HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-11-02 - PB TOWN OF ULYSSES
PLANNING BOARD
11 /02/06
Approved with correction 11/15/06
Present: Chairperson Margot Chiuten, Planning Board Members : David Means,
Rod Porter, Rebecca Schneider, Darien Simon, John Wertis, Ken Zeserson,
Code Enforcement Officer Alex Rachun.
Applicants : Jamie Kehoe, Irene Kehoe
Minutes :
Ms . Chiuten presented the minutes from the September 19th meeting, Mr. Means
made the MOTION, Mr. Wertis seconded to APPROVE the minutes . the was
unanimous, MINUTES APPROVED .
Ms . Chiuten presented the minutes from the October 25th, 2006 Public Hearing,
Mr. Means made the MOTION, Mr. Wertis seconded to APPROVE the minutes, the vote
was unanimous, MINUTES APPROVED .
Ms . Chiuten called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 pm, she stated they would be continuing
to review the project, no decision would be made tonight as they will continue the Public
Hearing. They will give the public another opportunity on the 15th, she would like to go
through the comments heard and within the two weeks be able to make a decision. They
would be doing the SEQR form to determine if the project will or will result in any large
or significant impact. For example by law a significant impact is increasing the traffic by
a certain number of trips . There are thresholds and they are hugely high thresholds.
Ms . Schneider asked if this is a decision they make, to see if they meet the thresholds,
i . e . 150 cars — they are under the thresholds but if it is a special situation would they
argue for that.
Ms . Chiuten answered exactly, if they exceeded the traffic threshold they would require a
traffic study be done .
Mr. Zeserson stated this is difficult because they cannot predict the future but try to plan
for that.
Ms . Schneider stated the issues she felt they had to deal with are is the septic system
designed to deal adequately with the steep grading and proximity to the lake. Will they be
adequate to deal the quantity and not contaminate groundwater and ultimately pollute the
lake.
Ms . Chiuten stated her personal opinion is since he has hired an engineer and the Health
Department has to approve it she is comfortable with this having the other levels in
check.
Mr. Zeserson agreed they have to defer to the other agencies completely, he is not
capable of determining if they are adequate .
Mr. Means agreed stating that is why they sent the plans to the other agencies to review
with their areas of expertise .
Ms . Chiuten stated they were asked to review and they also require a permit process thus
the work would be reviewed then as well .
Ms. Schneider stated for what it is worth it is difficult to look at-the systems look good
but she does not have the expertise needed, she is concerned environmentally due to the
steep slopes . Another item she would like to put on the table is the pathways with the
steep slopes .
Planning Board Meeting 2
11 /02/2006
Ms . Chiuten stated they had asked for the pathways, they also asked for specific
information as to how the paths would be designed.
The members reviewed the maps provided and determined the locations of the trails.
Ms . Schneider stated for future reference she cannot determine the numbers, she would
prefer the full scale to determine accurate measurements . They discussed the roadways
would be gravel .
Ms . Chiuten asked Mr. Kehoe if they were proposing gravel for all of the roads and
pathways .
Mr. Kehoe stated the roads are gravel the pathways that are there are basically hay.
Ms. Chiuten asked what would happen on the trails that go to the back, the Board has
concerns that if they have horses and carriages using the trails eventually it will rut-out,
the grass will wear away and that will create erosion.
Mr. Kehoe stated they had planned on having dirt and grass paths that would be natural .
He can have Peter take care of this at the meeting on the 15th . They would maintain the
roads he will not want erosion on the roads .
Ms . Chiuten stated that is what they are looking for is confirmation it is protected.
Mr. Zeserson asked if there is erosion on the road how that would affect other properties .
Ms . Schneider stated that these are steep slopes that all drain down into the creeks and off
their property. They have already have evidence of sedimentation down slope per
comments from the public hearing. Once there is deforestation, removal of trees with
roots that will hold that, the next rain it washed down. It is their job to review to make
sure it is designed properly. They are bringing it up as an issue that due to steep slopes
this should be prevented from happening.
f t:
Ms . Chiuten stated that one way to deal with it is write in a condition that if and when the
trails are carved out, the soil be replaced and revegetated.
Ms . Schneider stated she liked this idea, if this items can be written in for monitoring and
protection .
Mr. Means asked Mr. Kehoe how he felt about this, it is difficult for them to envision
what is going to happen in 9 years as they draft this .
Mr. Kehoe stated he was accepting of the requests .
Ms. Schneider stated that from the public hearing it was evident that he has neighbors
around him that care a lot about what is going on and they see some evidence, right or
wrong, that he is affecting them. He wants good relationships with them, not complaining
and calling the police. It is in their best interest and his for the Board to make sure there
are not problems-and not complaining about erosion and sound . She clarified the
applicant had provided the information they requested, then they have to review the DEC
checklist, what else do they have to do .
r
Ms . Chiuten stated there are two different things going on, the first is the SEQR process t
,
and the Site Plan Review . In the SEQR Part 1 is completed by the applicant, Part 2 is
their responsibility to review, they have to determine if there is a small to moderate
impact, potential large impact and whether an impact can be mitigated by project change .
She referred to page 7 of the SEQR application, it is their responsibility and it is filed as
part of the record, the Determination of Significance with the Negative or Positive
declaration is signed and filed.
Mr. Zeserson asked for clarification that they would be completing the SEQR tonight.
Planning Board Meeting 3
11 /02/2006
Ms . Chiuten replied yes, they do not have to make the Negative or Positive declaration
tonight but if they could get through the document, draft a list of additional information
needed, the decision could be made the 15 `h
Mr. Porter stated it is not as difficult as it appears , the process goes fairly quickly.
Ms . Chiuten stated some of the questions are very obvious, going through the samples the
thresholds are huge and completing the form goes quickly. She indicated examples i . e.
vegetating disturbed slopes .
A lengthy discussion followed regarding the environmental impacts of each area.
Ms . Chiuten left the meeting at 8 : 15 pm, she appointed Mr. Wertis to continue as
Chairperson for the rest of the meeting.
The Board completed Part 2 of the SEQR form after discussion of the Impacts, the
specific areas were completed as follows .
Impact on Land-Yes
1 . All Small to Moderate
2 . No
Impact on Water
3 . No
4 . No
5 . No
6 . Yes-All small to moderate
Other Impacts runoff will be mitigated with plantings to prevent erosion.
Impact on Air
7 . No
Impact on Plant and Animals
Rebecca to research list per Tompkins County Unique Natural Area listings
8 .
9 . No
Impact on Agricultural Land Resources
10 . No
Impact on Aesthetic Resouces
11 . Yes-All small to moderate
Other impacts/Proposed mitigation-The Board recognized this project is part of the
Cayuga Scenic Byway, the fence was approved requiring tree plantings to mitigate
aesthetics on site .
Impact on Historic and Archaeological Resources
12 . No
Impact on Open Space and Recreation
13 . No
Impact on Critical Environmental Areas
14 . No
Impact on Transportation
15 . Yes-All small to moderate
Other impacts : The applicant is being required to have traffic and parking
management onsite during big events .
Impact on Energy
16 . No
Planning Board Meeting 4
11 /02/2006
Noise and Odor Impact
17 . Yes-All small to moderate
Other impacts : Amplified sound events have restricted hours, permit recommendation
to Town Board for events over 100 people .
Restriction on number of horses as well as manure bays design onsite to mitigate odor
impact.
Impact on Public Health
18 . No
Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood
19 . No
20 . No
The members agreed they would research the information needed to make the decision at
the continuation of the Public Hearing on November 15th
A discussion of items requested and information received resulted in two additional items
needed from Mr. Kehoe. A request for detail for regarding the manure bays as well as
written confirmation from the Cayuga Nature Center, etc . regarding availability of
overflow parking for bus parking.
Mr. Kehoe stated he would contact Ms . Allen to provide the manure bay design, he has
spoken with Mr. Weeks however due to a death in the family he has not gotten back to
him in writing.
The Board reviewed the draft of the resolution as prepared by Ms . Chiuten. Revisions
were made to reflect concerns from the Public Hearing. The draft is as follows :
DRAFT
TOWN OF ULYSSES
PLANNING BOARD
PROPOSED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-011
Keyman ' s New Park Project
Site Plan Approval
Tax Parcel No. 18.-4-2 and 18.-4-3
1488- 1500 Taughannock Boulevard
Town of Ulysses, New York
Planning Board, November 15, 2006
MOTION made by , seconded by
WHEREAS :
1 . The Town of Ulysses Planning Board is considering a Sketch Plan for the
proposed Keyman ' s New Park Project (NYS Route 89), Town of Ulysses Tax
Parcel Nos . 18 . -4-2 and 18 . -4-3 , B- 1 Business District and R1 Rural Residential
District. Since proposed project is located in a B1 and a R1 district a
determination will be made setting the zoning precedents for this project. The
project proposes rehabilitation of 7 existing cabins/bungalows, rehabilitation of
the existing garage into a wine tasting room, construction of 3 new
cabins/bungalows and a hobby/storage barn, a new horse barn, new septic
systems, a gravel parking lot for approximately 50 cars, and site improvements .
The proposed site improvements include plantings, stone walls and other aesthetic
structures, two stone arch vehicular bridges and a wooden pedestrian bridge over
existing drainage ways, and 8 ' high cedar stockade fencing. There are currently
three driveway curb cuts onto NYS Route 89 which will remain. Existing trails
throughout the parcel will be rehabilitated for use by pedestrians and horse-drawn
wagons . Jamie Kehoe, Owner/Applicant, Allen Engineering and Novelli
Engineering, Consultants and
Planning Board Meeting 5
11 /02/2006
2 . The proposed Keyman' s New Park Project, which requires site plan approval, is
an Unlisted action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6
NYCRR Part 617 , and
3 . The applicant has submitted materials for the above-described action, including a
project description and a set of concept drawings, dated 8/ 14/06, as listed below :
• FEAF-with a description of proposed uses, and inclusion that part
Part of the project is located within a Tompkins County Unique
Natural Area.
• Plan for landscaping details,
• Architectural blueprints for buildings to be constructed.
• Base Map
• Concept Map
• Septic System Plan
• Septic System Details
• Erosion Control/SWPPP Plan
• Pedestrian Suspension bridge detail
• Masonry Arch Bridge detail
4 . The applicant has submitted a revised site plan on USGS map, dated XXXXXX,
indicating the following changes , as listed below :
• Location of the horse barn, paddock and any manure storage facilities
on the R- 1 parcel .
• Description of how horse manure will be stored/ managed to minimize
runoff potential down slope and into the creek system.
• Location of proposed parking and turn-around for buses .
• Location of all proposed trails relative to topography and cross-
' sectional detail of the trails that will be supporting the proposed
stagecoach traffic .
• Location of 2 handicapped parking spaces, ideally one each by the
Wine Tasting facility and the cabins .
5 . The Tompkins County Department of Planning submitted its review pursuant to
§ 239 —1 and —m of the NYS General Municipal Law,
6 . The Town of Ulysses Planning Board has received comments from
interested/involved agencies, and has not received any opposition to its intent to
declare lead agency, and thus is acting as the Lead Agency,
7 . The Town of Ulysses Planning Board held a public hearing on October 25 , 2006
at 710 PM, continued on November 15 , 2006 at 7 : 30 PM,
8 . It was determined the horse barn on the R1 parcel is an allowable use as a
commercial stable .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED :
That the Town of Ulysses Planning Board, having undertaken the environmental
review of the project as an Uncoordinated Review, established itself as Lead Agency,
and hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in
accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the
above-referenced action as proposed, and therefore, an Environmental Impact
Statement will not be required, and that a notice of this determination will be duly
filed pursuant to the provisions of 6 NYCRR Part 617 . 12 .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED :
That the Town of Ulysses Planning Board hereby grants Site Plan Approval for the
proposed Keyman ' s New Park Project proposal , subject to the following conditions
prior to issuance of a building permit :
Planning Board Meeting 6
11 /02/2006
1 . Applicant must revegetate all disturbed stream/creek/drainage swale banks with
native/adapted plant species tolerant of intermittent inundation. Plant list to be
approved by stormwater committee, plant species may be obtained at website
name.
2 . Designate an alternate parking area for overflow and / or provide evidence in
writing of the agreement with Cayuga Nature Center to provide such overflow
space.
3 . Provide a plan for traffic control along Rt . 89 during events in excess of 100
I
persons . E
4 . A maximum of six horses will be allowed at any time onsite,
5 . Maintenance of all trail surfaces with either vegetation or gravel to prevent soil
erosion and sedimentation in the creek.
6 . Hours of operation for events using sound systems will be limited to
6am to 11 pm .
7 . Exterior lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Ulysses
Planning Board before installation,
8 . Prohibit motor vehicles other than maintenance purposes on the trails,
9 . Provide signage and maps delineating property lines to all who use the Kehoe
property.
10 . Provide temporary portable sanitation facilities for any large events .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED :
That the Town of Ulysses Planning Board hereby reaffirms Site Plan Approval for the
proposed fence approved on August 15 , 2006, given that said fence will adequately
be mitigated with vegetation against negative visual impacts .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED :
That the Town of Ulysses Planning Board recommends to the Town of Ulysses Town
Board legislation be adopted requiring Special Permits for events over 100 people
Ii
and/or involving amplified sounds .
I
The vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES :
NAYS :
ABSENT :
ABSTAINED : N/A
The vote on the motion was CARRIED/FAILED
The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 10 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Robin Carlisle Peck
Secretary
11 / 15/06
I