Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1990-01-231 A i • 0 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD JANUARY 23, 1990 TOWN OF Da J, i_ , i Clerk 1 641 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, January 23, 1990, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov, Robert Kenerson, James Baker, Virginia Langhans, William Lesser, Robert Miller, Stephen Smith, John C. Barney (Town 'Attorney), Susan C. Beeners (Town Planner), Erik Whitney (Acting Town Engineer). ALSO PRESENT: Ted Araujo, Doria Higgins, Susan Centini, Bob Chiang, Judy and Ray Small, Kitty and Max Mattes, Rosalind Grippi, Rich Armstrong, Ann Clarke, David McArdle, Jay Cox, Margaret Z. Fiser, Arel LeMaro, Les Reizes, Harry Missirian, S. Grippi, Jack and Nancy Gould, Robert Hines, Esq. Chairperson Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7:30 p.m. and accepted for the record the Clerk's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on January 16, 1990, and January 18, 1990, respectively, together with the Clerk's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerk of the Town of Trumansburg, upon the County of Tompkins D.P.W., upon both the Clerk and the Building Commissioner of the City of Ithaca, upon the Tompkins County Acting Commissioner of Planning, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on January 17, 1990. ., . Chairperson Grigorov read the Fire Regulations to those assembled, as required. by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE AND REAFFIRMED BY THE PLANNING BOAR SUBDIVISION INTO TWO LOTS OF TOWN OF APPROXIMATELY 1.6 ACRES, LOCATED AT DISTRICT R -15. THEODORE L. AND MARIA THE FURTHER REAFFIRMATION OF PLANNING BOARD ON JULY 3, 1984, D ON FEBRUARY 2, 1988, FOR THE ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO, 6- 56 -3 -6, 1526 SLATERVILLE ROAD, RESIDENCE T. ARAUJO, OWNERS /APPLICANTS. Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7:41 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Town Planner Susan Beeners stated that the Planning Board is being requested to further reaffirm a subdivision, which was approved in 1984, but never got filed. Ms. Beeners said that the prior owner, Peter Stace, came back before the Board in February 1988, at which time the Planning Board reaffirmed the 1984 plat, and since that time, Mr. Araujo has purchased the entire parcel, and would again like to , Planning Board -2- January 23, 1990 have the subdivision reaffirmed, so he could proceed and have• it filed. Mr. Araujo stated ''that he purchased the property under the old Deed, and it is exactly the same as it was. Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson Grigorov closed the Public Hearing at 7:44 p.m. and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion. There appearing to; be no further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion. MOTION by Mr. Robert Kenerson, seconded by Mrs. Virginia Langhans: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board further reaffirm and hereby does further reaffirm the Subdivision Approval as granted by the Planning Board on July 3, 1984, and as reaffirmed by said Planning Board on February 2, 1988, for the subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6- 56 -3 -6, (approximately 1.6 acres), Residence District R -15, also known as 1526 Slaterville Road, into two lots, in accordance with the plan before the Planning Board on January 23, 1990, entitled "Survey Map of a Plot on Slaterville Road (N.Y.S. Rt. 79) ", Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, dated February 11, 1988, prepared by Howard R. Schlieder, P.E., L.S., subject to the filing of said subdivision plan, signed by the Chairperson of the Planning Board, in the Office of the Tompkins County Clerk within ninety days. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerso,'n, Baker, Langhans, .Lesser, Miller, Smith. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Grigor,ov declared the matter of consideration of the further reaffirmation of a two -lot subdivision for Theodore L. and Maria T. Araujo duly closed at 7:46 p.m. SIGN REVIEW BOARD: CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IN RE AN APPEAL OF SECTION 2.01 -1 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA SIGN LAW, WHICH SECTION PROHIBITS OFF- PREMISES SIGNS, TO PERMIT THE ERECTION OF A 2 FT. BY 2 FT. DIRECTIONAL SIGN BY THE OWNERS OF CENTINI'S CODDINGTON RESTAURANT ON A PARCEL OF LAND ZONED BUSINESS "A ", OWNED BY ITHACA COLLEGE, AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF RTE. 96B (DANBY ROAD) AND CODDINGTON ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6- 40 -4 -1. SUSAN CENTINI, APPLICANT; ROBERT J. HINES, ESQ., AGENT. Attorney Robert Hines approached the Board and stated that he was representing Susan Centini, of Centini's Coddington Restaurant. A Planning Board -3- January 23, 1990 Chairperson Grigorov noted that the Board had viewed a photograph of the sign. Attorney Hines stated that that sign is the one that is by the restaurant now. Attorney Hines commented that Ms. Centini said that she may paint the proposed sign with a light background and dark lettering, since it will not be a lighted sign. Attorney Hines stated that the purpose of the sign would be to direct traffic that otherwise does not seem to find the Coddington Road very easily from Danby Road. Attorney Hines stated that Ms. Centini had appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals, unaware that she had to seek approval with respect to the aesthetics, etc., from the Sign Review Board. Attorney Hines stated that Ithaca College owns the property where Ms. Centini wishes to place the sign. Attorney Hines stated that the proposed sign will be of the same shape, and the same general lettering. Virginia Langhans wondered where the sign would be in relation to the Town Highway signs that are there. Attorney Hines stated that the sign would be back 24 feet from the edge of Danby Road, and will be placed up the hill a little bit, adding, the sign will not be anywhere near the Town Highway signs. Ms. Centini stated that the sign will not stand any taller than 10 feet on the post. There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion. • MOTION by Mrs. Virginia Langhans, seconded by Mr. Stephen Smith: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, in its capacity as Sign Review Board, recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals approval of the request by Susan Centini for variance of Section 2.01 -1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to permit the placement of a 2 ft. X 2 ft. off - premises directional sign for Centini's Coddington Restaurant on a parcel of land zoned Business "A ", owned by Ithaca College, and located at the northeast corner of Rte. 96B ( Danby Road) and Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6- 40 -4 -1, and further RESOLVED, that said Planning Board (Sign Review Board) recommend and hereby does recommend that the Town Planning Department be notified of, and review, any further plans for signage that might be proposed for placement on the subject parcel. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Langhans, Lesser, Miller, Smith. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of a Recommendation to • the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to the Coddington Restaurent off - premises sign duly closed at 7:57 p.m. Planning Board -4- January 23, 1990 PUBLIC HEARING: REVI THE PROPOSED "CAYUGA PLUS A 6.1 -ACRE PARK HILL ROAD AND WEST OF 6- 22- 2 -2.2, -2.91 AND R -15, R -30. EDWARD J MCARDLE, APPLICANT. EW OF LAKE SITE, N.Y.S 6 -21- . MCAF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION MATERIALS FOR ESTATES ", PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF 42 LOTS AND PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED EAST OF ORCHARD . RT. 89, ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS N0, 1 -5, 65.9± ACRES TOTAL, RESIDENCE DISTRICTS IDLE AND LESLIE N. REIZES, OWNERS; DAVID A. Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 8:00 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Maps were appended to the bulletin board. Ms. Ann Clarke addressed the Board and stated that the proposal is for a 42 -lot subdivision, noting that originally it was for a 60 -lot subdivision. Ms. Clarke commented that, basically, the primary reason for the layout the way it is is to address the concern the Board had regarding the existing drainage water courses on the site -- the ravine to the north and the creek to the south. Ms. Clarke said that to accommodate a request for park space there is a 6.1 acre park proposed to be dedicated to the Town, with access now, per staff and Planning Board comments, by a 60 -foot full right -of -way to the park "here" and a • 25 -foot wide secondary right -of -way to the west. Ms. Clark offered that the road network is laid out to accommodate the slope to the greatest extent possible, adding that the developer is proposing an access from Route 89, and a secondary access from Orchard Hill Road, Ms. Clarke stated that there are now two places on the plat where the roads exceed the Town's suggested 10% grade. Ms. Clarke explained that there is roughly a 400 -foot segment "here ", along Falling Water Drive, and a 200 -foot segment of roadway "here ", on Bear Paw Court, adding, the reason for that is in order to provide an alignment to Route 89, and to keep a fairly flat section through "here" to accommodate the Town's potential proposal to put a bikeway along the old railroad right -of -way in the NYSEG easement. Ms. Clarke mentioned the drainage courses that are on the site in that there is a 50 -foot easement proposed to be maintained along Indian Creek that would preserve that drainageway, and a 40 -foot easement proposed along the stream to the north, adding, those easements restrict any cutting or buildings, and basically require that the area be maintained in its natural state, and that it be kept clear. Ms. Clarke stated that there are additional easements for the natural drainage courses that are along the site, adding, the developer is intercepting them to a small extent, and taking some of them down roadside ditches. Ms. Clarke stated that the main water courses are being proposed to have easements, and the lots have been arranged so they are not bisecting the lots to a great degree and making them difficult on buildable area. • Continuing, Ms. Clarke stated that the site, as proposed, has public water supplied by the Town, is within the water district, and it is proposed to tie into the sewer, adding, the proposal before the Planning Board -5- January 23, 1990 Board is to gravity -feed down to a series of pump stations to take it back into the line where there is capacity, and, if possible, the developer still would like to consider a total gravity -feed into the line along Route 89, Ms. Clarke stated that the proposal before the Board will work, and it does meet Town specs. Ms. Clarke stated that the developer has accommodated the Board's comments regarding access to other properties, specifically the Fiser property "here ", where there is a 60 -foot right -of -way being proposed, and also a 60 -foot right -of -way being proposed to the end of the property to accommodate a potential connection with Happy Lane, which may be in the offing at some later point from the Town's perspective. Ms. Clarke said that the lots conform to the Town's requirements, in fact, most of the lots exceed the requirements; all of the set -backs can be met; there are additional deed restrictions proposed on these lots based on the analysis that was done of vegetation on the site, and the concerns that the Planning Board had expressed regarding the removal of that vegetation. Ms. Clarke noted that the developer is placing restrictive covenants on Lots 7 -20 which are in "this" area, and where the oldest vegetation is located. Ms. Clarke said that Lots No. 24, 27, 29, 30, 35 and 36, have a proposed restriction in that they be restricted from any clearing to only 500 of the lot area, commenting, trees with a diameter of 6" or more will be maintained on the site. Ms. Clarke remarked that the undeveloped 4.8 acre out - parcel lot has an access "here" along the western boundary to provide access just • to that lot; it is not proposed that any of these lots be further subdivided. Ms. Clarke said that it is also proposed in the Deed Restrictions that they be set aside for single - family dwellings. Chairperson Grigorov asked about accessory apartments. Ms. Clarke responded that it is not really an accessory apartment; it is a facility for employees or staff for the homeowner. Mr. McArdle stated that he had taken that section out of the Restrictive Covenants, Ms. Clarke stated that the developer has a 26 -page engineering report that was submitted to the Town in mid - November of 1989, which details all the road profiles, cross - sections and profiles on the sewer lines, and the profile on the water line is referenced by Note. Acting Town Engineer Erik Whitney stated that a fairly extensive review was done of the engineering report that was submitted. Mr. Whitney said that the grade of the profile on Falling Water Drive did not bother him engineering -wise, but what stuck out was the depth of cut and the apparent cost because of the problem of underlying rock, adding that there are some areas which are 10' -13' centerline cuts, and commenting that there is a 33% slope off the road which, in a number of areas, there will need to be a clearcut of 80' -100' wide, to facilitate the construction of the road across the hillside. Mr. Whitney said that it looks as though it may be less expensive, in building the road, to slide the road down the hill somewhat, in the area of Lots No. 19 and 20. Mr. Whitney commented about pumping up 330' of static head and another 35' of friction.head, when there is • gravity sewer available below. Mr. Whitney stated that he had talked with the Assistant Superintendent of Public Works, Lawrence Fabbroni, at the City of Ithaca, and he (Mr. Fabbroni) seemed to think it may be Planning Board -6- January 23, 1990 possible, with an upgrade of the City's infrastructure in the area of the City Golf Course, that the only constriction there was a force main, however, Mr. Whitney and Mr. Fabronni will look over the area next week. Mr. Whitney stated that, if the developer is willing to spend between $2001000.00- $300,000.00 for 3,500± feet of force main - four pump stations - then the developer might be willing to spend that on an upgrade with the City. Mr. McArdle responded that he had mentioned it to the City Engineer, and, at that time, the Engineer said that he was worried about a slippery soap situation. Mr. McArdle stated that he would certainly be willing to work with the Town and the City, Virginia Langhans wondered if the developer had talked with the adjacent property owners, Carl and Lillian Mann, about going into Happy Lane, Ms. Clarke replied that that had been explored very early -on, and there was no interest from the Manns in selling the land to provide the access to Happy Lane, and because of that there was not a right -of -way maintained at the time Happy Lane was put in, so there is no access to the Cayuga Lake Estates property, adding that there was no interest in selling so there was no recourse. Ms. Langhans commented that, to get a second access, that would be the more logical place, and felt that the cost of building a bridge would be less than blasting out the 400 feet. Mr. Whitney commented on the right -of -way for future access from • Happy Lane for the Town, which is to the end of Timber Lane. Mr. Whitney wondered if the right -of -way could show a radius for proper curve, just in case of future extension of road building. Mr. Whitney, commenting on the drainageways across the site, stated that it is very preferable, when one has a site, that the drainage coming onto that site, and off that site, is 'maintained in the same water course when it exits the site. Mr. Whitney said that there is one across Lot No. 42, and by doing a diversion there it would change it to the next water course north. Mr. McArdle responded that, basically, the stream that continues on through Lot No. 42 is basically the water course that was created by Orchard Hill Road. At�this time, Town Planner Susan Beeners appended vegetation type maps to the bulletin board, and pointed out the 100 -year undisturbed forest areas, the 60 -70 year undisturbed forest areas, and the 40 -50 year undisturbed forest areas. Ms. Beeners pointed out the "old field" area. Ms. Beeners mentioned having some of the higher density lots within the areas that were once "old field" or "old field forest ", in the upper reaches of the site, with larger lots down in the lower area, commenting that she was suggesting that could be done under cluster, to allow some flexibility, but still have some single - family detached houses. Ms. Clarke responded that the developer did make that submittal to the Board, and it would not be considered as cluster . at that time, adding, the developer made exactly that proposal, that was the first submittal once the vegetation was determined on the site, which was the smaller lot size in the less vegetated areas, and 4 Planning Board -7- January 23, 1990 • much larger lot sizes with restrictive covenant easements on the larger lots, and the Board had some concern whether or not that would be considered as a cluster. Chairperson Grigorov stated that she remembers the Board did not really think it was a cluster. Ms. Beeners, directing her comment to Ms. Clarke, wondered how graphically it was really shown. Ms. Clarke responded that she had addressed it at least at two meetings, and felt it was fairly well described both in the mapping, the plans, and presentations. Chairperson Grigorov stated that maybe at that time there was not as much park land. Ms. Beeners said that the Town requested information for station profiles along the roads to see exactly where the cuts were going, and, given that aspect, it is something that she still has some questions about, such as -- are there some alternatives in that road alignment? Chairperson Grigorov stated that when cluster was being talked about, the Board was hoping there would not have to be so many roads. Ms. Beeners agreed with Chairperson Grigorov. Ms. Beeners stated that the Board has never seen a plan that did actually cluster everything right up in the top area. Ms. Beeners stated that she was not convinced that all possible planning alternatives, given the magnitude of road cuts being seen now, had really been explored, and whether there might not be some other possibility of having that type of re- distribution of density, adding, larger lots in the lower area, and some minimum lot sizes within the upper areas. Mr. McArdle stated that when the cluster arrangement was • originally submitted there were lots in the "old field" area of about 20,000 square feet, then it progressed downhill to lots in the nature of 60,000- 65,000 square feet, which were 1 to--1 -1/2 acre lots. Mr. McArdle said that the reason he did not go to strict cluster was that he did a survey of the market in Ithaca, and did not find, that far out in the Town of Ithaca, that he would be successful in marketing attached or zero lot line type development on 7,000 or 71500 square foot lots. Mr. McArdle stated that the prior Town Engineer, Sally Olsen, and everyone else knew, that the cut on Route 89 would be a difficult one, although it can be done. Mr. McArdle said that the Board had walked the site, so they knew the topo. Ms. Beeners wondered how many lots were proposed within that cluster "alternative ". Mr. McArdle replied that they started with 61 or 62, then they got down to about 50 on the cluster, then the cluster was given up, because of definition problems, commenting that he came to a meeting which was not a public meeting, and which the alternatives were discussed. Mr. McArdle stated that he had asked for direction. Mr. McArdle stated that the problem is: to spend the money and energy to try and engineer the site, and to give the Board information they need, adding that it is very difficult to back up and go a totally different direction. Mr. McArdle stated that he was surprised about going back and revisiting something that he thought was dropped six months ago, or he would have been pursuing that approach. Mr. McArdle also stated that, at that time, there was a discussion on the possibility of not adding another access, and doing something where, maybe it would be clustered up front, and bigger lots at the end where • it would be like one cul de sac with 4 -5 acre lots around it, but it was still determined that unless there was very low density on the whole site, that the second access was needed, and if there was a Planning Board -8- January 23, 1990 • second access, he might as well justify the cost of going down there, get enough lots on it where he could spread the cost amongst the lots. Chairperson Grigorov stated that it is not really going- to be affordable. Ms. Beeners stated that she did not consider that the proposal was a very economical use of the land. Ms. Beeners referred to the EAF, Part 1, Page 2, A.2, and stated that the total acreage of the project area should be 65.8 acres. [The EAF is attached hereto as Exhibit #1.1 Ms. Clarke said that the 4.8 acre out - parcel is not part of the subdivision per se. Ms. Beeners, referring to the EAF, Part 1, Page 3, B.lc, stated that the developer is including the out -lot and buffer areas, but she has some questions about not only how accurate that number really is but also just what is intended for the out -lot as far as development goes. Ms. Beeners commented that, back in September 1988, it was stated that the out -lot might be developed in the future for a single residence, adding, if that is really the case, that dwelling unit should actually be included in Part I of the EAF under B.lh, which pertains to the numbers of housing units. Attorney Barney asked how one would get to the out -lot. Mr. McArdle responded that there is an easement on the western border. Ms. Beeners remarked that that out -lot would require a variance related to frontage requirements on a Town road. Mr. McArdle said that it would be a private drive. Attorney Barney stated that he has a little problem with a subdivision with a lot that really does not meet Town Law requirements for a road frontage. Ms. Clarke • said that Town Law requires a 12 -foot easement. Attorney Barney stated that the State requirements under Town Law allow for a variance, under Section 280 -a, for a lot that is not fronting on a public road, commenting that he did not think this applied, usually, to subdivisions, because when one is looking at a subdivision of a whole lot of land, one tries to make sure that all the lots have road frontage right up front. Attorney Barney said that a building permit cannot be issued on that out -lot absent approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals, and if the ZBA chose not to give it, somebody could buy that lot and not be able to build on it. Ms. Beeners referred to Part I of the EAF, Page 4, B.2, which states "How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site ?" Ms. Beeners stated that there needs to be confirmation based on cut /fill balances. Ms. Beeners noted that B.4 talks about the extent of vegetation to be removed from the site, adding, if, indeed, those are the figures the developer will be dealing with, she wondered if it is expected to retain all of the 100 -year growth, except for the 0.15 of an acre. Ms. Beeners referred to Part I of the EAF, Page 4, B8, which states "Will blasting occur during construction?" Ms. Beeners stated that it is extremely likely, given the road profiles shown, that blasting would be likely, and not just a possibility. Ms. Beeners stated that the Board needs to know more about the sedimentation control and revegetation plan the developer is proposing to use. Ms. • Beeners stated that she would be submitting the preliminary review to County Planning for their recommendation pursuant to both Sections 239 -1 and 239 -m of Town Law, Ms. Beeners mentioned the out -lot, in Planning Board -9- January 23, 1990 • that her recommendations at the minimum would be that the 20 -foot access easement be converted to fee simple ownership, rather than just the easement. Ms. Beeners, commenting on Lots No. 17 and 18, stated that, given the relatively undisturbed nature of the 100 -year forest area, and the large sizes of the two lots, she would recommend that there not be any constuction north of the proposed drainage easement that is shown, or no construction unless there was some specific site plan review by the Planning Board. Ms. Beeners stated that she would recommend that there be no construction permitted south of the rim of Indian Creek. Ms. Beeners, [indicating on map] said that she would recommend, in order to minimize some of the impact there, that the lots that are cited in the Deed Restictions have the limitation changed from 50% of the lot to approximately 12,500 square feet, or something in that general range. Ms. Beeners stated that, given the apparent high cost of site construction and infrastructure maintenance, the extent of land, drainage, and vegetation disruption proposed, she would recommend that a clustered development plan alternative also be submitted so that the potential for alternative platting to mitigate environmental and economic impacts can be evaluated. Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there were anyone from the public who had any comments or questions. • Rosalind Grippi, of 423 East Seneca Street, read aloud a statement, prepared by her, and addressed to the Planning Board, dated January 23, 1990. [Statement attached hereto as Exhibit #2.] Doria Higgins, of 2 Hillcrest Drive, spoke from the floor and stated that she had two general points to make tonight, adding that they not only apply to the Cayuga Lake Estates, but they apply to all of the developments. Ms. Higgins commented that it has become clear that in almost every state in our country new housing developments do not increase the tax base; the cost for new services for new developments far exceed the tax income generated by new housing developments. Ms. Higgins said that there are innumerable research centers, and studies, that have demonstrated this incontrovertibly; new developments become an increase upon the tax burden upon the taxpayer, yet year after year more and more developments are approved, adding that she really felt everyone has to think more actively about how to conserve the quality of life in the Town of Ithaca. Ms. Higgins felt that this is not being conserved by fulfilling legal specifications about development. Ms. Higgins said that her second point is that the most important variable in good comprehensive planning is knowing what the population is in terms of number, and what the population density is for which one is planning. Ms. Higgins offered that, increasingly, and all over the country, this is being recognized as a bedrock fact. Ms. Higgins stated that as far as she knew there has been no consideration given in the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Planning meetings as to growth control, or growth • management techniques, adding, she felt that that consideration should be given top priority during the comprehensive planning process, Planning Board -10- January 23, 1990 • adding, we need to decide what is a reasonable population number for our community, and for our resources, then plan accordingly. At this time, Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board has a statutory structure within which it works, and it is really the Town Board that legislatively determines what must be approved. Ms. Higgins agreed with Attorney Barney. Chairperson Grigorov stated that the Planning Board has statutory limitations on what they can forbid and what they can permit; it is not just up to the Planning Board to say that they do not like it. Rich Armstrong, of 14 Orchard Hill Road, spoke from the floor and stated that he was concerned about his view of the opposite hill. Mr. Armstrong stated that the existing roadway on Orchard Hill Road is in dire need of repair, as is Evergreen Lane, Mr. Armstrong also questioned where the water was going to come from for the housing development. Town Engineer Erik Whitney responded that there is a main on Orchard Hill Road. Mrs. Kitty Mattes approached the Board and stated that her property is located at 1081 Taughannock Blvd., adding that her property is in a direct line from where the run -off will come off the hill. Mrs. Mattes stated that she is very concerned about the drainage going across her property. • Doria Higgins again spoke from the floor and wondered if it was possible, or legal, for the Town to insist that the developer provide his own roads and maintain them, that it be at his expense and not at Town expense. Attorney Barney replied that the Subdivision Regulations and the road specifications require the developer to install the roads, but once they are built they are then conveyed to the Town. Attorney Barney said that in terms of taxable base, and the maintenance of roads, the Town probably comes out ahead in dollars and cents. Nancy Gould, of 102 Happy Lane, spoke from the floor and stated that her parents, Carl and Lillian Mann, own the property at the end of Happy Lane, adding that she believed they were approached at the very beginning, as to whether they wished to sell the land. Ms. Gould stated that, at that time, they decided they were not interested in selling, commenting, it has not been talked about since, but as far as she knew her parents are still not interested in selling that land. Ms. Gould wondered if her parents could be forced to sell their land. Attorney Barney answered that the Town could, probably, condemn the land, if they chose to, but it is unlikely. Judy Small, of 3 Orc . stated that she is having and she would like to be as water pressure. Ms. Small requirements on the homes. • would be 1800 square feet. hard Hill Road, spoke from the floor and water pressure problems with their water, sured that something will be done about the wondered if there would be square footage Mr. McArdle responded that the minimum Planning Board -11- January 23, 1990 • Max Mattes, of 1081 Taughannock Blvd. spoke from the floor and stated that he was concerned about drainage run -off on his property. Ms. Clarke stated that the water, in terms of rate, would not increase on the site. Ms. Clarke, referring to the vegetation on the site, stated that the proposal before the Board is substantially mitigating the impacts on vegetation on the site, and with a dedication of 6.1 acres of some of the prime vegetation on the site, and the Deed Restrictions that are proposed, to say that no development could take place, based on vegetation on the site, and specifically on some of the lots, when the applicant has attempted to mitigate the impacts on the vegetation, is questionable to the extent where no development could take place in major portions beyond the 10% set -aside and whether or not that would be a taking of development rights of the site. Ms. Clarke stated that there is a water district covering the site; there is a sewer district covering the site, adding that the Town set up those facilities to accommodate a certain level of development. Ms. Clarke mentioned the concern about traffic from Orchard Hill Road, and stated that, in providing the two means of access, and one of the reasons why the road alignment is laid out the way it is, is not only to try and accommodate the site slope and grades, but also to not make it an attractive viable alternative to using the major road network that is already in place. Ms. Clarke said that the presented proposal is to provide residential subdivision streets, not to provide thoroughfares. Ms. Clarke, again referring to the drainage, stated that her understanding of the balance in terms of the rate of flow off the site is not going to increase, and that 30" culvert will actually act to detain the water on the site, in an area that could be preserved from development, with an easement for retention area in case of storm events. Ms. Clarke said that there would be velocity control devices placed in the roadside ditches, similiar to what is in place on Orchard Hill Road, adding, this will be discussed with the Town Engineer, Mr. Harry Missirian, of the County Planning staff, approached the Board and spoke about the connection, as a second option, of Route 89 to Route 96. Mr. Missirian stated that the studies showed that it was possible to do the connection, but it would be very expensive, adding that the cost for that particular project was $1.5 Million. Mr. Missirian stated that it was not reasonable, for such an expenditure, to have a minor road connection to Route 89. Mr. Missirian said that the main purpose for the connection was to serve as an emergency for the Hospital. Mr. Missirian, referring that a reasonable connection because one has to provide a 89, commenting, to accomplish be cut, and, particularly, roc • to the propo: to Route 89 good, wide, that, a good ;k has got to ;al before the is going to perpendicular portion of tt be cut. Board, stated be expensive, "T" to Route ie hill has to Planning Board -12- January 23, 1990 There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to speak to this matter, Chairperson Grigorov closed the Public Hearing at 10:15 p.m. and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion. Stephen Smith said that he would like to see larger, and fewer lots in the area, mainly because of the slopes and the run -off. Robert Kenerson stated that he has a concern about the drainage on the site, and the impact on the properties downstream toward the Lake. Ms. Clarke responded that the developer had produced a study on. the drainage, and, with all due respect, the study should be reviewed by the Board. Town Engineer Erik Whitney offered that the 'Town Engineering Department would be glad to go over plans with the developer's engineer, Steven R. Blust, William Lesser stated that, in his view, the present proposal, due to the run -off and the deep cuts necessary, has much lacking, and he would certainly like to consider some conceptualization of a loop road. Virginia Langhans stated that she would like to see the feasibility of a loop road, and mentioned not having to do any cuts. There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion. 0 MOTION by Dr. William Lesser, seconded by Mr. James Baker: RESOLVED, that the public hearing in the matter of the review of the preliminary plat application for the proposed "Cayuga Lake Estates" be and hereby is adjourned sine die until such time as the applicants are able to provide a concept plan, at a density of approximately 25 lots, showing a loop road extension of Orchard Hill Road, with no access to N.Y.S. Route 89, and until such time as the Planning Board and the Town Board have reviewed same. The concept plan should incorporate enough engineering detail to allow the adequate judgement, by the Town Engineer, the Planning Board, and the Town Board, of the character of road grading and road cuts, and drainage flows. Although the Planning Board recommends the review of such concept plan, it recognizes that a loop road would result in an unusually long cul de sac requiring waiver of the maximum 1,000 -foot cul de sac requirement set forth in Article IV, Section 23, Paragraph 9, of the Subdivision Regulations, and further recognizes that such loop road shall be subject to its meeting generally- accepted engineering standards to _ ensure proper drainage, access, and maintenance. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Langhans, Lesser, Miller, Smith. Nay - None. • The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Planning Board -13- January 23, 1990 • Chairperson Grigorov declared the review of Preliminary Plat application materials for the proposed "Cayuga Lake Estates" duly closed at 10:52 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS: CJ • APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 27, 1989 MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Virginia Langhans: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning,Board Meeting of June 27, 1989, be and hereby are approved with the following correction: 1. That, on Page 3, at the end of Paragraph 3, ADD: Mr. Black stated that he would look into the noise problems. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Langhans, Baker, Miller, Smith, Lesser. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 18, 1989 MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Stephen Smith: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of July 18, 1989, be and hereby are approved as presented. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Langhans, Baker, Miller, Smith, Lesser. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 1, 1989 MOTION by William Lesser, seconded by Stephen Smith:. RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning .Board Meeting of August 1, 1989, be and hereby are approved as presented. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Langhans, Baker, Miller, Smith, Lesser. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT: carried unanimously. Planning Board -14- January 23, 1990 • Ms. Beeners stated that she and Acting Town Engineer Erik Whitney conferred about the Cayuga Lake Estates project today, also the Cornell parking lot, then conferred with Scott Lucas who requested information on how he could go about having the Indian Creek Retirement Community plan changed to permit a congregate care facility and rental units, e.g., Ithacare and McGraw House, in two buildings on the site, instead of the long 80 -unit building that he had presented earlier. Ms. Beeners stated that she basically told him what the process would be: At this time, Virginia Langhans stated that she is on the Board at McGraw House and would not say anything out of the way, or out of place, adding that she would refrain. Ms. Langhans said Mr. Lucas was talking about expanding McGraw House, Mr. Lesser wondered if there was any activity on Mecklenburg Road concerning low- income housing. Ms. Beeners answered that it is a matter of staff time. Mr. Lesser stated that his personal opinion was that that is a very complicated proposal, and, if anything, there should be a slow progression, rather than rapid. Mr. Lesser stated that, if the Town is going to get into that, there should be some assurance that, indeed, it is going to be low- income. Mr. Kenerson offered that the project addresses the road problem on West Hill, Ms. Beeners said that Cornell, at the present time, is accumulating several proposals. Ms. Beeners stated that, hopefully, there would be some more information available at the next Planning • Board Meeting, as far as specifics, on the Comprehensive Plan Work Program, Mr. Kenerson asked about the committee appointments. Ms. Beeners responded that letters of interest are still being invited. Ms. Beeners stated that there is still a vacant spot for a Planning Board member on the Codes and Ordinances Committee. Ms. Beeners, referring to the Inlet Valley Water and Sewer Improvements, stated that the Town Board would like the Planning Board to review the proposed Water and Sewer extensions in Inlet Valley. Ms. Beeners reported that she is presently working on a draft for increased review fees, such as in the neighborhood of $100.00 per lot in a subdivision, adding, that really would only, be covering the minimum administrative time, and secretarial time, of getting an application together. Ms. Beeners said that for larger projects there would be some kind of an escrow account deposit. Ms. Beeners, reporting on the College View Mobile Home Park, stated that Paul Jacobs would like to add about a dozen lots to the north of the existing lots. ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion, Chairperson Grigorov declared the January 23, 1990, meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, • Mary Bryant, Rcording Secretary, a Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. 14-ib•2 (21'87) -7c 617.21 sEQa Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review • FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent- ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination•, process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a projector action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three. parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible- Lrnpacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially - large impact. The form also identifies.whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially - large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. • • DETERMINATION OF -SIGNIFICANCE —Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify.the Portions of EAF completed for this project: 0 Part 1 O Part 2 Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on'this EAF'(Parts 1 and' 2`and'3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both .the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: 0 A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared, 0 B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.' 0 C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. ' A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Cayuga Lake Estates Name of Action if Town of Ithaca Planning Board Name of Lead Agency Carolyn Grigorov Chairperson Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) Date 1 EXHI'BI'T #1 • • • PART I- PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION there bedrock Cayuga-Lake Estates on project site? ®Yes ONO . LOCATION OF ACTION (lnelude Street Address, Municipality and County) What East End of Orchard Hill Rd. Town of Ithaca Tompkins Co. 0 - 3* NAME OF APPLICANTISPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE David Ae McArdle (312) 584 -6300 ADDRESS P.O. Box 64 ... CITYIPO STATE ZIP CODE St. Charles IL 60174 NAME OF OWNER (if different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE Edward J. McArdle - Leslie N. Reizes ADDRESS SAME 425 Park Avenue ' CITYIPO STATE ZIP CODE Waverl NY. 14892 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Subdivision - 42 Resid. Lots Open Space,Outlot Please Complete Each Question — Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: OUrban Olndustrial OCommercial IMResidential (suburban) Mural (non -farm) OForest OAgriculture OOther 2. Total acreage of project area: (�1 .0f acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE 650g - PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non - agricultural) 35 acres 35 acres Forested 26 acres 20 acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres acres Wetland (F- reshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) acres acres Water Surface Area acres • acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres _ $acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces 0 acres B1 g• �ici�; Other (Indicate type) acres acres 3. What is predominant soil type(;) on project site? Hudson Silty Clay Loam & Hudson and Dunkirk a. Soil drainage: Mwell drained 100 * g, of site OModerately well drained % of site OPoorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil a classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? acres. (See 1 NYCRR 37 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ®Yes ONO a. What is depth to bedrock? 0 - 3* (in feet) * Assumed - Pending Soil Borings 2 EXHIBIT #1 h 04e., SC i.' Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: 00110% 20 q0 `10 -15% 40 X15 °1'0 or greater 40 % b Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? Oyes ZNo 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? Oyes XNo 8. What is the depth of the water table? 2+ (in feet) (Assumed — Pending Soil Borings) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? OYes LNNo . 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? [NYes ONo 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? []Yes 9No * According to _See the previously submitted plant and Identify each species vegetation survey report 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) 2lYes ONo. Describe Rock outcropping along Indian Creek 13: Is the project site presently used by the community or. neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? ❑Yes ®No . If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? 29Yes ONo Site has view of the Cayuga Lake Valley 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of Stream and name of River to.which it is tributary Indian Creek to Cayuga Lake 161. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name b. Size (In acres) 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? EYes & (NNo Project will require extension of all a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ®Yes ONo utilities. Gas & Elect. are b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? r OYes li)No to the property, water and sewer are 1100'+. West. 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25 -AA, Section 303 and 304? OYes La9No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical. Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? OYes ENo 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? Oyes (SNo B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage jowned or controlled by project sponsor 65.8± acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: 54.9± acres initially; 54.9± acres ultimate) c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 10.9± acres. (Includes Park Space an lot) d. Length of project, in miles: (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion; indicate percent of expansion proposed f. Number of off• street parking spaces existing 0 proposed 42 Homes g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 60 (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially 0 kCc.411*� a�� Ultimately 42 O � �Rn�e�(,alohtis,�7f' 7 • i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure 30'ext. height; 50'± width; 50' *_ length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 688 ft. 3 EXHIBIT #1 5.' A r-. 0 20 0 0 'Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: `0 10 /0 0 x 110 -15 /0 40 % X15 °'0 or greater 40 % b Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? Dyes 2; No • 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? Oyes X-No 8. What is the depth of the water table? 2+ (in feet) (Assumed — Pending Soil Borings) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? OYes [NNo 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? 2Yes ❑No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? OYes (�No * According to See the previously submitted plant and Identify each species vegetation survey report 12. Are there any unique or unusual land form, : s on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) �nYes ❑No Describe Rock outcropping along Indian Creek 13: Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? Dyes ®No . If yes, explain 14.. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? 99Ye5 ONo Site has view of the Cayuga Lake Valley 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of Stream and name of River to.which it is tributary Indian Creek to Cayuga Lake 16.. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name b. Size (In acres) 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities ?, ®Yes & ®No Project will require extension of all a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? Yes ❑No utilities. Gas & Elect, are b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to; allow connection? Dyes KlNo to the property, water and sewer are 1100'± West. 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25 -AA, Section 303 and 304? OYes (9No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical. Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? ❑Yes ®No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? OYes (SNo - B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 65.8± acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: 54.9± acres initially; 54.9+ acres ultimatel r C, Project acreage to remain undeveloped 10.9± acres. (Includes Park Space an citlot) d. Length of project, in miles: _,i.._ (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed %; 1�" f. Number of off• street parking spaces existing __; proposed 42 Homes g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 60 (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially 0 / aCr�ch� Ultimately 42 ��D A,:P 1 d:�`�daye.(alpw,j-vti ? , • i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure 30' ext . height; 50't width; 50't length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare prro t, will occupy is? 688 ft. 3 EXHIBIT #1 ' e ..•... J1t`lldl tl w , �i�.w, CU1111, rkL.j 6vUi Ue Ierntweu fforn the ,Itei - " ""'" X (xwcuulc yards 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed. InYes ONO ON/A a. If Nes. for what Intend purpose is the site being reclaimed? Road Construction, etc. C/t�l b Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? I9Yes ONO C. WIII upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ®Yes ONO (��•1SA . of 100+ Yr. . S "Ac. of 60 -70 Yr. 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 2.5 Ac of itum. 40 -50 Yr. • 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally - important. vegetation be removed by this project? ® Yes ONO See #4 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of, construction 12 months. (including demolition)., 7. If multi - phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 __ month year, (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase __ month year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? OYes ONO I{..���-- r F "`„ 8. Will blasting occur during construction? OYes t]No Possibl for Road and Utm t Construction 9.- Number of jobs, generated @. during construction 20 � after project is complete 0 10. Number of jobs eliminated.by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? OYes ONO If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? OYes ®No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b: Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? OYes. ONO. Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease.by proposal? OYes ®No Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? OYes ®No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ®Yes ONO a. If yes, what is the amount per month 2.5 tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be.used? ®Yes ONO c. If yes, give name Tompkins County Landfill ;location Tompkins Co*, N.Y. d. Will any wastes, not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? Oyes ®No e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? OY-es ®No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons /month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years, 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Q9Yes ONO Usual Lawn Chemicals— See Restrictive Covena I I For Limitations 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? OYes ®No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? OYes ®No 21: Will project result in an increase in energy use? ®Yes ONO If yes , indicate type(s) Electricity and Natural Gas 22. If watersupply:is from wells, indicate pumping capacity NSA gallons /minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day 14 -000 gallons /day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? OYes ONO . If Yes, explain 4 EXHIBIT #1 25. Approvals Required: Submittal Type Date • City, Town, Village Board 0Yes GNo Roads, Parks, Water & Sewer City, Town, Village Planning Board L29Yes ONo Subdivision Plat 11 -17 -89 City, Town Zoning Board ❑Yes ®No City, County Health Department. 13Yes GNo Water & Sewer - Other Local Agencies Oyes MNo -- Other Regional Agencies ❑Yes 6x1No State Agencies ®Yes ONo N.Y.S.D.O.T. Federal Agencies (]Yes ®No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning dedslAn? ®Yes GNo If Yes, indicate decision required: ` lA.' ` s �'�6L I`' � Z, Z It Ozoning amendment zoning variance Ospecial use permit ®subdivision Osite plan Onew /revision of master plan Oresource management plan Oother 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of -the site? R -30 and R -15- 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 53 in 11-30 and 6 in 11-15 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? R -30 & R -15 S. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? •N/A 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ®Yes ONo 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a '4 mile radius of proposed action? R30,.R15 Single/Two Family Res., County Offices, Hospital and Undeveloped Property 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a '/. mile? ®Yes ON 9. If• the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? 42 C iGYt - oLA t- tyr a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? R 5• 18s000 S F 11-30: 30,000 S.F. 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? ❑Yes ®No 11. Will the 'proposed action create a demand for any-community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? MYes ONo a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ®Yes ONo 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? OYes ®No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? Oyes ONo D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any 'adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Rev. 11 -10 -89 ApplicantlSp rinr1r.F.nzineerr MW, Inc. Date 7 -1949 Signature _ Title Design Engineer If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. 2-- PflUftui 11101V AU1a O%nw 0"a s's bv*"%O*vv *a,.upas Responsibility of lead Agency General Information (Read Carefully) . • In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my response and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. • Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact'; must be evaluated in PART 3' to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. •The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the: State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 30 The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. • The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question, • In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects. . Instructions (Read carefully) . a. Answer each of, the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will. be. any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers.. . c" I.f answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example 'provided, check column 2. if impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s), in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3.,' A No response in_dic.ates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 30 IMPACT ON LAND , 1 Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?,. ONO *YES - Examples that would apply to column 2 • 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%0 • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is-.less than 3 feet. • Construction of paved parking area for 1,000' or more vehicles. • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally-within- 3 feet of existing ground surface. Construction that will continue for more than l year or involve more than one phase or stage.'_ • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. • Construction in a designated floodway. • Other impacts - 2. Will there be an effecttc....ry un ;que or unusual land forms found on • the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.) DYES • Specific land forms:--- 6 EXHIBIT #1 '1 Small to Moderate Impact 1 2 Potential Large Impact 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change eyes ❑ No Yes ❑No M . 1 ❑ 1 ❑Yes 13 No ❑ ' ID 'MYes ❑No ❑ 1 ❑ 1 ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes.. _ ❑No ❑ — ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes... ❑No U ❑ ❑Yes ❑Nn 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact- Be IMPACT ON WATER Moderate Large Mitigated By 3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? impact Project Change • (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) ONO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 [ ]Yes []Yes ❑No • Developable area of site contains a protected' water body. Q ❑Yes ❑No s • Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a ❑' protected stream. ,.. +.: • Extension of utility distribution facilities through °a protected water body. Q ❑,. ❑Yes ❑No ❑Yes ❑ No • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. 13 . []' a, ❑ ❑Yes : 0 N • Other impacts: �--= 4. Will proposed action affect any non - protected existing or new body,. • . .. o ONO OYES f water? Examples that would apply.to.column 2 _ ❑ QYes ❑No • A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water 13 or more than a''10 acre increase or decrease. ❑Yes ❑No • Construction -of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface are ❑ C3 Oyes ❑ No • Other impacts:,'' ❑ 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater. quality or quantity? ONO OYES.. Examples that would apply to column 2 ❑ ❑ QYes ❑ No • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does. not. ❑ • have approval to serve proposed (project) action. • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 . [3 ❑ ❑Yes No gallons per minute pumping capacity. ❑Yes []No • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system: Q ❑Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. ❑ .:.. ,: ❑ [)Yes 0 N • Liquid eff luent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. Q ❑ yeS No • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per ` ❑` ; 0 day. :...Q . .. ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an °� existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. (3: ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum= at chemical [3 products greater than 1,100 gallons. AlYes [3 No • Proposed Action will allow residential uses' in areas without water::....: 0., .. �,. and/or sewer services. • Proposed Action locates commercial and /or industrial uses which may ❑.... ❑ ❑Yes ❑No require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and /or storage facilities. � ©Yes 0 N • Other impacts: ❑.. • 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns...or surface water runoff? ONO BYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Q C3 OYes ❑No • Proposed Action would change flood water flows. 7 EXHIBIT #1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact I Impact Project Change • • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. Cl )11 ®Yes ❑No • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ [3 ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? ONO 'BYES Examples that would apply to column 2 ' .'Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No' hour. • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a. ❑ Cl' ❑Yes 0 N heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed ° [3 C] ❑Yes ❑ No to industrial use. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density. of industrial ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C1 No development within existing industrial areas. • Other impacts: � " °' ❑Yes ❑No w` ° ❑ ?( IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS • -8. - Wily Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered ; ; • , species? ONO. DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. • Removal 'of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. ❑ _ ❑ ❑Yes [3 No • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other .__❑ . ❑ ❑Yes 0 N than for agricultural purposes. • Other impacts: 5e¢- P�Gn�'SUVJe� f ��?.� ; �v�' — ® 13 0Yes ❑No gee 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect nowthreatened or non- endangered species? ONO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would.substantially interfere with any resident or 13: 13 ❑Yes ❑No migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑No of mature forest (over 100 years of .age) or other locally important vegetation. 9i try' 10( 6^rC c toe 40 M 0J) ! � IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES. -. 10. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? `®NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • • The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) 8 EXHIBIT #1 0 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change • Construction activity would excavate or compact the -soil profile of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No agricultural land. ❑ ❑Yes ONO' • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres ❑ r of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No. • The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural ❑ land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures.(e.g. cause a farm y field to drain poorly due to increased runoff): ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: IMPACT ON .AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 . Wi11 proposed action affect aesthetic resources? ONO 11YES (If necessary;- use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.210 Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 • .Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man -made or natural. • Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. • Project components that will result in the elimination or .significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area, • Other impacts: • IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 129 Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of. historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? ®NO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed, on the State or National Register of historic places. • *Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. • • Proposed Action will occur in an. area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. • Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Examples that would apply to column 2 ONO DYES • The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. . A maior reduction of an open space important to the community, •i EXHIBI' #1 C W ®Yes ❑ No ❑Yes ❑No 11Yes No ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ' ❑Yes ❑No_ ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑Yes = 0 N ❑ 1 ❑ 1 [Dyes.. ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes 0 N ® ❑ Oyes ❑No E ° 1 2 3 IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Small to Potential . Can Impact Be 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Moderate Large Mitigated By • ONO BYES impact Impact Project Change Examples that would apply to column 2 • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. 8 ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will result in ma or traffic problems. ❑ 13 ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: �a ''°a� GuS ❑ _®Yes ❑No IMPACT ON ENERGY, 150 Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or, " energy supply? ONO BYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action- will cause a greater than S% increase in the use of ❑ ❑ []Yes No any form of energy in the municipality. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. Other imp(acts: Vl �U c.6�' S� Cw�rydl 7,✓t . .❑ 1EYes C3 No 'J 1J r, rig �v ►::�>> f:� o G�..r��z J YJ'`s 1:� NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result . of the Proposed Action? -ONO BYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other. sensitive 13 ❑. ❑Yes ❑No J - facility. • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day).': - ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ❑ ❑ ❑Yes 0 N ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures... • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that -would act as, a . U. ❑Yes ❑No noise screen. 1 .. • ` Other impacts: oeo hzq ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON. PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? IRNO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. • Proposed Action may result in the burial of" "hazardous wastes" in any ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No form (i.e._ toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating;, ' infectious, etc.) _ • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural . ❑_ ❑ C1 Yes 0 N gas or other flammable liquids. • Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance ❑ lid or hazardous ❑Yes 12 NO 40 within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of so waste. • Other impacts: 13 ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 10 EXHIBIT #1 • i PART II -A /III: PROPOSED CAYUGA LAk::E ESTATES Preliminary review S. Beeners, Jan 18, 1.990 IMPACT ON LAND There will be a large, site- localized impact as a result of development on a site with 80% of the slopes 10%, depth to water table estimated at 2 feet or less, depth to bedrock estimated at 3 feet or less, erodible soils, and scarce groundcover in the for areas of site. over the Site grading as presently proposed would require sizable amounts of clearcutting of vegetation, rock removal, and cut slopes, particularly along Falling Water Drive, which may have a significant localized impact. The present design, with a 1 -.year proposed construction period, does not acount at.present for adequate mitigation of grading, land. clearing, -and erosion impacts. More information is needed on site grading, cut /fill balancing, sedimentation control, and lot access feasibility. Information at present indicates a high expense of construction, particularly of roads, for the amount of residences served. Maximum lot clearing areas should be changed from 50 of the lot (approx. 24,000 sq. ft..) to approximately 1,500 square feet to reduce land disturbance. On Lots 17 and 18, no structures should be permitted . north of the proposed 20' drainage easement. IMPACT ON WATER The project as proposed would alter drainage patterns, flow, and surface water runoff..' The proposed diversion of the long - established drainage course on Lot 42 into the next drainageway to the north may have significant adverse impact to the.offsite properties immediately downhill along the.lake shore. Plan modifications should be made to remove this diversion and to maintain the existing drainage course. More information is needed on erosion and sedimentation controls and on drainage planning.to minimize the potential entry of road salt pollutants into Cayuga Lake, IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS Based on the present information, there may be a potentially large impact on non- threatened or non - endangered plant and animal species. This impact would be site localized, but would have potential importance on West Hill in the reduction, such as in the vicinity of Lots 7 -11, and • 17 -18 and along the Indian Creek ravine, of areas of EXHIBIT #1 IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES Given the location of the site on the currently undeveloped, wooded West Hill escarpment, and the present low density of adjacent development on Orchard Hill Road and Dubois Road, the project development would be in sharp contrast to surrounding land use patterns. Views from existing development uphill from the site • would be altered through site clearing and house construction.. Site development may open up partial views of the Lake from neighboring properties to the west. Given the topography of the site, no significant adverse impact is expected to local views from western properties uphill, With both the east and west wooded escarpments of Cayuga Labe informally considered as important area aesthetic resources, the clearing associated with road construction and lot development would disrupt the present character of the northern part of the West Hill escarpment in the Town, Partial control of .the magnitude and duration of this impact would be through revegetation with native species along the road cuts, on lots, and in other areas disturbed by construction. More information is needed on specific revegetation and conservation measures. • IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 1. The proposed public open space would retain important portions of 60 -100 -year undisturbed forest. Recreational use would be limited to passive trails. Slopes limit the full accessibility of the site to trail users. A future EXHIBIT #1 . 100 -year forest habitat, and wildlife wintering areas as identified by the N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation. • Sites of 2 locally scarce species on the-site found on the site in the Robt. Wesley survey conducted should be protected. A full survey of spring species was not conducted as part of the application, particularly in the 100 -year undisturbed forest. The rear setback on the lots abutting Indian Creek should be revised to the Indian Creek: ravine rim line (approximately 80 -100 feet from the Creel,) to minimize impact on the ravine, which is currently proposed as a Unique Natural Area by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council. The 100 -year forested areas on Lots 17 and 18 should be protected by prohibiting any construction or development within-those areas except'by specific site plan review by the Planning Board. IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES Given the location of the site on the currently undeveloped, wooded West Hill escarpment, and the present low density of adjacent development on Orchard Hill Road and Dubois Road, the project development would be in sharp contrast to surrounding land use patterns. Views from existing development uphill from the site • would be altered through site clearing and house construction.. Site development may open up partial views of the Lake from neighboring properties to the west. Given the topography of the site, no significant adverse impact is expected to local views from western properties uphill, With both the east and west wooded escarpments of Cayuga Labe informally considered as important area aesthetic resources, the clearing associated with road construction and lot development would disrupt the present character of the northern part of the West Hill escarpment in the Town, Partial control of .the magnitude and duration of this impact would be through revegetation with native species along the road cuts, on lots, and in other areas disturbed by construction. More information is needed on specific revegetation and conservation measures. • IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 1. The proposed public open space would retain important portions of 60 -100 -year undisturbed forest. Recreational use would be limited to passive trails. Slopes limit the full accessibility of the site to trail users. A future EXHIBIT #1 parking area for approx. 6 cars could be located within the proposed 60 foot strip. • The road crossing of the planned N.Y.S. Cayuga Trail along the former railroad bed should -be designed so as not to adversely impact trail continuity of access. The proposed Tompkins County Indian Creek Unique Natural Area within the site owuld be privately owned. the south side of the Creek, on land owned by Tompkins County, there is no officially - established public access the area. Buffers on lots abutting the Creek should be increased as described above, to the rim line. • • IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION On to There would be the introduction of a new connection between Route 89 and Dubois Road near Route 96. Cross traffic between these roads is presently estimated to be less in potential impact than the alternative of no site access onto Route 89, and use of Orchard Hill Road, which is over 1000' long, as sole site access. Given that the traffic generation potential of both of the above alternatives is presently estimated to be within the capacity of existing roads, the alternative of no through connection between Orchard Hill Road, with cols -de -sac developed from both roads on at least a temporary basis, should be further evaluated, among other possible plat alternatives. More information is needed on the mitigation of potential land impacts related to road construction, lot access, particularly along Falling Water Drive, and road drainage planning to mitigate the potential impact of road salt and other pollutants on Cayuga Lake. The Outlot has been previously proposed to be developed with one house for the applicant's father. Current access as proposed by easement should be revised to be part of the Outlot. That 20 -foot wide access to the house proposed, provided fire safety considerations were met, would be suitable for 1 -2 dwelling units, but more information is recommended with respect to the potential development of the Outlot. It is also recommended that the relocation of the access that it directly connects with Deerpath Lane be considered. IMPACT ON ENERGY .Based on .existing information, the project would_ result in potentially large impacts-with respect to energy expended in site construction, and in the operation and maintenance of proposed public infrastructure, given the number of dwelling units proposed. More information should be provided with respect to such potential impacts, including the provision of estimated EXHIBIT #1 • • costs of improvements, and the estimated cost.of their operation. GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD With respect to officially- adopted plans and goals, the project would require variance with respect to lot depth for Lots 21, 22, and 23 along Taughannock Boulevard, and the approval of an adequate 207 foot wide shared access easement from Falling Water Drive, and variance with respect to frontage on a public road for the proposed Outlot. As described above, the access easement into the Outlot is recommended to be revised to provide direct connection to Deepath Lane. Potential impacts related to the latter•variance include potential future resubdivision of the Outlot. More information on Outlot development potential is recommended. The project may have a significant adverse impact in the potential setting bf precedent for future projects on the slopes of West Hill. The project would represent the first development of the 150 + / -acre wooded slope west of Route 89 in the Town, and would .occupy roughly 1/4 of that wooded slope. The project site, abutting the Ithaca- Ulysses Town line, and north of Indian'Creek:, can in some ways be considered a discrete land area, where low- density residential development could occur, provided that other recommendations on mitigation measures elsewhere in this review were adequately conducted, and provided that clustered development alternatives are further reviewed. It would be important in the interests of area land use conservation, however, that large, contiguous portions of the wooded escarpment were retained as conservation areas on the lands owned by Tompkins County and Tompkins Community Hospital to the south. The lands east of the Mayer School and former Odd Fellows campus are expected at the present time to be subject to application for residential development. Approval of the proposed Cayuga -Lake Estates project may be construed as precedent for similar platting of those.lands. Significant adverse impacts may occur as a result of potential precedent- setting unless policies for development and conservation of those lands are implemented. Further review of the potential for precedent- setting should be made. EXHIBIT #1 • Cayuga Lake Estates - Planning Board 1/23/90 REVIEWER'S RECOMMENDATION: I. The following information is required for further staff review of the Preliminary Plat application: A. on Corrections the environmental and clarifications assessment form of information Part provided I with respect to the following (Refer to EAF) Blc: the proposed Extent of acreaqe Outlot and to remain buffer undeveloped, areas including on the other • proposed B1h.: B2: Confirmation lots. Number of housing of amount units. of rock, earth to be removed from the site. B4: Extent of vegetation to be removed from the site. B8: clarification that blasting may be likely given road grading cross sections and shallowness to bedrock. Be The provision of additional information with respect to the following, for the further a- nalysis of site development impacts: is10 The estimated cost of improvements proposed, including the estimated annual cost to the Town of infrastructure maintenance, particularly with respect to the proposed sewer facilities. 2. Drainage plan revisions as subject to the approval of the Town Engineer, to include maintenance of the drainage course through Lot 42, 39 Road grading plans showing the extent of clear cutting, cut /fill volumes, and driveway access locations, and other information as required by the Town Engineer. 4. Sedimentation and revegetation plans and details for roadway construction areas and drainageways. 5. Clarification of the exact number of lots proposed, including clarification of the potential development of the proposed outlot. C. A preliminary report has been requested from Tompkins County on the pursuant to present application N.Y.S. General Municipal Law 239 -1 and m materials. D. Fu • should 1. to the ownersh connect rther requirements in any further plan revisions include the following: Modification of the pro.posed 20 access easement proposed outlot from easement to fee simple ip, and relocation of such access so that it directly s with Deerpath Lane. EXHIBIT #1 • Cayuga Lake Estates - Planning Board 1/23/90 2. No construction or development should be permitted within the 100 -year forest areas on Lots 17 and -18, except under specific site plan review by the Planning Board. 3. No construction should be permitted south of the rim of Indian Creek, located approximately 80 -100 feet north of the centerline of the Creek. 49 Maximum lot clearing areas should be changed from 50% of the lot to approximately 12,500 sq. ft., with the. final maximum area to be recommended by the Town Engineer prior to any final subdivision approval, and upon the review of requested grading, buffering, and revegetation information. II. Based on the information currently available for the application, the project as presented would potentially have significant adverse; impacts to land, vegetative cover, drainage, and aesthetic resources, and would potentially have long -term costs to the Town for infrastructure maintenance, particularly with respect to sewer facility operation and maintenance. A. There should be further review of the intent of the Town Subdivision Regulations and implied Town policy with respect to clustered development, and with respect to the need to mitigate costs of site development and infrastructure maintenance in environmentally - sensitive areas close to public facilities and employment centers. Be Given the apparent high cost of site construction and infrastructure maintenance, and the extent of land, drainage, and vegetation disruption proposed, it is recommended that a clustered development plan alternative also be submitted so that the potential for alternative platting to mitigate environmental and economic impacts can be evaluated. EXHIBIT #1 • a p.1 of' 3 Read at Public Hearing , Planning Board , Cayuga Lake Estates 1/23/90 • It must be apparent to everyone, given the wild natural character of the site, that this project (Cayuga Lake Estates development) is wrought with potential dangers. Considering the area's gorge, ravines, waterfalls, streams, steep grades, erodible and unstable soil types, 100 year old trees and wildlife it shelters, to develop this parcel as a subdivision of 42 houses promises to be a real war on.nature. The application to develop this land makes it clear that the Town of Ithaca needs a comprehensive plan that zones appropriately and with timorous respect.for critical wild areas. I want to touch on a few problems. oa Firstly: traffic as it affects the immediate area. The development will connect Dubois Road through Orchard Hill Road (where my husband and I plan to build a home) with Route 89. I.don't want Orchard Hill Road to become. a thoroughfare , or a short cut to Cass Park and other destinations in the City. The proposed connections to Route 89 changes the character of Orchard Hill Road, now a cul -de -sac and a suburban roadway to private homes. The Town Planners recognized this cross traffic pattern as a potential problem,. Mr. Frantz wrote to the developers (10/13/88) that if an outlet "to Route 89 is pro- vided then the road system ... should be designed to minimize potential for.cross traffic between Route 89 and,Dubois Road" and that "mitigation of any adverse impact as a result of cross traffic should be addressed in your submission." • How has the problem been addressed? What can be done to mitigate "any adverse impact "? Is it possible to limit the use of roads (Orchard Hill through to Route 89) to.local traffic? Can speed limits be imposed? Use of road bumps? On the contrary, rather than minimize cross traffic involvements, Planning Board recently asked for right of ways that threaten to compound the potential problem of the new development as the hub of a thoroughfare. Planning Board asks for a right of way to "relieve the dead -end situation on Indian Creek Road "(and Happy Lane) and also to relieve the "locked -in" Fiser property, and also asks for a 25 foot addition to the Orchard Hill Road extension to provide access to the 6 acre park at its uppermost section.(Originally park access was to be provided through Route 89.) Falling Water Drive is to yield parking spaces for the public park (Minutes , Sept.591989 Public Hearing), Here I agree with the developers thoroughfare. I quote from the M the developers "did not think it local subdivision streets become think so, that the subdivision is in danger of becoming a inutes of the Sept.Sth Meeting. Ms. Clarke states that was in the Town's interest in their policy that ,major thoroughfares to that extent ". Nor did I EXHIBIT #_2 s z. a • Thoroughfares and connections to major roads should be thought through and argued as part of a comprehensive plan and should not result from reactive thinking to a developer's proposal. Secondly I want to speak about park access. Why do we need another 6 acre park? Why not leave 6 acres as greenspace for wildlife without having it serve as a public.park? There is a park nearby dedicated through Mr. Ciacschi's development on Wolf.Lane. Does this not suffice for the immediate area? As pointed out by George Frantz (10/13/88) the 65 acre parcel East of Orchard Hill Road is portion of an "identified wildlife wintering area ". Leaving 6 acres inaccessible to the public isn't asking much. Ironically,,through real estate hype, subdivision street are given names to conjure up the natural environment that the subdivision repl:aces'. There is no orchard on Orchard Hill Road. In my view, it is insensitive real estate hype that names one of the roads in Cayuga Lake Estates "Deer Path Lane" ( considering the deer are hounded from use of that path by the road itself; and we continue to pursue the wildlife by insisting on human access to the remaining 6 of the 65 acres. I ask that 6 acres be dedicated without parking or provision for human access as " Greenspace, Forever Wild ". C) I also want to speak of the Town's maintenance costs in this development. • MY husband and I purchased our lot on Orchard Hil- 1.Road when we were certain munici- pal water and sewer would be available. We were informed we would have to pump up sewerage to the large main. We will supply our own pump and electricity and maintenance the pump requires. I see no reason why as taxpayers we should.also pay for the daily electricity and maintenance of the four large sewer pumps that will serve Cayuga. Lake Estates and which will be "dedicated "to the Town. Long after the developers have reaped their profits and the sale of lots is past history for them, the Town of Ithaca's taxpayers will be paying for the pumps' and roadways' functioning and maintenance. Is there a better system (for sewerage). Septic systems would require larger lots and may serve the area better by reducing housing density, and thereby less destructive of the natural character of the area, d)Then there is the problem of run -off and soil types. The soil type for most of the parcel is designated in the USDA Soil Survey as having "poor trafficability" and as waterways "very erodible on steep slopes" (Hudson Silt Clay Loam). The soil type where part of Timber Lane Road and some house lots are plotted is listed as "very unstable "... and "not recommended for traffic on steep topography" and has been noted by Town Planners(10 /13/88) "not recommended for building foundations ". The soil is not recommended for terraces and is unstable for embankment foundations. Water runoff promises to be a problem for homeowners at lower levels (including outside of the development). Can it really be as the, developers state:that runoff from roads, buildings and paved areas will be compensated by the greater permeability of green lawns that development brings, I have my doubts that there will,,`FUch green lawn in the area considering the nature of the soil and the wild terrain. • �� And the maintenance of roads on the steeply sloped terrain. When the Planning Board questioned Ms. Clarke whether there could be a way to avoid using salt ( considering runoff directly to Cayuga Lake), Ms. Clarke responded EXHIBIT #2 , e ..• ._ P-3 • that the roads would be dedicated to -the Town, commenting that she did not know the Town's policy in terms of de- icing. (Minutes of Sept. 5, 1989 - Meeting). Indeed the maintenance of these roads, like that of the pumps will be left to the Town,as will potentially, a problem of water runoff damage. Should the Town assume.these responsibilities and expenses -.and possibly also, jeopardy? 0 Rosalind Grippi 423 East Seneca Street Ithaca EXHIBIT #2 AI+' F IRA VIT OF I UBLICATION State of New York, Tompkins County, ss.: Gail Sullins being duly sworn, deposes and says, that she /he resides in Ithaca, county and state aforesaid and that she /he is Clerk of The Ithaca Journal a public newspaper printed and published in Ithaca aforesaid, and that a notice, of which the annexed is a true copy, was published in said paper and that the first publication of said notice was on the ( g day of 19�— 0 cetkc S � k..kk� X...k Subs ed and sworn to before me, this day of 19 Notary JEAN FORD, Notary Public, State of New York Not 4654410 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission expires May 37, 79�j iUwry OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS, TUESDAY, JAN= UARY 23, 1990 ; B - Arection.of the.Choirman of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town'of Ithaca on Tuesday, Jonuarkl 23, 1990, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca,` N.Y., of the following times and on the following matters: 7:30 P.M. Consideration of the further reaffirmation of Subdi,, vision Approval granted by, the Planning Board on July 3, 1984, and reaffirmed by the" Planning Board on February 2,; 1988, for the subdivision into two lots of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6- 56 -3 -61 approxi- mately 1.6 acres, located,at 1526 Slaterville Road, Resi- dence District R -15. Theodore L. and Maria T. Araujo, Own -. i ers /Applicants. 8:00 P.M. Review of Prelimi- nary Plat application materials for the proposed "Coyuga Lake Estates ", proposed to consist of 42 lots plus a 6.1••. acre park site, and proposed' to be located east of Orchard Hill Road and west of N.Y.S. Rt. 89, Town of Ithaca Tax Par- cell No. 6- 22.2.2.2, -2.9, and _ 6- 21.1 -5, 65.9 plus /minus' acres total, Residence Districts R -15, R -30. Edward J. McArdle and Leslie N. Reizes, Owners; David A. MCArdel, Applicant. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Jean H. Swartwood Town Clerk January 18, 1990 273 -1721