HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1982-10-05 1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
OCTOBER 5 , 1982
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , October 5 , 1982 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ,
Ithaca , N . Y . , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Barbara Schultz , James
Baker , David Klein , Carolyn Grigorov , Virginia
Langhans , Lawrence P . Fabbroni , P . E . ( Town
r Engineer ) , Lewis D . Cartee ( Town Building
Inspector ) , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , James V .
9 Buyoucos , Esq . ( Town Attorney ) , Nancy M . Fuller
( Secretary ) .
ALSO PRESENT : Donna E . Thomas , 323 Cascadilla St . , City
Jerold Weisburd , 167 - 1 Calkins Rd . , Town
Claudia Weisburd , 167 - 1 Calkins Rd . , Town
Stephanie Jones , 21 Midline Rd . , Slaterville
L . Jones , 21 Midline Rd . , Slaterville
Name ( illegible ) , Millard Hill Rd . , Newfield
P . Seeley , 236 Durfee Hill Rd . , Danby
Name ( illegible ) , Belle School Rd . , Brooktondale
Carrie Van Etten , Brooktondale
Doug Van Etten , Brooktondale
Joe Berrio , Berkshire
Jens Wennberg , Midline Rd . , Slaterville
Jerry Caward , Home Builders Association Tompkins
Cortland Counties , 612 W . Green St . , City
Jim Kadin , 120 Eastern Heights Dr . , Town
Eleanor Sturgeon , 718 Elmira Rd . , Town
Nancy Phillips , 167 - 2 Calkins Rd . , Town
Larry Phillips , 167 - 2 Calkins Rd . , Town
Joel Rabinowitz , 108 Hudson St . , City
Brian V . Metler , 117 Auburn St . , City
Bill Acherley , OK 100 Radio , Cortland
Jonathan Daitch , 409 Cascadilla St . , City
Frank Moon , 507 Turner Pl . , City
Michelle C . Montgomery , 413 W . Buffalo St . , City
Bion Carpenter , 1467 Slaterville lid . , Town
Arthur Howser , 1469 Slaterville Rd . , Town
Margaret Marion , 1471 Slaterville Rd . , Town
Dan Peterson , 110 Dey St . , City
Carolyn Peterson , 110 Dey St . , City
Gary Meyer , 520 East Buffalo St . , City
Jeff Coleman , 7A Park Lane , Lansing
Jaan Banes , U Hall A2 , Cornell
Pat Laforge , Cornell Daily Sun
Karen Erdman , Cornell Daily Sun
• Mark Hamblet , 401 Hancock St . , City
Julie Mandell , 317 W . Seneca St . , City
Jim Ferwerda , 127 Linn St . , City
!f f ~
Planning Board 2 October 5 , 1982
Fred Coleman , 7A Park Lane , Lansing
Bob McClelland , 808 E . Seneca St . , City
Lisa Berndt , 317 W . Seneca St . , City
Ruth E . Johnson , 611 Coddington Rd . , Town
Lynn Coffey , 125 Park Place , City
Donald Steinkraus , 107 E . Marshall St . , City
Darlene Klein , 131 West Haven Rd . , Town
Ann McCulloh , 211 Stewart Avenue , City
Doris Marion , 1431 Slaterville Rd . , Town
Mary Zichettella , 1425 Slaterville Rd . , Town
Mr . R . D . Mendiones , 1452 Slaterville Rd . , Town
Mrs . R . D . Mendiones , 1452 Slaterville Rd . , Town
Shirley Raffensperger , 139 Pine Tree Rd . , Town
George Kugler , 101 Pine View Terrace , Town
Marc Cramer , 300 Cayuga Heights Rd . , Town
Nathaleen Multari , 1430 Slaterville Rd . , Town
Joseph Multari , 1430 Slaterville Rd . , Town
Isaac S . Beer , 317 W . Seneca St . , City
Corrine Brano , 444 N . Tioga St . , City
Bob Reminick , 490 Enfield Falls Rd . , Enfield
Donna Havens , no address
Cyrus J . Umrigar , 506 Highland Rd . , Cayuga Hgts ,
Rachel Tigner , 564 Elm St . , Town
Mark Geratle , 211 Stewart Avenue , City
Jenny Horning , 1570 Slaterville Rd . , Town
Barbara A . Clark , 134 Updike Rd . , Danby
James E . O ' Donnell , 116 Farm St . , City
Norman E . Strobel , 108 Cascadilla St . , City
Lucinda Mallery , 129 Blair St . , City
Carl Wharton , 303 N . Sunset St . , Cayuga Hgts .
Thomas P . Clausen , 420 E . State St . , City
Joan A . Filler , 211 Stewart Avenue , City
Ivar Jonson , Tompkins - Cortland Home Builders
Assoc . , 612 W . Green St . , City
P . Edward Tubbs , 1465 Mecklenburg Rd . , Town
Vincent G . Hinkley , 1446 Slaterville Rd . , Town
Kay D . Marion , 1463 Slaterville Rd . , Town
Robert E . Marion , 1463 Slaterville Rd . , Town
David Ludington , 1456 Slaterville Rd . , Town
Mark J . Hamlet , 322 Siena Drive , Town
Debbie Jackson , Box 785 , City
Craig Jackson , Box 785 , City
Edna R . Clausen , 1421 Slaterville Rd . , Town
Catherine Tauber , 1427 Slaterville Rd . , Town
Ann Prince Rivkin , 1450 Slaterville Rd . , Town
M . J . Tauber , 1427 Slaterville Rd . , Town
Dan Hoffman , 607 N . Tioga St . , City
Meg Wilcox , 141 E . Spencer St . , City
Brian P . Haick , 442 N . Aurora St . , # 1 , City
Nancy Young , 809 E . State St . , City
Fay Gougakis , 100 W . Seneca St . , City
• Gary Rondeau , 167 - 6 Calkins Rd . , '.Down
Jennifer Rondeau , 167 - 6 Calkins Rd . , Town
Stephen T . Baker , 211 Stewart Avenue , City
Planning Board 3 October 5 , 1982
Gigi Weix , 211 Stewart Avenue , City
Mary Earle , WTKO Radio
Helen Mundell , The Ithaca Journal
Susan Beeners , Town of Ithaca Work / Study Student
Phil Tomlinson , 157 Chestnut St . , City
Several persons outside at open windows
Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 40 p . m . and
read the Fire Code regulations as to the number of persons in the
room , the keeping of the aisle clear , the location of the two exit
doors . Mr . May noted that the number of seats in the Board Room
had been doubled , adding that he was sorry that there was not more
room but the Board had tried hard to find other accommodations for
this meeting but was unsuccessful .
y APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . James Baker ,
RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board meeting of May 4 , 1982 be and hereby are approved as written .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Klein , Grigorov , Langhans .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
REPORT OF THE TOWN BUILDING INSPECTOR , LEWIS D . CARTEE
Mr . Cartee stated that all members of the Board had received a
copy of the September 1982 report of building permits issued ,
adding that he had no comments thereon , however , if there were any
questions from the Board , he would be , happy to comment . There were
no questions or comments from the Board . The September 1982 Report
of the Building Inspector indicated that 8 building permits were
issued for $ 256 , 418 . 00 in - improvements , as compared with September
1981 where 7 permits were issued for $ 144 , 383 . 00 in improvements .
REPORT OF THE 'TOWN ENGINEER , LAWRENCE P . FABBRONI
Mr . Fabbroni reported that the summer paving program has been
completed , citing Snyder Hill Road and Sapsucker Woods Road .
Mr . Fabbroni reported that the drainage work on Stone Quarry
Road has begun , noting that this is a part of the Safer Off - System
( SOS ) project with the State involving widening the road out to the
shoulders and .installing culvert crossings .
• Referring to park work , Mr . Fabbroni stated , in connection
with the bikeway from Maple Avenue to the railroad track , that he
is awaiting completion of the final legal details . Mr . Fabbroni
Planning Board 4 October 5 , 1982
reported that , at Eastern Heights Park , the rough grading around
the play area , approximately 170 ' x 300 ' in the northeast corner ,
has been completed in accordance with the comprehensive plan for
that Park which was reviewed at the September 7th meeting . Mr .
Fabbroni described the work done on the exercise trail at the
DeWitt Middle School .
Mr . May inquired as to how far along the Fall Creek project
is . Mr . Fabbroni stated that , with the help of the Town , SCS ( Soil
Conservation Service ) undertook that project and it is complete in
that 150 ' of retaining wall has been restored . He also stated that
under the U . S . Army weekend exercises , a gravel obstruction was
removed in Forest Home with the gravel hauled to Maple Avenue . He
added that everything fit together , even the permit from DEC for
that minor dredging . Mrs . Langhans spoke of the Forest Home
project in connection with Mr . Irving Lazar ' s home adjacent to the
Creek . Mr . Fabbroni commented that he was assisting down by the
first bridge , adding that Mr . Lazar built a retaining wall at his
own expense which is involved with the Cornell dam . He pointed out
that Lazar ' s access was in jeopardy and that is why he built the
retaining wall , adding that the Town will provide the gravel .
REPORT OF THE TOWN PLANNER , PETER M . LOVI
Mr . Lovi stated that he would be speaking to the Board , as his
report , on SEQRA ( State Environmental Quality Review Act ) ,
Chairman May announced that it was 7 : 45P . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF
ITHACA , ACTING AS LEAD AGENCY IN THE REVIEW OF PROPOSED 124 - UNIT
CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AT 1443 SLATERVILLE ROAD , TOWN OF
ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 58 - 1 - 33 . 21 OF SAID PLANNING BOARD
DETERMINATION IN RE ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE . JEROLD WEISBURD ,
OWNER / DEVELOPER , COMMONLAND COMMUNITY .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted
matter duly opened at 7 : 45 p . m . and accepted for the record the
Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of
Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on September
27 , 1982 and September 30 , 1982 , respectively . It was also noted
that the Secretary had mailed a copy of said Notice to over 40
persons who were neighbors of the property in question , persons who
had attended the June 15th public hearing , and persons who had
requested mailed notification .
Chairman .May asked Mr . Lovi to continue with his report .
Mr . Lovi stated that he was asked by Chairman May to describe
the SEQR process . Utilizing a large chart , as prepared by the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation , affixed to the
wall of the Board Room , entitled " The Basic SEQR Process - -
Implemented November 1 , 197811 , and referencing the new SEQR
Handbook as issued by -the New York State Department of
Planning Board 5 October 5 , 1982
Environmental Conservation , Division of Regulatory Affairs ( 3 / 82 ) ,
Mr . Lovi described each step , prescribed by law , both State and
Local , in detail , of the environmental review process . Mr . Lovi
made specific references to the enabling legislation ( Article 8 ,
Environmental Conservation Law ) , to the DEC rules and regulations
( Part 617 , § 8 -• 0113 ) , to the Town of Ithaca Local Law No . 3 of the
year 1980 , providing for environmental review of actions in the
Town of Ithaca , to the Town of Ithaca Short Environmental
Assessment Form , and to the Town of Ithaca Environmental Assessment
Form ( Long Form ) , Mr . Lovi described , indicating upon the Chart
and referencing the laws , rules and regulations , and forms , the
roles of the Town , a developer or applicant , the Body that acts as
the lead agency in the matter and how that lead agency status is
established , the public , and the Town staff . Mr . Lovi described
the information - gathering processes , hearings , completion of forms ,
` public input , detail drawings , etc . , as the review process is
undertaken in order for a determination as to environmental
significance , or non - significance , of a proposed action may be
made . He described the Draft Environmental Impact Statement , the
Environmental Impact Statement , Findings , all as set forth in the
State and local laws and the DEC rules and regulations , and , as
shown graphically on the chart displayed .
Chairman May thanked Mr . Lovi for his excellent presentation .
Chairman May stated that the Public Hearing had been duly opened
and the Planning Board would commence with Mr . Weisburd .
• Mr . Jerold Weisburd appeared before the Board and the
PP public
present and stated that he would like to read from a prepared
statement as well as utilize large plans , maps , detail drawings ,
and pictures which he had affixed to the wall of the Board Room ,
Mr . Weisburd read as follows :
" I must admit that there is a part of me that wants to take
all these drawings down , politely inform the Planning Board that
the project is withdrawn , and go home . "
Mr . Weisburd was interrupted by Mr . Isaac Beer speaking from
the back of the room and stating that his going home would be a
real good idea and asking why he did not do just that . Chairman
May stated that such occurrences would neither be tolerated by the
Chair nor the Board . Mr . Weisburd continued .
" Tomorrow I ' ll go off into the country and build someone ' s
Dream House . The trouble is that that dream is quickly fading as a
real hope for most Americans . Too much precious gas is wasted
driving out to the country , and open land close to town is scarce
and expensive . Few people can afford the $ 75 , 000 an average new
house costs , let alone the utility bills for heating it .
It was to address these issues that Commonland was conceived ,
and it is because of these issues that I will not pack up and go
home . Because: of the pressing nature of these problems , a good
deal of support has developed and we have a growing list of people
Planning Board 6 October 5 , 1982
interested in living at Commonland . Yet opposition is also
evident . There has been criticism from the neighbors - no one is
happy about open space across the road being built upon , but we
sincerely believe and welcome the opportunity to show that
Commonland Community will be an asset to the neighborhood ; we hope
to maintain a continuing dialogue with nearby residents .
But the other opposition we were , quite frankly , unprepared
for . We found ourselves the objects of character assassinations
and threats , and the project the object of gross exaggerations and
fabrications . We have been called ' capitalist pigs ' and the
project dubbed ' Mondo Condo ' and numerous falsifications about us
and the project have appeared in print . I do not wish at this time
to respond to that . I want simply to present this project and the
relevant issues surrounding it to the Board and the public , in the
` hope that logic , good judgement , and calm reasoning will prevail . "
At this point , Mr . Weisburd began referencing all of the
drawings , plans , details , and information submitted to the Town of
Ithaca . Mr . Weisburd used a pointer and proceeded to walk around
the room pointing individually at and speaking specifically to the
following drawings which were affixed to the walls and which form a
part of the official record of the public hearing of October 5 ,
1982 :
1 . Final Subdivision Plan , Commonland Community , Town of Ithaca ,
. Tompkins County , New York , Developer , HouseCraft Builders , 167
Calkins Road , Ithaca , NY 14850 -
Prepared by Hunt Engineers , P . C . , 126 East High St . , Painted
Post , NY 14870 -
Signed and Sealed by Robert W . Hunt , Licensed Professional
Engineer -
Engineering Drawings as follows .
Title Sheet with Location Map and Key Map .
Sheet # 1 , Final Plan East Section , 9 / 1 / 82 , Revised 9 / 24 / 82 -
including Legend with 17 items ; Lift Station Data
A . B . C . Notes 1 , 2 , 3 ; Curve Info . ; Water / Sewer ;
Clusters ; Penny Lane .
Sheet # 2 , Final Plan Center Section , 9 / 1 / 82 , Revised 9 / 24 / 82 -
including Clusters ; Abbey Road ; Penny :Lane ; Lois
Lane ; Curve Info . ; Lift Station Data E , F , G ;
Water / Sewer ; Softball Fields Community Centers New
Pond ; Gardens .
Sheet # 3 , Final Plan West Section , 9 / 1 / 82 , Revised 9 / 24 / 82 -
including Clusters , Service Road ; Penny Lane ; Curve
Info . , Lift Station Data H , I ; Water / Sewer .
�' Sheet # 4 , Final Topo East Section , 9 / 1 / 82 , Revised 9 / 24 / 82 .
Planning Board 7 October 5 , 1982
Sheet # 5 , Final Topo Center Section , 9 / 1 / 82 , Revised 9 / 24 / 82 .
Sheet # 6 , Final Topo West Section , 9 / 1 / 82 , Revised 9 / 24 / 82 .
Sheet V . Final Plan - Details , 9 / 1 / 82 , Revised 9 / 24 / 82 -
showing Sewage Lift Station ( Section ) ; Typical
Hydrant Installation , Sewage Lift Station ( Plan ) ;
Typical Force Main Valve and Cleanout ; Hydrant and
Valve Settings ; Thrust Block Details with referenced
Tables 1 & 2 ; Divisional Valve Detail .
Sheet # 8 , Final Plan - Details , 9 / 1 / 82 , Revised 9 / 24 / 82 -
showing Typical Tranch Conditions ; Water Line -Sewer
Line , Storm or Sanitary Crossing Provisions ; Sewer
Cleanout Detail ; Typical Lot Plan ; Pipe Bedding
Conditions ; Curb ' Stop ; Typical Plan Master Water
Meter Connection ; Service Installation Profile ;
Notes ,
2 . Also prepared by Hunt Engineers - Profiles , 4 Sheets , 8 / 16 / 82 ,
Revised 9 / 20 / 82 , to show transition at Stations and culverts
added ( Sheet # 4 ) .
3 . Eight Architectural Drawings , Commonland Community , prepared
and sealed by Jerold M . Weisburd , Registered Architect # 10933 .
. # 1 - - Unit Floor Plans , 8 / 24 / 82 , Revised 9 / 23 / 82 , including
General Notes ; Electrical Notes ; Plumbing Notes .
# 2 - - Unit Elevations , 8 / 24 / 82 .
# 3 - - Unit Details , 8 / 24 / 82 , including Window Details , Trellis
Details ; Kitchen Details .
# 4 - - Detail Unit Sections , Carport Detail Elevations ,
Miscellaneous Site Details , 8 / 24 / 82 .
# 5 - - Cluster Center , Main Sign , Site Details , 8 / 24 / 82 ,
including Cluster Center Drawings ; Garden Fencing ; Mail Stand ;
Gazeebo .
# 6 - - Community Center , Picnic Shed , Playground , 8 / 24 / 82 .
# 7 - - Utilities , Landscaping Site Details , 8 / 24 / 82 , Revised
9 / 23 / 82 , including Tree Detail ; Planter Section. ; Parking Lot
Curbing ; Typical Foundation Plans Unit Roof Plan ; Utilities &
Landscaping .
# 8 - - Site Landscaping Plan plus Legend , 9 / 22 / 82 .
4 . Three large photographs showing the site and the slopes .
• 5 . Three drawings , referenced above as ( 1 ) Final Topo - East % ( 2 )
Final Topo - Center ; ( 3 ) Final Topo - West , each with bright
Planning Board 8 October 5 , 1982
• green areas painted thereon depicting the 100 - year flood zone
width and the plans for same .
6 . Very large ( three drawings taped together ) Full Topo map
indicating magnetic North May / 82 and referencing Maps ( 1 ) Map
of Survey for Paul Grennell and Samuel Brewer , prepared by
George Sc: hlecht , L . S . , and dated 6 / 14 / 82 , and , ( 2 ) Town of
Ithaca " as built " maps of the sewer and water system
extensions on Slaterville Rd . , prepared by Lozier Engineers .
7 . Eight Drawings by Hunt Engineers , 9 / 82 , numbered Sheet 1 , 2 ,
3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , and showing Road Sections A through D and
Creek & Run - Off Sections . Revisions as follows : Sheet 1 ,
revised 9 / 17 / 82 ; Sheet 5 , revised 9 / 15 / 82 ; Sheet 7 , revised
9 / 17 / 82 ; Sheet 8 , revised 9 / 20 / 82 .
8 . Referred to by Mr . Weisburd , but not affixed to wall - -
Engineers Report for Commonland . Community , Town of Ithaca ,
Tompkins Co . , NY - - Hunt ' Engineers , P . C . , 126 East High
Street , Fainted Post , N . Y . 14870 - - Job No . 1104 , September
1982 - - Robert W . Hunt , P . E . , License No . 043903 - - Signed and
Sealed by Robert W . Hunt , State of New York Licensed
Professional Engineer 043903 - - 56 pages , Table of Contents as
follows :
. Location Map
Project Description
Water Supply System Design
Sanitary Sewer System Design
Demand Flow Schedule
Storm Drainage System
Highway Design
Technical Specifications
Granular Subbase
Bank & Channel Protection
Bituminous Surface Treatment
Asphalt Concrete
Ductile Iron Pipe
Corrugated Metal Pipe
Copper Tubing
Hydrants and Fittings
Gate Valves W / Boxes - Underground Service
Curb Stops
Disenfection
Testing
Equipment Data
Sewer Lift Station Pumps & Controls
Water Pressure Regulators
PVC Potable Water Piping & Sewer Force Main Piping
PVC Gravity Sewer Pipe
• Mr . Weisburd indicated those changes and improvements made to
the engineering drawings as a result of the previous public
Planning Board 9 October 5 , 1982
• hearings held ,, discussions with Town staff and discussions with
neighbors . Some examples of these changes were : gradient , road
entrance , length of roads , turn - arounds , some modification of the
ballfield , certain changes in the pond , etc . Mr . Weisburd noted
that the Town Engineer , New York State Department of
Transportation , and the Bolton Point Water Treatment Plant staff
have been involved in the roadway and plan review . He noted that
all plans are geared for the 100 -year flood and calculated to
absorb all of the watershed area above Commonland . He pointed out
the run - off patterns , the creeks , the gulleys .
At 8 : 05 p . m . Mr . May announced the opening of the scheduled
Public Hearing , as follows .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OF
Y 124 - UNIT CLUS 'T' ER RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AT 1443 SLAPERVILLE ROAD ,
TOWN OF ITHACA, TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 58 - 1 - 33 . 2 , APPROXIMATELY 45 ACRES .
JEROLD WEISBURD , OWNER / DEVELOPER , COMMONLAND COMMUNITY .
Chairman May stated that these two public hearings will be
held concurrently , and asked Mr . Weisburd to continue with his
presentation .
Mr . Weisburd continued still utilizing the plans on the wall
as noted above . . He spoke of the lift stations noting that they are
• a concrete basin which holds several hundred gallons . He described
what would happen should there be an electric outage . He described
the grinder pumps , noting that their use results in less strain on
sewer mains and the plant as well . He indicated the detail of the
entrance on to Route 79 and stated again that the NYS Department of
Transportation is the approval body and described their very
complicated set of rules . He pointed out the road contours and
described an exaggerated vertical scale in order that the Board and
public could read more easily what is going on . He described the
grade of 4 % and some cuts and fills which balance out generally .
Mr . Weisburd described the profile of the main entrance road with a
to to 6 % gradient . He described other roads , noting that one has a
10o gradient , adding that it has the most fill . He described the
fill in the ballfield area . Mr . Weisburd described the vertical
curve transition from one to the other and noted the very smooth
drive where one can see a small object from very far away . He
noted the cross section of the major culverts , the drainage
culverts , and added that they have been very carefully worked out .
He noted that wherever it is necessary to drop grade significantly
the step dams detail has been worked out and shown on the plans .
He pointed out a small dam area filled with rip rap . He described
the road cross- sections .
With reference to the architectural drawings , Mr . Weisburd
noted that they were very much what was in the preliminary
submission but that some modification had been done . He noted that
• the berm , is now a stepped planter . He noted that the interior
`square footage of the proposed dwelling units runs from 735 sq . ft .
to 934 sq . ft . ,, adding that if one calculated the square footage
Planning Board 10 October 5 , 1982
• from the outside it becomes 864 sq . ft . to 1 , 152 sq . ft . , and noting
that those might be the kind of figures quoted by a realtor . Mr .
Weisburd described the elevation drawings and noted the wood
siding , the trellises , the walkways . He described the detail of
the double frame system , noting a vapor barrier , an air barrier ,
and 16 " of fibre glass insulation . Mr . Weisburd commented that on
paper this procedure produces more heat than needed , adding that he
will be building a model unit and will monitor the heat issue . He
pointed out the kitchen detail , noting the handbuilt kitchen and
adding that the work will be done by local craftsmen . He noted the
carport details , the light fixtures detail , trash collectioon
detail , a boardwalk . Mr . Weisburd described the cluster center ,
adding that each neighborhood has a cluster center and pointing out
that there is also a community center . He described the detail of
the garden fencing , the main sign detail , the mail box detail , the
small gazeebo detail . Mr . Weisburd indicated that community
center , noting that it is 1 , 300 sq . ft , in size and is
super - insulated . He indicated the small flag tower , the children ' s
playground designed so parents can watch the children from the
center . He described the drainage detail relating to the
trellises . He noted the drainage pipes which go out south into the
existing drairLageways . Mr . Weisburd noted that the architectural
drawings include the landscaping plan . He stated that the Soil
Conservation Service through a special report he requested
recommended the types and amounts of material for lawns . He noted
the use of 400 to 500 pine trees , adding that they have a multiple
use such as identifying the neighborhoods of the clusters and
rendering an individual identity . Mr . Weisburd stated that in
addition to that he plans to put them along the property line on
one particular side ( indicating drawing on wall ) as a screen
between the road and the neighbors and also along the entrance
road . He indicated the number of shade trees in the open areas ,
adding that they are hybrid locusts and maple . Mr . Weisburd stated
that he would like to emphasize again that he is happy to talk to
the neighbors about the landscaping plans . He noted the view of
the community center , the planter boxes , the parking area , and the
picnic shed .
Mr . Weisburd described further documentation that he had
submitted to the Town Planning Board in addition to the required
completed Environmental Assessment Form ( Long Form ) . He noted the
submission of an " Environmental Review Statement " on September 10 ,
1982 which is not required but which was submitted together with
the EAF . He described the contents of that 34 - pa. ge submittal ,
which are :
" Introduction
1 . .Energy Conservation
2 . Community Development
3 . Impact on Natural Environment
4 . :Housing
5 . :Erosion and Drainage
6 . :Economic Considerations
7 . Traffic
Appendices :
Planning Board 11 October 5 , 1982
• Appendix I Map of Site Plan
Appendix II Documentation
a ) Soil Conservation Service
b ) Department of Transportation '
c ) Neighboring properties - assessed
values and lot sizes
d ) Average house prices
e ) Indications of current use of city
property and reservoir areas "
Mr . Weisburd stated that everyone was familiar with both these
submissions . Mr . Weisburd stated that he had also submitted to the
Town an Addenda to the previously noted Environmental Review
Statement , dated October 1982 , and about which he would like to
talk . The document referred to contains 18 pages plus a cover page
` reading : " Addenda To : Commonland Community Environmental Review
Statement - - The attached items are to be included with the
Environmental Review Statement submitted September 1982 . Relevant
passages are highlighted . - - Tompkins County Energy / Housing
Committee letter to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board ; Summaries of
the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council ' s August and
September meetings ; Excerpt from the Six -Mile Creel. Preservation
Committee Position Paper ; Revision to pages 11 - 12 of the Commonland
Community Environmental Review Statements Revision to the
Environmental Assessment Form "
Mr . Weisburd read the above - noted letter from Mr . Earl Brian
Arnold of the Tompkins County Energy / Housing Committee to the Town
of Ithaca Planning Board , dated August 27 , 1982 , aloud , as follows :
" The Tompkins County Energy / Housing Committee heard a presentation
at its August 12 , 1982 meeting by Jerrold Weisburd , concerning the
proposed Commonland development off Slaterville Road . Our interest
in Mr . Weisburd ' s proposal relates to our concern for increasing
Tompkins County ' s stock of quality , affordable housing and
incorporating solar and energy - conserving features into new
construction . 9[ The members of the Committee were favorably
impressed by Mr . Weisburd ' s presentation . Of course , we did not
consider the proposed project in the detail that the :Planning Board
has and will ; in particular , we considered the project ' s siting
only for its suitability for solar energy input , and we did not
address the question of the need for an Environmental Impact
Statement . From what we saw , the project exemplifies the kind of
development that should be encouraged in Tompkins County . The
concept of cluster development not only conserves energy and
materials by the use of common walls between the heated units ,
common driveways and parking areas , and common hookups to
utilities , but it also promotes a sense of community through the
use of common laundry , recreational and social facilities . By
concentrating the housing units on only a few areas of the
property , it allows the establishment of wooded and grassed park
areas on the :remainder of the property , rather than dividing the
• area not occupied by buildings into numerous small lawns and back
yards . 9[ We have felt that the development of housing in Tompkins
County has been done in a manner too piecemeal to promote careful
Planning Board 12 October 5 , 1982
attention to conservation and solar energy considerations , and too
to dispersed to support the establishment of effective public
transportation systems . We expect that experience with the energy
conservation features of these proposed units will stimulate other
builders to incorporate such features into the structures they
build , and we hope that your favorable consideration of this
apparently well - conceived development will serve to encourage more
planned developments of a similar kind in Tompkins County . "
Mr . Weisburd noted the highlighted passages from the Summary
of the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council Executive
Committee Meeting of August 26 , 1982 , as follows : " S . Egan . . . She
had thought that if there was any plan which seemed -to incorporate
a great deal of concern for environmental factors , it was this one ;
and she expressed surprise at the response it has received . Other
members agreed , " - - and - - from the Summary of the TCEMC Executive
Committee Meeting of September 23 , 1982 , as follows :
" Specifically , H . Engman noted that the site itself was an active
wildlife area , but that there was nothing unusual there . He also
noted that with the many forest and brushline ' edges ' [ where
wildlife thrives ] planned for the development , that it would likely
present few problems to the wildlife . " ; " H . Engman . . . noted that the
controversy concerning the site seems to involve a question of
values - the people using the area currently may not appreciate
others doing the same . "
Mr . Weisburd noted the highlighted passage from the excerpt
from the Six -Mile Creek Preservation Committee Position Paper , as
follows : " Development is not intrinsically evil and must occur ,
but it must be in harmony with the land . " - - quoted from Craig
Ellery Tufts , ' A Preliminary Inventory of Some Unique Natural Areas
in Tompkins County , New York , ' 1976 - - and - - " it will spell out
our position against the ' Commonland ' development " - - and - - " SMCPC
is opposed to any development on the land on which " Commonland " is
proposed to be built . "
Mr . Weisburd noted the revision contained in the " Addenda " to
the previously sumbitted Environmental Review Statement , pages
11 - 12 , as follows ; " ADJACENT CITY PROPERTY ( 4th sentence ) The
western end of. this tract , below the thirty foot dam at the lower
= reservoir , is open to the public as a recreational area . The
easternmost edge of the public area is located approximately
one - half mile :from the center of the area of proposed construction .
Because of the distance from the Commonland Community property to
the public area below the dam at the lower reservoir , the project
will have no effect on that public area . "
Mr . Weisburd noted the request for revision of the
Environmental .Assessment Form ( Long Form ) dated September 1 , 1982 ,
as follows :
• " 17 . Please add : ' Concern has been expressed by neighbors over
the possibility of rentals and the potential
effect of the project on the community . Other
Planning Board 13 October 5 , 1982
questions and issues have been raised concerning
the adjacent city property , including concerns
over drainage , erosion , wood foundations . A
voluntarily prepared Environmental Review
Statement has been appended to this
Environmental Assessment Form to fully address
these questions . '
49 . Please delete ' none ' and add :
' A project of this scope will directly stimulate
the local building industry and related trades
and businesses presently under hardship
conditions . It will make home ownership .
available to a broader population and will
y stimulate local awareness of energy conservation
and planning issues . Population may cause
increased enrollment in local school , which is
capable of absorbing it . Public transportation
route may be extended to the area . '
Mr . Weisburd stated that he would now read his response to the
Six Mile Creek Preservation Committee Position Paper which he
proceeded to do utilizing the topographical maps and an aerial
photograph affixed to the wall .
• " We appreciate this paper . First , it does say a couple of
nice things about Commonland , such as , ' we support the efforts of
Jerry Weisburd to build progressive , energy efficient , moderate
cost housing . ' Second , it addresses issues the committee feels are
relevant , and gives us the opportunity to respond . Potentially
this can add -to the information base on which the Town will make
its final determination . With that in mind , we ' d like to respond
to the specific issues which the committee has raised .
Classification of Adjacent City Land The first issue I will
address is classification of adjacent city land . There is a legal
designation under Town and State environmental law for a ' critical
area ' which may contain a wetlands , a public recreation space , a
unique area , etc . This area has not been so designated . The
Tompkins County Environmental Management Council lists the
watershed in their Unique Natural Areas Inventory . Also listed are
Linn Street Wood , Ithaca Falls , Stewart Park Wood , Flat Rock , and
more . It is clear that housing density around such areas can be
quite high . In fact , the ' 89 species of wildflowers ' which have
been catalogued and referred to in the position paper are largely
within the designated wildflower area , which is within the City
limits and directly adjacent to a dense residential area . The
issue is not designation versus density . The existence of
Commonland Community will have no significant effect on this area
regardless of its designation :
erosion , or wildlife , not on the aesthetics , human use ,
•
Planning Board 14 October 5 , 1982
The area of the watershed that is directly adjacent to
Commonland Community is in fact very pretty . But an area that has
a high concrete dam , an artificial lake created by such a dam ,
evidence of numerous construction projects , and has been clear cut
for timber certainly cannot be described as a wild and fragile
natural area - not by common sense reasoning and not by
environmental law .
Traffic The next issue I will address is traffic . The paper
states ' the entrance to the development is on a downhill slope ' and
then goes on about the dangers of such a situation , especially when
pulling out onto a highway . Since it has been public knowledge
from the time Commonland Community was first reviewed by the Board ,
that the State D . O . T . absolutely requires a relatively level ramp
onto a State highway , I am quite perplexed as to how they could
' make such a misstatement .
Connector Highway The committee suggests that Commonland
Community will cause the construction of the Connector Highway , yet
we can find no evidence in the paper or elsewhere to support such a
statement . The advocates of' the connector highway are likely
basing their opinions on studies of existing land use and zoning
and existing traffic patterns . Since Commonland Community is
completely within existing land use patterns , its construction will
not alter the basis of those opinions . I would also like to say
for the record that I am opposed to ,the Connector Highway ,
Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan The position paper states
that the comprehensive plan ' discourages development along highway
corridors ' and that Commonland Community places ' high density
development along a highway corridor ' . There are some
contradictions here which are difficult to fathom „ First , the
committee has stated that a major problem with Commonland is that
unlike the existing housing which is right along Slaterville Road ,
Commonland houses will be clustered right over the creek . Now ,
suddenly , we are spread out along the highway ! It would be helpful
if they would make up their mind . Second is the use of the label
' high density ' . I doubt if there is a professional planner
anywhere in the world that would call 2 . 8 units per acre ' high
density ' . Finally , I will quote the coordinator of the Tompkins
= County Environmental Management Council , a person knowledgeable
about the comprehensive plan . ' The Committee ' s statements that
Commonland Community was not in conformance with the county plan
were erroneous . '
Landslide Area The issue of the landslide area was stressed by
the Committee at a public forum two weeks ago as the most
important , so I will examine it in detail for a moment . The
position paper states ' Commonland Community is proposed to be
located on the top of a landslide area which is still considered to
be hazardous to the City ' s water line . ' Not only do the Town
. Engineer , the City Engineer , our engineers , and the Soil
Conservation Service see no dangerous threat from Commonland on the
Planning Board 15 October 5 , 1982
landslide area. , but I would also like to show you an interesting
drawing I got from the City Department of Public Works . "
Mr . Weisburd now referred to a City 'of Ithaca topography map ,
a big photograph , and a gully photo affixed to the wall to
illustrate his points visually .
" The other , smaller slide area is similarly protected by the
topography . "
Mr . Weisburd again referred to a big photo , a big topo , a
field photo , and a rock photo affixed to the wall to illustrate his
point visually .
" It appears that unless we are accused of having our drainage
defy gravity , this issue simply does not exist . We can only wonder
what the next ' most important issue ' will be .
Areas Erosive Force This concern of the Committee is similar to
the previous one in that it addresses drainage and ignores the
existing topography . They say , ' It ( Commonland ) will concentrate
and make more powerful the waters draining off the property and
over the ' steep fragile cliffs ' . ' It is very obvious from the
previous discussion and a quick look at the rest of the topography
over here ( indicating topo drawing ) , that all drainage will flow
• into existing rock -bedded channels by the time it leaves the
property . I would also like to quote the Soil Conservation Service
report on this project . ' If you compare it ( Commonland ) to a
situation where= those open fields are cultivated for row crops , the
potential hazard is greater for the agricultural use . ' Since for
many years and up until quite recently the fields were used for row
crops - and erosion damage from that use is quite evidentas is
the extensive use of herbicides - we can ' t help but wonder why all
this concern hasn ' t been voiced in the past .
Salting Another issue mentioned in the paper is salting . It
states that the road will require extensive salting and that ' all
of this salt will inevitably find its way into Six Mile Creek . ' I
assume they use the word ' inevitable ' because water - with or
without salt - will flow downhill . By that reasoning , the entire
watershed with its thousands of acres and miles and miles of road
will be producing the same effect , except in greater quantity . In
fact , many roads , such as Giles Street , Burns Road , German Cross
Road , and others , directly cross the creek - and are salted . The
environmental effects of all this salting may in fact be a problem ,
but surely the place to examine that issue is with the Highway
Department policy , and not by making it an issue in a project which
by its design actually reduces the amount of roads and therefore
salting by as much as two - thirds , compared to typical grid layouts .
Cliffs Another issue the Committee cites is the ' danger of the
. steep cliffs to the children living in the Commonland development . '
In fact , one member in a letter to the editor described it as a 150
foot cliff ! "
Planning Board 16 October 5 , 1982
Mr . Weisburd utilized a big photo at this juncture . to
illustrate visually his point .
10
1 . ( Photo ) Here ' s John with a dog walking on the face of
the so - called 150 foot cliff - this is by far the highest cliff
near Commonland . As you can see in these photos , the steepest part
of this \ area scales about four people - heights , or about 25 feet
not the more dramatic 150 feet .
2 . I do recognize that this is not a safe place for small
children to play . I have a four - year old , and I certainly would
not let her play there . I also don ' t let her play near roads , so
by the reasoning followed in the position paper , we also shouldn ' t
allow housing near roads . In fact , there are many steep cliffs
next to many houses in this town ( Ithaca Is Gorges ) " - - Mr .
Weisburd referenced the Ithaca Is Gorges bumper stickers and
T - shirts - - " yet by far , the greatest danger to children is public
roads . At Commonland Community , we have drastically reduced that
danger . "
Mr . Weisburd stated that he would request that the City of
Ithaca instal ]_ warning signs on double - barbed wire fencing along
their line , pointing out that such installation is at the
discretion of the City .
• " Use of Watershed by Commonland Residents The issue of use of
the watershed by Commonland residents is covered at great length in
our Environmental Review Statement , but we would like to point out
that the Committee ' s reasoning on this matter is based on three
unsupportable statements . ( 1 ) First , the notion that the
immediately adjacent area is especially wild and fragile . As we
have pointed out , it is neither , nor is it particularly relevant .
( 2 ) Second is the notion that Commonland residents would break the
law more than other people . There is no basis for that assumption ;
in fact , people at Commonland will have a deterrent in having
greenspace and recreational areas just outside their doors . ( 3 )
Third is the notion that the occasional Commonland trespasser would
represent a significant increase in the use of the watershed . The
existing use :is already extremely heavy as stated in our Review
Statement , as evidenced by the network of well - used trails , and in
the written statements of members of the Creek Committee
themselves . .) ince many of these trespassers now use Commonland
land as access to the watershed , the presence of houses will act as
a deterrent , and may actually cause a net decrease in the use of
the watershed .
Environmental :Review Statement The final committee issue that I
will address is the Environmental Impact Statement .
First , the Committee statement that an EIS is required by law
is wrong . According to the State SEQR law , both as we ' ve read it
40 and as confirmed with the Albany SEQR office , this project is not
even a Type I action . It is a Type I action by the more stringent
Town criteria - not by the State criteria - so we are already
Planning Board. 17 October 5 , 1982
dealing with something the State does not consider significant .
State law says: that any Type I action is more likely to require an
EIS than would a Type II or unlisted action . In fact , only 100 -
150 of all Type I actions reported to Albany have required an EIS ;
of those , only a fraction were for housing , and all. fit into the
State Type I list . The 14 criteria mentioned by the Committee are
simply areas that should be examined by the Town in their
determination of the impact of this project - all of these areas
have been addressed by us and / or various agencies .
We believe that when one considers the overwhelming evidence
of the environmental soundness of Commonland - the energy
efficiency , the cluster planning , the sensitive land management ,
the preservation of open space , and so on - to then turn around and
make it one of the few projects to require an EIS would be an
embarrassment to the Town .
By their own admission , an EIS would not even satisfy the
Committee . I quote from their paper , ' The Committee is opposed to
any development on the land on which Commonland is to be built . '
That certainly indicates that creating an impasse to our use rather
than assessing the impact of our use , is the real issue for them ,
and is the reason for their call for an EIS .
They are also demanding that the City designate the watershed
• area for public use , and that the Town rezone all the land around
the watershed . Are we to assume in an EIS a situation that does
not exist ?
The last part of the EIS issue ( and of this presentation ) I
would like to address is that of the petition signers who have
asked for an :EIS . My first question is , where is the petition ?
For weeks we have heard of these signatures , yet why have we not
seen copies ? All of our designs , drawings , and reports have been
available for public scrutiny for weeks . I would like to take this
opportunity to protest the fact that the petition has not been made
available to us . Even if it were to be presented tonight , we are
afforded no chance to validate it .
Even if we were to assume , however , that the signatures
themselves are valid , how do we know whether the issues presented
to would - be :signers were fairly stated ? One member of the
Committee stated in an article that we were ' developing the steep
slopes adjacent to the creek , ' and another has written we will be
producing the ' equivalent of Route 13 ' s fast food row ' , and yet
another has quoted me as saying , ' a fence is too expensive ' at the
last Planning Board hearing . ( One need only to refer to the
minutes to see that that was never said . ) If these are typical of
the public , verifiable statements made by these people , one can
only imagine what the private , unverifiable statements have been .
Actually , one friend said he was told that we were putting 750 cars
. alongside the (Jorge , Other people have asked me why I refused to
do an EIS . Explaining that I could hardly have refused to do an
EIS since I hadn ' t been asked to do one , I then asked them what
Planning Board. 18 October 5 , 1982
they thought an EIS was . Their reply corroborates what the Creek
Committee would like to have us believe - that ' that is when you
review the environmental impact of the project ' . By that
definition , we have very much done an EIS already . The public
image that the Creek Committee is trying to perpetrate is that an
EIS is the one and only way to address environmental issues . Yet
Town law , State law , what we have done , and what the Town ' s
professional staff has done , clearly show that a great deal of
environmental review can occur without a formal EIS .
When one considers that the Creek Committee has been demanding
an EIS since long before most of the environmental information had
been provided , and that they have stated unequivocally that no
development should be allowed here and an EIS on this land would be
insufficient , it becomes obvious that an EIS for the purpose of
environmental review is not the real object , it is simply being
used as a tool to achieve the real object of stopping Commonland
Community altogether . When the first ' main concerns ' of wood
foundations and nearness to the city ' s water supply were shown to
be no longer relevant , new ' main concerns ' were quickly invented to
replace them . Eventually , the latest ' main concern ' became erosion
over the large landslide area . I challenge Mr . Coleman who first
presented that concern , or anyone else in this room , to show me ,
right now , given the contours of the land as provided by the City
of Ithaca , how we can have any possible adverse effect on runoff
• going over this landslide . . . . . . . [ Pause ] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . It
cannot be shown , not by anyone here , and not by anyone doing an
EIS . An EIS is simply a ruse to delay and stop this project .
Why stop the project ? I would like to quote from the
chairperson of the EMC committee assigned to monitor this project .
' The controversy concerning the site seems to involve a question of
values - the people using the area currently may riot appreciate
others doing the same . ' We have submitted evidence and have
evidence that these people use the watershed area very heavily , and
want reassurance that only they will be able to continue to do so .
The real issue is not development versus environment , but
environmentally sound , carefully planned , affordable housing versus
elitist self - interest .
We believe very strongly that Ithaca is blessed. with a great
abundance and variety of natural spaces in the numerous gorges ,
waterfalls , trails , and creeks which abound , and we cannot imagine
a more compatible use of adjacent areas than medium- density ,
planned housing communities which within their own bounds preserve
over 500 of their area as open green space . "
Chairman May thanked Mr . Weisburd and asked for public
comment .
Mr . Jeff Coleman , 7A Park Lane , Lansing , New York , spoke from
the floor and stated that he was a member of the Six Mile Creek
Preservation Committee . He indicated that he was responsible for
Planning Board. 19 October 5 , 1982
the Six Mile Creek Preservation Committee Position Paper referred
to by Mr . Weisburd . Mr . Coleman submitted said Paper as part of
the official record of the public hearing being held . The Position
Paper contain : 23 pages , of which there are 16 pages of text ; 1
page containing a map of the Six Mile Creek Watershed Area from
Craig Ellery Tufts ' Thesis , 1976 , " A Preliminary Inventory of Some
Unique Natural Areas in Tompkins County , New York " ; 1 page
containing three photographs - - ( 1 ) The Location of ' Commonland ' ,
( 2 ) 1936 Airphoto before 1948 Landslide , ( 3 ) 1954 Airphoto after
1948 Landslides 1 page containing the July 15 , 1982 , Ithaca Journal
Editorial with. the following sentence highlighted : " This , of all
cases , is one where an Environmental Impact Statement should be
required . " ; a two - page memorandum from Dan Hoffman , for the City of
Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council to the Ithaca Town Planning
Board , and Ithaca Town Board , dated August 2 , 1982 , with the
following portions highlighted : " members of the CAC voted
unanimously to request that the Town of Ithaca require an
Environmental Impact Statement ( EIS ) for the Commonland project . " ,
and , " Later in the meeting , the CAC members reaffirmed their
request for an EIS and listed the following specific points they
hoped would be addressed by a professional environmental review :
1 . How will the project affect runoff and erosion on the . steep
slopes of the watershed , during and after construction ? Will there
be additional siltation or pollution in Six Mile Creek or the lower
reservoir ? In a related issue , how will tree and vegetation cover
• on the Commonland site be affected ? 2 . How will. the project
affect the integrity and maintenance of the City water pipeline ,
during and after construction ? 3 . How will the project affect
human use of the watershed area ? Will there be any attempts by the
developer to restrict or improve access to the watershed area by
Commonland residents or others ? 4 . If there is increased human
use of the watershed area , due to the Commonland development , how
will it affect. plant specimens , litter , soil stability , and Six
Mile Creek water quality ? 5 . Could the density of . the project be
increased in the future ? Is it possible to place restrictions on
future expansion of Commonland ? " ; a two - page letter from Philip L .
Cox , P . E . , City of Ithaca Engineer , to Lawrence P . Fabbroni , P . E . ,
Town of Ithaca Engineer , dated September 3 , 1982 , with the
following portions highlighted : " There is a possibility , however ,
that Six Mile Creek could be used as a source of public water
supply at a point downstream of the lower reservoir , such as at Van
Natta ' s dam . " , and , " From the City ' s perspective , any point at
which a drainage course crosses our water line is a potential
problem area . As stated above , our goal would be that the . rate of
flow of those drainage courses would not increase . Secondly , we
would like to be assured that no new drainage courses develop . In
addition , two other critical areas along the pipe line are depicted
on the photograph . Area " A " was the site of a 1978 landslide which
destroyed a segment of our water line . We would not want to see
any additional drainage directed onto the sloped area along this
reach . Area " B " is the site of another landslide which has been
. developing below our tunnel for the water line . Likewise , we would
not want to see this slope area aggravated in any way . " , and , " We
would take a dim view of any development of paths or other access
D
Planning Board 20 October 5 , 1982
by the Commonl. ands developer , residents or their agents that would
encourage the use of our watershed lands . "
At this juncture , Mr . Coleman introduced Stephen Baker , 211
Stewart Avenue , Ithaca City , Mr . Gary Meyer , 520 East Buffalo
Street , Apt , 4 , Ithaca City , and Mr . Dan Peterson , 110 Dey Street ,
Ithaca City , who would be assisting him in a slide - show
presentation relating to the proposed development known as
Commonland Community . A one -half hour slide - show presentation was
made for the Planning Board and public present with Mr . Coleman
reading , with the aid of a flashlight , from the 16 - page text
portion of the Position Paper described above , said Paper being a
part of the Official Record of this meeting .
Chairman May thanked the gentlemen for the slide - show
presentation and the position paper presentation .
Mr . David Ludington , 1456 Slaterville Road , Ithaca Town , spoke
from the floor and stated that he lived in the nice house across
the road as Mr . Weisburd would put it . Mr . Ludington stated that
it is not a question of the erosion from the landslides , but , the
potential for further erosion not only there but also in other
areas going along Six Mile Creek . Mr . Ludington cited a landslide
behind Bethel Grove Bible School in the Town of Dryden and stated
that the whole area is subject to landslides . He expressed concern
about what the development of other land will do to promote
landslides by eroding the present situation and enhancing the
likelihood of further landslides .
At this point in the Public Hearing an unidentified woman
presented the following proposal , in printed form , to each member
of the Planning Board and passed among the public present handing
out same :
" Proposal To The Ithaca Town Planning Board 5 October 82
COMMON PYRAMID
What is Ithaca ' s greatest resource but the myth of Ithaca
the lake , the waterfalls , gorges , and reservoirs . In essence , the
greatest resource that Ithaca has is its natural beauty and the
mystique that comes to mind when we think ' Ithaca ' .
Everytime we undermine the natural beauty of Ithaca , we
undermine our greatest resource .
Already , tourism constitutes a good part of our local economic
base - it is my belief that we should not only protect our natural
beauty , but we should enhance our mystique in order to increase the
attraction of our local area . A proposal that I am about to make
will do just that while resolving the problem over usage of the
Ithaca watershed area .
I am proposing , that an exact replica of the great pyramid at
Gizeh , Egypt be built on the proposed Commonland site . The
thirteen acre space required for the pyramid would be the
Planning Board 21 October 5 , 1982
• centerpiece of a forty - five acre ' Garden of the Spirit ' . The
pyramid itself' will be called ' Common Pyramid ' .
The entire forty - five acre site should be designated an
International Zone . Common land . Common to everyone . Common
Pyramid will be a gathering place for people of all nations to heal
and renew themselves .
I am convinced that Common Pyramid is such a great idea and
will have such broad international appeal , that the total project
can be privately funded and will create jobs for thousands .
Later , we can install a cable car that will run from the
Commons , up State Street , and to the Pyramid .
This is ,a real ' hot ' property we are talking about . It is
important that we do the right thing now . We don ' t want to have to
tear something else down , twenty years from now when people demand
that the Common Pyramid be built .
I believe in Ithaca , I believe in her mystique and her
potential to be a spiritual and healing center for the whole world .
Now , I don ' t want you to make up your minds tonight . Instead ,
I would like you all to sleep on it first , and see what your dreams
tell you .
GOD BLESS EVERYONE ,
PACO
P . O . Box 333 Ithaca N . Y . "
Mr . Joel Rabinowitz , 108 Hudson Street , Ithaca City , addressed
• the Board from. the floor and stated that he was speaking on behalf
of Ecology Action of Tompkins County and that he had a statement to
read which was a consensus position of members of Ecology Action of
Tompkins County . Mr . Rabinowitz ' s statement is hereby entered into
the record as follows .
" ECOLOGY ACTION OF TOMPKINS COUNTY
October 5 , 1982
For : Town of Ithaca Planning Board Public Hearings on Commonland
C ommuni t:y .
The statement I am about to read represents a consensus
position of thin. members of Ecology Action of Tompkins County :
Ecology Action has been impressed by the arguments both for
and against the proposed Commonland Community housing development .
We are appreciative of efforts by developers - - such as Housecraft
Builders - - to design solar heated , energy efficient housing that
emphasizes community features and open space . The design of
Commonland may well be the wave of the future , provided that it
achieves its own stated design objectives , and provided that it
does not harm or negatively impact the environment within which it
is located .
Having carefully reviewed the arguments and concerns that have
been voiced regarding Commonland , Ecology Action urges the Town of
Ithaca Planning . Board to require Housecraft Builders to submit an
Environmental Impact Statement for this project .
Planning Board 22 October 5 , 1982
• The Commonland Community is to be built in close proximity to
the steep slopes of the Six Mile Creek waterhsed , which has been
designated as a unique natural area and a unique wildflower
preserve by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council .
An Environmental Impact Statement ( or EIS ) is needed according to
the criteria listed in the N . Y . State Environmental Quality Review
Act ( section 617 . 11 ) to study , in depth , the environmental and
social impact of this development on the Six Mile Creek waterhsed ,
and in order to address fully the concerns of area residents and
the Ithaca community at large .
Ideally , the study leading to an EIS hould be made by
environmental consultants mutually agreed upon by Housecraft
Builders , the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , and any organized
groups who have a legitimate interest in this proposed development .
Lastly , Ecology Action believes very strongly that Final
Subdivision Approval of the Commonland Community , consideration of
which is the other item on our agenda tonight , would be premature
at this time . Clearly , the time for such approval to be made or
rejected is after a final EIS is presented to the public .
Therefore , we respectfully ask that the Town Planning Board
postpone any decision concerning final approval of the Commonland
residential subdivision until an EIS is completed . In this way , we
believe , the Public Interest , the Town ' s interests , and ultimately
• the interests of the developers themselves , will best be served .
Thank you „ "
Mr . Rabinowitz stated that he would like to ask Mr . Lovi , Town
Planner , if presumably a decision has not been made yet by the
Planning Board concerning an Environmental Impact Statement , if
such a decision has not been made , then why is the consideration of
final subdivision approval on the agenda . Mr . Lovi stated that a
public meeting to consider a Type I action and should it be
positive or negative is not required . Mr . Rabinowitz stated that
they were aware of that . Mr . Lovi continued stating that it is not
unusual in this case nor for other subdivisions that have been
reviewed by the Board for a determination to be made and then
proceed on to consider final subdivision approval . Mr . Lovi stated
that this is not uncommon and there not being any reason as to why
that should not be on the Agenda , it was so placed . Mr . Lovi noted
that there were a lot of people here tonight and the Board might
not get to it .
Mr . May commented that much of the material is common to both
discussions and indicated his agreement with Mr . Lovi as to the
Agenda items being the usual procedure for the Board to follow .
Mr . May stated that at such time as a determination may be made by
the Planning Board relative to SEQR , a decision whether to proceed
with consideration of final approval will be made .
• Mr . Rabinowitz indicated that that was okay and stated that
their position is that final approval should be considered only
Planning Board'. 23 October 5 , 1982
after the receipt of a Final Environmental Impact Statement . He
stated that tie would urge the Board to postpone any decision
concerning approval until an Environmental Impact Statement has
been completed .
Mr . Weisburd asked if he could respond to Mr . Rabinowitz ' s
statement . Chairman May indicated that he could . Mr . Weisburd
proceeded to respond by going through his earlier presentation once
again , using the drawings and maps also . Mr . Weisburd added that
he was struck by the similarity between the Conservation Advisory
Council memorandum and Ecology Action ' s statement . Mr . Weisburd
reminded Mr . Rabinowitz that Ecology Action had guaranteed him that
their ( Ecology Action ) questions and concerns would be stated
directly to them ( Weisburd ) . Mr . Weisburd stated that one of the
founders of Ecology Action wrote the Conservation Advisory Council
memo . Mr . Weisburd stated that there were definite political ties
with the Creek Committee and cited the common use by the three
position papers of the term " steep slopes " , as an example . Mr .
Weisburd expressed his opinion that it was simply ludicrous that
groups such as Ecology Action , the Conservation Advisory Council ,
the Community Self - Reliance Center , all supportive of solar energy
systems , to actively oppose his project . Mr . Weisburd repeated
that the demand for an EIS is not for the purpose of
information -gathering but for the purpose of stopping Commonland
altogether .
Mr . Rabinowitz stated that many members of Ecology Action
attended the public forum on Commonland on September 20 , 1982 where
the various views were aired in a fair format . Mr . Rabinowitz
stated that it was on this basis that they had their meeting
( Ecology Action ) , adding that they had a very difficult time
reaching consensus .
Mrs . Claudia Weisburd stated that Mr . Rabinowitz was not at
the meeting where it was discussed whether the public forum was
going to be a basis for an Ecology Action decision and where the
developers offE: red to meet with Ecology Action in order to discuss
with them directly their concerns .
Mr . Brian Pitnick , 442 North Aurora Street , Apt . # 1 , Ithaca
City , spoke from the floor and stated that he was a law student at
the Cornell University Law School , Mr . Pitnick stated that he had
prepared a Brief which he asked be entered into the record and
copies of which he distributed to the Board . Mr . Pitnick ' s Brief ,
hereby forming a part of the official record of this meeting , is
entitled " MEMORANDUM OF LAW : Authorities Requiring an
Environmental Impact Statement for the Commonland Development " , by
Brian J . Pitnick , Cornell Environmental Law Society , October 4 ,
1982 , and contains 11 pages of text .
Mr . Pitnick stated to the Board that an Environmental Impact
. Statement is required if there are many substantive questions about
a proposal . Mr . Pitnick stated that there should not be that much
Planning Board 24 October 5 , 1982
• more to do as it seems that Mr . Weisburd has done a lot . Mr .
Pitnick asked that the Board let everyone be involved .
Mr . Buyoucos inquired of Mr . Pitnick how he would expect
people to be :more involved . Mr . Pitnick stated that everyone has
had a chance to review the plans and proposals , adding that he
thought there were enough people here at this meeting who may not
have seen therm and who would want to review these matters . Mr .
Pitnick noted that the Environmental Review Statement submitted by
Mr . Weisburd :is substantial and there are eight or nine pages on
drainage in reports and drawings . Mr . Pitnick stated that people
are still skeptical and it is through the Environmental Impact
Statement mechanisms that substantive questions can. be answered .
Mr . Pitnick stated that time is an issue and timing has not really
been discussed . Mr . Pitnick asked how much should be done this
Fall , or , should the developer be required to put off everything
until next Spring .
Mr . Buyoucos asked Mr . Pitnick if he thought that there are
some substantive questions which have not been answered and , if so ,
what are they . Mr . Pitnick replied that he thought there were such
questions and one was the significance of the watershed . Mr .
Pitnick stated that he was not convinced that the landslide issues
and erosion have been settled , adding that they cannot be settled
without the submission of an Environmental Impact Statement .
iMr . Dan Peterson , 110 Dey Street , Ithaca City , spoke from the
floor and stated that he would like to present the following letter
on behalf of Charles R . Smith , Ph . D . , Director of Public Education
for the Cornell University Laboratory of Ornithology , 159 Sapsucker
Woods Road , Mr . Peterson read the letter as follows and asked that
it be entered :into the record .
" 5 October 1982
To Whom It May Concern :
I have had the opportunity to read parts of two documents , the
" Commonland Community Environmental Review Statement " and the " Town
of Ithaca Environmental Assessment Form " . The information
contained in those two documents is completely inadequate to serve
as a basis for an assessment of any potential effects upon native
plants and wildlife , particularly birds , occurring in the area of
the planned development . A thorough and detailed environmental
assessment should be concluded before further development of the
site is considered . Such an assessment should include at least a
listing of plant and animal species which occur in the area and
explicit consideration of the effects of surface run - off of water
from the site upon Six Mile Creek . "
Mr . Isaac Beer , 317 West Seneca Street , Ithaca City , spoke
• from the floor and stated that the Board should note the hostility
of the public at large with regard to this development . Mr . Beer
noted that the Town Hall Meeting Room was not large enough to hold
Planning Board 25 October 5 , 1982
all the people and indicated that that was just an excuse to keep
people away because he could find the Board a big enough room if
they wanted it . Mr . Beer stated that the last time he was here a
number of issues were discussed and the public was handed an
Environmental Assessment Form which was a piece of trash and
clearly showed the attitude of the developer toward the people .
Mr . Beer stated that the Board also looked at this and did more
homework . Mr . Beer spoke of the developer as knowing nothing about
the area he i " building on . Mr . Beer spoke harshly about the Town
Engineer and his disregard for the reservoir . Mr . Beer stated that
he did not support the statements of the developer that he is
building energy - efficient housing for low and moderate income
people because that was just a ploy to make the Slaterville Road
people look bad . Mr . Beer said that he knew all along that the
project was not for low income people , pointing out that the EAF
• submitted after the first meeting now shows medium and high income ,
grad students and families . Mr . Beer spoke about statements in Mr .
Weisburd ' s Environmental Review Statement , referring to the
development being on an average comparable to the local residences
which , Mr . Beer indicated , are moderate to high income . Mr . Beer
stated that had Mr . Weisburd said that earlier the public would
have taken him more seriously . Mr . Beer stated that now Mr .
Weisburd had forgotten all about low income people . Mr . Beer
severely chastised the developer for all his misleading statements
only in order to make millions of dollars from this project . Mr .
Beer repeated that the project is going to make millions for the
developer who is only interested in the usual profit and loss
aspects . Mr . Beer indicated his annoyance with the developer
calling the people elitist when in fact he is the elitist and
concluded that the whole matter is a farce and really has nothing
to do with the watershed area , only money .
Mr . Jonathan Daitch , 409 Cascadilla Street , Ithaca City , spoke
from the floor and stated that he is a member of the public at
large and is not hostile toward Mr . Weisburd ' s facilities which
should be labelled decent housing within the urban limits of our
community . Mr .. Daitch noted the vast amounts of information and
submittals made by Mr . Weisburd which go way beyond what is
required of a developer . Mr . Daitch spoke of the ownership and
energy - efficient aspects of the development and concluded by
• stating that he is in support of what Mr . Weisburd wants to do .
Mr . Stephen Baker , 211 Stewart Avenue , Ithaca City , spoke from
the floor of a lot of information that the public has received in
the way of dEa. scribing the project but . not the environmental
hazards . He stated that all the information should be labelled a
sales pitch , if not something else .
Mr . Baker stated that he had the previously - mentioned petition
in hand to present to the Board , indicating that there were 806
signatures on the petition and which , he quoted , is titled " Save
• the Natural Beauty of Six Mile Creek " , and which , he quoted , reads :
" We , the undersigned , firmly oppose the construction of the 124
unit Commonland housing development that has been proposed for the
Planning Board 26 October 5 , 1982
• site north of and adjacent to , the Ithaca Watershed on Six Mile
Creek . We believe that this project endangers the ecological
balance and natural beauty of this area . "
Mr . Weisburd repeated his previous statement questioning the
manner in which the petition may have been presented by the group
to people for signing , wondering what they said , what comments they
made , if they indicated who they were .
Mr . Baker continued and stated that for those people who were
not willing to sign the primary petition , they had a secondary
petition signed by 23 persons which he would enter into the record .
Mr . Baker read the secondary petition , entitled as follows :
" Demand For an. Environmental Impact Statement " , and which reads as
follows : " We , the undersigned , demand that an environmental impact
statement be required before the Ithaca Town Board further
considers the Commonlands Community Development . "
Mr . Baker referred to a letter from the City Engineer to Mr .
Fabbroni dated September 3 , 1982 . Mr . Baker stated that he would
like to know how the engineer is engineering the water to
impervious surfaces without increasing run - off . Mr . Baker
expressed his concerns with the sewage capacity , describing the
normal usage of water for an individual as being 50 gallons per day
or 200 gallons a day for the average family of four , and wondering
how that usage! fits into the possibility of a power - out of more
than one day and the effect of that on the eight lift stations .
Mr . Baker also expressed his concerns as to how big the pine trees
are that are going to be planted on the site .
Mr . Buyouc: os , speaking to Mr . Baker , stated that he had stated
that " we " are circulating a petition , and asked Mr . Baker who " we "
are . Mr . Baker replied that they are the Six Mile Creek
Preservation Committee , Mr . Baker stated that the Committee is
also concerned with the sewage , with the capacity of the lift
stations relative to the 200 gallons per day per family or 50
gallons per day per person and the treatment capacity for same . He
noted that most of the development ' s water consumption goes to
sewage . Mr . Buyoucos indicated that he understood Mr . Baker ' s
concerns , indicating that they were the engineering capacity of the
• sewage and also the pine trees to be planted .
Mr . Francis Moon , 507 Turner Place , Ithaca City , spoke from
the floor and stated that he did not have any particular criticism
of the project per se if it were some place else . He stated that
the question has to do with planning and the future environment
around the City and the Town . Mr . Moon described how 100 years ago
the citizens were sensitive to their beautiful surroundings , citing
as an example the Treman family and their donations of land to the
public . Mr . Moon spoke of several unprotected gorges and pointed
out that many people thought that Fall Creek was protected and now
• are shocked to find that a developer from another state is seeking
to develop a power station on Fall Creek in the City . Mr . Moon
spoke of protection for Six Mile Creek and the possibility for 500
Planning Board 27 October 5 , 1982
acres of land to be developed . Mr . Moon stated that he was not
saying that we do not need housing , but the point is that each
generation has an opportunity to pass on to the future . He asked
the Board not to take actions that preclude a long - range study of
the land use , citing as an example , Six Mile Creek , Coy Glen , etc .
Mr . Moon stated that the issue is not the Environmental Impact
Statement , it really is what are we going to pass on to the next
generation in the 21st century . He asked , is it. going to be
" Ithaca Was Gorges . " ? Mr . Moon stated that he hoped we can say ,
" Ithaca Is Gorges . " Mr . Moon stated that there is a plan and the
Planning Board should look at the long term choices and not just
satisfy an Environmental Impact Statement ,
Mr . Robert E . Marion , 1463 Slaterville Road , Ithaca Town ,
spoke from the! floor and requested the opportunity to speak to the
Ithaca Town Planning Board . Chairman May indicated that the Board
would be pleased to hear his comments . Mr . Marion stated to the
Board that he would like to know and have verification on the fact
that Mr . Weisburd has 2 . 8 housing per acre on a 45 - acre site when
so much per acre is in his ( Weisburd ' s ) drainage and undeveloped
and open space and has been considered totally for the 2 . 8 per acre
development . Mr . Marion continued and stated that in regard to
that he would like to have the Town Planning Board receive in the
Minutes the letter that was sent to the members of the Board that
he and his wife wrote to Mr . Weisburd on behalf of his density ,
• drainage and roadways . The letter referred to by Mr . Marion was
also sent to the Town Engineer with the following cover letter
attached : - " Mr . Fabbroni , We received an answer to our letter to
Mr . & Mrs . Weisburd last Friday . This is a copy of our answer to
his reply . We would appreciate it if you would read it and keep it
with your records . Thank you , Bob & Kay Marion . " The letter
reads : -
" October 4 , 1982
Dear Mr . & Mrs . Weisburd ,
We hope this will not be too fast an answer in sacrifice of
communication and clarification of our thoughts and concerns , but
we are trying to get an answer to you before the Town Board meeting
tomorrow night .
We appreciate your answer to our letter , the time that it took
you and the fact that you recognized our time taken in writing to
you . Because of previous commitments for the weekend we have not
had a chance to discuss any of your letter with the neighborhood
therefore this answer is strictly from us .
As to the neighbors wanting to have access to Commonland
facilities we would not know how much that might be . The neighbors
have enjoyed walking the area , but whether they would want to do it
as an inhabited people area and not just animal , we don ' t know .
Our desires as to the ballfield and community would have to come
after we knew someone and was invited by them to participate ,
Planning Board 28 October 5 , 1982
otherwise we would respect their rights and property by staying
away . And as we wrote we do have 3 churches , a community house and
we neglected 1 nursery or day care school which makes 2 within
approximately 2 miles . Also we are all involved in Bob ' s blind
ball games and, girls softball .
Overall density is still a big disagreement with us since we
don ' t feel that the ravine and back wood area or the wet areas
should have been considered residential in zoning and thereby
allowing you -the density that you could put in by multi - dwelling
and locating next to the neighbors where the land was usable . This
then takes away from the country atmosphere of quietness , nature
visibility and usability . This has been extremely important since
the neighbors have had close lots and Slaterville Road traffic and
your traffic will go to this one side . We feel that this is still
important even if it does increase the prices on your homes . We
are glad you are looking into the traffic problems and not leaving
it for the inhabitants and users of the highway .
Too many people think they should be able to have the luxuries
they left home with and more without working the 20 , 30 or 40 years
it took their parents to get them . We had worked approximately 15
years each before we started building our house , we drew up our own
plans and we are building it ( this fall we are trying to get closet
doors on ) ourselves as much as possible . We did have some relative
help for the :first couple of years , a day of church help , some
final hiring on the electrical and hiring on the garage for extra
hands . We have also tried to do this without interest buying , if
we don ' t have the money we can wait . The Luddingtons have not made
this their first house either right out of college or without some
do - it - yourself effort . Dave does both plumbing and electrical work
and all the family worked on the finishing work . Both. Bob and Dave
have worked on their church addition and now parsonage volunteer .
Have you considered letting your buyers do some of their finishing
work on the inside where it wouldn ' t affect the outside community
association ?
Since we have seen your Inlet Valley homes , we think we
understand your layout and design look quite well . Since we are
elevated above you with this downhill slope , and a boundary close
• to what recreational safety area we thought we had with more
possible wet area next to it , and have appreciated it for its
quietness , animals and tree beauty both here and going across to
the Coddington Road hillside these are still what we feel to be our
concerns . We feel evergreen trees would hold the water too much
and would probably grow too high at the point you would be putting
them . Unless you are planning to put in 6 ' high hedges that don ' t
hold water , but would be in a solid fence to stop the deer from
getting in our gardens - - far more now that you cut down their food
supply , then there is little advantage we feel to them for their
cost . We would hope we wouldn ' t have to want to keep people out .
• Are you planning to fence in your gardens or warn your buyers ?
This is the worst we have had it for our garden , even broccoli ,
Planning Board 29 October 5 , 1982
cauliflower and tomatoes , besides the greens , and the raccoons were
out to get the corn . Our neighbors said it was the worst in 35
years . There are also the rabbits , woodchucks , squirrels and
pheasants around besides the skunks we smell at night . Luckily we
haven ' t met up with them . We have left the animals the woods , but
will your inhabitants .)
If you are not planning to move the road and taking it a
little more away from the base of the slope , how are you planning
to move the ditch water , that would come from the land below
Slaterville Rd . , over to the culverts that take the water from
above Slaterville Rd . ?
As for noise , it travels well around here . You folks have
probably heard the noon church music . We hear Cornell ' s PA system
real well , music from the Creek area and even some of Ithaca
College ' s noise . If it is cold and we are inside all shut up this
isn ' t much problem or as much of it then . When it is warm , we are
not inside or at least not shut up . Are you going to have limits
on the nighttime hours at the Community Center in terms of noise
coming from there or people returning quietly and in small groups ?
Some of these neighbors already know what it is like to wake up in
the middle of the night because someone is walking by their
property and is not considerate enough to do it quietly . Right now
we don ' t appreciate the looks of the brush piles , but at least they
• aren ' t noisy .
Claudia , :you didn ' t answer any description of how your New
York community was or what it was made up of . We know of Senior
Citizen apartment and trailer housings with common facilities , but
not necessaril, other age brackets . Would younger people want to
stay in community setups for • a number of years to make it more
worthwhile than renting if there are many restrictions on them ?
It is our understanding that you are planning to start with
construction of Cluster A nearest the Slaterville end of the
development . Would it be too much to ask of you to start with the
developing of the clusters at the end of Lois Lane and nearest your
community center and then go to Cluster C for your first wooded
area . These would be nearest your center and also farthest from
the neighbors . This would give you a good chance to see how the
demand would be with hopefully the least disruption to the
neighborhood . It would also seem not overly unreasonable to cut
back on even one unit next to Abbey Lane ( Ithaca side ) so the lane
could be moved more East and a little farther from that neighbor as
long as you are also going behind that lot too .
Something you might want to relay to the DOT when working on
the road is whether a sign relating to slipperyness should be put
up or also possibly something relating to your development traffic .
A school bus driver , who is still driving , told us a long time ago
that she didn ' t like driving this road because of it being slippery
and treacherous in spots . In other words she didn ' t feel it was
consistent . I have wondered if water in certain ditch areas tended
Planning Board 30 October 5 , 1982
to make it more slippery in spots as with I - 81 and its bridge
areas . Accidents do happen at dry times too though the car that
totaled in the ditch next to us rather than hit us - - the driver
said because of the dip in the road toward Slaterville that they
only saw the top of our car and not the turning signal until it was
too late to stop so they tried going around us .
As we stated earlier , we do not feel that this land was
properly zoned to be putting housing in the ravine or wet areas and
because of this 124 units should not have been allowed for this
land legally and should not be environmentally on just a portion of
it . If after tomorrow night ' s meeting you want to contact us any
• further on what we have written to meet with us individually or as
a group , that we be left to you for now .
It was easier taking the bulldozer at 9 A . M . rather than 7
A . M . last Saturday .
As we are trying to relate , our biggest concerns beyond the
responsibilities of you developers and the town for the building &
land construction and traffic safety , and of equal importance , is
for neighborhood draining , noise and neighborhood respect ( on our
side too to you ) , animal environment and our scenic, view to the
other hill . Even if this means a raise in your production cost , we
do not feel it is too much to expect your buyers to have to work at
what they are! able to live with and thereby maybe be more
• appreciative of: it as perhaps their parents had to do and as we do .
Sincerely ,
Bob & Kay Marion .
cc . Larry Fabbroni . "
Mr . Fabbroni stated that he would have a more formalized
statement after the public comment period , however at this juncture
he would like to point out that , as staff fits both to public and
interested parties , staff has to comment , for sure , on the Position
Paper of the Six Mile Creek Preservation Committee , and what he
would call , at least , inane , some statements therein contained .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that there has been much talk about the
comprehensive plan and the Town ' s lack of vision . Mr . Fabbroni
noted that it is a fact that this land which is under consideration
tonight is included in all three schemes that the County Planning
Department came up with under their selective communities pattern ,
planned sprawl development , or linear corridor development . Mr .
Fabbroni stated that this is a residential area contained in all
plans for development .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that it is also a fact that since 1976
there has been in place the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Park and
Open Space Plan whereby the Town calls for systematic development
• of Town parks - - area parks , pocket parks , regional parks , etc .
Mr . Fabbroni described the Park and Open Space Plan as a
comprehensive document with vision for the future . Mr . Fabbroni
Planning Board 31 ' October 5 , 1982
stated that the Six Mile Creek Preservation Committee referred to
only two greenbelts , Buttermilk and Six Mile , as remaining
resources . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he thought they forgot the
following greenbelts in the Town of Ithaca - - Fall Creek , Beebe
Lake , Lick Brook , Cascadilla , Williams Glen , South Hill Swamp ,
Bikeways , Inlet Valley , Circle Greenway , and Coy Glen . Mr .
Fabbroni noted that there was a great deal of effort put into Coy
Glen preservation without their support , and it fell on deaf ears .
Mr . Fabbroni ,stated that , in fact , the Town Board ' s only option
then was to designate Coy Glen a Critical Area , noting that the
Town was one of the first municipalities to do so in the State of
New York , and adding , probably one of the first five areas to
designate a critical area . Mr . Fabbroni stated that those
interests of City and area people in the Six Mile Creek corridor
would be better pursued with the City of Ithaca . Mr . Fabbroni
stated that Lick Brook also got a lot of study and is shelved
largely because of our failure in Coy Glen .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that there is a comprehensive plan for
park and open space sufficient to serve the Town . He stated that
this particular site , Commonland , is not included in there as
preservation .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that landslides are common to the whole of
the Six Mile Creek corridor but none has had the catastrophic
• effects it is suggested would happen with the development , adding ,
in fact some farther toward the City below the 30 - foot dam are on
fully wooded slopes and almost unnoticeable except by a terrace .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that much has been said of the letters that are
from the Conservation Advisory Council and from the City Engineer ,
however , the letter which he wrote in between these two to Philip
Cox , City Engineer , has not been mentioned . Mr . Fabbroni stated
that very specific questions were asked to clarify CAC concerns
raised which largely the City itself controls , and , very specific
answers were supplied by the City .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that the slide show largely involved the
area below the slope washout of 1978 . Referring now to the 1948
landslide , Mr . Fabbroni stated that after the 1948 landslide the
City went to -the Marions , who controlled the land ,, and bought
additional land to protect , terrace , and revegetate the slope . Mr .
Fabbroni stated that now the City controls not only the ridge but
also down to the bottom of the whole slide . He stated that the
City did extensive regrading - - terracing - - sound land management
ways and noted that that major slope has not sustained any unstable
movement since 1948 .
Referring once again to the 1978 main break , Mr . Fabbroni
stated that it was his understanding that the 1978 main break
occurred at a point supported by strung cable attached to a dead
tree stump , adding that the area gave way , the City did the best
• job they could on a steep slope . Mr . Fabbroni noted that this is
just east of a tunnel area . Mr . Fabbroni stated that this washout
is in an area isolated from the development in question by the
Planning Board 32 October 5 , 1982
topography . Ile pointed out that the waterline is tunnelled under a
ravine that is rock lined west of the point where the washout
occurred . Mr ., Fabbroni stated that it is true that the bare slope
left by the 1978 corrective work is a very erodable slope and noted
that the channel , a picture of which was shown , with sound
planning , could be restablized . Mr . Fabbroni stated that at this
point in time , by their own words , the City is not concerned about
that area .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that there is no way by which runoff from
Commonland can reach the area of the 1948 slide or the 1978
washout . He pointed out that the 1948 slide has been terraced 12 '
• to 14 ' wide in. three or four plateaus . He stated that there is no
evidence of creeping .
Mr . Fabbroni stated , in view of this , then the issue becomes -
how does Commonland relate to the other unstable slope ? He
queried , if it were to give away , adding , a big if , would the
development go toppling over the slope ? - would they be on the
edge ? - would -the precipice and the indicated 10 units , 200 feet to
the edge of this slide , be in unreasonable danger of undermining ?
Mr . Fabbroni stated that City observation of this by an employee of
thirty some years is that this area has not progressed in sliding
off , adding that the City is not sure where the tunnel by a series
of primitive , amazing methods goes under this slope . Mr . Fabbroni
stated . that , again by their own words , the City observes the
happenings in that area four times a year . Mr . Fabbroni stated
that the over ,- 30 - year - man is not terribly concerned about this
slope and points out that the pipe will go long before working back
the 200 feet to the site .
Mr . Fabbroni stated beyond that , drainage , he would propose ,
in terms of the subdivision , is a simple matter - - to put positive
drainage by way of a very slight diversion ditch bringing water to
drainage area east of the unstable slope last discussed . He
pointed out that there is a very defined drainageway for about 30
feet , after which property progressively spreads out drainage on a
steep rock - lined slope as one goes down . Mr . Fabbroni commented
that excess rock seems to have been used from tunnel operation . He
stated that , when you consider localized drainage area , it is an
extremely remote possibility that a drop of water from the
development will get to the unstable slope and aggravate washing .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that surcharge conditions are possible , but the
basic reason for landslides is slope that was left is not
sufficient to hold it over time . He stated that the 200 feet of
distance to progress to nearest point of the site is many , many
times that observed over a thirty - year period .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that the natural drainage areas are many
for Commonland , but there are three major drainage ways . He stated
that the first on the west end is reached by waterways intermixed
with knolls . He stated that they combine at wood fringe of site ,
all converging where the waterway becomes rock - lined by a natural
process . He added that banks have established themselves with
Planning Board 33 October 5 , 1982
mature growth ,. Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that below the site the
bottom is a bedrock bottom in places . He stated that finally this
waterway enters into reservoir area near the dam . He stated that
there is no discernible sign of siltaic action even from the 1976
flood event . Mr . Fabbroni commented that everyone remembers the
October 1981 flooding , however , the 1976 event created extreme
erosion in finger streams for a 23�2 - hour period , adding that that ,
of all the streams , is what you might call the most rock - lined and
least rock bottomed .
Mr . Fabbroni noted that , east of the 1948 area and west of the
other sensitive area , is a second rock bottomed stream . He stated
• that the watermain goes under the first creek and is not even
visible , noting that it is tunnelled in the first ( westernmost )
stream . He stated that the watermain is exposed over the second
creek , spanned between two concrete bulkheads , adding that there is
no evidence that it has recently been hit or might have been ever
broken at this point . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the assurances that
the City Engineer is looking for is the satisfaction that controls
would limit runoff to the capacity of the cross - section below this
pipe span . He pointed out that that stream drains the whole middle
of the site . Mr . Fabbroni stated that , once on the site , the
waterways are grass bottomed .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that on - site , he would say definite means
are possible to prevent erosion cutting through the grass and soil ,
. such as check dams . He stated that where you have so many
drainageways you build check dams . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that
erosion starts and the only place it stops is when you hit the
rock , without check dams . Mr . Fabbroni added that it is just as
equally possible to keep it from ever starting .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that the third major drainageway , which
drains the whole eastern end , involves five or six drainageways on
the site , as Mr . Fabbroni showed on the floodway map on the wall .
He stated that it is a rock bottom creek on City land . He pointed
out that you can walk up a series of steps from the City
watersupply main . He stated that the watersupply line at that
crossing is encased in concrete . He stated that there is no
evidence of spaulding concrete there . He noted that debris that
might find their way down are not apparent on that concrete ledge
or in the rock creek . He stated that the drop from a fairly long
rock ledge is about 6 " , not at the bottom of a large waterfall . He
noted that drainageways are a series of rock ledges up to the site .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that on the site sod bottom courses are in
evidence after a natural transition from rock bottom to rock lined .
He stated that , as part of Planning Board conditions , check dams
have to be developed in those sod areas . Mr . Fabbroni stated that
there is no denying that where clusters are built more runoff will
be concentrated , although there is some validity to the argument
that in the area of the cornfield more runoff may actually occur
now than will later . Mr . Fabbroni stated that this is not magic
how the erosion. occurs or how sound management can avoid it . He
Planning Board 34 October 5 , 1982
stated that Eastern Heights had bad management of erosion and the
Town , through its work there , gained a lot of knowledge in dealing
with the soil_ and erosion in this part of Town . Mr . Fabbroni
stated that , once over 5 % , the soil in drainageways will erode
unless protected , otherwise there is no other outcome than a rock
bottom creek after erosion . He stated that at 10 % slope with rip
rap or check dam , the erosion process will never start .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that the pond is another method of
establishing ]_ ower water velocity that we are looking at in this
development . - Mr . Fabbroni stated that his preference would be for
a dry pond and he would have to be convinced that it would do any
good to have a wet pond , adding that a dry pond , in high flow ,
would retain water and let it off at a steady and slower rate .
Mr . Fabbroni stated , as a last fact , that wildflowers have
been shown around the reservoir , but the 89 species that have been
quoted by the Six Mile Creek Preservation Committee as being in the
corridor were inventoried strictly below the thirty - foot dam .
Mr . Lovi , Town Planner , referred to the Tompkins County Unique
Natural Areas Inventory as prepared by the Tompkins County
Environmental Management Council in 1977 , adapted by Dennis A .
Winters , Environmental Coordinator , from A Preliminary Inventory of
Some Unique Natural Areas in Tompkins County , New York by Craig
Ellery Tufts , with assistance from the Tompkins County Department
• of Planning and members of 1976 - 77 Unique Areas Task Team , Mr .
Lovi read from that portion of the above - noted document entitled
" IT - 9 : SIX MILE CREEK - AURORA ST . TO BURNS RD . " , as follows :
" . . . Vegetation :; . . . Only that area from Aurora Street to the dam of
the first large reservoir was adequately inventoried . Area is
large and diverse . . . . " Mr . Lovi spoke of the 89 species indicated
by the EMC as being in the area of Six Mile Creek , and referred to
the above - cited document which notes that the New York State
Protected Native Plants ' designation is 25 , with the 89 being the
Andrews ' number which is an indicator of moss and liverwort
diversity with that 89 number indicating the total number of
species reported from the site being followed by the number 25 ,
again , which indicates the total number of species in the area
inventoried considered uncommon , occasional or rare . Utilizing an
enlarged aerial photograph with the site shown by red outline
appended to the wall , Mr . Lovi stated again that the inventoried
area runs from Aurora Street in the City of Ithaca up to the lower
dam . Mr . Lovi stated that the lower dam is off the site , well down
and to the west: of where Commonland is proposed . Mr . Lovi stated
that to cite this as an authoritative source of conditions on- site
or adjacent thereto is in error .
Mr . Lovi made reference to the " Comments " section of the
above - cited Six Mile Creek portion of the above - cited Inventory ,
such section reading : - " One section of site , on East bank South of
Giles Street has been set aside as a wildflower conservancy area .
This area gets so much use , as does the crest above the first large
reservoir , that trails are eroding and some interesting plants ,
Planning Board 36 October 5 , 1982
• questions about how Mr . Fabbroni made this point on the easternmost
unstable area , and also the erosion he had observed there walking
along a trail earlier this Spring and then again recently . Mr .
Peterson described the runoff , the erosion , and indicated a low
point on the grail . Mr . Peterson spoke of dirt having been put in
to build the pond dike , describing it as loose dirt being hard to
make hard - packed . Mr . Peterson described a scenario of water
seeping into the ground and with the dirt being somewhat loose will
make this thing softer and cause the dike to fail . Mr . Peterson
posed the question of what will prevent this levy from giving away .
Mr . Peterson stated that when that gives away , it comes rushing
away and will be dumped on to the unstable slope on City lands all
• at once . Mr . Peterson , referring to a dam on City of Ithaca lands
in easternmost: waterway , asked Mr . Weisburd if he built it . Mr .
Weisburd replied that he did . Mr . Peterson described the dam as
completely backing up the stream , filled with large mounded rocks
and lined with heavy plastic material . Mr . Peterson , speaking to
Mr . Weisburd , stated that he thought he ( Weisburd ) was not going to
change the creeks , especially on the City property .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that a lot of these comments are
misleading the public and the Planning Board . Mr . Fabbroni stated
to the Board that the pond drainageway and stream into which it
empties which concerns Mr . Peterson has nothing to do with the
unstable slope on City lands - - absolutely nothing . Mr . Fabbroni
stated that he is not categorical about many things , if you know
him at all , but this is one about which he is emphatic . He stated
that the two areas Mr . Peterson is describing as connected are
topographically separated by a ridge or high ground . Mr . Fabbroni
stated that he would speak to the so - called dam . Mr . Fabbroni
stated , through his investigations , Mr . Weisburd had built a
temporary dam on a hot day when Mr . Weisburd ' s men were working and
so they could wash up in it . Mr . Fabbroni stated from his
viewpoint it was wrongs it was trespass . Mr . Fabbroni described in
detail the dam as being simply built in an hour ' s time , by hand ,
and consisting of 100 to 150 flat rocks across a rock ledge in the
easternmost drainageway , backed up by a piece of plastic . Mr .
Fabbroni stated that he failed to see what significance it has to
this whole discussion , Mr . Peterson indicated that it shows the
questionable character of the developer .
Mr . Buyoucos stated that he was confused about the business
about the effect. on the City ' s land . Mr . Buyoucos asked if the
City had put in any objections to this proposal . Mr . Fabbroni
stated that they had not , the memo from Dan Hoffman , one of the
Common Council. liaison to the Conservation Advisory Council , an
advisory group to Council , being the only such communication other
than the letter to him from the City Engineer to which he will
speak later . Mr . Fabbroni read the correspondence from the CAC , as
follows :
" T0 : Ithaca Town Planning Board , and
Ithaca Town Board
FROM : Dan Hoffman , for the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory
Planning Board 37 October 5 , 1982
Council
August 2 , 1982
RE : Commonland Development
As you may know , the City of Ithaca ' s Conservation Advisory
Council has discussed the proposed Commonland housing development
at its last two meetings . As Common Council ' s liason ( sic ) to the
CAC , I have been asked to convey the group ' s concerns to the Town
of Ithaca .
The Commonland issue was brought to the CAC ' s attention by
• City residents who feared a negative impact on the City watershed
( ie , the lower reservoir , Six Mile Creek , the adjoining City - owned
property , and the City water pipeline ) .
After listening to citizen concerns and examining the
environmental assessment form at its June meeting , members of the
CAC voted unanimously to request that the Town of Ithaca require an
Environmental Impact Statement ( EIS ) for the Commonland project .
Members said they acted because of the size of the project and its
proximity to the City watershed . They said that more information
was needed to help identify and mitigate potential impacts on the
watershed . They also believed that the project fell within the
Town ' s guidelines for a Type I action , and therefore was likely to
require an EIS .
• After the June meeting , Mr . Jerold Weisburd requested an
opportunity to explain his project to the CAC . Mr . Weisburd made
his presentation at the July CAC meeting . Numerous questions were
asked and points raised by CAC members and citizens who attended
the meeting . Later in the meeting , the CAC members reaffirmed
their request for an EIS and listed the following specific points
they hoped would be addressed by a professional environmental
review :
1 . How will the project affect runoff and erosion on the
steep slopes of the watershed , during and after construction ? Will
there be additional siltation or pollution in Six Mile Creek or the
lower reservoir ? In a related issue , how will tree and vegetation
cover on the Commonland site be affected ?
2 . How will the project affect the integrity and maintenance
of the City water pipeline , during and after construction ?
3 . How will the project affect . human use of the watershed
area ? Will there be any attempts by the developer to restrict or
improve access to the watershed area ' by Commonland residents or
others ?
4 . If there is increased human use of the watershed area , due
to the Commonland development , how will it affect plant specimens ,
litter , soil stability , and Six Mile Creek water quality ?
Planning Board 35 October 5 , 1982
such as trailing arbutus are becoming less common than they were 5
years ago . Recreational use at present - - swimming , picnicking ,
fishing - - seems to conflict with area ' s prime use - - water supply ,
storage and watershed protection . "
Mr . Fabbroni continued and , referring to the City Engineer ' s
letter , spoke to the matter of access being open to the public . He
stated that those are : ( 1 ) the wildflower area by Van Natta ' s Dam ,
and ( 2 ) the Circle Greenway ,
Mr . Fabbroni stated that his comments are meant , in a way , to
verify the crush of the plans you see before you . He stated that
• they have been field verified to the extent of walking every foot
of drainageways and repeatedly over the building site , proposed
plans for building sites and topography in hand . Mr . Fabbroni
stated that all natural features on site are adequately identified
on the plans ; they have been verified .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that he thought several issues mentioned
relate more to the subdivision process .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that he would just mention the lift
stations ; they are a design quite common ; we have these in the Town
of Ithaca and their realiability is by a series of safeguards ,
which he described as follows : ( 1 ) There are two pumps which
alternate , if one fails the other comes on . There is an alarm and
. visual light and in an hour ' s time would likely be discovered . In
the Town ' s case , it works well - even on Burns Road , a remote area ;
and ( 2 ) Full time maintenance people will be working on site .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that he would suggest that the Board
require the developer to provide an identical spare pump and a
standby portable generator . Mr . Fabbroni commented that , if you
consider all possibilities and the average length of a power
failure , the remaining risk is minimal . He noted that , in the case
of an area -wide outage , the whole area would be in the same
situation and the situation obviously one of care of use for
residents . Mr' . Fabbroni stated that the Town has five lift
stations in Forest Home , four on flash alarms .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that , while global issues are important ,
it is really unfortunate that the neighbors are not expressing
their individual concerns ; while we have to be concerned about the
community issues , it is unfortunate that their concerns do not come
to the fore .
Mr . Dan Peterson , 110 Dey Street , Ithaca City , spoke from the
floor , stating that he was referring to Mr . Lovi ' s point on the
wildflowers . Mr . Peterson stated that he has seen. wildflowers
around the lower reservoir and upper , adding that maybe there
should be an inventory and , maybe , one way to obtain one is by an
. Environmental Impact Statement . Mr . Peterson stated that he would
also like to speak to Mr . Fabbroni ' s comments that the slopes along
Six Mile Creek are very erodable . Mr . Peterson spoke of specific
Planning Board 38 October 5 , 1982
5 . Could the density of the project be increased in the
future ? Is it: possible to place restrictions on future expansion
of Commonland ?
The issues listed above were purposely limited by the CAC to
the concerns of the City , as an adjacent owner of an
environmentally sensitive area that is designated as the City
watershed . The CAC recognizes that there are numerous other
possible impacts that could be explored by an EIS , such as traffic
or economics , but felt these could be better addressed by the Town
itself .
The CAC is well aware that authority to require environmental
review is solely in the hands of the Town in this case . The action
taken by the CAC is merely a suggestion , intended to improve the
decision -making process for the Commonland project , and made in the
spirit of intermunicipal cooperation .
The CAC would appreciate being kept informed of the progress
of this issue . Correspondence should be addressed to CAC Chairman
Richard Banks , 506 Hudson St . , Ithaca , NY , or to myself , at the
address above . Thank you for your attention to this matter .
( Unsigned )
cc : Conservation Advisory Council
• Tompkins County Environmental Management Council
Larry Fabbroni
Jerold We :isburd "
Mr . Fabbroni referred to correspondence on record on this
particular point . Said record is : That following the June 16 ,
1982 meeting of the CAC , the following letter was written by Mr .
Weisburd to Mr .. Hoffman :
" June 21 , 1982
Dear Dan :
I notice that you are the Common Council Representative to the
Conservation Advisory Council which last week resolved to ask that
an Environmental Impact Study be done for the Commonland Community
on Slaterville Road .
As you know from our discussions of the possibility of doing a
co - op project in Fall Creek , and from my work at the Inlet Valley
Co - op , I am very committed to the idea of environmentally sound ,
low- cost housing . For this reason , I am concerned about the
Conservation Advisory Council taking the action it did without
reviewing either the actual proposal or the environmental review
process being conducted by the Town of Ithaca to ensure the
project ' s environmental safety . It is especially frustrating since
I feel that in fact , with its extremely energy conserving design
and its cluster plan , the project is definitely ecologically
conscionable .
Planning Board 39 October 5 , 1982
I am enclosing a copy of a letter to the Editor of the Ithaca
is Journal that describes the project a little more fully , and I would
be happy to explain the details to you at any time . Do you know if
it is possible for me to get the opportunity to present this
project to the Council ? Any advice you may have on this matter
would be welcome . "
and , following the July 21 , 1982 meeting of the CAC , recounted
above by Hoffman memo ( replied to on August 9 , 1982 by Town
Supervisor Noel Desch ) , the following letter was sent to the Ithaca
Town Planning Board and the Ithaca Town Board by HouseCraft :
• " August 12 , 1982
Re : Letter from City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council ,
dated August 2 , 1982
We , the developers of Commonland Community , are writing to
express our disappointment and concern with the conduct and action
of the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council ( CICAC ) .
We agreed, to present Commonland Community to the Council in
order to acquaint the Council with the facts and details of the
Commonland Community Project and to answer and discuss the
Council ' s environmental concerns . This presentation took place on
July 21 . Unfortunately , during our presentation , we were assaulted
by a barrage of questions irrelevant to the environmental issues .
Equally unfortunate was the fact that the Chair of CICAC failed to
attend this meeting . The lack of control by the Council over the
rude and distracting interruptions resulted in the meeting being
less informative than we had desired .
Perhaps because of their inability to control these
individuals , the Council ended our presentation quite abruptly .
Presumably , it was not until after we left that the Council raised
the specific points referred to in Mr . Hoffman ' s letter . We were
given no opportunity to address these points , which was especially
frustrating because we have put a great deal of effort into dealing
with many of them . Clearly , such difficulties perpetuated and
contributed to the misunderstanding and lack of information
displayed by the Council .
We believe very strongly in environmental concern and debate ,
• and it can be a positive sign of citizens moving towards better
planned and more sensitive communities . But people need to inform
themselves of the facts before drawing conclusions . This is
especially true for a public body that advises on conservation
issues , presumably on behalf of the general population .
( Sgd . ) Jerold Weisburd
Claudia Weisburd
John Wooding
cc : Banks ; Fabbroni ; Dotson ; Hoffman ; Cox ; Meigs . "
Mr . Fabbroni , referring to the August 2 , 1982 memo from Mr .
Hoffman , stated that he could answer the two questions in number 5 :
Planning Board 40 October 5 , 1982
Increased density in future ? - - No . Future expansion controls - -
Yes . Mr . Fabbroni indicated that many of the answers were
available only at the City itself .
Referencing an enlarged aerial photograph with drainage
patterns shown in orange , yellow , blue , black ; roads in gray ;
landslide areas indicated by " A " and " B " appended to the wall , Mr .
Fabbroni now read aloud his letter , dated August 20 , 1982 , to Mr .
Philip Cox , P . E . , City Engineer , as follows :
" Re . City Watershed Protection
• As part of the Town ' s independent fact finding in preparation
for the Final Subdivision Hearing on Commonland Development this
Fall , your department or board clarification of several points
concerned with the City of Ithaca Watershed would be most helpful
in seeing that City interests and concerns are properly addressed
as part of the Town Planning Board review . As you may know the
City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council has officially
transmitted the enclosed list of points to the Town , some of which
also deal with concerns about the City Watershed and Six Mile
Creek . Your answers to the following questions may indirectly
overlap some , of the CAC concerns ; so , you may wish to consult with
whomever in City government seems appropriate to crystallize our
understanding of official City concerns .
1 ) The City of Ithaca holds the deeds to two rights - of -way
over the lands of Commonland ( formerly Verne C . Marion ) . In the
Planning Board consideration of site layout do the alignments have
to be kept exactly as present ? Would the City exchange suitable
alternative rights - of -way over dedicated Town highways in
combination with alternate private Rights - of -way leading to the
same points of connection to the City Watershed ?
2 ) What is the short and long range use of the Lower
Reservoir in so far as it relates to the daily public water supply .
Is the Lower Reservoir used for collection of raw water for public
water supply now ? If not , do you presently have any projections
for when you might reactivate its use ? In any case , if long term
measures preventing erosion of drainageways are properly designed
• and implemented as part of Commonland , do you envision any long
term problems of runoff control within the City Watershed as a
result of 45 additional acres of moderate density ( 3 . 0 units per
acre ) - residential development given the daily flow and erosion
characteristic, of the entire watershed ?
3 ) What does the developer or Town need to do to maintain the
present condition of the water supply pipeline within the
Watershed ? Show any critical points on the enclosed aerial .
4 ) What areas of the City Watershed are open to the public ?
( Please indicate on enclosed aerial . ) Does or will the City of
Ithaca post their lands against trespassing particularly adjacent
Planning Board 41 October 5 , 1982
to residential development where public use is not intended ?
Please indicate the area open to the Circle Greenway on the aerial .
5 ) Please indicate any other concerns including fragile soil
slopes that need to be addressed or protected as part of Town
review and conditions .
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter and
call with any clarification you may require . Your response by
September 3 , 1982 would be timely .
( Sgd . ) Lawrence P . Fabbroni , P . E .
• Town Engineer "
Mr . Fabbroni read aloud the response to his letter , cited
above , which lie received from Philip L . Cox , P . E . , City Engineer ,
dated September 3 , 1982 , as follows :
" Re : City of Ithaca Watershed
Dear Mr . Fabbroni :
This is in response to your letter of August 20 , 1982 . Thank '
you for this opportunity to comment to you and the Ithaca Town
Planning Board on the Commonland Development . Let me try to
• respond to your questions in order .
1 ) The two rights - of - way held by the City over the lands of
Commonland can be altered or exchanged . The end product would , of
course , have to ensure us that we will continue to have
uninterrupted access to our lands at the same points in the
watershed without encountering less favorable grades , etc . We have
already met with the developer to discuss this and are confident
mutually acceptable accesses can be provided .
2 ) The lower reservoir , i . e . that one impounded by the 30 - foot
dam , is not now used as a public water supply , nor has it been so
used in many years . We have no present plans , either short - term or
long - term , to use the lower reservoir as a public water supply .
There is a possibility , however , that Six Mile Creek could be used
as a source of public water supply at a point downstream of the
lower reservoir , such as at Van Natta ' s dam . I believe any adverse
effects on . th (-,-% watershed from increased run - off of the proposed
project can be eliminated by careful engineering of the project ' s
drainage system . This may require detention basins or other
equalization devices to prevent the rate of run - off from the site
from increasing .
3 ) Attached is an aerial photograph of the subject area . We have
highlighted on the print the City ' s watershed property lines , the
proposed development site , our access points to the watershed , the
. Circle Greenway , our raw water pipe line , and the area drainage
courses . From the City ' s perspective , any point at which a
drainage course crosses our water line is a potential problem area .
Planning Board 42 October 5 , 1982
As stated above , our goal would be that the rate of flow of those
drainage courses would not increase . Secondly , we would like to be
assured that no new drainage courses develop . In addition , two
other critical areas along the pipe line are depicted on the
photograph . Area " A " was the site of a 1978 landslide which
destroyed a segment of our water line . We would not want to see
any additional. drainage directed onto the sloped area along this
reach . Area " B " isFthe site of another landslide which has been
developing below our tunnel for the water line . Likewise , we would
not want to see this slope area aggravated in any way .
4 ) The only areas of our watershed property open to the public are
those downstream in the wildflower area and the Circle Greenway .
Posting is not anticipated unless conditions should change to
warrant it .
5 ) Aside from the points already mentioned , the City does not want
to encourage use of our watershed lands . We would take a dim view
of any development of paths or other access by the Commonlands
developer , residents or their agents that would encourage the use
of our watershed lands .
Thank you again for giving us this opportunity to express our
concerns . I hope I can look forward to working with you to assure
the continued safeguard of our important watershed .
• ( Sgd . ) Philip L . Cox
City Engineer
Enc . - aerial photograph "
Mr . Fabbroni stated , in response to Mr . Cox ' s points , that the
velocity at which water leaves the site would essentially have to
remain the same and , therefore , on - site check dams are used . Mr .
Fabbroni stated firmly that it is impossible for water to get to
the oft - referenced slope from this development . Mr . Fabbroni
responded to the matter of how the public questions relate to
public access to the watershed by pointing out that: it is clear
that the City ' s official view is that they do not: want public
access in the area of that watershed , the only area of the City ' s
watershed property open to the public being those downstream in the
wildflower area and the Circle Greenway . Mr . Fabbroni indicated
that such questions more properly belong in the office of the City .
Chairman May , with the concurrence of the Board , announced
that there should be a short break in order for people to stretch
their legs . No questions or comments on the matter before the
Board took place except those within the audience itself .
Mr . David Ludington , 1456 Slaterville Road , Ithaca Town ,
stated from the floor that he needed to ask whether the letter
. which Mr . Fabbroni read from Phil Cox negates the request from CAC
( Conservation Advisory Council ) . Mr . May stated that those are two
independent letters .
Planning Board 43 October 5 , 1982
Mr . Ludington stated that he was at the Town Board meeting
when Noel Desch , Town Supervisor , said that concrete foundations
would be used in this development , adding that he saw from the
plans he reviewed that wood is in contact with the soil , at least ,
to his way of thinking .
Mr . Weisburd stated that they are using pressure - treated wood
in the way it is used in every other building project and that is
where heavy moisture conditions are or may be present . He pointed
out that pressure - treated wood is used in the landscaping , some for
building support , where in contact with the soil , there is a vapor
barrier . Mr . Weisburd stated that pressure - treated wood is used
• everywhere . He stated that the treatment stays in the wood , it
does not migrate . Mr . Weisburd cited The Journal of Environmental
Quality , and noted that this wood is used right here in children ' s
playground equipment , it is used in bird houses ; it is used in
chicken coops .
Mr . Buyoucos inquired as to how it was that Mr . Desch made the
reported statement . Mr . Weisburd stated that he told the Town that
he would ' be using masonry foundations which is the case . Mr .
Fabbroni suggested that Mr . Weisburd show Mr . Ludington , a
professor of agricultural engineering at Cornell , the details . Mr .
Weisburd did so . Mr . Ludington thanked Mr . Weisburd and added that
there was a lot more talk about foundations at the meeting . Mr .
• Fabbroni pointed out that it was in terms of load - bearing members .
Mr . Ludington indicated the use of pressure - treated wood to which
Mr . Fabbroni responded that such was not a load - bearing member .
Mr . Joseph Multari , 1430 Slaterville Road , Ithaca Town , spoke
from the floor and stated that he understood that the developer was
using masonry all over and not just in foundations . Mr . Weisburd
stated that he did not say that .
Mr . Ludington stated that through the whole of all the
meetings there are always two points of view , adding that it is
tragic , always two points of view depending on whom you are talking
t o .
Mr . Buyoucos inquired of Professor Ludington , if , as a
• neighbor , the use of pressure - treated wood would affect him .
Professor Ludington replied , no , adding that it could affect the
water quality of the reservoir .
Professor Ludington and Mr . Lovi discussed the merits of
publications by the Masonry Builders Association and publications
by purveyors of pressure - treated wood with some agreement that
perhaps the EPP.., Journal is somewhere in the middle on the debate .
Professor Ludington stated that he was not asking about how
far they are going , he was stating that the developer said he was
. using concrete foundations but when one looks at the plans , there
is wood .
Planning Board 44 October 5 , 1982
Mr . Weisburd stated that this sort of thing is the whole
purpose about getting the drawings into the Town weeks ago and for
having everything shown for everyone to see . Mr . Weisburd stated
that he never said " this " ( masonry ) OR " that " ( wood ) . Mr . Weisburd
commented that it was absurd to infer false statements on his part ;
the drawings were at the Town Office in mid - September and clearly
show the use of structural masonry block foundation insulated with
fibre glass which is in turn protected by a pressure - treated wood
box not in contact with the soil . Mr . Weisburd staged that there
are several ways to insulate masonry foundations - - styrofoam ,
fibreglass - - however , five to ten times higher insulation factor
is achieved with fibreglass . He stated that the design calls for a
• complete water barrier on the outside of the pressure - treated in
addition to a second fibreglass barrier .
Mrs . Ann Rivkin , 1450 Slaterville Road , Ithaca Town , stated
that she disagreed with the statements of the developer that there
will be no problem with the chemicals migrating . Mrs . Rivkin
stated that her husband , who could not attend , had attended the
June 15th meeting and presented a large packet of source material
relating to scientific studies of problems with pressure - treated
wood . Mrs . Rivkin stated that the neighbors want an Environmental
Impact Study done for many reasons - - drainage , erosion , pollution ,
air pollution , noise pollution , impact on the watershed . Mrs .
Rivkin stated that she had a question for Mr . Fabbroni about how
the zoning laws , R15 and R30 , come to allowing this , and , a
question to Mr . Buyoucos about the fact that Shirley Raffensperger
requested an opinion from him on the number of units to which , she
( Rivkin ) did not believe , they ever got a reply , and further ,
whether he intended to reply .
Mr . Buyoucos stated that he has not made his last reply on
this question , his contact has been extremely limited , however ,
what he said was that the Town Planning Board has very broad
discretionary powers . Mr . Buyoucos stated that the Legislature has
just given the power to a Town Board to authorize a Planning Board
to require cluster , the criteria being that under no circumstances
shall the number of units exceed the number of units which could be
built on separate and individual lots . Mr . Buyoucos stated that on
these matters , facts must be presented to the Town Planning Board ;
the Town Planning Board has the authority to cluster . He stated
that if the Town Planning Board permits a cluster which violates
the provision of Section 281 , which he just recited , then it is
illegal . Mr . Buyoucos stated that this is his first reaction and
he was presenting it as a first reaction . He stated that the Town
Planning Board is going to make a determination - - if they are
right , they are right , if they are wrong , he did not know that
because he did not have enough information and he had no request
from the Town .Planning Board to do this . Mr . Buyoucos stated that
he went to the staff ; the number of units is 124 ; does it exceed
the permitted number of units ; no .
Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that spread over the Minutes of June
15 , 1982 very clearly is how he arrived at that number . Mr .
Planning Board 45 October 5 , 1982
Fabbroni described again the process noting that 4 . 5 acres for open
space was subtracted , 5 . 5 acres for roads was subtracted , then the
number of permitted traditional lots is ' calculated and , with there
being two dwelling units permitted on a lot , the number of units is
arrived at .
Mrs . Catherine Tauber , 1427 Slaterville Road , Ithaca Town ,
speaking to Mr . Fabbroni , stated that he had always said there can
be two units on a lot when he calculated the cluster „ Mrs . Tauber
asked if it were legal to automatically have two units when the
zoning ordinance says that the second unit has to be 50 % of the
other unit unless it is in the basement . Mrs . Tauber stated that
• it is a matter of " and " - " or " , adding that Mr . Fabbroni is
obviously on the side of the developer .
Mr . M . J . Tauber , 1427 Slaterville Road , Ithaca Town , stated
that the people keep hearing this over and over - two dwelling
units - and asked for an opinion from the Town Attorney .
Mr . Buyoucos stated that he gives his opinions to the Town
Planning Board and that Board has determined that 124 units are
permitted on this land .
Mr . Jeff Coleman , Six Mile Creek Preservation Committee , 7A
Park Lane , Lansing , spoke from the floor , and addressed the Board .
• Mr . Coleman stated that , until last night , the Town Planning Board
did not have -the right to authorize cluster , it being just last
night that the Town Board adopted a resolution of authorization .
Mr . Fabbroni inquired if Mr . Coleman had been present at the Town
Board meeting . Mr . Coleman replied that he was not there but he
had the resolution . Mr . Buyoucos asked Mr . Coleman what his answer
was , which Mr . Coleman repeated , stating that he was not there but
he had the resolution here . The referenced resolution reads :
" WHEREAS :
1 . The Town Board by resolution adopted on November 3 , 1955 ,
authorized the Town Planning Board to confirm or make changes
to the Town Zoning Regulations simultaneously with the
approval of a subdivision plat to the extent permitted by law ,
•
and
2 . Subdivision regulations were adopted by the Town Planning
Board and approved by the Town Board on March 24 , 1956 , and
3 . The planning staff of the Town and the Town ' s attorney
recommend a modification of the 1955 resolution of the Town
Board and , to the extent necessary , a portion of the 1956
subdivision regulations ,
IT IS RESOLVED as follows :
Section 1 . The Town Planning Board is authorized ,
simultaneously with the approval of a plat pursuant to the
Planning Board 46 October 5 , 1982
provisions of Article 16 of the Town Law , to modify applicable
provisions of a zoning law or ordinance , subject to the provisions
of Section 281 of the Town Law as amended and the procedures it may
adopt and follow under this resolution and such conditions as may
be set forth in this resolution , and such other reasonable
conditions as the Town Board may hereafter adopt from time to time
and subject to Rules and Regulations of the Planning Board now or
hereafter adopted and approved .
Section 2 . The authorization of the Town Planning Board shall
be limited specifically to residential development of lands in the
Town of Ithaca outside of any incorporated village and shall be
further limited specifically to those lands which lie within the
boundaries of -any residential or agriculture zone where residential
use is permitted under zoning regulations , as shown on the zoning
map which is current and effective as of the date this resolution
is adopted , but excluding such lands within such zones which have
been or may be rezoned as multiple residential zoning districts or
for any purpose or districts other than residential zoning
districts or for any purpose or districts other than residential or
agricultural . The power granted to the Planning Board to make such
modifications may be exercised , at its discretion , subject to all
applicable conditions , to permit the erection of dwelling units in
detached , semi .- detached , attached , or multi - story structures .
Section 3 . A . The procedure authorized by this resolution may
be exercised in its discretion by the Town Planning Board if in its
judgment the application of such procedure would benefit the Town .
Be The Planning Board is directed to adopt rules
and regulations setting forth the criteria pursuant to which such
an application may be required .
Section 4 . A . The resolution adopted by the Town Board on
November 3 , 1955 , authorizing the Planning Board to confirm or make
reasonable changes to the zoning regulations in connection with
subdivision plat approval is rescinded .
Be Section 2 of the Town ' s subdivision regulations
adopted and approved by the Town Planning Board and the Town Board ,
respectively , on March 24 , 1956 is amended to comply with the
provisions of this resolution .
C . The Town Clerk is directed to deliver forthwith
a copy of this resolution to the Chairman of the Planning Board and
to publish further notices , if any may be required , in connection
with any further hearings which may be required .
Section 5 . All determinations , approvals and actions taken by
the Planning Board prior to the adoption of this resolution are
ratified and confirmed and this resolution and the authorization
. granted hereunder to the Planning Board shall apply to any
determinations , actions or procedures , relating to the subject
Planning Board 47 October 5 , 1982
matter made or taken by the Planning Board subsequent to the
adoption of this resolution . "
Mr . Coleman read into the record the following statement :
" FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN TOWN LAW 281
1 . At the time the Town Planning Board gave preliminary approval
to the Commonland Development , it had no such authority under Town
Law 281 , which requires the Town Board to specify which lands 281
may be applied to at the time authority to use 281 is given . No
such specification was made by the Town Board and therefore such
preliminary approval was void . Rouse v . O ' Connell ( 1974 ) 78 Misc2d
82 , 353 N . Y . S . 2d 124 ; 1977 Op . St . . Compt . File # 658 .
2 . On Oct . 4 , 1982 , the Town Board attempted to give the proper
authorization to the Planning Board by specifying lands which 281
may apply to . At this time the Town Board ratified the prior
actions by the Town Planning Board in an attempt to correct the
void actions taken by the Planning Board . However , a void action
is incapable of subsequent ratification . Mattioli v . Corradino , 24
Misc2d 157 , 199 N . Y . S . 2d 905 . Therefore , the preliminary approval
granted by the Planning Board is still void .
3 . Section 3B . of the Town Board resolution directs the Planning
Board to adopt rules and regulations setting forth the criteria
pursuant to which such an application ( to use 281 ) may be required .
Such criteria have not yet been adopted and therefore could not be
complied with . For this additional reason , approval of the use of
281 is void .
4 . Town Law Section 281 ( a ) requires the developer to make a
written application for use of the procedures set forth in 281 . No
such application has been made by the developer of Commonland .
Therefore , the use of 281 to approve the development is void .
5 . Town Law Section 281 ( b ) requires that the number of dwelling
units permitted by the use of 281 shall not exceed the number
allowed by existing zoning . The Commonland Development proposes to
build 60 dwelling units in an R- 30 zone where only 37 units are
allowed by existing zoning laws .
6 . Town Law Section 281 ( e ) requires that a statement , setting
forth the nature of the modifications of existing zoning that
result from the use of 281 , must be subject to review and public
hearing by the Planning Board . This procedure has not been
followed .
Conclusion : For all of the above reasons , preliminary approval of
the Commonland Development is void and the process for approving
the development must be started over in accordance with the
procedure set forth in Town Law 276 . "
Planning Board 48 October 5 , 1982
Mrs . Carolyn Peterson , 110 Dey Street , Ithaca City , speaking
10 from the floor , read a prepared statement of opposition to the
proposed Commonland development and demand for an EIS .
( Secretary ' s Note : Mrs . Peterson did not submit the statement to
the Board or Secretary , thus a verbatim record could not be
entered , only a portion of her statement as follows . ) Mrs .
Peterson referred to the Environmental Assessment Form submitted by
Mr . Weisburd , dated September 1 , 1982 , which she had in hand , and
read from Question # 32 on page 4 - - " Will any streams be modified
by the proposed action ? If so , designate on the Site Plan which
streams will be modified . ( Note : ' Dam ' or ' Disturbance ' permit
from DEC is required for modifications . ) " Mrs . Peterson stated
that that question is checked " NO " . Mrs . Peterson pointed out that
that is wrong , noting that Mr . Weisburd has built a dam on a stream
and on City land . Mrs . Peterson continued and stated that now the
question is , if the Board does not require an Environmental Impact
Study , how will we know how much erosion will take place , how will
we know the environmental impacts on the watershed and places that
exist . Mrs . Peterson posed the question : - Does HouseCraft know all
these answers ? Mrs . Peterson stated that she had a question as to
what the correct density is and mentioned the number 3 . 9 . Mr .
Fabbroni commented that his point in making the calculation number
was twofold - - ( 1 ) it excludes loo for park or open space , and , ( 2 )
it excludes 5 . 5 acres for roadways .
® Mr . James O ' Donnell , 116 Farm Street , Ithaca City , spoke from
the floor and stated that he wished to speak to each and everyone
of those present and to ask what exactly , to the best of your
knowledge is the environmental impact of this development going to
be . He asked if there were anybody who could give him their
analysis of the impact on the watershed . He stated that if we do
not have enough knowledge to make . that decision , then an EIS should
be done .
Chairman May stated that that determination is the Board ' s
purpose .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that he would respond to Mrs . Peterson ' s
question on density , commenting that the figure she was referring
to was probably . 36 . Mr . Fabbroni stated that . 36 acres per unit
is the inverse of 2 . 8 units per acre . He noted that this is gross
density , a way of expressing density quite common in planning
circles . Mr . Fabbroni stated that to get the number of units as
units per net acre you use net acreage divided into 124 units to
get 3 . 5 per net acre . He stated that all these numbers are
accurate , just different ways of expressing density .
Mr, . Lovi stated that 2 . 8 units per acre is an appropriate
figure to use because you can walk on all of the 45 acres ,
therefore , gross density should be computed as a ratio of the total
number of units by the gross area .
Planning Board 49 October 5 , 1982
Mr . May stated that it is the opinion of the Board that the
ordinance is clear as to the number of units permitted and for the
development being discussed the number is 124 .
Mr . Ludington stated from the floor that he thought it
unfortunate that one Planning Board member here does all the
speaking for the Board . Mr . Ludington indicated that he was
referring to Mr . Lovi , Mr . Lovi stated that he is a member of the
Town staff - the Town Planner - and responsible to Mr . Fabbroni ,
Mr . Phil Tomlinson , 157 Chestnut Street , Ithaca City , spoke
from the floor and stated that he is a carpenter and builder and
has lived in Ithaca for seven years . Mr . Tomlinson stated that he
considers himself an environmentalist and has been a member of
ecology groups . He stated that he is aware of some inferior
building in the County but the proposed structures are good and
ownership is best . Mr . Tomlinson said that he kept wondering why
this is questioned so vigorously , adding that he could see a lot of
hidden agendas come out . He commented that real issues are
mentioned and then shunted aside . Mr . Tomlinson stated that Mr .
Fabbroni is obviously very familiar with what he has been talking
about . He stated that the Board works with their staff to answer
their own questions and the public ' s questions , adding that one
will find a lot of questions answered . He stated that. Mr . Fabbroni
is very familiar with drainage , traffic , etc . Mr . Tomlinson stated
® that an EIS cost would be added to the building cost which gets
paid by the buyers . Mr . Tomlinson referred to use of the City land
and stated that it is off limits anyway so it is a moot point . Mr .
Tomlinson referred to the questions of traffic density and stated
that there are capable people in the County to assess these points .
He stated that: the new owners should not be burdened with this
cost . Mr . Tomlinson stated that he wished he had thought of this
plan first , adding that super - insulation is the only thing going
today . He stated that he is trying to get going doing it himself .
Mr . Tomlinson stated that he congratulated Mr . Weisburd on his
work .
Mrs . Nancy Phillips , 167 - 2 Calkins Road , Ithaca Town , spoke
from the floor and stated that she seconded the gentleman ' s
comments ( Tomlinson ) . Mrs . Phillips stated that she would express
to those who say this is bad that there are 300 people who are not
here tonight , adding that they cannot be here because they do not
know who they are yet - the people who will live there .
Ms . Nancy Young , 808 East State Street , Ithaca. City , spoke
from the floor and stated that she did not get the idea that anyone
is saying that this is bad ; they are saying only the location is
bad .
Mr . Isaac Beer spoke from the floor and stated that he said it
was bad .
�I
Planning Board 50 October 5 , 1982
Ms . Young continued and stated that the dam law has been
broken ; the dam was investigated ; okay by the Town staff that the
builder built it .
Mr . Fabbroni stated to the public and the Board that 1 , 000 , 000
gallons of wager has to be contained in order to be called a dam
under DEC Regulations . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the so - called dam
would have contained about 250 cubic feet of water - - IF it held
the water . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the " dam " was 150 flat rocks
in the creek with a piece of plastic .
Ms . Young continued and stated that that was done without
permission , at least , that is the impression she got , adding that
if they can do that the Planning Board also should consider
stringent controls .
Ms . Debbie Jackson , Box 785 , Ithaca , spoke from the floor and
stated that she guessed the issue here is an EIS or not , prepared
by the builder and presented to the people and to the Board . She
stated that we have gone through all environmental considerations -
watershed , erosion , also social issues , effect on the Town of
Ithaca and the City of Ithaca . Ms . Jackson stated that State
Street is a terrible street to go downhill and steep at Mitchell
and State Streets and those are costs that the City will have to
bear . She stated that the cost of an EIS has to be borne , yes .
® Ms . Young stated that new traffic patterns will have to be
addressed by the City . Ms . Young stated that an EIS is needed .
Mr . Dan . Peterson , 110 Dey Street , Ithaca City , spoke from the
floor and stated that there was another social issue involved here
and that is that the New York State Environmental Assessment Form
was not adopted by the Town of Ithaca . Mr . Peterson commented that
the Town can do it that way , however , there has been a foreclosure
of the public '; rights by doing so .
Mr . Cyrus Umrigar , R . A . Cornell University , 506 Highland Road ,
Village of Cayuga Heights , spoke from the floor and stated that the
proposed development is hard to get to .
Mr . Weisburd asked the Board if he could read the following :
" In the past ten years the swimming has become a public problem
because of the rapidly increasing number of people that swim there .
The reservoirs ' growing popularity may be largely attributed to a
reputation among Ithaca ' s student population as the place for nude
swimming with complete seclusion . The neighbors of the reservoirs
have been abused time and again by the overwhelming numbers of
swimmers . The large number of cars has made the area a traffic
hazard . Since swimmers come and go all day and night long the
neighborhood is always noisy . Residents often miss their mail
delivery because of cars blocking mail boxes and they are often
disturbed by swimmers that need to use a phone . " Mr . Weisburd
. stated that what he read is from a paper written by Mr . Jeff
Coleman . Mr . Weisburd stated that it is amazing that in their
Planning Board 51 October 5 , 1982
position paper- the Creek Committee has cited Commonland and not
is this .
Mr . Coleman stated that he wrote that in 1978 addressing a
seasonal issue .
Mr . Robert E . Marion , 1463 Slaterville Road , Ithaca Town ,
spoke from the floor and stated that he is a resident and had a
question for Mr . Fabbroni . ' He stated that Mr . Fabbroni has
mentioned that. he has used his figures , all deducting roads and
open space . lie asked if Mr . Fabbroni had a deduct for natural
drainage ways that Mr . Weisburd has indicated he will not use and
most likely cannot use and , therefore , he ( Fabbroni ) should use for
finding correct figures and , also , wet lands around this included
and used as natural drainage in the future for purposes of the
entire Slaterville Road residences and Commonland . Mr . Marion
asked Mr . Fabbroni why these deductions have not occurred in his
figures for the purpose that they take up as much as roads and open
space . Mr . Marion stated that he would also inform the Planning
Board and Mr . Weisburd , who would like information on the fact of
water running uphill and in being able to flood such lands . Mr .
Marion described the flodd in Elmira which did receive such floods
and that fact did occur for many residences which they felt would
never occur .
' Mr . Fabbroni stated that Mr . Marion had made a few good
points , but he had to point out insofar as gridding out a standatd.
subdivision , it is almost a reason why somebody who is
environmentally sensitive would look at the cluster approach
because of the open space aspect . Mr . Marion asked Mr . Fabbroni
why that should not be deducted . Mr . Fabbroni continued and stated
that the indentations of the land would be cut off and grassed and
lots built up on an individual basis across the whole landscape .
He stated that there might be two or three that you could
absolutely not locate a house on but would be considered part of
the lot . Mr . Fabbroni referred again to the Eastern Heights
development to show the shortcomings of a standard subdivision ,
noting the locations on rocks , fills on 10 % slope , creekways so
close to houses that in a 100 - year storm there is a problem . Mr .
Fabbroni stated. that these things are avoided by clustering on the
site . Mr . Marion stated that Mr . Fabbroni was excluding some and
not others . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the drainageways would be
obliterated in a standard subdivision . He pointed out that there
are three drain. ageways on the Commonland property - ( 1 ) South ; ( 2 )
West of Mr . Marion ' s property ; ( 3 ) the other toward Mrs . Maurice
Marion ' s property , between her property and a new house being
developed . Mr . Fabbroni stated that under a standard subdivision
the rest would be obliterated , commenting that they support no fish
life . Mr . Fabbroni stated that you create problems you are trying
to avoid - an about - face to concerns being expressed .
Mr . Joel Rabinowitz , 108 Hudson Street , Ithaca City , spoke ,
from the floor and stated that he would like to speak , personally
and on behalf of his parents , regarding the social issues that a
Planning Board 52 October 5 , 1982
lady made . Mr . Rabinowitz stated that his parents have lived one
house in from the corner of Mitchell and East State Streets for the
past 25 years . He stated that no one ever told them , no real
estate agent ever told them , about the heavy traffic , about the
trucks , etc . Mr . Rabinowitz stated that they can hardly get out of
their driveway . He stated that he had seen that intersection and
the potential for accidents . Mr . Rabinowitz stated that Mr .
Weisburd presented figures at the Forum - proudly presented figures
about the traffic and accidents on Slaterville Road . He stated
that since 1979 the residents have protested traffic on Route 79 ,
Mr . Rabinowitz stated that citing material from the NYS Department
of Transportation is using a biased source . He stated that Mr .
• Weisburd should talk to civic groups , long term residents of these
areas , concerning traffic .
Mr . Craig Jackson , Box 785 , Ithaca , spoke from the floor and
stated that lie is in the building trade and the design of
Commonland is terrific . Mr . Jackson stated that an Environmental
Impact Study should be done because of the fragile slopes , adding
that people are going to walk down there and trails will develop .
Mr . Jackson stated that there were other unknowns and those are gas
spills , oil spills , from the people who will live there fixing
their cars . He described a drop here , a drop there , a quart here
- - all right into the reservoir . Mr . Jackson stated that he would
pay $ 50 , 000 to have one of the proposed homes and he would pay
$ 51 , 000 to include the cost of an EIS .
Mr . James E . O ' Donnell , 116 Farm Street , Ithaca City , spoke
from the floor and stated that he would like to comment on the
excerpt from Mr . Jeff Coleman ' s article . He stated that it was
irresponsible trespass and there is no excuse for it , but it does
not justify anything . Mr . O ' Donnell stated that , in light of the
purpose or goals of the developer , he really admired the goals and
basic design , mentioning the energy - saving aspects such as the
laundry facilities . He stated that that sort of broad social
responsibility should also be manifest in his concern for the
environment . Mr . O ' Donnell spoke of Interior Secretary James Watt ,
Mr . O ' Donnell stated that we should be thinking two to three
generations down the line and even if a doubt , go ahead and require
an Environmental Impact Study and after that , if negative then it
• is very difficult to judge , the answer being to relocate or drop
the proposal entirely .
Mrs . Jennifer Rondeau , 167 - 6 Calkins Road , Ithaca Town , spoke
from the floor and stated that she supported this ' proposed
development most wholeheartedly , adding that she would detach
, herself from all this that is going on . She stated that she did
not think there is public hostility against this development . Mrs .
Rondeau stated that she would speak about Mr . Weisburd ' s
responsibility for the environment , adding that she supported all
those who are against what they say they support . Mrs . Rondeau
. stated that all of the problems that have been addressed here
tonight , Mr . Weisburd has tried to address and has addressed . Mrs .
Planning Board 53 October 5 , 1982
Rondeau stated that the proposed development is designed around a
Is particular place and addresses its needs .
Mrs . Eleanor Sturgeon , 718 Elmira Road , Ithaca Town , spoke
from the floor and stated that when Mr . Weisburd bought the farm up
in Inlet Valley the neighbors had real concerns which turned out to
be unnecessary . She stated that she can see one barn up there ,
with all the other homes he built secluded . She said that Mr .
Weisburd maintains a lovely green valley and he will do the same
kind of job with Commonland . Mrs . Sturgeon stated that we do have
to share ; we do have to make our decisions together ; when we argue
we hear ourselves - we should hear the other person too . Mrs .
Sturgeon stated that she approved of the democratic concept of
Commonland , noting that the Commonland residents will make their
own decisions .
Ms . Fay Gougakis , 100 West Seneca Street , Ithaca City , spoke
from the floor and stated that she considered herself a naturalist ,
adding that she hoped she says this right . Mrs . Sturgeon
encouraged Ms . Gougakis not to be nervous , adding that we are all
friendly here . Ms . Gougakis continued and stated that she did not
think this thing should go . She stated that she thought Commonland
should be stopped . She stated that she has talked to people about
the area in question and how it existed - alive and full of warmth
and how they should be keeping the area the way it is . Ms .
Gougakis stated that she strongly supports that . She urged that we
® look at years to come . She stated that it is easy to say - let ' s
go for it - thE!y have it all together . Ms . Gougakis stated that if
you start this now more Commonland activities will spread , adding
that she really believes this . Ms . Gougakis emphatically stated ,
do not put anything there , adding that if we say we will have it ,
it is another step to the end of the Country . She stated that the
land , once scarred up , you never get it back . Ms . Gougakis stated
that the Indians have respect for the land and she respects them so
much for that .. She stated that we do not do that any more .
Speaking to Mr . Weisburd , Ms . Gougakis stated that she hoped he got
to use his development - - someplace else . She stated that it
sounds great and she could sense the vibes of more than 300 people
who want to occupy this reserve . Ms . Gougakis stated that people
want to preserve this land . Ms . Gougakis spoke of happiness ,
• noting the public in here and talking , adding that they are not
happy . Ms . Gougakis stated that it is important to be happy and
that is going out and looking at a tree . Ms . Gougakis spoke of an
EIS and stated that there is no way Mr . Weisburd should put his
hands on that land . She spoke of the facts on this site that have
been mentioned and the opposition has their facts , but no one
really knows 1. 00 % and unless you do , you do not touch . Ms .
Gougakis told the Board to think carefully about it - if Commonland
were to be developed she really believed that more would come
along . Ms . Gougakis stated that it is an area where you drink from
and has to be sanitary . She spoke of erosion , of crumbling . Ms .
. Gougakis stated that there are other areas where you could put this
development . Ms . Gougakis stated that this is a real chic piece of
land and easy to say - okay let ' s start .
Planning Board. 54 October 5 , 1982
® Mr . Isaac Beer suggested that everybody go home and this thing
adjourned , forever .
Mr . Bob McClelland , 808 East Seneca Street , Apt , 2 , Ithaca
City , spoke from the floor and stated that Mr . Weisburd ' s
development is a great idea - wrong location . Mr . McClelland
stated that he lived north of San Francisco for two years and there
was a sheep ranch and houses are there now stopping the view . Mr .
McClelland that this area should be preserved for all of Ithaca .
Chairman May announced at 12 : 05 a . m . that he would take
comments from the public for a few more minutes .
Mrs . Eleanor Sturgeon , 718 Elmira Road , Ithaca Town , spoke
from the floor and stated that she has a niece who lives in Reston ,
Virginia and there is clustered housing there . She stated that
there is a mix of low - cost apartments , more expensive ones , and
very expensive units . She stated that the community works well in
the way it provides shelter ; the people care about the community ;
the different clusters work together . Mrs . Sturgeon stated that
the residents have meetings just like the developer wants to do
here .
Mr . Larry Phillips , 167 - 2 Calkins Road , Ithaca Town , spoke
from the floor and stated that he was surprised at the awe that
people seem to have for a consultant . Mr . Phillips stated that a
consultant would know less than the local people available .
Mr . Jerry Caward , Home Builders Association Tompkins Cortland
Counties , 612 West Green Street , Ithaca City , spoke from the floor
and stated that we have a lot of very good experts in this Town and
the impression seems to be that Mr . Weisburd is going to go in
there and rape the land . Mr . Caward stated that there are
inspectors , a good Planning Board and a planning staff which is
supervised by Mr . Fabbroni . Mr . Caward stated that these people
are always watching and making sure that the job is done right , the
codes followed and the environment protected . Mr . Caward stated
that these people are not going to let anything bad happen .
Hissing from the audience occurred which , it was indicated ,
was inappropriate .
Mr . Dan Peterson , 110 Dey Street , Ithaca City , stated from the
floor that he was trying to point to a matter or reliability when
he spoke about the dam . Mr . Weisburd had clearly indicated that he
was not going to change any creeks and then he takes two people to
build a dam just to wash their hands in , which is what Mr . Fabbroni
said . Mr . Peterson now spoke of the survey signs marked
radioactive that Mr . Weisburd ' s surveyors used when they surveyed
his property . Mr . Peterson stated that he is a physicist and he
takes radiation very seriously and he did not find it amusing .
Mr . Fred Coleman , 7A Park Lane , Lansing , spoke from the floor
and stated that he was very into solar energy , adding that he has a
Planning Board. 55 October 5 , 1982
solar home for himself and his family . Mr . Coleman stated that it
is 1982 and WE! need to be conservative , we need to be careful . He
stated that he had heard nothing about a reason not to do an EIS .
Mr . Coleman spoke of trust , not doing an EIS being a breach of
trust . He stated that if there is this amount of concern , there
must not be much trust .
Mrs . Jennifer Rondeau , 167 - 6 Calkins Road , Ithaca Town , spoke
from the floor about the never - ending reasons calling for an
Environmental Impact Statement no matter what facts are presented .
She stated that it is clear that the assumption has been made that
Commonland should not be built and so , demand an EIS as if it were
a magic wand that would wave the whole thing away . Mrs . Rondeau
stated that she had no objection to those who genuinely want the
environment protected , but she does object to willful
misconstruction of the purposes of an Environmental Impact
Statement .
At 12 : 15 a . m . , Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the
matter of the consideration by the Planning Board of the Town of
Ithaca , acting as lead agency in the review of the proposed
124 - unit cluster residential subdivision , Commonland Community , at
1443 Slaterville Road , of the Board ' s determination in re
environmental significance duly closed and called for Board
discussion .
® Mr . Buyoucos , Town Attorney , stated to Chairman May that he
recommended an adjournment .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing that had been duly
opened at 8 : 05 p . m . , in the matter of consideration of final
subdivision approval , adjourned .
Town Engineer Lawrence Fabbroni stated that , as part of staff
recommendation in the matter of the Board ' s determination of the
environmental significance of the proposed development , the Board
should be clear on those things which they have seen and which are
reflected in the record . He noted the Long Form Town of Ithaca
Environmental Assessment Form and supplement thereto ( Environmental
Review Statement ) , received September 10 , 1982 , and submitted to
the Board ; the Addenda to the Environmental Review Statement
( supplement ) , received October 4 , 1982 , and presented to the Board
all from the developer and in the record . Mr . Fabbroni , refering
to staff input , noted letter from Bob and Kay Marion , dated October
4 , 1982 , as in the record . Mr . Fabbroni stated that staff also
attended the Ecology Action Forum at G . I . A . C . , September 20 , 1982 ,
and he entered . as part of the record the Six Mile Creek
Preservation Committee Position Paper distributed at that Forum .
Mr . Fabbroni noted- the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions
and the By -Laws of the Commonland Community Resident ' s Association
as received August 27 , 1982 , being a part of the record . Mr .
Fabbroni noted as in the record the Minutes of the Tompkins County
Environmental Management Council Executive Committee Meeting of
September 23 , 1982 setting forth the Committee ' s discussion of
Planning Board. 56 October 5 , 1982
Commonland . Mr . Fabbroni noted as in the record the Engineers
Report compiled for this project as prepared by Hunt Engineers
P . C . , with plans reviewed by each Board member individually .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that with all that entered into the record
as factual information , he would move on to staff recommendation .
Chairman May noted that the record should also show that the
Board members each received a letter from Mrs . Edna R . Clausen ,
1421 ( and 1423 ) Slaterville Road , dated October 1 , 1982 , and , each
received a letter from The Nature Conservancy , dated September 28 ,
1982 , expressing their opinion , and , to the Chair - a letter from
the Home Builders Association Tompkins Cortland Counties , dated
October 1 , 198 .2 .
Mr . Fabbroni noted other letters in the record : Jeff Coleman
letter dated August 25 , 1982 to Peter Lovi ; Marions ' letter to
Weisburd , dated September 21 , 1982 , copy sent to him ; Tompkins
County Planning Department ( Dotson ) letter , dated September 23 ,
1982 , to Peter Lovi ; HouseCraft letter , dated August 12 , 1982
responding to City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council , which
Board members received ; Tompkins County Energy / Housing Committee
letter , dated August 27 , 1982 , which Board members received .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that in considering all the information on
the environmental factors at the preliminary hearings and at this
one , Mr . Lovi will present an evaluation of SEQR Criteria , if you
accept that , with respect to Department of Environmental
Conservation regulations - - eleven points .
Mr . Lovi read the following aloud , each Board member having a
copy in front of him / her .
" Evaluation of SEQR Criteria
Re : Commonland. Community Subdivision
Town of Ithaca Local Law No . 3 , 1980 , which is more stringent
than the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ( SEQRA ) ,
provides for the environmental review of development within the
• Town of Ithaca . The review of the environmental aspects of the
Commonland Community proposal are being made in accordance with the
criteria established in 6 NYCRR 617 . 11 . The Environmental
Assessment Form , the final subdivision plan , detailed engineering
plans , information prepared by Mr . Weisburd , other interested
parties , and the Town Staff shall be used in assessing the
environmental significance of this action and making a
recommendation to the Planning Board .
Criteria # 1 : a substantial adverse change in existing air
quality , water quality , or noise levels ; a substantial increase in
solid waste production ; a substantial increase in potential for
erosion , flooding , or drainage problems ;
Planning Board. 57 October 5 , 1982
Evaluation : The Commonland subdivision will result in the
creation of 124 clustered solar townhouses on a parcel served by
both municipal water and municipal sewer . The landscaping plan for
the project calls for substantial revegetation of existing open
space and the creation of vegetative buffers between the project
and existing houses . The drainage plan seeks to preserve existing
drainage ways and will include the creation of a retention pond to
reduce the erosive force of runoff after unusually heavy rainfall .
Given the use of clustering , the landscaping plan , the use of solar
energy , the provision of public utilities and the drainage plan
there should be no substantial adverse effect as regards the
criteria listed above .
Criteria # 2 : the removal or destructioon of large quantities of
vegetation or fauna ; the substantial interference with the movement
of any resident migratory fish or wildlife species , impacts on a
significant habitat area ; or substantial adverse effects on a
threatened or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat
of such a species ;
Evaluation : Development of the Commonland subdivision will occur
on less than 1. 0 of the project ' s 45 acres . The remainder of the
parcel will be left as open space , complete with forests ,
woodlands , and gently rolling fields . With such an area available
there should be no substantial interference with existing animal
and plant life . In fact , since hunting will be prohibited on the
Commonland , deer and other animals which may be presently killed on
this land will be protected . In addition , there are no presently
endangered species of flora or fauna which would be adversely
affected by this development .
Criteria # 3 : the enouraging or attracting of a large number of
people to a place or places for more than a few days compared to
the number of people ,who would come to such a place absent the
action ,
Evaluation : It has been asserted by several concerned members of
the Ithaca community that the Commonland project would increase the
number of people who presently walk the trails below Van Natta ' s
Dam and who trespass on the land immediately adjacent to the City
• Reservoir and the unused but popularly called " Lower Reservoir " .
At present , both areas are quite popular with hikers and swimmers .
Since over 30 acres of the project will remain as open space
suitable for both active and passive recreation , there is no reason
to expect that the percentage of Commonland residents who will use
the City land will be any greater or smaller than that present in
the community at large . As a result , there should be a negligible
effect on the number of persons using the Ithaca City watershed .
Criteria # 4 : the creation of a material conflict with a
community ' s existing plans or goals as officially approved or
adopted ,
Planning Board 58 October 5 , 1982
Evaluation : The official zoning map of the Town of Ithaca
indicates that: Mr . Weisburd ' s land may be developed as R- 15 and
R- 30 residential land . This zone allows for the construction of
one and two family homes on 15 , 000 and 30 , 000 square foot lots ,
respectively . The proposed Commonland development is within the
allowable number of residential units permitted under the present
zoning and is a cluster design permitted under New York State Town
Law , section 281 .
Criteria # 5 : the impairment of the character or quality of
important historical , archaeological , architectural , or aesthetic
resources or of existing community or neighborhood character ;
Evaluation : There are no important historical , archaeological or
architectural _resources which will be impaired by this development .
The existing community or neighborhood character is that of one and
two - family residences on small lots which front on route 79 . A
continuation of this traditional subdivision pattern would have
broken up available open space . As presented , the Commonland
development preserves maturing woodland and reclaims open areas
which were eroding due to the cessation of farming during the past
several years .
Criteria # 6 : a major change in the use of either the quantity or
type of energy ;
Evaluation : The Commonland project stresses energy conservation
rather than the use of alternative energy sources . The common wall
construction and the R - 60 insulation rating are conservative of
radiant heat given off by appliances , lighting fixtures , and body
heat . Estimates suggest that these sources can provide 150 % of the
heat load required by the houses over a full year heating season .
Electric baseboard heating will be available as a supplement during
the coldest winter months .
Criteria # 7 : the creation of a hazard to human health or safety ;
Evaluation : All design site improvements reflect current
engineering and planning practice . Care was taken to preserve
existing drainage ways and to keep all structures out of the 100
• year floodways ,. It has been asserted by some members of the
community that the presence of steeply sloping hills on City of
Ithaca land adjacent to the project would be dangerous to small
children . The nearest of these cliffs to any house in the
Commonland development is approximately 200 feet . These cliffs are
comparable in height and danger to the Cascadilla and Fall Creek
gorges which cut through the center of Cornell University and the
Collegetown in the City of Ithaca . We believe that with adequate
fencing of the property closest to these cliffs and posting of the
City Watershed boundary , that there should be no serious safety
risk .
. Planning Board 59 October 5 , 1982
Criteria # 8 : a substantial change in the use , or intensity of use
of land or other natural resources or in their capacity to support
existing uses ,
Evaluation : The present use of the land in the community is for
one and two - family residential construction at a density no greater
than that proposed by the Commonland project . Since the project
will be served by public water and sewer , there will be no
substantial change in the capacity of other resources , such as the
Ithaca City reservoir , to support existing uses .
Criteria # 9 : the creation of a material demand for other actions
which would result in one of the above consequences ; or
Criteria # 10 : changes in two or more elements of the environment ,
no one of which has a significant effect on the environment , but
which taken together result in a substantial impact on the
environment ,
Evaluation of # 9 and # 10 : Infill residential construction such as
the Commonland Community project is expected to continue as
additional land in the area becomes available for development .
Since the enactment of the Town of Ithaca zoning ordinance in 1954
this land has been considered suitable for residential
construction . At the time of the zoning designations , it was
established that the land could support development at this
density . Sufficient public water and sewer facilities have already
been provided to allow the development of a community of this
character to the full density permitted by the zoning ordinance and
official map .
Criteria # 11 : two or more related actions undertaken , funded , or
approved by an agency , no one of which has or would have a
significant effect on the environment , but which cumulatively meet
one or more of the criteria in this section .
Evaluation . Neither Mr . Weisburd nor any other party is
presently seeking funding or approval from the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board for a related action which would , in conjunction
with the Commonland project , meet or exceed one or more of the
criteria given above .
Reviewer ' s Recommendation .
In the opinion of the Town of Ithaca engineering and planning
staff , the Commonland Community proposal is being designed and will
be constructed in harmony with the prevailing character of the
parcel in question and adjacent land uses . Final engineering plans
indicate that .
1 . Drainage ways will be maintained and will be sufficient
to accommodate the prospective load .
Planning Board 60 October 5 , 1982
2 . Town roads will be adequate to accommodate the expected
traffic and will have satisfactory sight and braking
distances at all times .
3 . Public utilities will be adequate to serve the expected
demand .
4e the landscaping plan will incorporate necessary visual
and acoustic buffering between the project site and
adjacent residences .
59 the health , safety , and welfare of the public will be
preserved .
Given this information , we believe that a negative declaration
of environmental significance is appropriate . "
Chairman May thanked Mr . Lovi for the excellent staff review
and asked to hear from Mr . Fabbroni .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that the Long Form Environmental
Assessment Form adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca
goes beyond the State form , adding that he had used the form that
the State offers for a review in order to present his
recommendation . Mr . Fabbroni described the evolvement of the
information for the " Parts " , being I , II , and III , of the State
form , as follows : Part I . - - Developer , Board , Staff ; Part II - -
Town Engineer , Town Planner ; Part III - - Other Information . Mr .
Fabbroni went over the State form he had completed , that is , Part
II , page by page , the Board members each having a copy in front of
him / her . He noted a portion of the general information portion of
Part II , such portion reading : " Identifying that an effect will be
potentially large ( column 2 ) does not mean that it is also
necessarily significant . Any large effect must be evaluated in
PART 3 to determine significance . By identifying an effect in
column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further . " He delineated
each question , delineated each answer , and described the evaluation
of each such question and answer . Mr . Fabbroni added an
explanation with reference to State question # 13 , being : " Will
there be an effect to existing transportation systems ? " - - stating
that that is largely up to New York State DOT ,
Mr . Fabbroni completed the page by page review of the State
form ( Part II ) , ( see attached and following ) , which form notes
that : " If any action in part 2 is identified as a potential large
impact or if you cannot determine the magnitude of impact , proceed
to part 3 . " Mr . Fabbroni stated that he had followed that
direction and proceeded to read aloud , the following , the Board
members each having a copy in front of him / her :
" Environmental Assessment - Part III
Evaluation Of The Importance Of Impacts
Impact on Land :
1 Physical Change To Project Site - 10 + % General Slope
Planning Board 61 October 5 , 1982
a . Commonland Community is proposed on a site sloping from 5 to
15 per cent generally .
b . The developer proposes to mitigate or reduce to less than
large impact building on these slopes by siting buildings in
clusters on natural knolls . Since the top of each knoll is
essentially the start of a new surface drainage area , erosion
potential and traditional problems of widespread sheeting
runoff will be avoided . The landform will not be changed to
create level sites ; instead , the buildings will be built into
the knolls .
C * The probability of the impact occurring is low given the
grading and siting plans presented . Duration of erosion
should be confined to the time of construction and
re - establishment of ground cover . The impact can be
controlled by both enforcement of approved plans and added on
site controls to be required , e . g . , check dams .
This impact is therefore not considered important in the SEQR
meaning of important .
1 Physical Change to Project Site - Water table less than 3
feet .
a . Commonland is cut by a tree - like series of drainageways
intermixed among aforementioned knolls . There will be no
construction within these drainageways where the water table
is at the surface . Where the building sites into a knoll
might fracture the water table or fall below it , the
individual. drainage systems for each building will drain water
from around the buildings to a system of footer drains leading
to surface runoff below building sites into surface drainage
swales . This is a conventional method of controlling
groundwater around residential buildings so the probability of
impact , duration of impact , irreversibility is not of great
importance . Impact can always be enhanced by more elaborate
subdrainage systems for buildings if necessary . Wet
springlike areas are not being built upon .
This impact is therefore not considered important in the SEQR
meaning of important .
1 Physical Change To Project Site - More than one year
construction or more than one phase .
Commonland is proposed to be built in nine phases as detailed
on a phasing plan submitted by the developer . This phasing
plan along with enforcement powers of the Town , e . g . ,
certificate of occupancy for individual units , letter of
credit on incompleted public and private improvements , and
requirements of completing certain phases before starting
additional phases , will provide guarantees to the regional and
Planning Board 62 October 5 , 1982
® local neighborhoods that what is started will be finished
according to Planning Board requirements .
These checks and balances will make the length of
construction an impact not considered important in the SEQR
meaning of important .
5 Will Project Affect Surface OR Ground Water Quality ? -
Contamination of public water supply systems .
Commonland drains by way of three major drainage gorges to the
lower reservoir at the 30 foot dam of the City of Ithaca
Watershed . Specific question on this reservoir ' s use for the
public water supply to the City Engineer has brought a
specific :response that the lower reservoir " is not now used as
a public water supply , nor has it been so used in many years .
We have no present plans , either short - term or long - term , to
use the lower reservoir as a public water supply . " He goes on
to say Six Mile Creek could be used as a source downstream in
the future . If this were the case , the lower reservoir would
act as an effective silt pond for catchment of silt or runoff
from any ,area below the 60 foot dam . Although erosion is not
expected to be a factor from Commonland , the above plans of
the City and facts make any community concern about the
integrity or quality of the public water raw supply
• groundless ,
This impact is therefore not considered important in the SEQR
meaning of` important .
5 Will Project Affect Surface OR Ground Water Quality ? - Project
will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an
existing body of water to the extent that there will be an
obvious visual contrast to natural conditions .
Commonland has this potential . As mentioned before , however ,
the siting of the clusters on knolls removed from hundred year
floodways , the mitigation measures of check dams , rock lined
streams at critical points , retention basins , building with
the topography and along contour lines , and careful
re - establishment of groundcover through a master landscape
plan will control erosion and in every case arrest the erosion
process before cutting into the soft clays . In this way the
probability of this occurring , irreversibility and control of
erosion and siltation are all diminished as problems with
proven control methods built into the proposal before the
Planning Board .
This impact is therefore not considered important in the SEQR
meaning of important .
10 Will The Project Affect Views , Vistas Or The Visual Character
Of The Neighborhood Or Community ? - An incompatible visual
Planning Board 63 October 5 , 1982
effect caused by the introduction of new materials , colors
and / or forms in contrast to the surrounding landscape .
Commonland features housing sites built into the southside of
knolls existing on the property . This means a two - story
structure to peak of roof should project a maximum of sixteen
feet above the natural landform . In addition , in every case a
structure ' s trellis and landscaped side is the elevation
exposed to the neighboring properties to the north . In
addition , major wooded areas to be left or additional
landscaping to be established as buffers to existing
residential neighboring properties as a minimum according to
the submitted landscape plan can provide a complete visual
separation if desired . The roadway paralleling Slaterville
Road has been moved away from these rear property lines to
leave room for proper grading and landscaping . The roadway
profile and roof peaks are all designed to be below the lowest
point on all the adjoining properties . The construction
proposed and earth mounding should maintain the visual
character as much as reasonably possible in view of the
acreage being developed . So , the impact can be controlled to
the extent that it is minimized by vertical height controls ,
highway .location , highway profiles , minimizing land form
changes , retaining mature woodstock , landscaping , and natural
wood architecture . While objections are sure to persist
locally , the balance of protecting existing residential values
and proceeding with reasonably planned development with
regulatory controls provided through zoning , Town Law , and
conditions of approval of the Planning Board is achieved .
This impact is therefore not considered important in the SEQR
meaning of important .
10 Will The Project Affect Views , Vistas Or The Visual Character
Of The Neighborhood Or Community ? - A project easily visible ,
not easily screened , that is obviously different from others
around it .
Commonland. as a project to be clustered is obviously different
from others around it . Density is designed for . 36 acres per
unit in comparison to lot sizes largely . 34 to . 60 acres per
unit in the adjoining neighborhood . Over eleven acres of open
space are planned into the development along with relatively
untouched frontage above the entrance road along Slaterville
Road . This , together with many aforementioned layout
considerations should minimize the visual differences and fit
into the surrounding natural landscape .
This impact is therefore not considered important in the SEQR
meaning of important .
10 Will The Project Affect Views , Vistas Or The Visual Character
Of The Neighborhood Or Community ?
Planning Board 64 October 5 , 1982
Commonland will adjoin ten existing residences . As mentioned
above , the profile and distance of the new highway have been
moved south of the property a sufficient distance from these
property lines to allow landscaping as depicted on the
landscape plan submitted . This landscaping plan should be
made a part of project plans and the species of plantings
depicted considered the minimum commitment to screening
adjacent properties . Since adjacent owners have expressed
different preferences of screening each will undoubtedly need
to work with the developer to favor view , privacy , or drainage
as the case may be . The landscaping plan at least guarantees
an enforcement tool of the Town to effect an adequate
commitment to these landowners as a matter of record . While
these mitigations or sound development concepts of developing
a buffer may not entirely satisfy adjacent landowners because
of a deeper uncomfortableness as expressed about the scale of
the project , it will sufficiently protect their interests to
the extent space and landscape can .
This impact is therefore not considered important in the SEQR
meaning of important .
12 Will The Project Affect The Quantity Or Quality Of Existing Or
Future Open Spaces Or Recreational Opportunities ? - A major
reduction of an open space important to the community .
• A major segment of the community feels this site should be
forever open as part of a Six Mile Creek recreation and nature
area or i.n a way different from Commonland , developed more
sensitive to the surrounding environment .
As mentioned elsewhere , Commonland preserves seven maturely
wooded acres adjacent to the City Six Mile Creek Watershed .
Presently ; the City position is that the Six Mile Creek
Watershed is closed to the public other than on the Circle
Greenway and in the wildflower area below the lower reservoir
dam . In a traditional subdivision four and one - half acres
would be taken as open space in comparison to at least eleven
acres , disregarding space within clusters . The Town of Ithaca
Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plan does not recognize this
site at all as needed for preservation or active open space in
the Town to serve the long - range interests of Town residents .
The land has been zoned for residential development since
1954 .
For these and many other reasons , this impact is therefore not
considered important in the SEQR meaning of important .
14 Will Project Affect The Community ' s Sources Of Fuel Or Energy
Supply ? - Project requiring the creation or extension of an
energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50
. single or two - family residences .
Planning Board 65 October 5 , 1982
Commonland will consist of 124 clustered residences . NYSEG
will extend electric power to the site and underground on the
site as required to be brought to the cluster locations . This
is standard procedure in Ithaca and with the powerlines
available: on Slaterville Road no new power rights of way
through socially or environmentally sensitive areas are
required .
This impact is therefore not considered important in the SEQR
meaning of important .
17 Will Project Affect The Character Of The Existing Community ? -
Tevelopment will induce an influx of a particular age group
with special needs .
Commonland is designed to appeal economically to the needs of
many age groups , e . g . , first entering the housing market , in a
fast -moving double - income family , or at retirement age to
smaller quarters without maintenance burdens . Some would
expect the development to be a student rental housing
satellite to Cornell and Ithaca College , The Covenants and
Restrictions , however , require dwellers to be owners and limit
the rental periods for out of town stays common to a town with
an educational economic base . Rental periods are restricted
to one in three years and no more than two in five years with
• special approval . This will sufficiently restrict purchase
for strictly rental purposes and to the extent practicable ,
reasonable assure many of the quality of life aspects of the
cluster development such that it will appeal to young and old
alike .
This impact is therefore not considered important in the SEQR
meaning of important .
17 Will Project Affect The Character Of The Existing Community ? -
Project will relocate 15 or more employees in one or more
businesses .
Commonland may employ 30 people , 20 at any one time . It is
common for construction workers to relocate from site to site .
• In fact , it is the essence of the business .
This impact is therefore not considered important in the SEQR
meaning of important .
18 Is There Public Controversy Concerning The Project ? - Either
government or citizens of adjacent communities have expressed
opposition or refected the project or have not been contacted .
Objections to the project from within the community :
• Many objections have been raised with regard to effects of
treated wood chemicals , inaccuracy of topographic maps ,
inaccuracy of energy claims , community quality of life ,
Planning Board 66 October 5 , 1982
overhead utility lines , size of units , density proposed ,
traffic problems to ensue , fragility of wildlife and plant
life in Six Mile Creek Watershed , total community support
facilities , geologic interrelationship on adjacent City site ,
erosion , comprehensive planning , rental restrictions , etc .
Each and every point is addressed in the developer ' s EAF and
addendum . The points of fact will be entered into the meeting
record to sort out real concerns from the contrived by Town
staff . Assurances will be provided in the way of specific
plan details offered and contingencies of approval listed by
the Planning Board and at least including the recommendations
as mitigating measures herein along with those resulting from
further :staff submittals as part of the public record and
further deliberations of the Town Planning Board ,
CONCLUSION
In summary , a negative declaration is still recommended by
staff because mitigation measures as presented by the developer in
the EAF , plans , and supplemental materials not only minimize
social , economic , and environmental impacts but document those
measures in a plan easily referenced as part of any Planning Board
approval and , more importantly , in a form to enforce actual
construction , methods , phasing , or procedure prior to occupancy
approvals . These concrete measures go beyond the general
mitigation measures generally described in a D / EIS . The scale of
this project is familiar to Town and staff so that the reasonable
finished product can be projected , impacts mitigated , neighbors
protected , and final outcome achieved as approved without more
extensive environmental studies principally; of the Six Mile Creek
Watershed area , an area closed to the public other than for some
walking trails . That area is more appropriately studied by the
City ; the owner and Commonland is not considered a major factor in
the outcome of the City study , whatever it may be , e . g . ,
Recreational , Conservation , Public Health or some combined use .
The project under review has been shown to be as mutually exclusive
of Six Mile Creek as practically can be achieved by an area upgrade
from it . "
Chairman May thanked Mr . Fabbroni for his excellent , in - depth
• review .
Speaking t the Planning Board members ,, Chairman May stated
that the Board would now discuss the Environmental Assessment Form
which they had received some time ago . The Board members noted the
Addenda which they had received and which amended the EAF
( questions # 17 and # 49 ) ; the supplement to the EAF ; the plans and
details which each had reviewed individually , and that each had
visited the site . The Chairman of the Planning Board reviewed the
items and the questions and answers on each page of the EAF . He
addressed each .page to the attention of the Planning Board members
. and asked them whether or not they had any questions or discussion
about the item and the answer to it , as follows :
Planning Board 67 October 5 , 1982
. Page 1 : No comments ; no changes ; Page 1 , satisfactory to the
Board .
Page 2 : Mr . Stanton wanted to make sure that question V . wherein
the foundations are delineated as masonry , was properly
answered . Mr . Klein pointed out that the attachment
( Environmental Review Statement ) makes reference to the
use of pressure - treated wood , as do the drawings . The
Board agreed that # 7 was satisfactory .
Mrs . Langhans wanted to make sure that question # 10 ,
referring to gross building sizes , was properly answered .
The Board discussed question # 10 and determined that the
answers were satisfactory .
No further comments ; no changes ; Page 2 , satisfactory to
the Board .
Page 3 : No comments , no changes , with the exception , as noted , of
the requested addition in the submitted Addenda to
question # 17 , being : " Concern has been expressed by
neighbors over the possibility of rentals and the
potential effect of the project on the community . Other
questions and issues have been raised concerning the
adjacent city property , including concerns over drainage ,
erosion , wood foundations . A voluntarily prepared
Environmental Review Statement has been appended to this
•
Environmental Assessment Form to fully address these
questions . " ( added to : " Presence of cemetery on
property . " ) . Page 3 , satisfactory to the Board .
Page 4 : With reference to question # 29 , Mr . Klein stated that the
answer only notes one type of soil - - Hudson Silty Clay
Loam; . The Board agreed that all the soil types are
listed in Appendix II ( letter , Lamont ( SCS ) to Weisburd ,
8 / 18 / 82 ) of the Environmental Review Statement , a
supplement to the EAF . Page 4 , satisfactory to the
Board. .
Page 5 : Mrs . Grigorov wanted to make sure that question # 42 was
answered properly as " NO " , with the explanation : , " No
unique features on site . Property shares its south
boundary with 537 acres of City watershed property which
includes creek and man -made reservoirs . " Mr . Weisburd
stated that he thought the answer , yes or no , depended on
one ' s definition of " near " . Mr . Fabbroni suggested that
the answer might be better as " yes " and the explanation
amended by the addition of a reference to the EMC
Inventory . The Board members concurred , as did Mr .
Weisburd . Page 5 , thus satisfactory to the Board and
to Mr . Weisburd .
Page 6 : No comments ; no changes , with the exception , as noted , of
. the requested change in the submitted Addenda to question
# 49 , being : " Delete ' none ' . " " Add , ' A project of this
scope will directly stimulate the local building industry
Planning Board 68 October 5 , 1982
and related trades and businesses presently under
hardship conditions . It will make home ownership
available to a broader population and will stimulate
local awareness of energy conservation and planning
issues . Population may cause increased enrollment in
local school , which is capable of absorbing it . Public
transportation route may be extended to the area . " Page
6 , satisfactory to the Board .
Page 7 : Mr . Klein pointed out that there was really no place to
that. a permit is needed from the State in connection with
the road , suggesting that " Other " might be the place to
note it . The Board and Mr . Weisburd agreed that under
State Permits the word " yes " should be added by " Other "
and on the blank line provided , the words " New York State
Highway Work Permit " should be added . Page 7 ,
satisfactory to the Board and to Mr . Weisburd .
Thus , it was that :
The Planning Board reviewed the Environmental Assessment Form
( Long Form ) , Supplement and Addenda thereto , as prepared and
submitted by Mr . Weisburd . The Planning Board requested and the
developer agreed to the following changes or modifications to the
EAF .
• 1 . Page 3 - - Question # 17 : Amended by the addition of a
reference to the Addenda .
2 . Page 4 - - Question # 29 : Amended by the addition of a
reference to the Supplement
( Environmental Review Statement ) ,
3 . Page 5 - - Question # 42 : Answer changed from " No " to " Yes " .
Explanation amended by the addition
of the following sentence :
The Tompkins County Environmental
Management Council Inventory of
Unique Natural Areas lists the entire
• City of Ithaca Watershed in its
inventory of unique natural areas ,
however , such designation has not
been formally adopted by the City of
Ithaca or the Town of Ithaca .
4 . Page 7 - - Question # 54 : Section on State Permits changed by
the addition of " Yes " at the box
marked " Other " and the addition of
the words " New York State Highway
Work Permit " on the blank line .
• And , further , it was that :
Planning Board 69 October 5 , 1982
Page 6 - - Question # 49 : Amended by the deletion of " none " and
the addition of a reference to the
Addenda .
Chairman May asked if there were any further discussion . The
Board members indicated that they had no further comments .
Mr . Buyoucos stated to the Board that he was giving no opinion
as to whether an Environmental Impact Study is required . Mr .
Buyoucos stated that he had been asked , by the Planning Board and
by the Town Board , to review , with respect to their legal import ,
the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions and the By - Laws of
the Residents ' Association , which were presented to the Planning
Board by the developer . Mr . Buyoucos continued , commenting that a
case adjudicated in Suffolk County may not necessarily be binding
upon this jurisdiction , and stated that he came tonight to make
sure that this Board did not give any final approval without due
and proper consideration . Mr . Buyoucos noted that it was very late
and he would like to see the meeting adjourned , however , he would
say , with reference to an EIS , whether or not this Board is going
to require it , he did not know , but an action being classified as
Type I is not necessarily one that would require the completion of
an EIS . Mr . Buyoucos stated that it is usual for a Board to rely
on staff and on their own analysis of what has been presented . Mr .
Buyoucos said that , were it up to him , there would be no final
determination tonight . Mr . Buyoucos stated to the Board that the
• rest is up to them - either negative or positive - suggesting if
the Board wanted a motion for submission that the Board draw up one
for and one against and consider them .
Chairman May thanked Mr . Buyoucos .
MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mrs . Barbara
Schultz .
WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has received and
reviewed , both individually and as a Board , a large amount of
information , a great deal of material and detailed plans ,
NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board , acting as lead agency in the review of the proposed
124 - unit cluster residential subdivision at 1443 Slaterville Road ,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 1 - 33 . 2 , approve and hereby does
approve the Environmental Assessment Form , as amended ; and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that pursuant to the State Environmental
Quality Review .Act , Part 617 , this action is classified as Type I ;
and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has
determined from the Environmental Assessment Form and all pertinent
information that the above -mentioned action will not significantly
impact the environment and , therefore , will not require further
environmental review .
Planning Board 70 October 5 , 1982
Chairman May asked if there were any discussion by the Board
of the motion before it . Mrs . Langhans asked if the motion stating
that the development will not significantly impact the environment
was a negative declaration . Mr . Klein stated that that was
correct , Mr . May agreed .
The Board asked the Secretary to read aloud the motion
commencing at the resolved part .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Langhans , Grigorov , Klein .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the October 5 , 1982 meeting
of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 1 : 40 a . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
EAF
ENYIRotiMENTAL ASSESSMENT _ PART II
Pro ' ect Im acts and Their Magnitude
General Information ( Read Carefully ) the question Have my decisions and determinations
� - In completing the form the reviewer should be guided an
n reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert envisonot mean thahit is also necessaranY
:
been identifying
that an effect will be potentially large ( column 2 0e
Identifying larg ° effect must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance . RY
si nificant . Any asks that it be looked at further .
e fect � n column 2 simply showing tYPes of effects and wherevl�cableithroughoutble the rthe
old
er a response in column 2 . The examples are gene rallesaand/'or lower thresholds
_
The Exam les provided are to assist the reviewerby
project or site other examp
of magn1tu a that: would trigger any
State and for moStSi riateaforna� PotentialrLarge simpact rat ing •
may be more app P . . Therefore , the examples have been offered as. guidance ,
_ Each prof
ect , on each site , in each locality , will vary *
each
They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds tof each questionQs on .
The number of examples Per question does not indicate the importance o
INSTRUCTIONS fully)( Read Care
a • Answer each of the IS qu
estions in PART 2 . Answer Yes if there will be any effect .
b , MaYbe
an should be considered as Y_ answers ,appropriate box ( columj@1 °ovideda checkindicate
column potential
Yes to a Question then check the app P examP
color p
c. If answering If impact threshold equals or exceeds any
size of the impact . large and
mn
impact will occur but threshold is lower than example ,ell . consideruthe impact as potentially
d , If reviewer has doubt about the size of the impact t ? in the project to a less than Targe
proceed to PART 3 * a change
e _ If a potentially large impact or effect can be reduced by $ � 36
magnitude , place a Yes
in col ., n 3 . A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible :
SMALL 70 POTENTIAL CAN
� BE
REDUCED BY
MODERATE LARGE PROJECT CHANGE
IMPACT IMPACT
IMPAC, N LAND NO YES
ULT OF A PHYSICAL CHANGE TO
0 we
J• WILL THERE BE A`i EFFECT AS A RES
• PROJECT SITE?
to Column 2 , l �s
Engles that kould APPLY greater , ( 15 foot rise per
Slopes of 15� or g
Any construction on sorPwhere the general slopes in the project
100 foot of length ) , yr
area exceed 10% • —
the depth to the water table
Construction on Land where is less /
�- than 3 feet .
� . 1
for
,
^n'1 or more vehicles .
construction of caved narking area Dosed or generally
Construction on land where bedrock surface •
within 3 feet of existing 9 year or involve
Const$han ' onethat
nhasewill
or stagecontinue for more than
1 .
more * more n 1 , 000
Excavation for mining Purposes that rock would
r }movc
iler year ,
tha �---'
tons . of natural Material ( ' • e
Construction of any new sanitary landfill •
3�.
MALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IHPACT BE
DERATE LARGE REDUCED BY
HPA T IHPACT PROJECT CHANGE
Construction in a designated floodway . J
_ Other impacts * T .®
�f7 YES
2e WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO ANY UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL LANG FORMS
FOUND ON THE SITE? ( i . e . cliffs , dunes , geological forma-
0ons , etc . )
Specific land forms : LENS DOWN 10 SIX MI �E _� "
IHPACT ON WATER .
v3. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY WATER. BODY DESIGNATED AS , , • . • . NO , YES
PROTECTED? (Under Articles 15 , 24 , 25 of the Envir,
onmental Conservation Law , E . C . L . )
Examples that Would Apply to Column 2
Dredging more than - 100 cubic yards of material from
channel of a protected stream.
Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland . (�
Other impacts *
WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY NON-PROTECTED EXISTINA OR NFH NO YES
BODY OF WATER?
Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 VYO
_. A 10% increase or decrease In the surface area of any body
of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease .
Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of 1 /
surface area .
Other impacts : f;rl`� � O �aAA
YES
• g. WILL PROJECT AFFECT SURFACE OR GROUNDWATER DUALITY ? 00
Examples that Would Apply to Column 2
Project will require a discharge permit.
Project requires use of a source of water that does not have
aporo"val to serve proposed project.
Project requires water supply from wells with greater a�
than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity . J
Construction or operation causing any contamination
'— of a public water supply system . tf
Project will adversely affect groundwater.
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to 1
facilities which presently do not exist or have '-
. inadequate capacity . /
Project requiring a facility that would use water in {//
excess of 20 ,000 gallons per day .
Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge
into an existing bady of water to the extent that there
will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions .
`� • 2o ,
HALL TC POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE
10DEPATE LARGE REDUCED BY
IMPACT INP..ACT PROJECT CHARGE
_ Other Imoacts :
6. ;BILL PROJECT ALTER DRAINAGE FLO11 , PATTEP'1S OR SURFACE !TATER NO YES
iRUNOFF? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
Examole that Mould A.nply to Column 2 (7wj
Project wnuld impede flood water flows .
Project is likely to cause substantial erosion . _
_ Project is incompatible with existing drainage
' .patterns .
Other - impacts : bQIVG� CFTvf 1W Nom' PIT"�(�-
C�,o S S 11� GS
MIEK
IMPACT ON AIR
NO YES
7 , TALL PROJECT AFFECT AIR QUALITY ? . . . . . . . , 0 * 06pose0
F.xa_ mples that Would Apply to Column 2 w
Project will induce 1 , 000 or more vehicle trips in any given
hour .
Project will result in the incineration of more than I ton ,
of refuse per hour.
Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed S ►� �,�
lbs , per hour or a heat source Producing more than 10
\ million BTU ' s per hour.
Other impacts :
IMPACT' 4' OPLANT5 AND AN=
640 YES
9 . WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES?
0
Exam,les that Would' Apply to Column 2 /
Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York
• or Federal list , using the site , over or near site or
found on the site .
Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wild-
Iife ha4it3 L. / T
Application of Pesticide or heitiicide over more than
twice a yearother than foragv'ieiltural purposes ,
other impacts :
4 . WILL PROJECT SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT VON4HREATEAED OR NO YES
ENDANGERED SPECIES ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0
Example that Would Apply to Column 2
_ Project would substantially interfere with any resident4Z
s . or migratory fish or wildlife species .
_ Project requires the removal of more than 1 ^ acres of
mature forest ( over 100 years in ane ) or other locally
important vegetation .
- 7-
MALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE
MODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY
I"P.ACT 174PACT PROJECT C, .ANGE
I !'PACT 0A VISKIL RES^:'RCE
19 . . WILL THE PPOJF.CT AFFECT VIFI•IS , " ISTAS 0.'; THE VISUAL NO 'YcS
CHARACTER OF THE NF. IGHBORPOOD OP CONMt '!IITY?
Examntes that 11ould Apply to Column 2
is
An incompatible visual affect caused by the introduction � .
of new materials , colors and/or forms in contrast to the e�
surrounding landscape . .
s— A oroject easily visible , not, easily screenedpthat is �
obviously different. from others around it .
e Project will resultin the elimination or major =
• screening of scenic views or vistas known to be
important to the area .
Other impacts : OG �
IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES
ll . WILL PROJECT IMPACT ANY SITE. OR STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC , NO YES
PRE-HISTORIC OR PALEONTOGICAL It'•PJPTANCE? . . . , . . ,. . . . . . . . . �
Examoles that Would Aoolv to Column 2
00
Project occurino wholly or partially within or contiguous ), e
to any facility or site listed on the Rational Register of
historic places .
1� Any impact to an archeological site or fossil bed located
within the project site .
Other impacts : .
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE & RECREATIOtI
12 . WILL THE PROJECT AFFECT THE OUANTITY OR QUALITY OF EXISTING NO YES
OR FUTURE OPEC! SPACES OR RECREATIONAL OPPORTU'IITIES? . . . " .
Examples that Would Applyto Column 2
The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opoortunity , ! � _
A major reduction of an open space important to . the community. s H�
Other imoacts :
IMM PACT ON TRANSPORTATION
13 . VILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO EXISTING TRANSPORTATION NO YES
SYSTEMS ? . . 0009000a10a090 a 0 . 00 . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Examples that Would Apply to Column 2
Alteration of present patterns of movement of people C'
and/or goods , - a
Project will result in severe traffic problems. 1 ;et
Other impacts :
-pl•.
2w 3 .
SMALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT CE
• MsODERA.TE LARGE REDUCED BY
IMPACT IVACT PROJECT CHANGE
f
IMPACT ON ENERGY
14 . WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE COMMUNITIES SOURCES OF FUEL OR NO YES
ENERGY SUPPLY? < . . ., . . . . . . . . < . . 000 . . 0 < , < < < . . . < . . < < . . < . . . . . 00 .Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 •
Project causing qreater than 5% increase in any form of e ,
energy used in municipality .
Project requiring the creation or extension of an energy
transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single
• or two family residences .
Other impacts : .�
IMPACT ON NOISE
l5 . WILL THERE BE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS , NOISE , GLARE , VIBRATION NO `YES
or ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCE AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT? . . .
Examples that Would Aooly to Column 2 0
J Blasting within 1 , 500 feet of a hospital , school or other
sensitive facility .
Odors will occur routinely ( more than one hour per day ) . V
�. Project will produce Merating noise exceeding the
local ambient noise .levels for noise outside of structures ..
Project will remove natural barriers that would act as a
noise screen .
Other impacts :
' � a
IMPACT ON HEALTH & HAZARDS
NO YES
16 , HILL PROJECT AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ? . < 0 . 000 . . . . .
Examples that Mould .Apply to Column 2 op
e
.� Project will cause a: risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances ( i . e . oil , pesticides , chemicals ,' radiation , etc . )
in the event of accident or upset conditions , or there will
be a chronic low level discharge or emission .
Project that will result in the burial of " hazardous wastes "
( i . e . toxic , poisonous , highly reactive , radioactive , irritating ,
infectious , etc . , including wastes that are solid , semi -solid ,
r1 liquid or contain gases . )
�f
Storace facilities for one million or more gallons of liouified
-- natural gas or other- liouids .
K%
Other impacts :
VVEL TOPa TI III"AL C N IMPACT BE
MODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY
IMPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR HEIGHROR®
17 . WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE CHAPACTER nF THE EXISTING, NO YES
COMMUNITY? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �
Example that Would Apply to Column 2 (ADO
The population of the City , Town or Village in which the >S�
project is located is likely to grow by more than 5`K of
resident human population ,
The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or opera -
ting services will increase by more than 5% per year as a
result of this project .
Will involve any permanent facility of a non-agricultural
use in an agricultural district or remove prime agricultural
lands from cultivation .
The project will replace or eliminate existing facilities , '
structures or areas of historic importance to the community .
Development will induce an influx of a particular age AFS
group with special needs .
Project will set an important precedent for future projects . J_
Project will relocate 15 or more employees in one or more I �S
businesses .
Other impacts : LM Rai?' SnnOok SPoppmC
k _
NO YES
18 . IS THERE PUBLIC CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE PROJECT?
Examples that Would Apply to Column 2
• Either government or citizens of adjacent communities
have expressed opposition or rejected the pro.iect or have
not been contacted .
Objections to the project from within the community . L I
-�—
IF ANY ACTION IN PART 2 IS IDENTIFIEDAS A
POTENTIAL LARGE IMPACT OR IF YOU CANNOT DETERMINE
THE MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT , PROCEED TO PART 3 .
PORTIONS OF EAF COMPLETED FOR THIS PROJECT:
DETERMINATION PART I PART II PART 3
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF ( Parts 1 , 2
and 3 ) and considering both the magnitude and importance of each
• impact , it is reasonably determined that : PREPARE A; FlEGATIVE DECLARATION
A . The project will result in no major impacts and , therefore ,
As one which may not cause significant damaoe to the environment .
B . Although the project could have a significant effect on the
environment , there will not be a significant effect in this case PREPARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been
included as part of the proposed project .
L . The project will result in one or more major adverse impacts PREPARE POSITIVE DECLARATIOtI PROCEED WITH EIS
that cannot reduced and may cause nificant damage to
the environment ,
r' d
Date
Sigriifure of Responsible Official in Lead
70,71w 'A Agency
Si ature of Preparer if different from responsible officer)
Print or type nave of responsible official
in Lead Agencv
_ dam
E.AF
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT w PART. III
EVALUATION OF THE- iNPORTA"IMOF� IMPACTS
I .'IFORMATIOIN
Part 3 is prepared if one or more . impact or effect is considered to be potentially large . .
The amount of writing necessary to answer Part 3 may be determined by answering the question : In briefly
completing the instructions below have I placed in this record sufficient information to indicate the
reasonableness of ny decisions ?
INSTRUCTIONS
Complete the foilowinq for each impact or effect identified in Column 2 . of Part 2 : -
10 . Briefly describe the impact .
2 . Describe ( if applicable ) how the impact might be mitigated or reduced ' to a less than urge imnact by a pro-
ject change .
3 . Based on the information available , decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important
to the minicipality ( city , town or village ) in which the project . is located .
To answer the question of importance , consider :
The probability of the impact or effect occurring
The duration of the impact or effect
Its irreversibility , including permanently lost resources or values
a Whether the impact or effect can be controlled
The regional consequence of the impact or effect
Its potential divergence from local needs and goals
Whether known objections to the project apply to this impact or effect .
DETERPINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE
An action is considered to be significant if :
nne ( or more ) impact is determined to both Larne and its (their) consequence , based on the review
above , is important .
V
PART III STATEMENTS
a
( Continue on Attachments , as needed )
�t