The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPB Minutes 1990-09-04� c FUD ' owN of ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Date a j Cie ' �w SEPTEMBER 41 1990 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, September 4, 1990, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman Carolyn Grigorov, Robert Kenerson, James Baker, William Lesser, Robert Miller, Stephen Smith, Eva Hoffmann, Daniel R. Walker, P.E. (Town Engineer), Susan C. Beeners (Town Planner), George R. Frantz (Assistant Town Planner), John C. Barney, Esq. (Town Attorney). ALSO PRESENT: Dooley Kiefer, John C. Gutenberger, Chris Marcella, Bob Webster, Gregg Travis, Douglas Brittain, Bruce Brittain, Charles Trautmann, Paul M. Griffen, Robert O'Brien, David C. Auble, Thomas R. Salm, Kathryn Wolf, Peter Trowbridge, David Herrick, Laura F. Marks, Robert Andree, Greg Williams, Nancy L. Krook, Audrey M. Lowe, Paul L. Hartman, Bruce Turnbull, Martha Turnbull, Betsy Darlington, Faith Chase, Paige Weber, Cynthia K. Sherman, Jeff Pettiross (WVBR News), Elizabeth Hagglund (WVBR) . Chairman Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7:10 p.m. and accepted for the record' the Clerk's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on August 27, 1990, and August 301 1990, respectively, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, upon both the Clerk and the Building Commissioner of the City of Ithaca, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on August 28, 19909 Chairman Grigorov read aloud the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED REVISIONS TO ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING FILLING AND GRADING AND IRREGULAR LOTS. Chairman Grigorov opened the discussion on the above -noted Zoning Ordinance amendments, as follows: 10 A Proposed Local Law Amending the Zoning Ordinance to Eliminate Additional Yard Requirements on Irregular Lots. 2. A Proposed Local Law Amending the Zoning Ordinance Relating to �, the Extraction or Deposit of Fill and Related Products. Planning Board -2- September 4 , 1990 Chairman Grigorov asked Town Attorney Barney to speak to the proposed amendments. Attorney Barney stated that the proposed local law in re irregular lots is related to the repeal of certain sections which provided for increased footage in certain circumstances, adding that for several years the zoning ordinance requirements were such that for each zoning area certain minimum lot sizes must be met, and those were expressed in several ways ---- (1) minimum number of square feet per lot; (2) minimum frontage and minimum depth. Attorney Barney recalled that concern arose out of the Klondike subdivision that these limitations were not totally adequate for irregular size lots because of some lot shapes in that subdivision which, had the houses been built with normal setbacks, they would have been fairly close to those in other subdivisions. Attorney Barney described a movement which arose to amend the zoning ordinance to provide that where lots were irregular insofar as minimum lot requirements, then the side, rear, and front yard requirements were all increased by ten to fifteen feet. Attorney Barney noted that that, in turn, created a lot of non-conforming lots, the upshot being that anybody who wanted to make a small addition to his house and could not meet the rectangle imposition criterion had to request a variance . Att orney Barney offered that, on reflection, it was felt that the penalty that innocent people had to pay by going through the variance process outweighed any potential benefit. Attorney Barney stated that it was also felt that it was unfair to penalize someone because of an irregular lot size. Attorney Barney spoke of one other situation which was that in an R--15 zone, prior to amendment, there actually was no minimum lot size expressed in square feet, adding that that has been changed and we now have a 15, 000- square-foot requirement for a lot. Attorney Barney summarized the first of the two amendment proposals before the Board by noting that the feeling was that it would be wise to delete the requirement for increased side, rear, and front yards to reduce the number of non-conforming uses. Referring to the second proposed amendment, Attorney Barney stated that, for this one, there was more involved discussion, commenting that presently there is no real control over the deposit of fill in the Town, and adding that there are a couple of situations where depositing fill could become a problem and the thought was that it would be appropriate for the Town to regulate this when people began to operate in sizable amounts of fill. Attorney Barney stated that the result of these discussions is the proposed amendment before the Board which provides that, for deposit/removal of fill greater than 50 cubic yards, except under certain circumstances, the applicant would need to go through an approval process involving the Zoning Board of Appeals reviewing the proposal and, if it were to involve more than 2,500 cubic yards, the Planning Board would need to make recommendation first before the Board of Appeals could act. Chairman Grigorov inquired as to the extent of the problem, with Attorney Barney responding that there is one lot on Elmira Road where quite a bit of fill has been deposited over time with almost no regulation. Attorney Barney stated that the concern was that it could Planning Board -3- September 4, 1990 • become a problem. Chairman Grigorov asked Attorney Barney if he foresaw it becoming a difficulty, with Attorney Barney responding that he felt the addition of any further fill there could be safely regulated. It was noted that the owner of the area in question has agreed to it. Chairman Grigorov asked whether the lot was pretty stable and Town Engineer Walker was asked how many cubic yards were there. Mr. Walker stated that he estimated 3,000 -5,000 cubic yards easily, adding that the intention of this proposal is essentially erosion control concern. Mr. Walker noted a site on Route 96B (Danby Road) where fill has been put in for a rest area facility without any real review of sediment control measures. Mr. Walker also mentioned projects such as Winner's Circle and the Cornell Library project where 80,000 cubic yards of material were moved. Chairman Grigorov asked whether any project already started would be subject to it, with Attorney Barney responding, no, and adding that any project that has already started would be acceptable up to the point where the law is in effect. Attorney Barney stated that if a person were in the middle of a job, they would have to come in and get approval if they were going to put in more than 50 cubic yards of fill. Town Planner Susan Beeners asked Attorney Barney if the requirement is in place whether or not a person is applying for a building permit, with Attorney Barney responding, yes. Ms. Beeners commented that it is then a special approval matter. Attorney Barney stated that it is similar to the residential occupancy business where • one needs special approval to have a particular increased occupancy. Mr. Walker commented that it is the same as a building permit in that if one begins building without a permit, it is a violation. Mr. Frantz commented that Harrison Rue is a member of the Codes and Ordinances Committee but was unable to attend the meeting where this amendment was discussed, however, he did comment and most of his comments were incorporated into the proposal but one last concern he had, as a builder, is the lack of provision of materials for backfill, such as gravel to backfill around foundations. Chairman Grigorov wondered if such backfill would exceed 50 cubic yards, and Mr. Frantz responded that it certainly could. Attorney Barney commented that they would be exempting any normal building operation in connection with any legal building permit, such as excavation, filling, and grading. Mr. Frantz pointed out that this is in reference to materials brought into the site. Attorney Barney spoke of exceptions which apply where the total amount of material moved from one place to another place on site is less than 700 cubic yards. Chairman Grigorov commented that it would be more than this Mr. Frantz offered his interpretation of Mr. Rue's interpretation which was moving 700 cubic yards around site with respect to grading and then they are allowed to remove 500 cubic yards, however, nowhere does it say that you are allowed to bring in "X" cubic yards for the purpose of gravel for foundations. It was noted that the proposal does say that, yes, you can bring 700 cubic yards onto the site and 500 cubic yards off the site, so, it does suggest that the exemption does not apply to more • than 500 cubic yards -- but that is off, that is, removed from the site, and so it sounds as though there is exemption for 50 cubic yards to bring materials on -site. Attorney Barney suggested clarifying that Planning Board -4- September 4, 1990 • part. Mr. Walker suggested that, in connection with any normal legal building permit, we state the amount of material removed or brought onto the construction site is less than 500 cubic yards. A question was raised about buildings for which permits are not needed, such as farm buildings. Mr. Walker responded that he was not aware of that and asked if agricultural exemptions were included somewhere. Attorney Barney said they were not. It was pointed out that normal farm operations would be exempted because they are under conservation plans. Attorney Barney wondered how- much fill a conservation plan would be involved with, the response being that under a conservation plan one must consider how the entire farm is managed, so, one could go ahead and fill without filing for permit. Attorney Barney questioned whether actions under a conservation plan would be acceptable to the Town, for example, if massivie amounts of earth were moved. It was noted that it is unlikely that "masssive" amounts would be moved. Chairman Grigorov mentioned that any stream interference would also be regulated under DEC, and commented that if they are not required to have a building permit, then she did not see why new restrictions should be imposed. Town Engineer Walker commented that pond construction, which we have not seen a lot of, could be a concern. Comment was made about never catching the ones who do things illegally, it being noted that persons are supposed to have a DEC permit and the Corps of Engineers has its authority also, thus, it would appear that the Town is covered by the proposed local • law. Town Attorney Barney suggested an exemption for over 300, or perhaps 500, cubic yards in agricultural districts, adding that he did not -think the Town can leave ag districts totally unregulated. Mr. Walker agreed with the need to regulate ag districts and cautioned that commercial operations may be put in under the guise of agricultural operations. Attorney Barney suggested a limitation in ag districts for deposit or removal of a certain amount and, if a project exceeds that given amount, it would be necessary to come before the Board. Town Engineer Walker suggested 500 cubic yards imported for construction of agricultural buildings in agricultural zones, noting that it would be important to state something like "for agricultural purposes in an active farm operation ". A question arose with respect to an occurence, as at Grandview, where a substantial amount of grading and filling was done elsewhere, as to whether a special permit would be required -- in other words, does the 30,000 sq. ft. "construction site" exception refer to every individual permit in a development such as that, or is it the overall development? Town Engineer Walker offered that the overall development is covered by exception #3. Town Planner Beeners commented that exception #3 would not necessarily cover it because it only discusses site plans, not subdivision plats, adding that there is no policy to ask for grading plans with subdivisions. Chairman Grigorov suggested that it should be standard to ask for grading plans. Ms. Beeners suggested changing it to site plan /subdivision plat and then Planning will make sure enough grading information is submitted. Ms. Beeners stated that she shared the same concern as Dr. Lesser as to whether one single • building lot is adequately covered by excess filling on a steep lot. Mr. Walker asked whether Ms. Beeners meant if it would be done in conjunction with the building, with Ms. Beeners responding that she Planning Board -5- September 4, 1990 was asking about miscellaneous pre- approved lots. Mr. Frantz noted that this was covered by the 500 cubic yard limit. Mr. Walker offered that the intent is, if there is a legal building permit, that the site plan be examined and regulated and sediment erosion control measures would then be made in conjunction with the building. Ms. Beeners asked whether a typical single lot on a sloping site would be subject to a site plan review at the time of building permit issuance. Mr. Walker responded that it would, adding that the building inspector comes to him now with questions on stability before issuing a building permit. Mrs. Hoffmann suggested the addition of visual impact of soil removal as an "other adverse impact" to the text. Chairman Grigorov asked whether the Board members agreed; they did. Chairman Grigorov noted that there were three modifications made. There appearing to be no further discussion, the Chair asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion recommending the local laws as amended. MOTION by Mr. William Lesser, seconded by Mr. James Baker: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board the adoption of the proposed Local Law Amending the Zoning Ordinance Relating to the Extraction or Deposit of Fill and Related Products, and the adoption of the proposed Local Law Amending the Zoning Ordinance to Eliminate Additional Yard • Requirements on Irregular Lots, as the same are attached hereto. [See Exhibit #1.] There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, Miller, Smith, Hoffmann. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman Grigorov declared the discussion of two proposed local laws duly closed at 7:41 p.m. CORNELL VET COLLEGE PRESENTATION Chairman Grigorov opened the discussion on the above -noted matter at 7:42 p.m. Mr. Chris Marcella, Architect with the State University Construction Fund, stated that he would provide a review of what will be constructed at the Vet School, Mr. Marcella stated that the majority of the Vet School two -to- three -story buildings were constructed in the 1950s, and the Vet Research Tower expansion occurred in the mid- 1970s. Mr. Marcella stated that the College needs to expand its programs, adding that the faculty will be expanded, however, the student body will not, and further adding that the estimated project cost is 66 million dollars. Mr. Marcella noted that there will be expansion of the small and large animal hospital • including the primary and secondary teaching areas. Mr. Marcella stated that Phase I involves site utilities relocation, including stormwater, sanitary, steam, telecommunication, and a loading dock Planning Board -6- September 4, 1990 addition. Mr. Marcella stated that Phase II, with an estimated cost of 8 million dollars, involves the primary teaching center with entry off Tower Road, additional library space, two large lecture halls, and one dry lab. Mr. Marcella indicated that it is their hope to complete these phases next spring. Mr. Marcella stated that Phase III is the largest part of the project, with an estimated cost of 52 -54 million dollars, and is a new hospital. Mr. Marcella stated that the new hospital will contain both small and large animal hospitals as well as three floors of research area. Mr. Marcella stated that it is anticipated that construction will start next summer, contingent on State approval of funds. Mr. Marcella stated that Phase IV is the renovation of existing space, not as yet designed, but involves a secondary teaching center and a move to where the current large animal hospital is. Mr. Marcella reiterated that the student population would remain at 320 and the client load will not increase. Mr. Marcella spoke of landscaping up to "B" lot and the circle area if funds permit. Mr. Marcella stated that he would be happy to answer any questions. The first question related to any impact and /or changes to "B" lot, with Mr. Marcella responding that there were neither impacts nor changes. Town Attorney Barney asked how many stories the new primary teaching building will have, with Mr. Marcella responding that it will be two stories with a central lobby with skylights. Attorney Barney asked if Mr. Marcella could provide a sense of the total building height. Mr. Marcella, commenting that he was not sure of the exact numbers, stated that he was sure it would not exceed 40 feet. Attorney Barney wondered if that height represented three stories. Mr. Marcella explained that the center portion is a penthouse and is probably around 75 feet. Ms. Beeners noted that the maximum height in an R -30 zone is 34 feet. Mr. Marcella stated that they follow State Codes and the State University Construction Codes, so the design may not conform to local codes, adding that the proposal has been reviewed with the Fire Department and they will be meeting again. Attorney Barney, noting that it is the zoning regulation that is in question, not the building code, asked if it were the State's position that they are not subject to zoning regulations. Mr. Marcella responded that that was correct. Board Member Lesser wondered why half the area is four stories higher than the rest of it, with Mr. Marcella responding that the architect had recommended this design for several reasons including efficiency for exhaust and mechanical systems; it blends well with the Vet Research Tower; proximity of the research functions to each other. Board Member Kenerson inquired if the project is projected to meet the needs for another 30 years. Mr. Marcella replied that he hoped so and noted the flexibility of design for adaptation to future needs. Board Member Hoffmann asked if any support buildings which would be needed had been left off the plans. Mr. Marcella stated that only offices for construction will be required and these are only temporary. Town Attorney Barney asked for an explanation of the legal 40 interplay between Cornell and the Construction Fund, essentially, who owns the buildings themselves? Mr. Marcella stated that the State owns the building and about 15 feet around the building; the Planning Board -7- September 4, 1990 construction "fund" is actually part of the State University which services State University construction needs. Att orney Barney wondered where the money for the project comes from, with Mr. Marcella responding that it comes from bonded dollars from the State. Attorney Barney, noting that the State will own the building as well as some 15 -20 feet around it, assumed that Cornell University gives up land to the State. Attorney Barney asked, once the,bond is paid off, does the land revert back to Cornell? Mr. Marcella responded, yes, adding that Cornell gives up land to the State University and maintains the land even once the bond is paid off. A question was raised as to whether any buildings were being constructed so as to add additional stories in the future, with Mr. Marcella's response being no. Attorney Barney inquired as to whether the "Fund" took the position that they were not required to go through the Town's subdivision process when pieces of land were carved out and given to the State. Mr. Marcella responded that that was correct. Attorney Barney inquired if Mr. Marcella knew of statutory language anywhere that dictated this, with Mr. Marcella responding that he could have their attorney in Albany, J. Handwhecher, telephone Mr. Barney and cite that language. Ms. Beeners inquired about the SEQR process. Mr. Marcella stated that the first portion -- on -site utilities -- had already been filed and was a.negative declaration, adding that it is a phased process due • to the project phases. Chairman Grigorov asked if the State determines the declaration, with Mr. Marcella responding, yes, and adding that the State University determines the declaration and then notifies the towns. Mr. Marcella stated that a town may refute the declaration within a specified time period, otherwise, there is consent. Ms. Beeners commented that, in response to a request for concurrence on lead agency for the Dormitory Authority project, the Town was not interested in being lead agent for the bonding itself, but would like to be a lead agent for special approval reviews or site plan reviews on site - specific projects. Ms. Beeners expressed her confusion regarding the difference between the Vet College project and the previous Dormitory Authority projects. Mr. Marcella explained that to his knowledge the State has always been lead agency for their projects, but the Dormitory Authority, where funding for a project is supplemented by another fund, asks another funding agency for its opinion on lead agency. Ms. Beeners asked whether the Town would have had the opportunity to comment during the SEQR process as an interested /involved agency. Mr. Marcella responded that the Town does and the Town should have received the SEQR form, however, he did not know who would have received it. Mr. Marcella offered to forward a list to Bob Webster at the Vet School to verify to whom the SEQR was sent. Town Attorney Barney asked for Attorney Handwhecher's address, with Mr. Marcella responding that he is with the State University Construction Fund in Albany and the number is (518) 443 -50009 Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any further questions or • comments. There being none, Chairman Grigorov thanked Mr. Marcella and closed the discussion on the Vet School expansion at 8:11 p.m. • C7 • Planning Board -8- SKETCH PLAN REVIEW: PROPOSED ROAD BUILDING, ITHACA COLLEGE, September 4, 1990 RELOCATION AND NEW SCIENCE Chairman Grigorov opened discussion of the above -noted matter at 8:12 p.m. Mr. Thomas R. Salm, Vice President for Business Affairs, Ithaca College, and Mr. Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Associates, appeared before the Board. Drawings were appended to the bulletin board and a document entitled "New Science Facilities ", Ithaca College, School of Humanities and Sciences, Special Approval was distributed to the Board. Mr. Salm explained that the new science building is in response to the need for a modern science facility and to meet the need for more classroom space on the Ithaca College side of the Danby Road. Mr. Salm explained that, currently, the College leases space at NCR and it is undesirable to have students crossing Route 96B for classes, adding that renovation of the old science building into classroom space and space for the Psychology Department, and completion of the new building, will allow for termination of the NCR lease. Mr. Salm commented that NCR is also considering an alternate lease of their space. With respect to the proposed road relocation, Mr. Salm stated that it is necessary to maintain the academic quadrangle for that building. Mr. Salm stated that Ithaca College has decided to undertake a master plan to link in with the Town's plan which will include facilities as well as projects on the drawing board, adding that they would like to proceed with a generic environmental impact statement for the IC campus. Mr. Salm stated that they need the Planning Board to give them the scope of the G /EIS, adding that they have tentative timetables at this point. Mr. Trowbridge spoke to the sketch plan and explained the relocation of the road and the decrease of vehicle /pedestrian conflicts which would result, noting that there would be little modification to the existing grade. Mr. Trowbridge stated that they are seeking to create strong design and pedestrian relationships between the Roy H. Park School of Communication and Phillips Hall, as well as a public side and a private interior courtyard to the new science building. Mr. Trowbridge pointed out that everything is handicapped accessible. With respect to the new science building, Mr. Robert O'Brien of HOLT Architects, described the building layout, noting that it will be three - storied with biology on the first floor, physics on the second floor, and chemistry on the top floor, all organized around a central utility core. Mr. O'Brien described offices and small research labs to the west of the core and noted that the second level has two terraces where the major southern entrance is, adding that the other entrance is on the first floor across from the Park School. Mr. O'Brien presented a model and explained the height of the building in relation to the existing buildings. Mr. O'Brien stated that the materials used will be similar to the Park School, that is, brick, limestone panels, standing seam metal roof, adding that the building has around 100,000 sq. ft. total. Mr. O'Brien indicated that they plan to begin next Spring for completion for the Fall semester 1992, IN Planning Board -9- September 4, 1990 0 adding that in the Fall renovations to Williams Hall would begin with completion hoped for the Fall of 1993. Messrs. Salm, Trowbridge, and O'Brien stated that they would be happy to answer any questions, the first of which dealt with the possibility of vertical expansion, and the answer to which was that there were no plans for such because of limitations caused by the fan gallery for cooling. Inquiry was made as to whether the College anticipated increased enrollment as a result of these improvements, to which Mr. Salm responded, no, adding that it was purely a replacement facility and to get the students out of NCR. Board Member Lesser asked about the timeframe for the master plan, with Mr. Salm responding, ten to fifteen years. Ms. Beeners presented to the Board a flow chart of dates for the loop road review, the science building timeframe, and the G /EIS, as provided by Ithaca College. Ms. Dooley Kiefer, Chair, Environmental Review Committee of the Conservation Advisory Council, asked whether the windows in the new building would open and whether the design took maximum advantage of solar heating. Mr. O'Brien, responding yes, stated that the windows will open, adding that most windows go into offices, the labs having few windows because of the need to control temperatures. Mr. O'Brien stated that, in terms of energy management, the building uses a great deal of air, adding that all air passing out of the building goes through a heat recovery system. Mr. Trowbridge wondered why Ms. Kiefer had asked that question, with Ms. Kiefer responding that solar orientation is left out of a lot of planning. Mr. O'Brien inquired if energy conservation was a primary concern, with Ms. Kiefer responding, yes. Mr. O'Brien noted that openable windows are not energy- conscious to which Ms. Kiefer agreed, adding that they were, however, important for the human environment. Mr. O'Brien agreed and offered that they would never design without openable window's. Dr. Lesser asked about the maximum height of the building, with Mr. O'Brien responding that it will be 45 feet to the edge of the roof and the penthouse goes up another 15 feet to about 60 feet. Mr. O'Brien commented that they are coming before the Planning Board asking for a height variance. Ms. Beeners requested a schematic showing the relationship of the height to the existing buildings. A brief description followed. Ms. Beeners questioned the space being vacated at NCR and the plans for its reuse, asking that they comment on this in their review. Mr. Salm responded that they really did not know, adding that NCR has merely indicated that they may have plans for the space. Ms. Beeners asked for a rough estimate of the square footage of space being vacated, with Mr. Salm responding, about 15,000 sq. ft. Ms. Beeners spoke of the need to make comment on the 15,000 sq, ft. and what NCR will do with it. Chairman Grigorov noted that this was not within Ithaca College's control. Ms. Beeners pointed out that part of a SEQR review is to determine any impacts related to new campus space, one being the leaving of a large empty space at NCR. Chairman Grigorov reiterated that she could not see where that is I.C.'s responsibility. Mr. Salm stated that they could ask NCR but he would predict that they would not express any definite plans. Ms. Beeners suggested the mention of traffic impacts in the Transportation Planning Board -10- September 4, 1990 Report of vacated parking spaces and the 15,000 sq. ft. and the adequacy of a new light industry moving in there, adding that the Route 96B intersection would be okay, it being likely that it would be addressed. Mr. Salm responded that he did not understand why this should be the College's responsibility, noting that NCR would need to go to the Town prior to using this space. Ms. Beeners suggested that, perhaps, it would be enough to say that no plans are known for the vacated space at NCR, however, the estimated traffic which could be generated is /is not within the capacity of Danby Road, should be. Mr. Walker commented that this could be relevant to the master plan in the Town. Mr. Salm agreed to ask their parking consultant and NCR about this. Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any further comments with respect to the sketch plan review. There being none, Chairman Grigorov thanked the Ithaca College representatives and closed the discussion at 8:45 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF MODIFIED SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE EAST HILL GULF GASOLINE STATION, LOCATED IN A BUSINESS "D" DISTRICT AT THE CORNER OF ELLIS HOLLOW ROAD AND JUDD FALLS ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO, 6 -62 -2 -1.13. PROPOSED MODIFICATION IS TO CONSIST OF REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING CANOPY AND PUMPS WITH A LARGER CANOPY AND CASHIER'S BOOTH, DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING FILM /PHOTO DEVELOPING KIOSK ON THE SITE, AND MODIFICATION OF THE ENTRY DRIVES TO THE SITE. ROBERT W. ANDREE, INC., OWNER; ROBERT W. ANDREE, AGENT. Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 8:47 p.m. Mr. Robert Andree appeared before the Board and presented site plans. Mr. Andree pointed out that the only changes to the entrances are that the entrance to the P & C lot will be narrower by 15 -20 feet and the Ellis Hollow Road entrance will be narrower by about 20 feet. Mr. Andree stated that the existing canopy, pumps and piping, will be replaced by a canopy of 12118" by 30'4" wide, adding that this is considerably larger than what is there, and further adding that there are four fueling locations. Mr. Andree stated that they will have a bathroom, a cashier's spot, and more space for cigarettes, motor oil, etc., adding that Cornell has agreed to have chips, candy bars, and anything you would have which would be eaten within five minutes of purchase. Mr. Andree stated that the grassy area will be landscaped and pointed out that the drawing shows a storage area with a trash container, commenting on a chain link fence with dumpster. Mr. Andree noted that they currently remove trash once or twice a week, keeping it in four small garbage cans on the island. Chairman Grigorov asked about the diesel pum] wondering whether it was to be eliminated. Mr that the diesel is currently under the canopy and is over to the side and will remain there, stated planned for under the canopy, however, they are it out to the side to avoid congestion because which is there now, Andree, commenting the kerosene pump is that the diesel is contemplating moving diesel is not a big Planning Board -11- September 4, 1990 seller at the East Hill Plaza. Mr. Andree referred to a 12 -foot illuminated identification sign and an illimuniated price sign, noting that they will be presented later. Chairman Grigorov inquired about pavement and grassy areas, asking if they were increasing the grassy area. Mr. Andree stated that the grassy area will be decreased to allow for the larger canopy. Board Member Hoffmann asked for the current dimensions of the booth, with Mr. Andree responding that it is about 8 feet by 8 feet. Ms. Hoffmann commented that a canopy of about 25 -30 feet did not overhang the booth much. Mr. Andree calculated an 8 -foot booth and an 8 -foot car on each side makes about 24 feet of space which needs to be covered, and concluded that there is not much room to spare. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz presented a drawing showing the existing facility and indicated the extent of pavement expansion and entrance changes with the new plan. Mr. Andree explained how the fueling traffic pattern will change with the new facility, commenting that the current facility and traffic patterns do not handle the demand and the traffic. Comment was made that if lots of people are waiting it is highly possible that entrances and exits will become blocked which brought to mind a question as to what traffic flow will be predicted given that the entrances to the station are also used by people going to the Plaza. Chairman Grigorov asked if the station will be cut off from the Plaza to a greater extent than is presently • the case, with Mr. Andree responding, no, and explaining that the photo kiosk, which is not related to his operation, will be removed, per Cornell, which will open up the driveway onto Ellis Hollow Road more. It was further commented that this will make it even more tempting for traffic to go straight from Pine Tree Road, across Ellis Hollow Road, through the station area, to the P & C. It was noted that Mr. Andree's diagram showed parking spaces will fill this area. Ms. Hoffmann offered that if a kiosk does not currently discourage traffic, she doubted that parking spaces will. Mr. Andree stated that the parking was placed there because of storage, however, it may not be necessary that they have a storage building as they really only need space for a dumpster. A further question followed with respect to whether it was anticipated that a lot of people would be stopping to purchase snacks and not fuel, with Mr. Andree responding, yes, probably, but he did not know to what extent, and adding that now it seems to be a popular place to stop in the morning for cigarettes. Noting that this was a Public Hearing, Chairman Grigorov asked for public comment, the first of which being a question as to whether the area for snacks, cigarettes, etc., will be a store like a little "mini- mart". Mr. Andree responded that it would not be like a "mini- mart", and added that it will be more than a window to walk up to as one will have to enter the building, however, they will only sell candy, gum, cigarettes -- items one can eat within five minutes of purchase. Mr. Andree noted that the entire building will be 600 square feet or less including bathroom, sales room, and backroom. Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any further comments. Planning Board -12- September 4, 1990 ft Ms. Laura Marks, Chair of the Conservation Advisory Council's Parks, Open Space, and Natural Areas Committee, spoke from the floor and stated that she had two problems. Ms. Marks expressed a concern for the wetland across the street because the gas station site has a water table of less than 2 feet and the wetland is the headwater for the stream feeding into Six Mile Creek near Van Nattas Dam. Ms. Marks also felt that it was premature to make a decision on the Andree expansion without incorporating other concerns of the area such as McDonald's and the Park & Ride. Ms. Marks also spoke of the realignment of Judd Falls Road and Pine Tree Road, with a four -way stop, which would mean going right through the gas station. Attorney Barney wondered if that were the only way Ms. Marks saw possible to change that intersection, with Ms. Marks responding, no, adding that if Pine Tree Road were moved then it will cross the wetland. Ms. Marks stated that possibly you could make a gas station west of the road, however, until some comprehensive planning decisions are made, any decision to expand is premature. Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any further comments. Town Board Member Cathy Valentino, and resident of Eastern Heights, spoke from the floor and stated that she travels this road every day and has noted that congestion is somewhat better with the three -way stop than it was three years ago. Ms. Valentino stated that also the biggest hazard is the entrance to the service station positioned directly across from Pine Tree Road. Commenting that this is the largest hazard for that intersection today, Ms. Valentino stated that the plan for expansion does not appear to improve this problem. Ms. Valentino expressed her pleasure that the photo booth is being removed, however, she was unhappy that it will be replaced by a dumpster. Ms. Valentino stated that the area is not designated as a roadway, but that is what people use it as. Ms. Valentino stated that losing more green space is also not acceptable here, adding that she questioned the need for expansion here, and further adding that she questioned the need also for an illuminated sign. Mr. Valentino recalled that when the current sign was placed there it required a variance, and stated that it is probably not within the Sign Law to allow for an illuminated sign. Mr. Paul Hartman, 132 Pine Tree Road, spoke from the floor and stated that he agreed with Ms. Valentino on the illuminated sign, adding that he was also concerned about refuse increase from candy and snack sales, and commenting that it was the same kind of complaint raised with the McDonald's proposal. Ms. Betsy Darlington, 204 Fairmount Avenue, spoke from the floor and reinforced the previous comments on traffic congestion, noting that she sees circulation and safety concerns, and also there are aesthetic considerations with the sign and the loss of green space. Ms. Darlington stated that the area has been beautiful in the past and she would hate to see it become like North Triphammer. Ms. Darlington indicated her agreement with Ms. Marks' comment about the wetland headwaters and stated that that was important to consider, adding that the danger of having any gas station near a wetland will be increased with expansion. Planning Board -13- September 4, 1990 • Dooley Kiefer asked if the Planning Board will be going through the environmental assessment report and perhaps it would be appropriate for her to comment for the CAC point by point. Chairman Grigorov asked if Ms. Kiefer had a report from the CAC on Andree, with Ms. Kiefer responding, yes. Chairman Grigorov stated that she would like to finish to public comment period first and then go to the environmental assessment. Mr. Douglas Brittain, 135 Warren Road, spoke from the floor and commented on aligning the intersection, offering that it seems posible to move Judd Falls Road to the other side of the gas station with the expansion. Mr. Bruce Brittain, 135 Warren Road, spoke from the floor and stated that in conversation with the Tompkins County Senior Civil Engineer, Jim Kazda, he discovered that he has palns for County ownership of the intersection and to close driveways within 100 feet of it to tighten up the intersection. Mr. Brittain stated that it might be nice to know what the definite plans are. Ms. Audrey Lowe, 136 Snyder Hill Road, spoke from the floor and stated that the first concern should be traffic patterns at the intersection before even considering the need for the gas station expansion. Ms. Lowe offered that even horses cross this intersection. • Ms. Nancy L. Krook, 113 Pine Tree Road, spoke from the floor and stated that in conversation with P & C Managers they informed her that their parking lot had been voted the second most unattractive in their entire chain of stores. Ms. Krook stated that one of the things that allows this parking lot to be tolerated in a lovely rural community is the grassy knoll around the corner by the gas station in front of the bank and the Elderly Housing facility. Ms. Krook stated that it is almost a little transition from the ugliness of the Plaza and the rural community they are trying to preserve in Ellis Hollow. Ms. Krook stated that with the mini -mart gas station and McDonald's they will lose the knoll which makes the situation even marginally tolerable. Ms. Krook stated that she hoped the Planning Board will think seriously about losing any further green space. Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any further comments from the public. There being none, Chairman Grigorov returned discussion to the Board. Town Engineer Daniel Walker addressed traffic concerns and, noting that staff has discussed this intersection with the County, stated that Mr. Kazda is submitting a budgeting plan with respect to realignment of Judd Falls Road and Pine Tree Road which would include a turning lane for Judd Falls Road and a possible relaning on Ellis Hollow Road. Commenting that the design process has not been completed, Mr. Walker stated that the concern is the alignment of the Plaza entry with Pine Tree Road, adding that another point is that, • until last week, we were under the assumption that certain changes would be made to the Plaza entrances. Mr. Walker stated that an August 24 letter from John Majeroni, Director, Cornell Real Estate Planning Board -14- September 4, 1990 Department, informed the Town that Cornell is withdrawing its plans to modify the Plaza, which is disappointing. Mr. Walker stated that one design consideration was modification to the entrances to encourage traffic to use the main entrance on Judd Falls Road, with the one on Ellis Hollow Road being secondary. Mr. Walker commented on the concern by the public over the gas station's entrance being used as a main entrance to the Plaza, adding that also discussed had been controls on the entrances such as limiting right -hand turns, and further adding that, with the withdrawal of the reconstruction plans, an opportunity to control traffic problems has evaporated to some degree. Mr. Walker stated that the modifications to the station themselves do not appear to be a major problem, however, control of traffic from the Plaza through the station is a major problem, adding that this is not under the control of the gas station operator, but there are some Town staff decisions which need to be made there. Mr. Walker was asked, with respect to the circulation problem with the station, where the queue would form and to what degree the entry would be used as a Plaza entrance, with Mr. Walker responding that the design allowed for a single car on each side of the pump island with one car space for queuing, and noting that there is only space for one car outside the canopy on either side. Another question was posed as to what the situation might be in ten years if they have twice as many cars, with Mr. Andree responding that gas stations do not make traffic, they go to it. Chairman Grigorov commented that • normally gas stations do not have a long area for cars to pile up. It was noted that with the new plan, cars will be perpendicular to the traffic flow in order to queue up. Chairman Grigorov noted that traffic should not be going through anyway. Mr. Andree stated that as far as concern about safety and gas leaking, his response would be that if one had those concerns then one should want the improvements to the piping and the station to be made. Mr. Andree was asked how many cars can get gas with the new plan as compared to the current situation, to which he responded that currently they have six and with the new plan they will have eight. It having been noted that that was not much of a difference, Mr. Andree commented that often only four cars could get gas now because of the way the cars pull into the station. Ms. Hoffmann wondered if more storage space would be required if there were to be more sales volume. Mr. Andree stated that the volume being stored at the station would not need to increase at this time. Ms. Hoffmann asked how much it could increase and what proportion that would be to current storage, with Mr. Andree replying that it could increase, maybe 5,000 to 10,000 gallons, and adding that he currently has about 38,000 gallons there. Chairman Grigorov asked Ms. Beeners if the Business "D" zoning allowed for sale of groceries. Ms. Beeners asked Mr. Andree if beer or dairy products would be for sale, with Mr. Andree responding that there would be no beer; there would be milk, but only in small cartons. Mr. Andree was asked to address the matter of lighting. Commenting that they would have complete canopy lighting, Mr. Andree indicated where new post lights would be. In response to a question about whether there would be signs on the canopy, Mr. Andree stated that there would be no signs on the canopy. Chairman Grigorov Planning Board -15- September 4, 1990 asked what the building would look like. Mr. Andree described the glass on the front and the textured, stone -like sides. Attorney Barney stated for the record that his office does represent Andree Petroleum on other matters, but not on this one. Attorney Barney went on to say that Section 35 of the Zoning Ordinance does say the only permitted use in a "D" zone is a gas station or garage for repairs, adding that certain accessory uses are permitted but they do not appear to include the sale of food, and commenting that, in response to Chairman Grigorov's question about the sale of groceries, he did not have a definitive answer at this point, however, today, it is very common to have snacks at gas stations, so, he will need to do some research before offering a response. Town Engineer Walker was asked for his recommendation regarding traffic, with Mr. Walker replying that the problem was one of aggregate effect, and adding that the relocation of Pine Tree Road from the entrance would eliminate some of the problem. Mr. Walker offered that if there were controls on traffic leaving the Plaza then a lot of the traffic problems would be minimized, and noted that one point of discussion with the County has been eliminating left -hand turns from the gas station onto Judd Falls Road, thus the use of this as a major exit would be eliminated. Mr. Walker was asked his opinion on closing off the entrance from the gas station to the Plaza parking lot, to which he responded that that would definitely prevent the traffic from going through there. Ms. Hoffmann su�g�st�e�deliminating the }hr --' Ellis Hollow Road,"`�o ""tTie gas station rather than moving Pine Tree Road, and asked Mr. Walker how this action would affect traffic. Mr. Walker responded that the cross traffic with Pine Tree Road would be eliminated and the traffic situation improved, however, he would suggest that it would probably actually increase traffic through the main access to the station, which is even a worse problem. Responding to a question about how many people the station employs now and how many more would be required with expansion and how many would work at the same time, Mr. Andree stated that two would be the maximum to have at the same time. Mr. Andree also indicated a mistake on page 2 of Part I of the EAF -- "Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces" where it says "20,000 sq.ft.", it should read 30,000 sq.ft. Mr. Andree pointed out the same error at the top of page 8 [Part II of the EAF] and noted that the change is, therefore, from 30,000 sq.ft. to 34,000 sq.ft. Ms. Hoffmann asked Mr. Andree what the solid waste generated would consist of, with Mr. Andree responding, oil containers and anything else people discarded. Ms. Hoffmann asked if there would be any hazardous waste, with Mr. Andree responding, no, there is not. Ms. Hoffmann commented that although Mr. Andree indicated that there would be no odors produced on the site, it would seem as though gas stations do produce some odors. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she would also like to question the staff about the answer of "yes" to question #6 on page 5 [Part I EAF] -- "Is the proposed • action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans ? ", and asked, is it? Assistant Town Planner George Frantz responded, yes, adding that it is zoned for the use under which it now Planning Board -16- September 4, 1990 • exists. Ms. Hoffmann questioned Mr. Frantz on his response of "Small to Moderate Impact" to question 5 on page 7 [Part II EAF] - "Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons." Mr. Frantz responded that storage of petroleum products of greater than 1,100 gallons is a low to moderate impact because they are existing, not part of the actual project, adding that he would expect additional tanks to be subject to site plan approval. Chairman Grigorov wondered whether Mr. Frantz's positive response [small to moderate] that the proposed action would affect public health and safety [question 17, page 10, Part II EAF] meant that there would be increased danger, to which Mr. Frantz responded, no, adding that this is merely the acknowledgment of the existence of a gas station with a small to moderate potential for explosion or release of hazardous substance. Mr. Frantz stated that he did not anticipate an increase. Mr. Andree stated that the improvements should decrease the chance of leaks or explosions. Mr. Frantz spoke of his "yes" response to question 6, page 7 [Part II EAF] -- "Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff?", stating that there will be a very slight increase in runoff. Mr. Frantz also spoke of his "yes" response to question 14, page 10 [Part II EAF] -- "Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems ? ", stating that a small increase in traffic generation at peak hours, about 5, is anticipated. Ms. Hoffmann questioned Mr. Frantz's non - response that a river, lake, • pond does not exist within $ to 1 mile, suggesting that, perhaps, Cornell's ponds and the creek should be considered [page 2 of the Visual EAF Addendum], Mr. Frantz offered that that could be changed to account for them, but generally the ponds are not part of the visual environment because the view of them is blocked. Ms. Dooley Kiefer, speaking for the Environmental Review Committee of the Conservation Advisory Council, stated that this was the first full EAF they were commenting on as a Committee, adding that only the first 6 pages [Part I EAF] were given to them. Commenting that the ERC had some general comments about the Form, Ms. Kiefer stated that no blanks should be left and all points on which staff disagrees with the applicant should be corrected before the Planning Board meeting. Ms. Kiefer stated that, for expansion /modification reviews, the ERC would like to have the original site plan included with the Form as well as how well the approved site plan had been realized, and it would be useful to have copies of the original assessment forms. Speaking specifically to the.. project before the Board, Ms. Kiefer stated that there were several blanks on the Form and noted the discrepancy in the square footage figures, which were corrected just tonight to 34,000. Ms. Kiefer stated that this discrepancy should have triggered a return of the Form to the applicant for correction. Ms. Kiefer pointed out that on page 2, question #3, the soil type is left blank; on page 2, question #4, the depth of bedrock is left blank; on page 3, question #8, the depth of water table was blank in their copy, but corrected by George Frantz to • read ±2 ft. Ms. Kiefer, noting that question #15 on page 3 asks for streams within or contiguous to project area, suggested changing the Form to ask "what streams or wetlands fall within one- quarter mile ", Planning Board -17- September 4, 1990 adding that one needs to know more than whether it is touching the site, but also whether there are underground connections. Ms. Kiefer pointed out that on page 3, Part B, #1 suggests that there is no additional acreage being developed and asked if that were correct. Mr. Frantz responded with a correction to "a" to read .994 acres, adding, from that, the acreage to be developed in B.1. is .994 acres, and further adding that this question is useful for phased projects where there are large tracts of land. Ms. Kiefer offered that in context with that type of project, she would understand the question, but the Form does not make sense for this project. Chairman Grigorov asked Mr. Frantz what "letter 'a'" should read, with Mr. Frantz responding that .994 is the total acreage of the site. Mr. Andree noted that .994 is their entire property. Ms. Kiefer asked Mr. Andree how long their lease ran, with Mr. Andree responding, 15 years. Referring again to Part B. #1, "e" -- "...indicate percent of expansion proposed" -- Ms. Kiefer noted that 20% is indicated and asked for an explanation of how a 20% expansion was derived. Town Engineer Walker responded that this referred to expansion in capacity to service customers with gasoline and noted the change from 6 to 8 pumps was about a 20% increase. Ms. Kiefer stated that the Committee could not come up with the 20% figure and believes that the Form is the problem, noting again that this was the first time they were using the Form and it gave them some problems. Continuing with letter "f" under "B.1 ", Ms. Kiefer pointed out that the discussion of four parking places at tonight's meeting brings the applicant's response of "N /A" (not applicable) into question. Referring to letter "g" under "B.1" -- "Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour (upon completion of project) ?" -- Ms. Kiefer stated that it would be useful if the Form had information on present traffic. Ms. Kiefer stated that their copy of page 4 lacks question #2 and asked for a reading of it. Mr. Frantz read, "How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the sitev> tons /cubic yards. ", and stated that it was not filled in as the applicant did not anticipate removing materials. Mr. Andree commented that he was not planning on removing tons or cubic yards of dirt, perhaps some, but not more than could be left on -site. Referring to question #3, page 4 -- "Will disturbed areas be reclaimed ?" -- Ms. Kiefer noted that the response is "N /A" (not applicable), however, below that in "b" and "c" it is indicated that topsoil and upper subsoil will be stockpiled for reclamation. Ms. Kiefer stated that the answer should be "yes ", rather than "N /A ". Continuing on page 4, #6 and #7, Ms. Kiefer stated that the applicant's answers are fine, however, the ERC sees a problem with the Form and would like to see the Form include starting and ending dates for single -phase projects. Again, on page 4, #9 -- "Number of jobs generated: during construction -- 15/6' ;after project is complete -- 18/101" -- Ms. Kiefer stated that the ERC interpreted "8 to 10" jobs as new jobs, not total employees, adding that this was probably answered incorrectly. Ms. Kiefer suggested that the form be changed to ask for the number of full -time employees which would be hired. Continuing on page 4, #16 -- "Will the project generate solid waste ?" - Ms. Kiefer stated that the ERC would like to have the Form indicate what kind of solid waste. Ms. Kiefer pointed out that letter "b" Planning Board -18- September 4, 1990 • within #16 is left blank. Ms. Kiefer stated that #17 [page 4] -- "Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste ?" - gave rise to lots of discussion. Ms. Kiefer stated that she thought the question intends to mean the project is a solid waste project, but this is not clear on the Form. Ms. Kiefer, referring to a "no" answer to question #19 -- "Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day) ?" -- stated that the Committee felt that, yes, it would. With respect to #23 [page 4] -- "Total anticipated water usage per day -- 1100' gallons /day." -- Ms. Kiefer stated that with 8 to 10 people a day, one would expect at least 100 gallons of water to be used, so the accuracy of the response could be questioned. Turning to page 5, Part C. "Zoning and Planning Information ", question #3 -- "What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoningV' -- Ms. Kiefer stated that the Committee had difficulty understanding what the question is asking for by "maximum potential development of site ", and questioned the Zoning Ordinance provisions for gas stations and auto repair shops as whether a snack store was allowed. Ms. Kiefer stated that a traffic analysis is needed and the Form does not allow for it. Ms. Kiefer, commenting that she received the entire EAF in the mail, unlike the Committee, stated that, upon reviewing it, she had comments similar to those of Board Member Hoffmann, the only additional comment being with regard to odors. Ms. Kiefer stated that the Committee concluded that it is premature to • issue a negative declaration due to the incomplete nature of the EAF. Ms. Kiefer requested additional information on water tables and drainage and storage tanks. Ms. Kiefer questioned Mr. Andree on his comment that he had about 10 years to bring the facility up to standards and asked who regulated this activity. Mr. And ree responded that both the State and the Federal government regulated them, adding that they have until December 1998 to bring the facility up to standards and, if they were to build this new station, that would bring them up to standards now. Ms. Kiefer expressed concern for water surrounding the storage tanks and any underground connection to the wetland. Ms. Kiefer stated that the Committee was concerned enough about water and traffic to suggest possible relocation of the gas station, with Town assistance, to an alternate location in the Plaza. Ms. Hoffmann asked if the Committee had a specific place in mind, with Ms. Kiefer responding, no. Mr. Frantz addressed question #4, on outcroppings on project site?" -- which letter "a" -- What is depth to bedrock? left blank. Mr. Frantz filled in the bedrock depth is 10+ feet, based on the b project. page 2 -- "Are there bedrock had been checked "no ", but (in feet)" -- had been blank and stated that the oring log for the McDon ald's Chairman Grigorov commented that the wetland which has been spoken of is not a designated wetland. Ms. Kiefer, commenting that it was not State designated because it was small, stated that if the Corps were to examine the soils they would likely call it a wetland. Mr. Frantz commented on the traffic generation estimates, stating Planning Board -19- September 4, 1990 • that, based on the net increase in the number of pumps from 8 to 9, the potential increase in traffic as a result of the proposed expansion is estimated to be between 100 and 170 vehicles per day, based on data provided in the Trip Generation Handbook, Mr. Frantz also noted the different rush hour times for the streets themselves and the gas station itself as he stated in his August 28, 1990 addendum to his review of the EAF on potential traffic impact. A question was posed to Mr. Frantz as to whether the sale of snacks and additional itmes had been factored into the estimates, to which Mr. Frantz responded, no. Chairman Grigorov asked the Board if anyone saw traffic as a major problem, seeing as how there was not much additional traffic, in response to which concern was expressed over cumulative impacts of traffic. At this point, 10:25 p.m., Chairman Grigorov closed, temporarily, discussion of the Andree project to turn to the Public Hearing with respect to McDonald's which had been scheduled for 9:15 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SCOPE OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED "McDONALD'S RESTAURANT" EAST HILL PLAZA, PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN A BUSINESS "C" DISTRICT ON ELLIS HOLLOW ROAD OPPOSITE PINE TREE ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0, 6 -62 -2 -19221 AND PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF A 4,500± SQ. FT. RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE - THROUGH WINDOW SERVICE, PARKING FOR 57 CARS, SIGNAGE AND SITE LANDSCAPING. MCDONALD'S CORPORATION OWNER; TAYLOR MCDERMOTT, GREGORY • SEMOS, FRANK MILANO, ESQ., AGENTS. Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 10:26 p.m. and asked if anyone wished to speak to this matter. No one spoke. Chairman Grigorov closed the Public Hearing, Attorney Barney briefly outlined the situation with respect to the proposed McDonald's restaurant. Attorney Barney stated that subsequent to the publication of the Notice of Public Hearing, the Town was sued by McDonald's over the Planning Board's positive declaration of environmental significance. Attorney Barney recommended that further discussion of the D /EIS be postponed until a later date pending Court determination of the lawsuit. Attorney Barney proposed contacting McDonald's' attorney by letter inviting their objection to a postponement and, if they object, the Planning Board could reconsider its decision. A brief discussion followed between Board members and the Town Attorney. Chairman Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion to adjourn the public scoping meeing. MOTION by Dr. William Lesser, seconded by Mr. James Baker: WHEREAS, the Planning Board determination of the appropriate impact statement for the McDonald' • WHEREAS, after the public n published McDonald's commenced a scheduled a Public Meeting for the scope of the draft environmental s project at East Hill Plaza, and Mice for such scoping meeting was lawsuit against the Planning Board • Planning Board claiming the environmental and -20- September 4, 1990 Planning Board's earlier- determination regarding the significance of the McDonald's project was erroneous, WHEREAS, if McDonald's position is successfully maintained in Court there would be no need for any scoping meeting at all, and WHEREAS, it would therefore appear to be appropriate to defer further SEQR proceedings and further review of the application until the outcome of McDonald's lawsuit is known, and WHEREAS, representatives of McDonald's have been notified that the Planning Board would receive a recommendation from the Town Attorney to defer further proceedings until the lawsuit is terminated and said representatives expressed no objection to such action, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, that the public scoping meeting be adjourned pending the final outcome of the lawsuit instituted by McDonald's, and it is further RESOLVED, that all SEQR and other review periods be suspended pending the outcome of the lawsuit and be resumed at such time as a Court may determine the Town Planning Board was correct in its environmental significance decision, and it is further RESOLVED, that McDonald's be notified of the decision made by this resolution, and it is further RESOLVED, that if McDonald's objects to the action taken by this resolution this Board may reconsider its decision upon receipt of any such objections. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, Miller, Smith, Hoffmann. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of the McDonald's Scoping duly adjourned at 10:35 p.m. REOPENING OF EAST HILL GULF STATION EXPANSION DISCUSSION Chairman Grigorov stated that discussion of Mr. Andree's expansion of the East Hill Gulf Station could now continue. Board Member Miller asked Mr. Andree about new equipment he would add. Mr. Andree stated that he would be updating the gas storage and supply equipment; there would be a monitoring system, overfill and spill protection, double - walling the tanks and piping, etc. Mr. • Andree stated that they have never had a spill or equipment problem there, adding that they are only trying to improve the services. Mr. Andree noted that he had no control over traffic on the roads and Planning Board -21- September 4, 1990 • added that the whole facility would be more pleasing to view and much safer. Chairman Grigorov wondered in what way it would look better, with Mr. Andree responding that the new canopy and lighting would look better, there will be landscaping; two dead trees will be removed; he would like an American flag; there will be new blacktop, curbs, and a new sign. Chairman Grigorov noted the concern expressed over the lack of traffic improvements, the relationship between the Plaza and the station, and the aesthetics of a dumpster with a fence around it. Mr. Andree stated that he was not in control of the traffic situation, adding that a dumpster was definitely needed, the fence being important to keeping people out. Board Member Lesser asked Mr. Andree if he would consider closing off the entrance to the station from the Plaza, with Mr. Andree responding that it was not within his authority to do so, but, even so, personally, he would not find this desirable, adding that it may even kill the project. Ms. Hoffmann asked Mr. Andree, if one entrance were to be closed, which one he would prefer. Mr. Andree replied that he would not like to close any, adding that he had not considered -that option, and further adding that he leases the land from Cornell. Ms. Hoffmann commented on the size of the building, noting that it is much larger, and asked if there really was a need for building expansion when Mr. Andree is only adding one pump. Ms. Hoffmann suggested making the canopy shorter on one end and eliminating the drive - through in the center to create a more compact building, adding that this • could widen the driveway. Discussion ensued between Ms. Hoffmann and Mr. Andree, and among the Board members. Ms. Hoffmann, commenting that shortening the canopy was actually quite minor, spoke again of her major concern that the various issues should be considered together, asking how the station can be approved without knowing about, for example, the road improvements. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she would like to see the entire Plaza area considered as a whole as there are too many unknowns. Board Member Kenerson asked about the Cornell G /EIS.. Mr. Frantz stated that that matter is based on the Campus Master Plan which is in very preliminary inventory stages, adding that the matter of future land use changes has not yet been addressed. Mr. Frantz noted that the 600 -space parking lot has been formally withdrawn. Town Engineer Walker spoke of the Plaza and its environs, noting that the Plaza will remain a commercial area. Board Member Lesser expressed the view that the three openings to the station were a traffic hazard and, although he was reluctant to hold the owner responsible, this was the one tangible thing before the Board among all the uncertainty. Dr. Lesser stated that he could not see approving a site plan which, at best, will not improve the situation, adding that he would like to see a site plan which recognizes the need to enhance traffic flow. Board Member Miller commented that if left as it is it would be worse than the improvement. Chairman Grigorov commented that she would prefer both the traffic improvement and the facility improvement. Dr. Lesser noted that if the Board approved the plan, no further improvements • will be made, but, if denied, then it may be possible to change the driveway situation. Ms. Hoffmann asked who was in charge of determining the number of driveways. Chairman Grigorov recalled that Planning Board -22- September 4, 1990 Is the Town Board had approved the entrances some time ago. Board Member Kenerson added that the County also had jurisdiction because it is a County road. Chairman Grigorov stated that she would reopen the Public Hearing for five minutes. Town Board Member Cathy Valentino asked for clarification of the safety provisions and what the specific proposals are, in other words, what is currently there with respect to safety provisions and what is proposed. Mr. Andree stated that presently they have single -wall steel tanks with single -wall galvanized piping and the new facility would have double - walled tanks and piping made of coated steel on fiberglass. Mr. Andree stated that catch basins will be at every point where there could possibly be a spill and there will be an electronic monitoring system. Mrs. Valentino asked if these were improvements which are mandated and would need to be done anyway. Mr. Andree stated that if one were building a new facility, or improvements are made, then improvements must be put in,. otherwise, they would not be made for several years. Mrs. Valentino stated that the traffic problem is very serious and something needs to be done, adding that, if we keep approving projects without addressing this problem, it will only make it worse. Mrs. Valentino stated that it is a serious corner; that intersection needs to be fixed; pressure can be applied, Ms. Laura Marks suggested closing the entrance onto Judd Falls • Road, if one of them is closed, because it is so close to the corner. Chairman Grigorov closed the Public Hearing at 11:00 p.m. Chairman Grigorov stated that some problems do appear evident, noting the question of the Business "D" zone and the sale of snacks, etc., and that the Sign Review Board might need to review the sign which might need a variance. Mr. Andree stated that he spoke with Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer Andrew Frost and he did not mention that he would need to have the sign he proposed reviewed. Town Planner Beeners commented that Mr. Andree has probably not applied for a sign permit yet which is how review of a sign is triggered. Mr. Andree stated that Mr. Frost suggested he not apply for a sign permit until he had site plan approval. Ms. Beeners interjected, except, as instructed by the Planning Board, with respect to an interpretation from the Zoning Officer as to whether the sign conformed, otherwise, it may end up before the Planning Board again for another review of the sign itself. Chairman Grigorov offered that the Planning Board could deal with that later. Chairman Grigorov pointed out that the Board has before it the EAF and the recommendation from the staff, commenting that there are some beneficial environmental effects of the improvement. Ms. Hoffmann asked if the Planning Board must accept that there be more pavement, and suggested that the Board could perhaps ask that the plan be altered a little bit. Chairman Grigorov, noting that any plan may not be approved exactly as presented, asked the Board what they • thought about environmental impacts. Mr. Miller indicated that he saw no real difference in the new plan from the current site and stated that if the Planning Board was going to keep turning down East Hill Planning Board -23- September 4, 1990 • Plaza proposals on environmental conditions, it is wasting everybody's time until there is a moratorium. Attorney Barney noted that the Board has asked for a comprehensive view, not a moratorium. Board Member Smith offered that, by itself, the proposal was an improvement, but taken with the surroundings it was not. Dr. Lesser MOVED the proposed resolution with respect to SEQR. Ms. Kiefer suggested that the SEQR form should be corrected first. Dr. Lesser expressed appreciation for Ms. Kiefer's review and proposed corrections to the EAF, adding that, in his opinion, the points raised did not significantly change it. Attorney Barney suggested an addition to the proposed resolution stating that a finding of no environmental significance does not prevent the Planning Board from issuing an opposite, or different, finding based upon further or more comprehensive plans with respect to East Hill Plaza and environs. Ms. Beeners raised the question of compliance of the use as a convenience - store -type area. Attorney Barney stated that he felt there may be a real question on the ability to sell food without a variance since the site is zoned Business "D" for gasoline service station. Ms. Beeners suggested an amendment to the EAF such that it states that the proposal may /may not require an additional variance, adding that there may be two variances involved, one for the sign and one for the use. Dr. Lesser asked if a positive declaration were needed with respect to the sign. Ms. Beeners spoke to the matter of the site plan itself and certain items which, she thought, may be missing. Dr. Lesser offered • that, in that case, the site plan may not be complete. Mr. Frantz stated that, from his understanding of the matter, the sign goes to the Sign Review Board (Planning Board) after site plan approval. Mr. Frantz raised the question of review of the project as a site plan approval matter without consideration of the items proposed for sale there, adding that that is more of a zoning enforcement issue which should be examined separately. Attorney Barney responded that if an intention of a project is not permitted by law, then it cannot be done, however, the application before the Board tonight is for gas station expansion, not food sale. Mr. Frantz commented that site plan review is a review of structure, not of use. Attorney Barney commented that if an applicant wanted to sell something not permitted under current law, that would be a separate SEQR process. Ms. Beeners asked if the Board would want additional information on the size and location of the sign. Attorney Barney pointed out that the EAF should include the need for variance with respect to the sign, if, indeed, the sign is non - conforming, since the sign is part of site plan approval. Ms. Beeners suggested that the EAF note that the use may require variance for food sales. Chairman Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion on SEQR referencing the amendments to the EAF. Dr. Lesser withdrew hi resolution with respect to and others as discussed by the Board. The MOTION was • for discussion. Board Member Hoffmann s unseconded motion and MOVED the proposed SEQR with the amendments as to variances the Town Attorney, the Town Planner, and seconded by Mr. Miller and the Chair asked stated that she felt there were too many Planning Board -24- September 4, 1990 • uncertainties about the environmental impacts of the proposal, as well as the about the site plan. Ms. Hoffmann suggested that a vote wait until the Board had further information. Mr. Frantz stated that Part 2 of the EAF, which is the staff's response, is certainly subject to change by the Planning Board. There was lengthy discussion with respect to tabling the Andree matter. Town Engineer Walker stated that the Town of Ithaca is taking a strong environmental stand and the staff is supporting the Planning Board and the Town Board in those issues. Mr. Walker emphasized that the SEQR process needs to be administered on an equitable basis for all applications. Mr. Walker, noting that conditional negative declarations are not recommended by the State because they circumvent the review process, stated that there should be either a positive or a negative declaration made. Mr. Walker offered that he felt the Board should not sit on the fence when there is enough doubt expressed and noted that the Planning Board made a positive determination on the McDonald's project based on traffic, water quality and other issues, and added that this should be kept in mind, even though the use will not change much with the expansion, yet a lot of doubt has been expressed. Ms. Hoffmann stated that, with regard to #17, page 10, of Part 2 • of the EAF -- "Impact on Public Health" -- she had a major question on the impact on public health. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she did not know what the threshold for danger from explosion or hazardous material release was and, therefore, could not determine whether the expansion would cross that threshold. Chairman Grigorov asked if Ms. Hoffmann saw any opportunity to resolve that question. Mr. Frantz stated that his review is based on his knowledge of gas stations and the background of approvals of this particular gas station, adding that there have been no problems. Mr. Frantz pointed out that the instructions accompanying the EAF state that it is not necessary for the respondent to be an expert. Attorney Barney asked if Ms. Hoffmann saw a need to hire an expert or base a decision on a probability of a gas leak with the expansion, adding that he could see a basis for adjourning the matter until a determination can be made as to whether the sign is conforming or non - conforming. Mr. Walker noted that the site plan does not indicate that the tanks will be replaced and asked Mr. Andree whether he intended to replace them or if that were an option. Mr. Andree responded that this was an option. Mr. Walker asked about the age and type of tank, with Mr. Andree responding that they were twelve- year -old single walled tanks. Mr. Walker noted that the NYS DEC and the U.S. EPA regulate underground storage tanks which is primarily a monitoring program which compares the amount of material going into the tank with that coming out, with the assumption being that there is no leak if the amounts are the same. Mr. Walker stated that he would like some • clarification as to whether the tanks would be replaced. Mr. Andree wondered if the Planning Board had any control over whether he replaced the tanks as long as they were up to Code. Attorney Barney Planning Board -25- September 4, 1990 • stated that the determination of environmental significance brought this into play. Chairman Grigorov stated that she thought Mr. Andree had stated that he was required to replace the tanks if he expanded. Mr. Andree responded that if the tanks come out of the ground they would have to replace them, but it would be perfectly legal for them to build everything above - ground new, with the piping from the tanks to the station double - walled, refurbish the tanks as described, and put in.the monitoring equipment and spill detectors on the old tanks. Chairman Grigorov stated that, with this understanding, her perception that the expansion could have a positive environmental effect was changed somewhat. Mr. Andree stated that he had not been under the impression that improvements to equipment had a bearing on site plan approval. Town Planner Beeners suggested adjourning the hearing until 7:30 p.m. on October 2, 1990 pending completion of the EAF, Part 1, with clarification of Part 2, and interpretation by the Zoning Officer on variances for the sign and the use of the building for commercial space, and additional information on the tanks, traffic impact, and County plans for Pine Tree Road relocation. Dr. Lesser stated that he would withdraw his Motions Mr. Miller withdrew his second. MOTION by Mrs. Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Mr. Stephen Smith: • RESOLVED, by the Ti Hearing in the matter Modified Site Plan for gasoline station be and 7:30 p.m., to allow time Dwn of Ithaca Planning Board, that the Public of Consideration of Preliminary Approval of the proposed expansion of the East Hill Gulf hereby is adjourned until October 2, 1990 at for the following information to be provided: 1. Completion and clarification of the Environmental Assessment Form, Part I and Part II. 2. Additional information as to the dimensions, illumination, height, and lettering of the proposed sign. 3. Information from the Zoning Enforcement Officer as to any interpretations by the Zoning Board of Appeals of use of a building in a Business "D" District for about 200 sq. ft. of commercial space. 49 Additional information or clarification on tank replacement of construction plans. 5. Additional information or clarification on drainage plans and drainage impacts. 6. Impact on traffic to include more information on the Tompkins County plan for relocation of Pine Tree Road. • 7. Information concerning the salt - intolerance of the proposed yews shown on the landscape plan. • • • Planning Board -26- September 4, 1990 80 Additional information or clarification on solid waste generation and disposal.. There being no further discussion, Aye - Grigorov, Nay - None. Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, the Chair called for a vote. Miller, Smith, Hoffmann, The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman Grigorov duly adjourned at 11:35 OTHER BUSINESS: declared the Andree p.me gasoline station matter 1. Review of revised Short Environmental Assessment Form, The Board members had before them the Short Environmental Assessment Form, Parts I and II, showing revision date of 8/90, attached hereto as Exhibit #2. Ms. Beeners stated that she would like the revised form to be in place as soon as possible, adding that the Town Board would like to have a presentation on this at their next meeting, September 10, 1990. Ms. Beeners noted that page 1 has been changed a little for clarification of a couple of questions. Ms. Beeners stated that the Conservation Advisory Council has asked for a couple of changes on page 2 to include a box for checking off the Planning staff recommendation and the CAC recommendation, the recommendations to be attachments. Dr. Lesser indicated that, at 20 minutes to midnight, he would not feel comfortable making a decision on this important form. Ms. Beeners suggested that, perhaps, the Board could approve the form in concept, say, as a working revision. Dr. Lesser felt that the Board should either discuss it and approve, or disapprove it, or pass it on without comment. Mr. Miller agreed that it could be passed on without comment, Chairman Grigorov MOVED approval of the proposed form as a working revision. Attorney Barney expressed his concern and wondered what that meant. Attorney Barney read from the SEQR law, and noted that if the Planning Board is approving something that is a "form ", it should approve it as such, not as a "working draft ". Attorney Barney recalled that the Town Board had previously adopted the State Form, and noted that when a revision gets to the Town Board it should be talked about and adopted as the Town Short Environmental Assessment Form. Chairman Grigorov's motion failed for lack of second. Chairman Grigorov stated that the Planning Board would not act at this time, but would discuss the meeting. Chairman Grigorov stated Town Board on September 10th. Ms. meeting on Thursday, September 6th be reported, matter at its September 18, 1990 that this could be reported to the Kiefer pointed out that the CAC is where this discussion could also L' • • Planning Board -27- September 4, 1990 29 Consider Executive Session to discuss Cayuga Cliffs and McDonald's litigation. Upon Motion by Dr. William Lesser, seconded by Mr. James Baker, the Board retired into Executive Session for discussion of matters of litigation as they pertain to McDonald's and Cayuga Cliffs, Upon Motion by the Board returned to ADJOURNMENT Mr. Stephen Smith, seconded by Mr. James Baker, open session. Upon Motion, Chairman Grigorov declared the September 4, 1990 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 12:00 midnight. Respectfully submitted, Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. • • • TOWN OF ITHACA LOCAL LAW NO. OF THE YEAR 1990 A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE EXTRACTION OR DEPOSIT OF FILL AND RELATED PRODUCTS Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as follows: The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as re- adopted, amended, and revised, effective February 26, 1968, and thereafter further amended, be further amended as follows: 10 Article XIII, Section 70 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SECTION 70. Extraction or Deposit of Fill and Related Products. In any district no more than 50 cubic yards of fill, sod, loam, sand, gravel, stone or similar materials shall be deposited or removed or offered for sale in any one year, except in connection with a public work on the property or the removal of silt or other recently accumulated material that blocks a normal flow of a water course, without the special approval of the Board of Appeals. In applying for such approval, the applicant shall submit to the Board a plan of the proposed project, showing property lines, and adjacent public ways, grades and depths of proposed deposit or removal, soil types or fill types to be deposited or removed, and proposed regrading and replanting of the property upon completion of the operation. The Board shall not act until the Town Engineer has reviewed such plan and advised the Board that in his professional opinion the plan adequately protects the property and surrounding properties from adverse consequences of such deposit or removal, including adverse drainage, erosion, visual or other adverse impacts. In considering the proposed use the Board shall take into account the distance of the operation from neighboring property and public ways, the possible detriment of such use to the future development of the land in question, and possible nuisance or detriment of the operation to neighboring landowners and to the community as a whole. The Board may impose such conditions upon the applicant as it deems necessary to protect the general welfare of the community, which may include a time limit upon operations, and the requirements that a performance bond be posted to insure compliance with the requirements of this ordinance and with any further reasonable conditions imposed by the Board. In the event that the proposed movement of material involves the deposit or extraction of more than 21500 cubic .yards, the matter shall first be referred to the Planning Board for its recommendation before the Board of Appeals makes its final decision. rr • • The following are excepted from the requirements set forth above. 1. Any normal building operation in connection with a legal building permit, such as excavation, filling, or grading, shall be excepted from the provisions of this Section provided, however, that this exception shall apply only where the total amount of material moved from one place to another place on the construction site is less than 700 cubic yards and where the amount of material removed from the construction site to an off -site location (or brought to the construction site from an off -site location) is less than 500 cubic yards. For the purpose of this section a "construction site" consists of the larger of the following areas. (a) an area of 30,000 square feet in which the proposed construction is to be located; or (b) the area contained within the footprint of the proposed structure plus an additional 50 feet adjacent to the perimeter of the proposed structure. 2. Removal or deposit of fill in connection with the construction of a septic field or septic system on an individual lot pursuant to a permit obtained from the Tompkins County Health Department. 3. Removal or deposit of fill construction in accordance with a site appropriate Town authority (e.g. Town Board or Zoning Board of Appeals) construction occurs within three years of such authority, I n connection with .plan approved by the Board, Town Planning provided that such of the final approval 4. Removal, movement, or deposit of not more than 500 yards of fill in an Agricultural Zone in any three period in 'conjunction with one or more bona agricultural uses." cubic year f ide 2. This law shall take effect upon its publication as required by law. • • TOWN OF ITHACA LOCAL LAW N0. OF THE YEAR 1990 A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ELIMINATE ADDITIONAL YARD REQUIREMENTS ON IRREGULAR LOTS. Be it enacted by the TOWN BOARD of the TOWN OF ITHACA as follows: Section 1. The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as re- adopted, amended and revised, effective February 26, 1968, and subsequently amended, be further amended as follows: 1. Article III, Section 7, is amended by deleting the paragraph beginning "Notwithstanding the foregoing,..." and ending "shall be increased on each side by ten feet."' 29 Article IV, Section 14, is amended by deleting the paragraph beginning "Notwithstanding the foregoing,..." and ending "...shall be increased on each side by ten feet." 3. Article V, Section 21, is amended by deleting the paragraph beginning "Notwithstanding the foregoing,..." and ending "...shall be increased on each side by ten feet." Section 2. In the event any portion of this law is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the validity of the remaining portions shall not be affected by such declaration of invalidity. Section 3. This local law shall take effect ten days after its publication pursuant to applicable provisions of law. 0 1 ej� // .46/ Rev. B /90 Town Assigned Project ID Number New York State and Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County ONLY PART I - Project Information (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) I. Applicant /Sponsor: 2. Project Name: 3. Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections, prominent landmarks, eto. or provide map): Tax Parcel Number : 4. Is Proposed Action: 11 NEW [' EXP ANS ION MODIFICATION/ALTERATION 5. Describe Project Briefly (Include current and future construction plans, project purpose, and-other relevant items): (Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.) Amount of Land Affected* Initially Acres Ultimately Acres How is the Land Zoned Presently ? 86 Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? YES F1 NO If no, describe conflict briefly: 9. Will proposed action lead to a request for: Public Road ? YES NO Public Water? YES NO Public Sewer ? YES ® NO 10. What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? 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: 12. Does anu aspect of the proposed action have a currentlu valid permit or approval? YES NO If yes, list agency name and permit /approval. Also, state whether that permit /approval 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 : Date Y 10 PART II — ENYiRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca) A. Does proposed action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.12 or Town Environmental Law? YES ❑ NO ❑ If yes, coordinate the review process and use the Full EAF. Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6? YES ❑ NO ❑ If no, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency . C. Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : (Answers may be handwritten, if legible) C1. Existing air quality, surface of groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly: C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, unique natural areas, wetlands, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: 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: C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly: C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in CI - C5? Explain briefly . C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly . D. Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? YES ❑ NO ❑ If yes, explain briefly PART III - DETERMI NATION 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 0e, urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. ❑ Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or signifi Then proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. occur. ❑Check this box 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 attach- ments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination. or Type Name or Responsi le icer m Lead Agency Title of esponsi a Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency A A . D . i Date: of Preparer from Responsible Officer) AFF'IDA6'IT OF'PUBLICATIION State of New York, Tompkins County, ss.: Gail Sullins being duly sworn, deposes and says, that she /he resides in Ithaca, county and state aforesaid and that she /he is Clerk of The Ithaca Journal a public newspaper printed and published in Ithaca aforesaid, and that a notice, of which the annexed is a true copy, was published in said paper !1d that the first publicatiop of said notice was on the r day of v : v) �;.1r 19 04 r Subs [bed and sworn to before me, this % day of 19 Notary Public, JEAN FORD Notary Public, State of New York No. 4654410 Qualified in Tomp!<ins County Commission expires Max 31,c 19.. / • FIS TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD, NOTICE OF PUBLIC! HEARINGS, TUESDAY, SEPTEM -j BER 41 1990 By direction of the Chairman of the Planning Board, NOTICE', IS HEREBY GIVEN, that Public Hearings will be held by the; Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, September 4, 1990, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the, following matters: 8:45 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Approval of Mod:. ified Site Plan for the "pro;; posed expansion of the'Edst Hill Gulf gasoline station, lo- cated in a Business "D" District at the corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road, • Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6 -62 -2 -1.13. Proposed modifi- cation is to consist of replace -, ment of the existing canopy and pumps with a larger cano- i y and cashier's booth, demo- - tion of an existing film /pho- to developing kiosk on the site, and modification of the entry drives to the site. Robert W. Andree, Inc., Owner, Rob- ert W. Andree, Agent. , 9:15 P.M. Consideration of Scope of Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the pro- posed "McDonald's Restau- rant" at East Hill Plazo, pro- posed to be located in _a Business "C" District on Ellis Hollow Road opposite Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Taxl Parcel No. 6 -62 -2 -1.22, and l proposed to consist of a 4,500 plus /minus sq. ft. restaurant with drive - through window service, parking for 57 cors,,l signage and site landscaping. McDonald's Coraoroton. Own.) Semos, Frank Milano, Agents. Said Planning Board will,ot said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear -by agent or in person. Jean H. Swortwood Town Clerk August 30, 1990 273- 1.721;