Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2013-08-20TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. August 20. 2013 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7;05 P«M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board regarding the continued use of the existing gravel mine located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27-1-14.2, Agriculture Zone. The project involves a request to continue the mining operation on a portion of the property for an additional 10 years. This project was previously approved in 2002,2005, and 2008, with the 2008 approval having an expiration date of August 31, 2013. No changes in the operation are proposed. John Rancich, Owner/Applicant. 7:30 P.M. New York Planning Federation video regarding new State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) forms (effective October 7, 2013). 4. Approval of Minutes: July 16, 2013 and August 6,2013. 5. Other Business 6. 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 MEETING Tuesday, August 20, 2013 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox(Chair), Linda Collins,John Beach,Yvonne Fogarty, Paula Wedemeyer,Jon Bosak, Hollis Erb,Joseph Haefeli(Alternate) Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Creig Hebdon, Town Engineer; Susan Brock,Attorney for the Town; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. and accepted the secretary's posting of the public hearing notice. Mr. Wilcox asked to amend the agenda by adding a SEQR determination for the Rancich project. He also asked to change the order of agenda items so that the movie would occur after the meeting ad- journed. He also noted that the ZBA would be meeting at 8 p.m., after learning the outcome of the Planning Board's vote on the Rancich project. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - No one came forward to address the Board. AGENDA ITEM SEQR determination: Rancich Gravel Mine, Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79) Ms. Brock explained why she came to the conclusion that the Planning Board needed to perform an environmental review of the project. She pointed out that there was a letter in the packet from the DEC outlining why this is a Type 1I action, in which case the Planning Board might not need to do a SEAR. After giving it some thought, she decided that wasn't right for the Planning Board's action. They are granting site plan approval and special permit, but they have never granted special permit before because the fill law had not yet changed. She quoted from the Type II category the DEC said the project falls under: "... licensed lease and permit renewals or transfers of ownership thereof,where there will be no material change in the permit conditions or the scope of permitted activities." Ms. Brock said that when the DEC is renewing a mining permit, it falls under this. The ZBA is granting special approval, which applies to the exact same criteria as the special permit approval, so she thinks it is functionally the same thing.And they've granted it three or four times in the past, so it's a renew- al of their action,which could fall under this and would be Type II. But she didn't think a site plan was the same as a permit; plus, even though the zoning code says the Planning Board is supposed to approve site plans, Ms. Balestra could not find a resolution, from all the past approvals, granting site plan approval for this project. So there's no renewal - it's new - and the special permit also isn't a renewal. Ms. Brock stated that she called the DEC's lawyer, who agreed that it's not a Type II action and that the Board can move forward. Under the Town's law, it's Type I because of the amount of Planning Board Minutes 08.20-2013 Page 2 of 8 material being excavated every year, so a coordinated review needs to be done. The DEC attorney and she agreed that since what the ZBA is doing is Type 11 and what the DEC is doing is Type 11, they do not need to be coordinated with under SEQR because they don't have a role under SEQR for their actions.This leaves the Planning Board as the only involved agency; therefore, they can do an unco- ordinated review. Mining is permitted in agricultural zones, subject to special approval, and the provi- sion in the Town of Ithaca code says that no special approval shall be granted until the Planning Board approves the site plan for the proposed mining operation. The ZBA held their public hearing Monday night, but decided they needed to wait until the site plan was in place, after the Planning Board acted, to grant their special approval. Mr. Bosak noted that in a former resolution, the Planning Board resolved that the ZBA should be the lead agency in the environmental review. He wondered whether that should be rescinded. The Board agreed it should be and decided to add it to the SEQR resolution. Ms. Erb wanted to know for sure, on all the permits and approvals, if Mr. Rancich was locked into the eight truckloads per hour leaving the site. She thought it would be a serious traffic consideration for the neighborhood if Mr. Rancich could not use all the material on site. Ms. Brock said the Planning Board does not have the authority to restrict the number of trips.At the ZBA meeting, Mr. Rancich proposed a maximum of 32 trips per day. The special permit looks at all the information in his application and ties him to meeting the representations in his application.The Planning Board can't say he can't have that many truckloads, but they can say he must do what he said he was going to do and no more. Mr. Erb stated that in the 2005 Planning Board and ZBA approvals, there's a letter from George Frantz with a request to move from 32 to 64 truckloads per day and from 4 to 8 truckloads per hour. She wanted to know whether that was acted upon or automatically okay to move to the 64 and 8. Ms. Balestra responded that the Planning Board recommended approval of that; she thought it was also approved by the ZBA. Ms. Brock said now that there is something in the SEQR form regarding truck traffic, if it reflects Mr. Rancich's representation of the number of trips, that becomes the number he'll be tied to. Ms. Erb wanted to be clear, for the West Hill neighborhood, that it would not be more than that. Mr.Wilcox said the trucks would follow a path through agricultural fields to a State highway. Given that, he thought the impact on neighbors would be minimal.There are no neighbors within 1000 feet, and it is a State highway,where we want big trucks to travel because we don't want them on Town roads. Ms. Erb pointed out that there are 90,000 cubic yards of material, which is 9000 truck trips. She said she was worried about large convoys coming down Hector Street. She thought it was a transportation- related SEQR issue. Planning Board Minutes 08.20-2013 Page 3 of 8 Ms. Balestra looked at the previous approvals and found that the number of truckloads in the 2005 and 2008 Planning Board and Zoning Board resolutions do not match. Mr. Bosak pointed out that unless a huge amount of the 90,000 cubic yards had already been stock- piled, the trucks needed to support continuing production of that 90,000 are not going to be a whole bunch every day. Mr. Rancich agreed that it would be physically impossible, with the equipment they have on site and given the size of the mine, to generate 64 truckloads per day.Just taking it out of those stock piles and using an excavator to load a truck will take 15 minutes per truck. Even if you could load one in ten minutes, it still wouldn't come close to 64 loads per day. Ms. Erb was happy with the reassurances, but still wanted the resolution to reflect that the number of trucks leaving the site would be consistent with the application. Ms. Brock pointed out the resolution does say that. Ms. Fogarty noted that Route 79 is a fairly dangerous road, particularly at the corners of Sheffield. Mr. Hebdon agreed that there's a site distance problem at Sheffield Road and Route 79, but that there is plenty of site distance each way at the gravel mine entrance. PB Resolution No. 2013.032: SEAR, Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval &Special Permit, Rancich Gravel Excavation, Mecklenburg Road, Tax Parcel No. 27.-1.14.2 Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by Paula Wedemeyer WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed continued use of the existing gravel mine located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27.4-14.2,Agricultural Zone. The project involves a request to continue the mining operation on a portion of the property for an additional 10 years. This project was previously approved in 2002, 2005, and 2008,with the 2008 approval having an expiration date of August 31, 2013. No changes in the operation are proposed.John Rancich, Owner/Applicant, and 2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, on July 15, 2013, declared its intent to be Lead Agency in the environmental review with respect to Site Plan Ap- proval and Special Permit, and the Planning Board concurred in that designation on July 16, 2013, and 3. It was subsequently determined that the Zoning Board of Appeals' and New York State Depart- ment of Environmental Conservation's permit renewals are Type II Actions,which leaves the Planning Board as the only involved agency, and Planning Board Minutes 08.20-2013 Page 4 of 8 4. The Planning Board hereby rescinds its July 16, 2013 concurrence in the Zoning Board of Ap- peals' designation as Lead Agency, and 5. The Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in the environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, and 6. The Planning Board, on August 20, 2013, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Long Envi- ronmental Assessment Form (LEAF) Part I, submitted by the applicant, a Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, a narrative, maps entitled "Mining Plan and Base Map," prepared by Bray- ton Foster and dated 1/3/00 and "Reclamation Plan," prepared by Brayton Foster and dated 1/3/00, the most recent copy of the existing NYSDEC Division of Mineral Resources mining permit, dated 8/20/2008, and other application materials, and 7. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental signifi- cance 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, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board regarding the continued use of the existing gravel mine located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27-1-14.2, Agriculture Zone. The project involves a request to continue the mining operation on a portion of this property for an additional 10 years. This project was previous approved in 2002, 2005, and 2008,with the 2008 approval having an expiration date of August 31, 2013. No changes in the oper- ation are proposed. John Rancich, Owner/Applicant. Mr.Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. and closed the public hearing at 7:51 p.m. PB Resolution No. 2013-033: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval&Special Permit, Rancich Gravel Excavation, Mecklenburg Road, Tax Parcel No. 27.4-14.2 Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by Linda Collins WHEREAS: Planning Board Minutes 08.20-2013 Page 5 of 8 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit re- garding the continued use of the existing gravel mine located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27.4-14.2,Agricultural Zone. The project involves a request to continue the mining operation on a portion of the property for an additional 10 years. This project was previously approved in 2002, 2005, and 2008,with the 2008 approval having an expiration date of August 31, 2013. No changes in the operation are proposed.John Rancich, Owner/Applicant, and 2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in the environmental review with respect to the project has, on August 20, 2013, made a negative de- termination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Long 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 August 20, 2013, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a narrative, maps entitled "Mining Plan and Base Map," prepared by Brayton Foster and dated 1/3/00 and "Reclamation Plan," prepared by Brayton Foster and dated 1/3/00, the most recent copy of the existing New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Division of Mineral Resources mining permit, dated 8/20/2008, a copy of the most recent NYSDEC mining permit application, dated 7/7/13, a letter from the NYSDEC regarding lead agency status and the SEQR process, dated July 23, 2013, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby finds that that the special permit standards of Article XXIV Section 270-200, Subsections A- L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, specifically that: a. the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, in harmony with the general purpose of this chapter, will be promoted, because the project has previously received special approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals and a positive recommendation for such special ap- proval by the Planning Board, no changes are being proposed to the project, the Planning Board's special permit and site plan approval are conditioned on the applicant's conduct of op- erations in accordance with the representations and materials provided by the applicant to the Planning Board, and the NYSDEC permit imposes conditions of approval related specifically to the protection of the health and safety of the community in terms of noise, dust, stormwater control, truck loading, hours of operation and the like, and b. (i) the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use, given that the use has been in opera- tion since 2002, the property is located in the middle of 160+/-acres of agricultural land, and that the nearest residential structures/neighbors are more than 800 feet away from the operation, and (ii) the proposed use fills a neighborhood or community need because the gravel is proposed to be used for on-site development, and c. the proposed use and the location and design of any structure is consistent with the character of the district in which it is located, for the same reasons as noted above, and Planning Board Minutes 08.20-2013 Page 6 of 8 d. the proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devalue the neighborhood property or seriously inconvenience the neigh- boring inhabitants, for the same reasons as noted above, and e. operations in connection with the proposed use will not be more objectionable to nearby proper- ties by reasons of noise, fumes,vibrations, illumination or other potential nuisance than the op- eration of any permitted use in the particular zone, for the reasons noted above, and f. community infrastructure and services, including but not limited to, protective services, road- ways, garbage collection, schools and water and sewer facilities, are currently, or will be, of ade- quate capacity to accommodate the proposed use because the use is already operational, and there are no changes proposed, and g. the proposed use, building, design and site layout comply with all provisions of this chapter and, to the extent considered by the Planning Board, with other regulations and ordinances of the Town,with the Building Code and all other state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and with the Town Comprehensive Plan, and h. the proposed access and egress for all structures and uses are safely designed and the site layout provides adequate access for emergency vehicles, as previously approved by the Town Code En- forcement Officer, and i. the general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole, including such items as traffic load upon public streets and load upon water and sewer systems, is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community, for the reasons noted above, and j. the lot area, access, parking, and loading facilities are sufficient for the proposed use and access, parking, and loading facilities are adequately buffered to minimize their visual impact, per the conditions imposed by the NYSDEC permit and the information specified in the applicant's submitted plans, and k. natural surface water drainage is adequately managed in accordance with good engineering prac- tices and in accordance with any applicable Town local law or ordinance, and existing drainage- ways are not altered in a manner that adversely affects other properties, per previous NYCDEC permit requirements, previous Zoning Board approvals and Planning Board recommendations of approval, and an Engineering Memorandum written by Creig Hebdon, P.E., Town Engineer, dated August 20, 2013, and 1. the proposed use or structure complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in this chapter. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That, pursuant to Town of Ithaca Code Section 270-217.E, the Planning Board finds that the project adequately protects the property and surrounding properties from significant adverse consequences of such deposit and removal, including, when completed, adverse drainage, erosion, visual or other im- pacts, for the reasons noted above. Planning Board Minutes 08.20-2013 Page 7 of 8 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 de- termined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant altera- tion 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 Special Permit and Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed continued use of the existing gravel mining operation located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79) as described in Whereas #3 above, sub- ject to the following conditions: a. That the Planning Board Special Permit shall expire on August 20, 2023, or when the NYSDEC-issued Mining Permit No. 7-5030-00110/00001 for this project expires,whichever occurs first, b. That all operations be in accordance with: (i) the representations and materials in the application provided by the applicant to the Planning Board, and (ii) all requirements and conditions set forth in the NYSDEC-issued mining permit related to property boundary setbacks and public thoroughfare rights-of-way, natural or man-made barriers to restrict access, dust control, and hours of operation, and c. That the project area be reclaimed in conformance with the requirements in the above- referenced NYSDEC-issued permit, and that a copy of any NYSDEC-required reclamation bond be provided to the Town of Ithaca prior to commencement of any excavation. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM Approval of Minutes from July 16, 2013 and August 6, 2013 PB Resolution No. 2013-034: Minutes of July 16, 2013 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on July 16; now therefore be it RESOLVED, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, as amended, to be the final minutes of the meeting on July 16. Planning Board Minutes 08-20-2013 Page 8 of 8 Vote: Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb PB Resolution No. 2013-035: Minutes of August 6, 2013 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Yvonne Fogarty WHEREAS, the Town of Itbaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on August 6; now therefore be it RESOLVED, the Town of Itbaca Planning Board approves the minutes, as drafted, to be the final minutes of the meeting on August 6. Vote: Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Wedemeyer, Bosak, Haefeli Abstentions: Erb AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by Hollis Erb, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted. ra DeAugisnH%-Deputy Towb Olerk