HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 Angelheart •
•
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF STATE `` is
ALBANY, NY 12231-0001 ,c\''V
r•
ALEXANDER F. TREADWELL
SECRETARY OF STATE
\ 'rr
V rr
•
November 10, 1997
CAROL W. SCZEPANSKI *Jj
'o
TOWN OF DANBY
1830 DANBY ROAD
ITHACA, NY 14850
RE: Town of Danby, Local Law 2 , 1997, filed 11/05/97
The above referenced material was received and filed by this office as
indicated. Additional local law filing forms will be forwarded upon
request.
Sincerely,
ACA-
Janice G. Durfee
Principal File Clerk
Bureau of State Records •
(518) 474-2755
JGD:ml
0 printed on recycled paper
, ' tj)
( 1‘
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
BY MAIL OF NOTICE OF HEARING
STATE OF NEW YORK ) . §
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) §
I Carol W. Sczepanski, being duly sworn, deposes and says that she is the Clerk of the Town of
Danby, Tompkins County, Ithaca, New York, and that on May 22, 1997 she caused to be mailed,
pursuant to the provisions of the Town of Danby Zoning Ordinance a copy of notice of hearing,
which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, to each of the property owners of the subject
property referred to in said notice and to all property owners on both sides of the road on which the
property fronts and the adjoining property owners to the side and rear of the property affected
immediately adjacent extending 500 feet therefrom,the names and addresses of said property owners
being contained on the list attached hereto and made a part thereof.
16/40/-' 61 )' ‘44-(4—> 4a41" ^
Carol W. Sczep n i, Town Clerk
Town of Danby
JOSEPH & HSIAO CHENG LEON & KAREN GKUVEK
326 GUNDERMAN RD 1349 CODDINGTON RD
SPENCER NY 14883 BROOKTONDALE NY 14817
GAETANO D'AMBROSE JR C TILTON P WOODWORTH R & N STRICHARTZ
365 GUNDERMAN RD 305 GUNDERMAN RD 708 COMFORT RD
SPENCER NY 14883 SPENCER NY 14883 SPENCER NY 14883
DOUG A KEATING Jeanne & Matthew Engelheart
H.E. SHEFFIELD III 640 COMFORT RD
336 COMFORT RD ITHACA NY 14850 303 Gunderman Road
SPENCER NY 14883 Spencer, New York 14883
•
EDW & LINDA FETHERBAY
334 GUNDERMAN RD
SPENCER NY 14883
s 0
1 Local Law No. 1 of 1997
Public Hearing
June 4, 1997
TOWN OF DANBY
PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
Proposed Local Law June 4, 1997
Local Law No. 1 of 1997
PRESENT:
Supervisor Mary Oltz
Councilpersons: Edward Inman, Joseph Schwartz, Howard Steiner
ABSENT:
Councilperson Rosa Lee Johnson (excused)
Others Present:
Susan Beeners - Code Enforcement Officer
Carol W. Sczepanski - Town Clerk
Matthew Engelhart- Applicant
Members of the Public:
Naomi & Robert Strichartz, John Henderson, Joseph Cheng, Verna Little
Public Hearing Declared Open:
Supervisor Oltz declared the public hearing open at 6:00 P.M. and the Town Clerk read the
following Notice of Publication:
"NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that a public hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town
of Danby on Wednesday, June 4, 1997 at 6:00 P.M., Danby Town Hall, 1830 Danby Road, Ithaca,
New York, 14850,purpose of the hearing is to consider approval of a general plan for the proposed
enlargement of Planned Development Zone 10, located at 303 Gunderman Road, on a portion of
Town of Danby Tax Parcel No. 9.-1-9.12 from 5.22 acres to 9.22 acres and with such enlarged Zone
to include a proposed design studio/future residence and a new access drive. And further, to
consider a Local Law entitled"A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF DANBY ZONING
ORDINANCE RELATED TO BOUNDARIES AND PERMITTED USES OF PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT ZONE 10 AND ADJOINING LANDS".
All interested parties will be given the opportunity to be heard either in writing or in person.
By Order of the Town Board
Carol W. Sczepanski, Town Clerk
Dated: May 21, 1997
Published: May 23, 1997"
Affidavit of Neighbor Notification filed May 21, 1997.
2 Local Law No. 1 of 1997
Public Hearing
June 4, 1997
Letter from Joseph Cheng of Gunderman Road requesting that the Local Law forbid future activities
in silk screening.
Members of the Public:
Naomi Strichartz-703 Comfort Road-thanked Mr. Engelhart for turning down lights at Angelhart
Designs. She reported that she is concerned that this is a warehouse center. Is opposed to the
expansion and feels that it will have a large impact on the neighborhood.
Bob Strichartz- 703 Comfort Road- are neighbors of Angelheart Designs, Inc. Reported that the
Planning Board public hearing accomplished a lot from his point of view in addressing the concerns
of the neighborhood residents at a public hearing. He would ask that a clause be put into the local
law that the business from any silk screening or any dying of fabrics that use toxic dye be
prohibited. The main request at this date is to add a design studio and it is within the character of
the neighborhood but he is disturbed that this is warehouse business. He would be happy if the
Planning Board did not approve of any future development (as described in (g) and (e) in the
proposed local law). They do not want to see any additional development in the future at Angelheart
Designs.
Councilperson Inman asked Mr. Strichartz what type of problems from the warehouse business he
was referring to.
Mr. Strichartz said that their particular problems were the lighting of the parking area was shining
directly into their bedroom windows. That has been recently changed but they receive less impact
than some of the neighbors on Gunderman Road.
Joseph Cheng-Gunderman Road- commended M. Engelhart for cleaning up the debris along the
roadside from the construction at Angelheart Designs. His concern is with fabric dying and possible
toxic chemicals being released into the environment. He requested that fabric dying be restricted.
Even though this is not a practice at Angelheart Designs, a future new owner may have a different
type of clothing manufacturing.
Matthew Engelhart- said that his overall understanding is that the second phase of the warehouse
has been approved even though we have no intention at this time to go forward with it. He likes the
idea that they have renovated the barn and kept the facility within the character of rural Danby. He
said he would like to get a sense from the Town Board as to whether they look favorably at this
proposal and the operation of Angelheart Designs. He said he does not want to fight an uphill battle
i f the Town Board does not want this type of business in Danby. His true intention is to try to
accommodate his neighbors and not create any enemies and to be environmentally sensitive.
Supervisor Oltz responded that we are looking for businesses in Danby. She that his neighbors
seemed to agree that this is a business that is conscious of the neighbors and the environment.
3 Local Law No. 1 of 1997
Public Hearing
June 4, 1997
Councilperson Schwartz said that he has nothing against the business and every case that comes
before the Planning Board and the Town Board is considered on its own merritt. The Board looks
at each application as if it were a first one and the context of its needs.
Councilperson Steiner said his understanding that this Planned Development District was approved
several years ago for a PD of 25 acres. Somehow the PD was reduced by the Town Map that was
adopted in 1991 to a much smaller PD to reflect the current land use.
Susan explained the history of the Planned Development District for Angelheart Designs to the Town
Board and that there were no overall master plans in place when the new Zoning Ordinance and
Town Map were approved. She explained in detail the general site plan for the proposed expansion
of Planned Development Zone 10.
The Board reviewed the general site plan for the proposed expansion of Planned Development Zone
10. Susan reported that there are limitations put on the remaining back land and 3 '/ acres of the
Planned Development District was never to be developed.
Verna Little- 1758 Danby Road- is curious about the meaning of zoning when some people must
abide by it and some don't. She said that she is unhappy that the State Highway Department took
away most of her front yard and her garage to make the highway three lanes in front of her home
several years ago for a turning lane onto Gunderman Road. She asked when the expansion of
Engelhart Designs was going to end. She would like to see Danby stay a quiet rural community.
Councilperson Schwartz responded that zoning ordinances are not static documents. Danby first had
zoning in 1958 and it has been updated several times. A new ordinance was adopted by the Town
in 1991. The ordinance allows some flexibility and in terms of limits for expansion. Mr. Engelhart
has gone through the process and obtained all the proper documents.
Councilperson Steiner responded that the Engelhart property had nothing to do with NYS Highway
taking away part of her property. A turning lane for Gunderman Road was probably for the safety
of people turning onto Gunderman Road.
Verna Little said that it is one of the kind of artifact that we live with when the Board accepts and
allows this kind of high density road. It is high density in terms of 70 people working there. When
the business started it was only two or three people working there. This is the kind of arguments we
all live with when a high density development is approved.
Supervisor Oltz commented on the widening of NYS 96B and reported that all intersections along
96B were widened to allow for a turning lane for public safety.
Verna Little responded to the Board that you are personally responsible to people whose property
is damaged by your decisions. People are going to continue to allow expansions more and more.
4 Local Law No. 1 of 1997
Public Hearing
June 4, 1997
I think this is a wrong decision.
Councilperson Inman responded that the public chooses the Board Members and the public can
remove the Board Members. Your concerns about the ordinance and suggested changes should be
directed to the Planning Board.
Councilperson Schwartz encouraged Ms. Little to attend the Planning Board Meetings as revisions
to the zoning ordinance are through their recommendations.
Councilperson Steiner said that there has been two (2) public hearings on the expansion of
Angelheart Designs, Inc. and the public has had the opportunity to respond with their concerns and
it is inappropriate to delay and delay for the purpose of delaying. It is not practical to hold up this
expansion of Planned Development Zone 10. He said that he thinks that a business that employs 70
people at good paying jobs is important to the community and the Town of Danby. A number of the
employees live in the Town of Danby. Mr. Engelhart has attempted to work with the Town and his
neighbors to make the business compatible with the neighborhood. He has not heard any reasons
why not to approve the expansion.
Naomi Strichartz said that there are many trucks coming to the facility and that it is possible that they
exceed the weight limit on the bridge. She is disturbed that as a neighbor the fact that their lifestyle
is disturbed does not matter. She said that she thinks that they do not count. A national distribution
company is inappropriate in a rural residential neighborhood.
Matthew Engelhart said that he there is one truck per week that arrives early in the morning and
leaves around 8:00 A.M. He does not think that this is a large impact on the neighbors. Other
traffic may be UPS and other mail deliveries.
Public Hearing Declared Closed
Supervisor Oltz declared the public hearing closed at 6:45 P.M.
Carol W. Scz atiski, Town Clerk
Coo
Tompkins County
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ' —
121 East Court Street
Ithacan New York 14850
James W.Hanson,Jr. Telephone(607)274-5560
Commissioner of Planning FAX(607)274-5578
April 10, 1997
Ms. Susan Beeners
Code Enforcement Officer
Town of Danby
1830 Danby Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: Zoning Review Pursuant to §239 -land -m of the New York State
General Municipal Law
Action: Modification of Planned Development Zone 10, Angelheart Designs,
Gunderman Road, Tax Parcel No. 9-1-9.12
Dear Ms. Beeners:
This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and
comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 -1 and-m of the
New York State General Municipal Law.
The proposal, as submitted,will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity,
County, or State interests. Therefore, you are free to act without prejudice.
Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record.
Sincerely,
P �_.�.) ML
James W. Hanson, Jr.
Commissioner of Planning
toRecycled paper
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) §
TOWN OF DANBY )
I, the undersigned Clerk of the Town of Danby, Tompkins
County, New York, DO HEREBY CERTIFY:
That I have compared the annexed extract of the minutes of
the meeting of the Town Board (the "Town Board") , including the
resolutions contained therein, held on the day of
, 19 , with the original thereof on file in my
office, and that the same true and correct transcript therefrom
and of the whole of said original so far as the same related to
the subject matters therein referred to.
I FURTHER CERTIFY That all members of said Town Board had
due notice of said meeting.
I FURTHER CERTIFY That, pursuant to Section 103 of the
Public Officers Law (Open Meetings Law) , said meeting was open to
the general public.
I FURTHER CERTIFY That, prior to the time of said meeting,
I duly caused a public notice of the time and place of said meeting
to be given to the following newspapers and/or other news media as
follows:
News aper and/or Other News Media Date Given
s-�.,- 9, l, /34
I FURTHER CERTIFY That prior to the time of said meeting, I
duly caused public notice of the time and place of said meeting to be
conspicuously posted in the following designated location(s) on the
following dates:
Designated Locations(s) of
Posted Notice Date of Postin.
1
I
t I C% .
. , , .. ..
P 13 /. & I G geger/ .
I
, . 4 -ft YI- 17
, ,
f'
arm e • hid/1**,1
..............
' P.-12sJ- ilq (.; d
/ —7 0 6,1 -� . 4
_LigOa_e_,.4, ,Ai 'e-xe,-, 7og e6,,,,/,4 A:64 ,
Jszaz-rk„ cJ\--e-i4_, fy4_() •,),,,01-,e, ,pto,,, ti igirs ‘ -
e r\-- 303 C -
• - /-7, 67,jd ,
i
0
M
i _
i
____
.---\ ,
I
TO: ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS OF TOWN OF DANBY TAX
PARCEL NO. 9.-1-9.12
FROM: TOWN OF DANBY
THE FOLLOWING IS TO NOTIFY NEIGHBORS OF AN A PROPOSED LOCAL LAW
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO BOUNDARIES AND
PERMITTED USES OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE 10 LOCATED AT 303
GUNDERMAN ROAD (Angelheart Designs, Inc.)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN,that a Public Hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town
of Danby on Wednesday, June 4, 1997 at 6:00 P.M., Danby Town Hall, 1830 Danby Road, Ithaca,
New York 14850. Purpose of the hearing is to consider approval of a general plan for the proposed
enlargement of Planned Development Zone 10, located at 303 Gunderman Road, on a portion of
Town of Danby Tax Parcel No. 9.-1-9.12, from 5.22 acres to 9.22 acres and with such enlarged Zone
to include a proposed design studio/future residence and a new access drive. And further, to consider
a Local Law entitled "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF DANBY ZONING
ORDINANCE RELATED TO BOUNDARIES AND PERMITTED USES OF PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT ZONE 10 AND ADJOINING LANDS".
All interested parties will be given the opportunity to be heard either in writing or in person.
Carol W. Sczepanski, Town Clerk
Dated: May 22, 1997
Posted: May 22, 1997
i
' � 1 \ : o I o
P� t I
e o r r--" op ._ \-14.71•••_ l o/
'el � e�J. o�
iE 1 I
I
r - l I-- I \--;\ reawgm■
7—\\7-------
. 9 AdyclN,�,-Ai: . I .
. ,ter-', i i � � --���
.a - i X •ERMAN • o L 1 e I• e Li I. 1 RonoI•\ : '' J.,
- I ' . ^ °� ;P,_ I ° i o={a \%\ �:
o �
Q �� � , !"- i 1 I 1 ` I
•
k:-.11.9
di�
. ,? ` `
..
•
To: Members of the Town Board
Fr: Joseph Cheng
Re: Angleheart Development
Date: June 2 , 1997
Request to Forbid Future Activities in Silk Screening
One of our grave concerns regarding the Angleheart Development
is the underground water pollution caused by silk screening and
fabric dying that might resume in the future. It is our hope that
the Town Board will expressively forbid silk screening/fabric dying
in the proposed design studio and in all existing facilities, as •
well as the future transfer of the property to another owner who
might resume such practice . Such stipulation must be incorporated
in the written record as to protect the future generation.
Specifically, we propose that the following sentence be added to
item 3 (a) in Section 1 of the Local Law Amending the Town of Danby
Zoning Ordinance Related to Zone 10 :
Activities relating to silk screening or fabric dying will be
forbidden.
Adding such statement to the document will provide the residents
the most basic protection they deserve: protection of health.
We hope you will do your utmost to safeguard the well being of the
people of Danby. Thank you for your understanding and
consideration.
Cp-29
^ r a (A k( i !
TO TOWN OF DANBY, PLANNING BOARD
APP 3 0
BTOWN BOARD, TOWN OF DAfciY ` ,.
FROM: Linda Fetherb
RE: Engleheart anned Devel.pment
Date: April 30, 1997
I am writing as a concerned resident in respect to the Angelheart Design
Proposal to the Danby Planning Board for an additional expansion to their
already expanded development.
At last summer's public hearing, the residents in the immediate vicinity of the
Angelheart business were reassured that there were no future plans for any
further expansions. Now, they are once again expanding.
Gunderman Road was originally zoned as residential and farming. The majority
of the people living on this road prefer the area to remain zoned this way. I feel
any further growth with Angleheart's will affect the value of our homes, the way
of life, the water table and increased traffic and noise.
As I live the closest to the Engleheart's I am affected more by the noise and
traffic. The present business is not run on a "nine to five" basis; there is
production going on late into the night and early morning hours. I have been
awakened by the bright lights in the barn; in the summer I am awakened by
music and voices and need to keep my window on the east side closed.
I ask the Planning Board and Town Board to take seriously the concerns of the
residents on Gunderman Road. I would like to see the Planning Board stipulate
that the approved expansion be granted only to the present owners, Mathew and
Jean Engleheart not to any additional partners; and if sold, the property not be
allowed to conduct business under the new owners, but be brought back to the
Planning Board for review.
I have reason to believe there may be apartments in the top floor of the barn,
based on activity during late evening hours. This was brought up at last year's
public hearing and at first it was denied, then recanted by Mathew that he had a
i
friend living in the upstairs of the barn -which tells me there are apartments. I
don't believe mutt-family living was granted for the barn.
I appreciate the Planning Board and Town Board taking the time to hear my
concerns and respectfully request that you consider my points as well as
comments made from other concerned neighbors.
7
•
u-.
Apa ,fat
TO: TOWN OF DANBY, PLANNING BOARD
TOWN BOARD, TOWN OF DAISY _ '
FROM: Linda Fetherba�i1 %1 c�' ;__�, :_.,- � ,%� =�'
RE: Engleheart /armed Devel pment
Date: April 30, 1997
I am writing as a concerned resident in respect to the Angelheart Design
Proposal to the Danby Planning Board for an additional expansion to their
already expanded development.
At last summer's public hearing, the residents in the immediate vicinity of the
Angelheart business were reassured that there were no future plans for any
further expansions. Now, they are once again expanding.
Gunderman Road was originally zoned as residential and farming. The majority
of the people living on this road prefer the area to remain zoned this way. I feel
any further growth with Angleheart's will affect the value of our homes, the way
of life, the water table and increased traffic and noise.
As I live the closest to the Engleheart's I am affected more by the noise and
traffic. The present business is not run on a "nine to five" basis; there is
production going on late into the night and early morning hours. I have been
awakened by the bright lights in the barn; in the summer I am awakened by
music and voices and need to keep my window on the east side closed.
I ask the Planning Board and Town Board to take seriously the concerns of the
residents on Gunderman Road. I would like to see the Planning Board stipulate
that the approved expansion be granted only to the present owners, Mathew and
Jean Engleheart not to any additional partners; and if sold, the property not be
allowed to conduct business under the new owners, but be brought back to the
Planning Board for review.
I have reason to believe there may be apartments in the top floor of the barn,
based on activity during late evening hours. This was brought up at last year's
public hearing and at first it was denied, then recanted by Mathew that he had a
friend living in the upstairs of the barn - which tells me there are apartments. I
don't believe mutt-family living was granted for the barn.
I appreciate the Planning Board and Town Board taking the time to hear my
concerns and respectfully request that you consider my points as well as
comments made from other concerned neighbors.
TOMPKINS
COUNTY
Ts' OF DANBY - TOMPKINS COUNTY
1830 DANBY ROAD (607)277-4788
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850-9419 Fax: (607)277-0559
TO: Supervisor Mary Oltz
Councilpersons: Edw. Inman
Rosa Lee Johnson
Joseph Schwartz
Howard Steiner
FROM : Carol W. Sczepanski, Town Clerk \
DATE: May 22, 1997
RE: Proposed Local Law - Angelheart Designs
Enclosed is your copy of the proposed local law entitled: "A LOCAL LAW
AMENDING THE TOWN OF DANBY ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO
BOUNDARIES AND PERMITTED USES OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE 10
AND ADJOINING LANDS".
A public hearing notice will appear in the Ithaca Journal on May 23, 1997
and is scheduled for Wednesday, June 4, 1997 at 6:00 P.M. I have posted
the notice of hearing and mailed Neighbor Notification Notice to surrounding
residents.
You received the Application, SEQR and related materials along with a
copy of the Planning Board Recommendation (Resolution No. 2 of 1997)
at your Agenda Meeting on May 7, 1997.
•
1 Planning Board Resolution
Resolution No. 2 of 1997
April 30, 1997
RESOLUTION NO 2. OF 1997
ENLARGEMENT OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE 10 (ANGELHEART DESIGNS)-
RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN BOARD
By Nancy Weitzel: Seconded by Mary Lou Hardesty
WHEREAS, Angelheart Designs, Inc. Has requested that Planned Development Zone 10, located
at 303 Gunderman Road, on a portion of Town of Danby Tax parcel No. 9.-1-9.12, be enlarged from
5.22 acres to 12.70 acres, with such enlarged zone to include a proposed design studio/future
residence, and a new access drive; and
WHEREAS, this request is a Type 1 action for which the Town of Danby Town Board has been
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review, and for which the Town of
Danby Planning Board and the Tompkins County Department of Planning are involved agencies
which have been notified of this action; and
WHEREAS,the Town of Danby Planning Board,at and following public hearing on April 16, 1997,
and on April 23, 1997, has reviewed the application materials including the Long Environmental
Assessment Form and recommendation of the Code Enforcement Officer that a negative
determination of environmental significance be made for this action; now, therefore, it is
RESOLVED, that the Town of Danby Planning Board recommends to the Town Board that a
negative determination of environmental significance be made for this Type 1 action; and it is further
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board recommends to the Town Board that the General Site Plan
entitled "Revised Site Plan of Planned Development Zone 10 Showing Proposed Modification to
Boundaries and Proposed Design Studio", by Angelheart Designs, Inc., Patrick Gillis, Agent, dated
April 4, 1997 be approved with various modifications including but not limited to a reduction in size
of the proposed expansion area as described in the proposed local law which follows, and it is further
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board recommends to the Town Board that a new local law
amending the Town of Danby Zoning Ordinance be enacted, to read as follows:
"TOWN OF DANBY
LOCAL LAW NO. OF 1997
A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF DANBY ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED
TO BOUNDARIES AND PERMITTED USES OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE 10
AND ADJOINING LANDS
Section 1. The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Danby as reenacted and readopted by the Town
Board on December 11, 1991, and subsequently amended, is further amended as follows:
1. Town of Danby Planned Development Zone 10 is hereby amended in size from its present
2 Planning Board Resolution
Resolution No. 2 of 1997
April 30, 1997
size of 5.22 acres, to a new site of 9.22 acres, whereby an area of 3_9 acres to the east and south of
the present Planned Development Zone 10, as described in Schedule A attached, and an area of 0_1
acre to the west of the present Planned Development Zone 10, as described in Schedule B attached,
are rezoned from Low Density Residential Zone to become portions of Planned Development Zone
10.
2. The Zoning Map of the Town of Danby, and the Supplement to the Zoning Map, are hereby
amended to show the revised locations and boundaries of Planned Development Zone 10 as set forth
in this local law.
3. Planned Development Zone 10 shall be subject to the following provisions, notwithstanding
any other pertinent zoning, subdivision, or other regulatory requirements:
(a) The business conducted on the premises shall be limited to a clothing design and
manufacturing business, and shall not include any retail sales of the manufactured
product, unless a Special Permit for such retail sales is obtained from the Planning
Board.
(b) Any permitted principal or accessory use permitted in a Low Density Residential
Zone is also permitted in Planned Development Zone 10.
(c ) Subdivision of Planned Development Zone 10 for the purpose of creating one or
more new residential lots is permitted subject to subdivision and site plan approval
by the Planning board.
(d) The construction of the proposed design studio/future residence, proposed southerly
access drive, parking areas, and the proposed future addition south of the main
manufacturing buildings shall be as shown on the final site plan approved by the
Planning Board,which final site plan shall be substantially in accord with the general
site plans entitled "Revised Site Plan of Planned Development Zone 10 Showing
Proposed Modification to Boundaries and Proposed Design Studio", Angelheart
Designs, Inc., Patrick Gillis, Agent, dated April r, 1997; and "Phase 2 Site Plan of
Expanded Planned Development Zone 10 showing Future Building Addition,
Angelheart Designs, 303 Gunderman Road, Spencer, New York, 14883 (Town of
Danby)," by Schickel Architecture, dated May 13, 1996, with revision to title only
dated May 31, 1996, except where the boundaries of Planned Development Zone 10
are further modified by this local law. No other alteration, amendment, or change in
the final site plans as approved by the Planning Board is permitted, without further
approval by the Planning Board, except as provided in the Zoning Ordinance relative
to modifications to site plans. When the Planning Board is of the reasonable opinion
that the modified site plan or plans are a significant deviation from the general site
plans referenced above, no modified site plan or plans shall be approved by the
3 Planning Board Resolution
Resolution No. 2 of 1997
April 30, 1997
Planning Board until the site plan or plans have been submitted to, and approved by,
the Town board after public hearing.
(e) Any consideration by the Planning Board of final site plan approval for the "future
addition" to the main Angelheart Designs, Inc. Building complex, as shown on the
aforementioned general site plans, shall be accompanied by a Public Hearing. In
consideration of such final site plan approval, the Planning Board may place
additional restrictions on the size and design of the addition, the hours of operation,
traffic generated related to the addition, and lighting when the Planning Board in its
judgement has determined that such restrictions would mitigate significant impacts
to the neighborhood.
(f) New development in the entire area of Planned Development Zone 10, shall be
limited to the following, except as such structures might be modified pursuant to the
provisions of Section 802 of the Town of Danby Zoning Ordinance relative to Final
Site Plan Approval and Modifications of Site Plans:
(I) the proposed design studio/future residence shown on the map entitled
"Revised Site Plan of Planned Development Zone 10 Showing Proposed
Modification to Boundaries and Proposed Design Studio", Angelheart
Designs, Inc., Patrick Gillis, Agent, dated April 4, 1997; and to an accessory
structure, accessory to the design studio/future residence similar in design to
a residential garage and not exceeding 500 square feet;
(ii) the proposed new access drive, future addition, and loading dock shown on
the map entitled "Revised Site Plan of Planned Development Zone 10
Showing Proposed Modification to Boundaries and Proposed Design Studio",
Angelheart Designs, Inc., Patrick Gillis, Agent dated April 4, 1997; and
(iii) future parking in an amount deemed to be needed by the Planning Board in
its review of the proposed future addition shown on the map entitled
"Revised Site Plan of Planned Development Zone 10 Showing Proposed
Modification to Boundaries and Proposed Design Studio", Angelheart
Designs, Inc., Patrick Gillis, Agent, dated April 4, 1997.
(g) An evergreen tree buffer shall be planted along the south boundary of the expanded
Planned Development Zone 10 easterly for a distance of 200 feet from the southwest
corner of that Zone by no later than June 1, 1998.
(h) Yards, signs, height, and building area shall be in conformity with the requirements
for same in a Commercial Zone, except that, if new lots are subdivided within the
Planned Development Zone for use as residential lots, the Planning Board may
require that yard dimensions be the same as those required in Low Density Zone,
unless such dimensions are modified in the course of a clustered subdivision review
•
4 Planning Board Resolution
Resolution No.2 of 1997
April 30, 1997
process.
(I) No parking for any uses or facilities within the Planned Development Zone shall be
permitted on Gunderman Road.
4. The land remaining as Low Density Residential Zone as described in Schedule C attached
shall remain undeveloped and in either open space or agricultural use, except for the existing access
drive and accessory improvements to that access drive.
Section 2. This local law supersedes any prior local laws or resolutions of the Town Board
related to the subject Planned Development zone.
Section 3. In the event that any portion of this law is declared invalid by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the validity of the remaining portions of this law shall not be affected by such
declaration of invalidity.
Section 4. This law shall take effect 5 days after its adoption or the date it is filed in the Office
of the Secretary of the State of New York, whichever is later.
SCHEDULE A
Description of lands to the south and east of the existing Planned Development Zone 10 which being
rezoned from Low Density Residential Zone to become a portion of Planned Development Zone 10.
Commencing at a point on the west boundary of Town of Danby Tax Parcel No. 9.-1-1.12, which
point is 569.5 feet southerly from the centerline of Gunderman Road and which point is the
southwest corner of the present Planned Development Zone 10;
Running thence southerly along the west boundary of the above Tax parcel a distance of 200 feet;
Running thence easterly and parallel to the centerline of Gunderman Road a distance of 600 feet to
a point;
Running thence northerly in a line perpendicular to the centerline of Gunderman Road a distance of
450 feet;
Running thence westerly in a line parallel to the centerline of Gunderman Road a distance of 200 feet
to a point on the eastern boundary of the present Planned Development Zone 10;
Running thence southerly along the eastern boundary of the present Planned Development Zone 10
a distance of 250 feet;
Running thence westerly along the southern boundary of the present Planned Development Zone 10
5 Planning Board Resolution
Resolution No. 2 of 1997
April30, 1997
a distance of 400 feet to the point or place of beginning.
SCHEDULE B
Description of lands to the west of the existing Planned Development Zone 10 being rezoned from
Low Density Residential Zone to become a portion of Planned Development Zone 10:
All that certain tract or parcel of land, situate in the Town of Danby, County of Tompkins and State
of New York, bounded and described as follows:
Commencing at a point in the centerline of Gunderman Road, said point being located
westerly a distance of 1,721 feet from the intersection of said centerline with the centerline of
Comfort Road; thence North 82 degrees,45 minutes West along said centerline of Gunderman Road
a distance of 15 feet to a point; thence South 8 degrees, 28 minutes West a distance of 300 feet to
a point; thence South 82 degrees, 45 minutes East a distance of 15 feet to a point; thence North 8
degrees, 28 minutes East a distance of 300 feet to the point or place of beginning.
Being the premises conveyed by Charles H. Tilton and Patricia A. Woodworth to Matthew
C. And Jeanne E. Engeihart by deed dated March 15, 1997 and recorded in the office of the
Tompkins County Clerk in Book 792 of deeds, Page 300.
SCHEDULE C
Description of Lands to the north and east of Planned Development Zone 10 to remain as Low
Density Residential Zone as described in Paragraph 4 of this Local Law which shall remain
undeveloped and in either open space or agricultural use, except for the existing access drive and
accessory improvements to that access drive.
All that portion of Town of Danby Tax parcel No. 9.-1-9.12 which is bounded as follows:
Commencing at a point at the intersection of the east property line of Town of Danby Tax parcel No.
9.-1-0.12 with the centerline of Gunderman road;
Running thence southerly along the east property line of said Tax Parcel a distance of 769.5 feet;
Running thence westerly in a line parallel to the centerline of Gunderman Road a distance of 120
feet;
Running thence northerly in a line perpendicular to the centerline of Gunderman Road a distance of
450 feet;
Running thence westerly in a line parallel to the centerline of Gunderman Road a distance of 200
feet;
Running thence northerly in a line perpendicular to the centerline of Gunderman Road a distance of
•
6 Planning Board Resolution
Resolution No. 2 of 1997
April 30, 1997
319.5 feet to a point on the centerline of Gunderman Road;
Running thence easterly along the centerline of Gunderman Road a distance of 320 feet to the point
of beginning."
A roll call vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Catlin Aye
Hansen Aye
Hardesty Aye
Weitzel Aye
Horst Aye Carried Unanimously
Planning Board Resolution No. 2 of 1997
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS:
TOWN OF DANBY )
I Carol W. Sczepanski, Town Clerk in the Town of Danby, a Municipal Corporation of the County of Tompkins,
State of New York, hereby certify that the forgoing resolution is a true and exact copy of a resolution duly adopted
by the Planning Board of said Town of Danby at a Speical meeting held on the 30th day of April , 1997.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the Seal of the Town of Danby,this 7th day of Mav
, 1997.
6):64-0/4 dycsit
Carol W. Scze•. . i, Town Clerk
•
•
, , , 4 61 (CW1
•
• • 04.)
Section 901 - GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED FOR ALL SPECIAL
PERMITS. No Special Permit will be granted by the Planning Board unless Ilic site plan meets the
requirements for approval of same set forth above and unless the requested activity or facility meets
the following requirements:
1. It will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare;
2. It will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the vicinity or
neighborhood;
3. It will not impede the orderly development of the vicinity or neighborhood;
36
•
4. The street system and off-street parking facilities can handle the expected traffic in a
safe and efficient manner,
5. Natural surface water drainagcways arc not adversely affected;
•
6. Water and sewerage or waste disposal facilities arc adequate;
7. The general environmental quality of the proposal, in terns of site planning,
architectural design, and landscaping, is compatible with the character of the
neighborhood;
8. Lot area, access, parking, and loading facilities arc sufficient for the proposed
activities;
9. The requested activity or facility conforms in all other respects to the applicable
regulations of the Zone in which it is located;
10. The applicant has shown that steps will be taken where necessary to meet all applicable
general regulations; and
11. The site plan, when required, has been approved in accordance with the provisions for
approval of site plans sct forth above.
Section 805-GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. The Planning Board's rcvicw of a gcncral,
r r preliminary, or final site plan shall include as appropriate, but shall not be limited to, the following
considerations: CcrfCrWI 201'"'N.4 OYA
•
�.. 1. Adequacy, arrangement, and location of vehicular access and circulation, including
intersections, road widths, pavcrrrent surfaces, off-street parking and loading areas, and
traffic controls.
2. Adequacy, arrangement, and location of pedestrian and bicycle traffic access and
circulation, control of intersections with vehicular traffic, and appropriate provisions
for handicapped persons.
3. Adequacy, location, arrangement, size, design, and general site compatibility of
buildings, lighting, signs, open spaces, and outdoor waste disposal facilities.
4. Adequacy, type, and arrangement of trees, shrubs, and other landscaping constituting
a visual and/or noise-deterring buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands,
including the retention of existing vcgctation of value to the maximum extent possible.
5. In the case of a residential property, and in the case of other properties whcrc
appropriate, the adequacy and utility of open space for playgrounds and for informal
recreation.
6. Protection of adjacent properties and the general public against noise, glare,
unsightliness, and noxious odors, air, water and soil or other objectionable features.
33
•
•
Denby.ard.wp51.denby..09/14/95 11:56em
7. Adequacy of storm water, drainage, water supply, and sewage disposal facilities.
8. Adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency provisions.
9. The effect of the proposed development on environmentally sensitive arcas including
but not limited to wetlands, flood plains, woodlands, steep slopes, and watcr courses,
and on other open space areas of importance to the neighborhood or community.
10. Compatibility of structures and other site improvements with adjoining land uses and
the general neighborhood.
11. Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision regulations, if applicable, and any
other applicable laws, rules, requirements, or policies.
•
•
Proposed Local Law
Angelheart Designs
1
"TOWN OF DANBY
LOCAL LAW NO. OF 1997
A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF DANBY ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED
TO BOUNDARIES AND PERMITTED USES OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE 10
AND ADJOINING LANDS
Section 1. The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Danby as reenacted and readopted by the Town
Board on December 11, 1991, and subsequently amended, is further amended as follows:
1. Town of Danby Planned Development Zone 10 is hereby amended in size from its present
size of 5.22 acres,to a new site of 9.22 acres, whereby an area of 3.9 acres to the east and south of
the present Planned Development Zone 10, as described in Schedule A attached, and an area of 0.1
acre to the west of the present Planned Development Zone 10, as described in Schedule B attached,
are rezoned from Low Density Residential Zone to become portions of Planned Development Zone
10.
2. The Zoning Map of the Town of Danby, and the Supplement to the Zoning Map, are hereby
amended to show the revised locations and boundaries of Planned Development Zone 10 as set forth
in this local law.
3. Planned Development Zone 10 shall be subject to the following provisions, notwithstanding
any other pertinent zoning, subdivision, or other regulatory requirements:
(a) The business conducted on the premises shall be limited to a clothing design and
manufacturing business, and shall not include any retail sales of the manufactured
product, unless a Special Permit for such retail sales is obtained from the Planning
Board.
(b) Any permitted principal or accessory use permitted in a Low Density Residential
Zone is also permitted in Planned Development Zone 10.
(c ) Subdivision of Planned Development Zone 10 for the purpose of creating one or
more new residential lots is permitted subject to subdivision and site plan approval
by the Planning Board.
(d) The construction of the proposed design studio/future residence, proposed southerly
access drive, parking areas, and the proposed future addition south of the main
manufacturing buildings shall be as shown on the final site plan approved by the
Planning Board,which final site plan shall be substantially in accord with the general
site plans entitled "Revised Site Plan of Planned Development Zone 10 Showing
Proposed Modification to Boundaries and Proposed Design Studio", Angelheart
Designs, Inc., Patrick Gillis, Agent, dated April 4, 1997; and "Phase 2 Site Plan of
'
Proposed Local Law
Angelheart Designs
2
Expanded Planned Development Zone 10 showing Future Building Addition,
Angelheart Designs, 303 Gunderman Road, Spencer, New York, 14883 (Town of
Danby)," by Schickel Architecture, dated May 13, 1996, with revision to title only
dated May 31, 1996, except where the boundaries of Planned Development Zone 10
are further modified by this local law. No other alteration, amendment, or change in
the final site plans as approved by the Planning Board is permitted, without further
approval by the Planning Board, except as provided in the Zoning Ordinance relative
to modifications to site plans. When the Planning Board is of the reasonable opinion
that the modified site plan or plans are a significant deviation from the general site
plans referenced above, no modified site plan or plans shall be approved by the
Planning Board until the site plan or plans have been submitted to, and approved by,
the Town Board after public hearing.
(e) Any consideration by the Planning Board of final site plan approval for the "future
addition" to the main Angelheart Designs, Inc. Building complex, as shown on the
aforementioned general site plans, shall be accompanied by a Public Hearing. In
consideration of such final site plan approval, the Planning Board may place
additional restrictions on the size and design of the addition, the hours of operation,
traffic generated related to the addition, and lighting when the Planning Board in its
judgement has determined that such restrictions would mitigate significant impacts
to the neighborhood.
(f) New development in the entire area of Planned Development Zone 10, shall be
limited to the following, except as such structures might be modified pursuant to the
provisions of Section 802 of the Town of Danby Zoning Ordinance relative to Final
Site Plan Approval and Modifications of Site Plans:
(i) the proposed design studio/future residence shown on the map entitled
"Revised Site Plan of Planned Development Zone 10 Showing Proposed
Modification to Boundaries and Proposed Design Studio", Angelheart
Designs, Inc., Patrick Gillis, Agent, dated April 4, 1997; and to an accessory
structure, accessory to the design studio/future residence similar in design to
a residential garage and not exceeding 500 square feet;
(ii) the proposed new access drive, future addition, and loading dock shown on
the map entitled "Revised Site Plan of Planned Development Zone 10
Showing Proposed Modification to Boundaries and Proposed Design Studio",
Angelheart Designs, Inc., Patrick Gillis, Agent dated April 4, 1997; and
(iii) future parking in an amount deemed to be needed by the Planning Board in
its review of the proposed future addition shown on the map entitled
"Revised Site Plan of Planned Development Zone 10 Showing Proposed
Modification to Boundaries and Proposed Design Studio", Angelheart
Designs, Inc., Patrick Gillis, Agent, dated April 4, 1997.
Proposed Local Law
Angelheart Designs
4
450 feet;
Running thence westerly in a line parallel to the centerline of Gunderman Road a distance of 200 feet
to a point on the eastern boundary of the present Planned Development Zone 10;
Running thence southerly along the eastern boundary of the present Planned Development Zone 10
a distance of 250 feet;
Running thence westerly along the southern boundary of the present Planned Development Zone 10
a distance of 400 feet to the point or place of beginning.
SCHEDULE B
Description of lands to the west of the existing Planned Development Zone 10 being rezoned from
Low Density Residential Zone to become a portion of Planned Development Zone 10:
All that certain tract or parcel of land, situate in the Town of Danby, County of Tompkins and State
of New York, bounded and described as follows:
Commencing at a point in the centerline of Gunderman Road, said point being located
westerly a distance of 1,721 feet from the intersection of said centerline with the centerline of
Comfort Road; thence North 82 degrees,45 minutes West along said centerline of Gunderman Road
a distance of 15 feet to a point; thence South 8 degrees, 28 minutes West a distance of 300 feet to
a point; thence South 82 degrees, 45 minutes East a distance of 15 feet to a point; thence North 8
degrees, 28 minutes East a distance of 300 feet to the point or place of beginning.
Being the premises conveyed by Charles H. Tilton and Patricia A. Woodworth to Matthew
C. And Jeanne E. Engelhart by deed dated March 15, 1997 and recorded in the office of the
Tompkins County Clerk in Book 792 of deeds, Page 300.
SCHEDULE C
Description of Lands to the north and east of Planned Development Zone 10 to remain as Low
Density Residential Zone as described in Paragraph 4 of this Local Law which shall remain
undeveloped and in either open space or agricultural use, except for the existing access drive and
accessory improvements to that access drive.
All that portion of Town of Danby Tax parcel No. 9.-1-9.12 which is bounded as follows:
Commencing at a point at the intersection of the east property line of Town of Danby Tax parcel No.
9.-1-1.12 with the centerline of Gunderman road;
Running thence southerly along the east property line of said Tax Parcel a distance of 769.5 feet;
Running thence westerly in a line parallel to the centerline of Gunderman Road a distance of 120
Proposed Local Law
Angelheart Designs
3
(g) An evergreen tree buffer shall be planted along the south boundary of the expanded
Planned Development Zone 10 easterly for a distance of 200 feet from the southwest
corner of that Zone by no later than June 1, 1998.
(h) Yards, signs, height, and building area shall be in conformity with the requirements
for same in a Commercial Zone, except that, if new lots are subdivided within the
Planned Development Zone for use as residential lots, the Planning Board may
require that yard dimensions be the same as those required in Low Density Zone,
unless such dimensions are modified in the course of a clustered subdivision review
process.
(I) No parking for any uses or facilities within the Planned Development Zone shall be
permitted on Gunderman Road.
4. The land remaining as Low Density Residential Zone as described in Schedule C attached
shall remain undeveloped and in either open space or agricultural use, except for the existing access
drive and accessory improvements to that access drive.
Section 2. This local law supersedes any prior local laws or resolutions of the Town Board
related to the subject Planned Development zone.
Section 3. In the event that any portion of this law is declared invalid by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the validity of the remaining portions of this law shall not be affected by such
declaration of invalidity.
Section 4. This law shall take effect 5 days after its adoption or the date it is filed in the Office
of the Secretary of the State of New York, whichever is later.
SCHEDULE A
Description of lands to the south and east of the existing Planned Development Zone 10 which being
rezoned from Low Density Residential Zone to become a portion of Planned Development Zone 10.
Commencing at a point on the west boundary of Town of Danby Tax Parcel No. 9.-1-1.12, which
point is 569.5 feet southerly from the centerline of Gunderman Road and which point is the
southwest corner of the present Planned Development Zone 10;
Running thence southerly along the west boundary of the above Tax Parcel a distance of 200 feet;
Running thence easterly and parallel to the centerline of Gunderman Road a distance of 600 feet to
a point;
Running thence northerly in a line perpendicular to the centerline of Gunderman Road a distance of
Proposed Local Law
Angelheart Designs
5
feet;
Running thence northerly in a line perpendicular to the centerline of Gunderman Road a distance of
450 feet;
Running thence westerly in a line parallel to the centerline of Gunderman Road a distance of 200
feet;
Running thence northerly in a line perpendicular to the centerline of Gunderman Road a distance of
319.5 feet to a point on the centerline of Gunderman Road;
Running thence easterly along the centerline of Gunderman Road a distance of 320 feet to the point
of beginning."
SNJISDO 12V]H2ENb
o z
w
E W 0)
w O M
d N
o O �
IX u)
a Z
O
o ,OZL IN3WdO1 3A3a a3NNVld 03SOd0?:id I Z
Lij
, ? I ,004 .12\131/1d01 3A3C1 a3NNvldJNLLSIX3 I 0
co
1 I2 L
Z H' O'YOM Nb_Wa3ONf10 £0£
Z
E IIII ( II 1
w io Fil-ks, sAM ,x ,--'____ ___—
I N-
W r I �� V
a S I y0i O D J
q II.
m OJ ' I !oi i 16 .� W Q d I Z CO , Q
n W $ m (( _
w b `:!......:'.i`: H � � III � E �
m I x /1IM h m i z
roi Z w R.� �o ! � W Z II �•r2 w' Z R. �o i i \�1' �I oian±S • _ ,-
0 ° V' Y NJIS30 0 <L
_�_ ti� 03SOdOad 0 CO W
LLQ
Q1 O 0 11: ^gyp \ --7;e,,,, ; O U _1
Z > — g. _h tom' qsZ �' Z J
w cn 0 O CO
z p X N�oa ® _ Y
Z w `JNIOb•Ol JiiiiiiiIIIII
CI ~ O
J __ � ll3M �acI3S LJ,J Q _ U
a Z Q _ ® � Z U 0
m Z _ r J11 l 1111}1111111 z ,� 1-
Q at c1---- 1-----1---� Q 0 0 Q
0 J •� r i 9•o;.•! J CL
w a .o...•/".M. 0
0 ' ONINNVd Z
W 0 Ld33 3LIRLfId LL (�
2 o 0
�!� Z W W
0 a 663 Qcg0Z
w E:9 I a CO
CC cr
63 1' . us 0- cn
CL
�3 r 1 / oC.0OW
W Z � 0
OZL IN3WdOl3n30 a3NNbld a3SOdOL�d c) 5 CL 1--
009 I OZl w O <
(X = W
c0 _
J
W
U
Z
Q
6. �� f. S
r 1 141 n „ ri
S $ DLO g �3 ' �
Cf7 4
Zi Imo '' iav)€ a � . SiY
0Y041 MtifL+3C1•R'J CC! .. .. O
ell v ,� o
a
1
-4
1
— �\\1 1 T_
..... kk.,0;.,,r 1
i.; . i)....t. \ , 0 __.] 1
AL___J i ! .1-'
I 11.1
is ,
\ � , .1
1 ' i t i
II
I !`�:
'' _ < o
i 1
1� �• I r-- \\
I I , t
'--i*4St I I .��•• f I
I ,
1
+ o! ; II
IIITI.. TrITI_............1: 1: :.. '1,
i I
_......1 ....._-... _.._.�.-_ ,004 :rL�l77td011A70 03NM/'d —.� _. — ' --- i._ .: .
._._.. ..... _.J _ )
'x ,jTT[6 1t t - AOt - - A+t° i- 111-I ilfHhJllJI 1 L
1. U o $ o i
1 { I 1 , 1 , I 1 I I -•� II
I I , t l „ I l , r
, -.- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i I , l i /
1iFH + HH 'lH ' L ; )i
5
SNJISDG 11VDH1DJNV
w o
a
w �
F ( rn
0 C":5
C.4 a CV
3 0 V
O rz 0
co Q. Z
0
o �OZL 1N3Wd013A30 a3NNV1d a3SOd021d I _Z <n
�OOb IN3WdOl3A30 03NNV1d ONIISIX3 I 0 rY
� m
z OVOM NYWa3ON10 £OF �
� H ___ _.. . , _ . . __.. . .•_. , . �7..._1.ft...0.ft mi a
rr
ww' I 1 I 1 I
-443.-
w �. N I CO
w i v D a o Z w m • , ++ Zc� _ Q
w i II w +
tY
o : : :z . � 8 /III z o ° i_
Ch o Z
C F- w w= cn m I ■ ' W Z II W
M Z Z i , cC 4
v /
0 Z P LL o , I - \V ! NJIS30 W O <- Q
Ce n Q < g �.. ._,_. —"OC--.—._, yi 03SOdOild O ,00 W
b J J
CO O Z � '- h 4 r .�� _ vi rf O U J
W k ~ J_
Z w 1. • fir ,HII.!IHI!II ® ,hSZ Q O (�
2 p w N000 • Q _ • Y
Jt] w `JNIOVOI . ` 1---.0I1d3S W Q O U
a W ® Z U 0 E
z — _ J11111W LI 1 1111N? _
} Z Z f—
0 1 ` `JNININd w 2 O
w o lI1d3S 3arund o O
w
E cn E!� Z w W U
0 0 E3 Q w p Z
O
iii 0 63
rn a I �'m O /� Z/•
�� � I 000W
CC �
OZL 1N3WdO�3n30 03NNdld 03SOdOiid W Z U) W H
.009 I ,OZ I• w 0 Q
1Y = W
U) =
J
W
Z
Q
. • . ' . - .-. ...7.:,;,.!i-. •144,?!.-,1,-NtaT:::"..-:•• •• • • • • •A., • .
Fingeiheart F` S .rA 4i:: \r) . . •
• Designs • • .. •, •T•..• . 5•
by Jeanne Eng.elhart . \: ; _•, ,..'.-.•• .`;; , : . FtAx5Q. . •
c , �l 1LL 1�ll }�(� �I c
•' ' • . :�•..., . .4'' '''''�.� '.10,. , 1;.'; .∎ .'.•• . MAKER
' •"Angels ItI (3ectiuse'They Toke•T}iemelves lightly" . • . • • • • • • • • • . •
March 26. 1997 TIAiKed '1)av , . 1 0
To: Sue Beeners / Town of Danby Enforcement Code Officer
Dear Sue,
I want to share with you my overall strategy, present and future, for
construction and future development at 303 Gunderman Rd. for
Angelheart Designs. At present there are three pending issues
which we are resolving.
��W 1 . A certificate of occupancy for the new warehouse. The work is
V complete and it is my understanding the certificate will be issued on
3/21/97.
. r 2. Phase Three of the upgrade of the existing barn to code. A
, building permit has been issued. Preliminary drawings are submitted
and foundation construction is underway. We are working closely
with Tom Schickel, our architect, to remedy all problems. Estimated
completion is 7/1/97.
vv 3. The set back infringement on the west side of the building.. A 9 9
purchase offer has been signed by both parties. The sale of the land
that will satisfy the infringement is pending attorney work, and is
imminent.
-J -c---1-- T izo ro iort_.• h
Beyond the scope of this work, we would like to build a private studio
for our design team (see sight plan) in the future. This could serve
as a single family residence, since this house could eventually be a
sub-divide with adequate acreage and road frontage. It is very
important to us that we be able to occupy the studio as soon as
possible to efficiently shift employees to non-renovation areas during
303 Gundermon Road • Spencer . NY 14883 • 607-273-0283 • fox 607-273-0440
2
the extensive Phase Three process. We would like to further add
that we do not intend to add any additional employees in this process
and that there will be no new traffic on Gunderman Road. We also
would like to point out that we intend to preserve the existing apple
orchard which occupies a substantial portion of the planned
development zone. We could, if we wanted, remove all of the trees,
but we feel that would be both visually and environmentally unsavory
to ourselves and our neighbors.
This is everything we have planned for the present Angelheart
Complex. In the future, we may need to add an addition to our
warehouse, perhaps sometime in 1998, but this is only conjecture at
this point. We believe that we already have approval for a significant
extension.
We would like to add that a substantial percent of our 70 employees
are Danby residents. Angelheart has a policy to fill positions with
employees who live as close as possible to our facilities. We offer
good jobs with excellent wages and exceptional benefits. We are
most certain that many of our local businesses can tell you that they
appreciate the extra business we stimulate in our local economy. We
are working hard to rectify our building needs and ask that the Town
of Danby cooperate with our efforts. Anything you could do to
expedite a building permit for our proposed studio would be greatly
appreciated.
Best Regards,
Matthew Engelhart
___ .. .....__. .. .. . . ..
..... ............._....__ ___.•
. „ ...
. '
_ i!'• to
GUNDERMAN 720., • ROAD •
_ .
36 t@6.5 251.5 ' 430 - - -
605 /1 ' ' .• .\1 905 S
C•
- 4.0- 0/
/////// 71\\\ X•
8 /„<-1\-\\N
D(ISITNG P.D. y(4 ...z,,-. ,,\\ .,,f___.. PROPOSED P.D. ZONE
1.96 •. ,..,
ZONE # 10■•••-) 43.- / ,Z ad , \\\--r- ADDITION. 01
•• . AC. 5.75AC.CAL. , • la is '\ '• N., s'\
. / /' • - •in I. '', ' `
in .-111 / .." Z - ' \-\\ N ul ,E;No (617. 3
•• ,...;•
/ A nn ,-- `.. ' ', N \ rr, •
) 41;
ch ,.." /.1 V\./, . \ \ \ \<,.
'•:, q:, ' ' . ..e..,:. !, \\\,. 19.12 AC CAL
•
:,.
N \\ife\iv‘• \\ \ \ \ ''t, N. 11tre,12vitelid(111/411
i rs, \ -• k
1 . .
., . 75.1 AC CAL
....• ‘
\ "
. 720 5 e_12. toeo 3
l•
290
nsA(--f-
\\ -, REMAINING LANDS
!Jr , . .
;...:k : \ • - M & J Engelhart
1
t.v1 •
r•,.1 :. 1 9-1-9.12
1 .
5. (
it,0 ;••.• L
I r.,
0
0 .
.:..... 4 --• I •
-..„. .
-ir ;,..:,.•.: .
1
, 1 56 ,
7 32 I
- 3.0 : AC 0
•
7..;:.r 38,55 AC. CAL. 1 f.i
.
.i■il- .
r 3.... . i 41.83
1
1 AC CAL 12.1 \GE SUMINZY;
1
EXISTING 17,.D. ZONE 5.22 acres
PROPOSED ADDITION 7.48 acres
• 1
r.`.1.: ..‘, •i 1 Total 12.70 acres
• .t....,,
.6 BO 3.
0 I
• RMAINING LANDS .
969.5
; 1.,:il : ' w
N 1 (LD Zone). 14.2 acres
AC.
• .
it 4.°, •'t. ; •1 I 0
0 •
':4‘.:0”.,'. '' ,• I
.
.4
:ii•(,Atki4- '
...A• IC1:.,....
1
i 1V:4•31,.. ..•
...;.1:41......,..i.....:.:.', ..
•k3'.• l'It.'-i'' ...
' ..ii:FI::::, fr. .
/ 1
1
1
1
1 . ,. .. .
•. ''
-
\ 9 7 5
13.5
6.69
till. . ').. ....s •
• ;:.i..., .}.......,i;Ai
I
k .
•
. .111..,74.;:::..... .
3641 ,4
.44, . ... . • \ .
1 ti ve P ••'.I ..:• 13.2
MAI ',1,v- .. \ .
; !,..:4 0. ,,'
• 59.39 AC
TIPAIti.OV.:...
!;:-!,.0.. .•'•*,.V•.. 4"-1,. 7.1/ \ .
554.5 \
\, I I 30
i321 .
•.,!...'t:: • i.ii.‘4% . . •
4 6 60 5
. •.
. '
•''..I,4 j.i 1 mAl,• •, t, .
. .
•
. •0
( 4-1) ' 0 -.0 •
•
...,.. , 1:;•.1„4!,.,..!.(?.3.%,•.i I ., . .. .
:i....!1.%, •;:tt.':;.,,1 3 • .
,.is.... ..-......,.',f;$• . 1 :.
L.12 GUNDERMAti ■h 720... ' non •
. --n-Thitr- 251.5 430 _t/ I\' - -,7005
li;• saki2 et tat, ‘°' 7 - -" --4.00/ '
13 _
1 V,T=•''',..4 A---- Prtr_se0( L._ ,-b,
8
/v ...1 A-
..,
.,
'DUSTING P.D. .)-1<//,7 o, Azak, v / , PROPOSED P.D. ZONE
1.96.
1 .
, •,, .. ..
zoNE # 10-) 43-z/Z Fc3" ' ' ','•••,; ( ADDITION 9. 3
.• ,. AC. 5.75 A C.CAL.
Li) 3-2/..':,-/L.n, ' . .•:. .•••,<./ in
... .. 104.5
- \ ' '''''''l cT •
;72, - ',,,,,Kp, 19.12 AC. CA
• r. 4,:s...,,... . .....,c'S\\ .-,: .'; -i'.\+'''q.'4, r.
I.. - - - "Th S", ■••':' ' \ \.'.. N.,.., '.--,4
• 1 . e.
rs \ 75.1 AC CAL
\ • .
'720., LP O(.) (2-o
10 GO 3
\ •
\ .6■
SAAe mit- - .
.., REMNINING LANDS
290 \ • • A
- M & J Engelhart.
,.. .
I
9-1-9.12
1 1.5 2
• ' :• • 1 7
. 30.3 A C
'gi • ': 1 0
I■:, .3/4, I .
:* fif ...0 / •
A* ',,:.:c• .
•
':: 1., • i
H 0
, 134 ...
• 14:t.!: ' 7. 32 I
;
:V:'..• 1
1 .,, g •
_
38.55 AC. CAL. 1 LI
..::... .
41.03
1
I AC CAL
I X • • • • SU/VARY:.
EXISTINc .D. ZONE 5.22 acres
PROPOSED •DITICN 7.48 acres
•••!4+.;:''-' .' . I
To
• 1 12, • .- ,70 acres
..iik.,.',. • I
.4.i: .
.,„..690 3.
0 I RRIAINING LANDS ..... 969.5
-;:',4 Y:, ''. . .
I (ID Zone). 14,2 acr .
1 At
; 1..
:A..ias..'l,4..,AV1.o.:1.?,14N.1 Y"?.;:1!•..•...••.,.
. I
. ' .: o.s
I) ) (.i-7l 2. ,-;•4-'..I 7. 5.G.,,
(-1 -7 •
• I
.!... is1,10,..;',..'... • I
. - ..•
•
.: ::1:40.,?...• . . I .
97
I A -1 1.)i.liAz.) ..
1,3.;
:•,... • . '
. , .., .1..: , .. .
1
-1-1) F. D ,
G.G
.• :i..Iii,itc!,...1::,.•0..\..
• •P.O.:.NO.4:.•:•‘•fl i
, .04 41,•*;.I.f• %
1 ,
04.14 ! ' '
• 1 .
k
\ . A)
0 , I 0 c_. . (5,...,tstnd ,,, tl 6. -1---)
_______,........
13.2
1 V,,:ttAl.'''':!:i.;• •• . \ .
•„• •• t..,k ,* . TDTA.L., -P, 'D 59.39 A
•1 .1,:p. Ii.A•t\.,• . : t
,i
\
1 '.!..41:'•.•-" •4.:7:1/. , Traryse-A L D. LI viii' 1 Teo( -1)0k1 . PhircL__ 3, Lf5 .c- 6,.••••••-
r.1, \
A
-I ailii.4: 340.3 334.1
1136
,l1.1,f'“. .4.4:%; •
4e60 3
•:-,),A'. 'A i\ .!.. .
. .. • ..
-., 11 ,1.,• I ,1 f 0 1 ti I . • • ' • i •
.L. :.I'.1z:•1'.../;0'1, V....,..,1 i ... leNt51,61 A 0\ e10-10.6.0 iL )(00.5) C:3)( 1-0.,... 7q-7 . .,
. :I...!.1.t, A.:;.1. .1 •
9 ..
cr,,,.. . ...,..ii t. . k: ,,,
.:":11A• . : rl- ! ,• .'.. Kecomnk.e,nAo A , .buT(GiO lin Ylel H . 4--7)0 kl -7 • .,.
------~--~'----' -- 'v
•= --_ —__. _----- . — '�
__J � . �
v« � � � 071
�' 0- <
K ' k �» � _ «_ ,
� � � --
' �� �- � � � N.
m � � � �
^ ' � � m ~ z � � � 6-- '
� ~--- « � � � rr' �
___ �� � � � � ^
/ ��-~ nx =m `
/ --~-' `' � �� `
� � u� � l .� � 8� � � � .
-�- s � ��m � � °�/� � �� � 1
K��0 w* ^ �
-------------
-~'__-__-----_-_--__- ``
�
m y— i
_ '
—__-__-----_ _'___ --..____-___-_'__'- ...... - . . ' .
v�v °°*�um *" ) - - '-� . - _
. . ' - � '- - _--'-- __- - -'-_-- '-----_-_- - -- - i--_'--'-_
|r -~-�-
--'-`- -- ' -' -
'.
-\ ^ � +-
•\7 i \ , 1 | | / \'
'`
� ° � `, ' ^
^ 4 !
._-_ E ' I ,
�� A
` . J `
� - �`
r..11 - '
' )�
1
`
!
1 I it,I4J3 ‘11t1 0 8
•:AtY••••..::1•••••:,•...:`• A jl 1
i i
11-61-&-frn-ii-iii--I -i-rfp T i T 1-Fr., 1
IIIIIIiiIIII
1 1 1 I I I 1 1 I ■ i 1
''
___ PSI
3 i
•
h
, I
;c'
4
; ;,El) •
0 , '•
1.-.■■■,
1.... ■—
( '.----‘
T • 9 r
4 —
L --- J r'i'-'.1-1 - - -
ii '—
.....____ ..,,
. .—•
,...,'-----...);.-- I 0 ;0
71'
_ T
in
in a
office/studio BATH
I:
I 4 I
il
JUTILITY.
\--
=
—, ..,..'
..__
' • office/studio •>50v.M
;--
•
t-------CL ---•'27.'-- • ---.". •
222. •-•
I--
I
.,„...........:1 N--3*:
___
l • °v.,......__
— i
,.._.
T ' 5 •
L A
6 •.__
111 _
7?
kl
.1....._____ -•
' — KITC.."EN ri- - -
0 • \
I
••,- --...
\ !
'1)
1 i 4
-)
.L_______I
.--
2.7,0,..t.:.__b.-6 T/9 i 3'-2 1/2' 3'-2 3/9' 1 2*-!0 1/... 6'.-II 1P6'
.
-''SECOND 'FLOOR
_ • ,
•
.1? Ine■•. _ _ ._ ------.-----
in
office/stud'
1.0..........mmi
•
■
i
4? ._
in
. 1
Ill _
4,.._____ LCY'I STCRAG=
,
*L.
0 — 1
—
.. .
I C°E-N 7-C Ell
-eArk
— 1
I
"9 •,..
111 4 •
--i3s
WI CI 1 I 1 1 ill----- :
. _
i4 1 min
of fjce/stud i0
in . ...m..........]
:0--— -
1-.
, FIT o
0
s
1'I — il
in
..._
:-0 1,, 6-6 73'
/
•
PROPOSED-DESIGN STUDIO7FLPFU
RF: RP. TTY1-7vv-,c,
•
._
- —
.-------
__.
----------•
.___....._
• . .
-----•-----
---•--•-•- ---
ii_i___ _I__ . ..
_... 1 .......
___.______ • _ __
.__
---• ____________
• .
._.__.
_ __ _. _ • __._ .....
. _.._ .
.. _
. .
.... ..
. ... .. .. •
... .
. . . . ...
ril
c...).
L • I--1 s
. z
4.1
. . .
... ...... . :--i
..• •
. . .
•
...... .
..... .. . .
. ril
_
•- •
Z
.. .. . ... .
41......______.. ___.......____ ..._
7 C=4
. .. . . . ...
0
. . „ .. .
f ....ill.-- --------- ---
rn
• •
•
> 44
11_1
0
_I
.. .. .. ..... . ..
-r---_-.
.... . . ._ ...
11-1 • ____________._____ c..,
...... .. . ... ..
.. ... .. .. . . < ......._._. __.
■I) E-i
II I CO
._ .. . . .
-•• _---__-.
. . ... .. ..
K
Z
\ (3
. H
U)
. ..
fil
_
•- -- -
( (2
rx1
r_r)
0
. .
l:1-4
[..... . . . .
. 0
--= -,,--_-,
(24
,-•
• , al
.. ... .
.. • . .
1 / ,
. .
/ ..,-_,_•-•,_- .. .. .. . .
.. . .. ... .
. .. . . ..... .. .
____________. .._ ____
. . .
(11-- . . . .
L ... r••••„,. .
. .
- •- - - . . ... ... . . .
((-- -_-------
• . . • •
.. . ..
.. .._ . . .
. . . .
• . . .
.. . .. .. ..
... • .
. -
. .. . . _
7.-.. ..
• .
-:-.... --•-•-7 7-- --."..•
.... ( 1
LI . ._
--r -I"
--;
--.--- \ . • . •
li 1
. li i ' \, •
. . . .
. .
I • ,.•. . •
. III
1.-- . 11--;•:-'•
L.[____111 .: ( 1
1-- i
.1..)
c)
' --- li)
. ... .
.1
. .
•
•
•
PART 1—PROJECT INFORMATION
• Prepared by Project Sponsor
NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect
on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered
as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional
information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3.
It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve
new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify
each instance.
NAME OF ACTION
Proposed Modification, Planned Development Zone 10
LOCATION OF ACTION(Include Street Address,Municipality and County)
303 Gunderman Road, Danby, Tompkins Co.
NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR
BUSINESS TELEPHONE
Mathew Engelheart ( 607) 273-0283
ADDRESS
303 Gunderman Rd. , Spencer, New York, 14883
CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE
NAME OF OWNER(II different) • BUSINESS TELEPHONE
ADDRESS
CITY/PO
STATE ZIP CODE
DESCRIPTIONOFACTION Enlargement of Planned Development Zone from 5.22 acres presently to
12.7 acres. Construction of 2000 s.f. design studio/future residence. Provision for
improved access to the future building addition that was approved in local law #1-1996
on June 10, 1996.
Please Complete Each Question—Indicate N.A. if not applicable
A. Site Description •
Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.
1. Present land use: 1.-10rbnn llnduslrinl C_1Crnnnlerclal lIrtr,sldr'ntlnl (suburban) I)(lltural (nun (aim)
CiForest f]Agricullure DOlher
2. Total acreage of project area: 7.48 acres. (Zone expansion area)
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE 7,4 PRESENTLY AFiEI�cOMPLETION
Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) acres bb acres
Forested acres
acres
Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres acres
Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) acres acres
Water Surface Area acres acres
Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres acres
Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces 0.4 acres 0.9 acres
Other (Indicate type) lawn around studio
acres 0.5 acres
3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Erie/Langford
a. Soil drainage: OWell drained % of site LXModerately well drained 100 % of site
OPoorly drained % of site
b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS
Land Classification System? 7.48 acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370).
4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? DYes LNo
a. What is depth to bedrock? 6+ (in feet)
2
5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: 51010% 100 % 010-15% %
015% or greater %
6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National
Registers of Historic Places? DYes t No
7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? DYes ONo
8. What is the depth of the water table? 6-8 (in feet)
9 Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? DYes 1<3No
10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? DYes ®No
11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered?
DYes ®No According to field observation
Identify each species
12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations)
DYes ®No Describe
13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area?
DYes ONo If yes, explain
14. Does the present site Include scenic views known to be Important to the community?
[Wes ®No
15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: none
a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary
16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: (none)
a. Name b. Size (In acres)
17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ®Yes ONo (electric,phone only)
a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? DYes ❑No
b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? DYes ❑No
18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA,
Section 303 and 304? LYes ❑No
19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8
of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? DYes pNo
20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? DYes k7No
B. Project Description
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate)
a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor _ 26.9 acres.
b. Project acreage to be developed: 1.4 acres initially; 2-4 acres ultimately. (minor service
c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 3-5 acres. lines)
d. Length of project, in miles: n'a. (If appropriate) 1_2
e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed %; ,
f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing () ; proposed 5 . (studio)
g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 5 (upon completion of project)? from studio
h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: 35 from total zone
One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium
Initially
Ultimately 1-2
i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure height; width; length. (studio)
j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 320 ft. expansion
3 area (720 sq.ft.total )
2. How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? tons/cubic yards
3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? E Yes ONo ON/A
a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed?
lawn meadow
b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? kJYes ONo
c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ®Yes ONo
4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 1-4 acres.
5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project?
QYes pNo
6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction months, (including demolition).
7. If multi-phased:
a. Total number of phases anticipated 2 (number).
b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 June month 97 year, (including demolition).
c. Approximate completion date of final phase Sept month 98 year.
d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? QYes nNo
8. Will blasting occur during construction? °Yes QNo •
9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 5 ; after project is complete
10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0
11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? QYes JNo If yes, explain
12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? QYes ONo
a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount
b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged
13. is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ®Yes ONo Type residential-size septic system
14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? QYes tJNo
Explain
15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? QYes UNo
16. Will the project generate solid waste? QYes ONo
a. If yes, what is the amount per month 200 1h tons (residential 1-unit equivalent)
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ZiYes ONo
c. If yes, give name Tompkin rn nr other approved ; location as determined facility
d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? f Ycs ONo
e. If Yes, explain typical recycling
17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? QYes ONo
a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? n,a, tons/month.
b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? n•a• years.
18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? QYes ®No
19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? QYes EINo
20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? QYes 5-()No
21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? QYes ONo
If yes , indicate type(s) as related to construction and operation
22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 12 gallons/minute.
23. Total anticipated water usage per day 40 gallons/day.
24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? QYes fliNo
If Yes, explain
4
25. Approvals Required:
Submittal
Type Date
City Town Village Board C'�Yes ONo zone change, gen. site plan 3/26/97
City, Town, Villag Planning oard E Ycs ONo cite nl an
City, Town Zoning Board OYes CNo
Y -
"City, Count ealth Department fYes ONo septic syatem
Other Local Agencies O pending
Yes IONo
Other Regional Agencies OYes ONo
tom co. rec. m1239 --ending
State Agencies OYes Cklo
Federal Agencies OYes IDNo
C. Zoning and Planning Information
1 . Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? )OYes ONo
If Yes, indicate decision required:
Qzoning amendment Ozoning variance Ospecial use permit Osubdivision Osite plan
Onew/revision of master plan Oresource management plan Dottier
2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? 1 . d. residential next to P.D. Zone 10
3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning?
as per zoning + sub division regs. probably 2-5 houses
4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? addition to pd_ zone 10
5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning?
possible additional housing, business expansion long range,more orchard
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ®Yes ONo
7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a Y mile radius of proposed action?
P.O. 7one 10, low dencitt residential
8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a '/. mile?
)17YSs ONo
9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed?1, 1 ong range
a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 1-2 acres
10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? OYes ®No
11 . Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police.
fire protection)? ®Yes ONo
a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? OYes ONo
12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present Ievel0 OYes 29No
a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? OYes ONo n.a.
D. Informational Details
Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse
impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or
avoid them.
•
E. Verification
I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my.knowledge.
Applicant/Sponsor Name u r r U. 9 A J 6 IL,-
c ti7 Date
Signature .. e . Title ( a - I
.
If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding
with this assessment.
5
Part 2—PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE
Responsibility of Lead Agency
General Information (Read Carefully)
• In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been
reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst.
• The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of
magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and
for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate
for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3.
• The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and
have been offered as guidance.They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question.
• The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question.
• In identifying impacts, consider long term,-short term and cumlative effects.
Instructions (Read carefully)
a. Answer each of the 20 questions In PART 2. Answer Yes If there will be any Impact.
b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers.
c, If answering Yos to a question then chock the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to Indicate the potential size of the
Impact. If Impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If Impact will occur but
threshold Is lower than example, chock column 1.
ti. Iilunlllylnt that an Impact will t)u potuntlully largo (column 2) does not moan that It is also necessarily significant.
Any large Impact must be evaluated In PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an Impact In column 2 simply
asks that It be looked at further.
e. If reviewer has doubt about size of the Impact then consider the Impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3.
1. If a potentially large Impact checked In column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) In the project to a small to moderato
Impact, also check the Yos box In column 3. A No response Indicates that such a reduction Is not possible. This
must be explained In Part 3.
1 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
IMPACT ON LAND Impact Impact Project Change
1 . Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?
ONO *YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONo
foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed
10%.
• Construction on land where the depth to the water table Is less than ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
3 feet.
• Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONo
• Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
3 feet of existing ground surface.
• Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more ❑ ,Yes ONo
than one phase or stage.
• Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONo
tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year.
• Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. Cl ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
• Construction in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONo
• Other impacts fL441.tb AL-Less (Ylve� ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
can c,fi
2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on
the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.),<NO OYES
• Specific land forms: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes Ohio
6
•
1 2 3
IMPACT ON WATER Small to Potential Can Impact Be
By
3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? Moderate Large Mitigated Impact Impact Project Change
(Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) e
XNO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Developable area of site contains a protected water body. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
• Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
protected stream.
• Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
• Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body
of water? XNO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
or more than a 10 acre Increase or decrease.
• Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater
quality or quantity? ONO RYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
• Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
have approval to serve proposed (project) action.
• Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
gallons per minute pumping capacity.
• Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
supply system.
• Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. CI 0 LJYes L)No
• Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
do not exist or have inadequate capacity.
• Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
day.
• Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual
contrast to natural conditions. .
• Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
products greater than 1,100 gallons.
• Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
and/or sewer services.
• Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may Dir ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage •
facilities. CO n t ck-c v' o-e v i sue+ c,S�S-jt w. -(vr
d` 4P p raved— -r; Go.. pwwi l }-
• Other p pac
❑ ❑ ❑Yes :No
6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface
water runoff? ONO 14YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action would change flood water flows. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
7 - -
1 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
• Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. ❑ ❑ DYes ❑ •o
• Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. ❑ ❑ DYes ❑No
• Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ DYes ❑No
• Other`impaacts: 'S+1-+�+ b { 41668 6 d Vr:Nie-' �` ❑ DYes :No
Govt h+ 4�-&hciy., 4 Yell A L 0(ri(i h d )11,r-t'5
• IMPACT ON AIR
7. Will proposed action affect air quality' ONO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given ❑ ❑ DYes ❑No
hour.
• Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than'1 ton of ❑ ❑ DYes ❑No
refuse per hour.
• Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a ❑ ❑ DYes ❑No
hc,rl sorrrce producing more thou 10 million If CU's per hour.
• Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed ❑ ❑ DYes ❑No
to industrial use.
• Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial ❑ ❑ DYes ❑No
development within existing industrial areas.
• Other impacts: a`' re.-l'Sto." co L,1 -t rN(f1 o- •-) U- t. ❑ DYes ❑No
of 54-1^6L16 aHGt. AGce.6.s dt(i
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered
species? , N0 DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal ❑ ❑ DYes ❑No
list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site.
• Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. ❑ ❑ DYes ❑No
• Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other ❑ ❑ DYes ElNo
than for agricultural purposes.
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ DYes ❑No
9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or
non-endangered species? XN0 OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species.
• Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ DYes ❑No
of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important
vegetation.
IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES
10. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources?
XNO DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.)
1 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
• Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
agricultural land.
• The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District, more
than 2.5 acres of agricultural land.
• The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches,
strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm
field to drain poorly due to increased runoff)
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
•
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
11 . Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? ONO *YES
(If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20,
Appendix B.)
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether
man-made or natural.
• Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their
enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource.
• Project components that will result in the elimination or significant ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. •
• Other impacts: Gj'lA►1 r✓ - vil ✓ac At Ia tad. "T ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
�
�t b a ti q� V.4(4 cess art v
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
12. Will Proposed Action Impact ally site or structure of historic, pre-
historic or paleontological importance? )SINO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register
of historic places.
• Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
project site.
• Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for• ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory.
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION -
13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or
future open spaces or recreational opportunities?
Examples that would apply to column 2 *10 OYES
• The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
• A major reduction of an open space important to the community. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
•
9
•
1 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique character-
istics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to
subdivision 6 N1'CIZRZ 617.1.1(g) ? ItQNO OYES
List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of
the CEA.
Examples that would apply to column 2 •
• 1'in1nuwd A{ 16111 to Irrc ate within the (:I A? I I ) 1 )Yes I INo
• Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource? LI ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
• Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the resource? ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
• Proposed Action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
resource?
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
15 Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
❑NOTES
Examples that would apply to column 2 •
• Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
• Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. I.] ❑ ❑Yes El No
• Other impacts: On — 514- ' +14146 L >?A t* Yt ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
nn o d 1-(4 ca..-t trn5
IMPACT ON ENERGY
16 Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or
energy supply? LINO XIS
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
any form of energy in the municipality.
• Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy L) ❑ ❑Yes UNo
transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two fancily
residences or to serve a major /commercial or industrial use.
• Other impacts: Gtr! f� 4-t2 r Ctrv►OYo 64-1 t7y� _ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
Gin d IA -- cG 6 (c..eyf. d
10
•
NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 1 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result Moderate Large Mitigated By
of the Proposed Action? x(NO OYES Impact Impact Project Change
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
facility.
• Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). ❑ ❑ ['Yes ❑No
• Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures.
• Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
noise screen.
• Other impacts: . ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
18. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety?
'NO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
substances(i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.)in the event of
accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level
discharge or emission.
• Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, Irritating,
infectious, etc.)
• Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
gas or other flammable liquids.
• Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO
within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous
waste.
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER
OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
19. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
LINO YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%.
• The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project.
• Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
• Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. Tg. ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
• Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
or areas of historic importance to the community.
• Development will create a demand for additional community services ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
(e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) •
• Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
• Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No -
• Other impacts: a•'' re'1 e IL .fir -,t1-1-4-4-0 i 4"-e5 A ❑ ❑Yes ❑No
d ri N)-e 9 a A L r,,, , -•F,31� , 4r' c(cve.�af► -v��— .
r e V-,fct cif- 17%5. 41-50(q
20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental im acts?
O YES
If any action In Part 2 Is Identified as a potential large Impact or if you cannot determine the magnitude of Impact, proceed to Part 3
Part 3—EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS
Responsibility of Lead Agency
Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be
mitigated.
Instructions
Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2:
1 . Briefly describe the impact.
2. Describe(if.applicable)how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s).
3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important.
To answer the question of importance, consider:
• The probability of the impact occurring (HA h66)11-6.1/)Gr
• The duration of the impact `J
• Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value = 1 VI 151/1 '
• Whether the impact can or will be controlled m
• The regional consequence'bf the impact 413-21011
\
• Its potential divergence from local needs and goals �� )
• Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. lU h111�� sss"'
(Continue on attachments)
FA.bi( C cm rave,61 1 s K, o w it I the -- 5e,A ‘d p6tet1-6&A
.911,9aC,1 Y1 t 44`e-- -fe Cmr k 0-P t Fla 11 n 1>7a bov.{e,
c�t�►�Q-r ou- o� -►fie- f roje
ib
ATTACHMENT - SEQR REVIEW
PROPOSED EXPANSION - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE 10 (ANGELHEART
DESIGNS, INC. )
Part 3 - Evaluation of the Importance of Impacts
The aspect that construction may involve more than one phase
or stage was identified on Part 2 of the SEQR form as being a
' potential large impact ' .
The owners of the site have proposed to construct the design
studio/future residence in 1997 . The future addition to the main
building complex is not envisioned to be built until 1998 or later .
Given the size of the site under the same ownership ( 26+/-
acres ) and the somewhat self-contained types of construction that
might occur , no significant adverse impact is expected from the
construction or from its phasing.
It is probable that site-localized land impacts from
construction will occur . Any phase would probably be of short-term
duration. No permanent loss of significant resources would occur
in the development of a small amount of vacant land to
buildings/parking areas/drives . Impacts can be controlled through
standard site construction techniques . No adverse regional
consequences are expected. No significant divergence from local
needs and goals are expected in the further development of the
Planned Development Zone . Q nown objections to the project
relat*, to land impacts IetA -e Ulhmct dQ-vtyif� of •r e,-
A negative determination of environmental significance is
recommended for this action,\3a Je1 f,z ;(w 5 s40,
-t'he Qro e �t pF , accP55 drive, c�n�l, tv4v -i1tie m'Ific
Susan Bdeners , reviewer , April 7 , 1997 Y1�QQyl�f2D 01l P
Iat L
(761A-4 1Jo
AGRICLZLTL.IRAL DATA STA1 F.M�;NT
TOWN OF DANEY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION:
Proposed enlargement of Planned Development Zone 10 . located at 303
Gunderman Road, on a portion of Town of Danby Tax Parcel No . 9 . - 1-
9 . 12 , from 5 . 22 acres to 12 . 70 acres , and with such enlarged Zone
to include a proposed design studio/future residence , and a new
access drive .
Owners : Matthew and Jeanne Engeihart , Angelheart Designs , Inc . ,
303 Gunderman Road , Spencer , NY 14883 .
Danby Board(s ) reviewing project and Agricultural Data Statement :
XX Town Board XX Planning Board
The Involved Property is in an Agricultural District that contains
a farm operation.
The Involved Property is not within 500 feet of a farm operation
that is located in an Agricultural District .
COMMENTS:
Since there are no Agricultural District properties with farm
operations within 500 feet of the Involved Property, but the
Involved Property is within an Agricultural District that contains
farm operations , no specific notification has been made to farm
owners . Possible Impacts of the Proposed Project on the
functioning of farm operations in the Agricultural District are as
follows :
1 . Increased land in Planned Development Zone would be
subject to industrial or residential use . That land is presently
not used for agricultural purposes .
2 . The owners of the land have developed and maintained a 2
+/- acre orchard within the Zone , and have no plans to remove the
orchard . It is likely that the orchard will remain undisturbed
given the desires of its owners and the Town ' s site plan review
requirements for subsequent future development .
Susan Beeners , preparer , for Planning Board and Town Board , 4/7/97
Copy py
April 30, 1997
To: Danby Planning Board
Re: Angelheart Designs Planned Development Zone
In addition to our concerns presented at the April 16
public hearing, we would like to add one more. We have
observed large semi trucks making deliveries to Angelheart
using the Gunderman Road bridge, apparently in violation of
the weight limit .
Naomi Strichartz Robert Strichartz
//r
() la a-RI-4-f WI
i
708 Comfort Road
Spencer, NY 14883
•
• r'
1V 4u A
rw�
t;
APR. 3 0 997
To: Members of the Teirn oard
Fr: Joseph Cheng
Re: Angleheart Development`°--
Date: April 30, 1997 vYS•"""'" """""
It is imperative that I express my grave concern about further
commercial and industrial development of the Angleheart Inc.
My first concern is the underground water pollution that will be
caused by future silk screening and fabric dying. The Planning
Board must not only forbid silk screening/fabric dying in the
proposed design studio and in all existing facilities. It must
also forbid the future transfer of the property to a new owner
who might resume such practice. Such stipulation must be
incorporated in the written record as to protect the future
generation.
My second concern is property devaluation. Like many other
residents, my lifetime savings has been invested in my home and
land. People who are interested moving to Danby must have
appreciation for nature and the rural environment. Why would
anyone move to Danby to live near an industrial site? Will we
ever be compensated for our economic loss?
When we build our dream house in Danby six years ago, we had a
dream. We love the town and the neighborhood. Without
mentioning the specifics, our lives had certainly changed
drastically over the past few years. )But who will protect us?
None other than the members of thee 'e3oard. We must never
forget -never- that our first and foremost responsibility is not
enlarging the town treasury, but to protect the well being of the
people of Danby. It is not by our own effort, but by the grace
of God that we are put in position of influence and power. We
must carry out our duty with diligence and Integrity. May God
bless and guide you in your deliberation.
April 14 , 1997 O
To: DanbjPlanning Board O
From: Immediate neighbors of Angelheart Designs , Inc .
We ask that you recommend that the Town Board deny the
request to enlarge planned Development Zone 10 . The current
size and operation of the zone is already having a severe
negative impact on the neighborhood , and any enlargement
would significantly reduce property values . The specific
problems arising from the current operation , which will be
described in detail at the meeting by various individuals,
include : unusually bright and disturbing lighting, excessive
traffic, building materials on neighboring properties , and
garbage blowing onto 'the road and neighboring properties . In
addition, we are concerned by the stress on the water supply
that any increased usage would entail . We all rely on well
water, which is not abundant in this area .
If and when these concerns are properly addressed, we
would be willing to endorse the inclusion of a design
studio/future residence, provided it would meet current
zoning regulations for a residence . But we would oppose any
enlargement of the warehouse operation. : .••_ .,
l's irci?„..„ c7a.i l �
,,...
prx7.4_)2,2.L.:: - �� ,f- a s , . ,
cpayidoddeAftk `?0,5' /
i
i . ., 11, -- -
3 2.-C, /
), -(:______( ------( (---
.,
c- 1 ,
"-------..,a_,,,_.(t C ,c1,9 ,_ )
•
r
- ' ` (2. J ) 1q ' 3Lh_ ,/, 1/, .
/1 4 Vi/. --t--7--0...--I 1.,/-----
4./GY ,0-64(e) t-et-lk. 41
"it 24UL
JA.gaz la,i6.
I77 C7w ,
i
PROOF BY SUBSCRIBING WITNESS
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS
On this 15th day of April, 1997 before me personally came
Robert Strichartz, a sullscribing witness to the signatures on the foregoing
instrument, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he
resides 708 Comfort Road, Spencer, NY and that he executed the foregoing
petition and was present and saw individuals affix his/her name as
witness thereto.
a oily , / / '
.__ , . 4., t
ate y
otary Public _.5---79. 7 cS a eENN ry Public, of New York
Qualified in Tompkins County
Commission Expires August 20, 19
� ��
- � i .
-_-_� �- N ['1. KL� 6~�'T-
�� ' ' � a ��
' {�Y/ ��lv7�-�\ |^mxl/~�^~^~—
) \ �
��yele�ri De� / U^�
�o� uunderman Ru�u
Hpeocer , New York i4883
Uc lober | l ' l988
Oear Planning Board :
Ate enclosed is an application for a Planned Development
Uzslricl Our family run business , Angelheart 0esigns' is ready
lo step into the next phase We are clothing manufacturers with
Hatiunal dislribution : now most of ihe work is done through cottaUe
nou,lry . Our rapid growth now requires more on site help We are
rennovaling our barn
I. do have a building permit , bul need a new
o^* , wiih the idea of at least 6 8 full time employees I would
like to gel approval for twenty employees in case more growth insues
/) lb `oi empinyees the spread would probably be : two office workers'
one fabric cuiter ' one printer , and six seamstresses
Hie .~f [eLts on ihe environment and the neighborhood would be
. / We use no toxic eaterials ' make no noise and the structur�
/o / .00e our operation is in existence If anything , we would
' : the area by rennovating a barn which otherwise i would Have ,
�'i., go ' and by bringing job s for Danby residents The only efiel
,.` a' / a.:ent neighbor would be the impact of parked car. an'1 '^
! iyhted barn . If you need any additional information' ['1e ,*
c,,otac l me
--___- _-
Han- lhas - \
` \
-
i \`
i`!att| ii ^ .•t
�
.
'
W W V K
• Z w J F-
J OC
re -_�•
'., m
ao
F I—
p W N Q } -
� ►- 003 • I
W ez W a .J
W >61 Li a a 0Z Q O
I.
• ',o - ezi ary •ab j nop
m 4 402! NV V'4 C N f19. ll
w FaV02/ �O LN3S32ld ,
C63NI1=3313 Ov3Nb2n � 3 •
•
f� 4 3' DNO1d 919 ,l"l 1S3M t 3.1c3M_....A1 1 � Sb3W_ tn a i- - Z �� lal W W m " h CI',CY
F.-N.
: N a
DC
a
0 W
u u M u La/ _
W x a_ r
o ° I N� In u
Z m = O •0 r; W oa o �
W � � I • i w
0
z � ?- 7 i •
• o '
LI (`J 0 ll- t"
0 J , +I N W O S 1 (r) t
J J 0 co N LY f
0 / l) 11-
( 'J ,a a'•461 J I Z •
IL Q
in
z 0 co Q � l
X 0 0n N • V Q U m � , erg )
u I it) 1 u ~O C 6 NZ ; oQ(
'n 1 f -I
o V W - 1 _ Q II
W Q D Q �
u
0 �- 1 P Z 1
o Q N
CO 2 .,1- w CO
a- _0 /
J Q _F r
ii.co 0 1 N O Dz
k0 -k I vi
- I 3 a y. -� U
('.,
Z -, wN r I ti
0 r''-1 . Q z `J CL a L C L01 a n. J
w - N. .
3. W Eq) MO213O43N a
tiic
•
/ Csf (7'
i � j
14 4 Aour
_18{) .y`
jo., 4 S■ \
0 i 41.; in p
a d ' 1
Q ' t.•, ,) = Es pi,;c,,
3 t�
. s _ - - - -�5' 1t — —
•
1 _ I-� ..� 01
r --- 7_,(12 -1 - r 1
! ,..21 .
i Pt,tkkv, ‘ i
..... . . .. .
I \——Y , . ,
N o t„S a ,.._ . . .r�--i-.r e o
Pcsrk;,r, 10 .
Elegy .. , a P► v f.*I-c
.r..... ....�. L ; I
gro
alp
0
LailliMailLrealith&Will,m,m,„1,,,mme -t1 4 .
1 I Izz z 0 .c# .
3 03 Cwt-.r at_. r r 4„, RA
_ r�G ., \A-,) -Pvr A..�
ft
e. k eAc-�'
6/:(
ea
1
3
12
7Z)
•
re-.-c, e. L.;,...e. - —
•
` 4
0
1" o
S
L.. , 1 t
i . L=et=
...._ 17- -1,,,,,IIN r y
Q \
1" i ill y
�
f s -a '� 0 oSe� Se LPL
P
- - - - Prof -s L ;Y;t,
rA
Minutes
Town of Oanhv Planning Board
November 16 , 1938
Members Presen` : Nancy Weitz . , chatr, oel Gagnon, Secretary,
Frank Darrow, Steve Steln.tU'Ai S
Members Absent : Robert. Dutcher, Gerald Catlin
Others Present : Carol Sezenanskt , Pl . M. Roberts , Matt Fngel.hart ,
Tom Niederkorn, Liz Grtsanzio, Marge and Jim Hovanec , George Schtecht
The meeting was called to order at 7135 P.M.
Minutes of the October 19 meeting were unanimously ^reprover. as submitted .
Privilege of the Floor
County Planning Board Following discussion of the information Joel
provided on thy, County Planning Board, Frank Darrow agreed to serve
as Danby' s representative to that body. Nomination must come from
the Town Board, so they were to be informed of his willingness to
serve and asked to place his name in nomination.
Regular Agenda
Angelhart Designs Planned Development Matt Fngelhart presented
plans for a commercial planned development district for the .Angelhart
Designs clothing design and manufacturing business located in a barn
at 305 .,underma.n Road on a 26, 9 acre parcel. Submitted plans project
the possibility of UD to 20 employees at some future time , with 6-8
in the immediate future. The entire operation is to be located in
the existing barn. Board concerns included sewage treatment , adequacy
of off-street narling, and neighborhood notification. The neighbors
had yet to be notified and a scale drawing of existing and proposed
features was wanting as well , so final action was delayed until
these are done, probably by the next meeting.
Grisanzio Planned Development George Schlecht presented preliminary
plans for a subdivision on the east side of 96B south of the /�r+.. ,,,_
Road intersection. There was some discussion of these , but it was 'r-
pointed out that the matter was not properly before the Board, since
it had not been referred to us by the Town Board.
Mobile Home Ordinance Steve distributed conies of a draft ordinance
to members , but discussion was postpones until the next meeting.
meeting adjourned at 10138 P.M.
submitted by Joel Gagnon
M ine tes
Town of Danhv Planning Board
• December 21 , 1988
Members Presents Nancy Weitzel , Chair, Joel Gagnon, Secretary,
Robert Dutcher, Walter 3czepanski , Frank Darrow, Steve Stein
Members Absents Gerald Catlin
OthersPresents Carol Sczenanski , Tom Niederkorn, George Schlecht,
P'1 M. Roberts , Liz Grisanzio, Ray Corey, Matt rngelhart , James
Johnson, Bob Stuchartr, Pam Clermont
The meeting was called to order at 7, 35 P.M.
Minutes of the November 16 meeting were unanimously approved , an
amended.
Fngelhart Planned Development Matt rngelhart presented a scale
drawing showing the location of buildings , parking areas , etc. , as
requested , as well as the requested evidence that the neighbors had
been contacted. There was some concern expressed about the adequacy
of off-street parking, which resulted in a specific condition in the
resolution of approvals
WHrRFA3 Angelhart Designs has duly applied to the Town Board for a
planned development district to be located at 303 Gunderman Road, and
WHrRRAS Angelhart Designs has provided all plans , drawings , and
specifications required by the Planning Board in order to reasonably
assess the operations proposed and their effect on neighborhood and
environment , and
WHrRRAS the proposed use is in the Board' s judgment compatible with
adjoining land uses ,
THFRFFORR on motion by Gagnon and second by Darrow he it resolved
that the Planning Board recommends to the Town Board that the Angel-
heart Designs Planned Development be approved as submitted , subject
to the follc•� � stipulationss that off-street parking be provided
where indicated on the submitted plans such that there be no parking
on the street, that the district be used exclusively for the design
and manufacture of clothing, that the total number of emrloyees
not exceed 20, that the operations of the business be 11►eited to
existing buildings , and that a survey of the property boundaries be
supplied if in the judgment of the Town Attorney one is needed in
order to clearly define the area included in the planned development.
In Favors all present Opposed: none
Grisanzio Planned Development George Schlecht proposed to present to
the Board plans for the Grisanzio Planned Development. Joel protested
that the proposal had not been referred to the Planning Board by the
Town Board, as required in the Zoning Ordinance. Pam Clermont , Town
Attorney, opined that the Town Board all knew of the proposal and
intended it to be considered by the Planning Board , even though it
had not formally requested the action. Moreover, the referral
requirement was in thAprocess of being changed. With these points in
mind, the Board opted to consider the proposal. Tom Niederkorn
made note that in response to Board concerns raised in the informal
discussion at the November meeting, 4 lots were deleted from the
proposal , leaving 42 lots on 72 acres. Since the Board had expressed
concern about how the proposed development might interface with a
PAGE 3, TOWN BOARD MINUTES, FEBRUARY 13, 1989
AFTER MORE DISCUSSION, SUPERVISOR DIETRICH CLOSED THE DISCUSSION ON THE
GRISANZIO PROJECT.
DISCUSSION ON THE ENGLEHARDT PDD THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ON PARKING ON
THE ROAD. SEVERAL COMPLAINTS OF CARS PARKING ON THE ROAD HAD BEEN RECEIVED.
RESOLUTION# 20 ACCEPT THE PDD OF MATTHEW ENGLEHARDT
AT 303 GUNDERMAN RD COPY OF RESOLUTION
ATTACHED.
MOTION WAS MADE BY CLMN OLTZ, SECONDED BY CLMN ROBERTS .
ROLL CALL CLMN ECKSTROM AYE
CLIC OLTZ AYE
CLIC ROBERTS AYE
SUPERVISOR DIETRICH AYE
ABSENT CUIN TAGLIAVENTO
RESOLUTION #20 ADOPTED
SUPERVISOR DIETRICH READ THE NOTICE CONCERNING PUTTING THE GRANGE HALL IN
WEST DANBY OUT TO BID. ( COPY ATTACHED)
RESOLUTION # 21 PUT THE WEST DANBY GRANGE HALL OUT TO BID
MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR DIETRICH, SECONDED BY CLMN ROBERTS
ROLL CALL CLIC ECKSTROM AYE
CLMN OLTZ AYE
CUIN ROBERTS AYE
SUPERVISOR DIETRICH AYE
ABSENT CLIC TAGLIAVENTO
RESOLUTION #21 ADOPTED
YOUTH SERVICES DANBY WILL ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF ITHACA
FOR YOUTH SERVICES. DANBY WAS GOING TO PUT IN $20,000. FOR YOUTH SERVICES.
WE MET WITH VARIOUS TOWNS AND MADE A PROPOSAL, ALL TREE TOWNS SUBMITTED
A JOINT PROPOSAL FOR $ 25,000. AND THAT WAS REJECTED.SINCE THEN THE COUNTY
ENTERED INTO IT AND PUT IN APPROX. $10,000. IN THE KITTY. WE WORKED WITH
ITHACA SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THEY PUT IN $ 10,000 THIS YEAR AND PUT $15,000.
IN THEIR BUDGET NEXT YEAR.DIETRICH CONTINUED, WE MET WITH INTERGOVENMENTAL
RELATIONS COMM. OF ITHACA LAST WEEK. ENFIELD, DANBY, CAROLINE MADE PROPOSAL,
SIX MONS. AGREEMENT. SCHOOL, $10,000. COUNTY $10,000. AND THREE TOWNS SPLIT
$5,000.00 AMONG THEMSELVES TO BRING TOTAL TO $25,000.00. THEIR FISCIAL YEAR
STARTS IN JULY AND AT THAT TIME THE SCHOOL DIST. WOULD PUT IN $15,000.00
AND TOWNS $3,333.00 AND WE WILL HAVE A ONE YEAR CONTRACT. I AM LOOKING FOR A
RESOLUTION FROM THE BOARD.DISCUSSION FOLLOWED.
RAY MAYO WHY NOT A USER FEE? DIETRICH SAID MOST PEOPLE CANT AFFORD THEM. MAYO
REMARKED, "THATS THE BREAKS." I DONT ASK YOU TO BUY SHOES FOR MY KID" WHY
SHOULD I PAY FOR SOMEBODY ELSES KID TO PLAY BALL? FRANK PROTO YOUTH SERVICES
ARE BROKEN INTO TWO PARTS . RIC IS TALKING ABOUT RECREATION. THEIR NEGOTIATING
ON SPECIAL SERVICES, DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED KIDS, FOSTER HOME, DRUG ABUSE,
P.I.N.S. , NOTHING TO DO WITH RECREATION.CAREFUL TO SEPERATE.FURTHER DISCUSSION.
FRANK PROTO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE RESOLUTION TO MAKE IT CON-
TINGENT UPON OTHER TWO TOWNS ALSO APPROVING THE SAME RESOLUTION. DIETRICH AGREED.
RESOLUTION #22 APPROVE SUPERVISOR DIETRTCH CONTRACT WITH
THE CITY OF ITHACA FOR YOUTH SERVICES
(/1/3/' )
,itid"-'64"1X9//ty.
RESOLUTION
# 20
At .the .regular meeting of the Town Board of the Town of
Danby, Tompkins County, New York, held at the Town Hall of the
said Town, 1830 Danby Road, on the 13th day of February , 1989, at
8:00 p.m.
Councilperson Mary Oltz offered the following
Resolution and moved its adoption:
WHEREAS, Matthew Engelhart, of the Town of Danby, in
October of 1988, duly applied to the Town Board for a Planned
Development District at 303 Gunderman Road, which property is
currently zoned as a R-1 District, and has indicated that he is
desirous of changing the use of the said property for use as a
location for clothing manufacturing according to the plans and
specifications submitted to the Planning Board of the Town of
Danby, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Danby has made a
study of the proposed change in use of the land and has
recommended to the Town Board that an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance of the Town of Danby be passed establishing the Planned
Development District in the area hereinafter described, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on this matter on the
26th day of January, 1989 , at the, Town Ha in the said Town of
Danby, Y!o m
NOW, THEREFORE, be it
RESOLVED: that pursuant to Section 604 of the Zoning
Ordinance of the Town of Danby, Matthew Engelhart, doing business
as Angelheart Designs, is hereby granted permission for a Planned
Development District pursuant to the following regulations:
( 1 ) The area of the Planned Development District shall be
approximately 26 . 9 acres at 303 Gunderman Road in the Town of
Danby, which is the property known as tax map parcel number
9-1-9.12 , and which is identified as "PARCEL TO BE
RETAINED BY COBB" and more particularly described as follows as
shown on a survey map entitled "SURVEY MAP SHOWING PARCEL TO BE
RETAINED BY WILLIAM E. & JEANETTE B. COBB ON GUNDERMAN ROAD, TOWN
- �� OF DANBY, TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK, " which map was prepared by
2
T.G. Miller P. C. dated October 28 , 1975 , and which is attached
hereto:
ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND situate in the Town of
Danby, Tompkins County, State of New York, beginning at a
point in the centerline of Gunderman Road 187 feet easterly
from a 16 foot steel culvert; thence running easterly along
the centerline of said Gunderman Road a distance of 713
feet to a point; thence running southerly along remains of
an old fence and hedgerow and along the easterly line of
old Lot 37 a distance of 1658 feet to a pipe set at a 12
inch hickory and the intersection of old Lots 34 , 35, 36,
and 37 ; thence running westerly along a hedgerow and the
south line of old Lot 37 a distance of 720 feet to a pipe;
thence running northerly a distance of 1658 feet to the
point or place of beginning, passing through a pipe at 1501
feet.
(2) The business to be conducted on the said premises
shall be limited to a clothing manufacturing business and shall
not include any retail sales of the manufactured product.
( 3) The business shall be further limited to a maximum of
twenty full-time employees, with off-street parking to be
provided for all employees, and no additional buildings are
authorized to be constructed within the Planned Development
District.
44j/�f
• 3
(4 ) No toxic chemicals or manufacturing substances , either
now or in the future, shall be used on the premises in connection
with the business to be conducted thereon without prior written
notification to and approval from the Town.
•
( 5) Any new or modified sewage treatment system
necessitated by the increase in employees or rennovations to the
current buildings shall be installed in accordance with and shall
meet DEC and Tompkins County Health Department requirements and
specifications and shall be approved in writing by the DEC and
the Tompkins County Health Department.
Seconded by Dorothy Roberts and duly put to a vote, which
1
resulted in as follows:
Ayes:
Clmn. Dean Eckstrom
Clmn. MARY oltz
Clmn. Dorothy Roberts
Noes :
Absent:
Clmn. Julia Tagliavento
DATED: February 13, 1989
„ciL C�
1v Joan Babbitt, Town Clerk