Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1983-01-04 Y ' TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD JANUARY 4 , 1983 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , January 4 , 1983 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , N . Y . , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , David Klein , James Baker , Carolyn Grigorov , Barbara Schultz , Bernard Stanton , Edward Mazza , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , James V . Buyoucos ( Town Attorney ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Howard R . Schlieder , Richard B . Thaler , Esq . , Bill J . Manos , Bob Anderson , Peter Nickles , Ernie Koehler , John Majeroni , Frank Wiley , Nancy Ostman , Dan Peterson , Darell Street , Ronald Street , Evan Monkemeyer , M . J . Monkemeyer , Town Councilman George Kugler , Carol Boyd ( WTKO ) , Bruce Ryan ( WHCU ) . Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 44 p . m . REPORT OF THE TOWN BUILDING INSPECTOR , LEWIS D . CARTEE , Mr . Cartee ' s December 1982 Report of Building Permits Issued had been received by the Board with their Agenda and showed that 4 permits were issued for $ 30 , 350 . 00 in improvements , as compared with 2 permits issued in December 1981 for $ 55 , 000 . 00 in improvements . Mr . Cartee ' s 7 - page Year - End Summary 1982 had also been received by the Board with their Agenda and set forth the Building Inspector ' s activities for the entire year under sections entitled as follows : 1 . Building Permit Summary 2 . Certificates of Compliance Issued 3 . Appeals 4 . Sign Permits Issued 5 . Complaints / Investigations 6 . Area Construction REPORT OF THE TOWN PLANNER , PETER M . LOVI . �01Mr . Lovi stated that this was the end of his first year working with the Town Planning Board members , he had enjoyed their company very much , and he was looking forward to working with them this year . Mr . Lovi stated that he had learned a great deal in the last year and had worked on several interesting projects with which the Board had been involved . He stated that -� he hoped to :have more such projects in the future and mentioned the subdivision regulations , the comprehensive plan , planning board policies , the most recent revisions having been made in 1980 . Mr . May agreed that there were a few loose ends hanging . Planning Board 2 January 4 , 1983 REPORT OF THE TOWN ENGINEER , LAWRENCE P . FABBRONI . Mr . Fabbroni , being ill , was unable to be present at this meeting . REPORT OF THE PLANNING BOARD REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD , CAROLYN GRIGOROV . Mrs . Grigorov stated that there had been no meeting of the County Planning Board since she reported on their meeting of December 8 , 1982 at the December 21st Planning Board meeting . ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING ( FROM DECEMBER 21 , 1982 ) : CONSIDERATION OF REZONING PROPOSAL , FROM RESIDENTIAL - 15 TO MULTIPLE FAMILY AND FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL , TOGETHER WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT , OF 119 UNITS PLUS ONE PRIVATE RESIDENCE AND ONE SERVICE BUILDING , ON 30 ACRES , EAST KING ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 31 . BILL J . MANOS . Chairman May declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly resumed at 7 : 48 p . m . Chairman May read aloud from the Agenda as above and stated that he had closed the public input. portion on this matter at the last meeting and would like to reopen that in case there is any further public comment . Mr . May stated that new drawings had been distributed and the • Environmental Assessment Form had changes and additions made to it which would be discussed at tonight ' s meeting . Richard B . Thaler , Esq . , Mr . Manos ' attorney , stated that revised drawings had been completed incorporating changes and suggestions from the Board and Mr . Fabbroni . Mr . Thaler pointed out that there now are plans for covered stairways , additional parking spaces , an alternate future recreational area . He stated that Cornell Plantations have been consulted as to plantings and landscaping . He noted added surface lines for water and sewer and also an added contour drainage plan not included in last set of drawings . Mr . Thaler stated , with reference to the Environmental Assessment Form , that all additions and corrections requested at the last meeting have been made and an amended EAF submitted to the Board . Mr . Thaler asked the Board if all revisions were to the satisfaction of the members . Chairman May then expressed surprise and concern about the future alternate recreation area , recalling that the recreation are was to be moved to the west of the swale . He asked if that area was to be held open . Mr . Thaler indicated that that was incorrect and stated that it was the area just east of the line that was to be held open , adding , west of the driveway . Mr . Thaler referred to the drawings for clarification . Mr . May stated , for everybody ' s understanding since he was confused , that what was being discussed was the six acres which Planning Board 3 January 4 , 1983 • are not to be developed as part of the project , being on the west side of the existing pond , actually coming out west of the driveway and west of the pond . The Board asked the Cornell representatives if they agreed . John Majeroni , Cornell University Real Estate Department stated that they were very , very pleased with that . Nancy Ostman , Natural Areas Committee , Cornell Plantations , concurred with Mr . Majeroni , Chairman May asked if there were any additional comments from the public . No one spoke . Town .Attorney James V . Buyoucos , speaking to the representatives of Cornell present , stated that what the Planning Board is interested in is to make certain that it ( the Board ) understands any agreements which have been made between Cornell University and the proposed developer , Bill Manos . Mr . Buyoucos referred to a letter dated December 21 , 1982 from Shirley K . Egan , Associate University Counsel , Cornell University , to the Chairman of the Planning Board , ( entered into the record of the December 21 , 1982 Planning Board meeting ) , highly praising Mr . Manos and wherein she compliments him on the degree of cooperation they have experienced with him . Mr . Buyoucos stated that what this Board faces is the awareness that this is a very , • very important area , both as a swamp and as an area whose geology , flora and fauna represents a combination not known in these parts ,since prehistoric times , and further is listed in the County ' s Unique Natural Area ' s Inventory . Mrs . Ostman stated that she agreed . Mr . Buyoucos stated that , for these reasons , the Board wants to make certain that any agreement between Mr . Manos and Cornell University will be sufficient to protect this environmentally important area . Mr . Buyoucos stated that he did not think it was enough to say that arrangements have been worked out between Cornell and Mr . Manos because it was too general . Mr . Buyoucos stated that , instead , he would like to go specifically down the list in Ms . Egan ' s letter and refer to specific points that she had raised . Mrs . Ostman suggested that the developer ' s map be put up in order for it to be easier to go over the areas they were concerned with . Mr . Buyoucos read the following sentence from Ms . Egan ' s letter : " It is therefore essential to the life of the Swamp that there be protection from fast runoff due to roofs and blacktopped surfaces , herbicides and fertilizers , and other hazards of development in this section . " Mr . Buyoucos asked Mr . Lovi if Mr . Fabbroni had taken care of that through discussions of the plans with the engineer . Mr . Lovi stated that Mr . Fabbroni had not seen the latest drawings . Mrs . Ostman responded to this and stated that she had looked • at the drainage problem . Utilizing the drawing on display , Mrs . Ostman stated that the land was draining from the creek to the pond and what: is to the east of the road should not drain into Planning Board 4 January 4 , 1983 the Swamp . Mr . Buyoucos asked if the six acres were to remain undeveloped ,. wild and free , and trees were permitted to grow , would this -take care of the problem ? Mrs . Ostman said that they would be satisfied with this . She noted that the original plan at the December 21st meeting had a service building which now had been moved :back and the Cornell representatives were happy with this . Mr . Buyoucos now read the following part of Ms . Egan ' s letter : " In addition , Mr . Manos has agreed to establish a protective planting at the edge of his property near the northwest end of the pond . This should make passage by residents of the development into the Swamp difficult and so will go a long way toward alleviating our fears over the increased numbers and density associated with the requested zoning change . " Mrs . Ostman indicated that there is kind of a rim around the pond , in effect , a walkway path for people to walk . She stated that people might be tempted to go on to the Cornell property and so Mr . Manor has agreed to shrubbery to direct traffic away from this area . Mrs . Ostman stated that they ( Plantations ) had just recently sent Mr . Manos a proposal for plantings of natural shrubs , picking species that grow in the Swamp area now . She commented that the previous indication of using Russian Olive was not good in that it is quite evasive in nature . She emphasized • that natural species would be best - shrubs that will grow easily , that will be non - evasive , that will stay where put . Mr . Thaler showed the Board a small map , which he had , showing this protective planting area in red and stated that he would file copies of this small map with the Board . Mr . Buyoucos summarized that plantings will be recommended and agreed to . Mr . Thaler stated that that has already been done ; the Cornell people had recommended plantings which have been agreed to . Mr . Buyoucos next read the following from Ms . Egan ' s letter : " The University is gratified too , that Mr . Manos will be constructing the project ' in phases from east to west and that he will be locating the end of the access road no further west ( approximately ) than the western -most building . It is important that buildings , parking and roads not be placed near the ( approximately ) six ( 6 ) western -most acres of the site . " Mr . Thaler responded by saying that that has already been done - they have agreed . Mr . Buyoucos asked Mrs . Ostman if that were okay to which Mrs . Ostman replied that they think that will be adequate . Mr . Thaler described the right of way around the end of the pond located close to the pond and going to the east rather than the west . He stated that it will be a narrow area for vehicles but not road traffic , specifying as its use , service vehicle . Planning Board 5 January 4 , 1983 • Mr . Ma. jeroni stated that it was also agreed that this service road would be constructed so as to drain to the east , not the west . Mr . Buyoucos continued by reading the following section of Ms . Egan ' s letter : " We are further pleased by Mr . Manos ' statements that he plans a well - run and well - supervised development , with his own home next door . That no pets ( particularly cats ) , littering or dumping or other activities by the residents which could be detrimental to the Swamp will be permitted , is particularly comforting . " Mr . Buyoucos asked Mrs . Ostman to explain the part about the cats . She explained that the Swamp i ;s the home of rare birds , noting that the prairie warbler nests there . Mrs . Ostman stated that they had a concern that cats from the development would get into the Swamp area and disturb the warblers . She also stated that they were concerned with dumping because of toxic elements that might get into the Swamp area and would be very hazardous to it . Mr . Thaler stated that they are going to try to restrict tenants from having pets through the lease signed by residents of the proposed development which would specify that they could have no pets . Mr ., Buyoucos pointed out that there is a Town Local Law prohibiting dumping or littering and suggested that the Town Planning Board could request that leases for the residents • contain a statement with respect to dumping and that the wording should be somewhat the same as the Town ' s Local Law , Mr . Thaler replied , absolutely - yes . Mr . Buyoucos now read the following section of Ms . Egan ' s letter : " Likewise , Mr . Manos has said that any herbicides , pesticides or fertilizers will be used on the balance of his property ( i . e . the less critical eastern section ) in moderation so that no excess can drift through the air or flow through the water into the South Hill Swamp or areas which provide drainage to it . " Referring to the vegetation that was suggested on the most recent landscaping plan , Mr . Lovi stated that one of the species indicated - - Red Oak - - is quite susceptible to the Gypsy Moth . He suggested that they could possibly select evergreens or something that might require fewer applications of pesticides to maintain the trees , a matter which should be worked out with Cornell . He suggested for the final plans looking to types of species not needing herbicides - - ones requiring less maintenance . Mr . Lovi suggested types of species less likely to migrate and also ones indigenous to the area that will not be out of place if they should start to grow somewhere else . Mr . Buyoucos asked Mr . Thaler if this can be controlled , i . e . , the use of herbicides , pesticides or fertilizers could be • used in moderation or in such a manner that they did not drift through the air or water . Mr . Thaler responded that , with respect to drifting through water , the drainage plans will take Planning Board 6 January 4 , 1983 care of that: problem . Mr . Thaler stated that , as far as drifting through the air , they will do their best to control herbicides if they are used at all . Mr . Ma - eroni stated that Cornell understands that this is difficult to enforce and , in talking to Mr . Manos , they feel that he will be :responsible and will consult with them about any use of herbicides and fertilizers . Mrs . Ostman stated that they have consulted with Mr . Manos about a diversity of species in the hedgerow such that , if there should be an insect attack on a certain species , there will be a diversification of species and the entire planting will not die off at once , with Mr . Manos indicating that they will go along with types of species recommended . Mr . Mazza commented that Ms . Egan ' s letter relates solely to Mr . Manos and speaks of him very highly , however , he would like to point out to the Cornell representatives and to the Board that Mr . Manos may not own this land forever . Mr . Mazza stated that the Planning Board is interested in proper controls sufficient to protect the South Hill Swamp in any event . It was indicated that both Cornell and the Board understood this and were aware of it . Mr . Buyoucos stated that the Town Planning Board was interested in protecting this area and wanted to have something • specific to go by in the future that was not ambiguous . Mr . Buyoucos corroborated the fact that the land drains to the east with Mr . LOVi . Mr . Buyoucos stated , in view of the fact that surface water drains to the east , the principal condition is that by having no development in those six acres , the Swamp should not be endangered , it being protected from ecological damage which otherwise could be caused . Chairman May asked for any further comments or questions . There were none . Chairman May then asked for Board discussion . Mr . Klein stated that he was sorry he was unable to attend the last meeting , adding that as he looked at this revised plan there were things he liked better on the first drawings . He said that the laundry service building , 15 , 000 square feet , seems to be quite large and out of scale in comparison with the other buildings and , also , that the location might not be the best site for it . Mr . Klein also pointed out that the zoning ordinance calls for parking to be located no more than 200 feet from the dwelling unit: it is intended to serve , however , the proposed plan indicates some parking as far as 300 feet , which , he thought , some tenants might think is excessive . Mr . Klein also stated that he thought the location of the dumpsters was particularly bad ; 300 - 400 feet from certain units to trash receptacles was excessive . He pointed out that there • are only three locations for dumpsters for 17 buildings , suggesting that perhaps more dumpsters could be added . Mr . Klein stated that , as far as the appearance of the development is Planning Board 7 January 4 , 1983 • concerned , if one were to drive down King Road , one would see more parking lot than buildings . Mr . Klein stated that , in his opinion , there were many disturbing aspects to the plans although he was very pleased with the developer ' s working closely with Cornell University . He stated that it appeared to him that in the haste to get the project reviewed perhaps more time had been spent on the presentation materials than the study of certain aspects of site planning . Mr . Thaler explained to Mr . Klein that the laundry service building is not really just a service building . He stated that it includes an area for each apartment building dweller to have to store their belongings in a particulr area specifically assigned to them . Mr . Thaler stated that the building will also be used to store the equipment necessary to maintain the premises but it is mainly for the tenants ' storage . Mr . Klein inquired if the exterior would be the same as the rest of the buildings , assuming that it would have a pitched roof . It was indicated that the exterior of the building will be of the same materials as the rest of the buildings with pitched roof . On the matter of dumpsters , Mr . Lovi suggested that , if the developer wanted to keep the same three stations , they be moved to the northern part along the central spine in order to cut down on the walking distance and also dispense with having to walk • across the parking lot . Mr . Lovi pointed out that , under the present plan , when the trucks come in there would be a blocking off of at least one of the parking lots . Mr . Lovi suggested , also , that the dumpster locations could be screened . Mr . Schlieder stated that they were mostly concerned about the movement of the truck and mentioned that there were very few appropriate places because of drainage problems . Mr . Schlieder stated that they could work on getting the dumpsters located a little closer to the units to make it more convenient for the tenants . With respect to parking , Mr . Lovi suggested that with the number of parking spaces being required at least one could be located within 200 feet of the unit it is for . Mr . Klein raised questions about fire lanes . Mr . Lovi suggested widening some of the walkways , perhaps to 10 feet , so that fire vehicles could get through and be able to reach the farthest back: buildings and also so that during the winter they could be plowed first . Mr . Lovi pointed out what could be more appropriate fire lanes . Mr . Stanton commented that it would also be simpler for people moving in and out of their apartments . Mr . Schlieder talked about the uses of the hook and ladder by the Fire Department . • Mr . MaZ2; a noted that the fire hydrant locations are shown and inquired if the fire trucks have to get any farther than the hydrant . Mr . Schlieder stated that they do not , adding that the Planning Board 8 January 4 , 1983 hoses are carried from the hydrant . Mr . Schlieder stated that he had placed the hydrants as close to the parking lots as possible , adding that 300 feet is the maximum distance for fire hydrant location under the State Fire Code and pointing out that these are 250 feet from the buildings . Mr . Lovi stated that he had a relatively minor comment in re the parallel access road being 50 feet north of East King Road . He wondered if , when driving on King Road at night , a driver might experience the illusion of someone being on the road coming at them . It appearing that the Board did not see this as a difficulty , Mr . Lovi stated that it is probably not a real problem . Chairman May stated that he thought the Town should check with the Fire Department since he did not know how their feelings are in regard to this site development . He stated that they should look at the plan and be given the opportunity to offer comments about location of the buildings and access for trucks for fire fighting . Mr . Mazza raised the question of " Courts " as mentioned in the Multiple Residence section of the Zoning Ordinance . Mr . Lovi read from Article VI , Section 28 , Par . 2 , of the Ordinance as follows : " Courts : shall be completely open on one side , with a • width not less than the height of the tallest opposite structure and a depth riot more than 12 the width . " Mr . Buyoucas asked how the Board might interpret this section and if it applies to this proposed development . Mr . Klein offered that it sounded to him as though the intent was to have court yards open on one side . Mr . Schlieder stated that there was plenty of space in between the buildings for a fire lane . Chairman May stated that all four corners were open so that this section appeared not to be applicable . Mr . Mazza stated that he had no objection to this plan ; he raised the point because he felt the Board should address it . The Board members indicated their agreement that this section •was not applicable . Mr . Stanton stated that he had a question , which had to do with parking , as to tenant profile . Mr . Thaler indicated that the plan is to rent the units to married students ; graduate students . Mr . Thaler indicated that parking spaces would be assigned to each unit , perhaps through the lease . Mr . Stanton pointed out that there may be two cars per unit and suggested that , perhaps , more parking spaces should be added . Mr . Schlieder said parking was increased substantially as requested , and noted that 40 additional spaces were added as discussed at the December 21st meeting . Mr . May asked Mr . Klein if he were any happier with the parking with the lease specifying a parking space . Mr . Klein indicated that he was somewhat happier . • Chairman May indicated that he was still concerned with the location of the dumpsters and stated that this is an area that should be looked at . He stated that they should be moved closer Planning Board 9 January 4 , 1983 • to the residences , and suggested that the developer may want to leave the three dumpster locations where they are with , perhaps , single unit dumpsters placed closer . Chairman May asked about mail boxes . Mr . Schlieder stated that the Port Office regulations apply . Mr . Thaler stated that they would have to go to the post office to see what they wanted them to do about tenants picking up mail . Chairman May asked if the lighting plans were okay . Mr . Lovi noted that , although care had been taken with screening , he would also like to see screening from King Road to the access road . Mr . Lovi stated that he thought it important to screen the access road to the parking lots from King Road and some of the houses on the other side of King Road so that headlights in the evening will not be a problem to these residents . He suggested , perhaps , evergreen trees in a border in front of the access / exit points , adding that it would be appreciated by the neighbors across the road . Mr . May suggested that the developer might want to put some evergreens out toward the road so that there are winter plantings also . Mr . Schlieder pointed out that that particular area is a drainage area and stated that the screening was on the far side of the access road because there was a gulley or valley between the access road and King Road which makes it pretty difficult to plant trees in that 50 - feet strip between the two roads . Mr . May asked that Mr . Schlieder think about this , adding that the Board is not going to push it . Chairman May stated that there were no lights in close proximity to the dumpsters . Mr . Schlieder said that they will light each dumpster . Chairman May asked if there were any further questions or comments . Mr . Lovi stated that the Board should review the amended EAF . Mr . Buyoucos asked Mr . Thaler if the Board were going to have a chance to look at a proposed lease . Mr . Thaler responded , yes . Chairman May suggested that the Environmental Assessment Form , dated December 16 , 1982 , amended December 31 , 1982 , be looked at point by point . Mr . Thaler stated that all changes , corrections , and additions requested by the Board at the December 21 , 1982 , meeting had been made . The Board commenced its question by question , page by page , review of the amended EAF as submitted and signed by Mr . Manos , with Chairman May asking the Board if each question had been answered appropriately , and with the following result . Page 1 : No changes or corrections . Page 2 : No changes or corrections . Planning Board 10 January 4 , 1983 Page 3 : No changes or corrections . Page 4 : Question # 28 , " Check types of topographic features which describe or are found on the Site . " The Board requested that , in addition to " Level or gently rolling plains " being checked , " Hilltop " also be checked . Agreed to by Messrs . Manos and Thaler . Question # 29 , " Name of soils . . . " Mrs . Ostman pointed out a spelling error ; " ovis " should be " ovid " . Agreed to by Messrs . Manos and Thaler . Page 5 : Question # 38 , " To your knowledge , are there any rare , endangered , or unusual vegetative species which are located on or near the Site of the proposed action ? If so , how are they distributed ? " - - answered , " Yes ; Located on Cornell premises northwest of site as well as northwest corner of the 30 acre parcel . " Upon discussion with the Cornell University representatives , the Board requested that the following be added to the answer noted above . ( change ( period ) to ( comma ) and add " located on properties adjoining on the West and North . " Agreed to by Messrs . Manos and Thaler . Page 6 : Question # 51 , " If the focus of resulting activities is for residential use , check if residence is intended for . . . - - checked , " Medium Income Segment ; Students . " The Board requested that " Families " be checked also . Agreed to by Messrs . Manos and Thaler . Page 7 : No changes or corrections . Mr . Lovi stated that the EAF just reviewed is Part I of the SEQRA process . Mr . Lovi referred to the New York State EAF - Environmental Assessment - Part II - Project Impacts and Their Magnitude . Mr . Lovi read through the questions on Part II , noting particularly those that had been answered , " Yes . " [ Part II is appended hereto as sub - pages . ] Mr . Lovi then proceeded to read Environmental Assessment - Part III . Said Part III is set forth below . " IMPACT ON LAND 1 . WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT AS A RESULT OF PHYSICAL CHANGE TO PROJECT SITE ? There may be some blasting required in order to lay utility lines . However , the amount of blasting required can be reduced substantially through careful utility design . Furthermore , the developer must notify , in writing , residents in the area who might be affected , reasonably in advance of the date when blasting will occur , giving the date and hour . • The project will proceed in phases from east to west across the site as indicated on the engineering drawings . There shall be no construction materials stored on site except those needed for the completion of any present phase of the construction . The EAF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART II Project Impacts and Their Magnitude General Information ( Read Carefully ) In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question : Have ray decisions and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst . - Identifying that a:r 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 . The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of effects and wherever possible the . threshold of magnitu a that would trigger a response in column 2 . The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations . But , for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be more appropriate for a Potential Large Impact rating . - Each project , on each site , in each locality , will vary . Therefore , the examples have been offered as . guidance . They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question . The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question . INSTRUCTIONS ( Read Carefully ) a . Answer each of the 18 questions in PART 2 . Answer Yes if there will ' be effect . b . Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers . c , If answering Yes to a ouestion then check the appropriate box ( colurn 1 or 2 ) to indicate the potential size of the impact . If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided , check column 2 . If - . impact will occur but threshold is lower than example , check column 1 . d . If reviewer has doubt about the size of. the impact tflen . consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3 . e . If a potentially large impact or effect can be reduced by a change in the project to a less than large magnitude , place a Yes in column 3 . A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible , �. � . 3. SMALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE MODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT' IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE IMPACT ON LAND NO YES WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT AS A RESULT OF A PHYSICAL CHANGE TO 0 G PROJECT SITE? Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater , ( 15 foot rise per X '- 100 foot of length ) , or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10% . =/ Construction on Land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet . ronstruction of nave d oarkinq area for 1 , ^'? ? or more vehicles . x Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface , Construction that will continue for more than 1 Year or involve x U • more than one prase or stage , Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1 , 000 X tons of natural material ( i . e , rock or soil ) per year , Construction of any new sanitary landfill . 30 SMALL TO POTENTIAL. CAN IMPACT BE DEBATE LARGE REDUCED BY : IMPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE Construction in a designated floodway . X Other impacts : ` amu :H >� tU:. c - �0 YES 2. WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT 'TO ANY UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL LAND FORMS a FOUND ON THE SITE ? ( i . e . Cliffs , dunes , geological forma- tions , etc . ) Specific land forms :. 1WA MPACT ON WATER NO YES 3. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY WATEP. BODY DESIGNATED AS . . . . . . . . . . PROTECTED ? ( Under Articles 15 , 24 . 25 of the Envir- onmental Conservation Law „ E . C . L . ) Q 0 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 : 4. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY NON- PROTECTED EXISTING OR NFH NO YES BODYOF 1•IATER ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .� Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 0 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 in acres of surface area . Other impacts : —�F18 YES 5. WILL PROJECT AFFECT SURFACE OR r,ROUND!4ATER n11ALITY7 Examples that i•fould Apply to Column 2 0 0 Project will require a discharge permit . Project requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed project . Project requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity . Construction or operation causing any contamination of a public water supply system . 3 Project will adversely affect groundwater. aj Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have A. 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 body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions . MALL TC POTENTIAL MI IMPACT BE iODEP.ATE LARGE REDUCED CY IMPACT I'`P.ACT PROJECT CHANGE Other Imoacts : 6 . .JILL PROJECT ALTER DRAINAGE FLOIF , PATTEPIS OR SURFACE DATER NO YES ' RUNOFF? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,rye 0 Examnle that "ould Anply to Colun (0 n 2 Project would impede flood water flows . Project is likely. to cause substantial erosion . Project is incompatible with -existing drainage patterns . X Other impacts : — x I1 PACT ON AIR IlO YES 7 . WILL PROJECT AFFECT AIR QUALITY ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . oo Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 Project will induce 1000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. Project will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 . — lbs . per hour or a heat source Producing more than 10 million BTU.' s per hour . Other impacts : =T ON PLANTS A'iD ANIML5 140 YES Be WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES? �"�A�°e 0 Examples 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 habitat» Application of Pesticide or heiticide over more than trice a year other than for a3a: eiitural purposes . OtNer impacts . _ 9 . !JILL PROJECT SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT NON-THREATENED OR NO YES ENDANGERED SPECIES? ® ', E1► Examole that Would Apply to Column 2 _ a; Project would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species . • -___ Project reouires the removal of more than 11 acres of mature forest ( over lOn years in ane ) or other locally important vegetation . _ 7_ MALL TO POTENTIAL CA3 IMPACT BE 0DERATE LARGE REDUCED BY I'VACT I4PACT PROJECT CHANGE I PACT 0:1 :' IS:'1L RFSNURCE 10 . . I1I1.1. THE PPOJFCT AFFECT VIERS , " ISTAS OR THE VISUAL NO 'YES CHARACTER OF THE NFIGHBORaOOO OR CO"'M' 1!IITY ? . . . . . . . . . Examnles that ►could Apply to Column 2 00 . An incomoatible visual affect caused by the introduction of new materials , colors and/or forms in contrast to the surroundine landscape . A oroject easily visible , not• easily screened that is �.� obviously different: from others around it . Project will result in the elimination or major screening of scenic: views or vistas known to be important to the area . Other impacts _ IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES 11 . MILL PROJECT IMPACT ANY SITE OR STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC , NO YES PRE -HISTOP. IC OR PALEONTOOICAL IPPORTANCE? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .� Examoles that Would Aoolv to Colum. 2 Project occurina wholly or nartially within or contiguous to any facility or site listed on the National Renister of historic places . Any impact to an archeological site or fossil bed located _ within the project !cite . Other impacts : IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE & RECREATION 12 . (JILL THE PROJECT AFFECT THE QUANTITY OR QUALITY OF EXISTING NO YF.S OR FUTURE OPEN SPACES OR RECREATIONAL OPPORTU!IITIES? . . . . . . . 00 Examples that . Would Apply to Column 2 The permanent foreclosure of . a future recreational opportunity . A major reduction of an open space important to the community . Other imoaets : . .. G1ZLAa6S 11� E��F1- ,1? :. . IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 13 . '-!ILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO EXISTING TRANSPORTATION NO YES SYSTEMS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods . . ;Br Project will result in severe traffic problems. Other impacts : SMALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT CE • 'ODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT I11PACT PROJECT CHANGE s` IMPACT ON ENERGY 14 . WILL PROJECT AFFECT- THE COMMUNITIES SOURCES OF FUEL OR NO YES ENERGY SUPPLY? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r �> Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 Project causing greater than 5% increase in any form of 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 15 . WILL THERE BE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS , NOISE , GLARE , VIBRATION NO YES or ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCE AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT? 00 . . . . Examples that Would ADDIy to Column 2 i - Blasting within 1 , 500 feet of a hospital , school or other sensitive facility , Odors will occur, routinely ( more than one hour per day ) . • Project will produce operating noise exceedinn the local ambient noise llevels for noise outside of structures . Project will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen . _ Other impacts : IMPACT HEALTH & HAZARDS N0 YFS 16 . !•TILL PROJECT AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY? - „ , , , , . . . > > > . Examples that Would ,Apply to Column 2 0 0 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 ” 0 , e . toxic , poisonous , highly reactive , radioactive , irritating , infectious , etc . , including wastes that are solid , semi - solid , liquid or contain gases . ) t Storage facilitips for one million or more gallons of liouified A; natural gas or other liouids . Other impacts : 1LL TO POTENTIAL '04 I P B MODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COWHUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 17 . WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE CHARACTER nF THE EXISTING NO YES COMMUNITY? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Example that Would Apply to Column 2 The population of the City , Town or Village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5% oP ; f '• � 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 commdnity . Development will induce an influx of a particular age group with special needs . Project will set an important precedent for future projects . _ Project will relocate 15 or more employees in one or more ---- businesses. Other impacts : : — A . NO YES 18. IS THERE PUBLIC CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE PROJECT? . , . . . . .0 0 Examples that Would apply to Column 2 Either government or citizens of adjacent communities have expressed opposition or rejected the project or , have not been contacted : Objections to the nroject from within the community . 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 . PORTIONS OF EAF COMPLETED DDjFOR THIS PROJECT : - DETEI!MINATION PART 1 . 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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION A . The project will result in no major impacts and , therefore , is one which may not cause significant damage to the environment . Be 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 . e C. The project will result: in one or more major adverse impacts PREPARE POSITIaVE DECLARATION PROCEED WITH EIS 1!"3 that cannot be reduced and may cause significant damage to the enviro mgnt . to ! Date — / _ Zee, Signature of Responsible Official in Lead A� Agency Signatur of 'Preparer Zf different f'r rdponsible officer ) �rint: or type name of responsible official inLead Agency _ 1cr Planning Board 11 January 4 , 1983 . rate of construction should be more clearly determined as the developer gauges the demand for this housing in the community . Any such storing shall be subject to reasonable requirements to prevent damage to adjacent properties and the Swamp Area . The possibility for off - site effects on the South Hill Swamp will be reduced by careful design and maintenance of drainageways and culvert : . Approximately 6 acres of the Project area will be maintained as permanent open space and will serve as a buffer between the South Hill Swamp and the Project site . This buffer shall be preserved through restrictive covenants placed in the zoning chancre and site plan approvals of this Project . 2 . WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO ANY UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL LANDFORMS FOUND ON THE SITE ? As identified by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council ' s Inventory of Unique Natural Areas in Tompkins Count , the South Hill Swamp is an unusual physiographic formation which depends upon a delicate balance of water intake and outflow for its existence . The design of the Project ' s drainageways insures that no additional water will enter the Swamp from the site , even in times of high runoff . The preservation of a 6 acre buffer around the west and northwest edges of the site , and the willingness of the developer to work with Cornell in the maintenance of the Swamp study area have been • made conditions of Planning Board site plan approval . IMPACT ON WATER 6 . WILL PROJECT ALTER DRAINAGE FLOW , PATTERNS OR SURFACE WATER RUNOFF ? As indicated above , the developer is working and will continue to work with Cornell University in order to safeguard the ecological integrity of the South Hill Swamp . As a condition of final site plan approval , the Planning Board shall require that the sodded drainageways be maintained so as not to increase or decrease the net hydrologic balance of the Swamp or increase the erosion of topsoil . IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8 . WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES ? Should the mitigative measures described herein be completed and maintained according to responsible environmental design and current engineering practice , there should be no effect at all upon the rare wildlife and plantlife species to be found in the South Hill Swamp . • IMPACT ON VISUAL RESOURCE Planning Board 12 January 4 , 1983 10 . WILL THE PROJECT AFFECT VIEWS , VISTAS OR THE VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY ? The developer shall utilize native trees and shrubs in his landscaping plan and shall minimize the reflection of car lights into adjacent properties through landscaping and road alignment , by means of measures approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board ; as a result there should be no incompatibility between this Project and the present topography and community character . IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 12 . WILL THE PROJECT AFFECT THE QUANTITY OR QUALITY OF EXISTING OR FUTURE OPEN SPACES OR RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES ? The establishment of a 6 acre buffer zone along the South Hill Swamp and its maintenance through the joint efforts of Cornell University and the developer significantly improves the value and insures the protection of a unique and interesting botanical and physiographic phenomenon in Tompkins County . This area has important research value to Cornell University and they are to be commended for assisting in the responsible development of this area . " Mr . Majeroni suggested that those things about which Mr . . Buyoucos had talked should be incorporated into what Mr . Lovi had just read . Mrs . Fuller asked to be excused ; Chairman May suggested a short break . Mr . Buyoucos noted that the Board had before it proposed resolutions for discussion . Mr . Buyoucos stated that there are three parts to this proceeding - - ( 1 ) considerations under SEQRA ; ( 2 ) considerZLtions with respect to a recommendation to the Town Board on the rezoning ; ( 3 ) considerations with respect to final approval of the site plans with revisions satisfactory to the Planning Board . Mr . Buyoucos stated that the recommendation to the Town Board could possibly be done at this time , however , once any such recommendation has been transmitted to the Town Board , the Town Board is not bound by any particular time constraints . Mr . Buyoucos noted that a rezoning is a legislative act and courts will not interfere unless unconstitutional . Mr . Buyoucos stated that proposed resolution # 2 is one aspect of this matter and sets forth certain conditions that the Planning Board recommends to the Town Board knowing that the Town Board may put its own conditions on any rezoning . Chairman May asked Mrs . Fuller to read the proposed resolution . Mars . Fuller read aloud as follows : " PROPOSED RESOLUTION # 2 WHEREAS : Planning Board 13 January 4 , 1983 1 . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has been reviewing the site plans , maps , Environmental Assessment Forms , and other documents submitted as part of the application of Bill J . Manos for approval of a proposed Housing Complex on South Hill lying north of East King Road ( Tax Parcel 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 31 ) on a 30 + acre parcel of land which will consist of : ( a ) seventeen wood frame buildings in each of which will be constructed 7 rental units in the proportions of four single bedroom and three two bedroom , ( b ) one service building for the storage of maintenance equipment , tenant storage , and laundry facilities for the residents of the project , ( c ) a private one family residence which will be occupied by the applicant , and 2 . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is concurrently reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form and environmental aspects of the Project and its impact on the environment in accordance with the SEQR procedures in preparation for its Declaration as to the significance or non- significance of the environmental impacts of the Project , and 3 . The proposed density of this housing complex exceeds the 3 . 5 dwelling units per gross acre permitted in a clustered • development , and the design of this project calls for the construction of seven ( 7 ) dwelling units per structure , while the cluster regulations for the Town of Ithaca permit no more than six ( 6 ) dwelling units per structure in any clustered development , and a zoning change from Residential - 15 to Multiple - Family is required by the Town Board prior to consideration of final site plan approval by the Planning Board , and 4 . The preliminary site plans show that the design and construction of the Project is sound and aesthetically attractice , and the preliminary location of the access roads and parking spaces are located with due consideration to the neighborhood and the construction and spacing of the dwelling structures are. consistent with the character of the neighborhood and the site of the Project is exceptionally attractive for the Project and the scenic views therefrom are dramatic , and 5 . Public utilities ( water , sewer , electric , telephone , TV Cable ) are available and drainage matters can be reasonably addressed , and the impact of traffic will not unreasonably create any serious inconvenience or load on the streets and highways any more than will follow any residential development reasonably consistent with the development of the Town of Ithaca ' s residential needs , and • 6 . The proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity of the neighborhood or to the convenience , health , welfare and safety of the Town , and Planning Board 14 January 4 , 1983 . 7 . The Planning Board finds an actual need for the type of rental housing proposed by the applicant , but that the proposal requires a zoning change from a Residential - 15 district to a Multiple - Family district prior to the consideration of the final site plan approval by the Planning Board , therefore " Mr . Buyoucos interrupted at this point and stated that it should be a semicolon ( s ) after Board and " therefore " capitalized . Mrs . Fuller continued . " IT IS RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS : The Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca recommends to the Town Board that the zoning designation of the land upon which this project is proposed to be built be changed from Residential - 15 to Multiple - Family subject to the following conditions : A . That the Project be constructed in accordance with the site plans as now submitted and as they may be modified before final approval is granted , including such conditions as may be required by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board prior to final approval , and B . That the conditions and all measures and provisions contained in any SEQR determination as to environmental significance shall be deemed to be incorporated in this resolution and any zoning change shall be subject to a favorable determination of environmental impacts by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , and C . The proposed zoning change shall be effective only if construction of the project is commenced and substantially completed , in the judgment of the Town Board , within such periods as the Town Board may require , and D . The proposed rezoning shall be valid and effective only for the layout , design and construction of the Project , the buildings , streets , and all other components thereof strictly in accordance with the present site plans , layouts , and other documentation submitted to , and as the same may be revised and finally approved by , the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , and E . Any rezoning by the Town Board shall be subject to such other conditions as the Town Board may constitutionally impose . " MOTION by Mr . Bernard Stanton , seconded by Mr . Edward Mazza : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board adopt and hereby does adopt proposed Resolution # 2 as read . • By way of discussion , Mr . Mazza stated that he still had some questions , such as fire protection , and that he wanted it • Planning Board 15 January 4 , 1983 • clear that the Planning Board is not approving every aspect of this proposal . Mr . Buyoucos explained that the Motion on the floor is strictly limited to a recommendation to the Town Board with respect to the request for rezoning , and noted particularly conditions " A " , " B " , and " D " . It was noted that no final approvals have been granted . Referring to paragraph # 4 Mr . Klein stated that he thought the Board may be going somewhat overboard in praising this proposal . He stated that there were many aspects - - landscaping , dumpsters , sprawling parking lots , building orientation , service / laundry / storage building - - that he was not satisfied with at this point . Mr . Klein stated that he thought paragraph # 4 puts the cart before the horse a little bit , adding that he thought it should be out totally . Mr . Buyoucos responded that the point of this is to make sure that there is not going to be an ugly development in front of the houses on the south side of East King Road , adding that this paragraph accepts certain things that were brought out as being good . Mr . Buyoucos commented that aesthetic consideration play a part in the Board ' s considerations . Mr . Stanton wondered if this paragraph could be taken out . MOTION by Mr . David Klein to amend the Motion on the floor such that paragraph # 4 of proposed Resolution # 2 be deleted in its entirety . The MOTION TO AMEND was duly seconded by Mr . Bernard Stanton . Chairman May asked if there were any discussion of the Motion to amend . There was none . Chairman May called for a vote . Aye - Klein , Baker , Grigorov , Schultz , Stanton , Mazza . Nay - May . The MOTION TO AMEND was declared to be carried , paragraph # 4 struck . Chairman May asked if there were any further discussion of the Amended Motion now before the Board . There was none . Chairman May called for a vote . Aye - May , Klein , Baker , Grigorov , Schultz , Stanton , Mazza . Nay - None . The MOTION , AS AMENDED , was declared to be carried unanimously , Resolution # 2 adopted as amended . • Mr . Buyoucos stated to the Board that it has another proposed resolution before it , and asked that the Board look it Planning Board 16 January 4 , 1983 . over . He stated that if any member of the Board has any questions , he or she should call the Planning Staff or him at his office . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mrs . Barbara Schultz : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board adjourn and hereby does adjourn this Public Hearing to January 18 , 1983 , at 7 : 30 p . m . , for further consideration of its determination under SEQRA and further consideration of site plan approval . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Klein , Baker , Grigorov , Schultz , Stanton , Mazza . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the Manos matter duly adjourned at 10 : 00 p . m . PLANNING BOARD MEETING DATES 1983 MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mrs . Barbara Schultz : • RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board will meet in regular session on the first Tuesday of each month and the third Tuesday of each month declared to be an alternate meeting day . There being no discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Klein , Baker , Grigorov , Schultz , Stanton , Mazza . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . THE PLANNING BOARD IN 1983 : GOALS , OBJECTIVES , AND PRIORITIES . It was agreed that this Agenda item be taken up at a subsequent meeting of the Board . TOMPKINS COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AREA -WIDE PLANNING ISSUES : 1982 - 1983 . Mrs . Grigorov reported that apparently the Town Planning Board had submitted too many top priority items which it thought should be considered by the County Planning Board . She stated that the County Planning Department has asked for no more than five . Mrs . Grigorov read the top twelve area -wide planning issues for 1982 - 1983 from which the Town Planning Board was to choose five , as follows : Planning Board 17 January 4 , 1983 1 . Biggs Complex utilization . 2 . Mixed land use in development projects . 3 . Countywide stream preventive maintenance program to minimize damage . 4 . Alternatives for solid waste disposal and resource recovery . 5 . Improved scheduling of rail service to reduce conflict at local crossings . 6 . Stream erosion and sedimentation control . 7 . Countywide sewage treatment plant sludge disposal . 8 . Promotion of industrial development , job creation and retention . 9 . Insulation activities . 10 . Route 96 ( one CPB member emphasied maintenance ) . 11 . Countywide planning forum . 12 . East Ithaca Corridor . After discussion , the Planning Board members instructed Mrs . Grigorov to tender the following five priority area -wide planning issues to the County Planning Department , 1 . Biggs Complex utilization . 2 . Countywide stream preventive maintenance program to minimize flood damge . 3 . Alternatives for solid waste disposal and resource recovery . 4 . East Ithaca Corridor , 5 . Promotion of industrial development , job creation and retention . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the January 4 , 19831P meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 15 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board .