HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-04-30 3e7
TOWN OF DANBY
TOWN BOARD MEETING
Special Meeting April 30 , 1990
7 : 30 P . M .
E MS ERT:.
Supervisor Dietrich
Councilpersons : Eckstrom , Marisa , Oltz , Schwartz
OTHERS PRESENT :
Town Clerk - 9cze�oanski
Attorneys - David ' Tluboia. , and Mahlen Perkins •
Development Representatives - George Schlect , Liz Grisanzio ,
Hydrologist - Bradon Foster Scott Hoffay
Members of the Public : '
Arch Dotson , George E . Clarkson , Richard Moore , John Shepardson ,
Florence B . Shepardson , Paul Viscuso , William Rap ,
Gagnon , Marty Sternstein , Eugene Hartquist , LamarelHerrin ,
Charlotte Mayo , Raymond Mayo , Valerie Shepardson , John C .
Shepardson , Sr . , Karen Casey Carr , Carol Hill , Thomas D . Hill ,
Elizabeth M . Klein , Joyce M . Moore
Call to Order
�.
Supervisor Dietrich called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 P . M . and
read the following letter dated April 18 , 1990 from the Town of
Denby Planning Board :
" Supervisor Dietrich and Denby Town Board
1830 Danby Road
Ithaca , NY 14850
Dear Supervisor Dietrich and Councilpersons :
In view of the Denby Town Board ' s impending decision on the
Statement of Findings for the Raptor Heights Planned Development
District , a . d . a . Raptor Heights Subdivision , y Liz
Grisanzio , the Town of Danby Planning Board has today sdiscussed
the proposal and offers the following comments .
First , we regret the relative haste with which we acted upon
this matter . As you no doubt know our decision was reached at
the end of a meeting which lasted until nearly midnight on
December 21 , 1988 . Given the lateness of the hour we should have
deferred the decision until we had the opportunity
thought and consideration . The developer placed intense r fethe pressure
on us for a decision and it should be noted that our ote was
four in favor , two opposed and one member was absent .
Second , it can be said that if we had had the information
now available to the Town Board , we might very well have voted
differently . It is certainly true that if the vote were taken
today , the outcome would have been to vote the proposal down .
We hope these comments are helpful .
Sincerely ,
The Denby Planning Board "
Supervisor Dietrich stated that he would like to read into the
minutes the following petition received from the neighboring
community in regard to the " Raptor Heights " Subdivision proposal .
The petition was submitted to the Denby Town Board on April 18
1990 and contains approximately 140 signatures . A co py of the
petition is on file in the Town of Denby Clerk ' s Office .
- 2 - Town Board Minutes
310
April 30 , 1990
A PETITION OPPOSING THE PROPOSED RAPTOR...HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION
The proposed Raptor Heights Subdivision in the Town of Danby :
1 ) Violates , the community land use goals for preserving
open space and rural characters as cited in the Town of
Danby Comprehensive Plan .
2 ) Could endanger future ground water supplies of the
area .
3 ) Encumbers the Town ' s taxpayers with the financial
responsibility for a mile long non - linear road and
small park which do not benefit the town as a whole .
4 ) Concentrates an average year ' s population growth for
the Town of Danby on a single 75 - acre parcel .
5 ) Opens the door for expansion of this subdivision to its
neighboring parcel which is owned by the developer ' s
sister .
6 ) Sets a precedent for similar development in the Town of
Danby .
For these and the numerous other reasons cited in the public
hearings and enumerated in the letters on file with the town , we ,
the undersigned citizens and taxpayers of Danby , do hereby wish
to register our strong opposition to this proposed development
and urge the Town Board to reject it . P
Councilperson Marisa explained the SEQR process to the Board and
public . The first part of the " Statement of Findings " is the
data the Town Board is addressing .
October 25 . 1989 - A Draft Environmental Impact Statement ( DEIS ) ,
a compilation of facts concerning the proposed action was
published and made available for public comment .
November 20 . 1989 - Public hearing was held on the D . E . I . S .
The data collected from the public hearing and other - sources were
collated into a Final Environmental Impact Statement ( F . E . I . S . )
March 21 . 1990 - The Town Board of the Town of Danby accepted the
F . E . I . S . for the " Raptor Heights " Planned Development District
Subdivision .
Councilperson Eckstrom summarized the written comments from
approximately twenty ( 20 ) residents responding to the F . E . I . S .
for Raptor Heights Planned Development District a . k . a . Raptor
Heights Subdivision .
1 ) The development is out of character with the
surrounding rural area . ( 3 )
2 ) Concern over wells and septic systems . ( 7 )
3 ) This project represents too much growth / density for
this area ; this project enables additional
( detrimental ) growth in this area . ( 6 )
4 ) This project does not meet the objective of the
provision of low - cost or moderate cost housing . ( 2 )
5 ) The need for this type of housing ( lack of availability
of housing of this type / price range ) not demonstrated ,
or contradicted by observations . ( 2 )
3 Town Board Meeting
April 30 , 1990
6 ) Opposition to / concern over the Town accepting another
new road . ( 7 )
7 ) Opposition to / concern over recreational area / pond , due
to liability , expense to Town or de - facto exclusive use
-.., by the development . ( 5 )
8 ) FEIS underestimated traffic
project , concern over traffic . potential from this
( 2 )
9 ) Concern over fire and life safety and / or access . ( 2 )
10 ) FEIS underestimated population increase due to this
project . ( 1 )
11 ) Anticipated problems due to conflict with adjacent
agricultural activities . ( 2 )
12 ) The project is inconsistent with comprehensive land use
plans , or sets a detrimental precedent . ( 5 )
13 ) Projects like this one should be phased . ( 3 )
14 ) The project will generate increased demands on
emergency services ( which are all volunteer ) . ( 1 )
15 ) Additional population from this project may require a
new school be built , with associated tax expenditures .
( 2 )
16 ) In the last year , only one Town resident , a housing
developer , has spoken in favor of this project . ( 3 )
17 ) No archaeological study of the area has been done . In
summer 1989 , a search of the Shepardson property a few
hundred feet north of the proposed project site turned
up many Indian artifacts . Such objects may be lost
forever if this development is allowed to go further .
( 3 )
18 ) This project would mean higher taxes . ( 1 )
19 ) The FEIS minimized environmental impacts . ( 1 )
20 ) The project represents visual pollution : the .site is
visible from as far away as Connecticut Hill , and would
illuminate the dark of night . ( 1 )
21 ) A remark labeled " Impenitent and Irrelevant " :
" The name Raptor Heights didn ' t mean much to me until I
looked up " raptor " in the dictionary . A raptor is a
bird of prey . It , is from the Latin " raptus " meaning
one who seizes . Well , that fits I guess . This seems
to be another case where a developer with more money
than sensitivity " seizes " the opportunity to compel a
community to develop in a manner counter to its will . "
( 1 )
Councilperson Marisa said the data which the Town Board must
consider when Making its statements are all of the issues
addressed . The FEIS which references the DEIS and all of its
addenda , the minutes of meetings such as the public hearing on
November 20 , 1990 and correspondence the Town Board has received
including correspondence - from the consultant the Town Board hired
to look at the data provided by the developer . Councilperson
Marisa also reported that since the FEIS was filed the Town Board
has met twice to consider the various points and findings on each
P3 / ;" 4 Town Board Meeting
April 30 , 1990
of the points addressed in the FEIS .
Councilperson Marisa read the into the minutes all of the
the Town Board has considered in the " Draft Statementinof
Findings " .
The Town Board cites the following specific findings , facts and
conclusions in support of the foregoing Certification of
Findings :
1 . Based on evidence presented by the applicant ( DEIS Addenda
# 4 , and results of later testing , DEIS p . 9 ) and upon review by
Resource Associates , consultant for the Town , the Town Board
finds that there is no definitive evidence that the proposed
action would cause a significant impact upon surface water
quantity . The Town Board also finds that there is no reason to
suspect that a final site plan which does not cause a significant
impact in the areas of erosion , flooding , leaching or drainage
could not be designed .
Concerns raised by anecdotal evidence of well problems , and
neighbors ' concerns over the availability and quality of water
supplies , could very likely be mitigated by phasing .
2 . The Town Board makes no specific findings on whether
meets requirements for potable water supplies the site
is suitable for sewage disposal � whether the site
would have a significant impact on surface hwater the proposed use
determinations are proper ) in the quality . These
Health Department . The applicant Y domain of the Tompkins County
reports has submitted test results and
P that indicate that potable water is availably
parcel , and that most areas tested a on the
disposal ('DEIS Addenda # 5 , 6 ) . PPear suitable for sewage
' - rased on evidence presented b
Biologist Ronald Alexander Y the applicant ( report of Field
finds that , DEIS Addenda # 7 ) , the Town Board
there is no evidence that the proposed action would
cause a significant impact u.
adverse effects on a pon a significant habitat , nor
or plant . threatened or endangered species of animal
4 • Pecause there are no specific Town regulations governing the
points of access to the development , nor are their
local regulations or guidelines concerning
de - sac leading from lot # 6 to the end lotsh# 16eand h17. the Town
Board , as lead agency , must evaluate such design standards .
Town Board finds that the bad design of the The
negative impact on g Project would have a
public safety . However ,
noting that neither access nor road length are unique situations ,
finds that the negative impact of this design may , be mitigated
by a two - lane entrance with a median and / or by significantly
shortening the length of the road .
5 . The objective of the a
social and economic benefit of prr-o ' ecteisithetifovd public
moderate cost housing in the Town of Danby . provision of
in the FEIS demonstrating Y Based upon the data
surrounding county in the rate Town of Danby has matched the
fraction of single family home construction in othe , b ) the ma by
is at or below the target unit price of the proposed of Danby
based upon the common knowledge p P project ,tc iod
techniques ( modular ) are not unique and commonly applied
the Town , and b ) that there is no deficit of property within
long
existing Town roads which is zoned for and may P P o athns
type of housing , the Town Board finds that the ebenefi for this
project to the provision of moderate priced housing i of not
significant consideration . 9 is not a
X13
5 Town Board Meeting
April 30 , 1990
6 . Based upon data presented in the FEIS concerning projected
increases in traffic due to the project , the capacity of NYS
Route 968 and based on indications from the NYS Department of
Transportation , the Town Board finds that the increased traffic
would not constitute a significant impact .
7 . Based on the current zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive
Plan , the Town Board finds that the commercial development
associated with this project ( model homes , real estate sales
along NYS Rt . 96B ) would not constitute a significant impact .
9 . The Town Board finds that the proposed action creates
material conflict with the community ' s current plans or goals , as
officially approved and adopted .
As to the following directives contained in the Town of Danby
Comprehensive Plan ( DEIS Addenda # 2 ) , the Town Board makes the
following specific findings :
( a ) . . . New housing should be encouraged to locate either
along and near existing roads , or in small clusters on
new , generally short , roads .
The town Board finds that the projected development is not
small , and it incorporates over a mile of twisting roads .
( b ) Areas located around such housing should be left open
in order to maintain the rural character of the Town .
The Town board finds that the projected development does not
buffer the neighboring properties , but rather proposes a " wall -
to - wall " intensive development . The project would not set an
acceptable standard and precedent for future surrounding land
( c ) Additional essential considerations are protection of
neighboring properties from adverse effects on water
supplies , protection from other environmental impacts
such as waste run - off , and protection from development
incompatible with the rural character of the Town .
The Town Board finds that the proposed action does not protect
n eighboring properties from development incompatible with the
✓ ural character of the Town : high density , a non - linear road
system , • suburban ' night lighting .
( d ) The current zoning restriction of new housing to no
more than one residence for every one hundred and fifty
feet of frontage along existing roads should be
maintained .
The Town Board finds that based on current road frontage and the
present Danby Zoning Ordinance , the property may be developed
w ith up to two single family homes . In the case of ' back
acreage ' , appeals to the Danby Zoning Board of Appeals have , in
several cases , allowed additional homes to be constructed and
served with longer individual driveways . The framework outlined
in the Comprehensive Plan for larger development of ' back
acreage ' , includes clustering , introduction of a mix of large and
small lots , set - aside buffers ( as opposed to an internal
✓ ecreational area ) , etc .
( e ) Affordable housing should be a feature of town
development , and land use regulations should encourage
the setting aside of a reasonable amount of space for
it . Such housing should be spread throughout the Town ,
and not clustered in large tracts .
The Town Board finds that Town housing start data , detailed in
0111
6 Town Board Meeting
April 30 , 1990
the FEIS indicates that the type isiiateype of development proposed in this
auder present Zoning .proceeding throughout the Town at locations
under
would t oualIn the judgement of the Town Board , this
project
of ousin y increase the opportunities for this
location . housing , but would rather concentrate it into one
( f ) Danby residents
preservation of open place the highest value on the
to retain space . . . There is a strong largely unobstructed p desire
characterizes most of Danb landscape which
only radical redesign of the Town Board finds that
significant reduction of proposed project and
Proposed ro the number of units in the
Town ' s ComprehensivoelPlantigate its conflict with the
9 . The FEIS discusses the
9 . The EIS a issue of deeding of a recreational
are creation pond , to the Town . The Town Board finds that
facility ,c of a recreation or
Y , and the Park district to manage a
facility , with the facility of maintenance and
the governmental infrastructure a significant impact lto
services . TIiP elimination of necessary to provide community
( " • 9 - by relocation the pond from the recreational area
( e . . by or elimination of
significantly mitigates the recreational area )
maintenance impacts aofs the negative liability .
main nee to this proposal . The Town supervisory s orf and
the small size of the recreational rarea sand ints
proposed location within a
peopoational. aria densely developed are its
a whole . Provides no significant benefit to the Town as
10 • The Town Board finds
that the that there is a significant
that
action probability
have a eegaoive impact on
complaints concerning nearby farms , due
g noise , fertilization and other neighbors
activities . This impact agricultural
development This pact could be mitigated by a substantial properties Y buffering any
abstantial redesign of the ' such buffering would
project .
11 . Notwithstanding the
11 plans to develop assertions of the developer that she has
no
any other property
° f the developer ' s sister in the Town of Danby ,
parcel immediately developer ' s
she that , she and
long North of Purchased a second
g term appreciation and has no the proposed development for
development , the Town board immediate
adjacent finds that Plans for long term
parcels to similar this project would open
constitutes a significant development , and
Comprehensive Plan impact inconsistent with that this
Recognizing and long term zoning ing gTown ' s
g that connection roads leading g the planning goals .
g to the periphery of the
parcel were suggested by the Town
Town Board finds that , at of Danby Planning
Town
roads and that , at
minimum , the removal Board , the
the
periphery of the parcel g ( re the road system awa these
Project ) would mitigate this impact .
substantive redesign from
12 . Impact on local community services
The findings of a stud
The
review by y developed by Councilperson Dean that twis y a joint n Eckstteeand
project and Would have and
no demonstrable effect on
local Tam Rates if the Bevel
This study indicated demand for services could grow roughly district was fully develped as proposed .
the game Proportion P posed .
tthere would to tax revenues . The study ghly in
ewe w be no extraordinary such assumed that
sewers only Y t' . penditures such as municipal
watercor , and no y incremental growth the demand for
maintenance . highway improvements community
other than routine
Rased on information supplied by the Ithaca City School
District
7 Town Board Meeting
April 30 , 1990
( DEIS Addenda # 9 ) , the Town Board finds that this project would
not have a significant impart on educational facilities .
13 . The general issue of visual resources of the site is a new
topic cited in a written comment after the acceptance of the
FEIS . Since this topic was not raised during the SEOR process ,
and therefore not studied b
mke a specific by the Town Board , the Board does not
pecific finding on whether the possible loss of visual
resources constitutes a significant environmental impact .
[ The comment was , in summary :
The project represents visual pollution :
visible from as far away as Connecticut Hill , and date is
illuminate the dark of night . ( 1 ) ] would
Concern about additional night lighting was raised in the FEIS .
The Town Board finds that this is an issue which , if the
proposed action amending the Zoning Ordinance were to be approved
by the Town Board , might be adequately addressed in final site
plan review . Specific lighting requirements would be enumerated
in development district regulations and embodied in Zoning
Ordinance amendments .
14 . The issue of the archaeological significance of the site is
a new topic cited in a written comment after the acceptance of
the FEIS . Since this topic was not raised during the SEOR
process , and therefore not studied by the Town Board , the Board
does not make a specific finding on whether the possible artifacts constitutes a significant environmental impact . losThis of
issue must be resolved before any significant development is
undertaken .
15 . The Town Board finds that the concentration of
end projection of sharply increased population
to this development is a significant impact . If the rate due
completed in the projected 5 p project were
attract more residents than the entire Town would the project reject would
attract , based on the average expected to
CCounty for the past decade . g population growth in the Town and
oune oars , If the project was completed in
years , the developer ' s most optimistic estimate , this
project alone would double the Town ' s growth rate during those
years . This concentration of population would markedly change
the rural character of the surrounding area . The Town Board
finds that such concentration of
growth rate are inconsistent with the p °Town 's °Comprehensive accelerate
and long term zoning and planning goals .
16 . The Town Board finds that the
density restrictions in the Danby Zoning Ordinance posngia
dense non - linear road System . g Y proposing a
contained in the Town ' s Zonin Ordinanceosp fifyttha rfrontagenis
along a ;< istin g specify that frontage is
g roads . Existing Town roads are generally
interconnecting and straight , with a wide spacing between roads
consistent with histdric and present agricultural activity .
Extensions to the Town road networks should possess similar
character as existing roads .
designed to The proposed road network is
be non - linear , without providing road
interconnection , while also not adjoining roads under Town
maintenance . The proposed road maximizes the length of road that
must be maintained and overall implies a density that is
inconsistent with the Town ' s Comprehensive Plan and long term
zoning and planning goals . "
Comments from the Public :
Raymond Mayo - 335 Ridgecrest Road
the archeological findings were on this propertye Town Board what
Councilperson Marisa responded that basically its a new point
that was raised and the Town Board does not have enough
•
/ e 8 Town Board Meeting
April 30 , 1990
information to make a specific finding
feels that the issue has to be resolved before development Town Boars
undertaken , development fs
John Shepardson
John hep r 90 Muzzy Road -- said he had a difficult time
answer to the findingstwilltbeof Findings " and asked what the
C ^unr- ilperson Schwartz explained
raised and the Town Board looked ath several rissues and
and that the Board found specific Points
and . all of these findings odP ific findings and in others they areas
not .
have a bearing on tBoy did
ultimate decision . g the Town Board ' s
Councilper- son Marisa explained that so far the summary
here has addressed point by point all of the the
in the FFIS . There was a list of things Bard
concerns and this draft says some of these that were identified as
are concerns and same of them the Board efindsiare not Board
oncernsnds
Supervisor Dietrich responded that for instance concerns .
increased population would be significant and would require of
school , The Town Board looked at
district The their that and talked with the new
increase plans . The school district school
was well within their t felt that the
that material the Parameters for growth , Bas „
Town Board made a finding d jest
itself would not significantly 9 that the
itself would
school sisnific y impact the Project
Also question cr over
traffic on Route 95B was looked at . T the concern of increased
New York State Department he Town Board contacted the
New YoT felt that t of Transportation and found that
impact on the traffic . Supervisop Dietri h would
a .fso �e make a the
of the impact significant
im act on well water was an issue ported that the concern
and the Board felt that the tests and resources was in
appear to indicate that the water is sufficient , a In
Joel Gagnon - Route 34 / 91 West Danb
Y - asked when the Town Board
would vote on the " Statement of Findings " ,
Supervisor Dietrich responded that after
there are no more the comment
thereil a questions or comments from the period if
P - r = on Marisa will. declare the Towns general public of
Findings , From that Statement
declaration whether document the Town Board will make their
to accept or reject the their
j project .
John Shepardson - 318 aidgetrest Road
him that the Town Beard said - said that it
the wa there would not be a sounded to
water .
problem with
Councfiperson Marisa responded that based on
submitted by the developers and the data that wa he data that was
Town ' s special consultants that review kind d
comments from P that kind by the and
Tom kins County Health , the Town Board fo undathat
there was no scientific data that the
indicate that there would be Y could uncover which would
quantity on the site . a Problem with sufficient water
Mr . Shepardson stated
problem because e there are at least six ( 6 ) would be a water
wells in the area that
are only this year getting sulphur water .
Councilpersan Marisa responded that
issuer here in regard there were two different
other with quality9 to water , one to do with quantity and the
Supervisor Dietrich reported that the Tompkins County Health
Department felt that there Was Y lth
Board went as far as they sufficient water and the Town
Board went y could go in terms of looking into the
Y of water . If there were other projects in the
3/7
9 Town Board Meeting
April 30 , 1990
immediate area it would possibly require public water .
Supervisor Eck: strom stated that while the Town Board could not
find any scientific way to quantify the water availability there
are non - scientific approaches like project phasing that could
assure water quality throughout the whole development which has
not been proposed .
Marty Sternstein - 177 Muzzy Road - reported that he has been to
all the PTA meetings when they were planning the additions to
South Hill School when they were bulging at the seams and slowly
going up to three grades per class . He further reported that
with the projected increases at South Hill the school is barely
going to be big enough without further additional classrooms .
Counciiperson Eckstrom explained that the Ithaca City Schools
felt that the . increases froth this project would be within the
projected normal growth for this area .
Karen Casey Carr - 1432 Danby Road - reported that it was
necessary to put two filters on their water system recently due
to the deteriation of the quality of their water supply .
Richard Moore - 125 Muzzy . Road - reported that within the last
year his water quality has also deterfated ( he has lived at 125
Muzzy Road for more than 40 years ) and does not know why .
Ray Mayo - 335 Ridgecrest Road - said he addressed the statement
in the FEIS by a Mr . Foster saying the only way that number of
wells could be drilled without affecting the neighbors water
supply was to drill for the deep bed rock water and to stay away
from the shallower supplies . He said that this was not addressed
from either the developer or the Town Board .
Supervisor Dietrich explained that the Town Board ' s understanding
was that some wells were going to be in bed rock and some wells
were not . It was going to be the combination of the two that was
projected . The test wells certainly indicated that some of the
test wells were deep and some were not so deep .
wells was also looked into by Resource Associates Tandctheyrcame of
to the conclusion that there would be 4 sufficient water supply .
Mr . George Schlect responded that he thinks that the developer
would be very pleased if it turns out that all the wells were in
the gravel layer that was found just above the bed rock as that
proved to be quite a large volume of water and high flows and is
in a different geological formation from the neighbors .
Discussion followed in regard to how to filter out minerals in
hard water and the systems available .
George Clarkson - 650 Nelson Road - addressed the Town Board and
said he lives in Danby because of the rural character and his
view is all the way to Connecticut Hill . He also said that he is
not anxious to see the City move in between and the traffic from
the development on King Road area is a mess .
deeply concerned about water supply He said he is
water and when you concentrate people Y ousmultiplis the ro lem .
Mr . Clarkson also said that hep p y multiply the problem .
thinks that Danby ' s Town Board is
going to have a real stroke of character and stand up against •
this sort of thing and say we don ' t want it , we are not going to
have it and we are going to continue with a kind of reasonable
goal for Danby .
George Schlect said that he is dismayed by the action by the Town
Board . For the last year and one half to two
yeart he has
very hard - and diligently to supply the Town with cooperativeodata
and responded to many requests for extensions .
six to eight weeks , the most crucial time , he feels Within
six the last
that he has
j ' if
10 Town Board Meeting
April 30 , 1990
been shut out of the Process . He
- = sues surrounding the said substantively he sees the
and he question whether this requires new zoning
wants to make it clear to the public that the facts have
been misstated . These are proposed single family housing units
and a. re allowed by •
ndn e required y zoning , the lot sizes are 30
re _ uir- ed by zoning , he / to 50 % larger
than zoning requires . The average frontage is 5r7 -/, larger
than
the lots were made larger to address some
concerns that we have heard here tonight . He said he
understands what the Town is wrestling with and the proper way
for the Town to address that zoning
appropriately so that the whole Town can full amend the He
further- stated that the Y get involved , He
inappropriate way to do it is by
petitions of a small number of the Town in an attempt to really
change the law withvtrt due
Torn
change
feels process of change . He thinks when a
Town
rights eels by it can deprive
legal . He has not one citizen to
respond to the technical questions that have been arraisedctonight .
Ed Roberts - Bald Hill Road - responded that he was fortunate on
the water situation in his area ,
Federated Church and caretaker of As
he Town rHall eheof the edn on
the water problems in the a commented on
have ato rea and reported that the water levels
Aped twenty to twenty - five feet .
it is time that the Town looked into bringing flmu thinks that maybe
Town . 9 g nicial water into
John Strepardsvn - 318 Rid A
statement in regard to citizensctrying sRoad - commented on the
by Petition that he thinks there to change the zoning laws
to get the is one developer that is trying
zoning laws amended to suit themselves ,
Eugene Har - tquist -- 170 Huzzy Road - commented on the of
citizens trying to change the zoning laws by petition .statement ks
he recognizes that " Raptor Hei hts " Y le it thinks
zoning law g tries to live within the
provided the Town accepts its roads but I think also
the findings address the Comprehensive Plan more than •
Laws . He supports the Comprehensive Plan a the Zf th
Town stays with this plan and outline therend would hope that the
George Schlect re
ever sponded that he would say that citizens have
Y right to petition the Town to change the Zonin
to comply with the Comprehensive 9 Ordinance
Plan hut
is not law but a plan upon the Comprehensive Plan
not bee pon which laws are made . The laws have
n made yet . He also thinks
diffcer- s from this delineates where he
what the public is saying .
Pill Rzppal .l - 66 Huzz
project y Road - asked Mr . Schlect that if the
complies with the zoning regulations why is it necessary
to ask: for a variance .
Attorney Dubow explained that the is
Denby Zoning Ordinance a Planned Development tDistrict ewhicher the
application to the Town to amend the Zoning Laws . The proposal
an
l
complies with respect to in fact it complies in the se P posit
is an application made sense that it
He i pursuant to a section of the . Zoning Law .
explained the process required for
Development . Residential use is A - a Planned
Zoning Law provides that e minimum permitted e that area where our
existing road g - of .t 50
is required . He further explained ft , on an
proposal is an application to the Town Board to amended that this
Law by approval of a Planned Development District . the
Mr . ZDubow
stated that People need to Dubow
residential use understand the distinction that a
on that property is - tted
residential development of 40 odd lots is noterpermit . however
the Town Board approves that project in the form of an amendifient
to the Zoning Ordinance .
Mr . Rappel said that his point is that he believe
has asked the Town . Board to amend the s the developer
Zoning Laws and 140 Denby
11 Town Board Meeting_
April 30 . 1990
residents have asked them not to amend the Zoning Laws .
Paul Visucso - Heisey Road - said he would like to point out that
people would not be spread across the Town of Danby but would be
concentrated in a srhall area and it is a significant increase in
population to a neighborhood .
Councilperson Marisa asked the Town Board if there were any
changes they wished to make in the " Draft Statement of Findings " .
Attorney Dubow pointed out to the Town Board that Section 617 . 9
of the SEOR Rules and Regulations deal with decision making and
basically provides that to approve a project or to disapprove a
project they must make certain findings ( certain conclusions ) .
Mr . Dubow said It might be helpful to read those findings with
respect to approval or disapproval . He also pointed out to the
Town Board that if they were to approve a particular project they
must make findings as follows :
1 ) The requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 have been met ;
2 ) Consistent with the social , economic and other
essential considerations from among the reasonable
alternatives thereto , the action approved is one which
minimizes or avoids adverse environmental effects to
the maximum extent practicable , including the effect
exposed found in the Environmental Impact Statement ;
and
3 ) Consistent with social , economic and other essential
considerations , to the maximum extent practicable ,
adverse environmental effects revealed in the
Environmental Impact Statement process will be
minimized or avoided by incorporating a petition
decision that those mitigation measures which were
identified as practicable or doesn ' t apply to this
particular project .
Your certification of findings if you were to deny the project
have to be as follows :
•
1 ) The requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 have not been met ;
•
2 ) Consistent with the social , economic and other
e ssential considerations from among the reasonable
alternatives thereto , the action denied is one which
fails to adequately minimize or avoid adverse
e nvironmental effects to the maximum extent
practicable ; and
3 ) Consistent with social , economic and other essential
considerations , to the maximum extent practicable ,
adverse environmental effects revealed in the
e nvironmental impact statement process cannot be
adequately minimized or avoided by the mitigation
measures identified as practicable or the finding
doesn ' t Apply to this type of project .
Attorney Dubow instructed the Board to determine whether they can
make the findings associated with approving the project basically •
that all the various issues that have been discussed lead to the
conclusion that any and all of the environmental impact areas of
the mitigated or avoided to the maximum extent practicable or to
the fact they haven ' t . If you determine that all of these areas
have been mitigated or avoided to the maximum extent practicable
then you are permitted to approve the project . If you determine
that all of these various issues have not been mitigated or
avoided to a maximum extent practicable , then you would be
required to deny the project .
•
12 Town Poard Meeting
April 30 , 1990
Motion to Make a Findin
Development Disct to Reny " Rapto_Neiohts " Planned
The following b g motion was made by Councilperson Marisa
Y Councilperson Schwartz to make a finding the
" Raptor Heights " Planned Development District conditioned
fact that 9 to deny the
the SEDR has not been fully met , on the
to adequately minimize the ' that the project fails
Town Poard adverse environmental
Town rd cannot adequately identify mpact and the
viewed as practicable .
Sufficient mitigating
Councilpersons Oltz and Marisa and Supervisor
to deny the project . Dietrich concurred
Supervisor Dietrich addressed the
publd been a very difficult decision for theiTowndoftpa b that this has
nby Poard .
Councilperson Eckstrom read the following statement :
Summary : Certification of Findings to Deny
Having considered the Draft
Statements , and having nd Final environmental
St tome t g considered the evidence , Impact
set forth below written facts and
requirements of and relied upon to
6 NYCRR 617 . 9 , this meet the
certifies that : Statement of Findings
1 . The requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 have not been met ;
2 . Consistent With the social
considerations economic and other essential
from among the reasonable
thereto , the action denied is one which fails alternatives
minimize or avoid adverse
to adequately
maximum extent practicab environmental effects to the
le ; and
3 ,
Consistent with social
considerations , , economic and other
consideration effects the Maximum extent essential
is revealed in practicable , adverse
statement process the environmental impact
by the mitigation be
� _ a or avoided
practicable ; and
Councilperson Eckstrvrn stated
t
would move the followin that based on the above summary he
g r- esolt_ttion :
Resolution ft 52 of 1990
ResplutionBetiardins Ereviron
for the A . . licatfon mental [lualit Review Requirements
for t al of to the Tuw of Danb
A Planned Development District Submitted ~ b ' ~ for
BYiCaunci 1 peASaniEckstrom : - -- rLMs__ . Liz
Seconded by Councilperson Marisa
RESOLUTION DATED APRIL 30 , 1990
RESOLUTION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL DUALITY TY REVIEW
FOR THE APPLICATION DANDY RETOWN " fEN R
APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
GRISANZIO ( " APPLICANT " ) ( T! " TOWN FOR
SUBMITTED BY MS . LIZ
WHEREAS , Applicant has submitted to the Town an appl
a Planned Development District for a site proposed to consist for
of
approximately 45 Lots on Approximately 72 acres located in the
to consi
Town ( the " proposed action " ) ; and
WHEREAS , the Town has designated itself
purposes of the environmental review of the rs Lead Agency for
proposed action ; and as
WHEREAS , the Town has
•
after completion and review of the
13 Town Board Meeting
April 30 . 1990
required Environmental Assessment Form
Declaration - Notice of Intent to Prepare " EaF11 ) ' filed a Positive n l
Impact Statement ( " DEIS " ) / Determination of Significance ;Environmental
and
WHEREAS , the Applitant has submitted a Draft EIS as required ;
and
WHEREAS , the Town Board , as the reviewed the designated Lead Agency , has
revewed Applicant ' s DEIS and determined that it is
the satisfactory with respect to its scope , content and adequacy for
Purpose of commencing public review ; and
WHEREAS , a Public Hearin g on the
on November 20 DEIS was held at the Town Hall
1999 , at which time all members of the public
wishing to speak were given the opportunity to do so ; and
WHEREAS , the ' designated
filing of the A public comment period following the
the pplicant ' s DEIS has expired and the Town Board , as
designated Lead Agency , has commenced
;)
required Final Environmental Impact Statement ( "" FEIS " n of the
'� and
WHEREAS , the Town Board , as the designated Lead Agency ,
received 'extensive public comment necessitating full and p per
response as part of the preparation of the FEIS ; and Proper
WHEREAS , the Town Board has undertaken the review of the
FEIS submitted by the A proposed
thereafter Applicant on February 13 , 1990 , and
determined that substantial modifications and
additions were necessary thereto ; and
WHEREAS , the Town Board has substantially revised the proposed
FEIS , and in such revised form , approved it and authorized its
filing as required by Law ; and
WHEREAS , the Town Board has received
following the filing of the FEIS ; and additional public comment
WHEREAS , the Town Board has considered all of the information
materials associated with its environmental review of and
proposed action , including , but not limited to , of the
as well as all public comments received by twn Boar and FEIS
y the Town Board ; and
WHEREAS , the Town Board has
WHEREAS ,
the also considered , reviewed and
Development e rit criteria required for approving a Planned
Ordinance , including , and thereby amending the Town Zoning
g , but not limited to , the nature of the
proposed use , the need for the proposed use and the
location , the intensity of the operations included proposed
of the site with respect to access from existing and future
streets , , the location
and the effects of the proposed use on adjacent
property ; and
WHEREAS , the Town Board has uae
Development District amendment the ted
the context of the most recently adopted Comprehensive Plan for
the Town ; and
WHEREAS , the Town Board has completed its review of the
action and is prepared to proposed
decision as to whether to disc issue its Findings and render its
decision lion disapprove the proposed action or amend
Zoning Ordinance so as to establish boundaries of the
proposed Planned Development District ; and
WHEREAS , the Danb
WHEREAS , the Town Planning Board , notwithstanding its
submitted to the Town approve rolettere proposed action , has
setting Forth a current expression of dated position ,19 , hick
position as currently stated is its position , which
action in its present form ; and not to approve the proposed
; A 14 Town hoard Meeting
April 30 . 1990
WHEREAS , the Town Board
disapproval , pursuant to Town has received a Petition
Planned Development District as roposed
sed
Law Section
265 , of the propo
Ordinance ; an amendment to the Town Zoning
NOW THEREFORE , IT IS HEREBY
RESOLVED , that the Town Board of of Danby ,
Y . pursuant the Town
adopts the Findings NYCRR Part 617 , Section 617 . 9 as Lead
Statement for the hereby ( i )
proposed project
Statement " ) , incorporated herein in the
form attached hereto and
) . and ( ft ) authorizes the ( the " Findings
Statement as required ; and it is further
filin9 of the Findings
RESOLVED , that ( i ) based
Rased ED , that t full , upon the Findings Statement
Proposed , thorough and comprehensive review and ( ii )
proposed project in accordance [ State the
with Article ronmtal
Conservation Quality Review Act ( " SEC17 , of the Environmental
Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617
' and ( iii ) having
from the Town Planning , the written 9taion
into consideration all public comment
frtmtj. on opposing g Board dated communication
nposing the proposed action April 18 , to o90 and the
B and ( iv ) having submitted
Board ,
oardiate g taken into consideration all tfactors
d with rezoning and
Development District , including those property r the form of a Planned
with Article g thos provided for
With
Ordinance , VI , Section 604 of the in Danby Zoning
the Town Board hereby Town of Danby Zoning
as a Planned Development District amendment the
Zoning proposed action
g Ordinance , nt to the Town of Denby
A roll call vote on the resolution resulted as follows :
Eckstrom
Marisa Aye
Aye
01tz
Schwartz Aye
Dietrich Aye
Aye
ADJOURN
Carried unanimously
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 9 : 50 P . M .
/faj
Carol W . Sce. anski
Town Clerk
J 3
Town of Danby T
Tompkins County - Newyork
Statement of Findings
Adopted April 30, 1990
Project Title : Raptor Heights Planned Development District
a. k . a. Raptor Heights Subdivision
Location:
Town of Danby
County of Tompkins
State of Nov York
Lead Agency which prepared this statement:
Town Board
Town of Danby
1830 Danby Road
Ithaca; flew York 14850
Contact: Frederic W. Dietrich, Supervisor (607 ) 277-4788
D E IS Accepted : 10!25!89
FEIS Accepted : 03/21 /90
"/ Summary: Certification of Findings to Deny
Having conridered the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements, and having
considered the evidence, written facts and conclusions set forth below and relied
upon to meet the requirements of 6 NYCRR 617 . 9, this Statement of Findings
certifies drat:
1 . The requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 have not been met;
2 . Consistent with the social, economic and other essential considerations from
among the reasonable alternatives thereto, the action denied is one which fails to
adequately minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects to the maximum
extent practicable; and
3 . Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, to the
maximum extent practicable, adverse environmental effects revealed in the
environmental impact statement process cannot be adequately minimized or
avoided by the mitigation measures identified as practicable.
Evidence used in generating the Statement of Findings
Application for the proposed action has been made to the Tovn Board of the Town of
Danby pursuant to Article VI . Section 604 of the Town of Danby, Nev York, Zoning
Ordinance . Specifically, the proposed action, if approved, would constitute a Planned
Development District. In addition, any such approval of the proposed action would,
following such Tovn Board action, be implemented in accordance with section 601 . 2
of the Tovn of Danby Zoning Ordinance as an amendment to such Ordinance . The
Danby Tovn Board, as the designated agency for approving or disapproving the
proposed action, and in its capacity as Lead Agency under Article 81 State
Environmental Quality Review Act ( SEQRA )] of the Environmental Conservation
Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617, evaluated all the required materials and information at
its disposal, and considered the various criteria set forth in Section 604 . 2 of the Danb y
Tovn Zoning Ordinance, including the nature of the proposed tie, the need for the
proposed use and proposed location, the intensity of the operations included, the
location of the site with respect to access from existing and future streets, and the
effects of the proposed use on adjacent property. The Town Board has further
reviewed appropriate information, materials, public comments and other factors
consistent with the process of approving or disapproving the proposed Planned
Development District amendment to the Town Zoning Ordinance .
Consideration was given to the Final Environmental Impact Statement dated
03/21 /90, as evidenced by the citations in the findings below . The FEIS incorporates,
Ao ,
4 . •_
0.-:#0(t.pg4
• 3a 5'
by reference, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS ) dated 10/25/ 89, and
several other documents and correspondence and hearing/meeting minutes .
Consideration vas also given to written comments received from the following
calumniators during the 10-day Coniment period after the F E IS vas accepted and
filed on 03/21190 :
1 . E . Eugene Hartquist
2 . Lamar Herrin
3 . Raymond J. Mayo
4 . Torn and Marie McDonald
5 . Richard Moore
Joyce M . Moore
Kim M . Klein
John C . Klein
Ethan M Klein
John C Shepardson, Sr .
Valerie Shepardson
6 . William J. Rappel
Elizabeth S . Boggest
7 . Jake and Irene Ruehel
8 . Albert and Rheta Shepardson
9 . John and Valerie Shepardson
10 . John Shepardson
Floretre B . Shepardson
Summary of Written Comments
The numben•folio tiry thei attriznitry inefthttes the ntenttforli)la the now hit
The development is out of character with the surrounding rural area ( 1 , 4, 8 )
Concern over veils and septic systems . (2, 3, 5 (liability), 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 )
This project represents too much growth/density for this area; this project enables
additional (detrittental ) growth in this area. ( 1 , 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 )
This project does not meet the objective of the provision of by-cost or moderate cost
housing. (6, 9 ) .
Need for this type of housing (lack of availability of housing of this type / price range )
not demonstrated, Or centradicted by ob§ervations. ( 1 , 5 )
Opposition to / concern oVer the Town accepting another new road . ( I , 2, 4, 6, 9, 10 )
. .
321 Opposition to/ concern over recreational area/pond , due to liability, expense to Town
or de-facto exclusive use by the development. ( l , 1, 5, 6, 9)
FEIS underestimated traffic potential from this project, concern over traffic . (9, 10)
Concern over fire and life safety and/or access . ( 1 , 9 )
FEIS underestimated population increase due to this project. (9 )
Anticipated problems due to conflict with adjacent agricultural activities . (4, 9 )
The project is inconsistent with comprehensive land use plans, or sets a detrimental
precedent. ( l , 3, 4, 5, 6 )
Projects like this one should be phased . (2, 4, 6 )
The project will generate increased demands on emergency services. (4 )
Additional population from this project may require a new school be built, with
associated tax expenditures . (7, 10)
In the last year, only one Town resident, a housing developer, has spoken in favor of
this project. ( 3 )
No archeological study of the area has been done . In summer 1989, a search of the
Shepardson property a few hundred feet north of the proposed project site turned up
many Indian artifacts . Such objects may be lost forever if this development is allowed
to go further . ( 3)
This project would mean higher tapes. (7)
The FEIS minimized environmental impacts . ( 1 )
The project represents visual pollution: the site is visible from as far away as
Connecticut Hill, and would illuminate the dark of night. ( I )
.Sn, iIC,1t
A remark labeled " Impertinent and Irrelevant" :
" The name Raptor Heights didn' t mean much to me until I looked up
" raptor " in the dictionary. A raptor is a bird of prey. It is from the
Latin "raptus " meaning one who seizes. Well, that fits I guess. This
seems to be another case where a developer with more money than
sensitivity "seizes " the opportunity to compel a community to develop 7
in a manner counter to its will . " ( 1 )
3 ? 1 The Tovn Board makes the following findings :
1 . Based on evidence presented by the applicant (DEIS Addenda S 4, and results of
later testing, DEIS p . 9 )and upon reviev by Resource Associates, consultant for the
Tovn, the Tovn Board finds that there is no definitive evidence that the proposed
action would cause a significant impact upon surface vater quantity. The Tovn
Board also finds that there is no reason to suspect that a final site plan vhich does not
cage a significant impact in the areas of erosion, flooding, leaching or
drainage could not be designed .
Concerns raised by anecdotal evidence of veil problems, and neighbors ' concerns
over the availability and quality of vater supplies, could very likely be mitigated by
phasing.
2 . The Town Board makes no specific findings on whether the site meets
requirements for potable water supplies, whetter the site is suitable for sevage
disposal, or whether the proposed use 'would have a significant impact on surface
vater quality. These determinations are properly in the domain of the Tompkins
County Health Department. The applicant has submitted test results and reports that
indicate that potable vater is available on the parcel, and that most areas tested appear
suitable for sewage disposal (DEIS Addendas 15, 6 ) .
3 . Based on evidence presented by the applicant (report of Field Biologist Ronald
Alexander, DEIS Addenda #7 ), the Town Board finds that there is no evidence that
the proposed action vould cause a significant impact upon a significant habitat,
nor adverse effects on a threatened or endangered species of animal or plant.
4 . Because there are no specific Town regulations governing the number of points of
access to the development, nor are there local regulations or guidelines concerning
the length of the cul-de-sac leading from lot S6 to the end lots 116 and 17, the Town
Board, as IS agency, must evaluate such design standards . The Town Board finds
that the bad design of the project vould have a negative impact on public safety.
However, the Tovn Board, noting that neither access nor road length are unique
situations, finds that the negative impact of this design may be mitigated by a two-lane
entrance vith a median and/or by significantly shortening the length of the road .
5 . The objective of the applicant and the identified public social and economic
benefit of this project is the provision of moderate cost housing in the Tovn of
Danby. Based upon the data in the FEIS demonstrating a) the Town of Danby has
matched the surrounding county in the rate of population growth, b ) the major
fraction of single family home construction in the Town of Danby is at or below the
target unit price of the proposed project, and based upon the common knowledge that 34
a) the construction techniques (modular ) are not unique and commonly applied within
the Town, and b ) that there is no deficit of property along existing Tovn roads which
is zoned for and may be used for this type of housing, the Town Board finds that the
benefit of this project to the provision of moderate priced housing is not a significant
consideration.
6 . Based upon data presented in the FEIS concerning projected increases in traffic
due to the project, the capacity of NYS Route 96B and based on indications from the
NYS Department 61 Transportation, the Town Board finds that the increased traffic
could not constitute a significant impact.
7 . Based on the current zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, the Town
Board finds that the Commercial development associated with this project (model
homes, real estate sales along NYS Rt. 96B ) would not constitute a significant impact.
8 . The Town Board finds that the proposed action creates a material conflict with
the community' s current plans or goals, as officially approved and adopted .
As to the following directives contained in the Town of Danby Comprehensive Plan
(DEIS Addenda S 2), the Town Board makes the following specific findings : :
(a) . . . New housing should be encouraged to locate either along and near
existing roads, or in small clustets on new, generally short, roads .
The Town Board finals that the projected development is not small, and it incorporates
over a mile of twisting roads .
(b ) Areas located around such housing should be left open in order to
maintain the rural chanter of the Town.
The Town Board finds that the projected development does not buffer the
neighboring properties, but rather proposes a " vall-to-wall " intensive development.
The project could not set an acceptable standard and precedent for future
surrounding land use .
(c ) Additional essential considerations are protection of neighboring
properties from adverse effects on water supplies, protection from
other environmental impacts such as waste run-off, and protection
from development incompatible with the rural character of the Town.
3D The Town Board finds that the proposed action does not protect neighboring
properties from development incompatible with the rural character of the Town:
high density, a non-linear road system, 'suburban' night lighting.
(d ) The current zoning restriction of new housing to no more than ore
residence for every one hundred and fifty feet of frontage along
existing roads should be maintained .
The Tovn Board finds that based on current road frontage and the present Danby
Zoning Ordinance, the property may be developed with up to two single family
homes . In the case of ' back acreage ', appeals to the Danby Zoning Board of Appeals
have, in several cases, allowed additional homes to be constructed and served with
longer individual driveways . The framework outlined in the Comprehensive Plan for
Larger development of ' back acreage' , includes clustering, introduction of a mix of
large and small lots, set-aside buffers (as opposed to an internal recreational area),
etc .
(e ) Affordable honing should be a feature of Town development, and
land use regulations should encourage the setting aside of a reasonable
amount of space for it. Such housing should be spread throughout the
Town, and not clustered in large tracts.
The Town Board finds that Town housing start data, detailed in the FEIS, indicates
that the type of development proposed in this action is proceeding throughout the
Town at locations permitted under present Zoning. In the judgement of the Tovn
Board, this project would not actually increase the opportunities for this type of
housing, but could rather concentrate it into one location.
(f) Danby residents place the highest value on the preservation of open
space . . . There is a strong desire to retain the largely unobstructed
landscape which characterizes most of Danby.
The Town Board finds that only radical redesign of the proposed project and
significant reduction of the number of units in the proposed project would mitigate its
conflict with the Town's Comprehensive Plan.
9. The FEIS discusses tie issue of deeding of a recreational area, including a p and
to the Town. The Town Board finds that the creation of a recreation or park district
to manage a facility, and the expense of maintenance and liability associated with the
facility constitutes a significant impact to the governmental infrastructure necessary
to provide community services . The elimination of the pond from the recreational
area (e. g. , by relocation or elimination of the recreational area) significantly
mitigates the negative liability, supervisory and maintenance impacts of this proposal .
The Town Board also finds that due to the small size of the recreational area and its ' 3
■
proposed location within a densely developed area, the recreational area provides no
significant benefit to the Town as a whole.
10 . The Town Board finds that there is a significant probability that the proposed
action will have a negative impact on agricultural activities on nearby farms, due
to new neighbors complaints concerning noise, fertilization and other agricultural
activities . This impact could be mitigated by buffering any development from
adjacent properties ; such buffering would require a substantial redesign of the
project. . _
11 . Notwithstanding the assertions of the developer that.Ie has no plans to develop
any other property in the Town of Danby, and that of the developer ' s sister thatihe
purchased a second parcel immediately to the North of the proposed development for
long term appreciation and has no imrnediate plans for long term development, the
Town Board finds that this project would open adjacent parcels to similar
development, and that this constitutes a significant impact inconsistent with the
Town' s Comprehensive Plan and long-term zoning and planning goals . Recognizing
that connection roads leading to the periphery of the parcel were suggested by the
Town of Danby Planning Board, the Town Board finds that, at minimum, the
removal of these connection roads and rearrangement of the road system away from
the periphery of the parcel (requiring a substantive redesign of the project) would
mitigate this impact.
12 . Impact on local community services
The findings of a study developed by Councilperson Dean Eckstrom and subsequent
reviet by a joint Planning and Tovn Board Committee indicates that this project
would have no demonstrable effect on local Tat gates if the development district
vas fully developed as proposed . This study indicated demand for services could
grow roughly in the same proportion to tax revenues . The study also assumed that
there would be no extraordinary expenditures such as municipal water or sever, only
incremental growth in the demand for community services, Si no highway
improvements other than routine maintenance .
Based on information supplied by the Ithaca City School District (DEIS Addenda 19 ),
the Tovn Board finds that this project would not have a significant impact on
educational facilities .
13 . The general issue of visual resources of the site is a new topic cited in a written
comment after the acceptance of the FEIS . Since this topic vas not raised during the
SEQR process, and therefore not studied by the Tovn Board, the Board does not
•
- J '
332 make a specific finding on whether the possible loss of visual resources constitutes a
significant environmental impact.
[ The comment vas, in sumrrmry:
The project represents visual pollution: the site is visible from as far
away as Connecticut Hill, and would illuminate the dark of night. ( 1 ) )
Concern about additional night lighting was raised in the FEIS . The Town Board
finds that this is an issue which if the proposed action amending the Zoning Ordinance
were to be approved by the Town Board, might be adequately addressed in final site
plan review . Specific lighting requirement would be enumerated in development
•
district regulations and embodied in Zoning Ordinance amendments .
•
14 . The issue of the archeological significance of the site. is a new topic cited in a
written comment after the acceptance of the FEIS . Since this topic vas not raised _
during the SEQR process, and therefore not studied by the Town Board, the Board
does not make a specific finding on whether the possible loss of artifacts constitutes a
significant environmental impact. This issue must be resolved before any significant
development is undertaken.
15 . The Town Board finds that the concentration of population and projection of
sharply increased population growth rate clue to this development is a significant
impact. If the project were completed in the projected 5 year period, the project
would attract more residents than the entire Town would be expected to attract, based
on the average population growth in the Town and County for the past decade . If the •
project was completed in three years, the developer's most optimistic estimate, this
project alone would double the Town' s growth rate during those years . This
concentration of population would markedly change the rural character of the
surrounding area. The Town Board finds that such concentration of population and •
accelerated growth rate are inconsistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan and
long term zoning and planning goals.
16 . The Town Board finds that the project circumvents implicit dimity restrictions in
the Danby Zoning Ordinance by proposing a dense non-linear road system. The
road frontage requirements contained in the Town's Zoning Ordinance specify that
frontage is along existing roads . Existing Town roads are generally intetconnecting
and straight, with a wide spacing between roads consistent with historic and present
agricultural activity. Extensions to the Town road networks should possess similar
character as existing roads . The proposed road network is designed to be non-linear,
without providing road interconnection, while also not adjoining roads under Town
maintenance. The proposed road maximizes the length of road that must be
maintained and overall implies a density that is inconsistent with the Town's
Comprehensive Plan and long term zoning and planning goals