The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCB Minutes 1997-05-01TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 1997 APPROVED JUNE 5, 1997 PRESENT: Phil Zarriello, Chair; Kara Hagedorn, Vice Chair; Frank Baldwin, Lois Levitan, Jon Meigs, Barney Unsworth, John Yntema. ABSENT: Elizabeth deProsse, Eva Hoffmann. STAFF: Geri Tierney, Conservation Board Coordinator; JoAnn Cornish, Environmental Review Committee Coordinator. GUEST: Greg Bell. Chair Phil Zarriello opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. MEMBER CONCERNS: Kara Hagedorn asked when the latest draft of the Open Space Plan would be reviewed by the Conservation Board. Chair Zarriello stated that a prior draft has already been reviewed by this Board. Planner JoAnn Cornish stated that the new draft has been distributed to the public, and will be used for public hearings. Ms. Hagedorn stated that she has serious concerns about the buffers to Buttermilk Falls State Park. There was some protection of Conservation Zoning through the previous draft, and this draft does not have it. She would be happy to lead a field trip through Buttermilk Falls State Park to show her concerns about creating buffers. Chair Zarriello asked Ms. Hagedorn if she is proposing the Conservation Board review this plan again before it becomes final. Ms. Hagedorn responded, yes. Planner Geri Tierney stated that this is a good time to do this because this is the time for public input. Chair Zarriello asked when would the final plan be proposed. Planner Cornish stated that there would be public hearings set up to make comments or suggestions. Ms. Hagedorn pointed out on a map where the buffers should be located for the Buttermilk Falls State Park from the Walter Wiggins development because of wildlife she has observed during watches she leads in these areas. Walter Wiggins would be donating 18 acres to the Buttermilk Falls State Park upon final approval of his subdivision near the park. Chair Zarriello stated that this conversation should be an agenda item for further discussion. COORDINATOR AND CHAIR REPORTS: Chair Zarriello stated that there were some concerns mentioned regarding the reviews submitted to the Planning Board. The reports need to be worded constructively, not confrontationally. Planner Cornish stated that the comments need to be kept factual and advisory rather than editorializing the report. The main points are becoming lost during this effort. Planner Tierney stated that she handed out a section describing the role of the Conservation Board at the beginning of this year. The section mentions the importance of the relationship between the Conservation Board and the Planning Board. It makes it a clear that the Conservation Board has only the power of persuasion because the Board is only an advisory board. The Conservation Board had a brief discussion on how the Environmental Review Committee's comments would be presented to the Planning Board. The Board decided to meet the third Thursday of this month to discuss the Environmental Review Committee's role, and discuss two subdivisions that will be coming before the Planning Board on May 20, 1997. The Conservation Board discussed the outcome of the Earth Day Celebration held in April. GUEST CONCERNS Planning Board Member Gregory Bell described the Planning Board's function. He suggested that members of the Conservation Board attend a Planning Board meeting for further information or to comment on a project. The Planning Board usually receives comments from the ERC at the night of the meeting, and usually has to read the comments during the presentation of the proposal. Sometimes it is hard for the Planning Board to read and listen to the applicants/agents as they are speaking. Mr. Bell suggested that if the comments were in before the mail out of the packets, the Planning Board could review the material ahead of time. Lois Levitan asked Mr. Bell if he is conveying as an individual or from the Planning Board the invitation to come to the Planning Board meetings. Mr. Bell stated that it is him individually, but the Planning Board meetings are open to the public. The Planning Board has never discussed this issue. Planner Cornish stated that whoever takes the lead for certain projects, that person should go to the public hearing to speak out on that proposal. The passion or concerns of the memorandums are not conveyed because it is just a piece of paper. Eva Hoffmann often speaks to the Planning Board on behalf of the Conservation Board. It might be a suggestion that a person attend a Planning Board meeting to speak, especially if they feel strongly about that proposal. That person would need to state, at that time, whether they would be talking on an individual basis or for the Conservation Board. CORNELL UNIVERSITY LAKE SOURCE COOLING PROJECT DEIS: Chair Zarriello stated that the comments were mailed to Department of Environmental Conservation for the Cornell University Lake Source Cooling Project DEIS. There were different comments gathered from other Boards and Committee members of the Town that were mailed to DEC. The Conservation Board had a brief discussion on the Cornell University Lake Source Cooling Project DEIS, and what some of the comments were that were submitted to DEC. SOUTH HILL SWAMP FOLLOW-UP SURVEY: Planner Tierney stated that a new proposal for a follow up study done last fall was received from Nancy Ostman and Robert Wesley. Ms. Ostman and Mr. Wesley selected sites they thought require further study, and cost to complete this study were provided. The follow up study will cost $4,500 because they underestimated the time required to complete the previous study and they are proposing several site visits to complete this study. The Conservation Board needs to write a memorandum to the Town Board to request funding of this study. Ms. Ostman and Mr. Wesley would like to start soon because the plants are starting to bloom. The Town Board meets again on May 12, 1997. The Conservation Board has approximately $2,000 in the budget for members to attend conferences and other related CB expenses. Some of the money needs to remain for a conference in October. Since there is not $4,500 in the fund, the Town Board would need to identify other funds. The Conservation Board agreed to use $1,000 of there budget to support this study. MOTION made by Frank Baldwin, seconded by Phil Zarriello: RESOLVED, that the Conservation Board hereby authorizes $1,000 to help fund the plant study by Nancy Ostman and Robert Wesley for the South Hill Swamp. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Meigs, Hagedorn, Levitan, Baldwin, Yntema. NAYS - None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Approval of minutes was postponed until the June meeting. Chair Zarriello adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. DRAFTED: 5/20/97 dk Edited: 5/28/97 pjz OF ja� > TOWN OF ITHACA 21 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 TO: Conservation Board Members FROM: Geri Tierney, CB Coordinator i DATE: 22 April 1997 RE: Our next meeting Greetings. Enclosed please find materials for our May 1st meeting. The enclosed comments on the Lake Source Cooling dEIS were sent to DEC this week. The enclosed proposal for a follow-up study in the South Hill Swamp was received this week and will be discussed at this meeting; arrangement for this follow-up study will have to be made quickly so that the survey may be started during the Spring bloom. I have also enclosed draft minutes from our last two meetings for your review. I am working on contacting Coy Glen landowners this week to gain access to their land for our boundary -checking trips; I will call those of you who have volunteered for this project soon to set up our initial group trip to that area. In addition, JoAnn Cornish has included a copy of ERC comments on the Ithaca College Ford Hall and J and M lots, and some background information about assessing environmental and development! impacts for your information. Please note that the ERC will be meeting just prior to our May 1st meeting, at 7 pm in the Town Board room, to discuss recent development review projects. Please feel free to join them even if you are not an ERC member. As always, please call me at 273-1747 if you have any questions. See you on May 1st. ........... ::f iY':•:iti::::•.i::?:.:!�irri:::}i•:: ............ ..................................................................................................r.................::n:::r:::n...........::::::;:x:::x:...:iiii+i;::-1"i3-: y:.y:. �:.:yi%r :?j::. :.......... w:::::.............•.................,....r•iii:;:�:iiir ::.r::: n..� ::::.r:::::::::-�.�'-iii:4:.:vrr?•:titi�iiii:�iiiiiiiiiti?::?•:�:�''fiiiiiiv....i:�i::::::.:?�:::::.;:x:n;•:::: ry'M�i ii:�r: iiii T: i:::Y�.v:.? ........ xu.ir:.....:.:..:...:.ii'fri:4iiiiiiiiiii:!!?:::i'r:!hr �:irt �:::i•:::�::n.:.::......:i.':::•:�:: iii:{.: w::.ii:•i:ixi.�:.:�::w::::.s :.:: x.:�:::: TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 pm**, Thursday, 1 May 1997 Town Hall Board Room 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (Handicap -accessible entrance ramp on West side of building) (607) 273-1747 AGENDA 7:30 pm 1. Persons to be heard 7:35 pm 2. Member Concerns 7:40 pm 3. Coordinator and Chair Reports 7:50 pm 4. Committee Reports 5. Items for Discussion 8:00 pm a. Cornell Lake Source Cooling dEIS . 8:15 pm b. South Hill Swamp Follow-up Survey 8:45 pm c. Coy Glen Boundary Investigation 9:15 pm 6. Business a. Approval of Minutes from 3/6/97 and 4/3/97 9:30 pm 7. Adjournment **The ERC will meet just prior to the CB on this date, at 7:00 pm in the Town Hall Board Room. All CB members are welcome. CB Members and Associate Members: Phil Zarriello, Chair Frank Baldwin Elizabeth deProsse Richard Fischer Kara Hagedorn Eva Hoffmann Lois Levitan Jon Meigs Barney Unsworth John Yntema (File Name: c.\28p1an\cb\05-01-97.agd) TO: Town of Ithaca Planning Board FROM: Conservation Board, Environmental Review Committee DATE: April 4, 1997 SUBJECT: Review of Tompkins County Waterfront Plan THRU: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Town Planning n PD memorandum APR - 4 1997 The ERC as reviewed the subject report and respectfully submits the following comments. The ERC feels the waterfront plan offers some exciting possibilities for public enjoyment of the waterfront and economic vitality of the inlet area. We encourage the concepts pre- sented in this plan to move forward. The ERC also feels the plan is not comprehensive and fails to address the majority of the waterfront area in Tompkins County. We would encourage the development of a plan that moves beyond the architectural concepts presented and addresses other issues that affect the waterfront. A comprehensive waterfront plan should consider zoning, boat traffic, wildlife habitat, and water quality to name a few. For instance, zoning can be an effective tool for regulat- ing development along the lake shore and other areas that affect the visual and aesthetic characteristics of the waterfront. Unlike the architectural concepts presented, zoning would be inexpensive to implement and potentially affect a much greater area. We look forward to seeing the concepts proposed in this plan being developed, but we also encourage work toward a comprehensive waterfront/watershed plan in the future. TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 Geri Tierney, Planner 21 April 1997 Michael K. Barylski, Deputy Regional Permit Administrator New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation Division of Compliance Services 1285 Fisher Ave. Cortland, NY 13045-1090 RE: Cornell University Lake Source Cooling Project dEIS Dear Mr. Barylski, Earlier today my office sent to you comments from the Town of Ithaca Town Board, Planning Board, and Conservation Board regarding the adequacy of the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Cornell Lake Source Cooling Project. I now forward to you additional comments from a member of our Town of Ithaca Conservation Board, regarding this dEIS. I regret that these comments were not incorporated into our early communication. Sincerely, Geri Tierney, Planner 2 Comments regarding the completeness of the Final Scope of the EIS for Cornell Universities Lake Source Cooling Project From: Kara Hagedorn -Member of the Town Of Ithaca Conservation Board From the DEIS Chapter 3- Human Resources Section 3.1 on transportation services talks about traffic and improvements to roads for vehicles and pedestrians but it never mentions bikes. It is important that improvements to intersections, curves, etc take bicyclists needs into accounts as this section of road on Lake Street and University Ave are used by bike commuters. The section 3.1.2.3 on Construction Methods and Traffic Control Practices should also take bikes into consideration especially if the shoulder areas of the roadway will be under construction. Section 3.1.3.7.2 mentions that construction activities adjacent to the Boynton Middle School and Ithaca High School will be performed during the Summer of 1998. Would if the construction gets off schedule? Mitigating measures should include what will need to be done if construction on that area of roadway needs to be done at a time when schools are in session. In section 3.3 on Community Services -section 3.3.2.1.3 anticipates that access to Fall Creek at the Lake Street Bridge will be restricted during the fall of 1998. Nothing is mentioned in this section that Fall Creek is a popular fishing area in the Fall and that Ithaca Falls is also a popular tourist destination for viewing Fall foliage colors. Limited access to Fall Creek for fishing and recreation should be mentioned in section 3.3.4 on Unavoidable Impacts. In section 3.4. on Demographics -Section 3.4.2.2.1 should explain why the HEF on (SLUD) zoning will become tax exempt. Section 3.5 on visual resources should give information on the proposed intake pipeline and proposed outfall pipeline and whether or not these will be visible. In another section its mentions that lights will be put out alerting boaters during the construction phase but nothing is mentioned whether there will be any long term visual impacts (buoys marking the pipe etc) of the pipelines in the water. TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning 21 April 1997 Michael K. Barylski, Deputy Regional Permit Administrator New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation Division of Compliance Services 1285 Fisher Ave. Cortland, NY 13045-1090 RE: Cornell University Lake Source Cooling Project dEIS Dear Mr. Barylski, I write to you on behalf of the Town of Ithaca Town Board and Planning Board, two involved agencies in the Cornell Lake Source Cooling Project SEQR process, to report the comments of these Boards regarding the adequacy of this dEIS for public review and comment. Please note that I have enclosed separate comments from the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board, which is an interested agency that provides advisory comments and recommendations to both the Town Board and Planning Board. We've reviewed this draft to determine whether it fulfills the requirements of SEQR and if it adequately discusses in both scope and content all relevant issues raised in the scoping document, particularly those relating to the site plan and zoning issues of interest to the Town and including comments to the draft scoping document. We find that this DEIS contains a wealth of valuable information that will aid involved agencies and the public in understanding and considering this project. However, we found a few sections lacking important information, as itemized below. Chapter 1 Section 1.4.1.1 This section (Total Site Layout) should include or reference a figure clearly showing the two tax parcels upon which the HEF and the anchor vault will reside, in relation to the surrounding tax parcels and Cayuga Lake. 1.2.3 The Scoping document specifies that this section (Goals and Objectives of the Proposed Action) include a subsection entitled "Utilize design criteria to protect Cayuga Lake and community resources." If this is still a goal of the project, this subsection should be included. 1.4.1.2.3 This section should include a map showing all five materials storage areas in relation to the surrounding area and Cayuga Lake. This draft refers the reader to four figures in Appendix C-16 to find this information, but one map showing all locations within the text would be more appropriate. The requested figure should clearly label and indicate the size of the soil disposal site south of Renwick Brook and the materials storage area at Portland Point, and should clearly label Renwick Brook. 1.4.2.1 The section specifies that soil excavated from the pipeline route will be disposed at an "approved disposal location." Is this location the area identified in 1.4.1.2.3? 1.4.3.2 Identify the size and location of the sediment disposal location. Will sediments be disposed of in the soil disposal area identified in 1.4.1.2.3? 1.7.8 This section is incorrect. The LSC project has not received Preliminary Approval from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, nor can it until the SEQR process is complete. The Planning Board reviewed and discussed a sketch plan for this project on July 16 1996, but no approvals have been granted. This section should state that Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval must still be sought by the applicant and granted by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, and that a Public Hearing will be conducted at both levels of approval. This process is clarified in a letter from Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter to Elizabeth Vastbinder, dated 11/12/96 and included in the dEIS. Also this section should discuss the Fill Permit, as requested by comment #7 on the draft Scoping Document. 1.7.9 This section (Town of Ithaca SLUD Creation) includes a description of the need for subdivision approval from the Town Planning Board. Subdivision approval is not a subset of SLUD Creation, so the need for subdivision approval should be moved to an appropriately titled section or the title of this section should be broadened. Chapter 2 2.1 This section should include or reference figures showing the depth to water table at the facility site and along the pipeline route; and the topography along the pipeline route, as specified by the Scoping Document. 2.1.2.2.1 This section (Site Topography) references Figure 2.1-12 (HEF Site and Soil Disposal Area - Topography After Construction). This figure should include clearly labeled contour lines showing existing conditions and conditions after regrading, and contour line labels should be large enough to read. Currently, it is unclear which contour lines are existing, and which are new. This section should also include a figure showing two perpendicular cross-sections through the building and site, to show how the building will fit into the topography. 2.6 This section must clearly state the dates on which the vegetation survey was completed. This information is very important for determining adequacy of the survey. Also, it should specify which shrub species will be used in replanting schemes. Page 2 of 4 Chapter 3 3.1 This section should include the figures showing existing and projected traffic counts found in Appendix C-6. It should also include a figure showing the revised traffic plan for access to the marina during construction, as specified in the Scoping Document. 3.1.1 The Scoping Document specifies that this section should include "estimated delays under existing conditions" for traffic. 3.1.2 The Scoping Document specifies that this section should include "estimated increase in peak hour delays due to LSC construction", "effects on commuters", "effect on residents", and "effect on City school complex". These items should be explicitly addressed. 3.1.5 This section should note specific bus routes to be affected, and how they will be accommodated. 3.2.1.2.1 This dEIS should state that the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan designates the +/- 5 -acre marina parcel involved in this project to have an "Anticipated Land Use" of "Recreation". This EIS should discuss whether or not this anticipated land use is compatible with the proposed project, and, if not, what mitigating factors have been considered. 3.3 As specified in the Scoping Document, this section should include a table describing estimated interruptions in water, sewer, and gas services to households and businesses along the route during construction. 3.3.2.2 The short-term (Construction Phase) impacts of this project on recreational access to the marina, and recreation and boating on Cayuga Lake are considered in section 3.3.2.1.3 and 3.3.2.1.4; however the long-term (Operations Phase) impacts on this vital community resource have been omitted, but were specified in the Scoping Document and must be included here. How will this project affect long-term access to the 5 -acre marina parcel, which is one of the last remaining, open lake -front parcels in the Town of Ithaca? 3.5.2 The Scoping Document specifies that this section include a subsection describing visual impacts as viewed from Cayuga Lake (subsection 3.5.2.2); this subsection is missing from the dEIS. Cayuga Lake is the foremost recreational attraction in our area and is used by a wide variety of boaters. The visual impacts from this vantage point can not be omitted. 3.5.2.3 This section should identify locations where the chilled water pipes will be exposed (referred to here as "the few areas north of the Route 13 overpass that will have exposed pipes (such as the crossing of Renwick Brook)"). These areas should be referenced on a clearly labeled figure, and the environmental setting of each location should be described. 3.5.2.2.2 As requested by comment #4 of table of draft scoping comments, this section should consider parking facilities when analyzing the visual impact. If there is no visible impact from the parking facility, this fact should be stated. Page 3 of 4 Also, this section should describe the material, color and texture of the building facade. 3.6 As specified in the Scoping Document, this section should include figures showing the location of historical and archaeological resources in the regions of the site facility and the pipeline corridor, and this map should be referenced to Tables 3.6-1 and 3.6-2. 3.7.2.2.1 The dEIS should clearly state the horsepower of the existing chilled water pumps, from which noise measurements were taken in order to characterize the noise level from the proposed HER It is only possible to use this information for comparison (as directed by the text) if the horsepower of the existing pumps is known. The 5 -acre marina parcel that is part of this proposal is also a recreational marina, and an important recreational resource for the Town as identified by the Town Comprehensive Plan. This site should be included in the noise analysis as a "receptor site" of noise from both construction and operation of the HER Chapter 4 4.9.1.1 This section should more specifically address the regulatory process for permitting larger flow. What new permits would be required, and what sort of re-evaluation of potential environmental impacts would be required? Chapter 5 5.1.1 This discussion of the irreversible commitment of land resources should recognize that the 5 -acre marina parcel that is part of this proposal site is one of the last remaining open parcels of lakeshore in the Town of Ithaca, and thus is an extremely valuable resource. Technical Appendices The scoping document specified the creation of a Health and Safety Plan during construction, which is not present here. Section 3.1.5 briefly discusses this issue, but does not present a plan for maintenance of health and safety (e.g. emergency vehicle access) during construction. Very Truly Yours, Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P. Director of Planning cc: Town of Ithaca Town Board Town of Ithaca Planning Board Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Page 4 of 4 memorandum - TO: New York Department of Environmental Conservation FROM: Conservation Board, Environmental Review Committee DATE: April 17, 1997 SUBJECT: Review of Cornell University Lake Source Cooling DEIS THRU: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Town Planning The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board (CB) has reviewed the DEIS for Cornell's pro- posed Lake Source Cooling (LSC) Project. We commend the LSC team for their thorough examination of the potential environmental affects associated with this project. While the best effort has been made to describe the potential effects of the LSC project, the analysis is based on limited data, and thus, carries some uncertainty. Although the discharge per- mits will likely require monitoring as part of the permit, we fell given complexity of the project that the post development monitoring program should be addressed in the EIS. In addition, the CB has found several areas that we feel should be addressed further in the EIS. • Section 1.2.3 — Does not describe what will be done with the existing CFC's after LSC is on-line. This is a justification of the LSC project. • Section 1.2.? — Does not evaluate the affect deregulation will have on the power indus- try. This may alter the economics of LSC (not an environmental concern, however). • Section 1.2. — Does not describe the possible effects on ground -water flow caused by the permeable backfill along the pipeline route. This material could act as a "french drain" intercepting both saturated and unsaturated flow which would move quickly down gradi- ent along the pipe trench. This condition could cause localized ground -water problems in areas down gradient. Also, if areas of contaminated soils are found along the pipeline route, this condition could mobilize containments from undisturbed soils adjacent to the pipeline trench. • Section 1.3.3 — Does not describe what if any post monitoring associated with changes in phosphorus load. • Section 1.3.4 — Does not describe what action can be taken in the event entrainment of Mysis Relicta. Also, the monitoring and maintenance of the light exclusion zone to pre- vent entrainment of Mysis Relicta is not described. • Section 1.3.6 — Does not adequately address potential water quality changes associated with pigging to mechanically remove mussels. These mussels are know to bioaccumulate contaminents.,thus an estimation of the mass of mussels that will accumulate between cleaning operations is needed to assess the effect this will have on water quality. MEMO • Section 1.3.7 — There is no real evidence as to what varieties of fish and what numbers will be attracted to a lighted intake at this depth. Entrainment of Smelt and Alewives seems to be significant. The problem is addressed by the use of a hydroacoustic device, but will this more than offset the attraction of a weak light? Also, how localized is the hy- droacoustic noise? • Section 2.4— Does not describe what methods will be used to detect and prevent drain- age of the closed loop circulation water in the event of a pipe break or leak. We understand this will contain anti -corrosive agents that can be harmful to the aquatic environment. • Section 3.7—Noise from circulation pumps does not appear to be addressed. Thank you for the opportunity to review the LSC DEIS. We hope you find these comments useful. PAGE 2 OF 2 TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 PENDING DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS Town of Ithaca Planning Board April 21, 1997 The following is a list of proposed land subdivisions or development projects for which an application has been received. These proposals are subject to Planning Board review under the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, or other Town Laws. For more information contact the Planning Department at 273-1747. Project No.: 9701221. Ithaca College, 953 Danby Road. Description: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for: 1) a proposed +/- 55,000 sq. ft. addition to Ford Hall to house additional classrooms, practice studios, rehearsal rooms, a +/- 250 seat recital hall, and other facilities for the Ithaca College School of Music; 2) a proposed expansion of the existing U Lot" parking lot from 160 spaces to 354 spaces; and 3) a proposed expansion of the existing "M Lot" parking lot from 198 spaces to 230 spaces, located on the Ithaca College campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 41-1-30.2, -30.5 and -30.6, Residence District R-15. Ithaca College, Owner, Robert O'Brien, Hoffman, O'Brien, Look, Taube & Chiang, P.C., Agent. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: May 6, 1997. Project No.: 9702231. 120 East King Road. Addition to Montessori School. Description: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the proposed construction of a 1,180+/- sq. ft. addition to the Montessori School, located at 120 East King Road, on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43-1-3.5, Residence District R-30. Montessori School, Owner; Peter Demjanec, R.A., Agent. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: May 6, 1997. Project No.: 9704232. 1059 Danby Road. Sketch Plan, Russo's Garden Center. Description: Consideration of a Sketch Plan for the proposed construction of a retail garden center proposed to consist of a +/- 4,320 sq. ft. store, +/- 4,550 sq. ft. greenhouses, outside nursery storage and display areas, parking and other appurtenances, to be located at 1059 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43-1-3.2, Business "C" District. Evan Monkemeyer, Owner, Terrence Roswick, Agent. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: May 6, 1997. Project No.: 9704233. 1380 Mecklenburg Road. Suwinski/Nazer 2 -Lot Subdivision. Description: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of +/- 0.14 acre from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27-1-16.2, located adjacent to 1380 Mecklenburg Road, for consolidation with Tax Parcel No. 27-1-16.1, a.k.a. 1380 Mecklenburg Road, AG -Agricultural District. Susan J. Suwinski, Owner, Alfred Nazer, Applicant. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: May 20, 1997. Project No.: 9704234. 600 Block Coddington Road. Grigorov 2 -Lot Subdivision. Description: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of +/- 34.44 acres from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 51-1-3.2, +/- 72.1 acres total area, located on the northeast side of Coddington Road approximately 1,130 feet east of Troy Road, for conveyance to the City of Ithaca for use as public park land, Residence District R-30 and CD -Conservation District. Carolyn Grigorov, Owner/Applicant. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: May 20, 1997. Project No.: 9701224. 701-709 Elmira Road. Sketch Plan -- Proposed Commercial Development. Description: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed construction of a two-story +/- 21,000 sq. ft. commercial building, with parking and landscaping, to be located at 701-709 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35-1-29, Business "C" District. J. Ronald Seacord, Applicant; David Lorenzini, R.A., Agent. Status: P.B. reviewed Sketch Plan on 3/18/97, issues pertaining to potential traffic and drainage related impacts need to be addressed by applicant. Tentative Planning Board Date: To Be Announced. Project No.: 9702227. 141 Northview Road. Holcomb 2 -Lot Subdivision. Description: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of +/- 0.15 acre from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 52-1-17, located at 141 Northview Road, for consolidation with Tax Parcel No. 52-1-16, Residence District R-15. Donald F. and Barbara P. Holcomb, Owners/Applicants. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: To Be Announced. Project No.: 9703228. 1300 Block Mecklenburg Road. A. & N. Eddy Request for Rezoning. Description: Consideration of Recommendation to the Town Board with regard to a request to rezone Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27-1-14.2, +/- 93.5 acres in area and located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road approximately 800 feet west of West Haven Road, from AG -Agricultural and Residence District R-15 to Residence District R-15 in its entirety. Alfred and Nelson Eddy, Owners; Henry Theisen, Esq., Agent. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: To Be Announced. Project No.: 9604197. East King Road. Sketch Plan, Ithaca Estates Subdivision. Description: Consideration of a revised Sketch Plan for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43-01-3.32, consisting of 24.12 +/- acres, into 22 lots, with 3,000 +/- linear feet of proposed road, and extension of public water and sewer service, located between 128 and 134 East King Road, approximately 2,000 feet east of its intersection with Danby Road, Residence District R-30. Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval will initially be requested for Phase I consisting of 8 new building lots. Evan Monkemeyer, Owner; Terrence M. Roswick, Ryan Survey, Agent. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: To Be Announced. Project No.: 9407137. Bostwick Road (100 Block). First Assembly of God Church, Description: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed First Assembly of God Church, to consist of a 21,226 +/- sq. ft. structure containing a sanctuary, offices, classrooms and multipurpose room, with parking for 200 vehicles, to be located on the south side of Bostwick Road approximately 1,000 feet west of Five Mile Drive on Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31-4-6.2, Residence District R-30. First Assembly of God Church Owner, Rev. Robert N. Lovelace, Agent. Status: Granted Preliminary Site Plan Approval on 9/6/94. Tentative Public Hearing Date: To Be Announced. .r DRAFT TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 1997 PRESENT: Chair Phil Zarriello, Vice Chair Kara Hagedorn, Elizabeth deProsse, Barney Unsworth, Frank Baldwin, Jon Meigs, Eva Hoffmann, John Yntema. STAFF: Geri Tierney, CB Coordinator; JoAnn Cornish, ERC Coordinator. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. BOARD MEMBER CONCERNS: Kara Hagedorn had a discussion with Planning Board Member Gregory Bell in regards to a role as a Planning Board Member. He offered to speak to the Conservation Board to give a perspective of what the Town Planning Board does. The Planning Board takes advice from the Conservation Board on projects they review. Mr. Bell wants to give a background of what the Planning Board does, and what the Conservation Board could do to be more effective. The Conservation Board was in agreement to have Mr. Bell attend a meeting. Mr. Bell will give a brief overview of what the Planning Board does, and how the Conservation Board could be more effective with reviews. Chair Zarriello received "The Environmental Notice Bulletin," which is published weekly. In region seven, which is the Town of Ithaca's region, that there are several permits for Stream Protection Clean Water Act. The gravel bars can be removed to install rif-rap, which seems to have a negative impact on stream protection and clean water. After floods, the State has permited people to enter streams to clean out gravel bars. This is starting to raise some concerns. This could be a very expensive process to do. Cleaning these areas could disturb the habitat. The Conservation Board would need to discuss buffer issues at some point. There are no activities like this in the Town. Ms. Hagedorn described some areas in the Buttermilk Falls State Park that might fit into this category. Chair Zarriello stated that he spoke to the Planning Committee, and they have provisionally agreed to have a designee from the Conservation Board to be part of the Planning Committee. The Planning Committee is for strategic planning of development issues to help people through the process. If a Conservation Board member is interested in volunteering for the Planning Committee, please contact Chair Zarriello for more information. Chair Zarriello stated that a former member of the Conservation Board, Cheryl Smith, sent a letter on DEC Camper Programs. She was looking for a sponsorship. It could be a monetary sponsorship. This is a Conservation Workshop Camp to expose children to Conservation issues and the wilderness of the outdoors. The cost is approximately $150 to $200. Part of the sponsorship is a non -monetary part where the child is sponsored by a group that needs to report back to the group. This is set up for low income families to help sponsor children that would not be able to go to camp on their own. The Board will discuss this matter further at a later date. COORDINATOR AND CHAIR REPORTS: Geri Tierney stated that there is an updated draft resolution from Jon Meigs. In regards to the review logs that the Board discussed previously, there is a list of all the projects reviewed by this Board. There is a memo from Planner JoAnn Cornish in regards to park regulations, particularly related to dogs. There is a publication from Westchester County from the Director of Planning, Jonathan Kanter. It is an advisory piece that Westchester County wrote up describing how Conservation Boards should function, what they should do, and some common problems the Board might run into. This publication gives advice, and she recommends that the Board review it. The new members received background information of the Conservation Board. There is a copy of the Town's Environmental Review Law that the Town has implemented for SEQR. There is a copy of the background legislation designating the Conservation Board and the bylaws. There is a copy of the Town's Wetland Guidelines that was written by this Board. There is a copy of the Town's Comprehensive Plan. The Coy Glen Biological report is ready to be handed out if anyone needs a. copy. COMMITTEE REPORTS: There are no official committees set up at this point, so there are no reports. PROPOSED COMMUNITY PARK ON SOUTH HILL: Planner JoAnn Cornish stated that she is going to talk about the Community Park that is being recommended for the Monkemeyer land on South Hill. The concern for this park is that it is very close to the South Hill Swamp. Given the charge to design this park, she took some of the concerns that Planner Tierney had expressed to her and common sense for planning this. A brief history of this plan on how the Town is going to acquire land from Evan Monkemeyer. Mr. Monkemeyer came before the Planning Board with a sketch plan. Planner Cornish pointed out on the survey map done by Nancy Ostman and Bob Wesley of the South Hill Swamp, where the proposed park would be located. The Monkemeyer family owns a lot of land on the South Hill, which Mr. Monkemeyer would have most of the control of. Mr. Monkemeyer came before the Planning Board with a sketch plan for a subdivision. Phase I was for lots 1 through 8. This was a conventional 30,000 square foot lot subdivision. Phase II would be another subdivision to total 22 lots in this area. There is a piece land that was dedicated as park land that Mr. Monkemeyer wants to sell to the Montessori School. The Planning Board agreed that it would be a good idea because it is adjacent to the Montessori School property. It makes sense for Mr. Monkemeyer to sell that piece of land to the Montessori School for them to use. In return, the Planning Board wants an even exchange of land in addition to the 10 percent that the Town requires for subdivisions. There is a definite need for some type of park in this area. It was explained to Mr. Monkemeyer that he could sell these lots with a 100 -foot buffer to the South Hill Swamp that people cannot build upon. Planner Cornish stated that the Town would require a 4.5 acre park from Mr. Monkemeyer if he was to develop these lots. The park area would be a community green space with a play structure. The buffer is being planned to be kept away from the South Hill Swamp area. The drainage on South Hill is a problem. The Town is looking for a level land for the park space with minimal grading. Mr. Monkemeyer is planning to develop all of his properties over the next few years, which would come in phases to the Town. There has always been intent to connect to Ithaca College through this parcel. The terrain is very steep, and it is questionable whether this type of grading could be done to construct a road. There has always been an intent to connect to the commercial property, which would mean another road way. Mr. Monkemeyer is insisting on Phase I, so the Planning Board is going to allow him to do that. Phase II and III would be considered more of clustering and a conservation design for the subdivision rather than standard 30,000 square foot lots all over the 100 -acre parcel on South Hill. If Mr. Monkemeyer clustered his property he would be able to get more units on less space. There would be a large area for open space. The Planning Board tries to encourage developers to look into clusters. Planner Tierney pointed out to the Conservation Board where the commercial properties are in this area on a map. Planner Cornish stated that if Mr. Monkemeyer develops Phase I and II he would have to give the Town a 4.5 acres for open space for a park development. Since the Town is unsure what is going to happen with the other parcels, the Town would need to plan on what they could get at this point. If Mr. Monkemeyer develops all his parcels, the Town would receive an 11 -acre park. However, Mr. Monkemeyer has indicated his willingness to give the Town the 11 acres. He has also indicated that he may get control of his sister's property, and that would help the open space park plan. These were just schematic plans to show what Mr. Monkemeyer could do. There has been several discussions with Mr. Monkemeyer about this issue. This park would be considered regional, and the Town would own the park and maintain it. Hopefully, the developer would pay for the road way. Planner Cornish stated that in the Town's Park and Open Space Plan, a connector walkway was going to go straight through the Unique Natural Area. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz, Planner Tierney, and herself had a lengthy discussion about the problems if a trail was put through this area. They wanted to discourage the idea of having people walking through the Unique Natural Area. There is an existing trail, but it is over grown now. Ms. Cornish pointed out the Unique Natural Area on a map, and where the proposed trail would go in this area. The topography is steep in the South Hill area for bike paths and pedestrian paths. These plans are to give the Board an idea of the direction that .the Town is going with the community park, and to ask for any suggestions or comments that the Town should be considering for an environmental stand point. In discussions with the Town Engineer and the Town Supervisor, they,do not want the pond as part of the park because they would have to assume liability for the pond and maintenance. It does not mean that it cannot be recommended or that a water feature in the park couldn't be a part of it, it is just the direction the staff was given. Houses could be built around the pond. The pond would need drainage work done if houses were built near that for retention. The location and accessibility of the park have been recommended for a community park. Mr. Monkemeyer is willing within the next four months to give the Town 11 acres for this park. There is not a lot of contiguous parcels that would allow an 11 -acre park that would be buildable for some of the things the Town wants. The 11 acres is more than 10 percent of the land Mr. Monkemeyer wants to be developed. The most leveled land in this area is where the proposed park land is suggested to be. This park would be available to anyone, it would not be a restrictive park. The Conservation Board suggested that the Planning Staff work with Ithaca College in regards to a path way from the Campus to College Circle for the students. Ithaca College is working with the Planning Board for construction that would be happening on campus to Ford Hall and the J lot parking area. Ms. Hagedorn stated that she walked the boundaries of the Buttermilk Falls State Park. It was interesting to see how many people who's property borders the Park have started to use the park. There is garbage and tree forts near the boundaries. There are several unofficial trails to the park. There is a buffer area for these people to the park. Restrictions could be added to the deed as a restriction for a buffer. The Board discussed fencing for the boundary to the buffers to keep people and their animals out of the park. This wouldneed to be addressed to the Attorney for the Town for any legal issues on fencing. SOUTH HILL SWAMP UNA - PROPOSED RESOLUTION AND DEC STATUS: The Conservation Board had a lengthy discussion on the proposed resolution to DEC to make some changes and amendments for the language. MOTION by Jon Meigs, seconded by John Yntema: WHEREAS the Conservation Board has been asked to make recommendations for protecting the "South Hill Unique Natural Area," an area of the Town of Ithaca containing special flora, rare ecological communities, old-growth forest, and wetlands, as documented by an inventory conducted in 1996 by experts Nancy Ostman and Robert Wesley, and WHEREAS Nancy Ostman and Robert Wesley consider the South Hill Swamp to be one of the two most unique natural areas within the Town of Ithaca, and WHEREAS such flora are susceptible to destruction or reduction in number to below a level at which they can remain naturally viable within their habitat, through human activity or by activity controllable by humans, such as development or the activities of humans and domestic pets within the area, and WHEREAS such flora are of value to the people of the Town of Ithaca because of their scarcity, their aesthetic qualities, their illustration of the history of occupation and development of the Town, and their utility to education and scientific research, which are ultimately of economic importance to the Town, and WHEREAS the Conservation Board intends to continue and complete its work of defining the area meriting protection, including the South Hill Unique Natural Area, and to make recommendations to the Town concerning appropriate protective measures, in 1997, and WHEREAS a complete assessment of the area's resources will not be obtainable until the 1997 growing season is well underway, thus leaving development plans which are currently under discussion for property in and adjacent to the area without benefit of a complete assessment, be it RESOLVED that the Conservation Board asks the Town Planning Board, Planning Department and other agencies responsible for regulating development in the Town, to take into consideration the above matters when reviewing applications for the development and use of property in and adjoining the South Hill Unique Natural Area, and to consult the Conservation Board before deciding on any such applications. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Zarriello called for a vote. AYES - Zarriello, deProsse, Hagedorn, Unsworth, Baldwin, Meigs, Yntema. NAYS - None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Frank Baldwin stated that DEC suggested that the State would be able to protect this area or the local Town or County would also be able to protect the area. The only areas that the State needs to protect are Class I areas. If the Town writes DEC on why this should be considered an Unique Natural Area, that they might reconsider it. The area does not need to any specific size to be protected. If the area is to be considered special for protection, the State should be informed of the Town's interests are. Mr. Baldwin will draft a letter for the Conservation Board to review to pass along to the Town Board for review. COY GLEN UNA BOUNDARY CRITERIA: The criteria would be passed along to the subcommittees of the Board for review, and they would bring the information back to the Board for further discussion. ELECTIONS: MOTION by Jon Meigs, seconded by Eva Hoffmann:: RESOLVED, that the Conservation Board hereby appoints Phil Zarriello as Chair for the 1997 term. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, deProsse, Hagedorn, Unsworth, Baldwin, Hoffmann, Meigs, Yntema. NAYS - None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION by Phil Zarriello, seconded by Jon Meigs: RESOLVED, that the Conservation Board hereby appoints Kara Hagedorn as Vice Chair for the 1997 term. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, deProsse, Hagedorn, Unsworth, Baldwin, Hoffmann, Meigs, Yntema. NAYS - None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JANUARY 16, 1997 MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Phil Zarriello: RESOLVED, that the Conservation Board hereby approves the Minutes of January 16, 1997 as written with the following corrections: Page 2, paragraph 5, states "the report indicates an extent to an area," shall read "the report should indicate an area larger than 12 acres." A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, deProsse, Hagedorn, Unsworth, Baldwin, Hoffmann, Meigs, Yntema. NAYS - None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: FEBRUARY 6, 1997 MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Phil Zarriello: RESOLVED, that the Conservation Board hereby approves the Minutes of February 6, 1997 as written with a spelling correction: AYES - Zarriello, deProsse, Hagedorn, Unsworth, Baldwin, Hoffmann, Meigs, Yntema. NAYS - None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS: Planner Cornish stated that the Environmental Review Committee meets separately from the Conservation Board to review the projects at hand. Not all the projects would warrant Environmental Review because the Environmental Impact Statements and significance does the review. There are projects that the Planning Board and Staff takes the comments from the Committee seriously for reviewing the projects. This committee is an important function of the Conservation Board and the most powerful tools to become involved with what happens in the Town of Ithaca environmentally, is to review some of these projects. The committee has met separately for each project could the proper review. The Conservation Board will discuss the subcommittee appointments at the next meeting for review and voting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. r DRAFT TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 1997 PRESENT: Phil Zarriello, Chair; Kara Hagedorn, Vice -Chair; Elizabeth deProsse, Eva Hoffmann, Lois Levitan, Barney Unsworth, John Yntema. ABSENT: Frank Baldwin, Jon Meigs, Richard Fischer. STAFF: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Geri Tierney, CB Coordinator; JoAnn Cornish, ERC Coordinator. GUESTS: Fred Noteboom, Lachlan Chambliss. Chair Zarriello opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. The Board had a discussion of the Town's Newsletter, and the article from Chair Zarriello that was printed in the Newsletter. The Monkemeyer proposal was pulled from the Planning Board agenda and the Town Board agenda, because Mr. Monkemeyer did not submit all the necessary information. Mr. Kanter stated that the agreement that Mr. Monkemeyer and the Planning Department had was not acceptable for Mr. Monkemeyer. The idea of a larger area for a park space would be ideal, but further discussions with Mr. Monkemeyer is necessary. The Board had a discussion on what members could contribute time to the Earth Day Celebration on the Commons. The Board also discussed what would be on the table for this celebration. Earth Day is April 18 through April 26. The Planning Staff agreed to work on the displays with the Conservation Board for the table. Planner Tierney passed around an article about green parking lots, and a handbook on the Unique Natural Areas in the Town of Ithaca. Chair Zarriello stated that the Cornell University Veterinary Incinerator Project has been stalled. DISCUSSION OF TOWN HIGHWAY POLICIES: Fred Noteboom, Highway Superintendent stated how the High_ way Department deals with sedimentation. This situation has become more sensitive this past year, that the Coy Glen area needs some work done. In the drainage areas in the Town, we have used the fencing sedimentation control fabrics. We are also attempting, instead of cleaning a ditch straight through, to try to be more careful by cleaning certain areas to slow the water down before it runs off. On the steeper slopes, we are looking into piping some of the ditches. A hydro seeder has been purchased to more rapidly stabilize areas after construction. Herbicide use is minimal, but some roundup is used on poison ivy and wild rose. Lois Levitan stated that she has safety concerns on the Elm Street steep ditches. Mr. Noteboom stated that Elm Street tends not to have much room anyway, and there is not much shoulder on the street. Ms. Levitan asked if there another approach to cleaning the ditches without digging the ditches deeper. Planner JoAnn Cornish stated that the deepest part of the ditch happens to be in the City. Mr. Noteboom stated that it would be costly to put storm drains in some of these areas. The Board had some concerns about the road configuration with the steep ditches, where people could not safely walk or ride their bikes on Elm Street. Kara Hagedorn stated there was some concerns on King Road about the ditches over flowing, and asked what could be done. Mr. Noteboom stated that King Road would be repaved with new drainage being installed this year. Ms. Hagedorn asked if the Highway Department was responsible for cutting the trees on Sand Bank Road. Mr. Noteboom responded, yes. There were a number of trees on that road. Sand Bank Road is not used a lot, but some of the trees needed to be removed for safety reasons. Ms. Hagedorn stated that she sends a lot of people up and down Sand Bank Road to Upper Buttermilk Park from Lower Buttermilk Park and this was part of their park experience. Mr. Noteboom explained the maintenance the Highway Department does to Sand Bank Road. Ms. Levitan asked if there is a way to change the slopes of the ditches. Right now they act like storm drains because they are very deep and straight. Mr. Noteboom stated that there are some possibilities using drainage structures. Orchard Hill Road has these structures in the ditches, which work very well. They have to maintain a certain amount of volume in those ditches because during a storm they would carry a certain amount water volume to handle the run off. The main concern is to try and keep water out of the road base for safety reasons. Rocks would clog the pipes as banks give way. There is increased run off on Elm Street and West Haven Road from the EcoVillage project. Some of these developments have caused runoff problems. Ms. Hagedorn asked if Sand Bank Road was wider with the trees being removed. Mr. Noteboom stated that it looks like that. One of the reasons to move the trees away from the ditch for safety reasons and to help keep the ditches cleaner. Mr. Noteboom stated that he would be glad to help anyone with questions or concerns of the Town, and they could contact him at the Highway Department. DISCUSSION OF COY GLEN UNIQUE NATURAL AREA BOUNDARIES: Chair Zarriello stated that the draft reports Coy Glen as a biological corridor. The Board needs to address what areas of Coy Glen should receive attention and be protected (i.e. conservation easements and zoning). The Board needs to identify what boundaries should be considered for special protection from a biological or hydrological standpoint. This is mainly to protect the Unique Natural Area (UNA) of the Coy Glen area. Planner Tierney stated that the Elm Street and Elm Street Extension is a particular area of interest for boundaries. Ms. Tierney pointed out on a map the area of Coy Glen and the ownership of the area. She pointed out possible boundaries. She also showed a map of the land use in the area. Basic signage should be considered for people to understand the UNA area. While inventorying the area for the boundaries, it should be considered, where the signage could go. Dogs should not be allowed into the UNA, or they should be leashed. The Board discussed having literature at the Earth Day Celebration in regards to having dogs kept on leashes while walking them on the Town's trails and the UNA paths. EcoVillage residents have a connection on a back road to Elm Street through the UNA, which the residents tend to walk a lot. John Yntema asked if there are places in the Town where dogs are not permitted. Director of Planning Kanter stated that there are certain leash laws such as in the South Hill Recreationway, but it is difficult to enforce. Mr. Noteboom stated that this has been a problem with a lot of the trails that the Town owns. People are walking their dogs in an area where it is not allowed, or the dogs are not leashed. Chair Zarriello stated that dog awareness is one component of this. The other component is an area that should delineate from be protected from building. This is something this Board should be considering. Planner Tierney suggested a committee'be set up between the Conservation Board, Planning Staff, and other groups interested, to walk the boundaries to check the maps to see where the line should be drawn. Planner Cornish asked if this committee would need to contact the landowners to inform them of the group walking the area. In the past, not all landowners agreed to this. Ms. Levitan stated that there was a proposal in the late 1970's to make this area into a State Park. People did not like the idea of having ball fields like Buttermilk Falls in this area. It was felt that if the landowners were informed of the purposes of the walk thru they would consent to site visits by town officials. Planner Cornish stated that the landowners should still be contacted before the group walks the area. Ms. Hagedorn asked what would happen after the boundaries are defined to protect the area. Chair Zarriello stated that conservation easements would be one option. Director of Planning Kanter stated that acquisitions would be another option, and perhaps the purchase of development rights program, which the Town is considering at this point. Chair Zarriello stated that this Board needs to find out what needs to be protected, and along the way think about mechanisms to do it. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Planning Committee would be meeting on April 14. If this Board thinks it is a good idea to start a committee with other groups and boards, then he would mention it to the Planning Committee. The Conservation Board agreed with Mr. Kanter's idea. Planner Tierney will produce maps for the Coy Glen area for each member to use while walking the site. Some of the members of the Conservation Board volunteered to walk the UNA for the boundaries. The Newsletter also has an article about dog control from the Parks Department. If the SPCA is notified, they will follow up on all complaints of dogs. Ms. Hagedorn stated that Planning Board Member Greg Bell would not be able to attend the meeting tonight to address the Board. Mr. Bell will be asked to come back at another time. Director of Planning Kanter gave a brief description of what the Planning Committee and the Planning Board do. The Planning Committee meetings are open to the public (including other members of Boards.) Chair Zarriello stated that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) from Cornell University Lake Source Cooling Project has been submitted to the Planning Department. It is a large draft that would be divided up into pieces for the Conservation Board to review individually. This is the period for the Conservation Board to review the DEIS for completeness. While reviewing the DEIS, the Board needs to make sure everything is addressed for the scoping process. Any comments need to be addressed by April 21, 1997 for Cornell University. The draft should be ready for public review in June. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Planning Board and the Town Board are also involved agencies. The Planning Board is reviewing the site plan for the East Shore Drive site where the facility is going. The Town Board will need to rezone the property because lake source cooling facility is not an allowed uses in that area. Planner Tierney has agreed to review the sections of DEIS that relates to the site plan and zoning issues. The Planning Board has already concurred that staff will do the review on their behalf. The Planning Staff will be asking the Town Board do so the same. If there are any comments to be submitted, the Planning Staff will be sending the comments. DEC wanted additional input from the involved and interested agencies before they do accept the project for full public review and comments. Chair Zarriello closed the meeting at 9:30 p.m. F. Robert Wesley SS # 080 44 4907 541 Ellis Hollow Creek Road Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 539-6118 April 16, 1997 Geraldine Tierney Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Geri, Nancy L. Ostman, Ph. D. SS # 474 52 6480 465 Van Ostrand Road Groton, New York 13073 (607) 898-4225 R@ N 0 W R APR 2 p TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING, ZONING ENGINEERING You have requested that we conduct a follow-up survey of the South Hill Unique Natural Area to further identify plant species found there, and in particular to note the presence of rare and scarce species. In order to see plants in stages that make identification sure and fast, we propose visiting the sites three times. Once in May, again in June, and a third time in late July or early August. Please note that our visits to the sites last November cannot substitute for a July visit. If we were to visit the sites only twice during the growing season we will have more difficulty identifying species, so each visit may well take longer. We would not expect to save a lot of time by altering our proposed work plan in this way. Also note that we already have much information on the core area (i. e., the large basin near King Road owned by Cornell University and Ithaca College) and that we do not intend to charge the Town for any information gathered on Cornell property. We will concentrate our survey on the other sections of the UNA as outlined in our 1996 report. However, our report will include lists of rare and scarce plant species and their locations for the entire UNA. As you know, in November 1996 we visited the South Hill properties in and adjacent to the Unique Natural Area (UNA). We walked the properties, noting the vegetation types, searching for rare species and rare ecological communities, and verifying quality of areas included in the UNA. We outlined areas with distinct vegetation and land use history. In our report we noted those areas where rare and scarce species are likely to be found which we felt to be of highest priority for additional visits. They are listed on the attached document. The numbers follow the original location numbers shown on the 1996 report and shown on the map. The sites that are indicated with an asterisk N are perhaps those of highest priority, but this will be difficult to predict in advance. We have not seen these sites during the growing season, and even those locations not mentioned as high priority sites in the 1996 report could have rare or scare species present. Because the season appears to be early this year, we would like to begin as soon as possible this spring, probably the first week in May, in order to find as many species as possible in a recognizable stage. We would complete the survey early September and complete the report mid-September. We can complete the follow-up surveys and report for $4500. Our method of calculation the cost of the survey is as follows: (12 sites x (1.3 hour for surveying x 3 visits per site) +-110 hours writing) x 2 people x $40/ Hour = $4544. If you need any further information please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Nancy L. Ost F. Robert Wesley Priority locations at the South Hill Unique Natural Area for additional study F. Robert Wesly and Nancy L. Ostman Based on a December, 1996 report. 1. Successional northern hardwoods. Southwestern edge of Ithaca College property. Species present on this site include scarlet oak, white ash (Fraxinus americana), red maple (Acer rubrum), American crabapple, deerberry (Vaccinium stamineum), and blueberry (Vaccinium spp.). This unusual community is on a seasonally wet and dry plateau. This site is very flat and to the west there is a bedrock rim, beyond which there is a steep slope dropping to the west. Almost all of this site was cleared and plowed for agriculture, perhaps unsuccessfully. This site needs to be inventoried further because there are some scarce and uncommon plant species present and it exhibits physical characteristics suitable for the pine barrens community types. *2. Pitch pine -heath barrens Ithaca College property This site is on the westernrim of a plateau. Dry site species include maleberry and pitch pine, scarlet oak, red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and red maple. American crabapple is also present. Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) is found in areas cleared for agriculture in the past. This site is very shallow to bedrock and is similar to a shale barrens. Most of this area has been cleared in the past. Hedgerows and rocky open areas exhibit less disturbed vegetation. This is an open site with a high cover of shrub species. This site need further investigation because of its barrens -like characteristics. *3. Pitch pine -heath barrens Ithaca College property Pitch pine and scarlet oak are the dominant species. This site is the most typical of a barrens community, which is a rare community type. This is a very open, sloping ridgetop site which was been cleared for agriculture. It is very shallow to bedrock and appears to be very sterile. There are herb -dominated openings. This is a likely site for the prairie warbler. This is a high priority site for further investigation. Future field work should include an inventory of bird species. 4. Pitch Pine -oak-heath woodland Ithaca College property south of the Ithaca College Water Tower. Scarlet oak and pitch pine are the dominant species. Red oak (Quercus rubra) is present. This stand is nearly a barrens it is so dry and open. This site should be revisited. 7. Successional northern hardwoods. Ithaca College property Pitch pine, red maple, and white pine are the dominant species. Pitch pine becomes less abundant and white pine more abundant southward. The soils likewise appear to be deeper. Carex complanata var. hirsuta, a state rarity, is found near an old hedgerow. These forests are growing on land that was plowed, however, the species composition is rather unusual. It is reverting to a Pitch pine - oak heath woodland. This site needs to be revisited in the spring. *9. Perched swamp white oak swamp. Ithaca College property Swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor) is the dominant species in about half of this area. Red maple, shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) and trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) are also abundant. Aspen is more prevalent in the area that has been plowed in the past. This is a locally rare community which is also rare at the state level. This is a shallow basin on a flat terrace. Seasonally there is standing water here. Aerial photographs show that some large swamp white oaks were already large in 1938. Most of the site has never been plowed, but may have been grazed. This rare community needs to be investigated further. 10. Successional northern hardwoods. Ithaca College / Lenora Monkemeyer Dominant species include trembling aspen, red maple, and white ash. In the herb layer Carex complanata var. hirsuta (a state rarity) and Hedeoma pulegioides, American pennyroyal, are found here. This forested site has small trees. It is a flat site with shallow soils that are seasonally extremely wet or dry. This site should be searched further in the spring. *11. Appalachian oak -hickory forest Dry northwest -southeast running ridge and shallow valley on Lenora Monkemeyer property extending onto Ithaca College property. Shagbark hickory, red oak, scarlet oak, white oak, red maple and white pine are dominant species. Chestnut oak (Quercus montana) and pignut hickory (Carya glabra) are present. Fire scars can be seen on the bases of old trees. The shrub layer has deerberry and highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum). There is much Carex pensylvanica (a sedge) in the herb layer. This is a section of old-growth forest. The vegetation on the rocky ridge is open. There is a small, low-lying wet meadow adjacent to the forested ridge. This site should be searched again in the spring for rare herbaceous plants. Robert Wesley has found Scirpus verecundus near here in the past. 17. Successional old field NYSEG power line Dominant species are common old field weeds and ericaceous shrubs. This power line is an important refuge for shade intolerant pine -barrens species. Bluets (Hedyotis caerulea), a locally scarce species is abundant here. This area should be revisited. *18. Pitch pine -oak -heath woodland Ithaca College property, north lip of the main basin. Pitch pine is the dominant species. Other dominants include scarlet oak, white pine, sugar maple, and red oak. This woodland community is rare locally and at the state level. This area is rather flat at the north edge of the basin. The site has been cleared in the past, but not plowed. It is shallow to bedrock and seasonally wet and dry. 21. Successional old -field Northeast corner of Evan Monkemeyer parcel Common old field species, most of these being European weeds, are found here, but Pycnanthemum tenuifolium, narrow -leaved mountain mint is also present. There is a small, seasonally wet meadow immediately south of the hedgerow. This area should be investigated for other rare or scarce species typically associated with the mountain mint. *22. Appalachian oak -hickory forest Ithaca College/Evan Monkemeyer/Lenora Monkemeyer Hedgerow Dominant species include scarlet oak, shagbark hickory, pignut hickory, red maple, chestnut oak, American crabapple is found in the Lenora Monkemeyer hedgerow. The species composition is likely to be representative of the original vegetation of the site. Largest trees are in northern part of hedgerow. The site is rocky and shallow to bedrock. The area east of the hedgerow on Ithaca College is steeply sloping in places. This remnant should be investigated further for herbaceous species. To: Town of Ithaca Planning Board FROM: Conservation Board, Environmental Review Committee DATE: April 4, 1997 SUBJECT: Review of Tompkins County Waterfront Plan THRU: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Town Planning ((;::: � I r) po y memorandum APR — d i997 U The ERC as reviewed the subject report and respectfully submits the following comments. The ERC feels the waterfront plan offers some exciting possibilities for public enjoyment of the waterfront and economic vitality of the inlet area. We encourage the concepts pre- sented in this plan to move forward. The ERC also feels the plan is not comprehensive and fails to address the majority of the waterfront area in Tompkins County. We would encourage the development of a plan that moves beyond the architectural concepts presented and addresses other issues that affect the waterfront. A comprehensive waterfront plan should consider zoning, boat traffic, wildlife habitat, and water quality to name a few. For instance, zoning can be an effective tool for regulat- ing development along the lake shore and other areas that affect the visual and aesthetic characteristics of the waterfront. Unlike the architectural concepts presented, zoning would be inexpensive to implement and potentially affect a much greater area. We look forward to seeing the concepts proposed in this plan being developed, but we also encourage work toward a comprehensive waterfront/watershed plan in the future. jly OF Ir W. TOWN OF ITHACA zi 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 PENDING DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS Town of Ithaca Planning Board April 21, 1997 The following is a list of proposed land subdivisions or development projects for which an application has been received. These proposals are subject to Planning Board review under the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, or other Town Laws. For more information contact the Planning Department at 273-1747. Project No.: 9701221. Ithaca College, 953 Danby Road. Description: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for: 1) a proposed +/- 55,000 sq. ft. addition to Ford Hall to house additional classrooms, practice studios, rehearsal rooms, a +/- 250 seat recital hall, and other facilities for the Ithaca College School of Music; 2) a proposed expansion of the existing " J Lot" parking lot from 160 spaces to 354 spaces; and 3) a proposed expansion of the existing "M Lot" parking lot from 198 spaces to 230 spaces, located on the Ithaca College campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 41-1-30.2, -30.5 and -30.6, Residence District R-15. Ithaca College, Owner, Robert O'Brien, Hoffman, O'Brien, Look, Taube & Chiang, P.C., Agent. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: May 6, 1997. Project No:: 9702231. 120 East King Road. Addition to Montessori School. Description: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the proposed construction of a 1,180+/- sq. ft. addition to the Montessori School, located at 120 East King Road, on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43-1-3.5, Residence District R-30. Montessori School, Owner, Peter Demjanec, R.A., Agent. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: May 6, 1997. Project No.: 9704232. 1059 Danby Road. Sketch Plan, Russo's Garden Center. Description: Consideration of a Sketch Plan for the proposed construction of a retail garden center proposed to consist of a +/- 4,320 sq. ft. store, +/- 4,550 sq. ft. greenhouses, outside nursery storage and display areas, parking and other appurtenances, to be located at 1059 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43-1-3.2, Business "C" District. Evan Monkemeyer, Owner, Terrence Roswick, Agent. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: May 6, 1997. Project No.: 9704233. 1380 Mecklenburg Road. Suwinski/Nazer 2 -Lot Subdivision. Description: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of +/- 0.14 acre from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27-1-16.2, located adjacent to 1380 Mecklenburg Road, for consolidation with Tax Parcel No. 27-1-16.1, a.k.a. 1380 Mecklenburg Road, AG -Agricultural District. Susan J. Suwinski, Owner; Alfred Nazer, Applicant. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: May 20, 1997. Project No.: 9704234. 600 Block Coddington Road. Grigorov 2 -Lot Subdivision. Description: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of +/- 34.44 acres from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 51-1-3.2, +/- 72.1 acres total area, located on the northeast side of Coddington Road approximately 1,130 feet east of Troy Road, for conveyance to the City of Ithaca for use as public park land, Residence District R-30 and CD -Conservation District. Carolyn Grigorov, Owner/Applicant. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: May 20, 1997. Project No.: 9701224. 701-709 Elmira Road. Sketch Plan -- Proposed Commercial Development. Description: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed construction of a two-story +/- 21,000 sq. ft. commercial building, with parking and landscaping, to be located at 701-709 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35-1-29, Business "C" District. J. Ronald Seacord, Applicant; David Lorenzini, R.A., Agent. Status: P.B. reviewed Sketch Plan on 3/18/97, issues pertaining to potential traffic and drainage related impacts need to be addressed by applicant. Tentative Planning Board Date: To Be Announced. Project No.: 9702227. 141 Northview Road. Holcomb 2 -Lot Subdivision. Description: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of +/- 0.15 acre from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 52-1-17, located at 141 Northview Road, for consolidation with Tax Parcel No. 52-1-16, Residence District R-15. Donald F. and Barbara P. Holcomb, Owners/Applicants. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: To Be Announced. Project No.: 9703228. 1300 Block Mecklenburg Road. A. & N. Eddy Request for Rezoning. Description: Consideration of Recommendation to the Town Board with regard to a request to rezone Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27-1-14.2, +/- 93.5 acres in area and located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road approximately 800 feet west of West Haven Road, from AG -Agricultural and Residence District R-15 to Residence District R-15 in its entirety. Alfred and Nelson Eddy, Owners; Henry Theisen, Esq., Agent. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: To Be Announced. Project No.: 9604197. East King Road. Sketch Plan, Ithaca Estates Subdivision. Description: Consideration of a revised Sketch Plan for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43-01-3.32, consisting of 24.12 +/- acres, into 22 lots, with 3,000 +/- linear feet of proposed road, and extension of public water and sewer service, located between 128 and 134 East King Road, approximately 2,000 feet east of its intersection with Danby Road, Residence District R-30. Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval will initially be requested for Phase I consisting of 8 new building lots. Evan Monkemeyer, Owner; Terrence M. Roswick, Ryan Survey, Agent. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: To Be Announced. Project No.: 9407137. Bostwick Road (100 Block). First Assembly of God Church, Description: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed First Assembly of God Church, to consist of a 21,226 +/- sq. ft. structure containing a sanctuary, offices, classrooms and multipurpose room, with parking for 200 vehicles, to be located on the south side of Bostwick Road approximately 1,000 feet west of Five Mile Drive on Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31-4-6.2, Residence District R-30. First Assembly of God Church Owner, Rev. Robert N. Lovelace, Agent. Status: Granted Preliminary Site Plan Approval on 9/6/94. Tentative Public Hearing Date: To Be Announced. To: Candace Cornell, Chair June 16, 1996 Town of Ithaca Planning Board From: Tony Ingraham and Kara Hagedorn Re: Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision Final Environmental Impact Statement We are employees of New York State Parks. We both also live near the proposed subdivision. Kara Hagedorn is park naturalist at Buttermilk Falls State Park, as she has been since 1990. Tony Ingraham is Conservation Educator for the Finger Lakes State Park Region, and has served in this capacity since 1979. Both of us are intimately familiar with the park, particularly the area closest to the proposed development. Kara lives at 327 W. King Road in the Town of Ithaca, and Tony lives at 113 Nelson Road in the Town of Danby, each of us approximately one mile from the development site. The comments we share with you here are our own, as area residents and. park professionals, but are not submitted to you as representing our agency. Kara has a degree in zoology, and Tony a degree in environmental education. Both of us have lead numerous public guided walks in the area of the park closest to the proposed development, on the trails around what is called Lake Treman. The east shore of Lake Treman is only approximately one thousand feet from the park boundary abutting the proposed development. Lake Treman is special for its diversity of wildlife and habitats, and its beauty, quietness and solitude. We are concerned that the proposed development will significantly compromise those values. Some of the public programs given to the public regularly at Lake Treman include: beaver walks, "owl prowls," wildlife watches, bird watching, and general guided nature hikes on the trails around the lake. They are a reflection of the high abundance and diversity of wildlife visible to the public in this area. For instance, during a formal survey of birdlife in the upper park, including Lake Treman, during three hours on June 15, 1996, we counted thirty-seven species of birds, from warblers to thrushes, woodpeckers, geese, ducks, herons and owls. Many other species have been recorded on other dates, including a variety of waterfowl during migration. Lake Treman is also a rich habitat for mammals, including beaver, muskrat, deer, raccoon, coyote, bats and even bear. The lake supports a variety of reptiles and amphibians, including painted turtles, snapping turtles, gray tree frogs, spring peepers, bull frogs, green frogs and salamanders. This rich array of wildlife makes Lake Treman a special place for people to come on guided nature walks, or to investigate quietly on their own. Campground patrons visiting the park from all over the world use this area. Unfortunately, the proposed development will likely seriously compromise these uses. We appreciate the donation of eighteen acres of land to the state park by the developer in this proposal. This will protect that acreage, and the adjoining park acreage, from development and its effects. Unfortunately, however, it will not provide any direct reduction of the environmental impacts we expect on the Lake Treman area. We are concerned about the following probable impacts of the proposed development, which the FEIS does not appear to address. • Noise pollution from lawnmowers, automobiles and other motorized vehicles, dogs, and human voices will penetrate the 1000 feet of park land to the lake shore, degrading the wild character and experience of solitude sought by the people who walk the trails. • Children and adults will enter the park from the development in large numbers along unauthorized herd paths, greatly increasing human impact on this special area. Increases in illegal swimming can be expected. • Dogs and particularly cats from the proposed development will stray into the Lake Treman area and prey on or disturb wildlife (some two million birds are killed daily in the United States by approximately 63 million house cats.). • Pesticides and herbicides used on lawns will enter the Lake Treman watershed. Bio - accumulation of poisons in the aquatic food chain could affect fish, waterfowl, and aquatic mammals, amphibians and reptiles. As fishing is popular in Lake Treman, affected fish could damage human health. Storm drainage mitigation measures do not address this problem On page 6, the FEIS states, "Wildlife can be expected to migrate to other portions of the property and to adjacent land which has similar habitat character, including Buttermilk Falls State Park." Also on page 6, it says, "It is reasonable to assume that reptiles and insects will adjust to the modified environment or migrate from the site to adjacent areas where vegetative habitat is similar." Both of these statements involve flawed ecological reasoning. All existing equivalent habitat nearby is already occupied by appropriate species, unless there has been some temporary reduction in population due to natural or human factors. Destruction or alteration of habitat in the proposed development area will simply result in the death of species that no longer find it tenable, as they try to find room in already occupied areas nearby, and result in net population losses. It is not reasonable to assume that "reptiles and insects will adjust." Statements such as these demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the most fundamental ecological principles governing wildlife. above. We propose the following measures to mitigate the probable impacts on the park we've listed Reduce the density of the development, thereby reducing all of the impacts on the park, or decrease the length of the development towards the park boundary. Greatly increase the width of the conservation easement/buffer along park boundaries, perhaps as much as the 100 feet recommended by DEC for a buffer surrounding wetlands and watercourses. Thirty feet is simply not an adequate buffer for the park. Erect a physical barrier, perhaps a fence, that will discourage illegitimate entry to the park by people and pets along proposed development boundary. Maintain this fence over time. Combine this with signs and other information modes that instruct residents to use the park entrance on West King Road. Install street lighting that does not shine towards the park, reducing potential disturbance of nocturnal animals, including owls. lld at COIL� . tbt,7-" Vil 6.o,4awk9 -A - - it otto " �Pd� �� G3}I �Q9^^q' o �I�d ��s c R la��w, w,�� dee /� � Rw I��e�.b�� Ca+ -tom �- � - �..;: � : �. � �� ,_w_ : � - � �� ,, _ 4 .- . , . I Concerns ! out buldn near Butterm Sadly for all lovers of Butter- , .-.--- 0UR READERS WRITE milk. State Park , -`.`the: system" . has -failed. us' and, the Finger - Lakes State Park Admmistra- failed us. Letters/columns`" polic tion.has bast Tuesday evening, the Town_ of Ithaca Planning Board, Ill Letter's to the'e,ditor.(maximur gate final subdivision approval for the first, 18..units of a, 67- - guest columns (Maximum 500 v ■, Sign.them and,rnClude your a >,house subdivision within.60 feet phone numbers. increased. at the last minute ■ Send them to Opinion,Page. from 30 feet. —. of the until . W.: State St., Ithaca, NY 14850. now -quiet upper part of the 0 Fax: 272-4248 'or" E-mail: itl' . park: and a mere 450 feet 0 For more informetioh: Call G from the Tre= from 8 a.m.`to'5°p m,_Monday man Reser- x voir " Iread•the "legals" religiqus- °-' Who, by ` `' ly, as do: some of my friends, yet the .way, will .:,the ,until the recent,article in"The the . Jour',nal;.we were completely 6.0 -.f',o 9't,,, unaware that 67 houses were ' � buffer on. .proposed :so close to the park''.' each house -Darlington lo't,? . \ Did. the legal notices of ' bli' hearings include the fact `that It i imperative that state the park adjoined;tlie project. park'administrators take',a more There ,must be :a. better' active role in protecting the, mechanism.for notifying''the parks' from destructive activities public of such significant threats along park boundaries; : �.. to. public_treasur;.es, at e..ach The park,administration "rs stage ;in the process where, the„ .parks for New Yorkers Amaz= hope of making a difference ingly, 'Finger;Lakes' State Parks How mvolved was" the public to j told. the planning board that xlie' the:scoping for,, eiMpact state developmentwouId have no'sig merit, for:example, or m a'liub nificant impact on Buttermilk hC:f►earing on thedxaft unpact Parkl statement?:Was there one?:;;- Make no mistake about, it =:The final impaet sWenient The ,impacts ,on the park o 67 was :approved a mere two weeks homes so nearby�wiI be pro- after the DEIS was accepted found -and permanent The The developer of this project parks are public treasures and , claims to care abouX nature and must not be,.compromise, the° ark; and.%s`deedirig 1$ Noise, lights;household pets, aces to'it. But the 18'acres is more, people,'pestic�des, fertihz not'between the houses and the ' ers. all will adversely,ffect the park where it cou. Id Ado some park ; `a r real good ; Wildlife populations, espe He deluding himself if he cially birds that need quiet Isola thinks the;park'will notstiffery tion, will drop:;;Along with birds and suffer:profouridlq °e and other wildlife, gone will`be ,hope. Mr Wiggtn5 de}non the' peace and quiet' curgii'tly strates thati; he realiyr does care, a: available to:the public mthat -, and,voluntarily withdraws his :.,: area :of the park, Fthe one quiet plans for the final 49 house's; the .' section, left;; f6r,Jhe* pub, tic, ones which would:have,the most thanks to another'noisy actryity serious: impact on the:,park along park borders, the widen Thatrs the boy hope ieft unless ing of route 23at Lower Butter..' -'the' planning board xs able to milk. revisit its decision to grant P_ The wonderful nature walks limmary approval far those that _have Been moved to.the houses Treman Reservobsarea will pe Betsy Darjrr gton far�less appgaling Cir oflthaca,°.lung 20 vF a5 la% li 40r&e POor) tE Acle Pucd IUnder CbwW mtion fi Do&cWm to Buttermilk Falls State Park : s 7AG 17a&C ' ^ 1-70 1 1139 ac. Buttermilk Falls State Park 14 : s ..c. Buttermilk Valley Estates Proposed Parkland Dedication - Scl Scale: 1" = 200' :F- -T-1- 1.,— 0. -e �-- C, , r , "o J. kj CA - CIL 7;ol I— CAA— t