HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1994-04-19J
FUD
•
i
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
APRIL 19, 1994
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday, April 19, 1994, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street,
Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Robert Kenerson, Virginia Langhans, James
Ainslie, Herbert Finch, Candace Cornell, Daniel Walker
(Town Engineer), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner),
Attorney Randy Marcus (Representative of Barney,
Grossman, Roth & DuBow).
ALSO PRESENT: Tom Tomlinson, Mike Garcia, Shirley Egan, John
Gutenberger.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the meeting duly opened at 7:30
p.m. and accepted for the record the Secretary's Affidavit of
Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town
Hall and the Ithaca Journal on April 11, 1994, and April 14, 1994,
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 Clerks of the
City of Ithaca and the Town 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 April 15, 19940
Chairperson Kenerson read the Fire Exit Regulations to those
assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State,
Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD.
There were no persons present to be heard. Chairperson
Kenerson closed this segment of the meeting.
AGENDA ITEM:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 5, 1994.
MOTION by Candace Cornell, seconded by James Ainslie:
RESOLVED,
that
the
Minutes of the
Town of Ithaca Planning
Board of April
5, 1994,
be and hereby are
approved as written.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Langhans, Finch, Ainslie, Cornell.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Planning Board
0
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 15, 1994.
April 19, 1994
MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by Virginia Langhans:
RESOLVED,
that the
Minutes
of the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board of
March
15, 1994,
be and
hereby are approved as written.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Langhans, Finch, Ainslie, Cornell.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 31, 1993.
MOTION by Virginia Langhans, seconded by Candace Cornell:
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board of August 31, 1993, be and hereby are approved as written.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Langhans, Finch, Ainslie, Cornell.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 1993.
MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by Candace Cornell:
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board of February 23, 1993, be and hereby are approved as written.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Langhans, Finch, Cornell.
Nay - None.
Abstain - Ainslie.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1993.
MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by Virginia Langhans:
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board of March 2, 1993, be and hereby are approved as written.
Planning Board
vote.
3
There being no further discussion,
Aye - Kenerson, Langhans, Finch, Cornell.
Nay - None.
Abstain - Ainslie.
April 19, 1994
the Chair called for a
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: GLENDALE FARMS - CONSIDERATION OF FINAL
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF THOSE PORTIONS
OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 31 -4 -1, 31 -5 -1, AND 31 -6 -1.2 AS
SHOWN ON A SUBDIVISION PLAT ENTITLED "PHASE I - LOTS 11 21 41 61 81
10, & 11, GLENDALE FARMS SUBDIVISION, EPHRAIM TOMLINSON III,
BOSTWICK ROAD, CULVER ROAD, & SEVEN MILE DRIVE, TOWN OF ITHACA,
TOMPKINS COUNTY, NY ", PREPARED BY DAVID A. HERRICK, P.E. AND ALLEN
T. FULKERSON, L.S. AND DATED MARCH 19, 1994, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-
30. EPHRAIM TOMLINSON III, AND DAVID CLARKIN TOMLINSON, OWNERS;
EPHRAIM TOMLINSON III, APPLICANT.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the Public Hearing in the above -
noted matter duly opened at 7:37 p.m. and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted
above.
Ephraim Tomlinson III addressed the Board and stated that he
was asking the Planning Board for Final Approval on the lots as
listed on the plat submitted to the Board with one exception. Mr.
Tomlinson stated that he wanted to withdraw Lots 10 and 11 from
this application because they are not adequately served by water
pressure and could not be approved for public water.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker recommended that Mr. Tomlinson
request the subdivision as submitted because the water pressure is
not an insurmountable problem for those two lots.
Mr. Tomlinson agreed to leave them on with the condition of no
building permits for those two lots until approval is received from
the Tompkins County Department of Health regarding water on those
two lots, as suggested by Daniel Walker,
Chairperson Kenerson noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. No one spoke.
Chairperson Kenerson closed the Public Hearing and brought it back
to the Board for discussion.
Board Member Candace Cornell asked Mr. Tomlinson what the next
phase of his project would to be.
Mr. Tomlinson stated that the property North of Bostwick Road
along Culver Road, which is entitled "Remaining lands of Ephraim
Tomlinson III ", on the Subdivision plat, would be divided into two
Planning Board 4 April 19, 1994
additional lots. Mr. Tomlinson stated that Mr. Steenhuis has the
option to buy that property to protect the view from his house.
Mr. Tomlinson stated that he would not be developing the additional
lots until Mr. Steenhuis decided whether or not to exercise that
option. Mr. Tomlinson stated that there were 8 additional lots
listed on the Preliminary Approval plat. Mr. Tomlinson stated that
he had an informal agreement with Jamie Baker that allowed Mr.
Baker to plant oats on the property that is not going to be
developed at this point in time.
Chairperson Kenerson asked Mr. Tomlinson if anything was found
on his property during the archeological dig that took place last
summer.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz responded that Professor
Baugher, who was in charge of the archeological dig in that area,
reported that there were no indian artifacts found on Mr.
Tomlinson's property.
Mr. Tomlinson stated that Lot #2 was under contract with the
First Assembly of God church. Mr. Tomlinson stated that the church
representatives would be applying for a special use permit within
a month.
Chairperson Kenerson asked if there was any discussion
regarding Lot #1 which is to be deeded over to the Town of Ithaca
to meet the park and open space requirement.
Attorney Randy Marcus stated that there is talk of making a
requirement tied to a general plan for recreational purposes.
Attorney Marcus stated that there could be a change in the law so
that the Town would have to have a pre- existing recreation plan in
place, and the taking of property would have to conform to that
plan in terms of the geographic location, topography, size, etc.
Attorney Marcus stated that there was no question that the Town has
the legal authority to take title of recreational properties.
Board Member Candace
Cornell
stated
that she felt that Lot #1
was an appropriate place
for a
park to
be located, which would
provide some much needed
relief
to Cass
Park.
There appearing to
be
no further
discussion, Chairperson
Kenerson asked if anyone
were
prepared to
offer a motion.
MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by Virginia Langhans:
1. This action is the Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval
for the proposed subdivision of those portions of Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 31 -4 -11 31 -5 -1, and 31 -6 -1.2 as shown
on a subdivision plat entitled "Phase I - Lots 1, 2, 4, 61 8,
Planning Board 5 April 19, 1994
91 10, & 11, Glendale Farm Subdivision, Ephraim Tomlinson III,
Bostwick Road, Culver Road, & Seven Mile Drive, Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY ", prepared by David A. Herrick,
P.E. and Allen T. Fulkerson, L.S. and dated March 19, 1994,
Residence District R -30. Ephraim Tomlinson III, Owner,
Ephraim Tomlinson III, Applicant, and
2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did, on
March 1, 1994, make a negative determination of significance,
and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 1, 1994,
did review and grant Preliminary Subdivision Approval, with
conditions, to a preliminary subdivision plat entitled
"Preliminary Plat, Glendale Farm Subdivision, Bostwick Road,
Culver Road & Seven Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins
County, New York," prepared by David A. Herrick, P.E. and
Allen T. Fulkerson, L.S. and dated January 25, 1994, and
4. Per Article IV, Section 21 of the Town Subdivision Regulations
the Town Board on April 11, 1994, review and accept the
dedications of public park and open space purposes, and a 60
ft. by 430 ft. strip of land for future public road purposes,
and public water and sewer facilities, proposed by the
applicant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
16 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain
requirements for Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the
Final Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the
materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a
significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control
nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board.
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Final Subdivision
Approval for the proposed subdivision of those portions of
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 31 -4 -1, 31 -5 -1, and 31 -6 -1.2 as
shown on a subdivision plat entitled "Phase I - Lots 1, 2, 41
61 81 91 10, & 11, Glendale Farm Subdivision, Ephraim
Tomlinson III, Bostwick Road, Culver Road, & Seven Mile
Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY ", prepared by David
A. Herrick, P.E. and Allen T. Fulkerson, L.S. and dated March
19, 1994, subject to the following conditions:
a. Approval by the Tompkins County Department of Health of
onsite sewage disposal facilities for lots which will not
be served by public sewer, prior to the issuance of a
building permit on those lots, and
Planning Board
0
April 19, 1994
b. Prior to issuance of any building permit on any lot,
stormwater management and erosion control plans,
conforming to New York State guidelines for reducing the
impacts of stormwater runoff in new development be
prepared by the owner and be approved by the Town
Engineer, and
c. No building permit shall be issued for construction on
any of the lots until the area denominated as a Park and
the area reserved for the road are transferred in fee
simple absolute to the Town.
d. No building permits will be issued for Lots 10 and 11
until approval by the Tompkins County Department of
Health of public or private water systems for those lots.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Langhans, Ainslie, Finch, Cornell.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the matter of the Final
Subdivision Approval for Glendale Farm Subdivision duly closed at
8:02 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY PRECINCT
7 FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the above -noted matter duly
opened at 8:03 p.m.
Board Member James Ainslie addressed the Board and stated that
Barbara Caldwell, from the County Planning Board, had asked that he
mention a wall that is located on Game Farm Road, and that was
constructed by the Civilian Conservation Council boys many years
ago. Ms. Caldwell would like Cornell University to preserve this
wall when development begins in the Precinct 7 study area.
Town Engineer Daniel
Walker addressed the Board and stated
that Board Member Eva Hoffmann
was
unable
to attend tonight's
meeting but had asked him to
give the
Board a
few comments she had
regarding the Final GEIS.
Mr. Walker stated
that Ms. Hoffmann's
concerns were as follows:
1) Figure
1 needed
to be updated,
2)
Page 27, Comment #4,
"Level of
Service
(LOS)"
needs to be
deleted, 3)
the percentages
regarding
ground coverage needed to be
clarified, and, 4)
On Page
31, the response states "See Response
(v)B.111,
Ms. Hoffmann felt
that this
response
made no sense.
Planning
Board 7
April 19, 1994
The
Planning Board responded to Ms. Hoffmann's
comments
as
follows:
1) Figure 1 was already updated,
2) Leave Level
of
Service (LOS)
in the response, the Board felt that
it clarified
the
response,
3) Board Members felt that they understood
the ground
coverage
percentages, and, 4) reference was
a typo, should
be
(v)c.1.
The Members of the Planning Board
felt that they
had
answered
Ms. Hoffmann's concerns.
There being
no
further discussion, the Chair asked if anyone
were prepared
to
offer
a motion.
MOTION by Candace Cornell, seconded by Herbert Finch:
Whereas, Cornell University has requested that the Town of
Ithaca consider rezoning the area known as Precinct 7 from a
residential (R -30) district to a Special Land Use District, and
Whereas, the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca made a
positive declaration of Environmental Significance on May 21, 1991,
directing Cornell University to prepare a Generic Environmental
Impact Statement (GEIS), and
Whereas, Cornell University had a GEIS prepared which has
thoroughly examined possible adverse environmental impacts and has
proposed mitigating measures to minimize such impacts, and
Whereas, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as Lead Agency,
with the assistance of Town Staff and a consultant, reviewed the
draft GEIS (DGEIS) submitted on May 19, 1992, and determined that
modifications to the DGEIS were required, and
Whereas, Cornell University provided additional information to
address the Town's request and the Planning Board on September 2,
1993, adopted a resolution finding the DGEIS as supplemented and
amended to be satisfactory with respect to its scope, content, and
adequacy for the purpose of public review, and
Whereas, the Planning Board
October 19, 1993, and November 16,
comment on the DGEIS, as amended,
comment, and
held two public hearings on
1993, in order to solicit public
and received substantial public
Whereas, the Planning Board, as Lead
all substantive public comments received
the DGEIS accordingly, and has required
deemed appropriate by the Planning Board,
accepted in substance the proposed respoi
on the DGEIS.
Agency, has responded to
and has further modified
additional revisions as
and on February 15, 1994,
ises to comments received
Planning Board 8 April 19, 1994
Therefore,
be it resolved, that the Planning Board
of the Town
of Ithaca, as
Lead Agency, on April 19,
1994, hereby
adopts the
Final Generic
Environmental Impact Statement
for Possible
Future
Expansion Southeast
of Cornell University's
Main Campus,
(Precinct
7 Rezoning),
having duly considered
the potential
adverse
environmental
impacts and proposed mitigating
measures
as required
under
6 NYCRR
617 (the
SEQR regulations),
and
Be it further resolved, that the Planning Board of the Town of
Ithaca hereby directs the Town of Ithaca Planning Staff to file a
Notice of Completion of Final EIS and issue the FGEIS as required
under 6 NYCRR 617.10 and 617.21, distributing the FGEIS to all
involved and interested agencies and the public.
There being no further discussion,
vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Langhans, Ainslie, Finch,
Nay - None.
the Chair called for a
Cornell.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the matter of Adoption of the
Cornell University Precinct 7 Final Generic Environmental Impact
Statement duly closed at 8 :14 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: REVIEW DRAFT OF FGEIS FINDINGS.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the discussion
noted matter duly opened at 8 :15 p.m.
of the above-
The Planning Board Members discussed the Findings statement
prepared and revised by Town staff as per the last Planning Board
meeting that was held on April 5, 1994. (Statement of Findings is
hereto attached as Exhibit #1)
The Board discussed grammatical changes and typos found in the
Draft Findings Statement with Cornell University representatives,
Shirley Egan and John Gutenberger. Town Engineer Daniel Walker
stated that all changes would be given to Planner I Louise Raimondo
for corrections. Mr. Walker stated that the Draft Findings would
be brought back to the Board at the May 3, 1994 Planning Board
Meeting for additional discussion.
At this time, Town Engineer Daniel Walker reviewed the
Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals tentative schedule with
the Board Members, to advise them of the expected schedule for the
GEIS.
Board Member Herbert Finch stated that the Board should review
a corrected copy of the Findings Statement prior to the adoption of
the document.
Planning Board 9 April 19, 1994
Chairperson Kenerson declared the discussion of the Draft
Statement of Findings duly closed at 8:30 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: SHORT PRESENTATION ON CURRENT PARK AND RECREATION
PLAN.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz addressed the Board
began his presentation by asking, "Why Parks ? ". Mr. Frantz stated
that he liked Ralph Waldo Emerson's reasoning which was "[a person]
comes out of the wrangle of the shop and office and sees the sky
and the woods, and is [a person] again ". Mr. Frantz then asked the
question, What should a park system do? Mr. Frantz pointed out
that according to the Comprehensive Plan, the Town of Ithaca should
provide accessible and attractive parks and recreational facilities
throughout the Town, including undeveloped open space as one
component, with linkages between various parts of the system such
as pathways, stream corridors, trails, and utility rights of ways,
and the Town should provide for adequate recreational services.
Mr. Frantz stated that the public park facilities in the Town of
Ithaca fall into four categories: 1) Neighborhood Parks, 2) Area
Parks, 3) Recreation Ways, and 4) Regional Parks. Mr. Frantz
stated that there were 6 neighborhood parks, 3 area parks, and 11
recreation ways in the Town of Ithaca now. In addition there were
3 undeveloped park sites, and 2 recreation way Right of Ways,
excluding Glendale Farms and Saponi Meadows sites. Mr. Frantz
stated that the Town facilities provided a wide variety of
recreational opportunities, including play structures,
walking /jogging paths, nature trails, bike paths, play fields
sledding slopes, and picnic facilities. The Town of Ithaca has the
basic framework for an updated Park and Open Space Plan, based on
the 1977 Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plan and the 1984 update
to that plan. In order to update these two documents, the Town
would need to reflect the new Comprehensive Plan, show the new
needs identified since 1984, better analyze Town needs in terms of
active recreational facilities, add to list of environmentally
sensitive areas warranting protection, spell out strategies for
protecting environmentally sensitive areas, elaborate on the
greenways concept and tie it more fully into parks and open space
planning, and take advantage of trend toward local intermunicipal
cooperation in the area of youth and recreation.
Mr.
Frantz stated that he
felt
that the
Town would
be creating
a Park,
Recreation, and Open
Space
Plan.
Mr. Frantz
stated that
such a Plan would include: 1) An updated inventory section; basic
population and age distribution data from the 1990 census, existing
facilities inventory -- changes since 1987 (including Finger Lakes
Land Trust easements and Lick Brook acquisition), and information
from the recreational needs assessment being completed by the ,joint
Youth Commission, 2) A review and, where necessary, an updating of
the park and open space policies outlined in the 1984 plan,
including: a specific policy with regard to cash in lieu of land,
who pays cash, and, who dedicates land, reassessment of the
Planning Board 10 April 19, 1994
neighborhood petition policy (p. 8), perhaps substituting a 5 year
capital improvements plans set policies for the protection of
critical open space areas through forms other than public
ownership; a re- evaluation of the Town's dependence on State and
City parks. 3) Develop a set of recommended actions that the Town
should take to meet the park and recreational needs identified in
the inventory section, and to fulfill the policies set forth in the
policy section, including types of recreational facilities for
individual neighborhoods. 4) Review site selection decisions,
including: a) Re- evaluate specific sites proposed in earlier
plans - -map proposed park sites to better reflect anticipated future
development patterns and take advantage of several opportunities
for large park sites on West Hill and South Hill, b) update plan to
account for City abandonments of Southwest Park concept, wetlands
on Inlet Valley Area Park site, c) look carefully at wetlands on
South Hill, implications for park development there, d) evaluate
use of park and open space dedications to add to local state parks
and City watershed areas, e) better incorporate the greenways
concept, f) investigate consolidation with City park system. 5)
Map the decisions /recommendations of the Plan to make it easier to
understand who dedicates and who pay, etc... 6) Establish an
updated capital improvements program to implement the Plan
recommendations.
The Board briefly discussed the presentation made by Mr.
Frantz.
Chairperson Kenerson declared this segment of the meeting duly
closed at 9:22 p.m.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chairperson Kenerson stated that he had received a letter from
Carolyn Grigorov in which she thanked the Planning Board for the
gift certificate for dinner that she received as a farewell gift at
the end of her term as Chairperson of the Planning Board.
Chairperson Kenerson stated that the Planning Board members
were invited to attend a reception that will be held at Town Hall,
upstairs in the Planning Department, beginning at 1:00 p.m., to
greet the candidates for the Town Planner position.
Chairperson Kenerson then
stated that the
minutes that would
be on the agenda
Meeting would be
February 15, 1994,
for approval
the following:
January 18,
at the May 3, 1994
April 19, 1994,
1994, and March
Planning Board
March 1, 1994,
23, 1993.
Board Member
Candace Cornell stated that
the secretary was
doing a wonderful
Board concurred.
job with the
minutes, the rest
of the Planning
Chairperson Kenerson asked
if there was any other business to
Planning Board 11 April 19, 1994
come before the Board at this meeting.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker addressed the Board and stated
that a second parcel is in the process of being sold on the Chase
Farm Subdivision. Mr. Walker stated that the Board would be
breaking every rule in the Subdivision Regulations if they approval
is given for the two -lot subdivision because there is no parkland
set aside because during Phase I, it was assumed that it would be
taken from Phase II. Mr. Walker stated that the cul -de -sac was
2,000 feet long which exceeds the Town of Ithaca requirements.
There will be issues brought back to the Planning Board for
modifications to Phase I because there are 15 conditions that can
not be met due to physical limitations. Transportation link and
the park and open space set asides are critical points that the
Board must decide upon. Mr. Walker stated that there are 15 to 20
buildings that are illegal, based on the Town's requirements. Mr.
Walker stated that there would have to be a waiver of some of the
Subdivision Regulations, at least on a temporary basis, until the
problems can be corrected. Mr. Walker stated that the new owner,
Tessa Flores, had no intentions to further develop the lot.
The Board discussed the problems with the Chase Farm
Subdivision and noted that it would be brought to the Board in the
future for approval. The Board felt that it would not be fair to
expect the new owner to take the responsibility of the entire
parcel of land with regard to set aside requirements.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Kenerson closed
this segment of the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion, Chairperson Kenerson declared the April 19, 1994
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:36
p.m.
Drafted 4/21/94.
Respectfully submitted,
StarrRae H ys,
Town of Ithaca
Recording Secretary,
Planning Board.
I I
•
April 12, 1994
* *DRAFT **
Cornell University Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Development Program for Possible Future Expansion
Southeast of Cornell University's Main Campus (Precinct 7 Rezoning)
Statement of Findings
Pursuant to Article 8, the New York State Environmental Quality Review :pct (SEQR) of the
Environmental Conservation Law and 6NYCRR Part 617, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board,
as Lead Agency, makes the following Findings.
Name of Action: Development program for Possible Future Expansion Southeast of
Cornell University's Main Campus (Proposed Precinct 7 Rezoning)
Description of Action: Cornell University plans to undertake a development program to
expand their campus to include lands located in their planning
area known as Precinct 7 or the Orchards area. The area is
currently zoned R -30, single family residential. Manv of the
uses that Cornell intends for the area are already permitted by
special permit. Cornell University and the Town undertook this
extensive study to better define the possible impacts of their long
term development plans for the area. A Special Land Use
District (SLUD) was deemed the most appropriate mechanism to
achieve the needs of the University while providing the land use
controls and environmental protection desired by the Town.
Location: The area of the proposed rezoning is bounded by NYS Route 366 to the north,
Game Farm Road (the Ithaca -Dryden Town line) to the east, Cascadilla Creek
to the south, and Judd Falls Road to the west. The larger study area examined
in the DGEIS is bounded by NYS Route 366 to the north, Game Farm Road
and the Ithaca - Dryden Town line as it continues south to Snvder Hill Road,
Snyder Hill Road, Pine Tree Road, the Town of Ithaca East Ithaca
recreationway, the boundary of Cornell owned lands, N/litchell Street, and Judd
Falls Road to the west.
Agency Jurisdiction:
Date Final EIS Filed:
Lead Agency for the Rezoning from R -30 to a Special Land use
District (SLUD)
eyl;A
1
April L, 1994
* *DRAFT **
]Facts and Conclusions in the GEIS Relied Uuon to Support the Decision:
L Consistency with the Town of Ithaca's Comprehensive Plan: The planned
development of the Cornell University Precinct 7 area is consistent with the Town of
Ithaca Comprehensive Plan. The Plan recommends reviewing; and revising the Zoning
Ordinance, and consideration of eliminating SLUDs and creating an institutional zone.
This SLUD can serve as a prototype for a future institutional zone in anticipation of
the Town's intended Zoning Ordinance revisions. The GEIS contains a great deal of
information on the study area, including areas outside of Precinct 7, which the Town
can use in its evaluation of the Zoning Ordinance.
II. Precinct 7 is a logical and appropriate location for major campus development outside
the central campus. Precinct 7 is well buffered by additional lands owned by Cornell
University, and development with the mitigating measures proposed is not expected to
have significant adverse impacts on surrounding neighborhoods.
III. Adoption of the GEIS relates only to the parts pertaining to Precinct 7, and does not in
any way constitute approval or acceptance of any conceptual plans, statements, or
studies for University lands within the GEIS Study Area outside Precinct 7. All
development within the Study Area must comply with the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance.
IV, This GEIS does not waive the rights of the Town to require that a full Environmental
Assessment Form (LEAF) be required for all projects proposed within Precinct 7. The
GEIS was developed with the understanding that the Town would always require that
an LEAF be completed for each proposal (DGEIS, Page vii), as well as additional
information as deemed appropriate by the Planning Board.
r �
Apri1 12, 1994 * *DRAFT **
Review of Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigating Measures
A. Traffic Impacts:
ONOWNEW 1000
1. Traffic impacts may result as development occurs in Precinct 7, but these
impacts can be mitigated by the measures as proposed in Figure 2A of the
DGEIS, as amended by the table shown in Section IV.D.S. (Page .) of the
FGEIS, derived from Table 13 of the Travers Associates Transportation Impact
Study Report (Appendix 6, Page 26 -27 of the DGEIS). Traffic impacts can be
mitigated to provide an acceptable level of service.
2. Determination of the appropriateness and timing of specific mitigative measures
is expected to be based on a number of factors, including the information
presented in both the GEIS and the findings of the pending Northeast Corridor
Transportation Study, as planned by the Tompkins County Ithaca - Tompkins
Transportation Council (the Ithaca area Metropolitan Planning Organization, or
MPO).
B. Water Quality - Surface Runoff Controls:
16 1
1. A vegetated buffer zone between the area of Precinct 7 to be developed and the
Cascadilla Creek Corridor will be required to aid in filtration of stormwater
runoff and provide additional area for infiltration (see Section E.I. below).
2. The requirements of Town of Ithaca Local Law No. 3 (1992) and any
amendments thereto regulating the placement or movement of fill shall be
adhered to.
3. Water quality impacts to Cascadilla Creek can be effectively mitigated by a
system of proposed retention structures as outlined in the DGEIS (Section II,
Pages 1I- 32-42) and discussed in the FGEIS (Section , Pages �•
The stormwater control system shall be designed as follows (as listed in
Section VIII, Pages VIII -4-6), subject to review and approval by the Town
Engineer:
a. Stormwater retention facilities should be constructed for each phase of
development in Precinct 7 as part of the basic infrastructure for that
phase and prior to construction of any building. Wet retention ponds
improve stormwater quality by gravity settling, naturally occurring
•
K
April 12, 1994 * *DRAFT **
chemical flocculation and biological uptake. If site constraints preclude is
wet retention ponds, detention ponds should bye used.
b. Stormwater wet retention ponds should be constructed to mitigate
impacts from existing runoff, as required.
C, The need for retention ponds for development south of Precinct 7 will
be determined case -by -case. Table 8 in the DGEIS should be used as a
general guide to the size and need for basins.
d. Detention ponds should be constructed and sized to provide for settling
of pollutants prior to discharge. Detention ponds should be generally
designed in accordance with New York State DEC's Stormwater
Management Guidelines for New Development, and New York State
DEC's Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New
Develooments, and should include velocity dissipation devised at
outfalls to prevent stream scouring or erosion.
44 An erosion and sediment control plan will be implemented during each
construction project. Plan elements are described in Section II.A.3.b. (Pages II-
17-18) of the DGEIS. Best ivlanagement Practices (BMP's) should be adhered
to as specified by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation's (DEC) Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for New
Development. and the NYS DEC's Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff
from New Developments. BMP's for construction in Precinct 7 as described in
Section LF.2.a. of the DGEIS, should include the following elements:
a. Minimize clearing and grading to only those areas which will be
immediately under construction.
b. Provide or plan for a buffer strip of undisturbed vegetation at or near
the top of embankments.
C* Protect natural undisturbed areas with temporary fencing or signage.
d. Provide filter fences of fabric or hay bale barriers at or near the edges
of the construction site.
e. Establish slopes with temporary vegetation cover and grade to the
- lowest slope achievable for the design.
f. Establish temporary vegetation cover each fall.
4 0
•
C
April 12, 1994
* *DRAFT **
Cr
Provide temporary settling basins at the construction site whenever
feasible.
Additional Erosion and Sediment Control Measures (DGEIS. Section II.A.3. Pages II- 17 -18,
and Section VIII. Pages VII-1 -2)
Temporary fencing will be installed on construction areas to limit unnecessary
disturbance of areas that are not scheduled for grading or construction.
Long -terTn stockpiles topsoil will be either seeded with an annual ryegrass or
covered with an erosion control fabric. Soil slippage at the toe of the
stockpiled area will be prevented by installing hay bales or filter fabric barriers
at its perimeter.
The size of working stockpiled topsoil will be minimized. Hay bales or filter
fabric barriers will be installed at the down - gradient side.
Hay bales or filter fabric dikes will be placed on the down - gradient side of cut
slopes and in drainageways.
Prior to construction a series of silt barrier fences or hay bales will be installed
in the affected drainage channels.
Disturbed areas will be stabilized and seeded within 15 days of the conclusion
of construction. Should construction proceed through winter, a fall planting of
annual ryegrass will occur to stabilize soils in anticipation of spring thaws,
rain, and runoff.
Slopes steeper than 3:1 (h:v) should be immediately stabilized with sod, seed
and anchored straw mulch or jute.
50 State and Federal stormwater management plans shall be developed in
accordance with the NYS DEC's SPDES General Permit for Stormwater
Discharges from Construction Activities (Permit No. GP-93 -06) for any
construction in Precinct 7 which exceeds 5 acres. Such plans will specify
management practices and guidelines which should be utilized during
construction. The Town Engineer shall have review authority for these plans.
5
April 127 1994
* *DRAFr **
6. A BLIP Plan should be developed and implemented for agricultural use of
manure, subject to the approval of the Town Engineer. 10
Water Ouality - Groundwater
10 Impacts on groundwater resources are expected to be minimal with the
development of Precinct 7 as proposed.
The four 1000 - gallon petroleum storage takes at the Poultry Barns will be
removed and disposed of properly in the summer of 19931
Stormwater drainage systems will be constructed to account for the probable
local raise in water tables in subsurface drains are removed as a result of
development. Appropriate foundation dewatering and waterproofing techniques
should be implemented during the construction as necessary.
CO Former Disposal Area •
The former refuse disposal site in Precinct 7 should be fenced and not planned
for redevelopment or reuse at this time. A buffer area will be maintained
around the refuse disposal area. The site should be subject to an environmental
investigation, including the installation of upgradient and down - gradient
groundwater monitoring wells and groundwater and surface water sampling to
determine whether environmental pollution of surface and/or groundwater is
occurring. An appropriate mitigation plan should be developed based on the
results of the investigation. This investigation is currently underway.
The independent investigation of the former refuse disposal area should be
continued. Appropriate environmental remediadon should be undertaken in
consultation with State agencies if warranted by results of the investigation.
- No development will occur in the former refuse disposal area and a green
buffer will be maintained. The size of the buffer should be based on the
results of the investigation of the refuse disposal site.
6 0
U
•
April 12, 1994
D. Significant Habitat. Wetlands. and Wildlife
* *DRAFT **
1. Significant Habitat: Two areas of high quality habitat were found to exist in
Precinct 7: the Cascadilla Creek Corridor and McGowan Woods, as discussed
in the DGEIS, Section , Pages , and the FGEIS (Section
Pages _�. Development will not be permitted within natural areas, and
these areas shall be bufferred by a 75 foot buffer zone in which no
development is permitted, except uses which are compatible with natural areas
as specified in the FGEIS Section C.1., Pages and Section 6(m) of the
SLUD. The boundaries of the natural areas and 75 foot buffer zone as
surveyed and shown on a site map entitled "Cornell University Precinct 7
(GEIS) Cascadilla Creek and McGowan Woods Natural Areas Building Setback
Lines," drawn by Robert H. Chiang, Planning, Design, and Construction,
Cornell University, and revised on March 23, 1994. No rare, threatened, or
endangered species are known to exist within the study area (DGEIS, Section
H.D.a. and b.. Pages II -56, and II- 66 -67).
a. The Cornell Plantations will be asked to review any plans for
construction near the edge of the natural areas and the buffer zone and
make recommendations for changes in plans necessary to prevent
damage to these areas (DGEIS, Section II.A.3.c., Page U -18 and Section
VIII, Pages VIII-2 -3).
b. A member of the Plantations staff will be present during the initial
stages of any project near the borders of the natural areas and buffer
zone so that crews are properly briefed on the sensitivities of the natural
areas, and so that work methods can be evaluated and altered if needed
(DGEIS, Section II.A.3.c. DGEIS, Page II -18 and Section VIII, Pages
VIII -2 -3).
c. Developed areas will be landscaped with a variety of native and
ornamental plant species, which will provide some replacement habitat
(DGEIS, Section II.D.1.3., Page 11-75).
2. Wetlands: Wetland areas were identified in the DGEIS (Section 11, Pages II-
67 - II -76 and Appendix 5), as shown in Figure 21 (Page II -68). Site wetlands
meeting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers meeting the definition of
jurisdictional wetlands are located within the boundaries of the natural areas of
the Cascadilla Creek Corridor and McGowan Woods, which shall be protected
7
April 12, 1994
* *DRAFT **
as outlined in Section E.1. above, with two exceptions. Disturbance of these
two wetlands will be limited to road crossings meeting the conditions of a
Nationwide Permit No. 14. Mitigative measures for rrururtuzing disturbance of
these wetlands are as follows (DGEIS, Section II, Pages II- 75 -76, and Section
VIII, Pages VIII -6 -7):
a. The width of wetland crossings will be Iimited to the minimum
necessary the actual crossing.
b. Wetland crossings will be culverted, bridged, or otherwise designed to
prevent the restriction of, and to withstand, expected high flows, and to
prevent the restriction of low flows and moverrient of aquatic organisms.
c. Notification will be made to all appropriate agencies, and permits will
be obtained prior to the construction of wedand. crossings.
CL Appropriate erosion and siltation controls will be used and maintained
in effective operating condition during construction, and all exposed
soils and fills will be stabilized at the earliest time possible in the
construction sequence.
e. Any wetland fill material will be clean will, free from toxics, oils,
grease or tar, and construction debris.
f. The discharge will be appropriately stabilized to prevent its movement
into adjacent wetland areas.
g. Appropriate soil and erosion control measures vrill be used and
maintained in effective operating condition during construction.
h. The fill will be seeded and/or planted at the earliest possible time after
construction is complete.
i. Prior to construction of any wetland fills notification will be given to,
and if necessary, permits obtained from the appropriate agencies.
j. The requirements of Local Law No. 3 of 1992 of the Town of Ithaca
requiring a permit for activity involving the deposit or removal of fill
will be adhered to.
8
0
April 12, 1994
E. Densitv and Oven Space
* *DRAFT **
1. The Cascadilla Creek and McGowan Woods natural areas will remain as open
space, further protected by a 75 foot buffer zone as described in E.11 above and
in the FGEIS, Section , Pages
2. The maximum allowable gross square feet (GSF) of additional enclosed
building space for Precinct 7 is 4,000,000 GSF (DGEIS, upper limit of
development; and SLUD, Section 6). Approximately 201,000 GSF presently
exists within Precinct 7, (DGEIS, Figure 8, Page I -26 and Table 2, Page I -28,
therefore, the total GSF permitted for Precinct 7 is 4,201,000 GSF),
3. The standard for Floor Area Ratio (FAR) which will be applied to insure that
adequate open space remains in the development of Precinct 7 is 0.9, the FAR
of the Arts Quad on the central campus (DGEIS, Section I, Pages 1- 23 -24;
SLUD Section 7, Performance Standards).
4. The maximum allowable coverage of a defined site is 25% for buildings and
45% for structures, roads pavement, parking lots, and pedestrian area
pavements (DGEIS, Section 1, Pages I -25; SLUD, Section 7, Performance
Standards),
5. The SLUD defines a setback of 100 feet from a public road right -of -way line.
In addition, if a building exceeds 30 feet in height above grade, the set back
shall be increased 3 feet for each one foot of height in excess of 30 feet
(SLUD, Section 7, Performance Standards),
F. Pesticide Residues
1. Areas used for experimental agricultural studies have been treated with
pesticides and contain pesticide residues (DGEIS, Section H.A and Vol. 3,
"Assessment of Health Risks Associated with Cornell University Orchard Area
Soils, 19911") The effects of pesticides used in Precinct 7 can be mitigated as
follows (from DGEIS, Section II.A.3., Pages II -18 -19 and Section VIII, Page
VIII -3):
a. Cornell employees working with pesticides are trained in the safe mixing,
handling and application of pesticides and no additional specific mitigation
measures are required for ongoing activities. Employees are advised to observe
E
Ajpril 12, 1994
* *DRAFTS`*
good hygiene practices to minimize the possibility of inadvertent ingestion of
pesticide residues. Hand washing, eating and drinking indoors, use of work
gloves, and use of respirators when nuisance dust is generated are
recommended.
b. Prior to construction activity, areas should be deep - plowed in accordance with
the procedures outlined in the 1991 Preliminary Health Risk Assessment cited
above. Deep plowing will reduce the surface residue concentration by dilution
and minimize the potential for human contact with Iocalized concentrations.
Based on the results of the Assessment, no soil is required to be removed.
c. Standard construction practices should be used to minimize: dust generation and
offset dust migration during construction. Other dust suppression methods may
be used as necessary.
CL During construction, soil erosion and sediment control measures will be
implemented as outlined above.
e. If, in the future, any part of the Orchards portions of Precvlct 7 is considered
for residential use or programs involving young children, additional sampling
and risk assessment will be performed.
f. Prior to any redevelopment, the two areas treated with sewage sludge should be is
sampled again for cadmium and chromium to establish mean concentrations. If
such concentrations are significantly higher than the levels for which health
risk assessment was performed, an additional assessment should be performed.
G. Visual Character
16 Visual impacts can be mitigated by the following measures, as outlined in the
DGEIS, Section II.J.3., and amended by the Planning Board.
a. Where possible, individual buildings in Precinct 7 should be sited to take
advantage of naturally occurring vegetation blockage to mmize vi
ini sibility
from the recreation trail and beyond.
b. New construction in Precinct 7 should be designed to blend with and
complement the existing Cornell University skyline rather than detract from it.
10
April 12, 1994 * *DRAFT **
0 c. No building should be sited within 75 feet of the edge of the Cascadilla Creek
natural area, surveyed and shown on a site map entitled "Cornell University
Precinct 7 (GEIS) Cascadilla Creek and McGowan Woods Natural Areas
Building Setback Lines," as drawn by Robert H. Chiang, Planning, Design, and
Construction, Cornell University, and revised on March 23, 19940
CL Landscaping, including screening with evergreens and deciduous plantings,
should be an integral part of new building design in Precinct 7, consistent with
the desire to maintain and preserve scenic views.
e. As actual site specific projects are considered, where impacts on views are a
concern, further studies of potential site specific visual impacts shall be
conducted, as required by the Planning Board, to determine whether the
proposal has significant adverse visual impacts, and if so, what measures
should be taken to mitigate such impacts.
H. Noise Impacts
• I. Noise impacts can be effectively mitigated by the Performance Standards as set
forth in the SLUR.
2. The Town of Ithaca and surrounding communities will consider altering truck
routes to minimize adverse noise impacts to residences located in close
proximity to collector and arterial roads (DGEIS, , Page �.
3. Buildings sited in proximity to natural areas should be carefully sited and
buffered if they have components likely to produce unusual or significant levels
of noise (DGEIS , Page ).
I. Air Quality
10 Air quality impacts can be mitigated by the following measures as outlined in
the DGEIS, Section , Page
a. During dry construction periods, cor
to control airborne dust, particularly
will be used, as needed, to maintain
control of compaction and minimize
•
11
,ventional water spray trucks will be used
in the Orchards area. Water trucks also
optimum grading conditions, insure proper
off site migration of fugitive dust.
ALpril 129 1994
*'DRAFT **
b. Open, graded areas will be seeded and revegetated within a specified period
after completion of construction to control fugitive duSL
c. All construction equipment will be inspected at regu]!ar intervals and will be
required to have operable emission control equipment in compliance with
applicable laws.
J. Agricultural Resources
Functions now conducted at the research orchards in Precinct 7 are planned to
be relocated to the University's property in Lansing acquired for that purpose
over the next 20 years.
K. Archaeological Resources
A State 1B archeological field investigation should be performed in all
previously undeveloped areas for which construction is proposed. The
investigation should consist of plowing and disking orb excavating shovel tests
at 50 46ot intervals followed by investigation by a gwdified and additional
investigation conducted, if wan -anted. Previously disturbed areas do not require
testing. Undisturbed areas include those used for agricultural purposes.
L. Public Utilities
10 Water and Sewer
Physical water and sewer mitigation measures are surrumarized in Figure 2B.
The University should consider the implementation of water conservation
devices.
2. There exists sufficient capacity with New York State Electric and Gas
Company for power needs associated with development of Precinct 7. Heating
and cooling needs may be served by the University's own plant.
12
•
0
April 12, 1994
A Solid Waste
* *DRAFT **
10 This project will not generate a significant increase in solid waste. Cornell will
continue to pursue recycling programs with the goal or recycling all of the
potentially recyclable waste stream. Cornell will continue to identify and
pursue opportunities for recycling as they become available.
13
•
4)
•
April 12, 1994 * *DRAFT **
Certification of Findings to approve
Having considered the Draft and Final EIS, and having considered the preceding
written facts and conclusions relied upon to meet the requirements of 6 NYCRR 617.9, this
statement of Findings certifies that:
1. The requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 have been met.
2. Consistent with the social, economic, other essential considerations from among
the reasonable alternatives thereto, the action approved as one which minimizes
or avoids adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable,
including the effects disclosed in the environmental impact statement, and,
3, Consistent with social, economic, and other essential considerations, to the
maximum extent practicable, adverse environmental effects revealed in the
environmental impact statement process will be minimized or avoided by
incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures which
were identified as practicable.
Robert Kenerson,
Chair, Town of Ithaca Planning Board
14