Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2018-04-03 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Ralp ensperge:r Board Roorn,Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, A viri 13„ 201 S AGENDA 7-OO P.NL SEQR Determination: Lin 2-Lor Subdivision, 1421 Truniansburg Road. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Prefirninary and Final Subdivision, Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision located at 1421 Trurnansburg Road (NYS Route 96),Town of IthacaTax Parcel No, 23,-1-37, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 2,677 +/- acre,parcel into as 1.582 +/- acre parcel (Parcel A) containing the existing residence and a 1,195 +/- acre parcel (Parcel B), Chung-LY C. Lin, Owner/Applicant; Susan Lin, Agent, 7:15 P.M, SEQR Determination: Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment Project rnodifications, located between Maple Avenueand Mitchell Street. The Planning Board will consider if a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement will be required for the proposed modifications, 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of modifications to the February 28, 2017 Site Plan Approval (as arnended August 1, 2017 and December 19,2017) for the Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment Project located between Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63,-2-10.2, Planned Development Zone No, 15. The applicant is requesting permission to extend the work hours until 10:30pin Monday through Friday, to allow interior work only to, be Performed between 7pin — 10:30pirt. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant-, EdR Trust, Applicant; Scott Whitharn, Whitharn Planning& Design, LLC, Agent. 5. Persons to be heard 6Approval of Minutes- March 6, 2018 7. Other Business S. Adjournment Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE A1717END,PLEASE NOTIFY P(r I SANDY (A quorum of four(4)members is necessary to conducl 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( TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday.A.priI 3.2018 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, April 3, 2018, at 215 North Tioga Street,Ithaca,N.Y.,at the following times and on the following matters: 7:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 24ot subdivision located at 1421 Trumansburg Road(NYS Route 96),Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21-1-37, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 2.677 +I-acre parcel into a 1.582+/-acre parcel(Parcel A)containing the existing residence and a 1.095+/-acre parcel(Parcel B). Chung-LY C.Lin,Owner/Applicant;Susan Lin,Agent. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of modifications to the February 28, 2017 Site Plan Approval (as amended August 1, 2017 and December 19, 2017) for the Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment Project located between Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street,Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63.-2-10:2, Planned Development Zone No. 15. The applicant is requesting permission to extend the work hours.until 10:30pm Monday through Friday,to allow interior work only to be performed between 7pm— 10:30pm. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; EdR Trust, Applicant;Scott Whitham,Whitham Planning&Design,LLC,Agent. ,Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 Dated:Monday,March 26,2018 Publish:Wednesday,March 28,2018 4 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION 1, Sandra Polce, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board ofthe Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday, April 3, 2018 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk-Sign-Board—22 1-5 North Tio as Street. Date of Posting: March 26, 2018 Date of Publication: March 28, 2018 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 28'h day of March 201 8,. Nof�nyPublic Debra DeAugistine t4otary Publt-Staill Of tlew YQ(k t4o.0 1 DE6146035 ourti6tiacj un Tornpkins,COWAY my comms%ion t. ire JuM 19, o rr, J� ✓i,�/Oi �// i///r� ��//vri�� J � r #rw z: IT a� 6T V Y/ Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga, Street April 3, 20118 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN-IN Please Print Clearly. Thank You Name Address Z (h 5 le TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, April 3, 2018 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox, Linda Collins,Joseph Haefeli,John Beach, Yvonne Fogarty, Liebe Meier Swain, Jon Bosak, Melissa Hill Town Staff Present: Chris Balestra, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Dan Thaete, Town Engineer; Dave O'Shea, Civil Engineer; Susan Brock,Attorney for the Town; Debra DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr.Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Lin 2-Lot Subdivision, 1421 Trumansburg Road Ms. Lin said her mother owns a 2.7-acre parcel of land with a house and wants to subdivide it. She's getting older and wants the land divided as part of her will for inheritance purposes. PB Resolution No. 2018-006: SEQR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Lin 2-Lot Subdivision, 1421 Trumansburg Road, Tax Parcel No. 23.4-37 Moved by Jon Bosak; seconded by Liebe Meier Swain WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision located at 1421 Trumansburg Road (NYS Route 96),Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23.- 1-37, 3:1-37, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 2.677 +/-acre parcel into a 1.582 +/-acre parcel(Parcel A) containing the existing residence and a 1.095 +/-acre parcel (Parcel B). Chung-LY C. Lin, Owner/Applicant; Susan Lin,Agent; 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as lead agency with respect to Subdivision Approval; 3. The Planning Board on April 3, 2018, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Survey Map, No. 1421 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York", prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., dated 8/1/2016, and other application materials; and 4. Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: Planning Board Meeting 04.03.2018 Page 2 of 16 That the Torn 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 action as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Meier Swain, Bosak AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision located at 1421 Trumansburg Road (NYS Route 96), Torn of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23.- 1-37, 3:1-37, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 2.677 +/-acre parcel into a 1.582 +/-acre parcel(Parcel A) containing the existing residence and a 1.095 +/-acre parcel(Parcel B). Chung-LY C. Lin, Owner/Applicant; Susan Lin,Agent Mr.Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Hearing no one, he closed the public hearing at 7:10. Mr. Haefeli asked how access will be provided to a house built on parcel B. Ms. Balestra responded that there's adequate road frontage for a driveway off the road. There was discussion regarding the requirements for private septic systems. Ms. Balestra said it came to Mr. Thaete's attention that with many of the two-lot subdivisions we approve, if it's not known where the septic system is, it's difficult to determine whether the new property line will go over the existing septic system (tank and leach field).A potential solution would be requiring applicants to furnish proof from the health department that the lot size and setbacks are appropriate for the existing septic system.We left it open-ended because we don't know what the county will require. Ms. Brock added that the county has minimum lot sizes and setback requirements for disposal systems. Mr. Haefeli asked whether the county documents the septic systems as they're put in. Mr. Bates responded that we get a record of any new systems that go in, but in the past,we generally received no record of them. Mr.Thaete said that whether there's a record in the health department's files or not,we're asking to get a sign off from them that the setbacks are appropriate. Mr. Bosak said the only documentation he has on his property is a sketch that was made when they replaced the leach field; he doesn't know where it is and he's not sure it's accurate. If the county Planning Board Meeting 04.03.2018 Page 3 of 16 doesn't know, it's likely the applicant isn't any more clear on it than he is, so where's the information supposed to come from? Mr.Wilcox added that the boundaries of a leach field could change over time, depending on the soil conditions. Mr.Thaete responded that it's not the town's permit; it's the health department's, so he reached out to them. Mr.Wilcox said it raises the issue of what will happen if parcel B is sold to someone else, and then the leach field associated with the septic system on parcel A stops functioning properly. If equipment has to come in to put in a secondary system, they might have to go on parcel B in order to deal with it. Mr. Bosak said he recognizes the issue, but is not clear what can be done in a general way to make sure things don't happen. Ms. Brock said this issue has just come up, and the planning department would like to take more time to discuss it internally with engineering and codes staff. She's not recommending that this become a standard condition of approval. Mr. Haefeli said it must be implicit that the health department would expect such things even if we didn't include the condition. Mr. Bates responded that the county gets involved only if a system fails; then the new system would have to comply. Mr.Thaete said we should learn from the sins from the past. Public works ran into a situation where there was a private system and the lot line we approved truncated the septic field.When the owner applied for a building permit, the health department discovered that the septic system had been subdivided off.There are ways to solve that through easements. The health department admitted that when they issue these onsite wastewater disposal system permits, they're based on a specific lot size.At a recent meeting, they discussed that they should be reviewing these septic system permits when there's a subdivision; it's something that was never really done in the past, or it was possibly not enforced. Mr.Thaete considers it no different than a public water or sewer connection: it has to be on your lot. It's the health department's permit, so although he doesn't know how they're going to handle it, he simply needs something saying they're okay with it. Mr.Wilcox pointed out that the condition is weakly worded because it doesn't require a delineation of the boundary on the survey map; it's simply an acknowledgement that the property is sufficiently sized and that the septic system is set back an appropriate distance. Mr. Bosak pointed out that we're punting this over to the health department, and if he were the health department, he'd say it's not our job to help you out. If there's no record of this, how are we going to be satisfied? Ms. Lin pointed out where the septic tank is on the property. Planning Board Meeting 04.03.2018 Page 4 of 16 Mr.Wilcox responded that most people know where the tank is, but that the liquid in the tank flows out into the leach field.You might have a general idea where it is, but probably don't know its boundary. Mr. Bosak asked where we're legally required to make sure of this before approving a subdivision. Is this our problem or are we just trying to be good scouts? Ms. Brock answered that staff was trying to come up with language that wouldn't impose onerous requirements on the owner by making them delineate where it is and show it on the plat.An informal communication from the health department will be fine, saying that once you draw the line, the system will still meet our requirements. In the past, the board has been interested in any facilities that serve one property that cross over the subdivision line; for example, for fences and walls that cross from one property to another,you want an agreement or easement showing that the encroachment onto the newly formed lot can remain.We were trying to treat it the same way by getting a sign-off from the health department. If the system is crossing what would be the new boundary line, the health department would determine that it doesn't meet their requirement, and the subdivision would have to be reconfigured.This would need to happen prior to the signing of the plat. Mr. Bosak said his question is:When did we become empowered to impose conditions additional to the ones that are in the zoning? Ms. Brock said it's in subdivision law. Mr. Bosak asked whether the subdivision law says you can't run a boundary line through a leach field. Ms. Brock said it doesn't. Mr.Wilcox asked whether the county would be willing to fulfill this; we don't want to create a condition that isn't easily fulfilled. Mr.Thaete said he's had several communications with the county, and they agree with what we want to do.And the system is working.There was a minor lot line change, we went to the county,who had the systems on file, and we got an email saying setbacks are good. Mr. Bosak asked what the setback requirements are for a leach field from a stream, such as on parcel B, and whether there would be room. Mr.Thaete responded that he thought it was 100 feet,but it's a health department requirement. Mr.Wilcox said that's not an issue we need to deal with tonight. In front of us is a subdivision of land.When and if they go for a building permit, those things will be taken into consideration. Mr. Bosak argued that staff had already come to the conclusion that a building could be put there with the required setbacks. Planning Board Meeting 04.03.2018 Page 5 of 16 Mr.Wilcox said that when they apply for building permits, they'll have to show where the building will be located and where they can put the leach field. Mr. Bosak asked why we're concerned about setbacks to a possible building and not setbacks to a possible leach field. In the analysis we got, it says that a building can be built satisfying all the setbacks. So if we're going to go to the trouble of making that analysis, what's the logical reason that analysis isn't applied to a septic system, since you have to have a septic system when there's no sewer. It sounds like we're getting into territory we haven't been in. Mr.Thaete said it's a subdivision; they might want to build a gazebo. That's the reason we're not analyzing the site;we're only as smart as what we're being presented with,which is an additional lot. Mr.Wilcox said it doesn't make sense because it's the county's job. Mr. Bosak's issue is not that this is a bad idea, but whether it's been thoroughly thought out. Mr. Bosak agreed. On the other hand, we're on record saying this isn't a precedent and we're also satisfied that the county health department is going to go along with this. PB Resolution No. 2018.007: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Lin 2-Lot Subdivision, 1421 Trumansburg Road, Tax Parcel No. 23.-l-37 Moved by John Beach; seconded by Joseph Haefeli WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision located at 1421 Trumansburg Road (NYS Route 96),Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23.- 1-37, 3:1-37, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 2.677 +/-acre parcel into a 1.582 +/-acre parcel(Parcel A) containing the existing residence and a 1.095 +/-acre parcel (Parcel B). Chung-LY C. Lin, Owner/Applicant;Susan Lin,Agent; 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on April 3, 2018, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by the Town Planning staff; and 3. The Planning Board, on April 3, 2018, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Survey Map, No. 1421 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York", prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., dated 8/1/2016, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, hav- ing determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in a significant alteration Planning Board Meeting 04.03.2018 Page 6 of 16 of neither the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision located at 1421 Trumansburg Road, as shown on the survey map entitled "Survey Map, No. 1421 Trumansburg Road, Torn of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York", prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., dated 8/1/2016, subject to the following conditions: a. Revision of the final subdivision plat to delineate and identify the stream setback zones and to include a note that states that"the stream located on the east side of the property is subject to the provisions of the town's Stream Setback Law which requires a 50-foot setback from con- struction of any buildings and most structures, as measured from the bank full flow mark and restricts or prohibits disturbance to vegetation within the zone"; b. Prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair, submission to the Planning Depart- ment of proof that the Tompkins County Health Department is satisfied that its lot size and disposal system setback requirements will be met for the Parcel A septic system; c. Submission for signing by the Chairperson of the Planning Board of an original and three dark lined prints of the revised final subdivision plat, prior to filing with the Tompkins Coun- ty Clerk Office, and submission of a copy of the receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Plan- ning Department; and d. Upon application for a building permit for Parcel B, the applicant must provide proof that any proposed development complies with the Stream Setback Law. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Meier Swain, Bosak AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment Project modifications, located between Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street. The Planning Board will consider if a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement will be required for the proposed modifications. Ms. Brock said what we're doing is consistent with the process we followed in December.You need to determine whether the EIS adequately analyzed noise impacts of the type being proposed and, if so, you can make the determination that no supplemental EIS will be required.When they appeared before the board in August for their first change, what they were proposing was not consistent with the findings statement. In that case,we went through a different process by first amending the findings statement and then going on from there. Here, the findings statement doesn't speak to this proposed change, so we don't need to consider amending the findings statement; we can go directly to whether the EIS adequately addresses the noise impacts. She thought it would be reasonable to say it doesn't require a supplemental EIS and to go directly to considering the change to the site plan approval. Mr.Wilcox added that if we make the determination that no supplemental EIS is required, we'll move on the consideration of the proposed request. Planning Board Meeting 04.03.2018 Page 7 of 16 The board determined that no supplemental EIS would be required. PB Resolution No. 2018-008: SEQR, Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment Project, Between Maple Avenue &Mitchell Street Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Liebe Meier Swain WHEREAS: 1. This project is the Consideration of Modifications to the February 28, 2017 Site Plan Approval (as amended August 1, 2017 and December 19, 2017) for the Maplewood Apartments Redevel- opment Project located between Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63.-2-10.2, Planned Development Zone Number 15. The applicant is requesting permission to extend the work hours to 10:30pm Monday through Friday, to allow interior work only to be performed between 7pm - 10:30pm. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; EdR Trust,Appli- cant; Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC, Agent; 2. The Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment Project went through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process, including Draft and Final EIS's, which, on December 20, 2016, conclud- ed with the Planning Board adopting the Findings Statement; 3. On February 28, 2017, the Planning Board granted Final Site Plan Approval for the Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment Project; 4. On August 1, 2017, the Planning Board granted Final Site Plan Approval to modify a condition of the February 28, 2017 project approval, to expand the allowable daily timeframe for noise- related construction activities from 8am- 6pm to lam- 7pm, Monday through Friday; 5. On December 19, 2017, the Planning Board granted Final Site Plan Approval to modify the same condition of the February 28, 2017 project approval,by allowing construction on Saturdays from 8am-4pm; 6. The current application involves another request to modify a condition of project approval by expanding the allowed daily timeframe for noise-related construction activities, this time to apply to interior work only (between 7pm and 10:30pm); and 7. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has examined the current application, comparing the application with the Maplewood EIS and Findings Statement in conjunction with the require- ments of 6 NYCRR Part 617.9 (a) (7); NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby finds that the proposal to modify condition 3.a. of the Maplewood Final Site Plan Resolution No. 2017-017 (as amended on August 1, 2017, Resolution No. 2017-051 & December 19, 2017, Resolution No. 2017-079)will not require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement as a result of the change proposed for the project,because the final Planning Board Meeting 04.03.2018 Page 8 of 16 Maplewood EIS contains sufficient information for the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to analyze the impacts of the proposed change. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Meier Swain, Bosak AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of modifications to the February 28, 2017 Site Plan Approval(as amended August 1, 2017 and December 19, 2017) for the Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment Project located between Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63.-2-10.2, Planned Development Zone No. 15. The applicant is requesting permission to extend the work hours until 10:30pm Monday through Friday, to allow interior work only to be performed between 7pm - 10:30pm. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; EdR Trust,Applicant; Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC,Agent Mr.Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. Mr. Resetco spoke about the progress of the project.They have over 30 percent of the units leased. He said they're simply asking for 3 1/2 additional hours of work time.They think they've been responsive to concerns that have come up, and they plan to be as responsive to other concerns that potentially arise. He thinks the mitigation measures proposed will adequately address the concerns. Ms. Collins said that in the letter from Whitham Planning and Design, the only justification given is the lag between interior and exterior work.When you asked for additional hours on Saturdays,you gave substantial reasons why things hadn't moved along the way they were anticipated.The spirit of the environmental review is that the work hours would be thus unless there were extenuating circumstances.This is lacking. Mr. Resetco said there's one simple reason why the interior work is lagging and that it's a national issue, not a local issue. LeChase has worked hard with contractors and subcontractors to make sure there were materials and manpower.The buildings are wood-framed building. This was a difficult year for the framing industry, and we've had pressure we didn't expect with local subcontractors not being able to perform their work, and the framing has suffered. Framers brought in from outside were not able to get the work done they said they could.The other trades are fine,but we've had a terrible time with the framers. The weather disasters across the country have impacted the wood framing industry and brought a labor shortage.We've kept the quality,but haven't been able to keep the schedule. The last time we requested additional hours, there were other circumstances,but this time there's only one severe problem. Now we have to try to make that up in the interiors.We've finally found framing subcontractors who have kept their word. Ms. Hill asked if he was saying that they now have the workforce to add a second shift of framers. Mr. Resetco said the framers will continue to work the first shift.They are now caught up, and we have many units that could benefit from the second shift working on the interiors: drywall, flooring, painting, etc. Planning Board Meeting 04.03.2018 Page 9 of 16 Ms. Hill asked why they don't put extra people on interior work during regular hours. Mr. Resetco responded that it's not that simple because there's only a certain amount of space people can work in;we can't simply put more people in one room at one time.We need a second shift to enable work to continue in the same space. Ms. Fogarty asked whether any of the project is finished yet. Mr. Resetco said it's not.We're working with the torn to do a move-in over three phases -July 1, July 31, and August 20 - primarily to avoid a rush of everyone moving in at one time. Some of the future residents have requested that if a building is finished, they be allowed to move in.Without this extension,we will largely be able to keep to the August delivery schedule,but we'd need other things to go our way, such as additional production we're not sure we can count on. It's in the best interest of the project to have people move in in July. Ms. Collins asked about the size of the second shift and whether cleanup will start after the work finishes at 10:30. Mr. Frost from LeChase said that the crew size would be a fraction: 40 to 70 people, depending on the particular trades involved at any one time. The second shift would work from 3:00 to 10:30, at which time, they'd shut the gates and people would leave. LeChase will have management on site to make sure people are leaving at 10:30, which is what we do with the 7 p.m. closing. The buildings will start at the south side of the site because that's how we've been progressing. The majority of work will be in the apartment buildings and then the town houses.The buildings adjacent to the Belle Sherman community are the most finished.We anticipate the later shift to be taping, finishing, painting, flooring, setting fixtures. For finish nailing and spray painting, they'll use a smaller compres- sor located inside the building.Windows facing the site, not to the exterior, will be open to get ventilation. Ms. Collins noted that at least half of the windows are open on a 45-degree day. For her, that's a big issue. She thinks it's unrealistic for windows to be closed as the weather heats up; it's not good for the workers. Mr. Resetco said that the doors and windows that face the outer perimeter of the site are going to be closed. Mr. Beach asked how many more stressors the adjacent residential neighborhood should be expected to take upon themselves. Between serving on the City of Ithaca planning board and the town's planning board, he has over 13 years' experience on planning boards. He can't recall any project where an applicant has requested construction work that late at night. Especially with the summer months coming, that might be the final stressor for the neighborhood. He doesn't know if he could live there. Mr. Resetco said he understands that. He thinks there's been a good response from the team when the community has had concerns and needed us to make some modifications, and assured the board that they will continue to be responsive. They've been monitoring the noise level around site and have not produced noise anywhere near what's allowed, especially with the reduced workforce. Planning Board Meeting 04.03.2018 Page 10 of 16 They're looking for a chance to work the additional hours and prove to the town that they can finish the work without the stress level mentioned. He doesn't think the type of work they're asking to be done will create a stress level beyond what the residents have now. Mr.Thaete said they're exacerbating their temporary occupancy level by 30 days (from July 31 to July 1) and asked whether the 3 1/2 hours of additional work time is needed to meet that exacerbated timeframe. Mr. Resetco said it is not because the extra shift is needed throughout the site.We wouldn't neces- sarily be able to get to July 31 without the 3.5 hours. There are simply too many units to finish. Mr. Haefeli asked if they could just work on the east side of the site in the evening as a compromise and not do the perimeter buildings during evening hours. Mr. Resetco said the challenge is that we have a workflow and progression.We're trying to employ a shift that does their work and moves through the site. Ms. Collins brought up the point that sound is different at night than during the day. She lives on South Hill past the college, and during summer nights, she can hear the train downtown. One thing we're always concerned about on this board is setting precedent.When she originally asked what caused this need, the answer didn't surprise her. She knows there have been labor issues of all different types on the site.We have to be very sure there's justification for doing this because what do we say next time? Ms. Meier Swain said the reasons they've given previously have been worthwhile enough to grant the extensions. The precedent we've set is that the reasons have to be significant and solid; we've shorn our attention to detail and scrutinized every request. Mr. Collins said she brought it up as something to keep in mind.As Mr. Beach said, he's had a lot of experience and this may be the first time this has ever come up as an issue, and it's significant. Ms. Hill said there's a big difference between 7 and 10:30. Her kids are in bed by 8 p.m. The precedent for 7 p.m. is a lot different than circumstances that would get us to 10:30. Mr.Thaete thought there might be a lighting issue. Materials are all stored outside.Are they working with headlamps? Mr. Frost said the plan is to stage the buildings ahead of the nighttime shift.We're not taking deliveries; we're not staging materials outside that will be utilized inside. This is all finish work; we're not staging our ceramic the or carpet tiles outside in the mud. These materials will be brought directly into the building at each location.The only thing we're talking about for supplemental lighting is as a means of egress from the building for workers to safely get off site. Rowland Laedlein, Belle Sherman Cottages, adjacent to the rec way, said the issues that the board raised are the same as the ones he raised in writing. He hears a commitment to keep windows closed on the west side of the buildings to limit the travel of noise.As weather gets warmer, he wonders about the productivity of people working with minimal ventilation. It's been stressful for many Planning Board Meeting 04.03.2018 Page 11 of 16 residents, and our windows have been closed.As the weather gets warmer, the residents in Belle Sherman that have back yards along the rec way will also have their windows open and will be putting up with noise.There will be generators that provide interior lighting, and we want to make sure generators are inside.Are residents going to be facing an additional stressor of a fully occupied building with no water tank?What will the impact be on the neighborhood? He doesn't think there will be a tank by July. That concerns a lot of residents.We hope the board considers all those aspects when making their decision. Mr.Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Mr. Haefeli was curious about feedback from residents thus far, both generally throughout the day and regarding the extended hours that have been granted. Mr.Wilcox responded that we've received four comments, all four from Walnut Street.When we last considered an amendment, the one thing the board noted was that there had been no noise com- plaints.We did a great job with the noise, and it turned out not be an issue,but we didn't adequately consider dust. Mr. Bates agreed with Mr.Wilcox that we haven't had a lot of noise complaints,but we've never let them work past a certain time.Also, it's been winter during the majority of this construction, so windows are closed. Mr. Bosak commented that noise has not been an issue because it ended at 7, and noise at 7 is different from noise at 10:30. He's not concerned about setting a precedent.When we respond to these requests,we have good reasons. He sympathizes with the applicant,but also sympathizes with the neighbors. If he can't be satisfied that this change is going to have zero impact on the neighbors, he's inclined to say that if they can't finish on time to accommodate all the students they've leased to, they should think about putting students up in hotel rooms for a few weeks. It sounds to him like this is purely a money issue, and if that money is going to be taken out of the hide of the neighbors, he doesn't think that's right. Mr.Wilcox said his assumption is that many of these contracts have penalty clauses. If they don't finish on time, they pay the penalty; if they get the extension to work until 10:30, that penalty is shifted to the neighbors.When they initially came in to extend the work hours, one of the things they talked about was the difficulty of getting crews because they could work other places for longer hours. He asked, instead of having two shifts, why they don't pay more overtime. Can't you go to four 12- hour shifts to try to get more work out of the employees you have? Mr. Resetco said that right now, most workers are able to work additional hours beyond the 40. There are safety and labor issues related to the number of hours worked.We think two shifts is the best of both worlds for the workers. It also seems to be the most productive way to go about finishing the work.We're talking about a small crew of 70 workers, and the work to be done will be significant- ly quieter.We can't promise no impact, but we don't think there will be undue impact beyond the minimal noise a small crew working inside will make. The lighting won't change: they are currently kept on at night for safety reasons.As the units get finished, the air conditioners will be on; they're put in before the flooring. Only painting would require turning off air conditioners.We've provided four mitigators that would significantly limit any impact. Planning Board Meeting 04.03.2018 Page 12 of 16 Ms. Fogarty said she's not sure they need the extra time. Having a crew working until 10:30 at night in a neighborhood; it will be warm, people will be outside and have their windows open. Personally, she doesn't think it's okay. Ms. Brock suggested looking at the site plan of the buildings. There are some buildings further to the east. Consider whether there are some activities that can happen inside those buildings. Mr. Resetco said painting, taping, some activities that might truly have little or no impact on the neighbors. Mr.Wilcox said the question boils down to: Are the mitigation measures, as proposed or modified in some way, along with the applicant's track record sufficient for them to be granted an extension to work additional hours and how do we balance that against the needs of the people who live in the neighborhood? Part of the process we engage in when we listen to applicants and to the audience is judging how much weight and credence to give to what they say. Ms. Collins is a big believer in home as your sanctuary. She looks forward to driving in her driveway and going into her house and experiencing dark and quiet.A lot of the families that live along the row of houses that will be impacted have school-age children. She likes to get in bed at 9 p.m. and read and doesn't want to listen to her neighbors sitting and talking quietly on their porches. She can't imagine that some of the windows won't have to be open. Human voices: 40 to 70 people leaving a work site at one time will talk to one another, and that's at the latest point of the shift. Her comment about precedence setting was based on the fact that their job is project management, and for whatever reason, that hasn't worked out very well.Yes,you didn't know there would be hurricanes and fires, but that's what you do professionally.And here we are at this point in this project and what you're asking us to do is shift your failures in managing this project onto the neighborhood, and she can't, in good conscience, participate in that. Ms. Brock said maybe they could work in interior buildings and not in those located along Walnut Street. Some of the larger buildings are along Maple Avenue and there's a large building by the cemetery, all the way to the east of the site,which might not be as much of a concern to the board. Other than issuing a blanket allowance, in which they can do anything they want within the parame- ters set forth anywhere on the site during these hours, is there another way to give them the ability to progress the work from 7 to 10:30 p.m. on part of the site with additional restrictions? Mr. Haefeli asked whether some is better than none.That points up three different options:you're allowed to do this for the next 45 days only, you are restricted to certain buildings, or possibly they could work until 8 because then people would be cleaning up and gone by bedtime. Mr. Resetco said it would certainly help to be able to work in some buildings rather than in none. The apartment buildings along Maple Avenue and the two buildings closer to the cemetery are the farthest away from the neighbors. There are a significant amount of bedrooms to be delivered in those buildings, so if there's a compromise to be had,we would appreciate being able to work in the apartment buildings. Mr. Beach said he shared Ms. Collins's concern about setting the precedent of allowing construction on a major project until 10:30 in the evening. He wondered what staff thought. Once it's been granted on one project, what prevents any other developer from a similar request? Planning Board Meeting 04.03.2018 Page 13 of 16 Ms. Balestra said if there were a compromise, staff would recommend the applicants follow the guidelines in the noise ordinance, which is a 9 p.m. cutoff. She also doesn't recall a project that had such late hours. She agreed that it's an extraordinary request,but not that it's precedent-setting because we've never had anyone ask. Mr.Wilcox suggested restricting them from working in the eight buildings that front the trail. He was concerned about piling mitigation upon mitigation and passing something that so restricts them, that it's pointless. Given that the complaints come from Walnut Street, and this moves the work away from them, that could mitigate the noise. Mr. Bosak said that doesn't address the problem of a noisy leave-taking from 10:30 to 11.There's no way to stop that. Mr.Wilcox asked what mitigation would change that. Mr. Bosak and Mr. Haefeli said a 9 p.m. cutoff. Ms. Brock pointed out that our law currently allows operation of certain construction equipment - pile drivers, steam shovels, pneumatic hammers, derricks, steam or electric hoists, electric drills - until 9:01 p.m.within 500 feet of a residential zone. Ms. Fogarty said that when we first looked at this project and considered all the information, we tried to make it work between the contractors and the neighbors. Everyone put a lot of energy into this. You've come back twice and we've worked with you to make it work, but 10:30 is too late. Mr. Bosak noted that we're nudging it towards 9, and 9 is a known magic number in this context. Mr. Resetco suggested a 30-day trial using a third-party community liaison to make sure project conditions are being complied with.After Mr. Thaete pointed out that there are residences along Mitchell Street above the power lab, Mr. Resetco suggested they could also eliminate those buildings. Mr.Wilcox said no to the trial period. He's comfortable with allowing them to work only until 9 and restricting the buildings because the issue seems to be the impact on the residents on Walnut. PB Resolution No. 2018-009: Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment Project, Between Maple Avenue &Mitchell Street Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Liebe Meier Swain WHEREAS: 1. This project is the Consideration of Modifications to the February 28, 2017 Site Plan Approval (as amended August 1, 2017 and December 19, 2017) for the Maplewood Apartments Redevel- opment Project located between Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63.-2-10.2, Planned Development Zone Number 15. The applicant is requesting permission to extend the work hours to 10:30pm Monday through Friday, to allow interior work only to be Planning Board Meeting 04.03.2018 Page 14 of 16 performed between 7pm - 10:30pm. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; EdR Trust,Appli- cant; Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC, Agent; 2. The Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment Project went through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process, including Draft and Final EIS's, which, on December 20, 2016, conclud- ed with the Planning Board adopting the Findings Statement; 3. On February 28, 2017, the Planning Board granted Final Site Plan Approval for the Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment Project; 4. On August 1, 2017, the Planning Board granted Final Site Plan Approval to modify a condition of the February 28, 2017 project approval, to expand the allowed daily timeframe for noise-related construction activities from 8am- 6pm to lam- 7pm, Monday through Friday; 5. On December 19, 2017, the Planning Board granted Final Site Plan Approval to modify the same condition of the February 28, 2017 project approval,by allowing construction on Saturdays from 8am-4pm; 6. The current application involves another request to modify a condition of project approval by expanding the allowed daily timeframe for noise-related construction activities, this time to apply to interior work only (between 7pm and 10:30pm); 7. The Planning Board has examined the current application, comparing the application with the Maplewood EIS and Findings Statement in conjunction with the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617.9 (a) (7), and has found that the proposal to modify condition 3.a. of the Maplewood Final Site Plan Resolution No. 2017-017 (as amended August 1, 2017, Resolution No. 2017-051 & December 19, 2017, Resolution No. 2017-079)will not require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement because the final Maplewood EIS contains sufficient information for the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to analyze the impacts of the proposed change; 8. The Planning Board, at its meeting on April 3, 2018, has accepted as adequate a memo prepared by the applicant, explaining the justification for the proposed modification; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Torn of Ithaca Planning Board hereby modifies condition 3.a. of the Maplewood Final Site Plan Resolution No. 2017-017 (as amended on August 1, 2017, Resolution No. 2017-051 & December 19, 2017, Resolution No. 2017-079) so that it reads as follows: "Noise-related construction activities shall be limited to lam- 7pm Monday through Friday and 8am-4pm Saturday. Noise related to interior work only shall be permitted until Spm Monday through Friday, with the following conditions: i. All doors and windows that face the outer perimeter of the development must be closed after 7pm; ii. No generators may be used after 7pm; iii. No structural framing is permitted after 7pm; Planning Board Meeting 04.03.2018 Page 15 of 16 iv. There shall be a LeChase general contractor representative on site for the entire dura- tion of the working hours (lam to 9pm); V. No work will occur in or on buildings IT 1, PT, NT, OT, IT2, MT, LT, GT 1, HT2, HT1, ET, and JT2; vi. No deliveries or large trucks producing noise will be permitted after 7pm. There shall be no construction-related noise exceeding 85 decibels at the property boundaries between the hours of lam and 8am and the hours of bpm and Spm, Monday through Friday. Construction shall be prohibited all day on Sundays and federal holidays, except emergency repairs (such as to stormwater facilities)will be allowed on any day." AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That all other conditions in Resolution No. 2017-017 remain unchanged. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Haefeli, Meier Swain, Bosak Nays: Collins, Beach, Fogarty AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard A gentleman from Belle Sherman said it won't make any difference to the neighbors who live there, come home from work at 5 o'clock, and expect to be able to sit on their porches or back deck and have their children play games and have a peaceful dinner. He would have thought that after all those changes, there would have been another opportunity for the public to comment.As a resident and an elderly person, he doesn't have that many summers left. One of the reasons he moved to Ithaca and bought a house on that street is because he enjoys sitting on the front porch, talking to the neighbors as they walk by,watching the sun set, and having a martini until it gets really dark, at which time he'll go inside to watch some TV and go to bed. He will miss that. This will not solve the problem of the noise. In his emailed comments, he said that he and his wife were perfectly satisfied with the noise happening during the day; even when the hours were extended, he accepted the fact that they would put up with the construction during working hours. However, there is noise that starts early in the morning and lasts all through day: the trucks backing up, the loud radios, the shouting, the deliveries, the compressors; even in the middle of the night, the slow-moving trucks coming up Mitchell Street. He did not think the board did their duty.With all the changes, you should have provided the opportunity for public comment on all of those changes so residents could reinforce their concerns. He hopes the board will think about this in the future when making decisions that affect neighbor- hoods. AGENDA ITEM PB Resolution No. 2018-010: Minutes of March 6, 2018 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by John Beach Planning Board Meeting 04-03-2018 Page 16 of 16 RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of March 6, 2018, as submitted. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Meier Swain, Bosak, Hill Abstentions: Haefeli Other Business Adjournment Upon a motion by Liebe Meier Swain, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, eb�r _DeAugistH4, _qeputy Town (" _-C,