Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-02 Town Of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals May tad , 2006 Members Present : Oers Kelemen , Chair . ; Thomas Quinn ; David Sprout ; John Goodrow & Paul Lutwak Others Present : Bob Ross ; Tracey White ; Joe Westbrook ; Kelli Robinson ; Gerald & Shirley Lyon ; Ken Parker ; John Barney , Attorney ; Henry Slater and Kris Strickland Agenda: Area Variance - TC3 Foundation - Off- Street Parking Use Variance - Tracey White Use Variance - Park Outdoor Advertising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TC3 Foundation O . Kelemen Opened the meeting and asked Bob Ross , representative for TC 3 Foundation to explain the difference between the variance previously granted and what is now needed . B . Ross We are asking you to allow us to construct parking at a ratio other than one to one between the number of beds and parking spaces which is what is required . At that time based on the surveys taken we were only using 51 % parking capacity of the existing lots . We have enough capacity within the residence complex . We would like to save some money as we have been incurring some significant costs with infrastructure development and also this is a positive element in terms of the environment by not paving over we are reducing the impervious surface area and allowing a more natural drainage within that area . We put forth the request to allow us to have parking for 63% of the residents . Previously we were proposing 3 buildings to go into that site , subsequent to the approvals here we have a special use permit granted by the Town Board . As we got into the project we found that there was rock close to the surface where we were proposing the first building . As they explored the site it was apparent that it was not going to be feasible to put 3 buildings on that site but by relocating the buildings slightly we can put 2 buildings up . We are coming back to you to request the variance on that based now on 2 buildings instead of 3 i,% ith the same ratio asked for before . 0 . Kelemen Parking spots remain the same number as in the previous ' request? v B . Ross The site plan changed a little by location to accommodate the subsoil conditions . We are patting up the one building now and it will be a few Fears before the second building is put up , 0 Kelemen Are there any questions ? P . Lutwak Commented that why the project was not prepared properly ? O , Kelemen Commented that the Board was here to consider the project before them now not the previous project . Closed the hearing and Continued on with the findings D , Sprout Motion made to grant the approvaX with the modification requested adapting as the findings of this Board the findings set forth in the application , T . Guinn Seconded that motion All in favor A . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRA13LE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CI ARpACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CRBATED BY GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING* BOARD OF APPEALS FIND$ AS FOLLOWS : No undesirable change is expected as a rtsuit of the variance as the variance w i I I allow for the installation of only the parking that is needed for the two buildings , based on the applicant's observation of parking operations at four other student housing buildings on T - 3 campus , Adequate parkin & will be provided on- site such that no parking off- site , such as on Parview Drive , should be expected _ The variance will actually allow for a reduction in the amount of impervious area and grading and earthwork required than would be necessary if the code rcquired parking spaces were provided . Motion , David Sprout Second ; T. Guinn in Favor : 5 B . IN CONSIDERINGr WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER METHOD, FEASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE, OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS A5 FOLLOWS : An area variance is the only recourse the applicant has to reduce the amount of parking to be provided with two building development, as the requirement is a function of the Towns Zoning Ordinance . The only other inethod would be to request a revision to the ordinance itself, which is not prauical , Motion : T_ Quinn Second : P. Lutwa.k In Pavor ; 5 C. IN C NSIDBRINGr WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The applicant is rQquesting a fatal reduction in parking of 96 spaces ( 4 spaces per building) or a 36°lo reduction from the amount of 268 spares ( 134 spaces per building) . While 36% may be substantial , the applicant has provided historical factual based information as to the actual need for the amount of parking to be provided . This is based upon the applicant's observations of the parking operations at the four other student housing buildings located at the site . Motion : D . Sprout Second : T . Quinn In Favor: 5 D . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT . THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: No , the granting of the variance will actually reduce the amount of impervious area to be constricted with the student housing buildings . When compared to the improvements that would be required if the code required parking were installed , the variance will result in a reduction in the amount of grading and earthwork required during construction and a reduction in the amount of projected post construction stormwater runoff. Motion : D . Sprout Second : T . Quinn In Favor : 5 E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED . THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The request to reduce the amount of parking for the first building is self-created in that the applicant only desires to install the amount of parking that will actually be necessary to serve the two buildings. A component of the difficulty is the code itself, requiring one space per bed , when compared to the actual need that the applicant has been able to show is actually necessary . Motion : D . Sprout Second : T. Quinn In favor: 5 THIS VARIANCE IS AN NON-EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION 617 . 5( c ) 12 & 13 and 239 L&M Review This motion is NON-Exempt see SEQRR Detennin.ation done by the Dryden. Town Board during the Special Permit Hearing held on January 301h, 2006 see attached copy. Motion : Paul Lutwak Second : Thomas Quinn In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0 DECISION: VARIANCE GRANTED, as requested, Motion : David Sprout Second : Paul Lutwak In Favor: 5 Discussion on the SEQR determination form , the process and reasoning for doing this . Park - Use Variance Continuance The Board read through and completed Part 2 — Project Impacts and Their Magnitude ( see attached completed form). Read through the findings O . Kelemen Moved that with the information given at the April meeting it was reasonably demonstrated that alternative uses would not provide a reasonable return . D . Sprout Seconded that motion . All in favor A. The applicant cannot realize a reasonable return provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial return : From information of a parallel application on an adjacent property at the April 401, 2006 meeting was reasonably demonstrated . Motion : O . Kelemen Second : D . Sprout In Favor : S Opposed : B . The alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood: Yes , due to the proximity of Route 13 it is not feasible to use the property as permitted in an R131 Zone . Motion : J . Goodrow Second : D . Sprout In Favor: 5 C . The requested use variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood : Yes , there are several businesses in the area, including All - Mode across Mineah Road , Multi fancily housing nearby , billboards , and a church on Route 1. 3 and a shop nearby . Motion : D . Sprout Second : P. Lutwak In Favor : 5 D . The alleged hardship has not been self-created: Yes , the development of commercial enterprises in the area have had a negative impact on this property for it 's zoned use . The location of a high volume state highway has further contributed to this situation . Motion : D . Sprout Second : J . Goodrow In Favor : 4 - -4 STATE OF NEW YORK* COUNTY OF TOMPKINS TOWN OF DRYDEN In the matter of the appeal of CERTIFICATE TC3 Foundation The property located at 12 - 18 Farview Drive Dryden , NY 130553 (Town of Dryden Tax Map Parcel No . 37 . - 1 - 10 . 12 ) I , Oers Kelemen , Chairperson of the Town of Dryden ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS , do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure of such Board , that the foregoing are the findings of fact and decision approved by such Board on : Dated : Dryden , New York Date : , 2006 Oers Kelemen - -7 NOTICE OF DECISION ® May 2Rd , 2006 A public hearing was held to consider an application submitted by TC3 Foundation , 12 - 18 Farview Drive Dryden, NY .1, 3053 tax parcel # 37 . - 1 - 10 . 12 who are requesting an area variance to construct an off- street parking lot which proposes 172 parking spaces where 268 are required . They are requesting a variance to Section 1401 . 1 of the Town Zoning Ordinance to do so . Said hearing was duly conducted by the Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday May 2n11 , 2006 with members present : Chairperson Oers Kelemen , Thomas Quinn , David Sprout, John Goodrow and Paul Lutwak . AREA VARIANCE APPLICANT : TC3 Foundation A. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : No undesirable change is expected as a result of the variance as the variance will allow for the installation of only the parking that is needed for the two buildings , based on the applicant's observation of parking operations at four other student housing buildings on TC- 3 campus . Adequate parking will be provided on - site such that no parking off- site , such as on Farview Drive , should be expected . The variance ® will actually allow for a reduction in the amount of impervious area and grading and earthwork required than would be necessary if the code required parking spaces were provided . Motion : David Sprout Second : T. Quinn In Favor: 5 B . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER METHOD , FEASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE , OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS. An area variance is the only recourse the applicant has to reduce the amount of parking to be provided with two building development, as the requirement is a function of the Tow n 's Zoning Ordinance . The only other method would be to request a revision to the ordinance itself, which is not practical . Motion : T . Quinn Second : P. Lutwak In Favor : 5 Co IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The applicant is requesting a total reduction in parking of 96 spaces (4 spaces per building) or a 36% reduction from the amount of 268 spaces ( 134 spaces per building) . While 36% may be substantial , the applicant has provided historical ® factual based information as to the actual need for the amount of parking to be provided . This is based upon the applicant's observations of the parking operations at the four other student housing buildings located at the site . Motion : D . Sprout Second : T . Quinn In Favor: 5 D . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : No, the granting of the varivlce will actually reduce t:he amount of impervious area to be constructed with the student housing buildings . When compared to the improvements that would be required if the code required parking were installed , the variance will result in a reduction in the amount of grading and earthwork required during construction and a reduction in the amount of projected post construction stormwater runoff. Motion : D . Sprout Second : T. Quinn In Favor : 5 E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED . THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS . The request to reduce the amount of parking for the first building is self- created in that the applicant only desires to install the amount of parking that will actually be necessary to serve the two buildings . A component of the difficulty is the code itself, requiring one space per bed , when compared to the actual need that the applicant has been able to show is actually necessary . Motion : D . Sprout Second : T . Quinn In favor : 5 THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT/ NON-EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION 617. 5 (e) 12 & 13 and 239 L&M Review This motion is NON-Exempt see SEQR Determination done by the Dnjden Town Board during the Special Permit Hearing held on January 300,, 2006 see attached copy. Motion : Paul l., utwak Second : Thomas Quinn In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0 DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED, as requested, Motion : David Sprout Second : Paul Lutwak In Favor: 5 - -9 STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS TOWN OF DRYDEN In the matter of the appeal of CERTIFICATE Park Outdoor Advertising The property located at 1711 Dryden Road , Freeville (Town of Dryden Tax Map Parcel No . 44 . - 1 = 26 ) I , Oers Kelemen , Chairperson of the Town of Dryden ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS , do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure of such Board , that the foregoing are the findings of fact and decision approved by such Board on : Dated : Dryden , New York Date : , 2006 Oers Kelemen - 40 NOTICE OF DECISION May 2aa , 2006 A public hearing was held to consider an application submitted by Park Outdoor Advertising of Ithaca, NY who is asking for relief from Section 701 (district uses) of the Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance . Applicant is requesting permission to offer a portion of there 1711 Dryden Road Property for development and operation of a commercial custom wood working shop and business office . Said hearing was duly conducted by the Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday May 2nd , 2006 with members present : Chairperson Oers Kelemen , Thomas Quinn , David Sprout , John Goodrow and Paul Lutwak . USE VARIANCE APPLICANT : Park Outdoor Advertising C . The applicant cannot realize a reasonable return provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial return : From information of a parallel application on an adjacent property at the April 401 ) 2006 meeting was reasonably demonstrated . Motion : 0 . Kelemen Second : D . Sprout In Favor : 5 Opposed : D . The alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood : Yes , due to the proximity of Route 13 it is not feasible to use the property as permitted in an RB 1 Zone . Motion : J . Goodrow Second : D . Sprout In Favor : 5 E . The requested use variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood : Yes , there are several businesses in the area , including All- Mode across Mineah Road , Multi family housing nearby , billboards , and a church on Route 13 and a shop nearby . Motion : D . Sprout Second : P. Lutwak In Favor: 5 - 41 F . The alleged hardship has not been self-created : Yes , the development of commercial enterprises in the area have had a negative impact on this property for it 's zoned use . The location of a high volume state highway has further contributed to this situation . Motion : D . Sprout Second : J . Goodrow In Favor : 4 THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT / NON-EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION 617 . 5 (cl Motion : Paul Lutwak Second : Thomas Quinn In Favor : S Opposed : 0 DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED , with conditions , Motion : John Goodrow Second : Paul Lutwak In Favor: 5 CONDITIONS : 3 . Subject to Site Plan Review Approval by the Dryden Town Board - 42 STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS TOWN OF DRYDEN In the matter of the appeal of CERTIFICATE Tracey White The property located at 1721 Dryden Road , Freeville (Town of Dryden Tax Map Parcel No . 44 . . 1 .27 . 5 ) I , Oers Kelemen , Chairperson of the Town of Dryden ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS , do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure of such Board , that the foregoing are the findings of fact and ® decision approved by such Board on : Dated : Dryden , New York Date : , 2006 Oers Kelemen _ 43 NOTICE OF DECISION May 2nd , 2006 A public hearing was held to consider an application submitted by Tracey White of Freeville , NY who is asking for relief from Section 701 (district uses) of the Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance . Applicant is requesting permission to offer a portion of her 1721. Dryden Road Property for development and operation of a construction sales office and warehouse facility . Said hearing was duly conducted by the Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday May 2nd , 2006 with members present : Chairperson Oers Kelemen , Thomas Quinn , David Sprout , John Goodrow and Paul Lutwak . USE VARIANCE APPLICANT : Tracey White G . The applicant cannot realize a reasonable return provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial return : The potential of this property as residential is limited and attempts to market it have failed . The proposed variance will allow some return to the applicant. This ® property fronts on a high traffic highway . Motion : T. Quinn Second : D . Sprout In Favor: 3 Opposed : 2 H . The alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood : Yes , all the properties on the Route 13 corridor zoned RB 1. are subject to similar hardship as relates to the majority of other properties in that zone . Motion : 1'. Quinn Second : J . Goodrow In 1~avor : 5 I . The requested use variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood : Yes , there are several businesses in the area , including All- Mode across Mineah Road , Multi family housing nearby , billboards , and a church on Route 13 and a shop nearby . Motion : T. Quinn Second : D . Sprout In Favor: 5 - 44 J . The alleged hardship has not been self-created : Yes , the development of commercial enterprises in the area have had a negative impact on this property for it 's zoned use . The location of a high volume state highway has further contributed to this situation . Motion : D . Sprout Second : J . Goodrow In Favor : 4 Opposed : 1 THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT/ NON- EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION 617 . 5 (cl Motion : Paul Lutwak Second : Thomas Quinn In Favor : 5 Opposed : 0 DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED , with conditions , Motion : David Sprout Second : Paul Lutwak In Favor: 5 CONDITIONS . 4. Subject to Site Plan Review Approval by the Dryden Town Board - 15 THIS VARIANCE IS AN NON-EXEMPTACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION 617 . 51c1 Motion : Paul Lutwak Second : Thomas Quinn In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0 DECISION . VARIANCE GRANTED , with conditions, Motion : John Goodrow Second . Paul Lutwak In Favor : 5 CONDITIONS : 1 . Subject to Site Plan Review Approval by the Dryden Town Board The Board read through and completed Part 2 - Project Impacts and Their Magnitude (see attached completed form). Read through the findings USE VARIANCE / Tracey White A. The applicant cannot realize a reasonable return provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial return : The potential of this property as residential is limited and attempts to market it have failed . The proposed variance will allow some return to the applicant. This property fronts on a high traffic highway . Motion : T . Quinn Second : D . Sprout In Favor: 3 Opposed : 2 B. The alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood: Yes, all the properties on the Route 13 corridor zoned R131 are subject to similar hardship as relates to the majority of other properties in that zone . Motion : 1'. Quinn Second : J . Goodrow In Favor : 5 C. The requested use variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood : Yes , there are several businesses in the area, including All- Mode across Mineah Road , Multi family housing nearby , billboards , and a church on Route 13 and a shop nearby , Motion : T . Quinn Second : D . Sprout In Favor: 5 D . The alleged hardship has not been self-created : 0 _ _5 Yes, the development of commcrcial enterprises its the area have had a negative impact on this property for it 's zoned use . The Ioc ation of a high volume state highway has further contributed to this situation. Motion : D . Sprout Second ; J . Goodro In Favor ; 4 Opposed : 1 THIS VARIANCE IS AN NON- EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION 617.5 c Motion : Paul Wtwak Second ; 'Thomas Quinn In Favor: 5 Opposed: D DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED , with conditions, Motion : David Sprout ccond -. Paul Lutwak In Favor: 5 CONDITIONS ; . Subject to Site Plan Review Approval by the Dryden Town Board PART 2 - PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information ( Read Carefully) ! In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question : Have my responses and determinations been reasonable ? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental �anaryst. E The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2 . The'examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations_ But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. ! The impacts of each project, on each site , in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question , I The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question . I In identifying impacts , consider long term , short term and cumulative effects. Instructions ( Read carefully ) a . Answer each of the 20 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b . Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. C. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box(column 1 or 2)io indicate the potential size of the impact , If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided , check column 2 . If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example , check column 1 . d . Identifying that an Impact will be potentially large (column 2 ) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance . Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. e . If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. f. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a smell to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3 . A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible . This roust be explained in Part 3. 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change Impact on Land 1 . Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the project site? NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15 % or greater, ( 15 foot El Yes 0 No rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10% , • Construction on land where the depth to the water table Yes No is less than 3 feet . • Construction of paved parking area for 1 , 000 or more ❑ ® Yes ® No vehicles. • Construcion on land where bedrock is exposed or 0 Yes ElNo generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface . • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or Ey' _ ❑ r Yes No involve more than one phase or stage . • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove Q Yes ❑ No more than 1 ,000 tons of natural material ( i . e. , rock or ® soil) per year. Page 11 of 21 i Small to Flolential Can Impact Be MIDderate Large Afligated by Impact Impact Project Change Construction or expansion of a santary [andfill . r FYes [:] No C6nstnxc6on iP a designated floodway . E © Yes ONO Other imp actsm ❑ Eyes [:) No 2 , Will Mere be art effect to arty unique or unusual land forms found on the site?/, e„ cliffs , dunes, geological Farmations, eto, l MA O YES U6 El • Specific Isr[d farms. [Wes MNo lm pact on Water 3 . WilI ? reposed Action affeol any water body designated as protected? ( Undar JA icles 15, 24, 25 or the EgviranmentaI Conservation Law, ECJ_ iNo M YES Examples that would apply to caiurnn 2 • Developablo area of site contains a protected water body , ❑ 0 Yes EI Na Dredging more Than 100 cubic yards of material fmm channel of Q Q Yes El No a protected stream . 17xtansion of utility distribuban facilities through a prolected water Q ® Yes El Na body, Construction in a designated freshwater or trial wetland- Dyes 11 No t Other impacts- ❑ Yes El No 4 , VVIII Pr" sed Action aflect any rion-protected existing or new body of water? Np © YES Examples that woUfd apply to column 2 A 10% increase or decrease in tfte surface area of any it'ody of ® El yes ❑ No water or more Ihan a 10 sore Increase or decrease , • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface �� Yes ONO area , • Other impacts' El Yes O No Page 12 of 21 Y: t Srnafl to F'olentil Can Jmpact Be Moderate urge kliiigated by Impact Impact Project Change F Will Proposed Action affect surface of grouadwatef quality or quanlit NO YES 5 Examples that would apply to column 2 ❑ • Proposedl Action will requfra a #ischarge permfi- Myles Proposed Action requlrea use of a source of water that does nol ❑ Yes No have approval to Serve preposed ( project ) action , PrapesedActiorirequires water supply fro m wells with greMet ❑ FYes No than 45 galions per minute pumping capacity . Construction or oparaflori causing any con iarninition of a outer ❑ El Yes ❑ No supply system , • Proposed Action awi11 adversely affect +groundwater- ❑ yes ❑ Na Liquid etflueni will be conveyed off the site to facilities which El ❑ D Yes ❑ No presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity, Proposed Action would use water in excess of207000 gaIIOn5 yes ❑ No per day, Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No on existing body of water to the extent ihat there will be an obvious AsuaI contrast to natural conditions , t Proposed Action wiil require the storage of pelrcleum or Yes ❑ 14O chemicai prod ucts gre@terN1dn 1 , 9Qogailons, Proposed Fiction will allow residential uses in areas without ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No water andlor sewer Services- Proposed Action locates commercial andlor industriaJ uses ❑ Yes No which may faquire new or expansion of existing waste treatment andlor stor`i� ge facilities- Other impacls; ❑ Yes No Page 13 of 21 2 3 Small to Polential Can. lmpact Be Moderate Large mitigated lay Irnpw,`t Impact Project Change Wili Proposed Action alter drahiage flow or pa Items , or surface water run ff? OVN0 FIYES Examples that would apply to column 2 �`—� Proposed Action would change 9ond water Flows El ❑ J_I[DYee two Proposed Aetian may Cause substantial erosion . � ❑ yss ® � � • ProposedAction is incompatible wifh existing drabiage patterns . 0Yes ONO • Proposed Action will allow devetoprnent in a des ignaled ❑ ❑ yes No Headway, oU16r Impacts- ❑ ❑ cye. ON. IMPACT ON AJR 7_ 1Nili ProRpsed Ac#ion affect air quality? YES Examples that would apply W column 2 Propow(J Action will induce 1 , U00 or more vehicle trips in any El El Ayes Mlyo given hour. • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 Ion ❑ ❑ ❑ yes ❑ No of refuse par hour. • Emission rate of total cpntominants wilt exceed 5 Ibs_ per hour ® ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ .n or a heat source producing more khan 10 mill li ❑ n M ' s per hDur, • Proposed Action will allow an increase in the amount 4f land ❑ 0 Dyes ❑ No committed to industriat use , Proposed Action will allow an increase in the density of Dyes EI Vo Industrial d evelopen a Rt, withi ri existing industrial areas . • Other 1rnpac#s : ® ❑ Dyes ONo IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS B . Will P posed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? No E] YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Red4ictian of one or more spa ❑ias listed on the New York orOyes ONo Foderai list, using the site , over or near the site , or found on Uhe site . Page 14 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be ® Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change • Removal of any poilion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat . . _ / ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, ❑ ElYes ❑ No other than for agricultural purposes . • Other impacts : ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 9 . Will Prop sed Action substantially affect non -threatened or non. endan red species ? NO ® YES Example that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No or migratory fish , shellfish or wildlife species . • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes El No mature forest (over 100 years of age ) or other locally important vegetation , • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10 . Will VO osed Action affect agricultural land resources ? ❑ YES Examples that would apply- to column 2 • The Proposed Action would sever, cross or limit access to © ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No agricultural land (includes cropland• hayfields, pasture , vineyard, orchard, etc. ) • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No agricultural land , • The Proposed Action would irreversibly convert more than 10 ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2 , 5 acres of agricultural land . Page 15 of 21 2 SmBII I potanrial Can Impact Be Moderate Larne Mitigated by Impawt Imaact Projecl Change The Proposed Action would disrupt or prevent installation of Yes No agricultural land management systerns (e, g „ subsurface drain lines , ❑title( ditches , su•ip -cropping) ; or create a need for such measures {e , g , cause a farm Feld to drain poorly due to increaser) runoff)- Other impacts ; LJ CYes ❑ No IMPACT ON AES11H EEC RESOURCES 11 . Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources ' (If necessary , use the Vls BASF Addendum in Section 617 .20, Appendix R,) O [] YES Examples that would apply 10 column 2 • Propasod land uses , or project components obviously different f_f Yes No from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns , whaIher man-made or notural- proposed land use &, or Project oprnpanents visible to users of . Yes NU aesthetic, resources which will eliminate or significar<tly reduce their enjoyment of the aeslhetic qualities of thal resource , Project cnrnponems tfiatwilI result in the elin-0atiorn or El El 0YEs El No significant screening Gf scenic wievus known to be important to the area. Other kmpaUs. � � DYes El NO JMPACT ON HWMRIC AND ARCHAEOLOCxkrrAL RESOURCES 12 . WJit Pro osed Action impact any site or structure of historic, Prehic rl0 of pie leontological importance ? NO YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action accurring wholly or partially within or D Yes Q t+la Substantially contiguous to any foci lity or site Iisled on the State or National Raglsier of historic places, Any impacl to an archaealogicaI site or fossil and located within ❑ Yes [I No th$ projectsite . Proposed Action will occur in an area designaiied es sensitive ❑ © Yes El No for archaeological sites on khe NYS Site Inventoiy , Page 16 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change • Other impacts : ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future opens ces or recreational opportunities? UNO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity . ❑ ® ❑ Yes ❑ No • A major reduction of an open space important to the community, ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ® No • Other impacts : ❑ ❑ [] Yes [] No IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 14 . Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique chars ristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursu nt to subdivision 6NYCRR 617 , 14(g )? NO DYES List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA. Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action to locate within the CEA? ❑ ® ❑ Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quantity of the ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No resource ? • Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑No resource? • Proposed Action will Impact the use, function or enjoyment of the ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No resource? • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes [] No Page 17 of 21 i 2 3 Small to Poteoitial Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 15. Will tha& be an effect to existing transportation systems? y0 ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No goods. • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No t " IMPACT ON ENERGY 16. Will Proposed Action affect the community' s sources of fuel or energy supply ? 6/N0 ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ® use of any form of energy in the municipality. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑ No energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use . • Other impacts: © ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No NOISE AND ODOR IMPACT 17 . Will there be objectionable odors , noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action ? . JN 0 ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Blasting within 1 , 500 feet of a hospital , school or other sensitive ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No facility. • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures . • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑ No ® noise screen : Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No Page 18 of 21 2 Smefl to Potential Can impact Ba Moderate Large Miligated by Impact Impact Proiecc Change IMPACT ON PUDIJC HEALTH 18 , VVFII f'ra ed Action affect public health and safety? DYES Pro posecf Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of El Yes 0No hazardous substances (Le . ail , pesticides, chemicals , radiation , elC, ) in the even ( of accident or apse( coAditlarns , a there may be a QhFonic low level dischafge or arnission , Proposed Action may result in the burial of " hazardous wostas" ❑ ❑ aYes ON. In any forrn (i , e. toxic, poisonausI highly reactive , radioactive , irNtAn+g , infectious, etc. ) Storage facilitias for one miIIion or Mare gollons of liquefied © ❑Yes ONo natural gas or other flammable liquids . • Proposed Action may result in the excavation or other ❑ 0Yes [] No disturbance within 2,000 fee( cf a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste . Other impacts: ❑ [Yes 0140 IMPACT ON GROVffH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NErGHECRI HOD 19 . WilI Pro ased Action affact the character of the existing community? �h1a YES Examples that would apply to column 2 The permanent populatiori of the dty, town ar uillage fn which the ❑ Yes ONO project is located is Iikely to grow by more than 5%. The municipal budget far capital expenditures or operating ❑ a ayes 0No services will increase by more than 5% per yaar as a result of this projW, Proposed Action will conftid with officially adopted plans or ❑ ❑ CYes Ono goats. Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use- ayes ❑ No • Proposed Action wili replace or eliminate existing facilities , © ayes ❑ Na Structures or areas of historic importance to the community . • Develapment will create a demand ror additional community ❑ ayes aNa services (e , g, schools, police and frre, etc, ) Page 19 of 21 1 2 Small o Potensial Can Jmpact Be Modemie Large Miiigaied by Impact Impact Pro�ecl Change • Proposed Action will sal an irnporYant precedent For future Fl yes [] No projects . Proposed Adan will create or Qininete empioyment. Yes No Other impacts. Yes a Poo 20, Is ktiere, a is there hRel,y to be , public controversy related to poiential advers vlrooment impacis? Pl0 EYES if Any Action in Part 2 Is Identifiers as a Poten fro I Large Impact or if you Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Park 3 Page 20 of 21 J Part 3 , EVALUATION OF TGIF IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Par€ 3 mast be prepared If one or mare impact(s ) is considared is be poteeliially Iarge, even if the impacts) may he mitigated . Instructions { It you need more space , attach add iii oil al sheets} Discuss the folIovring far each impact Identified in Column 2 of Part 2 ; 1 , Briefly descrlbf� the impact. 1 1) estribe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impacE Jay prefect ahange('s ), 3 . Based on the information available, decide if it is raasoncble to conclude that this impact is important To answer the question of importance , consider: The probability oftha impact occurring The duration of the impact I AF5 i rravers ibi lity , including permanently lost resources oP value I Whathar tha impact can or will be controlled I The ragionai consequence of the impact I Its potantiaJ dlvargenco from IncaI needs and goals Whetherknown obfectionsto the project relate to this impact_ J I i i Page 21 of 21 . :