HomeMy WebLinkAboutAnswers to PBEngineer Questions Dear Planning Board,
Here are some answers to the Engineer's questions as well as Board Members
questions from the Planning Board meeting on 2/23/26.
1 . As outlined in the site history and current building proposal, the entire property is in
full compliance with stormwater requirements, with all practices fully accounted for. We
agree that in 2017 such conditions were appropriate, as the site had much room for
future expansion at that time.
Since the 2017 Full SWPPP and the 2023 Full SWPPP, however, there is no remaining
developable area other than this small 0.19-acre portion. We formally closed out the
2023 SWPPP because there was no intention to pursue further development. It was
only after removing a substantial pile of mulch and brush that this limited area became a
feasible opportunity for one final building.
We are fully willing to accept a condition stating that this will be the last building
constructed on the site. Quite simply, there is no remaining room for additional
development.
Given that the entire site has already been comprehensively addressed for stormwater
management, and that a full SWPPP is typically required for disturbances of one acre or
more, we are respectfully asking that this very limited disturbance, of .19 acres, be
satisfied by the measures proposed on the current site plan, including the attenuation
basin. Additional stormwater requirements would significantly impact the building's
placement, reduce gravel parking, and potentially cause loading and work activities to
encroach into the main driveway more than is appropriate.
Requiring a new full SWPPP for this 0.19-acre addition would likely consume much of
the available parking area, necessitate relocation of the building, and create an added
financial burden of approximately $10,000, without a clear benefit, given the site's
existing stormwater controls. The proposed attenuation basin will adequately manage
runoff while maintaining the project's feasibility from operational and financial
perspectives.
2. We are working with our Engineer, Scott Gibson, to provide an as-built map of all
stormwater practices.
2-1.The recent stormwater practices were built and inspected just last year as it was a
prerequisite be issued the certificate of occupancy which was granted. There is no
issue, and working well.
2-2. We have coordinated with the Town Highway Superintendent to ensure proper
grades.
3. We are working with our attorney to review SOMRA to make sure it is fair and
adequate to get it signed.
4. We have copies of the 20ft water easement drawn on a 2012 certified stamped map
that the Town should have as well? The Town needs to bring forth the easement for us
to sign. This looks to be an oversight by the Town that was never fully documented.
5. There is adequate room for fire turnaround. This was also a prerequisite for the last
builidng/siteplan/Certificate of Occupancy and this new small building uses the same
driveway/turnaround.
6. We have met with Tompkins County 911 Director Mike Stitley and waiting on a
response.
Planning board Questions-
1. The building will likely have one tenant.
2. The building will have one over head door and one man door on the north side, and
possibly one other man door on the east side.
3. The building will have electric utilities.
4. We can put some arborvitae on the south side along the edge of the attenuation
basic to act as a buffer (if there is still room given the addition of the attenuation
basin)
5. There will be one overhead light as shown in packet over the overhead door.
Thanks,
Bill and John Duthie