Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1995-10-17FINAL �LE® TOWN OF ITHACA Date./ o?�_ TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Clerk • OCTOBER 17, 1995 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, October 17, 1995, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson Stephen Smith, Candace Cornell, Eva Hoffmann, James Ainslie, Herbert Finch, Robert Kenerson, Fred Wilcox, Gregory Bell, Daniel Walker (Town Engineer), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner), JoAnn Cornish (Planner), John Barney (Town Attorney). ALSO PRESENT: Jagat Sharma, Om Gupta, Everett Robinson, Richard Baker. Chairperson Smith declared the meeting duly opened at 7:35 p.m. and accepted, for the record, the Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on October 9�, 1995, and October 11, 1995, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca, 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 12, 1995. • Chairperson Smith read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD. There were no persons present to be heard. Chairperson Smith closed this segment of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO, 40 -3 -91 3.68± ACRES TOTAL AREA, INTO 4 LOTS, 0.43 ±, 0.78 ±, 1.23 ±1 AND 1.24± ACRES RESPECTIVELY, LOCATED AT 930 DANBY ROAD, I- INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. ICS DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, OWNER; JAGAT P. SHARMA, AGENT. Chairperson Smith declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7:38pm, and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearing as posted and published and as noted above. Jagat Sharma, project architect, addressed the Board and stated that he had submitted two drawings for the Board to review; one was a copy of the original plan and one was the subdivision plan. Mr. Sharma stated that he had submitted colored drawings as • well, and each color shows a phase of the project. Green shows the existing part of the project, yellow is the infrastructure, the blue, red, and brown show the additional phases of development. Planning Board Minutes 2 October 17, 1995 • APPROVED 11/21/95 Mr. Sharma stated that drawings showing the utility plan for each phase was also submitted to the Town. Mr. Sharma stated that he had reviewed a copy of the draft resolution and all of the conditions listed in it were acceptable to him. Planner JoAnn Cornish stated draft resolution to John Barney, faxed her a draft declaration of could be used in addition to the subdivision. that she had faxed a copy of the Attorney for the Town, and he easements and covenants which conditions of approval of the Town Attorney John Barney stated that Ms. Cornish had drawn up the proposed resolution with conditions for approval and that those along with his proposal for restrictions of covenants in deeds should be alright for approval. Planner Cornish stated that she had done some cross - referencing between Attorney Barney's submission and the conditions listed in the draft resolution. Ms. Cornish stated that the intentions behind both documents were basically the same, but Attorney Barney put the conditions in legal terminology. Attorney Barney stated that Ms. Cornish did the resolution • with conditions for approval. Attorney Barney stated that he had drafted a form of provisions for covenants and restrictions that would be included in respect to the deeds that would be issued in relation to this project. Attorney Barney stated that these restrictions could be used and adopted by the Planning Board as conditions for the approval of the subdivision. Attorney Barney stated that some of the restrictions were built in at the applicants request to regulate, for example, how they were going to handle the payment of costs for the common areas of the development. Attorney Barney stated that there are also a lot of easements that need to be implemented in terms of the utilities that run across each of the lots that would serve other lots, and that was part of the consideration of the easements and covenants in the document he had drafted and submitted to the Board. Board Member Herbert Finch asked if Attorney Barney's suggestions for restrictions should be consolidated into the proposed resolution prepared by Planner Cornish, Attorney Barney stated that they could be consolidated within the resolution if the Board chooses to grant the approval. Attorney Barney stated that some of the restrictions do not have to do with the conditions and covenants relating to the possible subdivision. • Board Member James Ainslie asked if there would be four separate lot owners. Planning Board Minutes 3 October 17, 1995 • APPROVED 11/21/95 Attorney Barney st lot owners at all unti Attorney Barney stated these lots separately, the potential that if occurs with respect to separate ownership, ated that the plan is not to have separate 1 the development is completely finished. that Mr. Gupta needs to finance each of Attorney Barney stated that there is always it is financed separately and foreclosure one of the lots, it could then turn into a Chairperson Smith asked if Attorney Barney felt comfortable with trying to put the restrictions and the drafted resolution together. Attorney Barney stated that he did feel comfortable consolidating the resolution and the restrictions. Attorney Barney stated that if the Board approves the documents, then he would get the prepared into a final resolution. Planner Cornish stated that since this is preliminary approval, it gives them a chance to finalize the language before it goes for final approval. Board Member Gregory Bell asked which lot the yellow infrastructure, as indicated on the map submitted by the applicant, • went with. Attorney Barney stated that the boundary line between Lots 1 and 2 is the middle line for the road that goes in from Danby Road, which goes into the parcel for a bit and then jogs over to the right, which then becomes the boundary line between Lots 3 and 4. Om Gupta stated that there was a few feet of road frontage for each lot, which creates two flag -lots to have that frontage. Mr. Sharma stated that a condition of approval of the site plan was before any further development can occur on this site, the roads must be completed. Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that Lot #2 has frontage on Danby Road, Lot #1 has frontage on Danby Road, Lots 3 and 4 each have 15.96 feet of frontage on Danby Road. Mr. Walker stated that all four lots have frontage on Danby Road. Attorney Barney stated that one of the covenants is that there be provided an easement across both 15 -foot parcels for the benefit of all of the parcels. Planner Cornish stated that the same applies to the entrance • and exit to this project. Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that she had a question about Planning Board Minutes 4 October 17, 1995 0 APPROVED 11/21/95 conditions 4a and 4d in the proposed resolution, regarding the sale and the sequence of the sale of the lots. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she was not sure if the two conditions fit together, because condition 4d says, "no individual lot in this subdivision shall be sold until all four lots have been developed in accordance with the approved site plan." Ms. Hoffmann stated that condition 4a says, "prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for Phase II, which could be the development of Lot 2, 3, or 4, depending on the sequence of the sale of the lots." Planner Cornish stated that the word "sale" in condition 4a should be changed to "development" because it is misleading. Board Member Hoffmann asked what it meant in condition 4d of the resolution which says that all four lots have to be developed before any sales. Planner Cornish stated that since this project already has an approved site plan, it is her understanding that the entire site has to be developed in accordance with the approved site plan before any one of those subdivided lots can be sold. Ms. Cornish stated that the approved site plan includes the buildings. Board Member Bell asked if the applicant had built two buildings, would they be able to sell one before buildings three and four were completed. Attorney Barney responded, not without coming back to the Planning Board for approval. Board Member Fred Wilcox stated that the purpose is not to let the subdivision get in the way of the site plan, and not to use the subdivision regulations to get around site plan approval. Attorney Barney stated that the Board's purpose here is to provide a circumstance to allow the lots to be individually financed. Attorney Barney stated that the proposal as submitted is the construction of the entire facility, and aside from financing, the objective here is not to permit a subdivision to occur until the entire site plan is constructed. Attorney Barney stated that the purpose here is to allow for the financing that is needed but not to set up something where the Town would have to deal with four separate lots. Chairperson Smith stated that condition 4d in the proposed resolution would not prevent the applicant from selling all four lots to another entity. Attorney Barney stated that was correct, but no individual lot may be sold. Planning Board Minutes • Chairperson Smith asked if anyone present to be heard. Chairpei brought the matter back 5 October 17, 1995 APPROVED 11/21/95 noted that this was a Public Hearing and wished to speak. There was no one present :son Smith closed the Public Hearing and to the Board. Board Member Cornell stated that she would like to see a provision for additional landscaping on Lots 1 and 2. Ms. Cornell asked to see where the location of the signs would be for this project. JoAnn stated that both of those concerns were discussed and approved at the site plan phase. Chairperson Smith stated that the landscaping would be completed at Phase I, and Phase I has already been completed. Mr. Sharma showed Ms. Cornell the landscaping and the signage on the site plan map he had submitted at an earlier date. Board Member Wilcox stated that the landscaping issue was addressed in Item 16 of Attorney Barney's proposed restrictions, which says that landscaping may be phased in accordance with each lot as approved by the Town Planner and Town Engineer. • Board Member Hoffmann stated that she was concerned about the effect that raising the Building height on Lot #2 would have on the view from the road. Mr. Sharma stated that he had previously submitted elevation drawings. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she was requesting different drawings than those already submitted. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she was interested in seen what the view would look like from the perspective of someone on Danby Road, not an overhead type drawing, because it would be located on the highest point of the parcel. Mr. Sharma stated that the whole building would be raised by two feet, so there would be no difference in the height. The Board discussed what the differences could be if the building was raised by two feet, and the possible changes to the roof height. Board Member Hoffmann stated that Mr. Sharma had stated that the whole building would be raised by two and one half feet. Mr. Sharma stated that was correct. ® Board Member Hoffmann stated that there was no basement on Lot #2 in the original site plan. Planning Board Minutes 6 October 17, 1995 • APPROVED 11/21/95 Attorney Barney stated that the site plan needed to be modified before the Planning Board, so site plan modification should come before the Board for approval in relation to this matter. Om Gupta addressed the Board and stated his understanding was that basements are normally allowed in every building. Mr. Gupta stated Mr. Sharma was told that the basement was allowed as part of the construction. Chairperson Smith stated that the basement would not be a problem, except that by raising the building by two and one half feet the site plan would be substantially changed and needs to be modified to reflect those changes. Mr. Gupta stated that the two and one half feet was to make the building heights even, and that he felt that the numbers shown on the drawings were probably an error. Town Engineer Walker stated that if the Board looked at the topographic lines on the maps submitted, it shows the elevation line at 440 feet, which goes right into the building. Mr. Walker stated that he thought that the error the applicant made, was that • they did not change the first floor elevation label on building number two on the site plan approval. Mr. Walker stated that would put the first floor elevation two foot below grade. Board Member Wilcox asked if this was a change to the site plan or a correction to an error made on the drawing. If it is a correction to an error, then hopefully this Board does not have to address it. If it is an actual change to the site plan, then it needs to be addressed at a meeting intended to review the site plan. Mr. Sharma stated that the elevation on the approved parking was meant to be 440 feet on the approved site plan, and that it was an error. Mr. Sharma stated that the building on Lot #2 will be level with the building on Lot #31 Attorney Barney stated that the Site Plan requirements say if you are going to modify the site plan, you can do it without a public hearing, the Town Engineer can approve it if it is construction or alteration of less than 1,000 square feet of enclosed space construction of more than $10,000, or enlargement of an existing building that increases the square footage more than ten percent needs modified site plan approval. Attorney Barney stated that a modified site plan was needed for this project. Attorney Barney stated that this project could come back as Final Subdivision Approval and Final Site Plan Approval. • Board Member Cornell stated that she was concerned about the Iu Planning Board Minutes 7 APPROVED 11/21/95 October 17, 1995 position of the parking lot for Lot #2 but it may be okay if heavily screened from the road. Chairperson Smith stated that Lot #2 may be close to the limit or built coverage on a lot. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she was worried that if the Board approves the SEQR and it turns out that there is more lot coverage than allowed on a lot, then the Board has already locked themselves into having to approve something that does not really apply anymore. Attorney Barney stated in an Industrial District there are no requirements for lot coverage. Chairperson Smith stated that the SEQR is on the proposed Subdivision. Board Member Hoffmann, asked if the Board had used its discretion as to how much parking it would allow in an Industrial Zone, Attorney Barney stated that the Board had approved the site • plan, and in that role, the Board can determine what is appropriate parking for this project. Attorney Barney stated that the parking shown on the drawings being presented to the Board at this meeting, is different than the parking shown on the site plan that was approved, which is another modification to the approved site plan. Planner Cornish stated that the space was indicated as future potential parking, and in the adopted resolution the Planning Board indicated that if parking proved to be insufficient they may require that the overflow parking be built. Chairperson Smith stated that the wording of that makes it sound like it is at the Board's discretion to request that additional parking, not that it was approved when site plan was approved. Attorney Barney stated that it was not shown as a parking lot, but as Potential Future Parking. Attorney Barney stated that this needed to be addressed as a site plan issue. Board Member Hoffmann stated that this was not shown as parking on the three dimensional drawing of the entire development. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she would like to see this type of drawing from the level of someone in a car or walking on Danby Road. • Attorney Barney stated that if they do not build Lots 3 and 4, they will need to have the parking on Lot 2. Planning Board Minutes 8 October 17, 1995 APPROVED 11/21/95 Board Member Bell stated that maybe the parking for Lot 2 could be built on Lot 3 instead of using that area. There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Smith asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion on the Environmental Significance of this proposed subdivision. MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Candace Cornell Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that she did not feel comfortable voting on this at this meeting based on the questions that have been raised about what is actually going to happen and what the differences are in what is being proposed now and what was approved at the Site Plan phase. Chairperson Smith stated that the Planning Board has made approvals and placed boundary lines, which in turn placed restrictions that at a later date the Board wished were not there. Chairperson Smith stated that a problem could occur here as well, especially with parking for Lot #2. Chairperson Smith stated that the SEQR is probably the place to stop any potential problems. Board Member Candace Cornell retracted her second to the is Motion made by Board Member Fred Wilcox, because she agreed with Board Member Hoffmann's concerns. Board Member Hoffmann stated that her real issue is that she does not feel that the Board knows what environmental consequences this lot subdivision might lead to when some of the other changes are seen in more detail. Attorney Barney stated, for the record, that he represents Digicomp. Attorney Barney stated that the Board was discussing only preliminary subdivision approval, and that he expects that the applicant will have to come back to the Board for Final Subdivision Approval coupled with the Modification of Final Site Plan Approval, which is the appropriate time to look over what the ramifications of the proposed changes are or would be. Attorney Barney stated that right now, the Board is approving Subdivision based upon a previously approved site plan which does not include some of the things the Board is seeing tonight. Attorney Barney stated that tonight there are proposed changes to height and parking location. Attorney Barney stated that the Board may wish to consider approval of the preliminary subdivision and suggest that they come back for Final Subdivision approval coupled with Modified Site Plan review, and a SEQR on that, which would address whatever changes may result from the changes to the site plan. Board Member Hoffmann stated that it is very hard to make changes once preliminary approval has been granted. Ms. Hoffmann stated that if the Board approves preliminary and then changes I I • Planning Board Minutes 9 APPROVED 11/21/95 something, the applicant will have to go to the different than first presented, so it seems to would be better to wait. October 17, 1995 bank with something Ms. Hoffmann that it Board Member Herbert Finch seconded the Motion to approve the SEQR Resolution, Board Member Wilcox asked Attorney Barney for some assurance that this resolution is representing only the lot lines shown on the map referenced in the resolution being discussed. Attorney Barney suggested wording that the Board approved the lot line configuration as shown on the preliminary subdivision plat, to make clear that was what the Board is referring to in its decision. MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Herbert Finch: WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 40 -3 -9, 3.6± acres total area, into 4 lots consisting of Lot 1, 0.78 acres, Lot 2, 0.43 acres, Lot 3, 1.23 acres, and Lot 4, 1.24 acres, Industrial District, ICS Development Partners Inc., Owner; Jagat P. Sharma, Applicant. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on February 7, 1995, reviewed in detail, the potential impacts of development on the site by reviewing and accepting as adequate, a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I and supplemental information prepared by the applicant, a Part II and Part III prepared by Planning staff, and a Final Site Plan entitled "South Hill Complex ", dated November 8, 1994, prepared by Trowbridge and Wolf Landscape Architects, and additional application materials. Final Site Plan Approval for the construction of an office /retail complex was granted on February 7, 1995, by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the proposed South Hill Complex, which was originally proposed to be built on the single 3.6± acre parcel. 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 Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on October 17, 1995, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I submitted by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town Planning Department, the lot lines of the • subdivision as shown on a Preliminary Subdivision Plat entitled "South Hill Complex Subdivision Preliminary Plat ", dated September 12, 1995, prepared by T.G. Miller P.C., and Planning Board Minutes 10 October 17, 1995 • APPROVED 11/21/95 additional application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed action; 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 subdivision of lot lines as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Smith called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Ainslie, Kenerson, Finch, Wilcox. Nay - Hoffmann, Cornell, Bell. The MOTION was declared to be carried. • The Planning Board discussed the proposed resolution and the conditions in that resolution and the list prepared by Attorney Barney. It was determined that Attorney Barney would consolidate the conditions in the proposed resolution and the list prepared by Attorney Barney and bring the more complete document to the Planning Board for review and consideration for approval. Chairperson Smith asked if anyone was prepared to offer a motion for the resolution for Preliminary Subdivision Approval. Board Member Candace Cornell made a motion to postpone looking at this until informational packets are put together and presented as complete for the Board to more adequately review; this action to be tentatively scheduled for the November 21, 1995, Planning Board Meeting, Board Member Eva Hoffmann seconded the motion with the addition of Postponed until the items discussed at this meeting are clarified. Chairperson Smith stated that the Board has motioned to adjourn this decision until the November 21, 1995, Planning Board Meeting. The Board discussed the metering of water and sewer, who would be responsible for paying the utilities, and why that was included • in the proposed resolution. It was determined that this would be addressed at the November 21, 1995, Planning Board Meeting. Planning Board Minutes 11 October 17, 1995 • APPROVED 11/21/95 Attorney Barney stated that if the Planning Board wanted additional information that they should tell the applicant tonight. Chairperson Smith stated that the height and elevation needed to be clear, and that there was a lot of concern about the parking for Lot 2. Chairperson Smith noted that there was a motion and a second before the Board and called for a vote on that motion. Aye - Smith, Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - Kenerson, Finch, The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson Smith declared the matter of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the South Hill Complex to be duly closed at 9:12pm. AGENDA ITEM: REVIEW AND SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMISSION PER ARTICLE XI, SECTION 51A OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THE • PROPOSED SITING OF A 8 FOOT DIAMETER GROUND -LEVEL SATELLITE DISH RECEIVER AND A RADIO TRANSMISSION TOWER CONSISTING OF A 60 FOOT +/- WOODEN POLE AND 36 INCH TRANSMISSION ANTENNA, PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET SOUTH OF BOSTWICK ROAD AT 383 BOSTWICK ROAD, AG- AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. RICHARD D. BAKER, OWNER; TABERNACLE BAPTIST CHURCH, APPLICANT; EVERETTE A. ROBINSON, AGENT. Chairperson Smith declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 9:13pm and read aloud from the Planning Board Agenda, Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that Section 51A of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the application for the special permission for a radio transmission tower make application to the Zoning Officer who shall file the application with the clerk of the Planning Board who shall place the application on the agenda for the next meeting of the Planning Board, Mr. Frantz stated that the staff has done that by having it on this meeting agenda. Mr. Frantz stated that the Planning Board is to review the meeting and the chairman shall set up Public Hearing. Mr. Frantz stated that the request is to set the Planning Board Public Hearing, and have the applicants come to that hearing to answer any questions that the Board or members of the public have about this project. Mr. Frantz stated that they were asking that the Planning Board set a Public Hearing for 7:35pm on Tuesday, November 7, 1995, to hear this matter. • Board Member James Ainslie stated that he knew the site, and that this project has nothing to do with the Assembly of God Planning Board Minutes 12 October 17, 1995 • APPROVED 11/21/95 Church. Mr. Ainslie stated that Richard Baker is a member of the Tabernacle Baptist Church on Cayuga Street. Mr. Ainslie stated that the proposed location is about a mile and one half up the road, on Richard Baker's land, and is piping the transmissions from the satellite to the Tabernacle Baptist Church, Board Member Gregory Bell asked if transmissions were going directly to one church or if it was going to be broadcast through the air. Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that Section 51A says that the applicant has to bring in a development plan and copies of all documents submitted by the applicant to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Ms. Hoffmann asked if that had been done. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the applicant had not submitted anything to the FCC at this time. Board Member Hoffmann asked how the Planning Board could hold a hearing on this project without that information. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the regulations say, "any documents that applicant has submitted to the FCC." Mr. • Frantz stated that they have not submitted any documents to the FCC. Attorney Barney asked if they would be submitting documents to the FCC. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that documents to the FCC eventually. Mr. Frantz sta like to get the Town's approval to install the tower on this site before they start investing can be a very expensive licensing process with they would submit ted that they would radio transmission the money in what the FCC. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she interpreted Section 3a on Page 54 of the zoning ordinance, a filing application and Planning Board procedure, as though the applicant had to bring that information to the Planning Board before the Board even considers the application. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that he read it to mean that the applicants need to submit copies of all documents already submitted to the FCC. Chairperson Smith stated that, in that same paragraph it says that the Building Inspector will not be required to proceed under this law until application is complete. Chairperson Smith stated that implies that trying to keep the Building Inspector from doing any more work until it is a finished application as far as the FCC I s concerned. Planning Board Minutes 13 October 17, 1995 APPROVED 11/21/95 Attorney Barney explained the history behind Section 51A of the Zoning Ordinance dealing with the Radio Transmission Towers to the Board. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the reason for my question is that she hates for the Planning Board to get itself into situations where they have to deal with materials that are not complete, which causes delays, problems, and frustrations for the applicants. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she wanted to make sure that this matter could be discussed in a meaningful way without those materials. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that his and the Building Inspector's interpretation, and the interpretation that was given to the applicant by the Town staff, of this Section of the Ordinance was that if they had not submitted anything to the FCC then there is nothing to be submitted to the Planning Board or the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Frantz stated that this Section was written for radio transmission towers that may be several hundred feet in height, four or five of them together with lights and made of metal that stand out visually. Mr. Frantz stated that this particular application is for a small three foot antenna on a sixty foot wooden pole. Mr. Frantz given that and staff's interpretation of this section of the Zoning Ordinance, it was felt that a complete application had been submitted for review. Mr. Frantz stated that the application is complete enough to grant the special permission needed. Attorney Barney asked if this was a commercially operated radio broadcasting station. Assistant Town Planner Frantz responded, no, that it was going to be operated by Tabernacle Baptist Church, and it is not a radio station. Attorney Barney stated that what had prompted his questions was because Section 1 of Section 51A says, the radio transmission tower as used in this section, shall be a radio tower transmitting a radio broadcasting station operated by a commercially operated radio broadcasting station and licensed by the FCC. Attorney Barney stated that he was wondering if the appropriate approach is a variance for height. Attorney Barney stated that this does not seem to come within the definition of a radio transmission tower as defined in this section. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the fact that there is some station somewhere transmitting up to a satellite and then down to this dish, qualified it as a commercially operated radio broadcasting station. Attorney Barney stated that an unknown radio station is not Planning Board Minutes 14 October 17, 1995 • APPROVED 11/21/95 operating this tower, the church is operating it and they are not doing it for profit. Board Member Herbert Finch stated that the church would not be generating the programming, they would be catching programming out of the air and boostering it in this community. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that Mr. Finch was exactly correct. Attorney Barney stated that it would not be just for the benefit of the church then, it would be available for the community who tunes into the appropriate frequency. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that there would be broadcasting over the air. Attorney Barney stated that it would be broadcasting repeaters. Board Member Wilcox stated that 50 watts on the FM frequency is not going to be broadcasted that far. • Board Member Hoffmann stated that at a previous discussion addressing this topic, there was a question about the size of the lot that a radio transmission tower would have to be on. Ms. Hoffmann stated that the ordinance says that the size of the lot shall be at least six acres. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the problem with this application is that this would require a variance to allow this to be placed on the Baker's property, which is 95 acres with a small farm complex and the house on it, so it is not an unoccupied parcel. Attorney Barney asked if the Church was going to buy this property or if they were just going to put the tower on it. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that Richard and Carol Baker, as members of the church, are allowing the church to install the pole and the antenna on their property. Attorney Barney asked if they were going to dedicate six acres of property around this tower for this purpose. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that they were planning to put the tower in the vicinity of a small shed and silo, because they have to be close enough to a power source. • Board Member Bell asked if there was a silo that the antenna could be put on top of. Planning Board Minutes 15 October 17, 1995 • APPROVED 11/21/95 Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that they looked at that possibility, and their interpretation as staff was that would require the same process. Mr. Frantz stated that it would probably be more expensive to install on a silo given the amount of engineering that would have to be done, attaching a bracket to a silo, and the antenna would have to extend higher than the silo itself. Mr. Frantz stated that they would have to have a post coming off the side of the silo. Board Member Bell stated that they could have the antenna right in the middle. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that there were a lot of engineering questions to put an antenna like this on the side of a silo. Attorney Barney asked if the FCC process will, among other things, examine the site in terms of its location relative to where they are generating the signal. Attorney Barney stated, as he recalls, that after all of the process that WTKO went through, the problem was that the site was wrong as far as the FCC was concerned. Attorney Barney stated that the question is does the Town of Ithaca go through the whole process and grant approval, and • then have the FCC come in and say that they can not put it there for whatever reason. Attorney Barney stated that it would be useful to get a little more information as to what is entailed in that application process for the FCC. , Board Member Robert Kenerson stated that the application was done in the name of the church, and asked if the church would own this tower and the property on which it sits. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that his understanding was that the church would own the tower, the satellite dish, and the amplifier. The site for it will be donated by the Bakers, but there is no transfer of land involved. Mr. Frantz stated that limitations and restrictions could be placed on this project in the resolution for special approval. Attorney Barney stated that the Town needs to notify everyone within a 1,000 feet radius of the property that the tower will be located on. Chairperson Smith asked if the Board needed to make a resolution putting this proposal on a meeting date. Chairperson Smith asked what would be the most appropriate date to set a Public Hearing to hear this proposal. • Board Member James Ainslie stated Agricultural District and there are 80 foot not think that a single 60 -foot wooden pole that this was in an silos, and that he did would be noticeable in • 0 40 Planning Board Minutes 16 October 17, 1995 APPROVED 11/21/95 that area. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that he had taken some photos of the site, from Bostwick Road, and that there were a number of very tall trees in the vicinity of the pole. Mr. Frantz stated that he was going to measure those trees to get an idea of how this pole would fit into the landscape. Mr. Frantz stated that would like to have it set for the November 7, 1995, Planning Board Meeting at 7:35pm. Mr. Frantz stated that Tompkins County Planning Department and the Town of Ithaca Environmental Review Committee had already received copies of the application for review and comments. Mr. Frantz stated that the County Agriculture Preservation Board has gotten their copy of the application as well. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she wanted to be sure that one could get enough information to be sure that there are any problems with the Town's Ordinance, to clarify what the problems might be so that can be known, and from that we can work to clarify things if necessary. Chairperson Smith stated that if the Board will need the FCC documents prior to making a decision on this matter, we are not likely to get them prior to November 7, 1995, Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that having spoken with Mr. Everette Robinson, he had said that he did not intend to apply to the FCC until they received Town approval. Chairperson Smith asked what the reason for waiting was. Assistant Town Planner Frantz responded, yes. Attorney Barney stated that it is a specialized area and one usually has to go through an attorney who does FCC work, it could be very costly. Chairperson Smith stated that the Town could go through the Town's process and they could end up dropping the project because of difficulties they could run into through FCC. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the Board could go ahead and schedule the Public Hearing for November 7, 1995, and see what happens. Mr. Frantz stated that if a half dozen or more people come to the meeting in opposition to the project, then call for additional information from the applicants. Chairperson Smith stated that if people come to a Public Hearing that ask what the FCC thinks of this proposal, what is the Board supposed to say when they do not know the answer. Planning Board Minutes 17 October 17, 1995 0 APPROVED 11/21/95 Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that his feeling is that the applicants are taking some risk by paying the application fee to the Town, going through the Town's process, and the Zoning Board fees and process. Mr. Frantz stated that the applicant is willing to go through the Town's process and get the approval from the Town and then go to the FCC, if the FCC happens to say no, then they will handle that when and if it happens. Mr. Frantz stated that if the tower was larger he would want the FCC information too, but for the size of this, he does not feel that it is necessary. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the SEQR indicated that 0.05 acres of land would be effected by this proposal, and the regulations require six acres of land for this type of proposal. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that it would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow them to put the radio transmission tower on a 95 acre occupied lot. Attorney Barney stated that the law says that the Chairman sets the Public Hearing, Board Member Hoffmann stated that Mr. Frantz had given the Planning Board his and other staff's recommendation on Paragraph 3a of Section 51A, Ms. Hoffmann asked if Attorney Barney concurred with Mr. Frantz opinion. Attorney Barney stated that he would read it slightly differently, but he has to ask himself about the practicality of the situation. Attorney Barney stated that if they go to the FCC first and spend a lot of money there, and then come to the Planning Board or the Zoning Board says no, then what. Attorney Barney stated that a literal reading of this section of the Ordinance is what Mr. Frantz and the Building Inspector are doing. Attorney Barney stated that for this project, he sees no real problems with reviewing it with information submitted. Attorney Barney stated that it would be wise for them to determine between now and November 7th exactly what the FCC procedure is going to be, because he thinks that they do run the risk of coming before the Town, getting an approval after all of the process, only to have FCC say they need to move the tower over or that location is completely inappropriate, and they would then need to come back before the Board and do the entire process over again. Attorney Barney stated that he does not have a problem with the literal reading of this Section of the Ordinance. Chairperson Smith stated that the Board may want to see information on environmental impact of radio waves on health. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the Town has that information and will provide it to the Board. Planning Board Minutes • APPROV The Planning Board agreed November 7, 1995, to hear from see if there were any concerns owners and neighbors. 18 October 17, 1995 ED 11/21/95 to set a Public Hearing at 7:35pm on the applicant on this matter, and to from any of the adjoining property There being no further discussion, Chairperson Smith declared the discussion of the Radio Transmission Tower proposed to be placed at 383 Bostwick Road for the Tabernacle Baptist Church to be duly closed at 9:49pm. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 1995. MOTION by Candace Cornell, seconded by Eva Hoffmann: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of September 19, 1995, be and hereby are approved with the following conditions: That on Page 33, Paragraph 2, where it reads, "Board Member Hoffmann stated that she has a lot of questions but would like more details about the things discussed, and would like to have documents to the intrusions pointed out on the drawings." • This was changed to read, "Board Member Hoffmann stated that she has a lot of questions but would like more details about the things discussed, and would like to have documentation about the intrusions pointed out by Mr. Macera when he referred to the drawings." That on Page 34, Paragraph 6, where it reads, "Mr. Ainslie stated that the objection was the view and as he looks at it one of the alternatives would reduce the height by eight feet and out would reduce the height by three feet." This was changed to read, "Mr. Ainslie stated that the objection was the view and as he looks at it one of the alternatives would reduce the height by eight feet and the other would reduce the height by three feet." There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Bell. Nay - None. Abstain - Wilcox. The MOTION was declared to be carried. is AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS. Board Member Hoffmann stated that in the area of Pine Tree Planning Board Minutes 19 October 17, 1995 is APPROVED 11/21/95 Road and Snyder Hill Road there is a little house on the corner that has been remodeled very beautifully and the landscaping has been done very nicely. Ms. Hoffmann stated that it has been turned into a dentists office. Ms. Hoffmann stated that there is one problem, and that is the building has flood lighting, and they are incredibly bright, and makes is very distracting and out of character for that area. Planner JoAnn Cornish stated that she could review the resolution because lighting was an issue considered with that approval. Board Member Wilcox asked if the Town had heard from the nearest neighbor on Pine Tree Road, Planner Cornish responded that she did not know. Planner Cornish stated that there was a letter distributed to the Planning Board Members to Mr. Kim Blot from Mary Beth Holub, and that Board may wish to discuss a follow up response to this letter. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that this letter was received today and that he had not had enough time to look up Section 300 to see what it does say. Attorney Barney stated that he suspected that Section 300 says something that not doing anything in these areas that inhibit the ability of agricultural land from being used as such. Attorney Barney stated, what that letter overlooks is that one can not demand a ten percent set aside on every two -lot subdivision, that can only be demanded when there is a need for a park. Attorney Barney stated that he was not so sure that segregating off one small piece of a farm for some purpose would create .a great need for a park, and if this Board determined to demand ten percent of a farm for the price of that subdivision, that he would strongly urge, as the Town Attorney that this Board not do that. Chairperson Smith stated that the phrase in the letter is incorrect, it says that one can set aside up to ten percent of the large parcel each time a small lot was removed from that parcel. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that if Agriculture and Markets were to respond to the Town negatively, we have the documentation that there have been at least a dozen subdivisions in the Agricultural Districts in the Town of Ithaca in the last five years that involve up to five lots in a row where the Town of • Ithaca has not required the park and open space dedication. It was waived because it was deemed not necessary. Planning Board Minutes 20 October 17, 1995 is APPROVED 11/21/95 Attorney Barney stated that these kinds of things sometimes grow a life of their own, and it may be a good idea for someone from the Planning Department or his office to write a letter to Mr. Blot, pointing out right up front that there is not an automatic set aside, it is something that is tied to the need for park. Attorney Barney stated that Mr. Blot would have this information to consider before he solidifies a position on this matter. Board Member James Ainslie stated that this was brought to his attention by Bob Mazourek who is on Mary Beth Holub's Board. Mr. Ainslie stated that Mr. Mazourek stated that he understood that Mr. Ainslie seconded a motion on this proposal. Mr. Ainslie stated that he had received copies of the resolution and the Town's Adopted Local Law, Mr. Ainslie stated that he wanted to bring the following to the attention of that Board; "The Planning Board may recommend to the Town Board a reduction in the amount of the above sums if the Planning Board finds that special circumstances exist causing the amounts above to substantially exceed the reasonable value of the land that would otherwise be reserved and particularly a project under consideration." Mr. Ainslie stated that clears the whole thing up. Mr. Ainslie stated that they have to go to a Farm Bureau meeting Friday night and would like to basically tell them that this was put in for the developments, like Saponi Meadows, where the development would have considerable housing and reserving parkland, or money in lieu of parkland, to make it better for the people. Mr. Ainslie stated that in the Comprehensive Plan it was determined not to run water and sewer into Agricultural Land so there would not be large developments. Mr. Ainslie stated that he did not understand why they took this opinion on this, but that he thought that they misread the Local Law, Board Member Wilcox stated that the other mistake, clearly, is where they say that the Board now has the ability to require money. Mr. Wilcox stated that was not changed, the Town has always had the right to require money, all this did was set some amounts. Mr. Wilcox stated that the policy has not been changed in essence at all. It was determined that a letter of response would be prepared by the Planning staff and sent to Mary Beth Holub as well as Mr. Kim Blot. Board Member Gregory Bell stated that he wanted to ask the Town Attorney about the legality of something that was going on concerning Ithacare. Mr. Bell stated that he understood from some time ago, that Article 617 in SEQR Law makes it illegal to have communications between an applicant and the Lead Agency outside of • the Hearing process. Mr. Bell stated that he had not read it recently but he knew that it applies to when there is a Hearing Officer as apposed to a Hearing Board. Mr. Bell asked if his Planning Board Minutes 21 October 17, 1995 • APPROVED 11/21/95 understanding is correct that it is improper for an applicant awaiting a final SEQR review to be lobbying the Board. Attorney Barney responded and told Mr. Bell that he would have to take a look at that issue, because he is not aware of a prohibition of anybody talking to a Board Member, whether pro or con on a particular matter. Attorney Barney stated that he thinks a better practice for Board Members is not to talk about these issues, except in a public meeting or a public hearing, but he is not sure that there is anything illegal about anyone talking to a Board Member about a project. Attorney Barney asked if they were lobbying and if Board Members are being called. Board Member Bell responded, yes, they are lobbying. Mr. Bell stated that he did not know how many Board Members so far have been lobbied, but he knows at least four have been. Mr. Bell stated that his guess is that probably all of the Board Members have been. Mr. Bell stated that he certainly has been. Board Member James Ainslie asked Mr. Bell who was lobbying him. Board Member Bell responded, by Ithacare. Board Member Ainslie asked what Mr. Bell meant by Ithacare, and asked if Mr. Bell meant that he was being lobbied by Mr. Macera. Board Member Bell responded, no, not by Mr. Macera, Mr. Bell stated by Ithacare Board Members. Mr. Bell stated that he had received two efforts by Board Members to meet with him about this. Board Member Ainslie asked if Mr. Bell was sure they were Board Members, Board Member Bell stated that was a volunteer. Board Member Ainslie stated tr his church and had asked him when was Ann Butler, she is not a Board that Mr. Bell should watch what he one was a Board Member and one Lat the one that he knows goes to the next meeting was, and that Member, she is a volunteer, and is saying about people. Board Member Bell stated that Ms. Butler was a volunteer, but the other one had said that he was a Board Member. Board Member Ainslie asked how many are you talking about real Board Members and how many are volunteers or just people on the • street. Planning Board Minutes 22 October 17, 1995 APPROVED 11/21/95 Board Member Bell stated that they were both as part of a campaign organized to twist our (Planning Board Members) arms. Board Member Ainslie stated that is why he wanted to be clear on this. Mr. Ainslie stated that Ann Butler is not twisting his arm, she asked when the next meeting was. Mr. Ainslie stated that he thinks that Mr. Bell had better know his conversations. Board Member Bell stated that he did not know what Ms. Butler had said to Mr. Ainslie, and that he was not speaking for what she may have said to him. Mr. Bell stated that she had protested that he had not returned a phone call of hers which he did not receive, so he was not sure what she thought she had left on his various answering machines and voice mails and such, but he did not recall ever having any communications with her at all. Mr. Bell stated that he had gotten a second hand complaint that he was not returning her phone calls. Mr. Bell stated that he has now played phone tag with her and she wants to meet with him, not just a phone call, but she has made some attempts to meet with him. Mr. Bell stated that Tom Folks, who he is pretty sure is on the Board (for Ithacare), scheduled a meeting with him. Mr. Bell stated that he was not thinking about whether there might be some violation of the exparte communication laws under 617, when he did meet with him. Mr. Bell stated that he did meet with him, he happens to be a neighbor of his and lives a few doors away, so he did meet with him. Mr. Bell stated that he has not met with the volunteer and was just not sure that it is proper and is not sure that he should have met with Tom Folks. Assistant Town Planner Frantz asked if Mr. Bell was asking the Town to check into this, and to alert Ithacare to the possibility that some members of the Board might inadvertently be violating SEQR law. Attorney Barney stated that he did not think it was a violation of SEQR Law. Attorney Barney stated that he did not know anything in 617 that says its illegal, although there may be some cases under 617, but he doubts that even. Attorney Barney stated that it would be violation of the law if there were five members of the Planning Board meeting with someone in a private, closed session, but that is not SEQR Law, that would be the Public Meetings Law. Attorney Barney stated that would be a clear violation. Attorney Barney stated that a better practice on something that is pending before the Board is to simply say to the person that you believe it is inappropriate, if there is any communication they wish to give you is preferred to be given to the Board as a whole, and do it in a public session where the other people that are on the other side of the issue have an opportunity O to hear your comments and respond to them. Attorney Barney stated that he did not see that there was anything illegal because someone is talking to you. Planning Board Minutes 23 October 17, 1995 APPROVED 11/21/95 Board Member Gregory Bell stated that he planned to check into that some more, maybe it has changed, but he was aware, 10 years ago, of some issues about the legality of talking about pending decisions. Attorney Barney stated that he would be happy to be educated, but he is not aware of any laws to that effect. Attorney Barney stated, in fact, the SEQR process contemplates a fair amount of cooperation between the applicant and the Board in the sense that the applicant basically drafts the Board's documents, so there is going to be some communication. Attorney Barney stated that he was not aware of any problem with one Board Member being spoken to, either pro or con in a particular matter if the Board Member is willing to take the time to listen. Board Member Bell stated that he had also discussed this with the Assistant City Attorney, who put out a memo about six months ago in the Ithaca Journal. It was not SEQR, and he was not sure what the actual topic was, but it was the same thing. Some applicants for some sort of City approval, and the City Attorney was recommending to the City staff that they not engage in discussions. Attorney Barney responded, yes, but it was based on the better practice, not whether it was legal or illegal. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that he recalled the article Mr. Bell was referring to, and it was about the Wal -Mart project, and it amounted to the better practice, but was by no means barring members of the City Board from discussing Wal -Mart with members of the public. Board Member Wilcox stated that common sense and professionalism should rule here, and everyone can handle things appropriately. There being no additional business to be addressed at this meeting, the Chairperson closed this portion of the meeting. • Planning Board Minutes 24 October 17, 1995 0 APPROVED 11/21/95 ADJOURNMENT Upon MOTION, Chairperson Smith declared the October 17, 1995 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:12pm. 11/6/95. • Respectfully submitted, Starr Hays, Recording Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board, Mary Bryant, Administrative Secretary.