HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1983-01-18 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
JANUARY 18 , 1983
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , January 18 , 1983 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ,
Ithaca , N . Y . , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Carolyn Grigorov , Barbara
Schultz , James Baker , Bernard Stanton , Edward Mazza ,
David Klein , Lawrence P . Fabbroni ( Town Engineer ) ,
Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Nancy M . Fuller
( Secretary ) .
ALSO PRESENT : Dr . Gerald W . Olson , Joan Parker , Dan Peterson ,
Carolyn Peterson , Town Councilman George Kugler ,
Chuck Crisell , Donald Street , Leslie Dotson ,
Donald Steinkraus , Frank Wiley , Bill J . Manos ,
Richard B . Thaler , Esq . , John Wooding , Peter J .
Walsh , Esq . , Claudia Weisburd , Jerold Weisburd ,
Howard R . Schlieder , Jeff Coleman , Fay Gougakis ,
Peter Nickles , Shirley K . Egan , Associate
University Counsel , Larry Jones , Robert E . Marion ,
Vince Hinkley , Craig Mack , Tom Clausen , Edna
Clausen , Francis Moon , Bruce Ryan ( WHCU News ) , D .
• Lytel ( Ithaca Times ) , John Huenneke ( Ithaca
Journal ) , Jon Ohck ( WVBR News ) .
Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 39 p . m .
ADJOURNED PU13LIC HEARING ( FROM DECEMBER 21 , 1982 AND JANUARY 4 ,
1983 ) FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING BOARD DETERMINATION
UNDER SEQRA AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL IN THE MATTER OF THE BILL J .
MANOS PROPOSAL FOR 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 .
Chairman. May declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the
above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 39 p . m . Chairman May read
aloud the Notice as above and asked Mr . Thaler to speak to the
matter and to make everyone aware of those changes that had been
made since the January 4 , 1983 , meeting .
Richard B . Thaler , of Thaler & Thaler , 309 North Tioga
Street , stated that there had been two changes made : a deletion
in the number of parking spaces on the site in order to
accommodate suggestions from Fire Chief Charles Tuckerman with
respect to fire lanes , and a relocation of the dumpsters . Mr .
May stated that he did not see the changes . Mr . Thaler stated
that Mr . Schlieder had not arrived yet and he was going to
indicate the Changes to the Board .
i
Planning Board 2 January 18 , 1983
t
i
Mr . Lovi pointed out that four of the fire lanes are marked
on the map and these will be widened , i . e . , four main sidewalks
adjacent to the fire hydrants . Chairman May asked how the fire
lanes would work . Mr . Thaler responded that as far as the
sidewalks go , they will be widened to 10 feet for fire vehicle
access . Mr . Thaler indicated where these sidewalks are located
on the diagram . Mr . Schlieder , now present , corrected Mr . Thaler
and stated -that these sidewalks will be 8 feet in width . Mr .
Schlieder continued by stating that three parking spaces were
deleted in order to accommodate each fire hydrant . He stated
that there will be a fire zone where no parking will be allowed
at the south end of each of these sidewalks . Mr . Schlieder also
described improved turning for trucks . He stated that the
dumpsters will be located at various places on the site and there
are now 8 dumpsters .
Mr . Thaler pointed out that the project now has a name - -
Majestic Heights - - and added that the final revision date was
January 14 , 1983 , the plans that the Board had in front of them
containing the most recent revisions .
With reference to the dumpsters , Mr . Mazza stated that it
looks like there is parking in front of them . Mr . Schlieder
stated that the dumpsters roll out , noting that if any cars are
in front of the dumpsters , there is an area where they can be
rolled out into . Mr . Klein noted that the dumpsters were
• maneuverable ., Mr . Schlieder noted also that the dumpsters are
now in closes- proximity to the residences .
Mr . Thaler presented to the Board the following letter dated
January 5 , 1983 , addressed to him , from Charles W . Tuckerman ,
Fire Chief , City of Ithaca , and requested that it be put into the
record and copies distributed to all Board members :
" Re : Manos Housing Complex ,
East King Rd . , Ithaca , N . Y .
Commissioner Anderson brought to my office drawings for the
Manos Housing Complex on this date . The question he asked was
' is the hydrant layout that is proposed for this housing complex
sufficient for Fire Department use ? '
My answer to that question is yes , the hydrant locations as
proposed appears to be adequate for our purposes .
The only difficulty I see is the hydrants are located in a
parking area and it appears that unless some of these parking
spaces are removed and kept open the Fire Department would not
have access to the hydrants . I would suggest that at least two ,
and possibly three , parking spaces across from where the hydrants
are located be removed and that the area be posted as a
• restricted area for Fire Deparment use .
Planning Board 3 January 18 , 1983
t
. Other than that , at the present time , everything looks to be
in order . "
Mrs . Fuller introduced the Board members and the staff to
those present and Chairman May instructed everyone as to fire
regulations and pointed out where the exits were in case of fire .
Mr . Thaler stated that he had filed with Mr . Lovi a letter
from Cornell. University concerning the various plantings . Mr .
Thaler noted that he and the developer had taken the
recommendations from the Planning Board discussions on the matter
and conferred with Cornell University and the Plantations people .
He stated that this letter encompassed Cornell ' s recommendations
and noted that the planting scheme is contained in the drawings ,
except for the evergreen screen . Mr . Thaler stated that they had
conferred with Cornell to see what plantings would be indigenous
to the area , Cornell made suggestions that were less expensive
and also suggested screening around the parking areas .
The letter dated January 12 , 1983 , addressed to Mr . Richard
Thaler , from Mr . John E . Majeroni , Cornell University Real Estate
Department , reads as follows :
" AttachE� d is a listing of evergreens which has been provided
to me by the. Cornell Plantations . These are recommendations of
trees to be planted to meet the Planning Board ' s recommendation
• for additional screening along King Road .
I have circled in red the variety which would be their first
choice . It is very tolerant , very plentiful , and inexpensive .
If you need additional information prior to the next
hearing , please feel free to give me a call . Thank you very much
for your help . "
[ The three - page attachment , dated January 10 , 1983 , prepared
by Rick Bogusch , Cornell Plantations , lists " Evergreens for
Screening " , listing nine species - 6 native , and 3 non - native .
The red circled variety is " Pinus Nigra Austria " ( Austrian Pine ) ,
non - native . The following statement is a part of Mr . Bogusch ' s
listing : " Of the species listed , I would choose Pinus Banksiana
( Jack Pine ) as the most fdol - proof . If planted closely enough , a
suitable screen could be made of it , though it not be visually
impenetrable . I think salt spray and run - off along King Rd . may
be a problem and most evergreens can ' t take these conditions .
Jack Pine can , however , and it is native . 10f the non - natives ,
Pinus nigra is the logical choice . One can see it planted along
roads throughout the area . Supposedly it is susceptible to tip
blight , but I ' ve not noticed any negative effects of this in
Ithaca . Pinus nigra would be a much more effective screen than
P . banksiana . " J
' Chairman May asked if there were any comments at this point
from the public ,
r
ti
Planning Board 4 January 18 , 1983
t
. Dr . Gerald W . Olson , Department of Agronomy ( Soils ) , 153
Emerson Hall , Cornell University , spoke from the floor and stated
that he would like to make a comment about the soils in the
proposed development area . He stated that the soil is very
shallow with bedrock close to the surface . He described
sandstone , siltstone , and shale bedrock in the King Road area
with the soils in glacial till here being shallow or only
moderately deep over bedrock in many places . He noted that
bedrock exposures are visible in the roadcuts and on the soil
surface of the abandoned Beacon Hills development with costs of
bedrock excavation being a significant developmental difficulty
at this construciton site .
Mr . Schlieder referenced the contour plans and stated that
all buildings on the proposed site will be raised at least two
feet through the use of fill with that much fill also in most of
the area of the sidewalks . Dr . Olson asked where the fill is
going to come from and pointed out that there is no fill up
there . Mr . Schlieder responded that it would come from Tompkins
County ; Mr . �rhaler stated that it would be off - site fill .
Chairman May asked if there were any further public comment ;
there was none . Chairman May asked for comments or questions
from the Board .
Mr . Klein stated that it was his understanding that at this
meeting the Planning Board is considering its determination under
SEQRA , followed by general site plan approval , to go the Town
Board and then back to this Board . Chairman May stated that if
final site plan approval were granted that would be the end of
the matter insofar as the Planning Board was concerned . He noted
that the Board has already passed on to the Town Board its
recommendation with respect to the rezoning request .
Mr . Lovi described the SEQR review process in this
particular case . He stated that SEQRA makes provisions for those
actions requiring more than one approval and has the flexibility
to look at more than one action simultaneously . He stated that ,
in this case , the Planning Board is the lead agent ; there is no
need for a sE! parate SEQR review to be done for the rezoning . He
stated that the review in process now is conclusive ; it is final ,
both for site plan and rezoning because the rezoning is
contingent upon the specific site plan being considered .
Mr . Klein stated that , in that case , he had comments which
he wished to make . He stated that some of the questions he had
at the last meeting have been taken care of but some of his
concerns were not addressed entirely to his satisfaction . With
respect to the matter of the dumpsters , Mr . Klein stated that he
assumed a quantity of trash was calculated in some manner so as
to arrive at an amount of trash expected . Mr . Klein asked how
• the number of dumpsters decided upon was arrived at because , if
inadequate , there could be a health hazard . He stated he had no
idea how many would be adequate but assumed it was calculated by
Planning Board 5 January 18 , 1983
c i
the amount of trash , etc . Mr . Thaler responded that the
frequency of trash removal was the key and stated that the size
of the dumpSters is not as important as the frequency of trash
being removed ; in other words , how much they are being used . Mr .
Thaler stated that it was basically up to Mr . Manos to do
whatever necessary in order that trash did not accumulate ,
Chairman May stated that this concern could be added as a
condition for approval .
Mr . Klein stated that if anything were approved , everything ,
including fire lanes , should be spelled out . He commented that
he thought it was good that there will be evergreen plantings ,
however , he would like to have the drawings confirm this . Mr .
Klein pointed out that the ordinance requires parking to be no
more than 200 feet from the unit served and noted that the plans
show that some of the units are well over 200 feet from a parking
area .
Mr . Thaler responded to this concern , stating that the
preliminary plan was rejected because Mr . Fabbroni felt there was
insufficient parking designated . He pointed out that what had to
be done by Mr . Schleider in preparing new drawings was to try to
make a compromise between what is optimal and what was not
environmenta ]_ ly dangerous to the land and its neighbors . He
stated that they have tried to keep the expanded parking as far
to the south as possible , adding that what the plans now show is
• a compromise . Mr . Thaler stated that they are constrained to do
that which is the least offensive and that which is the least
offensive is to have the tenants walk a little .
Chairman May suggested that if the parking spaces were
numbered and assigned , the tenants could have their own place to
park such that the distance comes within the 200 feet from the
resident ' s unit .
Mr . Mazza indicated that the only one probably to be a
problem is # 17 on the plan . He stated that he would question
whether the Board had the authority to grant approval for
something that is not in compliance with the ordinance . Mr .
Klein evidenced the same concern .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that as a site plan consideration he
would say that the Board could grant such approval , adding ,
however , that a side yard change might be a different story . Mr .
Fabbroni suggested that as part of a site plan approval the Board
is to some extent trading off some elements of site plan
criteria . He commented that the Board is trading off a few
things for this site plan , pointing out that if it were right
across the board , i . e . that all parking spaces were beyond the
200 feet distance , such would not be the case . Mr . Fabbroni
mentioned , a :; an example , the trade - off with respect to the
• service building to create an additional buffer for the Swamp .
Planning Board 6 January 18 , 1983
1 ti
Mr . Lovi pointed out the fact that the Planning Board had
specifically requested additional parking spaces . Mr . Fabbroni
noted that it was only building # 17 that exceeded the requirement
and stated that he was of the opinion that it was within the
prerogative of the Board to take that into consideration .
Mr . Klein referred to the internal road system of the
development and stated that the Planning Board should require
stop signs -and / or yield signs or request the developer to do
something along those lines . Mr . Thaler stated that they agreed
to this .
Mr . Klein asked if the concrete pads would be removed . Mr .
Thaler responded that that has been agreed to right from the
beginning .
Mr . Lovi asked about the safety of the lake , referring to
the retention pond northwest of the site . He asked if there were
any plans to fence that pond and , if not , could they establish to
the Board that it does not pose any safety hazard .
Mr . Thaler stated that lawyers have words for something like
this - - an attractive nuisance . He said that Mr . Manos does not
want anybody to be injured in that pond , however , he cannot
guarantee that . Mr . Thaler stated that they will do anything
they can within reason to make it safe . He commented that the
last developer to put up a fence had the kids go through the
fence and someone drowned . He explained that it is not there for
a recreational area ; it is there for environmental reasons .
Mr . Lovi asked , on the basis of the soil studies and borings
that the developer has done , is there any way that the surface
area of the pond can be reduced , and , could it be a dry pond ?
Mr . Thaler responded that he simply did not know . He noted that
it has been there for many years and it has done its job - - and
that is retention . Mr . Schlieder stated also that he did not
know .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that he thought it would be simple
enough to make it a dry pond , noting that the hydraulics have
worked for 8 years and would come into play at the time it fills
up . Mr . Fabbroni suggested that the developer might consider
doing this . Mr . Mazza inquired if it was expensive , to which Mr .
Fabbroni responded , no , another connection is all that is needed
juxtaposed with the outlet that is there now .
Mr . Fabbroni explained for Mr . Klein ' s information that
originally the developer came in with 160 parking spaces and the
Board felt that with the number and nature of proposed rentals of
119 units , the parking provided was not sufficient and could
spill over to the service road . He explained that at that point ,
the Board asked for 200 parking spaces , and thus the problem of
distance was created . Mr . Fabbroni further commented that , along
those lines , the landscaping plan appears to be fine , however , he
Planning Board 7 January 18 , 1983
would caution Mr . Manos to keep his eye on the landscaping and
follow through with it , adding that that concerns him ,
particularly if there are going to be single family homes across
the street . He said that for attractiveness reasons , Mr . Manos
will want to make sure the landscaping is done properly and
nicely around the parking area around the front of the buildings ,
adding that it will almost screen the parking area from across
the road .
Mr . Mazza asked Mr . Lovi about the proposed recreational
area . Mr . Lovi explained that the recreational area would simply
be play structures , nothing elaborate that would require future
site plan rE! view . He explained that , in response to people in
the community who had expressed the need for a place for children
within the development , the Board wanted an area for children to
play in and the developer decided on this revised plan to set
aside areas for such uses . He noted that there will be nothing
that will be paved or would require them to come back in for site
plan approval , such as a tennis court , for example . Mr .
Schlieder stated that the reason why nothing has been designated
specifically in this area is because they have no idea of the
nature of the tenants . He stated that the area has been set
aside for recreational purposes , if and as needed , and what will
be in this area has not been designated yet . Mr . Fabbroni
suggested that , as a matter of courtesy , if and when such
decisions are made , they should be passed before the Board .
Mr . Stanton asked about the species of plantings that had
been selected , and confessing not to be expert in matters of
plants being evasive or non - evasive , asked if they were okay .
Mr . Thaler stated that they went to Cornell University and they
drew up the list referred to in the letter from Mr . Majeroni , as
mentioned earlier . Chairman May said that the Board would be
comfortable with these selections .
Mr . Lavi stated that in addition to Cornell ' s
recommendations for landscaping , he would mention , with reference
to screening the parking area from the road , that they should
select plantings that will not only meet the plant criteria noted
by Cornell but also select them from a performance criteria
basis , i . e . , that will work and will really screen the parking
area from the far side of the road .
Chairman May asked if there were any further comments or
questions from the Board . There were none . Mr . Lovi suggested
that the Board turn to the SEQR review . Chairman May noted that
the Board had before them a proposed resolution with respect to
the Planning Board ' s determination under SEQRA in the matter of
the Manos proposed development .
MOTION by Mr . Bernard Stanton , seconded by Mr . David Klein
• THAT the PROPOSED RESOLUTION be read and adopted by the Planning
Board .
Planning Board 8 January 18 , 1983
Chairman May read aloud as follows :
" WHEREAS , the applicant , Bill J . Manos , has fully complied
with the requirements of the Town of Ithaca Local Law # 3 , 1980
which was established pursuant to the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act ( 6 NYCRR 617 ) , and
WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Planning Board finds that :
1 . The applicant , Bill J . Manos , seeks to construct a multiple
residence project on a 30 + acre parcel of land north of East
King Road ( Tax Parcel 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 31 ) consisting 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 Planning Board has undertaken a coordinated SEQR review
of both the rezoning proposal and the site plan in an effort
• to promote an efficient use of its time and resources and to
expedite! a thorough environmental assessment of this
project , and
3 * the principal issue of environmental concern has been the
impact of this project on an upland swamp area of
approximately 50 + acres located to the north and northwest
of the applicant ' s property and known as the South Hill
Swamp and which includes a parcel of 6 . 15 acres owned by
Cornell University ( Tax Parcel 6 - 44 - 1 - 3 ) ; this area has been
included in an inventory of unique natural areas by the
Tompkins County Environmental Management Council , and
4 . the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on December 21 ,
1982 , at a public hearing , duly and properly published and
posted , fully reviewed the Environmental Assessment Form
( long version ) prepared by the applicant and requested
substantial revisions of this Form , and the applicant has
complied with these requested changes in all pertinent
respects , and
5 . the Planning Board has listened to and considered public
opinion , as expressed to them , and all additional
information submitted regarding the environmental effects of
this project at a public hearing called for this purpose ,
• and
Planning Board 9 January 18 , 1983
6 , there has been general agreement by the staff of the Cornell
University Plantations and the administration of Cornell
University that the Manos Housing Complex , as proposed , will
not interfere with the ecology of the South Hill Swamp , and
7 . Mr . Manos has agreed to work with the staff of the Cornell
University Plantations in order to safeguard the ecological
integrity of the South Hill Swamp in the future , and
8 . Cornell University and the applicant have met and agreed on
measures which Cornell reports will provide adequate
protection of the ecology of the above - described sensitive
area ( a general summary of these measures is set forth in
Appendix A to this resolution ) and thus Cornell will not
oppose the approval of the project as appears in the most
recently revised site plan submitted by the applicant , dated
December- 29 , 1982 , and
90 the Planning Board has given long and careful consideration
to the environmental impacts of the Project and finds that :
( a ) the Environmental Assessment Form as revised by the
applicant adequately addresses the environmental
questions , and
( b ) further finds that the mitigative measures agreed upon
• by Cornell University and the applicant and their
agreement to cooperate throughout the course of the
construction of the Project will provide adequate
protection to the South Hill Swamp Area , and
( c ) further finds as a result of the foregoing that the
applicant ' s Project will not have any adverse effect on
the Swamp Area , and
10 . there have been no complaints or requests for further formal
environmental review by any individual or group at any of
the three public hearings ( December 21 , 1982 , January 4 ,
1983 , or January 18 , 1983 ) specifically called for this
purpose ;
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED THAT :
1 . The Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca , acting as lead
agency in the environmental review of the Manos Housing
Complex , declare and hereby does declare that this Project ,
as specifically represented and described and as
specifically shown on the site plans submitted to the Town
of Ithaca Planning Board , dated December 15 , 1982 , revised
December 29 , 1982 , will have no adverse environmental impact
on the South Hill Swamp and that a Negative Declaration -
Determination of Non - Significance shall be filed with the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and
all other- affected agencies .
Planning Board 10 January 18 , 1983
2 . If Cornell University and the applicant cannot agree at any
time in the course of construction as to whether the
measures in mitigation of the project are being carried out ,
then either party may submit written reports of the facts ,
containing recommendations to the Planning Board and the
matter shall be resolved by the Planning Board .
APPENDIX A
1 . An open space at the most westerly part of the applicant ' s
property containing approximately six acres and bounded on
the south , west , and north by the applicant ' s property and
on the east specifically by a " swale , " all as more
particularly shown on the site plan dated December 15 , 1982
revised December 2. 9 , 1982 shall not be used for any purpose
including , without limitation , recreation but shall remain
undeveloped . Notwithstanding , the developer shall retain a
right - of -way of no more than 25 feet for the specific
purpose of allowing maintenance equipment and personnel
access to the north side of the retention pond . Such
right - of - way shall remain unpaved and shall be graded for
westerly drainage toward the above -mentioned swale . Such
right - of -way shall be located as close as possible to the
retention pond consistent with the drainage requirements of
this covenant . The specific boundaries of this right - of -way
shall be marked upon the final site plan and shall
•
specifically constitute a restrictive covenant running with
the land which shall be incorporated with and made a part of
any conveyance , lease , or transfer of title of any kind .
Trees and foliage in the area may be trimmed in accordance
with good forest management practices , as agreed upon
between the owner of the subject property and Cornell
University , for the purpose of protecting the ecology of the
South Hill Swamp and any flora . If the parties cannot
agree , then the matter shall be referred to the Town of
Ithaca Planning Board for determination . The foregoing
shall constitute specifically a restrictive covenant running
with the land which shall be incorporated with and made a
part of any conveyance , lease , or transfer of title of any
kind , of the property or any portion of or interest therein .
2 . The attached Parts II and III of the Environmental
Assessment Form identify the environmental effects of the
Project in greater detail and describe the mitigative
measures to be taken by the developer in order to insure
that the ecology of the South Hill Swamp is preserved . "
Mr . Lovi spoke at this point and stated that there were no
changes in Parts II or III of the environmental review process
from that which was presented to the Board at its January 4 ,
1983 meeting . He stated that it is at this point where SEQR Part
• 617 . 11 , " Criteria " , comes in . It is the Planning Board ' s " hard
look " at the environmental concerns .
Planning Board 11 January 18 , 1983
' Chairman May read aloud as follows , being a continuation of
the proposed resolution before the Board :
" APPENDIX B
A DISCUSSION OF THE CRITERIA LISTED IN
PART 617 . 11 NYCRR WITH RESPECT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BILL MANOS HOUSING PROJECT
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 ;
Evaluation : The project should have no substantial adverse
change on existing air , water , or noise quality . Any increase in
the quantity of solid wastes produced can be easily handled
through the existing public sewers . The existing retention pond
has adequately handled the increase in erosion potential caused
by the aborted prior development for the past 8 years . The
drainage plan presented by the developer will carry drainage
offsite in such a way as it will not interfere with the
hydrologic balance of the South Hill Swamp . The site itself is
well drained and there should be no flooding or other drainage
problems .
Criteria # 2 : the removal or destruction of large quantities of
vegetation or fauna ; the substantial interference with the
movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species ;
impacts on Ca 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 : There will be considerable revegetation of the site ,
as detailed in the landscaping plan presented by the developer
and reviewed by the Planning Board in consultation with Cornell
University Plantations and the Town of Ithaca ' s Landscape
Consultant , Susan Beeners . Care will be taken to select species
which are native to the area as well as those which require as
little use of chemical pesticides or herbicides as possible . The
project has been sited and designed to minimize the effect it
will have on the flora and fauna of the South Hill Swamp , The
Planning Board has considered the expert testimony of the Cornell
Plantations staff and is reassured by their assertions that this
project will protect their botanical and wildlife study area .
Criteria # 3 : the encouraging 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 : There will be approximately 250 - 300 permanent
residents when the project is completed as planned . Based upon
present planning and engineering practice , the intensity of
Planning Board 12 January 18 , 1983
• activity created by this population density can be well supported
by the facilities , as designed . • The existing public utilities
are sufficient to handle the requirements of this population , and
East King Road has sufficient carrying capacity to handle the
peak hour demands this project will create .
Criteria # 4 : the creation of a material conflict with a
community ' s existing plans or goals as officially approved or
adopted ;
Evaluation : This project is consistent with the Planning Board ' s
comprehensive planning process and the realization that South
Hill has presently unmet housing needs , particularly for young
couples , which would be well - served by this project . As
available space in Northeast and East Ithaca is at a premium , the
Planning Board anticipates that more development will be
occurring on South Hill in the future .
Criteria # 5 : the impairment of the character or quality of
important historical , archeological , architectural , or aesthetic
resources or neighborhood character ;
Evaluation : The essentially residential quality of the immediate
neighborhood will be enhanced by this project and the
preservation of open space will enhance the aesthetic quality and
long - term ecological viability . of the upland swamp area .
SCriteria # 6 : a major change in the use of either the quantity or
type of energy ;
Evaluation : As all the apartments will be electrically heated
and well insulated , there will be no significant change in the
type of energy used in comparison with other residential
developments throughout the Town of Ithaca .
Criteria Us the creation of a hazard to human health or safety ;
Evaluation : The only possible danger to human health would be in
the event of blasting for the installation of utility lines . The
developer will be expected to notify all neighbors of the time
and date when blasting and will be expected to follow accepted
precautions during construction and maintenance of the project .
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 planned intensity of use is not significantly
higher than that found in other residential districts throughout
the Town of Ithaca .
• Criteria # 9 : the creation of a material demand for other actions
which would result in one of the above consequences ; or
Planning Board 13 January 18 , 1983
• 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
adverse impact on the environment ;
Evaluation : It is possible that a project of this sort may lead
to other requests for additional land to be zoned Multiple - Family
and for additional commercial land to be developed . It is the
considered judgement of the Planning Board as part of its
comprehensive planning process for the Town of Ithaca that South
Hill will support a variety of uses in the future . However , as a
direct result of this project there will not be changes in two or
more elements of the environment which will synergistically
result in an adverse environmental impact .
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 : This project involves the approval of two agencies
in order to proceed . The environmental review has been
coordinated by the Planning Board as lead agency in view of this
Board ' s more particular experience in land use matters and its
overall responsibility for comprehensive land use planning
throughout the Town of Ithaca . Neither the rezoning nor the site
plan approval , as such , would have a significant environmental
impact . This determination is not changed by their merger in
this unified permitting process . "
Chairman May stated that the MOTION had been moved and
seconded and read in its entirety and asked for Board discussion .
Mr . Lovi pointed out a .change that should be made to WHEREAS
# 4 - - after "' at a public hearing , " add , notice of which was . Mr .
May pointed out that the date of the latest revised site plan
should be inserted in the appropriate places throughout - -
January 14 , 1983 . It was also pointed out that the name of the
development should be inserted in all appropriate places
throughout - - Majestic Heights ,
Mr . Mazza referred to WHEREAS # 8 , " . . . and thus Cornell will
not oppose the approval of the project as appears in the most
recently revised site plan submitted by the applicant . . . " , and
asked if that were true . Associate University Counsel Shirley
Egan spoke from the floor and stated , " No problems . "
Dr . Olson stated that he had a question about the soils
here . He stated that it had been said that they are well
drained , but he would like to point out that Tuller and Erie
Lordstown are poorly drained soils . Mr . Lovi stated that it is
important to realize that with the particular area being
developed in this site plan there is no possibility of increased
development on this site . Mr . Lovi stated that what this Board
Planning Board 14 January 18 , 1983
may be approving is a very particular and specific development .
He noted that there are certain areas which have those soils and
commented on the buffer area - - the part closest to the swamp .
Mr . Lovi pointed out that the area itself is going to be raised
by some 2 feet and substantial drainage improvements put in . It
was also noted that , of the soils being discussed , Tuller was to
the east and Erie Lordstown to the west . Dr . Olson , it was
pointed out , was representing the Plantations and was a member of
the Natural Areas Committee . Mr . Fabbroni commented that the
area was scarified and the soils removed , thus the development is
essentially starting out with a scarified site and the developer
is trying to recreate a well - drained surface , and it is that
which the Board is trying to evaluate .
Mr . Thaler stated that he had discussed this proposed
resolution with the Town Attorney yesterday and that he ( Thaler. )
thought Mr . Buyoucos had incorporated a misconnotation insofar as
the " lane " is concerned and it appearing as a restrictive
covenant running with the land incorporating it in any deed . Mr .
Thaler emphasized that it was not their intention , with respect
to the lane located west of the pond , that that lane be for
anyone else ' s property than that of Mr . Manos if he exercised the
option to purchase additional land lying to the north . Mr .
Thaler stated that if Mr . Manos does not exercise that option ,
there is , therefore , no need to memorialize it in any deed .
Mr . Stanton asked if Mr . Manos were to decide this matter of
the option tomorrow , would this requirement about the
right - of -way apply to the next owner . Mr . Thaler thought
probably , but expressed his unhappines with the wording in
section 1 of Appendix A , as read . [ " Notwithstanding , the
developer shall retain a right - of -way of no more than 25 feet for
the specific purpose . . . incorporated with and made a part of any
conveyance , lease , or transfer of title of any kind . " ] Mr .
Thaler pointed out that this lane would be an unpaved access
road .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that he was not in on that discussion ,
however , his own reaction is that that portion of Appendix A does
not do anything for a site plan held by one developer . Mr .
Fabbroni pointed out that through the process of approving this
specific site plan , that land is going to be empty . Mr . Fabbroni
stated that lie saw nothing gained by that whole paragraph . Mr .
Thaler stated that he did not either and stated that it adds to
confusion rather than to clarity . Mr . Thaler pointed out that
the six acres that lie to the west remain undeveloped and stated
that the only potential use of this acreage is the access lane
for the use and benefit of the owner of that particular piece of
property and only that . Mr . Thaler stated that this paragraph
leads to ambiguity and it may be intended that someone in the
back to the north has the right to use it . Mr . Thaler said that
he assumed the paragraph refers to a letter which had been sent
to Chairman May .
Planning Board 15 January 18 , 1983
• Mr . Fabbroni stated that the only purpose he could see for
having such a thing in a deed is if the Town were going to
maintain the pond and that is not the purpose . Mrs . Grigorov
asked that if this paragraph were dropped , would the developer
still be able to have a maintenance road . Mr . Lovi commented
that he thought the purpose was , since the six - acre parcel is to
remain undeveloped , that there would have to be some way to get
into this area .
Mr . Thaler stated that this roadway was discussed and all
agreed to between Cornell and Mr . Manos in that a part west of
the pond could be held for roadway . He stated that it was agreed
that any roadway would tip to the east and drain to the east as
opposed to the west , that was the criteria . He reiterated that
it was not the intent to allow access from King Road to the back
land . Mr . Thaler noted that this was fine with them , however , he
was very concerned with the ambiguity of this wording within the
resolution that might give someone on an adjoining piece of land
the right to gain access to the land .
Chairman May asked if it would better worded by taking out
the last sentence - - " The specific boundaries of this
right - of -way shall be marked upon the final site plan and shall
specifically constitute a restrictive covenant running with the
land which shall be incorporated with and made a part of any
conveyance , lease , or transfer of title of any kind . "
Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that earlier on in the " resolved "
part of the resolution just read it states very carefully how any
disagreements would be handled . He stated that it seemed to him
that this would be the control , including matters such as access
to the pond . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he thought , by putting in
this wording , some cloud appears with respect to other people .
Ms . Shirley Egan , Associate University Counsel , noted that
Mr . Fabbroni was referring to paragraph # 2 of the proposed
resolution wherein disagreements between Cornell University and
the developer- are addressed [ # 2 reads : " If Cornell University
and the applicant cannot agree at any time in the course of
construction as to whether the measures in mitigation of the
project are being carried out , then either party may submit
written reports of the facts , containing recommendations to the
Planning Board and the matter shall be resolved by the Planning
Board . " ] Ms . Egan stated that they have talked about this with
Mr . Manos . Ms . Egan stated that she was always leery about
calling anything a " right - of - way " .
MOTION b :y Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . David Klein *
RESOLVED , that the Motion to adopt the foregoing Resolution
be amended such that paragraph 1 of Appendix be amended such that
• the four sentences following the first sentence , i . e . ,
" Notwithstanding . . . of any kind . " , be deleted in entirety .
i
Planning Board 16 January 18 , 1983
' There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - May , Mazza , Schultz , Klein , Baker , Stanton .
Nay - None .
Abstain - Grigorov .
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
Further discussion of Appendix A followed with Mr . Thaler
indicating that the first sentence delineating the site of the
open space was not quite accurate . It was agreed that the
following description was better : " An open space at the most
westerly part of the applicant ' s property containing
approximately six acres and bounded on the south by East King
Road , on the west by lands of Cornell University , on the north
lands of Paul Erdman , and on the east by a ' swale ' on other lands
of applicant , all as more particularly . . . shall remain
undeveloped . "
MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . Bernard
Stanton *
RESOLVED , that the Resolution as amended , be further amended
to reflect the changes and corrections as discussed , i . e . , ( 1 )
name of development , Majestic Heights , throughout , ( 2 ) latest
revision date , January 14 , 1983 , throughout , ( 3 ) description of
open space change ; ( 4 ) wording changes .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - May , Stanton , Baker , Schultz , Grigorov , Klein , Mazza .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman May now called for a vote on the Resolution , as
moved by Mr . Stanton , seconded by Mr . Klein , and as amended .
Aye - May , Stanton , Baker , Schultz , Grigorov , Klein , Mazza .
Nay - None .
The AMENDED MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
For purposes of the record , the Resolution adopted by the
Town of Ithaca Planning Board this date , January 18 , 1983 , is as
follows :
" A RESOLUTION MAKING A DETERMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
NON - SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE REZONING OF 30 + ACRES FROM R- 15 RESIDEN -
TIAL TO MULTIPLE - FAMILY AND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 119 DWELLING
UNITS IN 17 BUILDINGS PLUS ONE PRIVATE HOME AND ONE SERVICE
Planning Board 17 January 18 , 1983
• BUILDING ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 31 , BILL J . MANOS
OWNER AND DEVELOPER , MAJESTIC HEIGHTS .
WHEREAS , the applicant , Bill J . Manos , has fully complied
with the requirements of the Town of Ithaca Local Law # 3 , 1980
which was established pursuant to the New York State Environ -
mental Quality Review Act ( 6 NYCRR 617 ) , and
WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Planning Board finds that :
1 . The applicant , Bill J . Manos , seeks to construct a multiple
residence project on a 30 + acre parcel of land north of East
King Road ( Tax Parcel 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 31 ) consisting 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 Planning Board has undertaken a coordinated SEQR review
of both the rezoning proposal and the site plan in an effort
• to promote an efficient use of its time and resources and to
expedite a thorough environmental assessment of this
project , and
3 . The principal issue of environmental concern has been the
impact of this project on an upland swamp area of approxi -
mately 50 + acres located to the north and northwest of the
applicant ' s property and known as the South Hill Swamp and
which includes a parcel of 6 . 15 acres owned by Cornell
University ( Tax Parcel 6 - 44 - 1 - 3 ) ; this area has been in -
cluded in an inventory of unique natural areas by the
Tompkins County Environmental Management Council , and
4 . The Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on December 21 ,
1982 , at. a Public Hearing , notice of which was duly pub -
lished and posted , fully reviewed the Environmental Assess -
ment Form ( long version ) prepared by the applicant and
requested substantial revisions of this Form , and the
applicant has complied with these requested changes in all
pertinent respects , and
5 . The Planning Board has listened to and considered public
opinion , as expressed to them , and all additional informa -
tion submitted regarding the environmental effects of this
project at a public hearing called for this purpose , and
• 6 . There has been general agreement by the staff of the Cornell
University Plantations and the administration of Cornell
Planning Board 18 January 18 , 1983
• University that the Majestic Heights housing complex , as
proposed , will not interfere with the ecology of the South
Hill Swamp , and
7 . Mr . Manos has agreed to work with the staff of the Cornell
University Plantations in order to safeguard the ecological
integrity of the South Hill Swamp in the future , and
8 . Cornell University and the applicant have met and agreed on
measures which Cornell reports will provide adequate pro -
tection of the ecology of the above - described sensitive area
( a general summary of these measures is set forth in Appen -
dix A to this Resolution ) and thus Cornell will not oppose
the approval of the project as appears in the most recently
revised site plan submitted by the applicant , dated January
14 , 1983 , and
9 . The Planning Board has given long and careful consideration
to the environmental impacts of the project and finds that :
( a ) the Environmental Assessment Form as revised by the
applicant adequately addresses the environmental
quE! stions , and
( b ) further finds that the mitigative measures agreed upon
by Cornell University and the applicant and their
agreement to cooperate throughout the course of the
construction of the project will provide adequate
protection to the South Hill Swamp Area , and
( c ) further finds as a result of the foregoing that the
applicant ' s project will not have any adverse effect on
the Swamp Area , and
10 . There have been no complaints or requests for further formal
environmental review by any individual or group at any of
the three Public Hearings ( December 21 , 1982 , January 4 ,
1983 or January 18 , 1983 ) specifically called for this
purpose ,
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED THAT :
le The Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca , acting as lead
agency in the environmental review of the Majestic Heights
housing complex , declare and hereby does declare that this
project , as specifically represented and described and as
specifically shown on the site plans submitted to the Town
of Ithaca Planning Board , dated December 15 , 19821 revised
December 29 , 1982 and January 14 , 1983 , will have no adverse
environmental impact on the South Hill Swamp and that a
Negative Declaration - Determination of Non - Significance
shall be filed with the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation and all other affected agencies .
i2e If Cornell University and the applicant cannot agree at any
time in the course of construction as to whether the
o
.ALL TO POTE977AL CAN IrIPACT BE +
'nDERAI"E LARGE REDUCED BY
THPA T IMPACT PROJECT CPANGE
Construction in a designated floodway• X
Other impacts : C7FF_SiT�—
L
2. PILL THERE BE AN EFFECT 1"0 ANY UNDUE 9R UN1tSUAL LP.ND Fnp�yS A9 YES
FOUND 0'i THE SITE? ( i . e. cliffs , dunes , geological forma. .�
tions . etc . )
Specific land forms : ( >_ r ) eLs
_C=MS 1IA F IT-
f o
MPACTON WATER
N0 YES
3. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY WATEP BODY DESIGNATED AS . . . . . . Poo
PROTECTED ? ( Under Articles 15 , 24 , 25 of the Envir-
Orcental Conservation Law, L . C . L . )
0 0 1
Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 ' "
Dredging more than 109 cubic yards of material from
channel of a protected stream . - -- �— -,
Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland ,
we
e.
Other impacts :
S
S. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY 11011- PROTECTED EXISTIIIG 0° NF. H NO YES �•
BODYOF 1;ATERltoo * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .��'+�
• Examples that Would Apply to Column 2
e A 104 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
Surface arra . -
Other impacts :
5. WILL PROJECT AFFECT SURFACE OR GROUNDMTER QUALITY? YES —
Exam les that N'ould Apply to Column 2
Project will require a discharge ppm. we I
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 � 5 gallons per ninute pumping capacity .
Construction or operation causing any contaminatior,
Of a public water supply system .
Project will adversely affect groundwater. ]
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to
facilities which presently do not exist or have -----
inadequate capacity.
Project requiring a facility that would use water in
xcess . of 2n .000 gallons per day. --- 4 --- -
Project . ill likely cause siltation or other discharge
into an existing Cody of water to the extent that there -----�
Will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions . .
t1ALL TO POTENTIAL f.A7 111?ACT BE
MDEPATE LARGE REDUCED DY
I:4PACT I! 'PACT PROJECT CHANGE
• Other Imo act s :
' I
E . :JILL PROJECT ALTER DRAINAGE FLO" a PATTEWIS OR SURFACE !LATER NO YES '
RUNOFF? . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0
Exanole that I:ould Pnply to Colurm 2 II
Project would imede flood water flows .
Project is likely to cause substantial erosion .
Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns .
Other impacts :
IMPACT 03 AIR
NO YES i
7. WILL PROJECT AFFECT AIP. QUALITY ? . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0
Fxar^ples that Would Apply to Colur" 2
Project will induce 1 .000 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 S _ _ .,•,
lbs . per hour or a heat source producing mor? than 10
million , BTQ! s per hour ,
Other impacts :
440 YES
Be WILL PP.OJECT AFFECT ANY THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES?
0
Examples that Would Apply to Column 2
Reduction of one or more species listed on the flew 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 - ti
life habitat.
ApT1lication of Pesticide or heibicide over more than, .,?1
tvice a year other than farzjeelc itural purposes .
OV)ar inpacts : _
9 . '.TILL PROJECT SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT H0111 -7HREATEREO OR 110 YES
ENDA110ERED SPECIES? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Example that Would Apply to Column �2 .
Project would substantially interfere with any resident ---� _
or migratory fish or wildlife species .
•- Project requires the removal of more than V! acres of
mature forest (over 10r) years in ane ) or other locally
important vegetation .
,
- 7-
MALL To PCTENTIiL,L CA3 IriPACT BE - 4
.QDERATE' LARGE P.EOUCEO BY
I*IPACT I'{rACT PROJECT Cl.AIiSE
V PACT 0 VIVIL RFSI,RCE
Igo . VILL T4E P00JECT AFFECT VIEWS , VISTAS OR THE V ? SUAL NO IES
CHARACTER OF THE IIf.' IGHBORNOOD OP CO"'N' 1!IITY ? 00
. . . . , .
Examnles that t►ould Apply to Column 2
An incompatible visual affect caused by the introduction ed
of ne+l materials , colors and/or forms in contrast to the
surroundine landscape .
A oroject easily visible , note easily screened that is s
obviously different from nthers 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
Ile WILL PROJECT IS;PACT ,ANY SITE OR STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC , NO YFS
PRE - HISTORIC nP, PALEONTOGICAL I1 'POPTANCE? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . < < <
IVN
Examoles that Would bol y to Column 2
Project oeeurino wholly or nartially within or contiguous
to any facility or site listed on the National P.enister of
historic places .
Any impact to an archeological site or fossil bid located _� Y
within the project sane .
Other impacts : �
IMPACT ON OPEN . SPACE b P.ECREATIOt!
12 < 14ILL THE PROJECT AFFECT THE OUA11TITY OR QUALITY OF EXISTING NO YES
OR FUTURE OPEC! SPACES OR RECREATIONAL OPPORI'U01ITIES ? . < < < - <
Examples that :Would Apply to Column 2
The permanent foreclosure of . a future recreational onortunity .
A major reduction of an open space important to the cotrnunity. . - - �•
Other impacts : 2 E:
IMPACT Ot! TRANSPORTATION
13 . " ILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO EXISTING TRANSPORTATION 110 YES
SYSTEMS? < . . . < . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � ��
Examples that Would Apply to Column 2
' 1
Alteration of present patterns of rovement of people
and/ or goods ,
Projectwill result in severe traffic Problem:; .
Other impacts :
SMALL TO POTENTIAL CAR IMPACT CE
MDERATE. LAnGE REDUCED BY
IMPACT ViPACT PROJECT U'ANGE
IMPACT ON ENERGY
14 . HILL PROJECT AFFECT THE CO'wUNITIES SOURCES OF FUEL OR ' t.0 YES
Et, ERr,Y SUPPLY?
rVN
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 0111 NOISE .
15 . WILL THERE BE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS , NOISE , GLARE , VIBRATION NO YES
or ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCE AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT ? . . . . , �
Examples that I•Iould ADoly to Colum, . 2
Blasting within 1 , 500 feet of a hospital , school or other
sensitive facility .
. I
* Odors will occur. routinely ( rare than one _ hour per day ) .
Project will produce operating noise exceedinn the
local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures .
Project will remove nai: ural barriers that would act as a
noise screen .
Other impacts :
IMPACT ON HEALTH & HAZARDS . .
NO: YES
16 . HILL PROJECT AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY? . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Examples that Would Apply to Column 2
Project will cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous �- -�
substances ( i . e . oil , pesticides , chemicals , radiatio ,:: , 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 . toric , poisonous , highly reactive , radioactive , irritating ,
infectious , etc . , includinn wastes that are solid , semi -- solid ,
liquid or contain gases . )
Storace facilities for one million or more gallnns of liouified
natural gas or other liouids .
Other imDacts : -- - - - - - - - -- -- - �_ _ — —_
it > 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 my decisions and determinations
been reasonable? The reviewer is not expacted to be an expert environmental analyst .
- Identifying that ar 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
ffec' ct 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 passible the threshold
of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2 . The examples are generally applicable throughout the
State and for most situations . But , for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds
may be 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 an14 effect .
b . t'.,aybe answers should be considered as Yes answers .
e . If answering Yes to a ouestion then check the appropriate box ( column I or 2 ) to indicate the potential
size of the impact . If impaact 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 t1Te�r . consider the iuipac : as potentially large and
proceed to PART 3 .
e . If a potentially large ir;;pact 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 .
SMALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE
MODF.FJ11 E LARGE REDUCED BY .
IMPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE
IMPACT- ON LAND
NO YES
WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT AS A RESULT OF A PHYSICAL CHANGE 70 00
PROJECT SITE?
Examples that kould Apply to Column 2
r Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater , ( 15 foot rise per
'— 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 .
construction of raved parking area for 1 , ^? ? or mare vehicles .
Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally -� • /� -F=5
within 3 feet of existing ground surface . -F=-
_, Construction that will continue for more than 1 vear or involve _ x eS
more than one phase or stage .
_ Ex. cavation 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 .
_ 5_ c
tLL TO POTENTIAL cAff 1 Pr. gE h,
• 10DERATE LARGE . REDUCED BY
Sit IUACT IMPACT PROJECT MANGE
IMPACT ON GRIMM AND !CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGNRORHND
17 , WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE CHAPACTER t�F THE EXISTING, NO YES
COMMUNITY? . . . . . . . . .. . . . wee . . 000600009 * 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .®
0
Exa:nle that Would Apoly to Column 2
The population of the City , Town or Village in which the .- -- •' j
project is located Is likely to grow by more than 5% 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 Derinanent facility of a non- agricultural —use in an agricultural district or remove prime agricultural
lands from cultivatfor. .
_ The project will replace or eliminate existing facilities , -
structures or areas of historic importance to the co.... unity .
Development will induce an influx of a particular age .p---•group -with special needs .
Project will set an important precedent for future projects . .-- -
Project will relocate 15 or more employees in one or eiore
`— businesses.
Other impacts : . -- --
i
I NO YES
18 , IS THER PUBLIC CONTROVERSY CO\CERiI !iG THE PROJECT ? . � . . . . .� 1
Examoles that Would Apply to Column 2
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 corrrunity . — ---
~• IF ANY ACTION Ii. PART 2 IS IDENTIFIED AS A
POTERTIAL LARGE IMPACT OR IF YOU CANNOT DETERMINE
THE MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT , PROCEED TO PART 3 .
F'ORTI0115 OF EAF CO?IPLETEO FOR THIS PROJECT :
, .
QETERMINATION PART I . ;�L`. _ PART IIPART 3
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF ( Parts 1 , 2
znd 3 ) and considerinq both the magnitude and importance of each PREPARE, A t1EG,d1'IVt DECLARATIONimpact , it is reasonably determined that :
A . The project will result in no major impacts and , therefore ,
is one which may not cause significant damage to the environment . _
Although the. project could have a significant effect on the
�J environment , there will not be a significant effect in this case PREPARE A NEfaTIVE DECLARATION
because the mitigation measures described in PARI. 3 have been
-
included as part of the proposed project .
C . The project will result in one or more major adverse impacts PREPARE POSITIVE DECLARATION PROCEED WITH EIS
that cannot be reduced and may cause significant damage to
the enviro ment .
uI -
• ; S`ignatur'e, of rCpsponsible Official in Lead
Agency
Signatur4of 'Prepare' r different ,frg r 1ponsible officer ) ___ __ __ _
l/ Prtnt� or Lyne•Tn_age of responsfbi^e official
In Lead Agency
Planning Board 19 January 18 , 1983
• measures in mitigation of the project are being carried out ,
then either party may submit written reports of the facts ,
containing recommendations to the Planning Board and the
matter shall be resolved by the Planning Board .
APPENDIX A
1 . An open space at the most westerly part of the applicant ' s
property containing approximately six acres and bounded on
the south by East King Road , on the west by lands of Cornell
University , on the north by lands of Paul Erdman , and on the
east by a " swale " on other lands of applicant , all as more
particularly shown on the site plan dated December 15 , 1982
revised December 29 , 1982 and January 14 , 1983 shall not be
used for any purpose including , without limitation ,
recreation but shall remain undeveloped . Trees and foliage
in the area may be trimmed in accordance with good forest
management practices , as agreed upon between the owner of
the subject property and Cornell University , for the purpose
of prote= cting the ecology of the South Hill Swamp and any
flora . If the parties cannot agree , then the matter shall
be referred to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for
determination . The foregoing shall constitute specifically
a restrictive covenant running with the land which shall be
incorporated with and made a part of any conveyance , lease ,
• or transfer of title of any kind , of the property or any
portion of or interest therein .
2 . The attached Parts II and III of the Environmental Assess -
ment Form identify the environmental effects of the Project
in greater detail and describe the mitigative measures to be
taken by the developer in order to insure that the ecology
of the South Hill Swamp is preserved .
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART III
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 blast -
ing 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
rate of construction should be more clearly determined as the
developer gauges the demand for this housing in the community .
Planning Board 20 January 18 , 1983
• 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 culverts . Approximately half 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 change and site plan approvals of this Project .
2 . WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO ANY UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL LANDFORMS
FOUND Ott THE SITE ?
As identified by the Tompkins County Environmental Manage -
ment Council ' s Inventory of Unique Natural Areas in Tompkins
County , the South Hill Swamp is an unusual physiographic for -
mation which depends upon a delicate balance of water intake and
outflow for its existence . The design of the Project ' s drainage -
ways 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 in the northwest edges of the development 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
• 10 . WILL THE PROJECT AFFECT VIEWS , VISTAS OR THE VISUAL
CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY ?
Planning Board 21 January 18 , 1983
• 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 .
APPENDIX B
A DISCUSSION OF THE CRITERIA LISTED IN
PART 617 . 11 NYCRR WITH RESPECT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MAJESTIC HEIGHTS HOUSING PROJECT
• 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 ;
Evaluation : The project should have no substantial adverse
change on existing air , water , or noise quality . Any increase in
the quantity of solid wastes produced can be easily handled
through the existing public sewers . The existing retention pond
has adequately handled the increase in erosion potential caused
by the aborted prior development for the past 8 years . The
drainage plan presented by the developer will carry drainage
offsite in such a way as it will not interfere with the hydro -
logic balance of the South Hill Swamp . The site itself is well
drained and there should be no flooding or other drainage prob -
lems .
Criteria # 2 : the removal or destruction of large quantities of
vegetation or fauna ; the substantial interference with the
movement of any resident or 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 : There will be considerable revegetation of the
site , as detailed in the landscaping plan presented by the
developer and reviewed by the Planning Board in consultation with
Planning Board 22 January 18 , 1983
• Cornell University Plantations and the Town of Ithaca ' s Landscape
Consultant , Susan Beeners . Care will be taken to select species
which are native to the area as well as those which require as
little use of chemical pesticides or herbicides as possible . The
project has been sited and designed to minimize the effect it
will have on the flora and fauna of the South Hill Swamp , The
Planning Board has considered the expert testimony of the Cornell
Plantations staff and is reassured by their assertions that this
project will protect their botanical and wildlife study area .
Criteria # 3 : the encouraging 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 : There will be approximately 250 - 300 permanent
residents when the project is completed as planned . Based upon
present planning and engineering practice , the intensity of
activity created by this population density can be well supported
by the facilities , as designed . The existing public utilities
are sufficient to handle the requirements of this population , and
East King Road has sufficient carrying capacity to handle the
peak hour demands this project will create .
Criteria # 4 : the creation of a material conflict with a commu -
nity ' s existing plans or goals as officially approved or adopted ,
Evaluation This project is consistent with the Planning
Board ' s comprehensive planning process and the realization that
South Hill has presently unmet housing needs , particularly for
young couples , which would be well - served by this project . As
available space in Northeast and East Ithaca is at a premium , the
Planning Board anticipates that more development will be occur -
ring on South Hill in the future .
Criteria # 5 : the impairment of the character or quality of
important historical , archeological , architectural , or aesthetic
resources or neighborhood character ,
Evaluation : The essentially residential quality of the immedi -
ate neighborhood will be enhanced by this project and the preser -
vation of open space will enhance the aesthetic quality and
long - term ecological viability of the upland swamp area .
Criteria # 6 : a major change in the use of either the quantity
or type of energy ,
Evaluation . As all the apartments will be electrically heated
and well insulated , there will no significant change in the type
of energy used in comparison with other residential developments
throughout the Town of Ithaca .
Criteria # 7 : the creation of a hazard to human health or
safety ;
Planning Board 23 January 18 , 1983
• Evaluation : The only possible danger to human health would be
in the event of blasting for the installation of utility lines .
The developer will be expected to notify all neighbors of the
time and date when blasting and will be expected to follow
accepted precautions during construction and maintenance of the
project .
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 planned intensity of use is not significantly
higher than that found in other residential districts throughout
the Town of IIthaca .
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 environ -
ment , no one of which has a significant effect on the environ -
ment , but which taken together result in a substantial adverse
impact on the! environments
Evaluation . It is possible that a project of this sort may
lead to other requests for additional land to be zoned Multi -
ple - Family and for additional commercial land to be developed .
• It is the considered judgement of the Planning Board as part of
its comprehensive planning process for the Town of Ithaca that
South Hill will support a variety of uses in the future .
However , as a direct result of this project there will not be
changes in two or more elements of the environment which will
synergistically result in an adverse environmental impact .
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 : This project involves the approval of two agencies
in order to proceed . The environmental review has been coor -
dinated by the Planning Board as lead agency in view of this
Board ' s more particular experience in land use matters and its
overall responsibility for comprehensive land use planning
throughout the Town of Ithaca . Neither the rezoning nor the site
plan approval , as such , would have a significant environmental
impact . This determination is not changed by their merger in
this unified permitting process . "
Chairman May stated that he had received a letter dated
January 13 , 1983 , from Paul B . Erdman , Box 46 , Arkport , NY
14807 , and that it will be entered into the record . Mr . May
• noted that it is the recommendation of the staff and the feeling
of the Board that there are other access roads available and that
this matter should not be handled in this way . Copies of the
M
Planning Board 24 January 18 , 1983
' above - noted letter , as set forth below , were distributed to the
Board members .
" IN RE : Letter of Record Dated December 21 , 1982
from Shirley K . Egan , Associate University Counsel
Dear Mr . Chairman :
I am the owner of lands to the north and northeast of the Cornell
University South Hill Swamp and read with great interest the
engineering data presented relative to drainage . After a review
of the detailed topographic mapping to the north and east and
knowledge of the soils conditions , it is evident the assumptions
contained in the letter are indeed questionable .
At the present time the Sibley Corporation has an option on 34
acres adjacent to the University property and from correspondence
in my possession it appears they intend to sell the option with
the parcel they presently own . The prospective owner has not
contacted me so I must assume there is no intention of exercising
the option at: this time or in the future . If this is not done in
the stipulated time I intend to develop and / or sell the land .
Any development will be in conformance with the present zoning
designation .
Accordingly , and in the interest of safety for future
• development , I ask the Board to provide right - of -way west of the
pond for access to lands north of the Sibley and University
parcels as originally approved .
With respect to the concerns of Cornell University , I feel
satisfactory development can take place with proper drainage
design . If I become the developer I will cooperate with the
University providing they are willing to accept sound engineering
practices .
I sincerely appreciate the consideration of the board and
respectfully request this letter be made part of the record of
the proceedings . "
Mr . Fabbroni pointed out the future access to the lands
referred to in Mr . Erdman ' s letter from Troy Road , noting that
the Board had , when the 19 - lot subdivision of Erdman ' s land was
approved , left an access to those lands to the north . Mr .
Fabbroni stated that he thought the Board could leave it at that
now .
MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
WHEREAS :
• 1 , the applicant has sought permission from the Town Board to
rezone 30 + acres of land in tax parcel 44 - 1 - 4 . 31 from
Residential - 15 to Multiple - Family , and
Planning Board 25 January 18 , 1983
• 2 * the applicant has presented a proposal to the Planning Board
for the construction of 119 dwelling units in 17 buildings
in the proportion of 3 two - bedroom to 4 one - bedroom units ,
and
3e proposes the construction of a service building which will
contain storage space for each of the apartment dwellers , a
laundry ., and storage space for necessary maintenance
equipment , and
4a has complied with all provision of the Local Law # 3 , 1980
which provides for the environmental review of actions in
the Town of Ithaca , and
5 . the Planning Board has acted as lead agency in order to
facilitate a coordinated review of both the zoning proposal
and the site plan review , and
6 . the Planning Board has resolved that the project , as
presented , will have no significant environmental impact and
that a determination of non - significance shall be filed with
all affected agencies ,
THEREFORE , IT' IS RESOLVED THAT :
the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca grant and hereby
• does grant final site plan approval for the construction of the
project as presented in the most recent set of site plans subject
to the following conditions :
1e that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca rezone the parcel
in question from Residential - 15 to Multiple - Family , such
rezoning being made contingent upon the development of the
project as presented in the site plans in a form acceptable
to the Town Engineer , and
2 , any rezoning of the parcel be limited strictly to the 30
acre property and Site Plan as owned by Bill J . Manos , and
39 in the event the land is not fully developed as in the site
plan prE! sented by the developer , that should the entire
parcel , or any portion thereof , be sold or otherwise
transferred to a third party , that the remaining undeveloped
portion of the property shall revert to the Residential - 15
designation if not developed as approved , and
49 the developer agrees to consult and work with the staff of
the Cornell Plantations in order to insure the continued
hydrologic stability of the South Hill Swamp , and
5e furthermore agrees to minimize the use of pesticides and
• other chemical agents such as road salt or calcium
throughout the project area in order to limit the
possibility that significant levels of chemicals may intrude
Planning Board 26 January 18 , 1983
into the groundwater of the South Hill swamp and thereby
alter the ecological balance within this sensitive area , and
6a the developer will present final landscaping , engineering ,
and site plans in a form acceptable to the Town Engineer
which reflect the complete concerns of the Planning Board
concerning fire safety , environmental quality , energy
efficiency , aesthetic suitability , screening of mass parking
areas , soil stabilization of disturbed grounds , and other
matters which fall within its properly delegated site plan
review powers , and
7 * the developer will obtain approval of the Tompkins County
Highway Department for access drives , from the Tompkins
County Health Department for water and sewer plans and from
the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission for
water plans and drainage and seeding plan for retention
ponds , diversion ditches , and disturbed areas prior to the
issuance of any building permit .
It was rioted that in the " resolved " section , first sentence ,
the words " dated January 14 , 1983 " should be added after " the
most recent set of site plans . . . : "
By way of discussion , Mr . Mazza asked where the six acres
are shown , wondering if there were plans that show this open
area . It was noted that there were not except for the small
drawing that Mr . Thaler had presented . Mr . Mazza stated that the
resolution needed language that would indicate that the six acres
will remain open and undeveloped . Mr . Thaler suggested that the
plan be referenced as follows : that the six acre open area shall
be designated as shown on a map filed with the Planning Board as
an Exhibit to Mr . Manos ' other documents - the westernmost
portion as outlined . Ms . Egan suggested referring to the SEQR
resolution since that defines it so well . Mr . Thaler stated that
that was fine with him .
It was decided that a new paragraph , numbered " 8 " , be added
as follows : " the approximately six - acre open space shall remain
undeveloped and as is shown on map marked " Exhibit A ' received by
the Planning Board January 18 . 1983 and entered into the record
as part of Final Approval . "
Upon discussion , it was agreed that trash pick - up , fire
lanes , screening , numbering of parking spaces , stop and / or yield
signage , fencing , and other concerns of the Board were adequately
taken care of by paragraph 6 in the " resolved " portion .
Upon further discussion with respect to cats and
trespassing , the following paragraph , to be numbered 9 , was added
to the " resolved " portion : " the lease between the landlord and
• tenants shall prohibit the keeping of cats on premises and that
tenants must be advised that trespassing on the westerly six
acres as described in paragraph 8 is prohibited .
Planning Board 27 January 18 , 1983
b1OTI0N by Mr . Bernard Stanton , seconded by Mr . Edward Mazza :
RESOLVED , that the MOTION to grant final site plan approval
in re Majestic Heights be and hereby is amended as noted ,
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a
vote ,
Aye - May , G_rigorov , Schultz , Baker , Stanton , Mazza , Klein ,
Nay - None .
The MOTION TO AMEND was declared to be carried unanimously .
There being no further discussion on the MOTION , AS AMENDED ,
the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Schultz , Baker , Stanton , Mazza , Klein .
Nay - None ,
The AMENDED MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
For the record , the Resolution duly adopted by the Planning
Board , this date , in the matter of the Manos Final Site Plan
Approval , is set forth below :
A RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF 119 DWELLING UNITS PLUS ONE STORAGE BUILDING AND
ONE PRIVATE HOME ON 30 + ACRES , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL
6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 31 , BILL J . MANOS , OWNER AND DEVELOPER , MAJESTIC
HEIGHTS .
WHEREAS :
i . The applicant has sought permission from the Town Board to
rezone 30 + acres of land in tax parcel 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 31 from
Residential - 15 to Multiple - Family , and
2 , the applicant has presented a proposal to the Planning Board
for the construction of 119 dwelling units in 17 buildings
in the proportion of 3 two - bedroom to 4 one - bedroom units ,
and
3e proposes the construction of a service building which will
contain storage space for each of the apartment dwellers , a
laundry , and storage space for necessary maintenance equip -
ment , and
4 , has complied with all provision of the Local Law # 3 , 1980
which provides for the environmental review of actions in
the Town of Ithaca , and
. 5 . the Planning Board has acted as lead agency in order to
facilitate a coordinated review of both the zoning proposal
and the Site plan review , and
Planning Board 28 January 18 , 1983
' z
6 , the Planning Board has resolved that the project , as pre -
sented , will have no significant environmental impact and
that a determination of non - significance shall be filed with
all affected agencies ;
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED THAT :
the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca grant and hereby
does grant final site plan approval for the construction of the
project as presented in the most recent set of site plans , dated
January 14 , 1983 , subject to the following conditions :
1 , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca rezone the parcel
in que .; tion from Residential - 15 to Multiple - Family , such
rezoning being made contingent upon the development of the
project as presented in the site plans in a form acceptable
to the 9' own Engineer , and
2s any rezoning of the parcel be limited strictly to the 30
acre property and Site Plan as owned by Bill J . Manos , and
3s in the event the land is not fully developed as in the site
plan presented by the developer , that should the entire
parcel , or any portion thereof , be sold or otherwise trans -
ferred to a third party , that the remaining undeveloped
portion of the property shall revert to the Residential - 15
• designation if not developed as approved , and
4 , the developer agrees to consult and work with the staff of
the Cornell Plantations in order to insure the continued
hydrologic stability of the South Hill Swamp , and
5o furthermore agrees to minimize the use of pesticides and
other chemical agents such as road salt or calcium through -
out the project area in order to limit the possibility that
significant levels of chemicals may intrude into the ground -
water of the South Hill Swamp and thereby alter the
ecological balance within this sensitive area , and
6e the developer will present final landscaping , engineering ,
and site plans in a form acceptable to the Town Engineer
which reflect the complete concerns of the the Planning
Board concerning fire safety , environmental quality , energy
efficiency , aesthetic suitability , screening of mass parking
areas , soil stabilization of disturbed grounds , and other
matters which fall within its properly delegated site plan
review powers , and
7 , the developer will obtain approval of the Tompkins County
Highway Department for access drives , from the Tompkins
County Health Department for water and sewer plans and from
• the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission for
water plans and drainage and seeding plan for retention
Planning Board 29 January 18 , 1983
• ponds , diversion ditches , and disturbed areas prior to the
issuance of any building permit , and
8e the approximately six - acre open space shall remain
undeveloped and as is shown on map marked " Exhibit A "
received by the Planning Board January 18 , 1983 and entered
into the record as part of Final Approval , and
90 the lease between the landlord and the tenants shall
prohibit the keeping of cats on premises and that tenants
must be advised that trespassing on the westerly six acres
as described in paragraph 8 is prohibited .
ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING ( FROM OCTOBER 5 AND DECEMBER 7 , 1982 )
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OF
124 - UNIT CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AT 1443 SLATERVILLE
ROAD , TOWN OI' ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 58 - 1 - 33 . 21 APPROXIMATELY 45
ACRES . JEROLD WEISBURD , OWNER / DEVELOPER , COMMONLAND COMMUNITY .
Chairman May declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the
above - noted matter duly opened at 9 : 45 p . m .
Mr . Mazza reminded the Board that he has not been
participating in any discussions , or vote , on this matter due to
a conflict of interest as previously noted , and asked to be
excused .
• Chairman. May asked Mr . Weisburd if there were any changes or
additions to the plans which have been submitted .
Mr . Weisburd stated that some very minor changes have been
made , noting that they have been submitted to the Town Office ,
and describing them as follows :
1 . Title Sheet - now referred to as the " Development Plan " , in
order to meet the requirement of the wording in the offering
plan .
2 . Areas designated as Cluster Common Area , Open Space Common
Area within Cluster , all clusters per offering plan ,
3 . Names for all the clusters ,
4 . A few , slight , engineering changes as suggested by Mr .
Fabbroni or by Bolton Point ,
a . Re - :routing of water main - - eliminating that along
Penny Lane - - connecting across the ballfield area with
a large pipe .
b . Increased radius of entrance curve , Mr . Weisburd
commented that his engineers felt that originally a
tractor trailer could still enter by going over a
mountable curb . He stated that the Department of
Transportation indicated their preference that a
tractor trailer could go in with one swing and thus the
• change to a larger radius at that point .
C * A couple of buildings moved within five to ten feet of
where they were to make allowance for that radius .
Planning Board 30 January 18 , 1983
• 5 . On the entrance sign , the little bollards that were standing
up have been eliminated to increase bumper room .
Mr . Weisburd stated that everything else is as presented to
the Board in October . Mr . Fabbroni inquired about the pond . Mr .
Weisburd stated that the pond was changed prior to the October
meeting , noting that new elevations were put in to conform with
discussions held at that time and since that time no changes have
been made with respect to the pond .
Chairman May recalled that one of the things discussed at
the last meeting was retention dams and location . Mr . Weisburd
responded that this was discussed at the meeting before that ,
adding that there were changes made and , he believed , these are
the last . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he had checked the drainage
plans and the appropriate details are shown on the 100 - year flood
map . Mr . May asked if the staff has copies of the final
revisions . Mr . Weisburd stated that they did , adding that they
were submittE� d in triplicate .
Chairman May asked if there were any comments from the
public .
Dr . Gerald W . Olson , Cornell University , Department of
Agronomy ( Soils ) , spoke from the floor and stated that he would
like to give the Board , and the public , information on and
• photographs of the soils , in this area . He distributed copies of
SOILS . Soil Classification , Soils Tour Southeast of Ithaca ,
Tompkins Count , to everyone present and referred to the soil
maps and photographs in this brochure as he spoke . Dr . Olson
began by stating that the soils of this area are very unstable
and very hazardous . He stated that he has been taking students
into this area for ten years and has observed a lot of things
that he wanted to share with the Board . Dr . Olson referred to
the soils map in the brochure he distributed and pointed out that
the pattern of soils in the Six Mile Creek valley is unique ; it
is totally different from all other soil patterns . He stated
that this is because Slaterville and Coddington Roads were part
of a beach lake 20 , 000 years ago . Referring to Figure 2 in the
Brochure , a photograph taken from Slaterville Road looking
westward across the valley of Six Mile Creek , and described the
complex slopes of Hudson soils formed in eroded lacustrine
( lake - laid ) clayey sediments , he pointed out that one can see the
unique topography of the area . These soils have this unique
pattern because they were formed in these lake sediments ; they
are high in gilts from the old glacial Lake Ithaca . This means
that these soils are extremely unstable , in a critical state , and
are moving , sloughing , and sliding right now . This is as shown
in Figure 3 which showed Lacustrine sediments near Bethel Grove .
He stated that the texture of the Hudson and Rhinebeck soils is
very fine and pointed out that , in Figure 3 , it is shown that a
• drainage way was installed and the soils are sliding through the
concrete drainage way . Dr . Olson referred to the insert sheet
containing Figure 85 , which showed the historical landslide below
Planning Board 31 January 18 , 1983
• Bethel Grove Bible Church southeast of Ithaca and noted that this
photo was taken a little over a year ago . He stated that this
area has slid many times before . He said you can walk along Six
Mile Creek and there will be sediments and added that when these
soils are saturated they become liquid and literally " flow " like
molasses and added that this photograph proves this . Dr . Olson
described a photo , also in the Brochure , taken near Albany in an
area where the slope was almost level where the Hudson soil
settled and slid cracking the foundation of a house , adding that
the slope in the Watershed area runs 8 % to 15 % . Dr . Olson stated
that he presented this information to the Board as facts of the
area under discussion and summarized by stating the soils are
very unstable and will move faster when they are saturated .
Mr . Robert Marion , 1463 Slaterville Road , spoke from the
floor and stated he would like to make his continuous denial of
approval for this site on the grounds of all the mistakes of all
parties in accordance with tonight ' s last mistake of leaving out
a change that has not been made on the map that has been
presented to the meeting tonight . He stated that if the Board is
going to give an approval to a map that has not had the
significant changes that ought to be made by the Board of Zoning
Appeals dealing with buffer zones and what is to be held in
buffer zones , then the Board is going against its own
regulations .
• Chairman May stated that he was sorry , but he did not
understand what Mr . Marion was talking about as to map changes
not made . Mr . Marion responded - - " good " - - adding that it was
because the Board is reading a map with items not there . Mr . May
asked Mr . Manion to be more specific . Mr . Marion stated that he
was talking about the map in front of the Board and added that
Mr . Weisburd did not say that he made the change . He stated that
it is going against the buffer zone and his idea of the distance
between properties and new additions to the property . Mr . Marion
stated that a parking lot was in the buffer zone . Mr . Fabbroni
wondered if Mr . Marion was referring to parking lot P6 on Sheet
# 2 in Cluster D and off of Penny Lane . Mr . Weisburd noted that
" P6 " means parking for 6 cars . Mr . May asked if it were in the
buffer zone . Mr . Marion stated that the parking lot area is
within the 40 feet that is supposed to be a buffer zone . A
discussion of the cluster regulations ensued . It was noted that
the parking lot appears to be in the buffer zone .
Mr . Marion continued by stating that in the original
discussions , Mr . Weisburd stated that he was not going to raze
trees . Mr . Marion wanted to know Mr . Weisburd ' s definition of
" raze trees . " Mr . Marion stated that it seemed to him that there
is a major bunch of trees that now have been buried which once
stood between the existing house that has been built by the
granting of a building permit .
iChairman May stated that he believed that the words were
that tree removal or moving was to be minimized as far as
Planning Board 32 January 18 , 1983
' t
possible , rather than none as indicated by Mr . Marion . Mr .
Weisburd stated that it is impossible to build a house without
moving trees . Mr . Marion stated that the woods are no longer
woods and asked if one were going to build a house in the woods
and then one clears the land so it looks like the rest of the
neighborhood , why build the house in the woods , adding that it ' s
no longer woods if you ' ve cleared the trees . Mr . Marion stated
that Mr . Weisburd had said that he was not going to change the
drainage . Mr . Marion wanted to know when Mr . Weisburd was going
to change the ditch that goes across the State ditch to the
property . Mr . Marion said that Mr . Weisburd also stated that he
was going to plant shrubs , trees , and various things that the
neighbors were going to want on their boundaries which have not
been done at this time . Chairman May stated that he thought Mr .
Marion was :being unfair , pointing out that the Board has not
granted final approval . He noted that Mr . Marion wanted Mr .
Weisburd to start plantings prior to even having final cluster
approval . Mr . Marion asked if it was in the wording when the
developer would start plantings . Mrs . Schultz read a part of the
October 5 , 1982 minutes that pertained to the type of plantings
and when they would be started .
Chairman May asked if there were any other comments at this
point from the public .
Mr . Jeff Coleman , 7A Park Lane , Lansing , N . Y . spoke from the
floor and read the following statement :
" To the Town of Ithaca Planning Board :
I am speaking as an individual and as a member of the Six
Mile Creek :Preservation Committee . Given the high degree of
community concern over the potential environmental impacts of the
Commonland development and the fact that the Commonland
development is planned to be built in phases , I respectfully
request that any Final Approval given for the development contain
a mechanism whereby environmental impacts from the development
can be monitored and that the Planning Board reserve the power to
require additional mitigating measures to curb environmental
impacts at any time during the construction of the development .
Sincerely ,
( sgd . ) Jeff Coleman "
Mr . Marion stated that the whole development is being
considered , in Commonland language , " a Community within the
Community " and asked why it is not in the regulations of the
Association the fact that it is changing the character of the
neighborhood and the fact that part of the neighborhood does have
that type of community . Chairman May indicated to Mr . Marion
that this had been thoroughly discussed and a determination made
• by the Board at meetings previously held . Mr . May stated that at
this meeting ,. the Board is considering final site plan approval
Planning Board 33 January 18 , 1983
' 1
• and listening to what anyone has to say pertaining to the site
plan being considered for approval .
Mrs . Carolyn Peterson , 110 Dey Street , Ithaca City , spoke
from the floor and read the following statement :
" l . Members of the Environmental Management Council , the City ' s
Conservation Advisory Council , Circle Greenway , Ecology
Action , the Six Mile Creek Preservation Committee , the City
Council , and the Town Board are interested in protecting the
land and creek around the Six Mile Creek watershed .
2 . Noel Desch , the town supervisor , states that the priority
for 1983 for the town is to complete the new rezoning .
3 . Contractors and developers , the ad reads in bold print .
Prime land in 2 locations , 38 acres near the intersection of
Slaterville and Pine Tree Roads .
4 . The Town of Ithaca has the smallest growth rate of any
municipality in Tompkins County - - only 2 . 5 % from 1970 - 1980 ,
or 402 people .
5 . The construction is to be made on unstable , moving soils .
Let ' s start with Fact 1 . The Six Mile Creek Preservation
Committee is not the only group seeking to protect the creek and
its surrounding lands . There is a process already started by the
city to declare portions of its property there a " critical
natural area , " under a section of the SEQR Act . The Circle
Greenway Committee has learned that as of 1970 , the Wildflower
Garden area was extended to Burns Road . There are plans to
maintain a trail to Burns Road in order to prevent indiscriminate
trail -making by hikers . The City Council recognizes the value of
owning this property as a scenic and recreational resource for
its residents . The 6MCPC is working with these groups to develop
the best plans for the usage of Six Mile Creek . Although this
Board and the developer has claimed us to be self - serving in our
motives , one can hardly ignore the other organizations interested
in protecting this beautiful and fragile area .
How does one protect it ? Critical area status will help , as
suggested by the Town Supervisor when asked how to protect the
area from the.+ encroachment of hydropower development . The Town
is experienced in this procedure through its Coy Glen designation
a few years ago . Another way to protect the area is through
zoning . In a conversation with a town board member , it was said
that the city residents , as immediate neighbors to the town , have
a valid reason to offer input on the rezoning issue . A member of
the EMC also suggests that the Town look carefully at Six Mile
Creek when rezoning . Because Commonland is such a drastic change
• to the current land usage and because it is already creating a
possibility of a suburban development strip on Route 79 adjoining
an EMC designated unique natural area , contrary to the Planning
Planning Board 34 January 18 , 1983
• Board and developer ' s opinions , I would ask that this Board not
give final approval at this time . It would be an example of the
developer setting zoning priorities before hearings on rezoning
take place . We know it is R15 and R30 land and that the town has
followed this designation . However it is an inappropriate
designation and the allowance of one subdivision will make it
more difficult to preclude others , not only on Slaterville Road ,
but on Coddington Road as well .
There is no doubt that Commonland will bring an immense
change to the town if approved in its whole concept . Commonland
is touted as a needed development to meet housing needs in the
community . The Town of Ithaca ' s population does not support that
claim . It has grown minimally in 10 years . In fact ,
Commonland ' s projected number of residents is three - fourths of
the town ' s growth in the past decade , and all in one location .
It is a huge impact worthy of consideration , both to the
neighborhood and the land it borders on .
In this case , final approval means the creation of a large
population where none existed , creation of a corridor of suburbia
on Route 79 , endangerment of a fragile wildflower and wildlife
area , building on a hillside of unstable , moving soils , and the
sacrifice of the benefits of a major green space for the
community to a housing development that could be placed
elsewhere .
The 6MCPC motives have been second - guessed or deliberately
miscontrued by a number of people . A phrase from a one hundred
year - old essay in The Head Waters of Cayuga Lake sums our
feelings up , even today .
' And the old trees stand around in such graceful attitudes
and with such sunny distances between , that there is nothing of
gloom , though the whole scene is so primitive and wild , and
apparently so remote from human habitation . '
It is this quality of Six Mile Gorge that makes it worth
protecting . "
Mr . Francis Moon , 507 Turner Place , Ithaca City , spoke from
the floor and. cited the other matter which had just been before
the Board and the cooperation with Cornell University . Mr . Moon
stated that since the city has an environmental commission that
looks at some aspects of Six Mile Creek , it seems odd not to
require the present developer to cooperate with various agencies
of the City with regard to the impact of his development in this
Six Mile Creek area . Mr . Moon suggested including that
requirement in any approval of the development plan . Mr . Moon
continued by saying that , if he were an optimist , he would hope
the Board would be swayed by taking a walk in the area under
• discussion and would see that this gorge should be preserved for
future citizens . In order to do this , he hoped the Board would
downscale this; development in keeping with the neighborhood . Mr .
Planning Board 35 January 18 , 1983
Moon stated that he was not that much of an optimist , adding that
however the Board resolved this matter , whether it restricts it
or votes it up or down , he would ask that the Board consider
placing a two - year moratorium on future development in the Six
Mile Creek corridor between Coddington and Slaterville Roads ,
Giles Street and Burns Road . Mr . Moon suggested that there be
set up a joint City / Town committee to study and recommend future
zoning and development of the Six Mile Creek area . Mr . Moon
suggested that after this study group has reported to the Town
and the City , a common development plan be worked out between the
Town and City and its citizens . Mr . Moon asked the Board to
please consider this request independently of this development no
matter how they vote on this matter and added that hundreds of
acres on either side of Six Mile Creek lie ripe for development .
Mr . Moon stated he thought it was time for the Town and the City
to take a look at the long - range development in the watershed
area .
Mr . Moon placed with the Board the following statement to
summarize his suggestions and comments :
" I suggest that the Board institute a two - year moratorium on
development between Coddington and Slaterville Roads , Giles
Street and Burns Road . I recommend that the Town and City set up
joint study committee to study the long - range use , zoning , and
development within the Six Mile Creek corridor . Francis Moon . "
• Mr . Wei ..burd spoke from the floor and stated that he thought
it was time to look between black and white . He stated that when
the previous development was discussed at tonight ' s meeting you
were looking at a development on 30 acres with 120 units , 6 acres
to be undeveloped , and a real critical area adjacent to it . He
pointed out that his proposed development is on 45 acres with 124
units and 30 acres to be undeveloped . Mr . Weisburd said that the
word " development " is a catch word that the public looks at as
" any development is a bad development " and that they are all the
same . He commented that it is important to look at the
difference between the developments . Mr . Weisburd stated that
one should see that 124 units is less than 190 which could be
built using a grid on 45 acres in R15 and one should see that 30
acres of open space or 60 per cent of the land is a lot more than
the 5 acres which is the 10 per cent requirment of the Town . He
stated that people fail to make this difference . He pointed out
the facts that in his case the developer is doing the
development ; the mitigative measures with respect to the
watershed corridor ; recreation space ; open space ; woodlands ;
clustering development that works on the whole site - - and stated
that all this apparently does not matter - - people just see it as
simply " development " . Mr . Weisburd stated that Mr . Marion had
made a good point in terms of the buffer zone area .
Mrs . Grigorov asked Dr . Olson if he had any mitigating
measures to offer . Dr . Olson responded that you need to avoid
overloading and having road construction above and undercutting
Planning Board 36 January 18 , 1983
. below . Dr . Olson referred to the Blue Cross headquarters in
Albany and stated that this organization knew the hazards and
invested a lot of money taking care of drainage below the
foundations before it was built . Dr . Olson described buffer
foundations and stated that it is critical to remove the water
going downslope .
Mr . Weisburd stated that they did study the soils in this
area before starting and he chose this particular design because
it spreads the load out over the entire area . Mr . Weisburd
pointed out that they have completely built up a drainage pad
that is crushed stone and gravel . He described the drainage
pipes under the buildings and noted the low bearing value on that
soil . Mr . Weisburd described the utilization of a very heavy
slab , adding that it is much heavier than normal . With these
considerations , Mr . Weisburd commented , they came up with this
design , a design for that kind of soil .
Dr . Olson stated that he had another anectdote to tell and
referred to Bradfield Hall on the Cornell University campus which
is built on pilings . He then described Emerson Hall which is a
low building connected with that building and is built on a pad .
He stated that the Chairman of his department can look through
the walls of his office to the next buildings because the soils
are moving .
• Town Engineer Fabbroni said that he would like to state
several facts , and , some of his own conclusions , as follows :
1 . The whole environmental issue of this site - - in a cryptic
sort of answer - - has been identified at full length and by
the courts so that the Board really needs not reopen that
whole issue . Mr . Moon should know that the Town has already
expressed their willingness to work with the City . The Town
feels , however , that the City should introduce such a study ,
not the Town . As far as moratoriums go , that is a complex
legal matter and would be best considered at the time of any
such study .
2 . The Wildflower Garden is totally internal to the City . The
Circle Greenway has been seeking to extend their walkway
system from Honness Lane at Slaterville Road to the east
within Six Mile Creek Corridor . The Board of Public Works ,
based on several inquiries to date , has not formally agreed
to anything . The suggestion that the Circle Greenway goes
to Burns Road is in error as far as policy stands . The
Planning Board should seriously consider Mr . Moon ' s comments
as far as the developer cooperating with the Circle Greenway
and the City ,
3 . The Town is not aware of the unique aspects of Six Mile
Creek corridor above the thirty - foot dam or dam just below
Commonland site , so to put this in the South Hill Swamp and
Planning Board 37 January 18 , 1983
. unique natural resource category is a little bit
inappropriate .
4 . With regard to zoning - - the zoning is as it stands .
5 . With regard to the Town - - the Town grew by 1 , 000 units over
the last ten years , The 2 . 5 % figure that was mentioned is
only in. the aggregate of population ignoring the increase
from four to five thousand units . Figures that would
suggest that 124 units , or 300 people , are unlike the other
11000 units , and the people that occupy them , are
misleading .
6 . With regard to soils - - Mr . Fabbroni stated that he was
appreciative of the fact that Professor Olson has come
along , adding that he had a few questions .
a ) Mr „ Fabbroni asked Dr . Olson how familiar he was with
the specific site plan and this particular development .
Dr . Olson responded that he was not familiar with it .
b ) Mr . Fabbroni asked Dr . Olson if he were familiar with
thE! mitigating measures - retention ponds , check dams ,
and other stabilization features - to prevent this
undercutting and erosion . Dr . Olson stated that he had
talked some with Gary Lamont ( District Conservationist ,
Soil Conservation Service ) .
• c ) Mr . Fabbroni asked Dr . Olson if he were aware that Mr .
Lamont has talked with the developer and made
recommendations . Mr . Fabbroni stated that , since the
last meeting , Mr . Lamont has had one of his soil
experts again examine the washout area closest to the
site and it was his opinion that , because of the soils '
layering and the soils below the impermeable soils , the
sub - strataI would drain such that the erosion and
slides , some 200 feet from the site , have a very slim
chance of spreading in any dramatic way . Mr . Fabbroni
noted that that opinion is based on more expert opinion
than Mr . Lamont ' s .
d ) Mr . Fabbroni said that he would like Dr . Olson to be
assured that the existing drainage ways , however small ,
have been carefully identified and considered . Mr .
Fabbroni said that , at the risk of having everyone
nodding off , he would cite again Eastern Heights as a
case of bad drainage . He pointed out that the Planning
Board has seen how a situation can progress in these
soils and therefore has discussed mitigating measures
as contingencies of approval to keep the erosion
process from starting . He noted that they have been
very careful about one steep road and the other road
follows the existing contours for the most part and
re - vegetation must be done .
Mr . Fabbroni stated further , in terms of issues to address ,
that a second access has not really been identified as yet that
Planning Board 39 January 18 , 1983
Chairman May stated that the engineer ' s comments were very
well advised and asked that we not get into any further
discussion on environmental issues .
Mr . Dan. Peterson , 110 Dey Street , Ithaca City , spoke from
the floor and stated that he did not understand how the Board can
do site plan approval and not discuss the environment . Mr .
Peterson stated that it was clear that Mr . Fabbroni did not
understand what he ( Peterson ) meant when he made his comments at
the October 5 , 1982 meeting and , further , that Mr . Fabbroni was
confused with regard to the drainage from the pond . Mr . Peterson
stated that he would clarify his comments by reading from the
following statement :
" At the October 5th meeting , I tried to point out that Mr .
Weisburd ' s pond poses a great threat for erosion of a precipice
( located at upsteam end of lower reservoir ) . My claims were
dismissed by the Town Engineer and I really didn ' t know what he
was talking about at the time . Only on reading the minutes of
that meeting did I understand that real problem is that he didn ' t
understand what I was talking about . Mr . Fabbroni answered me by
describing the lay of the land , and a scenario for the movement
of water , in the first field , behind the Mrs . Maurice Marion
residence . I: was talking , at the time , about the pond , which is
in the second. field , about 1000 feet SE of the field Mr . Fabbroni
thought I was talking about .
One only has to look at a topographical map to determine
that runoff .from this pond will be immediately to one side of
this cliff . ( far upstream end of lower reservoir )
I stated in October , and I stand by it , that there is new
erosion on this cliff . About 2 feet have fallen off of the face
since spring and there is a new crevice , about 2 feet wide and 6
to 8 feet back , that has developed to one side . Furthermore , it
was only about 5 years ago that enough mud to fill this building
slid off the .face of that cliff . It is toward this crevice , next
to the cliff , that the diverted water in the pond will run .
It is said , in the October 5th minutes , that a 20 year
employee of the city , who walks the gorge twice a year , states
that there has been no new erosion . I disagree , and I have
walked that gorge considerably more than that employee ' s total of
40 times .
The no - new - erosion statement is also contradicted in the
much quoted letter , dated September 3rd , from Philip Cox , former
City Engineer . I quote . ' 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 . ' ( end quote )
iI suggest that you , ( the Planning Board and staff ) have
simply neglected the facts in dismissing our valid concerns about
Planning Board 38 January 18 , 1983
' • z
can legally be attained at an acceptable grade , however , he would
rather have that second access east of the former Marion Fruit
Stand , adding that he would prefer to see that access just west
of a new home across Maurice Marion ' s estate . He noted that at
the access at the west end of the site there is a poor grade .
Mr . Fabbroni indicated that perhaps this right does not exist
because of the right of way deed , however , he would like to see
it at that location rather than the one shown . Mr . Fabbroni
stated that , short of that second access , emergency access for
fire trucks was to be provided in a minimal way so as not to
affect the Clausen property . Mr . Fabbroni noted that , of course ,
any connection to Slaterville Road must be approved by the
Department of Transportation , adding that , should a second full
access become possible through other private negotiation , he
would support DOT ' s conditioning such future permit on abandoning
the service road intersection plan .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that , beyond that , he would not advise
landscaping between Marion and the development , noting that the
Marions felt drainage is further imperiled by vegetation . He
commented that for Mr . Marion ' s own enjoyment of his own land , it
might make some sense to have a vegetated buffer but only such
that he could enjoy the valley but at the same time screen out
buildings and the road adjacent to his property .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that any other points to be addressed
• are covered in the draft resolution . Mrs . Grigorov asked exactly
where the road is and Mr . Fabbroni drew a sketch of it on the
site plan and. commented that it was a right from the Verne Marion
estate transferred to Grennell and Brewer when they purchased the
land then turned over to Mr . Weisburd .
Mr . May inquired if that were the old City right of way ,
which , Mr . Fabbroni thought may be the case . It was discussed
that it would be preferable in that case to encourage the second
access and it was noted that old City right of way splits the
property and its purpose antiquated .
Mr . Peter Walsh , of Thaler & Thaler , the developer ' s
attorney , stated that he did not think this matter has been
broached to the developer before . Mr . Fabbroni stated that that
was correct , adding that this is really the first time he has
talked about this . Mr . Walsh stated that the second access
suggested could be done without major revisions to the plans as
they otherwise stand and that there was no objection to this .
Mr . Walsh suggested that the matter could be moved with the
comments of the Town Engineer ,
Mrs . Schultz noted that the accesses are a matter for DOT .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that the permit is obtained through DOT and
referred to a letter which he wrote to DOT indicating that the
Town would abandon the request for emergency access if the second
access is legally possible .
Planning Board 40 January 18 , 1983
this slope , specifically , the erosion that could be caused by the
installation of the pond , and in general , the entire long - range
effects of allowing Commonland to continue . "
Mr . Fabbroni described his understanding of this and stated
that Mr . Peterson had said that water from the pond would go over
the cliff where the second washout was and that he ( Fabbroni ) had
said that there was no way water could get to that landslide
area . Mr . Peterson interjected that the water goes around the
sides . Mr . Fabbroni repeated that there is no way possible over
the surface of the land because of the drainageways that drain
away from the drainage area . Mr . Peterson described again the
gouge , describing it as huge , and repeated that he disagreed ,
noting that he has looked at this . Mr . Fabbroni described again
the natural sodded area - - into the edge of the woods - - the rock
bordered bottom drainageways for about 150 feet - - then bedrock
bottom drainageways - - the flows down under the main water
transmission main . Mr . Fabbroni stated that there is another
off - site waterway feeding to this stream that is unstable and
goes into the same waterway 30 feet from where it leaves the
site . Mr . Fabbroni stated that in no way , shape , or form is this
in proximity to this washed- out area . He stated that the washout
has nothing to do with the depressed area where the pond is to be
located . Mr ,. Peterson then asked where the water is coming from
that causes this gouge . Mr . Fabbroni indicated that it was from
above some 100 feet and referenced what Professor Olson had said ,
and stated that the bigger reason why the slope was falling off
was because of the unstable soils on top and these have slipped
off of this area . Mr . Peterson commented also on the phenomenon
of the 20 -year employee who could see no new erosion and stated
that that was just wrong .
Ms . Leslie Dotson , Tompkins County Planning Department
liaison to the Environmental Management Council , spoke from the
floor and stated that she would like to clarify one of the points
mentioned by Mrs . Peterson with regard to an EMC member ' s
statement as to Town of Ithaca zoning . Ms . Dotson stated that
the EMC is aware that any zoning changes would not be tied to
existing actions and that the zoning was talked about in
connection with the Town ' s new zoning ordinance .
Ms . Fay Gougakis , 100 West Seneca Street , Ithaca City , spoke
from the floor and stated that it was very unfair of the Board
not taking any more environmental issues . She stated that the
Board should let Mr . Peterson speak . She stated that also the
Board is not taking into consideration the Six Mile Creek
Committee at all . She stated that this land is a unique natural
resource , adding that the Board is not taking them seriously .
She stated that once you ruin the land you never get it back .
Ms . Gougakis :Mated that more people would use this land than the
people in the development , adding that this development could be
• built somewhere else . Ms . Gougakis stated that the land should
be saved and used by the people and that government is for the
people .
v
Planning Board 41 January 18 , 1983
Mr . May noted that people own the property and pay taxes on
S the property .
Mrs . Peterson stated that there have been discussions by the
Circle Greenway about the area . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that
discussions have not gotten to the City Board of Public Works .
Mrs . Peterson questioned studies about the South Hill Swamp . Mr .
Fabbroni suggested that she refer to the littany of the record
with respect to the South Hill Swamp ,
Mr . Moon stated that the city did a waterway study in 1976 ,
adding that there have been a number of studies of the area which
found that the Six Mile Creek area is unique and should be
preserved . Mr . Moon reiterated his suggestion that , for the
benefit of satisfaction , studies should be done . He urged that
the Six Mile Creek area be officially studied .
Mr . Peterson spoke of mitigating features , particularly
bales of hay and better policing after approval . Mr . Peterson
asked if , after the Board gives the developer the final approval ,
there is a mechanism to make sure that any restriction the Board
puts on are being carried out . Chairman May replied that
absolutely there is no question about that . He stated that there
is a very effective Town staff that will be doing this and that
he was unaware of any restrictions that the developer had not
carried out at this time .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that the control measures that the Town
has are carried out both through the Building Inspector via the
building permit process and certificate of compliance for
occupancy process and through compliance with any final
resolution . that the Planning Board may pass as conditions for
approval , as well as Town Board acceptance for any roadways , etc .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that there are several checkpoints along the
way whereby the Town can judge the performance of the developer
and can ask for additional improvements necessary to meet the
approved plans . Mr . Fabbroni noted that this policing action of
the site and development becomes more active after final
approval , if given .
Mr . Peterson stated that he was speaking of priormajor
roadway building . Mr . Fabbroni stated that as far as the
Planning Board was concerned that road is nothing more than a
driveway . He! indicated again that policing would become more
critical after final approval , if that point is reached .
Mr . Robert E . Marion stated he wanted to go on record that
he agreed with Mr . Fabbroni on the second exit . Mr . Marion
stated that he also had a comment - - he would like to thank Mr .
Fabbroni for his time and energy and effort that he has spent on
this entire procedure and that he would publicly state so .
Chairman May closed the public hearing at 11 : 05 p . m . and
asked for Board discussion .
Planning Board 42 January 18 , 1983
MOTION by Mr . David Klein , seconded by Mr . Bernard Stanton :
•
Chairman May commenced the reading of draft resolution
011083 . 1 as had been moved and seconded . Mr . Lovi asked that
draft resolution 011883 . 1 be substituted .
MOTION by Mr . David Klein , seconded by Mr . Bernard Stanton *
RESOLVED that draft resolution 011883 . 1 be substituted for
draft resolution 011083 . 1 .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Schultz , Baker , Stanton , Klein .
Nay - None .
Chairman May read resolution 011883 . 1 as follows :
" WHEREAS :
1 . The Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca has reviewed the
site plans , engineering drawing and details , landscaping
plans , utility arrangements and all other necessary
documents , and the matters of the development which may
require examination and determination by the Board all as
required and set forth in the provisions of all applicable
subdivision regulations of the Town and the provisions of
Article 16 of the Town law including , without limiting the
foregoing , the provisions of Sections 274a , 276 , 277 , and
281 of the Town Law to the extent they may now be
applicable , and has
2 , made a declaration that the Project would not have a
significant impact on the environment provided the applicant
complied. with all mitigating measures and all other
requirements contained in the EAF adopted as part of such
declaration , and such decision was confirmed by the decision
of the Honorable Frederick B . Bryant , Justice of the Supreme
Court dated and filed January 6 , 1983 ( In the Matter of the
Application of the Six Mile Creek Preservation Committee , et
al vs . Town Planning Board , et al , Index # 82 - 1397 ) , and all
notices of such declaration were duly given to and filed
with all other agencies and parties entitled thereto , and
3a has actively solicited public comment and has held four
public hearings ( June 1 , June 15 , October 5 , 1982 and
January 18 , 1983 ) and all material aspects of the project
has been thoroughly discussed , investigated and examined ,
and
4 , that the developer has complied with the letter and spirit
of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
Regulations in an effort to build aesthetically attractive ,
• affordable equity housing in the Town of Ithaca , and that
the clustered housing plan preserves valuable open space
Planning Board 43 January 18 , 1983
• within the residential subdivision and reduces the cost of
roads , utilities and other public improvements , and
5 . the Planning Board finds that there is a real public need
for such moderately priced housing within the Town , and
6e in order to control the density of occupancy of the project
and in order to construct a residential development , the
construction , use and occupancy of which will contribute to
the preservation , as much as can be reasonably done by a
project of this type , of community values and to the
development of a project in harmony with the character of
the neighborhood and the topography of the site , the
applicant has agreed to restrict the number of people who
may occupy the premises and certain terms under which any
dwelling unit in the project may be occupied , leased or
assigned , and to a person other than the owner , these
conditions will be incorporated in as a part of the
Declarations of Covenants and Restrictions , and
7e that the developer has agreed to make these terms and other
restrictive conditions part of both the declaration of
covenants and the by - laws of the homeowners ' association
which will eventually be responsible for the maintenance and
smooth operation of the community ,
THEREFORE , I 'I' IS RESOLVED THAT :
The Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca grant and hereby
does grant final subdivision approval for the Commonland
Community Subdivision as proposed by Jerold Weisburd subject to
the following terms and conditions :
1 . The Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions shall at least
refer to this resolution and shall incorporate such other
matters as the Town Planning Board or the Town Board may
require including provisions which shall be included in the
deeds conveying title to the units , and
2 . the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions shall be
subject to approval by the Town Board unless the Town Board
waives approval and remands the matter of approval to the
Planning Board , and
3 . the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions shall also
contain limitations on the rental and occupancy of each
residential unit in each of the clustered buildings , and the
terms and conditions under which any unit may be leased ,
assigned , or otherwise transferred , and
4 . the New York State Department of State , Division of Law ,
also approve the declaration of covenants and by - laws , and
•
Planning Board 44 January 18 , 1983
• 5 . the New York State Department of Transportation approve the
design for the entrance of the project onto State Route 79 ,
and
6 , the Tompkins County Health Department approve the water and
sewer plans for the project , and
7 . Mr . Weisburd shall provide a detail drawing or map in a form
acceptable to the Town Engineer describing the construction ,
drainage , and landscaping plans for the retention pond ,
including entrance and overflow structures , to be located
adjacent to the community center , and
8 . Mr . Weisburd agrees to construct check dams of native rock
or - treated railroad ties as the location requires throughout
the project , and
9 . Mr . Weisburd shall additionally provide a final landscaping
plan in a form acceptable to the Town Engineer which details
the species , number , height , caliper sizes , and locations of
all plantings within the project ; the seeding
recommendations of the Soil Conservation Service shall be
sought and implemented for disturbed or unstable areas ; this
landscaping plan shall incorporate the many useful comments
and requests made by the neighbors and shall to the extent
possible satisfy their preferences for particular plantings
or arrangements , and
10 . the Town Engineer shall certify that the developer has
complied with all provisions of this resolution before any
building permit for construction , or any offering for sale ,
be made .
11 . the applicant shall furnish :
a ) a ,subdivision map , prepared by a licensed surveyor ,
showing such details as the Planning Board or the Town
Engineer may require and in a form suitable for filing
in the office of the County Clerk ,
b ) a map of each phase showing each of the dwelling units
to be constructed in that phase and a " metes and
bounds " description of the properties to be conveyed ,
and containing such detail as the Town Engineer may
reasonably require . "
Mr . Peter Walsh , Thaler & Thaler , attorney for Mr . Weisburd ,
stated that he did have a discussion with Mr . Buyoucos and with
Mr . Lovi on the draft resolution . Mr . Walsh stated that , as the
Board knows very well , there have been extensive efforts on the
part of the developer to conform the plans to the needs of the
Town and the Board . Mr . Walsh stated that , as far as rentals are
concerned and having to do with the length of time that a unit
may be rented , a unit may be rented by the owner only in a very
t
s
Planning Board 45 January 18 , 1983
specific manner over a period of five years , such that
effectively no more than 40 % of the units could ever be rented ,
40 % being the theoretical maximum . Mr . Walsh stated that the
only way that theoretical maximum could be reached is if all the
units had been purchased and all were rented at precisely the
same time to persons all on sabbatic leave at the same time . Mr .
Walsh stated. that he was certain that the Board understood that
the process the developer is going through here is but one of
several steps that must be carried out . Mr . Walsh described the
extraordinarily detailed filing with the Department of Law . He
commented that they do not like anything " untidy " , adding that
what the Board does here impacts on what the Department of Law
does . He stated that they look to what has been approved ; they
look at all the details . Mr . Walsh noted that there is a 90 - day
time period within which the Department of Law will look at a
matter and stated that this poses a certain problem to the
developer . He pointed out that these are 90 days on top of all
the days , thus putting the project substantially into the spring .
Mr . Walsh begged the Board ' s assistance in this matter , noting
that any finial resolution makes a great deal of difference in how
this is handled in the future . He stated that he knew the Board
wanted a good job . Mr . Walsh requested of the Board time to
discuss some of the specifics of the draft resolution as
presented and was granted same .
Mr . Walsh referred to " whereas # 6 " , particularly the clause
commencing " the applicant has agreed to restrict the number . . . "
He stated that that is certainly not inaccurate , however , it is
misleading in that the numbers simply cannot be calculated . Mr .
Walsh stated that by force of the regulations of the State such
matters must. be applicable prior to a public offering and
whatever the Board approves will have been recorded and effective
prior to any offering . Mr . Walsh stated that it simply cannot be
any other way . Mr . Walsh stated , therefore , that aspect of
" whereas # 6 " is superfluous .
Mr . Walsh next referred to " resolved # 2 " and noted that the
Board could see farther below in " resolved # 4 " that the
Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions and the By - Laws must be
approved by the Department of Law . Mr . Walsh stated that on
April 2 , 1959, the Town Board reaffirmed its delegation , in 1955 ,
of its powers under Section 276 . He stated that under this
Section of Town Law the Planning Board has this power that is
referred to in " resolved # 2 " . Mr . Walsh stated that he has
looked high and low for any requirement of spillback to the Town
Board , he has discussed this with the Town Attorney and he
indicated that he believes it to be correct that the Planning
Board has the decision on such matters . Mr . Walsh commented that
the planning ,staff has in its hands a clean copy of the Covenants
and By - Laws ; the Planning Board has in its hands a clean copy of
that part which speaks to rentals and occupancy [ Article XV ] . He
• stated that there has been no substantive change since that time .
Planning Board 46 January 18 , 1983
Now referring specifically to " resolved # 4 " , Mr . Walsh
stated that the Department of Law will do that as part of their
process . Mr . Walsh stated that he did not want it to appear that
the Planning Board ' s approval was subject to their approval . Mr .
Walsh stated that the Planning Board ' s final approval comes first
and then it goes to the Department of Law , otherwise the cart is
before the horse .
Mr . Walsh now referred to " resolved # 10 " and stated that
they had no problem with the Town Engineer examining , policing ,
or certifying the project but as part of the grant of final
approval such that the Town Engineer " shall certify that the
developer has complied with all provisions of this resolution
" has the sequence out of order ; the Town Engineer cannot be
at the far end of the process . Mr . Walsh suggested that the Town
Engineer may certify that conditions , insofar as they can be
complied with now have been complied with , and consequently the
authorized officer , probably the Planning Board chairman , may
sign off on the subdivision plat . Mr . Walsh stated that the
approach as drafted here will not work as a matter of law .
Mr . Walsh referred next to " resolved # 11 " and stated that
the subdivision map which the Board approves is the subdivision
map and , as such , is the result - - not a condition precedent .
Under ( b ) in # 11 , he stated that Mr . Buyoucos had asked him
whether there would be on file a map showing precisely a metes
and bounds description . Mr . Walsh stated that there will be maps
showing the property " as built " for recording far subsequent to
filing of the subdivision map .
Mr . Fabbroni asked if Mr . Walsh was saying that the filing
of the subdivision map is prior to the filing with the Department
of Law . Mr . Walsh stated that they are carried out
simultaneously . Mr . Walsh stated that final subdivision approval
is required by the Department of Law and the developer must show
that whatever has been required - - any conditions - - have been
completed . He commented that the time frame becomes critical .
Mr . Walsh referred again to the grant of final approval by the
Planning Board under Section 276 ,
Mr . Fabbroni stated that he would prefer to have an accurate
map filed and noted that there are procedures under which the
Town has operated that give a developer this time period for the
very reasons described by Mr . Walsh but still involve submission
of accurate metes and bounds descriptions which will be recorded .
Mr . Fabbroni briefly described some of the procedures to which he
was referring , such as performance bonds , which permit the
signing of the map at the time of grant . Mr . Fabbroni commented
that there are two ways to go in such matters , adding that he had
a problem with language that infers " as built " .
• Chairman May stated that Mr . Walsh ' s comments on the powers
of the Planning Board had completely surprised him and added that
he would feel uncomfortable without talking to the Town Attorney .
•
Planning Board 47 January 18 , 1983
Mr . May stated that when he had talked to Mr . Buyoucos it
appeared that the matter of the covenants and by - laws was the
prerogative of the Town Board , Mr . Walsh stated that he , too ,
wanted to make sure of procedural matters .
Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that the Board should not lose
sight of the second access road and the neighbors ' buffering , and
the point raised by Mr . Marion with regard to the one parking
area .
Mrs . Schultz suggested " resolved # 9 " be changed in that the
word " incorporate " be changed to " consider " and that the words
" to date " be added after " arrangements . " Mr . Walsh stated that
at the time this thing hits the State in the offering plan , it is
set in concrete .
Mr . Fabbroni commented that it seems that the preliminary
subdivision approval prior to this is in place and further upheld
by the courts and so there would appear to be no question as to
applicability, of new standard since passed . He stated that ,
beyond that , in the spirit of cooperation , the Board might ask
the developer to look at the specific siting of the building on
the southern boundary , next to the reservoir , and consider moving
it 5 feet , i . e . , 25 feet to 30 feet . He wondered if the
developer would , on that basis , have any problems meeting the
constraints with regard to the buffer area . Mr . Weisburd stated
that he would not have any problem moving a building 5 feet ,
however , major changes would be most difficult and expensive at
this point . Mr . Walsh stated that they are anxious to meet the
Planning Board ' s requirements .
Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that , at this point , there appears
to be one building which may not meet the buffer requirement , one
garage near the Clausen preserve that should be 30 feet from that
property . He also pointed out the parking area which Mr . Marion
brought up tonight .
Mr . Weisburd stated that he was happy to do what he can to
respond to what Mr . Fabbroni has outlined , adding , however , that
he cannot if he has to make such adjustments that would require
months of delay . Mr . Walsh commented that Mr . Weisburd would not
be able to provide the lower - cost housing that he has presented
to the Board if he had to reorganize the entire project at this
point .
The following change to " whereas # 6 " was suggested : that ,
after the words " topography of the site , " the following words be
used - - " the applicant has agreed that the Declaration of
Convenants and Restrictions , including limitations on the terms
and period of rental or occupation of units by unrelated persons ,
shall be incorporated by reference or otherwise in all deeds
• granted pursuant to the subdivision approval , and "
•
Planning Board 48 January 18 , 1983
Mr . Klein asked about the monitoring of the phases . Mr .
Walsh described the particular legal aspects involved because of
the common ownership . He described the process prior to the
offering of ownership within any phase , the resultant offering
within phase 1 , the resultant offering within say a year when
such and such is added to the homeowner ' s association as phase 2 .
Mr . Walsh noted that the restrictions are applicable in general
and then made subject to each phase offering . He stated that the
same covenants and restrictions cover the whole area . Chairman
May expressed his feeling that there should be some description
of each phase in the event that the project be only partially
completed .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that he thought one of the purposes of
the resolution is to highlight how things will proceed throughout
the whole project . He suggested an alternative such that " 50 , 000
things to happen " are not there , but that what the Planning Board
wants to happen in the way of procedure and with respect to the
covenants and restrictions is highlighted .
Mr . Walsh stated that he and Mr . Fabbroni did not differ ,
however , it was the sequence of words that he had some difficulty
with , adding that his concern was with their expression .
Chairman May stated that he really thought the Board can make the
two compatible . Mr . May pointed out that this is a Town document
and one that the Town Engineer and the Building Inspector will
work with . Mr . May stated that he thought the Board needed to
work the wording out and still not lose the purpose of some of
the items being there .
Mr . Fabbroni noted that the second access has not been dealt
with , if the Board chooses to deal with it . He noted also the
matter of the working with the Circle Greenway or the City of
Ithaca to permit , or deter , or direct through landscaping , any
access to the watershed area had not been addressed . Mr . May
commented that he did not think anyone knows at this point . Mr .
Walsh stated that the developer will cooperate to the extent that
the City - owned land , or its agencies , are involved , and mentioned
the homeowners ' association . Mr . Fabbroni wondered if a
commitment to any agreement could be passed on to the
association . Mr . Walsh commented that he had not mastered how to
enforce such an agreement on someone else . Chairman May
indicated the! suitability of a good faith agreement that the
developer would try .
Mr . Lovi pointed out that there were a lot of things that
were going to have to be pulled together and suggested that what
the Planning Board could do , if it so chose , is to at least
recommend that the Town Board consider the covenants and
restrictions and by - laws . Chairman May stated that he would have
no problem with recommending to the Town Board that they review
the covenants and by - laws prior to the next Planning Board
meeting . Mr . May commented that , also with the question of who
has the power to act on them , this would give the Planning Board
I
h
Planning Board 49 January 18 , 1983
w
a
t.
time to get together with the Town Attorney with respect to any
proposed resolution .
Mr . Walsh stated that , regardless of who approves , he has to
go back to the question of time , time is a critical problem with
them ; the clock is ticking . Mr . Walsh suggested that , if the
Board feels that it is unable to act , as apparently it does , but
wishes to push a portion of this to the Town Board for their
action , perhaps the Planning Board could make some recommendation
to the Town Board that it consider and pass on the matter before
it comes back to the Planning Board perhaps a week later . Mr .
Walsh noted again that they already have really severe time
constraints .
Chairman May stated that the next Planning Board meeting is
February 1 , 1983 . He noted that it would be the Board ' s
intention at that time to take some action but he could not say
what that action would be .
Mr . Klein MOVED TO TABLE further discussion of the
resolution before the Board until February 1 , 1983 at 7 : 30 p . m .
Chairman May declared the resolution so tabled .
MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . Bernard
Stanton .
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend
and hereby does recommend to the Town of Ithaca Town Board that
the Covenants and Restrictions and the By - Laws of the Homeowners '
Association for the Commonland proposal be reviewed by said Town
Board at its January 26 , 1983 meeting .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - May , Gr .igorov , Schultz , Baker , Stanton , Klein .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the January 18 , 1983 ,
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at
12 : 15 a . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
• Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .