Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2012-10-16TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. October 16. 2012 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Hay 2-Lot Subdivision, 1305 Hanshaw Road. 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision located at 1305 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 70-12-2.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing off a +/- 0.428 acre parcel from the +/- 0.86 acre parcel for the purpose of constructing a new single family home with an accessory apartment. Anthony Hay, Owner/Applicant. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a sign variance for the proposed Northeast Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine offices located at 1290 Trumansburg Road (NYS Route 96), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-4-14.22, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the installation of a new freestanding sign (approximately 15 square feet) in the same location as the previous sign. Song Ja Kyong, Owner; Melissa Miller, MS, RN, Practice Administrator, Northeast Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Applicant. 7:25 P.M. SEQR Determination: E & V Energy Company and Pyrus Energy, 614 Elmira Road. 7:25 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a Sign Variance for the proposed E & V Energy Company and Pyrus Energy to be located at 614 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33-3-2.42, Light Industrial Zone. The proposal involves modifying the existing building and property to accommodate the E & V Energy Company (heating oil, propane, and diesel fuel) and the Pyrus Energy (solar pv - electric, wind turbines, and solar thermal). As part of this conversion, the project involves adding a propane cylinder filling station and a 6' X 9' shed. The applicant is also proposing to use the existing supports and frame for new sign panels for the new businesses. Ithaca Realty, LLC, Owner; T. James Marshall, Applicant. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Special Permit for the proposed Groundswell Incubator Farm Pond project located at EcoVillage at Ithaca, Inc., 100 Rachel Carson Way, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28.-1- 26.22, Planned Development Zone No. 8. The project involves the removal of approximately 3,600+/- cubic yards of soil in order to expand an existing irrigation pond that will serve the new Groundswell Incubator Farm and the existing West Haven Farm. The project also involves the creation of an embankment around the north side of the farm pond, installation of a temporary diversion swale, and associated grading, erosion and sedimentation controls, seeding and mulching. EcoVillage at Ithaca, Inc., Owner; Devon Van Noble, Incubator Coordinator, Applicant; David Herrick, T.G. Miller, P.C., Agent. 8. Approval of Minutes: October 2,2012. 9. Other Business: 10. Adjournment Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273-1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAIONGS Tuesday. October 16.2012 By direction of the Chairperson 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, October 16, 2012, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision located at 1305 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 70-12-2.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing off a +/- 0.428 acre parcel from the +/- 0.86 acre parcel for the purpose of constructing a new single family home with an accessory apartment. Anthony Hay, Owner/Applicant. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a sign variance for the proposed Northeast Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine offices located at 1290 Trumansburg Road (NYS Route 96), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-4-14.22, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the installation of a new freestanding sign (approximately 15 square feet) in the same location as the previous sign. Song Ja Kyong, Owner; Melissa Miller, MS, RN, Practice Administrator, Northeast Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Applicant. 7:25 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Sign Variances for the proposed E & V Energy Company and Pyrus Energy to be located at 614 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33-3-2.42, Light Industrial Zone. The proposal involves modifying the existing building and property to accommodate the E & V Energy Company (heating oil, propane, and diesel fuel) and the Pyrus Energy (solar pv - electric, wind turbines, and solar thermal). As part of this conversion, the project involves adding a propane cylinder filling station and a 6' x 9' shed. The applicant is also proposing to use the existing supports and frame for new sign panels for the new businesses. Ithaca Realty, LLC, Owner; T. James Marshall, Applicant. 7:45 P.M. Consideration of Special Permit for the proposed Groundswell Incubator Farm Pond project located at EcoVillage at Ithaca, Inc., 100 Rachel Carson Way, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28,- 1-26.22, Planned Development Zone No. 8. The project involves the removal of approximately 3,600+/- cubic yards of soil in order to expand an existing irrigation pond that will serve the new Groundswell Incubator Farm and the existing West Haven Farm. The project also involves the creation of an embankment around the north side of the farm pond, installation of a temporary diversion swale, and associated grading, erosion and sedimentation controls, seeding and mulching. EcoVillage at Ithaca, Inc., Owner; Devon Van Noble, Incubator Coordinator, Applicant; David Herrick, T.G. Miller, P.C., Agent. 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. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 Dated: Friday, October 5,2012 PubUsh: Wednesday, October 10,2012 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held bv the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall. 215 North Tioga Street. Ithaca. New York, on Tuesday. October 16. 2012 commencing at 7:00 P.M.. as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board - 215 North Tioga Street. Date of Posting: October 5,2012 Date of Publication: October 10, 2012 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this lO''^ day of October 2012. 'kmUXiilsUj jSlbtary Public I• ;2S[btary DEBORAH KELLEY Notary Public, State of NewYorK Mo. 01KE6025073 Qualified in Schuyler County Commission Expires May 17,20 THE ITHACA JOURNA^, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 20t-2^ TOVW OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PU8UC HEARINGS Tuesday, Oclober 16, 2012 )y direclion of the Chafr- j )er8on of the Planning ^afd, NOTICE IS HEREBY IsiVEN that Public Hearings :'^tl be held by the Rennlng ^,^o8rd of the Town of Ithece Tuesday. October 16, .^12, St 215 North Tloga Street. Ilhatta, N,V., at the following litneB and on the 'following matters: ' -17:05 P.M, fConsderatlon of Prelmina- :ry and Pmal Subdivision Ap- f>roval for the proposed 2- lot suttdlvlslon located at .'1305 Harfflhaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 70- i2-2.2. Medium Density Residential .Zone. The pro posal involves subdividing off a «/- 0.428 acre parcel 'from the +/• 0,86 acre par cel for the purpose of con- ,&b\jcting a new single fami ly home with an accessory '^tarltneni, Anthony Hay, .CXvner/AppiicanL 7:15P,M, iCcmsideration of a recom- nendation to Uie Zoning 3oard of Appeals regarding i sign variance for the pro- xjsed Northeast Pediatrics ind Adolescent Medicine >frices located at 1290 irrumansburg Road (NYS teute 96). Town of Mtaca fax Parcel No, 24-4-14.22, v4edium Density Reskien- ial Zone. The proposal in volves the installation of a lew freestanding sign Cap- iroximately 15 square feet) n the same location as the irevious sign. Song Ja (yong. Ownen Melissa vliller, MS, RN, Practice Administrator, Northeast "edlathcs and Ad^escent wiedicine. Applicant, 7:25 P.M, ^sideration of Prelimlna- y and Rnal Site ^an Ap-' iroval and a recommenda- ion to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Sign /artances for the proposed :& V Eieigy Company and Vus Energy to be located .t fiia Fln,lr« Rnsri. Town of IthB& Tax Parcel N6. ^ 3>2.42. Light Industrial Zone. The proposal In volves modiV'HI the exist ing building and property to accommodate the E & V Eti^gy Company (heating oA, (HC^»ne. and diesel fuel) and die Pyrus Energy (solar pv - electric, wind turtles, and sdar ther mal), As part of this con version, the project in volves adding a propane cylinder Riling station and a 6' X 9' shed. The api^lcant is also proposing to use the existing supports and frame for new sign panels for the new txislnesses, Ithaca Realty. LLC. Owner: T. James Marshall. Aj^Acani. ,7;45P-M. Consideration of Special Permit for Uie proposed Groundswell Incubator Farm Pond project foceted at EcoVlllage at Ithaca, Inc., 100 Rachel Carson Way. Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 28,-1-26,22, Planned Development Zone No, 8, The project Involves the re moval of approximately 3.600^/-cubic yards of soli in order to expand an exist ing irhgalion pond that will serve the new Groundswell Incutwtor Farm and the ex isting West Haven Farm, The project also Involves the creation of an embank ment around the north side of the Farm pond, Installa- lion of a temporary diver sion swale, end associated grading, erosion and sed- mentation controls, seeding end mulching. EcoVlllage at llhace. Inc., Owner Devon Voi Noble, Incubator Coor- dinalor. Applicant; David Herrick. T.G. Mtlar. P.O.. Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or olijec- tions thereto. Persons may appear: by agent or in per son, IndMduais with visual Impairments, hearing impairments or other spe- ciel needs, will be provided with assistance as neces sary, upon request. Per sons desitfng assistance must make such a request not less than 46 hours prior to die time of the public hearing, Susan Ritter 'Director of Planning .273-1747 , Pated: Friday. Ootobe^rS. 2012 iO/10/2012 Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street October 16,2012 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN-IN Please Print Clearly. Thank You Name i)€ub(-e M(fc{V Ci Address l\\PiI^S^v l^U N'jiT-l /l>K/lACfi , l-|, TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, October 16, 2012 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox (Chair), Linda Collins, George Conneman, John Beach, Ellen Baer, Hollis Erb Staff Present: Chris Balestra, Planner; Mike Smith, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code En- forcement; Creig Hebdon, Town Engineer; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m and accepted the secretary’s posting of the public hearing notices. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard – No one came forward to address the Board. AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Hay 2-Lot Subdivision, 1305 Hanshaw Road Mr. Hay described the project. They have a .82-acre parcel on 1305 Hanshaw Road. The house is on one side; they would like to put another house on the other side. The house would be 2500 square feet with an accessory apartment. PB Resolution No. 2012-073: SEQR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Hay 2-Lot Subdivision, 1305 Hanshaw Road, Tax Parcel No. 70.-12-2.2 Moved by George Conneman; seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS: 1.This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdi- vision located at 1305 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 70.-12-2.2, Medium Densi- ty Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing off +/-.428-acres from a +/- .86-acre parcel for the purpose of constructing a new single-family home with accessory apartment. Anthony Hay, Owner/Applicant, and 2.This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as lead agency with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3.The Planning Board, on October 16, 2012, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Envi- ronmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled “Survey Map No. 1305 Hanshaw Road Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” prepared by T.G. Miller P.C., dated 7/25/2008 and most recently revised 1/9/2012, and other application materials, and PB Minutes 10-16-2012 Page 2 of 26 4.The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental signifi- cance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced action as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part II, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Vote: Aye – Wilcox, Collins, Conneman, Beach, Baer, Erb AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision located at 1305 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 70-12-2.2, Medium Den- sity Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing off a +/- 0.428 acre parcel from the +/- 0.86 acre parcel for the purpose of constructing a new single family home with an accessory apartment. Anthony Hay, Owner/Applicant. Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. and closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. PB Resolution No. 2012-074: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Hay 2-Lot Subdivision, 1305 Hanshaw Road, Tax Parcel No. 70.-12-2.2 Moved by Linda Collins; seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS: 1.This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdi- vision located at 1305 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 70.-12-2.2, Medium Densi- ty Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing off +/-.428-acres from a +/- .86-acre parcel for the purpose of constructing a new single-family home with accessory apartment. Anthony Hay, Owner/Applicant, and 2.This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency with respect to Subdivision Approval, has, on October 16, 2012, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environ- mental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3.The Planning Board, on October 16, 2012, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled “Survey Map No. 1305 Hanshaw Road Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” prepared by T.G. Miller P.C., dated 7/25/2008 and most recently revised 1/9/2012, and other application materials, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: PB Minutes 10-16-2012 Page 3 of 26 1.That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, hav- ing determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2.That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the pro- posed two-lot subdivision located at 1305 Hanshaw Road, as shown on the survey map referenced in Whereas #3 above, subject to the following conditions: a.Submission of an easement and maintenance agreement for the shared driveway between Par- cels A and B, for review and approval of the Attorney for the Town, prior to the signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair, and filing of said easement and maintenance agreement in the Tompkins Count Clerk’s office, with a copy of the receipt of filing provided to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and b.Submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the subdivision plat and three dark-lined prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk’s Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Depart- ment, and c.Demolition or removal of the garage, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair. Vote: Aye – Wilcox, Collins, Conneman, Beach, Baer, Erb AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a sign variance for the proposed Northeast Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine offices located at 1290 Trumansburg Road (NYS Route 96), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-4-14.22, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the installation of a new freestanding sign (approximately 15 square feet) in the same location as the previous sign. Song Ja Kyong, Owner; Melissa Miller, MS, RN, Practice Administrator, Northeast Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Applicant. Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. Ms. Miller said the pediatricians will begin seeing patients early in November. They will close the of- fice on Cliff Street and make this their second location. They need a sign so they can welcome fami- lies to the new location. They won’t need it quite as close to the road as the current sign because there’s some landscaping blocking visibility from the roadway that needs to be cleaned up. They would like to light the sign using solar lighting that would be directed down at the sign (without in- creasing its size); the battery unit will sit on the ground below the sign. Ms. Collins announced that she knows Ms. Miller professionally, but has no interest in the pediatric practice. Ms. Erb said the size of the sign seems reasonable and innocuous given the speed limit on the road. Mr. Wilcox had an issue with the size of the sign necessitated by the inclusion of the phone number. If the purpose of the sign is to inform patients and families of the location of the office, it doesn’t PB Minutes 10-16-2012 Page 4 of 26 need a phone number. Including the phone number changes the purpose of the sign. Zoning allows 4 square feet; Dr. Kyong’s sign was 8 1/3 square feet, and the applicant is proposing 15 square feet. Ms. Balestra cautioned Mr. Wilcox, saying that talking about the size of the sign as compared to what’s allowed by law is fine, but as far as the content of the sign, the Board does not have any legal authori- ty to comment. The Board is required by law to be content neutral. Ms. Baer said people drive by there easily going 60 mph. Mr. Wilcox would like to see something under 10 square feet, which he thinks would be big enough, acknowledging that the speed limit is 45 and people do at least 50 mph. Ms. Miller said she also would prefer not to have the phone number on the sign, but that their site engineer gave them a proposal consistent with the other locations in the area. They didn’t say they wanted a 15-square-foot sign; he told them that to be consistent with the other signage in the area – which is made up of medical offices, a large apartment complex, and a professional complex – he proposed a 15-square-foot sign. Ms. Balestra said that to give the Board perspective, the Cayuga Pro- fessional Center sign, which is almost directly across the street, is 24 square feet, not including the posts; the CMC sign is 90 square feet; the Overlook sign is close to 24 square feet, as is the Seventh Day Adventist sign; and the Candlewyck sign is also around 24 square feet. PRI will have banners. Ms. Collins said she specifically looked when she was traveling up Route 96 toward the hospital and thought the sign was very unobtrusive. She has no problem with it. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. PB Resolution No. 2012-075: Recommendation to Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, Sign Variance – Northeast Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 1290 Trumansburg Road, Tax Parcel No. 24.-4-14.22, Town of Ithaca Sign Review Board (Planning Board) Moved by Ellen Baer; seconded by John Beach WHEREAS: 1.This action is consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a sign vari- ance for the proposed Northeast Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine offices located at 1290 Trumansburg Road (NYS Route 96), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-4-14.22, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the installation of a new freestanding sign (approximate- ly 15 square feet or 16.75+/- including posts) in the same location as the previous sign. Song Ja Kyong, Owner; Melissa Miller, MS, RN, Practice Administrator, Northeast Pediatrics and Adoles- cent Medicine, Applicant, and 2.The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on October 16, 2012, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a narrative to the Zoning Board of Appeals and sheets that show the dimensions, mate- rials, and colors of the proposed sign and proposed lighting for the sign, all date-stamped Septem- ber 20, 2012, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: PB Minutes 10-16-2012 Page 5 of 26 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as the Town of Ithaca Sign Review Board, hereby recommends that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the request for a sign variance for one 15+/- square-foot (16.75+/- square feet including posts) freestanding sign for the Northeast Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine offices, where freestanding signs in residential districts are limited to 4 square- feet in area, subject to the following conditions: a.All proposed lighting shall comply with the Town of Ithaca Outdoor Lighting Law, and b.The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to installing the new sign. Vote: Ayes – Collins, Conneman, Beach, Baer, Erb Nays – Wilcox AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination : E & V Energy Company and Pyrus Energy, 614 Elmira Road Mr. Marshall described the proposal: he wants to reuse the existing sign, but put new panels into the top section; refill small propane tanks on site; and store propane tanks on the property for delivery to customers’ homes. They will have an office on site in which people sign up for new accounts, sched- ule deliveries, pay for deliveries, etc. The Pyrus Energy side is where people will come in to find out about renewable energy and possibly set up appointments for site evaluations. Mr. Wilcox commented that the site used to be a gasoline station. Mr. Marshall confirmed this and said that E & V Energy supplied gasoline to the station in the 1980s and 1990s. There will be entrances from both Brewery Lane and Route 13. Ms. Erb would like to see some visual screening (maybe a wooden fence) of the tank storage area. The shed could have landscaping immedi- ately in front of it. She asked how traffic will move around the pump island. Mr. Marshall described this. The tanks are set side by side, and the maximum tank length is about ten feet long. There will be two rows (north and south facing) of tanks, and the truck will back down the center aisle in between the two rows. Mr. Smith pointed out that people coming to get tanks refilled will park in one of the parking spaces out front and carry the tanks over to the pump station. Mr. Marshall said the shed is between the parking lot and the tanks. Mr. Wilcox said the purpose of screening is to soften the visual impact from Elmira Road, a major thoroughfare, and not necessarily from Brewery Lane. Mr. Marshall agreed, saying he would like to landscape. Ms. Collins asked whether the tanks will be stored with propane. Mr. Marshall responded that they will have some propane in them, but they aren’t filled until they are on the customer’s site. In order to be able to utilize them when they arrive at the site, there needs to be some propane in them. They do what is called purging the tank: the tank is delivered to the site with around 25 gallons of fuel in so the technician can hook it up, pressurize the propane system, start the appliances, and make sure there are no leaks. Without propane in the tank, they couldn’t do that. Once the tank is installed, a truck goes by and fills the tank up. This is why tanks can’t be stored indoors: every single tank is stored with some fuel. They also have to be able to replace a tank to a customer’s home on very short notice and will have a few tanks to set on any given day. PB Minutes 10-16-2012 Page 6 of 26 To a question from Ms. Collins, Mr. Marshall responded that he’ll have zero customers when he starts up. He had zero when he started the last three divisions and now they have 2000 to 3000. Mr. Marshall said he will have between 15 and 40 tanks on site at any one time. Ms. Erb estimated that to be about 1000 gallons of propane, and Mr. Marshall responded that any commercial business would have that much on hand if they were heating with propane. Mr. Bates added that as far as the building code is concerned, unless those tanks have the valves removed, they are considered full. If he has the capacity to have every tank full, the fire code will dictate how many tanks he can have on the property, how they are stored, etc. Mr. Marshall will supply the Building Department with the infor- mation on the number and capacity of tanks and the layout of the how they’ll be stored, and then staff will do the calculations. Mr. Wilcox asked whether the Board’s concerns were warranted given the New York State code. Mr. Bates responded that any concern is warranted, but the code will allow an accepted standard based on the safety of the use and sale of the propane. Mr. Erb said that when she asked for a wooden fence, she didn’t understand that there would be any propane in the tanks. She asked whether a nonflammable decorative masonry wall would be more appropriate. Mr. Bates didn’t know without looking at the code, but pointed out there is wood that is treated to make it nonflammable. Mr. Marshall didn’t know of a code for the distance away from a flammable material, but said there’s a code for the distance away from a source of ignition and there are codes for setbacks. For the types of tanks he’s proposing storing, they have to be ten feet away from an enclosed structure/living space or the property line. Ms. Erb said the requirement could call for some sort of attractive screening as opposed to a wooden fence. The Board agreed. Regarding visual impact, Ms. Erb said she didn’t understand the need to continue with the lower sign: it’s a sign board with lettering that can be changed; it’s an oversized sign with two different signs on it. Mr. Marshall responded that he’ll use it for marketing. He will be placing specials on it, chang- ing it from time to time, letting people know about price-protection programs in the fall and specials on 20-pound refills in the spring. Plus, it’s already there, so he won’t have to pay to remove it. Since he doesn’t own the property, he’s trying to keep the costs as low as possible and he’d have to ask per- mission of the owners to remove it. PB Resolution No. 2012-076: SEQR, Preliminary and Final Site Plan & Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals Regarding Sign Variances, E & V Energy Co. and Pyrus Energy, Tax Parcel No. 33-3-2.42 Moved by George Conneman; seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS: 1.This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Sign Variances for the proposed E & V Energy Com- pany and Pyrus Energy to be located at 614 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33-3- 2.42, Light Industrial Zone. The proposal involves modifying the existing building and property to accommodate the E & V Energy Company (heating oil, propane, and diesel fuel) and the Pyrus Energy (solar pv - electric, wind turbines, and solar thermal). As part of this conversion, the pro- PB Minutes 10-16-2012 Page 7 of 26 ject involves adding a propane cylinder filling station and a 6’ x 9’ shed. The applicant is also proposing to use the existing supports and frame for new sign panels for the new businesses. Ith- aca Realty, LLC, Owner; T. James Marshall, Applicant, and 2.This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting in an uncoor- dinated environmental review with respect to this project, and 3.The Planning Board, on October 16, 2012, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Envi- ronmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, narrative descriptions (“Company Information for 614 Elmira Road Office”, “Proposed Propane Cylinder Refilling Station to be located at 614 Elmira Road”, and “Proposed Sign/Reface of Existing Sign Located at 614 Elmira Road”) and drawings (“Proposed Pump House”, “Replacement Panels for Existing Sign Box”, “Existing Sign”, and “Survey Map of 614 Elmira Road”), date stamped September 18, 2012 and October 1, 2012, provided by T. James Marshall, and other application materials, and 4.The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental signifi- cance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part II, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Vote: Aye – Wilcox, Collins, Conneman, Beach, Baer, Erb AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Sign Variances for the proposed E & V Energy Company and Pyrus Energy to be located at 614 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33-3-2.42, Light Industrial Zone. The proposal involves modifying the existing building and property to accommodate the E & V Energy Company (heating oil, propane, and diesel fuel) and the Pyrus Energy (solar pv - electric, wind turbines, and solar thermal). As part of this conversion, the project involves adding a propane cylinder filling station and a 6’ x 9’ shed. The applicant is also proposing to use the existing supports and frame for new sign panels for the new businesses. Ithaca Realty, LLC, Owner; T. James Marshall, Applicant. Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:01 p.m. and closed the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. Ms. Erb said she’s looking for landscaping low and along the road edge – something to soften the appearance of the shed and help block the appearance of the tank storage. Mr. Marshall said they have started cutting down the overgrown bushes along Brewery Lane, and now need to get it tilled and planted. PB Minutes 10-16-2012 Page 8 of 26 Ms. Collins asked about plans for lighting the sign. Mr. Marshall said he doesn’t plan to light it; the internal lighting is kaputt. His business is mostly during the daylight hours so it is not worth it to fix. Ms. Balestra left at 8:15 p.m. PB Resolution No. 2012-077: Preliminary and Final Site Plan & Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals Regarding Sign Variances, E & V Energy Co. and Pyrus Energy, Tax Parcel No. 33-3-2.42 Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by John Beach WHEREAS: 1.This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Sign Variances for the proposed E & V Energy Com- pany and Pyrus Energy to be located at 614 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33-3- 2.42, Light Industrial Zone. The proposal involves modifying the existing building and property to accommodate the E & V Energy Company (heating oil, propane, and diesel fuel) and the Pyrus Energy (solar pv - electric, wind turbines, and solar thermal). As part of this conversion, the pro- ject involves adding a propane cylinder filling station and a 6’ x 9’ shed. The applicant is also proposing to use the existing supports and frame for new sign panels for the new businesses. Ith- aca Realty, LLC, Owner; T. James Marshall, Applicant, and 2.This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting in an uncoordi- nated environmental review with respect to the project has, on October 16, 2012, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3.The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on October 16, 2012, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, narrative descriptions (“Company Information for 614 Elmira Road Office”, “Proposed Propane Cylinder Refilling Station to be located at 614 Elmira Road”, and “Proposed Sign/Reface of Existing Sign Located at 614 Elmira Road”) and drawings (“Proposed Pump House”, “Replacement Panels for Existing Sign Box”, “Existing Sign”, and “Survey Map of 614 Elmira Road”), date stamped September 18, 2012 and October 1, 2012, provided by T. James Marshall, and other application materials, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1.That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having de- termined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant altera- tion of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and PB Minutes 10-16-2012 Page 9 of 26 2.That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed E & V Energy Company and Pyrus Energy to locate at 614 Elmira Road, as de- scribed above, subject to the following conditions: a.granting of the necessary sign variances from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to installation of any new signage, and b.granting of the variance from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals for the propane filling station portion of the project, prior to issuance to issuance of a building permit for the filling station, and c.granting of the variance from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals for the outside storage of the tanks, prior to any tanks being placed on the property, and d.the installation of landscaping to screen the proposed shed and propane storage area (except for the storage area access aisle) from Elmira Road, prior to June 2013. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as the Town of Ithaca Sign Review Board, hereby recommends that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the request for sign variances to use the exist- ing supports and frames for new sign panels for the new businesses. The Planning Board further rec- ommends that such approval be subject to the following conditions: a.any proposed lighting shall comply with the Town of Ithaca Outdoor Lighting Law, and b.the applicant must obtain a sign permit, prior to installing the new sign panels. Vote: Aye – Wilcox, Collins, Conneman, Beach, Baer, Erb AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Special Permit for the proposed Groundswell Incubator Farm Pond project located at EcoVillage at Ithaca, Inc., 100 Rachel Carson Way, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-26.22, Planned Development Zone No. 8. The project involves the removal of approxi- mately 3,600+/- cubic yards of soil in order to expand an existing irrigation pond that will serve the new Groundswell Incubator Farm and the existing West Haven Farm. The project also involves the creation of an embankment around the north side of the farm pond, installation of a temporary di- version swale, and associated grading, erosion and sedimentation controls, seeding and mulching. EcoVillage at Ithaca, Inc., Owner; Devon Van Noble, Incubator Coordinator, Applicant; David Her- rick, T.G. Miller, P.C., Agent. Ms. Baer said she sits on a board with Joanna Green, director of Groundswell, but that it has nothing to do with this project. Ms. Green said Groundswell is a new non-profit organization that is under the umbrella of the Cen- ter for Transformative Action, which is located at Cornell. They are also affiliated with the EcoVillage Center for Sustainability Education, for which they do the food and agriculture education and train- ing. Their focus is the training of beginning farmers – there’s a burgeoning interest among people with no background in farming. They have a special focus of working with people with limited eco- PB Minutes 10-16-2012 Page 10 of 26 nomic resources and as culturally diverse as they can find. The project that this relates to is their new- est incubator project, which will make land and infrastructure available to new farmers who don’t own their own land and who need management experience. It’s their first land-based program: all of their other programs take place on working farms, including West Haven Farm, which is at EcoVil- lage. The limiting factor on that site is the water supply. There’s already a conservation easement through Fingerlakes Land Trust on that property, and the land use plan is for agriculture. Without an additional water supply, they can’t do anything, and West Haven Farm is maxed out on their own water supply. They’re trying to do two things by expanding the pond: provide additional water for West Haven Farm and provide water for the incubator site. They try to take the concerns of the community very seriously and have made some adjustments in the plan that she thinks are reasonable and will meet their needs, not as well as the old plan, but as a reasonable compromise. Mr. Conneman said he thought most of the issues have been mitigated. According to his colleagues who know a great deal about agriculture, it’s not a small idea running a stream through a pond. If you get a big storm, it will flood. Mr. Van Noble said the original concern was capturing water and preventing it from going down- stream. This is not a stream of substantial size: it won’t cause a massive runoff and it won’t break dams. This is a concern of diverting the currently scare source of water from going downstream. The original plans involved actually creating a very strict diversion from where the water comes into the EcoVillage property and under the culvert and diverting it directly into the pond and then having a spillway so it would come back out. The revised plans eliminate that diversion and accept the current standing streambed for what it is. There are multiple streamways that run through the area. There is a designated streambed that runs away from the pond, and they won’t prevent any water from going in other directions. The new plan won’t affect as heavily the amount of water going downstream. Mr. Herrick said they learned a lot at the ZBA meeting, specifically regarding his interest in technical- ly providing that direct link and positive source of water to the pond. The new plan replicates the existing condition – it just expands the volume of water that the West Haven Farm and the Incubator project will have available to them. They’ve removed the need to deal with the stream setback and obtain any variances from the ZBA for that intrusion. Mr. Wilcox posed an open-ended question regarding Mr. Snyder’s memo of Oct. 4. The third para- graph refers to ponds created above Rachel Carson Way – two in the 1980s and two in the 1990s. He asked whether this should be interpreted as a mini Colorado River situation, where water is being siphoned off uphill. This proposal is asking to siphon off whatever remaining water is left for the ap- plicant’s pond. Mr. Van Noble responded that that is one way to characterize it, but pointed out that this is a preexisting pond. The current condition is already that this water is not going down hill dur- ing certain times of the year, so it’s not as if this will make a substantial change in that character, but it will lengthen those periods where it is dry. They haven’t done a year-long ecological assessment to determine how long that will actually be. Mr. Herrick said the issue is that there’s been a loss of diversity downstream in this corridor. The wa- tershed has changed – it is not that the West Haven Farm has created these irreversible changes downstream. The watershed as a primarily agricultural use would have generated significantly more runoff in storm events, and as all of that land has reverted to successional shrubland and meadow, there’s much less runoff generated. To add to that, four additional ponds above the West Haven PB Minutes 10-16-2012 Page 11 of 26 Farm pond are tapping off more of the watershed. Over time, this watershed has been evolving; it is not just the creation or the modifications that have been or want to be made to the West Haven Farm pond that are going to create any drastic changes in downstream diversity. Ms. Ritter arrived at 8:28. Mr. Wilcox said there is no SEQR review. This is a Type II action, which means that the State has legislatively determined it does not have any significant environmental impacts. These actions range from agricultural activities to less than 4000 square feet retail, such as the Burger King at East Hill Plaza. He asked whether that would have applied to the original action if it had not been postponed. Ms. Brock responded that it would have: the change in the plan is not what made this Type II and exempt from SEQR; the building of dykes is considered an agricultural farm practice and is exempt. Mr. Wilcox asked whether the County’s 239 letter, dated 9/17, applied to the previous plan and not to this plan. He was concerned that the Board had a 239 review for something that was no longer in front of them. Mr. Smith responded that when the applicant submitted the revised plan, he provided it to the County, which was concerned only that the Board had adequate information to make a de- termination since a supermajority vote is required if Board members think they don’t have enough. He said he had not received additional comment from the County. Ms. Brock added that Mr. Smith sent the revised plan, and it seems like the County stood on their letter. Ms. Erb wondered whether the Board could proceed even though the County had not had the 30 days to respond. She was will- ing to take the point of view that if they saw the old proposal and thought it needed to be mitigated, it has been mitigated. Mr. Smith responded that he did not think the County planned to provide an additional letter. They weren’t requesting any additional information; he provided it to them so they would have it. It’s up to the Board to decide whether they have what they need. Ms. Brock’s opinion was that the Board could proceed. The County’s concern was with downstream impacts. The changes to the project have not made those worse; they’ve mitigated those. It sounds as if they did not feel the need to issue another letter when Mr. Smith talked to them. She found it odd for them to state that the Board needs sufficient information to make a determination since they al- ways need sufficient information. Ms. Erb asked whether any manure storage areas would be far enough away from the pond for it not to be an issue. She was specifically concerned about the slurry storage system for a possible pig farm since the materials stated this would be sufficient for small livestock. Mr. Van Noble responded that 25 pigs is not slurry storage, and that the run-in shelters will be sufficient. It’s not clear that pigs will be on this site. The Land Trust already has an easement preventing the applicant from being within 200 feet of a setback from the stream. It will be small grazing animals, not anything requiring manure storage. Livestock would also be rotationally grazed. Mr. Wilcox asked Mr. Herrick how the change in plans allows more water to continue to flow past the pond. Mr. Herrick responded that the old plan had grading that would create a permanent chan- nel to provide a direct connection to the pond. That was removed from the project. Now there is a semblance of a swale from the culvert and some noticeable seeping or sheet flow that occurs outside that swale, so in certain rainfall events, there will be some migration of water in the existing swale towards the pond; it will then migrate through the vegetation and continue in a southeasterly direc- tion, rejoining with a stream located further to the east. PB Minutes 10-16-2012 Page 12 of 26 Mr. Wilcox invited the public to speak: Robert Mitchell, 153 Westhaven Road, started by saying that the Groundswell Incubator Farm has laudable goals and that he supports many of their initiatives, but he does not support their ability to infringe upon his rights to achieve those goals. He read from a prepared statement (see Statement by Robert Mitchell to Planning Board at the end of this document). He ended by saying that he believes his riparian rights have been violated by EcoVillage and that he could and should bring suit to protect these rights now, but that he would prefer if the Board were to instruct EcoVillage to return the stream to its natural course or refer the matter to the appropriate enforcement agencies with jurisdic- tion in the matter. He said that the brook should be returned to its natural state for an extended pe- riod of time to recover from the cumulative effects it has suffered in the past. Ms. Erb asked which calendar year or event he would use to determine natural course. Mr. Mitchell responded that he would be happy if they just took the diversion away from the culvert and stopped running it into the pond; if they just let the stream follow its natural course and didn’t make it run into the outflow, that would be sufficient for him. Ms. Collins said that Mr. Mitchell’s comments appear to refer to the original plan, and that it appears there is no longer an attempt to divert the water into the pond. Mr. Mitchell pointed on the map to the streambed and stated that there’s no water running through it: they’ve already diverted the water; it doesn’t naturally run into the pond. It never ran into the pond. They’ve made it do so by putting in a swale. There’s a little water that escapes from the swale; as they improve the pond, there will be less water that escapes. The only way water will get out is if the pond gets up to a certain level, but as they’re pumping water out of the pond, it will drop below that level and no water will escape. So, starting in May, no water will escape unless there’s a big storm. It’s the middle of October, and there’s still no water. Part of this has already happened, and when they do this project, even less water will run downstream for two reasons: 1) When they improve the connection to the pond and the culvert, less water will be able to escape; and 2) because the pond is twice as big, it will take that much more to refill it. One of the problems is that a lot of the water came from the springs in the pond itself. The pond used to contribute to the stream. When they started pumping water out, all of that spring water never got to the stream. As they improve the pond, even less water will make it to the stream. Mr. Conneman asked Mr. Mitchell if he thinks a long EAF should have been filled out. Mr. Mitchell said yes, but he’s not sure even that would be sufficient. To make a determination, you have to take the flows over a long period of time since hydrologic studies can’t take just a few months or even a year because of the fluctuation of flows. John Bokaer-Smith, owner of West Haven Farm, said he was present to support Groundswell. He supports it enough to share the pond with them. It pains him to have a conflict with a neighbor. The pond is his primary source of irrigation because although they have access to municipal water, the cost of municipal water is thousands of dollars per year and is the difference between running a profitable business or not. The farm has not grown for at least the last ten years. He’s not clear that water never flowed into the pond. It is true that he diverted water after Rachel Carson Way was put in because he thought the pond was getting less total water (surface flow water, spring water). He also pointed out that there’s more water flowing through the culvert under the road than before because of Rachel Carson Way. Mr. Van Noble added that West Haven Farm is within the Cliff Park watershed, so it is not removing water from the watershed and putting it into another. Mr. Bokaer-Smith said this is not PB Minutes 10-16-2012 Page 13 of 26 the only water source going downstream; there’s another water course coming from the City Lights Antiques property. He recently had to spend money repairing a farm road that was damaged by an- other source of water that flooded every spring. They don’t touch that water source at all. He said they are conservation-minded; they use only drip irrigation. He pointed out that this was not a typical year; it’s been the driest in 20 years. They emptied the pond in early August, and there was zero flow into it since then. It is true that in dry years, they stretch out those events. He needs water to run a farm – it is the limiting resource for agricultural development on their land. They need additional storage in order to support additional farming enterprises. Mr. Mitchell said that taking water from another watershed goes against riparian law. He showed photos of the drainpipe at the bottom of West Haven Farm, and showed the direction it runs: north along Westhaven Road and down Route 79 toward Linderman Creek. Mr. Bokaer-Smith said he has done no further work since the work he did 15 years ago; in fact, the original diversion work he did has silted up. Mr. Wilcox wanted to revisit the issue of no SEQR determination. Ms. Brock said that the Type II criterion at issue is “agricultural farm management practices including construction, maintenance and repair of farm buildings and structures, and land use changes consistent with generally accepted prin- ciples of farming.” Other things that can fall under agricultural farm management practices are build- ing of dykes, ditching, or installing drainage piping. Staff felt the work being proposed was building of dykes. Regardless of whether the Board agrees, if they feel it is an agricultural farm management prac- tice, it is Type II. She said that when Mr. Mitchell listed the types of things you look at when doing an environmental review, he read from a different subsection under Type II, which talks about the fact that each agency can adopt its own Type II list in addition to the DEC’s Type II list, and it gives in- structions on doing so. It says that each action on an agency’s Type II list must, in no case, have a significant adverse impact on the environment based on the criteria contained in subsection 617.7C. Everything he was talking about does not apply to the DEC’s Type II list. She did case law research and found that as long as it’s an agricultural farm management practice, it’s Type II, and the courts have found no significant adverse impacts – that they are exempt from review. She concluded by say- ing that her opinion that it’s Type II hasn’t changed. Ms. Erb asked whether Type II obviates any issues under riparian law. Ms. Brock responded that since the applicant is seeking a special permit, the special permit criteria are applied. Because DEC has said this is Type II, i.e., it doesn’t get any environmental review, the Board needs to be careful not to apply the criteria in a way that’s counter to DEC’s legislative determination. Mr. Conneman asked if the DEC is always right. Riparian rights are very important, especially in the western part of the United States. Ms. Brock responded that the Planning Board is not a court and it is not within their purview to de- termine whether a use is reasonable or not. The Board applies the special permit criteria, but can’t be an arbiter of whether riparian rights are being adversely affected. One of the special permit criteria is looking at drainage ways and whether they’re adversely affecting other properties. It’s not up to the Board to determine whether or not the proposed use violates someone else’s riparian rights. Such determination would be made by a court. PB Minutes 10-16-2012 Page 14 of 26 Ms. Erb asked Mr. Herrick whether, where the culvert comes under Rachel Carson Way, there might be a way to reengineer the downhill side to guarantee that if anything is coming through the culvert, some of it spills down the streambed. Mr. Herrick responded that the current condition will do that under certain rainfall events and runoff conditions. In seasons like this, where there has been pro- longed drought, nothing is running out of the watershed and therefore nothing running out of the culvert. What they have shown provides that type of diversion. When the pond is full, there will be flow that dissipates and spreads out below the work they’re doing. He didn’t think it could be done for each rainfall event – not a way to physically create a situation where all the water is proportionally shared between some original streambed and the pond inlet. Ms. Erb said she was talking about what can be done by law and what can be done to be good neigh- bors. Mr. Herrick responded that a catch basin could be fabricated with outlets proportionally split to shed some water down the original water course. He retracted his original answer. He said a flow splitter could, technically speaking, be built at the outlet of the culvert. Ms. Erb continued, saying that farmers tile fields to take water off them from underneath. She asked whether there could be a buried tiling system from the bottom of the pond for seepage, not forced flow, so if there’s water in the pond, something might trickle out and end up in Cliff Park Brook, or if that would damage the holding capacity. Mr. Herrick responded that they’d be looking for the Dutch boy to put his finger in the hole. They’d lose the storage capacity. Ms. Erb asked for other ide- as. Mr. Herrick said that to reestablish more perpetual flows out of the watershed further down- stream, you’d have to modify the hydrology in a way that created more runoff – the exact opposite of what is happening naturally. Ms. Erb asked whether West Haven Farm is in a different watershed than Cliff Park Brook. Mr. Her- rick responded that West Haven Farm is split: a portion of it pitches by grade to the north end of Westhaven Road and to Mecklenburg Road, but the majority of it pitches to Cliff Park Brook, ulti- mately being captured at the downhill end of the watershed in the Westhaven Road sewer system. They identified and quantified those watershed boundaries as part of a stormwater management exer- cise many years ago. There are roughly 40 acres outside of and below the existing West Haven Farm pond that contributes to the Cliff Park Brook as it passes underneath Westhaven Road. Mr. Conneman said Mr. Mitchell raised several points that he doesn’t have the answers to. He said that people don’t compromise these days in America, and asked what would be wrong with doing a long EAF to see if what Mr. Mitchell presented is or is not correct, no matter what the law says. Mr. Wilcox said the Board cannot ignore the law, and that given the State’s determination of this as a Type II action, he is not sure the Board can base any findings on impact. The State has said there are no adverse environmental impacts whether the Board likes it or not. Mr. Herrick said there have been changes in the watershed that have not been of EcoVillage’s doing, including conversion of former farmland into successional shrub and meadow and ponds equal to or larger than what they are asking for constructed above the West Haven Farm pond. He also stated that it’s all one watershed: the division between upper and lower is Rachel Carson Way. Ms. Brock asked whether all of West Haven Farm in the watershed. Mr. Herrick responded that part of it drains north to the intersection of Mecklenburg Road. PB Minutes 10-16-2012 Page 15 of 26 Ms. Ritter stated that the point Mr. Herrick was trying to make is that the vegetation differences in the watershed has affected the flow rate off the fields, as it has changed from agricultural use to its present heavily vegetated condition. Mr. Herrick added that the four ponds collect and detain flow. As they recharge and fill, they remove water out of the stream flow to the extent that it takes to fill them. These are not EcoVillage ponds. Ms. Erb said she is feeling very sympathetic towards many speakers, but that her hands are tied. She’s happy for the move that changed how the infill goes into the pond, and said that she’d like to ask for good neighborliness, such as what was suggested earlier, even though the Board can’t require it. Mr. Mitchell said that the ponds probably improve the watershed: they impound water when there’s lots of it and they let the water slowly get into the system; there’s very little loss to evaporation. They don’t take water out of the system like this pond by pumping it away from the creek. In fact, they probably slowly release water so there’s more water during the dry periods. He suggested that there are alternatives they should investigate for their water supply and ways to mitigate. Some dams are de- signed so that when a certain amount of water is flowing through, say, a gallon a minute, it will let a gallon a minute through; as soon as it goes over a gallon a minute, it will start diverting it in another direction. This way, there’s always a minimum flow going in one direction, but during a storm when that flow is higher, it can be diverted into the holding area. Those dams are very available and could be a possibility here. As for tiling, that pond is full of water, and just like a dam release, water could be pumped out of the pond and into the creek. He would be willing to discuss either one of those mitigations. He would much prefer to do that than sue for riparian rights. Ms. Green reiterated that the bottom line is that anything that reduces the current situation would put the existing pond at risk. They feel they’ve already made a substantial compromise. Mr. Van No- ble said that what Mr. Mitchell described is what they’re proposing: at a certain point of minimal flow, there’s an overflow point where larger events will flow past this pond. They’re proposing a natu- ral weir as opposed to a fancy engineered concrete structure. Mr. Bokaer-Smith said the current situation for West Haven Farm is that they have the use of the existing pond and all the water that flows through the culvert, and it’s not always enough. They’re very conservation-minded, but this is a year they ran dry in August and had to spend $1600-plus on municipal water. They’re taking the step to share this water, but he doesn’t want to reduce the water that comes through the culvert. Mr. Hebdon had a point of clarification. Although they think they’re doing what Mr. Mitchell wants to do, he actually wants the reverse: the low flow to go down to the brook and the high flows to be diverted to the pond. What Mr. Van Noble is talking about is taking all flows into the pond and al- lowing high flows to go into the brook. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 10:07 p.m. He stated that the Board would probably not make a decision at the meeting since they try to end meetings at 10:00 and it was already past that time. He commented that one of the philosophies of EcoVillage is achieving consensus on all issues. It’s easy to get a majority, but difficult to achieve consensus, and it can take a long time to get things done. It would be nice in this instance if EcoVillage and the adjacent property owners could achieve compromise. Then the Board doesn’t have to choose between the proposal in front of them and the PB Minutes 1046-2012 Page 16 of 16 material presented by Mr. Mitchell. A compromise would be best for everybody. He pointed out that because of the election, there will not be a first meeting in November. Mr. Mitchell said he'd be amenable. Mr. Van Noble said that this is the latest date for a decision in order to go forward with the project this year. Mr. Wilcox said that if they want to stick with the cur rent proposal, they still would not get a decision at that night's meeting. The Board agreed that it was too late to think clearly and they were not ready to make a decision. Mr. Herrick pointed out that they did make a compromise: they modified the plan in a way they felt perpetuated the current condition to share the runoff from the watershed. Tliat night's suggestion was a more highly technical solution. Given the issues with Type II, he asked whether the application for consideration of the excavation as an agricultural function was even reviewable. Ms. Brock re sponded that they were still subject to the special permit requirement. Ms. Erb moved and Mr. Beach seconded postponing the discussion until a time mutually convenient to the applicant and the Planning Board. All Board members were in favor. AGENDA ITEM Other Business There's a tentative cancellation of the second meeting in November for lack of applications. AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by John Beach, the meeting adjourned at 10:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted. ebra DeAu ine. Deputy -• X" PB Minutes 10-16-2012 Page 17 of 26 Statement by Robert Mitchell to Planning Board [This statement was amended, as noted, after the meeting.] Town planning board Let me first say that I think the Groundswell Incubator farm has laudable goals and that I support many of their initiatives. However I don’t support their ability to infringe upon my rights in order to achieve those goals. In general I support the rights of farmers or anyone else to use their land in the manner they see fit. I’m very aware of the pressures faced by farmers through my family ties with agriculture. My father’s passion was a large farm he owned in Mecklenburg at the headwaters of Taughnnock Falls with extensive acreage under cultivation and close to 200 head of cattle. My sister runs Millstone Farm an incubator for adaptive community base solutions to energy and agriculture, that prides itself on producing an abundance of vegetables while reducing carbon emissions and minimizing the impact on the local ecosystem especial nearby wetlands (That’s taken verbatim from her web- site). She has been on the also on the Board of the American Farmland Trust who’s goal is to pro- tect small farms. In addition my older brothers full time job is as a worker on an organic farm. So I am cognizant of the challenges faced by the Growndswell farm. I am aware of many of their is- sues and am sympathetic to their cause . Never the less even with these lofty goals the negative impact of their proposal to withdrawal more than 1,000,000 gallons of water from this stream during the driest period of the year will cause irrevocable harm to the downstream ecosystem. The pond described is an old farm pond that is spring feed and empties into the stream Cliff Park Brook. Cliff Park Brook arises across Mecklenburg rd and flows through a wetland and then through a culvert under Rachel Carson Drive. Historically it continued to meander through a series of channels and streamside wet land and exits the Ecovilage property. Along the way it picked up additional water from the out flow of the pond. Together the augmented flow runs down a rocky streambed under Westhaven road and across my property for nearly 2000 ft, It then exits the Town in to the city of Ithaca entering the inlet at a waterfall where Hector st and Elm st meet at the bottom of the hill. I have been associated with this pond and stream for more than 50 years. I used to play here year round and this is where I learned to play hockey in the 50s and 60s. Recently Echovillage has constructed or improved swalls to diverted the stream and channelized it as it exits the culvert so that it’s flow is reversed at the outlet and it now flows into the outflow of the pond. Historically the stream never flowed into the pond, instead the pond was designed to be filled by springs that fed directly into the bottom and western edge, these springs allowed the pond to add water to the stream rather than extract it. The water diverted into the pond is now pumped several 100ft into another watershed to irrigate crops at Westhaven farm. This extraction from the pond diminishes the flow of the stream as it runs past my house and through my property on Westhaven rd. This is no problem in the spring, but it is a problem when they withdraw water at the critical time of year during the summer and even now in the fall so that little or no water is allowed to exit their property for many months in a row. Enough water used to get through to make this situation almost tolerable, that was when the farm was a small startup of a few acres but it has slowly grown to 10 acres and two large green houses This Groundswell Farm literature says it plans to add an additional 22 irrigated acres. Together by their published estimates they will withdraw 1,170,000 gallons of water per year that would otherwise PB Minutes 10-16-2012 Page 18 of 26 flow down the stream. If you looked at the pond a week or two ago (picture ) instead of the full farm pond that has always been there you would see about a foot or water in one end of the pond where there should be 6 or 8. The way they have designed proposed changes to this pond no wa- ter will flow down this stream until the pond is completely filled. There is no estimate given for the recharge rate of this pond but as long as their extraction rate of 92,000 gallons/week exceeds the recharge rate no water will flow down that stream. And then only after any deficit has been made up and the pond has been refilled completely. My fear is that with this purposed expansion and extraction of more water that the riparian community that has always existed along this stream, will be starved of water and die. A few specific points: This is a forever thing. Once they do this it is unlikely it will ever be reversed First. I don’t believe that Ecovillage owns the water. Common law on which New York State water law is based holds to the principle that water flows and ought to flow, as it has customarily flowed, so that those, through whose, land it runs may enjoy the privilege of using it running water is not in its nature private property. It can be used in a reasonable manner but can’t be denied from those living downstream. It is Usufructary property and is protected by law as a riparian rights. Usufructary property is defined as something that you don’t own but have the right to use and enjoy the profits and advantages of as long as the property is not damaged or altered in any way. Second. This plan will degrade a riparian corridor. This environmental community depends on at least a small flow on a regular basis. This brook doesn’t flow all the time but there are pools that have always been there with enough water to support frogs and crayfish. As Echovillage with- draws more and more water this wildlife has diminished. Third. Degradation of this riparian corridor leads to fragmentation of the environment and isolates biologic communities. Fourth. Echovillage has already shown a disregard for these wetlands and this setback law by damming, draining and channeling this stream. And even now before they have gotten a permit they have started mowing down the cattails and moving earth. The cattails they are mowing are an obligate indicator species for wetlands according to the Army Corps of Enginneer and their pre- sents indicates that this is a wetland. Fifth. According to the Tompkins Co conservation plan by degrading this water features on my land, I am harmed by a decrease in my property value. Sixth. Enjoyment: Protecting enjoyment is one of the state purposes of the Streamside law and a protected riparian right. I have enjoyed this stream for over 50 years . I enjoyed it as a child and still enjoy it. I explored along it with my children when they were young and they still explore along it’s course when they come home. We’ve always searched for aquatic life there, but it’s becoming harder to find it in the same abundance and diversity as the water dries up. My young- est daughter credits this stream with starting her lifelong interest in water as she works toward a PHD in hydrology with a special interest in dam removal. She’d like her kids to enjoy this stream too. Seventh: Ecovillage is benefited by a conservation easement on their land. Because of this special status afforded to them I think any action that may degrade the environment garners closer scru- tiny and should be held to an even higher not lower standard PB Minutes 10-16-2012 Page 19 of 26 I’d like to address three issues that are germane to this project and make some comments about some of the documentation you have been supplied with. The three issues are the Stream Setback law, the SEQR designation and New York State Riparian Rights Laws. First some comments about the misinterpretation of stream setback laws and discrepancies in the Maps that were provided The letter from Michael Smith of the Planning Department says that “no work will occur in the stream set back area” When making this statement he failed to include the setback width adjust- ment that is to be used when streamside wetlands exist as proscribed on Page 6 Section 2 (270- 219.5) D 10 a-c . What this says and is illustrated in Appendix A figure 3 is that you start measuring the setback not from the stream bank but from the outside edge of the streamside wetland. In subsection c it says that the extent of the streamside wetland may be identified by the presence of hydrid soils and wetland plant indicators These indicators are well delineated on the aerial map provided. The area designated by The Na- tional Wetlands Inventory designation PEMC1. In his short form EAF question C3 he refers to the- se documents but fails to consider them as wetlands for the purpose of delineating the setback. This whole area is considered wetland and is seasonally flooded. The streamside setback should be measured from the outside border of this wetland area. When this is done most of the pur- posed work is within the stream setback area. With this change taken into consideration the statement in Micheal Smiths memo that no work will be done in the setback zone is false and therefore it would be necessary to apply for a variance and when applied for, I suggest it be de- nied. One other deviation from the streamside setback law is taking place in that Ecovillage has started work before a variance has been granted by mowing these wetlands. Any inspection of the area show cattails trying to regrow where they have been mowed and areas of standing water that have been mowed. The excuse was made that this mowing is to keep the water main right of way clear but this right of way is not mowed on the other side of the road and on Westhaven rd where this water main connects there are 8 ft trees in the right of way. This is a copy of that same aerial map you just looked at without the annotations. In this you can appreciate that the stream has been damned and channelized as it exits the culvert and instead of flowing past the pond it flows into the area of the pond that was designed as an outflow. Prior to this alteration the stream water never went into the pond and the springs in the pond added sig- nificantly to the steam flow. I have pictures of those springs taken when the pond was low, and you can appreciate it in other pictures in your packet. By continually keeping the water level be- low the outlet by pumping the water out of the pond the stream never benefits from these springs which have historically been a significant portion of its flow in dry seasons. Mr Smiths memo then goes on to say that he has changed his mind in the last 3 weeks and that this project is no longer considered as an Unlisted action and is instead a Type 2 action for SEQR and therefore he has prepared no SEQR material for the revised plans. In the memo you can read his reasoning for his classification of the project as Type 2 he says that the project is consistent with generally accepted farming practices. I would disagree that denying wetlands water is a gen- erally accepted farming practice. In fact if you look at the literature it specifically says that drain- PB Minutes 10-16-2012 Page 20 of 26 ing fields to improve the ability to plant crops is acceptable but draining water from established wetland that transforms them into anupland is not. He quotes the SEQR Handbook with examples of acceptable practices ” building dikes, ditching, or installation of drainage pipes” as proof that this project is acceptable. If you read this fast you may agree, but when you look at the words more closely it is not. The diversion of water in this project is not building a dike. With regards to streams a dike is an earthen embankment or wall used to confine water so that it doesn’t flood, a dike along a stream is sometimes called a levee. This is not installing drainage piping. And this is not ditching. In the farming practice ditching is described as creating a trench to collect water and transmit it to a stream in order to drain a tillable field. It is not digging a channel for a stream to run through. The assertion that this project is considered ditching is not supported by the literature. If you agree with any of these points than this project should be classified as Unlisted as it was last month. There is another reason it should be classified as Unlisted. In reference to the highlighted area below: When I presented this section of the law I wasn’t sure if it applied to this situation. The town lawyer rightly clarified that this was did not apply in the way I interpreted it and should be disregarded. It states in ECL 617.5 b 1 That each of the actions on an agency Type II list must: (1) in no case, have a significant adverse impact on the environment based on the criteria con- tained in subdivision 617.7(c) of this Part When you look at those criterion of significance adverse impact on the environment in that sec- tion (617.7(c) You see the (c) Criteria for determining significance. (SKIP (1) To determine whether a proposed Type I or Unlisted action may have a significant ad- verse impact on the environment, the impacts that may be reasonably expected to result from the proposed action must be compared against the criteria in this subdivision. The following list is illus- trative, not exhaustive) *** These criteria are considered indicators of significant adverse impacts on the environment: (i) a substantial adverse change in existing air quality, ground or surface water quality or quantity, traffic or noise levels; a substantial increase in solid waste production; a substantial increase in potential for erosion, flooding, leaching or drainage problems; (ii) the removal or destruction of large quantities of vegetation or fauna; substantial interference with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species;(that) impacts on a signifi- cant habitat area; (A riparian corridor is an example of a significant habitat area) substantial adverse impacts on a threatened or endangered species of animal or plant, or the hab- itat of such a species; or other significant adverse impacts to natural resources; PB Minutes 10-16-2012 Page 21 of 26 (v) the impairment of the character or quality of important historical, archeological, architectural, or aesthetic resources or of existing community or neighborhood character; It goes on to say that it is considered significant if xi) changes in two or more elements of the environment, no one of which has a significant impact on the environment, but when considered together result in a substantial adverse impact on the environment; I would ask you to consider if this project may by these criterion have a significant impact and if you do than the project should for this additional reason be classified as Unlisted. If you are willing to consider that it might be unlisted than looking at the short EAF prepared and submitted for the last board meeting would be useful I’d like to call you attention to some of the answers that may not represent reality. This EAF is not on the standard form provided by the DEC. on the second page for question C1 C1 There is a word left out of the question as it was submitted to the board. On the EAF posted on the Department of environmental conservation SEQR web site the C1 question reads “Could the purposed action result in any adverse effects associated with “Existing air quality, sur- face or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, ect (existing traffic pattern, solid waste pro- duction or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems)? In Michael Smiths ver- sion that he submitted to the board he left out the word quantity. To leave out the word ‘quanti- ty” a word that is the crux of the matter brings into question his veracity. With that word quanti- ty included in the question the answer is quite different. The explanation given for this omission was put forth that the version that I had that included the word was a draft. I checked the DEC website and the current version includes the word quantity. I could find no version without the word and no one at the DEC could supply me with a version without the word. In question C2 It asks about adverse effects on aesthetics. I don’t think you can say that there were “no anticipated adverse effect” as was stated in the written answer. It seems obvious that the aes- thetics of the downstream corridor will be adversely affected. In this conclusion I use the defini- tion of aesthetic in the dictionary to mean a pleasing appearance or beautiful In C3 The written answer doesn’t really answer the question. Fauna, shellfish, or wildlife spe- cies will be adversely affected. I discussed this with several people at the DEC. The person the Cortland DEC office in charge of evaluating biologic impact in this area said that it should be obvious to anyone that downstream flora and fauna would be adversely affected by the withdrawal of water for extended periods. Also obvious is the adverse effect to the wetlands when they are deprived of water If you agree with any of these points and certainly you have to agree that the quantity of water would be affected, then in Part III of this form the directions instruct you to Check the box that says “if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant ad- verse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration” PB Minutes 10-16-2012 Page 22 of 26 Given the omissions in the short EAF I think it would be instructive to have an Environmental Im- pact Statement prepared in order to have confidence in the correctness of the answers. The Envi- ronmental Impact statement requires more proof of the assertions made, rather than relying on the conjecture and opinion of the preparer. One last comment on Michael Smiths memo: He references a letter from Edward Marx the county commissioner of Planning and community sustainability. He said it was not clear what additional information should be provided. He may have had additional correspondence not made available to us but this Recommended Modification seems very clear. It says that “the applicant be required to provide an estimate of how the proposal will change the flow of Cliff Park Brook and describe any adverse downstream ecological impacts that could result.” I think this would be valuable in- formation and would in large part be provided by the requirement to prepare an environmental impact statement. A quick comment on the Army Corp of Engineers Letter They state they do not have jurisdiction which is correct but confusingly attached to their letter is a list titled “Agricultural exemptions” This is not a list of generally accepted agricultural practices. Nor is part of the SEQR process Instead these are excerpts from federal statutes. This section 33 CFR 323.4 sited only pertains to discharge of material into waterways and is not list of general agricultural exemptions to be ap- plied to the SEQR process. A few brief comments of the letter submitted by Philip Snyder. I don’t think his opinions should be considered those of an expert witness. I may be wrong but I don’t think his Phd is in hydrology or ecology or any other science. Given his admitted close association with Ecovillage his opinion is not unbiased and should be assessed only in that light. He says that the stream is intermittent and there is no surface flow. Closer inspection of the stream would show that even when there is no surface flow there is water moving down the water course below the surface that it reemerges periodical in deeper holes allowing survival of many species. He says that these dry periods now can extend for weeks. With the purposed changes the dry period would be extended from weeks to months. He also makes the mistake of compar- ing the impounded water to the annual flow rate. In a biological systems, that depends on water, the annual or average flow is meaningless. For example if all the flow is concentrated into 6 months with no flow in the other 6 months that create quite different situation from an intermit- tent flow with at least a little flow during each months yet in both examples the annual flow rates may be the same. I do agree with his comments that there has been a slow degradation of this watershed. I have been to these planning board meetings several times before and made comments about protect- ing Cliff Park Brook. Each time I’ve commented Ecovilage, their engineer ,the town planning de- partment or town engineer have assured the board that there would be only a little or no adverse effects to the stream. But each time there has been a small negative effect. These negative effects have been cumulative. Together with the expansion of Westhill Farm which withdrawals more and more water each year the quality of this stream is slowly being degraded. Along with these changes the recent drought has exacerbated the degradation and changes have just become more evident. These small cumulative effects together are no less devastating than if they were to hap- PB Minutes 10-16-2012 Page 23 of 26 pen all at once only less dramatic. I have always expected that the appropriate bodies would pro- tect my rights rather than forced me to take outside action to achieve redress. I would be very disappointed to again hear that this is only a small change and so I shouldn’t worry about it. Some comments on Riparian rights. New York largely defines the rights, uses and protection of water in Article 15 of the NY Environ- mental Conservation Law 15-0101,1712. New York is considered a “reasonable use” riparian rights jurisdiction. This gives each riparian owner the right to use the water so long as each user does not transgress on the rights of other riparian’s. It treats water as a form of public property rather than private property. All surface waters are subject to the Public Trust Doctrine which mandates that public waters be- long to the populace in common forever. Water may be taken lawfully by a riparian owner for littoral uses unless someone is harmed, with harm defined as interference with a present use of the water or ones present enjoyment of the riparian land or a decrease in the market value on the complaining party interest in riparian land. This is a compilation of case law from previous suits brought by riparian owners who have been harmed. This is a chart of New York Water Law supplied to me by the DEC which explains this law in lay- man’s terms and gives examples of how it has generally been applied by the court. These are some of those examples from this chart and how the law has been applied to protect riparian rights that are germane to this case with a few definitions. Riparian land, as defined, only fall within the watershed of the water course in question The size of the stream is not important. It may be a tiny stream or a large river the stream need not be navigable. As a result of ownership of riparian land a riparian owner has in common with other riparian own- ers the rights to reasonable use of the stream. Reasonable use is essentially common sense. If you compare the use you are making of the water with other riparian owners and your use predomi- nates to the disadvantage of the others, then your use is likely to be held unreasonable. The type of use or activity must be reasonable in terms of accepted uses and the extent of the use must not be out of proportion with the size of the body of water. One riparian owners’ rights should not destroy another riparian owners and visa versa. All riparian owners share the right to continued flow in a stream or lake without substantial de- crease in quality or quantity. Rriparian owners must use water taken, only on riparian lands. The riparian owner cannot use water on lands owned by him which are outside the watershed. Westhaven farm and portions of the Groundswell farm are outside the Cliff Park Brook wa- tershed. These are pictures of the drainpipe below Westhill farm. It is showing a flow when there is no flow in the brook. The water coming from this pipe which has a good flow even in dry weather does not return to the brook when it comes out of this pipe, instead it flows north to Mecklenburg PB Minutes 10-16-2012 Page 24 of 26 road (and into the Llinderman creek water shed). As you can see from these pictures the roadside ditch below Westhaven farm gets plenty of water and has cattails and willow trees growing it. I have other pictures that same day that show flow out of the culvert under Rachael Carson way toward a still filling pond. But no flow leaving Ecovillage nor any flow at the culvert under West- haven Rd. A riparian owner cannot remove water to sell it. Westhaven farm is an independent commercial enterprise that leases land from Ecovillage. The water supplied to Westhaven farm could be con- sidered a utility supplied as part of the lease agreement and therefore the water is being sold. The riparian owner can not impound water in a reservoir from a stream in a wet season for later use during a dry season if this activity could be harmful to others. Causing the decrease in market value of ta riparian owners property to the extent of making it less suitable for present activities, such as enjoyment of the natural beauty of the water could be con- sidered unreasonable. In general the courts have held that just because a large manufacturer is economically more im- portant than a smaller less important owner, unreasonable use at the expense of the lessers activi- ty is not permitted It’s important to identify that the large riparian owner in this case, is not the people who live in Echovillage but the large single large overarching corporation who owns the land and is pumping the water to two other non riparian corporations with whom they have business ar- rangements. The people who live in Ecovillage have no riparian rights individually or collectively as they own no land that borders this stream These laws acknowledge that the state, federal or in this case local government can limit or take completely private riparian rights of an individual citizen for public use. If this taking is by power of eminent domain, the riparian owner must be justly compensated. In this case if I assert my riparian rights and do not allow Ecovillage to go forward with this pro- ject, it would not doom Westhaven farm or the Groundswell farm There are at least three good alternatives, to this proposal with lesser impact. There is another larger farm pond up hill from the farm already in existence that could be used. Wells could be dug or municipal water could be purchased. The other pond that they have available is just uphill from the Groundswell farm and could be gravity fed thus saving energy. It was mentioned that this pond is required for fire safety but for fighting fires there is a more than adequate supply of water in the form of a large water tank and several fire hydrants on the property as well as the current two ponds. It has been mentioned that a lower water level in this other pond would not be as aesthetically pleasing to the residents of Echovillage and they would lose the recreational value. Should they divert this stream I would lose the aesthetic value of a gurgling brook and it’s recreational value. It would seem more appropri- ate for the residents of Ecovillage to make this sacrifice since they ones are accruing the value of the water. Digging wells is entirely feasible. I have a well on my property that has always functioned well. Using the numbers given here they estimate to need 90,000 gallons/wk. With there being 10,080 minutes in a week, they would need less than 9 gallons a minute from this source to meet their needs. A normal household well usually has a minimum output of 5 gallons/min about the amount PB Minutes 10-16-2012 Page 25 of 26 used by a normal shower head. The 9 gallons/min required could be easily sustained with just a few wells. Municipal water is available: This is an inexhaustible supply that is scalable and can increase as these farms expand. The current project by the designers own estimation may not be adequate to meet their current needs and will not be able to scale up with future development. Bolton point’s established rate for water is $.419/100 gallons. At that rate 1,000,000 gallons would cost $4,190. This would seem a reasonable cost to be split between an independent commercial enterprise Westhaven Farm that has published revenues of $100,000s of dollars and an enterprise, Groundswell farm, that is trying to educate farmers about the cost of doing business. If any one of these method proves to be inadequate any combination of may be feasible. I’m not alone in my objections to his plan. I have a signed letter from Rose Flacco who property abuts Ecovillage and through whose property Cliff Park Brook runs. Other than the portion in Ecovillage together our properties comprise all but a few feet of this stream until it enters the city of Ithaca. In conclusion For all these reasons I think the short EAF would not provide the board with sufficient information to make a determination of significance. I think you would require a draft EIS. I would appreciate if the board followed the recommendation of Commissioner of Planning and Community Sustainability and require specific estimates of how the proposal would change the flow in Cliff Park Brook and describe adverse downstream ecological impacts. I would suggest that in order to adequately assess the biologic community downstream, the brook should be returned to it’s natural state for an extended period of time. This would give the time required for it to re- cover from the cumulative effects that it has suffered from in the past. I also think that a hydrologic report with an estimation of the recharge rate of the pond and flow rates as the brook exits the culvert under Rachel Carson road would be essential in crafting an eq- uitable distribution of water to the riparian landowners. I think it clear from all this that my riparian rights are being violated by Ecovillage and I could and should bring suit to protect those rights now that I am aware as to the extent of past transgres- sions and to prevent future transgressions. However, I would prefer it, if the board were to instruct Ecovillage to return the stream to it’s nat- ural course or refer the matter to the appropriate enforcement agency with jurisdiction in the matter. Mitigation. I would suggest that a plan of mitigation might have a dam that was design to let a minimum amount of water through during dry periods. Another might be to have water pumped from the pond into the stream during times of drought thus sharing the resource as is done on many water systems. In these systems the water is often apportioned by the distance the water runs on the respective properties. A water control structure at the culvert under Rachael Carson drive could serve two purposes. It could when first installed measure the flow on a daily basis. The data generated could be used to craft an equitable distribution plan. The structure could then be modified so that it allowed a min- imum through to the stream, when this was exceeded the excess could be directed to the pond, when the pond was full or if there was a higher flow state that might silt up the pond it could again PB Minutes 10-16-2012 Page 26 of 26 be directed to the stream or split equitably between the two systems. A plan such as this with the enlargement of the pond should meet the need of the farm and still provide enough water to the stream to support wildlife. This plan is a compromise, I (the stream) would not get the benefit of the springs in the pond and Ecovillage would get less water during low flow states but benefit from a larger reservoir and excess flow. This water control structure would do the same thing that Ecovillage claims is happening now with the earthen dam and swale which they say is porous and lets some water through whenever there is flow but it would do so in a controlled predictable and assured manner that would not change over time. I’ve sketch out such a water control structure that depends on simple high school physics with no moving parts that would require little human input except occasional cleaning.