HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CAC-2012-05-14City of Ithaca
Conservation Advisory Council Meeting Minutes
May 14, 2012
Meeting began at 7:35
Members in attendance: Michael Culotta, Tom Shelley, CJ Randall, Emily Hamilton,
Yash Gharat
Ex Officio Member: Common Council member, Donna Flemming,
Guest: Dan Roth, NAC member
Members excused: Eva Birk, Joanna Nadaeu, Karimeh Shamieh
Cherry St. comments
Michael explained the approval process for parcels like Cherry St.
Subdivision environmental review IURA to Planning Econ Dev committee sub‐
committee, negative declaration‐sent resolution to Common Council vote June 6,
Then the IURA does a Site plan review to Planning Board to Environmental Review,
need to send comments directly to Common Council
A similar approval process happened for the Home Depot parcel.
CAC & NAC Recommendations went to Planning & Econ committee
Dan talked about the tour of the site that happened that day. Tom West, Joanne
Cornish, and 4 members of NAC were in the site visit. He talked about the
subdivision line. The prospective buyer needs 6 acres. The NAC wants boundary line
moved to protect wetlands. The City will consider buffers. DEC and city land are on
either side of the parcel. NAC is thinking of making pedestrian right of way around
the proposed development. There is no natural buffer south of 6 acre site. Dan
described the importance of buffers for wetlands. There are 40 ft of trees
surrounding the wetlands and the City thinks that is enough. NAC thinks that
subdividing is good but there will be a loss of 100s of trees where birds have habitat.
Dan read the definition of segmentation from the City Code. Segmentation is
disfavored in Environmental Reviews.
“Considering only a part or segment of an action is contrary to the intent of CEQR. If a
lead agency believes that circumstances warrant a segmented review, it must clearly state
in its determination of significance, and any subsequent EIS, the supporting reasons and
must demonstrate that such review is clearly no less protective of the environment.
Related actions should be identified and discussed to the fullest extent possible.” From
City Code Ch. 176, Section 3, Subsection G
Whoever is developing the 6 acre parcel is looking to create jobs most likely not to
preserve the land
The Cherry St. parcel is not considered a UNA.
DEC states there must be at least a 25 ft buffer around a wetland, if there is an
embankment should be 25 ft. to top of embankment (?) NAC wants a larger buffer.
Some of the prospective developers are talking about tax breaks. Common council
grants abatements. There is possibility of Incodema wanting to develop. Zoning of
the Cherry St. parcel is industrial. This is the most permissive zone. Jenifer Dodson
has said that the Cherry St. Industrial Park is less successful than anticipated.
Comprehensive Plan committee is also looking into Cherry St. Near Cherry St. there
are large parking lots not being used. Found Store is the only business visited
frequently in the area.
Comments to go to Common Council as soon as possible
CAC will make Cherry St. site visit within 10 days
Question asked : What else will happen before June 6th? The Planning Dept will
prepare RFPs from developers. The more jobs the development create, the more
points they will receive. The City should be talking about environmental sensitivity.
No SWPP with Site Plan Review, Project Review should include a SWPP
SEQR environmental concerns should be addressed as early as possible and this
process is not addressing them as early as possible. There is no data from an EAF.
NAC is afraid to set a precedent for the future of any other City owned parcels that
will be sold.
Part 1LEAF states does the parcel contain any threatened species‐NA, 2b 50 ft high
trees there, Moderately well drained in LEAF, 10 possibly yes , 11, 12 check that, 13
flood control channel, Hazardous Waste‐6 or 7 ft of fill placed there 50 years ago, 2,
3, 4 we object to (trees being removed), Will project occur in 100 year floodplain‐ 14
will fill be needed needs to say yes
902 Taber St
Infiltration basins on site plan is better than what is there now. Are these infiltration
ponds a good precedent for the future?
There is no real buffer that exists in the Site Plan. We need to set a precedent of
buffers for waterfront development. CAC agrees with County Planning Director, Ed
Mark’s comments.
How much parking do they actually needed, office and retail component, parking
requirement is not clear. Developer could connect trail to Black Diamond bike trail.
Property covers 80% of the way to Brindley St. with possible 100 ft to Brindley,
Could we look at this more carefully to consider walkway to Brindley St. bridge? Are
any of these plants invasives?
April Minutes
Table minutes till next month, not good minutes, Michael will have them the 20th
CAC members: Please evaluate training opportunities that have been offered and
let Michael or Meghan know if you are interested.
Emily and Tom visited Commissioner of Buildings, Phyllis Radke, and talked about a
possible green building code for the city.
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 PM