Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2016-05-24TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. May 24. 2016 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed Therm Incorporated Manufacturing Expansion project located at 1000 Hudson Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54-2-1, Light Industrial Zone. The proposal inyolyes the construction of a new 20,000 -h/- square foot manufacturing building along with associated access, utility, and drainage improyements. The project will also inyoWe the demolition of an existing structure (Ceramics Building) to accommodate the new building. Therm Incorporated, Owner/Applicant; Adam M. Fishel, PE, CPESC, Marathon Engineering, Agent. 7:30 P.M. Consider designation of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to act as Lead Agency, determination of a Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance, and discussion of the draft scoping document for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) regarding the proposed Cornell University Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment project located between Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63.-2-10.2, 63.-2-1, 63.-2-2, 63.-2-14, and 63.-2-3, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves demolishing the existing Maplewood housing complex and redeveloping the +!- 17 acre site with up to 500 residential units (studios and 1-4 bedroom units) in a mix of townhomes, stacked flats, and multi-family apartment buildings. The project will also include some small retail, new interior streets, parking areas, pedestrian facilities, open spaces, stormwater facilities, and a community center. The Planning Board may also consider scheduling a public scoping session to hear public comments on the draft scoping document for the Maplewood Apartments EIS. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; EdR Trust, Applicant; Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC, Agent. 8:00 P.M. Consider submission of comments on the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) 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. 4. Persons to be heard 5. Approval of Minutes: May 3, 2016 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 or SPOLC EgTOWN.rmAUA.NV.LS. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) Accessing Meeting Materials Online Site Plan and Subdivision applications and associated project materials are accessible electronically on the Town's website under "Planning Board" on the "Meeting Agendas" page fh»D://\vww.tow n.ithacu.nv.u,s/meetint;-aaendas). Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street May 24, 2016 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN-IN Please Print Clearly. Thank You Name id O P\ Qireco' k / T U'Ja fvJ IcL->n Ji i s /l/lit ([cJ^ / TahdA^. WlV^r\^LC <ke^0o\O- llih Sl'fkre^ Ck f CBr K/IR£5oT f "SC-HoSPS «J«5<a,rv 4- LetiAj(<-C Address jd /) 1,^ £^I.Ji 'ffM 6 ^ V\wj.Go<N ^ JdW, ^l( ICf/ i2 f / f~lll I c.-Wrgj /> Pg crrtVAcA, ^ C M(kiv4A.y M2-S H,Ta+£u_*'r ?a.5 ^ s?: •(Jc^Cs_Q_[l/^ io<^^oJiyv^ TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING FINAL Tuesday, May 24, 2016 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox (Chair), Linda Collins, John Beach, Yvonne Fogarty, Liebe Meier Swain, Jon Bosak, Katherine Herleman (Alternate) Town Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Dan Thaete, Engineer; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. AGENDA ITEM Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed Therm Incorporated Manufacturing Expansion project located at 1000 Hudson Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54-2-1, Light Industrial Zone. The proposal involves the construction of a new 20,000 +/- square foot manufactur ing building along with associated access, utility, and drainage improvements. The project will also involve the demolition of an existing structure (Ceramics Building) to accommodate the new building. Therm Incorporated, Owner/Applicant; Adam M. Fishel, PE, CPESC, Marathon Engi neering, Agent Mr. Fishel stated that the new building will be located right behind their existing facility. The existing access drive will be demolished and lengthened to provide access for tractor trailers to the rear of the new manufacturing building and the existing Quonset storage building. Site disturbance will exceed one acre, so they'll need to do a full SWPPP. Some trees will need to be removed. Therm has offered a 2-to-l replacement of those trees, and the bioretention area for stormwater quality will also have some landscaping. There will be no new parking and one new light pole, possibly solar-powered. Mr. Beach asked what the distance will be from the new building to the South Hill Rec Way. George May, Therm utility manager, said the Rec Way is right behind the row of trees. Mr. Smith said that Therm actually owns where the Rec Way is; the town has an easement. Ms. Herleman asked about the height of the new building - whether it will be visible from the Rec Way - and the type and placement of the trees that will be used to replace those being removed. Mr. May responded that you won't see the building from the Rec Way because of the trees. He said that only three trees will be removed - two pines and an apple - and that they haven't discussed what type will be used to replace them. He'd prefer to use hardwoods. Ms. Collins asked if they will be expanding their work force. Planning Board Minutes 05-24-2016 Page 2 of 13 Mr. May said they are currently expanding. They rent from the South Hill Business Campus and that work force will be moving back to the Therm site, some to the main facility and some to the new facility. The new building will allow a better use of space. Mr. Wilcox commented that it's nice to see that business is good. The board will want to know exactly where the light pole will be located, its height, and the type of fixtures that will be used. He noted that the tree replacement plan will need to specify their location, type, and size to appropriately screen the building from the Rec way and neighbors. The board looks for a variety of trees in case a blight destroys all of one type. Ms. Brock said that a town of Ithaca sewer line might need to be relocated. Mr. Thaete said they've been working with the applicant and it's been going well. Ms. Brock asked whether there will be noise and vibrations from the manufacturing that might be heard and felt beyond their property line. Mr. May said it's the same as what goes on right now in the current building. None of the equipment is outside. None of the equipment is loud; it's quiet enough that the employees don't need to wear ear protection. To a question from Mr. Beach, he said they currently have 165 employees and are looking for another 20. Ms. Ritter pointed out that noise, odors, etc, will be addressed in the SEQR. Ms. Herleman said the Lab of Ornithology has an app called yardmap.org that allows you to see what types of trees are appropriate for your lot. Mr. Wilcox invited the public to speak. A woman stated that she lives on property that abuts the Therm property. Lights, probably from their parking lot, glare all night long. These lights are not focused down, but outward. Mr. Smith said the town has a lighting code for all new construction that the light can't shine out. A gentleman said water on South Hill is a big issue. It runs in very unusual ways under the strata of the shale. He has monitored the water coming off South Hill from the end of Pearsall Place and the Rec Way for the last 30+ years. He's very concerned about how the new construction might affect water flow. There's a great deal of runoff from the parking lot. Therm has been a very good neighbor and Mr. May is quite responsive, but as planning goes forward the surface water running through the parking lot should be addressed. He wants to be reassured about the nature of the new sewer hookup, and asked whether it will go to the city system or the town system. He also has concerns about light. He is concerned about the hours of construction and whether they'll use excavators to drill down or use the existing slab. There is rock drilling everywhere right now in the city. Mr. Thaete said engineering staff have been working with the applicant regarding their stormwater philosophy. They are under an existing SPDES permit, so they're required to monitor and test their outfall. That information is publicly available. There are two systems at play: they will have a new Planning Board Minutes 05-24-2016 Page 3 of 13 outfall from their storm drainage system and will also be relocating part of the town's sanitary sewer system. PB Resolution No. 2016-027: Lead Agency - Declaration of Intent, Therm Incorporated Manufacturing Expansion, Tax Parcel No. 54.-2-1, 1000 Hudson Street Extension Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Liebe Meier Swain WHEREAS: 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at its meeting on May 24, 2016, considered a sketch plan for the proposed Therm Incorporated Manufacturing Expansion project located at 1000 Hudson Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54-2-1, Light Industrial Zone. The proposal involves the construction of a new 20,000 +/- square foot manufacturing building along with associated access, utility, and drainage improvements. The project will also involve the demoli tion of an existing structure (Ceramics Building) to accommodate the new building. Therm In corporated, Owner/Applicant; Adam M. Fishel, PE, CPESC, Marathon Engineering, Agent, and 2. The proposed project, which requires site plan approval by the Planning Board is a Type 1 action pursuant to Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding Environmental Quality Review, because it involves the expansion of a nonresidential facility by more than 50% of the 25,000 square foot of gross floor area threshold (Section 148-5.C.4); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby proposes to establish itself as lead agency to coordi nate the environmental review of the proposed actions, as described above, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby requests the concurrence of all involved agencies on this proposed lead agency designation, said concurrence to be received by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department within thirty days from the date of notification to the involved agencies. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Meier Swain, Bosak, Herleman AGENDA ITEM Consider designation of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to act as Lead Agency, determination of a Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance, and discussion of the draft scoping document for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) regarding the proposed Cornell University Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment project located between Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63.-2-10.2, 63.-2-1, 63.-2-2, 63.-2-14, and 63.-2-3, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves demolishing the existing Maplewood housing complex and redeveloping the +/-17 acre site with up to 500 residential units (studios and 1-4 bedroom units) in a mix of townhomes, stacked flats, and multi-family apartment buildings. The project will also include some Planning Board Minutes 05-24-2016 Page 4 of 13 small retail, new interior streets, parking areas, pedestrian facilities, open spaces, stormwater facilities, and a community center. The Planning Board may also consider scheduling a public scoping session to hear public comments on the draft scoping document for the Maplewood Apartments EIS. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; EdR Trust, Applicant; Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning Design, LLC, Agent Mr. Wilcox thanked the applicant for the detailed information. Ms. Herleman recused herself and sat in the audience. Mr. Wilcox said the planning board needs to determine whether there's the potential for one or more significant environmental impacts requiring the preparation of a full environmental impact statement and scheduling a scoping session. In the scoping session, the potential issues that need to be studied as part of the environmental review need to be identified. Ms. Collins said she found 13 instances in which staff have determined that there are potential impacts. She agrees with staff. Ms. Fogarty and Mr. Beach concurred. The board went through the FEAF form and made corrections. Ms. Ritter said that anything we're not clear about will be included in the scoping document so it can be analyzed more fully in the EIS. Ms. Brock pointed out that the numbers of beds and units entered on the form were higher than the numbers indicated on the drawings. Mr. Whitham responded that in the process of putting together the site plan and placing the buildings, they've ended up with lower numbers than they began with, so they're willing to commit to the number of beds and units as represented in the plan, which is 887 beds and 474 units. Mr. Thaete commented that the applicant will replace impervious surface that they remove; in addition, they're adding pervious pavement beyond the existing impervious coverage. Mr. Wilcox said he got the sense from members of the public that they're wondering why the planning board hasn't commented negatively about certain things. The answer is that it's not time for us to do that yet. It's our job as planning board members to conduct the environmental review, to get the final plans, to talk to our experts and members of the public. When all that information has been made available, then and only then do we come to conclusions about what we think should be changed, added, or subtracted. So don't look at the fact that no one on the board has said they don't like tall buildings on Mitchell Street. It doesn't mean everyone is comfortable with it; it just means we haven't gotten to that point yet, and it would be inappropriate for a board member to offer an opinion on it until such time as we have all the information available to us. We will schedule a public hearing when we get to that point. Mr. Thaete pointed out that there's been a back and forth with the applicant regarding water usage. The town has hired a consultant to map the water system and analyze the East Hill area. Just based on Maplewood alone, they're anticipating that the Pine Tree Road tank will be increased, mostly due to Planning Board Minutes 05-24-2016 Page 5 of 13 the required three-day emergency capacity, not for pressure or flow issues. We'll have the consultant model 70,000 gallons per day for usage for this development. They'll need to talk to Cornell when it comes to East Hill Village, because that will also impact the Pine Tree Road tank. Mr. Wilcox invited the public to speak. Joe Wilson, 75 Hunt Hill Road, brought up several issues regarding energy use and emissions and segmentation. His statement is shown below. Supporting documents and exhibits he submitted along with his statement are available from the planning department. "I have made an accelerated review of the current packet of draft EAFs, draft positive declaration, and draft scoping document which is part of your agenda for tonight's meeting. 1 have also begun to review additional pertinent DEC documents which have been offered me as courtesy by your Planning Staff member, Christine Balestra. 1. Based on my review, I find no clear references to the need for identifying, assessing, and mitigating greenhouse emissions from the project in any of the EAFs or the draft scoping doc ument. The final versions of these documents and the final Scoping Document must include appropriate references, comments, and directions so that such activities become part of the DEIS and EIS. Reasons: In its EAF Part 2, your Planning Department staff has already determined that with regard to the Maplewood redevelopment phase of the entire project, there may be a "moderate to large impact" on energy use including "the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system." This overall conclusion is consistent with the apparent facts that the project will more than double the number of units, beds, residents, and automobiles associated with the pro ject and likely will do the same for the amount of square footage to be heated. As noted by the DEC in several of its applicable documents such increases typically cause increases in energy use, greenhouse gases and pollution each of which is subject to assessment and mitigation under SEQRA. This will be especially important if EdR persists in its proposed use of "natural gas", because the "natural gas" supplied to the greater Ithaca area these days is typically "ffacked gas" from Pennsylvania and Ohio and is especially rich in methane—a gas which requires individual attention under SEQRA as well as a pollutant and greenhouse gas to be addressed under other areas of the EAFs. As I have previously noted in comments to the Planning Board, the policy and rules outlined in the dec's Guide for Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in an Environmental Impact Statement, NYSDEC, July 15, 2009 have the effect of requiring the Town's EIS to address the above matters of increased energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and potential methane re lease in its EIS. The supporting documents must, therefore, be redrafted to cause this to occur. 2. 1 understand that the potential generation of methane is to be identified and analyzed sepa rately under SEQRA, but as best 1 can tell this is not noted or required to be analyzed in the current documents. An assessment following SEQRA must be included in the appropriate documents if "natural gas" is used in the project. Reasons: Regardless of the fact that EdR chose to deny that methane will be released in complet ing its draft EAF, Part I, it is my understanding that methane can in fact be emitted if natural gas is used to provide energy for the project. This can be of course be confirmed (or not) by inde- Planning Board Minutes 05-24-2016 Page 6 of 13 pendent experts. If it is the case that methane will be generated, then the appropriate documents must be redrafted to cause the requirements of SEQRA to be met. 3. 1 did not see any direct reference in the latest EAFs or draft scoping document to the con flicts between the use of natural gas in the project and the pertinent goals and policies in the Town's Comprehensive Plan or the County's Energy Road. These goals and policies and any additional commitments of the Town (e.g. the Town's Climate Smart Resolution) should be noted and described so that they can be appropriately addressed under SEQRA. Reasons; Although it is apparently the practice to understand the references in the EAF forms to "Community Plans" to be references to land use plans such as zoning laws, given the time, energy, public engagement, and the directions for the future which they represent, the term should also apply to the plans, goals, and policies regarding energy, emissions, etc. of the Town and County. There are substantial reasons to be concerned that projects like Maplewood will defeat the com munity's goals and commitments to reduce energy use, pollution, emissions and global warming. These include that climate scientists believe that the globe is warming far faster than previous models predicted and that, locally, world renowned methane emissions expert and Cornell scien tist Dr. Bob Howarth has just advised the County's Planning Department that his latest review of the County's greenhouse gas inventory indicates that rather than having reduced greenhouse gases, our County inventory is much higher than previously understood. One of the major fac tors, Howarth says, is that locally we now use fracked gas and fracked gas has much higher me thane content than the previously used gas from horizontal wells. 1 understand from Planner Chris Balestra that the apparent conflicts could be addressed under the current draft language in the EAF Form 3, at p. 14. It requires the DEIS contain "a thorough analysis of the expected energy usage." While 1 recognize the power of the Planning Board and staff to so interpret the language, given that the kind of conflicts 1 have identified are not typically addressed under this category in SEQRA reviews, 1 strongly recommend that so doing be explicitly required in both the Negative Declaration and the draft scoping document. 4. I do not understand how in EAF 3 it can be written that the "capacity analysis [for sewer and water services] should consider other potential future projects within the service area, e.g. Cornell's East Hill Village (potential redevelopment of East Hill Plaza)" and not require the same regarding energy, emissions, air quality, traffic, and conflicts with Community Plans. Reasons: As 1 previously noted in my comments for May 3, there are press accounts including statements attributed to knowledgeable sources that the Maplewood renovation is the first phase of a multiple-phase, residential-mixed use development project to be built on parcels of Cornell land clustered in and around the East Hill Plaza. Substantiation of the press accounts come from Cornell's 2008 Strategic Plan where the East Hill area is identified as the "South Campus Precinct." Phases of the development of the Precinct include "Zone SI6, the Maplewood Zone," "S17, East Hill Village," and "SIS, Cornell Park"—the latter being an athletic and recreation area. What is significant regarding what constitutes the whole project for the purpose of analyzing en ergy use, greenhouse gases, air quality, traffic, public health, and community plan conflicts is that this document includes narratives, drawings, and data tables for the entire "Precinct" project. The data includes the number of buildings and for each: the footprint, the gross square footage, the height and numbers of stories, and the potential number of residential units. There are also dia- Planning Board Minutes 05-24-2016 Page 7 of 13 grams and narratives discussing how gas and electricity service could be expanded to serve the buildings, people, and activities generated by the entire South Campus Precinct project. In short, this is the kind of information upon which competent estimates of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions etc. could be made. In discussing this matter with scientists and engineers, I have come to understand the necessary calculations are easily within the capacity many professionals. Given this and that Planning staff have already recommended the Planning Board consider the entire South Campus Precinct project in scoping the DEIS for water and sewer, it follows that the same should apply to the analysis of energy use, emissions, etc. Therefore, in "scoping" this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), the Planning Board should include all phases of the "South Campus Precinct" in addressing matters of energy, emis sions, etc. as I suggested in my May 3 comments. Mr. Bosak commented on Mr. Wilson's statement regarding fracked gas having more methane by pointing out that it's all methane. A gentleman said that the answers in the EAF need to be adjusted. Page 10, E.l.h: potential contami nation history. The answer should be yes. One time while walking around the high voltage lab, he and his wife found several large transformers that had been thrown outside and noticed that they were leaking. He called and reported it to his town rep, and shortly after, he saw a state hazmat team digging out the dirt doing a hazardous waste cleanup. The answer to the next part of the question is yes: it is listed in the DEC Spills Incidents database. The database shows 11 hits on Mitchell Street, ten of which are on or adjacent to this site. There are four hits for the high voltage lab, two for the Maplewood site, and three on the site which is now the Belle Sherman Cottages. There are 12 hits for Maple Avenue. Regarding question E.l.g, the answer is yes: there is an active hazardous waste storage site on Maple Avenue. There are no windows on the building and there are signs that say "radioactive waste." It's next to the pipe shop. The day before the last planning board meeting, he saw a Cornell truck labeled "Regulated medical waste. Radioactive waste transport vehicle. Cornell University Environmental Health and Safety." Another item is that there are six intersections the board is planning to have studied. The Mitchell Street and Pine Tree Road intersection needs to be added. He asked about the road that runs off Veteran's Place, goes around the apartments on the southern side, and ends abruptly at the boundary line of what were the Maple Hill Apartments (now called the Ithaca East Apartments). One might suspect that the useful life of that project has ended and that it will be redeveloped next. There's currently a house between the two projects that is not shown on the Cornell Master Plan. He thought East Hill Village was going to be like Community Corners, but it looks more like Dryden Road and College Avenue, and is being referred to as Collegetown 2.0. He provided Mr. Wilcox with a list of the spill sites. Mr. Wilcox pointed out that this is why we let the public speak, even though it is not a public hearing. A gentleman asked how the public can stay tuned to and be engaged in this process in order to make this project a win-win for everyone. Ms. Ritter said the town sends notices to everyone within 500 feet of the project. All the project information, including drawings, is on the town web site, attached to the planning board agenda for the meeting. Planning Board Minutes 05-24-2016 Page 8 of 13 The gentleman asked whether the town holds focus group meetings. Mr. Wilcox responded that the planning board gets their feedback from planning board meetings. Ms. Fogarty suggested that the Belle Sherman community start a listserv. Mr. Bosak said people can find out by subscribing to the Ithaca Journal and reading the Legals section. Ms. Herleman stated that the energy usage per capita on the form was underestimated. She pointed out that Tompkins County just passed its Energy Roadmap, which stipulates that by 2050, they want to return to 2009 emissions levels, an 80 percent reduction. It is her professional opinion that, given the current utility design, this design is not consistent with the county's Energy Roadmap objective. Tessa Rudan, city resident of Belle Sherman, expressed her appreciation of the board's critical thinking skills. She commented on two plans. The first is the City of Ithaca's Comprehensive Plan, which has been adopted in broad strokes only. The neighborhood character portion for Belle Sherman is not estimated to begin until 2017. The second is the Collegetown plan, which was enacted a couple years ago. Around East Hill, there are a considerable number of active construction projects going on in the center of Collegetown. Belle Sherman is within six to seven active mixed-use construction projects. When you refer to East Hill Village, we already have a village on East Hill: Belle Sherman is a village that centers around the elementary school. Many people have no affiliation with Cornell at all. The city comp plan and Collegetown plan identify preserving the existing character of Belle Sherman. She hopes that in terms of responsible planning, the board look at the plans that are on the books and the construction projects going on and the pressure Belle Sherman is facing in the town and in the city. Mr. Wilcox asked whether the stubs of driveways were left for a reason. Mr. Whitham said they are being put in for potential future connections. The directive was to design the road so as not to prohibit a connection. PB Resolution No. 2016-028: Lead Agency Designation and Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance, Maplewood Redevelopment Project, Tax Parcel No's. 63.-2-10.2, 63.-2-1, 63.-2-2, 63.- 2-3, 63.-2-14, Between Maple Avenue & Mitchell Street Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by John Beach WHEREAS: 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at its meeting on March 15, 2016, considered a Sketch Plan for the proposed Cornell University Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment project located between Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63.-2-10.2, 63.-2-1, 63.-2-2, 63.-2-14, and 63.-2-3, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves demolishing the existing Maplewood housing complex and redeveloping the +/-17 acre site with up to 500 residential units (studios and 1-4 bedroom units) in a mix of townhomes, stacked flats, and multi- family apartment buildings. The project will also include some small retail, new interior streets, Planning Board Minutes 05-24-2016 Page 9 of 13 parking areas, pedestrian facilities, open spaces, stormwater facilities, and a community center. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; EdR Trust, Applicant; Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning &. Design, LLC, Agent, and 2. The proposed project, which requires site plan approval by the Planning Board and a rezoning to a Planned Development Zone (PDZ) by the Town of Ithaca Town Board, is a Type I action pursu ant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding Environmental Quality Review, because the proposal involves a zoning change and the construction of 250 or more residential units (30 or more per Town Code) that will be connected to existing community or public water and sewage systems (§617.4 (b)(3) and (b)(5)(iii);Town Code Section 148-5.B(2)), and 3. A Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1, was submitted by the applicant, along with application materials and a letter from Whitham Planning &. Design, LLC (agent for the appli cant), dated March 21, 2016, that stated that the applicant is "anticipating the production of an EIS, and 4. The Town of Ithaca Planning Department, on behalf of the Planning Board, distributed a Lead Agency concurrence letter to potential involved and interested agencies on April 6, 2016, and received no objections to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board serving as Lead Agency on this mat ter, and 5. The Planning Board has reviewed the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), Part 1, revised and date stamped May 16, 2016, prepared by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Plan ning staff, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby establishes itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed actions, as described above, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a positive determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above- referenced action as proposed, and confirms that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) will be prepared, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby requests that the Town Planning Department duly file and publish a Notice of Positive Declaration pursuant to the provisions of 6 NYCRR Part 617.12, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Maplewood applicants and the Town of Ithaca Planning Board have agreed that a public scoping process will be initiated to determine the scope and content of the DEIS and that the Maplewood applicants will prepare a draft written scope of issues to be addressed in the DEIS. The Planning Board will schedule a public scoping meeting on said scoping document to be held before this Board at the earliest practicable date upon receipt of said scoping document. Planning Board Minutes 05-24-2016 Page 10 of 13 Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Meier Swain, Bosak, Herleman Ms. Balestra noted that this action starts the 60-day review period, where the scoping document needs to be created, reviewed, commented on, possibly revised, finalized, and approved. It will need to be finalized by the July 19th meeting. Mr. Bosak pointed out for the audience that the scoping document will determine what we're going to require to be dealt with in the environmental impact statement. It's the very beginning of a long process, but it's very important because if we don't say, for example, that they have to study a certain intersection, they don't have to study that intersection. Ms. Meier Swain asked what responsibility planning board members have to understand the city comp plan, the Collegetown comp plan, or the town comp plan. Mr. Wilcox responded that the draft EIS will have, among other things, a traffic analysis, which will include the traffic added by the project and the traffic impacts of any approved projects. If there is an approved project in the city that could impact the traffic counts on Mitchell Street or Maple Avenue, it should be included. As for the city comp plan, it's on the other side of the line. Ms. Balestra said the town and city staffs have discussed our comp plans and have attempted to create documents that are compatible along the boundaries. The speaker might not be aware of the town's comp plan or the city's comp plan. Mr. Wilcox she is aware of the fact that construction in Collegetown has an impact on Bryant Park and Belle Sherman - whether it's noise or parking, they have an impact and so will this project. The city rezoned Collegetown to six and seven stories, so they're tearing down buildings of one or two stories, and somebody is paying $3 million for small plots of land because they can build six and seven stories up now, without parking. AGENDA ITEM Consider submission of comments on the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) 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 Planning board comments follow, listed (mainly) by page number: Page 2 Ms. Herleman suggested changing the second column heading in the threshold chart to read: LEED Version 4.0 Credit Threshold. She explained that that is the official credit threshold in the LEED document they use to calculate the points and designate the standard (Silver, Gold, or Platinum). The suggested threshold (third column) is the one she gave based on the site characterization. She suggested the applicant voluntarily consider holding themselves to a higher standard. Planning Board Minutes 05-24-2016 Page 11 of 13 Ms. Balestra brought the board's attention to the first bullet under 2,1.1 Project Phasing. She spoke with Ms. Brock and their impression is that it should be added to the threshold chart in Chapter 10 of the DGEIS. Page 3 Mr. Bosak made a comment with regard to housing. First, he noted that this point is approached four or five times throughout the document. He's not suggesting any changes, but once again noted that he doesn't necessarily agree with the implication that it would be good to have more low-income housing in Chain Works. He's not sure that's the way to deal with gentrification in the city. His idea of dealing with gentrification is to take those rich folks who are buying out ordinary people and put them in a ghetto in the Emerson building so they're not competing anymore. In endorsing this need for more data, he's not endorsing the point behind it. He then called attention to page 11, third paragraph under Chapter 8, which makes this point specifically based on his comments. But this is supposed to be the board's language. Ms. Balestra responded that she changed "1" statements to "we" statements, and the whole point of the discussion is to see if the board as a whole is comfortable with the statement. Mr. Wilcox stated that the board is comfortable, as he could see they were nodding their heads. Ms. Collins pointed out that there's a difference between low-income housing and affordable housing. Housing is a complicated, multifaceted issue, which has rippling effects out into the community. She thinks that it's not appropriate for this applicant to say, Gentrification is complicat ed, so we don't have to deal with it. This is primarily a housing project with impacts to South Hill and the city of Ithaca. She thinks they have done a poor job at even beginning to look at that. Mr. Bosak said that what Ms. Collins made him realize in not making the distinction between low- income and affordable housing is that the implicit assumption is that we still have a middle class - and that's being hollowed out. He's seeing less and less in the middle to be affordable and seeing folks who can afford anything and folks who can't afford much. Page 6 Ms. Brock pointed out that under 2.7.3.3 Industrial, our comment contains an ellipsis that leaves out the thing that makes it clear. The board agreed to strike that comment. Page 7 Ms. Herleman suggested adding a sentence to 5.2.1.1 Surface Geology that reads: Please also refer to LEED standards related to slope preservation. Page 8 Mr. Bosak said to remove the rogue right square bracket above heading 5.5.1.8 Sediments &. Seeps. Ms. Herleman said she had mentioned that they should engage in voluntary soil testing during Phase I, specifically during and after excavation, filling, and compacting activities. Are those actually voluntary or are there provisions for soil, surface water, and groundwater testing during those activities? Her principal concern is that there may not be sufficient provisions for looking at changes Planning Board Minutes 05-24-2016 Page 12 of 13 in the hydrology across the phases of the construction. What does the state actually say about testing of contaminants between phases? Mr. Thaete responded that engineering staff deal with the erosion control aspect. There is nothing he's read about testing during construction. Ms. Herleman said she would highly recommend testing because of the nature of the heterogeneity of the site. There was significant uncertainty in the location of the fractures. That's her principal technical concern about the characterization of the contaminants of the site as they do these activities that can cause vibrations and cause the contaminants to potentially migrate. Page 10 Mr. Bosak said to change "homogenous" to "homogeneous" in the second line from the bottom. Page 14 Chapter 9: Ms. Herleman suggested that the reference to "frustratingly vague" be changed to a more neutral term. The board agreed to simply say "vague." In the fifth line down, after the phrase "the Final EIS should be much more specific," she suggested adding "—including onsite energy generation estimates and energy demand estimates—". The planning board agreed to the suggested changes and approved the chair signing an updated version of these comments. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard A gentleman said he is with a few groups locally who have been developing a campaign for rural energy, and they've been working with 50 other organizations in New York State to prepare legislation that has to do with climate change. Their bill was introduced in the assembly yesterday; it will go through Ways and Means tomorrow. He was on the Energy Roadmap committee. The state makes policy; the county makes policy; the municipality has land use authority. The board is on the cutting edge of climate change mitigation. People are going to be looking to them more than in the past. Every project that has been mentioned at the meeting has energy implications. He provided a copy of the proposed bill related to "the New York state climate and community protection act." Bruce Abbott said his father developed a 17-acre housing development designed as low-income housing; the State of New York and federal government participated. When Cornell came out with a workforce housing proposal several years ago, he wondered how he would have designed the 17-acre project. So he went to Denmark and found out how they did it, back when they lost all their oil. They're now a big exporter of electricity to Germany. He's been in a culture twice where they're doing what he's been dreaming to do. He wrote a 35-page thesis on the Emerson site. It is the perfect energy center: no matter where you stand in Ithaca, it's central. Now, the potential new owner is interested in the concept and has shown Mr. Abbott where they'd like to put a power plant. He is part of the committee that won a $100,000 grant from NYSERDA for the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant for a study to be done by one of the world's largest companies in energy, water, and sewer. The report has been filed, and the next stage would be $ 1 million for an implementation grant. The Planning Board Minutes 05-24-2016 Page 13 of 13 system would take the sewage, which they're already doing on a smaller scale, and extract as much gas as possible. It would be part of a city-wide and college-wide food-scrap and animal-waste collection effort. We have two underused digesters right now and an a third million-gallon facility behind the plant that's unused. The gas would be used to fire reciprocating engines to produce 100 percent of the power for the water and sewer plant and possibly the high school. This was part of a micro-grid competition. There is now interest for South Hill. The sewage costs $300,000 to drive up the lake to a landfill. If that sewage were dried and taken to the Emerson building and linaudiblel, that means zero carbon. That facility could tie-in to Ithaca College and the south end of the Commons. AGENDA ITEM PB Resolution No. 2016-029: Minutes of May 3, 2016 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Katherine Herleman RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of May 3, 2016, as amended. Vote Ayes; Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Meier Swain, Bosak, Herleman Abstentions: Fogarty AGENDA ITEM Other Business Ms. Ritter suggested that board members look at the Maplewood Scoping Document that they've already been given. Ms. Fogarty announced that she'd be out of town for the month of June. Ms. Herleman suggested we get a projector so the public can see the visuals from the audience. It significantly detracts from participation. For the board's information, she said she is now employed by Viridius Property, a local property management company that both renovates existing properties and develops new residential and commercial properties. Mr. Bosak requested a new cordless mic - again. AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by John Beach, the meeting adjourned at 9:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted. DeAugistme, Deput^T^n Clerk