HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2014-12-14TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850
Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox (Chair), Linda Collins, Joseph Haefeli, John
Beach, Yvonne Fogarty, Jon Bosak, Hollis Erb
Town Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock,
Attorney for the Town; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk
City Planning and Development Board Members Present: Garrick Blalock (Chair), John Schroeder,
Jack Elliott, McKenzie Jones-Rounds, CJ Randall
City Staff Present: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning and Development; Lisa Nicholas, Planner;
Adam Walters, Consulting Attorney
Call to Order
Mr. Wilcox called the joint meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM
This is a joint meeting of the City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board and the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board to review the Draft Scoping Document for the Draft Generic Environmental Impact
Statement (GEIS) that will be prepared regarding 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 that traverses the City and Town of Ithaca’s municipal
boundary.
A copy of the Draft Scoping Document (revised November 26, 2014) and other project information
about the Chain Works District Redevelopment Project is available during regular business hours at
the City of Ithaca’s Planning Division, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, NY, and can be accessed online
at www.cityofithaca.org/departments/planning/projects/index.cfm or chainworksdistrict.com.
Mr. Wilcox stated that it is the town planning board’s and staff’s job to provide feedback and
information on what should be included and clarified in the scoping document. The focus should be
on substantive issues, not typographical errors.
Mr. Walters stated that the city hoped to gain substantive feedback from the town from this meeting.
Everyone knows what needs to be in a scoping document and that those seven specific components
that are in the draft must be adequately covered. The whole point of scoping is that when the
developer submits the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS), it includes all of the elements
that were identified and listed in the Scoping Document. We don’t want to be in a position to need
something analyzed that was not identified in the scope. The lead agency is looking for specific
environmental impacts that need to be analyzed. We are looking at the conceptual level at this point.
He suggested the board consider discussing scheduling and timelines and that they didn’t need to
spend a lot of time on the non-impact-related elements. We should make sure that the level of
discussion is adequate to make the dGEIS adequate. There’s a lot of information; is there enough
Planning Board Minutes 12-02-2014
Page 2 of 12
substance? He suggested that the discussion start at Chapter 6 Potential Impacts and Mitigation. At
the end of this process, the lead agency has to make findings that the project mitigates any identified
impacts to the extent practicable. SEQR requires the scope to flesh out alternatives and the statute
requires a no-build alternative. The process includes choosing what the other alternatives will be. The
lead agency should pick two of the alternatives to explore; those will give us a sense of comparison
between adverse impacts of the proposed development and the two alternatives.
Mr. Schroeder pointed out that the city planning board will have the opportunity to discuss this in
the future, so he did not want to comment, but to hear what the town had to say.
Mr. Bosak stated that he was confused about 6.1. Why would a summary of Chapter 5 be necessary in
two different sections?
Ms. Ritter commented that more detail could be put into these sections. For example, under Water
Resources, section 6.3.1 is supposed to be describing the surface water impacts. You would anticipate
more detail so we know exactly what we are expecting when we get the DGEIS.
Mr. Wilcox stated that under section 6.5 Public Health and Environment, there is a mention of the
“use or storage of materials that will require Spill Prevention, Control … ” His concern is with the
storage, use, disposal of whatever chemicals or oils or solvents that could be used in light manufactur-
ing. It’s tough to noodle through this when you’re doing a generic environmental impact statement
because we don’t know what sort of light manufacturing will be there. We’re all aware of the issues on
the site and don’t want any more. It would be nice to flesh that out more, including disposal.
Ms. Balestra said she wanted to speak a little about the lack of detail that Sue Ritter was alluding to.
Town staff received the SEQR pos dec Notice of Intent that included a Draft Scoping Document that
was more of an outline and contained much more detail about what the dGEIS would study. We
were wondering why the later scope that the city considered passing was more general.
Mr. Walters responded that there is an approach to scoping that includes more detailed content, and
that can happen when the lead agency issues a positive declaration of environmental significance on a
project and starts the EIS process. We talked about the need to make sure that the final scope met all
the requirements of SEQR. And we suggested to the applicant some restructuring of the scope. The
more general document is what we got back. The framework is probably where it needs to be; it’s now
a question of more substance and details.
The applicant added that the way it is set up right now is that a lot of detail is in Chapter 5 Environ-
mental Setting, where it refers to the existing condition. Chapter 6 is the mitigation.
Mr. Schroeder said that what seems odd in the way 6.5 is worded is that it’s about future operations,
whereas the public health concern the committee is worried about is more like what’s in the existing
building. He thought the tenses ought to be changed to talk about both the existing conditions and
the potential future operations. The emphasis is incomplete.
Ms. Brock stated that section 6.6 Historic and Archaeological Resources says, “If necessary, a Phase I
Cultural Resources Inventory will be completed.” She asked who makes the determination of
whether a Phase I Inventory is “necessary.”
Planning Board Minutes 12-02-2014
Page 3 of 12
The applicant responded that they know there are archeologically sensitive areas within the project
boundary.
Ms. Brock asked that if they already know there are archeological resources on the site, then why say
“if necessary”? Shouldn’t the scoping document instead say that the Phase I Inventory will be done?
Mr. Wilcox stated that he recalls that Phase I is a “light” survey and it helps determine whether a
Phase II or more detail is necessary. So the question for him is: is a Phase I going to happen?
The applicant responded that they will follow whatever is required by the NYSDEC. It is the State
Historic Preservation Office’s (SHPO) determination on whether a Phase I Cultural Resources
Inventory is necessary.
Ms. Erb said she was thinking more of the historic parts of the building and that the applicant might
have an idea about sections that might be set aside or have some sort of preservation, either interior
or exterior. She was looking for that in the document.
Ms. Collins agreed and said she asked the applicant at the last meeting whether there was any desire
or plan to do any historic preservation. The answer she got was that there would be. She sees no
reference to that. She wants to make sure the cultural and historic preservation is included, not just
the archeological stuff.
Ms. Erb said that there’s a vague general reference to talking to the agency that handles those things,
but she wants to know which buildings they’re thinking about. With the number of buildings
involved and the number of acres involved, she thinks they can be a little bit precise.
Ms. Randall asked which areas are archeologically sensitive.
The applicant responded that two small segments are archeologically sensitive: a small portion closest
to the city near where the trail will go and a small portion in the town.
Mr. Schroeder asked whether we have to rely on SHPO to determine whether there should be a
study. He thinks the historic resources should be studied – period. It should not be up to a state
agency.
Mr. Walters responded that New York has come to rely on their SHPO office in the last several years;
but their role is not really a SEQR role. Their role is generally advisory, but they are often considered
an involved or interested agency in the SEQR process. As a result of that role and that statute, they
have the authority to make recommendations on a project, including additional studies to include in
an EIS. But from a SEQR perspective, the lead agency makes the final determination on the studies
that will be completed.
Mr. Schroeder stated that there should be a cultural resources study. Period.
6.7 Transportation and Circulation
Planning Board Minutes 12-02-2014
Page 4 of 12
Ms. Ritter reported on behalf of a town board member that there was no mention of trucking, not
just for construction traffic, but for materials being delivered to the development and for finished
manufactured products leaving the site. She also asked that another intersection be evaluated. It may
not require intersection counts to be taken, but it does require consideration. We know that a certain
population from this development is going to work at Cornell, and those working in the more eastern
portions (East Hill Plaza, Vet School, etc.) are likely to take Coddington to Burns Road instead of
going south into the city. In some form, we need projections on commuters taking this northern
route to Cornell.
Mr. Wilcox said we have the potential cut and fill issue if lots of fill needs to be carried away, which
could be an issue on Aurora Street because of the grade. Then there’s non construction-related traffic
such as deliveries and shipments in and out of the site.
Ms. Ritter added that there’s an issue on Route 96B, at least in terms of heavy trucks not being
allowed to travel very far south due to a bridge in Owego. She was not certain what the bridge
inadequacy was and whether it would be fixed by the time the project was built, but suggested that
this be investigated further.
Mr. Bosak pointed out the very real possibility of a truck going out of control.
Ms. Erb said there’s also a substantial coming and going of trucking traffic just for deliveries and
pickups involved in normal operations of a light industrial area. It might be that it’s impossible
because of terrain, but she was struck that there was no mention of trying to make a connection to
the South Hill Business Campus – a way of getting people from one employment center to the other.
Mr. Wilcox asked whether that is a site plan issue or an environmental concern.
Ms. Erb responded that she’s hearing about pedestrian and bicycle ways and circulation and routes to
Ithaca College; South Hill Business Campus is on the same side of the road as this project, is a
reasonably-sized employer, and it seems that there is potential for synergy between businesses at the
two campuses. During construction, there’s going to be a lot of contractor parking, spoils storage,
materials storage, etc. She wants that to be on site and taken care of appropriately.
Ms. Brock said she was confused in 6.7: “comparison of existing traffic conditions and estimates
under the proposed development will be provided.” Will the traffic analysis also look at performance
of intersections under the proposed development? In 5.7, we’re looking at the existing intersections,
but in 6.7, now we’re looking at how they will function with the proposed development. A reference
needs to be added to the intersection performance. In terms of the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, we
need to specify what those are. Looking at the build condition, she asked what assumptions will be
made about background growth that is also going to be happening at the same time. Do you have
specific projects that aren’t yet part of our existing traffic, but are likely coming online that might add
to traffic in the area? You should include in the build-out analysis the growth anticipated from various
projects. Within the town, the Troy Road project has come in for sketch plan; it is a housing
development with 130 units that is a known project. College Crossings has been approved for a
number of years.
Ms. Cornish commented that 20 years ago, she worked on Evan Monkemeyer’s project.
Planning Board Minutes 12-02-2014
Page 5 of 12
Ms. Randall said there’s not much on internal transportation. That has to be considered.
Ms. Collins said South Hill School certainly has to be brought into this. It’s already kind of a mess
when school is letting out.
6.8 Utilities
Ms. Erb said she was surprised she saw nothing about alternative energy – the potential for solar on
roofs, etc.
Mr. Walters responded that this is addressed in Chapter 10. Energy and conservation measures are
considered separately and will be a chapter unto itself.
Ms. Erb pointed out that it mentions only LEED and green buildings and doesn’t mention the
potential for distributed heating systems or solar energy.
Ms. Jones-Rounds said it is certainly a concern for the lead agency.
Mr. Schroeder stated that the city planning board has had numerous discussions that their environ-
mental review documents and basic forms do not give enough emphasis to providing information on
green building practices, so he is very sympathetic about beefing that section up.
Ms. Brock asked whether there is any limitation on the amount of natural gas available in this part of
the county. She said that in the Town of Lansing, the gas lines don’t have the capacity to service all
the new development. She said that 6.8 doesn’t specifically mention natural gas, and she thinks it
should. A lot of developments in Lansing are bottled up and can’t go forward. She also asked whether
the sewer capacity issues had been resolved.
Mr. Wilcox said that around 10 years ago, there were infiltration problems in the town on South Hill,
which, by the time you got down to South Cayuga Street extension, they were getting overflow
through the pipes.
Ms. Cornish said the manhole covers were damaged and that the city has taken some measures. For
stormwater impacts and mitigation, they have to check with the city’s water and sewer department.
The applicant said they’ve been working with Scott Gibson, who didn’t give any indications that there
were any issues.
6.9 Air Quality
Ms. Ritter said they need to specify how air quality will be assessed.
Mr. Wilcox said especially for some to-be-determined manufacturing.
6.10 Visual and Aesthetic Resources
Ms. Erb said she pulled our scenic resources report and looked through the photographs of the places
she thought could see the project. They seem to be missing several points on Bostwick Road, Sheffield
Road, Westhaven Park – they missed West Hill. She asked that they also check Tupelo Park and East
Planning Board Minutes 12-02-2014
Page 6 of 12
Shore Park. It would be nice to say that the technical report will include the photographs and the
changes in the development that will impact the view, like a building going higher.
Ms. Ritter said the town has a scenic resources document. There are 14 significant views, which are
most apt to be incorporated in any environmental assessment.
Ms. Brock added that instead of just saying critical receptor points, they have to have a listing of what
they are. The Outdoor Lighting Law that they have to comply with has to be referenced. It’s a dark
sky law.
6.11 Community Services
Ms. Brock said that all community services from Chapter 5 are going to be analyzed. Which impacts
will be examined? Can we assume it’s going to be everything listed in Chapter 5?
6.12 Construction Activities
Ms. Erb stated that a couple of years ago, a developer working on a city project came to the town
planning board asking where they could park several hundred cars and pickup trucks. This was the
huge apartment buildings on State Street and Mitchell; there was no plan for contractor parking, so
they came to the town planning board. Staging activities need to include parking for all construction
vehicles.
Mr. Wilcox said there was also a large university project where they stored cars off site in an area they
shouldn’t have. We don’t care whether they park in the town or the city part of the site, just whether
there’s sufficient space.
Ms. Erb said she just wants to know; she doesn’t want them to park on the residential streets in the
town neighborhoods.
Mr. Schroeder agreed that none of us wants them parking on the streets.
Ms. Brock pointed out that we might care whether the on-site construction parking is in the town or
the city. For this particular site, it might not make sense for on-site parking to be on the town portion
of the property, because the town portion has steep slopes and undeveloped areas.
The applicant pointed out that there are currently 1200 parking spots.
Ms. Erb wanted it mentioned – so we can say that it will not be a worry – that there will be sufficient
onsite parking. For projects going on for a long time, we give our residential neighbors something
about the hours of operation. It has a lot to do with neighborhood livability.
Ms. Cornish said the city noise ordinance states 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.
Chapter 9
Ms. Erb was struck throughout this document that there is no real consideration of the type of
housing in the final build out: some idea of the number and type of housing units. It should include
Planning Board Minutes 12-02-2014
Page 7 of 12
whether it is all going to be upscale housing or whether there will be any expectation of median- and
low-income affordable housing.
Mr. Bosak said that this has a direct bearing on the SEQR because if enough good housing is
provided here, that becomes a mitigation to the negative impacts. That becomes a really relevant
point. Many folks believe that we have a need for general housing, and the fact that you’re providing
x-number of units to some people might be a mitigation.
Ms. Erb stated again that there is no analysis or discussion of the need for housing. That is a fault in
the current document. There is a dearth of all types of housing. People aren’t going to move into the
region just to buy a condo with a big window looking onto the lake. There are two major areas of
employment near the site.
Mr. Bosak noted that the same thing could be said about the need for light manufacturing as a public
good.
Mr. Schroeder stated that one of his major concerns is going to be related to character of community.
Is the emphasis or basic stylistic approach going to be an urban approach or a suburban approach;
i.e., will every internal road have sidewalks on both sides, like every city street, or will it be more
suburban? Will there be curbs on interior roads? Is the look and feel, particularly on the portion that
directly joins the city, going to be urban in feel? It’s an important issue in terms of character of
community and adds a precedent for future development. Internal circulation on a site this huge is as
important as external circulation. To him, it’s an environmental impact that needs to be specifically
addressed.
The applicant responded that each area or zone will have a subset of guidelines; they’ve started
working on that.
Ms. Collins brought up character of the neighborhood. She has concerns about what will determine
the type of housing: market conditions? She can’t help thinking about gentrification. If there are
several hundred housing units, how does that reverberate out into the surrounding community? It’s
always a little tricky considering economic things in an environmental statement, but it’s a concern,
so if one doesn’t talk about diversity in housing up front, does it over time become a non-issue?
The applicant said that certain existing buildings lend themselves to housing. There will probably be a
couple hundred apartments. More buildings can be added to provide additional housing. He’s
confused: it’s a hillside. If you’re worried about visual impacts, if you develop the site, it will look
different on the opposite hillside.
Mr. Bosak said the heart of the SEQR process is looking at the alternatives and one of them is doing
nothing. The lead agency will have to look at which alternative provides the most benefit.
Ms. Erb added that she’ll need to have a vague idea of the range of housing units to know whether
we’re mitigating.
Mr. Wilcox said that this is a generic environmental impact statement, and in Chapter 11 Thresh-
olds for Future Actions, the developer will have to say that the environmental impact statement
Planning Board Minutes 12-02-2014
Page 8 of 12
includes building up to, say, 500 residential units and what the impact of those 500 residential units
is. And assuming it’s approved, if they come back for the 501st unit, they’ll have to go through SEQR.
Mr. Walters said that the thing we’re struggling with is the scoping document requirement – a brief
description where sometimes you need a little more information in order to evaluate whether there’s
an impact.
The applicant said we will have to come up with those numbers when we do a traffic study. We will
put assumptions there.
Chapter 10
Mr. Bosak disclosed that that afternoon, he had received a message from John Graves (South Hill
Civic Association) asking to note that he has submitted a public comment pointing to a couple of
studies on the possibility of using a portion of the Emerson site for renewable energy options such as
co-generation of power. Mr. Bosak would like to note that the need for public power generation is
such a public good that if the contemplation of this possibility is in the plan, it would count for him
as a public good.
The applicant said they have an application in for the NYSERDA Cleaner, Greener grant.
Mr. Walters said that as Mr. Bosak pointed out, we can’t make you change your project; however if
you make this a possibility, we weigh this and balance this against any potential impacts.
Ms. Brock asked what the words “to the extent applicable” mean. She suggested that if they don’t
want that discretion, they might eliminate it.
Mr. Schroeder said that as the EIS is informational, he’d like to know what the potential capacity is
for solar, just on the rooftop, considering how much rooftop there is. Just as a parameter to make
other decisions based off of, it would be nice to know what the actual, feasible potential solar use
could be of the existing roofs.
Chapter 11 & 12
Ms. Brock said the references to the DGEIS should also include “and relevant finding statements.”
Ms. Erb brought up cumulative impacts. She will be interested in knowing what the baseline is going
to be and why.
Ms. Brock said that it will be best if you can provide a list. At a minimum, these are the other projects
taking place that the applicant needs to consider. It might be the same list they are using for the
traffic.
Mr. Walters said this requires a discussion of these items.
Planning Board Minutes 12-02-2014
Page 9 of 12
Ms. Erb stated that the town’s comprehensive plan suggests that a lot of development in the future
would be desirable around the Route 96 and East King Road area. That whole area in the future is
going to take pressure.
Ms. Brock asked whether there other impacts besides traffic that would be subject to accumulation:
noise, light, stormwater management? It would be useful if they would specify at a minimum what
they are.
Other topics
Mr. Bosak found a number of issues, any one of which is substantive. To him, this is not a scoping
document, but a random mixture of a scoping document and a dGEIS. He compared sections 2.3
and 2.4, saying that 2.4 is a section from a scoping document; 2.3 says absolutely nothing about what
we expect to see in a dGEIS. There are many more examples. His overall comment is to pull out all
sections that are not scoping language and substitute what we expect to see in a scoping document.
Mr. Walters said the tentative schedule was to adopt a final scoping document at the city planning
board’s next meeting, two weeks from tonight. We still have this mix of dGEIS vs. scoping, good
detail in some areas and others not, so there are clearly issues to address. Under SEQR, the draft
scope becomes the final scope after 60 days. It makes sense to bake this further so the applicant is not
spending a lot of time fixing up things that don’t need fixing. If we try to jam this into the next two
weeks, we’ll have to err on the side of saying that they’ll have to look at everything that was talked
about at the meeting. He suggests that we take more time, but we can’t force the applicant.
The applicant said they understand that there are more comments. Can we get those comments, turn
it around, then discuss whether we need to extend it?
Mr. Walters responded that we have a 12-page comment memo to begin with and most of it says we
need to understand what’s going to be done to be able to evaluate the adverse impacts. He thinks the
board will need another cut at the document; otherwise, the city board needs a new document
finalized next Tuesday. If we kick it out a month, it will go to the January planning meeting. He
suggested that what they want to have is an opportunity to get further information from the appli-
cant, a revision to the document, a distribution to the lead agency, incorporating everything that was
heard tonight, etc; that will also give an opportunity for others, such as Tim Logue, to weigh in. To a
comment from the applicant, he stated that they are too far away from where they need to be for him
to recommend that the lead agency accept a final scope. Let’s not rush against false deadlines that
make no sense.
Mr. Schroeder pointed out that the city planning board hasn’t even had its own internal discussion,
which is happening next Tuesday. That will bring other issues forward. In addition, there will be town
board and staff issues.
Mr. Blalock asked what that means for the application.
The applicant said it would cause another month of delay before we do SEQR.
Planning Board Minutes 12-02-2014
Page 10 of 12
Mr. Blalock said the city hasn’t had their internal deliberations. We haven’t heard all the concerns
from the town. He wondered whether there’s a part of the document that they can move forward with
as is – just trying to find middle ground.
Mr. Walters said you can’t evaluate other impacts before you have traffic impacts.
The applicant said they provided a study months ago and didn’t hear comments.
Ms. Ritter stated that was not true. She provided a reply to Steve Ferranti in an email in October. She
brought the Cornell commuter issue to their attention.
Ms. Cornish said that they didn’t have enough detail about the project itself to be able to comment
adequately at that time.
Mr. Walters agreed with Mr. Blalock’s point and to extend the final scope, but to get the traffic study
rolling.
Mr. Blalock stated that this is the most exciting project that has happened in a long time. He didn’t
want bureaucrats to hold them up for a final document and thought having an analysis to do would
keep the applicant team busy. He would also consider a special meeting in early January.
Mr. Schroeder thought it made more sense to have a special meeting for a project of this size. At a
regular January meeting, it will contain the regular docket of all the site plan stuff. This project is so
huge, it deserves its own focus discussion.
City members agreed; the applicant agreed.
The applicant expressed frustration with the timeline thus far.
Ms. Brock responded that there has to be a project proposed before the city planning & development
board can do anything – the applicant has to submit an application to start that whole process. Your
project is date stamped September 19th. Because this is a Type I action, the city had to declare their
intent to be lead agency and send it out to all the involved agencies. By law they have to give 30 days’
time for the agencies to concur. That took us up to middle to late October. They declared themselves
lead agency and issued the positive declaration October 28th. So they moved as fast as they could.
Mr. Blalock said that we’re not the legislature, we can’t change the law. The process is what the
process is, but this board wants to move this forward.
Mr. Wilcox stated that the applicant has agreed to a delay until January 13th for adoption of the final
scoping document.
Ms. Erb asked whether she could anticipate whether there will be a new draft scoping document for
the town planning board to review at their meeting of January 6.
Mr. Wilcox stated that this is the town planning board’s final review, but he anticipated that if Ms.
Erb, as a board member or citizen, had additional comments, they could send them in.
Planning Board Minutes 12-02-2014
Page 11 of 12
Mr. Blalock said they would be delighted to have comments at either of the next meetings.
Ms. Nichols said they will send out the new draft.
Ms. Ritter said that when the town gets the revised draft, we can discuss it and collectively comment
at one of the upcoming planning board meetings. We have business for each of the meetings.
Mr. Walters said individual members of the town planning board should submit their comments.
General Comments
Ms. Brock said that overall, the organization is very confusing. Section 2.7.2 was puzzling. It says
“Where applicable and significant, the GEIS will identify and discuss” the listed items. The whole
point of the scope is to say, Here are the things that are applicable and need to be discussed. So you
need to get rid of that type of wording and figure out where to put the items listed in section 2.7.2.
They need to be integrated into the rest of the scope. There is also the whole issue of subdivision of
the OU1 parcel from OU2. It says that the city Planning and Development board issued a neg dec for
the subdivision, but the notice of the pos dec included the subdivision as part of the things to be
looked at in the DGEIS, although this scope doesn’t mention subdivision approval.
Ms. Brock stated that the notice of intent to prepare the dGEIS says “Name of Action: Planned Unit
Development, Site Plan and Subdivision Approval.” Your pos dec makes it sound like the subdivision
is part of the dGEIS. It sounds like the subdivision process started a while ago, and you got to a
certain point, and for whatever reason, you’re not finishing it – maybe there are things holding up
your ability to get final approval. If you’re folding this into the dGEIS – are you? – that neg dec
doesn’t belong there. This might be considered segmentation, although there may be other factors
and history that I am not aware of. Figure that out. If they need to rescind the neg dec to make the
subdivision part of the dGEIS, maybe that’s the easiest way. It’s an area where you can get attacked
legally.
Ms. Brock brought up the alternatives, which are discussed in Chapter 3. It seems that there should
also be other alternatives when you get to the impacts section. There are some middle grounds there
and it would be useful if these were spelled out. To a question from the applicant, she said considera-
tion of other alternatives would at least have to be looked at for mitigation measures.
The applicant said that some things seemed more like a threshold than an alternative.
Ms. Brock responded. You might downsize the project, you might want to change the mix of uses, you
may make changes to address visual impacts. You may decide you can’t build up and you have to
build out, or maybe you want to go up and not out. You may need to consider alternatives that
change the scale, magnitude, or design. Figure out what you want to specify for alternatives.
The applicant said are they going to analyze way too many alternatives.
Planning Board Minutes 12-02-2014
Page 12 of 12
Ms. Brock replied that if they think there are certain economic or site constraint issues, describe
them, but she thinks the scope should look at other some other alternatives – more than is listed
here.
Ms. Brock stated that for the piece in the town, there are a lot of slopes. You talk about dividing them
into two categories: 0 to 15% and those greater than 15%. It’s up to the planners to decide whether
they think they need a finer gradation; having that break at 15% might not make sense. Section 5,
looking at the environmental setting, some sections are looking at pre and post development, some
were just pre. It was very confusing; you’re flipping back and forth and should be consistent.
The applicant responded that Chapter 5 should deal only with pre-development conditions.
Ms. Brock said that’s fine. The whole environmental contamination piece in Chapter 5 reads more
like it should be in the DGEIS than in the scope. Section 5.7.1 says all intersections connecting the
site to the existing street network will be analyzed. Are there other non-contiguous intersections that
aren’t touching the site that could be impacted? In 5.10 Visual and Aesthetic Resources: specify the
critical vantage points.
Ms. Ritter said she was mostly interested in projections of employment.
Ms. Erb commented that at beginning of Chapter 3, there’s an implication that there’s only a single
comp plan involved rather than one for each municipality, and she wants it specified that there are
two separate plans. She read all three sections of their environmental assessment form and wondered
why the Army Corp of Engineers is not an approving agency.
Mr. Blalock reiterated that either written comments or attending a meeting are welcome.
AGENDA ITEM
Adjournment
Upon a motion by Ms. Erb, the meeting adjourned at 9:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________________
Debra DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk