HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1994-12-06TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
DECEMBER 6. 1994
FILED
jo'WN OF ITHACA
.._. ----
Clerk�J�
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday,
December 6, 1994, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30
Pam*
PRESENT: Chairperson Robert Kenerson, George Bayer, Gregory Bell, Eva
Hoffmann, James Ainslie, Herbert Finch, Candace Cornell, Stephen
Smith, Jonathan Kanter (Town Planner), Daniel Walker (Town
Engineer), JoAnn Cornish -Epps (Planner II), John Barney (Town
Attorney).
ALSO PRESENT: Bill Albern, Jeff McDonald, Kathryn Wolf, Noel Desch, John
Yntema, Susan Brock, Peter Trowbridge, Bob Gartner, Tom
Niederkorn, Douglas Firth, John Yengo, Virginia Bryant, Mark
Macera.
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 November 28,
1994, and November 30, 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 December 1, 1994.
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 to be heard. Chairperson Kenerson closed this
segment of the meeting.
AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 15, 1994.
MOTION by George Bayer, seconded by Herbert Finch:
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of
November 15, 1994, be and hereby are approved with the following correction:
On Page 5, Paragraph 5, Last Sentence which read: "...if something comes
up that prevents the proposed development, it has always been possible to come
in and asked to change things."
This has been corrected to read as follows: "...if something comes up that
prevents the proposed development, it has always been possible to come in and ask
to change things."
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Bayer, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Cornell, Smith.
Nay - None.
Abstain - Bell.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED BUTTERMILK VALLEY ESTATES CLUSTER SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCELS NO. 36 -1 -4.2 AND 36 -1 -6, 74 +/- ACRES TOTAL, INTO 73 LOTS, APPROXIMATELY
4,150 LINEAR FEET OF ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES OF PERMANENT OPEN SPACE, AND
WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES, TO BE LOCATED BETWEEN 1146 AND 1172 DANBY ROAD,
RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -15 AND SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT
S -1. WALTER J. AND JOYCE Y. WIGGINS, OWNERS /APPLICANTS; WILLIAM F. ALBERN, P.E.,
AGENT,
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.
Walter Wiggins, owner of the parcels being discussed, addressed the Board
and stated that he had come before the Planning Board two years ago with the
proposal for 73 lots and, that at that time, he was asked to make changes to the
plans to include a pathway, a park, dedicated open space shown on plat, and to
relocate the entrance roadway to be opposite from Schickle Road. Mr. Wiggins
stated that there had been a wetland delineation completed as requested by the
Town. Mr. Wiggins stated that the Planning Board had also requested that the
wetland be marked out on the plans. Mr. Wiggins stated that he was proposing
that the Planning Board consider approval of the project in four projected
phases, Phase I to consist of 15 lots which could be accommodated by the current
water and sewer system without the need for a pumping station. Mr. Wiggins
stated that the price range for the homes on the development would be from
$100,000 to $140,000. Mr. Wiggins stated that he was prepared to answer any
questions.
John
Yengo
of 1147 Danby
Road, asked Mr. Wiggins if he would be the
developer
of the
houses and sell
them.
Mr. Wiggins stated that he would not be the developer, but that he would
work with the developer with regard to the aesthetics of the land.
Mr. Yengo asked if the lots would be developed or vacant.
Mr. Wiggins responded that he would develop the roads, utilities, and other
requirements, but that he would not be involved in building the homes on those
lots..
Mr. Yengo asked
Mr. Wiggins if
there
were any restrictions to prevent
someone from building
a $80,000 house
on any
of the proposed
parcels.
Mr. Wiggins responded that he had not prepared restrictive covenants for
the parcels, but that he would be happy to impose such covenants if that were of
concern.
I
Planning Board Minutes 3 December 6, 1994
Mr. Yengo asked if the water and sewer supply was supplied from the east
side of the road, and if so would his water supply or pressure be reduced.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that the water supply was served from
the east side of the road and that the pressure to Mr. Yengo's house should not
decrease due to this project. Mr. Walker stated that the development may
actually improve the quality of water and the pressure in that area.
Matthew Wall, a neighbor to the north of the proposed project, addressed
the Board and asked if the Town had any plans to expand water and sewer to the
south of the proposed development.
Mr. Walker responded that if the proposed project were built, it would
bring the water and sewer line closer to Mr. Wall's property. Mr. Walker stated
that there was a plan in the works to increase the capacity and change some of
the system piping to bring water to a higher elevation from the Ridgecrest tank.
Mr. Walker stated that there would have to be a sewage pumping station put in as
part of the project to serve the proposed project.
Board Member James Ainslie addressed the Board and stated that the letter
from the Health Department stated that there was an overflow problem with the
sanitary sewers currently and that the proposed project would add significantly
to the existing problem, and asked Mr. Walker to explain the problem. (Letter
from the Tompkins County Department of Health, dated November 21, 1994 is
attached hereto as Exhibit #1)
Mr. Walker stated that the City sewer system dated back to the 1910s and
1920s without much upgrades to the system. Mr. Walker stated that the Town's
sewage flows through portions of the City's sewer system to get to the waste
water treatment plan, which is jointly owned by the Town and the City. Mr.
Walker stated that there were a number of problems that are being addressed and
that some of the problem areas have already been corrected.
Board Member
Gregory Bell
asked Mr.
Walker what capital improvements were
needed to improve
the problems
with the
sewer system.
Mr. Walker stated that they could install larger pipes, decrease inflow,
use trunk sewers, and that there were a number of additional options available
to help improve the system as well. Mr. Walker stated that the Octopus project
would be an opportunity to improve the system also.
Board Member Candace Cornell stated that she had several concerns in
addition to those already addressed, such as; traffic, potential impact on the
state park, view problems, potential drainage problems. Ms. Cornell stated that
the Board should take a more comprehensive look at the potential impacts that
this project could cause. Ms. Cornell stated that doing a more detailed
environmental impact statement would insure that there are no problems
overlooked.
Planning Board Minutes 4 December 6, 1994
William Albern, agent for Mr. Wiggins, addressed the Board and stated that
Town Engineer Daniel Walker had made a comment in his report to the Planning
Board, that the drainage analysis provided by the applicant indicated that the
impact of the project is not significant compared to the total watershed.
Ms. Cornell stated that with the Board knowing the intent of the project
that an Environmental Impact Statement on the entire project is warranted.
Mr. Wiggins stated that he could appreciate that 70 homes being immediately
constructed could have concerns, but that 15 lots should be okay and not cause
that much concern.
Jonathan Meigs, member of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC),
addressed the Board and discussed the report of the ERC. (Environmental Review
Committee report is attached hereto as Exhibit #2) Mr. Meigs summarized by
stating that the ERC recommended that the Planning Board make a Positive
Declaration of Environmental Significance and require an Environmental Impact
Statement on the potential impacts from the proposed project as a whole.
Jeff McDonald of the State Parks, addressed the Board and .stated that he
had met with the applicant regarding a buffer and Lot #72, at which point Mr.
Wiggins stated that he intended to transfer that lot to the State Parks. Mr.
McDonald asked Mr. Wiggins if that was still his intent. Mr. McDonald stated
that his biggest concern was long term run off and construction run off damage
from the
site.
Mr. Wiggins responded that he still intended to dedicate Lot #72 to the
State Parks Department.
Board Member Candace Cornell asked why there had been a change to the
sketch plan that was brought to the Planning Board in 1992, which was going to
include a vegetative visual buffer along Danby Road and permanent preservation
of the wetland and surrounding area.
Mr. Wiggins stated that he did not remember that the initial design had
changed, and that the wetlands specific location was unknown at that time.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter addressed the Board and stated that in the
first sketch plan, the wetlands had not been identified, and the second sketch
plan showed the wetland with no lots including the wetland.
Bill Albern addressed the Board and stated that the sketch plan presented
to the Planning Board at this meeting was essentially the same as the sketch plan
last presented with the exception that the access road was moved to be located
directly opposite Schickle Road as requested by the Planning Board at that time.
Board Member Candace Cornell stated that there had been discussion of the
benefit of the vegetated visual buffer.
I I
Planning Board Minutes 5 December 6, 1994
Mr. Wiggins stated that the intention is to maintain that same vegetative
buffer but that it be incorporated into a building lot to define who will
maintain it and pay taxes on it. Mr. Wiggins stated that going back to the same
original plan is not a major problem, and that it seemed to make sense to
incorporate it into an building lot to define ownership.
Ms. Cornell stated that there have been a number of questions brought up
by the Health Department, the Assessment Form, and the ERC, and that she felt
that there was a definite need for further investigation.
Chairperson Kenerson stated that he felt that the issues could be handled
by conditions within a resolution.
Ms. Cornell stated that she felt that the Board should issue a Positive
Declaration of environmental significance on this project.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that the normal process would be to
obtain preliminary subdivision approval of all 70 lots to be developed and base
the environmental review on those 70 lots, then consider final approval for what
ever initial phases the applicant wants to propose.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that if the Board was going to review the
environmental impacts to be sure to review them before issuing a negative
declaration of environmental significance.
Mr. Kanter stated that James Hanson of the County Planning Department
concurred with the concerns of the Health Department regarding the sewer overflow
issue, and the possible significant impact on Buttermilk Falls Gorge. Mr. Kanter
stated that the New York State Department of Transportation did not have time to
formally review, but they would like to further review the traffic generation,
possible road improvements that may be required, and some indicated concern with
the single access point for the entire development.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann asked what the opinion of the Town staff was
regarding the single access for the development.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker responded that he would prefer to see a divided
roadway (two 15 -foot roadways) for entrance into the project, because there is
no good secondary route available without disturbing drainage.
Mr. Wiggins stated that he had no problem with using two 15 -foot roadways
as the entrance to the project.
Mr. Kanter suggested the possibility of providing access through the
adjacent properties to the south of the project site as a secondary access, and
indicated that the County Planning Department letter also mentioned this option.
Matthew Wall, the adjacent landowner to the south, stated that he was not
interested in that suggestion at all.
i
Planning Board Minutes 6 December 6, 1994
Chairperson Kenerson noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if
anyone else from the public wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson Kenerson
closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for
discussion.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Kenerson asked if anyone
were prepared to offer a motion.
MOTION by Candace Cornell, seconded by Herbert Finch:
WHEREAS:
16 This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval of
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 36 -1 -4.2 and 36 -1 -6, 74 +/- acres total,
into 73 lots, approximately 4,159 linear feet of road, approximately 20
acres of permanent open space, and water and sewer facilities, to be
located between 1146 and 1172 Danby Road, Residence District R -30,
Residence District R -15 and Special Land Use District S -1, Walter J. and
Joyce Y. Wiggins, Owners /Applicants, William F. Albern, P.E., Agent, and
2. This is a Type I Action, pursuant to Town of Ithaca Local Law No. 5, 1988,
and Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of
the Environmental Conservation Law, for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental
review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on December 6, 1994, has
reviewed and accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form
Part I prepared by the applicant, Parts II and III prepared by the Town
Planning staff, a preliminary subdivision plat entitled "Buttermilk Valley
Estates, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Manzari
and Reagan Land Surveyors, and dated November 17, 1994, and other
application materials, and
4. The Full Environmental Assessment Form has identified the following as
having a potentially significant impact on the environment:
a. The Tompkins County Department of Health, in a letter dated November
21, 1994, has indicated the following concern: "Overflowing sanitary
sewers on Cayuga Street in the City of Ithaca affect the neighboring
residences and businesses and degrade Six Mile Creek. We believe
this project will add significantly to the overflow by greatly
increasing the sanitary wastes in the overflow." The Department of
Health indicates that this impact could be significant, and
encourages the Town of Ithaca to make a Positive Determination of
Environmental Significance and require an Environmental Impact
Statement.
Planning Board Minutes
7
December 6, 1994
b. Effect on aesthetic resources: The character of the site and
surrounding area is largely undeveloped, agricultural and low
density residential. The proposed project would be the largest
residential development in the immediate vicinity. The importance
of the aesthetic impact is uncertain until further documentation is
provided by the applicant regarding the impact on the adjacent State
Park and state highway.
c. Impact on
existing
transportation systems:
The impact of the
addition of
traffic
on Danby Road needs to be
further evaluated.
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a Positive
Determination of Environmental Significance in accordance with the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and,
therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be required.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Bayer, Bell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Cornell, Smith.
Nay - Kenerson.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter addressed the Board and stated that the Board
needed to pick out those items that resulted in the Resolution of the Positive
Declaration of environmental significance.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann asked if the wetland issue should be included as
part of the resolution.
Board Member Candace Cornell stated that in the Scoping session, the Board
would pick out the potential impacts that will need to be investigated.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the matter of Preliminary Subdivision
Approval for the "Buttermilk Valley Estates" to be duly closed at 8:46 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED MODIFIED SITE PLAN OF SOUTH HILL COMPLEX FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN
OFFICE /RETAIL COMPLEX TO CONSIST OF 251000 + /- SQ. FT. OF RETAIL AND OFFICE SPACE
(SITE PLAN APPROVAL WAS GRANTED TO A PREVIOUS OWNER), RENOVATION OF AN EXISTING
5,000 + 1- SQ. FT. BUILDING AND AN ADDITIONAL 7,500 + /- SQ. FT. FOR THE RELOCATION
OF DIGICOMP RESEARCH TO THIS SITE. ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING AND
UTILITIES ARE ALSO INCLUDED. THIS REPRESENTS 12.500 + /- SQ. FT. OF
MANUFACTURING /OFFICE SPACE FOR DIGICOMP IN ADDITION TO 251000 + /- SQ. FT, OF
RETIAL /OFFICE SPACE TO BE LOCATED AT 930 DANBY ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL
NO. 40 -3 -91 3.87 + /- ACRES TOTAL AREA, INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, ICS DEVELOPMENT
PARTNERS INC., OWNER; DIGICOMP RESEARCH, APPLICANT; TROWBRIDGE AND WOLF,
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, AGENT.
Planning Board Minutes 8 December 6, 1994
Chairperson Kenerson declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter
duly opened at 8:47 p.m. and read aloud form the Notice of Public Hearings as
posted and published and as noted above.
Kathryn Wolf of Trowbridge and Wolf Landscape Architects, addressed the
Board and stated that they were asking for a modification to the Site Plan
Approval that was granted in 1993 to the previous owner, John Novarr. The
proposal is for 12,500 sq. ft. of space to be used by DigiComp Research in order
to consolidate and expand their operations, in addition to the 25,000 sq. ft. of
retail /office already approved in the original site plan. Ms. Wolf stated that
the primary change is that there will be one less building in the proposed site
plan vs. the 1993 approved site plan, and buildings will have 2 stories. There
is a proposed terrace for second floor entrance to Building B as well as parking
and entrance at the first floor level as well. The parking requirement according
to the Town's requirements are for 147 spaces, however, the request before the
Board tonight is for 118 spaces with the site plan showing possible locations for
future parking spaces if needed. Ms. Wolf stated that with regard to traffic
concerns, there would be approximately 25 additional cars at peak traffic hours
when expansion is completed. The complex would cater to Ithaca College students
and to nearby residents of Ithaca. A complete landscaping plan will be provided
as requested. Ms. Wolf stated that there were no confirmed tenants at this point
in time. The types of uses that appear to have interest are a convenience store,
hair stylist, video store, neighborhood bank, travel agent, and dry cleaning
store. Ms. Wolf stated that she had received the approval from the Fire
Department as the emergency access requirements are met and signed off as
appropriate.
Ms. Hoffmann stated that she wanted to see Building #5 shown on the colored
drawing provided by the applicant. Ms. Hoffmann stated that the drawings were
not as complete as she would have wanted them to be. Ms. Hoffmann stated that
she wanted to see all of the proposed buildings on all of the drawings since
Building 5 will be nearest to the road, it is very important to see it on the
drawings to determine its possible impact on views.
Ms. Wolf stated that Phase I would consist of the existing building, which
is currently being renovated, with an anticipated completion date of January
1995. Phase II would consist of the construction of Building #2, construction
of the access road and the parking to put the circulation fundamentally in place.
Phase III would consist of the construction of Buildings #3 & #4, and the
completion of the parking and roadway system, and Phase IV would consist of
construction of Building #5.
John Yengo of 1147 Danby Road, addressed the Board and asked if there were
any restrictive uses of the retail spaces of this proposal.
Attorney John Barney stated that there were restrictions with the original
approval which were no gasoline stations and no bars, a store could sell beer as
long the sales are less than 50% of the gross income earned.
Planning Board Minutes
Chairperson Kenerson noted
anyone from the public wished to
closed the Public Hearing and
discussion.
E
December 6, 1994
that this was a Public Hearing and asked if
speak. No one spoke. Chairperson Kenerson
brought the matter back to the Board for
Board Member
Eva
Hoffmann
stated that
she had some concerns regarding
drainage affecting
the
residents
north of the
property.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that there was no chance of the water
overflowing the creek to get to the northern neighbors property.
Ms. Hoffmann requested that evergreens not be planted along the road so as
not to block the view.
Ms. Wolf responded that the plantings at the lower portion of the land were
to buffer the view of the parking areas but would not obstruct views.
Ms. Hoffmann asked if any manufacturing would include the use of large
amounts of water on site.
Om Gupta, owner of DigiComp responded, no.
Jonathan Meigs addressed the Board on behalf of the Environmental Review
Committee. Mr. Meigs felt that there would be no likely significant, impacts but
was concerned with the impact on the city with .regard to potential impact on the
sanitary sewer overflow as discussed earlier in the meeting. Mr. Meigs stated
that a stormwater management plan should be reviewed to insure control of surface
flow as well. Mr. Meigs also stated that there was concern about the views from
the road and from across the street, and that there has been a great effort on
behalf of the applicant to make the development fit on the site.
Jagat Sharma addressed the Board and stated that there would be a very
minimal view obstruction caused by the buildings on this site. Mr. Sharma stated
that the final drawings could show all buildings, but that building #5 would be
many years in the future, and that it would be a one -story building.
Kathryn Wolf addressed the Board and stated that the roof of building #5
would be three feet lower than the roof of building #2.
Ms. Hoffmann stated that although the roof would be three feet lower than
the building beside it, it would be closer to the road and it could look quite
big.
Board Member Stephen Smith asked if this project had been reviewed by the
County Health Department.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter responded that they had made a statement
regarding the sewer overflow, but did not make a statement about requiring a
Positive Declaration, which is largely because they are not an involved agency
in this case. Mr. Kanter requested that the applicant submit a copy of
photographs of the site, which were passed around to the Board Members, to be
added to the project files for review.
Planning Board Minutes 10 December 6, 1994
Mr. Sharma responded that Mr. Kanter could keep the photos presented to the
Board.
Ms. Wolf stated that in response to the comment made by the ERC, it was
suggested that some of the run -off be disbursed on the site. Ms. Wolf stated
that she had met with Mr. Walker and that in the final construction documents,
the creek would be used as the major drainage destination but other options would
also be considered during the final phase of construction.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that the County Planning Department had
made comments about the public transportation service. Mr. Kanter stated that
they had indicated that Ithaca Transit serves the area in a North bound direction
and was curious if the internal parking area could handle bus turn - arounds.
Ms. Wolf stated that they would be able to pull into the center parking
area, circle the lot, and exit. Ms. Wolf stated that the intent is to work the
bus route out with them.
Board Member Gregory Bell asked why the buses could not use the bus stop
at the NCR entrance that was already there.
Ms. Wolf responded that it was not handicap accessible due to the steepness
of the slopes and that the length of the walk would be excessive.
Mr. Bell asked what the handicap requirements were within the buildings.
Ms. Wolf responded that all entrances would be accessible to the
handicapped and that there would be handicapped spaces outside each building.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann asked Ms. Wolf about the design of the proposed
lighting.
Ms. Wolf stated that it is proposed to use cut -off shoe box lighting, which
allow for intentionally directed lighting that would be approximately 20 feet
high, and spaced as appropriate for a parking lot. Ms. Wolf stated that they
would not be directed in a manner that would cause any glaring on Route 96.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that his office represented DigiComp
Research Corporation in other matters, however, nothing that conflicted with this
meeting.
There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Kenerson asked if
anyone were prepared to offer a motion.
MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by James Ainslie.
10 This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for a
proposed modified site plan for construction of an office /retail complex
to consist of 25,000 + /- sq. ft. of retail and office space, renovation of
an existing 5,000 + /- sq. ft. building and an additional 7,500 + /- sq. ft.
Planning Board Minutes
11
December 6, 1994
for the relocation of DIGICOMP Research to this site. Associated parking,
landscaping, lighting and utilities are also included. This represents
12,000 + /- sq. ft. of manufacturing /office space for DIGICOMP in addition
to 25,000 + /- sq. ft. of retail /office space located at 930 Danby Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40 -3 -9, 3.87 + /- acres total, Industrial
District, ICS Development Partners Inc., Owner; DIGICOMP Research,
Applicant; Trowbridge and Wolf, Landscape Architects, Agent.
2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review
with respect to Site Plan Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on December 6, 1994, has
reviewed and accepted as adequate the Long Environmental Assessment Form
Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Planning
staff, and a site plan entitled "South Hill Complex," dated November 8,
1994, prepared by Trowbridge and Wolf, Landscape Architects, additional
application materials, and
49 The Town Planning staff have recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed site plan, as
proposed;
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative
determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York
State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as
proposed and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Bayer, Bell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Cornell, Smith.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
MOTION by George Bayer, seconded by Gregory Bell:
WHEREAS
16 This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for
the proposed modified site plan for construction of an office /retail
complex to consist of 25,000 + /- sq* fte of retail and office space,
renovation of an existing 5,000 + /- sq. ft. building and an additional
7,500 sq. ft. for the relocation of DIGICOMP Research to this site.
Associated parking, landscaping, lighting, and utilities are also
included. This represents 12,000 + /- sq. ft. of manufacturing /office
space for DIGICOMP Research and 25,000 + /- sq. ft. of retail /office space
located at 930 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40 -3 -9, 3.87+/ -
acres total, Industrial District, ICS Development Partners Inc., Owner;
DIGICOMP Research, Applicant; Trowbridge and Wolf, Landscape Architects,
Agent.
Planning Board Minutes 12 December 6, 1994
2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board,
acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on December 6, 1994,
made a negative determination of environmental significance, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on December 6, 1994, has
reviewed and accepted as adequate the Long Environmental Assessment Form
Part I and supplemental information prepared by the applicant, a Part II
& III prepared by the Planning staff, and a site plan entitled "South
Hill Complex ", dated November 8, 1994, prepared by Trowbridge and Wolf
Landscape Architects, and additional application materials.
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site
Plan Approval for the proposed construction of a retail /office complex
and building renovations, associated parking, landscaping, lighting and
utilities as shown on the Preliminary Site Plan entitled "South Hill
Complex ", dated November 8, 1994, prepared by Trowbridge and Wolf,
Landscape Architects, conditioned upon the following:
a. Gasoline pumps are not permitted on the parcel, nor are
enterprises such as bars that derive 50% or more of their gross
revenues from the sale of alcoholic beverages (from condition f.
of the Resolution adopted by the Planning Board on June 2, 1992,
which prohibited certain uses in an Industrial District. Retail
Sales was one of the prohibited uses. Applications pending at the
time of the amendment were exempt. Site Plan Approval was granted
in 1993 for a retail /office complex on this site which was one of
the proposals in the grandfather clause. If modifications to
increase the retail use are presented to the Planning Board, a
variance will be required), and
b. No more than 37,500 sq. ft. of floor space is permitted on said
parcel.
c. Prior to Final Site-Plan Approval, the developer must provide a
more specific mix of retail vs. office space demonstrating that no
more than 25,000 sq. ft. of floor space to be used as retail
space, and
d. Prior to Final Site Plan Approval, the developer must provide a
list of hazardous chemicals which may be used by DIGICOMP Research
and the proposed methods for storage and disposal, to be approved
by the Town Engineer, and
e. Prior to Final Site Plan Approval a drainage plan for such detail
as the Town Engineer may require relating both to construction and
post- construction run -off be approved by the Town Engineer; and
such plan be complied with by the developer during and after
construction, and
I a
Planning Board Minutes 13 December 6, 1994
f. Compliance with all of the other conditions (including those
relating to access) not modified by this resolution set forth in
the approval of the original site plan by the Board on June 2,
1992, and
g. Final Site Plan must show appearance of all buildings to be
located on the premises.
AND FURTHER RESOLVED,
That the Planning Board pursuant to Section 50 and 38 of the Zoning
Ordinance, permits a reduction of the required number of parking spaces to 118
spaces, subject to the conditions set forth in Section 38.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Bayer, Bell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Cornell, Smith.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson
Kenerson
declared
the matter of
Preliminary Site Plan
Approval for the
South Hill
Complex
duly closed at
9:47 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF (A) RESOLUTION REGARDING POSITIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE; (B) DRAfT SCOPING OUTLINE TO
DETERMINE CONTENT OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT; AND (C) SETTING A
PUBLIC SCOPING HEARING FOR DECEMBER 20, 1994, FOR THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN OF
ITHACARE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY, PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF A 115,000 + 1- SQUARE
FOOT BUILDING WITH 60 ADULT CARE UNITS, 20 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS, AND 80
INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF DANBY ROAD APPROXIMATELY
2,000 FEET SOUTH OF THE ENTRANCE TO ITHACA COLLEGE, ON THAT 28 +/- ACRE PORTION
OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 39- 1 -1.3, DESIGNATED AS SPECIAL LAND USE
DISTRICT NO. 7. ITHACARE, INC., APPLICANT; MARK MACERA, AGENT.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 9:48
p.m. and read aloud from the Planning Board Agenda.
Chairperson Kenerson stated that a resolution of positive declaration
needed to be approved prior to discussion of a scoping outline or a public
hearing.
Board Member Gregory Bell stated that he did not feel that Page 2,
Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 belonged in the resolution because it was so
defiant. Mr. Bell stated that the attitude in the resolution is a bad one.
Town Attorney John Barney stated the Town has an appeal pending, if we
appeal and do not state that the resolution is being done because the judge
told us we had to do it, then the appeal becomes moot. As an accommodation to
the applicant, who has requested that the Environmental Impact Statement
process begin, the Board must do something in the nature of a positive
declaration, because we are appealing the decision.
Planning Board Minutes 14 December 6, 1994
Mr. Bell stated that he felt that there is an environmental
justification for a positive declaration of environmental significance.
Board Member Stephen Smith stated that the Board Members are not being
asked if there is or is not an environmental reason for the decision, you are
being told by the judge to vote for the positive declaration. Mr. Smith
stated that the Board members were not asked their opinion, they were given
their opinion by the judge.
Attorney Barney stated that the Board could either comply with his
mandate or independently determine that there is an environmental reason to do
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Attorney Barney stated that if the
Board decided there is an environmental reason for the EIS, then he would
withdraw the appeal tomorrow because at this point there would be no basis for
an appeal.
Mr. Bell stated that the building could be built going down the hill.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that the view was no longer the only
issue to be considered.
Attorney Barney stated that the law says that within 30 days from the
date of making a Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance the Board
must agree on a Scoping Document. The Town is not required to hold a public
hearing to have a scoping document.
Ms. Hoffmann stated that December 20th may be a bad time because a large
number of the public may be away and unable to come.
Ms. Cornell stated that comments could be sent to the Town in writing.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Kenerson asked if anyone
were prepared to offer a motion.
MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by James Ainslie:
WHEREAS, Ithacare Center ( "Ithacare") applied for final site plan
approval for construction of an approximately 160 unit new senior living
community on Route 96B in the Town of Ithaca (the "Project "), and
WHEREAS, Ithacare submitted as part of such application a Full
Environmental Assessment Form; and
WHEREAS, this Board reviewed such assessment form together with comments
of staff and the public, held several meetings to consider such application,
reviewed numerous written documents, information, detailed maps and
photographs, observed the site and a balloon demonstration on same, and, after
such extensive review, comments and public input, made a negative
determination of environmental significance on June 21, 1994, with respect to
the Project; and
Planning Board Minutes 15 December 6, 1994
WHEREAS, a proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the New York State Civil
Practice Law and Rules was brought by three neighbors challenging such
determination; and
WHEREAS, by decision and subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court, the
Planning Board determination was "reversed and annulled" and the Planning
Board was directed to issue a positive declaration of environmental
significance pursuant to 6 NYCRR Section 617.21, require the preparation and
circulation of an Environmental Impact Statement and comply with such other
procedures as may be mandated by the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQRA) in consideration of the site plan "; and
WHEREAS,
this Board
has
appealed
the decision of the Supreme Court to
the Appellate
Division of
the
Supreme
Court; and
WHEREAS, Ithacare has expressed to this Board its concern about delays
to the possible commencement of construction of its Project if it waits until
the appeal is finally resolved and has requested, notwithstanding its belief
that this Board acted appropriately in making its original decision, that
pending the appeal Ithacare be allowed to prepare and submit a draft
Environmental Impact Statement ( "EIS") for the Board's consideration and to
assist the Board in proceeding through the SEQRA process as if a positive
declaration of environmental significance were issued; and
WHEREAS, this Board is willing to proceed in such a way as to permit
consideration of the Project in as expeditious a manner as possible under all
circumstances pertaining; and
WHEREAS, it appears the only way to permit expeditious processing and
review of an EIS is for this Board to issue, pursuant to the Court's
direction, a positive declaration of environmental significance for the
Project while waiting for the conclusion of the appeals process, even though
the Board believes its original environmental determination was the correct
one;
NOW, THEREFORE (a) in consideration of the circumstances set forth
above, (b) at the request of Ithacare, (c) solely to comply with the edict of
the Supreme Court referred to above, and (d) without prejudice to the outcome
of the presently pending appeal, it is
RESOLVED, that as mandated by Supreme Court and only because of such
mandate, this Board issues a positive declaration of environmental
significance for the proposed site plan of the Project, and it is
further
RESOLVED, that this Board, in accordance with such mandate, and solely
by reason of same, "require the preparation and circulation of an
environmental impact statement "; and it is further
0
Planning Board Minutes
16
December 6, 1994
RESOLVED, that this Board, in accordance with such mandate, and solely
by reason of same, comply with those provisions of SEQRA pertaining to
the drafting, review, completion, and findings related to an EIS and
follow those provisions to conclusion of the process unless, prior to
such conclusion, the judgment of Supreme Court referred to above is
overruled; and it is further
RESOLVED, that the foregoing resolutions shall become null and void and
be automatically rescinded if the Supreme Court judgment directing this
Board to issue such positive declaration, prepare such EIS, and follow
such procedures, is ultimately overruled on appeal; and it is further
RESOLVED, that the Town Planner file a Notice of Positive Declaration
with the appropriate persons and entities in substantially the form
submitted to this meeting, clearly stating that the determination of
positive environmental significance is made solely to comply with the
judgment of the Supreme Court and is null and void if such judgment is
ultimately overruled; and it is further
RESOLVED, that the Town Planner is requested, in consultation with other
involved agencies and with Ithacare, to prepare a draft written scope of
issues to be addressed in the draft EIS, and the Town Planner is further
requested to arrange for a public hearing on said scoping document to be
held before this Board at the earliest practicable date, but in any
event within 30 days of the filing of the Notice of Positive
Declaration.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Bayer, Finch, Ainslie, Cornell.
Nay - Bell, Hoffmann, Smith.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that Planning staff had met with
representatives of Ithacare on November 18, 1994, and the Draft 2.0 Scoping
Outline which is before the Board as a result of that meeting. (Draft 2.0 of
the Scoping Outline for the Proposed Ithacare Project is attached hereto as
Exhibit #3)
Mr. Kanter summarized the Scoping Outline by stating that Items I- III
were the basics, background and table of contents. Item IV, includes a lot of
subjects that relate to the issues at hand, but briefly. Item V, addresses
Significant Environmental Impacts with the main focus on the following:
1) Aesthetic resources; including wetlands and steep slopes,
2) Stormwater run -off; and
3) Sewer overflows (DOH)
Items VI - XI were additional follow ups on the main issues.
Chairperson Kenerson stated that he thought that the Board needed to
address the view and the view only.
I a
Planning Board Minutes 17 December 6, 1994
Attorney Barney stated that the Board can not address view in a vacuum,
but the other constraints that involve the proposal.
Mr. Kanter stated that the Board needed to agree on the draft scoping
outline as presented or some modification of the Draft Scoping Outline that is
determined by the Board to be adequate to distribute to the public along with
the notification of the December 20, 1994 Public Hearing. Mr. Kanter stated
that any comments received from the public would be further considered. Mr.
Kanter stated that scoping is helpful in determining if the EIS, once
submitted, is or is not complete.
Board Member Candace Cornell stated that she would like to see a single
paragraph that explains what the scoping process is for the public's
information.
Attorney Barney stated that the scoping outline would be going to the
public for informational purposes only.
Chairperson Kenerson stated that the Scoping, once adopted, goes to
Ithacare who prepares a Draft Environmental Impact Statement after which the
Planning Board determines whether or not it is complete for public comment.
There is a public comment period, then the Planning Board reviews and
considers the public comments and becomes responsible for the Final
Environmental Impact Statement, adopt it, prepare Draft Statement of Findings
based on the analysis, adopt the Statement of Findings and then review and
reconsider the proposed Site Plan itself.
Board Member Gregory Bell stated that on Page 10, Item VII Alternatives,
he felt that under Letter A, a Sub Item #3 needed to be added as: "Alternative
configuration of building ", an example could be by constructing the building
down the slope or a towering footprint instead of being spread out. Mr. Bell
stated that there were a number of possibilities for the building.
Mr. Bell also felt that on Page 10, Item VII, under Letter B Alternative
Sites, that a Sub Item #2 was needed that discussed the advantages of
alternative sites instead of just the disadvantages.
Mr. Bell stated that he felt that on Page 12, Item XI, a Letter F should
be added to provide graphics. Mr. Bell stated that he felt the view could
best be described with graphic tools and that he felt that a series of photo
overlays should be provided showing the site from several locations, with
drawings to scale of those photographs of the building as proposed. Mr. Bell
suggested a few locations to be as follows: 1) the north end of the existing
overlook, 2) the south end of the existing overlook, 3)the north end of the
100 -foot extension of the overlook, and 4) from the driving lane, on Route
96B as one would be driving north down the highway. Mr. Bell also stated that
a Letter G should be added asking for cross - section drawings demonstrating the
effect of the proposed and alternative configurations of the building on the
views from the same locations stated above.
Board Member Stephen Smith stated that he would like to see the view of
South Hill from the West Hill.
Planning Board Minutes 18 December 6, 1994
Board Member Candace Cornell stated that everyone has a different way of
interpreting data, some people are very visual, while others are very literal,
so the Board should have several different ways of presenting data to make it
understandable to as many people as possible.
Board
Member
Eva
Hoffmann
stated that she would
like
to ask for a
comparison
between
the
views vs.
the wetlands vs. the
steep
slopes.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that the Town Board had already made
that determination and decided that the building would be located where it was
proposed to be located, and that the Town Board was very concerned with the
wetlands.
Board Member James Ainslie stated that there was tremendous support in
the community for the Ithacare project.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that one could support both the view
and the project.
Board Member Candace Cornell stated that it would be hard to compare
things that are qualitative versus things that are quantitative.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that the purpose of the EIS was not to
compare but to disclose and to mitigate. At the Findings stage, you are
making a comparison of location.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that the purpose for laying out the
wetlands and slopes as important site elements early in the EIS is to
determine their values and from that be able to determine the values of the
view and how that would be impacted. The Board may not be able to make
quantitative judgements, but the Board would be able to make qualitative
comparisons of the values of those elements, and the Findings Statement is
where the Board would be able to make that conclusion.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that the Board came to a point where it
seemed as if the building could not be moved to preserve more of the views
because it would need to be moved into an area where the slopes were steeper
and that would create an added expense. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she had
never seen an estimate of what the expense was and how big it was in
proportion to the total cost of the building, which did not allow the Board to
determine whether the cost was prohibitive when considering saving the view.
Ms. Hoffmann stated that it would be very useful to have that information.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that on Page 10, under Item VII
Alternatives, the paragraph directly following addresses Ms. Hoffmann's
concern.
Town
Attorney John
Barney
stated that
he
thought it was explicit that in
discussing
alternatives,
costs
are going to
be
an element.
r '
Planning Board Minutes 19 December 6, 1994
Ms. Hoffmann stated that she felt that on Page 10, top of the page under
Letter d. that the words, "but without further blocking scenic views from
overlooking Danby Road" should be added to the end of the present statement.
Ms. Hoffmann stated that on Page 6, Letter B, Item 1, Subitem a, under the
examples listed, she would like to have State use added to the current list.
Chairperson Kenerson stated
that
the
next meeting regarding
the Ithacare
Project would be held on December
20,
1994
in the Town Hall Board
Room,
Board Member Candace Cornell stated that she wanted to see the data
presented in several different modes for easier understanding by everyone
interested.
Town Planner Jonathan. Kanter stated that the Positive Declaration of
environmental significance would have to be filed with DEC and all involved
agencies; so what we'll do is prepare the Public Hearing Notice and send it
along with the Positive Declaration and include the revised Scoping Outline so
that everyone will have enough time to look at the materials and respond if
they wish.
Board Member Candace Cornell asked if the public would have access to
the SEQR workbook so that they would get a better understanding of the Scoping
Process.
Mr. Kanter stated that the notice could refer to its availability in the
Planning Department.
Chairperson Kenerson asked Mr. Mark Macera of Ithacare if he understood
what the Board was discussing.
Mark Macera, Executive Director for Ithacare, stated that Ithacare would
certainly take the necessary hard look to meet the requirements of the Town.
Mr. Macera asked that the Town staff give him a copy of Scoping Outline with
the final wording. Mr. Macera stated that in response to Mr. Bell's
commentary on the drawings from the four or five views, are the views you are
asking for of the existing building or is the Board asking for five views of
two or three modifications that were suggested which would make 20
alternatives. Mr. Macera stated that Ithacare needs to know what they need to
respond to so that the issue is not that it come back incomplete because there
are new questions being asked. Not that Ithacare did not respond, but because
the questions that were pertinent were never asked.
Board Member Gregory Bell
stated
that he
felt
everyone would agree that
there
should
be a well
defined
outline
of what
the
scope should
be.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that she would assume that when
Ithacare looks at the Scoping Outline, that the alternatives that make the
most sense and fulfill the wishes of everyone, which means a good housing for
the Ithacare residents as well as looking out for the other things that the
Board and the public want to see including the views.
Planning Board Minutes
RE
MOTION by Candace Cornell, seconded by Eva Hoffmann:
December 6, 1994
RESOLVED, that a Public Hearing for the Public Scoping session for the
proposed Ithacare project will be held on December 20, 1994, at a time to be
determined by the Town Planner, in the Town Hall Board Room. That the
Information on the scoping be made available to the public with a deadline for
submission of written comments listed in the notice for those who may be
unable to attend the Public Hearing.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Bayer, Bell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Cornell, Smith.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
It was determined that Town Planner Jonathan Kanter will be the
moderator for the Public Hearing to be held on December 20, 19940
Chairperson Kenerson declared the matter
of the
Ithacare
Positive
Declaration of environmental significance to be
duly
closed at
11:00 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SCHEDULE OF TOWN
OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS FOR 1995.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the above -noted matter duly opened at
11 :01 p.m. and read aloud from the Planning Board agenda.
The Planning Board discussed the tentative schedule for the upcoming
Planning Board meetings in 1995.
There being no further discussion, the Chair asked if anyone were
prepared to offer a motion.
MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by George Bayer:
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board adopt and hereby does
adopt the following as its schedule of Regular Meetings for the Year 1995.
Unless otherwise notified, all meetings will be held on the first and third
Tuesday, commencing at 7:30 p.m.
FIRST MEETING OF THE MONTH
January 3, 1995
February 7, 1995
March 7, 1995
April 4, 1995
May 2, 1995
SECOND MEETING OF THE MONTH
January 17, 1995
February 21, 1995
March 21, 1995
April 18, 1995
May 16, 1995
Planning Board Minutes
June 6, 1995
July 18, 1995
August 1, 1995
September 5, 1995
October 3, 1995
November 7, 1995
December 5, 1995
21
December 6, 1994
June 20, 1995
No meeting scheduled
August 15, 1995
September 19, 1995
October 17, 1995
November 21, 1995
December 19, 1995
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Bayer, Bell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Cornell, Smith.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the matter of the 1995 Schedule for the
Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly closed at 11:15 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion, Chairperson Kenerson declared the December 6, 1994 meeting
of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11:16 p.m.
12/10/94.
Respectfully submitted,
StarrRae Hays,
Recording Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
0
r �
U
g S
TOMPKINS CO
DIVISION OF EP
k ,3
461
21 November 1994
JoAnn Cornish, Planner II
Town of Ithaca
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca NY 14850
Ir
Re: Project 9410142 - Buttermilk Valley Subd.
between 1146 and 1172 Danby Road
Dear Ms. Cornish:
OF HEALTH
AL HEALTH
Thank you for the information on the above project. While the EAF recognizes
the Health Department must approve the sewer and water extensions, it fails
to recognize the realty subdivision authority of Tompkins County. We have
received no information other than that which you sent about this project so
far, and the map detail is so small and lacking (at this stage), that the
comments that follow are surely not all we will eventually generate.
We believe the Town is the appropriate Lead Agency-for Environmental Review.
We encourage the Town to make a Positive Determine under SEQR and require a
DEIS for this project. At this stage, we see two large environmental impacts
that need to be addressed:
1. Overflowing sanitary sewers on Cayuga Street in the City of Ithaca affect
the neighboring residences and businesses and degrade Six Mile Creek. We
believe this project will add significantly to the overflow by greatly
increasing the sanitary wastes in the overflow. This is not acceptable.
2. The
increase
in run -off from the
project
may
significantly
increase
problems
in the
City of Ithaca where
the
drainage
channels are
very flat.
Other concerns include the lack of a second vehicle access to 70 homes and
impacts on the stream and downstream properties receiving run -off. Additional
concerns may be raised as more details of the project become available.
We look forward to working with you on this project.
Si cerely,
4 o J""14v�
M. Andersson, PE
rector, Division of Environmental Health
pc: Dan Walker, PE, Ithaca Town Engineer
• Larry Fabbroni, PE, City of Ithaca DPW
Bill Albern, PE, Project Engineer
a:bttrmsgl.p21 o -5
Exhibit #1
�«i Recycled paper 12/6/94 PB Minutes
Is December 6, 1994
To. Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members
From, Environmental Review Committee
Town of Ithaca Conservation Board
Re. Buttermilk Valley Subdivision Project # 9410142
The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) appreciates the opportunity to
respond to the preliminary site plan of the Buttermilk Valley Subdivision
project. The ERC has several questions and concerns about this project.
1. The ERC applauds the original sketch plan for Buttermilk Valley
Subdivision for preserving all of the wetland and other drainage features
on the property including two ponds and a stream. We strongly recommend
returning to a plan which preserves these features especially the wetland.
• The current site plan shows building lots to be developed which include
the wetland (as delineated by F. R. Wesley). Lots #39 and #40 contain
portions of the wetland. The wetland serves as a collection for
stormwater runoff and sedimentation trap, is essential to the drainage of
the area, and is part of a larger drainage system on the property. The
wetland contributes to preserving and protecting water quality down
slope.
The recommendations of the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC), United States Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and others state and federal agencies is to preserve a 100 foot
undisturbed buffer area around wetlands, ponds, streams and other
watercourses. If these recommendations were followed, there would be
limited if any land to site a house on Lots #39 and #40.
The ERC recommends that Lots #39 and #40 be consolidated with Lot #73
(or some other configuration) and remain undeveloped, which would
preserve this valuable wetland. The wetland area, if left undisturbed,
would also serve as a buffer from noise and visual impact of the road on
the development.
•
Exhibit #2
12/6/94 PB Minutes
fN
2. The ERC supports the assessment of Tompkins County Department of
Health, Division of Environmental Health that the Town of Ithaca make a
positive declaration under SEQR and require a DEIS for this project. The
magnitude of the impact of this project on the water quality in the Town
of Ithaca and City of Ithaca needs to be determined.
3. Buttermilk Valley subdivision is in close proximity to Buttermilk State
Park. The ERC is interested in the New York State Department of Parks,
Recreation, and Historical Preservation's assessment of the impacts this
development would have on Buttermilk Park particularly with regards to
surface water runoff, human impacts, impact to steep slopes on park land
adjacent to the development, and others. The ERC would also appreciate
clarification of the proposal for Buttermilk Valley Estates to dedicate the
open space on the North of the property to the New York State Department
of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation.
4. The ERC would be extremely interested in reviewing the stormwater
management plan for this development. The Tompkins County Health
Department, as well as the Town of Ithaca Engineer, also expressed
concerns about the impact of surface water runoff. Without a plan, the
impact of the development cannot be ascertained.
5. The proposed open space /park for the development (Lot 71) is not
appropriate for the intended usage. The northerly portion is inappropriate
^� for use as a neighborhood park. The ERC recommends that other options
C
for a park be explored; such as combining Lot #33 and the southern portion
of Lot #71 to form a neighborhood park, or siting the park around the area
of proposed Lots #47 and #48.
The members of the ERC look forward to working with the Planning Board
on this project as more information becomes available.
cc: D. Walker, Town Engineer
J. Cornish, Planner II
. I A
•
•.
•
•
SCOPING OUTLINE
FOR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ITHACARE SENIOR LIVING CENTER
(Draft 2.0)
November 30, 1994
• FileName r. \ldevrevs \ithacare \scopel -0mem
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Lead Agency
Exhibit #3
12/6/94 PB Minutes
Scoping Outline for Ithacare Environmental Impact Statement
I. Cover Sheet
Document should begin with a cover sheet that indicates:
A. Whether it is a draft or final impact statement
B. Name or other descriptive title of the project
C. Location (county and town) of the project
D. Name and address of the lead agency which required preparation of the
statement (Town of Ithaca Planning Board) and the name and telephone
number of a person at the agency to be contacted for further
information (Jonathan Kanter, Town Planner; Phone: (607) 273 -1747)
E. Name and address of the preparers of any portion of the statement and
a contact name and telephone number
F. Date of acceptance of the Draft EIS (to be filled in when accepted)
G. Deadline date by which comments are due (to be filled in when
accepted)
II. Table of Contents and Summary
An Executive Summary should follow the Table of Contents. The Summary
should include:
A. Brief description of the action
B. Significant, beneficial and adverse impacts (issues of controversy - e.g.,
visual impact - must be specified)
C. Mitigation measures proposed
D. Alternatives considered
E. Matters to be decided (permits, approvals, funding)
III. Description of the Proposed Action
A. Project Purpose and Need
147
D.
. , ,(
10 Background and history
2. Public need for the ali j
roect, and municipality P h' obj J ectives based on
adopted community development plans
3. Objectives of the project sponsor
Location
10 Establish geographic boundaries of the project (use regional and
local location maps to illustrate)
2. Description of access to the site
3. Description of existing zoning of the site
Design and Layout
1. Total site area
a. proposed impervious surface area (roofs, parking lots,
roads)
be amount of land to be cleared
ce open space
2. Structures
a, gross floor area (GFA) of buildings, structures
be layout of buildings
C, site plans and profile views
3. Parking
a. pavement area
be number of spaces and layout
Construction and Operation
10 Construction
M
a. total construction period anticipated. 0
2
0 1
.
•
•
b, schedule of construction
C, future potential development, on site or on adjoining
properties
2. Operation
a. type of operation, activities that will occur at facility
b, schedule of operation and activities
E. Approvals
10 Required changes or variances to the zoning regulations, if any
2. Other permit approval or funding requirements
IV. Environmental Settin5z
NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Geology
is
2.
Subsurface
a, composition and thickness of subsurface material
examples: depth to, and nature of, bedrock formations
and impermeable layers
occurrence of an extractive mineral resource
usefulness as a construction material
Surface
a. list of soil types
b, discussion of soil characteristics
examples: physical properties (indication of soils
hydrological /infiltration capabilities)
engineering properties (soil bearing capacity)
co distribution of soil types at project site
3
NO
d. suitability for use
examples:
39 Topography
agriculture, recreation, construction, mining
a. description of topography at project site
examples: slopes, prominent or unique features
b, description of topography of surrounding area
Water Resources
10 Surface water
a. location and description of surface waters located on
project site or those that may be influenced by the project
T
C,
examples: seasonal variation, quality, classification
according to NYS Dept. of Health or DEC
identification of uses and level of use of all surface waters
examples:
description
channels
public /private water supply
industrial uses
agricultural uses
recreation
of existing drainage areas, patterns and
do discussion of potential for flooding, siltation, erosion and
eutrophication of water sources
examples: include description of area in City of Ithaca
that receives drainage from site that is prone
to flooding (Cayuga Street /Six Mile Creek
area) and relation of drainage from this site to
the affected area of the City
4
P
r1
U
•
•
4'J • V
•
•
Co Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology
1. Vegetation
a. list vegetation types on the project site and within the
surrounding area
bo discussion of site vegetation characteristics
examples: species present and abundance
age, size, distribution
dominance
plant community types
unique, rare and endangered species
value as habitat for wildlife
productivity
2. Fish and Wildlife
a. list of fish and wildlife species on the project site and
within surrounding area, including migratory and resident
species
b, discussion of fish and wildlife population characteristics
examples: species present and abundance
distribution, dominance
unique, rare and endangered species
productivity
3. Wetlands
a. list wetland areas within or contiguous to the project site
b, discuss wetland characteristics
examples: acreage
HUMAN RESOURCES
• A. Transportation
vegetative cover
classification
benefits of wetland such as flood and erosion
control, recreation
5
A
10 Transportation services
a. description of the size, capacity and condition of services
P P tY
examples: roads, bridges, parking; facilities, traffic
control
be description of current level of use of services
examples: a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic flow
vehicle mix
sources of existing traffic volume
2. Public transportation and pedestrian environment
a. description of the current availability of service
be description of present level of use
ce description of facilities to serve pedestrians and patterns of
pedestrian traffic
Land Use and Zoning
10 Existing land use and zoning
a. description of the existing land use of the project site and
the surrounding area
examples: commercial, residential, agricultural, business,
retail, industrial, institutional, vacant
be description of the existing zoning of site and surrounding
area
2. Land use plans
a. description of Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan
regarding project site and surrounding area
be discussion of future development trends or pressures in
the area
Community Services
1. Include a list of existing facilities and services and a discussion of
Pei
V , %A
. OF
•
•
r
E.
existing levels of usage and projected future needs for the
following:
a, police protection
C,
do
el
f
Demography
fire protection
health care facilities
social services
recreational facilities
utilities
16 Population characteristics
a, focus on the characteristics and trends of the aging
population and their needs
Cultural Resources
16 Visual resources
a, description of the physical character of the community
example: urban vs. rural
b, description of natural areas of significant scenic value,
including the overlook on Danby Road
C. identification of structures of significant architectural
design
V. Significant Environmental Impacts
A. Aesthetic Resources, Wetlands and Steep Slopes
Discuss the following aspects of the environmental setting from Section
IV that may be adversely or beneficially affected by the proposed action.
The only "potential large impact" identified in the Full Environmental
Assessment Form (EAF), Part II (6/21/94), was in the category of
"aesthetic resources," which included ... "blocking portions of the view
from the existing Danby Road/Rte. 96B overlook." In order to
7
VI.
adequately assess that impact, potential impacts on other site features,
including wetlands and steep slopes, should be considered, since those
constraints have influenced the proposed location,. configuration and
design of the Ithacare facility.
Be Stormwater Runoff /Downstream Flooding and Sewer Overflows in City
of Ithaca
In addition, the following potential impacts should be addressed that
have been raised by the Tompkins County Department of Health (DOH)
in conjunction with several other projects in this area of South Hill,
which could apply to the Ithacare project:
16 Stormwater Runoff/ Downstream Flooding
DOH has indicated that there could be potential impacts from the
increase in run -off from projects in this area of South Hill which
may significantly increase problems in the City of Ithaca where
drainage channels are very flat. Run -off from the Ithacare site
would drain down toward the Meadow Street area in the City
where flooding problems have occurred. This potential impact
should be addressed in the DEIS.
2, Sewer Overflows
DOH has also indicated that overflowing sewers on Cayuga
Street in the City of Ithaca affect the neighboring residences and
businesses and degrade Six Mile Creek, and has stated in regard
to several other projects in the South Hill area that increased
sanitary wastes generated by new projects will add significantly
to the overflow problem. This potential impact as it relates to the
Ithacare project should be addressed in the DEIS.
Mitigation Measures to Minimize Environmental Impact.
Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts identified in
Section V above, including the following:
NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Geology
1. Topography
a. avoid construction on areas of steep slope
E�
I
0
L I
•
•
•
be design adequate soil erosion protection devices to
minimize impact on areas of steep slope
Be Water Resources
1. Surface Water
a. design adequate stormwater control system
be ensure use of soil erosion control techniques during
construction and operation to avoid siltation
examples: hay bales
temporary restoration of vegetation to
disturbed areas
landscaping
C. Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology
1. Wetlands
a. avoid construction in or near wetlands
HUMAN RESOURCES
A. Land Use and Zoning
10 Existing land use and zoning
a. design project to comply with existing land use plans,
to meet requirements and
standards established in Special
Land Use District No. 7 and in a
functional and visually
appealing way to set standard
and precedent for future
surrounding land use
Be Cultural Resources
10 Visual resources
a. redesign the existing overlook to extend the public viewing
area
be design exterior of structur to physically blend with existing
9
.. r
surroundings 0
co minimize visual impact through thoughful and innovative
design of lighting and signs (consider height, size,
intensity, glare, and hours of lighting; operation)
do design landscaping to be visually pleasing and to serve as
a buffer between the surrounding land uses, parking areas
operational equipment and facilities
VII. Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided if the Project is
Implemented
Identify those adverse environmental effects in Section V above that can be
expected to occur regardless of mitigation measures considered in Section VI.
VIII. Alternatives
Discuss the following alternatives at a level sufficient to permit a comparative
assessment of costs, benefits and environmental risks for each alternative. It is
not acceptable to make simple assertions that a particular alternative is or is
not feasible.
A. Alternative Design and Technologies 0
1. Site layout
a. density and location of structures on. the site (other
locations on the site where buildings might be situated)
b, location of access routes, parking and utility routes
2. Orientation of buildings /facilities
a. compatibility with slope and drainage patterns
b* site size and setback requirements
B. Alternative Sites
This evaluation should be approached on a general level, not a site
specific evaluation of other sites.
1. Limiting factors
examples: availability of land
10
t - •
•
•
•
C.
F
E.
suitability of alternate site(s) to accommodate
design /program requirements
suitable market area
compatibility with regional objectives
accessibility to transportation routes and the service
population
Alternative Size
1. Decrease project size to minimize possible impacts
Alternative Land Use
1. Suitability of site for other uses
other type of housing)
No Action
10 Impacts of no action
a. effect on public need
(such as commercial, industrial,
b, effect on applicant's need
C, beneficial or adverse environmental impacts
IX. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
Identify those natural and human resources listed in Section IV that will be
consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use. Indicate in
articular how resources associated with the portion of the site to be
P
constructed
will
be
affected.
X. Growth Inducing Aspects
Describe the potential growth aspects the proposed project may have,
including the following:
A. Future Development Plans Ithacare Has for This Site
10 Describe the future potential development on this site
a. What are Ithacare's future plans for additional
development on this site
b. What additional development could theoretically occur on
11
XI.
• - 1
this site under the current Special Land Use District No. 7
B. Surroundin g Development ment Potential
1. Describe the potential for additional development in the
surrounding area, including Ithaca College's plans for future
development on its land holdings
Appendices
The following are materials that may be added by the applicant in support of
the DEIS:
A. List of underlying studies, reports and information considered and
relied on in preparing statement
B. List of all federal, state, regional or local agencies, organizations,
consultants and private persons consulted in preparing the statement
CO Technical exhibits (if any) at a legible scale
D. Technical studies, reports or other materials prepared by the applicant
in support of the statement that are too lengthy to include in the body
of the statement 0
E. Relevant correspondence regarding the project
12
•