HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2013-02-25Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board
February 25,2013 at 4:30 p.m.
Agenda
1. Discussion of South West Glens and Creeks Conservation Zone Report
2. Begin discussion on the draft Comprehensive Plan and related SEQR
3. Consent Agenda
a. Approval of Minutes of January 28,2013
b. Approval of Town of Ithaca Abstract
4. Consider entering executive session to discuss the possible acquisition of real
property.
5. Consider adjournment
MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
February 25, 2013
Present: Board Members Herb Engman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Tee-Ann Hunter, Rich
DePaolo, Rod Howe, and Bill Goodman
Staff: Susan Ritter, Dan Tasman and Paulette Terwilliger
Meeting started in the Aurora Room but was moved to the Boardroom due to a large number
of high school students in attendance for their Government Class
Mr. Engman called the meeting to order at 4:32 pm
Board Members commented on the presentations they attended at the Association of Towns'
Annual Meeting in New York City
Mr. Engman reported that he learned we should have a weather policy for our parks and trails
for dealing with weather related conditions such as lightening and stopping play of organized
sports and this should be relatively easy. He also went to the Fire Protection liability
workshop and a town is not allowed to own a fire station, which he had forgotten, and we do
not own the stations on our two hills, but we own the land and lease it to the City. Not sure
why but it is based on an old, old law.
Mr. Engman also reported that a group from Tompkins County got together and devised a
plan of action regarding the proposed bylaws of the Association of Towns which were up for
approval and there are many strange items in there such as allowing the President to also be
the Treasurer and other egregious things. He added that when he returned home, the Journal
had an article where the President of the Association disagreed with the Association's stance
on the amicus brief and stated that he did not know the Association was supporting our stance
yet he is the President. The approval was tabled and towns have the opportunity to make
comments now.
Mr. DePaolo reported that the presentation on the changes to the SEQR form was interesting
because no one could agree on answers to questions and even more frightening is that the
proposed fracking regulations only give a municipality 15 days to respond to an application
and that 15 days starts when the application is submitted and there is no notification except in
the DEC's Environmental Notice Bulletin and there is no notification to neighboring
municipalities. Mr. Engman said he had received a request from the county for
municipalities to notify them and maybe that would be a good central place to start and he
would talk to TCCOG about that.
Mr. DePaolo also reported he attended a forum advocating for an enhanced role of the Town
Board in land use planning in the zoning variance process as a way to revisit Comprehensive
Plans on an on-going basis as requests for variances and planned development zones and the
like are requested because those could trigger a look at why they are needed and what might
need to be changed in ordinances and/or comprehensive plans.
TBS 2-25-2013 1
Mr. Howe reported that he attended a workshop on budgets and wondered if we had a cheat
sheet with answers for questions we commonly get from residents. He also attended a forum
on gas drilling and scanned the "toolbox"handout for fellow members.
Ms. Hunter reported that our own Staff seemed more knowledgeable about Form Based
Zoning than the presenter and Mr. Goodman added that he felt they made it sound as if you
would go block by block rather than a neighborhood approach.
Mr. Levine reported that he attended the Procurement seminar and asked if we could take into
account local economy such as local workers or living wage and their answer was basically,
sure, if we want to be the test case for it. He added that Susan Brock went to another progam
and she may have additional information. He also brought materials for funding sources and
IT handouts which he will give to the appropriate staff.
Agenda Item 1 Discussion of South West Glens and Creeks Conservation Zone Report
Mr. Engman explained what a Conservation Zone was for the students in the audience,noting
that the number of houses that can be built and other uses of properties in a Conservation
Zone are restricted in different ways to preserve natural areas.
Ms. Stewart explained that the Conservation Board has worked on this proposal for a few
years and it is finally read for presentation to the Town Board and if the Board is in favor of
it, moving forward with outreach meeting of the property owners of the land under questions
and then public hearings for the general public and so on.
The Board asked if all the property owners were aware of and in favor of the proposal and
Ms. Stewart was not sure if all of them were and there are a few major owners such as
Cornell, the YMCA and EcoVillage and the Town has also purchased some property to keep
it natural.
The sense of the Board was to move forward with the neighborhood informational meetings
and report back to the Board on the comments they receive and Ms. Ritter added that Planning
Staff could help coordinate.
Agenda Item 2 Begin discussion on the draft Comprehensive Plan and related SEQR
(SEQR-Attachment 1)
Comprehensive Plan (Plan) Full Environmental Assessment Form(Form)
Ms. Ritter explained that this step was to designate the Town Board as the Lead Agency and,
if the Board agrees, to issue a positive declaration of environmental significance, meaning the
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan may have significant impact on the environment and
begin the SEQR process for development of a Generic Environmental Impact Statement.
The SEQR draft Full Environmental Assessment Form was reviewed.
TBS 2-25-2013 2
Mr. DePaolo had a number of questions (pgs 7, 11 and 14). Many of the questions centered on
the concept of whether the Form was looking at effects of the Plan or on the development the
Plan would or could engender. Staff explained that the Form is geared to site-specific
development projects and is not well-suited to the environmental review of the Plan. The
impacts outlined in the Full Environmental Assessment Form used the 1993 Comprehensive
Plan and the potential development it would enable as a baseline for comparison. The areas
allowed to be developed under the 1993 Plan are very similar to what the proposed Plan
allows but the distribution and placement of the growth in specific areas is different and will
undergo a more rigorous SEQR review during the rezoning process,when the specific zoning
and densities will be known and a more quantitative analysis can be completed. So the
answers in the SEQR Assessment Form which is not designed for this type of comprehensive
overview of a community's Plan, falls back to that fact.
SEQR questions like: will the project increase the need for community services? Is the
project served by water service? and similar questions: On the whole, the answer to increase
in services may be no because growth under current zoning takes that into consideration, but,
there may be increases in demand in certain areas if development occurs according to the draft
Comp Plan. The answer to water can be yes because there are many areas served by
municipal water and some that are not that may be looking for service under some growth
scenarios. Sewer service is different because it depends on gravity. Unfortunately SEQR is
project-driven not planning-driven in many ways and the questions do not lend themselves to
overviews where one section of a plan is "planning" far different things for certain areas.
Mr. DePaolo asked about page 11 B21 and whether the County had a GML requirement and
Ms. Ritter responded that they can make recommendations but they do not have approval
authority on Comprehensive Plans. Ms. Hunter asked about pg 11 and when the Brittain
brothers talked about the increase in energy that would be expended for increases in water
service and whether that would impact B21 regarding energy use. Mr. Tasman responded that
this was another question that is geared towards site-specific development and is not relevant
to the draft Plan. In Part II is where we talk more generally about increased energy usages per
the Plan. Ms. Hunter asked if there would be a place for some disclaimer language in the
environmental assessment form because she was struck by the number of not applicable boxes
checked and people should be aware that the reason for this is because a generic
environmental impact statement is not site specific. Ms. Ritter responded that it is in there on
page 8 where it talks about site-specific reviews will be needed to assess impacts of specific
areas. Ms. Hunter asked that the statement be made a little more straightforward.
Mr. DePaolo asked about pg 14 (c) 8 and he didn't understand how this question could be
answered without knowing what other municipalities are going to do. It seemed that an n/a fit
better here than a yes. He didn't think that it was coordinated with our bordering
municipalities. He didn't think looking at a map rose to the level of looking at future land use
plans of neighboring municipalities. Mr. Tasman responded that Newfield and Enfield are
primarily rural and expected to stay that way and we do have Lansing's draft plan and we
know what the City is focusing on. Mr. DePaolo asked Ms. Brock whether during the zoning
process some of these areas will become more site specific and this assessment will be done
then and Ms. Brock responded they absolutely would.
TBS 2-25-2013 3
Ms. Hunter turned to pg 11 —Will the proposed action create a demand for any community
provided services; recreation, education, police and fire protection? She asked for a
clarification on"community services" and whether that was specific to town services or could
it refer to the City Fire Department etc. because the Committee had discussed the possibility
that increased density on West Hill could mean an additional grammar school so that would
seem to create a demand. She thought we were increasing building heights which could
create a need for more ladder trucks and increased fire protection capacity. Mr. Tasman
responded that any kind of development is going to create an increase in demand and we have
to look at the additional demand created by what the development allowed in the 1993 Plan.
Ms. Hunter asked if when we move to zoning this would be looked at more closely and Ms.
Ritter said it would. Mr. Tasman also responded that the Plan is a broad document and does
not look at site specific details such as building heights and ladder trucks.
Ms. Hunter said that she understands we are increasing the number of residences that will be
allowed on West Hill and other areas of the town so we are densifying to preserve open space
but we are increasing the number of residences allowed from the 1993 Plan, and unlike traffic,
you say that the way the residences will be planned and allowed will greatly mitigate some
impacts but you can't mitigate the increased number of school children that will be in the
area. Mr. Tasman responded that although the Plan allows higher density development and
allow more residences in particular areas, it doesn't necessarily accelerate the rate of growth.
So the demand is still going to be what it is, whether it is the current Plan or the future Plan.
Even though a Plan may allow for more houses, it doesn't mean those houses will be built.
Ms. Hunter responded that the question is asking whether the rise in the number of allowed
houses could result in increases in demand for services and she asked what could be wrong in
saying yes to this? Mr. Tasman responded that if you compare this Plan to the 93 Plan and
even though you say more houses may be allowed in a certain area, does that mean that in the
next 10-15 years all those houses are going to be built, as opposed to 60% of them. Ms.
Hunter responded that we are not assuming to know what the rate of growth is.
Ms. Leary joined in saying that if anything this Plan assumes small household sizes so the
question about a greater need for a school district cannot be assumed. She felt that if
anything, we are projecting an aging population and based on the survey of residents, the Plan
assumes a smaller household size.
Mr. DePaolo asked Ms. Brock—As we are trying to handicap the potential for impacts based
on this Plan, are we comparing that to the document that already exists or are we comparing
to what already exists in reality? Ms. Brock responded that that is a great question and she
thought we could do either. There is not tremendous guidance on how to do this and she has
talked to attorney's saying I assume we use the 93 Plan as our basis and they responded that
sounds right, but if you agree with the conclusion that there is a potential for impacts that are
going to require an impact statement, she didn't think it matters terribly so if you want to look
at what has actually been done with zoning and slightly shift it to the current....Mr. DePaolo
rephrased saying if the 93 Plan allowed for development to happen in a certain area and it
didn't happen, do we assume that we were comfortable with that happening then and so now
we can extrapolate from that period of time or do we look at what is on the ground right now?
Ms. Brock responded that we might want to look at both. Mr. DePaolo said then there is
TBS 2-25-2013 4
going to be a scoping phase of the EIS that will relate tangentially to this document but can it
exceed what we identified here? So when we come up with scoping we can say, here is an
area that wasn't identified as an impact in the LEAF and we want to look at and so on. Ms.
Brock responded that if you think there is going to be something you want explored in the EIS
you might want to make sure there is something here to show this is an issue. She suggested
additional language regardless of what you check in the box C 11 because this form doesn't fit
adoption of the Plan and in fact the SEQR Handbook even says that. It says you are going to
end up putting n/a for a lot of these that are descriptive to an action. She suggested a narrative
in the space saying something like "the changes to the Plan might ultimately lead to other
actions that require a shift in where various community services may need to be provided"
because right now the children are and will be educated in other locations but I don't know if
there may be a shift at some point. She added that she didn't think we should ignore what
happened since 1993 and it is appropriate to look at both.
Mr. Tasman wanted to note that the justification is that the Plan enables a wider variety of
houses and a wider variety of development that could possibly better meet the demand for
housing and current market demands than what we have now and what that might result in.
Right now we have a steady rate of development of 0.5%per year and what that might mean
is the demand for housing is being met right now outside of the Town of Ithaca and that could
shift into the Town of Ithaca because people buying a townhouse in another municipality,
could have the option of buying one in the Town.
Mr. Engman asked if there was any objection to adding the clarification language and there
was none.
The Board allowed a person in the audience to ask a question. The lady asked about height
allowances because her neighbors are concerned. Mr. Tasman said most will be in the 2.5 —3
stories. The lady lived in Fall Creek and the Board explained the difference between the
Town and the City. Mr. DePaolo noted that the City has up-zoned a number of areas to allow
significant elevation in the height of some buildings. Ms. Leary added that the Town has
discussed some very small areas that might have some buildings with storefronts on the first
level and apartments above but only a few and very small areas.
Mr. DePaolo looked at pg 15 C12 where the question asked about traffic increases and the
answer should be yes and hopefully there is going to be a traffic analysis in the GEIS. Ms.
Ritter thought that again, this is geared toward specific projects and Ms. Brock added that she
doesn't think the Plan is going to increase traffic but it may lead to zoning that will shift
where it is. Ms. Ritter added that you can get 1,000 people moving in under either the 93 Plan
or this one and either way it is going to increase traffic. Mr. DePaolo noted that the questions
asks from"present levels"not what the "current Plan will allow." Ms. Brock responded that
the Plan doesn't create the traffic and Mr. DePaolo responded"then why don't we answer no
to everything?" Ms. Leary responded that that is why we have n/a to a lot of these,because
the Plan itself does not do these things; it allows some zoning that in certain cases would and
those would have their own environmental review. She went on to say that she disagrees that
this will create significantly higher traffic and the thing about this Plan is that it actually
decreases the anticipated traffic that would occur if we didn't have new kinds of housing. Mr.
TBS 2-25-2013 5
DePaolo responded that he understands that but...Ms. Leary stated that if we didn't have the
Comp Plan and no recommendations for different kinds of housing, the traffic would still be
expected to increase over time.
Mr. DePaolo stated that the question that needs to be answered since this is going to be the
basis for what is looked at in the GEIS, we need to answer yes. Mr. Engman brought it back
to the action tonight which is deciding whether this is a Type I action and a review that leads
to the development of more studies under the EIS system, so the individual answers are
somewhat meaningless, that's why they are so difficult to talk about,because they don't mean
anything at this point. We will get to those questions and be able to debate them later on but
to do them at this point is sort of a folly because we can't answer them at this point.
Mr. Tasman stated that they have provided the justification in the Form to look at traffic and it
doesn't dismiss the concerns about changes in traffic and in Part I we recognize that there are
going to be changes is volume and patterns of traffic and they will be looked at in the scoping
document.
Mr. DePaolo finished with pg 26 Quantity and Quality of Open Space stating that he
understood from the planners that we are downzoning some of the MDRs along with the
upzoning of others for a net-zero affect but there are current open spaces being planned for
densification so how is that no and asked whether the Plan actually protects the open space.
Mr. Tasman responded that protection is in the Goals and in the zoning that will come out of
it.
Mr. DePaolo asked that the statement on pg 25 "the Ithaca area being known for its engaged,
vocal and environmentally conscious population..."be removed because he felt it was
stereotyping our residents. The Board had no objection.
Ms. Hunter requested that asked that the reference of"up to 25%"reduction in traffic be
removed. (pg 22 2-18) Board agreed.
Mr. Engman turned to the draft resolution. Language was discussed to be added to the
comment area at C 11 to read"the proposed Comprehensive Plan may result in some changes
leading to increased density and number of housing units that could shift the location where
community services are needed or create an additional demand. Discussion followed.
Changed to "the proposed Comprehensive Plan may result in a town-wide increase in the
number of allowable housing units that could result in increased needs for community
services." Discussion followed. Third attempt"the proposed Comprehensive Plan may result
in zoning changes leading to increased density and number of housing units that could shift or
increase the location where community services are needed." Board agreed.
Ms. Hunter wanted clarification that if we have checked n/a in certain boxes, that that does
not negate further exploration of those in the scoping session and ultimate GEIS and Ms.
Brock responded"correct."
TBS 2-25-2013 6
TB RESOLUTION 2013-031 : DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -- ESTABLISHING
THE TOWN OF ITHACA AS LEAD AGENCY FOR SEQR REVIEW AND MAKING
A POSITIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Tee Ann Hunter
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2013, the Comprehensive Plan Committee, after holding
a public hearing, recommended to the Town Board a draft Comprehensive Plan that provides
a vision and framework to guide future growth and development in the Town over the next 10
to 15 years; and
WHEREAS, adoption of a comprehensive plan by the Town Board pursuant to NYS
Town Law 272-a is subject to the provisions of the New York State Environmental Quality
Review Act (SEQR) and its implementing regulations; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQR) 6 NYCRR Part 617.4 adoption of a comprehensive plan is a Type I action; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board is the only agency with discretionary authority to
approve or adopt the proposed Comprehensive Plan and thereby the Town Board would act as
lead agency for SEQRA review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan update; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board, at a meeting held on February 25, 2013, has reviewed
as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and II prepared by Town Planning
staff; and
WHEREAS, Town Planning staff has recommended a positive determination of
environmental significance with respect to adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan
update and recommends that a draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement(GEIS)be
prepared,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby establishes itself as lead agency in the SEQR
review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan update, and
BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Town Board, as Lead Agency, hereby determines that the proposed
action may have significant impact on the environment, in accordance with the New York
State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed based
on the information in the Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I and for the reasons set
forth in the Full Environmental Assessment Form Part II, and, directs that a Draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement be prepared.
Vote: Ayes- Howe, Hunter, Goodman, Engman, Leary, Levine and DePaolo
TBS 2-25-2013 7
Process for looking at the Comprehensive Plan
Mr. Engman stated that his idea is to take it section by section but we don't want to redo the
work of the Comprehensive Planning Committee so he suggested that when we get to a
section, we come prepared to ask questions if it is a clarification OR if someone is suggesting
a change, come with the language for the change to save time fumbling through verbiage. He
suggested we start with the Introduction followed by the Community Vision Statement and
the Goals and Recommendations and so forth. The Board agreed.
Agenda Item 3 Consent Agenda
TB Resolution No. 2013 -032: Consent Agenda
Moved: TeeAnn Hunter Seconded: Bill Goodman
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves
and/or adopts the following Consent Agenda items:
a. Approval of Minutes of February 11, 2013
b. Town of Ithaca Abstract February 28, 2013
Vote: Ayes Hunter, Goodman, Engman, Leary, Levine, Howe and DePaolo
TB Resolution 2013-032b: Town of Ithaca Abstract
Moved: Tee-Ann Hunter Seconded: Bill Goodman
WHEREAS, the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca
Town Board for approval of payment; and
WHEREAS, the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town
Board; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the
said vouchers in total for the amounts indicated.
VOUCHER NOS. 3354 - 3423
General Fund Town wide 54,886.49
General Fund Part Town 4,460.89
Highway Fund Part Town 35,319.33
Water Fund 11,280.52
Sewer Fund 6,271.76
Forest Home Lighting District 226.34
Glenside Lighting District 46.28
TBS 2-25-2013 8
Renwick Heights Lighting District 65.79
Eastwood Commons Lighting District 152.44
Clover Lane Lighting District 17.99
Winner's Circle Lighting District 58.61
Burleigh Drive Lighting District 61.20
West Haven Road Lighting District 188.08
Coddington Road Lighting District 111.94
Debt Service 500.00
TOTAL 113,647.66
Vote: Ayes - Engman, Hunter, Levine, Leary, Howe, DePaolo and Goodman
Agenda Item 4 Consider entering executive session to discuss the possible acquisition of
real property where public discussion could compromise the value of the property.
Moved by Eric Levine, seconded by Tee-Ann Hunter (6:08 p.m.)
Motion made by Tee-Ann Hunter to move out of executive session at 6:20 p.m., seconded by
Rich DePaolo. Unanimous.
Motion made to adjourn by Eric Levine, unanimous. 6:21 p.m.
Submitted.
Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk
TBS 2-25-2013
I
617.20 Appendix A - State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR)
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (FEAF)
Purpose: The full EAF Is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, In an orderly manner, whether a
project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant Is not always easy to
answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable. It Is also understood that
those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be
technically expert In environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge In one particular area may not
be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance.
The full EAF Is Intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination
process has been orderly, comprehensive In nature, yet flexible enough to allow Introduction of Information to fit a
project or action.
Full EAF Components: The full EAF Is comprised of three parts:
Part 1: Provides objective data and Information about a given project and Its site. By Identifying basic project data. It
assists a reviewer In the analysis that takes place In Parts 2 and 3.
Part 2: Focuses on Identifying the range of possible Impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides
guidance as to whether an Impact Is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether It Is a potentially large
Impact. The form also Identifies whether an Impact can be mitigated or reduced.
Part 3: If any Impact In Part 2 Is Identified as potentially large, then Part 3 Is used to evaluate whether or not the
Impact Is actually Important.
THiS AREA FOR LEAD AGENCY USE ONLY
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE - Type 1 and unlisted actions
Identify the portions of EAF completed for this project: IHl Part 1 1*1 Part 2 □ Part 3
Evaluation that would normally comprise Part 3 (Evaluation of the importance of impacts} is included as part of the
detailed responses to questions in Part 2.
Upon review of the Information recorded on this EAF {Parts 1 and 2 and 3 If appropriate), and any other supporting
Information, and considering both the magnitude and Importance of each Impact, It Is reasonably determined by the
lead agency that:
□ A. The project will not result In any large and Important Impact(s) and, therefore. Is one which will not have a
significant Impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared.
□ B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect
for this unlisted action because the mitigation measures described In PART 3 have been required, therefore a
CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.*
1*1 C. The project may result In one or more large and Important Impacts that may have a significant Impact on the
environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared.
conditioned negative declaration is only valid for unlisted actions.
Name of action:
Name of lead agency:
Adoption of the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan
Town Board, Town of Ithaca rs
Name of responsible officer: Daniel Tasman
iLL
Title of responsible officer: Senior Planner
Signature of responsible officer nature pf^reparer/fwdifferent)
PART 1 - PROJEa INFORMATION
Prepared by project applicant/sponsor
This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the
environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as
part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any
additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3.
It is expected that completion of the full EAR will be dependent on information currently available and will not
involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so
indicate and specify each instance.
Name of action: Adoption of the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan
Location of action: Town of Ithaca (townwide, excluding the Village of
Cayuga Heights), Tompklns County
Name of applicant/sponsor: Town of Ithaca
Address: 215 North Tloga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Business telephone / email: 607-279-1747
townplan@town. Ithaca, ny. us
Name of owner: (n/a)
^ Address: (n/a)
Business telephone / email: (n/a)
Description of action:
This project Involves preparation of a new comprehensive plan for the Town of Ithaca, and adoption by the Town
Board. The plan will replace the current comprehensive plan, which was adopted In 1993.
The plan focuses on 11 policy areas; land use and development, housing and neighborhoods, natural resources and
environment, energy and climate protection, agriculture, recreation, historical resources, transportation, municipal
services and Infrastructure, community services, and economic development, a community outreach and public
participation process, the Town of Ithaca developed a plan that provides an overall vision for the community.
Identifies Issues and challenges as well as assets and opportunities, establishes goals and objectives, and provides
strategies and recommendations for achieving those goals based on contemporary best planning practice.
Please complete each question - indicate n/a if not applicable
The scope of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Is the entire Town of Ithaca, exclusive of the Village ofCayuga Heights.
It Is not a site specific or physical development project. In the following questions, the "site " should be considered as
the Town of Ithaca, and the "project" the proposed Comprehensive Plan.
A. Site description
A-1. Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.
IE) Urban ill Industrial lEI Commercial IE! Residential (suburban)
IE! Rural (non-farm) (HI Forest lEI Agriculture lEI Other: describe below
Institutional (Cornell University, Ithaca College, Cayuga Medical Center, Paleontologlcal Research Institute),
Cayuga Lake
A-2. Project area: 17,941 acres
Approximate acreage Present
Meadow or brushland (non-agricultural): (n/a)
Forested: (n/a)
Agricultural (includes orchards, cropland, pastures, (n/a)
etc):
Wetland (freshwater or tidal per Articles 24,25 of ECL): (n/a)
Water surface area: (n/a)
Unvegetated (rock, earth or till): (n/a)
Roads, buildings, and other paved surfaces: (n/a)
Other: (n/a)
Type:
After completion
(n/a)
(n/a)
(n/a)
(n/a)
(n/a)
(n/a)
(n/a)
(n/a)
A-3. Predominant soil on project site:
Soil drainage: 0 Well drained
0 Moderately well
drained
0 Poorly drained
If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of 4,920 ac (see 1 NYCRR 370)
soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the
NYS Land Classification System?
15% of site
25% of site
60% of site
A-4. Bedrock outcroppings on project site:
Depth to bedrock:
0 Yes
Varies
□ No □ n/a
A-S. Approximate percentage of project site with slopes:0-10%
10-15%
15% or greater
81%
7%
12%
A-6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a E Yes □ No □ n/a
buiiding, site, or district, listed on the state or nationai
registers of historic places?
There are five properties in the Town listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places. There are
four individual properties and one district.
• Corneii University campus: Rice and Wing Hails, part of the Agriculture Quad, were added to the State and
Nationai Registers in 1984
• Robert Treman State Park: Enfield Falls Mill and Miller's House were listed on the National Register in 1979
• Hayts Corner Chapel (Abolitionist Church) and Schoolhouse on the corner of Hayts Road and Trumansburg
Road (NY 86) in 2006.
• Forest Home Historic District, nominated to the State and National Registers in 1998, which encompasses 50
acres and includes 75 buildings and four structures..
A-7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on □ Yes HI No □ n/a
the Register of National Natural Landmarks?
A-8. Depth of water table: Varies
A-9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source □ Yes HI No □ n/a
aquifer?
A-10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities Hi Yes □ No □ n/a
presentiy exist in the project area?
A-11. Does project site contain any species of plant or HI Yes □ No □ n/a
animal life that is identified as threatened or
endangered?
According to: NYS DEC regional office
Identify each species:
According to the NYSDEC Natural Heritage Program (specifically the New York Nature Explorer website) there
are several plant and animal species listed as endangered and threatened whose presence in the Town have
been documented. Species reported include the Southern Grizzled Skipper, which was last documented in 1970
in the South Hill Swamp area. Several wetland plant species have been reported, including three sedge species
(Glaucous, Reflexed, James), last documented in early 2000; Swamp Lousewort, last documented in 1977; and
Marsh Horsetail, documented in 1999. While exact locations of these species are not specified by DEC, many of
the occurrences are known to exist in designated Unique Natural Areas. No other threatened or endangered
species have been documented in the Town in the last 50 years. The proposed action will have no impact on
these species.
A-12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the S Yes □ No □ n/a
project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological
formations)
Fall Creek, Cascadllla Creek, Six Mile Creek, Buttermilk Creek, Enfleld Creek, and Coy Glen Creek, as well as a
number of smaller streams, cut steep-sided gorges into Ithaca's hills. The gorges are renowned for their
waterfalls, natural scenic beauty, geological formations, wildlife, and recreational value. Protection of these
areas remains an important component of the Comprehensive Plan.
A-13. Is the project site presently used by the community or Hi Yes □ No □ n/a
neighborhood as an open space or recreation area?
Numerous open space and recreational areas exist in the Town, and are described in Appendix B in the
proposed Comprehensive Plan. Current subdivision regulations allow the Town to require that 10% of land in a
subdivision be set aside as public open space.
A-14. Does the site contain scenic views known to be ID Yes □ No □ n/a
important to the community?
The Finger Lakes region is considered one of New York State's most scenic areas. The Town of Ithaca, with its
hilly topography and proximity to Cayuga Lake, has many scenic views. Important scenic vistas have been
cataloged in the draft Town of Ithaca Scenic View Inventory and Analysis Report (2012).
A-15. Streams within or contiguous to project area:
Major streams
• Buttermilk Creek (flows into Cayuga Inlet)
• Cascadllla Creek (Cayuga Inlet)
• Cayuga Inlet (Cayuga Lake)
• Enfleld Creek (Cayuga Inlet)
• Coy Glen Creek (Cayuga Inlet)
• Fall Creek (Cayuga Lake)
• Six Mile Creek (Cayuga Inlet)
Minor streams
• Cliff Park Brook (flows into Cayuga Inlet)
• Indian Creek (Cayuga Lake)
• Lick Brook (Cayuga Inlet)
• Linderman Creek (Cayuga Inlet)
• Pleasant Grove Brook (Fall Creek)
• Renwick Brook (Cayuga Lake)
• Williams Brook (Cayuga Lake)
A large number of smaller Intermittent feeder streams and brooks exist throughout the Town.
Stream and river to which it is tributary:
See waterbodies in parenthesis above.
A-16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to
project area:
Lakes:
• Cayuga Lake (±685 acres)
• Beebe Lake (majority within City of Ithaca) (±3 acres)
• ithaca reservoirs (±70 acres)
• Lake Treman (±10 acres)
Totai: ±768 acres.
State designated wetlands:
• Sapsucker Woods (majority outside Town) (±5 acres)
• Larch Meadows (±30 acres)
• Fleming Meadow (±24 acres)
• Unnamed - northwest corner of Town (±18 acres)
Total: ±77 acres.
Other wetlands (smaller than 12.4 acres): ±373 acres estimated: a full inventory has not been completed.
Total wetlands: ±450 acres.
Size (acres) See above
A-17. Is the site served by public utilities? 0 Yes □ No □ n/a
a. If yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow 0 Yes □ No □ n/a
connection?
b. If yes, will improvements be necessary to allow 0 Yes □ No □ n/a
connection?
The majority of the Town is served by public utilities. Approximately 80% of the Town's population is served by
or has public water and sewer service available.
A-18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified 0 Yes □ No □ n/a
pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-
AA, §303 and 304?
Portions of the Town have been designated as agricultural districts. These districts are located in the West Hill
and South Hills areas.
A-19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a 0 Yes □ No □ n/a
Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to
Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617?
The Coy Glen CEA, comprising 127 acres, is the only CEA in the Town of Ithaca. The CEA follows Coy Glen
between Elm Street Extension and Eimira Road (NY 13). The Coy Glen CEA and much of the surrounding area is
designated as "Conservation" on the proposed Comprehensive Plan's future land use/character map.
A-20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or 13 Yes □ No □ n/a
hazardous wastes?
Solid waste:
Two sites within the Town were used for the disposal of solid waste:
• Eim Street Extension -former Town refuse disposal site, closed in the early 1970s
• Cornell University, Orchards area - former refuse disposal site which was Corneil's primary solid waste
disposal site from 1938 to 1973
Hazardous waste:
The Morse Chain/Emerson Power Transmission site on Aurora Street/Danby Road (NY96B), South Hill, was
formerly used by Borg-Warner. This industrial site spans both the City and the Town. The New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation classifies this as a Class 2 site (poses a significant threat, action
required). Groundwater contamination by TCE, a degreasing agent, exists at the site. This contamination is
believed to be outside Town borders, but the extent of contamination remains unknown.
The South Hill Business Campus on Danby Road (NY 96B), west of Ithaca College, was formerly used by NCR.
NYSDEC classifies this as a Class C site (remediation has been satisfactorily completed under a remedial
program). A remedial investigation completed in September 2007 identified dissolved-phase TCE and other
VOCs in the groundwater beneath the site. Remedial actions were completed in August 2008. Potential
exposure to onsite contamination associated with soil, groundwater, and soil vapor has been eliminated to the
extent practicable. Institutional controls have been implemented to restrict future use of the site to commercial
purposes, and prohibit use of site groundwater without approval by the NYSDEC and NYSDOH and proper
treatment. Engineering controls have also been implemented to eliminate the potential of exposure to
contaminated soil vapors for building occupants.
B. Project description
For proposed development that is enabled by the proposed Comprehensive Plan, site specific environmental review
under SEQRA would be required, to assess impacts and provide mitigation where appropriate.
B-l. Physical dimensions and scale of project
a. Total contiguous area owned/controlled by project
sponsor:
b. Project area to be developed:
c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped:
d. Length of project:
e. If project is an expansion, percent of expansion
proposed:
f. Off-street parking spaces:
g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour upon
completion of project:
h. If residential: number/type of housing units:
Initially:
Ultimately:
i. Dimensions of largest proposed structure:
j. Linear frontage along a public thoroughfare:
(n/a) ac
(n/a) ac initially
(n/a) ac
(n/a) mi (if appropriate)
(n/a)%
(n/a) existing
(t^/o)
1 family 2 family
(n/a) (n/a)
(n/a) (n/a)
(n/a)' height fn/o/ width
(n/a)'
n/a ac ultimately
n/a proposed
>3 family
(n/a)
(n/a)
(n/a)' length
Condo
(n/a)
(n/a)
B-2. Natural material (rock, earth, etc) to be removed from (n/a)
site:
□ tons □ cubic yards
B-3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? □ Yes
a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being (n/a)
reclaimed?
b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? □ Yes
c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? □ Yes
□ No
□ No
□ No
HI n/a
m n/a
HI n/a
B-4. Area of vegetation to be removed from the site:(n/a)
B-5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other □ Yes
locally important vegetation be removed by this
project?
□ No n/a
B-6. If single phase project: anticipated period of
construction:
n/a months, including demolition
B-7. If multi-phased:
a. Total number of phases anticipated: (n/a)
b: Anticipated date of commencement phase 1: (n/a) month
c. Approximate completion date of final phase: (n/a) month
d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent □ Yes
phases?
(n/a) ^ear
(n/a) year
□ No
(including demo)
HI n/a
B-8. Will blasting occur during construction?□ Yes □ No HI n/a
B-9. Number of jobs generated:(n/a) during construction
(n/a) after project is complete
B-10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project:(n/a)
B-11. Will project require relocation of any projects or
facilities?
If yes, explain:
□ Yes □ No ID n/a
B-12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? □ Yes
a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, (n/a)
etc) and amount:
b. Name of water body into which effluent will be (n/a)
discharged
□ No 1*1 n/a
B-13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved?□ Yes □ No 1*1 n/a
B-14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase □ Yes □ No 1*1 n/a
or decrease by proposal?
If yes, explain:
The Comprehensive Plan does not recommend any changes in the area of existing water bodies.
B-15. Isprojectorany portion of project located in a 100 1*1 Yes □ No □ n/a
yearfloodplain?
According to FEMAfiood insurance rate maps, some land in the Town is in the 100 yearfloodplain.
B-16. Will the project generate solid waste? □ Yes □ No
a. If yes, what is the amount per month? (n/a) tons
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? □ Yes □ No
c. If yes, give name, location: (n/a)
d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal □ Yes □ No
system or into a sanitary landfill?
1*1 n/a
1*1 n/a
HI n/a
B-17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste?
a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal?
b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life?
□ Yes □ No
(n/a) tons/month
(n/a) years
1*1 n/a
B-18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides?□ Yes □ No 1*1 n/a
B-19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one □ Yes
hour per day)?
□ No 1*1 n/a
10
B-20, Will project produce operating noise exceeding the
local ambient noise levels?
□ Yes □ No IHI n/a
B-21. Will project result in an increase in energy use?
If yes, indicate type(s):
□ Yes □ No HI n/a
B-22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping
capacity:
(n/a) gallons/minute
B-23. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping
capacity:
(n/a) gallons/minute
B-23. Total anticipated water usage per day:(n/a) gallons/day
B-24. Does project involve local, state or federal funding?
If yes, explain:
□ Yes □ No HI n/a
B-25. Approvals required
City, town, village board
City, town, village
planning board
City, town zoning board
City, county health
department
Other local agencies
Other regional agencies
State agencies
Federal agencies
Type Submittal date
HI Yes □ No Town of Ithaca Town Pending
Board: adoption
□ Yes Hi No (n/a)(n/a)
□ Yes HI No (n/a)(n/a)
□ Yes HI No (n/a)(n/a)
□ Yes HI No (n/a)(n/a)
□ Yes HI No (n/a)(n/a)
□ Yes HI No (n/a)(n/a)
□ Yes HI No (n/a)(n/a)
11
C. Zoning and planning information
C-1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning
decision?
If yes, indicate decision required
□ Zoning amendment □ Zoning variance
□ Site plan □ Special use permit
□ No □ n/a
IS New/revision of □ Subdivision
master plan
□ Resource management □ Other
plan
C-2. Zoning classification of the site:
Land use in the Town Is now governed by a conventional zoning code, subdivision code, and other regulations
throughout the Town Code. The bulk of the Town is zoned agriculture, conservation, or one of several
residential districts permitting development in a suburban or semi-rural form. Commercial and industrial zoned
areas are limited. Current zoning as of August 2012:
\/ :v/////7//r
ij' {•lai'SiiX
MDR Ih
VH»geMC«yu!H ■ 'ft 7
iW rr-T,, 5
\ '■7:4mm
rrfUaW'
/ r-l
C
I
ToiAfffkhMI
N
0 0,25 0.5 1 1.5 2
I Miles A
IR - Lake Residential ^^5] VFR - Vehicle Fuel and Repair I I C n Conservation
LDR - Low Density Residential ^ | OPC - Office Park Commercial P - Planned Development Zones
I I MDR - Medium Density Residential | NO - Neighorhood Commerical LI - Light Industrial
HDR - High Density Residential CO - Community Commerical I - Industrial
MHP- Mobile Home Park |QJj| LC - Lakefront Commercial Cayuga Lake
MR - Multiple Residential llffljMli AG-Agricultural
C-3. Maximum potential development of the site if developed under current zoning:
Existing: 5,882 residential units (2010 Census; excluding 1,644 units (2009) in Cayuga Heights). Additional
residential units: 8,930 (2010 Residential Buildout Analysis; undeveloped land only). This does not include the
possibility of redevelopment at maximum permitted densities, or additional accessory units in established
neighborhoods.
The 2010 Residential Buildout Analysis does not consider nonresidential uses.
C-4. Proposed zoning of the site:
(n/a) The Comprehensive Plan does not change zoning, but it forms the foundation for new land use
regulations and future revisions to the zoning map. The plan recommends a new unified development code,
which to help implement the plan will likely include conventional or form-based zoning districts for established
neighborhoods, mixed use form-based/transect-based districts for areas targeted as new neighborhoods, and
some form of institutional zoning. A new land use/development code will require separate review under
SEQRA.
C-5. Maximum potential development of the site if developed under proposed zoning:
(n/a) The Comprehensive Plan does not undertake specific development projects or propose specific zoning
categories, but instead recommends desired character for different parts of the town.
C-6. Is the proposed action consistent with recommended □ Yes □ No 1*1 n/a
uses in adopted local land use plans?
This proposed action is for adoption of a new comprehensive/land use plan, which will replace an existing
comprehensive plan that was adopted in 1993
C-7. Predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a Y* mile radius of proposed action:
The Town of Ithaca surrounds the City of Ithaca, includes the Village of Cayuga Heights (which is outside the
scope of the plan), and is bordered by the towns of Ulysses, Enfield, Newfield, Danby, and Dryden, and the
Village of Lansing. The Towns of Enfield and Newfield do not have zoning regulations. Areas near the Town
boundary include a mix of land uses that includes mostly suburban commercial, residential (mostly suburban,
semi-rural and rural), institutional, agricultural, and natural (parks, preserves, conservation, undeveloped).
A vacant industrial building and site that formerly housed Emerson Industrial Automation Power Transmission
Solutions sits on the boundary between the Town and City of Ithaca. The Cornell University campus also sits on
the city/town boundary. Cornell Plantations sits on the boundary with the Town of Dryden. Ithaca Country
Club sits on the boundary with the Village of Cayuga Heights. Robert Treman State Park sits on the boundary
with the Town of Newfield.
13
C-8. Is the proposed action compatible with 13 Yes □ No □ n/a
adjoining/surrounding land uses within % mile?
The proposed future land use map designates areas along the outer town boundary as having an agricultural,
conservation, and semi-rural character. Most of Northeast Ithaca, which sits on the border of the Village of
Lansing, is designated as an existing neighborhood. More intensive development is recommended in areas
adjacent to the City of Ithaca, where appropriate. The draft Plan recommends that natural areas close to the
city line (Buttermilk Falls State Park, Six Mile Creek corridor, etc) remain intact.
C-9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how n/a
many lots are proposed?
What is the minimum lot size proposed? n/a
C-10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for □ Yes 13 No □ n/a
the formation of sewer or water districts?
C-11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any □ Yes □ No 13 n/a
community provided services? (recreation, education,
police, fire protection)
If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle □ Yes □ No S n/a
projected demand?
The proposed Comprehensive Plan may result in zoning changes leading to increased density and number of
housing units that could shift or increase the location for community services needed. As with the current
(1993) pian, the proposed Comprehensive Plan will enable development that may create a demand for
community services of various kinds. Development proposals would be subject to site specific environmental
review under SEQRA, to assess impacts and provide mitigation measures where appropriate.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan recommend additional community services as long range goals such as
those related to parks, transportation, etc.
14
C-12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of □ Yes □ No 0 n/a
traffic significantly above present levels?
If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle □ Yes □ No 0 n/a
the additional traffic?
The proposed Comprehensive Plan does not generate additional traffic. The proposed Plan recommends
compact, mixed use development that will result In fewer and shorter vehicle trips per use than the suburban
form recommended by the current (1993) plan. (See FEAF Part 2, 2-15.)
As with the current (1993) plan, the proposed Comprehensive Plan will enable development that will generate
vehicle traffic. Site specific environmental review under SEQRA would be required for new land use regulations
and development enabled by the proposed Comprehensive Plan, to assess Impacts that Include traffic
generation, and provide mitigation measures where appropriate.
D. Informational details
Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse
impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate
or avoid them.
E. Verification
I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge.
Applicant/sponsor name: Daniel Tasman/Town of Ithaca
Date: 20 February 2013
Signature:
Title: SEMinn PIAMJER. -TCMU OF \THACA
15
PART 2 - PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE
Responsibility of lead agency
General information
• 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 analyst.
• 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.
• The number of examples per question does not Indicate the Importance of each question.
• In Identifying Impacts, consider long term, short term and cumulative effects.
Instructions
• Answer each of the 20 questions In Part 2. Answer Yes If there will be any Impact.
• Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers.
• If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to 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.
• 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.
• If reviewer has doubt about size of the Impact then consider the Impact as potentially large and proceed to Part
3.
• If a potentially large Impact checked In column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) In the project to a small to
moderate Impact, also check the Yes box. A No response Indicates that such a reduction Is not possible. This
must be explained In Part 3.
Evaluation that would normally comprise Part 3 (Evaluation of the importance of impacts) is included as part of the
detailed responses to questions in Part 2.
16
The scope of the proposed Comprehensive Plan is the entire Town of Ithaca, exclusive of the Village of Cayuga Heights,
it is not a site specific or physical development project In the following questions, the "site" is considered as the Town
of Ithaca, the "project" the proposed Comprehensive Plan, and the "action: the adoption of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan.
The current (1993) comprehensive plan and zoning code are used as a baseline against which to measure impacts of
the proposed Comprehensive Plan.
IMPACT ON LAND
(1) Small to (2) Potential (3) Can be mitigated by
moderate impact large impact project change
2-1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to
the project site?
□ Yes HI No □ n/a
• Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15' □ □ □ Yes □ No
rise per 100' of length), or where the general slopes in
the project area exceed 10%.
• Construction on land where the depth to the water □ □ □ Yes □ No
table is less than 3'.
• Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or □ □ □ Yes □ No
more vehicles.
• Construction that will continue for more than 1 year □ □ □ Yes □ No
or involve more than one phase or stage.
• Excavation for mining purposes that would remove □ □ □ Yes □ No
more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e. rock or
soil) per year.
• Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. □ □ □ Yes □ No
• Other impacts: □ □ □ Yes □ No
As with the current (1993) plan, the proposed Comprehensive Plan will enable development that may result in
physical changes to the land, including grading, cut and fill, construction on slopes, and phased development.
Development proposals would be subject to site specific environmental review under SEQRA, to assess impacts
and provide mitigation measures if adverse impacts are identified.
17
(1) Small to (2) Potential (3) Can be mitigated by
moderate impact large impact project change
2-2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land
forms found on the site? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, geological
formations, etc.)
□ Yes 0 No □ n/a
• Specific land forms □ □ □ Yes □ No
• Other impacts □ □ □ Yes □ No
The proposed Comprehensive Plan recommends that development Is sensitive to and honors Important natural
features.
As with the current (1993) plan, the proposed Comprehensive Plan will enable development that may have an
Indirect effect on unique or unusual landforms. Development proposals would be subject to site specific
environmental review under SEQRA, to assess Impacts and provide mitigation measures If adverse Impacts are
Identified.
IMPACT ON WATER
(1) Small to (2) Potential (3) Can be mitigated by
moderate impact large impact project change
2-3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated
as protected? (under Articles 15,24,25 of the
Environmental Conservation Law, ECL)
□ Yes 0 No □ n/a
• Developable area of site contains a protected water □ □ □ Yes □ No
body.
• Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material □ □ □ Yes □ No
from channel of a protected stream.
• Extension of utility distribution facilities through a □ □ □ Yes □ No
protected water body.
• Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal □ □ □ Yes □ No
wetland.
• Other impacts: □ □ □ Yes □ No
The proposed Comprehensive Plan provides direction to minimize disturbance to protected areas and water
bodies.
As with the current (1993) plan, the proposed Comprehensive Plan will enable development that may have an
Indirect effect on a protected waterbody. Development proposals would be subject to site specific
environmental review under SEQRA, to assess Impacts and provide mitigation measures If adverse Impacts are
Identified.
18
(1) Small to (2) Potential (3) Can be mitigated by
moderate impact large impact project change
2-4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing
or new body of water?
□ Yes 1*1 No □ n/a
• A10% increase or decrease in the surface area of □ □ □ Yes □ No
any body of water, or more than a 10 acre increase or
decrease.
• Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 □ □ □ Yes □ No
acres of surface area.
• Other impacts □ □ □ Yes □ No
The Plan provides direction to minimize disturbance to waterbodies and riparian areas.
As with the current (1993) plan, the proposed Comprehensive Plan wiii enable development that may effect a
waterbody. Development proposals would be subject to site specific environmental review under SEQRA, to
assess impacts and provide mitigation measures if adverse impacts are identified.
19
(1) Small to (2) Potential (3) Can be mitigated by
moderate impact large impact project change
2-5. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater
quality or quantity?
IHl Yes □ No □ n/a
• Proposed action will require a discharge permit. □ □ □ Yes □ No
• Proposed action requires use of a source of water □ □ □ Yes □ No
that does not have approval to serve proposed
(project) action.
• Construction or operation causing any □ □ □ Yes □ No
contamination of a water supply system.
• Proposed action will adversely affect groundwater. □ □ □ Yes □ No
• Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to □ □ □ Yes □ No
facilities which presently do not exist or have
inadequate capacity.
• Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to □ □ □ Yes □ No
facilities which presently do not exist or have
inadequate capacity.
• Proposed action would use water in excess of □ □ □ Yes □ No
20,000 gallons per day.
• Proposed action will likely cause siltation or other □ □ □ Yes □ No
discharge into an existing body of water to the extent
that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural
conditions.
• Proposed action will require the storage of □ □ □ Yes □ No
petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100
gallons.
• Proposed action will allow residential uses in areas □ □ □ Yes □ No
without water and/or sewer services.
• Proposed action locates commercial and/or □ □ □ Yes □ No
industrial uses which may require new or expansion of
existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities.
• Other impacts: 13 □ □ Yes □ No
See (2-6 - Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns^ or surface water runoff?) on the following page.
The proposed Plan provides direction to protect surface and groundwater quality, and recommends low/light
imprint development practices. Implementation will have a positive impact on the community's groundwater
and surface water quality, compared to development under the current (1993) comprehensive Plan.
20
(1) Small to (2) Potential (3) Can be mitigated by
moderate impact large impact project change
2-6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns,
or surface water runoff?
HI Yes □ No □ n/a
• Proposed action would change flood water flows. □
• Proposed action may cause substantiai erosion. □
• Proposed action is incompatible with existing □
drainage patterns.
• Proposed action will allow development in a □
designated floodway.
• Other impacts: HI
The proposed Comprehensive Plan, as with the current (1993) plan, enables development that can change the
natural grade of land and add Impervious surface, changing the drainage flow.
The denser, more compact form of development (Traditional Neighborhood Development, or TND)
recommended In some areas will have more Impervious surface area over a development site than
conventional suburban development over the same area. However, Individual uses In a compact TND will have
a much lower Impact than for the conventional suburban development the current Plan and zoning now allows.
The compact form of TND could ultimately result In less grading, land disturbance, road coverage and
Impervious lot coverage per use over a larger area. Generally, the Impact of denser development on drainage
flow will be greater than with conventional suburban development, but that Impact Is concentrated over a
smaller area.
□□ Yes □No
□□ Yes □No
□□ Yes □No
□□ Yes □No
□□ Yes □No
The proposed Comprehensive Plan also recommends low Impact development and light Imprint development.
Low Impact development Is a design approach to managing stormwater runoff that emphasizes conservation
and use of onslte natural features to keep runoff dose to Its source. Light Imprint development Is an approach
that Integrates sustainable engineering practices and New Urbanlst design techniques, offering different
stormwater management solutions for different levels of density. Storm sewers may be required In some cases.
This contrasts with current practice of heavy reliance on retention and detention basins.
Development proposals would be subject to site specific environmental review under SEQRA, to assess Impacts
and provide mitigation measures If adverse Impacts are Identified. Projects must also conform to state
stormwater management requirements.
21
IMPAaON AIR
(1) Small to (2) Potential (3) Can be mitigated by
moderate impact large impact project change
2-7. Will proposed action affect air quality?
□ Yes IE) No □ n/a
• Proposed action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle □ □ □ Yes □ No
trips in any given hour.
• Proposed action will result in the incineration of □ □ □ Yes □ No
more than 1 ton of refuse per hour.
• Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 □ □ □ Yes □ No
pounds per hour or a heat source producing more
than 10 million BTU's per hour.
• Proposed action will allow an increase in the □ □ □ Yes □ No
amount of land committed to industrial use.
• Proposed action will allow an increase in the density □ □ □ Yes □ No
of industrial development within existing industrial
areas.
• Other impacts □ □ □ Yes □ No
The proposed Comprehensive Plan recommends a compact development form and other transportation, energy
and environmental policies, where development will have a lower Impact on air quality than the predominantly
suburban form recommended by the current (1993) plan. By recommending more walkable, compact mixed
use development In areas close to the City of Ithaca boundary, the length and potential number of vehicle trips
Is reduced compared to more dispersed, vehicle oriented and single use development Public transportation
and non-motorized forms of transportation also become more viable.
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
(1) Small to (2) Potential (3) Can be mitigated by
moderate Impact large impact project change
2-8. Will proposed action affect any threatened or
endangered species?
□ Yes HI No □ n/a
• Reduction of one or more species listed on the New □ □ □ Yes □ No
York or Federal list, using the site, over or near the
site, or found on the site.
• Removal of any portion of a critical or significant □ □ □ Yes □ No
wildlife habitat.
• Application of pesticide or herbicide more than □ □ □ Yes □ No
twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes.
• Other impacts □ □ □ Yes □ No
The draft Comprehensive Plan calls for continued protection of environmentally sensitive and unique areas.
22
(1) Small to (2) Potential (3) Can be mitigated by
moderate impact large impact project change
2-9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-
threatened or non-endangered species?
□ Yes 1*1 No □ n/a
• Proposed action would substantially interfere with □ □ □ Yes □ No
any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife
species.
• Proposed action requires the removal of more than □ □ □ Yes □ No
10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or
other locally important vegetation.
• Other impacts □ □ □ Yes □ No
As with the current (1993) plan, the proposed Comprehensive Plan will enable development that may have an
effect on non-threatened or non-endangered species. Development proposals would be subject to site specific
environmental review under SEQRA, to assess Impacts and provide mitigation measures If adverse Impacts are
Identified.
23
IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES
(1) Small to (2) Potential (3) Can be mitigated by
moderate impact large impact project change
2-10. Will proposed action affect agricultural land
resources?
□ Yes 1*1 No □ n/a
• Proposed action would sever, cross or limit access □ □ □ Yes □ No
to agricultural land {includes cropland, hayfields,
pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.)
• Construction activity would excavate or compact □ □ □ Yes □ No
the soil profile of agricultural land.
• Proposed action would irreversibly convert more □ □ □ Yes □ No
than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an
agricultural district, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural
land.
• Proposed action would disrupt or prevent □ □ □ Yes □ No
installation of agricultural land management systems
(e.g. subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip
cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g.
cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased
runoff).
• Other impacts □ □ □ Yes □ No
The current Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan, adopted in November 2011, is an appendix of the
proposed Comprehensive Plan
The proposed Comprehensive Plan recognizes and celebrates the prominent role of agriculture and farms -
economic, cultural, environmental, and aesthetic - in the Ithaca area. The proposed Plan avoids piacing prime
agricultural lands into future land use/character categories where they would face eventual urbanization. The
proposed Plan guides development to existing water and sewer service areas. The proposed Pian discourages
frontage development that incrementally consumes farmland and agrarian roadscapes. The proposed Plan
also encourages alternatives to large lot development that is now permitted in some agricultural areas, to
preserve contiguous farmland. Small scale agriculture, agritourism and value-added operations are supported.
The proposed Plan recommends a more compact form of development than the current (1993) plan. More
compact development, with more housing units in a smaller area, can reduce the rate that farmland and
undeveloped rural land is being converted to urban uses, compared to lower density development following the
current (1993) plan and current zoning.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan does not increase the area now in agriculturai use but recommended for
development, compared to the current (1993) plan. Agricultural land in the Town of Ithaca comprises about
3,400 acres. About 200 acres in the West Hill area near the City line that is now being used for crop farming is
designated as "New Neighborhood" (mixed use/TND) on the proposed Comprehensive Plan's future land
use/character map. In the current (1993) plan, the area Is designated as "Suburban Residential", with a
recommended residential density of five units per gross acre. Current MDR (medium density residential; low
density in practice) zoning in the area permits development at a density of about 2.2 single family houses per
gross acre. ^<0^
Development proposals would be subject to site specific environmental review under SEQRA, to assess impacts
and provide mitigation measures where appropriate.
24
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
(1) Small to (2) Potential (3) Can be mitigated by
moderate impact large impact project change
2-11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? (If
necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section
617.20, Appendix B.)
HI Yes □ No □ n/a
• Proposed land uses, or project components HI □ □ Yes Hi No
obviously different from or in sharp contrast to
current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-
made or natural.
• Proposed land uses, or project components visible □ □ □ Yes □ No
to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or
significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic
qualities of that resource.
• Project components that will result in the □ □ □ Yes □ No
elimination or significant screening of scenic views
known to be important to the area.
• Other impacts □ □ □ Yes □ No
As with the current (1993) plan, the proposed Comprehensive Plan enables development In some areas close to
farms, open space and natural areas; and on sloping lands where development could be visible from a distance.
More compact Traditional Neighborhood Development may have a different visual Impact (for example, a
higher amount of building coverage) than lower density suburban development now enabled by the current
plan and zoning code, particularly when sited on a slope, or viewed from a distance. While there may be a
greater visual Impact from denser development, the Impacted area may be more contained, because Individual
uses occupy less land area.
The plan recommends architectural and landscaping standards, tree protection requirements, and other
policies Intended to protect and enhance the visual quality of the built and natural environment.
Development proposals would be subject to site specific environmental review under SEQRA, to assess Impacts
and provide mitigation measures If adverse Impacts are Identified.
See responses to 2-19 (Impact on growth and character of community of neighborhood) for more about the
potential Impact of TND on community character.
25
IMPAa ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESORUCES
(1) Small to (2) Potential (3) Can be mitigated by
moderate impact large impact project change
2-12. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of
historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance?
□ Yes 0 No □ n/a
• Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within □ □ □ Yes □ No
or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed
on the State or National Register of historic places.
• Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed □ □ □ Yes □ No
located within the project site.
• Proposed action will occur in an area designated as □ □ □ Yes □ No
sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site
Inventory.
• Other impacts □ □ □ Yes □ No
Parts of the Town are designated by New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
(NYSOPRH) Historic Preservation Office as sensitive for archaeological sites. The proposed Comprehensive Plan
does not increase the development footprint in designated sensitive areas, compared to the current (1993)
plan.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan includes a historical resources element, with goals and recommendations
intended to protect historic buildings and sites, and their context.
Development proposals would be subject to site specific environmental review under SEQRA, to assess impacts
and provide mitigation measures if adverse impacts are identified.
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
(1) Small to (2) Potential (3) Can be mitigated by
moderate impact large impact project change
2-13. Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of
existing or future open spaces or recreational
opportunities?
□ Yes S No □ n/a
• The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational □ □ □ Yes □ No
opportunity.
• A major reduction of an open space important to □ □ □ Yes □ No
the community.
• Other impacts □ □ □ Yes □ No
The proposed Comprehensive Plan is expected to have a positive impact on the quality and quantity of open
space, with policies that emphasize quality, design, and social and environmental benefit of open space over
quantity alone, and recommendations that future public open space areas are better integrated into
neighborhoods and the public realm. Policies recommending more compact development will slow the
urbanization of privately owned open space (farms, fields, woodlands, etc), compared to the lower density form
of development the current (1993) plan and zoning code now enables.
Development proposals would be subject to site specific environmentai review under SEQRA, to assess impacts
and provide mitigation measures if adverse impacts are identified.
26
IMPAa ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
(1) Small to (2) Potential (3) Can be mitigated by
moderate impact large impact project change
2-14. Will proposed action impact the exceptional or unique
characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA)
established pursuant to subdivision 6NYCRR
617.14(g)?
□ Yes m No □ n/a
List the environmental characteristics that caused the
designation of the CEA.
• Proposed action to locate within the CEA? □ □ □ Yes □ No
• Proposed action will result in a reduction in the □ □ □ Yes □ No
quantity of the resource?
• Proposed action will result in a reduction in the □ □ □ Yes □ No
quality of the resource?
• Proposed action will impact the use, function or □ □ □ Yes □ No
enjoyment of the resource?
• Other impacts □ □ □ Yes □ No
The proposed Comprehensive Plan continues to protect Critical Environmental Areas. The proposed Plan does
not recommend any development or Intrusion Into CEAs.
27
IMPAa ON TRANSPORTATION
2-15.
(1) Small to
moderate impact
(2) Potential
large impact
(3) Can be mitigated by
project change
Will there be an effect to existing transportation
systems?
HI Yes □ No □ n/a
• Alteration of present patterns of movement of
people and/or goods.
□□ Yes HI No
• Proposed action will result in major traffic
problems.
□□□ Yes □ No
• Other impacts □□□ Yes □ No
The proposed Comprehensive Plan recommends that development In areas designated on the future land use
map as New Neighborhood and Neighborhood Center be based on Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND)
principles. Recommended residential density In these areas Is higher than under the current (1993) plan. Total
vehicle trips generated In areas developed as a TND may be higher than If they were developed following a
conventional suburban model, because they will Include more housing units and some commercial uses In the
same amount of land. However, vehicle trips generated by an Individual use could be lower than If It took on a
conventional suburban form, according to several studies from unlverslty-based transportation research
centers. (Asad J. Khattak, John Stone, William E. Letchworth, Traditional Neighborhood Development Trip
Generation Study, Carolina Transportation Program, North Carolina State University, 2004; Asad J. Khattak,
Daniel Rodriguez, Travel behavior In neo-tradltlonal neighborhood developments: A case study In USA, Carolina
Transportation Program, 2005; Brent Lacy, Traditional Development Trip Generation Characteristics, FLITE:
Florida Institute of Transportation Engineers, September 2005; Robert Cervero, University of California,
Berkeley; G. B. Arrlngton, PB Placemaking, Vehicle Trip Reduction Impacts of Transit-Oriented Housing, 2008;
Mark Feldman, Reld Ewing, Jerry Walters, Evidence on Mixed use Trip Generation - Local Validation of the
National Survey, paper presented to the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2010) Some trips that would
normally be done by driving are shifted to walking, cycling and public transit.
Conventional zoning In many parts of the Town allows only single family houses to be built, which generates
the largest amount of vehicle trips (9.6 vehicle trips per day, according to the ITE Trip Generation Manual) of
any form of housing. TND Includes a wider variety of housing. Including forms that generate fewer vehicle trips
than single family houses (cottages, bungalow courts, rowhouses/town houses, etc).
Increased housing density In the Town, especially In areas close to the City of Ithaca and large employment
centers, will reduce the potential length of vehicle trips, and Increase the viability of public transit. It may also
attract some residents who would have otherwise chosen to live In outlying areas, which could result In
additional reduction of vehicle miles traveled.
Under the form of development recommended by the proposed Comprehensive Plan, traffic Impact from
development will be concentrated In a smaller area. Use for use, the overall Impact of traffic from
development enabled by the proposed Comprehensive Plan Is expected to be less than development
conforming to the current (1993) plan and existing zoning.
Future changes to the zoning code and map, and Individual development proposals, would be subject to site
specific environmental review under SEQRA, to assess Impacts from anticipated traffic, and provide mitigation
measures If adverse Impacts are Identified.
28
IMPACT ON ENERGY
(1) Small to (2) Potential (3) Can be mitigated by
moderate impact large Impact project change
2-16. Will proposed action affect the community's sources
of fuel or energy supply?
□ Yes HI No □ n/a
• Proposed action will cause a greater than 5% □ □ □ Yes □ No
Increase In the use of any form of energy In the
municipality.
• Proposed action will require the creation or □ □ □ Yes □ No
extension of an 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
Compact mixed use development patterns, improved accommodation of non-motorized transportation and
public transit, green building practices, on-site energy production, will ultimately result in a decreased average
energy/carbon footprint for a Town resident.
NOISE AND ODOR IMPACT
2-17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration
as a result of the proposed action?
(1) Small to (2) Potential (3) Can be mitigated by
moderate Impact large Impact project change
□ Yes Hi No □ n/a
• Blasting within 1,500'of a hospital, school or other □ □ □ Yes □ No
sensitive facility.
• Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per □ □ □ Yes □ No
day).
• Proposed action will produce operating noise □ □ □ Yes □ No
exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise
outside of structures.
• Proposed action will remove natural barriers that □ □ □ Yes □ No
would act as a noise screen.
• Other Impacts □ □ □ Yes □ No
29
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
(1) Small to (2) Potential (3) Can be mitigated by
moderate impact large impact project change
2-18. Will proposed action affect public health and safety?
□ Yes lEI No □ n/a
• Proposed action may cause a risk of explosion or □ □ □ Yes □ No
release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides,
chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or
upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level
discharge or emission.
• Proposed action may result in the burial of □ □ □ Yes □ No
hazardous wastes in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous,
highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.)
• Storage facilities for >1,000,000 gallons of liquefied □ □ □ Yes □ No
natural gas or other flammable liquids.
• Proposed action may result in the excavation or □ □ □ Yes □ No
other disturbance within 2,000' of a site used for the
disposal of solid or hazardous waste.
• Other impacts □ □ □ Yes □ No
30
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARAaER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
(1) Small to (2) Potential (3) Can be mitigated by
moderate impact large impact project change
2-19. Will proposed action affect the character of the
existing community?
HI Yes □ No □ n/a
• The permanent population of the city, town or □ □ □ Yes □ No
village where the project is located is likely to grow by
more than 5%.
• The municipal budget for capital expenditures or □ □ □ Yes □ No
operating services will increase by more than 5% per
year as a result of this project.
• Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted □ □ □ Yes □ No
plans or goals.
• Proposed action will cause a change in the density □ HI □ Yes HI No
of land use.
• Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing □ □ □ Yes □ No
facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to
the community.
• Development will create a demand for additional HI □ □ Yes HI No
community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.)
• Proposed action will set an important precedent for □ HI □ Yes HI No
future projects.
• Proposed action will create or eliminate □ □ □ Yes □ No
employment.
• Other impacts □ □ □ Yes □ No
As with development under the current (1993) plan and zoning regulations, development enabled by the
proposed Comprehensive Plan will create a demand for additional community services.
The Town of Ithaca has a moderate population growth rate; about 0.7% per year since 1970, about 5.1%
between 1990 and 2000, and about 6.5% between 2000 and 2010. Growth Is anticipated whether or not the
Plan Is adopted and Implemented, and adoption Itself will not Induce growth. Implementation of the Plan will,
however, direct growth to certain areas.
The current (1993) plan recommends development of a lower density, vehicle-oriented suburban character,
with strict separation of uses and densities. The proposed Comprehensive Plan recommends that new
development In certain areas follow a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) model. TND Includes a
range of housing types, network of Interconnected streets, human-scaled public spaces, and amenities such as
shops, schools, parks, and places of worship within walking distance of all residences. Residential densities of
TND will be higher than the suburban development recommended by the current plan, and required by current
zoning regulations. While TND would bring many benefits, such as an expanded range of housing, decreased
dependence on cars, reduced vehicle trips and travel distances, greater viability of public transit, slower
conversion of agricultural and natural areas to urban uses, and a lower carbon footprint. It has a much
different character than the suburban form that now dominates the Town's built environment.
31
^ i f n , Of/'
..l''.-]
M. L-^^L
\ik-!
(This illustration displays the differences between the type of development now enabled by the current (1993)
plan (left) and zoning code, and Traditional Neighborhood Development (right) recommended by the proposed
Comprehensive Plan. Philip Langdon, A Better Place to Live)
The Draft Comprehensive Plan recommends form- and transect-based zoning to guide the development of new
neighborhoods. A transect-based code is based on the ecological concept of a transect; a cross-section of the
environment showing a range of different habitats. A transect-based code establishes a number of transect
zones, each distinguished by its density and shared character.
SUB-URBAN
ZONE
GENERAL URBAN
ZONE
URBAN CENTER
ZONE
n urban CORE
n ZONE
(Rural-urban transect. Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company)
A new neighborhood will include a range of transects, from those permitting denser development at the core,
to those requiring lower densities further away. Lower intensity transects at the edge of a new neighborhood
can result in an urban-rural interface - the area where cities meet the countryside - that is similar to what is
seen in lower density suburban development.
(Wedge transect Duany Plater-ZylDerk and Conipany}
Transect-based zoning also better enables agricultural urbanism, a planning and design framework that
focuses on integrating a wide range of sustainable food system elements into urban development, and provides
an urban-rural interface that better connects residents with the countryside and the agricultural areas that
help feed them.
W
(Agricultural urbanism. Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company)
2-20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy
related to potential adverse environment impacts?
13 Yes □ No □ n/a
Many residents place a very high value on open space and natural areas. Hilly terrain, Cayuga Lake, and the
campuses and land holdings of major Institutions are constraints that shape the area's road network, limiting
routes between places and often unavoidably funneling traffic Into choke points. Even small development
projects may face Intense public scrutiny for their potential Impact on open space and traffic.
Open space and traffic will likely remain as key Issues facing community leaders and decision makers while
adopting and Implementing the proposed Plan. As with the current (1993) plan, the proposed Comprehensive
Plan enables development In some parts of the Town that are now undeveloped. Development will result In the
loss of some privately owned open space, and additional vehicle traffic. This proposed Comprehensive Plan,
new development regulations, and future development projects that Implement the plan and follow best
planning and environmental practices, may face Intense public controversy.
34
PART 3 - EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS
^ Responsibility of lead agency
Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact{s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be
mitigated.
Instructions (If you need more space, attach additional sheets)
Discuss the following for each impact identified in column 2 of Part 2:
1. Briefly describe the impact.
2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project
change(s).
3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important.
Evaluation that v/ould normally comprise Part 3 is inciuded as part of the detaiied responses to questions in Part 2.
35