HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA History Combined (28)
Zoning Board of Appeals History as of 27.-1-14.2
Mecklenburg Road
Tax Parcels involved, with address if known Mecklenburg Road
27.-1-14.2 with subdivision into 27.-1-14.12 and 27.-1-14.11 no readdressing.
History:
2013 - Extension of Special Approval for mining for 10 years – Approved
2008 – Extension of Special Approval for mining for 5 years - Approved
2007 – Special Approval for expansion of pond – Approved
2005 – Modify Special Approval to continue mining - Approved
2002 – Special Permission for Mining Operation – Denied, Supreme Court
Reversed Decision, Approved
•
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Monday August 19,2013
215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca
7:00 P.M.
Appeal of John Rancich, owner, requesting Special Approval per Chapter 270-28, of
the Town of Ithaca Code, to continue the gravel mining operation on a portion of the
property for an additional 10 years, located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road
`, (NYS Route 79), Tax Parcel No. 27.-1-14.2, Agricultural Zone.
Appeal of Joost Monen, owner and theTown of Ithaca, acting as agent on behalf of •
owner, requesting a variance from Chapter 270-71 "Front Yard Setback", of the Town -
of Ithaca Code, to maintain a home with insufficient front yard setback, located at 150
Whitetail Dr, Tax Parcel No. 44.-1-163, Medium Density Residential (MDR).
Continuation of the Appeal'of Rod Howe and Mark Pedersen, owners, requesting
special approval from Chapter 270-69(B) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to have a
second dwelling unit in a building other than the principal building and a variance
request from Section 270-70 "Height Limitations"for second dwelling to exceed the
15 ft limitation, located at 126 Judd Falls Rd, Tax Parcel No. 66.-5-14, Medium
Density Residential (MDR).
Bruce W. Bates
Director of Code Enforcement •
607-273-1783
Dated: August 7, 2013
Published: August 9, 2013
TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Monday, August 19, 2013
Present: Kirk Sigel, Chair; Members Bill King, John DeRosa; Christine Decker and
Chris Jung .
Bruce Bates, Director of Codes and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town
There is no audio for this meeting and the official minutes consist solely of actions taken
in the form of resolutions as allowed by law.
APPEAL of John Rancich, owner, requesting Special Approval per Chapter 270-
28, of the Town of Ithaca Code, to continue the gravel mining operation on a
portion of the property for an additional 10 years, located on the north side of .
Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79), Tax Parcel No. 27.-1-14.2, Agricultural Zone.
ZBA Resolution No. 2013-024, Special Meeting
Mecklenburg Rd, Tax Parcel #27.-1-14:2
. August 19, 2013 .
Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by John DeRosa
Resolved, that a special meeting be held tomorrow evening at 8pm where we
anticipate'taking action on the appeal of John Rancich.
Vote
Aye: Sigel, Decker, Jung and DeRosa
Nay: None
Motion passed unanimously ,
Appeal of Joost Monen, owner and the Town of Ithaca, acting as agent on behalf
of the owner, requesting a variance from Chapter 270-71, "Front Yard Setback", of
the Town of Ithaca Code, to maintain a home with insufficient front yard setback, -
located at 150 Whitetail Dr., Tax Parcel No. 44.-1-163, Medium Density Residential
(MDR).
,
ZBAResolution No. 2013-025, Area Variance
150 Whitetail Dr, TP#44.-1-163
August 19, 2013
Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Christine Decker
1
Resolved, that this board grants the appeal of Joost Monen, owner and the Town of
Ithaca, acting as agent on behalf of owner, a variance from Chapter 270-71, Front
Yard Setback", of the Town of Ithaca Code, to maintain a home with insufficient front
ZBA RESOLUTION NO. 2013-028
Special Approval
John Rancich; Gravel Mining Operation
Mecklenburg Rd,Tax Parcel No. 27.-1-14.2
August 20, 2013
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Bill King .
RESOLVED, that this board grants special approval to extend the expiration date of the fill permit
for another 10 years to August 20, 2023 with the following:
Findings:
1. This action is a Special Approval regarding the continued use of the existing gravel mine
located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79),Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 27.-1-14.2, Agricultural Zone. The project involves a request to continue the mining
operation on a portion of the property for an additional 10 years. This project was
previously approved in 2002, 2005, and 2008, with the 2008 approval having an expiration
date of August 31, 2013. No changes in the operation are proposed.
2. That the plan for the proposed project submitted by the applicant to the Town has Planning
Board's site plan approval for the proposed continuing mining operations,
3. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation has approved a reclamation plan
for the mining operations and the plan and any required security for the performance of the
plan has been provided to the State of New York by the applicant,
4. That the Zoning Board hereby grants Special Approval for the proposed continued use of
the existing gravel mining operation, finding that the standards of Article XXIV Section 270-
200, Subsections A—L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, specifically that:
A. the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, in harmony with the
general purpose of this chapter, will be promoted, because the project has previously
received special approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals and a positive
recommendation for such special approval by the Planning Board, no changes are being
proposed to the project,the Zoning Board of Appeals approval is conditioned on the
applicant's conduct of operations in accordance with the representations and materials
provided by the applicant to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the NYSDEC permit
imposes conditions of approval related specifically to the protection of the health and
safety of the community in terms of noise, dust, storm water control, truck loading,
hours of operation and the like, and
B. (i) the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use, given that the use has
been in operation since 2002, the property is located in the middle of 160+/-acres of
ZBA RESOLUTION NO. 2013- 028
PAGE 2
agricultural land, and that the nearest residential structures/neighbors are more than
800 feet away from the operation, and
(ii) the proposed use fills a neighborhood or community need because the gravel is
proposed to be used for on-site development, and
C. the proposed use and the location and design of any structure is consistent with the
character of the district in which it is located, for the same reasons as noted above, and
D. the proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood
character in amounts sufficient to devalue the neighborhood property or seriously
inconvenience the neighboring inhabitants,for the same reasons as noted above, and
E. operations in connection with the proposed use will not be more objectionable to
nearby properties by reasons of noise, fumes, vibrations, illumination or other potential
nuisance than the operation of any permitted use in the particular zone, for the reasons
noted above, and
F. community infrastructure and services, including but not limited to, protective services,
roadways, garbage collection, schools and water and sewer facilities, are currently, or
will be, of adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed use because the use is
already operational, and there are no changes proposed, and
G. the proposed use, building, design and site layout comply with all provisions of this
chapter and,to the extent considered by the reviewing Board, with other regulations
and ordinances of the Town, with the Building Code and all other state and federal laws,
rules and regulations, and with the Town Comprehensive Plan, and
H. the proposed access and egress for all structures and uses are safely designed and the
site layout provides adequate access for emergency vehicles, as previously approved by
the Town Code Enforcement Officer, and
I. the general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole, including such
items as traffic load upon public streets and load upon water and sewer systems, is not
detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community, again,for the
reasons noted above, and
J. the lot area, access, parking, and loading facilities are sufficient for the proposed use
and access, parking, and loading facilities are adequately buffered to minimize their
visual impact, per the conditions imposed by the NYSDEC permit and the information
specified in the applicant's submitted plans, and
K. natural surface water drainage is adequately managed in accordance with good
engineering practices and in accordance with any applicable Town local law or
ordinance, and existing drainage ways are not altered in a manner that adversely affects
other properties, per previous NYCDEC permit requirements, previous Zoning Board
ZBA RESOLUTION NO. 2013-028
PAGE 3
approvals and Planning Board recommendations of approval, and an Engineering
Memorandum written by Creig Hebdon, P.E.,Town Engineer, dated August 20, 2013,
and
L. the proposed use or structure complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review
set forth in this chapter.
Conditions:
1. That the Zoning Board Special Approval shall expire on August 20, 2023 or when the
NYSDEC-issued Mining Permit No. 7-5030-00110/00001 for this project expires, whichever
occurs first,
2. That all operations be in accordance with:
(i) the representations and materials in the application provided by the applicant to the
Zoning Board of Appeals, and
(ii) all requirements and conditions set forth in the NYSDEC-issued mining permit related to
property boundary setbacks and public thoroughfare rights-of-way, natural or man-
made barriers to restrict access, dust control, and hours of operation, and
3. That the project area be reclaimed in conformance with the requirements in the above-
referenced NYSDEC-issued permit, and that a copy of any NYSDEC-required reclamation
bond be provided to the Town of Ithaca prior to commencement of any excavation.
4. That the applicant submit to the Town Engineering Department copies of any New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation permits or documents amending the DEC
permit applicable to the property.
5. That if the DEC permit authorizing the mining operations expires or is otherwise terminated
before August 20, 2023, then the fill permit issued by the Town will expire upon successful
reclamation of the site.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel King, Decker, DeRosa and Jung ,
NAYS: none Absent: Krantz and Rosen
Motion passed unanimously. .
K gild"LI 1-
)z/ TOWN OF ITHACA
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
106 SEVEN MILE DRIVE, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 -
publicworks@town.ithaca.ny.us
PHONE(607)273-1656 Roads,Parks,Trails,Engineering,Sewer,and Water FAX(607)272-6076
ENGINEERING MEMORANDUM
FROM: Creig Hebdon P.E., Town Engineer C4 n
TO: Chris Balestra
DATE: August 20, 2013
•
RE: Rancich Gravel Mine Special Permit
Mr. Rancich is asking to extend the gravel mining special permit received in
August 2008. I have reviewed the materials submitted for this permit. There has been
building on the parcels east of the gravel mine area, in particular the Conifer Senior
Living building. This building was placed with knowledge of the gravel mine just west of
their location. The applicant is going to use the gravel for a project on the site and will
need to follow the DEC remediation rules and regulations.
• Based on the above information in my professional opinion the extension of this
permit will have no adverse effects the surrounding properties or limit development of
this land in the future.
New Ton( date uepartment Or tnvirolmenrai i.:onservationV V
Mk
Division of Environmental Permits, Region 7 - -
1285 Fisher Avenue, Cortland, New York 13045-1090
Phone: (607)753-3095, ext.294• Fax:"(607) 753-8532 in"1 ` 11\V f 1 � a
Nawr
Website: wwwi.dec ny.gov L.J
Joe Martens
JUL Commissioner
July 23,2013 70J 1, • .
Christine Balestra,Planner
Town of Ithaca
215 N.Tioga Street
Ithaca,New York 14850
cbale,stra taPtcavn,,ithaca.ny,us ,
RE: REQUEST FOR CONCURRENCE IN LEAD AGENCY DESIGNATION
RANCICK GRAVEL MINE(MARSHALL PIT)-TOWN OF ITHACA,TOMPKINS COUNTY
DEC APPLICATION ID 7-5030-00110/00001,MINED LAND ID#70849 -
" Dear Ms.Balestra:
The Region 7 Office of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(NYSDEC)has received
an,application for renewal of a mining permit in your town.The applicant,John Rancich,has requested to renew
an existing 4.8 acre mine(referred to as"Marshall Pit")located at State Route 79,near West Haven Road
intersection.We have identified this proposal as a Type II action pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review
Act(SEQR)regulation,6 NYCRR Part 617.5(c)(26),and therefore it is not subject to SEQR review. 6 NYCRR
Part 617.4(a)(2)states that an agency may not designate as Type I any action identified as Type II in section
617.5 of Part 617.
The NYSDEC acts as lead agency for SEQR review of all mining permit applications.Amendments to the Mined
Land Reclamation Law(MLRL)have affirmed that only the State can regulate mining operations under the
MLRL.Therefore,we believe that DEC has principal environmental review responsibility for this action.
Should your town have direct jurisdiction over activities proposed by the applicant,and you wish to be lead
agency,a dispute may be brought before the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation in accordance with
the SEQR rules and regulations(Title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes Rules and Regulations 617.6(b)(5).
If we do not receive specific objection from the Town of Ithaca within 30 days of the postmark date of this letter,
we would assume SEQR Lead Agency for the Department,if conditions change and there becomes a need for
environmental review of this application.Your participation as an involved agency is acknowledged and
supported. '
Please contact me at 607-753-3095,ext.294 or email at taphelp iAny. ec;stateJny.us if you have any questions
relating to the status of this application or the information discussed in this letter.
Sincerely, -
Teri Phelps,Environmental Analyst
Division of Environmental Permits-Cortland Office
cc: John Rancich,Applicant
Michael Spadafore,Division of Mineral Resources-Syracuse
FILE
George R. Frantz & Associates
mail�g oplan57@clarietyconnect.com NY 14850-2014
(6.07)
Mr.Andrew Frost
Town of Ithaca
215 North Tioga Street -
Ithaca,New York 14850
October 14,2005
Dear Andy,
On behalf of John Rancich I would like to amend his application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for
extension of the Special Approval granted for the operation of his gravel pit by the Zoning Board of
Appeals on September 23,2002.
In addition to granting an extension on the operating time limit and permission to utilize conveying
and crushing equipment,Mr. Rancich would like to increase the maximum number of truckloadsfrom 4
gravel permitted to be removed from the site from 32 to 64 truckloads per day,
or truckloads per hour to 8 truckloads per hour.
No change in the total amount of gravel or crushed stone to be produced over the life of the mine or
any increase in the total estimated number of truck trips are being proposed. The life of mine
production limit of 90,000 cubic yards will remain in place.
Thank you for your assistance with this matter.
Sincerely,
George R.Frantz
Land Use Planning, Community Development, Park&Open Space Planning,Agricultural Land Protection
Planning,Growth Management. State Environmental Quality Review
Examples of EverydayNoises and Their Energy Levels (dBA)
Submitted in Support of Request for Extension and Modification of Special Permit to
Operate Gravel Mine on Tax Parcel No. 27-1-14.2
November 21, 2005
Noise Source DBA
Gravel plant (w/in 20 ft.) 100-105
Weed whacker 94-96
Gas lawn mower 88-94
Diesel truck (50 ft. away) , 88
Gas lawn mower (100 ft. away) 70
Traffic Noise, Cliff Street (Rte. 96 Envir. Impact Statement) 67 ,
Normal conversation 55-65
Heavy traffic (300 ft. away) 60
Gravel plant (1,000 - 1,200 ft.) , 40-50
Typical living room 40
Sources: British Columbia Workers Compensation Board:
Bolt.Barneck&Newman, Inc. Fundamentals&Abatement of Traffic Noise
'u II(IJ I V--
I
,� • mG-�--� .,� b- t?W u %
✓�': y y ti cr. � S 1 ��j ,fit '�`''zAV 4 ? r Y.. a
,r i , aV ,�s 1 -*. it ,It•}/. Jf 4 , ii♦a{ •.i e*R h r'� Y' i, ,,V,,,Me '' c1 . �+ 7+ ■
-• µ,_af i , ' it ,, , , 31i-�1 '_ '"w4 �, a �. Norse Gradient
`1, x.,J• .;i vs'�•:fit tl .. t -.i♦ ;f�4 � [y i -. t_ `�.`.,... i •, ' ' ,+5.`"PfirL• *• `,...
',if.--
' ^ :I:tii--, ,�rI- '`,,;,,,, ,,� ; 7 ,, • ,- �',- T
° ylt': -'-L1yi , >s„� �l.,r=_fK, ; John Rancich
s ,h`._� • ,,-",,. `}}7. r , ••t, ; Pit
! *,:tp4 ,, .4...
i1 'i'C , 1 t4 ��� ,i"-fit '6 { r`'� _, bfAisi f `y
z , �� � w . . ,.., t ;;s. . G ra e
i.j"
`, t^.1'' v :td 1."'t'; UIr`i` %.. r.S • , -+D- ^Pr�. !T i
is i,t•`�- Y, 4 13'- T • • \r tS } 414.F - 1yL [ r + t���"
'-�,.ar� :t f i-'WAA 6 , --, Rom_✓,--.. -Y ,ht 7•y:. 1
+ , o �y•
, ,', i ,,;'-v tip( j ,,r r• '
.• ' I •c}♦ a rl •q..1�l u�•� t I r-.4 1 ,.. ,,,,,,,,`1`J j Q o Property
.„.„;i.... ,,,, t ,v, ,tr'1 ` 1 ^ia`. ,,, ` ;\ ..'�°.,`-. -,41 , °. ..^4 ' �eh a i,� , %% Boundary
ll - ''.-r,,S,I;Y+�"" 4�_5E I, ')t_ —,'" '''_'� \ ' . •`-mot 1.- ` +f I, . , ?y c`. ,,,
Y: i -,, k - ,.( ,ci- , 1,..=4:-..-p-*---^I*a__r.-_, ,k t --,-w-,.}r,.t , , +''- ;,e F, "e�OP* j
.. 7'' , a ,, 1i,� ,l. ,.,t _,._�� :<<, . er Y ��.�' ;" _ � :`. Authorized Mine Area
r- i t-: yA 7i31 1.4 dd ` :'}i j t 7`� •�k."',,._- ,---, =1rt? :.+^f,r I,.. .t,-,k t, a- "a• 'JtR4�,♦ -
t •, t 14 ;,. r,..Zi, a _<a_ "''t�.�I: y �T , I '� 0-200 ft./>90dba
v, r ' �, '',o I. `-- : ., `_ .,,,ct--0 , "i • �, r. �` •.. ,. ` = . 200-400 ft./>80 dba
;_ �, Y , 1` - jt �., , _ . R� v_.� �� � _� -15 -- 400-600 ft./>70 dba
'.P F. �-r ., ` itzla, ..� , 41 s` f :.` '`. 'r7T-�:V"+,. :R•� � f �,•.k, A +:.• ' +�41 ;cji
: 1i� v , '°�,lp•e-f 800-1,000 ft./>50 dba
"- I' '►a+` ▪ a,�I ; ♦ry„7 ..i_., - `'; - - _ ':1. .y{.."`{Y',,� *i�: `.7�•;: _ 9• ti ! �' .. ., 1 1,000-1,200 ft./>40 dba
. �'7' ? I,n , „ t` -�e�1•�.1 •a.: F� �• "1,.` -,- 7 '`Pall%+4 5� r rrrul1 '�1_:'0,. t7Y e. i
_, ,-,"t kb -4 , 1-irM , ;' +J#1 e,-,:. • w:� lgii.$-' .n*ii .P.-:-.v..)...,..•t,j,�'. _, e K 1 •e,;&. 4-
Mai
�� 4, al, . , .,.'4.r` •'9i' - ••we:,,,l.:.-. ) "-i' 'i� -_. 7~�j,^y. I� -7 , =i ate[• l •
s•-�� T-4,... ' .
e.
1000 0 1000 2000 Feet
�t,' NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION f - }„ ;1r:::,i, a r
; f. DIVIS•ION OF MINERA SOURCES • , '�*,r,•itsz, , ,- Wir'`f�.'1 = °' = y% ' `
MINED LAND AECLAMA ! PROGRAM DECK :xY ;gfiT,:.• r" �`•v:9- ,. '! •r
MINING PERMIT APPLICATION 7. MINED LAND PROJECT Yea No
i a. Will the total acreage effected by mining U
1. MINED LAND FILE NUMBER (If assigned) 2. . TELEPHONE NUMBER for the entire mining site exceed 5 acres?
I ..:::1tiJ : I• I I I-1 I I- I ( 6 0 7 ) 2.7 7-D3,3 b. Will the vertical depth from the top of the 0
mine face to the floor exceed 20 feet?
' 3. :NAME OF;APPLICANT - c, Will there be on-site;processing of mining,
•0-6 H 14 ' in ct cW products (ag. crushing, screening, washing)?
4. PERMANENT ADDRESS d. Will mining occur within 100 foot of a 0
---PO SO X
surface water body leg, stream, lake)
or wetland area?
CITY STATE 1 ZIP CODE e. Will any consolidated minerals be mined 0 IN
Ithaca N. Y. 4 ,5(; leg, limestone, trap rock, sandstone)?
(•' f. Will mining occur within 500' of any ❑ 121
5. CONTACT PERSON 6. TELEPHONE NUMBER dwelling?
OHN R, e;c N (.607 277. 6 33 a g• Will mining ever occur at or below the ❑
mean high water table?
8. TAXPAYER ID 9. APPLICATION TYPE`
If other than individual, provide Federal Taxpayer ID Number ( New
0 Renewal 1 Modification
10, a. PRESENT PERMIT TERM I b. COMING PERMIT TERM 11. COMMON GEOLOGIC NAME OF MINERAL TO BE MINED
Expiration date / / [ CD years 0 Other years Gravel ,
12. LOCAL ORDINANCES -1 b. Does the local government require any a of permit for -
a. Is mining prohibited at this location? 0 Yes ® No I mining et this location? El Yea U No
13. a. ARE ANY OTHER STATE-MINING PERMITS CURRENTLY HELD 1 b. If YEG Dive DEC mine file number(s),
0
BY THE APPLICANT? Yes No I
14. Has any owner, partner, corporate officer or corporate director of your organization ever held any of these positions in another
organization that has had a New York State mining permit SUSPENDED OR REVOKED or has had a New York State mined land
reclamation bond FORFEITED? ❑ Yes ® No If YES, identify the person(s).
15. ACREAGE SUMMARY(To be filled in by applicant) �•• ;-t••- ,
t"FOf�OFFICI'AL=�DEC�USI"�NL`('
a. Total acreage controlled'by owner et this location 93 . ''f'i� t ;';;
acres ,ed. l;w.�,., 'cfe 'sy:r
b. Total acreage permitted by DEC prior to this application 0 ; ___
1
acres � t-,. T•.,..:_ c[ y�, ;n
c, Total acreage affected since April 1, 1975 Q '•44°' r.�: ''
acres Tom•. .f-S-ie .y ?
d. Total acreage approved " "•±• •-
g by DEC as reclaimed since April 1, 1975 0 , -•t%
acres iex ?Y'a^- - .: acr ti• ' -
e, Current affected acreage Co minus d) 0 acres �'` `et-,- `•,"`° '" `"�"`-
I. Acreage Included in this application, but not previouslyapproved ram--Tat' -. "
g PP PP 4 . 8 acres -"L�tcotit'��F'l"is,-'a;� ';r`•'it`ii�vt•�r',
g, New acreage to be affected duringthe coming4 . 8 ` -`''' 'permit term acres ..�-, ,E�.•d � ....,
h. Number of acres to be reclaimed during coming permit term Q {.: • ..7 i 2,INf..
acres ,"Srl:k sir,:_•, .=a:• ecree?.' -
16. NAME OF MINING SITE Marshall Pit _
17. MINE LOCATION St . MAP LOCATION
Road St . Route 79 Ithaca West
a. Quadrangle Name
Nearest Roec Intersection Wes t Haven Rd . b. El 15 minute ® 7i5 minute
Town Ithaca '' '� ,. FORDEC:OR ': 3 5`-EONL'•1'4 '
County Tompkins ,' , . ,.t. ;4-- ac�ti-=;= ,it- A:N'
19, NAME AND ADDRESS OF SURFAC ,LANDOWNffl r -,
-6 tiN f A-i�C:%h, _P oec.) is 7 Tihrien /9
!O. NAME AND ADDRESS OF MINERAL OWNER (If differen - ;i
LlL.: ;..,.,, , ..
I
1. I am the owner ® in fee, El of the mineral rights of the property that is to be mined by the above a,L',..4u,`-4-4,,
ontents of the Mined Land Use Plan, which sets forth the applicant's mining and reclamation plan for the pro a ti 'Ai}tla
ereby irrevocably consent and agree to the performance of the Mined Land Use Plan'b the applicant Ff(irAbtlY
epartment of Environmental Conservation. I further agree to allow access to the roe PP �►Z�)Ie u �ERIN
onducting insEections or investi ptions in the regular course of their duties. property to department personnel for the purpose of
IGNATURE OF OWNER -r TE ,,..1 _
2/I herebyaffirm; der penalty
J p na ty of perjury Met Informa4ion provided on this fo i��rue td,,the best of my krlowl da ge and belief. False Cements made sin arepunishable as a Class A isdemeanor pursuant to Se'ction 210.45 of the Penal Law.
4fvsF! tLc SIGNA-TUREpFu1 ?,),CAN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE DATE 'A',
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION fF'
Facility 1)EC II)7-5030-00110
Permit Components
MINED LANL) RECLAMATION PERMIT CONDITIONS
GENERAL RAL CONDITIONS, APPLY TO ALL AUTHORIZED PERMITS
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER PERMITTEE OBLIGATIONS
Permit Attachments
•
Permit Sign
MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT CONDITIONS
I. Post Permit Sign The permit sign enclosed with this permit shall be posted in a conspicuous
location on the worksite and adequately protected from the weather.
2. Bond, Surety to Remain in Force Any required reclamation bond or other surety, in an amount
determined by the Department, shall be maintained in full force and effect. Such a bond or other surety
shall not be terminated until the reclamation of the mined area is approved by the department in writing.
3. Conformance With Plans All activities authorized by this permit must be in strict conformance
with the approved plans submitted by the applicant or applicant's agent as part of the permit application.
Such plans were approved by the Department on various dates and consist of the following items:
Mining Permit Application Form dated June 13,2008 and signed by John s ;t „ 3(l aio%
/Rancich.
in
V -Organizational Report Form dated August 15, 2003 and signed by John b � &`�`� a°I
Rancich. . .
f -Letter dated June 13, 2008 and signed by John Rancich.
V -Reclamation Plan Map dated January 3, 2000 and prepared by Brayton P. Foster Pc DvzdiLd
• Consulting Geologist. ib z6A+ Pg
I/ -Mining Plan Map dated January 3,2000 and prepared by Brayton P. Foster -Shy lc-1•
Consulting Geologist.
4. No Deviation From-Approved Plan The permittee shall not deviate or depart from the approved
mined land use plan without approval by the Department of an alteration or modification thereto.
5. Provide Person during DEC Inspection The permittee shall provide a person to accompany the
Department's representative during an inspection to the permit area when notification is provided,be it
written or verbal, at least 24 hours prior to such inspection.
Page 2 of 6
99 TOWN OF ITHACA
t®Io, 215 N. Tioga Street, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
I_
Gil IA
TOWN CLERK 273-1721 PUBLIC WORKS&ENGINEERING 273-165 PLANNING 273-1747 BUILDING&ZONING 273-1783 FAX(607)273-1704
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Board Members
Zoning Board Members
From: Christine Balestra, Planner
Date: July 9, 2013
RE: Rancich Mining Excavation-Site Plan Approval and Special Permit
Enclosed please find materials related to the consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan
Approval and Special Permit from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and consideration of Special
Approval from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals for the continued use of an existing
gravel mine, located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79),Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 27.-1-14.2,Agricultural Zone. The project involves a request to continue the mining
operation on a portion of this property for an additional 10 years. The project was previously
approved by the Planning and/or Zoning Boards in 2002, 2005, and 2008,with the 2008 approval
containing an expiration date of August 31, 2013. The proposal is scheduled for the July 16th
Planning Board meeting and the August 19th Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
Project History&Board Actions
The original project included excavating up to 90,000 cubic yards of gravel on the property over a
three-year time period (coinciding with the timeframe of a NYS DEC-issued mining permit) and
then reclaiming the land for further agricultural use. Alfred Eddy was the owner of the property
who farmed the land at the time of the original request. The original application materials included
stormwater, erosion and sedimentation control measures approved by the Town Engineering
Department and a copy of the NYSDEC-issued mining permit.
Subsequent applications for the mining project included the submission and approval of a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP),the modification of the number of truckloads and
truck trips permitted, and the allowance for crushing and processing materials onsite. Below is a
timeline of Planning and Zoning Board actions related to the project:
• 2000: Planning Board Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special
Approval for fill permit- excavation of up to 90,000 cubic yards of gravel over a three-year time
period (NYS DEC issues three-year mining permit).
• 2000: Zoning Board denial of application for Special Approval. Applicant appeal to Supreme
Court,who reversed Zoning Board decision and required that Board approve project.
• 2002: Zoning Board Special Approval,with conditions, including an expiration of approval in
three years (2005).
• 2003: Property sold to current applicant- NYSDEC mining permit extension issued for five years
(new expiration date: August 31, 2008).
• 2005: Planning Board second Recommendation to Zoning Board to extend existing approval to
August 31, 2008 (resolution attached). Zoning Board extension of Special Approval until August
31, 2008. ZBA grants a modification to the original approval to permit processing and crushing ofgravel
onsite;to increase the number of truck trips from four to eight truck trips/hour;and to increase the number
of truckloads ofgravel that can be removed from 32 to 64 truckloads/day.
• 2008: Zoning Board extension of Special Approval again,with same conditions as previous
approvals. No changes to project are proposed.
• 2012: Town amends Fill Permit law to require Planning Board Special Permit approval for
certain activities (Planning Board previously only made recommendations to Zoning Board)
• Now: Zoning Board Special Approval and NYS DEC Mining Permit expire on August 31, 2013,
unless extended again.
Current Proposal
There are no changes proposed to the existing mining operation other than extending the approval
for another ten years. Although the project has previously received time extensions from the Town
and the NYS DEC, the applicant has not mined or processed any gravel on the property in the last
three years. Per current Town Code requirements, the applicant needs Site Plan Approval and
Special Permit from the Planning Board and Special Approval from the Zoning Board. The criteria
to consider when granting Special Permit are the same as the criteria for Special Approval (Section
270-200).
The pt. .osal is a Type I Action, pursuant to the Town's Environmental Review Law,thus requiring
Y'Q- the prep. ation of a Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) and a coordinated review
Dec. between in . ved agencies. The Zoning Board of Appeals will be the lead agency in the
(2-kr environmental --view of the proposal. Although the media advertisement for the July 16th Planning
ck,k8,4Board meeting in.' ated that the Planning Board would be considering Site Plan Approval and
Ar 1, Special Permit,the Bid will need to first concur with the Zoning Board's declaration of intent to
is be lead agency and then ait until the Zoning Board makes their environmental determination
T before taking any other act n on the proposal.
•
The Board should co ur with the Zoning Board's declaration of intent and can still discuss the
proposal and hear conce s from the public at the July 16th meeting (the completed draft LEAF that
rek-o the Zoning Board will consi is included in this packet). However, the official Site Plan and
Special Permit review of the protect will be considered at the August 20th Planning Board meeting.
Please contact me at 273-1747 or by email at cbalestra@town.ithaca.ny.us if you have any
questions regarding this proposal.
Att.
Ohre
'YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Nor
};srility DEC ID 7-5030-00110
•
PERMIT
Under the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL)
:i Permittee and Facility Information
Permit Issued To: Facility:
JOHN RANCICH MARSHALL PIT
PO BOX 547 STATE RT 79 NEAR WEST HAVEN RD
INTERSECTION
ITHACA,NY 14851-0547 ITHACA,NY 14850
(607) 277-0332
Facility Location: in ITHACA in TOMPKINS COUNTY
Facility Principal Reference Point: NYTM-E: 373.587 NYTM-N: 4701.274
Latitude: 42°27'12.5" Longitude: 76°32'14.4"
Authorized Activity: This permit authorizes mining activity on 4.8 acres of land during the permit
term, within a 4.8 acre'life-of-nine facility, on a 158 acre parcel of land, including specified processing
equipment on lands owned by the permittee.
Permit Authorizations
Mined Land Reclamation- Under Article 23,Title 27
Permit ID 7-5030-00110/00001 (Mined Land ID 70849)
Renewal Effective Date: 8/20/2008 Expiration Date: 8/20/2013
NYSDEC Approval
By acceptance of this permit, the permittee agrees that the permit is contingent upon strict
compliance with the ECL, all applicable regulations, and all conditions included as part of this
permit.
Permit Administrator: JOHN H MERRIMAN, JR, Deputy Regional Permit Administrator
Address: NYSDEC REGION 7 CORTLAND SUB-OFFICE
1285 FISHER AVE
CORTLAND,NY 13045 -1090
Authorized Signature: Date / ?A5 /
Distribution List
MICHAEL S SPADAFORE
Herbert J. Engman, Town Supervisor ,
Law Enforcement
Page 1 of 6
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (10/01)
allik Application For Permit Transfer and Application for Transfer of Pending Application
11111111 (In Accordance with Uniform Procedures,6NYCRR Part 621)
Nair
NOTE: Please read ALL instructions before completing this application. Please TYPE or PRINT clearly in ink.
PART 1—TRANSFEREE(New Owner/Operator/Lessee/Applicant)COMPLETES:
1. LIST PERMIT NUMBER(S)AND THEIR FECTIVE AND EXPIRATION DATES LIST PENDING APPLICATION NUMBER(S):
7 _c03-6r/11,1 oiagai
2 NAME OF (DaTRANSFEREE ,_/.' J `A `�9�r/'G� If other than an individual.provide Taxpayer ID Number
P CODE, TELEPHNE NUMBER
STREET )
'1ADDL?(k�/7 ZI—`" , [i(! ,y, / /r g—) / ve7)TELEPHONE
0g 7 7-03 e-2_-
TRANSFEREE IS A/AN:j�7 J erl�Operatorrl Lesseel],Applicantr Municipality/Govemi'nental Agency (check all that
apply) LL 11 I j�
3. NAME OF it I�Q/ )171— 4 FACILJ��OA TA Noe/ p n• .5cA- !7
STREET ADDRESS.CI .!STATE.ZIP CODE STREET ADDRESS CITY STATE.ZIP CODED f f7 es"
, �?91 r✓�['t'9/ AJY ,
COUNTY _ TOWN TELEPHONE NUMBER(Daytime) (�U7) 0?77—c ?
5. HAS WORK B G N THE PROJECT? / /
Yes 0 No If'No,"proposed starting date:Ph04 ?el'taco(Approximate completion date:
If there will be any modifications to the current or proposed op ration or construction,the transferee must attach a statement specifying the
details.
6. CERTIFICATION:This certifies that the transferee seeks to be the legally responsible party for operations or project development either authorized
by the permits identified above or proposed in applications identified above. The transferee has a copy of the permit(s)and/or application(s)and
understands and will comply with all conditions in the referenced permit(s) and supports the content of referenced application(s). Facility
operations/project scope/discharges/emissions will remain the same as authorized or as proposed In pending applications. Further,I hereby.affirm
that under penalty of perjury that information provided on this form and all attachments submitted herewith is true to the best of my knowledge and
belief. False statements made herein are punishable as a Class A misdemeanor pursuant too Section 210.45 of the Penal Law.
Printed Name and Title of Transferee ' ()PI /,A 74 i[/r£
_2
Signature of Transferee � Date /5
PART 2— :41SFEROR(Present or Former Owner!Operator/Lessee/Applicant)COMPLETES:
1. NAME O TRANSFE OR If other than an Individual.provide Taxpayer ID Number
_Ziiie Di) / ��3
STREET ADDRESS.CITY,STATE,ZriP CODE 4�f 1 �2 O Ii PHONE NUMBER(Daytime)
07',2.77— 34 /
2. NAME OF FACILITY/PROJECT,if different from Facility Name in Part 1:
3. CERTIFICATION: This certifies that the facility and/or application referenced In Part 1 of this form will be/bwas transferred to the party
identified as the new transferee(owner/operator/lessee/applicant)on (date).
Printed Name and Title of Transf e ti/ C
Signature of Transferor Date-itfa
PART 3—PERMIT TRANSFER VALIDATION SECTION—DEPA MENT OF'ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION COMPLETES:
CI Transfer of permit approved,effective as of . Transferee subject to conditions of original permit,without exception.
Transfer of permit approved,with the following modifications or contingencies related to this Permit Transfer.
See attached revised permit page(s)'
L. Transfer of application approved. See attached for additional information required.
El Transfer denied,new application required. Please complete the enclosed permit application and return it to the undersigned Regional Permit
Administrator at the address listed on the reverse side of this from.
PERMIT ADMINISTRATOR
Name Signature Date
, :7,,,,,,,,,V'
85.15.12(8191)-2Bb OFFICE FILE NUMBER
_ NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
Om/ DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES
'IIMY 50 WOLF ROAD,ALBANY, NEW YORK 12233-6500
ORGANIZATIONAL REPORT
INCOMPLETE FORMS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND WILL BE RETURNED FOR COMPLETION
' 1. FULL NAME AND COMPLETE MAILING ADDRESS OF THE ENTITY,IN- 2. FULL NAME AND COMPLETE MAILING ADDRESS OF AGENT IN NEW
CLUDE NAME AND TITLE TO WHOM ALL CORRESPONDENCE SHOULD YORK WHO CAN BE SERVED ORDERS, NOTICES AND PROCESSES
BE SENT O tlf/1.rVn 4 D`
/S OF THE DEPARTMENT OR OF ANY COURT OF LAW.POST OFFICE BOX
` 1e ADDRESSES ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE
T‘.....,01 . 004 ...py 1(486-i
I(n c.V$l _o G a �/ !� 3 -h 111 `, It
j'iUe--
TELEER
(IONOE1— -21 re�Y�- (� �7
FAX NUMBER /�l0 7- 77-� 0 3� • TELEPHONE NUMBER 6207 8 77�33 2
3. TYPE OF ACTIVITY(Check those That Apply)
❑PRODUCTION—Oil,Gas,Injection or Geothermal Well(s) ❑SOLUTION MINING—Own/Operate Facility
❑STORAGE—Underground Gas or LPG facility ❑BRINE DISPOSAL—Own/Operate Facility
❑PURCHASING—Of 011 or Gas From Others ❑STR PHIC—Own Well or Hole
El TRANSPORTATION—By Truck or Pipeline for Others SURFACE MINING—Own/Operate Faculty
❑SALVAGE—Plug and Abandon Wells for Others ❑UNDERGROUND MINING—Own/Operate Facility
❑DRILLING—Drill Wells for Others •
4. STATE WHETHER THE ENTITY IS A CORPORATION, ASSOCIATION, 5. IF A NAME CHANGE,GIVE COMPLETE NAME AND ADDRESS OF
PARTNERSHIP,INDIVIDUAL,PUBLIC AUTHORITY OR GOVERNMENTAL PREVIOUS ENTITY.
AGENCY. IF FOREIGN CORPORATION, GIVE STATE AND DATE OF
INCORPORATION AND DATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO DO BUSINESS
IN NEW YORK STATE IF PARTNERSHIP,STATE WHETHER GENERAL OR
LIMITED AND COUNTY OF FILING.IF DBA,GIVE COUNTY OF FILING.
,up 1Ul. 1,O w-%L-
6. IF CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION,LIST ALL DIRECTORS AND ALL 7. LIST ALL PERSONS AUTHORIZED BY THE ENTITY TO SIGN ALL SUB-
OFFICERS. IF PARTNERSHIP, LIST ALL GENERAL AND ALL LIMITED MITTALS TO THE DEPARTMENT
PARTNERS.ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY.
NAME TITLE NAME TITLE
•
I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that the Information provided In the report Is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.I am aware that
false statements made In this report are punishable as a Class A misdemeanor under Section 210.45 of the Penal Law.
TYPE OR PRINT NA OF AUTHORIZED PERSON SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIB 8 •AUL N TAVELLI -
GtA 0' BEFORE ME, IS 4 )(:„.._,:l.i/ie
'ubhc. State of New Yoe'''1 l 0. 55-3936410
SIGNATURE D ^ 6 DAY OF ''I 1e�� ,, diomP C/ my
�� I NOTARY PUBLIC �// Expires /�
171 L C O W N -01
June 13,2008
• 1-1U 1 JUL 2 2008
NYS Dept. Environmental Conservation
Division of Mineral Resources,Region 7
615 Erie Blvd. West TO"."?,!OF ITHACA
PLANNING, Z0''RAG, ENGINEERING
Syracuse,NY 13204-2400
Attn: Lucas A. Mahoney, Mined Land Reclamation Specialist 2
RE: • Marshall Pit Mine Permit Renewal#70849, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County
• Off-site Stockpile Extension
Mining Plan Update
The Mining Plan for the Marshall Pit remains unchanged from the original plan,excepting that the
proposed and now permitted 4.8 acres is currently being mined.
• The area affected by mining to date is 4.8 acres with NO acres having been reclaimed as of
date of submission.
• The areas affected by mining since April 1, 1975 kis44.8 acres with No acres having been
reclaimed since that time. *5
• The acreage affected by mining through the permit renewal term is 4.8 acres with NO acres to
be reclaimed by that time.
• The total acreage to be affected and reclaimed through the life of the mine is 4.8 acres.
• The product from the pit is intended for 100%adjacent on-site development use for the proposed
Carrowmoor project,without any material leaving the property.
Original Mining Plan is attached.
Offsite Stockpiling Extension
Due to the lengthy delays created by the Town of Ithaca for approvals of the proposed Carrowmoor
project on the adjacent site where the mined materials will be used, we are requesting a two(2)year
extension of the existing permit for Off-Site Stockpiling of the mined materials. This stockpiling
occurred to date with permission and will continue(with approval) outside the mine itself on my
adjacent land of the same tax parcel, on which the Carrowmoor project will be constructed.
Thank you for your considerations in these matters. Please contact me should there be any questions
or requirements for additional information.
Sincerely,
John Rancich, Owner
PO Box 547
• Ithaca,NY 14851
607.279.0604 cell
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Monday August 19,2013
215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca
7:00 P.M.
Appeal of John Rancich, owner, requesting Special Approval per Chapter 270-28, of
the Town of Ithaca Code, to continue the gravel mining operation on a portion of the
property for an additional 10 years, located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road
(NYS Route 79), Tax Parcel No. 27.-1-1'4.2, Agricultural Zone.
Appeal of Joost Monen, owner/and theTown of Ithaca, acting,as agent on behalf of
owner, requesting a variance from Chapter 270-71 "Front Yard Setback", of the Town
of Ithaca Code, to maintain a home with insufficient front yard setback, located at 150
Whitetail Dr, Tax Parcel No. 44.-1-163, Medium Density Residential (MDR).
Continuation of the Appeal of Rod Howe and Mark Pedersen, owners, requesting
special approval from Chapter 270-69(B) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to have a
second dwelling unit in a building other than the principal building and a variance
request from Section 270-70 "Height Limitations" for second dwelling to exceed the
15 ft limitation, located at 126 Judd Falls Rd, Tax Parcel No. 66.-5-14, Medium
Density Residential (MDR).
Bruce W. Bates ..
Director of Code Enforcement
607-273-1783
Dated: August 7, 2013
Published: August 9, 2013
r
\
1
1,
TOWN OF ITHACA y 1
215 N. Tioga Street, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 [Li ��- - M,; t :1
, ff
TOWN CLERK 273-172I PLANNING 273-1747 CODE ENFORC ENT&ZONING i7:-I hi 3 ' J/$ 1x { i ;i L ' i a
PUBLIC WORKS(Engineering,Roads,Parks&Trails,Water&Sewer)273-165 I i.i.qua
i, i
FAX(607)273-1704 1 �leani7 to h/4r r"'"'""
`F"....a..! i
1 *oars of A eels A licat.ion Ill t.o ,,,,,Eft ,
Submit this Application ONLY after: (1) applying for a building',ign permit for which ;you received a determination
/denial from Code Enforcement Staff or(2)referral from the Planning Board based upon a site plan or subdivision review.
ZBA Appearance Fee: $100 For Office Use Only For Office Use Only
Property is located within,or adjacent to: Date Received tv' VA- 13
Please check all that apply:
County Ag District G:ash.op Check No. 109,41
1
Area Variance
Use Variance - UNA Zoning District °1*'
_Sign Variance C'EA Applicable Section(s)of Town Code:
Sprinkler Variance Forest Home Historic District _') b -D
�,_Special Approv ^State Park/another Municipality ty 9 '0- a.
.1
The UNDERSIGNED respectfullys/ubmits this Application Form1 requesting an app/e/aarancee to be �all1low, d to
/r ///-
at 7/7afE i ,t/;•ot(f 5,%A 4-Aat w—.'f n of Ithaca Tax Parcel . .ari (•-`/ /21-,.., ,
as shown on the attached supporting documents. A description of the practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship and/or
the Special Approval authorization request is as follows(attach y additional sheets as ne sary):
By filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or Town Staff to
enter my property for any inspection(s)in connection with my application.
Print Name Here: t_/4�ti^-. /`��'-./...•el I C
Signature of Owner/Appellant: �— Date: �"�'
Signature of Appellant/Agent: G Date:
Home/Cell Telephone Number: C1?'-/2 7 -/1.,4. Work Telephone Number: 6 2 "'.227 o5 32
Email Address • ,l A ,L e-r(7,.Gj Ej 4'''1 C'�/
C�
NOTE: A Granted Variance expires 18 months from the date of its filing. Construction work associated with any
variance(s)must commence within 18 months of filing. Your attendance at the meeting is strongly advised.
Revised II/9/2010
...._ ,...=7..........____.„Th ....„..1.Fry 1 ,...„...7.:17.
John Rancich ;' 1 II i 1
PO Box 547 f N ¢� M 'A ' ' 11i
t : Safi j -)
Ithaca NY 14851 _. i Y""" 1
(607) 277-0332 aANLvj / AgiNC ill t
June 14, 2013
To the Ithaca Tn Board:
I would like to extend my mining permit in order to keep my Carrowmoor
project able to move forward.
I have mined and stockpiled aggregate to be used on-site,but have not been
active in the past three years,primarily due to the development moratorium on
West Hill.
I am requesting a ten year extension so as not to go through this renewal process
again in another 3 years.Nothing has changed at the mine since my last approval,
and we have had no complaints.
Respectfully,
Z---- .
John Rancich, Owner
Newfork State Department of Environmental Cons rvation
x.. • Division of Environmental Permits, Region.7
1285 Fisher Avenue, Cortland, New York 13045alba
- r=✓
Phone: (607)753-3095 • FAX: (607)753-8532 f i`
1`a Website:www.dec.ny.gov . ��, �;,_ •s _
Alexander B. Grannis
O, b ,, Commissioner
August 20, 2008
John Rancich )
P.O. Box 547
Ithaca,New York 14851-0547 __
RE: Mine File#70849; Marshall Pit
Application ID # 7-5030-00110/00001,Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins
Dear Permittee:
Enclosed is the permit which authorizes you to operate the above referenced mine. As the permittee,you -
are responsible for maintaining a copy of all documents at the work site.
Review all permit conditions carefully. If you are unsure of your obligations under the permit, please
bring your questions to our attention. If, for any reason, you believe you will be unable to comply or
remain in compliance with the terms of your permit, please contact us.
Note the expiration date. A renewal application involving no changes to the original plans should be
submitted at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the permit. An'application involving any changes to
the above plans may be treated as a new application and may require a detailed environmental review
and should be submitted well in advance of the expiration date.
Be advised,the Uniform Procedures Regulations (6NYCRR Part 621) provide that an applicant may
request a public hearing if a permit is denied or contains conditions which are unacceptable to them.
Any such request must be made in writing within 30 calendar days,of the date of permit issuance and
must be addressed to the Regional Permit Administrator at the letterhead address. A copy should also be
sent to the Chief Administrative Law Judge at NYSDEC, 625 Broadway, 1st Floor, Albany,NY 12233-
1550.
If you have any questions please contact Teri Phelps at (607) 753-3095 ext. 294, or John Merriman at
(607) 753-3095 ext. 236.
Sincerely yours, Authorized Signature
Teri Phelps Jo n H. erriman Jr.
Agency Program Aide Deputy Regional Permit Administrator
Enclosure
cc: Michael S. Spadafore,Division of Mineral Resources
ECO Eisenberg,Milewski
erbert J Engman, T Q ' Superyiso_
LOCATION MAP
• Rancich Gravel Mine
`i' , t 4"f.7iti"."'"j Mecklenburg Road . ' ,
4...,,' x -',� ; Planning Board, July 16, 2013
•4•;-•••-'1' * .10* _ .* • ' !olcii, ,Airit
.,
. . , . , , , ,
,. 4 411 t
4 ,,,,,,, 4• .,„_.. .0,, ..
;`,...:11411t,H. ..'.-.,-41'''`i;.,44t/iVtilf'- S II" 41' 'C. . "" ei' .A‘ '
* ... --,,, ...v..my.i , .4.'• * ' - % • ,
... :.,,44.,',,V •.‘ Ibii`e,,,- .! • A :4,1t At 1,., .,t. _t v‘,: -. . ' ,, , t''''kt!,, - 'C'7*---s'' - '-- .
lit
•
r ir`s' - . I - im,e.. '-
4 • fir.
l .
-^A' spA .. „ . .• ,.. ... , w„, .A 46 s k..,..'•Ar '. —
dit‘
•
lir
. 1144
,> r . aiti '• n� , + ' �p' •{t` 4i _REst .• d • ,t' . rar P ' Lr• -}` i\�. „. Y , P * ., k < 4. i -• ••
•'a. . ., a •_ mot„ ^lor
+A, ,t•.; '.,� . �•. �',...,f i�iai a' ly y ,i t` . 1; 'r'• ilk '.. ` 'I::
�yq+,•v[t' . t4.i.T • �apt ' -
,7,{ -4 t ,- t• r � +' y, • '-- s1 , ,l� r
:::
':1.
Ito
•
•
gravel mine �_ iliitoto*
i i " ,'A. A s ' lit; f
•
' 1. tt
0 • -
. },
• .• v , ! •1 , • 4 1 .. ''1.— ig 5‘)* ,:'"• ' .N.,
., .-., ,.. - . ,-, -,-,.. -- ,,, , , ,, , .....,
. , , ....,,, ,.,,,. ,, r
` 4: tt,�� r-l t . -i.�• is i, . .+• .s�.
1 �t
"'S I A . ...,j.: .,� '.fir .f _l vA 4 11 ACV
' t
. impainuirrirAmn• •-••- ler lip 0 7R„,,-1,41" • •
fir. ♦ 7 0 �: 11` ?RF •i xo`
iie ).4 11,171 fl, .: -' ,,, . .,
} L':Z!�er'J `- _ i i' •, r"+''` • , .1 -fir ,,, , } y�. S-.w
ci- ., ( _ t' it S I _ .J�. . ?i s;y" • .:2
-,4:2',:'...::::,:i:- .3
f i y � � . r1 YI'%,:''''.1:'''''.Ail r f
r . . kci.. ;• \
is r Y ■t;, I� :"( , It , , ,„
cjj • o*.% t x
li
!!' ..t ti1I... .. 'J• ...a ',i _ ry+Y4.._.. •.t ip . ..a_ _44:1 1..._.....•. ti
I I I I I I I 1
0 305 610 1,220 Feet
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION -
- Facili y DEC ID 7-5030-00110
r• .
PERMIT
Under the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL)
Permittee and Facility Information
Permit Issued To: Facility:
JOHN RANCICH MARSHALL PIT
PO BOX 547 STATE RT 79 NEAR WEST HAVEN RD
INTERSECTION
ITHACA,NY 14851-0547 ITHACA, NY 14850 '
(607) 277-0332
Facility Location: in ITHACA in TOMPKINS COUNTY
Facility Principal Reference Point: NYTM-E: 373.587 NYTM-N: 4701.274
Latitude: 42°27'12.5" Longitude: 76°32'14.4"
Authorized Activity: This permit authorizes mining activity on 4.8 acres of land during the permit
term, within a 4.8 acre life-of-mine facility, on a 158 acre parcel of land, including specified processing
• equipment on lands owned by the permittee.
Permit Authorizations
Mined Land Reclamation- Under Article 23, Title 27
Permit ID 7-5030-00110/00001 (Mined Land ID 70849)
Renewal Effective Date: 8/20/2008 Expiration Date: 8/20/2013
NYSDEC Approval
By acceptance of this permit, the permittee agrees that the permit is contingent upon strict
compliance with the ECL, all applicable regulations, and all conditions included as part of this
permit.
Permit Administrator:JOHN H MERRIMAN, JR, Deputy Regional Permit Administrator
Address: NYSDEC REGION 7 CORTLAND SUB-OFFICE
1285 FISHER AVE
CORTLAND,NY 13045 -1090
Authorized Signature: Date / 2-6 /
Distribution List
MICHAEL S SPADAFORE
Herbert J. Engman, Town Supervisor
Law Enforcement
Page 1 of 6
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION mew -
Facility DEC ID 7-5030-00110
Permit Components •
MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT CONDITIONS
GENERAL CONDITIONS,APPLY TO ALL AUTHORIZED PERMITS
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER PERMITTEE OBLIGATIONS
Permit Attachments
Permit Sign
MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT CONDITIONS
1. Post Permit Sign The permit sign enclosed with this permit shall be posted in a conspicuous
location on the worksite and adequately protected from the weather.
2. Bond, Surety to Remain in Force Any required reclamation bond or other surety, in an amount
determined by the Department, shall be maintained in full force and effect. Such a bond or other surety
shall not be terminated until the reclamation of the mined area is approved by the department in writing.
3. Conformance With Plans All activities authorized by this permit must be in strict conformance
with the approved plans submitted by the applicant or applicant's agent as part of the peiuiit application.
Such plans were approved by the Department on various dates and consist of the following items:
-Mining Permit Application Form dated June 13, 2008 and signed by John
Rancich.
- Organizational Report Form dated August 15, 2003 and signed by John
Rancich.
- Letter dated June 13, 2008 and signed by John Rancich.
- Reclamation Plan Map dated January 3, 2000 and prepared by Brayton P. Foster
Consulting Geologist.
-Mining Plan Map dated January 3, 2000 and prepared by Brayton P. Foster
Consulting Geologist.
4. No Deviation From Approved Plan The permittee shall not deviate or depart from the approved
mined land use plan without approval by the Department of an alteration or modification thereto.
5. Provide Person during DEC Inspection The permittee shall provide a person to accompany the
Department's representative during an inspection to the permit area when notification is provided,be it
written or verbal, at least 24 hours prior to such inspection.
Page 2 of 6
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION `�
: 'Facility DEC ID 7-5030-00110
• 6. Permit Does Not Apply to Structures and Safety Aspects Unless expressly provided for,the
issuance of this permit does not apply to any structures contained on the plans or in the specifications,
nor does this permit apply to safety aspects of the operation and/or reclamation plan.
r,�7 iStrip and Stockpile Soils for Reclamation Prior to the excavation of previously undisturbed areas,
topsoil and overburden shall be stripped, stockpiled separately, and.used for reclamation_of mined areas.
;These o be,ckpiles.shall_ -seeded fo establish,avegetati�e cover:witliiri'30 daysorfas_-soori,as:practicahle
following their:consfruc`tion j The permittee shall locate all overburden stockpiles within the permitted
area of the approvedl,ife of Mine. Sufficient quantities of topsoil must be retained on the site for use in
reclamation, unless prior approval is granted by the Department.
"''SrejNo Unpermitted Discharge Outside Limits of Mine There shall be no natural swales or channels
or constructed features such as ditches,pipes, etc., that are capable of discharging waters to any offsite
areas or to any areas outside the limits of the Life of Mine except those explicitly described and shown
in the narrative and graphic portions of the approved Mined Land Use Plan. All silt laden water and
storm water generated on, or running across, the site shall be retained within the approved project area.
The permittee must comply with all applicable State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(SPDES)
permit requirements and provide necessary notifications for off-site point source discharges.
9. Maintain Area Markers for Permit Term The permittee shall provide permanent markers such as -
stakes,posts or other devices acceptable to the Department to identify and delineate the permit area, as
outlined on the approved Mining Plan Map. These markers are to be installed prior to the start of mining-
and shall be maintained for the duration of the permit term.
10. Dust Control Water or other approved dust palliatives must be applied to haulageways and other
parts of the mine, as often as necessary, to prevent visible dust from leaving the mine property.
11. Load Trucks in Conformance with Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 380-a(1) The permittee
shall ensure that all trucks are loaded in conformance with Vehicle'and Traffic Law Section 380-a(1).
Open trucks or trailers utilized for the transportation of minerals shall be equipped with a cover,
tarpaulin or other device which completely closes in the opening of the truck while in operation,unless
the load is arranged so that no mineral can fall from or blow out of such truck.
12. Fueling of Equipment and Reporting of Spills Fueling of equipment shall be controlled to
prevent spillage. Any spillage of fuels, waste oils, other petroleum products or hazardous materials shall
be reported to the Department's Spill Hotline number(1-800-457-7362) within 2 hours. The permittee
shall retain the Department's Spill Response number for immediate access in the permittee's office and
at the mine site.
13. Hours of Operation All mining,reclamation and associated activities (including but not limited to:
excavating, grading,processing equipment, stockpiling operations,haulage operations, and maintenance
operations) shall be limited to the following times: Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Operation of
the mine is prohibited on Saturdays and Sundays and the following legal holidays: New Year's Day,
Memorial Day,Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas.
•
Page 3 of 6
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Nimor ,
Facility DEC ID 7-5030-00110 A - ', -
14. Limited Stockpiling Outside LOM Permission to stockpile sand and gravel which has been
excavated from the Marshall Pit, outside the life-of-mine, is granted as requested. Stockpiling shall be
limited in time and location as described by the permittee by letter dated June 13, 2008 with associated
sketch showing stockpiles #1, #2 and#3 just south of the life-of-mine. Such activity shall be conducted
in accordance with the mining permit. Reclamation of the stockpile areas shall be conducted
immediately upon stockpile removal, to the satisfaction of the Department.
15. Keep Mine Neat At all times the mine site is to be kept neat.
16. No Offsite Materials at Mine No materials (originating from offsite sources) of any kind shall be
brought into this mining operation except those specified in the approved Mined Land Use Plan.
17. Cover Large Rocks and Boulders Large blocks of rocks,boulders or similar materials remaining
within the permit area shall be removed or covered with a minimum compacted depth of two feet of
cover material with a soil composition capable of sustaining vegetative growth.
18. Maintain Work Above Groundwater A minimum of 5 feet of undisturbed material shall be
maintained above seasonal high groundwater elevation at all locations.
19. Store Materials for Reclamation Within Permit Area Materials which are to be disposed of
during reclamation shall be stored or stockpiled within the permit area.
20. Equipment at Mines Maintained to Minimize Noise Equipment operation and maintenance:
a. All equipment to be used in mining and mineral processing shall be maintained in proper
operating conditions.
b. All factory installed or added environmental controls and suppressors and mufflers must be
utilized at all times.
c. Mining equipment shall be operated in a manner so as to reasonably minimize noise levels
during operating hours.
21. Archaeological or Structural Remains If any archaeological or structural remains are encountered
during excavation,the permittee must immediately cease, or cause to cease, all work in the area of the
remains and notify
Regional Permit Administrator
NYSDEC REGION 7 CORTLAND SUB-OFFICE
1285 FISHER AVE
CORTLAND,NY13045 -1090
Work shall not resume until written permission to do so has been received from the Department.
22. No Backfilling above Prior Grades at Mine There shall be no backfilling and/or deposition of
overburden/waste rock above the original (naturally occurring) grades that existed at this mine prior to
any mining activities.
Page 4 of 6
Iowa
. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION •
. -Facility DEC ID 7-5030-00110
23. File Termination Notice If the permittee decides to discontinue operation, a termination notice
must be filed 60 days prior to the scheduled temporary or permanent cessation of mining.
GENERAL CONDITIONS - Apply to ALL Authorized Permits:
1. Facility Inspection by The Department The permitted site or facility, including relevant records,
is subject to inspection at reasonable hours and intervals by an authorized representative of the
Department of Environmental Conservation(the Department)to determine whether the permittee is
complying with this permit and the ECL. Such representative may order the work suspended pursuant
to ECL 71- 0301 and SAPA 401(3).
The permittee shall provide a person to accompany the Department's representative during an inspection
to the permit area when requested by the Department.
A copy of this permit, including all referenced'maps, drawings and special conditions, must be available
for inspection by the Department at all times at the project site or facility. Failure to produce a copy Of
the permit upon request by a Department representative is a violation of this permit.
2. Relationship of this Permit to Other Department Orders and Determinations Unless expressly
provided for by the Department, issuance of this permit does not modify, supersede or rescind any order
or determination previously issued by the Department or any of the terms, conditions or requirements
contained in such order or determination.
3. Applications For Permit Renewals, Modifications or Transfers The permittee must submit a
separate written application to the Department for permit renewal, modification or transfer of this
permit. Such application must include any forms or supplemental information the Department requires.
Any renewal,modification or transfer granted by the Department must be in writing. Submission of
applications for permit renewal, modification or transfer are to be submitted to:
Regional Permit Administrator
NYSDEC REGION 7 CORTLAND SUB-OFFICE
1285 FISHER AVE
CORTLAND,NY13045 -1090
4. Submission of Renewal Application The permittee must submit a renewal application at least 30
days before permit expiration for the following permit authorizations: Mined-Land Reclamation.
5. Permit Modifications, Suspensions and Revocations by the Department The Department
reserves the right to modify, suspend or revoke this permit. The grounds for modification, suspension or
revocation include:
a. materially false or inaccurate statements in the permit application or supporting papers;
b. failure by the peiuiittee to comply with any terms or conditions of the permit;
c. exceeding the scope of the project as described in the permit application;
Page 5 of 6
mar.
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION `_
Facility DEC ID 7-5030-00110
,
d. newly discovered material information or a material change in environmental conditions,
relevant technology or applicable law or regulations since the issuance of the existing permit;
e. noncompliance with previously issued permit conditions, orders of the commissioner, any
provisions of the Environmental Conservation Law or regulations of the Department related to
the permitted activity.
6. Permit Transfer Permits are transferrable unless specifically prohibited by statute, regulation or
another permit condition. Applications for permit transfer should be submitted prior to actual transfer of
ownership.
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER PERMITTEE OBLIGATIONS
Item A: Permittee Accepts Legal Responsibility and Agrees to Indemnification
The permittee, excepting state or federal agencies, expressly agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the
Department of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York, its representatives, employees,
and agents ("DEC") for all claims, suits, actions, and damages,to the extent attributable to the
permittee's acts or omissions in connection with the permittee's undertaking of activities in connection
with, or operation and maintenance of,the facility or facilities authorized by the permit whether in
compliance or not in compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. This indemnification does
not extend to any claims, suits, actions, or damages to the extent attributable to DEC's own negligent or
intentional acts or omissions, or to any claims, suits, or actions naming the DEC and arising under
Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules or any citizen suit or civil rights provision
under federal or state laws.
Item B: Permittee's Contractors to Comply with Permit
The permittee is responsible for informing its independent contractors, employees, agents and assigns of
their responsibility to comply with this permit, including all special conditions while acting as the
permittee's agent with respect to the permitted activities, and such persons shall be subject to the same
sanctions for violations of the Environmental Conservation Law as those prescribed for the permittee.
Item C: Permittee Responsible for Obtaining Other Required Permits
The permittee is responsible for obtaining any other permits, approvals, lands, easements and rights-of-
way that may be required to carry out the activities that are authorized by this permit.
Item D: No Right to Trespass or Interfere with Riparian Rights
This permit does not convey to the permittee any right to trespass upon the lands or interfere with the
riparian rights of others in order to perform the permitted work nor does it authorize the impairment of
any rights, title, or interest in real or personal property held or vested in a person not a party to the
permit.
Page 6 of 6
TOWN OF ITHACA C
215 N. Tioga Street, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 �L
TOWN CLERK 273-1721 PLANNING 273-1747 CODE ENFORCENT&ZONING -1
PUBLIC WORKS(Engineering,Roads,Parks&Trails,Water&Sewer)273-165 JUG �o�
FAX(607)273-1704
TOWN OP ITHACA
Zoning Board of Appeals Application Fo -- . CODE ENFORCEMENT
Submit this Application ONLY after: (1) applying for a building/sign permit for which you received a determination
/denial from Code Enforcement Staff or(2)referral from the Planning Board based upon a site plan or subdivision review.
ZBA Appearance Fee: $100 • - For Office Use Only For Office Use Only
Property js located within,or adjacent to: CoPlease check all that apply: Date Received l`1• t',�
County Ag District Casha er Check No. I0(19"
Area Variance
Use Variance UNA Zoning District
_Sign Variance CEA - Applicable Section(s)of Town Code:
Sprinkler Variance Forest Home Historic District
Special Approv State Park/another municipality
The UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Application Form requesting an appearance
to be allow d to
/
at 20V ,a1�f�/� �5�� ��ff , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. �? •-1�/,
as shown on the attached supporting documents. A description of the practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship and/or
the Special Approval authorization request is as followsr(attach3ny additional sheets as ne ssary):
By filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or Town Staff to
enter my property for any inspection s)in connection with my application.
Print Name Here: C I C-
)
Signature of Owner/Appellant: ,,, ((( Date: 3
Signature of Appellant/Agent: Date:
Home/Cell Telephone Number: l a 7 Work Telephone Number: P.? —c277 1—°`3 32
Email Address ,��N
NOTE: A Granted Variance expires 18 months from the date of its filing. Construction work associated with any
variance(s)must commence within 18 months of filing. Your attendance at the meeting is strongly advised.
Revised 11/9/2010
Town of Ithaca Environmental Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEN ORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca,Tompkins ounty,NY ONLY
PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION(To be completed by App 'cant or Project Sponsor)
1.Applicant/Sponsor 2.Project Name
3.Precise location(street address,road intersections,prominent landmarks, ;'c.or provide map:)
.
Tax Parcel Number:
4.Is proposed action:
NEW? EXPANSION? MOD' ICATION/ALTERATION?
5. Describe project briefly: (Include project purpose,present Ian use,current and future construction plans,and other
relevant items): •
(Attach separate sheet(s)if n,cessary to adequately describe the proposed project.)
6.Amount of land affected:
Initially(0-5yrs) Acres (6-10yrs) Acres 10 yrs) Acres
7.How is land zoned presently?
8.Will proposed action comply with existing zonin or other existing land use restrictions?
YES NO If no,describe conflict briefly:
9.Will proposed action lead to a request for ne :
Public Road? YES NO Public W, er?YES NO Public Sewer?YES NO
10.What is the present land use in the vicini of the proposed project?Residential Commercial
Industrial Agriculture Park/Fo est/Open Space Other
Please Describe:
11.Does proposed action involve a per it it,approval,or funding,now or ultimately from any other governmental agency
(Federal,State,Local?)YES NO
If yes,list agency name and permit/a t proval/funding:
12.Does any aspect of the propos:d action have a currently valid permit or approval?YES NO
If yes,list agency name and per it/approval.Also,state whether it will require modification.
I CERTIFY 'HAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLE P GE:
Applicant/:ponsor Name(Print or Type):
Signature and Date:
Revised 11/9/20I0
L
FILE 5. PoLf-c-
DATE 1• Ic L
PB Resolution No. 2013-025: Designation of the Zoning Board of Appeals as Lead Agency
Rancich Gravel Excavation
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
July 16, 2013
Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Linda Collins
RESOLVED:
That this Board, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, hereby concurs that the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals should be the Lead Agency in the environmental review of the proposed
request to extend the Rancich gravel mining operation on Mecklenburg Road for another 10 years.
Vote
Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty,Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb
hereby certify
that the foregoin is rile 47. xact qo of a resolution
adopted by'the • d
of the Town of Ithaca,Tomp ' s ounty, New York,on
the //,fie. day of •
Da--t/4 First wn Clerk
ZBA Final 10/22/07
Pg 6
That the applicant has not submitted any competent financial evidence to show that a
reasonable return could not be achieved for every allowed use on this property , and
That the hardship is self created given that the applicant leased the property knowing
that a use variance would be required and accepted the terms of the use variance that
was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals in 2004 , and
That the hardship that this property suffers from is not unique to the area and in fact
does apply to a number of other properties in the light industrial zones , and
That the requested variance would alter the essential character of the neighborhood
given that , not only in the Light Industrial Zone , but in no other commercial zone in the
Town of Ithaca , is outside display allowed , and certainly not outside display of large
trailers along the roadway.
A vote on the motion was as follows .
Ayes : Sigel , Ellsworth , Niefer, and Mountin .
Nays : Mathews
Absent : Krantz
The motion passed 4 to 1 .
The second appeal is that of
John Rancich , Owner/Appellant , requesting Special Approval per the
requirements of Chapter 270 , Article XXVI , Section 270 =217 , to be permitted to
excavate a farm pond on the Marshall Farm property located on NYS Route 79
( Mecklenburg Road ) , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 27 - 1 - 14 . 2 , Agricultural Zone .
The deposit or extraction of more than 250 cubic yards of fill requires Special
Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals .
Mr. Walker — Kirk , there is one correction . This is an agricultural district , so it would
actually be 500 yards over a three year period .
Chairman Sigel — Okay .
Mr. Walker — And this says 250 yards . It still requires this Board to review it because
it' s 2 , 200 yards , but it is an agricultural zone and it is a bonafide agricultural practice
because they are using the .pond for irrigation water.
Chairman Sigel — Okay , so then approval is required because it is over 500 cubic
yards . .
Mr. Walker — Yes .
Chairman Sigel — Good evening .
ZBA Final 10/22/07
Pg 7
John Rancich , 363 Hines Road and Steve Bauman , 214 Park Place
Chairman Sigel — I haven 't really had a chance to look at what you ' ve submitted this
evening . Do you want to just explain that a little .
Mr. Bauman — Do you want the history on the project as well ?
Chairman Sigel — Sure , yeah .
Mr. Bauman — Originally the pond was going to be expanded because it had silted in
over the years and the farmers hadn 't had enough water for the irrigation of the
pumpkins and the like . So Mr. Rancich went to clean that out , clean the brush off that
was on the levee , he purchased it 2 years ago . . . 3 years ago ?
Mr. Rancich — No , 5 years ago .
Mr. Bauman — and in cleaning off the brush off the top of the dike , it was discovered that
it was only about 3 feet wide at the top and a significant drop off the back , and we
couldn 't figure out what was holding it up .
Mr. Rancich — The dike was really inferior. Grossly inferior for holding the water that it
was , it is amazing that it held it as long as it did . So with the request for more irrigation
water, we wanted to enlarge the pond . We started that and we were going to haul the
fill from the excavation around to the back side of the dike and beef up that dike .
Mr. Bauman — There ' s a low area to the north that is seasonally wet and there were
actually drains out of the pond to that area and it ' s shown as a depression ' area on the
map there . In the process excavation and where the springs came in , it went beyond
the 500 cubic yards and when we spoke with Dan Walker, he asked us to come in and
talk about and figure out what we needed to do . We put in the original application . The
modification today , our documents that we just hadn 't submitted in the original one , it' s
the two sections of the area just showing the cross section of that and where the stone
check dams would be on the way down on the outfall . That outfall has been graded to a
relatively minor slope compared to what it was , with the fill . That would be on the lower
right hand corner of the map . It' s been widened out all the way down to the bottom
except where it was very wet . I think that may have been done now . There was about
a 3 or 4 foot drop to the bottom just because they couldn 't get the equipment in and out
without getting it stuck . That' s all been seeded and taken care of. The groins have not
been put in at this point , but the main concern was the . . . this is the headwaters for
Lindermann Creek and Lindermann Creek runs right down past the Lindermann
Apartments and the like and with the amount of water that would be in that pond , were it
to break , it would actually do some kind of damage . Either erosion and/or property
damage were it to let loose . So , that was half the premise of increasing the capacity of
the pond , was to get more water there , but when seeing the poor condition of the dike
ZBA Final 10/22/07
Pg 8
and we don 't know how old it was , whether it was hand dug . . . There were 2 trees , we
think the root system is probably the reason that that dike was there in the beginning .
Chairman Sigel - Okay . Now Chris , you , Dan has written a letter here stating that you
feel that . . .
Mr. Walker — I am very comfortable with the design and that it' s appropriate .
Chairman Sigel — Okay .
Dick Matthews — Could you repeat that please .
Mr. Walker — I am very comfortable with the design and it is an appropriate structure
and that I am recommending that the permit be granted .
Chairman Sigel — And Chris . . .
Dick Matthews — So you ' ve addressed the concerns that Chris had ?
Mr. Walker — Yes , I , that' s one reason I asked Mr. Rancich to prepare the additional
material , to give more detail . I did have the benefit , or had the benefit of being onsite a
couple of times and walking it and being very comfortable , from an engineering
standpoint that what they are doing is appropriate and . . .
Dick Matthews — And sound ?
Mr. Walker — And sound .
James Niefer — Could you give us some explanation or comment about the
qualifications of the people who have passed judgment on the adequacy of this dam .
Are you a civil engineer?
Mr. Walker — . I am a civil engineer. I have worked . . . with Soil Conservation Service , I
worked for them for 13 years . . . .
James Niefer — Would you be willing to put your PE license and certification on this
Mr. Walker — Yes . I am very comfortable with this design .
James Niefer — . . . that it is an adequate structure .
Mr. Walker — Yes . It is primarily and excavated pond . . .
James Niefer — 1 am familiar with it . I have been up there , I 've seen it , so I know what' s
there .
ZBA Final 10/22/07
Pg 9
Mr . Walker — In place of additional fill of the material that' s available up there , it' s a good
structural fill and the permeability of the soil for the existing dike has been holding the
water but it needs some reinforcing behind it . I don 't like dikes with trees on them
because roots go down and then roots die and they create spaces for water to run , so . . .
But in reviewing it , I felt that the work they' re doing is appropriate to reinforce that dike .
James Niefer — How far is the work progressed on the , oh , downstream side of the dam
where those check dams are supposed to be . Are any of the check dams in at this
present time?
Mr. Walker — Check dams are not in .
Mr. Bauman — Not as of yet , no .
Mr . Walker — Presently the water level in that pond is quite low because of the dry
season that we 've had . . .
James Niefer — But the original pond is up approximately where normal level would be
isn 't it?
Mr. Walker — It ' s still about 2 feet below going over the spillway because of the dry
seasons that we ' ve had .
James Niefer — It generally appeared that the proposed addition is going to have a
substantial more capacity than the existing pond .
Mr. Walker — Right . What they are proposing , the hole they have excavated to the north
of the existing pond , there is a large berm left between those 2 so they are . . .
James Niefer — Is that going to be removed ?
Mr. Walker — Hmmm . . . that ' s a possibility in the future . At this point I think Mr. Rancich
just wants to leave it in place . . .
James Niefer — The berm to the east . . . the berm between the 2 ponds , will that be
removed ?
Mr. Rancich — Ohl .
James Niefer — Will that be removed when this goes into operation?
Mr. Rancich — the berm between . . . the dike that exists between the 2 ponds is . . . we
didn 't want to drain the existing pond into the empty how , so we left that dike there .
Now , what our plan is , to see how the new pond fills and adjust that dike based on the
water level in the new pond . We , I ' ve got a hope that the water in the new pond will be
higher than the existing pond , and if that happens , we ' ll design a spillway from the new
ZBA Final 10/22/07
Pg 10
pond into the old one . Quite possibly, the2 ponds will fill up to exactly the same level
and then we will be able to just remove that partition , or not . Or, we can remove it in
part .
Mr. Walker — Right now, if you notice the , the drawing shows the depressed area there
which has been a depressional wet area and is actually lower than the dike is , a very
small , you can see a little pipe showing in there which I think they are proposing to put
in to run the water between the two . . .
Mr Bauman — That was actually there and it was taken out during this construction
because of the buildup of the berm there .
Mr. Rancich —That pipe that was there was their irrigation line that would draw water out
of the pond . They would hook the pumps to that pipe and suck it out of the pond , but
over the years , you know , the pond is silted in and there wasn 't enough water for the
irrigation .
James . Niefer — The irrigated land is in the direction of Mecklenburg rather than
downstream towards . . .
Mr. Rancich — It' s in both directions . The farm exists on both sides of that pond .
James Niefer — Does the State have any permit issuing jurisdiction for this size of
excavation ?
Mr. Walker — This pond . . . the pond is less than a million gallons and it' s less than a
three foot high dike , basically , so it does not , it' s , primarily excavated ponds do not
require State permit in it' s existing form . If they were to raise a new dike across the
bottom and raise it up to 10 or 12 feet which Mr. Rancich had talked about , possibly
some time in the future , then it would require State permit and I ' ve told him that, but the
existing pond is smaller than what requires a State permit .
Dick Matthews — Another question Mr. Walker. Are you an employee . of Tompkins
County?
Mr. Walker — No , I am an employee of the Town of Ithaca .
Dick Matthews — Town of Ithaca ?
Mr. Walker — I am the Town Engineer.
Dick Matthews — Okay.
Mr. Walker — I am the person that regulates the earth fill ordinance.
ZBA Final 10/22/07
Pg 11
Dick Matthews — Oh . Now, Chris , are you comfortable with what Mr. Walker has said ?
In regard to your letter that requested more information ?
Ms . Balestra — Somewhat . Planning Staff didn 't have all of the information that you
have in front of you tonight when we were conducting our environmental review , so , we
do have a couple of remaining concerns , although . . . Let' s see . . . the maps in front of you
show the topographic changes and additional check dams for erosion control . We
haven 't heard from the applicant what type of material is actually in the existing levee
and the existing excavated material , so , we are concerned that it' s not going to contain ,
it ' s going to be ( inaudible ) little bit too permeable , so there may be a leak that goes into
Lindermann Creek and this is the head waters for _ Lindermann Creek , so there is some
concern about that .
Chairman Sigel -- You mean the type of soil that . . .
Ms . Balestra — The type of soil that' s going to be used .
Dick Matthews — Does that amend your recommendations Mr. Walker?
Mr. Walker — Yes , the materials out there is a silty gravel , so . . .
Ms . Balestra — Yeah and we weren 't aware of what was being used
Mr. Walker — Right , and that was probably . . . in . . . I ' ve done a lot of farm ponds in the field
and made determinations . . . the fact that the pond is holding water right now , and also in
looking at the material that was excavated , it ' s a material that has enough fines in it that
when it' s compacted , it will hold water. Now , the primary use of this is not up against
the water, it is effectively a lining within this dike now because it is holding the water and
this is an excellent structural fill on the outside to reinforce it , and in fact, you want a
little bit of permeability on the toe side so that the water will drain through it and not pipe
out through the top of it and it actually acts as a drain , and the amount of fill will flatten
the slope out to about a 6 on 1 slope which is very flat and very stable , with this
material . So , it will be a stable embankment .
Dick Matthews — Chris?
Ms . Balestra — If the Town Engineer says it is going to be a stable embankment , then I
am not an engineer and I can not question that . All I can say is that we didn 't have that
information in front of us when we were doing our environmental review and also , the
County requested additional erosion and sedimentation control and traditionally that
means silt fence , but , I can 't speak to where that would go and how it would work , that
would be up to the Town Engineer.
James Niefer — My reasoning is that the size of this excavation , the amount of fill
removed , the amount of water involved . . . quite frankly I . would feel much more
comfortable in considering it and /or approving it if these submissions had a professional
ZBA Final 10/22/07
Pg 12
engineer' s certification on it by someone other than a Town employee . I think that when
we have major building projects that come before us , we look for those , architect' s
certification and stamp approvals and so on and so forth , and by reason of the fact that
this is the headwaters for Lindermann Creek , there ' s a big Lindermann development
downstream from this , and you know , there ' s a good probability that nothing adverse
will happen here , however, if something should happen with a lot of water rainfall up the
fields above and the pond dam be breached , there would be a possibility of litigation
against us , having approved such an item without engineer' s certification . I think that
this is something that should be considered that we do have engineer' s stamp on this as
being adequately designed facility . I ' m not proposing that the Town Engineer certify it
either . . .
Mr. Walker — No that' s not appropriate for me , I ' m reviewing the application and . . .
Mr. Rancinch — Mr. Niefer, if you will allow me . . . the chances of a failure prior to this
work was far, far greater. This dike , I have a little tiny excavator that oh it' s tracks are
40 inches apart , I could not traverse across the top of that dike because it was too
narrow . The tracks would set down on either side : On the water side , I don 't know
exactly how steep it dropped off, but on the outside of the dike , it dropped off, it dropped
off tremendously . I mean , you could not walk down , you would fall down that hill . So it
was a very steep , and in my estimation , and I have built 30 o0r 40 ponds in my life , it
was totally inadequate . So the work we ' ve done , we haven 't raised the water level , not
an inch , all we ' ve taken is the fill from the hole we dug , which was an existing
depression in the ground , and moved it to the outside of the existing dike and reinforced
it . Now we have a dike that the top of our dike is 20 feet wide and slopes off very
gradually.
James Niefer — I see .
Mr. Rancich — So we took all that fill and up against the back so things are much better
than they were .
Mr. Bauman — The new excavation ,. the new pond is actually an excavated pond in and
of itself. IT could actually stand if the other pond wasn 't in front of it and the reason that
was done that way was we weren 't sure what kind of pressure that other pond , the
existing pond would take on it until that dike was put into place in the front and the
capacity of the existing pond is probably much better than it was , but It' s not going to be
excavated , just the new pond is what would be used for the irrigation and the slope on
the top of that dike goes off at 6 to 1 so it can be mowed without any issue and in the
past it Was too steep and that ' s why the equipment that went down in got stuck was
because all the silt was down 'in there and the brambles and the like and it just wasn 't
conducive to getting equipment through .
James Niefer — Are you planning to deepen the existing pond ?
ZBA Final 10/22/07
Pg 13
Mr. Rancich — We don 't have any plans for that right now . I would say no , right now
there is no plan for that . It seems to be pretty deep .
Dick Matthews — The point was made about the signature and certification of an outside
engineering source and that' s an arguable point and it' s a point worth at least
considering another viewpoint . I would hope that the Town official , the Town Engineer
would be more adversarial than would be an outside engineering architect . As far as
fearing a lawsuit , 1 am sure the Town is quite capable of handling a lawsuit , but to
suggest that , and I am not so sure my colleague has done this , to suggest that the
Town Engineer and his word lacks integrity or lacks competence , is somewhat unfair. I
_—understand_my_colleagues point , _ but 1 believe -the -man across from me has the integrity
of any outside engineer that we could have . If he says so , if he believes it , I have
nothing else to go on except the integrity of his professional view .
James Niefer — My comments were in no way to discredit your professional skills . I
recognize you as a certified professional engineer and I was not doubting your skills and
your ability and your handling of this matter. It' s just a matter of what we have done in
the past vis-a -v what we ' re doing now as far as approval of a project of this size .
Mr. Walker — I understand that and my comments and my memo and my evaluation of
the project and the fill is primarily that the structure of the dam itself was not , a dam was
not being constructed . Fill was being put into a low area , reinforcing it , which would
strengthen it and basically it was movement of excess material , so , I understand your
concerns about the integrity of it , and if the Board wishes to have another licensed
engineer review it and look at it , that' s your decision . Again , I feel very comfortable that
what they' ve done in no way increased any risk and it is decreasing risk if there
was . . . my evaluation of an imminent failure of it would not be the same as what Mr.
Rancich represented in the memo , it was , the dike was in poor shape ( inaudible )
maintain it and it widened it out so you can get on it and mow it now.
Chairman Sigel — Well I think my views are more along the line of Jim ' s , to be honest , I
don 't' know anything about creating ponds or dikes , so , but it is the case that when
we ' ve had projects like this in the past , we have gotten stamped plans and the Town
Staff can review and so , given how this has come to us and given that ' at least some
parts of the Town Staff are .not entirely comfortable with what' s been presented , I would
be inclined towards asking the applicant to flesh out the plans some more , include more
details about sediment control , and seeding plans and such and have plans that are
stamped by a licensed engineer.
Mr. Walker — One thing on the vegetation and , the application materials that you got did
not have all of the materials that came in , and the fill permit application and the fill
permit application did include details on silt fencing and vegetation , with a conservation
mix . That is actually part of the application that didn 't get reproduced and brought to
this Board and I didn 't realize that until after the packet had already gone out and I didn 't
ZBA Final 10/22/07
Pg 14
make copies of it , but I ' ve got more details here . . . . it is the standard and comes right out
of the State guidelines , silt fencing , vegetation and the stone , stone trenches there , so . . .
Dick Matthews — Kirk , what am I missing ? You said some members of the Town are not
comfortable with this? I haven 't heard those names mentioned .
Chairman Sigel — Well , Chris , in her review was not , she did not recommend , and the
Town Planning Staff did not recommend a negative declaration of environmental
significance .
Ms . Balestra — May I , just for point of clarification , although I often sign my name to the
environmental review , I hardly ever review these projects alone . It is often at least
myself and one or two other members of the Staff, whether they be Planning ,
Engineering or Zoning Staff, just so you know .
Dick Matthews — So it means what?
Chairman Sigel — Well it represents the opinion of not . . .
Dick Matthews — Others .
Chairman Sigel — Yes , others , a consensus opinion of Planning Staff is that fair to say?
Ms . Balestra — Yes , that' s fair.
Chairman Sigel — And given that we have gotten new materials just tonight , I would feel
more comfortable if Planning Staff had a chance to review them more fully and we had
the applicant submit stamped plans . . .
Mr. Bauman — it might help if I interject . . . I am a licensed landscape architect , State of
New York , and I got involved when Mr . Rancich noticed the condition of the dike and
everything and we looked at how to rectify the situation that was there . These were
prepared , although rather hurriedly , because of the situation at hand , they were
prepared by myself and reviewed and I ' ve worked with Dan Walker on all the attributes
the Town would require because originally this wasn 't going to be a permitted job . It
wasn 't required to be a permit . And so , in reviewing what' s . been . done and how it' s
been done , I would feel comfortable putting my professional stamp on it , I wasn 't asked
to do that , in the course of events . So , from a liability standpoint , I feel totally
comfortable , because it is an excavated pond , in soils that are already holding water
right adjacent to it .
Chairman Sigel — Okay . Well , I still don 't , given that the Planning Staff had concerns
about this , I still don 't feel comfortable trying to have , you know, the Planning Staff' s
representative here change their recommendation at this point . I would still feel more
comfortable if we adjourned this to a subsequent meeting . . .
ZBA Final 10/22/07
Pg 15
Harry Ellsworth — We still require seals and it looks like the owner has access to a
seal . . . recommending it is one thing , putting a seal on it is another thing , I ' m a licensed
( inaudible ) and not in this area , so .
Mr. Rancich — I know for the Board that perhaps my 30 years experience in building
these sort of things might not count , but , I ' m not doing something to expose myself. My
goal here was to short circuit a problem that I saw happening with some giant rainstorm
or a big snow or snow melt , I was confident that that dike only had a year or two of life in
it . Maybe four years , but , it was , it was inadequate .
Mr. Bauman — Part of the reason for doing it at that time was that he had the equipment
onsite for his gravel mine , which is permitted , just to the north of this . So the equipment
was brought over to help reinforce that and bring it to a standard where the farms could
use it for irrigation .
Mr. Rancich — And it would be safe for all the downstream public .
Harry Ellsworth — I am not discrediting contractor because it takes a good engineer and
a good contractor, and a good inspection to have a good project .
Chairman Sigel — Let me ask other Board Members how they feel about proceeding on
a vote tonight versus requesting more information and more time for Planning Staff to
either review the existing information or request additional information .
James Niefer — I think that my opinion is that we should . request the additional
information and so on , the letter . . .
Harry Ellsworth — I am for the seal , not because I have one , but it seems pretty simple ,
people here with the owner have the ability, that are involved , and certainly understand
why, but if some things have been missing in certain parts of the Town and they need
the whole thing to look at .
Mr. Rancich — Can .you grant the variance based on providing the seal ?
Chairman Sigel — Well there were other concerns expressed by Staff as far as a
seeding plan and erosion . .control , silt fencing . . .
Mr. Rancich - Dan can attest that we ' ve addressed all that .
Mr. Walker — They have addressed the silt fence with check dams , extra controls in the
channel and the vegetative treatment . The season . . . no matter what happens , they' ve
got to put the , you know, have it vegetated and they' ve already gone ahead and seeded
it just because it' s open and raw , and , or was open and raw, and they' ve put down seed
already on it and have silt fencing in place just simply because they started the project ,
it was open and I told them they had to stabilize it so we wouldn 't lose it and so a lot of
the fill that was already pushed over behind the dike , they graded that off and seeded it
ZBA Final 10/22/07
Pg 16
because it needed to be stabilized . That' s what they' ve done . Finishing the additional
pond , the big excavation , it isn 't all in an excavated area and there ' s actually the big
berm to the east , it is to the east , the east , basically contains anything that' s in that pond
unless it goes over that little dike and then . down out the existing pond .
Harry Ellsworth — I presume there ' s some concern Dan , yours and the owner, that we
could be coming in to a very wet time .
Mr. Walker — Well a wet time an the growing . . . we ' ve had an exceptional fall , I mean , if
they have to get it , they' ve seeded it already , to stabilize it and I hope , and I think the
grass has started to grow and they' ve put some more seed down in areas that , when it
was so dry , it- take . . . and I 'd really like to see those check dams in there
because.. that'.s what' s going to , even as a temporary measure , simply because , if we do
get a huge amount of rainfall , that' s the most delicate spot on that channel . That' s
actual a remedial measure we could , I asked them to put in there , on those check dams ,
so I ' d really like to get those in and that would , you know, alleviate my concerns about
anything happening in spring runoff. . It' s the 22nd of October now , the next meeting is
the end of November, and I , it isn 't North Carolina yet , it acts like it , but it isn 't , now , so ,
that' s , the timing of it is my main concern to get it stabilized . So I would at least like to
get them permission to let them go in and get those stone check dams in and stabilize
that , even if they don 't' complete the excavated pond area , you know , because the
worst that' s gonna happen is , I would , even if the Board decided not to create that big
excavated pond , I really don 't want to remove any of the material that' s already put up
against the other pond , because that could cause more problems down the road , and
this was a , kind of a misunderstanding on how much material they could move , is my
concern there .
Chairman Sigel — Okay . Well one option is we could move to approve this project
tonight with the condition that plans be submitted that are stamped by a licensed
engineer . . .
Harry Ellsworth — And reviewed by the Planning Department and accepted by the
Planning Department .
Mr. Walker — I think we ' ve been addressing , I can 't say if Chris is satisfied or not , but
some of the questions in there were basically if the sediment erosion control , which we
are talking about right now, with the check dams and the vegetative cover and the silt
fence , which , granted , the plans were not really detailed showing all that . Uhhmmm . . .
Ms . Balestra -The plans don 't show any of the silt fencing whatsoever . . .
Mr. Walker — Well , it showed some of it . . . ( inaudible ) . . . and they' ve actually put it in out
there , so . . .
Dick Matthews — Are you back pedaling a little bit or something ? Backpedaling ? My
impression of what you preciously said was you were comfortable with this .
ZBA Final 10/22/07
Pg 17
Mr. Walker — I am very comfortable with it , but if the Board wishes to see stamped
plans , that' s up to you . I don 't feel it ' s necessary , from my professional standpoint .
Dick Matthews — Okay , that ' s fine , I apologize if you think . . .
Mr. Walker — No , you , but , you have the authority . I am just making recommendations .
I feel that they . . . granted , the plans are not the best set of plans in the world because
they don 't have all the details on them . . . being out in the field and seeing it , kind of half
the plans are on the ground and half the plans are on the drawings here so . . .
Mr._ Mountin_ _Question that I have - is , after the ponds _would_ be built , do you see that
they would have enough adequate capacity for future possible runoff of stormwater,
being at the bottom of a hill and any future development that would happen at that site
in terms of a future . . .
Mr. Walker — Well , the future development of this site would have to be addressed
by . . . when they as site plan approval , if they put more impervious surface . Right now it' s
a silty gravel soil up there . It' s in real good corn ground and they' ve got pumpkins
growing like crazy and actually , they have not changed the drainage area . Effectively
that shallow area that' s been excavated acted as a wet area in the field that they
couldn 't plow in the spring and so they really haven 't changed the characteristic of that
and so it will hold the water as well as it has in the past .
Mr. Mountin — So any future potential development then would include some kind of
swales or some kind of a condition to address the downhill slope of water.
Mr. Walker — Right and with the future development if they decided they needed a
larger . . . this may be a site where they want to use more stormwater detention . And then
it would require building a larger dike possibly and a different flood structure . . .
Mr . Rancich — Well we didn 't do this without being conscious of what my larger plan is
and what my future plans for that area , so this was done in a way that accomplished the
2 main goals , which was to reinforce the dike and provide some water for irrigation , but
also , width specifically the idea that these ponds would adequately address our
stormwater runoff for the future . No , there ' s other plans in there , but this is , wasn 't a
step towards that big plan , but it was designed in conjunction with , well , if this happens
in the future , this is going to work wonderfully.
Mr. Walker — Yeah , I looked at the master plan and this was all green space on the
master plan . They , it' s not like they said , oh , we need a pond here for the master plan ,
let' s go ahead and build it now . They didn 't do that . They were cleaning up an existing
situation there , so I ' m . . . and again , that is a tremendously large berm of earth the way
the topography is there . The glacier really built a nice berm there and I am very
comfortable with what' s going on there .
ZBA Final 10/22/07
Pg 18
Dick Matthews — I don 't' know anything about water . I know I drink it and I know I bathe
in it and once in a ..while it' s good for duck hunting . . . I have to rely on people like Chris
and like Mr. Walker to provide us with the information and the assurance that we ' re
operating on as much knowledge as we can absorb . And I have to have faith in the
Town employees , and I do .
Mr. Levine — Have we ever granted subject to secondary satisfactory of resubmission to
the Planning Department? Or would it absolutely have to come back , here after the
Planning Department were to get all the facts?
Chairman Sigel — Well I don 't know, it could be tough if the subsequent submissions are
going to influence the Planning . Department' s recommendation as far as the
environmental significance then that kind of puts them in a tough spot where they are
almost becoming the Board at that point . I mean , if it was something just , if it was say
just that plans must , like the exact plans we see here must be submitted stamped , then
that' s a pretty clear cut requirement and I would feel comfortable with that but when it' s
still more subjective determination . . . Chris , you could say more if you want but . . .
Ms . Balestra — I don 't know if I could . . .
Ms . Brock — I agree Kirk . I think if you are looking for futher analysis of submissions ,
then it would not be appropriate to grant the special permit tonight . If it' s just a
ministerial action of having stamps placed on current plans , that' s something that you
could do .
Eric Levine — And the delay of a month or two , how detrimental would that be to your
project?
Mr. Rancich — In the overall scheme of things , it' s not a big deal , but it does leave a
project unfinished into the frozen weather, and if we get a rainstorm that fills that
existing pond up , and it has overflowed in the past , that' s why the spill way is there ,
without being able to complete our project , if you say no , stop right now, we certainly
will , but that will expose us to a much worse situation than allowing us to complete this
in a timely manner.
Mr. Bauman — Erosion is probably the biggest factor and we don 't . know what capacity
that is because of the condition that it' s currently in .
Mr. Rancich — The dams that Dan asked us to put in or recommended go in there and
we agreed , I said to Dan on Friday , ' Do you want us to go up there and do them right
now" and he said " No , let' s go to the Board meeting , let' s see what happens there . "
We' re prepared to build those tomorrow.
Harry Ellsworth — You ' re talking about the check dams . . .
ZBA Final 10/22/07
Pg 19
Mr. Walker — I have a suggestion . I think what we see here is with that earth dike
between the two , excavate between the pond and the excavation , I think I ' d recommend
granting the . . . the amount of material they' ve moved right now is 2 ; 200 yards , they' ve
excavated roughly that much out of the pond . . . I think I would recommend
granting . . . finish . . . granting the earth fill permit to complete the finish grading for what' s
already been excavated , excluding any removal of that dike and if that section between
the two ponds needs to be removed at a plan prepared by a licensed engineer be
provided before any further excavation on this site be done .
Chairman Sigel — Okay . So what exactly needs . . . what remains to be done?
Mr. Rancich — Put the check dams in .
Mr. Walker — Put the check dams in . There is some additional grading around the
excavated area that , you know , needs to be seeded and graded and then it would be
stable . If Mr. Rancich decides he really wants to make the pond bigger, there is a time
period of waiting whether we remove that dike in the middle . . .
Mr. Rancich — I am totally content to leave the excavation just as it is . I would like the
permission to clean up all the outside and do my final grading around it . I would like to
be able to finish up in the very , very bottom of the filled dike , where it still drops off kind
of steeply , because it was too wet . Now that we ' ve built that dike so that we can get a
machine on it ; we can get down to that area and kind of get that smoothed out. I ' d like
to be able to seed that and I ' d like to be able to put the stone dams in that Dan has
talked about . Then , in all honesty , with the stone dams and another day of, not
excavation but grading and . . . weIre done . . .
Ms : Balestra — Can I ask a question . Is there any silt fencing up right now , around the
pond ? Around the stockpile area near the creek?
Mr. Bauman — There ' s two separate areas of fencing down below . The initial stuff was
put up and when Dan came out , looked at it , he said put more up over here , and then I
think it was last week, ' we talked about the stone dams going in just as additional
sedimentation control .
Mr. Rancich — So we had all of that . . . that fencing was . in , and if you ' re talking about to�
the north , where there' s some stockpiles , where we have some topsoil stockpiled , that
is , that is , can only erode into our excavation , it can 't go the other way . And by my
permit with DEC , I have my silt fencing in place for the mine over there . So we ' re
covered all the. way around .
Ms . Balestra — I think the concern that Planning Staff had was that none of this is shown
on either the existing or the . proposed plans . So there was no erosion control ,
significant erosion control for a project_ like this shown on the plan . We based our
environmental review on that .
ZBA Final 10/22/07
Pg 20
Chairman Sigel — Okay .
Mr. Rancich — And Dan . . . Dan has seen .
Mr. Walker — Mr. Rancich has been very cooperative in providing the protection once I
discovered that he was building this and I explained to him that it was outside the
bounds of what he could do without a permit and then . it' s been , what , almost 6 weeks I
think , to get to this Board .
Mr. Rancich — Yeah , it took us 6 weeks to get to you folks . We ' re close to being done .
Mr. Walker — And I really wanted him to finish things up and stabilize them because , if
we let it sit there for those 6 weeks , we ' d have a bigger mess there than what we have
now. So this is a kind of a remedial action here and he ' s been very cooperative about
going through the process , but before , he knows now , before he makes this bigger, he ' ll
have to come in with a whole new plan .
Mr. Rancich — Without a doubt , but my plan . started out as a much smaller project . It
was a project that I was quite confident would fall below , you know , where it was
permitted and then as I say the condition of the backside of that dike and the enormous
amount of fill that it needed , the project got bigger: Then I started talking to Dan about it
and he says Oh you ' re going to have to go in front of the Board , that' s why we ' re here .
Chairman Sigel — Okay . Chris . . .
Ms . Balestra — It' s obvious but , it' s difficult to make an environmental determination , at
least from Planning ' s standpoint , without the full amount of information .
Mr. Rancich — We didn 't have it at the time it was submitted to you , or we didn 't know.
Chairman Sigel — Well I have to say I feel torn . The arguments for allowing this to go
forward sooner so that the project can be finished are compelling . To finish the check
dams and seeding and final grading and to , from what Mr. Walker describes , it' s almost
done , so , I wonder if we were to hold it up now , that would be worse than seeking more
information and waiting , or adjourning to the next meeting .
David Mountin — May I . . . from the , information I 've heard and from being out there and
looking at it , I have one question before I give my answer but , the question is , . . in you ' re
experience Dan , would a project of this , and I ' m not familiar with building dams or
rebuilding ponds , in this case , I ' m thinking this is the rebuilding of a pond or
restructuring of a pond to reinforce it , but in your experience or your opinion , do the a
project of this scale , does it need to have an engineers stamp or does a person with a
landscape architect degree and his experience , does that lead you to have a this is
fine . . .
ZBA Final 10/22/07
Pg 21
Mr. Walker — This would not require an engineer' s stamp because it' s not a State permit
requirement . You don 't need a dam permit to build this size of a structure .
David Mountin — Okay and as per all the details that were adapted in these drawings ,
that these would all be appropriate as you require . . . so in light of that , in what I ' ve seen
and what I ' ve heard , in terms of rebuilding a dam , existing dam to restructure it , I think
that I ' d be in favor of granting the forward progress of this project and I would certainly
respond also to the experience that Dan has and the experience and the knowledge he
has .
Harry Ellsworth — Without a licensed seal , is that what you ' re saying ?
David Mountin — Yes , as is .
Chairman Sigel — Eric , how do you feel ?
Eric Levine — As long as we get that landscape engineers seal , I think we ' re good . I
think that . . .
Mr. Walker - - I think that what I would like to have as a record drawing after we get
done , sealed by the landscape architect would be good to have in the file .
Eric Levine — Otherwise I think that Dan has satisfied thee concerns .
Dick Matthews — How long does that take ? To get that seal ?
Mr. Bauman — I just have to get all the plans with all the information to make sure the
way it' s evolved , because it has been an evolution process and then stamp it , so I would
say within a week you can have that .
Dick Matthews — You can guarantee that within a week? To the best of your human
answer.
Mr. Rancich — Give him 10 days . . .
James Niefer — Well in view of Dan ' s recent statement that there are no State
requirements for any seal on the plans for ponds , of this nature , why , I guess I ' ll
withdraw my objection at this point in time . However, I still concur that it would be very
nice and appropriate to have , for the record , plans that do have seals on them .
Chairman Sigel — I agree and certainly I mean , if it wasn 't the issue of the season , I
would not hesitate to adjourn and require it , but , I am feeling swayed by the press of
time . Harry?
ZBA Final 10/22/07
Pg 22
Harry Ellsworth - Yeah , move forward , based on Dan ' s but I think it would be good
to . . . he ' s involved . . . I mean , it isn 't a big deal , but . . . if he wasn 't involved and had to go in
and do an investigation it would be a whole different time cycle .
Chairman Sigel — Okay . Let' s open the public hearing , if anyone wishes to speak
regarding this appeal . . . if not , we will close the public hearing .
I will move to make a negative determination in regard to the appeal . of John Rancich
based upon , in part , on the report by Town Planning Staff and where the report by Town
Planning Staff raises issues about sedimentation and erosion control measures , and the
nature of the fill material , that this motion is further based upon , for the reasons stated
by the testimony of Dan Walker at this meeting tonight stating that the applicant has
reasonable sedimentation and erosion control measures in place and has submitted
plans for such with the fill permit and based upon Mr. Walker' s site visits to verify that
the fill material is appropriate for this type of dike or levy .
Susan , anything you would . . .
Ms . Brock — No . .
Chairman Sigel . — Okay . Second on the motion . . .
Dick Matthews — I ' ll second . . .
ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2007 — 047
SEQR
John Rancich
Route 79 , Mecklenburg Road
Tax Parcel No . 27 . = 1 - 14 . 2
October 22 , 2007
Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded Dick Matthews .
That this Board makes a negative determination in regard to the appeal of John Rancich
based upon , in part , on the report by Town Planning Staff and where the report by Town
Planning Staff raises issues about sedimentation and erosion control measures , and the
nature of the fill material, that this motion is further based upon , for the reasons stated
by the testimony of Dan Walker at this meeting tonight stating that the applicant has
reasonable sedimentation and erosion control measures in place and has submitted
plans for such with the fill permit and based upon Mr. Walker' s site visits to verify that
the fill material is appropriate for this type of dike or levy .
A vote on the motion was as follows .
Ayes : Sigel , Ellsworth , Niefer, Matthews and Levine .
ZBA Final 10/22/07
Pg 23
Nays : None
Absent : Krantz
The motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Sigel — I will move to grant the appeal of John Rancich requesting approval of
Special Approval per the requirements of Chapter 270 , Article XXVI , Section 270-217 ,
to be permitted to excavate a farm pond on the Marshall Farm property located on NYS
Route 79 ( Mecklenburg Road ) , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 27- 1 - 14 . 2 , Agricultural
Zone .
Susan , do the area variance criteria apply . . .
Ms . Brock — No , this is a request for a special approval . It' s not a request for a variance
so the criteria you look at are in Section 270- 200 of the Town Code . There are a
number of criteria , subsection A- L , to be considered .
Chairman Sigel — Okay.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2007 — 048
Special Permit
Route 79 , Mecklenburg Road
Tax Parcel No . 27 . - 1 - 14 . 2
October 22 , 2007
Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded Harry Ellsworth .
That this Board grants the appeal of John Rancich , Owner/Appellant , requesting Special
Approval per the requirements of Chapter 270 , Article XXVI , Section 270-217 , to be
permitted to excavate a farm pond on the Marshall Farm property located on NYS
Route 79 ( Mecklenburg Road ) , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 27- 1 - 14 . 2 , Agricultural
Zone .
FINDINGS
That the requirements under 270-200 (A- L) have been met , specifically.
1 . That the health , safety , morals and general welfare of the community are being
promoted , and
2 . That the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use , being a large
farm operation , and
ZBA Final 10/22/07
Pg 24
3 . That the proposed use and location and design of any structure would be
consistent with the character of the district in which it is located given that this is
a pond to support the irrigation of farmland and this is in an agricultural district ,
and
4 . The proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood
character in an amount sufficient to devalue neighboring property or seriously
inconvenience neighboring inhabitants , and
5 . The operation in connection with the proposed use will not be more objectionable
to nearby properties by reason of noise , fumes , vibrations , illumination or other
potential nuisance than the operation of any permitted use in the particular zone ;
this is actually a permitted use , and
6 . Any infrastructure and services are adequate to accommodate the use ; this
board doesn 't believe any infrastructure or services are required for this use , and
7 . The proposed use , building and site layout comply with all the provisions of this
Chapter, and
8 . The proposed access and egress for all structures and uses are safely designed ,
and
9 . That there are no effects of the proposed use on the community as a whole
including such items as traffic load , water or sewage systems . It is not
detrimental to the health , safety or general welfare of the community . This project
will not impose any noticeable change in traffic load on nearby roads . The lot
access parking and loading facilities are sufficient for the proposed use and
access parking areas are adequately buffered to minimize their visual impact ;
this project does not involve any of those aspects , and
10 . Natural surface water drainage is adequately managed in accordance with good
engineering practices and in accordance with any applicable Town Local Law or
Ordinance and existing drainage-ways are not altered in a manner that adversely
affects other properties . We are relying upon the opinion of our Town Engineer
that those conditions are met , and
11 . That to the extent deemed relevant by the reviewing Board , the proposed use of
the structure complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth
in this chapter.
CONDITIONS
That the applicant submit , before work continues , to the Town , plans that are stamped
by a licensed Landscape Architect , that in addition to what has been shown tonight ,
show the location of silt fencing and all of the seeding measures .
ZBA Final 10/22/07
Pg 25
A vote on the motion was as follows .
Ayes : Sigel , Ellsworth , Niefer, Matthews and Levine .
Nays : None
Absent : Krantz
The motion passed unanimously .
The next appeal is that of
Michael Moore , Owner/Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of
Chapter 270 , Article VII , Section 270 -47 ( C ) of the Town of Ithaca Code , to be
permitted to maintain a newly constructed home at 1028 East Shore Drive , Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 19 -2 - 16 , Lakefront Residential Zone ( LR ) . The Zoning
Board of Appeals granted a variance on May 15 , 2006 to permit the construction
of the home with a 10 -foot setback from the northern and southern property
boundaries . The home was actually constructed 9 . 8 +/- feet from the southern
property boundary . The ZBA also granted a variance on June 18 , 2007 , to permit
the construction of an entranceway on the southern side with a 5 '4 " setback from
the southern property boundary . The constructed entrance is 4' 8 "+/- from the
southern property boundary.
Michael Moore and Cathy Isham 1020 East Shore Drive
Chairman Sigel — Okay , so you ' ve given us some new plans here . . .
Mr. Moore — No , what I ' ve given you is the surveys that I have had done during the
process of purchasing and building the house that' s there right now , and also some
pictures of what was there and what I tore down and what has been rebuilt .
Chairman Sigel — Okay , so it looks like this , am I correct in saying that this supports
what basically your application is telling us .
Mr. Moore — Yes .
Chairman Sigel — So you have a survey showing the 9 . 8 feet for that southwesterly
corner.
Mr. Moore — That' s right .
Chairman Sigel — And 4 . 8 feet for the side entranceway .
Mr. Moore — That' s the as- built survey . That was done by TG Millers . There seems
to be a discrepancy between the two surveys that I used when I positioned the
house . The survey that was done by Michael Regan , shows that the southern
property by the pink mark , on the first survey , is at 2 . 9 feet , and that' s the
FILE
DATE
ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2007 — 047
SEQR
John Rancich
Route 79 , Mecklenburg Road
Tax Parcel No . 27 . = 1 - 14.2
October 22 , 2007
Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded Dick Matthews .
That this Board makes a negative determination in regard to the appeal of John Rancich
based upon , in part , on the report by Town Planning Staff and where the report by Town
Planning Staff raises issues about sedimentation and erosion control measures , and the
nature of the fill material , that this motion is further based upon , for the reasons stated
by the testimony of Dan Walker at this meeting tonight stating that the applicant has
reasonable sedimentation and erosion control measures in place and has submitted
plans for such with the fill permit and based upon Mr. Walker' s site visits to verify that
the fill material is appropriate for this type of dike or levy.
A vote on the motion was as follows .
Ayes : Sigel , Ellsworth , Niefer, Matthews and Levine .
Nays : None
Absent : Krantz
The motion passed unanimously .
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS :
TOWN OF ITHACA:
I , Paulette Neilsen , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do
hereby certify that the attached resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the
Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at ular meeting on the 22nd day of
October 2007 .
4De wn erk
Town of Ithaca
FILE
DATE
ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2007 — 048
Special Permit
Route 79 , Mecklenburg Road
Tax Parcel No . 27 .- 1 - 14.2
October 22 , 2007
Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded Harry Ellsworth .
That this Board grants the appeal of John Rancich , Owner/Appellant , requesting Special
Approval per the requirements of Chapter 270 , Article XXVI , Section 270-217 , to be
permitted to excavate a farm pond on the Marshall Farm property located on NYS
Route 79 ( Mecklenburg Road ) , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 27- 1 - 14 . 2 , Agricultural
Zone .
FINDINGS
That the requirements under 270-200 ( A-L ) have been met , specifically :
1 . That the health , safety , morals and general welfare of the community are being
promoted , and
2 . That the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use , being a large
farm operation , and
3 . That the proposed use and location and design of any structure would be
consistent with the character of the district in which it is located given that this is
a pond to support the irrigation of farmland and this is in an agricultural district ,
and
4 . The proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood
character in an amount sufficient to devalue neighboring property or seriously
inconvenience neighboring inhabitants , and
5 . The operation in connection with the proposed use will not be more objectionable
to nearby properties by reason of noise , fumes , vibrations , illumination or other
potential nuisance than the operation of any permitted use in the particular zone ;
this is actually a permitted use , and
6 . Any infrastructure and services are adequate to accommodate the use ; this
board doesn 't believe any infrastructure or services are required for this use , and
7 . The proposed use , building and site layout comply with all the provisions of this
Chapter, and
8 . The proposed access and egress for all structures and uses are safely designed ,
and
9 . That there are no effects of the proposed use on the community as a whole
including such items as traffic load , water or sewage systems . It is not
detrimental to the health , safety or general welfare of the community . This project
will not impose any noticeable change in traffic load on nearby roads . The lot
access parking and loading facilities are sufficient for the proposed use and
access parking areas are adequately buffered to minimize their visual impact ;
this project does not involve any of those aspects , and
10 . Natural surface water drainage is adequately managed in accordance with good
engineering practices and in accordance with any applicable Town Local Law or
Ordinance and existing drainage-ways are not altered in a manner that adversely
affects other properties . We are relying upon the opinion of our Town Engineer
that those conditions are met , and
11 . That to the extent deemed relevant by the reviewing Board , the proposed use of
the structure complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth
in this chapter.
CONDITIONS
That the applicant submit , before work continues , to the Town , plans that are stamped
by a licensed Landscape Architect , that in addition to what has been shown tonight ,
show the location of silt fencing and all of the seeding measures .
A vote on the motion was as follows .
Ayes : Sigel , Ellsworth , Niefer , Matthews and Levine .
Nays : None
Absent : Krantz
The motion passed unanimously .
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS :
TOWN OF ITHACA:
I , Paulette Neilsen , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do
hereby certify that the attached resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the
Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a reg9r meeting on the 22nd day of
October 2007 .
74D uty Town Clerk
Town of Ithaca
Town of Ithaca Environmental Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY ONLY
PART I - -PROJECT INFORMATION To .be com feted by Applicant or -Project Sponsor)
1 . Applicant/Sponsor 2 . Project Name
3 . Precise location (street address, road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map:)
WsWZ0 TAXx M Arr° .
Tai Parcel Number:
4. Is proposed action :
NEW? EXPANSION? MODIFICATION/ALTERATION?
5. Describe project briefly : (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other
relevant items) : AV, k+�^ 4W �AKIO<tj, pt,�A
Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the propsed project.)
6. Amount of land affected :
Initial) 0-5 rs Acres 6-10 rs >I0 rs) Acres
7. How is land zoned presently? A/�.
8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions?
Yes NO if no, describe conflict briefly :
9. Will proposed action lead to a request for new :
Public Road? YES NO Public Water? YES NO Public Sewer? YES NO X
10. What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? Residential Commercial
Industrial Agriculture )( Park/Forest/Open Space Other
Please Describe: A& 51J94tc0J0t0 CAP LAI�3p
11 . Does proposed action involve a permit, approval, or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency
(Federal, State, Local?) YES )< NO
If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding: TOWW s M h-I Gt Zp�A
12 . Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval ? YES NO
If yes, list agency name and permit/approval. Also, state whether it will require modification.
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE
Applicant/Sponsor Name (Print or Type) :
Signature and Date :
Revised 8/9/06
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 N . Tioga Street, ITHACA, N . Y . 14850
s
TOWN CLERK 273- 1721 ENGINEERING 273- 1747 PLANNING 273- 1747 BUILDING AND ZONING 273- 1783 ,
HIGHWAY (Roads, Parks & Trails, Water & Sewer) 273- 1656
FAX (607) 273- 1704
Application for Appearance in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals
Q=Fee $ 100:) For:office Use Only
For Office Use Only
CHECK ALL THAT APPLY
Property is located within or adjacent to . Date Received o `l
Area Variance - County. Ag District
Use Variance -
A . GastroT Check NO: 090 3 91a �o�
Sign Variance CEA zor,tng-District
Sprinkler Variance
Forest Home Historical Dist ict
Special Approval
Requesting an appearance to be allowed to OF £X 710 FART POM b
at Ausi Aa, Rl'h MEGKaNBUA& , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 2 - 1 - I'7 Z , as shown
on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents, under Article(S) V
Section(s) 2Lo of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this
Application Form. A description of the practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship and/or the Special Approval
authorization request is as follows :
(Additional sheets may be attached as necessary.)
By filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or staff to
enter my property to inspect in connection with � -,y application.
Signature of Owner/Appellant: � Date: �J
Signature of Appellant/Agent Date :
Print Name Here � 1� �( N < < �t`4
Work Telephone Number Z 033) L
Home Telephone Number Z'7�
NOTE: If construction of work in accordance with any variances given does not commence within 18 months,
the variance will 9x irk. Your attendance at the meeting is strongly advised.
Revised 8/9/06
PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town ; Use attachments as necessary)
A. Does proposed action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617. 12 or Town Environjnental Local Law?
YES NO X If yes, coordinate the review process and use the full EAF.
B. Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6
YES NO X If no, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency, if any.
C. Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following :
( Answers may be handwritten, if legible)
C1 . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production
and disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly :
See Attached .
C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources? Community or
Neighborhood character? Explain briefly :
See Attached .
C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish, or wildlife species, significant habitats, unique natural area, wetlands, or
threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly:
See Attached .
C4. The Town's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other
natural resources? Explain briefly :
See Attached .
C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly :
See Attached .
C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 -05 ? Explain briefly :
See Attached .
C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy) Explain briefly :
See Attached .
D. Is there, or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?
YES NO X If yes, explain briefly :
E. Comments of staff CB., other attached. (Check as applicable.)
PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca)
Instructions : For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial , large, important, or otherwise significant .
Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i . e. urban or rural ) ; (b) probability of occurring ; (c) duration ; (d)
irreversibility ; (e) geographic scope, and ( f) magnitude . If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting material . Ensure that
the explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately address.
Check here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then
proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration .
X Check here if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation , that
the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on Attachments as
necessary the reasons supporting this determination .
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals C
Name of Lead Agency Preparers Signature( II' different from Responsible Officer)
Kirk Sigel Chairperson
Name & title of Responsible Officer In Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer
) � 4 r
DATE :
Signature of Responsible Afficer in Lead Agency
1
a
PART II — Environmental Assessment:
John Rancich Pond Expansion — Special Approval
Mecklenburg Road
Zoning Board of Appeals, October 22, 2007
A. Action is Unlisted.
B . Action will not receive coordinated review .
C . Could action result in any adverse effects on to or arising from the following_
Cl . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels
existing traffic patterns solid waste production or disposal potential for erosion
drainage or flooding problems?
No significant adverse effects are anticipated relating to air quality, noise levels, existing
traffic patterns or solid waste production or disposal as a result of the proposed action.
This proposal includes a request for ZBA Special Approval to excavate and enlarge a
farm pond on the Marshall Farm property, located on NYS Route 79 (Mecklenburg
Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 27- 1 - 14 . 2 , Agricultural Zone. The existing pond
farm has been utilized to irrigate crops grown on the property.
The applicant wishes to excavate a portion of land north of an existing farm pond to
expand it and thereby increase its water volume and irrigation capacity. The applicant
proposes to excavate approximately 2 ,200 cubic yards of fill to be reused on the southeast
portion of the existing pond to reinforce an existing dilapidated levee dike. The
excavation will also enlarge the existing pond and result in a total water volume capacity
of 926,000 gallons .
It is difficult to determine the potential environmental impacts regarding drainage or
flooding of the proposal without more information from the applicant. The applicant
notes that the existing levee dike located on the southeast side of the existing pond is at a
high risk of collapse and that the excavated fill from the pond expansion project will be
used to fortify the levee, but there is no information on what type of material is contained
in the excavated fill or whether that material is stable enough to adequately fortify a
much larger pond with an increased volume. There is the potential for a significant
amount of sediment to release into Linderman Creek if the levee breaks or is unable to
adequately maintain the increased volume and pressure of water associated with a pond
expansion .
Additionally, the Tompkins County Planning Department suggests in a memo dated
October 3 , 2007, "the use of adequate sediment control measures as part of the proposed
pond extension. " The applicant should work with the Town Engineering Department on
providing additional erosion and sedimentation controls for the site, possibly including
additional controls to protect the water quality integrity of Linderman Creek.
JI
2
1`
Finally, the proposed site plan for the project does not appear to show the topographic
changes created by the excavation for the pond expansion and doesn't include the actual
cut and fill calculations associated with the project. The contours shown on the proposed
plan are the same as on the existing plan, although the proposed plan creates a pond from
the excavation of over 2 , 000 cubic yards of material .
Given the above observations and that the pond is the headwaters for Linderman Creek,
(located at the south end of the pond near the dilapidated levee), staff strongly suggests
the applicant submit a revised proposed plan showing the following information prior to
the determination of environmental significance : accurate changes in the contours
between the existing and proposed excavation area, submission of. cut . and fill
calculations for the project, documentation of the type of material being excavated to
ensure that it ' ll be adequate to provide levee reinforcement, and additional erosion
controls as recommended in the Tompkins County Planning Department memo of
October 3 , 2007 .
C2 Aesthetic agriculture, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural
resources, or community or neighborhood character?
None Anticipated . The proposed expansion of the existing farm pond is an agriculturally
related activity in an existing agricultural area. The proposal is not expected to create
significant negative aesthetic impacts or be out of character with the neighborhood .
C3 Vegetation or fauna fish shellfish or wildlife species significant habitats, or
threatened or endangered species?
The property currently contains a mix of farm land and open fields . The Linderman
Creek headwaters are located at the southern base of the pond . It is therefore important
for the protection of the water quality and ecology of Linderman Creek that proper
sedimentation and erosion control measures are implemented and that the existing levee
dike located at the southeast end" of the pond is properly fortified.
C4 . The Town ' s existing plans or goals as officially adopted or a change in use
or intensity of land or other natural resources?
None Anticipated . The property is zoned Agricultural and is used agriculturally. The
proposed pond expansion will slightly increase the intensity of the land use, but the
increase is expected to be temporary and minor, providing that proper erosion control
measures are employed during excavation and the existing levee dike located at the
southeast end of the pond is properly fortified . According to the Town Code, the deposit
or extraction of more than 250 cubic yards of fill is permitted with Special Approval by
the Zoning Board of Appeals and up to 500 yards is exempted from bonafide agricultural
practices .
Growth subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced b
C5 . a p y y
the proposed action?
i
a
3
None Anticipated. The proposed improvements are intended to enhance the agricultural
use of the property. While there is a large scale development proposal (Carrowmoor)
pending consideration before the Town of Ithaca Town Board, the proposed pond
improvements area not directly linked to that development proposal . The pond
improvement project would be proposed by the applicant even if the Carrowmoor
proposal was not further considered by the Town Board.
C6 . Long term , short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 -05 ?
None Anticipated ,
C7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of
energy)?
None Anticipated ,
D . Is there, or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?
No controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts is anticipated.
PART III. — Staff Recommendation, Determination of Significance
Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action, the proposed scale of
it, and the information above, staff strongly suggests the applicant submit a revised
proposed plan showing the following information prior to the determination of
environmental significance : accurate changes in the contours between the existing and
proposed excavation area, cut and fill calculations of the project, documentation of the
type of material being excavated to ensure that it ' ll be adequate to provide levee
reinforcement, and additional erosion controls as recommended in the Tompkins County
Planning Department memo of October 3 , 2007 ,
Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Reviewer: Christine Balestra, Planner ,%
Review Date : October 16, 2007
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2007
7 : 00 P.M.
By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be
held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Monday, October 22 , 2007, in Town Hall, 215 North
Tioga Street, Tioga Street Entrance, Ithaca, NY, COMMENCING at 7 : 00 p.m. , on the following matters:
APPEAL of Scott Trelease, Owner/Appellant, requesting the modification of a use variance from the requirements of
Chapter 270, Article XIX, Sections 270- 144 and 270- 146 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to increase the
outdoor display of trailers, snow plows, truck caps and/or other items located at Truxx Outfitters, 630 Elmira Road, Town .
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 33 -3 -31 Light Industrial (LI) Zone. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted the business a use
variance on December 20, 2004 . Retail sales and outside display of goods is prohibited in the LI Zone.
APPEAL of John Rancich, Owner/Appellant, requesting Special Approval per the requirements of Chapter 270, Article
XXVI, Section 270-217 , to be permitted to excavate a farm pond on the Marshall Farm property located on NYS Route 79
(Mecklenburg Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 27- 1 - 14 . 2 , Agricultural Zone. The deposit or extraction of more
than 250 cubic yards of fill requires Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals .
APPEAL of Michael Moore, Owner/Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VII,
Section 270-47(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to maintain a newly constructed home at 1028 East Shore
Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 19-2- 16, Lakefront Residential Zone (LR) . The Zoning Board of Appeals granted a
variance on May 15 , 2006 to permit the construction of the home with a 10-foot setback from the northern and southern
property boundaries . The home was actually constructed 9 . 8+/- feet from the southern property boundary. The ZBA also
granted a variance on June 18 , 2007, to permit the construction of an entranceway on the southern side with a 5 '4" setback
from the southern property boundary. The constructed entrance is 4'8 "+/- from the southern property boundary.
APPEAL of Shan Varma and Kimberley A. Owen, Owners/Appellants, requesting a variance from the requirements of
Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-60(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct an addition to an
existing home located at 10 Apple Blossom Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 33 -3 - 8 . 14, Low Density Residential
(LDR) Zone. The proposed addition will encroach into the required side yard setback for structures in an LDR Zone.
APPEAL of Sheri Johnson Henry and James R. Henry, Owners/Appellants, requesting variances from the requirements of
Chapter 270 , Article IX, Sections 270-73 (B) and (C) of the Town of Ithaca Code to create a lot by subdivision, located at
1020 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 71 - 1 -66 . 2, Medium Density Residential Zone (MDR). The parcel
has insufficient lot widths at the street and at the required setback for parcels within the MDR Zone.
APPEAL of Cornell University, Owner/Appellant, John M . Keefe, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of
Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-59 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a 126,000+/- gross
square foot Cornell Animal Health Diagnostic Center, located on the Cornell University Campus near Farrior and
Caldwell Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 's 67- 1 -10 .2 and 67- 1 - 10 .4, Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone. The
proposed building will exceed the maximum height allowed for structures in the LDR Zone:
Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7 : 00 p .m. , 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 or hearing impairments or
other special needs, as appropriate, 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.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
607-273 - 1747
Dated : October 12, 2007
Published : October 15 , 2007
olyOFIp
- - -- TOWN OF ITHACA
18 21
4�e ¢� 215 N. Tioga Street, ITHACA, N.Y . 14850
TOWN CLERK 273- 1721 HIGHWAY (Roads, Parks, Trails, Water&Sewer) 273- 1656 ENGINEERING 273- 1747
PLANNING 273- 1747 ZONING 273- 1783
FAX (607) 273- 1704
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
To : Zoning Board Members
From : Christine Balestra, Planner
Date : October 15 , 2007
RE : Mecklenburg Road — Special Approval for pond expansion
Enclosed please find materials related to the proposed expansion of a farm pond on the Marshall
Farm property, located on NYS Route 79 (Mecklenburg Road) , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
27- 1 - 14. 2 , Agricultural Zone. The proposal includes the excavation of approximately 2 ,200+/-
cubic yards of material for the expansion of an existing farm pond . The existing pond farm has
been utilized to irrigate crops grown on the property. The Linderman Creek headwaters are
located at the southern base of the pond .
The applicant wishes to excavate a portion of land north of the existing farm pond to expand it
and thereby increase its water volume and irrigation capacity. The applicant proposes to
excavate approximately 2 ,200 cubic yards of fill to be reused on the southeast portion of the
existing pond to reinforce an existing dilapidated levee dike. The excavation will also enlarge
the existing pond and result in a total water volume capacity of 926,000 gallons . Please see the
attached narrative and plans illustrating the proposal . [Note: the applicant has already done much
of the above-described work without obtaining the necessary Town approvals , was notified of
this violation by the Town Engineer and is now seeking the required approvals] .
The property is zoned Agricultural and is currently used for agricultural purposes . . According to
the Town Code, the deposit or extraction of more than 250 cubic yards of fill is permitted with
Special Approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals . Up to 500 yards is exempted from bonafide
agricultural practices .
As noted in the enclosed environmental assessment, it is difficult to determine the potential
environmental impacts of the proposal without more information from the applicant. The
applicant notes that the existing levee dike located on the southeast side of the existing pond is at
a high risk of collapse and that the excavated fill from the pond expansion project will be used to
fortify the levee, but there is no information on what type of material is contained in the
excavated fill or whether that material is stable enough to adequately fortify a much larger pond
with an increased volume. Additionally, there is no information regarding how the additional
pond excavation may impact the downstream water quality or ecology of Linderman Creek. The
Tompkins County Planning Department suggests in the enclosed memo dated October 3 , 20079
"the use of adequate sediment control measures as part of the proposed pond extension. " The
applicant should work with the Town Engineering Department on providing additional erosion
and sedimentation controls for the site, possibly including additional controls to protect the water
quality integrity of Linderman Creek.
Finally, the proposed site plan for the project does not appear to show the topographic changes
created by the excavation for the pond expansion and doesn't include the actual cut and fill
calculations associated with the project. Please refer to the environmental assessment, item Cl
(pages 1 and 2) for a more thorough explanation of the environmental issues .
Staff strongly suggests the applicant submit a revised proposed plan showing the following
information prior to the determination of environmental significance : accurate changes in the
contours between the existing and proposed excavation area, submission of cut and fill
calculations associated with the project, documentation of the type of material being excavated to
ensure that it ' ll be adequate to provide levee reinforcement, and additional erosion controls as
recommended in the Tompkins County planning Department memo of October 3 , 2007 .
Please contact me by phone at 273 - 1747 or by email at cbalestra ,town . ithaca.ny. us with any
questions you may have regarding this proposal .
Att.
ly OF 7 T�
a TOWN OF ITHACA
215 N . Tioga Street , Ithaca , N . Y . 14850
www . town . ithamny. us
TOWN CLERK 273- 1721 HIGHWAY (Roads, Parks, Trails, Water &Sewer) 273- 1656 ENGINEERING 273-1747
PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273- 1783
FAX (607) 273-1704
ENGINEERING MEMORANDUM
FROM : Dan Walker, Town Engineer
TO : Zoning Board of Appeals
DATE : September 27 , 2007
RE : Special Approval for Fill Permit, Tax Parcel 27 . - 1 - 14 .2 , John Rancich Owner
John Rancich has applied for a fill permit to enlarge a pond on his Mecklenburg Road property. The
property currently has an approved excavation and fill permit from the Town along with a NYSDEC mining
permit to remove gravel from the property. Mr. Rancich began the project as maintenance for the existing
pond and anticipated that the excavation required for dredging the pond and removing brush from the banks
would be less than 500 CY. ` This project would not have required a permit under section 270 because of the
exception for removal of up to 500 yards of material in conjunction with an agricultural use. The portion of
the property with the pond is currently in the agricultural zone, and is being actively farmed with sweet corn
and pumpkins . The pond has been used for an irrigation water supply for the crops.
Mr. Rancich has decided that increasing the existing pond volume by an excavation to the north side of the
existing pond would provide the material need to reinforce the existing pond dike and provide additional
water volume for irrigation.
The plan provided meets the requirements for an excavation and fill permit. In my opinion the plan
adequately protects the property and surrounding properties from adverse drainage, erosion or visual
impacts. The pond is approximately 60 feet from the adjacent property to the south and the spillway is at
the head of the Linderman creek. The plan has appropriate erosion and sediment controls, includes
appropriate slope controls and the vegetative treatment specifications provide for a mixture of grasses that
provide appropriate vegetative treatment for the area.
1Mevelopment ReviewlRanchich-mining`Fill approval to ZBA for TP27- 1 -14 .2 Rancich .doc
Town of Ithaca Page 1 9/27(2007
Town of Ithaca Planning Department
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 273 - 1747
AGRICULTURAL DATA STATEMENT
In accordance with Section 283 -a of the New York State Town Law, the Town of Ithaca will use
the data in this statement to assist in evaluating the impacts of proposed development projects on farm
operations in Agricultural Districts .
1 . Name of Applicant: 4�tm
Address : t'5o(
2 . Project Name/Location : Ak Sf014, ag M A6 4�X" 1SLcyQ
3 . Description of proposed project._ W VNI L R LLO10 /k -4 12 kJ°9�14 Z)P k6T ' /6
(9,f-i &41f7Okj /y '5;M145o ;M 00 1177 y` 2 y/
6w /o 9P-ft, 12F " :5 -r7 )lo PDdD
4 . Tax Parcel Number(s) 2� " I , 2
5 . Number of total acres involved with project: lei, 4AA 2 }� S
6. Number of total acres presently in Tax Parcel /58 , 4P3
7 . How much of the site is currently farmed? Acres
81 Please identify, who is farming the site . Ef;V9
9 . Please indicate what your intentions are for use of the remainder of the property, over:
Five years : /C5� 15AJ 0r 14AJ.00aUMc:>or2 INIDDMIAX)Ilh 4MftJt.4JIA
Ten years : L5AMjI :
Twenty years : Z5 MF
10. Who will maintain the remainder of the property not being used for this development?
Oww-
Page 1 of 2
Revised 8/9/06
11 . Please indicate crop(s) or vegetational cover for the site COQ'. RJ1M1JKn(Ns1 /� yf 14ARDrclaol) s .
12 . Are there any drainage ways or underground tile systems located on the site?
Will this project alter existing drainage patterns? ND If yes , please describe
13 . Is the parcel included in a farm plan prepared by the Tompkins County Soil and Water
District of the USDA Soil Conservation Service? ��I
Are federally funded cost sharing practices in place for the parcel? N �
Name of program(s) .
14. Is the parcel currently granted an agricultural tax exemption? Yes No
Signature of Applicant : Date : Ielo ,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
FOR TOWN USE ONLY: /
NOTE : This form and a map. of the parcels) should be mailed to County Planning as part of
the GML in and n referral. It should also be mailed to property owners within 500 feet of
the property boundary along with the Notice of Public Hearing (Attach list6of property
owners within 500 feet).
Name of Staff Person -
Date Referred to County Planning -
Page 2 of 2
Revised 8/9/06
l 1
()F I TOY NN OF ITHACA
F 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N. Y. 14850
1821 (607) 273 - 1747 Fax (607) 273 - 1704
Application For Excavation/Fill Permit
DA'C'E RECEIVED PERMIT NUMBER
$ 100 APPLICATION FEE DATE OF PERMIT
CHECK NO, RECEIVED TAX PARCEL NO,
CASH PAYMENT
Property Address : S/��
Landowner: . ; .v @4A/ t 1 L Contractor: Ste /
Phone: (/ . Phone:
Address : Address :
r for
Description of Work: P 54X In I ,vE/
Estimated Quantities: . tl,
Excavation/Fill Onsite a.(161CY Imported Fill _ � CY Removed from site + i!�I — CY
Work to be started on and completed on or before :
Attach Plans with the following information :
Site Plan :
Site Boundaries
Existing Site Topography
Proposed Grading Plan
Drainage Features
Excavation and Fill Details:
Quantities
Fill Types
Fill Source
Depth and Cross Section,
Spoil Areas
Off Site Disposal Areas
Sediment and Erosion Control :
Site Plan
Typical Details
Site Drainage
Site Restoration :
. Final Grading Plan
Final Drainage Plan
Planting Plan
Vegetative Treatment Specifications
Comments:
Town Engineer Review By: Date:
ZBA Approval Required : ZBA Approval Received :
PB Recommendation Required: PB Recommendation :
Pond Explanation
The existing pond at the Marshall Farm on Rte 79, Mecklenburg road is a very old spring
fed (and shallowing) levee farm pond, which is the headwaters for Linderman Creek.
The edges of the pond have been severely overgrown with brush, with the bottom silting
in over the years, long before my purchase of the property a couple of years ago. It has
had very limited serviceability for irrigation purposes for the leasing farmers.
At the request of the crop farmers to improve the amount of irrigation available for crops,
I began to clean up the brush at the edges and excavate a small depression area that is
seasonally wet just to the north of the existing pond to moderately expand the existing
pond basin. The original plan was to do a small excavation of less than 500 cubic yards,
which as a farm pond did not require a permit. While cleaning the top of the dike of the
existing pond, it was discovered that the pond was severely under built at the levee dike
at the southeast edge of the pond, and at high risk of collapse. The dike was very narrow:
approximately 3 feet wide with a vertical 60° slope down a vertical height of over 19 feet
with significant leaking at the base . The top was so narrow in fact, that the 54" wide mini
excavator could not traverse the dike. There are 4 trees of significant size (med. sized
willow on the north; 2 large cottonwood midway ; and a moderate size cherry on the south
@ the critical area) on the east and southeast edge of the pond, all of which have been
preserved. The retention of the dike over the years (non-failure) has been attributed
solely to the two trees to the south.
Upon the discovery of the dike' s need for immediate fortifying, I made the decision to
enlarge the excavation at the depression to create a safer area of larger volume of water in
excavated area-without dredging the existing pond area-to avoid placing additional
hydraulic pressure on the existing dike. An excavated pond is considered the safest
(much more than levee style) and most expensive of all the pond types. This larger
excavation area also created the fill materials required to adequately rebuild the dike to a
satisfactory level of safety for everyone downstream. I was unaware that by excavating
2 ,200 cubic yards a permit and zoning approval was required by the Town. Total
estimated water volume (capacity) of the improved pond(s) is approximately 926,000
gallons.
go'
e.
Q�0° 14i0p±xD Q °. :O • : ! q p �
1o.
,1 ::111 1 5v i i!
� °N
40 ik
y
8 CUT Tor
or ffpACA fit i �r
13 C C3
a}
Nor _ i .-. o ■
N.
v 1
Not
Cti
:.S�.�."...� INNIN,
. .. . .. S1 3 N
IN dir
I Id
IN
^.
cdd, 40 « _
�. 11, �
9
-� i
d
N
co ::3?
x - � • ! _ ,
I IN.o
C
(1J 3
N , 1111111
dpi add, i
imIN
i � 1
i
< < _ NORMAN _
IN
Its
It
i j$$j {lfal
_ 1
O
SON,
_ '
F � � a � ,H1i f�
N i N
C; ,
' a • - _s g i�rl
r
r �! }
q p�� . o,'. e • . i
.•i
c�
Tompkins ~County off 5
DEPARTMENTOF PLANNING {
G.
t Tr)WN OF ITHACA
1�21 �E st�`Cour Street�I ! �� _ t'"ONING ZONING , ENGINEERING
Edward C. Marx, AICP l,thaca,N'w, York 14850
Commissioner of Planning � Telephone (607) 274-5560
and Public Works * Fax (607) 274-5578
October 3 , 2007
Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning
Town of Ithaca
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re. Review Pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law
Action : Special Permit for Fill/Pond Excavation for the Marshall Farm on M cklenburg Road,
Tax Parcel No. 27-1-14.2
Dear Mr. Kanter:
This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the
Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to § 239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal
Law. The Department has reviewed the proposal , as submitted, and has determined that it has no negative inter-
community, or county-wide impacts .
The Department offers the following comments regarding the proposed project, which are not formal
recommendations under General Municipal Law §239 -1 and —m:
We suggest the use of adequate sediment control measures as a part of the proposed pond extension design.
Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record.
Sincerely,
z 5�y,
6�� e :) -
Edward C . Marx, AICP
Commissioner of Planning
and Public Works
S
� .r »n ' _ .Fyl.�_� �A. � - S� r ,L� �r��� '�. +tee✓`�';�sl�
�1 1
r* -
war
t�^Mt•
1, ts,cyil7c�. :,•�s�r�,,
.3
f •K - �
Nt
L
�T
.� K .t•
r .1
l l
f 4 -
- ,,�, , e �� .r .''� r�.�g� ~ �' ` �• is .114 Y`iiilr. 1.
C
F
y+�+.�+ .•; a �..•�� �' k� F�1 .k�'.�tL Pl 1., -1.�•���4 �Itx M�•�_.�k'j,��
s ,'r� r^ q�� �f "� �s — FrY e. 1 1 ,1.; .w �j ^"` ♦..
jr
Ai
�w n::t
* a�
�t
r
fit% s L - •. ''.° �'• ! •, •�K _' _ '
We
iY AWN .c °
An
SawNow
K7N 5�� N 00
�• fir. • . � .r
` li.�. :yew. _ �`^k� � :� ;a.4 «,.�.a �� � 1'.w-�E.i..a' ,A i '•� �
��'•�r4� �'> -��r�. I�is 'I�� : fir�r�
r
- P
f�
4�
J
Opal '" ww- '
I
41•. "yr R• i 4 z-
J► Z Y
t -
�' "�•�' �"'"^'��� tit- '`�"�' � .•., r �.� ' e" __
F
4717-T14
2
r. yy 7�A.s.+YT IC
� s
J _Le
�1 idl
1 .'� k (��.I .'STS � -Y • .�
�a
. 4
�'�'� - �.;rx+rk Csfa7lsy.�.� � sa•:�b3r k�'�±i�`3C2�AS:2.'�w.[ f.::��.'-�- "`,'I
i
ry
ir
Its
wl
�6
a
Y ,
c- .� -��i. tit •�t��;�a... y•" ..r `�;��p.,i ar -
_ 4
1
s-r � J•- M �--.
411,6
WE
dip-
LM
hk
,r
•.e.c,.
.:
r � r
a •
ol
lop
VFW
41 '' -
yam'
N
• f � ,'�� „"'°'tea
4 ,
ir
MOM MOM-
Z''F '.
:4k"
.
- J
x
AMMA
y M
T ,"Z
� r
! loot
or
A_
OL
at
A.JaN
r .-� ..� , .+* x,/ :y: •� .i ..yam ~-1rS'I ,
} t •
f �! J
i,
e
r
t
.-1 w Iwo •y - �: _ r /c` ,.M c• `, •}~lam. r.` ' 1
4.4 40
lip
IWO
.. tit• �••j'4
7F ��i�������•i-'�, t��::�3r�. 4�. �� � _
s
� ��. 1 '•.�''' �"' ,• �-`iC fir.,r ,u
Ok
Irk
• __•
PA.
�� i. '! •��� ;i .� yam. ���C�•�� .. � - •
4�.� �fi�M� ,r� �• y, y4 I .TL �' �
t'
L _
- � I
i
• w
r,
,INV
Ilk
lAA
`L
FILE
DATE z OL
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY , SEPTEMBER 23 , 2002
6 : 30 P . M .
PRESENT : Kirk Sigel , Chairman , Harry Ellsworth , Vice-Chairman ; James Niefer, Board Member,
Andrew Dixon , Board Member; Andy Frost , Director of Building/Zoning ; John Barney , Attorney for the
Town ; Mike Smith , Environmental Planner, Jonathan Kanter, Town Planner, Daniel Walker, Town
Engineer.
ABSENT : Ronald Krantz
ALSO PRESENT : Steven Eddy , 16 East Enfield Center Road ; Richard Coogan , 1843 Trumansburg
Road ; Adam Pratt , 5073 Jacksonville Road ; Peg Coogan , 1843 Route 96 ; William Luce , Junior, 1840
Route 96 ; Jodele Marshall ; Virginia Luce , 1840 Route 96 ; John Shipe , 8 Yellow Barn Road ; Anna
Smith , 242 DuBois Road ; Steve Hascup , 175 Woolf Lane ; Bruce Rich , 253 DuBois Road ; Jean
Schurman , 3317 Swamp College Road ; David Schurman , 3312 Swamp College Road ; Warren
Allmon , 1259 Trumansburg Road ; Rob Aislie , 124 Woolf Lane ; Tim Reynolds , 5101 Jacksonville
Road ; Jim Sanders , 120 Woolf Lane ; Steve Walden , 122 Woolf Lane ; Gary Mobley , 126 Woolf Lane ;
Justin Hjorhg , 1864 Trumansburg Road ; D . Brockman , 1864 Trumansburg Road ; Brenda O' Brien ,
130 Woolf Lane ; Sydney Merritt , 127 Woolf Lane ; Joyce Merritt , 127 Woolf Lane ; Bruce Wilson , 108
Willow Creek ; Eric Alani , 112 Roat St ; Carolyn Duddleston , 3156 VanDorn Road ; Catherine
Valentino , 110 Eastern Heights Dr.
The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals entered into executive session at 6 : 32 p . m , to seek
legal advise .
The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals closed executive session at 6 : 55 p . m .
Chairman Sigel — Good evening . Welcome to the September 23 , 2002 meeting of the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals . The first item on our agenda this evening is to make a decision in the
appeal of Alfred Eddy . After that we have the appeals of the Town of Ulysses , Cayuga Medical
Center, PRI , Eric Alani and then Barbara Roof .
ZB Resolution No 2002 —058 : Application for Special Approval for Fill Permit for Excavation of
Gravel on Eddy Parcel Tax Parcel 27. 1 -1 - 14 . 2 , Mecklenburg Road , Ithaca , New York
Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by James Niefer.
Whereas , Alfred C . Eddy Owner/Applicant ; Brayton P . Foster, Consulting Engineer applied for
a Special Approval for the proposed excavation of fill material not to exceed 90 , 000 cubic yards on
portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 27 . - 1 - 14 . 2 located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road ,
in an area zoned for agricultural uses (the " Project") ; and
1
Whereas , the Planning Board , after a public hearing , on March 21 , 2000 , recommended
granting of the special approval subject to certain conditions ; and
Whereas , this Board , after a public hearing , on May 10 , 2002 , denied the application for
special approval for the reasons set forth in Board of Appeals Resolution No . 2000-24 ; and
Whereas , the applicant appealed the decision of this Board to the Supreme Court which
reversed this Board ' s decision by order and judgment dated May 17 , 2001 and remanded the matter
to this Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with the decision of the Court ; and
Whereas , the decision of Supreme Court was upheld by the Appellate Division of Supreme
Court by a memorandum and order dated August 1 , 2002 ;
Now, Therefore , in compliance with the order of the Supreme Court , it is hereby
RESOLVED , that the Board of Appeals grants special approval for the fill permit for the Project
subject to the following conditions :
1 . Upon issuance by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (" DEC") , the
applicant shall submit to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department a copy of the DEC
Mined Land Reclamation Permit allowing operation of the Project ;
2 . That sediment and erosion control and dust control methods in compliance with DEC
guidelines for controlling erosion , siltation , and pollution to all water bodies and
wetlands and as approved by the Town Engineer, be practiced throughout the duration
of the Project ;
3 . That the Town of Ithaca special approval and permit expire after a period of three years
from the date of filing of this resolution subject to being renewed after a public hearing
should the applicant so desire and the operation during the permit period is found not to
be a nuisance to the surrounding properties ;
4 . That the applicant contact the NYS Department of Transportation (" DOT") and obtain
any necessary DOT permits for the Project and submit to the Town of Ithaca Planning
Department copies of any permits needed and so obtained prior to commencement of
excavation ;
5 . That the volume of material to be excavated from the site shall not exceed 90 , 000 cubic
yards ;
6 . That there be no processing or crushing of any of the material at the Project site or any
lands adjacent to the site at any time , except for a stationary fixed grate for screening
without any conveyor belt or other conveying apparatus ;
7 . That there be no more than four truck trips (one trip being ingress and egress) per hour
and no more than 32 truck loads removed per day ;
2
8 . That the Project area be reclaimed as set forth in the reclamation plan submitted to
DEC for the DEC mining permit ;
90 That the hours of operation be limited to 8 : 00 a . m . to 5 : 00 p . m . and be limited to
weekdays only ;
10 . That operations be limited to April 1 through October 31 each year;
11 . That if a reclamation bond is required by DEC that a copy of same be provided the
Town prior to the commencement of excavation ;
12 . That if a reclamation bond of at least $ 10 , 000 is not required by DEC , that such a bond
in at least that amount (or, if a lesser amount is required by DEC , in an amount equal to
the difference between the amount required by DEC and $ 10 , 000) be supplied to the
Town prior to the commencement of excavation .
13 . That all operations be in accordance with the representations and materials in the
application provided by the applicant to the Board of Appeals and in accordance with all
requirements and conditions imposed by DEC in any mining permit issued by DEC .
The vote on the Motion resulted as follows :
AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Niefer, Dixon
NAYS : NONE
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairperson Sigel — Mr. Eddy , we just approved the motion so you ' re all set .
APPEAL of Town of Ulysses , Appellant, Doug Austic , Agent requesting a variance from the
requirements of Article IV , Sections 14 and 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be
permitted to construct a municipal water pumping station on an 8225 + square foot lot (15 , 000
square feet required) with a 73 . 74 + foot lot depth ( 150 feet required ), located at 133 Woolf
Lane , part of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 23-1 - 11 A 34 , Residence District R-15 . Said building
will have a 15 + foot front yard building setback (25 ± feet required ).
Chairperson Sigel — Will a representative from the Town of Ulysses come up and give us an overview
of what has changed .
Completely inaudible for about 10 minutes, poor cassette quality.
3