Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2012-03-06TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. March 6.2012 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center Modifications, East side of Ithaca College Campus. 7;Q5 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit regarding modifications to the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project located on the east side of the Ithaca College campus near Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41-1-30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The site and building modifications include changes to the plantings, entrance features, walkways, lighting, bleachers, storage building, emergency generators, and speakers for the bleacher area. Ithaca College, Owner/Applicant; Richard Couture, Associate Vice-President for Facilities, Agent. 4. Discussion of the noise measurement study for the Cornell University Animal Health Diagnostic Center. 5. Approval of Minutes: February 7, 2012 and February 21,2012. 6. Other Business: 7. Adjournment Susan Ritter 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. March 6.2012 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, March 6, 2012, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following time and on the following matter: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit regarding modifications to the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project located on the east ~ side of the Ithaca'Colleg^campus near Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 1-30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The site and building modifications include changes to the plantings, entrance features, walkways, lighting, bleachers, storage building,- emergency generators, and speakers for the bleacher area. Ithaca College, Owner/Applicant; Richard Couture, Associate Vice-President for Facilities, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 Dated: Monday, February 27,2012 Publish: Wednesday, February 29,2012 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 bv the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall. 215 North Tioga Street. Ithaca. New York, on Tuesday. March 6. 2012 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board - 215 North Tioga Street. Date of Posting: February 27, 2012 Date of Publication: February 29, 2012 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 29'^ day of February 2012 iL olyL'U, to IvSTll Notary Public CARRIE WHITMOPE Notary Public, State of '.v York No. 01WH6052877 Tioga County Commission Expires December 26, •c- ^ Wednesday, February 29,2012 TOVWOFfTHACA PUNNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, March 6.2012 By dtreoUon of ibe Chair person of the Planning Board. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hear-, ing will be held by the Plan-, ning Board of die Town of Ithaca on Tuesday. March 6. 2012, at 215 North Tioi ga Street. Ithaca, N.V., stl the foOoiMng time and on! the fr^lowing matter. 7:05P.M. Consideration of Pr^mina- ry and innal Site Plan Ap-. pmvti and SpeciM P^lt regarding modrflcationa to the Ithaca College Adiletics and Events Center project .located on the east side of nhe Ithaca College campus^ near Coddington Road! Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41-1-30.2. Mediunl Density Residential Zonei The site and building moclfi| cations include changes tci . the plantings, entrance Fea tures. walkways. Sghiing bleachers, storage building emergency generators, ant speakers lor the bieache area. Ithaca College, Owner/Applicant; Richard Couture, Associate Vice- President for Facilities, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear ad persons In support of such matters or obteu' tions thereto. Persons maj^ appear by agent or in per^^ son. Individuals wtdi visual' impairments. hearing' impairments or other ape. clal needs, will l>e prowber^ with assistance as neceag saiy. upon request. Per sons desliing assiatsncff must make such a request not lees than 48 hours prior to Ihe time of the (ubttC hearing. Susan Ritter ' Director of Plartning > 273-1747 Deled: Monday. Febrtiary 27.2012 2/29/2012 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, March 6, 2012 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox (Chair), Linda Collins, George Conneman, Jon Bosak, Hollis Erb, Ellen Baer and John Beach Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning;Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Creig Hebdon, Engineer; Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and accepted the secretary’s posting of the public hearing notice. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard – There was no one wishing to address the Board at this time AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center Modifications, East side of Ithaca College Campu s David Herrick, TG Miller and Associates, Howard Blaisdell, Moody Nolan and Rick Couture, Associate VP of Facilities at Ithaca College, were present to answer questions from the Board. In anticipation of the agenda items related to the Ithaca College Athletics and Events project, Mr. Wilcox reviewed the process of a project for the benefit of everyone. This includes going through the approvals by the various boards, getting a building permit, going through those inspections, then planning staff visits the site with the approved plan in hand to make sure that everything built conforms with the plans approved by the Planning Board. Staff agreed that was the general outline of the process. Mr. Wilcox went on to say that in this particular situation, someone from Planning went for the final inspection; he asked Mr. Smith if his site visit was the first time we became aware of all of the modifications to the approved site plan, and Mr. Smith responded that for most of them, yes, that is when he became aware of them. He then made note of all of the changes, met with the applicants and Ms. Ritter, and compiled all of the changes to memo form and request for modifications to be presented to the Planning Board. Mr. Wilcox asked what caused this one to come back and Mr. Smith responded that the number of changes and the total cost of the changes met the criteria for approval by the Planning Board. Mr. Couture and Mr. Herrick addressed the Board at this time. Mr. Herrick asked how the Board wanted to proceed; did they want an overview, or would they prefer to ask questions. Mr. Herrick noted and distributed new handouts for the Board with minor changes from the handouts they received in their packets and suggested these new handouts replace the older Planning Board Minutes 03-06-2012 Page 2 of 9 ones in their entirety to minimize confusion. The Board agreed and the Clerk date stamped the new handouts to differentiate them from the others. The new handouts show the “as constructed” location(s) and changes that have been made to the Final Site Plan as well as tweaks that were included throughout the processes of Site Plan Approval. For example, the new handouts show the longer bleachers on the turf field and their current as constructed position further to the south than indicated on the packet set. There is also a yellow outline of where the storage shed is. It was decided that the Board would ask the applicants questions regarding what changes occurred, why they occurred, and what the justification for each was. Mr. Bosak asked how many of the changes have already occurred. Mr. Herrick responded that several have been done and others are before the Board for approval before they are implemented. Questions Ms. Erb asked Mr. Hebdon if there will be an increase in noise spillage above what was previously approved. Mr. Hebdon responded that that is Mr. Smith’s area of expertise. Mr. Smith responded that the 4 versus the 5 will not make a difference and the new system actually has more control for the decibels and the new light fixtures meet the lighting code. The locations are slightly different but they all meet the Code and should light the area sufficiently. Ms. Erb asked if the parking lot lights are going to be more visible than approved and Mr. Smith responded that they would not; they are the same fixtures and meet Code. Mr. Wilcox had a follow-up question regarding two lights that have to be re-aimed and asked if they had been adjusted. Mr. Smith responded that the large poles that go up for the field lighting had additional floodlights attached that were not shown in the original plans and they have not been modified yet; they need to be re-aimed or shielded to conform with the Lighting Law. Ms. Erb asked about the pathway lighting and Mr. Herrick noted that it did change from the original Site Plan Approval but was subsequently modified and approved by this Board. Ms. Erb then asked about the light at the road opening at Coddington road intersection and Mr. Herrick responded that the existing lighting was moved with the moving of the intersection. Mr. Wilcox added that there is additional existing lighting on Coddington Road beyond the intersection. Ms. Erb stated that she was satisfied that in terms of external effects, there is nothing that she is going to worry about. Ms. Collins asked about the generators and why these changes were made and if they are backup or continual in nature. Mr. Blaisdell explained that when they first envisioned the project, the emergency generator was for power failures. The generator was going to be part of the storage building, but then two things happened. One, it appeared as if they were going to phase the storage building, and second, when we had the storage building located on the original plans, the only way it really fit was for it to be pointed east/west and that meant that the part of the generator that makes the noise was facing the neighbors. When it became time to look at that building in real detail as they were finalizing the construction documents, they realized that if they went to two separate generators, they could make them smaller, which would generate less noise and they would have some redundancy in back-up systems. Also, the best place to put it would be the north side of the building. By including it in the building and adding all of the acoustic materials whose sole purpose is to reduce the reverb that you get from inside the building, it was more beneficial to have the two smaller generators. These create less noise at the source with the screen wall that faces the east and the Planning Board Minutes 03-06-2012 Page 3 of 9 generators pointed north/south at the building away from the neighbors. So it was the best possible scenario and solution for concerns about noise. Mr. Wilcox had a more global issue. He addressed Mr. Smith, saying that he was aware of some of the changes in the plan that were implemented but many he was not. He wondered if this indicated a breakdown in communication. Should the Town have known about these changes beforehand? Was it on the Ithaca College side where their communication with the Town broke down? There were a series of changes made with a lack of communication and without a realization that they could not make these and expect to get their certificate of occupancy. So something broke down and we need to find out where the breakdown occurred because the Town should not have been surprised when they went out to do the inspection. Mr. Smith responded that it was unusual to find that many changes, but this was also a much bigger project than anything else we have done. Mr. Wilcox agreed, but felt that he did not like having to review and be asked to approve or not changes that have already been built. Ms. Baer agreed, instead of just doing it because it sounds like a good idea, something should be communicated. The Board discussed this with Ms. Brock, adding that there are standards that are in the law and Ms. Ritter saying that there could have been back and forth between the Planning Department and the College, but ultimately, this is what would have resulted. She didn’t think the Board would have wanted them in with all of these changes. The Board agreed, but felt that the changes should have been floated by the Department at the very least. Ms. Ritter responded that this is a huge project and she assumes that changes happen in huge projects like this. Mr. Bosak stated that he is willing to believe staff in their finding that the changes are essentially inconsequential and he is willing to believe the applicants in that they felt that they had really good reasons for making these changes, but he is really concerned that they are finding out about the changes after the fact and that they essentially had to be caught at it. Where does it cross the line between trivial miscommunication and contempt for our process? Is this normal or should we be concerned about this? Mr. Beach asked if there was a certain standard for a project this size for changes as they are going through the construction process. Ms. Collins noted that Mr. Smith said earlier that there is a standard of $20K or more and Mr. Wilcox added that that is part of our Code. Mr. Conneman thought the important question is whether in making these changes they violated any laws such as our lighting, noise, or safety codes. That is the issue. The Board agreed that they have seen no evidence of that and that it is more of a procedural issue; i.e., finding out after the fact, than anything else. Mr. Hebdon added that in his experience with construction, there are always contingencies and the Town builds in a 10% contingency because you never know what is going to happen until you start. Construction is fluid and you always have to deal with the unexpected. Mr. Wilcox noted that a project this size and at this cost, a 10% contingency is a lot and sometimes things happen like a class donates a garden and you have to go with it. Mr. Bosak was still concerned that the Board was hearing about it after the fact and Mr. Wilcox asked Mr. Bates what was typical. Mr. Bates responded that from a Codes perspective, the permit requires that any changes that happen during construction relative to the building permit are conveyed to the department. He added that they do not get into site plan specifications, but from a Codes Planning Board Minutes 03-06-2012 Page 4 of 9 perspective, especially on a project of this size, the project managers would tell the inspector and if there is no change to the aesthetics, we would tell them to go ahead but make sure it is put in the as- builts. Mr. Wilcox turned to Ms. Ritter and asked here what is typical when you go out and compare the as- built with the drawings. Ms. Ritter feels that if it is consistent with what is approved then that is fine but there is no typical. She went on to say that when she and Mr. Smith sat down to go over all of the changes, she would bet that the applicants thought all of these changes were minor. They changed the generator, that wasn’t a big deal to either of them; they changed the entry feature, but they were forced to by the gas company. That was kind of a big deal but it was understood why some of these changes took place. In aggregate the changes needed to come back, but individually, they don’t seem big and these things happened over the course of the almost 2 years of construction. She also added that the Code needs to be updated because the square footage and monetary thresholds are over 20 years old and are now very low. Discussion followed. Mr. Wilcox brought the Board back to what he felt the real issue is; communication between the applicant and Staff. He felt the Board would not want them to come in for every change. Mr. Beach stated that he would like to understand the process as an educational tool. What should the Board expect because he did not feel there was any ill will intended on either side. Ms. Ritter explained the thresholds in the Code which should be looked at more closely but that is what they have to go by, which would have necessitated them coming before the Board multiple times. Mr. Hebdon spoke to water and sewer reviews and how changes that are made to a site that do not affect anything off-site, they make the call. Ms. Erb stated that she would rely on staff to be made aware of these changes and make the determination if anything major had to be brought to the Board and all the minor changes could be brought at the end. Mr. Hebdon noted that that is exactly what happened with the fill site modification. They were made aware of the proposed change and indicated that that was too large of a modification for them to approve and the applicants came back to the Board for approval. Ms. Erb agreed, saying that that would be an appropriate way to move forward with changes to the Code as long as the communication was happening between applicant and staff. Especially potential concerns regarding changes in lighting and noise levels that were known to concern the Board. Mr. Couture addressed the Board: “I do not disagree with anything the Board was saying. As with you folks, this is the first $65 million project I have ever headed up for the College so it has been an extreme learning experience for me an the College as well. This was the single largest project we have ever done on the campus in the history of Ithaca College, so, we needed to learn some things and I am learning some things here tonight, there is no question about that. I do want to emphasize and I hope that you all know me well enough, because I have been here and had my hand slapped before, that yeah, we made some mistakes. Did we communicate as well as we should have? No, it sounds like we probably didn’t, but I am glad to hear some folks saying that you don’t feel it was intentional because it was not intentional. I know that in the future I need to come in front of this board for many, many more projects and I am not going to do anything that would intentionally hurt our relationship because we all need to work together, there is no question in my mind about that and I need the support of the Town Boards to be able to Planning Board Minutes 03-06-2012 Page 5 of 9 do my job and to do future jobs at the college. So, I am just very glad and I want to emphasize that the mistakes that were made were not intentional and we did not sit in our weekly job meetings and go ‘ok, we’re going to change this particular part of it but the hell with the Town, we’re not going to tell them about it’. I want everyone to know that. Secondly, I do note that we went through an over 2-year approval process where we met dozens of times and both the public and the Town Board were very good about giving us lots and lots of feedback and we think we really went out of our way to change this project to meet the needs of the Town and all of you folks. So I know from the get go we wanted to work with the Town Planning Board and all of you and our neighbors on Coddington Road and everyone involved in the project. I can tell you, having attended weekly job meetings, and Fred, I appreciate what you said a few minutes ago, but the person to blame is standing right in front of you. I was in charge of the project and so if there was a lack of communication, it was my responsibility to let all of you know what was going on. So I need to own up to that, but I can tell you that in our weekly job meetings, we would deal with literally hundreds of issues. Each week we met for probably 4 or 5 hours and part of it for me I think was exactly what I heard people say here. We decided to do some changes and we thought we were doing – I will use the speakers as an example- we thought we added the speakers and made it a better system so it was not as loud as it was before that; so in my mind I am going ‘that’s good… I know what the Town told me… so I think this is the right thing to do. The lights on the lightpoles, we screwed up on that one, no question about that. We thought we were providing some emergency lighting for the people in the bleachers so if the lighting went out the emergency lights would come on and provide safety but I know now that we did not make those in accordance with the Town lighting law so we are going to make some modifications for that and take care of that. But… I know we have to be better in the future and all I can say is that we did what we thought was best. We did come in front of the Board for some other modifications so we know, at least half of my brain was thinking correctly when we went through this project, now we just have to get the other half to kick into gear for future projects. So all I can say is that there was nothing intentional on our part and this is a good learning experience for us and I just want you to know that these changes…we made them in what we thought was in the best interest of our neighbors, the campus and what we thought was the intent of the approval that we got from you a couple of years ago.” The Board thanked Mr. Couture and expressed their satisfaction with his statement. PB Resolution No. 2012-009: SEQR, Preliminary and Final Site Plan & Special Permit, Ithaca College – Athletics & Events Center Modifications, Tax Parcel No. 41-1-30.2 Moved by Hollis Erb, seconded by John Beach. WHEREAS: Planning Board Minutes 03-06-2012 Page 6 of 9 1.This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit regarding modifications to the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project located on the east side of the Ithaca College campus near Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41- 1-30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The site and building modifications include changes to the plantings, entrance features, walkways, lighting, bleachers, the storage building, emergency generators, and the speakers for the bleachers area. Ithaca College, Owner/Applicant; Richard Couture, Associate Vice-President for Facilities, Agent; and 2.This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in an environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Permit; and 3.The Planning Board, on March 6, 2012, 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 other details included in a packet with the cover letter from Moody Nolan titled “Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center – Request for approval of Final conditions compared to previous Town Planning Approval”, dated February 4, 2011 (date stamped February 7, 2012), 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 Special Permit; 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. Vote : Ayes – Wilcox, Erb, Conneman, Beach, Collins, Bosak, Baer AGENDA ITEM PUBLIC HEARING : Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit regarding modifications to the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project located on the east side of the Ithaca College campus near Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41-1-30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The site and building modifications include changes to the plantings, entrance features, walkways, lighting, bleachers, storage building, emergency generators, and speakers for the bleacher area. Ithaca College, Owner/Applicant; Richard Couture, Associate Vice-President for Facilities, Agent. Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the Board at this time and the hearing was closed. Motion was made and seconded for discussion. Changes were made to the resolution to reflect the updated project drawings and an additional condition regarding the lightpole lights. Planning Board Minutes 03-06-2012 Page 7 of 9 PB Resolution No. 2012-010: Preliminary and Final Site Plan & Special, Permit, Ithaca College – Athletics & Events Center Modifications, Tax Parcel No. 41-1-30.2 Moved by Jon Bosak, seconded by John Beach WHEREAS: 1.This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit regarding modifications to the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project located on the east side of the Ithaca College campus near Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41- 1-30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The site and building modifications include changes to the plantings, entrance features, walkways, lighting, bleachers, the storage building, emergency generators, and the speakers for the bleachers area. Ithaca College, Owner/Applicant; Richard Couture, Associate Vice-President for Facilities, Agent; and 2.This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in an environmental review with respect to the project has, on March 6, 2012, 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 March 6, 2012, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, drawings and other details included in a packet with the cover letter from Moody Nolan titled “Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center – Request for approval of Final conditions compared to previous Town Planning Approval”, dated February 4, 2011 (date stamped February 7, 2012), and 8 updated project drawings date stamped March 6, 2012 and provided to the PB on March 6 2012 and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the proposed Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center Modifications project, finding that the standards of Article XXIV Section 270-200, Subsections A – L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met; 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 for the proposed Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center Modifications, as described on drawings and other details included in a packet with the cover letter from Moody Nolan titled “Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center – Request for approval of Final conditions compared Planning Board Minutes 03-06-2012 Page 8 of 9 to previous Town Planning Approval”, dated February 4, 2011 (date stamped February 7, 2012), and and 8 updated project drawings date stamped March 6, 2012 and provided to the PB on March 6 2012 and other application materials, subject to the following conditions: a.All conditions of the Planning Board’s previous resolutions of approval (Resolution No.’s 2008-066, 2008-074, 2010-086) regarding this project shall still apply and b.The two lights mounted on the side of the sports field lighting poles to provide spectator lighting shall be adjusted or modified to comply with the Town’s Outdoor Lighting Law. Vote: Ayes – Wilcox, Conneman, Collins, Baer, Bosak, Erb, and Beach AGENDA ITEM Discussion of the noise measurement study for the Cornell University Animal Health Diagnostic Center Mr. Wilcox noted that all Board members received the email response to the Board’s questions regarding the noise measurement study done as the “after” study of the Animal Health Diagnostic Center. Mr. Brittain addressed the Board and explained the inaccuracies and faulty methodology of the submitted report on noise measurements after the Animal Health Diagnostic Center was built. In essence, the study is inaccurate because the company did not replicate the initial study parameters and they turned off the recording when a vehicle went over the bridge. They did not do this during the initial test. By turning it off at that time, the ambient noise level is a negative after the build out, which is impossible. They also have incorrect data lines, again pretty much saying that the noise level at night is lower with the generator operating. Mr. Brittain suggested that a company be hired to do the study that is not hired by the applicant and also suggested that the Town adopt guidelines for permitted sound levels. He added that the Town should have guidelines for the cumulative impact of sound by development. Each development can not have its own limit, it has to be accumulative or each one could go to the limit but taken together they would far exceed the level set. He suggested that there must be other municipalities that have dealt with this issue and set limits for neighborhoods or zones. The Board and Mr. Brittain discussed the different protocols used by the company and the effect on the data. The Board was in full agreement that the company AGAIN did not replicate the study that was done the first time as requested again and again. The Board is not satisfied that Cornell and subsequently their contractor met the condition of the approval for a before and after noise impact study. Mr. Wilcox will write a letter to the company again telling them that they have to EXACTLY REPLICATE THE CONDITIONS OF THE PREVIOUS STUDY. AGENDA ITEM Approval of Minutes Planning Board Minutes 03-06-2012 Page 9 of 9 PB Resolution No. 2012-011: Minutes of February 7, 2012 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by HoUis Erb WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on February 7, 2012; now therefore be it RESOLVED, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, with corrections, to be the final minutes of the meeting on February 7, 2012. Vote: Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Conneman, Bosak, Baer, Erb Absent: Beach PB Resolution No. 2012-012: Minutes of February 21, 2012 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on February 21, 2012; now therefore be it RESOLVED, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, with corrections, to be the final minutes of the meeting on February 21, 2012. Vote: Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Conneman, Bosak, Erb Abstentions: Beach and Baer Adjournment The Agenda for the next meeting was reviewed and the meeting adjourned upon motion and a second at 8:40 p.m. Submitti Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk