Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
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