Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1979-09-26`�2v u�v� TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 26, 1979 The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on Wednesday, September 26, 1979, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman Peter K. Francese, Edward W. King, Edward N. Austen, Joan G. Reuning, Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E. (Town Engineer/Building Inspector), Nancy M. Fuller (Secretary). ALSO PRESENT: Robert Kellogg, Gloria Kellogg, Debbie Teeter, Edward Kellogg, Mabel D. Arnold, Ruth A. Miller, Catherine T. Kellogg, Robert M. Kellogg Sr., Emmett N. Bergman, Thomas M. Shea, William Cook, Larry Fischer, Boyd Pack, Marguerite J. Pack, Tom Farrell, Patti Farrell, Robert B. DeKay, Ruth Royce, Craig Goldwyn, Sanford Reuning, Mrs. Clyde Boyer, Mrs, Francis Russell, Francis Russell, Ruth Rice McMillan, Christianne McMillan, Ernest E. Hardy, Bob Lynch (WTKO News), Carol Eisenberg (Ithaca Journal). Chairman Francese declared the meeting duly opened at 7:37 p.m. ® and accepted for the record the Clerk's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearing in Town Hall and The Ithaca Journal on September 18, 1979 and September 21, 19791 respectively, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice to each of the neighbors of the property under discussion, upon Chemung Contracting Corp., and upon the Appellant on September 20, 1979. APPEAL OF KARL BUTLER, APPELLANT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO EXTRACT BANK RUN GRAVEL AND RESTORE THE LANDS AT 270 ENFIELD FALLS ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-33-1-24.2, ITHACA, N.Y. PERMISSION IS DENIED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR UNDER ARTICLE XIII, SECTION 70, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. Chairman Francese declared the Public matter duly opened at 7:38 p.m. and read Public Hearing as posted and published and Francese stated that, as a preface to this are heard, he would like to read Section Ordinance. Chairman Francese read: Hearing in the above -noted aloud from the Notice of as noted above. Chairman meeting and before people 70 of Article XIII of the "Extraction of Natural Products. In any district no sod, loam, sand, gravel or stone shall be removed or offered for sale except in connection with a public work on the property or the removal of silt or other recently accumulated material that blocks a normal flow of a is water course without the special approval of the Board of Appeals. In applying for such approval, the applicant shall submit to the Board a plan of the proposed project, showing property lines, and adjacent . Zoning Board of Appeals -2- September 26, 1979 ® public ways, grades and depths of proposed removal, soil types to be removed, and proposed regrading and replanting of the property upon completion of the operation. In considering the proposed use the Board shall take into account the distance of the operation from the neighboring property and public ways, the possible detriment of such use to the future development of the land in question, and the possible nuisance or detriment of the operation to neighboring landowners and to the community as a whole. The Board may impose such conditions upon the applicant as it deems necessary to protect the general welfare of the community, which may include a time limit upon operations, and the requirements that a performance bond be posted to insure compliance with the requirements of this ordinance and with any further reasonable conditions imposed by the Board. IlAny normal building operation in connection with a legal building permit, such as excavation, filling, or grading, shall be excepted from the provisions of this Section." Chairman Francese asked if there were any questions. There were none. Mrs. Ruth A. Miller, 216 Enfield Falls Road, spoke from the floor and stated that she has lived in her home for 30 years -- today, September 26th. Mrs. Miller stated that she would like to present for the record and to be entered into the Minutes a petition from the community opposing the gravel pit operation. Mrs. Miller read the ® Petition aloud (attached hereto as Exhibit 1) and noted that it contains 61 names. Mrs. Miller also presented a telegram from Pocasset, Massachusetts, from Milton and Helen Barnett of 238 Enfield Falls Road, to Ernest Hardy, reading "Appreciate your representing our strongest views opposing proposed gravel project. We resent this intrusion on community life." Chairman Francese accepted the Petition and asked if there were anyone present from the Appellant. Mr. Larry Fischer, Chemung Contracting Corp., Elmira, New York, stated that he was present as Agent, along with Mr. William B. Cook, representing Mr. Butler who, unfortunately, has been in the hospital and is unable to attend. Mr. Fischer presented, for the Board's review, twenty (20) photographs dated September 1979 showing the present state of the land at this abandoned pit. Referring to the photographs, Mr. Fischer pointed out one to one -and -one-half acres in the center of "this" westerly section which is heavily eroded and badly used, mentioning rifle shooting, garbage, etc. Mr. Fischer described the machinery to be utilized and the technical equipment involved and noted that, at the end of the excavation -- in one month to five weeks -- they will be seeding, grading, and putting in a rye base. Chairman Francese asked for clarification that the gravel excavation will be only for four or five weeks. Mr. Fischer stated that that was correct, adding that they will extract about 20,000 to 30,000 cubic yards. Chairman Francese asked for what purpose the ® gravel will be extracted, with Mr. Fischer responding, for the Cherry Street Industrial Park, near Ithaco, in the City of Ithaca. 0 0 Zoning Board of Appeals -3- September 26, 1979 Chairman Francese noted that at the end of the 4 to 5 weeks the Appellant is proposing to grade according to the plan submitted, entitled "Butler Gravel Pit - Ithaca, N.Y. - Contour of Reclaimed Land", dated September 18, 1979, Drawing Number B-2. Chairman Francese offered that it was his understanding that there is an operating gravel pit near Coy Glen, Mr. Fischer stated that that was not correct, adding that that pit has been shut down. Mr. Fischer, commenting that they selected this site because of concerns about congestion to the local populace, stated that, as far as congestion during school hours, this would cause the least amount of congestion relative to any other pit, adding that it is approximately five miles, one way, from the Cherry Street Industrial Park, Mr. King asked how far it is from this site to Landstroms, with Mr. Fischer responding, approximately 13 miles, round trip. Chairman Francese asked when this excavation is proposed to begin, with Mr. Fischer responding, as soon as possible. Mr. King asked what the area of this pit is as shown on the diagram B-1. Mr. Fischer stated that approximately 5 acres is Mr. Butler's land and they would be using about one to one -and -one-half acres. Chairman Francese described the leveling and reclamation plan as shown on the plan. Mr. Fischer noted that a letter, dated September 17, 1979, had been sent by Mr. William B. Cook, Superintendent, Chemung Contracting Corporation, 1209 Upper Broadway, Elmira,.N.Y., to Mr. Fabbroni as Town Engineer. Mr. Fischer read the letter in its entirety into the record. [Said letter attached hereto as Exhibit 2.1 Chairman Francese stated that he would like to notify the people present that a Long .Environmental Assessment Form has been completed and submitted to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, as required by the SEQR law. [Said Form is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.] Chairman Francese asked if there were any further questions. Mr. King stated that he was not sure just where the excavating is going to be done, noting that the letter indicates the western portion. Mr. Fischer stated that that was correct. Mr. King, referring to the diagram, noted that "this" line indicates that "this" area will be sloped to the east. Mr. Fischer stated that that was not correct, adding that the existing pit is on Mr. Butler's land, further adding that Mrs. McMillan owns easterly and Mr. Butler owns westerly, and adding further that none of the excavation is out of Mrs. McMillan's land. Mr. Fischer, indicating on the diagram, pointed out that the excavation is within the limits of the "dotted lines" -- to the east and south. Mr. Fischer stated that they will not exceed the limitations of the "dotted lines", adding that they will be strictly in the center, and further adding that they would not exceed the existing pit. With respect to the western bank, Mr. Fischer stated that they have talked to Mr. Mobbs and he would like it left as is. For the record, the following letter dated September 26, 1979 from William J. Mobbs, 272 Enfield Falls Road, to Town Enginer Fabbroni was received. "...Subject: Zoning Variance - Butler Property Zoning Board of Appeals -4- September 26, 1979 ® Unfortunately, due to a prior commitment, I will be unable to attend the hearing. I would request that a decision not be made at the hearing in order that I could state my position, as the resident closest to the proposed activity, and respond to any questions the board might have prior to their decision. I would seek your direction as to how this could be accomplished." Mr. Fabbroni pointed out that the "Before" map ["B-1"] shows a contour, northerly, of 25 feet, on the "After" map ["B-2"] it is gone, adding that that particular contour is on the McMillan land. Mr. Fabbroni also pointed out that the contours change down near the entrance on the "Before" and "After" maps. Mr. Fabbroni stated that, although the limits are shown on the Butler land, there is some .confusion. Mr. Fischer, noting that there is an existing drive that is on the property line of Mrs. McMillan and Mr. Butler, stated that they would put in a sluice pipe and a new drive. Mr. Robert B. DeKay, 130 Enfield Falls Road, spoke from the floor and asked which way the trucks will travel, with Mr. Fischer responding, toward Route 13, and with Mr. DeKay stating that that is down where children and people are. Mr. Fischer stated that Mr. Mobbs lives above that and Mr. DeKay stated that they will not see the trucks. Mr. Fischer responded, yes, it is right in their back yard, and Mr. DeKay responded, no, they will not pass his house. Chairman Francese asked if Mrs. McMillan were present. She was. 40 Chairman Francese asked Mrs. McMillan if she had anything to say. Mrs. McMillan stated that she certainly wanted to be sure that the property is left -better than they found it, and, as one can see from the pictures the way it is from the people who last took gravel out of there, that it would be left in much better shape than it was. Mrs. McMillan stated that she has talked with Mr. Butler and he certainly thinks that when he finishes with it, it is going to be in much better shape than it is now. Mrs. McMillan offered that, actually, according to the aerial view, there is very little gravel left there, and then it could be absolutely closed up for that sort of thing and made to be as presentable as possible. Mr. DeKay stated that we are talking about a safety feature for our families and homes, we are talking about trucks going down that grade. Mr. DeKay stated that there is no truck that can guarantee against its brakes going. Chairman Francese asked Mrs. McMillan if she lived there, with Mrs. McMillan responding that she lives at 812 Elmira Road and that is the very edge of their farm, adding that it runs back from the road and up into the woods and Steep Hollow Glen, which is just behind this, is part of their farm. Mr. DeKay, commenting that he knows about trucks and cars because he is a car dealer, stated that that hill is very steep with the danger of running through buildings and ® hitting people, adding that there is a bad safety feature coming down that hill just driving a car. Mr. King asked what equipment would be used at this gravel pit Zoning Board of Appeals -5- September 26, 1979 ® site, with Mr. Fischer responding, bulldozer, payloader, trucks, and in the restoration process in the final week, they will bring in seeding equipment. Mr. King noted that the EAF mentions two payloaders. Mr. Fischer stated that they had that at first, but decided on one. Mr. King asked if there would be a crusher, with Mr. Fischer responding, no, absolutely not, adding that a water spreader is not anticipated, but there will be one on the Cherry Street Industrial Park site which could be moved in quickly. Mr. King asked about the depth of the excavation, with Mr. Fischer responsing, three feet higher than existing Rte. 327, graded to even contour as Rte. 327, Mr. King wondered if any portion were to be excavated below the present level of Rte. 327 and Mr. Fischer responded, no. Mr. King asked Mr. Fischer if he had heard mentioned in the Petition that was read a trout stream in this vicinity. Mr. Fischer stated that he did not know anything about that. Mr. DeKay stated that he knew, adding that it goes right behind his house. Mr. Fabbroni stated that it is north of this site. Mr. King wondered if Mr. Fabbroni were talking about something uphill, with Mr. Fabbroni responding, no, the stream is below the site because of the ridge of this site. Mr. Fabbroni asked, with regard to the north slope, if the applicant were proposing to do nothing with the areas that are still bare at that slope, or if they were intending to do some restoration. Mr. Fischer stated that the direct northern slope is bare and will be graded back and seeded. It was noted that there is evidence that the ® preceeding excavator left a jagged edge which is outside of the applicant's excavation area. Mr. Austen asked about the slope on the southern site. Mr. Fischer stated that the southern slope acts as a barrier to the pit, adding that it is fairly well vegetated and that it looks like it was mined out farther back, and further adding that the other site was more recently. It was noted that the southern site has not been mined for years and that nature has taken her course; the northern slope is the part that is scarred. Mr. Ernest E. Hardy, 215 Enfield Falls Road, spoke from the floor and stated that there is a question on the northern slope as to whether there is sufficient gravel to excavate. Chairman Francese described where the applicant wishes to excavate. Mr. Hardy questioned whether there was sufficient material to level "that" area. Mr. Fischer stated that they will not be excavating "there"s they will grade only. Mr. King asked Mr. Fischer to describe the area now. Mr. Fischer, commenting that the pictures show better than words can, stated that there are no trees in the area they wish to excavate. Mr. Fabbroni noted that the eastern edge of "this" excavation does not get into the area where the poplar trees are going. Mr. Fischer stated that that is on the McMillan land. ® Chairman Francese asked at what time the school bus goes up the street to pick up kids. A voice responded that there are three or four busses involved at 7:15 a.m. to 7:55 a.m. in the morning, and in U Zoning Board of Appeals -6- September 26, 1979 the afternoon, the first one is at 2:15 p.m. and the last bus is around 4:45 p.m. Mr. DeKay spoke again of the creek by his house. Mrs. Catherine T. Kellogg, 287 Enfield Falls Road, spoke from the floor and stated that she would also like to present a Petition, adding that it is another one supporting the other one previously presented. [The referenced Petition is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.1 Mrs. Kellogg stated that she personally owns the property next to "this" stand of trees, adding that they are planning to build a home there in the future and she does not want to look down on a gravel pit. Chairman Francese pointed out that the applicant is petitioning to extract gravel for four or five weeks. Mrs. Catherine T. Kellog and Mr. Robert M. Kellogg Sr. responded that they have heard this before. Chairman Francese noted that the Kelloggs apparently do not feel that the restoration of this pit in the manner which has been proposed and the temporary nature of this excavation is sufficient guarantee to them, adding that the photographs show a rather unsightly spot. Mr. Hardy stated that he has not heard enough evidence that they are going to restore it, adding that restoration includes a lot more than just rye grass. ® Mr. Kellogg asked if someone could tell him who has the authority and who polices this to the satisfaction of the neighborhood. Chairman Francese stated that the Board can require a performance bond and, if the land is not restored then the Town can collect this money and hire people to restore the land, and also to assure that the contractor ceases operation when he says he will. Mrs. Kellogg wondered if it can be restored without removing gravel. Mr. Edward Kellogg, 4 Gray Road, spoke from the floor and asked if there were a certain proposal in regard to grading. Chairman Francese stated that there will be approximately a three-foot drop from the roadway back and, as he understands it, the banks would have relatively little work done on them. Mr. Fabbroni, noting that Mr. Fischer had said that the excavation was three feet above the road, asked at what point of the "future" plan he had been talking about, and questioned if he were talking about way up in the northwest corner of the pit. Mr. Fischer responded, yes, and Mr. Fabbroni asked, in relation to what point of the road -- the entrance? Mr. Fischer responded, yes. Chairman Francese asked Mr. Fischer if he had any plans to close off any entrance to this pit. Mr. Fischer stated that it would be removed if Mrs. McMillan wishes them to do so, adding that it is on her land. Mr. Edward Kellogg asked what the slope would be, with Mr. Fischer responding that the existing slope would be maintained. Mrs. Catherine T. Kellogg and Mr. Robert M. Kellogg Sr. noted that the existing slope is grown over, adding that if he leaves ® it as it is, it would not be a hazard. Mr. Ernest Hardy reiterated that he had not heard a thing about rehabilitation of a gravel bank, adding that if he gets gravel, he Zoning Board of Appeals -7- September 26, 1979 ® would rehabilitate. Chairman Francese asked Mr. Hardy what he would suggest. Mr. Hardy stated that he would suggest a proper angle of repose, etc., adding that he would prefer to see it left as is and not touch a thing than see this travesty go on, and further adding that you do not see the pit now. Mr. DeKay suggested going the other way, that is, turn right and go to the Cherry Street Industrial Park from the other way and go up past Mobbs, adding that they are all dirt roads in the area. Chairman Francese stated that he, for one, would like to take a look at this --site, adding that what he thinks he is going to do, unless there is someone else to speak, is that he would like to adjourn this Public Hearing to another time and let the members look over the site itself. Mr. Fabbroni offered that he had some information in this regard for the Board and everyone else to understand that once the Board took any action, presuming it was favorable, the applicant still must comply with the State Mining and Reclamation Law, noting that this kind of mining falls under this. Mr. Fabbroni noted that even though the EAF says that they have to go to this Board for their review, it is most likely that the DEC would be the lead agency because they are the enforcer of the mined land and reclamation law, adding that, to that extent, he would monitor nothing that this Board would approve, ® the DEC in Cortland would monitor anything under this law and they would require a performance bond for any land that is disturbed, and this includes, for example, the grading limits that are established. Mr. Fabbroni offered that now the biggest change is they see the law pretty locally in terms of a gravel proprietor not properly reclaiming and DEC coming in and making them comply, adding that this occurred in a pit off Culver Road and since they violated the terms of the DEC their pit was closed. Mr. King wondered what role the Soil Conservation Service plays in this, if any. Mr. Fabbroni stated that they advise and recommend with respect to revegetation of slopes, angle of repose, etc., and could work in conjunction with DEC, but DEC has their own experts, adding that they have specialists just for mining permits. Mr. King wondered if we have local people here in Soil Conservation, with Mr. Fabbroni responding, yes, and adding that they are more advisory. Mr. Hardy stated that he believed they have to file a detailed soil map of the area. The question was asked if this has been done; no answer was forthcoming. Mrs. Ruth A. Miller, 216 Enfield Falls Road, spoke from the floor and asked Mr. Fischer how many loads per day will occur and how many days per week, with Mr. Fischer responding, 80-100 loads a day, five days a week. Mr. Hardy commented that they have already had one fatal truck accident on that road, and spoke of two -and -a -half minutes for every ® truck. Mr. Fabbroni offered some clarification of the limit of the elevation, noting that elevation compared to the existing elevations. Zoning Board of Appeals -8- September 26, 1979 ® Mr. Fischer referred to the "dotted line" on drawing "B-2" and compared the elevations on "Before" and "After", noting that, in relation to Rte.327, the elevation would be zero. A voice from the floor asked what the capacity of the trucks is, with Mr. Fischer responding, 15 tons, 8 cubic yards per truck. It was noted that this works out to about 20,000 cubic yards. Chairman Francese asked how many cubic yards are required for Cherry Street, with Mr. Fischer responding, about 30,000. Chairman Francese asked if they plan to get it all from this site, with Mr. Fischer responding, yes. Mr. William B. Cook of Chemung Contracting Corporation, spoke from the floor and, commenting that they are in the contracting business, stated that they own their trucks and they have some trucks which can take 14 cubic yards and some that can take 7. Mr. Edward Kellogg, 4 Gray Road, asked that the contractor please check out Gray Road, noting that it is a steep, gravel road. There appearing to be no further questions, comments, or discussion, Chairman Francese MOVED, as follows. RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, that the matter of the Karl Butler Appeal be and hereby is adjourned to Wednesday, October 10, 1979, at.7:30 p.m. ® Mr. King seconded the MOTION. Aye - Francese, King, Austen, Reuning. Nay — None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman Francese declared the Karl Butler Appeal duly adjourned to Wednesday, October 10, 1979, at 7:30 p.m. [Secretary's Note: For the record, the following letter, dated September 26, 1979, to Mr. Lawrence Fabbroni was received from Frank R. Liguori, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning. "...Re: Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239-1 and -m of the General Municipal Law. Case: Appeal of Karl Butler, 270 Enfield Falls Road, a State highway. >...If the proposed action requires building a new access to the highway a Department of Transportation permit is required. With that condition, it appears that there are no significant adverse impacts on any state, county or other municipal facility. Therefore, you may proceed without prejudice."] ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion, Chairman Francese declared the September 26, 1979 ® meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Zoning Board of Appeals U -9- September 26, 1979 Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Zoning Bord of Appeals. Peter K. Francese, Chairman, Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. A PETITION TO THE ZONING BOARD'OF APPEALS TOWN OF ITHACA, N.Y. In session at Town of Ithaca Office Sept. 24, 1979 We, the undersigned, urge the Zoning Board of Appeals to refuse the request of Karl Butler to open a gravel pit extraction and processing operation -in the area zoned R-30 on the Enfield Falls Road in the Town of Ithaca. We cite the following reasons in support of our demand. 1. The zoning ordinance of the Town of Ithaca prohibits such use in areas zoned R-30. The housing and residential areas along the Enfield Falls Road have been well established for over 20 years. Allowing gravel pit operations to become established in an existing residential area is contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca. 2. Gravel extraction within an area zoned R-30 would constitute a non -conforming use. 3. There are abundant sources of gravel available in the Ithaca area from numerous gravel pits already in operation in areas legitimately zoned for that use. ® 4. Numerous young children must be on State Highway 327 (Enfield Falls Road) at various times of the day to gain access and egress to and from school buses and their homes. 5. The road is travelled by many thousands of cars each month operated by people wishing to enter Treman State Park who are strangers to the area. Thepresence of heavily loaded gravel trucks going down the very steep grades toward the very sharp corners at the park entrance present anbunacceptable hazard to human life. 6. The Department of Parks and Recreation is making an effort to maintain Route 327 between the upper and lower entrance in a condition of natural beauty. Opening of a gravel pit along the route would shatter that goal. 7. The runoff from the proposed site has only one possible route, and that'is into a stream protected by the State of New York as a trout fishing stream. r -2- 8. The proposed site, although currently rough terrain, has ® rehabilitated naturally to a substantial growth of trees, shrubs, aN and grasses. In its present state it does not present a hazard in terms of human safety or pollution. If disturbed for gravel extraction it will be a hazard to humans, and a very high factor of stream pollution. 9. The current highway accident level at the site of the proposed gravel excavation and the steep curvy hill below it is already extremely high, averaging one a week. Gravel operations would add to this problem, with the loss of human life a probability every day of operation. 10. The assessed value of residential properties within the immediate vicinity is currently approximately $1,500,000. Introduction of a gravel operation into this residential area would reduce residential values by 1/2.to 1/3, thereby reducing the tax base of the town by a proportionate amount. There is no possibility of the gravel operation paying enough taxes to compensate for the loss of residential values due to the ® introduction of the gravel pit, thereby imposing a financial hardship on the residents of the town. Most of the above arguments were valid on a previous occasion when Karl Butler applied for, and was denied a permit to operate a gravel pit on the site on Enfield Falls Road in September of 1975. Since then residential values have increased, the site has been mostly rehabilited by natural succession of plant growth, trafrfic flow has increased sharply and there are many more very young children in the area. For the reasons cited above, we feel the insertion of a gravel pit operation into the R-30 area as requested by the applicant is completely unjustifiable and should be denied. SI NED ADDRESS f SIGNED ./ (Continued) Z`1 i1 L� s .3 - ADDRESS i s I en-�Ze I A pici z'n rt' to. 4C r, Z2-7 �� �el�, tally REQ i` cat HMO 1� i 1 v 7 frig 0 ff 0 A PETITION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOGIN OF ITHACA, N.Y. In session at Town of Ithaca Office Sept. 24, 1979 We, the undersigned, urge the Zoning Board of Appeals to refuse the request of Karl Butler to open a gravel pit extraction and processing operation in the area zoned R-30 on the Enfield Falls Road in the Town of Ithaca. We cite the following reasons in support of our demand. 1. The zoning ordinance of the Town of Ithaca prohibits such use in areas zoned R-30. The housing and residential areas along the Enfield Falls Road have been well established for over 20 years. Allowing gravel pit operations to become established in an existing residentialarea is contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca. 2. Gravel extraction within an area zoned R-30 would constitute a non -conforming use. 3. There are abundant sources of gravel available in the Ithaca area from numerous gravel pits already in operation in areas ® legitimately zoned for that use. 4. Numerous young children must be on State Highway 327 (Enfield Falls Road) at various times of the day to gain access and egress to and from school buses and their homes. 5. The road is travelled by many thousands of cars each month operated by people wishing to enter Treman State Park who are strangers to the area. The presence of heavily loaded gravel trucks going down the very steep grades toward the very sharp corners at the park entrance present an unacceptable hazard to human life. 6. The Department of Parks and Recreation is making an effort to',. maintain Route 327 between the upper and lower entrance in a condition of natural beauty. Opening of a gravel pit along the route would shatter that goal. 7. The runoff from the proposed site has only one possible route, and that'is into a stream protected by the State of New York as a trout fishing stream. -2- 8. The proposed site, although currently rough terrain, has rehabilitated naturally to a substantial growth of trees, shrubs, sM and grasses. In its present state it does not present a hazard in terms of human safety or pollution. If disturbed for gravel extraction it will be a hazard to humans, and a very high factor of stream pollution, 9. The current highway accident level at the site of the proposed gravel excavation and the steep curvy hill below it is already extremely high, averaging one a week. Gravel operations would add to this problem, with the loss of human life a probability every day of operation. 10. The assessed value of residential properties within the immediate vicinity is currently approximately $1,500,000. Introduction of a gravel operation into this residential area would reduce residential values by 1/2 to 1/3, thereby reducing the tax base of the -town by a proportionate amount. There is no possibility of the gravel operation paying enough taxes to compensate for the loss of residential values due to the ® introduction of the gravel pit, thereby imposing a financial hardship on the residents of the town. Most of the above arguments were valid on a previous occasion when Karl Butler applied for, and was denied a permit to operate a gravel pit on the site on Enfield Falls Road in September of 1975. §ince then residential, values have increased, the site has been mostly rehabilited by natural succesiion of plant growth, traffic flow has increased sharply and there are many more very young children in the area, For the reasons cited above, we feel the insertion of a gravel pit operation into the R-30 area as requested by the applicant is completely unjustifiable and should be denied. SIGNED ADDRESS JI 11 -3- SIGNED (Continued) ADDRESS Ell A PETITION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ITHACA, N.Y. In session at Town of Ithaca Office Sept. 26, 1979 [1e, the undersigned, urge the Zoning Board of Appeals to refuse the request of Karl Butler to open a gravel pit extraction and processing operation in the area zoned R-30 on the Enfield Falls Road in the Town of Ithaca. We cite the following reasons in support of our demand. 1. The zoning ordinance of the Town of Ithaca prohibits such use in areas zoned R-30. The housing and residential areas along the Enfield Falls Road have been well established for over 20 years. Allowing gravel pit operations to become established in an existing residential area is contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca. 2. Gravel extraction within an area zoned R-30 would constitute a non -conforming use. 3. There are abundant sources of gravel available in the Ithaca area from numerous gravel pits already in operation in areas legitimately zoned for that use. 4. Numerous young children must be on State Highway 327 (Enfield Falls Road) at various times of the day to gain access and egress to and from school buses and their homes. 5. The road is travelled by many thousands of cars each month operated by people wishing to enter Trepan State Park who are strangers to the area. The presence of heavily loaded gravel trucks going down the very steep grades toward the very sharp corners at the parl�u entrance present an unacceptable hazard to human life. 6. The Department of Parks and Recreation is making an effort to maintain Route 327 between the upper and lower entrance in a condition of natural beauty. Opening of a gravel pit along the route would shatter that goal. 7. The runoff from the proposed site has only one possible route, and that'is into a stream protected by the State of New York as a trout fishing stream. -2- 8. The proposed site, although currently rough terrain, has rehabilitated naturally to a substantial growth of trees, shrubs, 4nW and grasses. In its present state it does not present a hazard in terms of human safety or pollution. If disturbed for gravel extraction it will be a hazard to humans, and a very high factor of stream pollution. 9. The current highway accident level at the site of the proposed gravel excavation and the steep curvy hill below it is already extremely high, averaging one a week. Gravel operations would -- add to this problem, with the loss of human life a probability every day of operation. 10. The assessed value of residential properties within the immediate vicinity is currently approximately $1,500,000. Introduction of a gravel operation into this residential area would reduce residential values by 1/2 to 1/3, thereby reducing the tax base of the town by a proportionate amount. There is no possibility of the gravel operation paying enough taxes to compensate for the loss of residential values due to the introduction of the gravel pit, thereby imposing a financial hardship on the residents of the town. Most of the above arguments were valid on a previous occasion when Karl Butler applied for, and was denied a permit to operate a gravel pit on the site on Enfield Falls Road in September of 1975. §ince then residential values have increased, the site has been mostly rehabilited by natural succession of plant growth, traffic flow has increased sharply and there are many more very young children in the area. For the reasons cited above, we feel the insertion of a gravel pit operation into the R-30 area as requested by the applicant is completely unjustifiable and should be denied. SIGNED ADDRESS s e� CD Uil -3- SIGNED (Continued) ADDRESS _- All1In 11 I n Chemung Contracting Corporation 1209 Upper Broadway Post Office Box 284 Elmira, New York 14902 Mr. Larry Fraboni Town Engineer 126 E. Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 RE: Parcel 6-33-1-24.2 Karl Butler Route 327 Enfield Falls Road Town of Ithaca Dear Mr. Fraboni: September 17, 1979 We propose to utilize the above referenced parcel for the re- moval of approximately 30,000 cubic yards of unprocessed gravel material. The material will be mined for the sole use of con- structing the Cherry Street Industrial Park in the City of Ithaca, New York. This parcel has been selected for both practical mental considerations. From a possible hauling route, between be established. In respect to misused parcel of land could be practical standpoint, points of supply and environmental views, a improved, and environ - the shortest usage, would previously In reference to practical use, this parcel contains the closest known gravel deposit in relation to the Cherry Street Industrial Park. The utilization of this source would cause the least possible annoyance in relation to traffic congestion. A short -and direct haul route would be established, which would pro- duce the least amount of congestion possible. From an environmental standpoint, a land restoration program would be established to help reclaim this parcel from its' existing state of an abandoned gravel pit. An inspection of the gravel pit, in its' existing state, re- vealed that the western portion contains many steep cliffs, scarred and eroding faces, and sparse vegetation. Litter in the form of beer cans, spent shotgun shells, discarded rifle targets, papers and old automobile parts were spread over the entire eastern section, resulting in nothing short of an eyesore. i _J Chemung Contracting Corporation 1209 Upper Broadway Post Office Box 284 Elmira, New York 14902 Mr. Larry Fraboni Town Engineer 126 E. Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 RE: Parcel 6-33-1-24.2 Karl Butler Route 327 Enfield Falls Road Town of Ithaca Dear Mr. Fraboni: September 17, 1979 We propose to utilize the above referenced parcel for the re- moval of approximately 30,000 cubic yards of unprocessed gravel material. The material will be mined for the sole use of con- structing the Cherry Street Industrial Park in the City of Ithaca, New York. This parcel has been selected for both practical mental considerations. From a possible hauling route, between be established. In respect to misused parcel of land could be practical standpoint, points of supply and environmental views, a improved, and environ - the shortest usage, would previously In reference to practical use, this parcel contains the closest known gravel deposit in relation to the Cherry Street Industrial Park. The utilization of this source would cause the least possible annoyance in relation to traffic congestion. A short -and direct haul route would be established, which would pro- duce the least amount of congestion possible. From an environmental standpoint, a land restoration program would be established to help reclaim this parcel from its' existing state of an abandoned gravel pit. An inspection of the gravel pit, in its' existing state, re- vealed that the western portion contains many steep cliffs, scarred and eroding faces, and sparse vegetation. Litter in the form of beer cans, spent shotgun shells, discarded rifle targets, papers and old automobile parts were spread over the entire eastern section, resulting in nothing short of an eyesore. Ell Mr. Larry Fraboni -2- September 17, 1979 The proposed extraction and reclamation process would require a time duration of approximately one (1) month. During this period, the gravel.mine would be in operation from 7:00 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. Material removal will be confined to the Wastern.portion of . the pit on lands owned by Karl Butler. Excavation would be per- formed within the established excavation boundaries of the existing mine. Material would be removed from the site by utilizing excava- tion and hauling equipment. Since material would be used in its' native condition, undesirable overburden, dust, and noise would not.be produced as a result of material processing, such as screen-, ing or crushing, Environmental requirements, such as erosion control and stream protection would be enforced by grading slopes and employ- ing filtering devices for silting control. Filtering devices would consist of straw filter materials commonly used by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Conditions resulting from mining operations, that proved hazardous to the environment, would be quickly rectified. Restoration of the site would proceed concurrently with gravel extraction. Slopes would be graded and seeded with a rapid growing rye based ground cover as soon as mining operations are concluded. This restoration process would leave the mine in a much improved condition with respect to hazardous conditions and aesthetic values. This mining and restoration plan would prove both local and town residents. Material necessary tion of the Cherry Street Industrial Park would be the local community would be removed. eyesore to WBC/mdp Enc. Sincerely yours, advantageous to for the construc- obtained and an CHEMUNG CONTRACTING CORPORATION William B. Cook Superintendent U TOWN OF ITHACA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM To be completed and submitted by. the applicant. Comments may be Written next to the question or on additional paper. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Applicant Address Date Phone --- Property owner - kaf/ 23u Ileo Phone Address 2. Location of'Proposed Action (Write Address/Tax lot; Attach USGS topographic map With affected Lands outlined.) 7v � �jd �//s .1 f�4c« _ AI 3. Proposed Action 4. Activities and ® action. Paaccl No, 6 -331 -?h! 2) of operation resulting from the completion of tke proposed t IDENTIFICATION OF PROPOSED ACTION Site plan b USGS map 5. State the time schedules* for the proposed action: Planning - -t441 Jt'd i Z� S49i 26P f4 Construction i51' -wgz 6c.)3^f"I Design, Documents S4,;6 L'A � Finished site work b grading Preliminary site work — cc f ;?,a J4 – .Nnv a-/[ 6. Describe the proposed construction techniques to be used if building or site development is involved. Show locations ando routes to be used on the site plan. Grading and excavation including equipment vehicles and explosives to be used. Transportation of materials to site Disposal of waste:.materials n' Proposed chemical treatments, such as herbicides, dust control etc. Special techniques to overcome, unusual conditions��'�'��. Describe the type of proposed building and site materials to be used. Foundation Structure yow C� q. HVAC - ,Nom c- - N..4- Energy sources = 4" -AI,4s Siding Insulation _ Nom ` - V. A. Windows and Glass - .Uo1Jc - A44, Roofing V•4• r. Pavement Vegetative cover &1C Aasc 0 tcc-f s. "A _64 ' 7107 1/-01e� A61i0Al 8. Total area directly modified by proposed action )j:> acres. 9• Total area covered by impervious surfaces. roofs - sq. ft. parking — -Ala W.acres roads — Ale acres 10. Gross building sizes present total - A126 sq.ft. no.' of bldgs .41W* - no, of floors/bldg- , LOL proposed total sO it/,4, sq.ft. no. of bldgs no. of floors/bldg N.q• future total ,4. sq. ft. no. of bldgs - ,dam_ no. of floors/bldg ,dam 11. Number of proposed dwelling units Number Number of proposed commercial units Al .� Sizes of . units AY J Sizes of units y •�% 16 Parking: Existing paces proposed , /•ol( spaces Traffic generated/day 4MAL"15 (Note: Indirect Contamination Source Permit may be_required'if.1000 spaces provided. 13. Show proposed signs on site plan Size • .0 A, sq.fte height. above ground: top_ .,4L�ft.; bottom .dL-eft. Wording: 149 Show proposed lights and s� ,epther poles on site plan. Height above ground - X/, - ft. Total lumens 15. Name potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives to be used or disposed during or after proposed action Purpose of materials - ti.�K - (Note: Permits are required from DEC and T.C. Health Dept.) 16. If the resulting activities are either commercial or industrial use, write the materials to be transferred to/from the site, their frequency, and the mode of transportation. Imported materials Exported materials tr�aa cif revue / frequency ,r '� mode E 4 ® frequency mode L7. Describe project history including controversy perceived by the developer, litigation,' court decisions, etc. /Zs n� �U: ti /oc6 / �.�.�.0 4� 2 COMMUNITY FACTORS AND IMPACTS ® Designated zoning of the site of the proposed action 19. Zoning changes or variances being requested62f 4174"eia 44411 4"' Per cal 20. Check if the site of the proposed action is.within or next to the following Districts or Areas: Agricultural District Historic Preservation District Floodplain (HUD designated) Unique Natural Area Freshwater Wetland 21. Check which land uses describe -the neighborhood character. Single -unit residential Recreation Multi -unit residential Agriculture Commercial Forestry Woodland Industrial Wildlife/Conservation Institutional Inactive Transportation Other 22. Check which public services are being requested or provided. Sanitary Sewage Gas Water Electricity Storm drainage Telephone (Note: Permits.may be required from municipality for hook-up.) Che which transportation facilities will serve the site of the proposed action. State Highway Sidewalks On -street parking County Highway One-way traffic Off street parking Town Highway Two-way traffic Bus systems City/Village Street Traffic lights 2.4. Number of existing buildings affected by the proposed action Show on the site plan. 25. Name affected buildings or districts known to be historically or archeologically important or which are listed on the Register of Historic Buildings. �Azy c� Show on the site plan. NATURAL FACTORS AND IMPACTS 26. Depth to bedrock at site of proposed action. (Check more than one if necessary) Up to four feet depth Four feet to ten feet Greater than ten feet 27. If bedrock depth is less than ten feet -check type of bedrock existing at site of ® proposed action Shale Thinly bedded shale and siltstone Siltstone or sandstone Limestone 3. 28. Check types of topographic features which describe or are found on the site. level or gently rolling plainshilltop 0hummocks with small.ponds hillside 9 glens and gorges 9valley bottom 29. Name the soils as identified in the Soil Survey of Tompkins County which are found on the part of the site proposed to be modified. Initials may be used. 30. Briefly describe the nature and extent of proposed modification of existing slopes or soils or drainage- gf �-11 .�r• Yes No 31. Will any wetlands or adjacent areas be modified by the proposed action? If so, designate on the site plan the wetlands which will be affected. (Note: "Wetlands" permit from administering agency required for alteration.) k 32 E=Will any -streams be modified by -the proposed action? If so, designate on the site plan which -streams will be modified. (Note: "Dam" or "Disturbance" permit from -DEC is required for modifications.) waste 33. E ► Will any/materials or effluent be discharged into a stream or groundwaters? ® If so, designate on the site plan the streams which will be affected. (Note: SPDES permit from DEC is required for discharges.) 34. Do any of the following types of vegetation exist on the site of the proposed ction? ,Stands of mature trees greater than 30 feet tall. ,,Young tree. species less than 30 feet tall-. Shrub s 77 Terrestrial plants up to two feet high Ferns, grasses, sedges, rushes quatic plants Crops 35• E=dAre any vegetative management techniques currently being practiced on the site of the proposed *action? 36.Will any trees or shrubs be removed by the proposed action? -y�—� If so. designate on the site plan the area that is to be affected. 37• Are there any plans for revegetation? If so, briefly explain. Apyna i.,;// ��G % t .t ccciicf /i; �Ly �AL.� oiccc�i rl-CL k 4r__ 38. 0 39• To your knowledge,are there any rare, endangered or unusual vegetative species which are located on or near the site of the proposed action? If so, how are* they distributed? Will activity cause a change in or affect visual character of natural or cultural landscape features? Yes No To your knowledge, are there any significant wildlife habitats, migration routes or breeding areas located.on or near the site that might be affected by•the proposed action? 410. r=Ej00"T4D your knowledge, are there any rare, endangered, endemic or unusual wild- life species which are located an the site of the proposed action? If so, how are they distributed? 42. To your knowledge are there any known unique natural features on or near the site of the proposed action? If so, briefly,explain. 43. Will any of the following emissions be produced by the proposed action or its resulting activities? .If so, describe the cause. Ashes Dust jIJG fPL'- k c h L. h���n%L_�� ��—S�1 S � � ✓ ��� / !1 S i1 �r � c � Fumes Odors Smoke Other emissions L s (Note: Air Quality Permits from DEC or T.C. Health Dept. may be required.) 44. kool Will there be changes to existing noise or vibration levels due to the ® proposed action or its resulting activities? ^If so, describe the cause, 10 It It e I SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS AND IMPACTS 45. Number of employees during construction ,,4,oj 1A - Maximum number of employees present at the site at one time .4a 46. Number of employees during activities after completion- K 47. If resulting activities are for either industrial or commercial use, state the employment -shifts and number of employees in each shift. Shift70eoAA'-s =, Irl Shift Empl Shift.-----. Empl Shift Empl 48. If the resulting activities are for residential use, state the number of planned residents. Permanent .A.Z'e Seasonal -& 49. Briefly describe the nature and amount of indirect of the proposed action or resulting activities*.. growth anticipated as a result 50. Existing community or business or facilities or residential structures requiring relocation. Nall E44Z;0e 5 I r 1. If the focus of resulting activities is for residential use, check if residence is intended for: low income segment [] high income segment families medium income segment n students elderly 52. Will proposed activity+ substantially change the following socio-economic population distribution? income ethnic background YL8 race age 53. State the current full assessed value: Site Buildings 54* State the probable full assessed value after completion of the proposed action. Site Buildings 55• Comments. In your judgement, will the proposed action resultina significant environmental imnacst during construction and/or during use after completion? • Governmental Agencies. 56.Check the levels of government and name the agencies having jurisdiction over the proposed action. Indicate the required permits by stating "yes" or "no"•if permit has been approved. (The following pages of the' advise on the types of actions •which require particular permits.) ` Federal Permits National Pollution Discharge Elimination System. EPA, Region II, NYC Activities in navigable waters. Corps of Engineers, Buffalo Other State Permits Certificate of Compatibility, and Public Need: PSC, DEC Albany (public Utiliti Dam/Impoundment Construction or Repair: DEC - Envir. Quality.Unit, Cortland Disturbance -of Stream Bed/Fill of Navigable Waters: DEC-EQ,Unit, Cortland Incinerator Construction or Operation: DEC - EQ Unit, Syracuse O.Indirect Air Contamination Source: DEC -EQ Unit, Syracuse Ndb Mining: DEC -Mineral Resources Bureau, Albany LWetlands/Adjacent cide Purchase, Use (7 permits): DEC, Pesticides Bureau, Albany s, Exhaust, Ventilation System Const. or Operation: DEC -EQ, Syracuse c Water Supply: DEC, Envir. Analysis, Albany (T.C. Health Dept. review) DEC, Envir. Quality Unit, Syracuse (T.C. Health Dept. review) nary Combustion Installation: DEC -EQ Unit, Syracuse Areas Alterations : DEC -EQ IInit, Cortland 1 -- ma C: n 6 E; 57• 58. County of Tompkins Driveways, culverts: Highway Dept. Hazardous Wastes: Health Dept. Institutional Use: Health Dept. Mass Gatherings: Health Dept, Offensive Materials (Scavenger Wastes)% Health Public Utility Line Extension: Health Dept.* Restaurant Use: Health Dept, Dept. Restricted Burning: Health Dept. (DEC -EQ Unit review) Sanitary Facilities for Realty Subdivisions: Health Dept. (DEC -EQ review) Septic Tank Cleaner/Industrial Waste Collection: Health Dept. (DEC -EQ review) Sewage Disposal System: Health Dept. ' Solid Waste Mgmt. Facility: Health Dept.' (DEC -EQ Unit review) SPDES (Pollution Discharge): Health Dept. (DEC -EQ Unit review) Swimming Use: Health Dept. Temporary Residence (Boarding House, Camp, Day Care, Hotel, Motel, Mobile Home Park Health Dept. Water Supply (Public): Health Dept. Wetlands/Alterations: Wetlands Commission/County Clerk Other Town of Ithaca Blasting Building Permit Street Opening Extraction of Natural Materials Land Use Variance Mobile Home Park Multiple Residence Planned Unit Development ..a Sources o Public funds (if any) ?or Public Utility Connection Signs Subdivision Streets and Drainage Wetlands Alteration Zoning Variance Other pee /0 1' f proposed action If federal review under NEPA-is required, name agency // two - Signature.o/ Applicant n /„ n Data Signature of Reviewer Title Agency Address Date Reviewed A PETITION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ITHACA, N.Y. ® In session at Town of Ithaca Office Sept. 26, 1979 In support of the petition to deny Mr. Butler permission to open a. gravel pit just submitted to the Board of Appeals we offer the following: In August 1975 Mr. Karl Butler petitioned to extract bank run gravel on lands at 270 Enfield Falls Road. Permission was denied. The petition in opposition submitted at that time by the people in the neighborhood is still valid. For this reason the new appeal to open the long closed gravel pit should be denied.