Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-10-17t TOWN 01= DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 179 1991 MEMBERS F'RESENTe Chairwoman Barbara Caldwell, Michael Hattery, John Davis, Joseph Lalley, Robert Fletcher,Claudia Brenner and Mitchell Lavine Also Present; Karin Burke, applicants Henry Slater, Zoning and Code Enforcement Officers George Schlecht, Engineer; Ralph Varn, applicants Larry Fabbroni and approximately 30 concerned citizens from the Ellis Hollow area. The October 17, 1991 meeting was called to order by Chair. Barbara Caldwell. from Local)? Approval of the minutes were deferred agency until after hearing the application for a subdivision proposed by Richard and Karin Burke. The pa frontage o 12351 Rt. board. Th a subdlvls parcel als EAF has be SUBDIVISION — RICHARD AND KARIN BURKE reel is.now one f 259 feet. Th 34B, Peruville e parcel to be ion therefore a o comes under s en prepared and PERUVILLE ROAD piece e total Road. subdivi ny modi ubdivis submit of prope ACREAGE Maps hav ded had fication ion regu t ed. rty is e b on s t lat with a 1 O. 43 1 een prov ginally• o that o ions. A REVIEW OFFICER CHAIR. Be CALDWELL This is an existing 10.43 acre lot PerLtv i 1 1 e Road, Groton, New York. hundred feet west of the intersecti PerLiville Road. This is a modifica subdivision by creating two parcels acre parcel and the resulting parce 7.43 acres. The total land will be no remainder. The general land use residential and agricultural, activ some other farm land remains inacti intermittent single family homes in total ocated at ided for the been part of riginal short form at 1235, Rt. 34B9 The site is six to seven on of Caswell and tion of an existing from an existing 10.43 Is will be 3 acres and affected, there will be in the vicinity is e crop and dairy farming, ve. There is the general area. Does action involve a permit approval, or funding, now or ultimately State or from Local)? any. other NO Governmental agency (Federal, y �1 U 04 P 10 -17 -91 ID G. E Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval? NO As a result of proposed ey, action will AGENCY existing permit /approval require modification? ON YES existing Hattery. four• (4) lot subdivision will expand to six (6) lots. Application signed by RICHARD AND KARIN BURKE, October 10, 1991. QUESTIONS FROM 'THE BOARD ON PART 1- PROJECT INFORMATION io Discussion on flag lot lay out. 2. 'Karin Burke stated the second proposal (land -lock) submitted to the Board is to be disregarded. 3. H. Slater n however, de of a lot li the other s the land. 0 s n i t i e d ed a drive could be on the lot line gnated parking Could not be within 15 feet Mrs. Burke noted that in their deed on e of the lot line is a right -of -way to all 4n property borders Town of Groton. NO PUBLIC COMMENTS JOSEPH LALLEY MOVED FOR A THIRTY (30) DAY RECESS FOR THE NECESSARY NOTIFICATIONS. SECOND BY MITCHELL LAVINE VOTE YES (5) NO (0) J. Lal 1 ey, J. Davis, AGENCY C. Brenner, M. Lavine ON and M. Hattery. ABSTAINED (0.) JOSEPH LALLEY MOVED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD BE DECLARED LEAD AGENCY ON THE BURKE SUBDIVISION. SECOND BY MICHAEL HATTERY. VOTE YES (5) J. Lalley, J. Davis, C. Brenner, M. Lavine and M. Hattery. NO (0) ABSTAINED (0) 0 0 C� • PB 10- 17 -91 PGa After reviewing the September 20. 1991 minutes a motion was made by John Davis that the minutes be approved with the additions and cor-�rections as noted. Second by Michael Hattery and approved by the members present. PEREGRINE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION SNYDER HILL ROAD BY .VARN BROTHERS PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION HEARING REVIEW CONTINUED Chairwoman "A" has 144 signatures Caldwell to the note that was noted it. Petition "B" has E5 that VILLAGE IN since PROJECT the last attached. meeting TO GROW the Planning Board has received the following written material. A report from Mr. L. Fabbroni for Mr. Varn additional information and maps. Letters from: Barr Tickner; Bernard Hutchings; Katherine Barnes; Nancy 5kipper; John Lovely; Robert Hillhut; Susan and Roger Eslinger; W. Shaw and Charlotte Reid; Kitty Whites Don Willemesen; John Hyde; Mario Giannella. Two petitions: Petition "A" has 144 signatures supportive to the note that was attached to it. Petition "B" has E5 OR VILLAGE IN WHICH THE PROJECT signatUres according to the note attached. LIKELY TO GROW BY MORE THAN 5 %0 A list POPULATION of OF concerns from the Dove Drive Neighborhood Association. OR VILLAGE IN WHICH THE PROJECT IS LOCATED A letter from Shirley Raffensperger representing the Town of Ithaca and attached to that a letter from Floyd Forman, Town Planner, Town of Ithaca; also attached a letter from Dan Walker, Engineer for the Town of Ithaca. Joseph Lalley noted that since the last meeting he and fellow Board Members had been doing some research on the issue and been provided information and would like to suggest a review of question 18 on.Part 2 - IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD% THE PERMANENT POPULATION OF THE CITY, TOWN OR VILLAGE IN WHICH THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IS LIKELY TO GROW BY MORE THAN 5 %0 Mrs Lalley number of one believ that is 60 Towns pope state units ,,es the Q)a Th lation d the number for the area 2.48 times the (225) Puts it in the vicinity of 700. If Towns population is around 12,000 -- 5% of erefore it is reasonable to believe the will grow to more than 5 %. I PB 10 -17 -91 PG. 4 The Board agreed that would be an. POTENTIAL LARGE IMPACT • Example Discussions. the WILL school J. Davis system that the project stated according period there to may the be mitigations. tax assessor ETC.) office, - contrary may not to increase the'material Town population by 5 %, he Town may has received, indicated there may be Supply — there may be a need to redistrict. Concl'udeds. May wish to contact School officials for input, • • M. Lavine WILL noted for consideration A DEMAND FOR,ADDITIONAL There that the project is over a period of 15 years during which ETC.) time this project may not increase the Town population by 5 %, given the Town may grow elsewhere. C. Brenner suggested we check NO but state in Fart 3 that we don't know and explain the uncertainties. Board in agreement. THE MUNICIPAL BUDGET FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES OR OPERATING SERVICE WILL INCREASE BY MORE THAN 5% PER YEAR AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT. Discussions. WILL CREATE A DEMAND FOR,ADDITIONAL There COMMUNITY SERVICES may /may not be, R. Roberts didn't know — further^ SCHOOLS, research ETC.) needed. CORRECTION /CHANGE AFTER DISCUSSION FROM ANSWER ON 9/20/91 DEVELOPMENT WILL CREATE A DEMAND FOR,ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY SERVICES (e.g. SCHOOLS, POLICE AND FIRE, ETC.) POTENTIAL LARGE IMPACT J. Davis wished it noted for the record that the Board thought the project would not conflict with officially adopted. plans or goals. PART J. Lalley„ 0. How may acres are going to be. altered by this project? Roads and construction, the overall project is 115 acres - how many will be altered by roads and houses ?, Is it reasonable to'state that ten (10) or more acres of land is going to be altered during the life of the project? L. Fabborn i s. A. Certainly. (researchland discussion on action which may be required, Unlisted or Type 1) C • PB 10 -17 -91 PG. 5 Before going into a determination on Part 3, Chairwoman P. Caldwell officially asked Mr. R. Varn: meeti part Devel accen have "that since ng, and sin cular decis opera and th t to a cont been answer we clo ce we h ion, •_►n e Plann inuance ed' Mr. sed the Publ ave 45 days less there i ing Board to of that tim Varn ?" is Hearing on which to s agreement extend tha e till thes at our last act on that between the t time 'Do yol_i e other issues R. Varna 'I'd like to wait and see where we go with the SEAR before I make that decision'. George Schlecht .made the following statement: Everything th know I haven't re the procedures yo dealing with this little surprised were dealing with long .form, notifi at vi i th t ed I e v ss at hi a have seen to date regarding SEAR, as you ed anything as far as Part 2 or Part 3, but done have been completely compatible with Lie as if it were a Type 1 action. I am a you are having this debate, I thought you s as a Type 1 action. You have done the 11 the interested parties. P. Caldwell asked the Board if they wished to make a determination ?. JOSEPH LALLEY MOVED TO DECLARE THIS A TYPE 1 ACTION UNDER SEQR. SECOND MICHAEL HATTERY DISCUSSIONa J. Davis noted that the Board must maintain a file that is readily accessible to the public of all records. M. Lavine wished to have on the record the bases for the proposal. J. Dav i Fi wi ha et S (re rst of th thos ve a si ca a a a adi all e a gni ng definiti this Type ctions that ficant effe on of Type 1 Action) i list is not exhausted an agency determines may ct on the environment etc. The list includes, in a City or Town or Village having a population of less than 150,000 - 250 units being connected. We're going to connect 212 units and we? r.e a population of 1270000 J. Lalleye That further more the project is large enough in scope and extends into an adjacent municipality and under that bases should be Type 1 VOTE YES (4) J. Lalley, J. Davis, C. Brenner and M. Hattery NO (0) ABSTAINED (1) M. Lavine J. Lalley re in which mit • Question 1 h Impact would view igat ad t be e i 0 M PH 10 -17 -91 PG. 6 d with the Hoard discussion from last meeting on might resolve some of the concerns. do with construction slopes. Potential Large itigated by an approved drainage plan Construction for more than one year: mitigation suggested by maintenance of barrier and proper management of the construction site. Quest gallo appro need minut ion 5. Propos ns per days . m val would be a capacity flows eso ed action would use water in excess of 20,000 itigated by project change and final plat pproved and reviewed by 'fawn Eng. meeting and concerns that we have noted in the #6a of Positive May cause substantial and by information May erasion. Mitigated by review of final Town of Ithaca. plans by Town Engineer. second Section of Positive 14. Major traffic problems: and by information May be mitigated by a also concerns by the Town of Ithaca. second entrance immediately in Phase 1 or another possible mitigation might be a connection to Route 79, one possibility mentioned was through Eastern Heights. #19a Proposed action will set an important precedence for future projects? This is the first cluster project considered by the Town Hoard and Planning Hoard, and will have important effects • on how future decisions in the Town will be framed. 0 10 MINUTE RECESS AT 10:15 PM R. Caldwell reconvened the meeting. Joseph Lalley wish the Hoard to consider.the following motion. A declaration of Positive Impact based on the concerns noted by the Public, and by information presented to us, personal - observation and also concerns by the Town of Ithaca. The second reason is the inter municipality involvement, the project does extend into the Town of Ithaca and they have serious concerns about the project. Lastly that this proposed action is an important action for the Town. It is important that we take our time and we do it right. SECOND BY MICHAEL HATTERY PB 10 -17 -91 PG. 7 DISCUSSION: J. Davis thought that procedurally he is •surprised to see the motion before completion of Part 3. J. Lalley stated he suggested by making that motion that these issues cannot be addressed in Part 3. J. Davis thought the motion was premature, the Board reviewed part 3 but that there is more to be said before the Board comes to that conclusion, and would like to give it a fair hearing, J. Lalley because, in front input fro the engin gathered the poten cannot be would 1 I truly of us to m the pu eer has personal tially 1 mitigat ike his motion to be considered at this time believe we (the Board) have enough information make that intelligent decision. We've gotten blic, other agencies,, we have information that presented as well as information that I have 1y that leads me to believe that the questions, arge impacts that we have gathered in Fart ed in a well written Part 31 . L. Lavine wished reviewed for the record what those particular issuers are. J. Lalley: Traffic, the concerns of the Town of Ithaca and the County Planning Department and their request for more examination. Their concerns cannot be resolved tonight and the fact that this is a very large project and anything we do on • this will set a precedent. I am not prepared to argue the Traffic issue tonight or discuss it any further. There is going to be a serious impact unless there is a substantial change to the project and it is beyond the scope of the project to mitigate those. J. Davis thought that for the record it's fine to say that a positive declaration should be made because there is a number of significant to or large impacts which may or may not be mitigated satisfactory and but, those should be clearly identified letter and before a vote is made. R. Varna. Would like an opportunity to comment on some of those issues of traffic and especially the Town of Ithacas' letter and have that part of the record. C. Brenner and M. Hattery had no objection to going through Part 3 (potential large impacts) before a vote is taken as long it is done in a conscious manner that's reasonable for all the parties involved, and understand the places where answers are not known and seek advice. • PB 10 -17 -91 PG. 8 ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF ADJACENT MUNICIPAL CONCERNS: CONCERNS RAISED BY THE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE MOST RECENT LETTER FROM THE TOWN OF ITHACAU • L. Fabbroni addressed the letter which was received from the Town of Ithaca and noted: The Town of Ithaca issue relates to the one access to the project. We have throughout the project designed in mitigation measures because of the one access, mainly the 35 foot paved road, mountable Curb, the pedestrian walk at the entrance to mitigate the first 300 feet into the project. We have designed parallel roads basically to compensate for the fact that we have one access to the project. Recently at the last meeting we contemplated — where could more access develope down the line for this project? — If and when we get into the Town of Ithaca we've shown access to the Foot lands below that. I think in a letter I wrote to you about a possibility of an access down to the Slaterville Road someday, but I also tried to be up front and say that since the Foot's are going to control that property for foreseeable generations it is not likely to happen, but we're planning to leave access to that land that's in the Town of Ithaca, but it affects other lands in the Town of Dryden. We also in our discussion with Susan Beeners two years ago discussed, if and when we get to that point providing an access to the lands to the West. That is more to the point of what future access could develope. With some comprehensive planning on the part of The Town of Ithaca that right -of -way would wind up at Park Road which is now a road being developed up from Route 79 at this very moment. The • Supervisor in her letter says that there's no right, I guess if that becomes an issue depending on your questions, we go into that farther. The thing that I would like to say to you as far- as the Town of Ithaca is concern, we and you have on file this letters a letter of opinion from the Town of Ithaca from the last time we visited this project the Letter was copied to the Planning Board Chairman in the Town, The Town Supervisor, and Director of Parks in the Town at that times it was no individual action taken by an individual person then. My most recent conversation with the Supervisor at five o'clock tonight was that she could not find this letter (dated 10/16/89 ). It was as far as we knew up until yesterday the. opinion of the Town of Ithaca on this project. Mr. Fabborni stated that The Town of Ithaca approved a subdivision called Eastern Heights about 1968, they approved roads and access to this property as part of that subdivision. As didn't things go evolved bankrupt with but the they subdivision sort of and broke the up as developers, an entity, they and they later offered the 14 acres that we now know as Eastern Heights Park to the Town as a Park. It is the largest Town Park the Town has, it is listed as a regional park and it calls into some did for question t-wo additional years an inconsistency ago and what Park Land when the actual adjacent to you look facts it. at are, At the what with time the the that Town need was done the Foot property'was promised an access to a road that is developing below Eastern Heights, because he was blocked off from think any it kind is accurate of potential in for access the SUpervisor's down letter the line. when I she don't says the something Varn Town has doesn't that a firm consider by right purchase an access Charlie Foot offer on, and to the has a on continuing West the possible.. land that It Mr. is responsibility to pay deposits as they move six months to six months aloe -g. u • FHB 10 -17 -91 Mr. Eabborni continues: FAG. 9 The County Planning Board also wrote a letter to you two years ago, basically stating an opinion on the EAE and the consideration of it. In my discussion with Tim Hanson and his staff'since the last meeting they were not aware that this project would be served by public water and =_.ewer. I don't think they were as familiar with'the road situation as Arian Siserion who authorized this opinion the last time. We have trouble dealing with the inconsistencies as they evolve from time to time, we understand people change, new discussion and opinion is good for everybody, but at some point the inconsistencies are very difficult to dea'I with. L The Town and we have met for.two and one —half years and I told this to Mrs. Raffensperger and she is aware of it, we met with the former Town Supervisor Noel Desch and Susan Beeners at the time. They knew all about the project, when we come back here two years later there is no substantial change in the lay out, they have seen the entire lay out, by us showing it to them and has been available in the Town all the.while, so the new mystery about. we've only seen the 80 units — that's the problem of Cnntimii -:U in i.ho Tnwn of Ti-h =r= Ti- is and I don't know that it is c Planning Board). We have met and there were no technical i agreements between the Town c the water and.sewer. All the about 15 years at this point, bench marks for agreements be they need to be brought up tc .joint owner in both the sewer - final submission we would ans transmission problems that th the sewer, we submit to you t engineer in just the last fear now that we have shown we hav project and all of Snyder Hil t.his pro.j:ect sewer wise, has anything over 70% of capacity problem for you {Town of Dryden with Dan Walker for months before zsues of note other than the F Ithaca and the Town of Dryden on agreements are out of date by but the fact is there were.some :weep the two Municipalities and date. The Town of Dryden is a plant and the water- plant. In Our ier what the interim solution to an }y might have are. In the case of sere are no problems that the Town days approached a new theory that ?.full capacity to serve this that might want to feed through k11 of a sudden decided that is more than he wants to see. Statement made by Mr. Varn0 There has been fOUr pUblic hearings on this project. We have preliminary approval from this Planning Board. We have a negative declaration from This Planning Board. You were asked by the Town to go back and r,etr, ace some ground and give them an opportunity to study a water and sewer district. We agreed to do that without giving up our right to our preliminary approval and our negative declaration. We have been dealing with the Town of Ithaca through the four Public hearings and now all of a sudden they are going to write a letter, which basically we don't agree with, I don't think we are being dealt fair with. PB 10 -17 -91 PG. 10 John Davis stated that was a legal issue. When you came here two months ago it was for preliminary plat approval. We are not committed to address that legal issue. Mr. Varna There are three members of the Board on that. They know that there were no comments. the time. They know that the Town of Ithaca and Planning Board were notified and we just gave yo show what they had to say about that. This turn little bit political and it is frustrating to us designed the project based on the concerns all t those four- public hearings. The plan has been d of those concerns, the concerns of the Planning Town Board. here that voted of this sort at the County U the letters to around seems a and we have he way through eveloped because Board and the George Schlechta a You have three letters (Town of Ithaca Supervisor, Shirley Raffenspergerg Ithaca Planning, Floyd Forman; and Town Engineer, Dan Walker), the first one deals with the question of the adjacent park land and the use there of that's not really an engineering question and I'll not comment on it other then to say that I think in the past the Town of Dryden's policy has not been to look at small pocket parks and certainly in the last five.or six years there's been a growing awareness that they would like to see a development of Dryden Lake Area as a park and put into resources. There's a difference of philosophy that I think the Town of Ithaca and Dryden has and will be a.tough one to resolve. She raises some good points on terms of equity anti fairness the Town of Dryden i� people using ,the Town of Ithaca Park. In the past the Town and the Town Board I think, are very reluctant to see anything as far as keeping the public lands to a minimum. The issue of fairness and equity on Town of Dryden People using the Town of Ithaca Park is an interesting one, and probably worthy of discussion between the two Town Boards, On the water, sewer and drainage, Dan Walker has quite rightly continued to point out that the project is going to involve forming a sewer district, we're aware of that, they are aware of it and the developer is aware of it. The water system potentially impacts the Town and he has some technical questions, in that regard before this sewer district can be formed and finalized there would be a complete analysis and a review of the flows. Actually Larry has done a very complete .job already and that would be further reviewed by the Health Department. I think the question of engineering whether or not there is enough capacity in the sewer lines is something that at this stage has been resolved with enough satisfaction that they could go forward to final plan phase. They are at risk here, if they find out that:the final calculations are wrong or there's another bottle neck this would certainly show up in the "final review, final formation of this sewer district and the final, engineering plans. U PB 10 -17 -91 PG. 11 George jchlecht continuesa On the question of water, I know there has been concerns by the • neighbors, without having some graphics here it is a little hard to explain. There is a tank of water at the Hunger-•ford Road tank as you go down hill from that, further down you get higher pressure or the greater rate of flow. When the Snyder Hill District was formed it really was formed in recognition to what was considered to be a very serious problem that folks were having there. The Town Board work very hard to form that district and it was because so many folks out there had essentially very little water. As a result there were very few users and very high expense and very high unit cost, and a rather small pressure station was put in which really was only just That's domestic because flow Snyder to most Hill of starts the folks going in back that up district. hill and continues This project that taps way in practically before that all pressure the way to Red station Wood so that Lane. the flows here, the project for the city are before that pressure station. While it's true that many of the people on Snyder Hill Road have very little or marginal pressure that's not necessarily the case here. Normal domestic flows that you would see in a subdivision like this will not affect the folks on Snyder Hill Road. Now if there is a fire in' this project and they open up a couple of hydrants down stream, I suspect that the folks upon Snyder Hill Road might forgo taking a shower or they might not have any • water at all, not a desirable situation, not an uncommon one in a lot of places. Again I think it's in recognition that there were a lot of things done on Snyder'Hill Road that you couldn't have gotten approved otherwise, except for the fact that it was a serious situation to begin with. There was some issue of this project affecting the folks on Snyder Hill Road as far as fire flow, they don't have fire flow now. The Town is in the .process, we have been retained by the-Town to study the formation of a wider district, called the Southwest District, we have encompassed this area. The study area also includes down on Route 79 to German Cross Roads at the request of some folks down there. That district if formed and build would presumably include a hundred thousand gallon tank, possibly, in the area of Red Wood Lane which would then Supply. adequate pressure to the folks on Snyder Hill Road, and fire flow. While the report has not been .finalized, we will be discussing with the Town Board in the next couple of weeks, I can say that without type of Population density and number of units that development in the whole area might see, this project possibly being one of them, the cost of doing this district is going to be so high that it can't be done. One of the ways that the whole area can be supplied by water is to see growth in that area. This project is just one example of the type of growth that can help make that affordable. Reference in a letter indicated the people did not want to fell that they are paying to subsidize what is going • to be future growth down here, and that is not the case, growth here or someplace else for more users would actually decrease the cost. PB 10 -17 -91 PG. 12 G. Schlecht continues: • As for drainage that was the third thing that the engineer mentioned,,we have looked at the overall drainage plan and we find the (..steam..) adequate. If you remember in my review letter I suggest that it be required that Larry investigate the sizing of the retention ponds. On a site visit we went out there and I was satisfied that it could be made multiply bigger in fact two or three with no problem other then cost, the room was there. Mr. Walker, Town Engineer for Ithaca, suggested to Shirley that he wanted to have final review and approval of the drainage, I think that is inappropriate. I notice in her letter she didn't answer that. It is a Town of Dryden project and I think that legally and every other way the Town of Dryden should be responsible to the Board and can't delegate responsibility to Dan Walker to review the drainage. He is welcome to review it, but he certainly doesn't have the authority to approve it. As far; as the question of traffic which is certainly one of the more serious questions that you have before you, it Ought to be clear where we are. I've talked to you all informally, I have looked at Part 1 and agreed that the numbers that were generated were reasonable. I make no representation as to what I felt was the overall impact in terms of quality of traffic. The study you have before you today, I haven't had a chance to look at, but would be happy to if you would like me to but, no one has asked me to look at anything as far as part 2 or part 3 goes. As I understand it they have tried to look at this - intersection as it compares to other intersections in the area, that is one way that it can be addressed. There are also theoretical exercises you can go into which will tell yo1A that for a certain type of intersections figured a certain way what certain levels of traffic will do to YOU in terms of delay time. That brings me to the last point and I want to make this public so Varn Brothers will hear it. This question of Part 3 I think can be expanded to a larger procedure with their permission to answer many of the traffic questions. I privately stated to you I would hate to see the Town get into an EIS procedure if you don't have to. I feel very strongly about it, it can be a.very unsatisfying procedure, and it is very costly for the developer, it is very costly for the Town and if not done properly will provide very little useful information. Instead.of leading to a better project can sap Lip so much resources and time that it detracts what I have indorsed. Again I am doing this publicly because there is no question, is to expand this part 3 and to look at the traffic and other questions by the procedure that can be handled in Part 3 to ask them to supply what ever information its terms of traffic and to avoid what I think can be a very time consuming, costly procedure for everybody. You're here to night to twelve o'clock, one o'clock, it will be many, many meetings, a long process that may not - if the Part 3 is done properly it will • not give you any problem. I have been through this with other Towns and it's not an easy process and is.expensive and generally unsatisfying .for everybody. u i 0 PB 10 -17 -91 PG. 13 M. Hattery: Having been through this with other Towns, and knowing the character of this project would you characterize this project as something which sets a precedence for us as a Town in terms of its magnitude and many of the other% Intermunicipal connections, do you think it sets a precedent? George Schlechta I think it was precedent that has setting a that's be sett ing, f be nd en ye or the first cluster en done in the Town. the scope of it by done in the Town. so well stated largest it does subdivision set a subdivision On that as,far scope that as I know That is certainly that we expand Part precedent analysis far the largest My interpretation inhearent subdivision your final On that comment scope that it is precedent form M. Lavine: There My interpretation inhearent of your final propose comment is that you are suggesting form that that we expand Part 3 analysis at with the hope.that you still may we can come up with the information needed that:might you need otherwise have to come out of an EIS, and thereby potentially avoiding to ask a full an EIS? has going to be into done it, that but, part I think 3 is G. Sch 1 echt : That be done with their amount of time to c agree to that prose them to prepare the responsibility to d you're going to mak declare an EIS you ahead and do it'. it is the Towns res is exactly what I am saying. Now it has to permission because you only have a given omplete the process. So they would have to ss and it is entirely appropriate to tell Part 3. It is the Planning Board's, o Part 2, part 3 and the EIS. If you say e a positive declaration and we're goingtto have to be prepared for them to say 'fine go It is the Towns responsibility to do the EIS, possibility to do part 2 and part 3. M. Lavine: There is nothing inhearent in the idea you propose of continuing with part 3 in the extended form and after that process is completed at the end of Part 3, that you still may G. Schlecht: That's find you need an EIS? Part 3 is M. Lavine: I don't know if the Board wants to consider that proposal or not. If so I "would suggest that we strongly consider adding into that another possibility for public participation which is part of the EIS, but not necessarily a part of the part 3 process. G. Sch 1 echt : That is correct. G. Schlecht: That's right. Part 3 is really meant to ask whether understanding an EIS has going to be into done it, that but, part I think 3 is there meant is to an look at whether or not there are going to be significant impacts that can't, be mitigated, which is what the EIS does. I think they can accomplish the same thing. The advantage.of doing it in Part 3 is administratively it's a lot shorter time period. At the end of Part 3 you have to say 'We've looked at these potentially we don't believe large impacts they are and going based to on be this significant analysis because of Part 3 they can be mitigated this way' if you can make that statement. M. Lavine: I don't know if the Board wants to consider that proposal or not. If so I "would suggest that we strongly consider adding into that another possibility for public participation which is part of the EIS, but not necessarily a part of the part 3 process. G. Sch 1 echt : That is correct. FB 10 -17 -91 FG. 14 J. Davis stated that we should conclude with Fart 3. before making any determination. • J. Lalley: My concern for the developer and for us is that there are things in the project that can't be mitigated, traffic issue is the one that jumps to my mind and that if we go into an extended Fart 3 and we're six months down the road, we're three months down the road, or two months down the road, we're still at the point of going with the EIS. That's our only option other then going with a negative. declaration. J. Davis: I am not saying that we are going to do an extended Part 3 tonight. What I am saying is we are going to identify in the Fart 3, if we have,a far amount of dissent, If we do the outcome is clear. G. Schlecht: How do you think the EIS process, if YOU concluded that there is negative impacts which can't be mitigated, what does the EIS accomplish? J. Lalley: Legally I have to pursue that with SEOR. I have two options, negative declaration or positive. I don't think it is fair for those involved if I and others feel strongly about traffic and I don't feel its fair- to them unless there is some tremendous surprise and I don't think there is short of someone building a new road or something. G. Schlecht: That is an excellent position, I respect that and • that would speak against what I am proposing. If you essentially concluded that there is negative impact that can't be mitigated. • R. Varn: Would you comment on Larry's traffic report as far as the road? G. Schlecht: I really can't, I saw it yesterday, ,I think the approach is reasonable, I can't say how that intersection compares with others. L. Fabbornio I have one other comment on the Town of Ithaca that I failed to mention. I don't know if you realize The Town of Ithaca approved .......Grand View, East Hill Commons 31 66 lots below Eastern Heights without requiring an EIS. The same time SEUR was in affect, I thought I should state that for you're own comparison. BOARD'S REVIEW OF FART POTENTIAL LARGE IMPACTS: WITH POSSIBLE MITIGATION ON THE L A • PB 10 -17 -51 PG. 15 LARGE IMPACT ON SLOPES 01= 15/ OR MORE% May be.changed in a positive direction by a drainage plan that would be approved by Town Engineer before final plat approval. Larger lots on the steeper slopes. CONSTRUCTION FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR: Can be mitigated through proper management.of the construction site. Maintenance of barrier through construction schedule. PROPOSED ACTION MAY CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL EROSION: May be mitigated by final review by Town engineer. TRANSPORTATION% Proposed Planning Board suggested action to J. Davis that will allowances result be made for access and drop off collection in for public major traffic extending bicycle path. problems. Potential large impact, discussion on two exits. County Planning Board suggested according to J. Davis that additional allowances /design be made for access and drop off collection points for public transportation. Also noted extending bicycle path. A new connection to Ellis Hollow Road some where in the vicinity of the new Town Road that the Varn Brothers are proposing as part of this project in phase 1. Another mitigation might be the plans by the County to aline and widen the intersection of Judd Falls and Ellis Hollow Road. Improvements to Snyder Hill Road West of the project. PUBLIC CONTROVERSY° Public controversy already exist. We have received petitions and letters that have become part of the record. PB 10 -17 -91 FAG. 16 GROWTH BY MORE THAN , %a • The population growth cannot be mitigated but the analysis is marginal and possibly does not meet the 5% criteria given future population trends. DEMAND FOR ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY SERVICE5a Creation of new water and sewer districts. Involvement of other.agencies (e.g. school district and planning process), . Park issues need to be addressed. OTHERS Single entry for immergences — design a new entrance for the project. Absentee Ownership; decline in property values (student housing); and architectural designa • Might be mitigated through convenantldeed restrictions • Attached housing vs. detached housinga Relevant timing and distribution Possibly require setting aside additional open space 3ohn'Davis noted the build out version of the project at the foot of Snyder- Hill is similar to the northern intersection of Warren Road with Hanshaw Road for purpose of comparison. Also noted the difference in the quality of the roads and suggested that if the quality of the road were different would it help mitigate the situation. • • • PB 10 -17 -91 MOTION RESUBMITTED BY JOSEPH LALLEYa PG. 17 JOSEPH LALLEY RESUBMITTED HIS MOTION FOR A POSITIVE DECLARATION BASED ON TRAFFIC; TOWN OF ITHACA CONCERNS; COUNTY CONCERNS; AND THE FACT THAT THIS IS A LARGE CLUSTER PROJECT; A TYPE 1 PROJECT; AND AS SUCH WILL SET A PRECEDENT FOR ANY FUTURE ACTIONS IN THE TOWN. THE MOTION WAS PREVIOUSLY SECOND BY MICHAEL HATTERY AND AGAIN CONFIRMED. VOTE YES (4) J. LALLEY, C. BRENNER, J: DAVIS AND M. HATTERY NO (0) ABSTAINED (1).M. LAVINE Barbara Caldwell stated that earlier Mr. Varn we asked you if you consented to a formal extension of time for preliminary plat review since we had had a closure of Public Hearing last month and we had 45 days in which to act, do you so consent? Mr. Vann: I don't think I need to, but I will. MEETING ADJOURNED 11°45 PM ,;olc� .,,� oy, , �i _i