Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2018-12-04'F " OWN oi , ; i , rHACA P1,ANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raf fensperger Board Roorn,Fown Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 1,4850 , .11 , , Decemb r 4 2018 nday AGE�NDA 7M(1 PA. Review and discussion of the Final Generic Environalental Impact Staterrient (HAEAS) for the proposed Chiiin Works District Redeve,iopment j")roject, 'ne proposed Chain Works District Redevelopment Project seeks to redevek)p the 800,0,00 +/- square foot foriner Morse, Chain/Emerson Power "Frans mi ss ion facility and COnStrUct new buildings on portions of(he 95 -acre site within the City cunei Town of Ithaca, Consider approval of the 2019 Planning Board Meeting Schedule Consider a recommendation to the Town Board regarding the Chairperson of the PI'mining Board for 2019 4Sexual Flarassitient Prevention Training (Judy Drake, Hurnan Resource Nlanac,er) L, Persons to be heard 6, Approval of Minutes: N(wernber 6, 2018, 7. (Mier Business 8. Adjournment Susan Ritter. Director of'Planiting 273-1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO AITEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCEAT273-1747 or SPOLC T (O 14f1'4 11A CA.N N', LIS. (A quorum of four (4) meinbers is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) Accessing Meeting Materials Onfine Site I'lan and Subdivi.6)n applications and associated prqject n-raterialsare accessible elect ronica I ly on the Town's Nvebsite under "Planning Board" on the "Meeting Agendas" page uw). Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street December 4, 2018 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN -IN Please Print Clearly. Thank You Name Address TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, December 4, 2018 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Liebe Meier Swain, Joseph Haefeti, John Beach, Yvonne Fogarty, Jon Bosak, Melissa Hitt Town Staff Present: Susan Ritter; Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Chris Balestra, Planner; David O'Shea, Civil Engineer; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Debra DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Ms. Meier Swain called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA ITEM Review and discussion of the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) for the proposed Chain Works District Redevelopment Project. The proposed Chain Works District Redevelopment Project seeks to redevelop the 800,000 +/- square foot former Morse Chain/Emerson Power Transmission facility and construct new buildings on portions of the 95 -acre site within the City and Town of Ithaca James Gensel, Fagan Engineers and Land Surveyors, provided an update. He stated that the final GEIS differs from the draft in that it is the product of the lead agency after reviewing and addressing all the comments received in response to the draft and incorporating any changes that needed to happen as a result of the comments. The applicant and city planning board went through every comment received and grouped like comments together and then the planning board provided responses. The public health section changed a lot because they ended up doing a lot more investigation and also because the DEC got involved, which lead to changes to the remedial measures. For the traffic section, the DOT forgot to comment on the project, and the city had to reopen the review even though they were legally past the response time. Because there were so many changes, they made separate appendices for those two sections and made a redlined version so the board could follow it better. The applicant drafted a findings statement that was reviewed by city staff and their retained counsel and will submit a revision copy of the draft on Friday. Once city staff approves it, they'll send it out to both planning boards. Emerson engineers went through the site and characterized every environmental issue, then the purchaser of the property went through and found more issues; the cleanup is on Emerson's dime. A certain number of areas of concern will be cleaned up to residential standards; one section will stay industrial. Those measures are being implemented right now: some areas are being cut and removed, while others will receive clay linings. A number of mitigation measures were expanded upon as a result of the DEIS process. The remediation measures will be ongoing; weather has slowed things down. Ms. Fogarty asked where they're putting the contaminated soil. Mr. Gensel responded that it's usually taken to a hazardous waste landfill. Some is being left in place and contained. The contractor has to document the chain of custody to a legally authorized disposal site. He noted that the city planning board will be reviewing the document on the 18th and would Planning Board Minutes 12-04.2018 Page 2 of 5 like to have comments by then. They hope to do a resolution of completion of the FEIS by the end of January. Then there's the statutory 10 -day period. Once the FEIS is complete, they're hoping Phase I will be constructed within a year. It involves reusing buildings 21 to 24 and 33 and 34. Those are robust buildings: building 34 could be used right now; it's a warehouse with a 20 -ton crane inside that's operable. Ms. Brock said they'll have to wait for the DEC to amend the record of decision (ROD). Ms. Balestra pointed out that buildings 23 and 24 are in the town, so that will involve site plan approval. The city wanted input from the town, if possible, even though the 10 -day required review from involved agencies hasn't started yet, because they were hoping to formally accept the FGEIS on Dec. 18. If the board feels like it's necessary to review the documents more fully, they could meet on the 18th. She couldn't find too many places where questions weren't answered. Ms. Brock said the way the FEIS is written, it talks about the lead agency and what they do and seems to ignore the fact that there are involved agencies like the planning board and town board that also have to do some of these same things. The third paragraph of page ES -1 says that after the FEIS is final, there are 10 calendar days in which to consider it, and that after the time period is passed, the city planning board as lead agency will issue a findings statement prior to making a determination of whether or not to undertake the project; it ignores that other involved agencies will also be making findings statements. That sort of thing shows up repeatedly. Similarly, in talking about how to finalize the EIS and make finding statements now - before we actually have a record of decision and know exactly what the remediation will be - the document repeats itself a number of times. First, they're saying the city will do this list of items, but they make no mention of whether the town will also need to do them. Second, they're inconsistent on the steps that will be required: sometimes they list five steps and sometimes they list six. It should be consistent. Page 3-23 lists six things. The step that later gets dropped is that the lead agency will be proposing the measures and requiring that the applicant "remediate the groundwater contamination to the extent required by applicable law." Then they draw their conclusion: "Therefore the Lead Agency believes that the discussions of remedial alternatives in the GEIS are sufficient to meet the requirements under SEQR to allow the various agencies to make appropriate approval decisions within their jurisdictions." Does the city have the ability to impose these steps in the town? She's not sure. But why doesn't it just say the applicant is committed to doing these things? Then you don't have to worry about who's requiring what in what jurisdiction and whether that requirement actually can be enforced in a different jurisdiction. Mr. Gensel responded that it falls back to the DEC and what they'll be requiring. This was the toolbox of things that could be required. The city planning board and the town planning board have the say on what needs to be done. He doesn't know why one was dropped; it was possibly added to that list and not followed through the rest of the document. Ms. Brock said you have to make findings statements and they'll have to impose these things. So why not just pull all that language out and just say we'll do whatever the DEC requires? The way this is written, it uses "as appropriate" and "as required by applicable law." It's not really requiring anything other than what's going to be required anyway by DEC. It seems the language is trying to placate those who are very nervous, and that we're trying to finalize things when we really don't know what the DEC is going to require. It seems to her that these six things should be in a findings statement and that the findings statement should include language like: This is not mitigated to the maximum Planning Board Minutes 12-04.2018 Page 3 of 5 extent practicable unless these things are done. It would be cleaner here just to say: The applicant commits to doing these things. She added that there are a number of places where they talk about the pedestrian network and improvement to sidewalks within Sidewalk Improvement District No 4, which is in the city. Are there any town sidewalks that should be connected to that or are all the sidewalk issues limited to the city? Does it need to talk about pedestrian connections to town facilities? Mr. Gensel said the only reason they reference it is because there's a city sidewalk district there. They do plan on extending sidewalks in case there will be more. Ms. Ritter said that in the future, as it develops, there will be sidewalks, and they've outlined where those sidewalks will be. The 96B sidewalk and the Gateway Trail extension - there are all kinds of opportunities for pedestrian accommodations, but at this point, there's nothing in the town. Mr. Gensel added that when they get to the PDZ, it will show where and how they'll do sidewalks. They're required to do that as part of LEED. Mr. Bosak referred to the point Ms. Brock raised. The commitment is different. In the first, they're proposing the inclusion and in the second, they're going to evaluate. The key word in the first instance for him is "threshold": since this is generic, a lot is going to hinge on thresholds. He's unnerved by the fact that that language doesn't appear yet. In general, lie was pleased with the level of response and that everything was accounted for. He was really impressed with the difference between the first round and the second round. He pointed out a couple of small things not worth a formal response. One regarded the mention of constructing left -turn lanes for southbound vehicles entering the site; lie thinks they must mean northbound. Mr. Gensel agreed. Ms. Fogarty asked who owns the building at this point, and who is paying for this process. Mr. Gensel said Emerson still owns it, and UnChained Properties is paying for the process. They've had a number of grants: some grant money to do investigation, some money from NYSERDA to do LEED certification of the site, and an initial grant of over $1 million for Phase I from NYSERDA. The state has become a stakeholder and the project has started to come up as a priority, especially for NYSERDA from an environmental sustainability standpoint. They see this as having the potential to be a key demonstration project for the state. Ms. Balestra said she'll follow up with an email to Lisa Nicholas, deputy director of planning for the city, summarizing the points that were made at the meeting. The city will next accept the FGEIS and move on to their findings statement. Our planning and town boards will also need to make individual findings statements. As an involved agency, the town board has to weigh in because there will be a PDZ. Ms. Fogarty asked when the question of land being extracted will get addressed. Ms. Ritter said the DEC is doing that, not the town or city. Ms. Brock added that it's probably addressed in the DGEIS; it's public information. She offered to look into it. Planning Board Minutes 12-04.2018 Page 4 of 5 AGENDA ITEM PB Resolution No. 2018-044: Town of Ithaca Planning Board, Schedule of Meetings for 2019 Moved by John Beach; seconded by Yvonne Fogarty RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby adopts the following as its schedule of Regular Meetings for the Year 2019. Unless otherwise noted, all meetings will be held on the first and third Tuesday of each month, commencing at 7:00 p.m. and ending by 10:00 p.m. FIRST MEETING OF THE MONTH January 1, 2019 Q loliday) February 5, 2019 March 5, 2019 April 2, 2019 May 7, 2019 June 4, 2019 July 2, 2019 August 6, 2019 September 3, 2019 October 1, 2019 November 5, 2019 December 3, 2019 Vote Ayes: Meier Swain, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak SECOND MEETING OF THE MONTH January 15, 2019 February 19, 2019 March 19, 2019 April 16, 2019 May 21, 2019 June 18, 2019 July 16, 2019 August 20, 2019 September 17, 2019 October 15, 2019 November 19, 2019 December 17, 2019 AGENDA ITEM PB Resolution No. 2018-045: 2019 Planning Board Chair, Recommendation to Town Board Moved by Yvonne Fogarty; seconded by John Beach Planning Board Minutes 12-04-2018 Page 5 of 5 Resolved, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommends to the Town Board that Fred Wilcox be appointed as Chair of the Planning Board for the year 2019. Vote Ayes: Meier Swain, Hacfcli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak AGENDA ITEM PB Resolution No. 2018.046: Minutes of November 6, 2018 Moved by John Beach; seconded by Yvonne Fogarty t� RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of November 6, 2018, as amended. Vote Ayes: Meier Swain, Haefeli, Fogarty, Bosak Abstentions: Beach AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - No one came forward to address the board. AGENDA ITEM Other Business On a motion by Joseph Haefeli, seconded by John Beach, the board voted to cancel the meeting of Dec. 18, 2018. Adjournment Upon a motion by Ms. Meier Swain, the meeting adjourned at 8:06 p.m. AGENDA ITEM Sexual Harassment Prevention Training (Judy Drake, Human Resource Manager) The NYS mandatory training was held after the meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted,