need from New York State Health 'Department prior to issu- i once of a Building Permit I from the Town of Ithaca. ! Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner; HOLT Archi tects, PC, Applicant. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the pro- posed 3,100 +/. square foot addition to the Ithaca Beer Company located at 606 Elmira Road, Town of, Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33 -3 2.1, light Industrial District. The warehouse additioh will be placed at the rear of the current building on the exist- ing paved area and will be ' used to expand production, ,to house additional tanks and storage, and add a larger bottling line. Yunis Realty, Inc., Owner; Dan Mitchell, Ithaca Beer Com- pany, Applicant.. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may ap- rear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual im- pairments, hearing impair- ments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desir- ing assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of .the public hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, September 29, 2003 VPublish: -Wednesday, October 1, 2003 0 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME 1 PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION LerAavj OP4&= F, L, t4VYq 44"' K LQ-l� AK 67 10� l Ssc� r L v eS l� 60 vw kzm i s �c� co r � pSv, 1- f vi✓1 -} 2•� �C ((!j X17 t A f� G9 VLl • 0 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that 1 am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday, October 7, 2003 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of Posting : Date of Publication September 29, 2003 October 1, 2003 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1 st day of October 2003. 5X Notary Public Oanl L. HoftM Nobly Public, State Of New Ybtk No.01HO6052879 Seneca County My Commission Expires Dec. 28o