Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2010-01-05FILE 6�2. � �- TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD DATE 16 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 January 5, 2010 Present: Road Howe, Chair; Members George Conneman, Jon Bosak, Susan Riha, Kevin Talty, Fred Wilcox and Hollis Erb Alternate Member Ellen Baer Staff: Chris Balestra, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Creig Hebdon, Engineer; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Darby Kiley, Planner; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Paulette Terwilliger, Deputy Town Clerk Chairman Howe opened the meeting at 7:02 p.m. and accepted the posting and publication affidavit for the two public hearings. The fire exits were indicated and the public was asked to turn off any cell phones unless they were emergency personnel. Persons to be (heard There was no one wishing to address the Board at this time. PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of SEAR Determination and Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed installation of solar panels on the roof of the FROG Neighborhood Common House at EcoVillage at Ithaca, located at 100 Rachel Carson Way, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No., 28 -1.- 26.82, Planned Development Zone No. 8. The proposal involves installing a 6,000 watt photo- voltaic electric system on the roof of the common house. The 30 panels will lay flat on the roof surface. EcoVillage Cohousing Coop. Inc., Owner /Applicant; Mike Carpenter, Agent. Mr. Carpenter gave a brief overview of the project The Board asked lif questions about its grid hookup, back -up power. and orientation. Mr. Carpenter explained some technical aspects of the panel and answered the general questions. The SEAR motion was made and seconded with minor changes to the draft resolution. ADOPTED RESOLUTION P.B RESOLUTION No. 2010 - 001 SEQR Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval EcoVillage Solar Panel Addition Tax Parcel No. 28. -1 -26.82 100 Rachel Carson Way Town of Ithaca Planning Board January 5, 2010 Motion mad WHEREAS: 1. This ac the pro Tax Pai project roof of Cooper PB 1 -5 -2010 Page 2 of 15 by,Hollis Erb, seconded by George Conneman. ion involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for )osed solar panel addition at 100 Rachel Carson Way, Town of Ithaca cel No. 28. -1- 26.82, Planned Development Zone No. 8 (EcoVillage). The nvolves the installation of a 6,000 watt photovoltaic electric system on the the FROG Neighborhood common house. EcoVillage CoHousing ttive, Inc., Owner /Applicant; Mike Carpenter, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in an environmental reviw e with respect to Site Plan Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on January 5, 2010, has reviewed and accepted as adequate la Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, the drawings entitled "Final Site (Plan, EcoVillage CoHousing Cooperative, Neighborhood Plan, North Section (No. AF1 A, date stamped December 2, 2009), and "Common House, Miscellaneous Views" (No. CH -7, date stamped December 2, 2009), 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, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ith environmental signifi Conservation Law ar Review for the above EAF Part I and for f Environmental Impact A vote on the motion Ayes: Howe, Talty, C Nays: None The motion passed u aca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of cance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental id 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality referenced actions as proposed, based on the information in the ie reasons set forth in the EAF Part II, and, therefore, a Draft Statement will not be required. Chairman Howe opene address the Board and drafted. is as follows: neman, Bosak, Riha, Erb and Wilcox usly the public hearing at 7:09 pm.; there was no one wishing to e public hearing was closed. Motion made and seconded as PB 1 -5 -2010 Page 3 of 15 ADOPTED RESOLUTION PB RESOLUTION NO 2010 - 002 Preliminary and Final. Site Plan Approval EcoVillage Solar Panel Addition Tax Parcel No. 28.4-26.82 100 Rachel Carson Way Town of Ithaca Planning Board January 5, 2010 Motion made by Jon Bosak, seconded by Susan Riha. WHEREAS: 1. This project .involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed solar panel addition at 100 Rachel Carson *Way, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28. -1- 26.82, Planned Development Zone No. 8 (EcoVillage). The project involves the installation of a 6,000 watt photovoltaic -electric system on the. roof of the FROG Neighborhood common house. EcoVillage CoHousing Cooperative, Inc., Owner /Applicant; Mike Carpenter, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board acting is acting as Lead Agency in an environmental review with respect to. the project has, on January 5, 2010, 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 T7wn Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at 'a Public Hearing held on January 6, 2010, has reviewed and accepted as adequate application materials, including the drawings entitled "Final Site Plan, EcoVillage CoHousing Cooperative, Neighborhood Plan, North Section" (No. AF1A, date stamped December 2, 2009), and "Common House, Miscellaneous Views" (No. CH -7, date stamped December 2, 2009), and other application materials, 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 It Iaca Planning Board hereb y grants s Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed solar panel addition at 100 Rachel Carson Way, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28. -1- 26.82, Planned Development Zone No. 8 (EcoVillage), as described in the drawings entitled "Final Site Plan, EcoVillage CoHousing Cooperative, Neighborhood Plan, North Section" (No. AF1 A, date PB 1 -5 -2010 Page 4 of 15 stamped December 2, 2009), and "Common House, Miscellaneous Views" (No. CH -7, date stamped December 2, 2009), subject to the following condition: a. obtaining the necessary building permit from the Code Enforcement Office. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Howe, Talty, Conneman, Bosak, Riha, Erb and Wilcox Nays: None The motion passed unanimously PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of SEQR Determination and Preliminary and Final Site Plan�Approval and Special Permit for modifications to the proposed Cornell University. Water System Improvements project. The proposed modification involves using an open cut trench to install two 16" diameter pipes across Cascadilla Creek instead of the originally proposed horizontal directional drilling beneath the Creek. The pipe line route will not change. The project modifications will take place within the Low Density Residential Zone and Planned Development Zone No. 9 on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 64 -1 -1, 64 -1- 2, 62 -2 -2, and 62 -2 -3: Cornell University, Owner /Appl!cant; Chris Bordlemay, Agent. Mr. Bordlemay gave a brief overview of the modifications. There were issues with the . horizontal drilling h I and the size of the pipe. After much consultation, it was decided that it could not be don a as planned, but they did put smaller pipes in place for future use since the boring had already taken place. It was decided that the only feasible option is to do a traditional open -cut as opposed to the boring. They consulted with Plantations and many experts and decided on the stated path. The Board was confused if there were plans for the pipes they already laid and Cornell stated that they had no immediate plans, and fully understood that they would have to appear before the Planning Board for approval of any use of the pipes. Right now, the College's Information Technology Department had computer cables in them. The Board asked why they didn't know this ahead of time, and Mr. Bordlemay responded that they did not want to disturb the area and they took a chance on using the limited tests that they did which turned out not to be accurate enough. The Board asked if there was going to be an interruption of the flow of the creek. Mr. 9 g Y p Bordlemay explained that half the creek would-be diverted at a time and went into some detail on how that would happen and how it would be maintained and cleaned out. Board Member Erb asked about the impact on drinking water and whether the equipment would belusing tires or tracks. Mr. Bordlemay responded that it may actually improve the water and the equipment on the walkway would not be tracks. He stated PB 1 -5 -2010 Page 5 of 15 that they are very aware of the UNA nearby and the Walkway and they are working very closely with all involved to minimize any disturbance. The Board discussed at length What was initially approved, what was actually done so far, and what the applicants would have to do to utilize the pipes and/or bore holes in the future. The Board requested updated plans on where the bore holes are and their size details. The applicant responded that the modified site.plan map shows the pipes on Point 7 and he showed the Board on the map. The Board then turned their attention to the Tompkins County's GML letter stating that the information is incomplete. Discussion followed with the issue coming down to "information required by the Town" is what needs to be submitted to the County, not what they want and the subsequent information submitted by Stearns & Wheeler was not requested by the Town, but submitted as additional information by them. It was noted that the :letter was received at approximately 3:45 on this night with no time to review or respond. Discussion followed with Ms. Brock and Cornell's Counsel discussing thel issue. The definition of "recreation area" was under scrutiny and it was eventually decided that the Board would err on the side of caution and discuss the proposal but nlot take any action. The Board also asked Staff to have a discussion with Tompkins County Planning about the tone and intent of the letter and its arrival which did not allow the postponement of the appearance and is and could be an avoidable inconvenience to all involved. Ms. Brock also explained that the Board would need a super majority if'they did not adopt the County's recommendations: Board Member Bosak noted that it appeared the County wanted to go back to the beginning and discuss the Game Farm Rd option which:the Planning Board did not feel was necessary. Discussion followed. Ms. Brock suggested erring on the side of caution and advised the Board to have a full discussion and most of the work this evening and then once the deadline has passed on the 8th of February, take the action on the modification at the next meeting. There was a lot of discussion on what date to use as the submission date. Mr. Kanter was concerned about the amount of detail being requested from the County. The Town was fairly comfortable with the amount of detail submitted and did not want to require more. More discussion followed. The Board decided to that theyfelt the time from which the deadline is measured started on December 8,!2009 which was the submission date to the County of the materials that the Town was satisfied with. Chairman Howe opened the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the Board on this topic and the public hearing was closed. 'The Board will continue the discussion and action at the next meeting. PB 1 -5 -2010 Page 7 of 15 Board Member' Conneman asked Chairman Howe to repeat his list of,major topics. Chairman Howe reiterated: 1. Accesslvia Cayuga Medical Center 2. Landfill(s) and the potential need for a supplemental EIS 3. Depart il'n ent of Transportation Letter and their request for additional information 4. Reduced size . as a mitigation of a multitude of concerns 5. Affordability The Board decided to. take each issue in order and see where that led. Chairman Howe asked Ms. Balestra_if she had anything to add regarding the CMC access and she deferred to Mr. Kanter who had attended the meeting. Mr. Kanter stated that it was documented lin the memo and that the meeting was set up by Supervisor Engman with the Director of the Medical Center and his two Vice Presidents and the Town was very interested tol hear that their concerns were very specific and although they did not embrace the idea, if their concerns could be specifically addressed, the possibility was there for theICMC access. The Board was amazed and thrilled with the prospect and the possibility of'cooperation. Mr. Kanter added that the meeting in combination with the DOT letter gave the Town a lot ,more ability to pursue the. prospect. Discussion followed.. The secondary accesses were talked about -as well as the length of the cul -de -sac if that did happen and how that could be addressed. There are town laws regarding the length of. cul -de -sacs. Board Mernber_Erb brought up the affordability issue and Ms. Brock spoke to the Board about what was in their purview.. She reiterated that the Board can only look at environmental issues and the perceived need and benefit against the impacts that can't be mitigated. Affordability alone is not the key. Board NMe I ber Bosak suggested that the Board use the Staff memo which lists suggestions as an outline for the discussion. Board Member Bosak suggested they start with section 6: The. Board agreed with Staff's suggestion. Discussion followed Given this new information, staff recommends that the Planning Board require the applicant to prepare an evaluation of a shared main entrance with the Cayuga Medical Center, in collaboration with the Town and Medical Center staff, which would further identify the engineering and environmental constraints and opportunities of a shared entrance. Staff also recommends that the applicant prepare a conceptual plan for such a shared access.. Concerns . identified by the Medical Center that would have to be addressed would include, separation of an entrance road from the Medical Center parking,)areas, avoidance with conflicts of Holochuck residential traffic with emergency vehicles and other vehicles entering and exiting the Medical Center facility, a safe stream crossing over the gully located to the south of the Medical Center property, and the topographic and grading challenges that would have to be met to connect such a road to the PB 1 -5 -2010 Page 8 of 15 Medical Center property. This would also have to include a ian element as part of such a cross road. The Board then discussed, the next paragraph. In the shared) Medical Center - Holochuck entrance scenario, staff would recommend eliminating the southern access road and buildings 1 -5, and 20 and reconfiguring the remaining units (conceptual reduction of 28 units, reduction in visual impacts, elimination of the sight distance issues at the southern entrance, less direct impact on surrounding single family residences, etc). Consequently, the applicant would also need to 'recalculate the traffic study to illustrate the traffic counts and percentages with utilizing a shared Holochuck entrance at the Medical Center; as the peak numbers could be different with a shared entrance. The Board was confused about whether this is a suggestion they can /should make to the applicants or what. Discussion followed. Board Member Erb noted on the boards where the indicated buildings were and where the entrances were. Discussion followed. Board Members discussed which access road would be preferable to retain, how the configuration could be to facilitate traffic flow best. Chairman Howe reminded the Board that this was not for decisions but indications to the applicant of where the Board's concerns were and possible scenarios that might mitigate those concerns more. Board Member Bosak stated that the Board would probably feel more favorably if the traffic and build -out! was closer to the hospital entrance than the city. Board Member Erb added that her wish for affordability played into all these aspects because that demographiclwould be more likely to take the bus, have fewer vehicles, possibly work at the hospital, and that smaller units would consume less energy to build, heat, and cool, etc. Board Member Riha added that she had trouble believing houses ' in this configurationland at that high of a price level were marketable. Discussion followed with Members stating that many people are in the condo /townhouse type of market. Board Member Wilcox stated that he thought the idea of affordability being addressed by the Planning Board was not right and that that was a policy type issue that belongs to the Town Board, not this Board. He then added that he lived in a similar development and the prices are on the high end and there is a demand and the idea of messing with differentiating "affordable" from the "high -end" would single them out. Board Member Erb added that she doesn't care for affordable housing in a clump. She was familiar rith a mix. Board Member Bosak brought the Board's attention back to the memo which addressed affordability in 2.2. 2.2 Description of Proposed Action Page 2 -8 Regarding Affordability• The Tompkins County Affordable Housing Needs Assessment's follow -up document titled "Housing Strategies for Tompkins County" (prepared in 2007), identified the Town of Ithaca I as one of the municipalities that "may provide appropriate locations to meet the identified need for a total of 4,000 units, 54 % of which will need to be affordable to those making less than 80% of the median income over ten years" (median income is PB 1 -5 -2010 Page 9 of 15 just under $50, 000 /year). The document also suggested that the Town might contribute 500 -1,000 units of affordable housing. `Affordable" per HUD means that a family spends no more than 30% of their income on housing expenses (for owners, that's mortgage, taxes, ultilities,. insurance; for renters, that's rent and utilities). The Housing Needs Assessment also. noted that these future units should be balanced between West, South, and East Hills, per a nodal development pattern, to be determined by the Town. The Board was supportive of this, with Ms. Brock asking for more detail on what the Board meant by a "study." Board Member Riha responded that it ties into the statements in the dEIS saying that the residents will work at the hospital. Ms. Brock went back to specifics. The Board talked about, demographics, trends, similar sales, medical center use /work and whether they would be successful in this area. The Board then moved to the landfill issue According) to Town staff GPS calculations, the dump site is, located approximately 300 + 1- feet east of Locus 1. It is possible that the dump site is an extension of Locus 1, and that the archeological investigation conducted for the DEIS only included the portion of the _site that would be directly affected by. the Holochuck development. It is also possible that the dump is much larger than what appears on the surface (the County Health Department did not have much more information regarding contents of ,the durnp, .other than the description offered in the 1995 database). Planning staff has concerns regarding potential safety hazards related to the contents of the dump site and Locus 1 and the .close proximity of the dump(s) to the proposed development. Both locations contain , sharp, rusted metal and glass objects and other unknown (and potentially hazardous) items. With Locus 1 located within the proposed developed area and the dump located only a few hundred feet away from the proposed developed area, future residents of the Holochuck development could easily come upon the dump sites while walking in the woods behind their homes. Additionally, there is not much known information about these dumps, especially in terms of whether they may have contained or could currently contain potentially hazardous. waste. .Therefore, Planning . Staff strongly encourages the Planning Board to require the. applicant to conduct a thorough investigation I of, these dump sites, including possible remediation. Such investigation and remediation should be performed in cooperation with NYS Parks, as they will be the future owners of the portion of the property that contains the county dump. The Planning Board could also require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SE /S) to determine the actual size and contents of the dump(s). According to Larry. Weintraub, from the Albany office of the DEC, the Planning Board can require an SETS on the dump issues if it thinks the new information is important & the dump(s) could create a significant environmental impact. The Board- would need to make its determination based on the information from the DEIS, the applicant, the County Health Department, a I dd Town Planning Department. The preparation of an SETS might require an extension on the preparation and filing -of the FEIS, as an investigation may take more time than is allotted per the SEQR regulations (filing must be done within 45 days after the close I of the public hearing). The Planning Board will need to work with the PB 1 -5 -2010 Page 10 of B if the timeframe for filing the FEIS is to be extended. This should be I at the January 5th meeting. Ms. Brock) read from NYS Law regarding the requirements for requiring a supplemental dEIS. The Board agreed that they were well within the requirements. Discussion followed regarding how many sites there were, what was possibly there. The applicant asked what the Board was looking for in a supplemental EIS versus the Final EIS. Discussion) followed. Ms. Brock responded that a supplemental follows all the same procedures as the EIS and allows for more public review and comment which provides useful information which then shapes the document. If it is dealt with in the Final EIS only, there is less interaction and input. Mr. Kanter agreed stating that the public input is the major concern. The timeline was discussed and the applicants would have to agree to the extension of the timelines. Discussion followed. The Board asked Ms. Brock to start drafting a resolution requiring a supplemental EIS and moved on to traffic. Board Member Bosak asked about the traffic analysis chart the applicants had promised and the applicant handed out a chart. While he was doing that, the Board moved on to another paragraph. 3) (minor note) Section 3.6.6- Future Site Improvements: The northern access road is proposed to be 35 feet wide total and the southern access road is proposed to be 20 feet wide total. This may or may not be in compliance with the Town of Ithaca road standards and specifications. This will need to be confirmed by the applicant 'in consultation with the Public Works Department. Board Member Wilcox asked about the measurements and where they started. Discussion followed. 4) When comparing the LOS Existing with the No Build scenario (per Summary table 3.6 -11), the changes in LOS'appear to be: a) Bundy Road EB onto. Trumansburg Road- change from LOS B to C in am peak b) Cliff Street at Fulton Street (EB -T,R)- change from LOS C to D in pm peak Cliff Street at Fulton Street (WB -T pm peak)- increase from 22 second to 32 second delay In addition, there 'are some increases in delays at certain intersections, but that doesn't change the LOS. However, in further comparing LOS No Build with Build conditions, the Cliff Street and Fulton Street intersection appears to change from a LOS C to a LOS D in pm peak. Although the DEIS states that this LOS change is not significant, the Board will need to decide whether this is an acceptable change and if the additional traffic impacts to the Cliff)Street/Fulton Street intersection can be reasonably mitigated. PB 1 -5 -2010 Page 11 of 15 Board Member Wilcox asked about changes and when a change became "not okay ". Each letter change is in fact a change, but when is it bad? Discussion followed. The Board discussed the letter from the City of Ithaca which disagreed with the statements in the dEIS. Board Members Wilcox and Conneman commented on the perception versus the reality of the time spent waiting to enter a road and the need for real time measurements. Discussion followed. The Board went back to the handout. Board Member Bosak stated that it was obvious that there is a definite environmental impact to the traffic and the neighborhood from this project and it is not only not mitigated to the greatest extent possible, it's not mitigated at all. He did not think he was seeing any mitigation at all. Board Member Erb agreed that adding several hundred more car trips to the road is an environmental impact, but, she was not convinced that the same number of car trips would not be generated by sprawl. Discussion followed and Board Members, commented that that was not the issue at hand and under SEQR they had to find that what is being proposed mitigated the environmental impacts to the greatest extent practicable. Board Member Conneman added that statistically, there is no difference in the top 4 numbers of the chart handed out. Board Member Erb noted that the TCAT letter stated that in their experience, the -residents in those types of houses .do not use bus service so that mitigation is gone. Board Member Riha still disagreed with the percentage the applicants are saying will turn toward the hospital. Which arteries will be used was then discussed and the placement of the houses in the different scenarios. The Board then discussed further the changes in levels of service and Staff recommendations. 4) When comparing the LOS Existing with the No Build scenario (per'Summary table 3.6 -11), the changes in LOS appear to be: a) Bundy Road EB onto Trumansburg Road- change from LOS B to C in am peak I b) Cliff Street at Fulton Street (EB -T,R)- change from,LOS C to D in pm peak Cliff Street at Fulton Street (WB -T pm peak)- increase_ from 22 second to 32 second delay I In addition, there are some increases in delays at certain intersections, but that doesn't change the LOS. However, in further comparing LOS No Build with Build conditions, the Cliff Street and Fulton Street intersection appears to change from a LOS C to a LOS D in pm peak. Although the DEIS states that this LOS change is not significant, the Board will need to decide whether this is an acceptable change and if the additional traffic impacts to the Cliff Street/Fulton Street intersection can be reasonably mitigated. The Board discussed the DOT suggestions and their statement that they will require a traffic signal analysis as part of the EIS process. Board Member Wilcox added that the changes to the layout and /or using the hospital entrance may change that requirement. Discussion followed. There was also some discussion on when the timing of the delay PB 1 -5 -2010 Page 12 of 15 starts, eit I er as soon as you are in queue or when you get to the entrance to the road or first in line at the light. The applicant said they would find out. I The Board then discussed "sprawl" and "infilling" and what is and is not in the Board's purview. Mr. Kanter reiterated that these suggestions are not all implementable, but Staff was bringing them up to give the Board something to think about. Discussion followed. Again, the need for studies, both traffic and build -out comprehensively, were discussed. The Boardl then talked about the different scenarios for moving units around, reconfiguring the development. Discussion followed. Construction . issues such as start and end times as well as the "stockpiling" of construction items and machinery were discussed and the Board wanted those issues addressed in the dEIS. Municipal sewer was discussed. Mr. Hebdon informed the Board that two new meters are being configured now, but they have no new information. Engineering is waiting for an "event" such as a snow melt or large rain fall to get some measurements. Discussion followed. The Board went back to the beginning of the memo and discussed landscaping and breaking up the line. They also reviewed the Environmental Committee's letter. Discussion followed. , There was some discussion on what the Board would be approving as far as configurations etc. Ms. Brock reminded the Board that they would be approving or disapproving what is presented by the applicants. The Board does not control what the proposal is. Section 3 was discussed 1) The proposed Measures to Pro' i identified to be pry removal. Howeve�i removal will depe �, such, it is not pos., associated with ti near the proposed applicant to submi and regardless of the FEIS as a i environmental imp, development. tree protection is explained on p.3.3 -24 of the DEIS (Proposed ?ct Trees to Remain). The applicant explains which trees will be served and protected during construction and those that will require the actual trees to be identified for protection, preservation, and f on the approved development layout (if the project is approved). As Fble to determine the significance of potential environmental impacts loss of vegetation, particularly the old growth vegetation located northern cul -de -sac. The Planning Board should therefore require the a tree preservation /removal plan, if the. Board approves the proposal vhich alternative the Board approves. This should be addressed in Litigating measure. It should be noted that, potentially negative cts to vegetation and wildlife can be decreased with a reduced -scale PB 1 -5 -2010 Page 13 of 15 The Board did want to see identification of the old growth trees near areas of disturbance whether it's the buildings and the roads or the remediation of the dumpsite. Discussion followed. Ms. Brock then read the draft resolution she had drawn throughout the meeting. Discussion followed. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2010 003 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement; Holochuck Homes Subdivision Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting January 5, 2010 MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Hollis Erb. WHEREAS the Holochuck Homes Subdivision DEIS dated November 3, 2009 identifies two 20th Century trash dumps visible on the surface of the property that is the subject of the DEIS, including_a trash dump identified as Locus land as by letter dated November 17, 2009, the Tompkins County Health Department informed the Town of Ithaca that a former dump located on the Holochuck property is noted in the County Health Department's 11995 database of abandoned landfills as the Oddfellow's Refuse Site, and WHEREAS oh December 11, 2009 Town Staff visited the Holochuck Property and located the dump site identified by the Tompkins County Health Department and determined that it is not the same as the Locus 1 dumpsite (although it may be an extension of Locus 1), and WHEREAS the.subdivision proposal includes the transfer of approximately 65 acres to the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, and WHEREAS it appears at least part of the dump observed by Town of Ithaca Staff on December 11, 2009 is located on the parcel proposed to be transferred to the NYS OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION, and WHEREAS the PRESERVATION stating a site visit �1 28, 2009 determin on the portion of RECREATION Al assessment for ha followed by a cl Conservation will AND HISTORIC P and NYS OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC submitted a letter to the Town of Ithaca dated January 4, 2010, )y Town of Ithaca Staff -and Finger Lakes. Regional Staff on December ed that there are potentially two dumpsites of significant size located land shown to be conveyed to the NYS OFFICE OF PARKS, ,4D HISTORIC PRESERVATION and further stating further site z ardous materials, documentation of the full extent of the debris field, I anup /closure as directed by the NYS Office of Environmental be necessary before the NYS OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION RESERVATION will agree to advance an acquisition of the property, PB 1 -5 -2010 Page 14 of 15 WHEREAS the current information in the DEIS only in general terms Locus 1 and another smaller dump and does not contain any discussion of the dump observed by the Town and State Parks Staff, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED The Planning Board determines that the newly discovered information about the various dumps on the Holochuck property is important and relevant because of the potential public safety issues posed by these dumps located close to the proposed dense housing development. The dumps contain sharp, rusted.metal, glass objects, medical refuse, and other unknown and potentially hazardous items. Locus 1 is located within the proposed) developed area and another dump is located in woods only a few hundred feet away from the proposed developed area. Additionally, there is not much known information about whether these dumps may have contained or currently contain hazardous waste, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED The Planning I Board determines there is. a potential for a significant adverse environmental impact from the dump identified in the DEIS from the dump identified by the Tompkins County Health Department and from the dump observed by Town of Ithaca Staff, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED The Planning Board finds that the DEIS inadequately addresses the impacts of the two dumps identified yin the DEIS, and the DEIS does not address at all the impacts of the dump(s) identified by the Tompkins County Health Department and observed by Town of Ithaca Staff, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED The Planning Board hereby requires the preparation of a supplemental environmental Impact Statement to the DEIS to address the significant adverse impacts of the dumps. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Howe, Talty, Conneman, .Bosak, Riha, Erb and Wilcox Nays: None The motion passed unanimously PB 1 -5 -2010 Page 15 of 15 RESOLUTION PB Resolution No. 2010 — 004 Recommendation to Town Board Town of Ithaca Planning Board January 5, 2010 Motion made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Kevin Talty. RESOLOVED that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby recommends the appointment of Ellen Baer as the Alternate Planning Board member, and That this Board ex resses su pport that Ellen Baer be a pp ointed as a Regular Planning Board member should a vacancy occur. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Howe, Talty, Conneman, Bosak, Riha, Erb and Wilcox Nays: None The motion passed unanimously Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m mitted, ette Terwilliger, Town Clerk TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, January 5, 2010 IAGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: EcoVillage Common House Solar Panels, 100 Rachel Carson Way. 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed installation of solar panels on the roof of the FROG Neighborhood Common House at EcoVillage at Ithaca, located at 100 Rachel Carson Way, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28 -1- 26.82, Planned Develi pment Zone No. 8. The proposal involves installing a 6,000 watt photo - voltaic electric system on the roof of the common house. The 30 panels will lay flat on the roof surface. EcoVillage Cohousing Coop. Inc., Owner /Applicant; Mike Carpenter, Agent. 7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: Cornell University Water System Improvements Project Modification. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for modifications to the proposed Cornell University Water System Improvements project. The proposed modification involves using an open cut trench to install two 16" diameter pipes across C�ascadilla Creek instead of the originally proposed horizontal directional drilling beneath the Creek. The pipe line route will not change. The project modifications will take place within the Low Density Residential Zone and Planned Development Zone No. 9 on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 64 -1 -1, 64 -1 -2, 62 -2 -2, and 62 -2 -3. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Chris Bordlemay, Agent. 7:30 P.M. Discussion of comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Discussion', Homes Subdivision, located between NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road) and NYS Route, 89 (Taughannock Boulevard), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24- 3 -3.2, 25- 1 -5.1, 25- 2 -41.2, 26 -4 -37, 26 -4 -38, and 26 -4 -39, Low Density Residential Zone, Medium Density Residential Zone, and Conservation Zone. The proposal involves the construction of 106 + /- town home type units in a clustered neighborhood development with two entrances proposed from NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road). The development will be concentrated on the west side of the property closest to NYS Route 96, zoned Low and Medium Residential, with more than half of the eastern portion of the property, mainly zoned Conservation, remaining undeveloped. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation proposes to acquire most of the eastern portion of the property in conjunction with development of the future Black Diamond Trail. Holochuck Homes LLC, Owner /Applicant; David M. Parks, Esq., Agent. 7. Approval of Minutes: December 15, 2009. 8. Other Business: 9. Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, January 5, 2010 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, January 5, 2010, 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 for the proposed installation of solar panels on the roof of the FROG Neighborhood Common House at Ec.oVillage at Ithaca, located at 100 Rachel Carson Way, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28 -1- 26.82, Planned Development Zone No. 8. The proposal involves installing a 6,000 watt photo - voltaic electric system on the roof lof the common house. The 30 panels will lay flat on the roof surface. EcoVillage Coh ou smg Coop. Inc., Owner /Applicant; Mike Carpenter, Agent. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for modifications to the proposed Cornell University Water System Improvements project. The proposed modification involves using an open cut trench to install two 16" diameter pipes across Cascadilla Creek instead of the originally proposed horizontal directional drilling beneath the Creek. IThe pipe line route will not change. The project modifications will take place within the Low Density Residential Zone and Planned Development Zone No. 9 on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 64 -1 -1, 64 -1 -2, 62 -2 -2, and 62 -2 -3. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Chris Bordlemay, Agent. Said Planning Board will1 at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, December 28, 2009 Publish: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 4fiednesday, Deeernber 30, 2009 The Ithaca Journal . ;:a Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street January 5, 2010 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN -IN Please Print Clearly, Thank You NameI �,r Address Pe r lam n , Lt �$ 912. (,n.Z1F rf o v i ,;, 130"S,_ 3 a "S , c�_;i ► I �� na, CQ zena 13 ��5 i Vii �(210 it Pj TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polcp, 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 Publi I Hearings to be held b the Town of Ithaca Planning g y g in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tio�a Street Ithaca New York on Tuesday January 5 2010 commencing at 7:00 P.M.. as ner attached_ Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio a Street. Date of Posting: December 28, 2009 Date of Publication,: December 30, 2009 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30'h day of December 2009. I Y Notary Public CONNIE F.ICLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 CL6b52878 Qualified in Tom"' ins County I Commission Expires December 26, 20�