Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmail Correspondence with White Hawk since May 16 WHITE HAWK EMAILS SINCE MAY 16, 2019 PLANNING BOARD 1 Email Correspondence with White Hawk Ecovillage representatives since May 16, 2019 Planning Board Meeting From: "Mark Pruce" <mpruce@gmail.com> To: "Scott Gibson" <scottg@stny.rr.com>, "Stephen Maybee" <sjmaybee@gmail.com>, "Town of Danby Planner" <planner@townofdanbyny.org>
Cc: "infrastructure" <infrastructure@whitehawk.org> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 11:22:26 AM Subject: Status of White Hawk Site Plan process Scott, Steve and John, I just wanted to put this overview into writing to be sure we're all on the same page - its very important to us that this process not take any more months than it already has so I want to be sure to avoid miscommunications. Steve W and I met with John yesterday to get clear on the details of what exactly he and the Planning Board are asking us in terms of a review as well as discuss any other necessary changes to the Overall Site Plan that Steve Maybee is preparing for the June meeting. Storm Water Review The review, to be completed by an engineer with experience designing storm water management systems, is to include the following components and be summarized in a written report:  A review of the SWPPP and the storm water system as-built, noting deviations from the plan;  A set of recommendations of what is needed to fix substantive and impactful deviations from the original plan;  A review of the current status of the elements of the system (i.e. ponds, ditches);  A set of recommendations of what is needed to catch up those elements to where they should be (i.e. dredge pond back to X feet depth);  A schedule for regular maintenance of the system for White Hawk to follow going forward; Overall Site Plan Steve M has already made some of the changes that John requested, we briefly reviewed them and discussed the following additional changes:  John C would like us to see if either of the 'inset plans' can be enlarged further to fill up the white space, he says it is OK if the inset plans are at different scales as long as the scale is noted.  John C will come up with recommended language that he is comfortable with regarding to the use of the word 'approximate', he will send that recommendation to Steve. WHITE HAWK EMAILS SINCE MAY 16, 2019 PLANNING BOARD 2  At the June planning board meeting, the board will review the plans and come up with the language for the exact approval condition - John C floated some rough language: "Approved on the condition that White Hawk engages an engineer to conduct a review of the storm water management system and submit a report of that review within 6 months of approval". That language, or something similar, will be added to the Overall Site Plans before the July public hearing.  John C requests that somewhere on the top sheet of the Overall Site Plan, there is a box that lists references to 'relevant previously designed plans' - that would list the names and references to the design of the bridge, the original erosion and sediment control plans, the septic designs, etc. These plans don't have to be updated or reviewed or changed, and the language referencing them should be clear that we are not seeking any additional approval - they are 'previously constructed' or 'previously submitted', just listed as a reference point. Next Steps  Scott, please prepare an estimate for White Hawk on how long this report will take to compose and how much it will cost. Please be in touch with Steve W or me with any questions at all.  Steve M please work on the requested changes above and be in touch with Mark and Steve W or John C as needed with questions.  John C please send recommended language re: 'approximate' after reviewing the latest drafts attached and be sure that we are on the June Planning Board agenda to conduct a review. I hope I got it all right. Of course, I can't find the notebook I was using to take notes during the meeting so Steve W/John, please let me know if I missed anything at all from our meeting yesterday. Thanks all - enjoy the long memorial day weekend, Mark Mark Pruce Sidekick Studios A graphic design and web company for small businesses, nonprofits and other heroes. SidekickStudiosIthaca.com WHITE HAWK EMAILS SINCE MAY 16, 2019 PLANNING BOARD 3 On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 5:55 PM Danby Planner (John Czamanske) <planner@townofdanbyny.org> wrote: Hello Mark & All, Sorry for taking so long to get back to you about your summary of our meeting. It does represent what I asked to be provided. There were a few things that weren't listed but maybe you had previously reviewed them with Stephen Maybee:  Removing the lines of Lot 1 completely and adding a note somewhere stating the original approved plan included a Lot 1, which is being removed by this update, that there will be no renumbering of other lots, and that address 1 is being reserved for a future building yet to be approved.  Unless you propose to legally combine the two tax parcels by deed (which you could), the lot line should still be shown; with a note added that the two tax parcels are presently consolidated for tax purposes only.  (not a Stephen Maybee thing) Please submit a copy of the offering plan at the time you submit the other materials. One of my key goals with the site plan update is to create a new status quo that is clear and obvious for current and future town staff/officials & others. As part of doing that, I would ask that you have Stephen Maybee plot full-size paper copies of the plans referenced by the new site plan (those which are not being superseded by the site plan itself). All those plan sheets would get stapled together in the margin (behind the three 'site plan' sheets), would be the plan set that would get the PB Chairman's signature and would be the record approved plans until updated again. Likely two sets so both the Town and White Hawk each have a set signed by the Chairman, plus a third to send to the County. Possibly four if you want to go down to the County Clerk to record some or all of the plan set. I have not yet opened up the attachments in the various emails. I will and can review and comment on them, but I may find it necessary to ask for one set of the three site plan sheets sent to the office to facilitate my review & comment. Through the course of reviewing I'll end up commenting on verbiage for plan annotations. To reduce the waste of paper and cost of plotting, and following my preliminary office review, 11x17s of the site plans should be submitted to the town for distribution to the Planning Board. Ten copies. By that I mean just the overall site plan and the two zoomed areas. So, ten sets of three 11x17s, plus two sets of those three plotted on large sheets of paper, plus two sets of the other large sheet plans/drawings which represent the comprehensive site plan for White Hawk (erosion & sedimentation control, road, bridge, the most recent survey). One of those large format sets will go to Tompkins County Planning for the GML 239 referral process. The town one may become the copy to be signed by the PB Chair. The detailed wastewater system plans WHITE HAWK EMAILS SINCE MAY 16, 2019 PLANNING BOARD 4 approved by the Health Dept. can stand separately and don't need to be plotted or included in the site plan set. I'll leave it for you to decide whether you want one or two additional large format sets so that you can have your own record copy and/or for filing with the County Clerk. You may want to wait until after satisfying the stormwater condition to file a plan set with the clerk. The Town will also of course want PDFs of the plans. I don't believe I remembered to mention previously: there is a signature block that needs to get added to the top, overall site plan sheet. Strings of words and some blanks for the PB Chair to sign, write his name, and date. The words say to the effect 'approved by the PB...'. I'm at home now. Will get that to you all when I'm back in the office and looking at the plans. I'm open to modifying this somewhat if it doesn't make sense to you to do it the way I propose...; let me know. Thanks, John P.S. I'll be in the office tomorrow and again Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday next week. ___________________ John Czamanske, AICP Planner, Town of Danby 1830 Danby Road Ithaca, NY 14850-9419 (607) 277-2400 www.townofdanbyny.org From: "Mark Pruce" <mpruce@gmail.com>
To: "Town of Danby Planner" <planner@townofdanbyny.org>
Cc: "Scott Gibson" <scottg@stny.rr.com>, "Stephen Maybee" <sjmaybee@gmail.com>, "infrastructure" <infrastructure@whitehawk.org>
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 9:45:38 AM
Subject: Re: Status of White Hawk Site Plan process John, Re: Lot 1 - The latest version of the plans already have that change made, thats why I didn't list it. Re: Separate Lots - I asked our lawyers about this and her response was, "The only merging that needs to happen is the tax parcel merging. No other type of “consolidation” means anything. Once that is done, you are dealing with one single consolidated lot for all purposes of planning." In other words, unless I'm not explaining your concern right, the parcels are now merged - owning both deeds is as good as owning one whole lot, it was the tax boundaries that needed to be consolidated and that has happened. WHITE HAWK EMAILS SINCE MAY 16, 2019 PLANNING BOARD 5 Re: Offering Plan - Yes, thats in the works. Re: Printing - Sure, we may have to clear a forest the size of White Hawk to satisfy the planning boards needs for print copies, but we will comply with whatever requirements there are. Question: For the sake of 100% clarity, when you ask for 'large sheets' - is that 24x36 or 36x40 or so other size? The rest of your email looks fine. By the way, I've spoken with Scott Gibson, the engineer recommended to us by Steve Maybee and discovered that he worked for Tim Buhl in 2007 and he was the engineer who originally designed our storm water system. He has the original files and calculations, which is great, and he gave us an estimate for doing the review report but we won't engage him to do the work until we've gotten the conditional site plan approval that requires us to. Thanks, Mark Mark Pruce Sidekick Studios A graphic design and web company for small businesses, nonprofits and other heroes. SidekickStudiosIthaca.com From: Danby Planner (John Czamanske) <planner@townofdanbyny.org> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 1:08 PM To: Mark Pruce <mpruce@gmail.com> Cc: Scott Gibson <scottg@stny.rr.com>; Stephen Maybee <sjmaybee@gmail.com>; infrastructure <infrastructure@whitehawk.org> Subject: Re: Status of White Hawk Site Plan process Thank you Mark. Replying to your points/questions:  As I said, I hadn't looked at the email attachments so hadn't seen that Lot 1 was already removed.  Deeded parcels of land VS "tax parcels": I'm not asking or directing White Hawk to legally consolidate the two parcels of land through creation of a new legal instrument (deed) or through the "land annexation" process described in the Danby Subdivision Regulations. What I'm saying is that because the two separately-deeded parcels of land WHITE HAWK EMAILS SINCE MAY 16, 2019 PLANNING BOARD 6 have not been consolidated by deed or land annexation, that the line between the two deeded parcels of land still exists and that it be shown on the site plan. We could presumably use a site plan without the line to accomplish a "land annexation" per the Subdivision Regulations if that is White Hawk's intent. I don't know. I am going to seek guidance from the Town Attorney.  Offering plan - thanks, will await.  Printing is what it is. The Planning Board has an obligation to review and they really ought to be getting the complete application which means everything at full size. I'm already impinging a bit by saying that 11x17 is okay for the mailing and forcing them to come into town hall to see full size before the meeting or wait to see full size at their meeting or to pan around a computer screen by looking at a PDF. Having the two zoomed / inset sheets will make it more reasonable to look at those areas when reduced to 11x17.  "Large Sheets" was imprecise because I didn't know what size paper the engineer was going to use. The paper size that the utility plan was on seemed reasonable. It shouldn't be any smaller. Obviously, the paper size determines the scale and the scale needs to be large enough to be able to read and discern everything on the plan when plotted at that scale.  While it is convenient and in some ways good that your stormwater engineer was the one who designed the system in the first place, it obviously means that engineer might be less critical or forthcoming because their own prior work product is involved. Also obvious, is that all of this will be discussed with the Planning Board and they can figure out how the town's review will happen. I will likely still be working for the town in the coming few months, but may not be working for the town at the point your stormwater report is submitted. I said yesterday that I was going to be at town hall today, but am not due to a slight cold I seem to have caught over the Memorial Day weekend. I intend to be in the office next week (at least Mon., Tues., Wed.). Thanks, John ___________________ John Czamanske, AICP Planner, Town of Danby 1830 Danby Road Ithaca, NY 14850-9419 (607) 277-2400 www.townofdanbyny.org WHITE HAWK EMAILS SINCE MAY 16, 2019 PLANNING BOARD 7 On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 10:05 AM Scott Gibson <scottg@stny.rr.com> wrote: Hi Mark, While I’d certainly appreciate the opportunity to assist you if you so choose, I can assure you that Steve, I, and most engineers I know follow a pretty strict code of ethics. I’m not sure why I’d assess this job any differently from any other regardless of whether this was my design 12 years ago under another PE or not. In the end, I would think pre-familiarity with the task at hand saves both time, and money. Have a good day. Scott Gibson Drainage Specialist under Steven Maybee, PE From: "Mark Pruce" <mpruce@gmail.com> To: "Scott Gibson" <scottg@stny.rr.com> Cc: "Town of Danby Planner" <planner@townofdanbyny.org>, "Stephen Maybee" <sjmaybee@gmail.com>, "infrastructure" <infrastructure@whitehawk.org> Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 10:16:45 AM Subject: Re: Status of White Hawk Site Plan process Scott, I agree completely and have no such concerns about hiring you - I feel very sure that your familiarity can only help. Thanks, Mark -- Mark Pruce Sidekick Studios A graphic design and web company for small businesses, nonprofits and other heroes. SidekickStudiosIthaca.com WHITE HAWK EMAILS SINCE MAY 16, 2019 PLANNING BOARD 8 On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 4:20 PM Danby Planner (John Czamanske) <planner@townofdanbyny.org> wrote: Hi Mark, I was in town hall yesterday, printed the three most current site plan sheets on 11x17 paper, and marked them up with a red pencil. Today I had a long conversation with the town attorney about a number of matters (principally re tax parcels/lot lines and stormwater regs). I am going to be in town hall again tomorrow afternoon and am wondering if it would be possible to talk on the phone or meet in person with at least you, if not also with Stephen. If not Friday, then suggest Monday (after noon and up until about 6), or Tuesday, similar times. Sooner the better. Regarding the site plan sheets, I have some questions about a few things and also suggestions/requests about notes, references, and legends. I am hopeful that Stephen would be able to turn around some revisions such that I can mail the Planning Board revised sheets later next week, giving them time to review prior to the meeting on June 20. About the two large parcels of land: the plan does not need to show the line dividing the two parcels; the town attorney recommends there be explicit language on the plan and in the approval resolution stating that the parcels are in single ownership, are being consolidated and that, if the parcels are sought to be divided in the future, subdivision approval would be required to split them again. In talking about that and given his knowing a little about the transfer of the properties from Seven Circles to White Hawk, he recommended I ask if you have an abstract of title in addition to the offering plan so that it can be affirmatively determined all lands are held by White Hawk. I presume you needed to do that for the state, but we can discuss. He also suggested the plan clearly state (if supported by what is said in the offering plan as I believe to be the case from what you've related) the residential "lots" are not separately- conveyed lands but rather indicate those areas of land on which the members are able to build houses through whatever legal mechanism described in the offering plan. This would be done to make clear this is not a subdivision. If this was a new proposal, we wouldn't use the word lot at all, but have a feeling that changing the terminology now from lot to, say, 'unit', would unduly complicate things because I assume there are now a bunch of other documents which refer to those things as 'lots' (which is the same reason why they should not now be renumbered because we find that lot 1 should be removed). WHITE HAWK EMAILS SINCE MAY 16, 2019 PLANNING BOARD 9 My discussion with the town attorney regarding stormwater was somewhat more complicated because the stormwater rules themselves are complicated, and are complicated further by their having changed since the development was first approved by the town, and because the town's original stormwater law pre-dated two or three iterations of changes in State and Federal stormwater laws. The key takeaway from my conversation is that I believe the procedural approach discussed with the Planning Board is sound (i.e. that this development had stormwater review when first approved, that it has been constructed to date essentially according to what was conceived, that no development is being proposed now that is materially or substantially different than what was originally approved (which might trigger a new review according to new regulations), and that therefore doing a conditional approval first and stormwater review at some later date will be okay. Because it is all complicated however, there is a need for us (for the town's stormwater management obligations and for White Hawk's benefit now and into the future), to double-check what transpired originally with town approvals and with developer actions during and after construction related to the State stormwater general permit at the time (e.g. notice of intent, construction inspection, notice of termination, any post-construction reporting). If everything was good then and no new disturbance is conceived by this plan (which it isn't), then the stormwater review as discussed already with you and the Planning Board will remain based on the stormwater laws which were in effect at the time circa 2008 (prior to the Town's adopting its stormwater law in 2010 which opted it into MS4 processes). This checking -- not the engineer's work to review things to satisfy an approval condition -- needs to be done now/soon so that we know what's what. I will look through the town's records, but I am hoping that your records will contain the bits of information we need to confirm what was done re the NYS General Permit (the Notice of Intent and its record of filing; construction inspection vis a vis stormwater practices and facilities; Notice of Termination; and any post-construction reports (plus whatever may have been done when reconstructing the bridge)). This email is somewhat lengthy and is itself somewhat complicated, but the key things are we need to meet/talk and the process discussed with the PB appears sound. Thanks, John ___________________ John Czamanske, AICP Planner, Town of Danby 1830 Danby Road Ithaca, NY 14850-9419 (607) 277-2400 www.townofdanbyny.org WHITE HAWK EMAILS SINCE MAY 16, 2019 PLANNING BOARD 10 From: "Mark Pruce" <mpruce@gmail.com> To: "Town of Danby Planner" <planner@townofdanbyny.org> Cc: "Scott Gibson" <scottg@stny.rr.com>, "Stephen Maybee" <sjmaybee@gmail.com>, "infrastructure" <infrastructure@whitehawk.org> Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 8:43:41 AM Subject: Re: Status of White Hawk Site Plan process John, I appreciate your thoroughness - unfortunately I can't come to the office to meet with you today. In general, please remember that I am not paid for any of my time on this and I've already spend ~3 hours with you and probably 8+ with CJ and Paul in the past and I cannot spend unlimited amounts of time helping the Town of Danby catch up on its own past commitments and agreements, unless of course they want to hire me as a consultant a. It sounds like: (a) you and Guy (he's the attorney you are mentioning, right?) are proposing specific wording for the sheets and (b) you need to spend some time looking into the files to understand what happened in the past but are leaning towards confirming what the Planning Board already decided re:storm water review and conditional site plan approval. It seems to me that those things can be done without me there, in fact I don't think that I really add much to either process. So please feel free to shoot me questions by email as needed but for now, I think that Steve Maybee has produced plans that are ready for the public hearing on June 20th in front of the Planning Board and I assume we will need to send him one final revision request after that meeting that will include all of your and Guy's language. Re (a) above: I would request that you and Guy submit to us in full the language that you want added to the site plans in writing so we can review it, with Steve and with our attorney if necessary. Re (b) above: please do the research you need into the files and/or minutes archives but until I hear otherwise, I am assuming that what you, the planning board, and we discussed is still the current agreement: that pending a positive public hearing, we will either get site approval or conditional site approval, the condition being that we must hire an engineer to conduct a storm water review and file a report with the town as described in past emails. If you think that will not be condition, please let us and the planning board know ASAP. WHITE HAWK EMAILS SINCE MAY 16, 2019 PLANNING BOARD 11 I apologize if this emails comes off as curt, I'm just trying to be succinct and clear because this process hasn't so far been either of those for us. Thanks, Mark -- Mark Pruce Sidekick Studios A graphic design and web company for small businesses, nonprofits and other heroes. SidekickStudiosIthaca.com On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 11:33 AM Danby Planner (John Czamanske) <planner@townofdanbyny.org> wrote: Mark, There is no public hearing on June 20th. As discussed previously with the Planning Board, and subsequently with you and others in person and by email, revised plans need to be submitted to the Town for mailing next week to the Planning Board so that they may review in advance of the meeting on June 20th, from which and based on their discussions at that meeting the board would presumably schedule a public hearing in July. The plans need to be in the format as previously related (that is, a number of copies of full-size sheets, and a number of copies of 11x17s). The Town has also requested that it be provided with at least one set of full-size plots of the plans which the site plans reference. I have asked to speak with someone in person or on the phone about the plans to be submitted and to coordinate generally regarding logistics and matters unrelated to what is shown on plan sheets. You have been acting as lead agent via email so I emailed you and copied those you copied. If, as you say, "those things can be done without me there, in fact I don't think that I really add much to either process" then please by all means ask someone else to contact me at their earliest convenience to coordinate on these matters or allow your engineer at least to discuss the questions regarding plan references/notes, revisions to them, and the logistics of submitting paper plan sheets next week. There are other materials beside site plan sheets needed by the Town to complete its review. One item the Town is still awaiting is a copy of the White Hawk Offering Plan as approved by NY State. Yesterday, I asked if White Hawk also had an abstract of title for its lands to confirm the WHITE HAWK EMAILS SINCE MAY 16, 2019 PLANNING BOARD 12 unified ownership and, if so, to provide a copy to the Town. In addition, and while I did say I would examine the Town's White Hawk/Seven Circles records, through my email the Town of Danby has requested that White Hawk review its records and any records from Seven Circles to present information regarding key stormwater management milestones following the original approval from the Town (notice of intent, construction inspection, notice of termination, and any post-construction matters). I will await contact by someone to discuss these matters so that materials may be submitted next week on behalf of White Hawk to accomplish the required mailing to the Planning Board of plans and materials, as all desire and expect. I appreciate this process and those before may have been and may continue to be frustrating. Nevertheless, zoning necessitates that building permits be issued only based on a site plan approved by the Town Planning Board. The May 16th Planning Board conference resulted in, I believe and I thought the White Hawk representatives believed, a fair and expeditious path to obtaining site plan approval. I am very hopeful that you and others at White Hawk and your engineer will work with me and the Town to present the best possible revised site plan sheets and materials for the Planning Board meeting on June 20th. I am also hopeful that from there a public hearing can be conducted in July, leading to a conditional approval. Thank you, John ___________________ John Czamanske, AICP Planner, Town of Danby 1830 Danby Road Ithaca, NY 14850-9419 (607) 277-2400 www.townofdanbyny.org From: "Mark Pruce" <mpruce@gmail.com> To: "Town of Danby Planner" <planner@townofdanbyny.org> Cc: "Scott Gibson" <scottg@stny.rr.com>, "Stephen Maybee" <sjmaybee@gmail.com>, "infrastructure" <infrastructure@whitehawk.org> Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 12:32:33 PM Subject: Re: Status of White Hawk Site Plan process John, Thanks. WHITE HAWK EMAILS SINCE MAY 16, 2019 PLANNING BOARD 13 Re: June meeting - You are correct, I said public hearing but I meant the review meeting. Re: Offering Plan - Attached please find the digital version of the offering plan - I have 1 bound paper copy as well. Re: Abstract - This is another completely new request, but we certainly had this for the land purchase not too long ago. I will inquire for a copy with our lawyer. Re: Records relating to Storm Water approval - I will look but the records that we inherited from the original owner were disorganized and missing many pieces. If I had to guess now, we probably do not have the items you are looking for but we do the SWPPP and the SWMP, both of which I know are on file with the Town of Danby. Re: Submitting Prints - Yes, I got your email listing out the number of copies and different sizes and we intend to comply with all of that next week. Re: Language for Plan Notations - On this point I will repeat what we've now asked for a few times: please submit the language that you and the town's attorney want to see so that we may review it. We've now spoken in person several times but these conversations don't result in any actual language being produced so they haven't actually moved the process forward. If you have questions, please submit them to us. Otherwise, please draft the language that you are asking us to add to our plans. I'm not sure how talking to our engineer will help you figure the language requirements and his time is valuable as well, moreso than mine. Thanks for your help on this, Mark -- Mark Pruce Sidekick Studios A graphic design and web company for small businesses, nonprofits and other heroes. SidekickStudiosIthaca.com On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 2:56 PM Danby Planner (John Czamanske) <planner@townofdanbyny.org> wrote: I was unable to find the email attachment ___________________ WHITE HAWK EMAILS SINCE MAY 16, 2019 PLANNING BOARD 14 John Czamanske, AICP Planner, Town of Danby 1830 Danby Road Ithaca, NY 14850-9419 (607) 277-2400 www.townofdanbyny.org From: "Mark Pruce" <mpruce@gmail.com> To: "Town of Danby Planner" <planner@townofdanbyny.org> Cc: "Scott Gibson" <scottg@stny.rr.com>, "Stephen Maybee" <sjmaybee@gmail.com>, "infrastructure" <infrastructure@whitehawk.org> Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 3:04:01 PM Subject: Re: Status of White Hawk Site Plan process See attached for the Offering Plan pdf. - Mark -- Mark Pruce Sidekick Studios A graphic design and web company for small businesses, nonprofits and other heroes. SidekickStudiosIthaca.com From: "Town of Danby Planner" <planner@townofdanbyny.org> To: "Mark Pruce" <mpruce@gmail.com> Cc: "Scott Gibson" <scottg@stny.rr.com>, "Stephen Maybee" <sjmaybee@gmail.com>, "infrastructure" <infrastructure@whitehawk.org> Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 4:59:07 PM Subject: Re: Status of White Hawk Site Plan process Thank you. This is Part I. Please also submit Part II. ___________________ John Czamanske, AICP Planner, Town of Danby 1830 Danby Road Ithaca, NY 14850-9419 (607) 277-2400 WHITE HAWK EMAILS SINCE MAY 16, 2019 PLANNING BOARD 15 www.townofdanbyny.org On Fri, Jun 7, 2019, 4:51 PM Danby Planner (John Czamanske) <planner@townofdanbyny.org> wrote: Good Evening, I have reviewed the notes I made on the site plan sheets I printed and offer the following. Given that there is some sensitivity it would seem, let me say I am asking that these things be addressed prior to submitting plan sheets early next week; I do not believe this is a heavy lift. To the extent this cannot be accomplished fully or even partially, there is still a need to consider at least some of them in providing paper prints for the Planning Board mailing. Any things not addressed would go into the memo which I will be writing for the Planning Board, which will necessarily attempt to be comprehensive, though it may not be possible to do so. Unless it comes out of a communication/discussion with you and your team, I will not make any more comments on the plan sheets prior to the mailing, but I will of course continue to review closely any plans and materials submitted and will make comments & suggestions to you and/or the Planning Board as necessary. I would still appreciate the courtesy of a phone call next week Monday afternoon or even Tuesday related to logistics. This mailing needs to be in the overall assembly/collation stage mid-afternoon Wednesday. At this time I expect multiple items on the agenda, therefore, all paper prints and anything else you would seek distributed to the Planning Board must be in hand, collated, in sufficient quantity no later than noon on Wednesday (so that they may be collated into the overall mailing). Sheet 1 (PDF: WhiteHawkUtilityPlanRevASht1_5-30-19DRAFT) To the extent that the insets are simply zoomed area of this sheet, obviously some of these comments apply to the other sheets (and vice versa) and will not be restated for each.  Indicate that the inset boxes are sheets 2 and 3 or whatever the naming convention is. My preference for plans is to simply call inset 2, site plan sheet 2 and inset 3, site plan sheet 3.  Move the tax parcel reference out of the inset box as it appears to be in reference to the inset.  Indicate that the site plan only shows a portion of the tax parcel. WHITE HAWK EMAILS SINCE MAY 16, 2019 PLANNING BOARD 16  There is no symbol for parcel boundary; it is apparent on the east where bounds are closed and bearing/distances noted; consider adding something to the lines that simply end off to the west that they are boundary lines which terminate beyond the area shown on the site plan.  I may have missed it due to a faint color, but please add a label or note somewhere as to ownership of the lands. Red Tail LLC and book/page numbers of deeds. Something. It may also be beneficial to have something stating the other entity names as well.  References list needs a reference to the originally approved site plan and any approved amendments to it.  Not sure about the title ‘utility plat’; maybe ‘plan’ or just remove that.  The 1” paper = 100 ft note is problematic because we are already talking about submission of reduced size 11x17s. I suggest removing any such notes from this and other plans. Graphic scales will suffice, however they must note units as feet.  Having now just quickly scanned through Part I of the Offering Plan, I noted that it refers explicitly to Lot 1. This is one of those things that I would have had no way of knowing when I first said to remove Lot 1, but I now believe the outlines of Lot 1 need to be shown with a dotted or dashed line and that the note be revised. Something like: “Lot 1 is no longer a residential lot but its former location is shown by a dotted line for reference purposes. The remaining residential lots have not been renumbered.”  The legend is incomplete; some symbols have no notation in the legend.  The emailed plans are in color. Submission of color site plans is fine. Please note that submission of grayscale copies of color plans might be problematic since some colors seem to print very faintly in grayscale. Also, the legend uses color to distinguish different elements (though some can be distinguished by symbol as well). The only way to distinguish existing vs proposed wastewater is by color. The town doesn’t need color, but board members and others (and the record copies) need to be sufficiently legible.  The overall site plan needs to have the language specified by the Zoning Ordinance for Planning Board signature. “Approved by Resolution of the Planning Board of the Town of Danby, New York, on the ______ day of ____________, 20____, subject to all requirements and conditions of said Resolution. Any change, erasure, modification or revision of this plat, as approved, shall void this approval. Signed this __________ day of ____________, 20____ by Chairperson ________________.” There is no specified size, just make it reasonably big enough to be easily legible and to accommodate filling in blanks and signing. Based on this language it is occurring to me now that if there is a condition regarding stormwater, that it might not actually go on the plan but would instead only appear in the approval resolution. Sheet 2 (PDF: WhiteHawkUtilityPlanSht2RevA_5-30-19DRAFT)  There is a faint note (‘not a building lot…’) to the north of lots 30 and 31 which appears to be a remnant from the previous lot configuration.  Lots 30 and 31 do not indicate acreage.  The existing leach field is shown with an approximate location but the yet to be designed/built leach field doesn’t. ? WHITE HAWK EMAILS SINCE MAY 16, 2019 PLANNING BOARD 17  The water building is already constructed, though I understand it may not be completely finished. I believe it shouldn’t be labeled proposed.  It may be possible to not have to amend the site plan in the future regarding the common house if it is somewhat less general. If the location is where the words are, maybe put a dotted line around some larger area than that and say something like ‘per PDZ 19, up to 5,000 sq ft common house within this area’. Provided you end up putting it inside that circle I would expect the code officer to be able to issue a building permit based on that, and we can put something to that effect in the approval resolution.  Some manhole elevations are not indicated.  Indicate somehow that the boxes inside some of the lots are the outlines of residential structures already constructed.  Note that the lots are not and will not be separately owned or conveyed. Maybe use the definition of lot from the offering plan.  The survey reference is different on sheets 2 and 3. I suggest removing the separate list of references from the two inset maps; just state as a note ‘see sheet 1 for plan references’.  Sheet 2 is labeled section 1, sheet 3 is labeled section 2. Please label the insets on sheet 1 with something that will be clear and consistent. Sheet 3 (PDF: WhiteHawkUtilityPlanSht3RevA_5-30-19DRAFT)  The creek symbology is inconsistent either side of the bridge. ___________________ John Czamanske, AICP Planner, Town of Danby 1830 Danby Road Ithaca, NY 14850-9419 (607) 277-2400 www.townofdanbyny.org On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 11:59 PM Greg Nelson <terramantra@gmail.com> wrote: Just FYI I have been trying for 3 weeks to schedule a surveyor from TG Miller to come and get (among other things) the manhole elevations. They have indicated they can come next week but have for the third time not confirmed the days I suggested. We will get this information to you as soon as possible. Greg From: "Mark Pruce" <mpruce@gmail.com> To: "Town of Danby Planner" <planner@townofdanbyny.org> WHITE HAWK EMAILS SINCE MAY 16, 2019 PLANNING BOARD 18 Cc: "Greg Nelson" <terramantra@gmail.com>, "Stephen Maybee" <sjmaybee@gmail.com>, "infrastructure" <infrastructure@whitehawk.org> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 3:25:02 PM Subject: Re: Status of White Hawk Site Plan process John, I've read through your emails and digested all of it. I understand that there are outstanding comments and revisions to our site plan but none of them seem substantive to the level that they would impact the Planning Board's ability to assess our (already mostly-built) project. So that, combined with the fact that we are awaiting the manhole elevations and that the Planning Board may have other suggested changes, has lead us to conclude that we will submit the drawings at the current state for the Planning Board's review and we will do our best to give our engineer one final set of changes to make before the July Public Hearing. After the Planning Board meeting, depending on how it goes, we'll discuss whether it makes sense to have Steve participate in a conversation with you and us so that the final draft of these plans can be in fact final. You will get the plans in the formats, sizes, and quantities requested before Noon on Wednesday. I'm sorry that we haven't been as available as you would like, we are doing our best to comply with your requests in the confines of what is reasonable for us (a group of people who have other full time jobs). Thanks, Mark -- Mark Pruce Sidekick Studios A graphic design and web company for small businesses, nonprofits and other heroes. SidekickStudiosIthaca.com