Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2008-09-02FILE DATE Town of Ithaca Planning Board September 2, 2008 7:00 p.m. Present: Rod Howe, Chair; Members: George Conneman, Larry Thayer, Susan Riha, Kevin Talty, Hollis Erb and Fred Wilcox Staff: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Dan Walker, Town Engineer, Susan Brock Attorney for the Town, Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Darby Kiley, Planner; Carrie Coates= Whitmore, First Deputy Town Clerk Others: Steve Beyers & Dr. Don Bilderbach, Cornell University; Walter and Scott Wiggins, La Tourelle Spa & Resort; Meeting was called to order at 7:00. The affidavit of Posting and Publication of the two public notices were accepted by the Chair, fire exits were noted and a request for cell phones to be turned off was made. Persons to be Heard There was no one wishing to address the Board at this time. SEAR Determination and Public Hearing: Cornell University Wilson Lab Temporary Modular Trailers, North of Dryden Road / Pine Tree Road Intersection Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed time extension for the Cornell University Wilson Lab Modular Offices located north of the intersection of Dryden Road (NYS Route 366) and Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No 63=1=8.2, Low Density Residential Zone. This proposal involves a request for a 10 Year extension of the Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the modular laboratory and office spaces currently situated at the Wilson Laboratory complex The modular offices received Site Plan Approval in 2000, which expires on December 31, 2008 There are no modifications improvements additional development or other change AW Ana s J wi xwvowu ato wart or finis request Cornell University Owner /Applicant; Steve Bevers, P.E., Engineering Services Leader_ Anant Chairperson Howe - I know there are some questions, would you like to come forward and make a brief presentation. And then, Darby, I don't know if there's some clarifications that we might want to make based on some email exchange that has already happened in clarifying some questions. Steve Beyers, Cornell University I seek approval for extension of existing site plan approval that occurred about 10 years ago for some trailer, or some modular office space that exists right now at Wilson Lab area. And there is no actual construction, or renovation, or improvement to the facilities. We're really just looking, the original approval expires in December 31, 2008 and so we PB 922008 Pg. 2 want to get before the Board to make sure there was time to discuss it and get approval to continue using those spaces. Ikon Bilderbach, Phd. Cornell University The purpose of keeping those modulars in place is to bridge the area until our energy recovery Linac project comes, and that's why we are asking for the 10 -year period, so there will be a long enough extension to carry us through that period. Chairperson Howe — I think we will just weave the environmental review and the discussion about the preliminary an final site plan approval ... Are you aware of any SEAR, environmental issues related to this? Mr. Beyers — No, the fact that basically there is no change in the use or the property, can't really find anything. Chairperson Howe — I know one of the questions that came up was whether this had to do with both of the modular units, the one that was developed earlier...and I'm not sure that was resolved. Ms. Brock — The special permit needs to be granted for both because the ZBA had granted special approval for both. There was a question as to whether the site plan approval for the first building, the 4,000 square foot building, was time limited when that site plan was granted in 1993. So Darby just went to grab the 1993 resolution to see whether that approval has an actual expiration date attached to�it or not. Mr. Beyers — Well, I believe the 2000 approval extended the '93, i think that's what the resolution says, and gave basically this December 31't deadline for both... Ms. Brock — The 2000 Planning Board approval for site plan only dealt with the 7,000 square foot additional building. It didn't grant, say anything about site plan approval for the 4,000 square foot building. Dr. Bilderbach — I would like to have B.J. Boards join us. She's the executive officer at our lab, and has a little more first -hand knowledge than we do. If you could pull up a chair... Ms. Boards — I remember, I do recall that the approval was for both, was for the extension of both modular units... Mr. Beyers — So, I think everyone has extension was for the special permit for the special approval, so maybe you're right, i front of them, I think you're right...the 4,200 square foot but it didn't mention, say Ms. Brock ...and the adopted resolution by the Planning Board states, "The Planning Board hereby grants preliminary and final site plan approval for the proposed addition of 7,056 +/_ square feet until December 31, 2008." PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 3 Chairperson Howe — So we can make that adjustment... Ms. Brock - We'll take a look at the original site plan approval. You may not need to extend anything in terms of site plan approval for the 4,000 square foot building. You're special permit will definitely need to address both buildings. Chairperson Howe — I think there are some other questions. We'll start with George. George, do you have any questions? Board Member Conneman — I really don't. I am influenced by the email that Hollis Erb sent us, which I thought was routine, until I got to the end ... I do remember that Katherine Wolf was part of the team that presented the original thing, and there were some comments, I believe, from the Board about modular buildings not being so pretty, and so therefore, you were supposed to put some plants around. That apparently didn't happen or you didn't know how to take care of the plants. So we'll go from there. Chairperson Howe — Larry? Board Member Thayer — I'm just wondering, if you do get the funding that you are applying for, if we should put something in our resolution that they will take them down at that point and move them out. When the funding is received. Dr. Bilderbach — That would be appropriate. That's our intent. Board Member Riha — I went over an looked, and of course, the only people that could see these buildings, it seems like, is people that are working in these buildings and in. Wilson Lab and I found them quite attractive for modular buildings and there was some nice landscaping around in the parking lot and by the older building. So, given budget concerns and other, I didn't feel there was a whole lot of need to put in landscaping, unless you feel like you are getting complaints from people who are working there. And it's completely invisible from the road and from anybody else in the Cornell Community. have never gotten over there, in the 25+ years I've worked there. Board Member Talty — I echo Susan. When I went there as well, I thought they were quite nice, well kept. So I have no concerns at this time. Board Member Erb — I thought they were nice enough as buildings go, it's just that, at the time, I had also a planting guide in my package, and the planting guide only bore about half the resemblance to what I saw in that parking lot. Although the parking lot was neat and clean, having a line of trees down at least one of those median strips would have made it a nicer looking expanse of asphalt. And so I thought I understood why I thought was 6 September 2006 plan was created. Dr. Bilderbach — Well there is some discrepancy as you noticed, and Darby too, between what's there and what's in your packet and BJ was enquiring this afternoon and got this email back that said, 'it appears quite a bit of landscape was destroyed as a PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 4 result of the Gary Chinisky Slope stabilization project in 2002 which was a project right along the stream to put some additional rocks, and stabilize the slope up to the bridge. So I, we have not had enough time to ferret all that back out, and the person we needed to contact late this afternoon had left Cornell. So we don't know who supplied the approval for that project, whether it was this group or the DEC. But we did manage to find a revised set of plans, I think you have a copy Darby... Board Member Talty — Hollis has a copy that none of us have... Dr. Bilderbach — We have a few extra copies... Ms. Kiley — Yeah, I don't know how ... what was submitted in the packet that we got is what the applicant sent in, but I guess there were actually some modifications, it looks like the last date is 2001 on here, that probably, Town Staff when they went out to look at it, was what they were looking at to approve it. So from what I went out and took a look at, there are a couple or birches that I had noted out there, and there are still... Dr. Bilderbach — There are no red maples, and I didn't find red maples, and they are not on the new plan. People talking over each other. Dr. Bilderbach — There are ten vibrenum and some of them are really small. They've been lunch for the deer, I'm afraid. Chairperson Howe — So do you want to just pass that around.... Hollis, was there anything else? Board Member Erb — No, I think I've been told that sprinklers are in place and it was simply that that was an issue when I read the old Planning Board minutes. Board Member Wilcox — Are you comfortable with the plantings that exist, given the new sheet that you were provided? Board Member Erb — Susan and I have different memories of what we just saw there. I saw birch -like trees at the far northern end of some of the medians, but I didn't see anything coming down the median except the one that...) saw it on the outside the eastern most edge where the pines curl around and where what I refer to as "sad little"... Board Member Riha — I thought there were plants in the median... Ms. Kiley — No, I mean, what they show on this plan that what I just handed out is what ... there's one birch in the one median and there are two in the other... Board Member Riha — Yeah, so there are plants in the median. PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 5 Board Member Erb — Yeah, at the northern end... Board Member Erb — Yeah, that's what I thought. The original plan had some trees coming down through it which would have made it much more attractive. Now, I haven't gotten out and tried to walk on the walkway that curls up to see whether in fact it's invisible. Board Member Riha — I guess I was trying to look at the bigger picture. The only people who go in here are the people who are using the lab. Board Member Erb — That's right, and we don't care about them. Board Member Riha — No, (members laugh) ... No, I think it's really good, I think it's not a bad precedent Hollis, because I am going to bring it up later when we talk about drainage, that you go back and look at if there are issues, but I think it's important that if people, if there's issue of complaint, that we go back and look and see if people actually held to the plan. So I'm not against doing that. Dr. Bilderbach — (inaudible), .so if you're on the trail on the south side, it's hard to see through into the parking lot. Board Member Erb — No, I agree with that. I think that I'm comfortable tonight, but if the new project goes forward, I'm going to want to be especially vigilant about the plantings in whatever parking lots and adjacent areas are created at that time. Is it okay to say that at this point? Chairperson Howe — Fred, was there anything else besides making sure that Hollis was okay? Board Member Wilcox — Just a couple things. The applicant has asked for a ten -year extension, which I am a little uncomfortable with and the reason is that in Mr. Beyer's cover memo, he says, he's talking about the ERL project, .you call it ERL... "should the project be funded "... "'the temporary trailers would be removed early in the construction process, no later than 2012 or 2013." Well, 2013 is like 5 years from now, so personally, I'm comfortable with a 5 -year extension as opposed to a 10 -year extension. And that's partially because I don't like the trailers. I don't care how...yes, they look good for trailers, but that's faint praise here. And yes, they can't be seen, but nonetheless, they're ugly structures. They're ugly structures, in my opinion. So I'd like to limit it to 5 years. I'll defer to the majority of the Board on that one. I do have a couple of comments on the SEQR form when we get to it. Chairperson Howe — Go ahead. Board Member Wilcox — Do them right now? Okay. On the SEQR form, item 6, Amount of land affected, is not noted. I would be comfortable with less than 1 acre for the 0 -5, 6 -10 and greater than 10 years. Item 7, How is the land zoned presently? PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 6 believe it's low density residential, not medium density. Those are the only two changes I have to propose. Mr. Beyers — The amount affected is kind of an odd question when there's not really a development happening, so I wasn't really sure how to fill that out. Board Member Wilcox — How much is the approval... yeah ... so,... Chairperson Howe — Since Fred brought up the issue of time ... are others okay with 10 years? I am seeing Susan shake her head yes, I'm okay with 10 years... Board Member Conneman — I agree with Fred because you know, you look at the Cornell Campus where the architecture people had those trailers out there forever. That's the City of Ithaca ... I don't know what the approval rate was, but they were very pretty. Board Member Riha — But no one can see these trailers... Board Member Conneman — Well that's true, but... Board Member Thayer — But you're expecting the money in 2011, 1013 ... and then how many years after that before... Dr. Bilderbach — Well the construction period is a 5 -year project, so, that takes us out to 2017, but probably the big modular will have to be moved for construction anyway and the smaller one will probably be able to remain there during construction. Board Member Thayer — Which would be 5 years. Dr. Bilderbach — Which would be close to 5 years, but we want to get the building outfitted and moved in as soon as we can. Board Member Thayer — It would be silly to make you come back in 5 years I would think. Alternate Member Talty — Unless they could get the money in 5 years. Board Member Riha — Yeah, exactly. Dr. Bilderbach — That's the reason why we asked for a 10 -year extension; just to minimize the overhead of having you to work on things twice in that period. Board Member Wilcox — I could argue they should come back every year. Dr. Bilderbach — Okay. PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 7 Board Member Wilcox -- I mean I could argue that. Yeah. Board Member Riha — So yeah. That's what I want to know. So any trailer in any kind of place this is... Board Member Thayer — We've had some problems on the Elmira Road once. Board Member Riha — Because we are not going to presumably be holding Cornell to a special standard. Board Member Wilcox — I'm not going to ... I don't wanna...if the Board is comfortable with 10, that's fine. I've expressed my opinion. Board Member Conneman — I am, too, but I think it's a bigger issue. Board Member Erb — We could compromise and we could go with 8 years, which is what they were granted the first time. Board Member Conneman — Oh, that's an interesting... Board Member Wilcox — Let's go with 101 Chairperson Howe — Did you ... did I hear you say you wanted to bring up some stormwater issues or is that... Board Member Riha — Not on this one. Chairperson Howe — Okay. Darby, is there any other things, clarification things that have come up that we... Ms. Kiley — Yeah ... So when I asked Kristie Rice about the sprinklers, because the first 1993, they had a sprinkler variance because it was written in there that they would be removed by 1998. Then the second one, the second modular was put in, has a sprinkler, all fine. So I asked Kristie, since they are up for another extension of 10 more years in addition to the 15 years of the modular, the first one, the 4,000 square foot area, would they be required to have sprinklers? She said they should have a sprinkler system because that would be 20 years of having the building, then I don't see why they wouldn't have a sprinkler system in there. So I warned them that that would come up tonight and that that could possibly be a condition, that the 4,000 square foot, the first one that was put in in '93, have a sprinkler sytem built in it or that they go for a sprinkler variance. Chairperson Howe — And there must be, what's Code? I mean, is that clear, what Code is for modular buildings that are going to be up for a long period of time? Mr. Walker— For commercial spaces, the Sprinkler Law requires sprinklers. PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 8 Chairperson Howe — But not for... Mr. Walker — No, that includes the (inaudible). That's why the new ones have sprinklers in them and all the modular buildings that have been installed at Ithaca College the past few years are sprinklered. Back in '93, they were, there was a lot of debate about the sprinkler law at that time and I think they have become more commonplace in modular buildings now, there wasn't that big a difference in cost ... I don't know what the whole history of that was, but, commercial buildings of that size would have to have sprinklers in them. Board Member Wilcox — We had no sprinkler law, or a different sprinkler law in '93? Mr. Walker — Well, we had the sprinkler law in '93, but there was some grace period in there, you know, it wasn't fully in effect yet... Board Member Wilcox So the first trailer was sort of approved under the... Mr. Walker — They got a variance... Ms. Kiley — They got a variance. Board Member Wilcox — They got a variance because we might have been.... Mr. Walker -- We were talking about changing the sprinkler law. The main change in the sprinkler law was to not require them in 2- family homes. Mr. Kanter — Darby, am I understanding that that variance was a time - limited one ?, recognizing the fact that the special approval was also time - limited? Ms. Kiley — Right, I think Susan has it in her hands right now, but, yeah, the conversation was, yeah...we'II permit the sprinkler variance because this will be removed in 5 years, but no one revisited it in 1998 and ... Board Member Erb — This is exactly what I was worried had transpired. I am not comfortable with 7,000 square feet of Cornell... Ms. Kiley — It's the small one... Board Member Erb — 4,0001,Ahe new one ... the one on the east has, the one on the west does not? We are being asked ... so it seems like a backdoor way to get around... to just keep coming back until they forget about that we had a variance. It just doesn't make sense to me. This is a public health issue. Board Member Riha — But is this a Planning Board issue or a Code Enforcement issue? I mean, if they... A PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 9 Mr. Kanter — Kind of both. Mr. Walker — Kind of both. If this were an approval, site plan approval, today, you would be approving the whole facility, but they wouldn't have been built yet, so they would have required a building permit to complete them and the sprinkler permit would have been addressed at the building permit stage. Since there are no proposed modifications to any buildings, it's really...you can put that requirement in there, believe. Board Member Riha — For the Code Enforcement officer to go out there and say, you've been occupying this building for X amount of time and you are now... Mr. Walker — Right, we could have a violation and then they would have to abate the violation either by extending the variance or installing sprinklers. Board Member Erb — Well, how would we feel if there was a major fire there, that close to Cascadilla Creek, with all the water runoff from a toxic fire. I bet the stormwater prevention system is not created to handle the runoff from suppressing a blaze. Mr. Walker — The stormwater bio- filtration system was designed to treat the water off the parking lots, not off the buildings. Board Member Erb — I am pointing out that we are very close to Cascadilla Creek. Mr. Kanter — I think what the Planning Board might want to consider is further conditioning the approval, whether it's the site plan or the special permit, I don't know, or both, on the installation of the required sprinkler system, or the granting by the ZBA of the necessary variances, and that certainly would be appropriate for the Board to consider. Ms. Brock — There is a variance in place right now. Ms. Kiley — Right, that's why I asked Kristie... Ms. Brock — Is it time limited? I'm not sure I see the variance in front of me,,. let's see... Mr. Kanter —That's our understanding... Board Member Conneman — You're going to let this go on for 10 more years? Ms. Brock — I mean, if there is already a valid variance in place, I'm not sure we have the ability to say `you have to either put in sprinklers or go back and get a variance.' Board Member Erb — But I thought I heard Darby say it was granted for 5 years on the argument that it was only a temporary, very short-term building. PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 10 Ms. Brock — Then let me see if there is an ability to reopen the variance process based on new information. Chairperson Howe — So you are just going by the discussion, it may not have been reflected in the actual resolution? When you say you are going by the minutes of... Ms. Kiley — Yeah, and I don't know what's.. . Ms. Brock — Well, hold on here ... I am looking at it right now. Give me a minute. Everyone starts talking while Susan reviews Chairperson Howe — I think it's okay to move forward on the SEQR, and why don't open the public hearing at 7:25 and if there is anyone who would like to address the Board on this issue, if you would raise your hand. We will keep the public hearing open a little bit. Anyone want to move the SEQR? Board Member Thayer — I'll move the SEQR. Chairperson Howe — Is there a second? Board Member Erb — I'll second it. Chairperson Howe — Any proposed changes? Ms. Kiley — Other than the things that Fred mentioned in the beginning there, with the medium density changed to low density and change that... Ms. Brock — So in the resolution itself ...oh, we have it right in the resolution. Chairperson Howe — All those in favor, .,you're not voting.... Board Member Talty — No, I .... Everyone talking, determined that Kevin Talty is a voting member for the evening. Chairperson Howe — Okay ... so ... unanimous... PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 11 ADOPTED RESOLUTION PB RESOLUTION NO. 2008= 077 SEAR Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit Cornell University Wilson Lab Modular Offices Time Extension Tax Parcel No. 63 -1 -8.2 Dryden Road (NYS Rt 366) at Wilson Lab Entrance Planning Board, September 2, 2008 MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Hollis Erb. WHEREAS: 1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed time extension for the Cornell University Wilson Lab Modular Offices located north of the intersection of Dryden Road (NYS Route 366) and Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -8.2, Low Density Residential Zone. This proposal involves a request for a 10 year extension of the Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the modular laboratory and office spaces currently situated at the Wilson Laboratory complex. The modular offices received Site Plan Approval in 2000, which expires on December 319 2008. There are no modifications, improvements, additional development or other changes proposed as part of this request. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Steve Beyers, P.E., Engineering Services Leader, Agent 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 this project, and 3. The Planning Board, on September 2, 2008, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, a Request for Extension of Site Plan Approval Narrative with attachments, date - stamped July 25, 2008, prepared by Steve Beyers, and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed trailer replacement project, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced actions as proposed based on the information in the PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 12 EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part II, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Howe, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Talty, Erb, Wilcox. NAYS: None. Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Howe — Did you find anything... Ms. Brock — There is no time limit on the variance. In 1993 the ZBA granted the sprinkler variance, made findings and conditions... one of the findings is that "the structures are temporary in nature" and another finding was "because of the temporary nature of the use of the building's, the imposition of the sprinkler requirement would pose an unreasonable and unnecessary economic hardship" which is the standard you have to meet to get the sprinkler variance. They certainly took into consideration the fact that the buildings were temporary, but they did not impose any time limit on the variance or expiration date. Board Member Erb — I'm honestly uncomfortable because "temporary that's 5 years is very different than "temporary' that's going out from 1993 — 2018. Board Member Conneman — I agree. And it seems to me Cornell would want to do it, even if it's not required. Chairperson Howe — Well, whether we are uncomfortable or not, what leeway do we have Susan? Ms. Brock — New information comes in, or where information, application turns out not to bear out, for whatever reason, decisions can be revisited but I believe the correct body to do that would be the ZBA. Chairperson Howe — So we don't even make a recommendation to the ZBA... Ms. Brock — You certainly would have that ability, sure, to state that you request that they take another look at that variance based on a change in circumstances. Board Member Erb — That would be my argument. There is a change in circumstance. It's not nearly as temporary as someone thought it was going to be. Board Member Wilcox — But if I read Susan right, that would be a separate recommendation to the ZBA and would probably not be attached to any consideration of approval of what's in front of us, right? PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 13 Ms. Brock — I don't know what you mean by attached... Board Member Wilcox — We can't condition this approval, special permit, on the ZBA granting a variance? Ms. Brock — No, I don't think you can do that. Board Member Wilcox — No, we can't do that. Mr. Kanter -- I think though, you could get back to that discussion of the length of time for the approval that you might be giving, that that might be a factor that you could consider. Board Member Wilcox — Well that would be to make the approval for 60 days, subject to dealing with the sprinkler issue... Mr. Kanter —Or 5 years... Board Member Wilcox — Or 60 days. I mean that gets them to the ZBA to solve the problem. Of course, solving the problem means either the ZBA decides they do need sprinklers or the ZBA decides they do not need sprinklers; that doesn't mean they have sprinklers installed in 30 days. It's just not going to happen, I realize that. Mr. Kanter — No, but the Board could consider granting the special permit for 5 years as opposed to 10 years based on that as one of the considerations, I think, because of the temporary nature of the proposal. Board Member Riha — Well, that's solves your problem. We're saying if it's another 5 years, they should have a sprinkler system. Board Member Thayer — How much of a problem is it to install sprinklers in that building? Mr. Beyers — Well I don't think anybody can say for sure because, quite frankly, it wasn't until today that we became aware that might be an issue. If there's enough water pressure and if the water's there, then it's a significant amount of money, we think about $20,000, $5 a square foot, based on some recent experience, but we don't know for sure that there's the adequate water pressure and all that and if there's not, then it gets ... then you need a pump and the electric might not serve the pump and it becomes this, you know, cascading issue. So, hopefully that's not the case, but, you know, it's basically $20,000 and up, most likely. Board Member Talty — Are those wet or dry... Mr. Beyers — That would be wet. PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 14 Dr. Bilderbach — The other complications is, usually we would go right along with you, but our lab has taken a real hit in funding this year, so... Board Member Conneman — So has everybody else. Dr. Bilderbach — Yup... Board Member Talty — But funding is not the issue... Dr. Bilderbach — Well funding is an issue for us. We've had... Board Member Conneman — Well, I feel uncomfortable voting for this if there isn't some kind of attempt to get Cornell to install sprinklers. Chairperson Howe — Well maybe a compromise is to use 5 years as a time period because you will have a better understanding of ... in 5 years, what will you know about the future project? Dr. Bilderbach — We hopefully will know whether ERL is funded in a 5 year time from now. Chairperson Howe — So, it doesn't give them 10 years without the sprinkler, it puts some time limit on that. So ... Fred's not happy with that... Board Member Wilcox — If 10 years without a sprinkler is a problem, 5 years without a sprinkler is still a problem. One year without a sprinkler is a problem. You know, it's not like the chance of a fire is not greater... granted, a chance of a fire over a 10 -year period is greater than the chance of a fire over a 5 -year period or a 1 -year period, but nonetheless, there is a safety issue here. Chairperson Howe — Hollis, this is a safety issue for you... Board Member Erb — To me it's a public safety issue and it's also respect for what the process was in 1993 when I honestly believe part of the argument granting the variance was likely to have been "it's a very short-term building." Board Member Talty — I'm struggling with two things ... the word temporary, because what's temporary? My temporary's different from everybody else on this Board, but I can tell you 20 years is not temporary in my mind. And secondly, I hate to go and grant a 5 -year period, and all of a sudden there's a fire tomorrow. I don't think I could live with myself on that. So I'm glad that these points were brought up. So given that, I'm all about putting safety measures into place. Chairperson Howe — Susan. PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 15 Board Member Riha — I think we should address these issues somehow, it's just not clear to me how to do it. Chairperson Howe — Larry. Board Member Thayer — I would agree with that. Board Member Conneman — I would agree. I don't think I want to vote yes on something when safety is involved because if anything happens, I want the minutes to show that I had the guts to vote no. Board Member Riha — But, if I am clear on this, there are 2 different approvals here, one for the 4,000 and one for the 7,000? Or not? Or they want them extended under the same... Ms. Brock —Right. So... Board Member Riha — So there's no problem with the 7,000 right? We're all agreed that that's fine... Ms. Brock — Right. So the special approval the ZBA granted is expiring for both buildings at the end of this year. So now, you have special permit authority instead of the ZBA having special approval authority for this type of building so you're granting a special permit now and it would cover both buildings. Board Member Thayer— I'm confused why the variance doesn't expire. Ms. Brock — It just isn't written in to the resolution, that there would be any expiration. Board Member Erb — Is it logical to think that a variance would live longer than the permit? Board Member Thayer — Yeah, that would be my feeling. Seems like it would expire at the same time, logically, right? Board Member Erb — And the second question I have for you is: could we sort of sever these two permit processes? I sense that the newer building, that has sprinklers, that is to the east, the one closer to the big parking lot that disturbed me, is probably not an issue here tonight except for the length of time and we're probably going to go along with the idea of a 10 year. The problem I have is with the western -most, the older building, and to me, to have a concept of a variance lasting longer than the permit itself somehow doesn't sit well. Ms. Brock — Well it's true, if a special approval expires then they aren't allowed to have that building there anymore, so it doesn't matter if the variance is time limited or not. Because now you are saying you can not use and occupy this building for these PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 16 purposes. But whether we can infer that the variance itself was time- limited and had to be resurrected every time the special approval was extended, I'm not sure that's a good inference that we can draw. Because it seems that they should have directly addressed the variance every time they extended the special approval, under that theory. Board Member Wilcox — She just gave us a great solution, at least in my mind, which is; we would separate them. The larger building with the sprinkler system, we can go ahead, we can grant the special permit. The other one, we can deny the special permit. Why do we deny it? Because it doesn't have sprinklers. That gives them between now and the end of the year, when their special approval runs out, to deal with it. Chairperson Howe — Well, or they go back to ZBA and ... People talking over each other. Board Member Erb — If the ZBA is willing to say... Board Member Riha — Another variance? Board Member Wilcox — No, no, I think they deal with it by putting in sprinklers, the plan for sprinklers, and they come back to us, right? Ms. Brock — Well I don't know ... you're denying it because they don't have sprinklers, but they have a valid variance. Board Member Wilcox - I hear what ... and the issue is, you're right and we shouldn't do that, given what the ZBA did, but as Hollis said, the variance was given because the building was only supposed to be there 5 years, not 25 years. Board Member Erb — And it's already been there 15. It's been there 3 4imes longer than was anticipated. Board Member Talty — It comes back to the word "temporar/' Board Member Riha -- It's that and this grandfather thing. I mean, presumably there are no structures like this that would now not have sprinklers systems, even if they were starting a... Ms. Brock — Well, no, the ZBA does grant sprinkler variances all the time for buildings that are required under our Code to have sprinklers. They do grant variances. I mean, one thing I'm thinking of is: since all of these issues were raised tonight for the first time and we are all collectively trying to grapple with them together, maybe you can move ahead with the approvals for the 7,000 square foot building and defer decisions for a month on the 4,000 square foot building until Cornell had a chance, actually, to talk internally too about all these issues and we've had a chance too to look at the legal PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 17 ramifications and try to figure out, if you do act, it means why, which is a little hard for me to do because it was just brought to my attention tonight. Chairperson Howe — I think that makes perfect sense because there is enough of a gray area here... Board Member Erb — It works for me. I just don't like the idea of back - dooring a public safety issue for 25 years. Board Member Conneman — So where does it say this in the resolution? Chairperson Howe — Are others comfortable with this... Everyone talking... Chairperson Howe — is everyone good with that approach? Everyone talking.... Ms. Brock — Adjourning until the next... Board Member Erb — Until it can be rescheduled... Chairperson Howe — You understand why we feel the need... Mr. Beyers — I do understand. I would like to point out that, and I don't know this building very well, I'm not really familiar with the systems, but we're chatting here....The building has 4 exits, it's a rather small .building, it has a lot of fire protection systems in it. It's not a place where people sleep, it's not a place for public assembly. The risk, there is always a balance of risk. The Town's sprinkler ordinance is the most strict ordinance of anywhere, anyplace. I mean, I don't know how many people are aware of that, but this is not like a State law... Board Member Erb — Good for us. Mr. Beyers — Well, it might be good, but, and, certainly Cornell, you know, the old sprinkler over a bed, or a detector over a bed, this is a really big thing, but there are different uses and there are different risks, and you know, when they approved the building they may have considered the temporary building as one of the conditions, but that doesn't mean that's the only thing that they looked at and that's the only reason they approved it. So we're all talking it's black and white, like people are going to die if we don't put them in right now, and I think we just have to balance it... Chairperson Howe — That's the reason to just get more information. Mr. Beyers — That's right. PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 18 Board Member Conneman — Safety is a black- and -white issue. Chairperson Howe — No, how many people work in the building, where are the exits,. so, we can make the decision with as much information in front of us as possible. Everyone still okay with this approach? So how long will it take to revise this to pull out the 4,000? Board Member Wilcox — Susan is amazing at rewriting resolutions on the fly, truly amazing. Chairperson Howe — I'm going to close the public hearing at 7:40p.m. Ms. Brock — Maybe while I'm writing, Jonathan can talk to you about dates for this to come up again. Mr. Kanter — Yeah, well it turns out, if it worked out, we could revisit this as soon as the next meeting September 16th. We have that Cornell TGEIS public hearing and we have one other small item. We were .going to have the Cornell East Hill Data Center sketch plan but we haven't received anything yet, so that's not likely to be on that meeting. So if we heard back from Cornell soon enough, actually, Mike was just saying we would need to now by this Friday to schedule it for this upcoming... Mr. Beyers — So we would like to be here the next meeting too. I'm not sure what you're asking us for....What would you like us to ... like a proposal for how to make ... either bring sprinklers or some other kind of issue like that? I'm not sure. Chairperson Howe — I think it's providing us with as much information about how the building is used now, the number of occupants... Board Member Riha — If you think they don't need sprinklers, why.... Chairperson Howe — You would need to make a case... Mr. Beyers — But that's really a case that, it sounds like that's a case for the ZBA, rather than this Board, right? Board Member Conneman — Why? Chairperson Howe — That's probably true. Mr. Beyers — Because it's not really a site plan issue, it's a safety issue, a code issue. Board Member Riha — Right, right, right. I understand. Ms. Brock — That's true. That type of information is typically what the ZBA considers. Chairperson Howe — But since we are also tied into now the special permit. PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 19 Board Member Conneman — We've been asked to extend it. Mr. Kanter — Well another question that I don't think anybody would be able to answer except the ZBA themselves is what their intent was when they referred to the facility as "temporary in nature" in granting the sprinkler variance without an additional time limit specified on the sprinkler variance. The discussions indicated the temporary nature of the buildings, but then their finding and determination did not include a time limit on the sprinkler variance. So the question is; did the Zoning Board, when they granted the approval, assume that it was because it was a very short-term, short-lived facility, or, didn't they care. Board Member Riha — A point of clarification Jonathan, this, granting a permit for a temporary building, is there something else? I mean, does a temporary building differ from a permanent building, and other things that are about to fall apart? Or is a temporary building kind of more or less like a permanent building. Mr. Kanter — In terms of special permit and special approvals, there is no difference. In terms of building codes, I don't know. That's a whole different question. Board Member Riha — Because,. but, for some reason, just because we never gave, the Planning Board never gave any approval for a permanent building... then they wouldn't have... Board Member Wilcox — There would have .... The building itself is temporary. It's brought in on wheels and...l think we're referring to...the question is; does temporary refer to how long it's on or the fact that it's modular... Mr. Kanter — How long it was intended to be there. That's why I say ... the building code differences I can't tell you because I don't know the details of the code and I don't know the details of the building. Therefore, I don't know the details of the building code. Mr. Walker — Basically, the building code, it's considered manufactured housing. So the inspections of the construction of the housing is actually at the plant where it's built and then the foundations have to meet the current code in the Town for them to put the building on. Board Member Riha — But anybody who had a building like that, they couldn't just have a permanent occupancy, you know, go and get a ... they would have to come back every so many years to the Planning Board... Mr. Walker — No. Mr. Kanter — Not necessarily. Board Member Riha — So it was just a choice on Cornell's part to say... PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 20 Mr. Kanter — Yeah, Cornell did not intend that they should last more than 5 years, initially, and then, more than the next 5 years, and then....which always, whenever we have these things, the question is; Are these temporary buildings? Board Member Riha — Why not just... Mr. Kanter —Are these temporary buildings? Board Member Riha — And even if they're going to be temporary, why not just say, well, I don't know, temporary could be 5, 10, 20 years and we just want to build. Mr. Kanter — The thing is, whenever there's a temporary term limit, it's always assumed that they won't come back. There are some cases where we have had 5 year approvals subject to renewal come back to our Board and we will consider. There are others that say this is good for 5 years and it's over, but then the applicant comes back for another 5 years, and even if you said at the end of the approval, as a finding, that this shall not be renewed, I'm not sure how legal that would be, I don't know. Board Member Wilcox — It's also possible, and I don't remember, that Cornell University thought that this Board might not approve the permanent placement of temporary structures. So to sort of appease this Board, they might have said, well, let's ask for just 5 years, as sort of a compromise if you will, in order to get this Board to grant the approval for modular trailers in this location. That's possible as well. Chairperson Howe — Let's see what we come up with... Ms. Brock — Another way to approach this is to adjourn this until 2 meetings from now, October 7t' or such other date as would be mutually convenient to both Cornell and the Planning Board and in the meantime we can figure out whether in fact something really needs to go to the ZBA first, before it comes back here. And that way, if we determine that the sprinkler variance does need to be reopened, the ZBA has an opportunity to take a look at that and then you will know the status of that whole issue when it gets back to you. I think that probably makes more sense than asking them to come back here in 2 weeks with a lot of information that really is relevant to the ZBA. Mr. Kanter — So I guess the question would be; what would this Board need in order to make that judgment? Would they need a letter from the Code Enforcement Office basically confirming, basically, what I think Kristie told Darby, which was that in her mind, in Kristie's mind, because now this had gone beyond the short-term, temporary building, in her opinion, it should be sprinklered, as the Code Enforcement Officer, that's her opinion. Board Member Wilcox — Do we want a ZBA determination? Board Member Riha — Yeah. PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 21 Ms. Brock — If in fact it's appropriate to bring this back to them, I mean, the standards to reopen decisions that .I was telling you about before apply to things like site plans and subdivision approvals. I assume that would also apply to reopening a variance, but I've never had occasion before to research that. So we need to see what are the standards to look at to reopen a variance and then if we feel the criteria are there to do that, then it can be brought to the ZBA. Board Member Erb — I thought you indicated a change in circumstances. Ms. Brock — That applies to reopening subdivision approvals, for example... Board Member Erb — But not revisiting a variance... Ms. Brock — Right. And there are certain...l'm generalizing a little bit too much, but don't know. I don't know about the variance. I am assuming...if there were certain assumptions made about what the building would contain, or how long it would be there, and those assumptions have not been borne out for whatever reason, that that could be grounds to reopen a variance. For example, I know Steve, you mentioned the building has 4 exits. The ZBA's variance states that the "building had by plan, 8 exits." and don't know if in fact there really are 8 or 4...1 think that ... that's why I am sort of proposing that you defer any decision on this particular building until we can sort out what's what. Because you also have only just heard about this today too. So we have not had a chance to talk at all and I think....We can figure out legally what are the required steps. Who gets it first. Find out what the actual information is on the ground as well... Chairperson Howe — And what's the process? The code enforcement officer has made a determination that it would need sprinklers... Ms. Brock —Well.... Chairperson Howe — Where does that play out for the ZBA... Everyone talking.... Mr. Walker — It's not a formal determination... Mr. Kanter — It would probably be an opinion. Chairperson Howe — So the opinion would still go then to the ZBA. Mr. Walker — Well. What's the action? Chairperson Howe — I'm talking about if there was a determination about the sprinklers. Does the code enforcement officer make that decision or does it still go to the ZBA? PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 22 Mr. Walker — If ... the only time it goes to ZBA is if the code enforcement .officer denies something. Mr. Kanter — No, that's not correct. It's also when an action's before the Planning Board and it may or may not comply... inaudible... Everyone talking. Mr. Kanter -- ...then referred by the Planning there is a variance that was granted. What is Zoning Board intended the sprinkler variance I and in fact, they cited it as a temporary building coming back for another 5 or 10 year period granted the variance if that had been the case. Board to the Zoning Board. But here, not clear in the variance is whether the o be for, in effect, a permanent building and did they know that Cornell would be at this point and would they have still Chairperson Howe — And if we postpone, is there any reason to try and move forward on the newer building, or just do it as a package once we have all the information... Board Member Erb — I would as soon clean up the newer building so we are only leaving the one in Limbo. Chairperson Howe — Is that the language you are working on? Board Member Wilcox — We have done SEQR on both. Board Member Riha — Well the SEQR's okay. Ms. Brock — You can do SEAR at one meeting and make your final decision at another meeting. Board Member Wilcox — We can do SEQR for something that we end up bifurcating into 2 separate approvals? One SEQR for 2 distinctive approvals? Is that okay? Ms. Brock — Sure. Board Member Wilcox — Okay approvals. I'm not sure I've ever done that. One SEAR for two Chairperson Howe — We could spend another hour on this probably, so, let's have the...lt sounds like we are going to try to move forward just on the newer building. And Susan, do you want to read through the language that you've proposed for that. Ms. Brock — Sure. The whereas clauses are fine the way they're written because that's just setting out what was brought before you. Now therefore be it resolved and then add this new paragraph; "That the Planning Board hereby adjourns consideration of the proposed time extension for special permit and site plan approval for the 4,200 + /- PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 23 square foot modular building at the Wilson Laboratory Complex until October 7, 2008 or such other date that is mutually convenient to Cornell University and the Planning Board." And be it further resolved. ..and then we pick up the printed text in front of you with these modifications ... I'll read the paragraph; "That the Planning Board hereby grant special permit for the proposed time extension for the 7,056 + /- square foot modular building in the Wilson Laboratory Complex, finding that the standards of Article XXIV Section 270 -200, subsections A -L of the Town of Ithaca Code have been met and subject to the following conditions: a. That such special permit shall expire on December 31, 2018, and Be it further resolved Keep the first paragraph the same about waiving the requirements for preliminary and final site plan approval. And 2. will be modified as follows: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants preliminary and final site plan approval until December 31, 2018 for the 7,056 +/- square foot modular building in the Wilson Laboratory Complex located north of ...and the rest of the paragraph would remain the same. Board Member Erb — Susan, if the planting plan�that was in our packet was supposedly not the correct one, do we have to do some reference to the planting plan that was then passed around this evening? Ms. Brock — So that would be back under the whereas clauses, under paragraph 3 where it talks about the Planning Board reviewing and accepting as adequate, application materials... after the reference to the site plan approval narrative with attachments date stamped July 25, 2008 prepared by Steven Beyers, you can add "and planting plan L102 dated 9/8/00 and last revised on 2/5/01." Chairperson Howe — And you understand why we're braking these ... Any other... Ms. Brock — And actually then, on the last be it further resolved clause, there's a reference to the site plan as described in the narrative and then we need to add, after the "date stamped July 25, 2008," the same verbiage "and planting planL102 dated 9/8/00 and last revised on 2/5/01 11 Chairperson Howe — Everyone okay with that? Is there a motion to move the revised resolution? Kevin? Board Member Talty —So moved. Chairperson Howe — Seconded by Hollis....all those in favor.... PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 24 ADOPTED RESOLUTION PB RESOLUTION NO...2008 -078 Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit Cornell University Wilson Lab Modular Offices Time Extension Tax Parcel No. 63 -1 -8.2 Dryden Road (NYS Rt 366) at Wilson Lab Entrance Planning Board, September 2, 2008 MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by Hollis Erb. WHEREAS: 1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed time extension for the Cornell University Wilson Lab Modular Offices located north of the intersection of Dryden Road (NYS Route 366) and Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -8.2, Low Density Residential Zone. This proposal involves a request for a 10 year extension of the Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the modular laboratory and office spaces currently situated at the Wilson Laboratory complex. The modular offices received Site Plan Approval in 2000, which expires on December 31, 2008. There are no modifications, improvements, additional development or other changes proposed as part of this request. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Steve Beyers, P.E., Engineering Services Leader, Agent 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 the project has, on September 2, 2008, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on September 2, 2008, has reviewed and accepted as adequate application materials, including a Request for Extension of Site Plan Approval Narrative with attachments, date - stamped July 25, 2008, prepared by Steve Beyers, and Planting Plan L102, dated September 8, 2000, last revised on February 5, 2001, and other application materials, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. That the Planning Board hereby adjourns consideration of the proposed time extension for special permit and site plan approval for the 4,200 +/- square foot modular building at the Wilson Laboratory complex until October 7, 2008 or such other date that is mutually convenient to Cornell University and the Planning Board, and PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 25 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the proposed time extension for the 7,056 +/- square foot modular building in the Wilson Laboratory complex, finding that the standards of Article XXIV Section 270 -200, Subsections A — L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met and subject to the following condition, That such Special Permit shall expire on December 31, 2018, and AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 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 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval until December 31, 2018 for the 7,056 +/- square foot modular building in the Wilson Laboratory complex located north of the intersection of Dryden Road (NYS Route 366) and Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -8.2, Low Density Residential Zone, as described in the Wilson Laboratory Modular Offices Request for Extension of Site Plan Approval Narrative with attachments, date - stamped July 25, 2008, and Planting Plan L102, dated September 8, 2000, last revised on February 5, 2001. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Howe, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Talty, Erb, Wilcox. NAYS: None. Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Howe — So you know what you need to do... Mr. Beyers — Well actually, we're chatting here and, having some experience with the Zoning Board, if the zoning officer has already decided that it's not a safe building, it doesn't really make sense for us to waste time and go in front of the Zoning Board because they are going to respect the opinion of their own building commissioner, we expect. So, ... People laugh and then talk over each other... Ms. Kiley — I would just say that Kristie did not look at anything. I just gave her a two - line, "this is what's going on ", and that was her response. Board Member Wilcox — It's also possible, you may do over the next couple of weeks review a previous decision. PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 26 Susan, that based upon some research that that the Zoning Board can not go back and Ms. Brock — That's possible. I just have not researched that issue for tonight. Mr. Beyers — I'll withdraw my comment I guess... Mr. Walker — If you would volunteer to put sprinklers in we wouldn't be unhappy. Mr. Beyers — Well, if that's the only option to keeping the buildings open then we would go back and find out how we can get that done I guess. There isn't money in their funding to do that, but, if we have to keep the building open, we have to keep the building open somehow. So.... Board Member Conneman — That would be an excellent idea....just do it. Chairperson Howe — So Steve, do you have any questions about what you need as you move forward... Board Member Erb — I guess, also, if Tom Parsons came here and said he really doesn't care.... Board Member Wilcox — You're right, if Tom Parsons said that ... you Ire right ... I don't think Tom Parsons is going to say that.... Board Member Riha — So you're saying if Tom Parsons said the protection is adequate... Board. Member Erb -- ...I would let it go. I would take him as an expert with the public safety foremost in his mind. And if he said I'm fine with it, let it go, I would let it go. Chairperson Howe — Okay, but we're all speculating now... Board Member Erb — I'm just presenting another option... Board Member Talty — I just want to say that two weeks ago I have to put every single detail down because Boards change, inadequate, and this is a case in point that as you go forward.. tonight is assume. We should not assume anything. So make down on both sides of the fence and then, 6 years from now, now, we won't be having these types of discussions. made the point that you minutes are sometimes .the common word here sure we put every detail 8 years, 10 years from Chairperson Howe — So Steve, it sounds like you will be talking to Darby and Susan... PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 27 Mr. Beyers — Right. I guess I'm not really clear on our next action right now. Maybe we could restate that, because I'm not really clear on that. Ms. Brock — I think Town Staff and I will be doing some research and conferring and we will be contacting you to let you know the recommended course of action. Mr. Beyers — So are we ... is it possible, we will still be on the agenda for the next meeting? Because it affects some peoples schedules. Mr. Kanter — The soonest will be October 7th, as stated in this resolution. Ms. Brock —Right. I'm not sure... Mr. Beyers — Like, Dr. Bilderbach will be overseas that week, in October. Ms. Brock — I mean, if in fact you need to go to the ZBA, I think, I don't know if you can get before them this month.. would that be too tight? Mr. Kanter — Well the other consideration is that we have our new Code Enforcement Director who just started today, and I don't think that he's even aware of this entire situation so we will have to have some additional, internal conversations. Ms. Brock — And if October 7th is inconvenient for you, we can certainly look at the meeting 2 weeks later. Mr. Beyers — I guess I'm just concerned that if it comes down to we need to put them in, and we need to do it before December 31St and you know, we're already starting kind of late now, just because of the processes we take to do things. So, that's where I'm coming from. Chairperson Howe — Couldn't there be some special time extension if that was the course that was decided... Ms. Brock — Certainly. Mr. Beyers — So, one option, for example, would be we could have a resolution that we pass tonight that says it's extended, but you have to have sprinklers within 6 months, and then if, for some reason, and we thought, well, we need to fight this, I guess we'd come back and we'd have to have some other action, but that would settle it for now and that would be our course of action for now. If we commit to putting sprinklers in within 6 months. Ms. Brock — We're really getting hypothetical... Chairperson Howe — I think you should just wait to hear back after Susan and Staff confer. PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 28 Board Member Wilcox — Wait a minute. We at this end would like to make a point. The two of us at this end (Fred and Hollis) if they came back in 2 weeks and said, we agree and commit to having sprinkler systems installed in 6 months, we'd go. People talking over each other. SEAR Determination, Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed site improvements: LaTourelle Resort & Spa Site Improvements, 1150 Danbv Road. Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 36- 1 -4.2: 36 -1 -4.3 and 36- 14.5, Planned Development Zone No. 1 and Medium Density Residential Zone. This proiect involves the installation of multiple site elements around the Resorts grounds including a new pond (50' x 401, a natural plunge pool (13' diameter), two hot tubs, four gazebos, a storage shed, privacy fencing in several locations, a low ropes course, a new outdoor walk -in cooler, show grapes near Danbv Road, an arch and expanded brick patio for the cafe, additional signage, and decorative lighting. Many of the elements (pond, hot tubs, and gazebos) have already been installed on the property. This proposal also includes subdividing a narrow strip ( +/- 0.43 acres) along the southern boundary of tax parcels 36 -1 -4.2 and 36 -1 -4.3 to be consolidated with tax parcel 36 -14.5 (LaTourelle Resort property). The subdivision proposal also includes subdividing a +/- 3.27 acre parcel from tax parcel 36- 1 -4.2, to be consolidated with 36 -1 -4.3 for construction of a residence. Walter J. Wiggins and Kaethe, Nathalie and Xavier Bessou, Owners /Applicants; Scott D. Wiggins, Managing Director, Agent. People talking over each other. Chairperson' Howe — As you know, it's always frustrating coming before the Board with some things that have already happened without the proper procedures. Board Member Riha — Which it is clear they were aware of. Chairperson Howe — Anyway, why don't we just start. We'll go from there. Scott Wiggins, Managing Director; Walter Wiggins, Father Scott Wiggins — So we are basically here to request permission to do a number of site improvements to LaTourelle Resort and Spa. Our goal is to build the best destination resort and spa in the Finger Lakes and Northeast Region and we are continuing to try and improve our property to make the guest experience better, to be able to employee more employees and t be a destination resort and spa which will bring high -end customers to spend their money in the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County, acknowledge that we have acted before we asked in some of the components in the plan in front of you tonight, and beyond that, I would be happy to answer any questions, or we can go through the entire plan. PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 29 Chairperson Howe — Well, it might be worth just reviewing what's already ... we have it in front of us, but just to make sure we are all clear on what's ... how many people had a chance to go up and look around? Sounds like most of us did. So maybe it's easier to start with what's not been built yet that you are talking about. Because much of it has happened already. Board Member Talty — Before we start, I'm not comfortable with that. I'll tell you what I'm comfortable with, is, are you in receipt of this letter that was to Walter that was sent by our Senior Code Enforcement Officer? Scott Wiggins — Yes Mr. Talty, I am Board Member Talty — Okay. I would like to know why this is ... why LaTourelle is habitually and continuously going through these gyrations and wasting our time. That's what I want to know, and I think everybody else on this Board wants to know the same thing, before we look at anything. Board Member Conneman — If you remember, there was a parking lot that was built without permission also. It seems to me that you people of all people ought to know what the rules are, and you seem to violate the rules... Board Member Talty — Continuously, habitually. Board Member Conneman -- ...that's my concern. Walter Wiggins — The problem is certainly not Scott's, it's mine. I go back a long way and we proceeded many times because we really didn't know what we wanted to do until we did it. To see whether it would work. We didn't know if we had the money to go forward with the plan. I'm not trying to justify it, I'm trying to explain it. And Scott, since he's taken over, he's indeed, I think, done the best job we've ever done in trying to go forward. First with the application and then your approval. Board Member Conneman — But you are an attorney and you know the rules, I mean, you're not somebody from the hills someplace that doesn't know what the rules are. Walter Wiggins — You're right. Board Member Conneman — Okay. I just want you to admit that because I don't understand... Walter Wiggins — I admit it. I would just ask you to understand that we face...probably... we buy a gazebo up the road, we put it on the site, and then we're asked to provide manufacturer's specifications. You know, so we go to the Amish and say "where are the manufacturer's specifications ?" "Well we've been building these for 100 years..." You're right, we should have done that and we didn't and that's my fault, not Scott's and I'll take the blame for all of it. PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 30 Board Member Talty — It just puts us in a tough position because, although I understand exactly what you are saying about funding, and dimensions, and criteria of that sort, if every applicant came in front of us and did what you're doing...we'd have to meet weekly. Walter Wiggins — You're right. Scott Wiggins — If I could address that please...As we move forward, I believe my father has addressed your concerns as they stand up until today, I have worked hard since I came onboard to try to get us into full compliance. I am committed, as we move forward, and this is now my day -to -day responsibility, and that is now going to be the rest of my life, as my father has built this and I plan on continuing that, that I will show respect and all the. ..and do things the proper way as we move forward. I know those are my words today, and I ask that you hold me accountable to them. I know that we have been frustrating to you at times in the past and I'm committed to not doing that as we move forward and my father has spent the better part of his life building a very special place out of a small, what used to be a small farm, and I have now joined that dream and I will be spending the rest of my life making it the best it can be and I will be respectful to this organization and the Town employees in that process. Chairperson Howe — How long have you now been part of the business? Just so we have some... Scott Wiggins — I started at LaTourelle in April of 2007. Chairperson Howe — Just so we reference all of the other material in front of us. Are you also aware of the correspondence we got from Steven Maybe about the ... he's a public health engineer with the Tompkins County Health Department? Scott Wiggins — Yes, I had a preliminary conversation with Mr. Maybe a number of month sago saying with do I need to do in addition to what I am trying to do with for the Town to get this approved by the Health Department. We discussed the concept of a natural plunge pool. He advised me that I would have to get a variance from the State to have that. At the same time, I was advised that what had been constructed, we were supposed to cease any further development of that space and lock down those spaces in such a way that they could not be used. So they are not, the hot tubs or the plunge pool, are not in any type of operation. Our guests are not using them. They are using the stone patio that is around those elements. I've had an engineer come up and look at that natural plunge pool. It will need some modifications to get approval from the Health Department, even as a chemicalized plunge pool. We are in dialogue about whether we are prepared to make those investments in that or whether we will fill it up to less than 24 inches and have a small koi pond there rather than a human plunge pool there. To be quite frank, we haven't made that decision yet as the engineer that brought up, who came up two weeks ago and shared that information, we've been trying to cost -out those necessary improvements to get it approved by the Health Department. I have not reached out to Mr. Maybe yet to get approval on the hot tub because I was PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 31 waiting to come through this Board to get site plan approval and I am trying to be respectful of that process first before we then assume, once we got this approval we could put them into operation. If we do get approval today, we will certainly approach Mr. Maybe and the Tompkins County Health Department about getting those hot tubs into operation and what we need to do to accomplish that. Board Member Riha — So Rod, I have a question about that, given the conversation we just went through with Cornell. If there aren't approvals in place for this right now, then why would we approve it? And it's not clear whether they're going to be approved. Why can't ... why would we be waiting until ,.approval because there's a public safety hazard just like the fire. So just like we said we didn't want Cornell figuring out whether that's okay or not, it seems like we shouldn't be approving this until it's been determined that... Mr. Walker — Well, I can answer that. Let's assume that the site looks like this picture and that they came in with this proposal and they said we want to build a pool that's 10 feet or 15 feet in diameter, whatever that is, and we want to put in some hot tubs as part of this spa and build a patio. You would be able to look at that site plan and say, okay, you can do that and we'll approve the site plan. Then it would be up to the, they would have to get a building permit and also permits from the Health Department after the fact. They can make that pool meet Health Department criteria, I believe. It might be too costly for them and they may not decide to do that, but, I mean, a swimming pool can be made safe. You've got to put fences around it, you've got to put chemicals in it, you've got to... Board Member Riha — So we don't have to approve any of that? Mr. Walker — No, you're approving the site plan that has a pool in it, has a patio, has gazebos, has hot tubs. Board Member Riha — So we don't have to be concerned about whether it has fences or not? That's all up to... Mr. Walker — Well that should be part of the site plan review. They should know that to put a pool in, they have to put a 4 -foot or a 42 -inch fence around ... and they've got all those details in the site plan. So that part of it you would approve. You want round rails, square rails, that type of thing is in your purview. Whether or not it meets the building and health codes is up to the Health Department and they may make them put in certain filtration systems or re- circulating systems, but, that would... Board Member Wilcox — That's normally how we operate. Board Member Riha — Although normally it wouldn't have been built... Board Member Wilcox — Correct. PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 32 Board Member Riha — So it's kind of, you know, again, the building permit people, they've already passed the permitting point... Board Member Thayer -- No, they haven't issued any building permits. Mr. Walker —There have been no building permits issued. Board Member Riha — So in theory, the building department could say you have to take this all out. Mr. Walker - If you say they cannot have it, they would have to take it all out. Board Member Riha — Yeah, but if we're saying ... okay, it's already all there, but we're saying if we approve.. the theory that it could be built, then the building people have to issue a permit that says you can only build this and you're going to do X, Y and Z. But in fact it's already been built. Mr. Walker — It has to meet the building code,.. Now, in this particular case, the gazebos are kind of freestanding structures, there's no big foundation issues with it, I mean, they may have to dig something up to prove that they have the right foundation under it as part of getting it certified under the building code. As far as the Health Department goes, they have to know that the water is going to be circulated a certain number of times, it's going to be disinfected, things like that. Board Member Riha — Yeah, it just seems like this memo implied that as it was built now, it was not going to be approved. Mr. Walker — The Health Department memo, and that was because I don't believe they have a recirculation system or a disinfection system ... in the plunge pool. Scott Wiggins — We have a circulation system, it needs a double circulation system, top and bottom, but, yes: It will not, as it currently stands, will not pass Health Department regulations. The hot tubs, we don't believe is an issue, but again, once we started going through this process we put a hold on everything else to be respectful of the site planning process, at which point in time then we'll go through the building permit process including the Health Department and what they would need to do to approve putting one or all three of those elements into operation. Chairperson Howe — So maybe, Susan, I think you sort of suggested it, if you look at this, and then you look at,. maybe we should pretend, at least initially, that it's not there, and are there elements of the site plan that we are not happy with? Or are we comfortable with the site plan? And then figure out how to move forward. So pretend that they followed the rules, are there questions you have about elements in the site plan? And Mike, if there's anything you would like to chime in on... PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 33 Board Member Wilcox — Individually I have no problem with any of the amenities. They are useful, attractive, appropriate screened or hidden, you know, individually, I don't have an issue. The only one that I have an issue with is the one pond that's too close to the property line, but that's been identified and a solution has been brought forth, which has to do with subdivision land. They seem to be respectful, tasteful, well located on the property. Chairperson Howe — Okay, so that's a starting point. Any others... Board Member Thayer — I agree. Board Member Riha — Well I was still confused about, I read the SWPPP, and I was still unclear, and especially when I read this diagram about, and they are putting in a third pond, right? Unknown — It's there. Mr. Walker — Yes, they're putting in a new pond, and it's going to be ... (inaudible) ... the big pond is already there and that's nowhere near where the little pond will be. If you look at the site plan, you see a little dot just to the right of ... about a half an inch to the right of that gazebo, and that's an outlet structure for the storm drain, and I believe that's where the pond is. Chairperson Howe — Which map are you looking at... Board Member Wilcox — The map that shows the location of a single pond. Mr. Walker — It's a tiny little thing. Board Member Erb — And that is in fact the map that we have to deal with, correct? Mr. Walker — Yes. People shuffling papers, can't hear. Board Member Erb — The big map, I thought a while ago, we went through a process where we were told that either the most recent map, or the most recently dated map was the map, period, and as far as I'm aware, the most recent map is the one that was in the back pocket of the plastic little folder, and it's the one with the pink dot for the pond. Mr. Smith — Both the topographic and boundary survey map and the proposed subdivision map show all the elements that have already been built on the property. So that shows kind of an existing situation right now. The larger one that has kind of a colored identification shows some of the existing stuff, but that's showing more of what is being proposed of a lot of the smaller elements. PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 34 Board Member Erb — Is there more detail of the future... Mr. Smith — Yes. The two survey maps by Ragen Landsterdane actually show what has been constructed on the property. The location of the gazebos, the patio area, all of those elements are shown exactly where they are. Board Member Riha — So this northwestern pond then is going to be also like a runoff ... is that the idea Dan? Mr. Walker — The new pond? Board Member Riha — Yeah, the new pond, not the pink pond. Mr. Walker — Yeah but is that supposed to be serving as a stormwater control system? Board Member Erb — a swale is being constructed. Mr. Walker — This pond is already there, it shows on the aerial photo... Chairperson Howe — Which pond are you talking about Susan? Board Member Riha — I was thinking in the SWPPP, that they were referring to this pond, but they're referring to this pond? Mr. Smith — Right the one on the LaTourelle property. Board Member Scott Wiggins property. One other, in part, just in front of group. Riha — Oh. Okay. — We have two I by John Thomas ind then this small the resort here. )onds, now a third Steak House, one lily pond, which in do have a photog Chairperson Howe — So does that resolve it... pond, on the on the LaTourelle down below and these feed each theory we've constructed which is raph that would be helpful to this Board Member Riha — No, because in the SWPPP they were talking about, well, you can collect sediment in that, or you know, you weren't that concerned about it. So that's the pond we're talking about then, this little pink pond. So there's going to be a swale that will direct water in the direction... Mr. Smith — Back out to that other existing pond. That's where the water had been going before this. Board Member Riha — So if the pink pond overflowed, it would go into the swale that runs into the adjacent property. Okay. PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 35 Mr. Walker — The pink pond has a drainage area that's less than an acre. It's a nice little decorative pond. It stores a little bit of water, but the intent was not to store water. For the amount of disturbance they had, they were not required to store any water under our SWPPP. Board Member Wilcox — The purpose of this pond is as an amenity for the residents as opposed to stormwater management. Ms. Brock — Actually, can you clarify that ... So this pond that is on the area ... the 3.27 acre parcel that will be conveyed and consolidated with the 3.81 acre parcel, is that pond and swale serve the resort property? Board Member Riha — Because it kind of looks like it on this map. Board Member Erb — Is it part of the SWPPP? Mr. Smith — The older projects, when they added the addition to the hotel and stuff were directing the water to the south, to the lower pond, across the parking lot and in that direction. Ms. Brock — So what land does the pond and swale on the 3.72 acre parcel serve? Mr. Walker — That was just a farm pond that was there, and it doesn't show up very clearly on the map, but that wasn't... Ms. Brock — So it is not part of the SWPPP. Mr, Walker— No it is not part of the SWPPP as part of the development: It is an existing on site feature. Ms. Brock — Good, okay. Board Member Riha — This is the one with more detail... Chairperson Howe — Do others agree with Fred that if you saw this for the first time, the site plan elements you're fine with. You don't have any questions. I mean, we've addressed some things in the resolutions about lighting, you know, everything would have to conform. Mr. Smith — Yes, the lighting and the only other issue was the signage out by the road, and, we didn't have the details early enough to advertise that as part of this public hearing, a sign recommendation, to the Zoning Board, for the variances that they would need for that. So that will need to be conditioned or they're somehow going to have to come back for the recommendation on that portion of it. Chairperson Howe - ...gin the draft resolution? PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 36 Mr. Smith — I don't think so. Chairperson Howe — Granting of necessary sign variances. Mr. Smith — It talks about the sign variances...(not audible) ... the requirement to come back to the Planning Board first for a recommendation. Board Member Wilcox — I should actually point out, when I said I was comfortable with the site elements, I wasn't referring to the sign. The other thing I wasn't referring to was the proposed light that was going to shine up on the tree. Mr. S. Wiggins — We understand that. Board Member Wilcox — They look wonderful but... Mr. S. Wiggins — We understand. I am now very familiar with the Town's lighting law so we understand light can't go up. So we'll eliminate that request for lighting. Board Member Thayer — The freestanding light, too, has got exposed bulbs, which isn't what we want. Mr. S. Wiggins — Right. And the signage issue wa existing stone pole or stone pile, which holds a metal "La Tourelle" and "John Thomas Steakhouse" to that that sign just promoting the fact that we have a cafe not to add an additional freestanding sign out by the existing things that were already there and to be breakfast and lunch. s just to add a small sign on the signs, which holds signs that say, existing stone structure that holds open for lunch and dinner. It was road. It was to take advantage of able to promote a cafe that has Board Member Erb — I could argue that you revise your existing sign and get everything on it. Mr. S. Wiggins — And we may just do that. Absolutely. Its hard to get that much information on a sign to attract people's attention. Board Member Erb — You have to pick and choose. Mr. S. Wiggins — I understand that. Chairperson Howe — So they would be coming back with —what Mike just said. With a proposed sign for us to review separate from this. Board Member Thayer — With dimensions. Chairperson Howe — Right. PS 9.2.2008 Pg. 37 Alternate Member Talty — And if it's a new sign we would love to see what it looks like. Materials and lights. Board Member Erb — Colors. Mr. Kanter— Just bring the sign in. Board Member Wilcox — Bring a full size version of it, yeah. Board Member Riha — So Mike, could you explain the subdivisions a little more? couldn't quite —there are two subdivisions? Board Member Erb — They were badly documented. Board Member Wilcox — Now I'm going to do my Eva here. There are two subdivision maps. The earlier dated one is the one that we want to look at for that. That is the one that doesn't have the on it for the pond. Yeah. That's the one that details the subdivision. Mr. Smith — The one labeled "Survey map — proposed subdivision" is the one that shows the accurate two subdivisions. One piece of the subdivision is kind of a triangular piece just north of the pond and it is taking a piece off because the pond was built across the property line for the La Tourelle. So that triangular piece would be consolidated with the La Tourelle property bringing the pond on to that. Board Member Riha — And giving them the proper setbacks... Mr. Smith — Setbacks and those types of things, yeah. The other subdivision is the other pond area that you were talking —the area 3.27 acres. Kind of on the north end of the property. That.is being subdivided off of the large parcel that is labeled parcel A and then would be consolidated to the one kind of to the right or to east of it that has the cabin on it. Board Member Riha — So then there would be access from Danby Road there? Mr. Smith — Right. Once its consolidated it will become a larger 7 acre parcel that would have road frontage on Danby, yes. Chairperson Howe — So we...SEQR. Let's open up the public hearing. I'll open the public hearing at 8:28 p.m. Board Member Wilcox — For the record, I've given the Chases a copy of the subdivision map and explained it to them. Chairperson Howe — Okay. And we've just opened the public hearing. Would you like to address the board tonight on this issue? PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 38 Mrs. Chase – I believe not. Thank you. Chairperson Howe – Well, we'll leave the public hearing open a little bit if you change your mind. SEQR. Are we prepared to move forward on the SEQR resolution? Board Member Erb – Yes. Board Member Wilcox –Say "so moved ". Board Member Erb – So moved. Board Member Thayer – I'll second. Chairperson Howe – Moved by Hollis; seconded by Larry. Discussion? Changes? Ms. Brock – No. Board Member Wilcox – Let me just look at the SEQR form real quickly —no, I'm fine. Chairperson Howe – Everyone else is okay with SEQR? All those in favor— Board votes — unanimous. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -079: SEQR, Preliminary and Final Site Plan & Preliminary and Final Subdivision, LaTourelle Resort & Spa - Site Improvements, Tax Parcel No.'s 36 =1 -4.2, 36- 1 -4.3, and 3644.5 MOTION made by Hollis Erb, seconded by Larry Thayer, WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed site improvements at the LaTourelle Resort & Spa located at 1150 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 36- 142, 36 -1 -4.3 and 36- 1 -4.5, Planned Development Zone No. 1 and Medium Density Residential Zone. This project involves the installation of multiple site elements around the Resorts grounds including a new pond (50' x 40'), a natural plunge pool (13' diameter), two hot tubs, four gazebos, a storage shed, privacy fencing in several locations, a low ropes course, a new outdoor walk -in cooler, show grapes near Danby Road, an arch and expanded brick patio for the cafe, additional signage, and decorative lighting. Many of the elements (pond, hot tubs, and gazebos) have already been installed on the property. This proposal also includes subdividing a narrow strip ( +/- 0.43 acres) along the southern boundary of tax parcels 36 -1 -4.2 and 36 -14.3 to be consolidated with tax parcel 36 -14.5 (LaTourelle Resort property). The subdivision proposal also includes subdividing a +/- 3.27 acre parcel from tax parcel 36-14.2, to be PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 39 consolidated with 36 -1 -4.3 for construction of a residence. Walter J. Wiggins and Kaethe, Nathalie and Xavier Bessou, Owners /Applicants; Scott D. Wiggins, Managing Director, 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 Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on September 2, 2008, 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, drawings and photos included in packets titled "Application for Site Improvements, Town of Ithaca Planning Board, July 2008", date stamped August 4, 2008, "Addendum to LaTourelle Resort and Spa Site Improvements Application of July 31, 2008", dated August 26, 2008, submitted by Scott D. Wiggins, Managing Director, "Survey Map, Proposed Subdivision, Lands of Kaethe Bessou, Nathalie Bessou, & Xavier Bessou" dated May 30, 2008, prepared by Reagan Land Surveying, and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and Subdivision Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT.RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance . with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part II, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Howe, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Talty, Erb, Wilcox. NAYS: None. Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 40 PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed site improvements at the LaTourelle Resort & Spa located at 1150 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 36 =1 -4.2, 36 -14.3 and 36- 1 -4.5, Planned Development Zone No. 1 and Medium Density Residential Zone. This project involves the installation of multiple site elements around the Resorts grounds including a new pond (50' x 40'), a natural plunge pool (13' diameter), two hot tubs, four gazebos, a storage shed, privacy fencing in several locations, a low ropes course, a new outdoor walk -in cooler, show grapes near Danby Road, an arch and expanded brick patio for the cafe, additional signage, and decorative lighting. Many of the elements (pond, hot tubs, and gazebos) have already been installed on the property. This proposal also includes subdividing a narrow strip ( +1- 0.43 acres) along the southern boundary of tax parcels 36 =1 -4.2 and 36 -14.3 to be consolidated with tax parcel 36 -14.5 (LaTourelle Resort property). The subdivision proposal also includes subdividing a +1- 3.27 acre parcel from tax parcel 36- 14.2, to be consolidated with 36 -14.3 for construction of a residence. Walter J. Wiggins and Kaethe, Nathalie and Xavier Bessou, Owners /Applicants; Scott D. Wiggins, Managing Director, Agent, Chairperson Howe - How do you want to move forward with the resolution itself? Board Member Wilcox - I'll move it as drafted. Let's just... Board Member Erb - I'll second it. Chairperson Howe - I'm going to close the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Board Member Wilcox - Now I'll move it as drafted. Board Member Erb - Second. Chairperson Howe - Seconded by Hollis.. Discussion? Changes? Any changes? Ms. Brock - No. Mike did a great job on a very complicated project. Mr. Smith - The only thing I was just going to add for a second is on the rezoning to make sure the Board understands the zoning change part of it that dealt with the subdivision a little bit. If you look at the zoning map behind you, I didn't include one in the packet, but the special land use district that the La Tourelle property has there's a small finger piece that kind of goes northward, upward and that would go onto this new property that's being subdivided off where they want to build a future residence -that 3.27 acre parcel. So with that not being used as part of La Tourelle, the uses that are outlined in the special land use district wouldn't allow the construction of the single - family home and if it's not being used as part of the La Tourelle property any more. There's really not any point in keeping it in that land use district any more and if the intent is to use it as a residence is to put it back into the medium densaity residential PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 41 zone. So it would do just that part of it. Then the other piece, that little triangle piece that has the pond portion on it, would be in the residential district. It wouldn't be on the land use district for the La Tourelle property. So it would bring —kind of swap them back and forth so that the actual land uses match what the zoning is for those two pieces. Board Member Riha – Mike, what is this reverse "L" shape that's there? Mr. Smith – It's a separate tax parcel, but I don't know how it became like that. Board Member Riha – All right. Mr. Walker – I think originally in the subdivision that was created to provide access to the back lot area. That was back in the early 90s and because... Board Member Wilcox – There was a subdivision — Wally, if we go back there was a subdivision having to do with dedicating some of your land or your family's land to the State Parks, if I remember. Mr. W. Wiggins – That was when there was going to be a subdivision on the south... Board Member Wilcox – On the other - -- that's right. Mr. W. Wiggins – That has been withdrawn so its no longer a subdivision. In looking at this map, at the present time my daughter and her children own all of this property. They are now going to convey it to my granddaughter, who is going to be building a house. So she will own all of this parcel of land with exception of the corner, which is an individual house. Board Member Riha – And including this little "L" here then? This piece? This is the piece we are wondering about right here. The one that goes through the house. Mr. W. Wiggins – That was originally reserved because at the time we thought that would be the only way to get back to a subdivision back in this northwest corner. So it was kept until such time that that was abandoned. Board Member Riha – So she'll own that property, too. Mr. W. Wiggins – Yes. She will own everything except the house in the corner — everything that you see down to that portion of the new pond down there. Mr. Kanter – I believe that an add -on statement to that is when the subdivision that was withdrawn or rescinded came back to the board to rescind it that there was a condition that this "U shape piece be consolidated with tax parcel 36.- 1 -4.3, which apparently has neverhappened. Mr. W. Wiggins – Yeah, it's now one piece. PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 42 Mr. Kanter – Well, it's not one piece on the tax maps I don't think. Mr. W. Wiggins – Because we transferred the deed a couple of years ago. Mr. Kanter– I believe it's still shown on the tax map as a separate piece, but I... Mr. W. Wiggins – Well that shouldn't be because —my best judgment is its all been consolidated and should be moving now. Mr. Kanter– It's actually still assigned a separate tax parcel number. It's 36.- 1 -4.4. Chairperson Howe – So do we want to add a condition that that be cleaned up at the same time? Mr. Kanter —Again? Yes. Board Member Erb — I'm confused because sits on is separate from this other property, line? if the house and the little lot that the house isn't the house almost across the property Mr. Walker— Which house are you talking about? Board Member Erb — The house that is the northeast corner house that is visible. Mr. Walker — The one on the photo? Board Member Erb — Yes. Mr. Walker — You can't trust those boundary lines because these are the tax parcel boundaries and they're not necessarily in exactly the right place when you put them on the photos. So it represents the general shape of things. Board Member Erb — So we don't have a problem with the house being too close to and it isn't the problem for the applicant? Mr. Walker — It isn't a problem for us tonight. It may not have proper setback, but it's an existing non - conforming use. Board Member Erb -- Thank you. Mr. Kanter — Although there could be an existing encroachment depending where the line actually goes. Board Member Erb — It's just not part of our worry tonight. And I don't think it's a public health concern to me. Public safety. PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 43 Chairperson Howe – So I think the only question is: do we add language to suggest that that 1" get added to whatever the tax parcel number is. Mr. Kanter – Well, maybe we should say to either one or the other of the adjacent tax parcels, which ever is the most appropriate one, I don't know. Board Member Erb Do we have the right to force that? Ms. Brock – Yeah ... can't we just enforce our existing requirement? Mr. Kanter – We can see if we can find that previous resolution. Ms. Brock – My only concern parcel it was supposed to be determination without that ini making the commitment that if the "U shaped piece with an happened. is we aren't —it sounds like we're not entirely sure which consolidated with and I don't want us to tonight make a. ormation. And it sounds as if —Mr. Wiggins, you are a prior Planning Board approval required consolidation of adjacent parcel that you will do that if it hasn't already Mr. W. Wiggins – I am 99% certain it has already happened. And certainly if it hasn't, we will do whatever has to be done. Ms. Brock – Okay. Mr, W. Wiggins – The problem is that there were 3 or 4 different members of the family all involved. Now its all being consolidated in one family member, except for this house, which owned also by the family, but its not a part of this subdivision. Chairperson Howe -- We have a first —we have a motion and a second. Any other changes? Ms. Brock – I don't have a change, but I do want to point out to the applicant that if the Planning Board approves consolidation of the northwest parcel, the 3.27 acres with the other lands that you now have a 7 -acre piece. That 7 -acre piece has a cabin on it already and it sounds as if you are proposing to build another residential structure on the property and that may not be permitted under our zoning code. I spoke with Mike about this and he said he had mentioned it to you. Our zoning code does permit second dwelling units on a parcel under certain conditions, but one of them is that the second dwelling unit has to be in a building that is accessory to the principle building and depending on what's going on with this cabin, it may or may not be deemed to be an accessory building to another residence that you build there. So I just want you to know that even if this board were to approve the consolidation of the parcel, they are not speaking at all to the issue of whether or not a separate residence could be built on the property. That is a separate issue to be worked through between you and code enforcement officer. PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 44 (several talking at once —not audible) Ms. Brock – Ok. Yes. There are a series of criteria and you are correct that this 50% threshold is one of the criteria but another criteria is that the small building be an accessory building to the principle building. So this permits people, for example, to put an apartment in a garage, you know, on the upper floor of a garage for example. That's how this provision has been used in the past. So I just wanted you to know there are a number of criteria that need to be met and this board is not passing at all on whether those criteria have been met. So I just wanted you to be aware of that. Chairperson Howe – All we're doing is consolidating. Ms. Brock – All this board would be doing if they approve it would be to approve the consolidation of that 3.72 acres with the adjacent lot. Chairperson Howe – Are we ready to vote? Board Member Erb – One more quick little... Board Member Wilcox – I'm fine. Chairperson Howe – All those in favor? Board votes. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 =080: Preliminary and Final Site Plan & Preliminary and Final Subdivision, LaTourelle Resort & Spa – Site Improvements, Tax Parcel No.'s 36- 14.2, 3644.3, and 3644.5 MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Hollis Erb. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed site improvements at the LaTourelle Resort & Spa located at 1150 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 36- 14.2, 36 -1 -4.3 and 36- 1 -4.5, Planned Development Zone No. 1 and Medium Density Residential Zone. This project involves the installation of multiple site elements around the Resorts grounds including a new pond (50' x 40'), a natural plunge pool (13' diameter), two hot tubs, four gazebos, a storage shed, privacy fencing in several locations, a low ropes course, a new outdoor walk -in cooler, show grapes near Danby Road, an arch and expanded brick patio for the cafe, additional signage, and decorative lighting. Many of the elements (pond, hot tubs, and gazebos) have already been installed on the property. This proposal also includes subdividing a narrow strip ( +/- 0.43 acres) along the southern boundary of tax parcels 36 -1 -4.2 and 36 -1 -4.3 to be consolidated with PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 45 tax parcel 36 -1 -4.5 (LaTourelle Resort property). The subdivision proposal also includes subdividing a +/- 3.27 acre parcel from tax parcel 36- 1 -4.2, to be consolidated with 36 -14.3 for construction of a residence. Walter J. Wiggins and Kaethe, Nathalie and Xavier Bessou, Owners /Applicants; Scott D. Wiggins, Managing Director, Agent, 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 the project has, on September 2, 2008, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on September 2, 2008, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, drawings and photos included in packets titled "Application for Site Improvements, Town of Ithaca Planning Board, July 2008", date stamped August 4, 2008, "Addendum to LaTourelle Resort and Spa Site Improvements Application of July 31, 2008 ", dated August 26, 2008, submitted by Scott D. Wiggins, Managing Director, "Survey Map, Proposed Subdivision, Lands of Kaethe Bessou, Nathalie Bessou, & Xavier Bessou" dated May 30, 2008, prepared by Reagan Land Surveying, and other application materials, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 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 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed site improvements at the LaTourelle Resort & Spa located at 1150 Danby Road, as described in drawings and photos included in packets titled "Application for Site Improvements, Town of Ithaca Planning Board, July 2008", date stamped August 4, 2008, "Addendum to LaTourelle Resort and Spa Site Improvements Application of July 31, 2008 ", dated August 269 2008, submitted by Scott D. Wiggins, Managing Director, "Survey Map, Proposed Subdivision, Lands of Kaethe Bessou, Nathalie Bessou, & Xavier Bessou" dated May 30, 2008, prepared by Reagan Land Surveying, subject to the following conditions: a. submission of record of application for and proof of receipt of all necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies, prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, and b. it is necessary to obtain a building permit for all required elements, and PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 46 C, submission of an updated stormwater "Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement" between the property owner and the Town of Ithaca, for review and approval of the Town Attorney, prior to the issuance of any building permits, and d, submission of cut sheets or other manufacturer details showing that all proposed lighting meets the Town of Ithaca Outdoor Lighting Law, for review and approval of the Town of Ithaca Director of Planning, prior to the issuance of any building permits, and e. submission of a revised drawing "Topographic & Boundary Survey Map of a Portion of Lands of Kaethe Bessou, Nathalie Bessou, & Xavier Bessou" to reflect the correct proposed subdivision boundary line around the pond area, as shown on the "Survey Map, Proposed Subdivision, Lands of Kaethe Bessou, Nathalie Bessou, & Xavier Bessou" dated May 30, 2008, prior to issuance of any building permit, and f. granting of the necessary sign variances by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals for the proposed Le Petit Cafe signs, prior to the issuance of a sign permit or building permit for the Cafe signs, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 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 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision located at 1148 and 1150 Danby Road, as shown on the survey map titled "Survey Map, Proposed Subdivision, Lands of Kaethe Bessou, Nathalie Bessou, & Xavier Bessou" dated May 30, 2008, prepared by Reagan Land Surveying, subject to the following conditions: submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the final subdivision plat, and three dark -lined 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, and b, within six months of this approval, consolidation of the 0.43 acre parcel with Tax Parcel No. 36 -1 -4.5 (LaTourelle Resort & Spa property), and evidence of such consolidation to be submitted to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and C, within six months of this approval, consolidation of the 3.27 acre parcel with Tax Parcel No. 36 -14.3 (1148 Danby Road), and evidence of such consolidation to be submitted to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 47 d, granting by the Town of Ithaca Town Board of a zoning change to reflect the new boundary of the resort property and to convert the remaining area currently zoned Development Zone No. 1, which is not part of Tax parcel 36- 1 -4.5, to Medium Density Residential, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chairman, and e. submission of a signed "Owners Certification Letter' by all owners of the properties involved in the subdivision proposal, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chairman. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Howe, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Talty, Erb, Wilcox. NAYS: None. Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Howe – Come back to us whenever you have something you're planning? [laughing] Board Member Wilcox – I think it's important the applicant, and I think Scott understands, that it is a privilege to be able to operate in a residential district. We carved out this —the Town carved out this little zone for you. You are in a residential district so there are more restrictions on you and I think you recognize that. Minutes PB RESOLUTION No. 2008 -081: Approval of Minutes – Au_gust 19, 2008 Motion made by Hollis Erb, seconded by Kevin Talty. WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on August 19, 2008, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, with corrections, to be the final minutes of the meetings on August 19, 2008: A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Howe, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Talty and Erb Nays: None PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 48 The motion passed unanimously. Other Business Reports from Committees Ms. Brock reported that the Town Board referred the Lakefront Residential Zoning changes to COC because they had questions regarding moorings. COC considered changes to the law, but did not move forward with changes. The Committee will be reviewing the law again this month. The Board discussed applications where the project is started (and sometime completed) and then come before the board for approval. Board Member Conneman felt that there were no penalties for those applications. Ms. Brock explained that the Town has enforcement discretion; it can choose to seek alternate remedies at the outset or require that an application be made before a given date to avoid consequences. Grant Chairperson Howe announced the Town had received a farmland protection plan grant. Mr. Kanter and Supervisor Engman have started discussing how the grant will be connected to the Comprehensive Planning Committee, but a separate committee may be set up. Tour of Wilson Lab The Board discussed the best time and date for a tour of the Wilson Lab. The fieldtrip was set for Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. NYS Planning Federation Conference Chairperson Howe asked Mr. Kanter if there was money in the budget for Planning Board members to attend. Mr. Kanter responded that two members would be able to attend. Board Member Wilcox and Alternate Member Talty expressed interest in attending. Mr. Kanter asked that interested board members contact him. Planning Board Interviews Interviews for the Planning Board vacancy are set up for Friday, September 5, 2008. Three candidates will be interviewed. Conservation Board Vacancies Ms. Kiley announced that there are three vacancies on the Conservation Board. Ms. Coates Whitmore added that applications are available on -line. Agenda Items for upcoming meetings Mr. Kanter gave the Board an overview of the upcoming items for the September 16, 2008 meeting. He noted that he will not be in attendance and Vice Chairperson Wilcox will be chairing the meeting. PB 9.2.2008 Pg. 49 Mr. Kanter listed possible agenda items for upcoming meetings. Letter from the Webbs The Board discussed the letter they received from Mr. and Mrs. Webb regarding the location of the Friends' driveway on Slaterville Road. Members recalled their review process and felt that the board had followed procedure and did what they needed to do. It was decided that Board Member Erb would draft a letter on behalf of the board and Chairperson Howe would sign it. Board Member Conneman added that the Webbs should bring their concern to the Friends; the Friends may not be aware of the driveway issue. Ms. Brock suggested that the letter encourage the Webbs to discuss the issue with the Friends. Format of Planning Board Minutes The Board discussed the format of Planning Board minutes — verbatim versus non - verbatim. Chairperson Howe asked the Board to think about the format for future discussion. Board members expressed their concern about the minutes reflecting the thoughts and actions of the board. Ms. Coates Whitmore assured the board that their thoughts and discussion would still be reflected in the minutes, only it would not be a verbatim transcript. Planning Committee Representatives Board Member Wilcox noted that the agenda of the Planning Committee indicated that a member of the Planning Committee would be in attendance at Planning Board meetings. He wondered if that had come to fruition. Mr. Kanter explained the committee has discussed setting up a rotating schedule for who would come to Planning Board meetings; he had not seen a schedule to date. Comprehensive Plan Committee The committee is holding an open house Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. Adjournment Upon motion, Chairperson Howe adjourned the meeting at 9:08 p.m. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, September 2. 2008 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Cornell University Wilson Lab — Temporary Modular Trailers, North of Dryden Road / Pine Tree Road Intersection. 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed time extension for the Cornell University Wilson Lab Modular Offices located north of the intersection of Dryden Road (NYS Route 366) and Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -8.2, Low Density Residential Zone. This proposal involves a request for a 10 year extension of the Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the modular laboratory and office spaces currently situated at the Wilson Laboratory complex. The modular offices received Site Plan Approval in 2000, which expires on December 31, 2008. There are no modifications, improvements, additional development or other changes proposed as part of this request. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Steve Beyers, P.E., Engineering Services Leader, Agent. 7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: LaTourelle Resort & Spa Site Improvements, 1150 Danby Road. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed site improvements at the LaTourelle Resort & Spa located at 1150 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 36- 1-4.2, 36 -1-4.3 and 36 -1- 4.5, Planned Development Zone No. 1 and Medium Density Residential Zone. This project involves the installation of multiple site elements around the Resorts grounds including a new pond (50' x 40'), a natural plunge pool (13' diameter), two hot tubs, four gazebos, a storage shed, privacy fencing in several locations, a low ropes course, a new outdoor walk -in cooler, show grapes near Danby Road, an arch and expanded brick patio for the cafe, additional signage, and decorative lighting. Many of the elements (pond, hot tubs, and gazebos) have already been installed on the property. This proposal also includes subdividing a narrow strip ( +/- 0.43 acres) along the southern boundary of tax parcels 36 -1-4.2 and 36 -1-4.3 to be consolidated with tax parcel 36 -1-4.5 (LaTourelle Resort property). The subdivision proposal also includes subdividing a +/- 3.27 acre parcel from tax parcel 36- 1-4.2, to be consolidated with 36 -1 -4.3 for construction of a residence. Walter J. Wiggins and Kaethe, Nathalie and Xavier Bessou, Owners /Applicants; Scott D. Wiggins, Managing Director, Agent. 6. Approval of Minutes: August 19, 2008, 7. Other Business: Agricultural & Farmland Protection Plan Grant Update. 8. Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday September 2, 2008 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, September 2, 2008, 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 Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed time extension for the Cornell University Wilson Lab Modular Offices located north of the intersection of Dryden Road (NYS Route 366) and Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -8.2, Low Density Residential Zone. This proposal involves a request for a 10 year extension of the Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the modular laboratory and office spaces currently situated at the Wilson Laboratory complex. The modular offices received Site Plan Approval in 2000, which expires on December 31, 2008. There are no modifications, improvements, additional development or other changes proposed as part of this request. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Steve Beyers, P.E., Engineering Services Leader, Agent. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed site improvements at the LaTourelle Resort & Spa located at 1150 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 36- 14.2, 36 -14.3 and 36 -1- 4.5, Planned Development Zone No. 1 and Medium Density Residential Zone. This project involves the installation of multiple site elements around the Resorts grounds including a new pond (50' x 40'), a natural plunge pool (13' diameter), two hot tubs, four gazebos, a storage shed, privacy fencing in several locations, a low ropes course, a new outdoor walk -in cooler, show grapes near Danby Road, an arch and expanded brick patio for the caf6, additional signage, and decorative lighting. Many of the elements (pond, hot tubs, and gazebos) have already been installed on the property. This proposal also includes subdividing a narrow strip ( +/- 0.43 acres) along the southern boundary of tax parcels 36 -1- 4.2 and 36 -1 -4.3 to be consolidated with tax parcel 36 -1 -4.5 (LaTourelle Resort property). The subdivision proposal also includes subdividing a +/- 3.27 acre parcel from tax parcel 36- 1-4.2, to be consolidated with 36 -14.3 for construction of a residence. Walter J. Wiggins and Kaethe, Nathalie and Xavier Bessou, Owners /Applicants; Scott D. Wiggins, Managing Director, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matter or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, August 25, 2008 Publish: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 i ... i _ 3,� '. Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street September 2, 2008 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN -IN Please Print Clearly, Thank You wD n Z :; Address I i(a, low Lo 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 Tiog_a Street Ithaca New York on Tuesday, September 2, 2008 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio ag Street. Date of Posting: Date of Publication: August 25, 2008 August 27, 2008 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 27`h day of August 2008. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01CL6052878 Oualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 ��