Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2006-06-20PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2006 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK FILE > DATE Z-0 Ou PRESENT Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board Members Tracy Mitrano, Board Member (7:29 p.m.), Larry Thayer, Board Members Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member (7:10 p.m.); Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering (7:34 p.m.); Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planners Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk. EXCUSED Christine Balestra, Planner; Nicole Tedesco, Planner. OTHERS Maria and Joseph Salino, 1070 Danby . Rd; Mariette Geldenhuys, Attorneys Millicent Clarke - Maynard, 111 Birchwood Dr; G. Ezra, 110 Birchwood Dr; Dave Auble, 111 King Rd W; Jacquelyn Nelson, 106 King Rd W; Larry Fabbroni, 1 Settlement Ways Rocco Lucent, 120 Briarwood Dr; Andrew Houtenville, 116 Pinewood Dr; Mancang Dong & Jingzhen Guo, 102 Pinewood PI; Gary and Fran Bergstrom, 113 Birchwood Dr; Rick Couture, 104 Westhaven Rd; Carl Sgrecci, 1130 Trumansburg Rd; Robert O'Brien, HOLT Architects; Lawrence Berger, Lama Real Estate, Brian Howell, Birchwood Dr; Erik Whitney, 409 Auburn St; Bernie Carr, Syracuse; Scott Sutcliffe, Cornell University; Janet Howe, .109 Birchwood Dr; David Collum, 1456 Hanshaw Rd; Charles Evenmeyer, 206 Sapsucker Woods Rd. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:02 p.m., and accepts for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on June 12, 2006 and June 14, 2006, 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 June 14, 20065 Chairperson Wilcox states the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York .State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention .and Control. 1 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 PERSONS TO BE HEARD Chairperson Wilcox invited any member of the audience wishing to address the Board on matters not on the agenda to come forward. There was no one present wishing to address the Board. SEQR Duffy 3 -Lot Subdivision, 1301 & 1305 Hanshaw Road Mariette Geldenhuys, Attorney for Gary and Donna Duffy I would be happy to answer any questions about the subdivision. I am here on behalf of Gary and Donna Duffy. They have made this application that is before you for a three -lot subdivision in the Town at the addresses that you mentioned. Very briefly, there are two houses currently located on the premises, as shown on the survey map. What they propose to do is create three lots, which conform with road frontage, setback and other requirements. So as indicated on the survey,:ParcelsA and B have existing houses already on them. Parcel C would then be made available for sale as a building lot. The only structure. currently on Parcel C is a garage. I know a question has come up from one of the Town planners about this garage as a potentially looking at that as an accessory building. There really was no way to configure this subdivision so that this garage would be on the same lot as one of the houses. I think that is fairly clear from the survey that that would be a concern. And while this garage, which of course in the zone is defined, as an accessory building would be temporary orphaned in the sense that there wouldn't be a primary building on the lot. The intent certainly is that Parcel C would be sold as a building lot and that a residence would be constructed on that lot. So it would only be a temporary situation that, you would have an accessory building on Parcel C until such time as a residence is constructed there. The other item that I wanted to point out is that...see on the survey several entrances and driveways here. There is an existing gravel drive off Hanshaw Road on to Parcel B and then there is an existing gravel drive, which straddles the boundary line between Parcels A and C. The intent is that Parcels A and C will share the driveway off Warren Road. So that will be the access to both Parcels A and C. Parcel B will not have access to the driveway off Warren Road and Parcels A and C will not have access to the driveway off Hanshaw Road. So in other words, we won't have a configuration where all three parcels can use both driveways. Only A and C would use the driveway off Warren Road and then we would have a joint right -of -way agreement between the owners of Parcels A and C that would outline that they share this driveway and share maintenance responsibility. I discussed it with my client earlier today and if there is a concern about the owner of Parcel B, the future Parcel B, accessing Parcel C on this existing gravel drive and gravel parking, we could certainly construct some kind of barrier or maybe preferably greenery, some kind of landscaping to make it clear that this is no longer a driveway that is intended to serve all the parcels and that is how we intend to provide access from the road based existing driveways. Of course the future 2 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 owner of Parcel C will decide where they want to construct their residence and may choose to extend that driveway to a different part of the parcel. So I would be happy to answer any questions. My client is in Florida, where she now resides. That is why she is not able to be here tonight, but I can also reach her by phone if necessary to answer any questions where I might not have all the details. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the environmental review? Board Member Howe — No. Chairperson Wilcox — I've got some. This particular land used to be the home of Collins Garbage Service and I wanted to know if you or the Duffy's are aware of any hazardous materials that might have been spilled or potentially buried on this site. I say that because I remember seeing the garbage trucks parked on this site. I don't know whether vehicle maintenance was done on the site, but just given the number of vehicles that were there, it would not be unlikely that there. might have been some oil or gas spills on the site. Ms. Geldenhuys — I am not aware of any such wastes being on the site. My client is the one who completed the SEAF and I think indicated there that she is not aware of that. I can certainly confirm that with her, but that has not come up in my discussions with them. We are not aware of any wastes or any kind of environmental problem resulting from the previous use of the property. Chairperson Wilcox — Did you by chance represent the Duffy "s when they bought the parcels? Ms. Geldenhuys — I actually represented them when they bought Parcel A, not the portion that is B and C. So I was not representing them when they bought it from Collins so I really cannot address what was done at the time of closing in terms of questions. Chairperson Wilcox - You are not aware of any representations that were made either by council? Ms. Geldenhuys — Not to my knowledge. We can certainly, if the board wants to see documentation, we could locate documentation and see if that issue came up and was addressed, but to my knowledge there is no hazardous material that was either disclosed or that my clients have discovered in the period that they have owned the property. 3 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Chairperson Wilcox — The other question is on the proposed Parcel C is this thing labeled concrete block walls, moveable. What is being stored there right now? It looks like barn waste and it looks like straw or hay and manure. Ms. Geldenhuys — My clients also, as many of you probably know, have a horse riding facility just down Warren Road. So I haven't actually been to this property myself recently so I won't be able to address what exactly is there. It may be something related to the use of the horse barn, but these block walls are moveable. They certainly intend to remove them. My understanding was that these walls were kind of indicating the edge of the gravel parking area. Chairperson Wilcox — I am less concerned about the concrete than I am about the manure sitting there uncovered, subject to rain and runoff. Ms. Geldenhuys — I'm sure that is something my clients would be happy to address. Chairperson Wilcox — It may be a normal part of their operations, but seeing that it is sitting there stored out in the open was, I think, inappropriate. Those are my questions. Anybody else? Board Member Hoffmann — I don't really have a question, but on the EAF the golf course is marked as being there under point 10 so it is there, but.I would have marked it under park, forest and open space probably because I think when we think about open space in the Town we have included places like golf courses. Chairperson Wilcox - We'll change the short environmental assessment form and mark park, forest and open space. Any other questions with regard to environmental review? Would someone like to move the motion as drafted? Board Member Howe moves the motion and Board Member Conneman seconds. Mr. Kanter — Just because you did raise the issue of former garbage trucks storage, what you might want to do is under C1 in the description in Part II is add a couple of sentences something like, " "the site is former trash company. Garbage trucks were parked there." If you want to add something like, "it would be prudent to test soil for presence of any contaminants prior to earth moving or construction," we could do that as well. So that is something you could do to make sure the EAF is covering... Chairperson Wilcox — Again, I don't. know for sure whether vehicle maintenance went on in that setup. I would be most concerned if vehicle maintenance occurred because then you are more likely to have either antifreeze spills or oil spills or gasoline spills than if they were simply parked there as part of the Collins Garbage Service being headquartered at that facility. I could speculate by saying that the Duffy's when they 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 bought the property certainly did not want to inherit and environmental cleanup and the liability that goes with it. So if they were prudent when they purchased the property, they certainly should have made sure of what was on that property. Any buyer of Parcel B or Parcel C would also be prudent to insure that there aren't any fuel spills or gasoline spills or other toxics that might have been deposited on the ground. But, yeah, noting that it was the location of the ... I assume the headquarters of the former Collins Garbage Service. Board Member Thayer - Did they garage the trucks? Chairperson Wilcox — I remember them outside, but there is a large garage there and I can't remember what it was used for. Okay, so we can add that language. Mr.. Kanter —If you would like to. I can give it to Carrie and then we could... Chairperson Wilcox Are we okay with the language? Mr. Kanter — Do you want to include the part about soil testing? The board would have the option of requiring that prior, to a building permit if you wanted to, but just saying in the EAF the way I read it doesn't imply that you would be requiring ... Chairperson Wilcox - Without any evidence, I'm not... Board Member Conneman — I assume that Mr. Duffy would be interested in that because he wants to sell lot C that would be raised. Ms. Geldenhuys.. - Certainly that is something that as the seller as part of the due diligence when you are looking into marketing a property. Definitely. Mr. Kanter — So if you just I want to modify it scratching that last sentence I suggested and just refer to the former site and leave it at that. Chairperson Wilcox — Now normally we would now vote and then I would ask you to take a seat and we would open the public hearing. I have a gentleman raising his hand who probably wants to say something with regard to the environmental review. So I want to give him an opportunity. So if you will take your papers and take a seat I will give this gentleman an opportunity to speak. Brian Howell, 109 Birchwood Dr Back in the 50s and 60s we lived on Roat Street, which is quite near to the property you are discussing. Mr. Collins, in addition to maintaining his garbage vehicles, also crushed a large number of vehicles and sold them to various destinations. It is possible in doing so that there was some liquid disbursement at the time. 9 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Form Part II referenced above, 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 A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS None. ABSENT.• Mitrano. The motion was declared to be carried. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 3 -lot subdivision located at 1301 & 1305 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 7042 =1 & 7042 -2.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing off the southern portions of the. two existing lots to create one new +/= 1.6 -acre lot (Parcel C) located on Warren Road, and modifying the location of the lot line between Parcels A & B. Gary & Donna Duffy, Owners /Applicants. Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. and reads the public hearing notice. Chairperson Wilcox - Any one have any questions with regard to the subdivision as proposed? Good. Chairperson Wilcox invites the public to address the Planning Board. With no one interesting in speaking, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. Board Member Thayer moves the resolution and Chairperson Wilcox seconds. Ms. Brock — Under the resolved clauses, number two b, I would like to revise that language so it reads, "submission of an easement agreement for shared driveway access between Parcels A, B and C and approval of the agreement by the Town Attorney, prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board." So it gets in the concept that not only are they submitting the agreement, but that the attorney approves it. I noticed that the Planning Department letter had a recommendation that was in support of the shared access for Parcels A and C and said that the subdivision approval should stipulate no future additional access on Hanshaw or Warren Roads. It wasn't clear to me whether that was actually something that still needed to be done. Go ahead, Jonathan, I see you want speak. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Mr. Kanter -. A couple of things on that same condition b that Susan was mentioning. I think to make it clear and as the attorney for the applicant stated they would do, we should start that paragraph off by saying, "access to Parcels A and C. shall be by means of a shared driveway utilizing the existing driveway and curbcut on Warren Road:" That is the intent and I think that we should just say that. Then down below in the second line where it says, "Parcels A, B and C," actually it should only say, "Parcels A and C." The shared driveway is only to serve Parcels A and C, not B. That was part of the whole point of the discussion about blocking off access at that Hanshaw Road driveway. So in addition to just adding the first sentence that says, "access to Parcels A and C shall be by means of a shared driveway utilizing the existing driveway and curbcut on Warren Road," then picking up on what Susan suggested was just change the reference to Parcel A, B and C by dropping Parcel B and keeping Parcels A and C as being served by the shared driveway. Ms. Brock — Would you like me to read our two changes put together? Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. Ms. Brock — So if I've got it right, it will be, "access to Parcels A and C shall be by means of a shared driveway utilizing the existing driveway and curbcut on Warren Road." Lets see..., "the applicant shall submit an easement agreement for shared driveway access between Parcels A and C and the Attorney for the Town shall approve said agreement prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board." Chairperson Wilcox — The language in there with regard to Parcel C and the existing garage. Did you see the draft language that we were given? Ms. Geld enhuys — No. I haven't seen the draft language. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. You want to come up here? You may have a comment on this. The language as drafted says, "either acquisition of the necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals to permit a secondary structure without a principle building on Parcel C or removal of the existing garage on Parcel C prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board." And that is there because this board cannot waive, as you know, this board cannot waive the zoning ordinances unless we are specifically allowed to and this is one case where we are not. Ms. Geldenhuys — Yes. I believe this item was brought to my client's attention also in her discussions with the Town Planner. This is a somewhat unusual situation and that will only temporarily be an accessory structure without a principle structure, but we can certainly address that with the Board of Zoning Appeals and request a variance. My clients are not inclined to demolish the structure because they would rather leave that up to a future buyer to decide whether they want the structure there or demolish it or lei Chairperson language? Wilcox - Thank you, sir Board Member Conneman - Yes. Board votes on motion. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Given that, are we still comfortable with the PB RESOLUTION NO 2006 -059: SEQR, Pre liminary and Final Subdivision .. . . � Amh � � w � � ANh jwaff • . • w _ — J .r_ _ _ 70 -12 -1 & 70- 12 -2.2 MOTION made by Board Member Howe, seconded by Board Member Conneman. WHEREAS; 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 346t subdivision located at 1301 & 1305 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax. Parcels 70 -12 -1 & 70- 12 -2.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the subdivision of the southern portions of the existing lots to create one new +/- 1.6 -acre lot with frontage on Warren Road and modification of the location of the lot line between the resulting two northern lots (Parcels A & B), and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board on June 20, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled 'Survey Map Showing Lands of Donna & Gary Duffy Located on Hanshaw Rd. & Warren Rd, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, State of New York," prepared by T. G. Miller, AC., Engineers & Surveyors, dated 112312006, and other application materials, and 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED; That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the Environmental Assessment Eel PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 how they want to handle that. They would prefer to take the route of seeking a variance. Chairperson Wilcox — Go the to ZBA and do that. Okay. Very good. We all set? Ms. Brock — Um... Board Member Thayer — No. Ms. Brock — Well, I am also wondering whether the Planning Department's comment should still be addressed. We are saying that access to Parcels A and C shall be by means of the shared driveway. We don't say explicitly and by no other means. So I don't know if you want additional language. Mr. Kanter — I wouldn't go that far. By the referring to the County Planning Department. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, in their 239 review. way, just for the record, Susan was Mr. Kanter I think their comments are being followed by what we are doing and I don't think we really need to do anything further. Chairperson Wilcox — We are creating a third lot, but we are not creating a third curbcut. Mr. Kanter — Now if you want to add a condition based on what Mariette was suggesting that the owner of Parcel B may want to put in some kind of barricade or plantings to prevent access from going further from Parcel B into one of the other parcels, I don't know whether the board needs to do that. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't want to go there. If we have not required access across B to get to C and if the eventual owner of Parcel B wants to put up a fence or plant some trees that is certainly their right. I don't think I want to go there. Any further discussion? Board votes on motion. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -060; Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approva /, Duffy 3 4ot Subdivision, 1301 & 1305 Hanshaw Road, Tax Parcels 70424 & 7042 -2,2 MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Chairperson Wilcox. i 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 WHEREAS; 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 3 -16t subdivision located at 1301. & 1305 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels 70 -12 -1 & 70- 12 -2.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the subd ivision of the southern portions of the existing lots to create one new +/- 1.6 -acre lot with frontage on Warren Road and modification of the location of the lot line between the resulting two northern lots (Parcels, A & B), 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 Subdivision Approval, has on June 20, 2006, 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 Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board on June 20, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled 'Survey Map Showing Lands of Donna & Gary Duffy Located on Hanshaw Rd. & Warren Rd, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, State of New York," prepared by T, G. Miller, P.C., Engineers &Surveyors, dated 1/23/2006, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED; 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 3 -lot subdivision located at 1301 & 1305 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels 70 -12 -1 & 70- 12 -2.2, Medium Density Residential Zone, as shown on the. survey map entitled 'Survey Map Showing Lands of Donna & Gary Duffy Located on Hanshaw Rd. & Warren Rd, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, State of New York," prepared by T. G. Miller, A C., Engineers & Surveyors, dated 112312006, subject to the following conditions: a. Either acquisition of the necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals to permit a secondary structure without a principal building on IT$] PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Parcel C or removal of the existing garage on Parcel C prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board, and b. Access to Parcels A and C shall be by means of a shared driveway utilizing the existing driveway and curbcut on Warren Road. The applicant shall submit an easement agreement for shared driveway access between Parcels A and C, and the Attorney for the Town shall approve said agreement prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board, and c. Submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or my/ar copy of the final subdivision plat, and three dark-llned prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES .• Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NA YS.• None. ABSENT.• Mitrano. The motion was declared to be carried. SEQR Ceres Gardens, 1080 Danby Road Lawrence Berger, Lama Real Estate I am the agent for Joseph and Maria Salino. I am with Lama Real Estate. Our address is 501 South Meadow Street, Ithaca, 14850. What we are proposing is to do a change of use in the zoning at 1080 ... I'm sorry in the property at 1080 Danby Road, on the corner of King Road and Danby Road. The use is currently approved for an auto repair and we would like to change that to a retail store being a farm stand and a nursery to provide the neighborhood community with fresh fruits and vegetables. and things of that nature. What we are looking at is no new construction, no change in property lines, just cleaning up the property and changing the use. We are looking at improving the safety of the access at the corner. In that we are looking to put a berm along the access point. Right now it is a large open access from the road and the concern is that people just might pull in and back out into traffic right before the streetlight. So we want to put an approximately 60 foot berm in from the corner extending back and then have shared parking between the Italian Carryout Restaurant directly to the north and this property. In addition, they are looking to improve the property by painting it, putting a new awning on, changing an overhead garage door to a standard door that 11 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 meets with ADA requirements and essentially just cleaning it up and turning it into a retail store. That is in a nutshell what we are looking to do. I would be happy to answer any questions related to that. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the environmental review? Board Member Thayer — I see nothing .but pluses. It looks good. Board Member Hoffmann — I have a similar question to what you had in the first matter we talked about and that is since this building was used before for taking care of cars and machinery I wonder if there might have been spills or waste chemicals used in the building or outside the building that might create a problem now, especially since there is going to. be food products for sale and stored there. Mr. Berger — To my knowledge there isn't any. I don't believe there has been a phase I review. We can ask the owners. They are here tonight and we can ask them. We did not undertake that because it is not a change in ownership. The owners still own the property; they are just looking to lease it to a new tenant and a new business in the area. Joe? Joe Salino, 484 Troy Road As far as I know, my dad owned the building before I took it when he passed away and it was a Ziebart Rustproofing store. It wasn't actually a repair shop, ma'am. It was where they just rustproof cars. It was a gooey substance that stuck to the cars and they always put mats down and what not then they pealed the mats up and disposed of them. There was no oil or anything like that used as long as we have owned the building. I can't say what happened years and years before we owned it. I guess the building has been there since around .1940, but I know in the last 35 years that we have owned it, it was basically just the Ziebart rustproofing and they did car waxing and basically that was all. There were no hazardous materials used there at all. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I don't know if rustproofing is hazardous or not. Mr. Salino — What I'm saying is that it was put on mats and pealed up and changed periodically. I mean there is probably a little bit around, but I don't believe it could be classified as a hazardous material. I mean they are still doing it. They have moved up to Dryden and are doing it there. I could check with them and see if there is any classification to it or anything, but I'm not aware of one. Mr. Berger — Typically when there is a hazardous material being used, the owners need to be notified of it and there is a lot of regulations about how it is used. So I think given the time frames that you are talking about that if it had been he would have been notified. 12 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Board Member Hoffmann — But this building has not been used for quite a while. When was it last used? Mr. Salino — It was last used less than a year ago, ma'am. It was a car cleaning. They cleaned and waxed cars. That is basically all that was done after the Ziebart moved out, which I am not sure on the exact dates, but it was about two years ago, I believe that Ziebart moved out and then a young gentleman came in and he was just detailing and waxing cars. I didn't want him doing auto repair work there. That is why we want to do something different with the building. I don't want to have that anymore. I want to clean up the neighborhood, make it look nice and have something that I don't have to worry about as far as oils, gasoline or anything like that. Board Member Hoffmann — Yup. I understand that. So anyway, the rustproofing went on until about two years is what you are saying? Mr. Salino — Yes, ma'am. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. appropriate use for the neighborhood see this succeed, but I did feel that I know. What do you think as staff? possibly are some hazardous materia food from there? I agree otherwise that this is a. much more than what was there before. So I would like to needed to ask these questions and I don't really Is there any way that one can find out if there Is in the building that could interfere with selling Mr. Kanter — Again as Larry mentioned the term Phase Ia environmental review is basically doing testing for presence of any kind of hazardous chemicals and that probably could be done before opening the establishment, but it does cost a little bit of money. Probably several thousand dollars to do the initial, ..Mostly ... the first phase is mostly research and review, which is asking the kind of question that you just asked and did that use have substances that could have been related to any kind of hazardous condition. If the answer is yes, then they would recommend further testing. I suppose if the board thought that was a significant issue you could condition the approval to require that prior to issuance of the permits necessary for the renovation of the building. Again, we didn't necessarily think that was a significant issue. Are there any Health Department approvals associated since this will be produce? It is not serving any prepared foods, I assume. Mr. Berger — Not to my knowledge. Board Member. Hoffmann — Well, I thought I saw a map that showed that there would be a baked goods counter or a baked goods stand. 13 PLANNING -BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Chairperson Wilcox — The question is whether or not they are prepared there. They are not preparing it there. Mr. Salino — The substance that they use for the Ziebarting is a very thick...its almost like a plastic. I don't know what the exact compound is. It is not something that would soak into the ground or into anything. It is pretty much very cleanable. They cleaned it up quite often when they were there and they repainted several times to make the building inside look nice. It is not something that is a real liquid solution that would soak into places and stay there and never come out. I think we. are. planning on repainting and we want to use some good quality paint and put some ... maybe a finish on the floor that would be...we definitely want to clean it up and make it look very nice in there. I don't think there would be anything left, to be, honest with you. Board Member Hoffmann — I feel just slightly hesitant about this. I would like to know what other board members think. Board Member Howe — It's not a big concern for me. Board Member Talty — Actually, Ziebarting is the opposite. It doesn't permeate. It hardens. So based upon that I don't have any issues with that either. Board Member Mitrano — I appreciate the question, but I agree that there is something both in the nature of the Ziebarting process and in the nature of how these materials are being sold and not being prepared there that has alleviated my initial curiosity along the same lines that you have. I am more concerned about the quality of the olive oil that you might be selling there. [laughter] Board Member Conneman — I think we should have some so of an indication of what Ziebart really is. I mean we can say that we know what it is, but we don't necessarily know what it is. There are lots of toxins that we don't know about. It seems to me that there ought to be some statement from Ziebart or people who do that what the hazards are if any. I don't I think there are any, but I think there ought to be...I don't think you should spend thousands of dollars, but I think you do have to figure out something that let us know more about. Chairperson Wilcox — I think I have enough nods of the head to proceed. Your question is appropriate. Comments from staff with regard to the environmental review? Any other questions either of the applicant or agent? Board Member Hoffmann — No. I think I asked what I had. 14 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Board Member Thayer moves the resolution and Board Member Talty seconds. Board Member Hoffmann — Actually I just remembered one more thing. It has to do with the plantings. There is a proposal to have .Bayberry planted on the berm along the road and I'm sure that's fine except I think it is generally better to have more than one plant because if there is any disease that would affect it, it would wipe out the whole planting. It is usually better to have an assortment of plants that way you might have some left or if you really want to have just Bayberry, then I would like to see a condition saying if the Bayberry doesn't survive in this location for whatever reason that the berm is replanted. Board Member Conneman I was going to wait until the public hearing to raise this, but the question is, in my opinion, I appreciate this and everything else that goes with it, but is it salt resistant. You are going to be along the road that is going to use salt and somehow that ought to be examined. I'm not a plant expert, but its not listed on the... Mr. Salino — Right. We probably should have put that...we wife and I called Agway and Cayuga Landscape and spoke to them and asked them what a good planting would be along that road for that very reason with the salt and for the road debris and dust and whatever would go on. They suggested using the Bayberry. They said it was a little more resilient that a lot of plants. I'm not really sure. I'm not that good with plants, but that is what they recommended. We could also keep it trimmed to a certain height and that we wouldn't have to worry cars coming up King Road trying to look across, there is a street light there, but it would just make it much safer if we could keep something low to the ground. Board Member Conneman I agree with that, but it isn't listed on Salt...Road Side Plants. Board Member Mitrano — Do you know anything about that, Eva? You know about plants. Board Member Hoffmann — If it is salt resistant? No I don't really. Board Member Conneman — There is a publication out of Cornell that describes this and it doesn't list this plant. Mr. Berger — If I may, I did a little bit of research on this to fill this out and what I found is there is a variety of Bayberries and they are not typically specific. What they do all tend to have in common is that they are waxy plant that tend to be more resistant. The southern varieties grow tall, which is what my concern was and I did some more digging and the varieties we are talking about up here respond very well to 15 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 trimming and they get hardier and bushier with that. So, we thought that was really good and instead of doing overkill and say we are going to plant some crazy kind of pattern, lets go with something that we know that works and then hear what your input is. Board Member Conneman — I can give you the name of someone you should call. That is what I think would be helpful. Board Member Hoffmann — My advise having to do with this kind of thing and plants that have to be pruned and trimmed is try to get a variety, which you don't have to prune. Then you don't have to do all that work. A variety that naturally grows only to a certain height and stops. Chairperson Wilcox — I have a motion and second with regard to environmental review. Any further questions? Board votes on motion. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -061; SEAR, Pre /iminary & Final Site Plan Approval, Ceres Gardens, 1080 Danb y Road, Tax Parcel No, 39 -147 MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Board Member Talty. WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Ceres Gardens located at 1080 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -17, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposal involves converting the former garage building into a farm stand and nursery retail business. Changes include painting the building, adding an awning, converting one overhead door to a standard door, regrading the parking area, and other site improvements. Joseph M. & Maria L. Salino, Owners /Applicants; Lawrence A. Berger, Lama Real Estate, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on June 20, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, a Project Narrative (May 1, 2006), a set of drawings showing the layout and details of the proposed farm stand, and other application materials, and 16 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 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 RESOL VED; That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative . determination of environmental significance based on. the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part II in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 148 Environmental Quality Review of the Town of Ithaca Code for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox Hoffmann, Conneman, M/trano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NA YS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Ceres Gardens located at 1080 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -147, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposal involves converting the former garage building into a farm stand and nursery retail business. Changes include painting the building, adding an awning, converting one overhead door to a standard door, regrading the parking area, and other site improvements. 7oseph M. & Maria L. Salino, Owners /Applicants; Lawrence A. Berger, Lama Real Estate, Agent Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. and reads the public hearing notice. Chairperson Wilcox - Questions, if any, with regard to the site plan as proposed? Board Member Hoffmann — I wanted to ask about the sidewalks or how people would walk there. We had talked about other developments up on those corners around that intersection and we have felt that it is very important to have sidewalks for people to be able to move across 96 and across King Road from the hotel and from the future development there and from the Ithaca College residential units and so on. So I don't see anything very specific about where people would walk here. 17 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Mr. Berger — That's true. At this point there currently are not any sidewalks to my knowledge in that neighborhood. The idea was to address the traffic safety. So the plan, ma'am, what you see in the site plan is to keep vehicles in and people walking safely from their vehicles to the entranceway. The closest thing, I think to that, would be where you see the concrete strip in the front of the building and also the designated isle next to the handicap spot for no parking. Board Member Mitrano — Are you thinking about students who might be living down 96B walking up? Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, and people who are staying at the future hotel and the other future residences. Board Member Thayer — We have had a lot of discussion about sidewalks up there, but we have never got them across 96B yet, safely. Board Member Hoffmann — No, but we have also talked about sidewalks along the property that Mr. Monkemeyer owns when he was here last. Board Member Mitrano - Down King Road, on the other side. Board Member Hoffmann — They are not built yet, but they are in the works. It would be good to have something here to connect up to all of that, too. Board Member Mitrano — Is that doable? Mr. Berger — I think so. I mean when I spoke with the State DOT official, we talked a little bit about that and at that point I. didn't realize it was such a concern so I didn't delve into it in detail, but he felt that and the way we have done this is to have the berm. There was room for that and also to create traffic safety to clean it up. So there is room for it if the board felt that it was wise to make the berm a little bit more narrow, I'm sure that wouldn't be a problem. The idea again was just to keep it...the primary object was to keep people from pulling in front of the store and then backing right out in front of the streetlight. There was also a concern raised early on about the possibility of people sort of cutting across the yard and avoiding the streetlight. The DOT feels that that was at all an issue. They said they have never had a history of it. When you look at the site, if somebody were to do that they would most likely be fairly heavy under the influence. We did take that into consideration. Board Member Mitrano — I support Eva's motion and I hope that the applicant doesn't feel like he's the first one, but I think it would be taking a leadership position in that area to begin to establish what we hope to be the future of that whole ... all four corners having sidewalks. Wool PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Chairperson Wilcox — I have some questions, too, but go ahead, Jon. Mr. Kanter — Let me just say that one of the things that will happen with the two .sites that the Salino's own is there would be shared access between the restaurant and the garden center. There is already in front of the Ziebart building, which will become the garden center, a significant amount of asphalt and concrete that will still be there after the berm and plantings are placed. Then the gravel parking area will be spruced up so to speak. So there will be a smooth walking surface that will allow pedestrians to get between the two sites without being right on 96B. From there, long term what happens to get people further down toward Ithaca College I don't know whether the Town will participate somehow in sidewalks. It just seems, though, for this particular use, again, there is no sidewalk coming up West King Road on the residential side, which happens to be the same side that this building is on. What we have talked about with the combination of the hotel and the Holly Creek proposals is to have sidewalks coming up the other side of the road, which then brings you to the intersection, which I think is really the key point here, which is how do we safely cross pedestrians from this side of 96B to the other, which is a crosswalk and signal issue, not a sidewalk issue. To me, adding a sidewalk specifically here, anything more than what the proposal is I think would be overkill in this particular situation. Board Member Mitrano — Well, lets drill on that a little bit. So here is the building and then this concrete, could that act as a sidewalk? I'm agreeing with you that we don't want overkill. Mr. Kanter — Yes. It's the concrete and then also the asphalt that is next to it that will remain. Board Member Mitrano — Is there someway with the vegetation that you are going to put in that it without having to recreate a sidewalk you can use the existing materials there such that it acts like a sidewalk? Mr. Berger — Yes. Mr. Kanter — Yes. In affect, that's what the result would be. Board Member Hoffmann —.That would be.fine, but I would want to know how people would be able to cross from the sidewalk on the southwest corner over to this corner, which is the northwest corner. Southwest is where the hotel is going to be, where we have some sort of sidewalk. So if they want to go over and buy something to eat at this roadside stand, how can they safely go across the road and across this strip of land onto this existing asphalt? 19 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Mr. Kanter — Well again, that would be a crosswalk issue crossing the street and we...I don't think we can exactly require a sidewalk, well actually that part of it is a Town road. Although normally. the intersections with State highways and Town roads require State approval of whatever happens. I guess we could work with State DOT to see if between the Town, the State, a crosswalk would be appropriate there. It probably would be once the hotel was there. Chairperson Wilcox — Once the hotel is established and with no significant food service either in the hotel or yet proposed on the open lot next to the hotel, then you might have some traffic across the road either to buy bread or basil or whatever or pick up a pizza or spaghetti at the Italian Carryout. Again, that is a crossing through the right -of- way through the road, not the property. Board Member Thayer — Yeah, that's we ended up before. Board Member Hoffmann — Is there a way for people to get safely from the crosswalk onto this internal sidewalk? Mr. Walker — That's all paved. That whole corner is paved. It's all asphalt, so technically it's a really wide sidewalk. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I just want to be sure that if we approve this with things as they stand now, which would work, I understand how this open area would work as a sidewalk. I just want to be sure that there can be a connection. in the future when it is appropriate. Mr. Walker — That is an interesting intersection and I think with the hotel there we should pursue with the Town, the State and the County because the County owns King Road on the east side to probably have crosswalks across at three legs of the intersection because of the traffic from... substantial pedestrian traffic from the hotel and the King Road West area over to Hilltop. Mr. Kanter — Then once the Monkemeyer crossings proposal goes ahead then there will be a lot of crossing. Mr. Walker — So I don't think it would be real complicated to get approvals from the State to put crosswalks in. We can pursue that. Chairperson Wilcox - And there is nothing that we see here that would preclude a safe connection? Mr. Walker — No. The biggest problem is right now the signal is only vehicular and I believe there is a left turn lane and the biggest potential expense is adding pedestrian 20 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 crossing signals, which because of the turning movements you may want to put a delay on the greens for the traffic and an actuated pedestrian crossing. Chairperson Wilcox — Nothing that we are doing here so far would preclude that? Mr. Walker - No. Chairperson Wilcox Anything else? Gentlemen, will you have a seat and we will give the public a chance to speak? Chairperson Wilcox invites members of the public to address the board. With no one interested in speaking, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Berger, have you seen the draft resolution? You saw the condition about the parking space, eliminating that one? You understand it? Mr. Berger — Yes. Board Member Howe moves the motion, Board Member Talty seconds. Chairperson Wilcox - Susan? Ms. Brock — I have one changed under the resolved clauses, paragraph 2c. I would like to change it so it reads, "submission for review and approval of the Attorney for the Town of an easement agreement to specifically permit cross access of vehicles and pedestrians between tax parcel numbers..." and the rest remains the same. I don't think just a revision to the lease agreement itself will be effective to have the cross access and parking be enforceable against future owners, future tenants and by requiring an easement agreement that will insure that follows the land regardless of who owns and rents it. Chairperson Wilcox — Since Mr. and Mrs. Salino own both properties, aren't they creating an agreement with themselves? Ms. Brock — This can be done. The Town has done this in the past. Mr. Kanter — They may not own both in the future... Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. Understood. Change acceptable? Board Member Hoffmann — How about adding a paragraph about the plants, replacing the plantings if they fail in this location? How do you feel about that since it is just one species of plant? 21 -PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Board Member Thayer — We haven't done that before to my knowledge. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, we have. We did up at the Burger King at East Hill Plaza. Board Member Mitrano — And what was the wording? Board Member Hoffmann — Actually, all of East Hill Plaza come to think of it. If the plantings fail, that would mean the whole thing fails if there is just one species. Because otherwise we end up with just a dirt berm. Board Member Mitrano — Well, if we have done it before, I suppose. Mr. Kanter — That is not going to be a very attractive situation for the owner and operator: Chairperson Wilcox — I believe they verbally said they would do it. Susan, can. you come up with the, wording? Clearly the intent is that the vegetation on top of the berm should fail or fail to provide the visual impact that it be replanted or replaced in kind. Can you put that into legaleze? Ms. Brock — But do you want them to use different plants because perhaps they are failing because...? Chairperson Wilcox - If they want to put the same plant back, that is their...and if it fails they can go back a third time. Ms. Brock — So why don't we add to the resolved clause paragraph 2, add a d saying, "if the berm plantings specified in the application fail, replacement of the plantings with similar plants." Is that what you want to say? Board Member Hoffmann — Well, they should be similar in the sense that they have a similar (not audible). Ms. Brock — Okay, "with plants that serve a similar function." What kind of function are we looking for? Beautification? Chairperson Wilcox They help screen. Mr. Kanter — Low screen without blocking visibility. 22 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Ms. Brock - Okay, so, a similar function that provide low screening without blocking visibility. Board Member Hoffmann - It is also there. for safety of pedestrians and bicyclists and such. That is one of the other important reasons the berm is there. Mr. Kanter - Actually the main function of it is to prevent cars from pulling in and outright in the front of the building where the customers will be walking. Chairperson Wilcox 7 That is the purpose of the berm. The purpose of the plantings is as stated, though. Board Member . Mitrano - Does the Town Attorney remember who Cerd was in the Odyssey? Chairperson Wilcox - Is that change acceptable, gentlemen? Any further discussion? Board votes on motion. Gardens, 1080 Danb y Road, Tax Parcel No, 39447 MOTION made by Board Member Howe, Board Member Talty. WHEREAS; 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Ceres Gardens located at 1080 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -17, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposal involves converting the former garage building into a farm stand and nursery retail business Changes include painting the building, adding an awning, converting one overhead door to a standard door, regrading the parking area, and other site improvements Joseph M. & Maria L. Salino, Owners /Applicants; Lawrence A. Berger, Lama Real Estate, Agent, and Z. This is an Unlisted Action lead agency in en vironmi June 20, 2006, made a after having" reviewed Assessment Form Part I, Town Planning staff, and for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as ?ntal review with respect to Site Plan Approval has, on negative determination of environmental significance, and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by 23 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on June 20, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, a Project Narrative (May 1, 2006), a Site Plan for Ceres Gardens, prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., dated 5131106, an. Elevation drawing for Ceres Gardens, dated May 19, 2006, a Floor Layout for Ceres Gardens, dated May 19, 2006, and other application materials, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED; 1. 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 20 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Ceres Gardens farm stand and nursery retail business located at 1080 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -17, Neighborhood Commercial Zone, as shown on a Site Plan for Ceres Gardens, prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., dated 5131106, an Elevation. drawing for Ceres Gardens, dated May 19, 2006, a Floor Layout for Ceres Gardens, dated May 19, 2006, and other application materials, subject to the following conditions, prior to issuance of any building permit: a. Revision of the Site Plan to eliminate the parking space that crosses the parcel boundary between Tax Parcel No 39 -1 -17 and 39 -1 -16.1, and b. Submission of one original set of the final site plan drawings, revised as indicated in condition "a" above, on mylar, vellum or paper, signed and sealed by the registered /and surveyor(s), engineer(s), architects) or landscape architect(s) who prepared the site plan materials, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, and c. Submission for review and approval of the Attorney for the Town of an easement agreement to specifically permit cross access of vehicles and pedestrians between Tax Parcel Nos 39 -1 -17 and 39 -1 -16.1 (i.e., the sites of the proposed Ceres Gardens and Italian Carry -out businesses), as well as shared use of parking areas between the two sites referenced above, and d. If the berm plantings specified in the application fail, replacement of the plantings with plants that serve a similar function that provide low screening without blocking visibility. 24 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED; 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, pursuant to Section 270- 227A.2 of the Town of Ithaca Code, does hereby authorize the reduction from the eight required parking spaces shown on the proposed site plan to seven parking spaces, by eliminating the parking space referenced in condition 2,a, above, finding that such reduction in the number of parking spaces will not adversely affect traffic flow on the project site, will, in fact, improve traffic flow between the two adjacent businesses, will leave adequate parking for all of the reasonably anticipated uses or occupancies in the project, particularly in light of the agreement that will be in place for shared parking between the two adjacent businesses, and will not otherwise adversely affect the general welfare of the community, and 2. In conjunction with the above reduction of one parking space, the Town of Ithaca Planning. Board, in accordance with Section 270- 227A.3, hereby waives the standard requirements that (a) any space that is made available by the reduction in the required number of parking spaces may not be used for construction of any structures, and (b) any /and made available by virtue of such reduction be landscaped with grass or other vegetation approved by the Planning Board, finding that the land made available by the reduction of the one parking space is necessary for enhancing the connection between the parking areas of the two adjacent businesses to provide for the shared access and parking agreement that will be put into place. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, M/trano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NA YS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. SEQR Briarwood 50 -Lot Subdivision, Sanctuary Dr., Birchwood Dr. North, and Birchwood Dr Chairperson Wilcox - Ladies and gentlemen of the audience, let me just fill you in a little bit on procedure here. Normally we would begin with the environmental review. Should this board make a negative determination of significant environmental impact, the application would be considered complete. We would then move on to the subdivision and open the public hearing and give you a chance to speak. It is my belief this evening that many of you are here and would like to probably provide this board with some input on environmental issues specifically drainage in that area and you may 25 - PLANNING -BOARD- MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 have some other concerns as well. So time permitting, and again, I don't know how long this will take. We will give the applicant a chance to make. their presentation. Please sit and listen. The board will have a chance to ask questions and should we get close to or near a' vote on the environmental significance, we will then give the members of the public a chance to make a brief because I believe you all have something to say. Should we make that determination of negative significant environmental impact, we will then move to the public hearing. You will then have another chance to speak as part of the' public hearing. So you will have the opportunity to speak twice this evening if you feel that it is important and you have something to say with the environmental review. Later on should we get to the subdivision, then your comments can be about the size of the lots or the connection of the roadways or other things, which have to do with the subdivision. So that is how we will proceed. Very good. Larry Fabbroni, 1 Settlement Way I am representing Rocco Lucente, who is in the audience this evening.. I also have part of the design team. I have Erik Whitney, who'did the stormwater modeling for this project and Bernie Carr, the Vice President of Terrestrial Environmental Systems, who did the wetlands delineation and has made recommendations as to different biofilters and is dealing with the Corps of Engineers and we are all collectively dealing with DEC on this project. So I will ask the two of them to present their respective parts of this as Igo along. I am happy to be here tonight, I hope, in a way that we think we have come with answers to questions we've discussed in the past with the board. Things that are of concern to the neighborhood and have had a lengthy and very positive interaction with the staff to come back with what we present to you tonight. The project, just a little history, J see one or two new faces here on the board and as the Town Attorney. Back in 1965 Rocco thought he was forward thinking and had a master plan for this area that would have seen 90 lots going in this area that we are considering tonight. Tonight this proposal is for 47 lots. The other three lots mentioned are the small addition to the Salem Drive Park, the large parcel adjacent to the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, and the other wetland that we were very familiar, with in the central part of this site. I also might mention that since the last time you sent me off to collaborate with Cornell, tonight we have the Associate Director and one of his staff here should you have some questions for them as things proceed as it relates to the area we are tending to donate to Cornell. I will speak. more later on in my presentation about the maintenance agreement and how we propose to turn that over to Cornell and still assume responsibility for certain construction aspects of the drainage scheme that we proposed to you. But for the benefit of the public and everybody's refreshment, I am going to get up now and speak from the map just briefly to describe the project. 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 201 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 The project again is 47 lots. Those who live in the area and not as familiar with the area, this Birchwood Drive that comes up from Salem Drive just shortly after you turn off of Hanshaw. This that we are proposing to rename Beechwood Drive at the suggestion of the Town because again, that 1965 master plan envisions this road encircling all around so it was currently named North Birchwood and Birchwood. We thought in time it would be Less confusing to rename this northern segment into its own name. So the extension of that into a cukde -sac with 12 lots on it is proposed in the center of the project. The extension of Sanctuary Drive and at the suggestion of the Town staff since we submitted this we would have Sanctuary Drive as the name of the street that went all the way through to this North Birchwood or Beechwood Drive and this short segment here that is the dead end would be the Lucente Way segment. All together again there are 47 lots, all which are above the minimum requirement for the R -15 zone. The thought coming back, the staff had a strong opinion that this connection through to North Birchwood was needed to have adequate circulation in the area considering the fact that we were not going to extend out a road to Salem Drive between the south- going ... (not audible)... residences. The only thing that would remain up in that area is the grass path that exists along the Town's utility right -of -way, which would be just relocated enough through a 20 foot strip to come out to the road and into the park area eventually. We have been over this with the Cornell people and they think that would be in keeping with whatever they eventually decide to do in extending a trail out from the existing trail system in the sanctuary. Along with this project, a lot of discussion went on about pedestrian ways beyond that one that goes along the utilities. This project proposes to have essentially a walkway from the park, down the west side of this new road, along the north side of Beechwood Drive covered ditch, along the shoulder of existing Briarwood Drive and then along the new extension of Birchwood Drive. Initially it would be separate from the roadway itself behind a grassline ditch and then as we have less.area to deal with in the curve area it would become more along the shoulder again, to come out to Sanctuary Woods. The thought was that Sapsucker Woods is the bus route and the park is another destination. Again, as the sanctuary evolves their plans over the years that pedestrian way could proceed to the north through an extensive series of walkways that are off road. So that was the rationale. The dead end being a low traffic area didn't warrant the sidewalks as much as putting one on the existing Briarwood Drive. , The project will generate traffic. We did a traffic study not too long after we last saw you. I think it is fair to say that the results of that study verified that the traffic loads in the area are very modest, even for the development that has occurred up Muriel Street and Salem Drive. I presented my figures. We did this study in a period of time when classes were-fully in session, the weather was good for that time of year, there was no snowstorms occurring on the day we did the study. I mean it's a little bit of a tight walk to do a traffic study in Ithaca and have all the classes in session, not an exam period, not on some kind of a break by either Ithaca College or Cornell. So no 27 -PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 none of those things existed at the time that we did that study. I estimated that the peak hour traffic was about 10 %. I saw some data in what went out that a Town had done a subsequent study on Muriel and Salem Drive. and said maybe 13 or 14 %. If you study the numbers, you will see that the difference is probably in the standard deviation. So we are all sort of saying the same thing. I based some of my conclusions on an extensive study I did in the northeast back in the 1970s where the peak hour traffic was 9 to 10 %. Even if you add .and used the worst number I would tell you in all truth double these numbers. and they wouldn't have an impact on the intersections there. I hope you got a chance to look at some of that material. We sort of used a technique known as the shortest route and that is how I estimated how many people might come out at Salem Drive and how many come out at Sapsucker. People are pretty smart. There are no delays now, but, if there happened to be 2 minute delays on Salem Drive then some more people would filter over to Sapsucker Woods because there are no delays there or vice versa. So it would sort of balance itself out over time. The new connection between Sanctuary Drive and North Birchwood was of some concern historically as we discussed it, but I think in the end people had chose to come through the neighborhood and go to the Sanctuary that way and vice versa. It will reduce the traffic on Salem Drive in one sense and it will add to it if other people come through. The net effect I'm trying to say would be zero because it is not a very convenient cut through. You have to go through a lot of turns and stops, which we will talk about. I made a suggestion that the North Birchwood to be Beechwood, Salem Drive intersection be a 3 -way stop. It is currently just a stop coming out of North Birchwood. I know some of the materials said it was a 2 -way stop. The confusing part of it is that Salem Drive turns directions and it is like a through road: There is no stop in either direction. I had a feeling it was dangerous to pedestrians, if nothing else the way it is configured. So if you had a 3 -way stop you might not have people coming through, as quickly on Salem Drive and everyone would have a fair chance to assess who is coming from a different direction. It is a little confusing to new people. The people who live there are very familiar with one one -way stopping when you stop at the stop in the opposite direction not stopping at all, but that is not a good situation for the long term. We would entertain other all -way stops if it is felt to be necessary for the walkway as I described it at what would be Beechwood and Briarwood and Birchwood. That is pretty much at your discretion if that is what you feel you would like this project would provide it. There has also been some discussion of either colored pavement or some kind of raised pavement where the walkway crosses Beechwood and where it crosses Birchwood down at the other intersection. Either one of those of ideas. We certainly would like your feedback on either or, or none of those ideas as far. as the walkway is concerned. That covers the pedestrian aspect of it. The soils in the area are a perched water table. There are a lot of new people in the audience tonight. It is no secret to them that the water lays on the surface in a wet season. It doesn't really percolate down through the ground. The notion that there is a water table that supports a wetland is not true. The water is down 20 feet below the :l PLANNING'BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 surface in this particular area of the Town. So it is caused more by what you would call perched water table and a fragipan in the soil conditions. So the soil down about 2 or 3 feet is very dense and doesn't let water pass through it either direction. So there are wetlands there, which I will let Bernie Carr speak more to his work and identifying those. We are preserving all the wetlands. There is some idea that a very extreme edge of the wetland here, less than 5,000 square feet, I would tell you, might get filled by virtue of building this road here. My intention was not to do that and the way that the profile of the road is developed there, the wetland would be .beyond the embankment for the road there. So I thought I would make mention of that. When my two associates are done with their presentations I will talk more about the maintenance agreement with Cornell and some of their understandings that we have with Cornell. We're attempting to sort of bring together all the ideas. The ones that you have thrown out at us, the ones that staff has, that the DEC mandates and turn it into something constructive where in the end now after a lot of back and forth and constructive conversation, we are basically going to have these retention areas that act as biofilters and become wetlands that can support added wildlife habitat as opposed to just something we had to do because the State told us we had to do it. We have a good example of what you can do with what the Sanctuary did with their expansion. So the road you ride in from Route 13 you see some wetlands and similar types of facilities that we are proposing that they developed and they're all very positive in terms of their outcome and how people have received them as habitat for wildlife. I think the added circulation gives the Fire Department less problems in terms of getting in and around the area and actually enhances the existing access to different areas. It was the choice really of the staff that we not add as much to the Salem Drive Park as we had said in the past. By virtue of that more is as part of the donated area to Cornell. This donation is one of the largest ever made in the Town of Ithaca. I hope you all realize that. It would add roughly 10% to the lands of the Lab of Ornithology. It is, I think, a great step forward in terms of our discussion and really the generosity of the developer and what he wants to accomplish here. In the twilight of his 50 years of work in the Town a lot of people have a lot of opinions they have to offer about Rocco, but he has lasted 50 years. He served the middle class pretty well in the Town of Ithaca and I think those things are worth noting in terms of his intentions at this time. He has not gotten any younger in these 4 years we have been perfecting this project and I think with those thoughts, the water system is one thing that I would mention and Dan can probably agree that there is a lot of looping that we are accomplishing with this project that will strengthen the whole system in terms of how water passes from the Christopher Circle pump station to the Sapsucker Woods tank and then flows back into the neighborhoods and provides fire protection. So we haven't compromised that at all with these cul -de -sacs because the end of every cukde -sac ends up in a water main connected either to the tank site or to another main line in the area. The NIS] PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 209 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 sewer is more than sufficient in the area to serve things. Rocco and the Town had gotten the right to sewer a long time before the recent sewer agreements, but the sewer is all available, public sewer is available. So with that I would like Bernie Carr to come up and briefly talk to you about our conversations with the Corps of .Engineers, DEC, his history with delineating the wetlands. Some comment about the UNA. I hope the materials we presented to you beat that to death well enough to know. a mistake was made. I mean Cornell told us when we got into conversation with them that if you look at the 100 foot width left between the Sanctuary Drive development and the Northern edge of the Briarwood, you couldn't really even consider it a wildlife corridor any more. So the notion that it is all connected is pretty weak. But Bernie did the bird the study as you might remember and has more knowledge in ecology than I can ever pretend to have. So let me ask him to come up. Bernie Carr, Syracuse NY I work for Terrestrial Environmental Specialist and we conducted a wetland delineation for Rocco Lucente back in the early 90s when he was first considering 12 -unit subdivision. Subsequent to that wetland delineation there was a request from the Town that we redelineate the wetland since it had been 5 years previous. So we went back and redelineated the wetlands. They changed slightly over that 5 -year period. Those wetlands were surveyed and added to a survey map that you have a copy of in the submission. Subsequently we delineated other wetlands north of Sanctuary Drive in association with the development of another master plan for the subdivision. We have suggested several plantings for the biofilters and the infiltration trenches for the subdivision to try and add some natural plantings rather than just having a hard riprap surface. For example, any place where there is going to be rock riprap we would recommend willow species, willow waddles. So using these natural plantings we feel it has a much better improvement than a typical engineering design. Subsequent to these suggestions that we provided to Mr. Lucente, we have contacted the Army Corps of Engineers, which have jurisdiction over all wetlands in New York State. Basically our questions were two -fold. One whether or not the subdivision as planned would result in any jurisdiction on their part and whether the use of the wetland areas for the 100 -year storms or for a 1 -year storm would have any affect on the wetlands and the current condition that they are in. We have sent a letter to the Corps of Engineers along with our delineation report, a complete copy of the drainage report and large scale plans for their review. We have also had discussions with the New York State DEC in regards to the new SPDES program in terms of water quality and water quantity. Basically it was their opinion that an extended review period for the stormwater plan be conducted and as long as good management controls are implemented during construction, they didn't see any problem with the design as configured. Those are the basic items that we worked on for Mr. Lucente. 30 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 One other item. We also conducted a bird survey in 2003 and the purpose of that was to determine whether any endangered, threatened or rare bird species nested on Mr. Lucente's land. Also there was a concern about whether Mr. Lucente's land should have been included in the expanded Sapsucker Woods Unique Natural Area. One of the things we found was when the Unique Natural Area was reconfigured, they included Sanctuary Drive subdivision. So there were 10 or 15 homes that are right in the middle of this Unique Natural Area. I think it just surprised me that you would consider private single family homes in the middle of a Unique Natural Area and we had subsequent discussions with Tompkins County on why that was conducted and why they made that determination. It was our professional opinion that the area south of Sanctuary Drive shouldn't have been included in the expanded Unique Natural Area. If you would look at the map that is provided by Tompkins County, you.would note that there are many areas of forested areas north, east and west that are not in the Unique Natural Area. So it seemed like they expanded the Unique Natural Area only south on to Mr. Lucente's property and didn't include other lands that were contiguous to the Unique. Natural Area. So they didn't seem to have a really good reason for the expansion. I guess that is basically the items that I addressed. Mr. Fabbroni — You will have to come up know. Erik is regulations, there is no other complex project in that the sought out one of the few exl a chance to ask questions, obviously, but I would like Erik doing the stormwater modeling. With the new State alternative but modeling most things. This being a pretty drainage goes in many different directions we basically )erts in Ithaca on the subject. Erik Whitney, 409 Auburn St For a development of this sort, the State requires us to look at both the water quantity and the water quality issues. Where we looked at this site, we looked at the points where the water is currently flowing off the site. Those are generalized. You can see them in DP 1, DP 2, 31 41 5. Those are just an abbreviation for Design Point and that is where there is an existing flow coming off the site. Our mission was. at each of these points, post development, after the proposed development goes in that the water flowing to those design points, to those areas, is less than or equal to a volume of the predeveloped rate of flow coming off and of a quality equal to that. We had several means of doing that and what we first looked at was putting in a number of large ponds to attenuate the volume. Those didn't really fit the site well. They require taking down quite a few of the existing trees. So we got to looking at the two existing wetland areas and making use of those to impound temporarily and outlet over a 24 hour period the stormwater volumes. In extensive talks with the staff and the DEC before using these wetlands,.there is some interest in making sure or assuring that the runoff from the development and the new in impermeable areas added by the road roof was of a quality nature that wouldn't disturb the wetlands as they are. So what was proposed and right now this is 31 PLANNING-BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 just in schematic. on this map, but the staff has a little bit more detailed design, were a number of basically water quality biofilters, small ponds surrounded by an aquatic bench with plantings on the inflow channel and on the outflow channel a wet channel with also more plantings in them. Each of the prefiltrations or quality basins before the flow goes into the wetlands would contain what the State calls a water quality volumes plus it would contain the volume of the 1 -year storm coming off the area it is proposed to serve. It would contain that volume and release it gradually over a 24 -hour period into the wetland. Now as you see on the plans; both the wetland to the north have a 3 foot height berm, a gentle berm proposed to be constructed around them with an outlet that would regulate the flow over 24 hours after the storm out of those. I have the exact numbers here. I'm going to take a minute and look them up, but they are a typical one -year storm that we propose to use the southern wetland and surcharge it roughly over an area of 1.4 acres to a depth of 4 inches. That will be out- letted in a controlled fashion over 24 hours such that that temporary surcharge will not be present at the end of 24 hours. Most of the trees and standing vegetation there wouldn't have wet feet for more than that 24 -hour period. In the north area, for a similar one -year storm, we are looking at surcharging an area roughly 2.1 acres with 8 inches for a 24- hour storm. This would not only take care of the volume requirement ,for the new impermeable surface area added by the 47 lots, but it would also is large enough in volume to address all the other previous development along Sanctuary Drive and along Sapsucker Woods Road. Both on the Dryden side and on the Ithaca side because there are some previous flow problems with quantity coming off that site. So we looked to address some of the existing. problems as well as the additional flows created by the impermeable surface area added by the new proposed development. For each and every one of the design points that you see up here, the model posted all the flows both in rate of runoff were less than or equal to the current existing runoff and with the flows that were coming out of the wetlands that were impounded at the design point one here in the northern wetland, the design point 3 in the wetland you see in the middle, they were very substantially less than the existing flows now because of the substantial volume that we were able to retain in those. It is our understanding from DEC if the Corps of Engineers gives us the jurisdiction and okay. to do that, then they are not going to have any problem with us using the existing wetlands to provide the quantity control in lieu of establishing large ponds to do such as long as we provide the quality control going into those wetlands before hand. There are two points here which basically take the area tributary to the Beechwood Drive, which by means of the grades and topography we couldn't slow, otherwise we would have to flow uphill to get to the other means of treatment. Along those roads were proposed what we call a dry swale. It is an underdrain swale with 3 feet of filtering material and below that will be a 15 inch pipe bedded in lots of uniform size stone to provide ample void volume to. pond or store the water temporarily underground and the catch basins where you normally along a roadside pipeline would 32 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 have outlets in them to control ... (not audible) ... of some sort designed to control the outlet flow from that rate to the predeveloped rate of runoff from that area. That is the case for the south -most leg of Birchwood Drive for just a short area. You see here . in design point 4 for about an acre our total and what. you see here for about two acres total along the cul -de -sac proposed at Beechwood. So all and all; the post development runoff from the total site is attenuated quite a bit from the existing by what we propose. There are two ponds on the north that we propose to run into wetland that in talks with Larry with the Sanctuary. They had some ... they favored a system where we might be able to. bring the... because of the topography we could actually bring those along the east boundary where the back lots ditch across lot 58, 59 and 61 to the only traditional pond we have located on the site because there was no wetland impoundment to regulate the quantity. So what we are looking at is upsizing this pond slightly to accommodate these two ponds and putting in back lots grass ditch line that would bring this flow along the eastern or western boundary down in the-back lot 61 into the main pond there. Mr. Fabbroni — The net result of that is that we would be able to eliminate those two quality ponds because they would be incorporated into the first chamber in that larger facility. Let me just finish up here on a couple of key points. One is that Cornell has reviewed the standard maintenance agreement of the Town and they're comfortable with that maintenance agreement. What we are anticipating right now is that the developer would turn over all of that land to Cornell once we got through these approvals and in turn then we would have a license that we would review with the three of us basically, but the developer would have a license back to go into Cornell lands and construct these facilities and have certain maintenance responsibilities during the construction period so that in the same way that the Town wants the facility turned over complete for the future, Cornell wants the facility complete to maintain. So all that has been talked about in concept and generally speaking that is what we have been talking about. That we would donate all the land to them right off the bat. We would get a license back to enter the land and satisfy our obligations that come out of this approval. That generally speaking we are expecting...we were constructing .we would be maintaining. that facility for 3 years or so because the construction period is the period when it is most likely to need maintenance. Again we feel in this flat terrain the amount of erosion we have seen over the last 25 years and to come now that we are doing it in a more controlled fashion is going to be pretty minimal. If we are careful with our drainage and erosion plan, we shouldn't leave Cornell a lot of maintenance and they will more use these as ecological features to their overall plan, these areas. So in concept, that pretty much what we bring to you tonight. There were some other considerations. There was one lot where 9K, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 the wetland pokes into the. back of it. We would be giving you a conservation easement to go along ... that would go along with any deed that got transferred on that lot. We've preserved the back end of three lots on Briarwood in a similar fashion and that has been successful for the last 17 years so something similar to that conservation easement that we arranged with the Corps of Engineers back then what we would propose for that one lot. Again, we have no problem with the T- intersection up at Sanctuary Drive and what would be then just the dead end would be the Lucente Way and Sanctuary Drive would carry through. I think that basically the only question I have as we get down the line, I had some questions when we get into the subdivision discussion about just one item in the proposed resolution. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox - All set? Thank you. I think what I would suggest is that the two gentlemen come up and join you, one of you bring a chair. That way we have all three available because I'm sure we'll have questions for all three of you back and forth and you can just in some way figure out how to move the microphone back and forth so we can pick you up. Eva, we'll let you go first. Board Member Hoffmann Thank you. I have a few questions to start with just to clarify what Mr. Whitney just talked about using that map that is up there. I was looking at the map that we were provided with and some of those ponds look like they are in different locations and they are of different configurations than what we have on this map, which is called the Master Plan. Mr. Fabbroni — What you have is the proposal. What that map depicts is a feature for a drainage area. What you have and the information on that map is the most current information. Board Member Hoffmann — Oh, so that one is not updated that you just showed? Mr. Fabbroni — That is correct. That was more to show you where the different drainage areas are., Those heavy lines that separate the different drain carries are exactly the same, but the exact design is what you are looking at. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, so where there is a very large circular pond indicated just north of the Salem Drive Park. It shows just one big pond there, but here on our map it shows one big one and right east of it a small one. Is that what we see here? Mr. Fabbroni — accurate map. That is the preliminary design. What you are looking at is the more 34 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Board Member Hoffmann — Also there is the pond, which is here located in the corner of lot 72. It looks like it has been moved to between lots 70 and 67. Mr. Fabbroni - These shown on the subdivision map are the same thing you are looking at. We just brought that map because we thought it would be the easiest to understand how the area is split up into many different drainage areas. Board Member Hoffmann — But I also have another question. Mr. Whitney explained to us about the low berm, three -foot high berm, along the western boundary of the wetland to the north. I can see those lines there, but then there are some similar lines, which look like they are in the back yards of the houses that are built on the east side of Briarwood Drive and my question is, is that berm going to be built across the back yards of those people who already live there because they don't exist now I take it. Mr. Fabbroni — They are in back of the homes that exist there. That is correct. Board Member Hoffmann — And they will be built .on the land that is owned by the people who live in those houses? Mr. Fabbroni Mr. Lucente owns all of those lots. He owns all of that. Board Member Hoffmann — Oh. Those are all rentals? Mr. Fabbroni — That is correct. Chairperson Wilcox And they are not part of this subdivision. Mr. Fabbroni — That is correct. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but they are something new that is going to be built on, .something that was part of an earlier subdivision then, which has puzzled me a little bit. Okay. So that is clarified then. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Who wants to go next? George? Board Member Conneman — Larry, I wondered if you could clarify. I understand that the Environmental Review Committee looked at this and raised some questions about some lots that seem to be very adjacent to wetlands, 58, 71, 72, and 53. Do you want to comment on that? Mr. Fabbroni — The drainage and erosion plan will have a full perimeter of silt fence to protect the boundaries of those lots that are being developed against any intrusion of any erosion into the wetland. What Eric was describing where we would eliminate 35 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 those two ponds is in the same area. So once we saw that concern we .started talking amongst ourselves and then more recently with Cornell about eliminating. those. So we are actually talking about having a ditch along that boundary that would bring the runoff from those developed lots back to the larger pond that Eva was just speaking of earlier. I could show you on the map a little bit. Board Member Conneman — Could you do that? Mr. Fabbroni - They, are talking about these three lots most north here. So not only are we looking at eliminating these quality ponds that were in that same area of concern, but putting a drainage ditch along the perimeter of these lots and back to where we would handle the quality and the quantity aspects in this facility here. Board Member Conneman — An open ditch I would assume? Mr. Fabbroni — Yes. Board Member Conneman — Okay. All right. Board Member Hoffmann — There is also lot 53, which is... Mr. Fabbroni — Lot 53 is the one I mentioned we would have the conservation easement on that area of the lot that was delineated as a wetland. That lot is 200 feet deep in terms of the depth. Board Member Thayer — It sounds like they have done their homework as far as the drainage goes, but I would like to hear it from Dan as to how he feels about it and also the public has some problems that already exist up there and will these be ratified with this. Chairperson Wilcox - He's looking at you. Mr. Walker — Yeah. In the whole area of Salem Drive, Maplewood, Birchwood, Pinewood, there has been a lot of excess. water coming down because over the years the swamp was drained and it means the water has to go some place. This will reduce the amount of water that flows through those ditches in the peak flows and help to reduce the flooding problems that do occur down there now. Board Member Thayer — So you are pretty satisfied with the way with the way it is working out? Mr. Walker — Yes. Basically they are going to hold a lot of that water that flows through immediately during the storm, is going to be gradually released. So it will still flow 36 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 through the same ditches, but over a longer period of time and at a very reduced flow rate. Board Member Thayer — I expect that some of the public is here because of some drainage problems and I was just wondering about that. Mr. Walker — Well, the whole area is very wet and very flat. The nature of the wetland is that the water drains off very slowly from right now. There is a long-term continuous flow that happens in a lot of the drainage patterns up there. That long -term flow won't be changed. It will still occur over a long period of time and that is how the drainage system has been designed and we would be making some improvements to correct some problems where we can. Board Member Mitrano - Fred, I had a question of the gentleman from Syracuse. I just wanted to see if I understood well what you were saying. You said when you initially did your assessment, was it this row of houses that was of some curiosity? Mr. Carr — No. It was to the north. In terms of the unique natural area, that was included in the unique natural area. Those homes. Board Member Mitrano — So what was your assessment? That maybe at that time that wasn't such a good decision or that in subsequent research you understood better why that decision had been made. Mr. Carr — I never really fully understood why it was made. At one point Mr. Wesley had told Mr. Fabbroni that if he had known that Sanctuary Drive had been built, he wouldn't have included the area south of Sanctuary Drive in the unique natural area. Well, our first assessment was, well why would it be considered unique so we did a breeding bird survey and we followed common techniques used in the field. We also did a winter nest survey just to see if there were any raptor nests in the vicinity. So we walked that thoroughly. Then we did a breeding bird survey in that area. Basically what we found was common species that are found in the area. Breeding throughout this property. So there wasn't anything that would say ... like for example a red - shouldered hawk or a cooper's hawk of special concern that was nesting in there that would make it a unique area. Board Member Mitrano — So at this point, it doesn't demonstrate any deleterious affect on more rare species? Mr. Carr — That is correct. 37 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Mr. Fabbroni — In addition to that, the Sanctuary people have had the benefit of seeing that bird study and they agree with how it was done and pretty much they affirm what was in it. Board Member Mitrano — Thank you. Board Member Howe — You probably made this very clear, but I .was just curious about the south wetlands. Is that also being donated? Okay. Then I think I - followed where you said the sidewalk was going to be accepted. Did you say that there was also going to be a sidewalk out Sanctuary Drive? Mr. Fabbroni — No. Board Member Howe — Okay. Just a loop around then? Mr. Fabbroni — From the park down to Birchwood and then out to Sapsucker Woods Road. Chairperson Wilcox — Eva, go ahead. Board Member Hoffmann — Where do the buses go? The public buses. Where do they go in this area, which roads do they use? Mr. Fabbroni — They go down Sanctuary and Hanshaw. I think... Chairperson Wilcox — I doubt they go down Sanctuary. Mr. Fabbroni — I'm sorry. They go Sapsucker Woods Road and Hanshaw and I think there are a certain number of runs up Salem Drive and around Muriel Street during the day. I'm looking at the staff. Mr. Kanter I think...I don't know first hand, but I've heard people say it does go down Muriel and over to Salem. So I believe that is correct. Mr. Fabbroni — I think that is during the peak time. It's not every hour that they go up all they way into the subdivision there. The regular run that runs every hour comes down Sapsucker Woods Road and Hanshaw. Board Member Hoffmann — Because it seems to me that when one `looks at sidewalks and where they are, one should see that they connect up with a public transportation system. I had a question about the wetlands and the Lab of Ornithology. There was a very brief statement in the papers we got from somebody at the Lab of Ornithology PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 saying that it looks good and things are moving along, but have they actually indicated that they want to accept these donations? Mr. Fabbroni — Yes. Board Member Hoffmann — Is there any letter to that effect that you have to show us? Mr. Fabbroni — I don't have a letter, but I have a person here who could probably tell you. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, it would be good to hear from that person then, I think, but there might be other questions before then. Board Member Talty — I have a question. Chairperson Wilcox — Kevin. Board Member Talty — With the slower disbursement of water, is there an issue with any type of mosquito? Negative impact on the area? It seems to me there would be more standing water for a greater period of time, even though it is going slowly. Mr. Fabbroni — Well, there will be, but if you consider the nature of the whole area already, I think the fair answer is that it is not going to be a noticeable difference. There are mosquitoes there and I'll tell you that first hand. Board Member Talty — I was just wondering with more water would it impact the breeding of the mosquito or would it be more breeding, I should say. Mr. Fabbroni — Probably some, but the area east of Briarwood, for instance, now is under water all the time in one area. There are areas up in the northern area that are under water all the time. So again, yeah, there will be a little more, but its not going to be like there isn't any and then suddenly people are going to notice it. In a wet year there is a lot of mosquito breeding there. Board Member Talty — Okay. Board Member Hoffmann = I have a question about a technical thing that was in papers and you talked about, but I still didn't understand what it is. Could someone explain what a dry swale is? Mr. Whitney — A dry swale is a gentle grassed ditch, which has underneath it permeable material, gravel, with a layer.of organic on top as like a biofilter, topsoil and below that is an underdrain system, a perforated pipe, which will when the water enters the swale 39 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 and the Swale is at a gradual enough slope, and there are occasional check dams along this swale, raised areas such that a flow from a one year event will percolate down through the porous material and through the top soil as an organic filter and eventually into the collection pipe. Where the dry swale is proposed for this subdivision, we have added a feature for storage, basically a uniform size stone and the void volume they are in and the 15 inch diameter pipe are such that we can store the entire runoff from the one year storm that will perk down through that to meet the, what the State calls the Channel Protection Vine, or the CPV, which they require to retain an outlet over a 24 hour period. So there will ,be structures in the catch basins and the roadside drainage there that will facilitate that 24 -hour drainage period for the material that has filtered down through the bottom of that dry swale and the organic filter on top. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Let me try They are gentle swales with grass in them, w water, if it comes really fast, slowly along, but percolating down through the soil into a pipe But then you also having something additional ponds? to say it again and see if I understood. hich will presumably carry some of the at the same time some of that water is that leads it away at a controlled rate. to help store that water, are those the Mr. Whitney — This is a case where we couldn't get a pond in and we're along side a pond and there is no area for the pond. So essentially we put a uniform size material stone in the ground and that is above the line of the underdrain outlet and what happens is all the voids between those stones fill up. It is underground so you can't see it. Picture marbles in a jar and then pouring a glass of water in that jar. There is substantial volume between the marbles. This is the same concept with the clean stone. The entire volume for the runoff of a one year storm is stored between the uniform stone in the void volume, about 40% of the volume of the total storm flow is roughly is available for water storage if the stone size is uniform material. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. I think I am getting it. Chairperson Wilcox — Eric, while you have the microphone, tell me about DECs role right now or clarify DECs role. You mentioned DECs role. Here is my take. You have proposed to DEC a rather unique way of dealing with stormwater runoff. Though you put a positive spin on it in your presentation, my take is DEC has not approved it and it could be 30 days, 60 days, 90 days before DEC comes back and says either this is acceptable or its not. How does that work? Mr. Whitney — Yeah, we have talked with both region 8 representative, Paula Smith, and region 7 representative, Ellen Hawn, and both of them are the same opinion. Basically if the Corp of Engineers gives us permission in the form of having the jurisdiction to do this in those wetlands, use them for temporary quantity attenuation and ,we can meet DECs requirement to attenuate the quantity of the flows coming off .$ PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 the site to that of existing or less than. DEC won't have any problem with it if the Corp of Engineers goes along with that. The lady from region 8, Paula Smith, indicated that she had seen such done and although it had taken a long time to deal with the Corp of Engineers to get that, she had seen it done. The lady from region 7 indicated that she hadn't seen it done in region 7. Mr. Carr — I would like to say one thing. In a typical subdivision what we see is that the trees are cleared and these large detention ponds are built to hold a 100 -year storm event. In this particular case they are using smaller ponds and using the existing wetland. I think it is much preferable to upland forested buffer or border rather than . making these huge detention ponds that you see all over the landscape. So it is my professional opinion that you have a better product by keeping the woods as intact as possible and keeping just those one -year storm event ponds built on the site. Chairperson Wilcox — The issue I am struggling with is, I'm getting a little bit ahead of myself here, the issue I'm struggling with is should we complete our. environmental review, what whoever, whether it is the Army Corp of Engineers or DEC comes back and says no this doesn't work. Obviously you would have to change the stormwater detention plans. My immediate concern is that I am being asked to decide whether there are significant environmental impacts with a system, which hasn't been approved. That is the issue that I am struggling with right now myself that we really, don't know whether, or at least I don't know, I shouldn't say we, I don't know yet whether they system will be approved and whether it has the potential to work. Yes I have heard Dan, thank you very much, and I appreciate your professional opinion and I appreciate the professional opinion of the gentleman out there. I would also like to have more professional opinion, frankly, not that I am discounting anybody who is here. Mr. Walker — Well, you have to understand a little bit of the State's philosophy on their general permit for stormwater management on construction sites and subdivisions. They have the standard design book, which basically includes a couple dozen practices that are tried and true and one of the main practices for stormwater detention are the large ponds. So if you do everything directly by the book, which are good measures... Chairperson Wilcox — You get a signature. Mr. Walker — And it is easy for them to review it because they look in the book and its fine, but these are somewhat unique sighted to the sites solutions. They are still storing a volume of water. The main environmental impact could be the impact on the vegetation in the wetlands and I believe that has been addressed to show the short duration of flooding is not going to adversely impact them. Because it is not in the standard book, they can't just automatically take their rubber stamp and say okay you did it the right way. That is why they have up to a 60 =day review period for site - specific designs. Now they may very well say this is not in the book, not accept it and 41 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 send it back.. Then there will have to be a significant amount of discussion with them to show that the engineering is good and will work. The big pond practice, you dig out a 3 acre pond and you take all the water from the site, could work up there, but you would take down all the trees and if you had to stay out of the wetland, you would lose lots, too. But the way the topography is up there, its distributed so you can't get all the water running one place as shown on the watershed map. There are from outlets from this lot that goes up north onto Salem Drive and there are outlets that go down further south onto Birchwood. So as flat as it is, the water can't go all in one place. So you could build 3 or 4 larger ponds in there that are standard, but you would probably do more damage to the trees in the area than you would with the proposed methods. Chairperson Wilcox = Thank you. Mr. Fabbroni — That was our stance, Fred. That we could do what would amount to the 5 day review route for almost all of this project, but it would be more damaging to the woods. So our first choice was to do what made the most sense to everybody and would accomplish. the objective of going above and beyond, what just this project required. In other words, deal with some of the existing problem as well by the way we are going. And we had the observation and opinion of a lot of different people that because of the way the wetland developed and the way trees are that this temporary inundation is not going to have any impact on the quality of the wetland. So we have done a lot of work with the biofilters and we have talked to Cornell and they want to be involved in the final selection of plantings for the aquatic shelves and there are a lot of positive things. We have met with DEC. Once we got to the point of having the Corp being the end of the road, Bernie talked to the Corp. We don't have a signed letter back, but we have already submitted to the Corp what you are looking at to get that letter back. So I think we brought it to the point where we could come to you and discuss preliminary approval. I mean we still didn't know what the board thought about the project and the layout and everything. There is a lot. You can tell from the resolution that is offered that there is a lot of design that has to be perfected now to submit to the State for the 60 -day review. When would we talk to you? Before we ever talked to you and got some discussion and some affirmation of the project. It's a little bit of a chicken and egg think. I think what I am trying to say is that we have done a lot of work in the 3 or 4 last months to answer your question to our satisfaction that we are going on a positive route and there isn't some dead end. We have a verbal from the Corp at this point, but they have to see the materials and study them and do their due diligence before we get the letter back. Chairperson Wilcox — You have a gentleman from the Lab of Ornithology with you? Questions? Board Member Howe — Just tell me the benefit of the southern wetland since its not contiguous and maybe just speak in general to your support. EVA PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Scott Sutcliffe, Associate Director of the Lab of Ornithology I maybe should start by saying we first approached Mr. Lucente about 15 years ago about adding the property that is to the north to the Sapsucker Woods Sanctuary and we went back and forth for many years on that. When Larry first came forward with the plan a few years ago, several of us from the lab met with him, walked in the field, looked at the property and then suggested that the wetlands property in total be given to the Lab of 0. Of course I would like the whole property, but that is not possible. And so to delineate the wetlands we looked at the wetlands sections that were delineated and said we would like to accept those as an addition to the sanctuary. We walked the property several times. We met with Larry many times and we would really like to make this collaboration between Larry and his and the Lab of 0 so they are in a sense designing the wetland sedimentation basin in the same manner that we design the new wetlands that are to the north of the new building at the Lab of Ornithology. They both act as buffers and maintain water levels. They also act as environmental purifiers if you will, cleaning the water before it moves downstream. We have found that the similar designs we have placed in the Sanctuary, the new designs, are working very well to date. They are only 3 years old and we would Iike to have final say of what they plant and how they plant in these new wetlands that they are producing. Does that answer your question, Rod ?. I I . Board Member Howe — Yeah. I mean how would you use...would you actively use this...would there be access to the southern wetlands or are you just...? Mr. Sutcliffe — Yes. We have, as Larry. has designed, the Lab of 0 has two access points to that wetland. We don't know how we will manage it. We have already talked about possibly putting an observation platform in the middle of it or something like that, but we really haven't thought. that far ahead. As far as the northern piece of the property goes, that is contiguous to our existing 100+ acres on the west side of the road and I imagine that in a fairly short order we will connect our trail system, which is contiguous to that piece right into that new piece, but we haven't designed trails as of yet or boardwalks. Board Member Mitrano — I wanted to go back to what you were referring to, Fred, is there technically a procedural confusion that we have here or is it more of.a matter of curiosity given the particular design that the applicants have applied to this wetland? In other words, are we meeting before there is a designation by the DEC in such a way that it does leave us in abeyances to how and whether we should decide? And maybe the Town Attorney would know given her expertise in environmental law. Ms. Brock — Well, you can do your SEQR on the proposed project so it would be on the project as it has been described tonight. If for some reason either the Army Corp of Engineer or DEC decline to give their approval and they need to modify the project, FA PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 then that modification would need to come back to you and you would, have to do another SEQR review looking at the project as it is presented to you in a modified form. Board Member Mitrano — In another words, may I make the assumption that the applicant has gone forward notwithstanding the fact that we do not have a determination from the Corp or the DEC because they want to get started on the project, but our determination this evening is subject to those determinations. Ms. Brock — Both the SEQR determination and if you make a determination on the preliminary subdivision approval that would also need to come back to you for modification as well because the project has changed. Board Member Mitrano — But you would therefore recommend that we just go ahead and proceed this evening rather than waiting for any determination before we make any decision whatsoever. Ms. Brock - Well, you can legally go ahead, whether you want to or not is really your. decision. Board Member Mitrano — Very good. Mr. Fabbroni - We have to come back for final for one thing and there are other things in the resolution as far as Health Department approvals and whatever. So in the best set of circumstances 60 to 75 days is going to take care of all that stuff and we are going to know a lot more at that point, but its not like you sent us off to do something that is beyond modification at that point. Board Member Mitrano — No. I understand. I just wanted to have a clarification as a procedural matter. So is the assumption correct that you have come forward not withstanding the fact that we don't have determinations from these offices because we want to proceed with development in knowing that there may have to be modifications if determinations are such that would require them before final site plan approval. Mr. Fabbroni — The simple answer to that is yes. The point you give preliminary approval then a lot of expense is incurred to perfect the design and that is sort of the thought that there ought to be some indication of what you feel about the project before we go to that next level of doing final designs. Board Member Mitrano So fair enough. You are willing to take the risk. Mr. Fabbroni — Excuse me? .. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 201 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Chairperson Wilcox — You are taking the risk that the DEC /Army Corp will provide you with the permits you need. Mr. Fabbroni — That is correct. Chairperson Wilcox — You are assuming that risk. Mr. Carr — I would like to address that question. Generally under the SEQR process and preliminary site plan approval, SEQR is complied with and preliminary site plan approval is received by the Town prior to the preparation of the documents for SPDES, too. So that is generally the last thing that is done in the development plans for any subdivision or commercial enterprise in New York State. It is typical that the approval from. the DEC for the stormwater is the last thing that is done. I think that you are in order to follow preliminary site plan approval for what has been proposed. Mr. Kanter — The only difference here is that we are dealing with jurisdictional wetlands, not DEC jurisdictional, but Corp of Engineers jurisdiction unless the recent Supreme Court case changes that. Board Member Conneman — Larry, let me ask the question a different way. You. are going to do nothing on that property until you get approval from...? Mr. Fabbroni — That is correct. Board Member Conneman — 60 days from now nothing has happened unless, in fact, you get those approvals. Chairperson Wilcox — He is not going to have our approval. Board Member Conneman — But if you had our approvals, even that and then it turns... Mr. Fabbroni — We couldn't. We have to have that approval from the State or they can fine us $25,000 a day is the penalty, even if we wanted to do something. Ms. Brock — And even if they were to get preliminary and final subdivision approval at some point, they still could not begin to do anything on the property until all the conditions of the final subdivision approval are met. They won't be able to get a building permit from the Town until all of the necessary conditions have been met. Board Member Howe = Are we still thinking we are getting to Ithaca College? I see they are still out there. Board Member Mitrano — I agree. 45 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Chairperson Wilcox - Can we get through the environmental review, potentially and then... Board Member Howe — Are you going to open that up to...? Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. I'm going to give the public a chance to speak. Board Member Howe — I imagine a lot of people are going to speak. Do you still think we are going to get to Ithaca College? Chairperson Wilcox — I expect that a lot of people are going to speak, but I will try to keep their comments to a minute or two. Board Member Talty — I think what Rod is saying it might be more of a courtesy to go out and advise them. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. I went out before and they are aware of the situation. Mr. Kanter — Do you want me to go follow up and say that it is not looking good? Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah. When I went out before I advised them that we were running a little long. Another option by the way, not that the applicant and the agents want to hear it, we could proceed through the environmental review, either accepting that there is no significant environmental impact or making a determination that there is. Assuming that we made the determination that there isn't, we could then reschedule the public hearing for another meeting and then go through the sketch plan for IC since that should not take a long time. Board Member Howe — Although, a lot of people... Chairperson Wilcox — I understand. Let's ... on the other hand it's getting late. They may want to go home and come back and do a public hearing at 7 :30 or 8:00 p.m., not a public hearing at 9:30, quarter to 10. So having said that, the gentleman from the Lab of Ornithology is up here. Do we have any additional questions for him ?, Board Member Howe — He answered my questions. Ms. Brock — This really isn't a legal question, but I just wanted to make sure that I heard you correctly that the type of stormwater facilities being proposed here in terms of these four bays and using the wetlands to store the water, that is actually the type of system that the Lab of Ornithology built and is using. Is that correct? 46 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Mr. Sutcliffe I can't say that exactly because I haven't seen their final plans, but as we talked and collaborated to date, we are moving along that line. So, no, I haven't seen their final plans, but what we have talked about is a plan similar to what we have done to the north of the new lab. Mr. Fabbroni — That would be the four bays, is what he was talking about earlier. The four bays, as we are proposing with the aquatic bench and the plantings before and after are almost identical to what they did up there. The stormwater retention for the quantity is sort of the sticking point we are talking about. We can either build the second chamber for that wherever we had one of those four bays or we can use the wetland, as it is well suited for the temporary stormwater, retention as long as we build the dykes outside of the wetland. That is what our understanding is with the Corp. As long as we build these dykes outside of the delineated wetland then we can use that area for temporary inundation and as we get that word back, you will have that in writing before we do any final approvals or anything. In the mean time we will work out a more collaborative planting plan. The Lab of Ornithology was just concerned that whatever plantings we do are compatible with the plantings that they have done. That we don't end up with one species of plantings somehow being injurious to whatever they have already. So that would be more native plantings is what we are talking about tonight. Board Member Hoffmann — One more thing, in the second part of the environmental assessment form on page I at the bottom, it talks about whether the action would result in a physical change to the project site and it says, "the amount of the disturbance of the land is based on the assumption that many of the parcels would not be completely converted to lawns, but would retain some woodland in the backyards. The applicant anticipates that at least 25 feet of woodland would be retained on lots with 150 foot depth, which is the minimum depths size allowed, and greater for lots with longer depth. Now is there any way to guarantee that this will happen. That there will not in fact be that most of the trees cut down in the backyards and converted to lawn: Mr. Fabbroni — I don't know if we've ever come up with a way to guarantee that, but certainly if you put that in your resolution as what the presumption of your action is, it speaks for itself. I mean that is a conversation that Susan and I had as far as what is realistic in terms of the building site and the part of the lot that doesn't need to be disturbed to carry out that program and still have some lawn around the house. So that is where that all came from. It is a best estimate and it is something that we have to follow through on as a commitment back to you. I I I , , Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I don't like to work with assumptions like that if I don't have to and so I think if it would be possible to build in some kind of...I don't know if an 47 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 easement would be the right thing in a case like this, but some way of protecting the woodlands in people's backyards from being converted into lawns. Mr. Walker — We have put deed restrictions on lots in other subdivisions: Saponi Meadows we put a deed restriction that they couldn't disturb 50 feet next to the stream in the back of the lots. So we can actually have that drawn into the deed for each lot and have the restrictive covenant. Just like our zoning has setbacks from side yard and rear yard setbacks. It's the same type of line and then as people come in for building permits we enforce that. Now, will that guarantee that nobody is going to go out there at midnight with a chainsaw and cut the trees down? No, but at least the people know about it and it becomes an enforcement issue for the Town. Board Member Hoffmann — The reason I think it is impo.rtant.is to protect the wetland, which is something that we have been trying to do. So if. that could be built into our resolution... Ms. Ritter — Eva, are you mostly concerned, then, about lots that have backyards that abut the wetlands more so than another property behind them? . . Board Member Hoffmann — I am mostly concerned about the wetland and I think we have more reason to do it when it comes to the wetland. Ms. Ritter — Just wanted clarification. Okay. Board Member Hoffmann — But if there is a good reason to do it other places, too, because of the drainage problems in this area, maybe we should consider that as well because the trees certainly help to the water from running. Mr. Fabbroni You could specify a certain diameter tree that had to be left. Chairperson Wilcox — Or a buffer, 25 foot zone or something like that. The public has been very, very patient and I say we give them a chance to speak. Board Member Thayer — Good idea. Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and Gentlemen, you have been very quiet and very patient, and we appreciate it. I know it is. getting late and as I said before, this is not the public hearing, but it is an opportunity to provide your comments on the environmental review. Raise your hand, I will call on you. We ask that you give us your name and address. Keep your remarks relative short and to the point and we would be most interested to hear what you have to say this evening. Hsi PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Andrew Houtenville, 116 Pinewood PI I have two concerns, stemming primarily from the increase in traffic on Birchwood North that are implied with the connection and with the development of the cul -de -sac. The intersection of Salem and Birchwood North, as Mr. Fabbroni had mentioned, would need serious consideration. A 3 -way stop sign would likely be needed if this was approved. I have a consideration of the driveways that are on that area and the increase in traffic. My second concern, based on the traffic flow, is increase ... is the pedestrian traffic to Salem Park, which was addressed also by Mr. Fabbroni. He was incorrect that there is a 31 bus that travels hourly to the area and now the new 44 and 45 bus travel to down Salem Drive on weekends. So there is a heavy degree of traffic. That said, people are not going to take the bus to get to Salem Park, Salem Park is populated by children. They will take the bus to get to the new loop that the Ornithology Lab would be putting. in and that raises my concern with if there is a trailhead put in towards Salem Drive that there would be parking issues with that regard and what kind of parking issues does this create in the neighborhood. I am concerned about the fact that there is a 45- degree turn driving directly towards the park. So as individuals travel west on Sanctuary. Drive, they are traveling directly towards the park and there is a 45- degree turn. Living near the 2 45 degree turns on Salem Drive, while people are very nice, people travel fast. That is my primary concern. I have two young children that will travel to that park and the population .,,the traffic of pedestrians to that park is not only from the proposed area, but of the existing area of Salem Drive, Birchwood, Sapsucker, Briarwood, Maplewood and so forth. So there is a real concern over traffic. I only have one comment regarding the wildlife issues. A statement was made that the wildlife corridor, the concept that the wildlife corridor is laughable. I have no idea why that is an issue, but I think the reason why it is laughable, if it's not the width. I have no idea about the regulations of a width of a wildlife corridor between the two natural areas, but it's a laugh because people use that. Vehicles use that as a traffic area and it has been basically decimated by vehicular traffic. Thank you. Janet Howe, 109 Birchwood Dr I am a walker and I walk that area several times a week for exercise. I know coming along Pinewood there is drainage, like an open sleuths box extending from Briarwood down to Pinewood that always has water running it. It is open. There is nothing covering it. It is just a wooden box about 2 feet wide. Where the water goes, I think now, they did some pipe work under the road and I think that is where it goes. I would also like to say that behind our house they're on a rise, but down at the foot of the hill there is always a damp spot and often an creek running through there. Every time more houses have been added up Birchwood North, there has been more water coming down there. I don't know where that comes from. I am glad to hear that all of this .. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 may be controlled by the new plans and storm sewers and .I hope they will be effective for the existing area that is there. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Millicent Clarke- Maynard, 111 Birchwood Dr I basically have two real concerns. I am not opposed to people spending money to build whatever they want to build. On the other hand, I have lived in the neighborhood on Birchwood Drive for the past 12 years and it has been a very peaceful and caring neighborhood. My concern is traffic, not only am I walker, I ride the TCAT bus. I am very familiar with the area. Very familiar with it. I am very concerned about the traffic, particularly at night. Although Mr. Fabbroni said something about the traffic being modest, it is far from being modest and I teach and like to go to bed at night after 10 o'clock and it just seems like there is a lot of traffic zooming up and down on Birchwood Drive, increasingly heavy traffic. Particularly when the students are gone in the summer months, there seem to be people who have motorcycles who race up and down. When they finally put that stop sign, just like an accident waiting to happen. My bedroom is right in the front of my house so I wake up quite often and quite frequently at night because of the zooming up and down the road. I hope you would consider the traffic patterns on Birchwood Drive because it is very important and the congestion of more housing being built in the area. Another concern I have is the drainage problem. We do have a drainage problem on Birchwood, particularly when it rains I know I have .a drainage problem. I live right next door to 109 and that has become an utmost concern to me. So I hope you take into consideration these two things. Thank you. Gary Bergstrom, 113 Birchwood Dr I'll keep my comments brief because they build on the previous two. My concerns are in the area of traffic flow across Birchwood, especially. Is the intention to hook that road up to Sapsucker Woods Road, but more importantly I am mostly concerned about the drainage problems. We have substantial drainage problems there. Surface water following heavy storms and I hope what I heard here tonight I can believe, but we were told similar things to trust in when the Briarwood housing development was put in there. I have lived in that house since 1987 and the increase in the surface flow and drainage problems has increased dramatically since the Briarwood houses were put in and we were told very similar things in that period of time. So I am a little bit skeptical and would like to be reassured. Thank you. Greg Ezra, 110 Birchwood Drive I have been living on the road a long time, about 20 years. So I have been certainly aware of the problems associated with the increasing development of the wetland so I would just like to again, very briefly, re- enforce some of the comments that have been 411 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 made. Drainage is a major issue and continues to be a major issue. What I have heard tonight, which I was not aware of any of the details at all is very interesting. Several things strike me. Everyone has been talking about planning for one -year storms. What about a 5- year, 10 -year- or a 25 -year storm? Where are we going to be when we have huge amounts of water trapped behind these earthen berms? That is the first issue. The second is we talk about insuring that the rate of outflow is limited to that which it has historically been. The rate of outflow currently with the Briarwood development is very high and has overwhelmed the local drainage channels on several occasions. We had a very scary incident at the end of last year where there were still leaves left in the drainage channels. There's this conduit that somebody mentioned previously that runs to the middle of Pinewood where all the water from the Briarwood Development is channeled through. I do not know whether this corresponds to DP3 or DP4. I see that there is going to be no change in that general patent, which is all the water is going to go down there. It's then split down Birchwood and Maplewood. What happened was we had a bunch of leaves swept through the pipes and blocked the pipes in Pinewood. All of the water that was pouring in from the Briarwood had nowhere to go and it rose up to the surface. Literally the whole neighborhood was in danger of inundation. Mr. Dong's house and lots were nearly flooded out. It was a very scary moment. The Town of Ithaca people were there at night, late into the night and they had to come in the following morning to sort out the mess. The water hadn't gone down by then. This was prior to all this. So I worry very much about the stability of the system. Just a few leaves messed up all these plans and planning for a longer term. The traffic is certainly a problem. I will just defer to what other people have said. Perhaps more can be said on that when the subdivision is approved. Another interesting point that was made was the possibility of mandating a certain percentage of lots to be retained as wooded areas. I find that idea very interesting and I like that. I would just like to make the comment that just as a resident that striked me very much about the Briarwood development is the extent to which the lots have essentially been clear -cut. I do not understand the necessity for that. When there was discussion about the sidewalks on Hanshaw, there was an aerial photograph of the area shown at the . public display at the Dewitt School and it was very apparent that the Briarwood development was essentially and empty rectangle in the midst of a wooded area. When Mr. Lucente and his construction people go into a lot they essentially clear -cut it. For what reason, I don't understand. The trees have been progressively removed from the area. So I would like to request that the Planning Board do whatever you can to insure that we have a reasonable degree of foliage left. Mancang Dong, 102 Pinewood PI I am at the corner of Birchwood. I live there for 10 years and have had several times problem with the flood. I think that people already addressed that. I just have one question. I don't know what kind of house they are going to build. If they are the same house as in Briarwood, the one house has two families because ... (not audible)... 51 PLANNING BOARD-MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 So if the same house builder is 50 families, should that be 100 families. I think the traffic should consider 100 and not 50 if a similar house. I'm not sure what kind of a house. Is it single - family house or it's a similar house in Briarwood? You think it is one lot, but actually 2 families live there. That is just my question. David Collum, 1456. Hanshaw Rd I think Eva asked the question: How do we know? So when they say that the water will drain off, okay, how do we know? When they say there is going to be 25 feet of trees, how do we know? There has been a history here. Fights have been breaking out over this development since the 60s. I've got boxes of paperwork from people. There is a contempt of court charge against Mr. Lucente for ignoring what he was told to do. I was here for the last debates on this. It turns out that there is no mention of the fact that the houses would be 100 percent rentals. The best I can tell they are 100 percent duplexes, if I had spotted that I would have begged not to let that happen. Now if you look audience, there are no renters. They don't care. They're not here. So what I would like to know is how can we be assured that he is not going to build 100 percent duplexes? I was intrigued by the claim that they want to protect the trees. There was some comment in there about how the trees were young and the two interest me in light of the fact that they went up and took chainsaws to all the big trees, took them all down. This is how they think. So what I want you guys to do is ask the question. How do you insure that what they say are going to do they are going to do? It is my suggestion that they are going to do what they want to do once they get you to give them the approval. So I beg you to get it in paper. I can't believe that they didn't show up with a letter from the Lab of 0. How you could possibly, show up at this meeting and say I don't have a letter from the Lab of 0. I begged the Lab of 0 to get it in writing. I beg everyone to get everything in writing because there is a history here of doing what you want once you get the approval. Thank you. Charles Evenmeyer, 206 Sapsucker Woods Rd I.work at the Lab of Ornithology. I was just hired as the manager of the visitor's center and of Sapsucker Woods. So I just got brought into this very recently. I do rent on Sapsucker Woods. Chairperson Wilcox - Are you here on your own? Mr. Evenmeyer - I am here on my own. I thought I needed to at least be clear about sort of there is no conflict, just so you know. I, too, have some concerns just about traffic that I wanted to mention. Because I live on Sapsucker Woods, I live a little bit a way from these areas that are necessarily being developed where they are putting in new roads, but just in the time I have lived there over the last 8 months, 10 months since the road has been resurfaced, since there...there has been a lot of changes just on Sapsucker Woods Road that have lead to a lot higher speeds of people traveling and what seems to be a lot more traffic and a lot more people using it as a cross- through to 52 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 get from 13 over to Hanshaw. I agree with the last speaker about how can you know. How can you know that anything is going to happen? I just wanted to temper that. I just wanted to give my view that that also needs .to be tempered with the fact that nothing in life is known. The President can say he is going to do something before he gets elected. He can put it in writing. Once he gets elected, it doesn't mean it is going to happen. So I think what he said is right. If we want to make sure this is developed according to some plan, I agree we need to make sure that happens, but also I think it needs to be tempered with some realism about the situation. That's all. Thanks. 7ingzhen Guo, 102 Pinewood PI I have one concern. I know a lot of people have other concern for the traffic, I do too, but one more concern. I 'want to know. We live on the corner of Birchwood, but I know Mr. Lucente said they would have built a pond in the new area when they build the house, but my concern is from the Birchwood east to the west that is not really a hill, but like this way. So even they build a pond, how can the water catch on the top and go down to the west of the site. Chairperson Wilcox — Can you point on one of those maps where you live? Ms. Guo — I live right here. This is my house here. This is Birchwood. Last winter, the water halfway to my driveway, halfway to my yard because the water is at this site is higher than my house this way. So this comes down to our house and then Birchwood all the way down. Even they build a pond, the water still go down to the west. They build a pond, how can they catch the water from the high place. Chairperson Wilcox — You don't see how it can impact you at all or make it any better for you? Ms. Guo — Yes, because it goes down this way. Thank you. Brian Howell, Birchwood Dr I just have a question for the first gentleman who made a presentation here. He referred several times to receiving approval or understanding from Cornell. Cornell is a big place. A lot of people have different responsibilities. I wonder, could it be determined whether he was simply talking to the Ornithology Lab, or civil engineering, or plant science or who at Cornell... Chairperson Wilcox — How about we'll ask him when everyone in the public has had a chance to speak? Mr. Howell — Good. 53 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Chairperson Wilcox - We won't have to ask him. Larry will step right up and tell us. Anybody else? Fran Bergstrom, 113 Birchwood Dr I just want to emphasize that there are a number of children in am concerned about the safety of the children. As far as t allowed to stop at each child's house any more. So the kids corners and a lot of parents do take their kids because they are traffic now, but this is something that needs to be addressed. children. the neighborhood. So I he buses, they are not have to congregate on so concerned about the The safety of the small Mr. Houtenville — I actually didn't get a chance to speak at the last meeting and I wanted to say that I actually liked that plan better because it did not have the pass - through between Sanctuary Drive and Birchwood North. I think that that pass- through, if it all can be avoided, should. I understand that there are fire access concerns with cul -de -sacs, however I think a 45 degree turn right in front of a playground, which is going to be populated by children is unwise although there is prior existence; I think, in the Town over by Gaslight Apartments. There is a nice little playground that no kid uses. There is never a kid in that playground and it's probably because it is right on the turn, right across from Phil Danker Soccer field. Chairperson Wilcox — In the Village of Lansing. Thank you. Larry, do you want. to address the question of the Lab of Ornithology and who you have been speaking with? Mr. Fabbroni - You may remember or not remember when I was here 3 years ago, we were having this conversation about who talks to who. So I went away and engaged both the Lab of Ornithology director, assistant director, the assistant director of real estate. Those are the two key departments that have been involved. More recently, the legal department has been involved in looking at the maintenance agreement and the licensing that I referred to earlier. So I guess the comprehensive answer to the question is we have been dealing with the director and assistance at the Lab of Ornithology, the assistant director of real estate, Tom Livigne, and one of the members of legal counsel of the University, Stephanie Seckler. Those have been primary actors. Ron Roarback who managed the trails for a while was a key member involved and that comment by that wildlife corridor. He made the comment that in the most ideal circumstances it would be 500 feet wide. We have been able to keep one down to the Salem Drive that is at least 200 feet wide., The comment was that that southern area was cutoff at the time Sanctuary Drive and the northern lots in the Briarwood subdivision went in. So there was only 100 feet left at the point we were discussing the two being tied together. A lot changes over 50 years of a person's life and business. If you look at where we came in with this proposal to begin with 4 years ago, I would like to say you can recognize the differences in terms of what is being offered to be left open and so that is a partial answer who will never believe that what we are proposing GA PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 to you, we will follow through on. Everybody learns from what they have done.in the past. Those who point out what has happened in the short -term with the Briarwood subdivision ought to look at the area just to the west on an aerial photograph. If. you look at a 1954 aerial photograph of Maplewood, Pinewood, Birchwood, you'll see an open field there. When you drive up through those lots today that Mr. Lucente owned a lot of those properties for a good length of time before he sold them, it is a totally relandscaped area. You would never believe that was an open farm field. Board Member Conneman — That's a monologue. Not an answer to the question. The question, do you have any letter from Cornell that says this is the greatest thing in the world? You have made tremendous progress and I admire what you have done and what Mr. Lucente has agreed to give to the lab, but it would be helpful if you had a letter that says something about this. Just because you talked to everybody, you can't believe Cornell until it is in writing. Believe me. Mr. Fabbroni I believe I could have a letter next week. I certainly would have a letter before you made any final approval. I have every reason to believe from everybody I've talked to that they will accept this donation and that we are well on our way to working out an agreement as to this interim period where we have obligations to the Town to make improvements and they will have centuries of obligations beyond that. Chairperson Wilcox — What's your pleasure guys. Board Member Talty — I have a question to the woman who came up here with regard to the drainage issue. Would DP3 or DP4 be a current resolution for this area on drainage? Would that assist her drainage problem in this area? Mr. Fabbroni — It should help her out. If I could point out on the map. DP5 for one comes back through an existing ditch along the backside of the property. For DP5 would bring back to this pond before it goes into the wetland. This whole area here that I could imagine in an uncontrolled fashion right now because of what she pointed out, this area has been estimated and comes up sharply, if you look at the profile of the road we bring it up gradually, we bring this drainage from this side of the road through a culvert down to this pond. So this whole are here drains, and this area, drain, to that pond. A large part of this area right now in a very wet condition or a sudden event like we had at the end of February or the beginning of March we had a heavy rain storm, on a wet situation instead of that flow going down right passed her house now, it's going to go to this retention facility and through the wetland and through this control structure here. The other point that was made is there are designs for the one -year storm and there are designs for the ten years storm and the hundred -year storm. You will see design figures and we already submitted the runoff numbers on it so we are not just focusing on the one -year storm. This retention is for a hundred year storm as well. When you get to the larger storms you have to provide for overflow because you can't PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 design for the greatest catastrophe ever, but it is certainly going to improve the situation that people talk about through this sluice way.. And one lady talked about through the tie ditch and as far as the debris there are trash racks that trap the trash and let the water through more effectively than the traditional open -ended pipe. As the one gentleman pointed out quite rightly, Ithaca there is a sort of Russian roulette to open ditches every February and March. Is it going to thaw slowly? Is it going to happen all over night? Was. it a heavy snow pack? So you have to sort of, we've gotten better and better with these orifices and these control structures and protecting against ice just blocking the whole system up. The first debris that comes down in the spring blocking the whole system up. You know, with the existing open ditches you still sort of have a Russian roulette. Will water flow under the ice or will the ice collapse and plug the whole system? If you have an answer to that then you're in the wrong business. Board Member Talty — Larry could you comment for the folks in the audience on exactly the data that you gave us, the rainfall data, for what a one -year, ten -year, one hundred year.:. Mr. Fabbroni - I'd like Eric to speak to that. Mr. Whitney — From historical rainfall data they've assigned the one -year storm frequency 2.3 inches over a 24 -hour period. Ten year storm frequency in Tompkins County 3.9 inches of accumulation over a 24 -hour period. A hundred year storm 5.5 inches of accumulation over a 24 -hour period. That describes the storms as far as the total volume over a'24 -hour period. Board Member Hoffmann — A couple of people brought up the question of what kind of houses would be built. One - family or two- family so therefore how many residents there would be coming in with these new houses. I know we got some figures in the papers that we got, but perhaps I could ask you Larry to talk about that for the benefit of the people who asked the question. Mr. Fabbroni — Our best estimate is 50% one - family, 50% two- family. Now how did we arrive at that? Currently, interestingly enough we are building one - families again. It's pretty much a market dependent thing. When the interest rate is down people can afford one - families. If the interest rate goes up the people who traditionally in the middle class which this neighborhood has supported well for forth years can't afford a $300,000 home without a second unit in the building to rent. Mr. Lucente, maybe he doesn't want to admit to everybody, but he's 75 years old now he won't be renting for a whole lot longer so people who are concerned about these not turning over and being sold, I think are thinking about Mr. Lucente 20 years ago. He made a pretty good living of rental, sales of homes after 15 years and he's still successfully in business fifty years later, but Eva our best estimate based on the fluctuations in the market and the interest 3: 9 -PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 rate is we project that half of these lots would have two- families and half would have one - families. The current design for the two- family, again to speak to some other issues, is an up and down split foyer as opposed to a side by side type of arrange which Briarwood pretty much was which would lead to less footprint on every lot as far as the space that a building would take up if it was two- family. But as I say, currently the homes being built are one family right now. Chairperson Wilcox — For the record, the zoning allows two- family houses on every lot. Board Member Hoffmann — When you're talking about the rental houses that I think you said are going to be sold? Is that right? Mr. Fabbroni — Traditionally after 15 years Mr. Lucente has put his houses up for sale. If you look at what is going on on Meadow Lark and Cardinal as an example, which are not in the Town, you would. see what I'm talking about. A lot of those homes have been sold in the last 5 years after he rented for 15 years, but he can speak for himself, but at. the age of 75 he's not going to be renting these new houses he's building for 15 years. Board Member. Hoffmann — There's nothing wrong with rental houses. We need some of those too, but there's for instance that whole row of houses that belong to Mr. Lucente along Briarwood Drive that I asked you about before and there's some other occasional ones that say Lucente including quite a few of,.them that say Steven Lucente on Sanctuary Drive. Now do you know anything about those? Mr. Fabbroni — I know about Rocco's in particular. Most of those rentals are either to families are graduate students with children. He prefers to rent to that particular segment of the market because they are more stable, they don't turn over from year to year. Traditionally the graduate students come in for three or four or five years and if you go up and down that street you'll see children in the yards and some verifications of what I'm saying. It's not what we all sort of fear is a total student neighborhood. I mean he as a rule does not rent to undergraduate students in that neighborhood. Steve Lucente is a total separate operation from Mr. Rocco Lucente. They have very little interaction between them. I think I stated that three years ago. They are father and son, but Steve and his wife run their own business pretty independent of anything Rocco does. So he owns those buildings on Sanctuary Drive and more recently he sold, he himself has sold three of those and has another few up for sale. So they're currently, if he follows through on his plan he'll have sold about half of those to owner occupied situations. Chairperson Wilcox — They are huge buildings. Mr. Fabbroni — Now if I can offer an opinion almost too big for the lots in that case. 57 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Board Member Conneman — The comment about traffic, I think everybody out here, if you build one family homes you may have one or two cars. If you build rental homes you may have multiple cars. Did you take that into account when you said the traffic didn't make much difference, it wouldn't be much more? Mr. Fabbroni — Yes, I projected 76 units on the 47 lots so that would take that into account, which means each one of those additional units you project an additional ten trips a day for. Chairperson Wilcox - Is it our please to go on for another ten minutes or so? Okay. Normally we end at ten. Okay. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, if we can answer questions and things like that, but I think it's too late to try to make a decision tonight. Board Member Conneman — Larry, I also have a question about deed restrictions. Susan may want to comment on this, but it is possible to put deed restriction in terms of whether you can have a buffer zone and so on and so forth, and those can be enforced. I don't know about anything to do with trees, but you can have deed restrictions. Mr. Fabbroni — You can and we do on three of the lots. I mean not to go into the whole history of the wetland and the remediation on the Briarwood project, but there's three lots there where that kind of a restriction exists in the deed for the lots. It's been very successful and held up for seventeen years without any threat whatsoever, so it can be done. Board Member Howe — Because of the traffic issues I see in the environmental assessment form it mentions that we could explore the possibility of incorporating traffic calming measures and I would want to see that explored fully. Chairperson Wilcox — And those traffic calming measures which we could look at as part of the actual subdivision and the layout of the roads could mitigate, it could mitigate, it can't prevent people from speeding. That's enforcement and other things, but that would help. Mr. Kanter - It could help primarily with safety. Chairperson Wilcox — And we could talk about the connecting of the roads. That was actually something that went back and forth between Larry and staff and even I was asked to contribute my opinion and I felt safety was important and having the roads interconnect. There is certainly another point of view about having more cul -de -sacs. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Mr. Fabbroni - I have a submission I made in January... Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely, and we changed it on you and I understand. I talked to Susan and we kicked it around, they kicked it around, she asked my opinion... Ms. Ritter — And we also looked at the minutes from 1993 and that was a direction that was... Chairperson Wilcox — ...suggested by this Board. Board Member Talty — I have a question on a variety of 90- degree turns throughout Town of Ithaca, Lansing, whatever. I know some of the 90 degrees they were talking about earlier and my question is I don't see guardrails anywhere. Is there a reason why there isn't a short section of guardrail for these 90- degree turns? That's my question, to anybody. Mr. Walker — It's not warranted for the speeds. Board Member Talty — Is that it? But can we mandate for the Planning that they put one in? Mr. Walker — No. It's up to the Highway Superintendent for safety issues. Board Member Talty — Because I'll tell you a lot of, like where George lives over on St. Catherine's, there's a deadly 90- degree turn there because of the trees that grow up and the playground over in Lansing through the apartments. It's the same thing and just think that a guard rail, although I'm not a big fan of how they look, it certainly would be a great safety add to any neighborhood unless they are going to change how the 90 degree turns are because they come into them quick, they slow down, and then they accelerate out of them. So if you want to protect children I think that may be something that we should explore with that gentleman. Mr. Kanter — Yes. I was just thinking since that portion of the road is going to be a new road there may be some way of designing that curve to be safer, not necessarily a guard rail but something built into the system. i Board Member Talty — I don't think that they should necessarily have to change that 90 degree turn to incorporate a different type of style and wreck a lot of the lots through that area, but I do think that traffic calming, a guard rail, things of that sort could certainly be incorporated to assure the public of the safety of their children. 59 Chairperson Wilcox — What's the pleasure of this Board? SEQR motion as drafted, how's that. Board Member Talty - I'll second it. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Well let me see, I'll move the Board Member Hoffmann — I feel we need time to discuss everything we have been presented with, both in paper and verbally. Chairperson Wilcox — I have a motion and a second. Changes? You all set? I always know to look at the Town Attorney. I I . Ms. Brock — Alright. Because this is a coordinated environmental review and you've contacted the other involved agencies and they've agreed that the Planning Board be the lead agency we need to make sure that this review covers all aspects of the proposal not just this Board's action tonight, which is preliminary subdivision approval so I wanted to add in the first whereas clause references to all of the roads that are being built because I think right now it's just really referencing two of them and in fact there is going to be a little bit more which the Town Board is going to end up having to approved.. Ms. Ritter — Lucente Drive for instance? Ms. Brock — Right. So I have some language. About halfway down in paragraph one it says proposal involves connecting Sanctuary Drive with Birchwood Drive North and connecting Birchwood Drive with Sapsucker Woods Road. I would add to that, I would get rid of the word "and" right before the word "connecting Birchwood Drive with Sapsucker Wood Road ", put in a coma and says, "extending Birchwood Drive North to the east and creating a spur to the north off Sanctuary Drive ". And then I believe we probably should also add a reference to, no, we've already.got that. Paragraph two in the "whereas" I would revise that to read, "this is a type I action for which the Town of Ithaca a Planning Board has indicated it's intent to act as lead agency in a coordinated environmental review with respect to the above referenced proposal ". And the effect of that change will be to incorporate all of the proposal not just the subdivision approval. Chairperson Wilcox — Also the eventual, should it get that far, the review by the Town Board for the acceptance of the road. Ms. Brock - Right. Acceptance of the roads, acceptance of the parcel that's being added to the park, the conveyance of the property to the Lab of 0 and that type of thing. PLANNING -BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Paragraph four in. the "whereas" clause, a similar change so that it reads "the Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the above referenced proposal ". And another change similarly in the first "resolved" clause, just substitute the word "proposal" for "action" at the very end where it says "review of the above described action ".. Just make that " review of the above described proposal" and this will make it clear that your environmental review is covering the entire project. Board Member Hoffmann — I'm lost. Where is this last part? Ms. Brock — Just the first "resolved" clause, the last word in that resolved clause, "action ", strike the word "action" and insert the word "proposal ". Because the word action, somebody might read that to mean what it says at the very beginning of your resolution, which is "this action involves consideration of preliminary subdivision approval" and we don't want this to be just for the subdivision approval, we want it to be for the entire proposal. Board Member Conneman — What word to you substitute? Ms. Brock. — "Proposal ". Chairperson Wilcox — Just the environmental review. but if we should make a impact then we will invite to be determined to then tonight for sure. so the members of the public are still here, we're still doing I don't know what will happen in the next three minutes, determination that there is not a significant environmental Mr. Fabbroni and the representative back at a later meeting actually take up the subdivision review. That will not happen Kevin, are those changes acceptable? Board Member Talty - Yes. Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. I have a motion and a second. I have Eva's opinion that it's too late in the evening to vote. Board Member Hoffmann — And we don't have time to discuss some of the things that we have heard and additional things we've heard both from the applicants and from the people in the audience, which I think are relevant. Chairperson Wilcox — I think I have 4 votes. 61 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Board Member Howe - Isn't it true that a lot of the issues though can be dealt with in the subdivision approval? Board Member Hoffmann - That's what I don't know and that's why I don't like to vote on it. Chairperson Wilcox - I have a motion, and second. Please raise your hand, all those in favor. Four. All those opposed. Two. opposed. There are no abstentions. The motion is passed by a vote of four to two. We have made the determination that there is no significant environmental impact. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -063; .SEQR, Subdivision Approval, Briarwood II 504ot Subdivision, Extensions to Sanctuary Dr., Birchwood Drive N., and Birch wood Dr,. To wn of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 70- 10 -3,5 and 73 -1 -8.22 WHEREAS.' 1: This action involves consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed 50 -lot subdivision located along new extensions to Sanctuary Drive, Birchwood Drive North, and Birchwood Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No s 70- 10 -3.5 and 73 -1 -8.22, Medium Density Residential Zone: The proposal includes subdividing the +/- 47.5 acres into 47 residential parcels (averaging 0.4 acres in size) with two parcels totaling approximately 25 acres to be donated to the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, and one small parcel to be added to Salem Drive Park. The proposal involves connecting Sanctuary Drive with Birchwood Drive North, connecting Birchwood Drive with Sapsucker Woods Road, - extending Briarwood Drive North to the east, and creating a spur to the north off Sanctuary Drive. The project also includes the development of stormwater management facilities and walkways The project is anticipated to be completed over a 10- year period and result in a development of one and two- family dwellings Rocco Lucente, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., Agent, and 2. - This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has indicated its intent to act as Lead Agency in a coordinated environmental review with respect to the above - referenced proposal, and 36 The Planning Board, on June 20, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, plans entitled plans entitled "Master Plan" dated 1112103 with most recent revision 1121106, and three sheets entitled "Subdivision Plat" one dated 1121106 and revised 5111106, one dated 1121106, and one dated 10128102 and revised 01- 21 -06, and a drawing entitled "Typical 62 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Town of Ithaca Highway Cross- sections" dated 1116106, four sheets entitled "Water & Sewer Plan & Profiles" oated 5111106, 11110102, and two dated 1116106, and four sheets entitled "Highway Plan & Profile'; dated 1116106, 10128102, and two dated 5111106 and "Standard Water Details dated 4111106 and revised 1110103, and "Standard Sanitary Sewer Details" dated 9110102, all prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbrom, P.E., L.S., and other application material, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the above - referenced proposal; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, having received no objections from other Involved Agencies, hereby establishes itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above - described proposal; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED; That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on information in the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I and for the reasons set forth in the Environmental Assessment Form Part II referenced above, 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, and that a notice of this determination will be duly filed and published pursuant to the provisions of 6 NYCRR Part 617.12. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Thayer, Howe,.. Talty. NA YS: Hoffmann, Conneman. ABSENT.• Mitrano. The motion was declared to be carried. Chairperson Wilcox - Having said that, it's getting. Larry, will you work with staff to come up with a date to come back for preliminary subdivision where you and your representatives, the agents, can be available and work with staff please. I don't think we are going to determine that tonight. Mr. Kanter — Is there anything additional that the Board needs to see in order to move ahead with preliminary. Such as the letter from the Lap of 0. Mr. Fabbroni — I'm going to pursue the letter in any case. 63 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Chairperson Wilcox — The letter from the lab, if we don't have it the next time, is certainly going to be conditioned. I think we're going to spend a lot of time talking about traffic calming and the routing of the roads. Board Member Conneman — Deed restrictions, I'd like you talk about. Mr. Kanter — Those will be talked about. Those are normal conditions, but I'm: just asking if there is anything the Board thinks they need to see that they haven't seen yet. Board Member Conneman — Well, I haven't seen the deed restrictions, we've talked about them. Mr. Kanter — You probably won't see it before preliminary either. Chairperson Wilcox — It will probably be conditioned to final, but we'll make it very clear assuming this Board agrees... Board Member Conneman — I just wanted to put in the minutes that that's one of my concerns. Chairperson Wilcox — Larry, anything else I can do for you? Mr. Fabbroni — Well, my only comment on the traffic calming is as I've listened to everybody and I'm a pretty good listener I hope over the years there are divergent opinions on traffic calming methods so I would hope... Chairperson Wilcox — Save it for the next meeting. Mr. Fabbroni — My other question is why wouldn't you adjourn this all to the next Planning Board meeting that you have? Chairperson Wilcox — I didn't say the next meeting, I said to the next available meeting is what I said to be worked out. We can't continue now, Larry, it is 10:15. It's late, we're tired. Mr. Fabbroni — I'm not talking about talking abut it here, I'm just saying procedurally why wouldn't you just adjourn it to a date. Mr. Kanter — You could if you so chose. Chairperson Wilcox — I could if I so chose. M PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Mr. Kanter — We do want. to talk about the scheduling of the next agenda so if you would permit Larry to stay while the Board talks about it, that would probably be a good way to do it. Chairperson Wilcox — I have permission from the Board to adjourn 2 minutes ago. The Board agreed to extend the meeting. Chairperson Wilcox — Our next meeting is July 18. Mr. Kanter — We do not have the first Tuesday meeting so it's July 18"', Ithaca College who waited patiently in the lobby left at about quarter of 10 when they realized they weren't going to get there. My recommendation to the Board, it's .up to you to decide, is to put Ithaca College first on that agenda. Chairperson Wilcox — Sketch plan review? Mr. Kanter — Sketch plan review. And do that and schedule, we have two or three other items that are pending for that meeting. Again, this could be a long discussion so my recommendation would be to try to schedule (inaudible or could it be Darwood ?) for that July 18tt' meeting, but to put it at the end because we have these other actions that were already in that are tentatively scheduled. That's my suggestion. Chairperson Wilcox — Would the other two items, other than Ithaca College sketch plan based up what they already think they would take a sum total of half an hour? Mr. Kanter — Probably more. Actually it's three items, I apologize. Chairperson, Wilcox — Okay. Because I'd like to keep a nice two -hour block just to be safe to go the site plan. Mr. Kanter — We've got a fairly simple Cornell grounds department facilities improvement plan out in the Precinct 7 area. We've got two special permits for things that were operating previously under use variances, which are now special permit uses under the new zoning. Chairperson Wilcox — One is a bed and breakfast. What's the other one? Mr. Kanter — One is an equestrian facility on Trumansburg Road. Those two probably are fairly simple, quick items. The Cornell grounds facilities improvements, I'm not sure. It shouldn't be that complicated, but... Chairperson Wilcox — You never know with this Board. 65 r PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Mr. Kanter — But again, when we consider rescheduling these things you also may want to consider a whole new date for Briarwood. Board Member Conneman — What is the nature of the grounds consideration? Mr. Kanter — It's basically more of what's going on out in the Precinct 7 area with construction, contracting staging... Chairperson Wilcox — New building? Mr. Kanter — No buildings just gravel staging construction areas storage. Board Member Conneman — I wanted to be sure it was not the Plantations, that was all. Chairperson Wilcox — Larry, and you and your representatives be back on the 18t". Mr. Fabbroni — Yes. Board Member Howe — Should we be considering a second meeting in July? Sometimes we've met two weeks in a row if we felt there was too much. Chairperson Wilcox — That's an option to schedule a meeting for the 11"' and take this up and .possibly Ithaca College. That's a possibility too. Board Member Howe — I would rather spread things out over two nights if possible rather than try to cram. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, I felt we really crammed it this evening with the project and I don't want to see it crammed again. Chairperson Wilcox - I think we did pretty good. Board Member Hoffmann — What purpose did it serve to hasten voting on the SEQR tonight? Chairperson Wilcox - We didn't hasten. Board Member Hoffmann — I felt we did. Chairperson Wilcox — I asked everybody if there was anything else to say, any other questions, and there was none. [1*1 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Board Member Conneman — You made_ the resolution yourself. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, I did. Mr. Kanter — So should we schedule the meeting? Chairperson Wilcox — Is there a staff issue with doing the meeting on the 11th and then an 18th, assuming that the 11th is Ithaca College and this? Mr. Kanter — Well, I know that Mike is off and he was involved in the Ithaca College project. Chairperson Wilcox — But it is sketch plan review only. Mr. Kanter — Yes, I don't think that should be an issue. Chairperson Wilcox - Shall we go with the sketch plan review and continuation of this. Is that reasonable? The Board discussed their availability. The Board tentatively scheduled at July 11" meeting pending notice from Board Member Conneman and Board Member Hoffmann regarding their availability. Approval of the June 6, 2006 Minutes PB RESOL UTION NO, 2006 -064: Appro va/ of Minutes: June 6.2006 MOTION by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Talty.. RESOL VED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopts the June 6, 2006 minutes as the offidal minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting as presented with corrections. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES Wilcox, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NA YS: None. ABSTAIN: Hoffmann. ABSENT.• Mitrano. The vote on the motion was carried. 67 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 Adjournment On motion by Board Member Conneman, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, arrie Coat W Deputy Town CIS .: TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, June 20, 2006 AGENDA :00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). :05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Duffy 3 -Lot Subdivision, 1301 & 1305 Hanshaw Road. . :05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 3 -lot subdivision located at 1301 & 1305 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 70 -12 -1 & 70- 12 -2.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing off the southern portions of the two existing lots to create one new +/- 1.6 -acre lot (Parcel C) located on Warren Road, and modifying the location of the lot line between Parcels A & B. Gary & Donna Duffy, Owners /Applicants, 15 P.M. SEQR Determination: Ceres Gardens, 1080 Danby Road. 15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Ceres Gardens located at 1080 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -17, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposal involves converting the former garage building into a farm stand and nursery retail business. Changes include painting the building, adding an awning, converting one overhead door to a standard door, regrading the parking area, and other site improvements. Joseph M. & Maria L. Salino, Owners /Applicants; Lawrence A. Berger, Lama Real Estate, Agent. ':30 P.M. SEQR Determination: Briarwood 50 -Lot Subdivision, Sanctuary Dr., Birchwood Dr. North, and Birchwood Dr. ':30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed 50 -lot subdivision located along new extensions to Sanctuary Drive, Birchwood Drive North, and Birchwood Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 70- 10 -3.5 and 73 -1 -8.22, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing the +/- 47.5 acres into 47 residential parcels (averaging 0.4 acres in size) with two parcels totaling approximately 25 acres to be donated to the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, and one small parcel to be added to the Salem Drive Park. The proposal involves connecting Sanctuary Drive with Birchwood Drive North, and connecting Birchwood Drive with Sapsucker Woods Road. The project also includes the development of new stormwater management facilities end - walkways. -T -he project is- anticipated- to -be- completed -over a -1 -0- year - per -iod- and-result in- a-development of one and two - family dwellings. Rocco Lucente, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., Agent, 3:30 P.M. Review of a sketch plan for the proposed Ithaca College Gateway Building located on the Ithaca College campus north of Dillingham Hall, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2 and 41 -1 -30.4, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal is for a new 4- level, +/- 50,500 gross square foot building for:the Office of Admissions, the Office of Human Resources and the college's executive offices. The project will also include new stormwater facilities, lighting, landscaping, and changes to the adjacent parking area and walkways. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Peter J. Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf, LP, Agent. 0 10 11. 12 Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). Approval of Minutes: June 6, 2006, Other Business: 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 -17470 (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, June 20, 2006 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, June 20, 2006, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 3 -lot subdivision located at 1301 & 1305 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 70-12 - 1 & 70- 12 -2.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing off the southern portions of the two existing lots to create one new +/ 1.6 -acre lot (Parcel C) located on Warren Road, and modifying the location of the lot line between Parcels A & Be Gary & Donna Duffy, Owners /Applicants, 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval ,for the proposed Ceres Gardens located at 1080 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -17, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposal involves converting the former garage building into a farm stand and nursery retail business. Changes include painting the building, adding an awning, converting one overhead door to a standard door, regrading the parking area, and other site improvements. Joseph M. & Maria L. Salino, Owners /Applicants; Lawrence A. Berger, Lama Real Estate,.Agent. 7:30 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed 504ot subdivision located along new extensions to Sanctuary Drive, Birchwood Drive North, and Birchwood Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 70- 10 -3.5 and 73 -1 -8.22, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing the +/- 47.5 acres into 47 residential parcels (averaging 0.4 acres in size) with two parcels totaling approximately 25 acres to be donated to the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, and one small parcel to be added to the Salem Drive Park. The proposal involves connecting Sanctuary Drive with Birchwood Drive North, and connecting Birchwood Drive with Sapsucker Woods Road. The project also includes the development of new stormwater management facilities and walkways. The project is anticipated to be completed over a 10 -year period and result in a development of one and two- family dwellings. Rocco Lucente, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., Agent. 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, upo iri n request. Persons desng 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, June 12, 2006 Publish: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 (F' -.�� +.i �WAnesd5y -Ah AW 2006.) THE ITHACAr10URNAV TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE I June 20, 2006 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION '0 S � d 1070 D�rvt3Y riC� i no Co O llb U V l� '• e .�;; �A� � � S Q+ �4 �t�f qm iii G tYl I l� i t� cc f r - a na; fj ► i arch wood o rLlycwx� ,z Z�il I ! O ( Kckl Wo a,p ll , lob loelcq Al G � :/�C' ' j `74 51 D L•r A.a- `� wC / \�^ �y yj /d{/�{ � O V r . V� \ \ V • f • j'•^ L. ♦.4 —. S r* x+� �eilr rc.k CnvTuR I �4 OvQV CIZA 5GR� f , 3� � 6 .) ! 7 S• TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that I 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, June 20, 2006 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting Date of Posting: June 12, 2006 Date of Publication: June 14, 2006 STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio abet. va+�.d[ti,c�. �o-ec -cam Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca Sworn to and subscribed before me this 14th day of June 2006. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 F