HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-10-27 ar y T
1
•
S own of Lansng
3 Monday, October 27 , 1997 ; 7 : 30pm PLANNING BOARD
4 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
5 (*Denotes present)
6 . * Larry Sharpsteen, Chair Jacoba Baker
7 Viola Miller * Brad Griffm
8 * Lin Davidson Al White
9 * Robert Todd . * David Lippert
10
11 Larry Tvaroha, Town Councilman
12 George Totman, Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer
13 PUBLIC PRESENT
14 Ronald Seacord 1437 E. Shore Drive
15 Matthew Shulman Lansing Community News
16
17 GENERAL BUSINESS
Ronald Seacord, Subdivision SEAR Review
19 Larry Sharpsteen stated that on Page 3 , Question 10 the answer should be Yes as the land is not posted;-
20 portions of it are more than 500 feet away from a residence, so basically hunting opportunities do exist.
21 . Larry stated that basically the center hedgerow and the whole center field, and nearly the entire front
22 field are huntable.
23 Regarding Page 3 , Questions 11 & 12 Larry Sharpsteen asked if this was checked against the County
24 U.N.A.? Ron Seacord stated not that he knows of Larry stated that document is the qualifying source
25 to find out if there are endangered species of animal or plant life on the land. Brad Griffm agreed it
26 should be checked against the Tompkins County Inventory of Unique Natural Areas.
27 Larry Sharpsteen stated there was a problem with Page 4, Question 13 : Larry feels the possibility if you
28 get a another testing facility or something similar that uses materials that has to be counted and hauled
29 away should be addressed in here someplace. Brad Griffin stated that is addressed in # 17. Larry stated
30 he thinks it is included in 16 d & e also. Ron Sharpsteen stated that is one of those questions you really
31 can not answer. Brad Griffin stated that even a household would have some solid waste.
32 Robert Todd asked why raise red flag? Larry Sharpsteen responded that if they do not raise the red flag
33 and someone does come along, say a dry cleaner, and if someone is opposed to it all they would have to
34 do is come up with the original EIS and say it was improperly done. Brad Griffin stated you have to
35 assume the worst possible case when answering these questions. The Board agreed to change 16 d to
36 Yes, and add "A future tenant could require a higher level of waste management. " to 16 e.
37 Matt Shulman asked typically what is the next level to view this? Does it go to the County? Larry
Sharpsteen stated that George Totman was going to look into it. Ron Seacord stated he thought the
39 County wanted to look at it. Ronadded that he had talked to the D.E.C. and they definitely want the
40 Town of Lansing to be the lead agency.
2 Town of Lansing Planning Board, October 27, 1997
I Lin Davidson asked how careful one must be when answering Question 18 . Larry stated he thinks it
2 needs to be considered. Robert Todd questioned when they are talking about the project, whether they
3 are talking about all future things even 200 years from now? Larry stated they are talking al#out the use
4 or potential future use for the land. Ron Seacord stated that it made sense to do it correct now instead of of
5 having to redo it. The Board agreed to change Question 18 to Yes.
6 Larry stated that on Page 5 , Question 25 , under City, Town, Village Planning Board, it falls under the
7 Subdivision Regulations and a submittal date should be entered . Larry Also stated that City, County
8 Health Department is a courtesy review or would that be a full review. Ron Seacord stated that the
9 Health Department has a review, especially in the water. Larry stated they would put "Water and
to Sewage." Lin Davidson suggested circling one (City, Town, Village and City, County) that was
11 pertinent..
12 Page 5 , Question 7 , the Board agreed to add "Municipal, Recreation, and Institutional ." Retarding
13 Question 10, Larry Sharpsteen asked Ron if he knew for a fact that it will be tacked on to an existing
14 water district? Ron stated that they will be Extension 10 of Water District 7 . It was agreed 'o change
15 Question 12 to Yes, with reference to the traffic study being done .
16 Discussion on Part 2
17 Question 1 - answered Yes, with Small to Moderate Impact checked for Construction that will continue
18 for more than 1 year or involve more than on phase or stage, and for Other Impacts such as "increase
19 runoff due to buildings, parking lots, and roads . "
20 Question 2, Question 3 , and Question 4- answered No .
21 Question 5 - answered Yes . Larry Sharpsteen stated that it is conceivable that the total acreage
22 underground at any one time could exceed three acres. In which case it would require a disc arge
non-pointpollution due to sedimentation from construction. Sm 11 to
23 permit, a permit for source
•
24 Moderate checked for Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. Small to Moderate decked for
25 Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1 , 100 gallons.
26 Also Small to Moderate checked for Proposed Action locates commercial and /or industrial uses which
27 may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities .
28 Question 6- answered Yes with Small to Moderate checked for Proposed Action would chan e flood
29 water flows.
30 Question 7 , Question 8 , and Question 9- answered No .
31 Question 10- answered Yes, with Small to Moderate checked for the proposed action would rreversibly
32 convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land, or if located in an Agricultural District, mon. than 2 .5
33 acres of agricultural land.
34 Question 11 - answered No .
35 Question 12- answered No, pending Brad' s review of The NYS Site Inventory.
36 Question 13 - answered No .
37 Question 14- answered Yes and checked Small to Moderate Impact for Alteration of present atterns of
38 movement of people and/or goods .
39 Question 15 , Question 16, and Question 17 - answered No .
40 Question 18- answered Yes, with Small to Moderate checked for Proposed Action will cause a change in
41 the density of land use, Development will create a demand for additional community service , Proposed
•
42 Action will set an important precedent for future projects, and Proposed Action will create e ployment.
43 Question 19- answered Yes, adding "not likely to be substantive . "
.•
3 Town of Lansing Planning Board, October 27, 1997
1
• Larry Sharpsteen asked that his copy be given to George Totman to drop off with Dave Herrick to
3 review.
4 Ron Seacord stated this has to go to D.E.C . and be processed before they can lay pipe to hook up to
5 water.
6 On Page 1 , Determination of Significance, checked The Project will not result in any large and
7 important impact(s) and therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment,
8 therefore a negative declaration will be prepared.
9 Brad Griffin motioned to approve the SEQR, pending review of question items by the Town Engineer
0 and Brad' s review of the archeological study. Lin Davidson seconded. VOTE ALL IN FAVOR.
11 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
12
13 Ron Seacord thanked the Board.
14 Submitted by Robin Cornell.
•
•
•
•