HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Packet 2019-12-10Town of Ithaca
Notice of Public Hearing
Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday, December 10, 2019 @ 6:00 p.m.
215 N. Tioga St.
0015-2019 Appeal of Town of Ithaca Public Works, 114 Seven Mile Drive, Tax Parcel No.
33.-2-6.1, is seeking relief from section 270-56 C, Permitted accessory buildings and uses, 270-
60 E(3) Yard regulations, 270-61 Building area, and section 225-3 A(8) New buildings required
to have sprinkler systems, of the Town of Ithaca Code. The referenced variances would apply to
existing buildings, proposed buildings and a proposed addition to the existing facility. Town of
Ithaca Code section 270-56 C allows for up to 3 accessory buildings on one lot with an aggregate
area of the accessory buildings not to exceed 2,000 square feet, where the applicant is proposing
to have 5 total accessory buildings with an aggregate size of approximately 21,676 square feet.
Town of Ithaca Code section 270-60 E(3) allows for accessory buildings to occupy up to 15% of
the 50-foot rear yard setback, where the current proposal indicates that the accessory building
occupies approximately 16.50% of the 50-foot rear yard setback. Town of Ithaca Code section
270-61 allows for the maximum building area not to exceed 10% of the entire lot area, where the
current proposal indicates a lot coverage of approximately 10.4% lot coverage. Town Code
section 225-3 A(8) requires sprinklers for storage buildings exceeding 400 square feet in size,
where the building identified as ''material storage bins'' is seeking to not install sprinklers. The
current property is located in the Low-Density Residential District.
Bruce Bates
Director of Code Enforcement
ZBA 2019-12-10 Pg. 1
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday, December 10, 2019
Minutes
Present: Rob Rosen, Chair; Members, Chris Jung, Caren Rubin, George Vignaux and Alternates
David Squires and David Filiberto Absent: Bill King
Staff: Bruce Bates and Marty Mosely, Codes; Dan Thaete and David O’Shea, Engineering;
Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town
Mr. Rosen opened the meeting at 6:02 p.m.
0013-2019 Appeal of Camille Doucette, owner, of 237 King Road East, Tax Parcel No. 45.-2-8,
seeks relief from section 270-62 C, Size and area of lot, of the Town of Ithaca Code for a
proposed two lot subdivision. Area variances are required on the proposed parcel A and parcel B
due to both parcels being out of compliance with Section 270-62 C, of the Town of Ithaca Code,
which requires each lot to have a minimum width of 150 feet, at the maximum required front
yard setback line (60 feet from the street line). Both parcel A and parcel B appear to need
approximately 2-feet or 3-feet to comply with section 270-62 C, of the Town of Ithaca Code. The
property is located in the Low-Density Residential District.
Mr. Adams gave an overview saying that they have renovated the existing house and would like
to subdivide the property making a buildable lot and the existing with a residence with an eye
toward putting both on the market. Both properties as proposed would need a variance for 2’-3’
feet at the front yard setback. Mr. Adams added that nearby properties have similar and larger
deficiencies he assumed were grandfathered in.
Mr. Squires asked if there is a way to make the subdivision line in such a way as to make only
one deficient and leave compliant.
Mr. Adams responded that the line could be changed to do that, but then the deficiency is much
larger on one lot and in talking with Codes and staff, it was thought two very small deficiencies
were preferable.
Mr. Filiberto asked if there was a way to purchase a few feet from the neighbor to remove the
deficiency.
Mr. Adams responded that they did check on that, but the cost would be borne only by them and
it seemed harder and more expensive to go that route.
Mr. Vignaux, Ms. Rubin and Ms. Jung all thought the request was not significant and should be
granted as presented.
ZBA 2019-12-10 Pg. 2
SEQR Determination
No one felt there were any environmental affects associated with this request.
ZBA Resolution 0013-2019S SEQR – 2-Lot Subdivision
237 King Road E
TP 45.-2-8
December 10, 2019
Resolved that this Board makes a Negative Determination of environmental significance based
on the for the information in Parts 1 & 2 and the reasons stated in Part 3 of the SEQR Form on
the Doucet subdivision appeal.
Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by Chris Jung
Vote: ayes- Rosen, Jung, Rubin, Vignaux and Filiberto
Public Hearing
Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:17 p.m. There was no one wishing to speak, and the
hearing was closed.
Variance Determination
The Board discussed the Planning Board’s actions regarding the proposal and moved forward
with a resolution.
ZBA Resolution 0013-2019 2-Lot Subdivision
237 King Road E
TP 45.-2-8
December 10, 2019
Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Camille Doucette, owner, of 237 King Road East,
Tax Parcel No. 45.-2-8, seeking relief from section 270-62 C, Size and area of lot, of the Town
of Ithaca Code which requires each lot to have a minimum width of 150 feet, at the maximum
required front yard setback line (60 feet from the street line) with the following:
Conditions:
1. That the subdivision be as submitted, and with the following
Findings:
That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
community, specifically that:
ZBA 2019-12-10 Pg. 3
1. The benefit to the applicant cannot be achieved by any means feasible given that it would
be financially burdensome to purchase land from the neighbors given the neighbor is
unable to contribute financially to a land swap, and
2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood given that the request is
very small, approximately 1’-2’feet and the neighboring lots have greater non-
conforming lot sizes than this request, and
3. That the request is not substantial, given that 1’-2’ is needed which is less than 2%, and
4. That the hardship is self-created in that the applicant wishes to subdivide as presented
Moved: David Filiberto, seconded by George Vignaux
Vote: ayes – Filiberto, Vignaux, Rosen, Jung and Rubin
0015-2019 Appeal of Town of Ithaca Public Works, 114 Seven Mile Drive, Tax Parcel No.
33.-2-6.1, is seeking relief from section 270-56 C, Permitted accessory buildings and uses, 270-
60 E(3) Yard regulations, 270-61 Building area, and section 225-3 A(8) New buildings required
to have sprinkler systems, of the Town of Ithaca Code. The referenced variances would apply to
existing buildings, proposed buildings and a proposed addition to the existing facility. Town of
Ithaca Code section 270-56 C allows for up to 3 accessory buildings on one lot with an aggregate
area of the accessory buildings not to exceed 2,000 square feet, where the applicant is proposing
to have 5 total accessory buildings with an aggregate size of approximately 21,676 square feet.
Town of Ithaca Code section 270-60 E(3) allows for accessory buildings to occupy up to 15% of
the 50-foot rear yard setback, where the current proposal indicates that the accessory building
occupies approximately 16.50% of the 50-foot rear yard setback. Town of Ithaca Code section
270-61 allows for the maximum building area not to exceed 10% of the entire lot area, where the
current proposal indicates a lot coverage of approximately 10.4% lot coverage. Town Code
section 225-3 A(8) requires sprinklers for storage buildings exceeding 400 square feet in size,
where the building identified as ''material storage bins'' is seeking to not install sprinklers. The
current property is located in the Low-Density Residential District.
Mr. Thaete gave an overview saying the Town is hoping to renovate the Public Works
Department in the Spring and will need additional storage and discovered we were not compliant
with existing storage units.
SEQR Determination
The Board did not feel there were any environmental affects associated with the request.
ZBA Resolution 0015-2019 SEQR – Area Variance(s)
114 Seven Mile Dr – Public Works Facility
TP 33.-2-6.1
December 10, 2019
ZBA 2019-12-10 Pg. 4
Resolved that this Board makes a Negative Determination of environmental significance based
on the for the information in Parts 1 & 2 and the reasons stated in Part 3 of the SEQR Form on
the Doucet subdivision appeal.
Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by George Vignaux
Vote: ayes- Rosen, Jung, Rubin, Vignaux and Squires
Public Hearing
Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:28p.m.; there was no public present and the hearing
was closed.
Variance Determination
The Board discussed the layout of the existing and proposed storage units and felt that the site
itself was extremely large in comparison to the standard medium density lot on which these
limitations are based and the aggregate amount is only slightly over the allowed coverage using
those standard lot measurements. If all the smaller storage units were combined into one large
unit, the percentage of lot coverage would only need a small variance and you can’t see the
majority of the units from the public roadway.
ZBA Resolution 0015-2019 Area Variances
114 Seven Mile Dr – Public Works Facility
TP 33.-2-6.1
December 10, 2019
Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Town of Ithaca Public Works as stated in the public
hearing notice; relief from Section 270-56 C, Permitted accessory buildings and uses, 270-60
E(3) Yard regulations, 270-61 Building area, and section 225-3 A(8) with the following:
Conditions:
1. That the project be completed substantially as shown.
and with the following:
Findings:
1. That the benefit to the applicant cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given
that the function of the buildings and turning radius needed for the equipment stored and
used in them require the current and proposed placement and could not be done in one
building, and
2. There will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby
properties given that this lot is 11.7 acres where only 30,000 square feet are required in
standard Low Density residential lot and given that differential in size, the sheer size of
ZBA 2019-12-10 Pg. 5
the lot mitigates the number of buildings. You also can not see most of the buildings
from the public right of way and the operations and some of the buildings have been
present for 15 plus years, and
3. That the request in part is not substantial given that the aggregate is 16.4% where 15% is
allowed but is substantial in that 3 are allowed and there are 7 currently and proposed,
and
4. That the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects given the
negative determination under SEQR, and
5. That while the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the storage units are needed, the
benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
community for the reasons stated above.
Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by Caren Rubin.
Vote: Rosen, Rubin, Vignaux, Jung and Squires
Sprinkler Variance Determination
Mr. Thaete explained that the structure which is classified as a building has 3-sides with concrete
walls, one entire side open for egress, and a wood frame on top. The structure is used to store
various gravels and noncombustible items and materials. The structure is not inhabitable and no
utilities such as water or electric are located anywhere near it, making the installation of a
sprinkler system nearly impossible and financially unfeasible. There is no heat to the building or
area to keep water lines unfrozen.
The Board discussed the description as given and felt there were no life-safety issues given the
large egress available, non-inhabitable and non-combustible storage/use of the building.
ZBA Resolution 0015-2019 Sprinkler Variance
114 Seven Mile Dr – Public Works Facility
TP 33.-2-6.1
December 10, 2019
Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of the Town of Ithaca, requesting relief from Town
Code section 225-3 A(8) requires sprinklers for storage buildings exceeding 400 square feet in
size, with the following:
Conditions
1. That the building be equipped with an NFPA 10 approved fire extinguisher, and
2. That the building not be substantially altered as described and submitted, and
3. That the building remain non-habitable and used for storage as described
Findings
1. That practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship would result from the enforcement of
the strict letter of the Chapter given there is no power or utilities near the building and the
expense of attempting to install a system would be in excess of $30,000, and
2. That the omission of an approved sprinkler system from the building will not
significantly jeopardize human life in that the building is not used for habitable purposes
and has a large area for egress for any person accessing the stored materials in case of
fire, and
3. That this Board has required the building be equipped with an approved fire extinguisher
as stated above.
Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by David Squires
Vote: ayes - Rosen, Squires, Rubin, Jung and Vignaux
Other Business
Meeting Schedule: The Board unanimously approved the meeting schedule as the second
Tuesday of the month beginning at 6:00 p.m. as submitted.
Chair recommendation: The Board unanimously recommended Rob Rosen remain as Chair of
the Zoning Board of Appeals and asked that that be conveyed to the Town Board.
Meeting was adjourned at 7:04 p.m.
Submit
Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk
ZBA 2019-12-10 Pg. 6
To: Zoning Board of Appeals
From: Codes Department
Subject: 114 Seven Mile Drive
Date: 11/25/19
Appeal No. 0015-2019
Tax Parcel Number: 33.-2-6.1
Zone: Low Density Residential Zone
Report:
The applicants are requesting multiple area variances on existing buildings, two proposed storage
containers/buildings, and a proposed addition to the principal building identified as offices/mechanics shop/
garage. The applicant is also requesting a variance to not install a sprinkler system in a “material storage bins”
building. The proposed addition to the principal building (offices/mechanics shop/ garage) has been
approved by the Planning Board, subject to conditions, on April 2, 2019.
1. The applicant is proposing an additional two new accessory buildings totaling about 640 square feet.
The three additional accessory buildings, that are being requested, are existing on the lot. Town of
Ithaca Code section 270-56 C. allows for up to 3 accessory buildings on one lot with an aggregate
area of the accessory buildings not to exceed 2,000 square feet, where the applicant is proposing to
have 5 total accessory buildings with an aggregate size of approximately 21,676 square feet.
2. The current accessory building (identified as material storage bins) is an existing building that was
constructed in the 50-foot rear yard setback. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-60 E. (3) allows for
accessory buildings to occupy the up to 15% of the 50-foot rear yard setback, but the current
proposal indicates that the accessory building occupies approximately 16.50% of the 50-foot rear
yard setback.
3. All of the existing buildings, the proposed new storage buildings, and the proposed addition to the
principal building (used as offices/mechanics shop/ garage) exceed the maximum building area
identified in Town of Ithaca Code section 270-61, which allows for the maximum building area not
to exceed 10% of the entire lot area. The current proposal indicates a building area of approximately
10.4% lot coverage.
4. The current accessory building (identified as material storage bins) is an existing building that was
constructed in 2016 without a sprinkler system, as identified in Town Code section 225-3 A. (8)
which requires sprinklers for storage buildings exceeding 400 square feet in size. Although the
building is an existing building, the building should have had a sprinkler system installed at the time
of construction.
Summary of variance requests:
1. Variance request: Allow 5 accessory buildings with an aggregate size of approximately 21,676
square feet for all buildings, where section 270-56 C. allows for up to 3 accessory buildings on one
lot with an aggregate area of the accessory buildings not to exceed 2,000 square feet.
2. Variance request: Allow an accessory building to occupy about 16.50% of the 50-foot rear yard
setback, where the current code section 270-60 E. (3) allows for accessory buildings to occupy the
up to 15% of the 50-foot rear yard setback.
3. Variance request: Total building area/ lot coverage is proposed to be 10.4%, where section 270-61
only allows for a maximum building area/lot coverage of 10%.
4. Variance request: The accessory building, identified as “material storage bins” doe not have a
sprinkler system installed, where section 225-3 A. (8) which requires sprinklers for storage buildings
exceeding 400 square feet in size
SEQRA: Due to the proposed accessory structures and the proposed addition to the principal
building/offices/mechanics shop/ garage totaling about 3585 square feet, SEQRA would be considered a
Type II action and no further action would be required as identified in section 6CRR-NY 617.5(a) and 617.5
(c) (9)
(617.5 (c) (9) : construction or expansion of a primary or accessory/appurtenant, nonresidential structure or facility involving
less than 4,000 square feet of gross floor area and not involving a change in zoning or a use variance and consistent with local
land use controls, but not radio communication or microwave transmission facilities)
Tompkins County Planning Department GML 239 –l and –m: Tompkins County Department of
Planning and Sustainability provided a response to the Town’s GML 239 -l and-m request. The County has
indicated that they have reviewed the proposal, and they have determined that it will have no inter-
community, or county-wide impacts.
Flood Plains: The proposed project does not appear to be shown within any flood plains.
Stream Setback: The proposed buildings and additions appear to be located outside of the stream setback
area, as identified on the Town’s Stream Setback map.
Short Environmental Assessment Form
Part 1 - Project Information
Instnictions for Completing
Part 1 - Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses become part of the
application for approval or funding, are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on
information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item, please answer as
thoroughly as possible based on current information.
Complete all items in Part 1. You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the
lead agency; attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item.
Part 1 - Project and Sponsor Information
Public Works Expansion and Storage
Name of Action or Project:
Expansion of Public Works Facility, construct 2 additional storage buildings, and correct other existing deficiencies
Project Location (describe, and attach a location map):
114 Seven Mile Drive, Ithaca, NY 14B50
Brief Description of Proposed Action:
The request is for multiple area variances on existing buildings, two proposed storage containers/buildings, and a proposed addition to the principal
building identified as offices/mechanics shop/garage. Some of the items have existed for several years and we are attempting to correct, bringing the
property into compliance with the request of the variances. The following variances are being requested: allow 5 accessory buildings with an aggregate
size of approximately 21,676 square feet for all buildings, where section 270-56 C. allows for up to 3 accessory buildings on one lot with an aggregate
area of the accessory buildings not to exceed 2,000 square feet, and allow for total building area/ lot coverage of 10.4%, where section 270-61 only
allows for a maximum building area/lot coverage of 10%.
Name of Applicant or Sponsor:
Town of Ithaca Public Works Facility
Telephone: 607-273-1783
E-Mail:jweber@town.ithaca.ny.us
Address:
215 North Tioga Street
City/PO:
Ithaca
State:
NY
Zip Code:
14850
1. Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan, local law, ordinance,
administrative rule, or regulation?
If Yes, attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that
may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no, continue to question 2.
2. Does the proposed action require a permit, approval or ftinding from any other government Agency?
If Yes, list agency(s) name and permit or approval:
Planning Board Approval, Town Board Project Approval, Building Permit
NO
[a
YES
□
NO YES
3. a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action?
b. Total acreage to be physically disturbed?
c. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned
or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor?
□13
11-7 acres
.2 acres
11-7 acres
4. Check all land uses that occur on, are adjoining or near the proposed action:
5. n Urban (Zl Rural (non-agriculture) □ Industrial Commercial □ Residential (suburban)
IZl Forest Agriculture Q Aquatic □ Other(Specify):
G3 Parkland
Page 1 of3
5. Is the proposed action,
a. A permitted use under the zoning regulations?
b. Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan?
NO YES N/A
□0 □
□0 □
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural landscape?
NO YES
□0
7. • Is the site of the proposed action located in, or does it adjoin, a state listed Critical Environmental Area?
If Yes, identifV:
NO YES
0 □
8. a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels?
b. Are public transportation services available at or near the site of the proposed action?
c. Axe any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near the site of the proposed
action?
NO YES
0 □
□0
0 □
9. Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements?
If the proposed action will exceed requirements, describe design features and technologies:
NO YES
□0
10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply?
If No, describe method for providing potable water:
NO YES
□0
•
11. Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities?
If No, describe method for providing wastewater treatment:
NO YES
□0
12. a. Does the project site contain, or is it substantially contiguous to, a building, archaeological site, or district
which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places, or that has been determined by the
Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the
State Register of Historic Places?
b. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for
archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory?
NO YES
0 □
□0
13. a. Does any portion of the site of the proposed action, or lands adjoining the proposed action, contain
wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal, state or local agency?
b. Would the proposed action physically alter, or encroach into, any existing wetland or waterbody?
If Yes. identify the wetland or waterbodv and extent of alterations in square feet or acres:
NO YES
□0
0 □
Page 2 of 3
Agency Use Only |If applicable]
Project:PWF Storage facility and Expansion
Date:December 10,2019
Short Environmental Assessment Form
Part 2 - Impact Assessment
Part 2 is to be completed by the Lead Agency.
Answer all of the following questions in Part 2 using the information contained in Part 1 and other materials submitted by
the project sponsor or otherwise available to the reviewer. When answering the questions the reviewer should be guided by
the concept "Have my responses been reasonable considering the scale and context of the proposed action?"
No, or
small
impact
may
occur
Moderate
to large
impact
may
occur
1. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning
regulations?13 □
2. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land?13 □
3. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community?0 □
4. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the
establishment of a Critical Environmental Area (CE A)?0 □
5. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or
affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway?0 □
6. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate
reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities?0 □
7. Will the proposed action impact existing:
a. public / private water supplies?
b. public / private wastewater treatment utilities?
0 □
0 □
8. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, archaeological,
architectural or aesthetic resources?0 □
9, Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources (e.g., wetlands,
waterbodies, groundwater, air quality, flora and fauna)?0 □
10. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding or drainage
problems?0 □
11. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health?0 □
PRINT FORM Page 1 of2
Agency Use Only [If applicable]
PWF Storaqe/ExpansiofllProject:
Date:December 10, 2019
Short Environmental Assessment Form
Part 3 Determination of Significance
For every question in Part 2 that was answered "moderate to large impact may occur", or if there is a need to explain why a
particular element of the proposed action may or will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact, please
complete Part 3. Part 3 should, in sufficient detail, identify the impact, including any measures or design elements that
have been included by the project sponsor to avoid or reduce impacts. Part 3 should also explain how the lead agency
determined that the impact may or will not be significant. Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting,
probability of occurring, duration, irreversibility, geographic scope and magnitude. Also consider the potential for short-
term, long-term and cumulative impacts.
The proposed project is not anticipated to create any significant adverse environmental impact based on the projects
not being visible from the public road and based on the below information.
Regarding Part 1, #13a - No wetlands that have been identified on the National Wetland Inventory, or in the NYS
DEC data base, however the Tompkins County wetlands database does indicate that there is a small section of
wetland near the north east quadrant of the parcel. The identified wetland, by Tompkins County wetlands database,
does not appear to be located near any of the proposed construction on the site.
Regarding Part 1, question 12b: According to the NYS Historic Preservation Office Cultural Resources Information
System, the property is adjacent to an area that could potentially be designated as sensitive for archaeological sites
listed on the NYS Historic Preservation Office archaeological site inventory. However, this specific property does not
appear to be designated for listing. Additionally, this property has been developed so any archaeologically
significant items would have been discovered with any prior disturbances.
□ Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above, and any supporting documentation,
that the proposed action may result in one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts and an
environmental impact statement is required.
Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above, and any supporting documentation,'—' that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts.
ftTown of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
'Wame of Lead Agency Date
Chair
Print or Type Name of Responsible
y,
;r in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer
Signature of I^ponsiole Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (if different from Responsible Officer)
PRINT FORM Page 2 of2
To
m
p
k
m
s
Co
u
n
t
y
Na
t
u
r
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
In
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
Ma
p
V
./
-/
.J
33
,
-
M
22
18
0
33
.
-
2
-
3
.
1
12
2
33
.
-
3
-
2
.
2
33
.
-
3
-
1
3
63
0
^
-
'
Le
g
e
n
d
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
Op
e
n
Wa
t
e
r
St
r
e
a
m
s
In
U
r
m
r
t
t
i
n
t
P«
r
*
n
m
a
l
Sl
t
t
A
m
A
Q
Na
t
i
o
n
a
l
We
t
l
a
n
d
s
In
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
DE
C
We
t
l
a
n
d
s
ri
Wa
t
e
r
s
t
t
e
d
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Co
u
n
c
i
l
PA
R
C
E
L
S
Fl
o
o
d
Zo
n
e
s
IC
O
V
t
SS
S
Y
u
Ne
l
Ir
s
d
u
d
t
d
oi
Fl
o
M
Mt
^
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
□
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
i
e
s
Ci
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
1S
2
C3
1
-
^
3
.
4
1
33
-
2
-
1
1
33
.
-
3
5
.
2
14
8
33
.
-
2
-
3
.
4
2
63
6
S3
.
-
3
-
4
71
6
33
-
2
-
7
.
2
^
.
TT
.
'
.
17
4
33
-
2
1
0
at
e
at
e
•
=»
t
e
,
_
-
.
,^
.
-
1
-
5
.
2
at
e
at
e
33
-
2
-
6
.
1
-
•
—-
•
r.
-
'
S
t
e
.
-
.
-
t
e
70
6
33
-
2
7
.
1
35
-
1
-
4
8
'4
!
4
..
r
-
-
:
;
:
-s
i
t
St
e
vi
^
'
s
t
e
"V
-
p]
Xr
a
r
'
~^
'M
;
aJ
i
-
'
33
.
-
1
-
7
.
2
3S
.
-
1
-
S
.
1
33
.
-
2
7
.
1
1:
4
,
5
1
4
37
6
.
1
7
75
2
.
3
Fe
e
t
No
t
e
s
75
2
3
Th
«
ma
p
9
a
us
a
r
pa
f
t
a
r
a
t
a
O
St
a
S
C
ou
t
p
u
t
fr
o
m
an
in
t
e
r
n
e
t
ma
p
p
n
g
ei
t
e
an
d
fo
f
re
f
e
r
a
n
c
e
on
l
y
Da
t
a
la
y
e
r
s
th
a
i
ap
p
e
a
r
on
th
i
s
ma
p
ma
y
or
ma
y
no
t
be
ac
c
u
r
a
t
e
,
cu
r
r
e
n
t
,
or
ot
h
e
r
M
s
e
ta
l
i
a
U
e
TH
I
S
MA
P
IS
NO
T
TO
BE
US
E
D
FO
R
NA
V
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
Th
i
a
ma
p
wa
s
au
t
o
m
a
O
c
a
l
y
ga
n
e
f
a
t
a
d
us
i
n
g
Ge
o
c
o
r
t
a
i
Es
s
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
.
Yo
u
r
ta
x
do
l
l
a
r
i
at
wo
r
k
)
WG
S
J
&8
4
_
W
e
b
.
M
e
r
c
a
t
o
r
.
A
u
x
i
t
i
a
r
y
.
S
p
*
i
s
«
a
O
To
m
p
l
u
n
s
Co
u
n
r
y
Gi
S
20
1
1
EAF Mapper Summary Report Tuesday, December 10, 2019 9:15 AM
33.-2-10
33.-2-3.
33.-2-7.2
3.-2-5.1ithaca33.-2-6,1
Disclaimer: The EAF Mapper is a screening tool intended to assist
project sponsors and reviewing agencies in preparing an environmental
assessment form (EAF). Not ail questions asked in the EAF are
answered by the EAF Mapper. Additional information on any EAF
question can be obtained by consulting the EAF Workbooks. Although
the EAF Mapper provides the most up-to-date digital data available to
33.-3-1.2 DEC, you may also need to contact local or other data sources in order
to obtain data not provided by the Mapper. Digital data is not a
- substitute for agency determinations.
Ottawa Monfreal
33®
33.-1-7.2
33.-1-7-ir."^--,.,
33.'-2-6:22
Souck:
Herrr.ap, ff^CREMB9rr-3^'J^ri;'Esri
Japan. METI, feri Chiria34^j5T6'Kong),£.Mj, M
Korea, Esri (Thalland^^^CCi, (c) "P
OpenStreelMap
jO^^ommuni
s, indtheGIs'
33.-3-6
Toronto
33.-3-7
Cies-dmd
Aib^
Boston
r,Providence
'^ui
cinnati
. Garmin.
Columbus LiSG6)ilnteW. INCREMENT
P, N'RCan, EsriJeps^M
Part 1 / Question 7 [Critical Environmental
Area]
Part 1 / Question 12a [National or State
Register of Historic Places or State Eligible
Sites]
Part 1 / Question 12b [Archeological Sites]
Part 1 / Question 13a [Wetlands or Other
Regulated Waterbodies]
Part 1 / Question 15 [Threatened or
Endangered Animal]
Part 1 / Question 16 [100 Year Flood Plain]
Part 1 / Question 20 [Remediation Site]
No
No
Yes
Yes - Digital mapping information on local and federal wetlands and
waterbodies Is known to be Incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook.
No
Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF
Workbook.
No
.Rhnrt Fnwirnnmpntfll A<sc<aQQmpnt Fnrm - FAF r^annpr .Riimman/ Rpfhort
14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on, or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply:
□shoreline 1 1 Forest F"! Agricultural/grasslands GZl Early mid-successional
□Wetland [3 Urban □ Suburban
15. Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal, or associated habitats, listed by the State or
Federal government as threatened or endangered?
NO YES
m □
16. Is the project site located in the 100-year flood plan?NO YES
E □
17. Will the proposed action create storm water discharge, either from point or non-point sources?
If Yes,
a. Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties?
b. Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems (runoff and storm drains)?
If Yes, briefly describe:
NO YES
E □
□□
□□
18. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that would result in the impoundment of water
or other liquids (e.g., retention pond, waste lagoon, dam)?
If Yes, explain the purpose and size of the impoundment;
NO YES
E □
19. Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed solid waste
management facility?
If Yes, describe:
NO YES
B □
20.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation (ongoing or
completed) for hazardous waste?
If Yes, describe:
NO YES
B □
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF
MY KNOWLEDGE
Applicant/sponsor/paflje: ^ Date:
A 1 ^ ■ 1Signature: Title: 'louA £/igiA«r
PRINT FORM Page 3 of 3