HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-01-06 - PB \3C\
Ulysses Planning Board and Comprehensive Plan Committee
January 6 , 1999
Present : Doug Austic, Krys Cail , Rick Geiger, Paula Horrigan, Ruth Kahn, Alex Rachun,
Catherine Stover, Dave Tyler.
Recording minutes : Deb Austic
The meeting began at 7 : 40 p . m . Alex passed out the long form EAF and short
SEQR description he had written for review. The Committee and Board filled out part 1
with the Town as applicant. The group used maps and information from the inventory in
the Draft Comprehensive Plan Appendix to answer many of the questions .
Part 1 , Section A. The EAF was completed as follows :
1 . Commercial , Residential , Rural , Forest, Agriculture, Other (state owned
parkland)
2 . (Doug agreed to get the answers to this question from ASCS) .
3 . Cazenovia-Ovid, Lansing-Consensus , Howard — 80% (map 3 - 1 ) . A . 20%
poorly drained, 80% moderately to well drained (map 3 -3 ) . B . (Doug agreed
to get this from ASCS) .
4 . 1 '/z to 40 ft. (map 3 -4)
5 . 85 % with 0- 10% slope, 10% with 10- 15 % slope, 5 % with 15 % or greater
(map 3 -6)
6 . yes
7 . no
8 . variable
9 . yes
10 . yes
11 . yes (the group felt there were most likely some threatened or endangered
species within the Town, species would need to be determined)
12 . yes , Smith Woods, Frontenac Creek Glen, Indian Creek, Harts Woods,
Willow Creek Glen, Taughannock Gorge (map 3 - 11 , unique natural areas)
13 . yes, primarily state park land, public campgrounds, x-country ski areas,
lakefront
14 . yes
15 . principal streams are Taughannock Creek and Trumansburg Creek (map3 -8)
(there was a discussion of the other creeks and when SEQR would be needed
with development)
16 . Cauga Lake, UL 11 , UL 12 , IT30 (pg 29 inventory)
17 . yes and no, electric service is sufficient, more gas and water service is needed.
a. no . b . yes (chapter 4 inventory, the village was excluded from
consideration)
18 . yes and no , partially
19 . no
20 . yes
Consensus among the group was that section B was not applicable to the
Comprehensive Plan because it was geared toward a specific project and boundaries . The
Board and Committee moved on to section C .
Section C .
1 . yes, zoning amendment, new master plan.
2 . commercial and residential
3 . significant and potentially unacceptable ; possible strip development; if
unregulated will alter the character of the Town and be inconsistent with
identified quality of life issues . (There was a lot of difficulty answering this
question and a lengthy discussion on this question and how to define
development, estimate future development and quantify an answer for this
question . The group discussed the relative dangers of residential versus
commercial development. )
4 . Cl , C2 , C3 and residential
,�o
5 . significant, but will minimize urbanization and industrialization, encourage
cluster development, preserve current character of the Town and agricultural
opportunities
6 . yes
7 . not applicable (this question pertained to a specific project site)
8 . yes
9 . no
10 . no
11 . no
12 . no
The Committee and Board moved on to consider Part 2 of the EAF . The group
reviewed the questions in Part 2 and had a lengthy discussion about the proposed action
under consideration being simply the adoption of the comprehensive plan. Consensus was
that the answer to all the questions in Part 2 would be No for this SEQR on the
comprehensive plan, but that a SEQR for the zoning change might have different
answers . There was a discussion of what SEQR would be like for the zoning change and
the possibility of an EIS with rezoning . The group was concerned about how to
adequately reflect the consideration that was given to SEQR and Part 2 . The
comprehensive plan would not have direct impacts, but when zoning is revised there
would be measurable impacts to consider.
The group briefly discussed the different commercial zones and the process for
adoption. The next meeting was set for January 20 at 7 : 30 p . m . for a final review of the
draft plan and map . The meeting ended at 9 : 20 p .m.