Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2017-02-07 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, February 7, 2017 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox (Chair), Linda Collins, Joseph Haefeli, John Beach, Yvonne Fogarty, Liebe Meier Swain, Jon Bosak, Melissa Hill Town Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Debra DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr_Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Rodeway Inn Modifications, 654 Elmira Road Joe Turnowchyk, project architect, said they had acquired three building permits for three separate buildings on the lot.They planned to demolish the back wall and the entire roof system of the largest of the buildings_As progress occurred, they found that the front wall was unsuitable due to decay or moisture and they decided to take that out, too_ Inside the building, every room was a different width, so the owner decided to remove interior walls_The plan also includes an interior corridor in building #I for protection from the weather; instead of entering each room from the outside, guests will be able to go in and out from the interior corridor_The owner also wants to add four more units to building#1 than they originally submitted for the building permit plan_The plan for the other two buildings will not change_ On the day the demolition occurred, the building inspector, Steve Williams, visited the site and said he would not have approved the front wall, and that they might as well demolish both wings_Then they got a stop work order_ Mr_ Bosak asked whether adding the corridor would make the rooms smaller_ Mr_Turnowchyk said it would not; it's the same width as was previously planned_There was to have been a canopy overhang, but now they're proposing adding a wall to the canopy overhang. It doesn't change the roof area or the footprint of the building_The way they're adding rooms without changing the footprint is that in the previous layout, the rooms had different widths, from 14 to 16 feet, and the walls in between the rooms varied from 8-inches to 3 1/2-inches wide_The change will make them all uniform, and in doing so, they were able to add four extra rooms_ Mr_ Bates said that, to this date, no permit has been filed for the demolition. That's a situation that the building department has to deal with, and is not in the planning board's purview. The demolition was done without permission; they should have stopped when they first found the problem and come to the building department to find out how to proceed_ In his opinion, the board should treat building#I as a new structure instead of an existing structure_The difference between it being new versus existing is that they will have to meet different building codes_ Ms_Balestra said that the facades are not new; they were previously approved by the planning board_ The only difference is the enclosure. They're using the same materials as previously proposed_ Planning Board Meeting 0207.2017 Page 2 of 0 Ms_ Fogarty asked about plumbing and electric. Mr. Bates said there's still discussion between the code office and the applicant as to how the building should be treated_If it's considered a new structure, they have to meet all the current energy codes; an existing structure has different requirements. It's an enforcement issue, not a planning board issue_ Ms. Fogarty said she was surprised that the central structure was still there. If you're taking down everything else, you should take that down also. If we're to approve the project, it should be replaced with new. Mr. Bates responded that before anything is approved, they'll have to give us an engineering state- ment saying the existing building is still solid. That's all within the code they'll have to comply with. My Turnowchyk added that the center structure has the heartbeat of the mechanicals: the electrical services and water heaters_ If that were demolished, they'd have to install brand new services from the ground up. My Wilcox said the planning board is not in a position to make a determination of whether it needs new services_ Mr_Thaete said the plumbing seems to have deviated from what was approved_Some plumbing inspections failed and there were some things that needed to be torn out. So we need a new plumbing permit.There are also continuing erosion control issues: a downed silt fence, work occurring not according to plan. Every time we're on site there's a communication or language barrier_These were outlined in the engineering memo_ Mr_Wilcox said he wanted to stay within the board's purview and where we can have an influence. He's particularly concerned about the environmental issues brought up in the memo. That puts more work on the enforcement side_ Mr_ Bosak asked whether the environmental issues, the sewer and the SWPPP, are SEQR issues or site plan issues_ Ms. Brock responded that it's not that the SWPPP is inadequate, it's that they're not implementing it. The SWPPP has already been approved_ Mr. Wilcox said that what's been done in the past is not consistent with what they're supposed to be doing. That's an enforcement issue. Engineering agrees that if the SWPPP is implemented correctly, it will handle stormwater correctly_ Regarding the plumbing issues, Mr_Thaete said it comes into play with the building permit. He just wanted it to go on record that there's been an issue. Ms_Brock added that, if anything, the board will deal with these issues as part of site plan approval_ Planning Board Meeting 0207.2017 Page 3 of 13 PB Resolution No. 2017.009: SEAR, Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval& Special Permit, Rodeway Inn Modifications, 654 Elmira Road, Tax Parcel No. 33.-3.6 Moved by Joseph Haefeli; seconded by John Beach WHEREAS: 1_ This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed modifications to the Rodeway Inn, located at 654 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33.-3-6, Neighborhood Commercial Zone_ The proposal involves adding four rooms to building#1 (main portion of the motel), adding three parking spaces, adding a corridor enclosure along the front of building #1, and demolishing the two wings of building #1 and rebuilding in the same footprint as the previous approvals_ JAMNA Hospitality Inc., Owner/Applicant; Joseph Turnowchyk, HEX 9 Architects LLC,Agent, and 2_ This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is the lead agency in the environmental review with respect to the project, and 3_ The Planning Board, on February 7, 2017, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) Part 1, submitted by the applicant, Parts 2 and 3 pre- pared by Town Planning staff, a narrative, three sets of plans prepared by Hex 9 Architects enti- tled "Modifications for: Rodeway Inn-Building 1, 654 Elmira Road, Ithaca, NY, 14850," includ- ing Sheets SP, A001,A101,A201 and A202, dated January 19, 2017; "Addition for: Rodeway Inn-Building 2, 654 Elmira Road, Ithaca, NY, 14850," including Sheets Al,A2 and A3, dated January 19, 2017; and "Modifications for: Rodeway Inn-Building 3, 654 Elmira Road, Ithaca, NY, 14850," including sheets A-1 and A-2, dated August 12, 2016, and other application materials, and 4_ The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental signifi- cance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and Special Permit; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required_ Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Meier Swain, Bosak Nays: Fogarty AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed modifications to the Rodeway Inn located at 654 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Planning Board Meeting 0207.2017 Page 4 of 13 Parcel No. 33.-3-6, Neighborhood Commercial Zone_ The proposal involves adding four rooms to building#1 (main portion of the motel), adding three parking spaces, adding a corridor enclosure along the front of building #1, and demolishing the two wings of building #1 and rebuilding in the same footprint as the previous approvals_JAMNA Hospitality Inc., Owner/Applicant; Joseph Turnowchyk, HEX 9 Architects, Agent Mr_Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. Joel Harlan spoke in favor of modernizing the whole building; tearing it all down and rebuilding_ Mr_Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. Ms_Brock said that the board could have as a condition of approval addressing deficiencies in the SWPPP implementation, as noted in the engineering memo_To her knowledge, the board has never done anything like that before,but this is an unusual situation because the project is already under- way and now some violations of the SWPPP have been discovered_You can either leave it up to code enforcement and the stormwater management officer to deal with it or put in conditions_ Mr_Wilcox asked whether the conditions would change anything_ Ms_Brock said they may tie their going forward at a certain step to correction of these deficiencies_ Mr_ Bates said no permits will be issued—and all work has been stopped on this property—until we're satisfied that they're compliant with all rules and regulations of the codes of the town of Ithaca and the state of New York_We won't issue the permit until they're compliant with the SWPPP and with the plumbing permit; that's all part of the building permit process_ Mr_Thaete agreed with Mr_ Bates that compliance is their job and that the stop work order doesn't allow permits to be issued until it's rectified_ His one concern is that they far exceed the 14-day stabilization of soils that's required_That's the most important thing at this point. He would request that things be stabilized prior to review of the building permit Mr. Wilcox agreed that adding language to the resolution acknowledges that the board thinks it's important Ms_ Fogarty asked Mr_Thaete to elaborate about the communication problems_ Mr_Thaete said that when the inspector arrived on site, no one could speak English_They got the general contractor, Anthony Belpasko, on the phone to interpret_ Mr_ Belpasko said that he was offsite only one day; other than that, he's the site foreman. Mr_ Haefeli said he was struggling with approving more work when the previously approved plans have not been complied with. He asked whether this is crossing the line into segmentation_Segmen- tation is to prevent scope creep, and the project is getting bigger_When do we start to cross a threshold? Planning Board Meeting 0207.2017 Page 5 of 13 Ms. Brock said that's why the SEQR Looked at the whole action and not just the pieces that are changing_ Ms_Meier Swain asked what will happen if the budget for this project exceeds what the parent company would like to spend_ Does the applicant have to follow through with the project, or are we going to end up with disturbed soil that's not remediated? Mr_ Bates responded that if the project doesn't get completed, they have to keep paying for a permit or we write them a citation. They can't use the building. Then it's a matter of issuing appearance tickets for property maintenance, and it ends up in court Finish the project, close it properly, or come back for an amendment The best scenario is that they complete the job the way they're supposed to; then they can use it, and everyone is happy_ Mr_Turnowchyck said he doesn't think there will be a problem with getting the project completed_ It's a matter of getting the soil stabilized. There's not a problem if the four extra units aren't ap- proved_They want this project done as much as the town does. He didn't realize there was a problem with the plumbing_ He submitted plumbing drawings to Bolton Point and got a permit Bolton Point came back and wanted more things done after the review, which were provided_ He added that they have three permits for the sites and the other two are free from any problems_ He and My Williams went back and forth and are now on the same page regarding which code they'll go forward with. They're going to redesign building#1 for the 2015 International Building Code. He thinks it's important to allow them to proceed with buildings #2 and #3_ He had to wait to see which scheme the planning board would approve before redoing his drawings for building #1, and now it's going to take him several weeks to complete the drawings for the 2015 building code_ My Thaete said the most important thing is that the applicant be in conformance with the approved SWPPP. We've issued several warning notices through certified mail. Mr_ Bates said the board can add to the resolution that the SWPPP will be conformed to prior to the issuance of any permits, but if this is not corrected immediately, the only remediation is to write an appearance ticket to the court saying they failed to meet out local law, and then let the court handle it Unfortunately, that can drag it out because it's an enforcement issue, and that's not something the board can do_They can put it in as a condition,but it needs to be dealt with on the legal side_The board is not an enforcement agency_ Ms. Fogarty said she's uncomfortable with the project because there's a disconnect. She doesn't understand how they can be in a project where they're supposed to be taking the back wall down and then all of a sudden the whole building is down, and they have not have talked to code enforcement before that happened. She doesn't understand how they can have gotten several letters in the mail about stabilizing the soil and that hasn't been done. She doesn't feel like they're working with the town and being transparent about what they're doing. Mr_ Belpasko responded that regarding the front wall demolition, when they took the roof up, the whole wall collapsed_There was nothing holding the front wall up and it was completely rotted_The very same day, the building inspector was at the property, so they were working with the town, and the town was informed of what they were doing_ Everything just happened in one day_ Planning Board Meeting 0207.2017 Page 6 of 13 Ms_Balestra said that Mr_Williams called her the day that it happened and asked whether that was part of the approval, and she said it wasn't. They then went to the site together and took pictures_The town was informed that day and we started getting a conversation in motion as to what we could do to remedy the situation_ Mr_ Belpasko said he was under the impression,because of the stop work order, that they were not allowed to do any work at all at the property_ He was out of town after the stop work order until two weeks ago_When he got the letter two weeks ago, he misunderstood the scope of the order_ Mr_Turnowchyck said they were in communication with Mr_Williams. The soil hasn't been stabilized because of the stop work order_No one would talk to him about anything on the plans until this meeting_ He was told that a decision could only be made at the planning board meeting_ From that point forward, they stopped work, and left the site.The owner was calling him daily to see whether anything could be done, and he said there wasn't. They thought they were doing the right thing by doing nothing on the site. Mr_ Bosak asked whether they could go ahead and fix the SWPPP issue under a stop work order_ Mr_Thaete said the way our letters are worded, the stop work order is in place until things are rectified_ So it allows you to rectify the situation before the stop work order is lifted_ Mr_ Bosak said that although he sympathized with what Ms_ Fogarty was saying, he didn't think it was the board's role to punish the applicant.And if it was our role, the stop work order causes as much punishment as we could come up with. Mr_ Haefeli said he was not interested in punishing the applicant PB Resolution No. 2017.010: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval& Special Permit, Rodeway Inn Modifications, 654 Elmira Road, Tax Parcel No. 33.-3.6 Moved by John Beach; seconded by Liebe Meier Swain WHEREAS: 1_ This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed modifications to the Rodeway Inn & Suites, located at 654 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33:3.6, Neighborhood Commercial Zone The proposal involves adding four rooms to building #1 (main portion of the motel), adding three parking spaces, adding a corridor enclosure along the front of building #1, and demolishing the two wings of building #1 and rebuilding in the same footprint as the previous approvals_JAMNA Hospitality Inc., Own- er/Applicant; Joseph Turnowchyk, HEX 9 Architects LLC, Agent, and 2_ This is a Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as lead agency in the environmental review with respect to the project, has, on February 7, 2017, made a negative de- termination of environmental significance, after reviewing and accepting as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff, and Planning Board Meeting 0207.2017 Page 7 of 13 3_ The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on February 7, 2017, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a narrative, three sets of plans prepared by Hex 9 Architects entitled "Modifications for: Rodeway Inn-Building 1, 654 Elmira Road, Ithaca, NY, 14850," including Sheets SP,A001, A101, A201 and A202, dated January 19, 2017; "Addition for: Rodeway Inn-Building 2, 654 Elmira Road, Ithaca, NY, 14850," including Sheets Al,A2 and A3, dated January 19, 2017; and "Modifications for: Rodeway Inn-Building 3, 654 Elmira Road, Ithaca, NY, 14850," including sheets A-1 and A-2, dated August 12, 2016, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby finds that that the special permit standards of Article XXIV Section 270.200, Subsections A - I, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, specifically that: a_ the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, in harmony with the general purpose of Town Code Chapter 270, will be promoted, as the project will not affect the health and safety of the community, and for the reasons set forth in "b (ii)" below, b_ (i) the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use, given that the use is permitted in the Neighborhood Commercial zone and has existed on the property for many years, and (ii) the proposed use fills a neighborhood or community need, as the proposed additional rooms will serve more people and the new office entry and addition will provide a larger, more obvious loca- tion for patrons to check in and communicate with motel staff, c. the proposed use and the location and design of the proposed structures are consistent with the character of the district in which they are located, for the reasons noted above, d_ the proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devalue the neighborhood property or seriously inconvenience the neigh- boring inhabitants, for the same reasons as noted above, e_ operations in connection with the proposed use will not be more objectionable to nearby properties by reasons of noise, fumes, vibrations, illumination or other potential nuisance than the operation of any permitted use in the particular zone, for the reasons noted above, I. community infrastructure and services, including but not limited to, protective services, road- ways, garbage collection, schools and water and sewer facilities, are currently, or will be, of ade- quate capacity to accommodate the proposed use because the use is already operational, and there are minimal changes proposed to the existing infrastructure and services, g_ the proposed use, building, design and site layout comply with all provisions of Town Code Chapter 270 and, to the extent considered by the Planning Board, with other regulations and ordinances of the Town, with the Building Code and all other state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and with the Town Comprehensive Plan, It. the proposed access and egress for all structures and uses are safely designed and the site layout provides adequate access for emergency vehicles, Planning Board Meeting 0207.2017 Page 8 of 13 i_ the general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole, including such items as traffic load upon public streets and load upon water and sewer systems, is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community, for the reasons noted above, j_ the lot area, access, parking, and loading facilities are sufficient for the proposed use, and access, parking, and loading facilities are adequately buffered to minimize their visual impact, k_ natural surface water drainage is adequately managed in accordance with good engineering practices and in accordance with any applicable Town local law or ordinance, and existing drain- ageways are not altered in a manner that adversely affects other properties, and L the proposed use and structure complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in Town Code Chapter 270; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1_ That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in a significant alteration of neither the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2_ That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit and Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications to the Rodeway Inn, located at 654 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33:3.6, as described in Whereas #3 above, subject to the following conditions: a_ Prior to the consideration of any permit applications, a demonstration to the satisfaction of the stormwater management officer that the SWPPP deficiencies noted in the engineering memorandum dated February 2, 2017, have been adequately addressed, and b_ All lighting must comply with the Town's Outdoor Lighting Law, Chapter 173. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Meier Swain, Bosak Nays: Fogarty AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment Project located between Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63.-2-10.2, High Density Residential Zone_The proposal involves demolishing the existing Maplewood Apartments 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, storm water facilities, and a community center_ Planning Board Meeting 0207.2017 Page 9 of 13 Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; EdR Trust,Applicant; Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC, Agent Mr_Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Mr_Thaete summarized the issues he discussed in his memo_When the project started during the SEQR phase, we met with the applicant and their engineer and came up with a pre-development scenario on how stormwater would be dealt with.This is a redevelopment project and the post- development flows need to match the pre-development flows_We agreed on a scenario on how the pre-development model would be modeled_ For example, we talked about the pre-development condition not overtopping the Rec Way. It has been staff s observation over the last 30+ years that during some of the larger storm events, the East Hill Rec Way did not overtop_ However, when the applicant recently submitted plans on the 24th of January, it appeared that that strategy had changed_ We met with the applicant and reviewed why they changed philosophy and tasked them with backing up their new philosophy with data. We asked them to recalculate some of the pre-development conditions_ Our concern is that we don't want to overestimate the release rate in the pre-development condition. He's gotten word that they're still working on it. They're trying to model the pre- development conditions to match what was agreed on.We also have a lengthy SWPPP review letter outlining details that need to be tweaked in order for this to be constructed properly_ He doesn't feel comfortable with the current situation without having additional data. He does not deem the SWPPP acceptable at this time. Mr_Wilcox asked whether the board could consider final approval without SWPPP approval from engineering_ Ms_Brock said the town code says "no application for approval of a land development activity shall be reviewed or considered until the required SWPPP has been submitted and deemed acceptable_" The planning board up to this point has never granted final approval without a statement by the storm- water management officer saying the SWPPP will work, that the stormwater controls will be adequate and will meet the required standards. There's also a practical issue: if we don't know whether or not the facilities will work, and you go ahead and give final approval, there's the possibility they'll have to change the site plan_ If the calculations change and they need to change the site or type of the facilities, they'd have to come back and get a modified site plan approval_ Mr_Markus, EdR attorney, said the interpretation of that section of the town code could only be complete if you refer to the definition of a land development activity; in the Definitions section, a land development activity is defined as "all activities... that result in soil disturbance..." It's his understanding that that relates to building permits or demolition permits, not to site plan approval_ He suggested that site plan approval could be granted without the SWPPP having achieved the acceptable standard, provided that acceptability of the SWPPP is a condition of building permit issuance. He didn't question Ms. Brock's point that if, in achieving an acceptable SWPPP, some change needs to be made to the site plan, the applicant would need to come back for site plan modification_ It appears to him from the way the law reads that the approval of the SWPPP is tied to the building permit issuance rather than site plan approval_ Ms_Brock did not agree_ Planning Board Meeting 0207.2017 Page 10 of 0 My Wilcox said let's assume Mr. Markus is correct. Would anyone on this board want to proceed with granting final approval given the status of the SWPPP, based on Mr. Thaete's memo? Board members said they would not want to proceed_ Mr. Bosak said what he's getting out of Mr. Thaete's description is that the requirement is that the post-development flow rate has to be no greater that the pre-development flow rate_ Mr_Thaete said the pre-development flow rate may have been an overestimation, allowing the post- development condition to be released at a higher rate. Mr. Bosak asked Mr. Wilcox to remind everyone what the board's authority is at this point in the process_ Mr_Wicox said the general purpose of final site plan approval is not to conduct a second or third review of the entire project; it is, instead, a review of the conditions from preliminary to make a determination as to whether the applicant has sufficiently met the conditions for final site plan approval_New information from staff or the public would be considered,but, in general, it is not our intent to review the project for a second time. Mr_ Resetco said in light of all the effort that's gone through the process, he's seeking a resolution that's reasonable to allow the project to obtain final approval, other than Mr_Thaete accepting the SWPPP_ He asked whether there might be some way the board could allow Mr_Thaete to accept the SWPPP with conditions_Andy Schiarabba is working hard and will take several weeks to finish the calculations Mr_Thaete is requesting_Mr_ Schiarabba is the best engineer in town and has done many successful projects_The applicant team has made the best effort possible to get where they are. He wanted to know if there's a way to proceed with the approval knowing that we're going to get to a point where we'll figure out how all the calculations come together_ My Wilcox said the town engineer has voiced his opinion and the planning board has voiced theirs_ He asked staff if there was any wiggle room_ My Resetco said it's not an exact science. We're talking about different soil conditions, a precondi- tion that involves water that has been piped and previously wasn't piped. There are a number of unknowns in the calculations. That's where there's potential room for interpretation. Mr_ Schiarabba explained the work they've done so far. The first task was to model the existing conditions to find out what the existing basins on site were doing_The basins were installed prior to any stormwater regulations_They had asked the town to provide a copy of the previous study to find out whether they were designed for the 10-year storm, 25-year storm, or 100-year storm_There was no data or previous report So then their job was to look at the existing conditions, the topography, the watersheds that are draining into the ponds, and figure out what changes might have happened from the time they were designed until today_ He spent months walking the field, checking drainage patterns_The ponds, as built, are not as they were on the design drawings from 1988; they're a bit smaller_That could be from sedimentation or how they were built The original design drawings also didn't show any stormwater coming from Mitchell Street into the ponds, so it bypassed the ponds_So in their premodel, they tried to replicate what town staff was saying was happening_They tried in the Planning Board Meeting 0207.2017 Page ii of 13 model to make it say what people were saying had happened, to the point of taking the Maple Hill watershed totally offline. They could not replicate that water wouldn't spill over the Rec Way. They're comfortable that their model is as good as they can get it with the conditions that are in place right now. So they asked themselves what has happened in the last 20 years from a storm standpoint_They went to the Game Farm Road rain station, where they keep historical rainfall data. They checked the data back to 1990_At the Game Farm rain station, which is 1.3 miles east of the site, it indicates that there's been one 25-year rain event (2011) and four 10-year events_The fact that nobody has seen a 100-year storm makes sense_If there's a 25-year storm, you have to be out there right when it peaks to see it, so they're not trying to ignore what the town has been seeing,but in their diligence and efforts, they can't replicate it He understood in the fall that they were trying to replicate that,but they didn't officially agree that they could meet that condition_ He has understood from recent meetings that Mr_ Thaete would be satisfied if they could get the model close to replicating the 25-year storm_ He thinks they're closer in the last few days. They're showing there might be a slight overtopping of the basins_ They also did another test: What if the site was wooded prior to any development? What would the post conditions be today if there were no impervious surfaces and no buildings?Are they really that far off on the pre-model? Looking at that model, we would be reducing the rates of runoff in the post- development conditions for all but the 100-year storm_ He feels comfortable that their pre- development rates are representative of what's out there. The volume of retention they're providing is five times what's currently there, and they're not adding five times the impervious cover. The soil types they're assuming are at the development are less permeable, so they're being conservative. They don't want to get phone calls; they want to design it right But no matter what they try, they can't replicate what's being seen out there. Mr. Thaete said that Mr. Schiarabba has encapsulated the last two days of conversations they've had. We need to look at things from a town perspective in that we're building a high-density residential development next to a residential neighborhood, so we have a tremendous concern that our pre- development model is accurate_ In the summer, we agreed on a philosophy, and we didn't hear about a deviation until January 24th_We were provided more information. We're asking for more collabo- rative rainfall data to make sure those rainfall amounts are accurate_Mr. Resetco is right in that it is not an exact science_But it's about working through the parameters and the calculations and making sure they're implemented properly. Like Mr. Schiarabba said, they're still overtopping on the 25-year storm; it may be slight,but in his professional experience, that slight deviation may have a larger implication on the post-development condition. We're getting close; we're not there. He heard today that potentially the post-development stormwater sizing may have to change_So, we're not in complete agreement at this point and are still analyzing the situation_To top things off, the plans lack a lot of appropriate information for this to even function properly. It's one thing to show under- ground basins and above-ground basins, and it's another to get that water in efficiently_The way it's laid out on the plan right now, the water won't get in quick enough; therefore, things will overtop, they'll flow downhill, and during a large storm event, you can potentially inundate downstream property owners_ Right now, we don't have the data to back up what Mr. Schiarabba is saying_ From what he's heard, they're still tweaking the model. He asked if they had an idea what the post- development ramifications are for tweaking the pre-model.Are they saying things will stay the same, or are they going to get bigger? Mr. Schiarabba said as of today, they should be adequate_ He agreed with Mr. Thaete that the detail on the plan is not up to the model level; it's missing a lot of detail_ He was concentrating on getting the modeling right Planning Board Meeting 0207.2017 Page 12 of 13 Mr_Thaete said it's a tremendously intricate model, and they've done a fabulous job_We're just not at a comfort level where we can sign the SWPPP_ Mr_ Bosak said the whole issue of stormwater and rainfall is a concern to him_All the climate models moving forward have all the rainfall increasing_ He thinks we're going to have big problems, and anything we can do to mitigate those problems will pay off further down the line_ He wants to make sure, with something this size, that we get it right Even if he were persuaded by the engineering arguments and the legal arguments of the applicant, for him to approve the site plan at this point would be for him to put his expertise ahead of the expertise of the engineer for the town and the attorney for the town_ He is not in that position_ Mr_ Haefeli noted that not approving it tonight doesn't slow the project down: they're busy tearing things down_Things are moving forward_ Mr_Wilcox said it's his understanding that the stormwater management plan can be devised to resolve the issues,but it might require moving some structures_ Ms_ Fogarty brought up emails from residents the board was provided at the meeting_Neighbors along the walkway are still having issues about a fence and trees_ Mr_Wilcox said he was not thrilled about a fence_What's the issue? People can walk on the trail and jump on their property, but they don't want the grad students to get to the trail easily_ Mr_ Bosak said all these considerations are irrelevant at this point; that train left when we did preliminary site plan approval_ Board members were not in favor of a fence,but possibly bigger trees_ Mr_Whitham said he thinks it's an important concern. They feel it's a robust and substantial planting, and the problem is most likely a reading of the plan_They looked at fencing as a potential and for the same reasons, but the Belle Sherman Cottages already have a fence on the other side_ They came up with the solution of having baffles within the plantings, and people might not understand that because they're not that easy to see on the drawing. They also made sure that the size and numbers of plants were substantial_ Mr_ Demarest said there were revisions to some of the parking areas, where they added continuous screening_The plants at the parking areas are six-feet high_Those, in combination with the baffles in other locations and the layering of a variety of trees and shrubs, make for a significant planting_ Ms_Balestra said we requested more plantings as part of preliminary site plan, so staff approved this as being adequate_All of the materials can be found on the town web site. Mr_Thaete said we have stormwater basins along the East Hill Rec Way_Will we keep the chain link fence? Is there a requirement to put fencing around stormwater basins? Mr_ Schiarabba responded that there are no fencing requirements for what they're proposing. Planning Board Meeting 02-07-20117 Page 13 of 13 Rowland Laedlein, 107 Walnut Street, said he thinks the reason the board got the comments from neighbors today is that the previous plans put on the web site were unreadable when you expanded them, whereas the new ones are legible. The issue of the fence had been raised by one party at the public hearing. The other comment regarding the size of trees is from a person who lives in one of the townhomes, and they don't have a fence behind their homes. The living quartets are on the second and third floors because the ground floor is a garage, so the second floor is level with ground level on the other side of the Rec Way, and a couple of those homes would be level with parking lots. The wooden fence is hard to see on the drawing. But from his perspective, a tremendous amount of work was done in putting plantings in to meet the residents' original concerns. Looking at the plans now from where they were Last February, they are significantly different. He's pleased by the responsiveness of the applicant. Mr. Wilcox left the public hearing open. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard — No one came forward to address the board. AGENDAITEM PB Resolution No. 2017.011: Minutes of January 17, 2017 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by John Beach RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of January 17, 2017, as amended. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Meier Swain, Bosak Adjournment Upon a motion by Jon Bosak, the meeting adjourned at 8:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,r De DeAugistine, bcpury Town C`l 111 t )