HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-20-15 P&D Board - Project Review Commmittee Meeting Agenda“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
1 of 2
TO:City of Ithaca Project Review Committee (Planning &Development Board)
FROM:Lisa Nicholas,Senior Planner
DATE:October 14,2015
SUBJECT:Agenda for Project Review Committee Meeting:T UESDAY,OCTOBER 20,2015
Meeting scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m.in Third Floor Conference Room (behind Common Council Chambers),City
Hall,108 E.Green St.Please call Charles Pyott at 2746550,if you cannot attend or you require additional information.
9:30 Project:Herson Wagner Funeral Home Relocation
Location:327 Elmira Rd.
Applicant:Gregory L.Myer of Myer Funeral Services Corp.
Anticipated Board Action(s)in October:Declaration of Lead Agency &Public Hearing
Project Description:The applicant is proposing to relocate a funeral home business to this location.The L
shaped project site is 1.24 acres and contains two existing buildings.The proposed project is to renovate the
existing buildings,add a 46space parking area,a portion of which will be porous paving,entrance drive and
dropoff area,install internal pedestrian walkways,as well as a connection to the public sidewalk,and add
landscaping,lighting,and signage.The project site is in two Zoning Districts:the portion of the site
contiguous to Elmira Road and containing the larger building is in the SW2 District,while the larger portion
of the site containing the smaller building and proposed parking lot is in the R2a District.The rear portion
of the site is currently used for outdoor storage of goods and construction equipment.The project requires
a Use Variance for uses proposed in the R2a District.This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”)and the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(“SEQRA”),and is subject to environmental review.
10:00 Project:Four MultiFamily Dwellings “Pocket Neighborhood”
Location:215221 Spencer St.
Applicant:Noah Demarest,STREAM Collaborative,for PPM Homes
Anticipated Board Action(s)in October:Determination of Environmental Significance &Recommendation
to BZA
Project Description:The applicant proposes to build a new multifamily “pocket neighborhood”on a hillside
site between W.Spencer St.and W.Cayuga St.The project will include four buildings,each of which will be
3 stories tall and contain 3 units (12 units total).A 12car parking area is proposed with access off W.Cayuga
Street.Site circulation will be organized with a series of landscaped stairs and terraces connecting through
the site.The project also includes lighting,retaining walls,and landscaping.The project is in the R3b Zoning
District and requires a variance for parking.This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act,and is subject to environmental
review.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Econ. Development – 607-274-6550 | Community Development/IURA – 607-274-
6559
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org E-Mail: iura@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
2 of 2
10:20 Project:Site Improvements
Location:416 E.State St.
Applicant:Scott Whitham
Anticipated Board Action(s)in October:Determination of Environmental Significance &Recommendation
to BZA
Project Description:The applicant proposes to convert a portion of the existing commercial space into a bar,
expand and renovate the existing office space,create one apartment and provide storage.Exterior
renovations include construction of two new building entrances,one of which will have a stair connecting
the back entrance to the adjacent parking area,realignment of the curbing to provide better
maneuverability in the 2car parking area,walkways,landscaping,lighting,and signage.The new bar,office
spaces,and apartment require 40 offstreet parking spaces.The applicant states a Memorandum of
Agreement is being signed with Gateway Plaza,located directly south of 416418 E.State Street,so that 37
parking spaces are allocated to the applicant under a shared parking.The applicant is also proposing shared
parking with the adjacent Argos Inn.The project is in the B4 Zoning District and the East Hill Historic
District.The project requires variances for existing area deficiencies and a Certificate of Appropriateness
from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC).This is an Unlisted Action under the City of
Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”)and the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(“SEQRA”),and is subject to environmental review.
10:45 Zoning Appeals
#2991,Area Variances,416418 E.State St.
#2994,Area Variance,215221 W.Spencer St.
#3006,Area Variance,707 Mitchell St.
11:00 Adjournment
cc:Mayor Svante Myrick &Common Council
Dr.Luvelle Brown,Superintendent,ICSD
Jay Franklin,Tompkins County Assessment
ACCESSING ONLINE DOCUMENTS
SitePlan Review &Subdivision ApplicationDocuments
(&Related Materials)
SitePlan Review applicationdocumentsare accessible electronically via
the“Document Center”on the City web site
(www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter),under “Planning &
Development”>“Site Plan Review Project Applications,”andin the
relevantyear/month folder.Subdivision applicationmaterialscan be
similarlylocated,but in the “Subdivision Applications”folder.
ZoningAppeals
ZoningAppeals are accessible electronically via the “Document Center”on
theCity web site (www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter),under “Board
ofZoning Appeals”>“Zoning Appeal Applications,”andin the relevant
year’sfolder.
If you have a disability &would like specific
accommodation to participate,
please contact the City Clerk at 274 6570 by
12:00 p.m.,the day before the meeting.
City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF)
Part 2 — Project Impacts
Project Name: 327 Elmira Rd. — Herson Funeral Home Relocation
Date Created: 10/13/15
1 of 11
10/15/2015
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON LAND
1. Will there be an effect as a result of a physical change to project site? Yes No
Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater (15-foot rise per
100 feet of length) or where general slope in the project
exceeds 10%.
Yes No
Construction on land where depth to the water table is less
than 3 feet. Yes No
Construction of parking facility/area for 50 or more vehicles. Yes No
Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally
within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Yes No
Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve
more than one phase or stage. Yes No
Evacuation for mining purposes that would remove more than
1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Yes No
Construction of any new sanitary landfill. Yes No
Construction in designated floodway. Yes No
Other impacts (if any)
Yes No
2. Will there be an effect on any unique land forms found on the site (i.e., cliffs, gorges,
geological formations, etc.)? Yes No
Specific land forms (if any):
Yes No
City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF)
Part 2 — Project Impacts
Project Name: 327 Elmira Rd. — Herson Funeral Home Relocation
Date Created: 10/13/15
2 of 11
10/15/2015
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON WATER
3. Will project affect any water body designated as protected (under article 15 or 24 of
Environmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.)? Yes No
Developable area of site contains protected water body. Yes No
Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel
of protected stream. Yes No
Extension of utility distribution facilities through protected
water body. Yes No
Construction in designated freshwater wetland. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
4. Will project affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? Yes No
A 10% increase or decrease in surface area of any body of
water or more than 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No
Construction, alteration, or conversion of body of water that
exceeds 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No
Fall Creek, Six Mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Silver Creek,
Cayuga Lake, or Cayuga Inlet? Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF)
Part 2 — Project Impacts
Project Name: 327 Elmira Rd. — Herson Funeral Home Relocation
Date Created: 10/13/15
3 of 11
10/15/2015
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON WATER (cont.)
5. Will project affect surface or groundwater quality? Yes No
Project will require discharge permit. Yes No
Project requires use of source of water that does not have
approval to serve proposed project. Yes No
Construction or operation causing any contamination of a
public water supply system. Yes No
Project will adversely affect groundwater. Yes No
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which
do not currently exist or that have inadequate capacity. Yes No
Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of
20,000 gallons per day or 500 gallons per minute. Yes No
Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an
existing body of water to the extent that there will be an
obvious visual contrast to natural conditions.
Yes No
Proposed action will require storage of petroleum or chemical
products greater than 1,100 gallons. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF)
Part 2 — Project Impacts
Project Name: 327 Elmira Rd. — Herson Funeral Home Relocation
Date Created: 10/13/15
4 of 11
10/15/2015
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON WATER (cont.)
6. Will project alter drainage flow, drainage patterns, or surface water runoff? Yes No
Project would impede floodwater flows. Yes No
Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Yes No
Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Yes No
Other impacts (if any): Project will require a SWPPP.
Project reduces the amount of impervious surface on
the site. Yes No
IMPACT ON AIR
7. Will project affect air quality? Yes No
Project will induce 500 or more vehicle trips in any 8-hour
period per day. Yes No
Project will result in the incineration of more than 2.5 tons of
refuse per 24-hour day. Yes No
Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs.
per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million
BTUs per hour.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any): Minor construction impacts only.
Yes No
City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF)
Part 2 — Project Impacts
Project Name: 327 Elmira Rd. — Herson Funeral Home Relocation
Date Created: 10/13/15
5 of 11
10/15/2015
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Will project affect any threatened or endangered species? Yes No
Reduction of any species, listed on New York or Federal list,
using the site, found over, on, or near site. Yes No
Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife
habitat. Yes No
Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year
other than for agricultural purposes. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species?
Yes No
Proposed action would substantially interfere with any
resident or migratory fish, or wildlife species. Yes No
Proposed action requires removal or more than ½ acre of
mature woods or other locally important vegetation. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF)
Part 2 — Project Impacts
Project Name: 327 Elmira Rd. — Herson Funeral Home Relocation
Date Created: 10/13/15
6 of 11
10/15/2015
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
10. Will proposed action affect views, vistas, or visual character of the neighborhood or
community? Yes No
Proposed land uses or proposed action components
obviously different from, or in sharp contrast to, current
surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural.
Yes No
Proposed land uses or proposed action components visible to
users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or
significantly reduce their enjoyment of aesthetic qualities of
that resource.
Yes No
Proposed action will result in elimination or major screening
of scenic views known to be important to the area. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
11. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric, or paleontological
importance? Yes No
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or
contiguous to, any facility or site listed on or eligible for the
National or State Register of Historic Places.
Yes No
Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located
within the project site. Yes No
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or
contiguous to, any site designated as a local landmark or in a
landmark district.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF)
Part 2 — Project Impacts
Project Name: 327 Elmira Rd. — Herson Funeral Home Relocation
Date Created: 10/13/15
7 of 11
10/15/2015
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
12. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces, or
recreational opportunities? Yes No
The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational
opportunity. Yes No
A major reduction of an open space important to the
community. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS OR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
13. Will proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a site designated
as a unique natural area (UNA) or a critical environmental area (CEA) by a local or state
agency? Yes No
Proposed action to locate within a UNA or CEA? Yes No
Proposed action will result in reduction in the quality of the
resource. Yes No
Proposed action will impact use, function, or enjoyment of the
resource. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF)
Part 2 — Project Impacts
Project Name: 327 Elmira Rd. — Herson Funeral Home Relocation
Date Created: 10/13/15
8 of 11
10/15/2015
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Yes No
Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or
goods. Yes No
Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Yes No
Other impacts:
Yes No
IMPACT ON ENERGY
15. Will proposed action affect community's sources of fuel or energy supply? Yes No
Proposed action causing greater than 5% increase in any
form of energy used in municipality. Yes No
Proposed action requiring creation or extension of an energy
transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single-
or two-family residences.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF)
Part 2 — Project Impacts
Project Name: 327 Elmira Rd. — Herson Funeral Home Relocation
Date Created: 10/13/15
9 of 11
10/15/2015
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS
16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance during
construction of, or after completion of, this proposed action? Yes No
Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school, or other
sensitive facility? Yes No
Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Yes No
Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding local
ambient noise levels for noise outside of structure. Yes No
Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as
noise screen. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? Yes No
Proposed action will cause risk of explosion or release of
hazardous substances (i.e., oil, pesticides, chemicals,
radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or
there will be chronic low-level discharge or emission.
Yes No
Proposed action may result in burial of “hazardous wastes” in
any form (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive,
irritating, infectious, etc.)
Yes No
Proposed action may result in excavation or other
disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the
disposal of solid or hazardous wastes.
Yes No
Proposed action will result in handling or disposal or
hazardous wastes (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive,
radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., including wastes
that are solid, semi-solid, liquid, or contain gases).
Yes No
City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF)
Part 2 — Project Impacts
Project Name: 327 Elmira Rd. — Herson Funeral Home Relocation
Date Created: 10/13/15
10 of 11
10/15/2015
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH (cont.)
Storage facilities for 50,000 or more gallons of any liquid fuel. Yes No
Use of any chemical for de-icing, soil stabilization, or control
of vegetation, insects, or animal life on the premises of any
residential, commercial, or industrial property in excess of
30,000 square feet.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Yes No
The population of the city in which the proposed action is
located is likely to grow by more than 5% of resident human
population.
Yes No
The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or operating
services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of
this proposed action.
Yes No
Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans
or goals. Project requires a Use Variance. See Part 3 Yes No
Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land
use. Yes No
Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities,
structures, or areas of historic importance to the community. Yes No
Development will create demand for additional community
services (e.g., schools, police, and fire, etc.) Yes No
Proposed action will set an important precedent for future
actions. Yes No
Proposed action will relocate 15 or more employees in one or
more businesses. Yes No
City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF)
Part 2 — Project Impacts
Project Name: 327 Elmira Rd. — Herson Funeral Home Relocation
Date Created: 10/13/15
11 of 11
10/15/2015
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD (cont.)
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
19. Is there public controversy concerning the proposed action? Yes No Unknown
— If any action in Part 2 is identified as a potential large impact,
or if you cannot determine the magnitude of impact, proceed to Part 3 —
Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Environmental Remediation
Record of Decision
Morse Industrial Corporation Site
Operable Unit No. 3
State Superfund Project
City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York
Site Number 755010
October 2010
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
DAVID A. PATERSON, Governor ALEXANDER B. GRANNIS, Commissioner
DECLARATION STATEMENT - RECORD OF DECISION
ii
Morse Industrial Corporation Site
Operable Unit No. 3
City of Ithaca, Tompkins, New York
Site No. 755010
Statement of Purpose and Basis
The Record of Decision (ROD) presents the selected remedy for Operable Unit (OU) No. 3 of the
Morse Industrial Corporation site, a Class 2 inactive hazardous waste disposal site. The selected
remedial program was chosen in accordance with the New York State Environmental Conservation
Law, 6 NYCRR Part 375, and is not inconsistent with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan of March 8, 1990 (40CFR300), as amended.
This decision is based on the Administrative Record of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (the Department) for OU No.3 of the Morse Industrial Corporation site
and the public=s input to the OU No. 3 Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) presented by the
Department. A listing of the documents included as a part of the Administrative Record is included
in Appendix B of the ROD.
Description of Selected Remedy
Based on the results of the remedial investigation alternative analysis (RI/AA) for OU No. 3 and the
criteria identified for evaluation of alternatives, the Department has selected East Spencer Street
Sewer Line Focused Excavation and Venting:
The elements of the proposed unrestricted use remedy are as follows:
1. A remedial design program will be implemented to provide the details necessary for
the construction, operation, maintenance, and monitoring of the remedial program.
2. The removal and replacement of approximately 300 feet of sanitary sewer line (and
removal of associated overburden and bedding material, if present) along East
Spencer Street beginning at its intersection with Turner Place (Figure 5). Any
overburden or bedding material that is excavated will be tested and properly
disposed. The replacement line will be constructed using air- and water-tight joints
to prevent the intrusion of soil vapor into the line from the surrounding formation.
The pipe bedding will be composed of a highly permeable material to promote the
venting of soil vapor. This will be enhanced by the installation of a slotted or
perforated pipe within the bedding material. Soil vapor that re-enters the trench will
be vented to the atmosphere via a single or series of standpipes connected to the
perforated pipe. The standpipe(s) will be fitted with a wind turbine or barometric
pressure-actuated device. Monitoring including, at a minimum, testing of the
standpipe(s) emissions, will be implemented after the venting system is installed.
iii
Details of the venting system monitoring program will be included in the Site
Management Plan, consistent with DER-10.
3. Continued operation and maintenance of the previously installed vapor mitigation
systems to achieve the Remedial Action Objective (RAO) of mitigating soil vapor
intrusion into the indoor air of homes and other structures in OU No. 3.
4. The operation of the components of the remedy will continue until the remedial
objectives have been achieved, or until the Department determines that continued
operation is technically impracticable or not feasible.
5. Since the remedy results in contamination remaining at OU No. 3, a Site
Management Plan is required, which includes the following:
(a) an Engineering Control Plan that identifies all engineering controls for OU No. 3
and details the steps and media-specific requirements necessary to assure the
following engineering controls remain in place and are effective: the venting system
discussed in Paragraph 2 above and the vapor mitigation systems discussed in
Paragraph 3.
(b) a Monitoring Plan to assess the performance and effectiveness of the remedy.
The plan includes, but is not limited to:
(i) a schedule of monitoring and frequency of submittals to the
Department;
(ii) a provision to evaluate the potential for vapor intrusion for any new
buildings (i.e., homes, offices, etc.) developed within OU No. 3,
including a provision for mitigation of any impacts identified;
(iii) a provision to evaluate the potential for soil vapor intrusion for
existing buildings within OU No. 3 if building use changes
significantly or if a vacant building become occupied.
New York State Department of Health Acceptance
The New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) concurs that the remedy selected for OU No.
3 is protective of human health.
Morse Industrial Corporation Site, OU No. 3 October 2010
RECORD OF DECISION PAGE 1
RECORD OF DECISION
Morse Industrial Corporation Site
Operable Unit No. 3
City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York
Site No. 755010
October 2010
SECTION 1: SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PLAN
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (the Department), in consultation
with the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH), has selected this remedy for the above
referenced site. The disposal of hazardous waste at the Morse Industrial Corporation site has
resulted in threats to public health and the environment within OU No. 3 that are addressed by this
remedy presented in this Record of Decision (ROD). The disposal of hazardous waste at the Morse
Industrial Corporation site, as more fully described in Section 5 of this document, have contaminated
various environmental media. The proposed remedy, discussed in detail in Section 8, is intended to
attain the remedial action objectives identified for OU No. 3 in Section 6 for the protection of public
health and the environment. This ROD identifies the selected remedy, summarizes the other
alternatives considered, and discusses the reasons for the selected remedy. The Department has
selected a final remedy for OU No. 3 after careful consideration of all comments received during the
public comment period.
The New York State Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Site Remedial Program (also known as the
State Superfund Program) is an enforcement program, the mission of which is to identify and
characterize suspected inactive hazardous waste disposal sites and to investigate and remediate those
sites found to pose a significant threat to public health and the environment.
The Department has issued this ROD in accordance with the requirements of New York State
Environmental Conservation Law and Title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and
Regulations of the State of New York, 6 NYCRR Part 375.
SECTION 2: SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY
2.1: Location and Description
The Morse Industrial Corporation site occupies 100 acres along the west side of South Aurora
Street/Danby Road (Route 96B) in the South Hill portion of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County,
New York (Figure 1). The site’s surface elevation ranges from 450 to 720 feet above mean sea
level, resulting in a very hilly topography. The plant site consists of three main buildings flanked by
a number of smaller buildings to the southwest and a series of access roads and parking lots that
terrace the hillside above the plant to the east. Undeveloped woodland borders the site to the
southwest along the steep embankments of South Hill.
Morse Industrial Corporation Site, OU No. 3 October 2010
RECORD OF DECISION PAGE 2
OU No. 3, which is the subject of this document, consists of the neighborhoods, sewer lines and
residential structures to the north and west of the plant site (Figures 1 and 2). An operable unit
represents a portion of the site that for technical or administrative reasons can be addressed
separately to eliminate or mitigate a release, threat of release or exposure pathway resulting from the
site contamination. The remaining operable units for this site are located at the plant and are being
addressed through a December 1994 ROD and a June 2009 ROD amendment.
North of the plant, the topography drops off at a 40% grade (approximately 80 feet) to a residential
area. The residential structures are generally terraced into the steep hillside. Some basement floors
are directly on bedrock while others are built on a combination of bedrock and cut-and-fill material.
These homes are serviced by municipal subsurface utilities including water, sewer and natural gas.
Bedrock in the area is weathered into the upper eight to twelve feet and has a series of regular
vertical joint sets identified both in outcrop and through geophysical techniques. The residential
neighborhood is bordered by Six Mile Creek to the west, which flows north along the base of South
Hill and eventually empties into Cayuga Lake approximately two miles northwest of OU No. 3.
2.2: Operational/Disposal History
The original plant building was constructed in 1906 by Morse Industrial Corporation, which
manufactured steel roller chain for the automobile industry. From approximately 1928 to 1983,
Borg-Warner Corporation owned the property and manufactured automotive components and power
transmission equipment. Up until the late 1970s, Borg-Warner used trichloroethene (TCE), a
common solvent at the time, for cleaning and degreasing metal parts. An estimated sixty metal
piercing and blanking machines were in operation from the early 1950s to 1977. These machines
reportedly operated without drip pans in the 1950s, and solvents used to clean the residual oil from
the floors appear to have been flushed into the plant’s sanitary sewer system and are believed to have
leaked out from the sewer system through cracks and joints in the sewer lines in the vicinity of the
residential neighborhood to the north and west of the plant.
In 1983, Morse Industrial Corporation was purchased from Borg-Warner by Emerson Electric
Company, and in the late 1980s the facility became known as Emerson Power Transmission (EPT).
EPT currently manufactures industrial roller chain, bearings, and clutching for the power
transmission industry. Under Emerson’s ownership, TCE has not been used at the facility.
In addition, investigations conducted by the Department under the State Superfund Program suggest
that spent solvents containing TCE and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were flushed into
the sanitary sewer systems of both the former National Cash Register (NCR) facility and the Therm
Inc. facility. Both of these sanitary sewer systems ultimately discharge in a westerly direction into
the Columbia Street sanitary sewer line, which then in turn discharges to the Turner Place sewer line
(see Figures 1 and 2 for street references in relation to OU No. 3).
Morse Industrial Corporation Site, OU No. 3 October 2010
RECORD OF DECISION PAGE 3
2.3: Remedial History
1. Remedial Parties and Program.
The remedial program is being performed by EPT as a Responsible Party in the Department's State
Superfund Program. As a result of identified hazardous waste disposal, the Department listed the
Morse Industrial Corporation site as a Class 2 site in the Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste
Disposal Sites in New York in July 1987. A Class 2 site is a site where hazardous waste presents a
significant threat to the public health or the environment and action is required.
2. Investigation/Actions at OU No. 3.
Indoor air sampling of private residences by NYSDOH completed in May 1991
Vadose zone monitoring completed in June 2004
Soil sampling along Turner Place sewer in July 2006
Initial soil vapor intrusion assessments of private residences and public structures (Phases I
through V, Figure 3) completed in March 2007
Soil vapor and manhole vapor sampling along sewer lines completed in August 2007
Installation of mitigation systems on private residences was initiated in 2005
Vent stack sampling completed in July 2008
Sewer manhole assessment completed in July 2008
Focused ambient air sampling completed in July 2008
Supplemental investigation of sanitary sewers completed in July 2008
SECTION 3: LAND USE
The Department may consider the current, intended, and reasonable anticipated future land use of
OU No. 3 and its surroundings when assessing the nature and extent of contamination. Neither soil
nor groundwater data suggest the need for any land use restrictions in OU No. 3.
SECTION 4: ENFORCEMENT STATUS
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) are those who may be legally liable for contamination at a
site. This may include past or present owners and operators, waste generators, and haulers.
Morse Industrial Corporation Site, OU No. 3 October 2010
RECORD OF DECISION PAGE 4
The PRPs for the OU No. 3 site include EPT, NCR, and Therm Inc. The Department and EPT
entered into a Consent Order on July 13, 1988. The Order obligates EPT to implement a full remedial
program.
SECTION 5: SITE CONTAMINATION
A remedial investigation has been conducted to determine the nature and extent of contamination
and to evaluate the alternatives for addressing the significant threats to human health and the
environment.
5.1: Summary of the Remedial Investigation
The purpose of the remedial investigation (RI) was to define the nature and extent of any
contamination resulting from previous activities at OU No. 3. Remedial investigation activities for
OU No. 3 were conducted between May 1991 and July 2008 as outlined in Section 2.3, and the
remedial investigation is considered complete. The field activities and findings are described in the
April 4, 2008 Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report and the September 3, 2009 Alternatives
Analysis Report.
The following remedial investigation activities were conducted:
Research of historical information,
Geophysical survey to determine the lateral extent of subsurface conductive features,
Soil borings and monitoring well installations,
Sampling of subsurface soils, groundwater, soil vapor and indoor air,
Human Health Exposure Assessments.
5.1.1: Standards, Criteria, and Guidance (SCGs)
The remedy must conform to promulgated standards and criteria that are directly applicable, or that
are relevant and appropriate. The selection of a remedy must also take into consideration guidance,
as appropriate. Standards, Criteria and Guidance are hereafter called SCGs.
To determine whether the contaminants identified in various media are present at levels of concern,
the data from the RI were compared to media-specific SCGs. The Department has developed SCGs
for groundwater, surface water, sediments, and surface and subsurface soil. The NYSDOH has
developed SCGs for drinking water and soil vapor intrusion. For a full listing of all SCGs see:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/61794.html
Morse Industrial Corporation Site, OU No. 3 October 2010
RECORD OF DECISION PAGE 5
Based on the RI results, in comparison to the SCGs and potential public health and environmental
exposure routes, certain media and areas of OU No. 3 require remediation. These are summarized in
Section 5.1.2. More complete information can be found in the reports referenced in Section 5.1.
5.1.2: Nature and Extent of Contamination
As discussed in Section 2.2, spent solvents containing VOCs from plant operations were historically
discharged into the sanitary sewer system. The sewer lines servicing the plant run in a northwesterly
direction through the South Hill neighborhood along Turner Place and South Cayuga Street.
According to City of Ithaca utility drawings, the majority of the sanitary sewer lines along both
Turner Place and South Cayuga Street are trenched directly into unsaturated, highly fractured
bedrock. Releases from these sewers can be conceptualized as leaks through cracks and joints of an
aging system that migrated along the surrounding bedding material, where present, or directly into
the fractured bedrock. Subsequently, VOC-contaminated wastewater which seeped into the
fractured bedrock continued to migrate into the deeper sediment-filled fractures (joints and bedding
planes) in the bedrock or was held by capillary forces within the pore spaces. VOCs subsequently
volatilize into the gaseous phase and are transported by diffusion both laterally and vertically (based
on a pressure differential) through the fractures and along the sewers and laterals, eventually
reaching the basements of certain homes within the South Hill neighborhood (Figure 4). This
conceptual site model is supported by the results of the soil vapor and soil vapor intrusion sampling
that has been conducted throughout the area. The highest concentrations of TCE and other VOCs
have consistently been detected in samples collected directly over the sewer lines, while contaminant
concentrations dropped off appreciably in samples collected as few as ten feet off the sewer lines.
Where present, soils in the immediate vicinity of the Turner Place sewer line within OU No. 3 were
evaluated for potential impacts from historical releases. A total of 25 soil samples were collected
along Turner Place from the soil/bedrock interface approximately three to six feet below grade as
part of the RI work. TCE was detected in 16 of the samples, but at concentrations that were below
the NYSDEC’s Soil Cleanup Objective (SCO) for unrestricted use. In most instances, the
concentrations were several orders of magnitude below the SCO.
Generally, there are at least three geologic profiles across OU No.3. Toward the top of the hill along
the upper section of Turner Street there is a thin layer of soil underlain by a highly fractured bedrock
zone. Below this highly fractured zone is more competent bedrock. Although these zones vary in
thickness, generally the soil is from nonexistent to a few feet thick, and the highly fractured zone is
generally less than eight feet thick.
Toward the middle of OU No. 3, about halfway between the plant site and Six Mile Creek, the soil
cover thins as does the highly fractured bedrock zone. The more competent bedrock in this area is
closer to the surface, accounting for a reduced shallow hydraulic conductivity.
Toward the bottom of the hillside along lower Turner Street the overall thickness of the bedrock
increases, and continues at a similar slope to the hillside. The bedrock at this point is covered with
deposits of alluvium (i.e., silt, clay, fine sand and peat).
Morse Industrial Corporation Site, OU No. 3 October 2010
RECORD OF DECISION PAGE 6
Groundwater transport down the hillside occurs mainly in the shallow fractured bedrock zone.
Groundwater flow is interrupted by the thinning of the shallow fractured zone toward the middle of
the hill and comes to the surface as evidenced by numerous intermittent seeps. As the shallow
fractured bedrock layer thickens toward the bottom of the hill groundwater transport increases
through this zone until it is discharged from below into the alluvium.
Six monitoring wells were installed within OU No. 3 in both the shallow and the deeper bedrock
zones to evaluate possible groundwater impacts. TCE concentrations in groundwater were either
non-detect, or were below ambient water quality standards in all sample locations.
Soil Vapor Intrusion
The evaluation of the potential for soil vapor intrusion was conducted by the sampling of soil vapor,
sub-slab soil vapor under structures, and indoor air inside structures. At OU No. 3, due to the
presence of buildings in the impacted area, a full suite of samples were collected to evaluate whether
soil vapor intrusion was occurring.
The initial sampling was conducted in five phases between the fall of 2004 and the fall/winter of
2006/2007 and involved approximately 100 structures (Figure 3). The results indicated that soil
vapors were impacting the indoor air of several structures. Based on the concentrations of TCE and
other VOCs detected in sub-slab soil vapor and indoor air in comparison to the NYSDOH Soil
Vapor Intrusion Guidance and EPT’s voluntary mitigation offers, soil vapor contamination identified
during the RI was addressed during the IRM described in Section 5.2.
5.2: Interim Remedial Measures
An interim remedial measure (IRM) is conducted at a site when a source of contamination or
exposure pathway can be effectively addressed before issuance of the Record of Decision.
Mitigation measures were taken at several structures to address both current and potential indoor air
contamination by VOCs associated with soil vapor intrusion. As of mid-May 2010, 50 sub-slab
depressurization systems (i.e., vapor mitigation systems) had been installed by EPT and another nine
were pending. There were also outstanding offers from EPT for the installation of seven additional
systems.
It is important to note that a comparison of indoor air and sub-slab soil vapor data to the NYSDOH
Soil Vapor Intrusion Guidance resulted in the installation of only nine mitigation systems. All of the
remaining systems (and offers) were voluntary on the part of EPT based upon the detection of TCE
in indoor air.
5.3: Summary of Human Exposure Pathways
This section describes the current or potential human exposures (the way people may come in
contact with contamination) that may result from the site contamination. A more detailed discussion
of the human exposure pathways can be found in the reports available at the document repository.
An exposure pathway describes the means by which an individual may be exposed to contaminants
Morse Industrial Corporation Site, OU No. 3 October 2010
RECORD OF DECISION PAGE 7
originating from a site. An exposure pathway has five elements: [1] a contaminant source, [2]
contaminant release and transport mechanisms, [3] a point of exposure, [4] a route of exposure, and
[5] a receptor population.
Contaminant release and transport mechanisms carry contaminants from the source to a point where
people may be exposed. The exposure point is a location where actual or potential human contact
with a contaminated medium may occur. The route of exposure is the manner in which a
contaminant actually enters or contacts the body (e.g., ingestion, inhalation, or direct contact). The
receptor population is the people who are, or may be, exposed to contaminants at a point of
exposure.
An exposure pathway is complete when all five elements of an exposure pathway exist. An
exposure pathway is considered a potential pathway when one or more of the elements currently
does not exist, but could in the future.
As discussed in Section 5.2 above, vapor mitigation systems have already been provided to the nine
homes within OU No. 3 where, based upon a comparison of indoor air and sub-slab soil vapor data,
the NYSDOH Soil Vapor Intrusion Guidance recommended mitigation. Continued operation of the
vapor mitigation systems reduces the potential for exposure from soil vapor intrusion into the homes.
5.4: Summary of Environmental Assessment
This section summarizes the assessment of existing and potential future environmental impacts
presented by OU No. 3.
The environmental medium of concern within OU No. 3 is soil vapor, in particular the ability of
VOC-contaminated soil vapor to migrate to homes and other structures in the area and adversely
impact indoor air.
As discussed in Section 5.1.2, no site-related soil or groundwater contamination was identified
during RI activities. Therefore, no remedial alternatives need to be evaluated for soil or
groundwater.
Further, given OU No. 3’s residential setting, there are no ecological resources of concern present.
SECTION 6: SUMMARY OF THE REMEDIATION OBJECTIVES
The objectives for the remedial program have been established through the remedy selection process
stated in 6 NYCRR Part 375. The goal for the remedial program is to restore the site to pre-disposal
conditions to the extent feasible. At a minimum, the remedy shall eliminate or mitigate all
significant threats to public health and the environment presented by the contamination identified at
the site through the proper application of scientific and engineering principles.
Morse Industrial Corporation Site, OU No. 3 October 2010
RECORD OF DECISION PAGE 8
The remedial objective for OU No. 3 is:
Public Health Protection
Soil Vapor
$Mitigate impacts to public health resulting from existing, or the potential for, soil vapor
intrusion into the indoor air of buildings within OU No. 3.
SECTION 7: SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
To be selected the remedy must be protective of human health and the environment, be cost-
effective, comply with other statutory requirements, and utilize permanent solutions, alternative
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Potential
remedial alternatives for OU No. 3 were identified, screened and evaluated in the alternative analysis
report which is available at the document repositories established for this site.
A summary of the remedial alternatives that were considered for OU No. 3 is presented below. Cost
information is presented in the form of present worth, which represents the amount of money
invested in the current year that would be sufficient to cover all present and future costs associated
with the alternative. This enables the costs of remedial alternatives to be compared on a common
basis.
As a convention, a time frame of 30 years is used to evaluate present worth costs for alternatives
with an indefinite duration. This does not imply that operation, maintenance, or monitoring would
cease after 30 years if remediation goals are not achieved.
7.1: Description of Remedial Alternatives
The following alternatives were considered to address the contaminated media identified at OU No.
3 as describe in Section 5:
Alternative 1: No Further Action
The No Further Action Alternative recognizes the remediation of the site completed by the IRM
described in Section 5.2. This alternative leaves the site in its present condition and does not
provide any additional protection of public health. The No Further Action Alternative serves as a
baseline for comparison of the overall effectiveness of the other remedial alternatives. There are no
costs associated with this alternative.
Alternative 2: No Further Action with Site Management
The No Further Action with Site Management Alternative recognizes the remediation of the site
completed by the IRM described in Section 5.2 and Site Management and Engineering Controls and
Institutional Control as necessary to confirm the effectiveness of the IRM. This alternative
maintains engineering controls which were part of the IRM and includes institutional controls, in the
Morse Industrial Corporation Site, OU No. 3 October 2010
RECORD OF DECISION PAGE 9
form of a Site Management Plan, necessary to protect public health and the environment from
contamination remaining at the site after the IRM.
Present Worth: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $536,100
Annual Costs: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $43,200
Alternative 3: East Spencer Street Sewer Line Focused Excavation and Venting
Alternative 3 involves the removal and replacement of approximately 300 feet of sanitary sewer line
(and removal of associated overburden and bedding material, if present) along East Spencer Street
beginning at its intersection with Turner Place (Figure 5). This designated length of sewer line is
where the highest concentrations of TCE were detected in soil vapor samples collected within the
South Hill neighborhood. This is also the area where the highest concentrations of TCE were
detected in sub-slab soil vapor samples and, not coincidentally, where five of the nine homes
requiring mitigation are located. Two prominent bedrock fractures are present directly below these
homes (as well as three others on South Hill Terrace that also required mitigation), and it is believed
that the fractures represent a primary migration pathway for contaminated soil vapor from the East
Spencer Street sewer line to the homes.
Any overburden or bedding material that is excavated would be tested and properly disposed. The
replacement line would be constructed using air- and water-tight joints to prevent the intrusion of
soil vapor into the line from the surrounding formation. The pipe bedding would be composed of a
highly permeable material to promote the venting of soil vapor. This would be enhanced by the
installation of a slotted or perforated pipe within the bedding material. Soil vapor that re-enters the
pipe trench would be vented to the atmosphere via a single or series of standpipes connected to the
perforated pipe. The standpipe(s) would be fitted with a wind turbine or a barometric pressure-
actuated device. As is the case with the residential systems, vented vapors are not anticipated to
have any measurable impact to ambient air.
Monitoring including, at a minimum, testing of the standpipe(s) emissions, will be implemented after
the venting system is installed. Details of the venting system monitoring program will be included
in the Site Management Plan, consistent with DER-10.
This alternative would be implemented in combination with the continued operation of the
previously installed vapor mitigation systems to achieve the Remedial Action Objective (RAO) of
mitigating soil vapor intrusion into the indoor air of homes and other structures in the area.
An institutional control, in the form of a Site Management Plan, would be necessary to insure proper
operation and maintenance of the venting system and the vapor mitigation systems.
Present Worth: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,143,200
Capital Cost: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $596,000
Annual Costs: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $44,100
Morse Industrial Corporation Site, OU No. 3 October 2010
RECORD OF DECISION PAGE 10
Alternative 4: Soil Vapor Extraction on Sewer Lines
Alternative 4 involves the installation of a soil vapor extraction (SVE) system on the sanitary sewer
lines in the area of concern (Figures 1 and 2) with the goal of removing any accumulated vapors
located within the bedding material surrounding the lines. This alternative may also include the
installation of a vacuum on the inside of the lines. The vapors removed by the extraction system
would be treated using conventional treatment methods (e.g., vapor-phase activated carbon).
This alternative would be implemented in combination with the continued operation of the
previously installed vapor mitigation systems to achieve the Remedial Action Objective (RAO) of
mitigating soil vapor intrusion into the indoor air of homes and other structures in the area.
An institutional control, in the form of a Site Management Plan, would be necessary to insure proper
operation and maintenance of the SVE system and the vapor mitigation systems.
Present Worth: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4,147,000
Capital Cost: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,214,000
Annual Costs: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $155,700
Alternative 5: Blanket Mitigation
Alternative 5 involves the installation of additional vapor mitigation systems at all homes and other
structures across the area of concern (Figures 1 and 2) without additional pre-mitigation air
sampling.
This alternative would be implemented in combination with the continued operation of the
previously installed vapor mitigation systems to achieve the Remedial Action Objective (RAO) of
mitigating soil vapor intrusion into the indoor air of homes and other structures in the area.
An institutional control, in the form of a Site Management Plan, would be necessary to insure proper
operation and maintenance of the vapor mitigation systems.
Present Worth: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,999,650
Capital Cost: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,827,000
Annual Costs: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $94,500
7.2: Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives
The criteria to which potential remedial alternatives are compared are defined in 6 NYCRR Part 375,
which sets forth the requirements for the remediation of inactive hazardous waste disposal sites in
New York. A detailed discussion of the evaluation criteria and comparative analysis is included in
the Alternatives Analysis Report.
The first two evaluation criteria are termed Athreshold criteria@ and must be satisfied in order for an
alternative to be considered for selection.
Morse Industrial Corporation Site, OU No. 3 October 2010
RECORD OF DECISION PAGE 11
1. Protection of Human Health and the Environment. This criterion is an overall evaluation of each
alternative=s ability to protect public health and the environment.
2. Compliance with New York State Standards, Criteria, and Guidance (SCGs). Compliance with
SCGs addresses whether a remedy will meet environmental laws, regulations, and other standards
and criteria. In addition, this criterion includes the consideration of guidance which the Department
has determined to be applicable on a case-specific basis.
The next six Aprimary balancing criteria@ are used to compare the positive and negative aspects of
each of the remedial strategies.
3. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence. This criterion evaluates the long-term effectiveness of
the remedial alternatives after implementation. If wastes or treated residuals remain on-site after the
selected remedy has been implemented, the following items are evaluated: 1) the magnitude of the
remaining risks, 2) the adequacy of the engineering and/or institutional controls intended to limit the
risk, and 3) the reliability of these controls.
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume. Preference is given to alternatives that permanently
and significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of the wastes at the site.
5. Short-term Impacts and Effectiveness. The potential short-term adverse impacts of the remedial
action upon the community, the workers, and the environment during the construction and/or
implementation are evaluated. The length of time needed to achieve the remedial objectives is also
estimated and compared against the other alternatives.
6. Implementability. The technical and administrative feasibility of implementing each alternative
are evaluated. Technical feasibility includes the difficulties associated with the construction of the
remedy and the ability to monitor its effectiveness. For administrative feasibility, the availability of
the necessary personnel and materials is evaluated along with potential difficulties in obtaining
specific operating approvals, access for construction, institutional controls, and so forth.
7. Cost-Effectiveness. Capital costs and annual operation, maintenance, and monitoring costs are
estimated for each alternative and compared on a present worth basis. Although cost-effectiveness is
the last balancing criterion evaluated, where two or more alternatives have met the requirements of
the other criteria, it can be used as the basis for the final decision. The costs for each alternative are
presented in the Remedial Alternatives Cost Table 1.
Morse Industrial Corporation Site, OU No. 3 October 2010
RECORD OF DECISION PAGE 12
Table 1
Remedial Alternative Costs
Remedial Alternative Capital Cost ($) Annual Costs ($) Total Present Worth ($)
Alternative 1 (No Action) 0 0 0
Alternative 2 0 43,200 536,100
Alternative 3 596,000 44,100 1,143,200
Alternative 4 2,214,000 155,700 4,147,000
Alternative 5 1,827,000 94,500 2,999,650
8. Land Use. When cleanup to pre-disposal conditions is determined to be infeasible, the
Department may consider the current, intended, and reasonable anticipated future land use of the site
and its surroundings in the selection of the soil remedy.
The final criterion, Community Acceptance, is considered a Amodifying criterion@ and is taken into
account after evaluating those above. It is evaluated after public comments on the Proposed
Remedial Action Plan have been received.
9. Community Acceptance. Concerns of the community regarding the investigation, the evaluation
of alternatives, and the PRAP have been evaluated. The responsiveness summary (Appendix A)
presents the public comments received and the manner in which the Department addressed the
concerns raised.
In general, the public comments on some aspects of the remedy were raised that should be
highlighted but do not materially change the remedy.
Several comments were received regarding determining the effectiveness of the remedy. The
remedy has been revised to include effectiveness monitoring on the sewer venting system after it has
been installed.
SECTION 8: SUMMARY OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
Based on the Administrative Record (Appendix B) and the discussion presented below, the
Department has selected Alternative 3, East Spencer Street Sewer Line Focused Excavation and
Venting, as the remedy for OU No. 3. The elements of the remedy are described at the end of this
section.
Morse Industrial Corporation Site, OU No. 3 October 2010
RECORD OF DECISION PAGE 13
8.1: Basis for Selection
The selected remedy is based on the results of the RI and the evaluation of alternatives.
Alternative 3 is selected because, as described below, it satisfies the threshold criteria and provides
the best balance of the balancing criterion described in Section 7.2. It would achieve the
remediation goals for OU No. 3 by preventing the intrusion of contaminated soil vapor into homes
through the continued operation of the existing vapor mitigation systems. Although the NYSDEC
and the NYSDOH believe that such action is sufficient to mitigate potential exposure, the
Responsible Party has proposed additional measures for the collection and venting of contaminated
soil vapor closer to a suspected source area that otherwise would likely continue to migrate to, and
accumulate beneath homes.
Alternative 1 (No Action) does not provide any protection to public health and will not be evaluated
further. Like Alternative 3, Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 include the continued operation of the existing
vapor mitigation systems and therefore meet the threshold criteria. Thus, the remaining criteria are
particularly important in selecting a final remedy for OU No. 3.
There are no short-term impacts associated with Alternative 2. Alternatives 3 and 4 involve
disruptions to the local community typical of a road construction project (e.g., street closure, heavy
equipment noise, dust). Alternative 5 involves disruptions to individual homeowners or tenants
associated with the scheduling and installation of additional vapor mitigation systems. Each of the
alternatives is effective in the short term since each includes the continued operation of the existing
vapor mitigation systems (and venting or SVE system, as applicable).
Alternatives 2 through 5 are all effective in the long term since a Site Management Plan will be
implemented to insure continued operation and maintenance of the existing vapor mitigation
systems.
Each of the alternatives (2 through 5) reduces the volume of contaminated soil vapor present in the
subsurface through the continued operation of the existing vapor mitigation systems. Alternative 3
also reduces the mobility of the soil vapor by collecting and venting the vapor before it can migrate
to, and accumulate beneath homes. Alternative 4 has the potential to reduce the mobility of the soil
vapor as well, although there are a number of technical concerns regarding successful
implementation of a full-scale SVE system (e.g., short-circuiting of air flow through bedding
material, surrounding utility corridors and poorly sealed road surfaces).
Alternative 2 has already been implemented, as has a portion of Alternatives 3 through 5 (i.e., the
existing vapor mitigation systems). Replacement of the sewer line and installation of a venting
system as part of Alternative 3 relies on conventional construction methods and is readily
implementable, although coordination with the City of Ithaca is necessary. Alternative 4 would
require pre-design work (i.e., confirmation of existing sewer line locations and depths) to insure
proper implementation. SVE pilot tests would also need to be completed to assess the
appropriateness of full-scale implementation, and additional soil vapor samples would be needed to
eliminate data gaps that exist along portions of the suspected pathways. Alternative 4 would also
require the installation of large vacuum blowers as part of the SVE system, and finding a suitable
Morse Industrial Corporation Site, OU No. 3 October 2010
RECORD OF DECISION PAGE 14
location for the equipment would be difficult. It is not feasible to place the equipment on the EPT
facility due to the length of conveyance piping needed and the change in elevation, which would
result in substantial frictional head loss within the piping. Locating the equipment within the
neighborhood is also not feasible due to the significant noise associated with the blowers.
Alternative 5 includes the installation of additional vapor mitigation systems. Fifty systems have
already been installed throughout the neighborhood utilizing conventional construction methods, and
the systems are well understood by the community. However, gaining access to a property may
increase the time necessary to install a mitigation system. In addition, the construction process itself
may be slowed because of access limitations and City of Ithaca involvement in the residential
construction permitting process.
The costs of the alternatives vary significantly. Alternative 2 has the lowest overall cost, yet it
includes no provisions to directly address the migration of contaminated soil vapor present in the
subsurface. Alternative 3 has the next lowest cost, and it is the only alternative that provides a
reliable means of directly addressing the migration of contaminated soil vapor. Alternative 4 is the
most costly alternative, and the feasibility of successfully constructing and operating a full-scale
SVE system is not likely. Alternative 5 is more costly than Alternative 3, and the need for the
installation of additional vapor mitigation systems is not supported by the existing database in
comparison to the NYSDOH Soil Vapor Intrusion Guidance. In addition, like Alternative 2, it does
not include provisions to directly address the migration of contaminated soil vapor.
The estimated present worth cost to implement the remedy is $1,143,200. The cost to construct the
remedy is estimated to be $596,000 and the estimated average annual costs for 30 years is $44,100.
8.2: Elements of the Selected Remedy
The elements of the selected unrestricted use remedy are as follows:
1. A remedial design program will be implemented to provide the details necessary for
the construction, operation, maintenance, and monitoring of the remedial program.
2. The removal and replacement of approximately 300 feet of sanitary sewer line (and
removal of associated overburden and bedding material, if present) along East
Spencer Street beginning at its intersection with Turner Place (Figure 5). Any
overburden or bedding material that is excavated will be tested and properly
disposed. The replacement line will be constructed using air- and water-tight joints
to prevent the intrusion of soil vapor into the line from the surrounding formation.
The pipe bedding will be composed of a highly permeable material to promote the
venting of soil vapor. This will be enhanced by the installation of a slotted or
perforated pipe within the bedding material. Soil vapor that re-enters the trench will
be vented to the atmosphere via a single or series of standpipes connected to the
perforated pipe. The standpipe(s) will be fitted with a wind turbine or barometric
pressure-actuated device. Monitoring including, at a minimum, testing of the
standpipe(s) emissions, will be implemented after the venting system is installed.
Details of the venting system monitoring program will be included in the Site
Management Plan, consistent with DER-10.
Morse Industrial Corporation Site, OU No. 3 October 2010
RECORD OF DECISION PAGE 15
3. Continued operation and maintenance of the previously installed vapor mitigation
systems to achieve the Remedial Action Objective (RAO) of mitigating soil vapor
intrusion into the indoor air of homes and other structures in OU No. 3.
4. The operation of the components of the remedy will continue until the remedial
objectives have been achieved, or until the Department determines that continued
operation is technically impracticable or not feasible.
5. Since the remedy results in contamination remaining at OU No. 3, a Site
Management Plan is required, which includes the following:
(a) an Engineering Control Plan that identifies all engineering controls for OU No. 3
and details the steps and media-specific requirements necessary to assure the
following engineering controls remain in place and are effective: the venting system
discussed in Paragraph 2 above and the vapor mitigation systems discussed in
Paragraph 3.
(b) a Monitoring Plan to assess the performance and effectiveness of the remedy.
The plan includes, but is not limited to:
(iii) a schedule of monitoring and frequency of submittals to the
Department;
(iv) a provision to evaluate the potential for vapor intrusion for any new
buildings (i.e., homes, offices, etc.) developed within OU No. 3,
including a provision for mitigation of any impacts identified;
(iii) a provision to evaluate the potential for soil vapor intrusion for
existing buildings within OU No. 3 if building use changes
significantly or if a vacant building become occupied.
SECTION 9: HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
As part of the remedial investigation process, a number of Citizen Participation activities were
undertaken to inform and educate the public about conditions at OU No. 3 and the potential remedial
alternatives. The following public participation activities were conducted for OU No. 3:
Repositories for documents pertaining to the site were established.
A public contact list, which included nearby property owners, elected officials, local
media and other interested parties, was established.
A public meeting was held on June 17, 2010 to present and receive comments on the
PRAP.
A responsiveness summary (Appendix A) was prepared to address the comments
received during the public comment period for the PRAP.
Hillview Place
Columbia Street
Pleasant Street
Turner PlaceSouth Cayuga St.South Hill TerraceSouth Aurora St.East Spencer StWest Spencer StreetSouth Geneva StreetSout
h
Tit
u
s
A
v
e
Morse Industrial Corporation Plant
k
Operable Unit No. 3
Approximate Area
Figure 1
Operable Unit No. 3 Site Map
Morse Industrial Corporation Site
Ithaca, N.Y.μ
100 0 10050 Meters
OU No 3Approximate AreaaaOperable Unit No. 3 - Partial ViewApproximate BoundriesNote: Operable Unit No 3 continues beyoundthe birdseye view boundries. This view ischosen to best illustrate the main area of concern.μFigure 2Operable Unit No. 3 - Partial ViewMorse Industrial Corporation SiteIthaca, N.Y.
Pleasant St
Columbia S
Hillview Pl
South Cayuga StTurner PlaceWood St Geneva StreetSpencer StreetSpencer StreetSouth Hill TerraceI
II
III
IV
V
Vapor Intrusion
Investigation
Phases
0 40 80 120 16020
Meters
Figure 3
Emerson Power Transmision
Ithaca N.Y.
μ
Figure 4Conceptual Site ModelOU No.3Emerson Power TransmisionIthaca, N.Y.
Hillview Place
Columbia Street
Pleasant Street
Turner PlaceSouth Cayuga St.South Hill TerraceSouth Aurora St.East Spencer St!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
OU No. 3
Approximate Area
Plant Site
Proposed Vent System
0 60 12030
Meters 4
Figure 5
PROPOSED VENT SYSTEM
(Alternative 3)
Emerson Power Transmision
Ithaca, N.Y.
!(Homes Mitigated per NYSDOH Criteria
Key Bedrock Fracture
APPENDIX A
Responsiveness Summary
Morse Industrial Corporation Site, OU No. 3 October 2010
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY PAGE A-1
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Morse Industrial Corporation Site
Operable Unit No. 3
City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York
Site No. 755010
October 2010
The Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) for Morse Industrial Corporation, OU No. 3, was
prepared by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (the Department) in
consultation with the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) and was issued to the
document repositories on June 4, 2010. The PRAP outlined the remedial measure proposed for the
contaminated soil vapor at OU No. 3.
The release of the PRAP was announced by sending a notice to the public contact list, informing the
public of the opportunity to comment on the proposed remedy.
A public meeting was held on June 17, 2010, which included a presentation of the remedial
investigation/alternatives analysis (RI/AA) for OU No. 3 as well as a discussion of the proposed
remedy. The meeting provided an opportunity for citizens to discuss their concerns, ask questions
and comment on the proposed remedy. These comments have become part of the Administrative
Record for OU No. 3. The public comment period for the PRAP ended on July 9, 2010.
This responsiveness summary responds to all questions and comments raised during the public
comment period. The following are the comments received, with the Department's responses:
Roux Associates on behalf of BorgWarner Inc. submitted a letter dated July 1, 2010 which
included the following comments:
COMMENT 1:Page 3 describes the Morse Industrial Corporation site as occupying, “100 acres
along the west side of South Aurora Street/Danby Road (Route 96B) in the South Hill Portion of the
City of Ithaca.” The site description also states that, “Operable Unit (OU) No.3, which is the subject
of this document, consists of the neighborhoods, sewer lines and residential structures to the north
and west of the plant site.” Note that OU No. 3 is depicted in Figure 1 of the RAP as encompassing
a portion of the residential properties north of the EPT facility, east of South Cayuga Street, west of
Turner Place to approximately East Spencer Street. Section 2.2 (Operational/Disposal History)
discusses only the Emerson Power Transmission Facility as the source of chlorinated organic
chemicals to the sewer system. Roux Associates requests that other sources of chlorinated volatile
organic chemicals (CVOCs) to sewers within OU No. 3 be identified in the RAP, namely:
a. The former NCR facility that discharges to the Danby Road and South Aurora Street sewers,
then to the Columbia Street sewer, which in turn discharges to the Turner Place sewer line;
and;
b. The Therm facility that discharges to the Columbia Street sewer, which in turn discharges to
the Turner Place sewer line.
Morse Industrial Corporation Site, OU No. 3 October 2010
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY PAGE A-2
RESPONSE 1:The text in Section 2.2 has been modified accordingly.
COMMENT 2:In Section 8.1 (Basis for Selection), the last sentence of page 12 states (in reference
to the selected remedy) that, “Although the NYSDEC and the NYSDOH believe that such action is
sufficient to mitigate potential exposure, the Responsible Party has proposed additional measures for
the collection and venting of contaminated soil vapor closer to a suspected source area that
otherwise would likely continue to migrate to, and accumulate beneath homes.” It is Roux
Associates’ understanding that the “additional measures for the collection and venting of
contaminated soil vapor” noted above refers to the continued operation of the sub-slab
depressurization systems described in the Alternatives Analysis Report that was prepared for the
EPT facility.
RESPONSE 2:The “additional measures” refer to the focused excavation of the East Spencer
Street sewer line and installation of the soil vapor venting system.
COMMENT 3:Page 14 (item #2) states that the standpipe(s) for the newly installed sewer venting
system would be fitted with a wind turbine or barometric pressure-actuated device. Roux Associates
requests that the location of the proposed wind turbine or barometric pressure-actuated device be
shown or described, once that location is determined.
RESPONSE 3:The final location of the standpipe(s) and venting device will be determined during
the remedial design phase, however, conceptually, the standpipe fitted with the venting device will
be located adjacent to the NYSEG maintenance shed located at the corner of Turner Place and East
Spencer Street.
COMMENT 4:Page 14 (item #3) states that the selected remedy requires that, “Continued
operation of the previously installed vapor mitigation systems to achieve the Remedial Action
Objective of mitigating soil vapor intrusion into the indoor air of homes and other structures in the
area.” Roux Associates requests that the continued operation of vapor mitigation systems “in the
area” be more explicitly defined as solely those vapor mitigation systems in OU No. 3.
RESPONSE 4:The text has been modified accordingly.
COMMENT 5:Page 14 (item #4) reiterates the need to operate the components of the remedy,
“until the remedial objectives have been achieved, or until the Department determines that the
continued operation is technically impracticable or not feasible.” Roux Associates requests that the
“technically impracticable or not feasible” basis for discontinuing the sewer vent system be
explicitly defined (such as four consecutive quarterly measurements of non-detectable CVOCs in the
vent effluent).
RESPONSE 5:The second element of the remedy has been modified to include monitoring of the
venting system, which will include, at a minimum, testing of the standpipe(s) emissions after the
venting system is installed. Details of the venting system monitoring program will be included in
the Site Management Plan, consistent with DER-10.
Morse Industrial Corporation Site, OU No. 3 October 2010
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY PAGE A-3
COMMENT 6: Page 14 [Item #5(b)(ii)] states that the selected remedy includes, “a provision to
evaluate the potential for vapor intrusion for any buildings developed on the site, including a
provision for mitigation of any impacts identified.” To further clarify this provision, Roux
Associates requests that,
a. Any such evaluation be conducted before construction of any building to be developed on
the Site; and
b. This provision should apply to only buildings within the footprint of OU No.3 as set forth in
Figure 1 (Site Map) of the RAP (and not beyond).
RESPONSE 6:
Item a. Compliance with this provision, including scheduling and implementation of the soil vapor
intrusion evaluation, would the responsibility of EPT in coordination with the City of Ithaca
Building Department.
Item b. The text has been modified accordingly.
Ken and Regina Deschere submitted an electronic mail dated July 7, 2010 which included the
following comments:
COMMENT 7:We are grateful that the Responsible Parties have continued to address the
problems of these toxins. We are also grateful that the DEC has spent so much time and effort to
move the process along. We sincerely hope that the PRAP will be changed to:
expand the areas in which sewers will be replaced to include the “hot spots” on Turner Place
and South Cayuga Street,
include an offer of blanket mitigation to all OU3 homes adjacent to houses with mitigation
systems, and
make provisions for continuing all forms of testing (soil vapor, sub slab, indoor and ambient
air) to measure the effects of the sewer changes to be sure that the residents of our
neighborhood receive the protections they need.
RESPONSE 7:
It is not necessary to expand the sewer replacement to include areas on Turner Place and South
Cayuga Street. Elevated levels of TCE and other VOCs were detected in some soil vapor samples
collected along Turner Place and South Cayuga Street, however, based on the soil vapor intrusion
evaluation, in conjunction with our overall understanding of the site’s geology, the areas within OU
No. 3 where there is a potential for exposures related to soil vapor intrusion have been identified and
appropriate actions have been taken.
Blanket mitigation within OU No. 3 is not warranted. As discussed in Section 5.2 of the ROD, nine
mitigation systems were installed. The data does not support the installation of additional systems.
Morse Industrial Corporation Site, OU No. 3 October 2010
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY PAGE A-4
No further testing of homes is warranted, however it should be noted that the remedy has been
modified to include monitoring of the venting system, which will include, at a minimum, testing
of the standpipe(s) emissions after the venting system is installed (see response to Comment 5).
WSP Environment & Energy, on behalf of Emerson and Emerson Power Transmission (EPT),
submitted a letter dated July 8, 2010 which included the following comments:
COMMENT 8:General Comment: The entire document uses the terms “the site” and “OU No. 3”
interchangeably. Section 1, paragraph one, line one initially references “the site” as the EPT plant
property. Section 2.1, paragraph one also describes the location and features of “the site”; again
referring to the EPT plant property. OU No. 3 is defined in Section 2.1, paragraph two, as “…the
neighborhoods, sewer lines, and residential structures to the north and west of the plant site.” Certain
comments below point out the discrepancies identified within the PRAP where one of these terms is
used incorrectly and warrants revision.
RESPONSE 8:The text has been modified accordingly.
COMMENT 9:
Section 2.1 Location and Description
In paragraph one, line one, the site is defined as follows: “The Morse Industrial Corporation site
occupies 100 acres along the west side of South aurora Street/Danby Road (Route 96B) in the South
Hill portion of the city of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York (Figure 1).” Figure 1, on Page 15, is
titled “Site Map” and includes two delineations, one labeled “Plant Site” and one labeled “OU NO. 3
Approximate Area.” The figure is inaccurate as it does not show the entire Plant Site, the Plant Site
boundary line is approximate, and the figure includes OU No. 3 (later defined in paragraph two).
The figure and title should be revised and labeled appropriately. In addition, the delineation of the
Plant Site on Figure 5 should also be revised and labeled appropriately.
RESPONSE 9:The titles of both Figures 1 and 5 have been revised, and the yellow line has been
removed. The intent of Figure 1 is to show the “plant site” in relation to OU No. 3, therefore the
entire “plant site” is not shown.
COMMENT 10:
Section 2.2 Operational/Disposal History
This section discusses the releases of solvents to the sanitary sewer system during Borg Warner’s
operations. However, solvent discharges also occurred from the NCR and Therm Inc., facilities and
have resulted in impacts identified in OU-3. These other sources should be identified in this section.
RESPONSE 10:See response to Comment 1.
Morse Industrial Corporation Site, OU No. 3 October 2010
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY PAGE A-5
COMMENT 11:
Section 2.3 Remedial History
Item 2, bullet 3, states “Initial soil vapor intrusion assessments of private residences and public
structures (Phases I through V, Figure 4) completed in March 2007.” Since this refers to the indoor
air sampling phases conducted in OU No. 3, Figure 3 (Vapor Intrusion Investigation Phases) should
be referenced rather than Figure 4 (Conceptual Site Model).
RESPONSE 11:The text has been modified accordingly.
COMMENT 12:
Section 4 Enforcement Status
There are other potentially responsible parties (PRPs) with respect to OU No. 3. This section should
also list NCR and Therm Inc.
RESPONSE 12:The text has been modified accordingly.
COMMENT 13:
Section 5.1.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination
Paragraph one, lines one through three discuss the historical discharges to the sewer system along
Turner Place and South Cayuga Street and how these discharges conceptually entered the subsurface
beneath the South Hill neighborhood. As noted above, discharges also occurred from the former
NCR facility (south of EPT) and the Therm facility (east of EPT) and were transported offsite via the
sewer lines. These discharges converged with the EPT sewer line at the Turner Place/Columbia
Street junction. To be factually accurate the PRAP should identify all PRPs.
Paragraph one, line one, refers to discharges to the “municipal sewer system”, whereas, Section 2.2
previously referred to discharges to the “sanitary sewer system.” To be consistent, Section 5.1.2
should be revised to indicate “sanitary sewer system.” Line 12 in the same paragraph discusses the
conceptual model for vapor transport in the subsurface and references Figure 3 (vapor intrusion
investigation phases). Figure 4 should be referenced as it illustrates the conceptual site model.
Paragraph two describes the number of soil samples collected during the remedial investigation (RI)
conducted by EPT in 2007 along the sewer lines within OU No. 3. The total number of samples and
the results listed in the PRAP are incorrect. No soil samples were collected within OU No. 3 during
the RI. The PRAP should be revised accordingly.
Paragraph three, line one discusses groundwater resources at “the site” (EPT plant property) as
including a shallow fractured bedrock horizon and a deeper, competent bedrock in which
groundwater resides in a vertical fracture network. The PRAP concerns OU No. 3 and the discussion
of geology should refer to OU No. 3
Morse Industrial Corporation Site, OU No. 3 October 2010
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY PAGE A-6
Paragraph four, line one, under subheading “Soil Vapor Intrusion” is missing a word. The sentence
should read “The evaluation of the potential for soil vapor intrusion (added) was conducted by the
sampling…” In this same paragraph, line two refers to “the site” which implies the EPT plant
property. However, the reference should be to OU No. 3 as that is the area where soil vapor intrusion
was investigated.
Paragraph five, line one, under subheading “Soil Vapor Intrusion,” references Figure 4 which shows
the conceptualized historic sewer discharge to the subsurface. As line one is discussing the five
phases of indoor air sampling conducted between the fall of 2004 and winter of 2006/2007, it would
be more accurate to reference Figure 3 which delineates the five sampling phases.
RESPONSE 13:
Paragraph 1: The text has been modified accordingly.
Paragraph 2: The soil samples were collected by Emerson along Turner Place and results presented
in the July 28, 2006 Sanitary Sewer Line Investigation Report. The text in paragraph 2 has been
modified to clarify the location of the soil samples.
Paragraph 3: The text has been modified accordingly, and a discussion of the geologic conditions
specific to OU No. 3 has been added to Section 5.1.2.
Paragraph 4: The text has been modified accordingly.
Paragraph 5: The text has been modified accordingly.
COMMENT 14:
Section 7 Summary of the Evaluation of Alternatives
Paragraph one, sentence two states “Potential remedial alternatives for the Site were identified,
screened and evaluated in the alternative analysis report which is available at the document
repositories established for this site.” The next paragraph begins “A summary of the remedial
alternatives that were considered for this site is presented below.” The alternatives evaluated in the
alternatives analysis (AA) report (South Hill Sanitary Sewer Network Alternatives Analysis Report,
Emerson Power Transmission, Ithaca, New York, Site No. 755010, September 3, 2009) are as
follows:
Alternative 1 – No Action
Alternative 2 – East Spencer Sewer Line Focused Excavation and Venting
Alternative 3 – Soil Vapor Extraction along Sewer Lines
Alternative 4 – Blanket Mitigation of Homes
Alternative 5 – Air Sampling and Mitigation of Homes
These do not match those listed in the PRAP.
Alternative 1 – No Further Action
Alternative 2 – No Further Action with Site Management
Morse Industrial Corporation Site, OU No. 3 October 2010
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY PAGE A-7
Alternative 3 – East Spencer Street Sewer Line Focused Excavation and Venting
Alternative 4 – Soil Vapor Extraction on Sewer Lines
Alternative 5 – Blanket Mitigation
Alternative 2 was added to the PRAP and Alternative 5 from the AA report was not included in the
PRAP. The PRAP should be revised accordingly
RESPONSE 14:Per Part 375-2.8(c)(4) “The Department shall select the remedy for the site from
among feasible alternatives:
(i) developed and evaluated by the feasibility study; or
(ii) developed by the Department in addition to those presented by the feasibility study.”
COMMENT 15:
Section 7.1 Description of Remedial Alternatives
Line one references “the site”; this should be changed to OU No. 3 as this is the area addressed in
this section.
RESPONSE 15:The text has been modified accordingly.
COMMENT 16:
Section 8.1 Basis for Selection
Paragraph two states “Alternative 3 is being proposed because, as described below, it satisfies the
threshold criteria and provides the best balance of the balancing criterion described in Section 7.2. It
would achieve the remediation goals for the site by preventing the intrusion of contaminated soil
vapor into homes through the continued operation of the existing vapor mitigation systems.
Although the NYSDEC and the NYSDOH believe that such action is sufficient to mitigate potential
exposure, the Responsible Party has proposed additional measures for the collection and venting of
contaminated soil vapor closer to a suspected source area that otherwise would likely continue to
migrate to, and accumulate beneath, homes.”
The description of Alternative 3 above is factually not accurate. The selected alternative in the AA
report is described as follows: “Excavation of the sewer line and unconsolidated material
surrounding the sewer along a section of sewer piping from the intersection of Turner Place and East
Spencer Street at manhole MH-9, down East Spencer Street approximately 300 feet, replacement of
the sewer line, placement of select backfill and ventilation piping, and a venting system. This
alternative also includes continued operation of sub-slab depressurization systems in residential
properties in the area.” The NYSDEC selected Alternative 3 in the PRAP which includes all aspects
of the selected remedy described in the alternatives analysis report. However, the Responsible Party
has not proposed any additional measures; and therefore, the PRAP should be revised accordingly.
Paragraph seven, line 12 states that “Forty-eight systems have already been installed throughout the
neighborhood utilizing conventional construction methods, and the systems are well understood by
Morse Industrial Corporation Site, OU No. 3 October 2010
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY PAGE A-8
the community.” The actual number of installed systems as of mid-May 2010 is 50, as previously
stated in Section 5.2.
RESPONSE 16:“Such actions“ in the third sentence in paragraph two, as stated above, is referring
to continued operation of the existing vapor mitigation systems. “Additional measures” in the fourth
sentence in paragraph 2, as stated above, refers to East Spencer Street sewer line focused excavation
and installation of the venting system. The text in paragraph seven, line 12, has been modified to
indicate that 50 systems have been installed.
COMMENT 17:
Section 8.2 Elements of the Proposed Remedy
Item 5(b)(ii) describes future buildings developed on “the site.” This should be revised to state OU
No. 3. In addition, clarification of “any buildings” should be further explained (i.e., homes, offices,
garages, etc.).
RESPONSE 17:The text has been modified accordingly.
David Henderson submitted and electronic mail dated July 8, 2010 which included the
following comments:
COMMENT 18:I am concerned about this being called a "Final Remedy" -- I call for, at least,
continuing testing especially to confirm the affect of the proposed remedy, to detect shifts in the
migration of the pollutants (and thus additional mitigations), and to detect possible deterioration of
the ambient air quality.
RESPONSE 18:See responses to Comments 5 and 7.
COMMENT 19:
Your proposal calls for replacing "approximately 300 feet" of the sewer line under East
Spencer Street starting from Turner Place. How will "approximately" be determined (our
property is approximately 300 feet from Turner Place).
What will be the treatment (replacement, sealing,…) of the laterals connecting the sewer to
the houses along the replacements? If our lateral needs to be replaced this will likely disturb
our prized, large spruce trees which are growing over the location of our lateral -- how will
our irreplaceable trees be protected? We request that the new sewer and vent system end
before our property line (which is slightly more than 300 feet from Turner Place).
How will the standpipes for venting the system to the air be designed and located? I am
concerned about the visual affects of the standpipes and the affect of the standpipes on our
ambient air quality.
Morse Industrial Corporation Site, OU No. 3 October 2010
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY PAGE A-9
RESPONSE 19:Details of the exact location and length of the sewer replacement along with any
impact on connected laterals and/or private property will be determined during the remedial design
phase. Once the remedial design is sufficiently advanced and prior to the start of construction, a fact
sheet will be issued describing the pending work and identifying the appropriate person(s) to contact
to learn more information and/or ask questions. The Department will help to see that local concerns
are addressed, to the extent practicable. See response to Comment 3 regarding standpipe(s) location.
COMMENT 20:There are properties and locations with high levels of VOC's that are not located
on East Spencer Street. How will your proposed remedy help these properties?
RESPONSE 20:See response to Comment 7.
Timothy Weber submitted an electronic mail dated July 8, 2010 which included the following
comment:
COMMENT 21: Specifically, provision is made for testing the VOC concentrations along the
length of the sewer pipe being replaced, but not for testing the air in the unmitigated homes that are
expected to be affected. It is expected that concentrations will decline, but this is far from certain,
and it's not being verified. Given the variable nature of the problem, both spatially and temporally,
any reasonable remediation plan must include long-term testing to ensure the remediation has been
effective.
RESPONSE 21:See response to Comment 7.
John Oakley submitted an electronic mail dated July 9, 2010 which included the following
comment:
COMMENT 22:We are writing to urge you at, a minimum, to include continued
monitoring/testing of the homes near the contamination site and to extend mitigation to all homes
adjacent to homes that have qualified for mitigation, whether they have accepted it or not in the
Remediation Plan for the Emerson site.
RESPONSE 22:See response to Comment 7.
Madison County Department of Health submitted a letter dated July 9, 2010 which included
the following comments:
COMMENT 23:At the public meeting, no verification testing was identified and it was stated that
there are no plans to retest the homes in that area following sewer line remediation. Given the
complexities associated with the South Hill contamination and the unique remediation proposed, it is
imperative that monitoring continue and a monitoring plan be developed and implemented to assess
the effectiveness of the remediation. Development of this plan should include public review and
comment.
RESPONSE 23:See responses to Comment 7 and Comment 19.
APPENDIX B
Administrative Record
Morse Industrial Corporation Site, OU No. 3 October 2010
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD PAGE B-1
Administrative Record
Morse Industrial Corporation Site
Operable Unit No. 3
City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York
Site No. 755010
October 2010
Proposed Remedial Action Plan for the Morse Industrial Corporation Site, Operable Unit No. 3,
dated June 2010, prepared by the Department.
Order on Consent, Index No. A7-0125-87-09, between the Department and Emerson Power
Transmission Company, executed on July 13, 1988.
1. “Vadose Zone Sampling Results, Emerson Power Transmission, Ithaca, New York”, July 7,
2004, letter report prepared by Environmental Strategies Consulting LLC.
2. “July 2005 Vadose Zone Sampling Results, Emerson Power Transmission, Ithaca, New
York”, August 31, 2005, letter report prepared by Environmental Strategies Consulting LLC.
3. “Indoor Air Assessment, Phase I and Phase II Sampling Event, Emerson Power
Transmission Facility, Ithaca, New York”, September 16, 2005, prepared by Environmental
Strategies Consulting LLC.
4. Indoor Air Assessment, Phase III Sampling Event, Emerson Power Transmission Facility,
Ithaca, New York”, March 23, 2006, prepared by Environmental Strategies Consulting LLC.
5. “Sanitary Sewer Investigation Report, Emerson Power Transmission Facility, Ithaca, New
York, Site No. 7-55-010”, July 28, 2006, prepared by Environmental Strategies Consulting
LLC.
6. “Indoor Air Assessment, Phase IV Sampling Event, Emerson Power Transmission Facility,
Ithaca, New York”, September 1, 2006, prepared by Environmental Strategies Consulting
LLC.
7. “Indoor Air Assessment, Phase V Sampling Event, Emerson Power Transmission Facility,
Ithaca, New York”, June 15, 2007, prepared by WSP Environmental Strategies LLC.
8. “Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report, Emerson Power Transmission Facility, 620
South Aurora Street, Ithaca, New York, Site No. 7-55-010”, April 4, 2008, prepared by WSP
Environmental Strategies LLC.
9. “Revised Supplemental Remedial Program/Alternatives Analysis, Emerson Power
Transmission Facility, 620 South Aurora Street, Ithaca, New York, Site No. 7-55-010”,
September 23, 2008, prepared by WSP Environmental Strategies LLC.
Morse Industrial Corporation Site, OU No. 3 October 2010
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD PAGE B-2
10. “Focused Ambient Air Sampling Report, Emerson Power Transmission, Ithaca, New York,
Site No. 755010”, September 23, 2009, prepared by WSP Engineering of New York, P.C.
11. “Sewer Manhole Assessment Report, Emerson Power Transmission, Ithaca, New York, Site
No. 755010”, September 23, 2009, prepared by WSP Engineering of New York, P.C.
12. “Vent Sampling Report, Emerson Power Transmission, Ithaca, New York, Site No. 755010”,
September 23, 2009, prepared by WSP Engineering of New York, P.C.
13. “South Hill Sanitary Sewer Network, Alternatives Analysis Report, Emerson Power
Transmission, Ithaca, NY, Site No. 755010”, September 3, 2009, prepared by WSP
Engineering of New York, P.C.
Page 1 of 5
City of Ithaca
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (FEAF)Part III
Project Name:Four Multi Family Dwellings —215 221 Spencer St.
Date Created:8/10/15 Updated 9/17/15 &10/14/15
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes to build a new multi family “pocket neighborhood”on a hillside site
between W.Spencer St.and W.Cayuga St.The project will include four buildings,each of which will
be 3 stories tall and contain 3 units (12 units total).A 12 car parking area is proposed with access
off W.Cayuga Street.Site circulation will be organized with a series of landscaped stairs and
terraces connecting through the site.The project also includes lighting,retaining walls,and
landscaping.The project is in the R 3b Zoning District and requires a variance for parking.This is an
Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act,and is subject to environmental review.
IMPACT ON LAND
The project site is in a residential neighborhood and was previously occupied by a building and
gravel parking area.The site is steeply sloped (over 15%over the entire site)with a shale cliff along
W.Spencer St.Existing conditions include small trees,brush,and groundcover,with some larger
trees at the perimeter.Most of the vegetation will be removed;however,the applicant intends to
preserve some larger perimeter trees.There is an existing curbcut and 4 5 vehicle gravel parking
area off W.Cayuga Street.
The applicant has submitted a letter dated September 16,2015 to STREAM Collaborative from
Parviz Akbari,EIT,and John S.Hutchinson,P.E,of Empire Geo Services describing the results of a
preliminary geotechnical evaluation of the project site.The following recommendations were
provided:
Based on the results of the subsurface investigation,the following preliminary geotechnical
information and recommendations are provided with regard to the design of the building
addition foundations.
1. It appears that spread foundations can be used to support the proposed buildings,
provided that existing fill materials,former building remains and any unsuitable
native soils,if present,are removed in their entirety from beneath foundation bearing
grades.We anticipate that much of the fill will be removed in association with
excavation for the lower or basement levels of the buildings.
2. Spread foundations should bear on suitable indigenous soil subgrades,bedrock,or on
compacted structural fill which is placed over the indigenous soil subgrades or
bedrock following excavation and removal of fill and/or unsuitable soils.
3. Some rock excavation may be necessary in establishing basement and/or foundation
grades.
Page 2 of 5
In order to provide a full geotechnical evaluation report and to include allowable soil and /
or rock bearing capacities,seismic site class,etc.,further investigation and study will be
necessary by completing a series of test borings at the site.
It should be understood that issues relating to slope stability,if any,are outside the scope of
this cursory evaluation and have not been considered herein.
The applicant will provide the completed geotechnical study at its completion.The applicant
is required to provide information regarding staging and travel route for removal of on site
soils.
IMPACT ON WATER
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON DRAINAGE
The project site is steeply sloped with 100%of the site having slopes over 15%.Construction
activities on steep slopes have the potential to cause erosion of any exposed soils.Appropriate
erosion and sediment control management practices should be implemented and maintained
during site disturbance.
Infiltration on the site is limited due to the presence of bedrock.The project is under review by the
City Stormwater Management Officer.It will likely require a Basic SWPPP.
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON AIR
The project site is in a medium density residential neighborhood.Construction is expected to last
approximately 12 months.Airborne dust from construction activities could have a negative impact
during the construction period.The excavation and the preparation of foundations can also create
the potential for increased dust and dirt particles in the air.The applicant should employ the
following applicable dust control measures as appropriate:
Misting or fog spraying site to minimize dust.
Maintaining crushed stone tracking pads at all entrances to the construction site.Re seeding
disturbed areas to minimize bare exposed soils.
Keeping roads clear of dust and debris.
Requiring trucks to be covered.
Prohibiting burning of debris on site.
No impact anticipated.
Page 3 of 5
IMPACT ON PLANTS &ANIMALS
Most of the vegetation will be removed;however,the applicant intends to preserve some larger
perimeter trees.The applicant has proposed a planting plan which will includes 23 new shade trees.
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
The project site is in a residential neighborhood and was previously occupied by a building and
gravel parking area.The site is steeply sloped with a shale cliff along W.Spencer St.Existing
conditions include small trees,brush,and groundcover,with some larger trees at the perimeter.
There is an existing curbcut and 4 5 vehicle gravel parking area off W.Cayuga St.,which will be
expanded and improved to accommodate 12 vehicles.Improvement and expansion of the parking
lot requires a variance.Although this is an existing use concerns have been expressed about the
visual impact of a front yard parking lot on Cayuga St.
The site will be terraced for the construction of the new buildings and to allow pedestrian access
through the site.Due to site topography,numerous retaining walls will be required portions of
which will be up to 7 to 10 feet above grade.The height and scale of the buildings,and height and
positioning of retaining walls,may impact adjacent residents.The applicant has submitted
visualizations,as well as a site section to illustrate the relationship of the project to the
neighborhood context.
The applicant is proposing the following mitigations to address concerns about visual/aesthetic
impact:
Vegetative screen (large evergreen trees and vines)blocking view of retaining walls
Installation of fencing (see Perspectives L001,dated 8/6/15)and landscaping to block view of
parking lot from Cayuga Street adjacent property owners.
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AREA
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON ENERGY
No impact anticipated.
Page 4 of 5
IMPACT ON NOISE &ODORS
The project site is in a medium density residential neighborhood.Construction is expected to last
approximately 12 months.Noise and odors,particularly during foundation work,will temporarily
impact nearby residents.Noise producing construction activities will be limited to 7:00 a.m.to 7:00
p.m.,Monday through Saturday.
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
The applicant has submitted a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA),prepared by Empire
Geo Services,Inc.(NO DATE).The report concludes there are the following indications of ASTM
Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs)relative to 215 West Spencer Street :
The chemical compounds trichloroethylene (TCE)and cis 1,2 DCE were identified within
groundwater samples collected from two monitoring wells located at the subject site.The
groundwater samples were collected as part of a larger area wide investigation.The
presence of impacted groundwater at the site represents and ASTM REC.
Area wide vapor mitigation systems are noted at structures proximal to the subject site.
Vapor intrusion has been documented at locations proximal to the subject site.The presence
of vapors at the subject site is not documented however as there is currently no structure
present.
This report caused the Lead Agency to question who is responsible for contamination on the site
and how it be handled during and after construction in order to ensure the safety of adjacent
residents and future residents of the project.
A follow up letter,dated October 12,2015,to Noah Demarest from William Jablonski of Empire
Geo Services,explains that Morse Industrial facility is the Recognized Environmental Condition
as it relates to the subject site at this time.The Record of Decision,Morse Industrial Corporation
Site,Operable Unit No.3 (ROD)has been included in the ESA.It specifically identifies the need
for air quality monitoring in any new structure that is constructed within the plume of Operable
Unit No.3,which includes the project site at 215 West State Street.The letter concludes:
Empire understands that future plans for the site include construction for residential use.It
is our opinion that consideration should be given to the design and implementation of vapor
mitigation measures (such as sub slab depressurization system and vapor barrier)that will
address future indoor air quality concerns.The collection of air samples within the living
space after construction has been completed may be necessary to demonstrate the
effectiveness of the system.
Empire's environmental evaluation of the subject site did not indicate the likely presence of
environmentally impacted soil at the subject site.It appears unlikely that special soil
handling procedures will need to be implemented in the event of future construction.The
ASTM process however notes that it is not possible to know subsurface conditions without
having collected and analyzed environmental samples.Therefore the preparation of a Soil
Management Plan should be considered.The Soil Management Plan details the procedures
Page 5 of 5
to undertake in the event that impacted soil is uncovered during construction and what
measures should be applied prior to soil handling.Provisions typically include onsite
storage,sampling,transport and disposal as required to maintain regulatory compliance.
It is the Lead Agency’s understanding that the applicant intends to develop a Soil Management Plan
for construction and design,and install vapor mitigations systems in the new buildings in accordance
with NYS Department of Health standards.
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON GROWTH &CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
No impact anticipated.
Prepared by:L.Nicholas,Sr.Planner
215-221 W Spencer Street
5 Smooth LP Smart Trim and Fypon Profiles -
Benjamin Moore “Simply White”
Materials
1
1
22
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
7
3 Upper Body Stucco - Medium Sand Texture
Benjamin Moore “Cloud Cover”4 Stucco Trim Bands - Fine Sand Texture
Benjamin Moore “Simply White”
2 Main Body Stucco - Medium Sand Texture
Benjamin Moore “Cloud Cover”
6 Asphalt Roof Tile - Maple Red
Blend
Notes:
1. Stucco to be traditional 3-coat
system over metal lath.
2. Plantings not shown for clarity
3. Rendered colors may vary from
actual product samples.
1 Foundation Stucco - Coarse Dash Texture
Benjamin Moore “Cloud Cover”
7 PlyGem Aluminum Clad wood
windows - Color Taupe
215-221 W Spencer Street
Misc. Exterior Details
Continuous Bike Runnel Detail on all central
steps. (Image is from Collegetown Terrace)
Virginia Creeper growing on parking lot
retaining walls.
Bike Racks at the base of the hill will be wall
mounted with tubular steel similar to what is
shown here.
Bike Racks will be hoop style in parking area.
1
APPEAL #2991 416-418 EAST STATE STREET
(BEN ROSENBLUM)
Appeal of Ben Rosenblum, owner of 416-418 East State Street, for Area Variances from Section 325-
8, Columns 10, 12, and 13, Percentage of Lot Coverage, Side Yard, and Other Side Yard, requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant purposes to renovate the existing building at 416-418 East State Street, which is now
partially occupied. One apartment occupies the second floor and a portion of the first floor is used as
office space. In the past, the major portion of the first floor space was used as a printing plant and is
now vacant. The applicant proposes to renovate this space for a new 800-SF bar and create an
additional office spaces. In order to convert the unoccupied space on the first floor to the new permitted
uses, the applicant must obtain variances for existing deficiencies. The property at 416-418 has existing
deficiencies pertaining to lot coverage, side yard, and other side yard setbacks. Percentage of lot
coverage is 60%; allowed is 50%. The building also is deficient in side yard and other side yard
setbacks. The side yard to the west of the building is 0.02 feet; required is 10 feet. The other side yard
to the east of the building is 0.1 feet; required is 5 feet.
The new bar, the office spaces, and the apartment require 32 off-street parking spaces. There is one
space for handicapped parking and a space reserved for the apartment in the front yard of 416-418 East
State Street. The applicant states a Memorandum of Agreement is being signed with Argos Inn at 408
East State Street, a contiguous property west of 416-18 East State Street, where the 31 spaces needed
for the bar and office uses at 416-18 East State Street can be met at the Argos Inn under a shared
parking agreement.
The property at 416-418 East State Street is in a B-4 Zoning District where the proposed bar, office
space, and apartment space are permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that variances be granted
before a Building Permit is issued.
CITY OF ITHACA
Board of Zoning Appeals Notice of Appeal
City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals WorksheetAppeal NumberBZA-2991Address416-418 East State StreetUse DistrictB-4Date11/3/2015ApplicantScott WhithamOwnerBen Rosenblum-East State LLCApplication Type:Area VarianceColumn Number2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14/1516Column Title UseAccessory UseOff-Street ParkingOff-Street LoadingLot Area (Sq. Feet)Lot Width (Feet)Number of StoriesHeight in Feet% of Lot CoverageFront Yard Side YardOther Side YardRear yard: % of depth or number of feet, whichever is lessMinimum Building HeightExisting Condition and UseResidential/Vacant Commercial Building312850 85.5' 2 24+60% 28' .02' .01' 21' or 14.4%District Regulations for ExistingService Business District1 0 3000 40 4 40 50% None 10 515% or 20', but not less than 10'NoneNote Non-Conforming ConditionsOK N/A OK N/A OK OK OK OK Def. OK Def. Def. OK N/AProposed Condition and/or UseMixed Use Building*40 12850 85.5' 2 24+60% 28' .02' .01' 21' or 14.4%District Regulation for ProposedService Business District40 0 3000 40 4 40 50% None 10 515% or 20', but not less than 10'NoneNote Non-Conforming Conditions for ProposalOK N/A OK N/A OK OK OK OK Def. OK Def. Def. OK N/ANotes:* 37 parking spaces are to be leased from Gateway Plaza Associates and 3 parking spaces are located on the 416-418 E. State Street parcel.
The following description outlines the concerns that relate to development restrictions, the
proposed development, and reason for the appeal at 416-418 E. State St.:
The proposed development and renovation for the property located at 416-418 E. State St. is for a
mixed use building to include a bar, existing and expanded oce space, one apartment, and
unoccupied storage as an accessory use to the bar and oce spaces. The exterior landscape will
also be renovated. The front yard will have a stripped parking lot with a handicapped space, and a
handicapped accessible ramp for access to the front entry of the building. The landcape will be
replanted with new plants. The back entry will also be formalized with a small deck and a set of
stairs that connect the entrance to the base of the retaining wall in the Argos Inn parking lot. An
easement agreement is being signed between the two owners of the property.
The existing building is legally non-conforming for oce and light industrial uses. Therefore, the
redevelopment will include a change of use for large portions of the building. All proposed uses are
permitted as of right with the B-4 zoning district in which the building resides. Likewise, the
building and property complies with zoning for lot size, width at street, number of stories, building
height, front and rear yards, and minimum building height.
A “Zoning Determination” was made by the Director of Zoning Administration, Phyllis Radke, for the
property at 416-418 E. State St. Over the years, the building was expanded in size and with new
uses that were not approved, or have been made illegal through the sale of the adjacent parcel at
406-410 E State St. As a result, the property now has zoning deciencies in relation to both side
yard setbacks and lot coverage (see Site Plan). In addition, depending on the uses in the proposed
development, the property is limited in parking. However, the proposed development for the
property includes provisions to satisfy all parking requirements with shared parking, and therefore,
does not need a parking variance. A Memorandum of Agreement is being signed between East
State LLC and Gateway Plaza Associates, LLC. For the Bar and Restaurant, 22 parking spaces will be
reserved for patrons from 4:30 PM to 1:30 AM. For the Oce, 15 parking spaces will be reserved for
patrons from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. A variance is being sought to permit the zoning deciencies.
The side yard setback on the east is decient for less than 18 linear feet of the entire east building
face, which is just over 112 linear feet, with a least setback dimension of +/-3.6’. A residential
building is located a little over 11’ from the building along the east side. The side yard setback on
the west is as small as +/-0.2’ and increases to +/-1.1’ at the northwest corner. The entire west
façade abuts the parking lot for the Argos Inn at 406-410 E State St. The development proposal
includes a permanent easement along the west side to increase the eective setback for potential
building code purposes (increased openings).
The lot coverage of the existing building is currently 60% of the lot area whereas 50% is the
maximum allowed. No enlargement of the building, footprint or height, is planned at this time.
REASON FOR APPEAL:
408 E. State St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
PERSONS NOTIFIED:
sameUnity Inn, LLC
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY
WITHIN 200’ OF
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
MAILING ADDRESS:OWNER:
422-24 E. State St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
sameJonah Freedman
Alicia Freedman
420 E. State St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
209 S. Geneva St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Rosetree Propeties, LLC
500-550 E. Seneca
Ithaca, NY 14850
P.O. Box DH
Ithaca, NY 14853
Cornell University
431 E. Seneca
Ithaca, NY 14850
407 W. Seneca St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Thomas Borg
Margarette Borg
401 E. State St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
323 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
GPA Management, LLC
419 E. Seneca St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
sameVirginia L. August
Matthew Clark
417 E. Seneca St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
sameBenjamin D. Piekut
Ann P. Lewandowski
427 E. Seneca St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
sameCharles Warner Trent Bradley
Charles Randolph Bradley
423 E. Seneca St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
sameAlyssa B. Apsel
413 E. State St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
1284 Ellis Hollow Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
David L. McFarren
415 E. State St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
4445 Waterburg Rd.
Trumansburg, NY 14886
Louis A. Licari
404-406 NY 76
Ithaca, NY 14850
P.O. Box 678
Vestal, NY 13851
140 Seneca Way, LLC
116 Schuyler Pl.
Ithaca, NY 14850
100 Christopher Cir.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Joseph G. Giordano
Alexandra D. Giordano
108 Schuyler Pl.
Ithaca, NY 14850
PO Box 7124
Ithaca, NY 14851
Neil M. Schill
Katherin Achenbach
118 Schuyler Pl.
Ithaca, NY 14850
404 North Wilbur Ave.
Sayre, PA 18840
Timothy T. Terpening
112 Schuyler Pl.
Ithaca, NY 14850
914 E. State St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
William F. Olney
CITY OF ITHACA SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (SEAF)
Project Information
(to be completed by applicant or project sponsor)
1. Applicant/Sponsor: 2. Project Name:
3. Project Location:
4. Is Proposed Action:
New Expansion Modification/Alteration
5. Describe project briefly:
6. Precise Location (road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map):
7. Amount of Land Affected:
Initially: ______ Acres or Sq. Ft. Ultimately: ______ Acres or Sq. Ft.
8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use
restrictions?
Yes No If no, describe briefly:
9. What is present land use in vicinity of project:
Residential Industrial Agricultural Parkland/Open Space
Commercial Other _________________
Describe:
10. Does action involve a permit/approval or funding, now or ultimately, from
governmental agency (federal/state/local): Yes No
If yes, list agency name and permit/approval type:
11. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval?
Yes No
If yes, list agency name and permit/approval type:
12. As a result of proposed action, will existing permit/approval require modification?
Yes No
I certify the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge.
PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: ____________________________ DATE: ________
PREPARER'S TITLE: __________________________________
REPRESENTING: _____________________________________
Ben Rosenblum- East State LLC / Scott Whitham
12,850
416 East State Street
416-418 East State Street, Ithaca, NY 14850
Multi-story apartments, hotels, commercial businesses and oces, restaurants,
and parking garages are in vicinity
Board of Zoning Appeals; Area and Use Variance
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
06/19/2015
Scott Whitham, President, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC
Ben Rosenblum, East State LLC
Eastern downtown Ithaca; 400 block of E. MLK Jr. / E. State Street; East of The Argos Inn and across from Gateway Center.
It is a 2-story, 8,396 gsf existing building. Ground oor includes bar / restaurant,
storage, and oces. The upper oor will have 1 apartment.
Project is requesting an area variance to redevelop
an existing, former manufacturing space. The building’s
ground oor will be converted into a bar/restuarant with
storage and oce spaces, while a residence will be on the 2nd oor.
12,850
Phone: 607.379.9175 Email: whitham@whithamdesign.com123 S. Cayuga Street Suite 201 Ithaca, NY
October 16, 2015
Board of Zoning Appeals
City of Ithaca
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: 416-418 East State Street—Updated Submission
Dear City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals:
On behalf of the applicant, East State LLC, we are delighted to present
updated drawings of the Printing Press for the review of the Board of
Zoning Appeals. Attached please find the following documents, which
constitute an updated submittal packet for this Project:
1. A Vision Statement describing the Printing Press and the applicant’s
vision for the space
2. Code Analysis Plans (revised)
3. Combined Site, Zoning & Landscape Plan (revised)
4. Parking Diagram (revised)
The former printing-press cinderblock architectural section of the
building, which operated through the 1960s, has not had any upkeep and
is currently in a dilapidated state with crumbling concrete and peeling
paint. Allowing this building to remain in this condition does little to
support the substantial investments that neighbors have made in their
properties in the East Hill Historic District. The open floor plan and space
provided by this part of the structure lends itself to a gathering space
and public venue, which the owner, East State LLC, envisions as a small,
modest, intimate bar and lounge (not a nightclub or concert venue, as
it has in some instances been misinterpreted), similar in quality to the
Argos Inn. In addition there will be office spaced added. Zoned as B-4, the
property is contiguous to both the uphill residential zone and the
downhill downtown zone. Accordingly, the building is proposed as a
mix of uses to transition between the two areas with the lounge on the
downhill side and office closer to the residential zone.
Phone: 607.379.9175 Email: whitham@whithamdesign.com123 S. Cayuga Street Suite 201 Ithaca, NY
Zoning
The existing building is legally non-conforming for office and light
industrial uses. Therefore, the redevelopment will include a change of
use for large portions of the building. All proposed uses are permitted as
of right with the B-4 zoning district in which the building resides. The
property currently has zoning deficiencies in relation to both side yard
setbacks and lot coverage resulting from past use and development of
the property and building. In addition, depending on the uses in the
proposed development, the property is limited in parking. However, the
proposed development for the property includes provisions to satisfy all
parking requirements with shared parking, and therefore, does not need
a parking variance. This arrangement is described in the following
section and in the attached drawings on page 4.
Parking
As per Section 325-20(D)3, Off-Street Parking Ordinance, this Project will
provide the required maximum number of off-street parking spaces. The
shared parking proposal to accommodate the adaptive reuse of the
building at 416-418 E. State has shifted to the use of the neighboring
Argos parking lot. The owners of Argos Inn and of 416-418 E. State Street
have drafted and agreed to the following preliminary terms:
- 8AM-4PM: Shared parking in Argos assigned to 416 E. State Offices
- 4PM-9PM: Parking in the Argos Inn / Bar Argos lot will be to patrons
of the Bar Argos
- 9PM-1:30AM: Parking will be provided for 416 E. State Lounge
The attached diagram of uses and shared parking between the two
properties describes this allocation of shared parking between the Argos
and 416-418 E. State Street.
Two parking spaces, one for ADA and another dedicated to the existing
apartment, will remain on-site. The existing parking area will be
formalized to provide safer access to and from the Property. An ADA
compliant path is also provided, taking advantage of the existing grade
on Site. The landing at the front of the property and connecting to
the ADA path will be expanded to accommodate the 5’ turning circle
required for ADA access.
Phone: 607.379.9175 Email: whitham@whithamdesign.com123 S. Cayuga Street Suite 201 Ithaca, NY
Landscape
The proposed landscape design aims to add aesthetic value and greater
functionality to the existing front and side yards. As the property
exists, a narrow section of land along the east side of the building
makes it deficient in setback requirements from the property line. A 3-car
parking area, lawn area, and concrete path to the south and east
entrances are located in the front of the property connecting to East
State Street / MLK Jr. Avenue. The front entrance to the building is
currently not ADA accessible.
The goals of the design are to: 1) reinforce the existing pedestrian and
vehicular routes, creating safer access to the Site and building; 2)
provide visual screening between the property and adjacent residential
properties; 3) provide aesthetic value to a degrading Site; and 4) provide
sound attenuation between the Site and surrounding neighborhood.
The design intends to increase pedestrian and vehicular safety. Shared
parking is provided via the Argos parking lot, and the existing parking
area is formalized with striping and provides a designated handicapped
parking space. With the renovation of the parking area, cars leaving the
property are able to turn around and exit facing forward.
The proposed ADA compliant path from the parking area is at a slope of
7.8%, taking advantage of the existing topography rather than
installing a railed ramp. The two existing concrete walkways
perpendicular to the E. State Street sidewalk maintain pedestrian access
to the two entrances on the south and east side of the building. Shrubs
and perennials will be planted in beds along the pedestrian walkways
and adjacent to the building. The area on the southeast side of the
property will be planted to provide visual screening and sound
attenuation for the adjacent properties. All but two existing street
trees will remain, which are invasive Norway Maples. At the rear of the
property, the existing established vegetation on the northeast area will
remain in order to not disturb the steep slope. The design and plant
selection is intended to absorb, deflect, and refract sound, providing
sound barriers in order to ensure any activity on the Site complies with
the City of Ithaca’s Noise Ordinance.
Phone: 607.379.9175 Email: whitham@whithamdesign.com123 S. Cayuga Street Suite 201 Ithaca, NY
We look forward to continuing to working with you and presenting the
project at your December meeting. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Scott Whitham
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS - UPDATED SUBMISSION: OCTOBER 16, 2015
EAST STATE, LLC
the Printing Press
October 9, 2015
Page 2
the Printing PressIthaca, NY
PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN1/4” = 1’-0”
ARGOS INN,
408 E. State St.
OFFICE 2
OFFICE 3
APT.
ABOVE OFFICE 1
OFFICE 4
LOBBY
HOTEL
ROOMS
PRINTING
PRESS
LOUNGE
BAR
ARGOS
HOTEL
ROOMS
ABOVE LOBBY
PRINTING PRESS,
416-418 E. State St.
Argos
Parking Lot
ARGOS INN and PRINTING PRESS Use Types
ARGOS INN,
408 E. State St.
OFFICE 2
OFFICE 3
APT.
ABOVE OFFICE 1
OFFICE 4
LOBBY
HOTEL
ROOMS
PRINTING
PRESS
LOUNGE
BAR
ARGOS
HOTEL
ROOMS
ABOVE LOBBY
PRINTING PRESS,
416-418 E. State St.
Argos
Parking Lot
ARGOS INN and PRINTING PRESS Shared Parking: Daytime
ARGOS INN,
408 E. State St.
OFFICE 2
OFFICE 3
APT.
ABOVE OFFICE 1
OFFICE 4
LOBBY
HOTEL
ROOMS
PRINTING
PRESS
LOUNGE
BAR
ARGOS
HOTEL
ROOMS
ABOVE LOBBY
PRINTING PRESS,
416-418 E. State St.
Argos
Parking Lot
ARGOS INN and PRINTING PRESS Shared Parking: Early Evening
ARGOS INN,
408 E. State St.
OFFICE 2
OFFICE 3
APT.
ABOVE OFFICE 1
OFFICE 4
LOBBY
HOTEL
ROOMS
PRINTING
PRESS
LOUNGE
BAR
ARGOS
HOTEL
ROOMS
ABOVE LOBBY
PRINTING PRESS,
416-418 E. State St.
Argos
Parking Lot
ARGOS INN and PRINTING PRESS Shared Parking: Nighttime
ARGOS INN, 408 E. State St.OFFICE 2OFFICE 3APT. ABOVE OFFICE 1OFFICE 4LOBBYHOTELROOMSPRINTING PRESS LOUNGEBAR ARGOSHOTEL ROOMSABOVE LOBBYPRINTING PRESS, 416-418 E. State St.Argos Parking LotARGOS INN and PRINTING PRESS Use Types
ARGOS INN,
408 E. State St.
OFFICE 2
OFFICE 3
APT.
ABOVE OFFICE 1
OFFICE 4
LOBBY
HOTEL
ROOMS
PRINTING
PRESS
LOUNGE
BAR
ARGOS
HOTEL
ROOMS
ABOVE LOBBY
PRINTING PRESS,
416-418 E. State St.
Argos
Parking Lot
ARGOS INN and PRINTING PRESS Shared Parking: Daytime
ARGOS INN,
408 E. State St.
OFFICE 2
OFFICE 3
APT.
ABOVE OFFICE 1
OFFICE 4
LOBBY
HOTEL
ROOMS
PRINTING
PRESS
LOUNGE
BAR
ARGOS
HOTEL
ROOMS
ABOVE LOBBY
PRINTING PRESS,
416-418 E. State St.
Argos
Parking Lot
ARGOS INN and PRINTING PRESS Shared Parking: Early Evening
ARGOS INN,
408 E. State St.
OFFICE 2
OFFICE 3
APT.
ABOVE OFFICE 1
OFFICE 4
LOBBY
HOTEL
ROOMS
PRINTING
PRESS
LOUNGE
BAR
ARGOS
HOTEL
ROOMS
ABOVE LOBBY
PRINTING PRESS,
416-418 E. State St.
Argos
Parking Lot
ARGOS INN and PRINTING PRESS Shared Parking: Nighttime
ARGOS INN,
408 E. State St.
OFFICE 2OFFICE 3
APT.
ABOVE OFFICE 1
OFFICE 4
LOBBY
HOTELROOMS PRINTING PRESS LOUNGEBAR ARGOSHOTEL ROOMS
ABOVE LOBBY
PRINTING PRESS,
416-418 E. State St.
Argos Parking LotARGOS INN and PRINTING PRESS Use Types
ARGOS INN,
408 E. State St.
OFFICE 2
OFFICE 3
APT.
ABOVE OFFICE 1
OFFICE 4
LOBBY
HOTEL
ROOMS
PRINTING
PRESS
LOUNGE
BAR
ARGOS
HOTEL
ROOMS
ABOVE LOBBY
PRINTING PRESS,
416-418 E. State St.
Argos
Parking Lot
ARGOS INN and PRINTING PRESS Shared Parking: Daytime
ARGOS INN,
408 E. State St.
OFFICE 2
OFFICE 3
APT.
ABOVE OFFICE 1
OFFICE 4
LOBBY
HOTEL
ROOMS
PRINTING
PRESS
LOUNGE
BAR
ARGOS
HOTEL
ROOMS
ABOVE LOBBY
PRINTING PRESS,
416-418 E. State St.
Argos
Parking Lot
ARGOS INN and PRINTING PRESS Shared Parking: Early Evening
ARGOS INN,
408 E. State St.
OFFICE 2
OFFICE 3
APT.
ABOVE OFFICE 1
OFFICE 4
LOBBY
HOTEL
ROOMS
PRINTING
PRESS
LOUNGE
BAR
ARGOS
HOTEL
ROOMS
ABOVE LOBBY
PRINTING PRESS,
416-418 E. State St.
Argos
Parking Lot
ARGOS INN and PRINTING PRESS Shared Parking: Nighttime
ARGOS INN,
408 E. State St.
OFFICE 2
OFFICE 3
APT.
ABOVE OFFICE 1
OFFICE 4
LOBBY
HOTEL
ROOMS
PRINTING
PRESS
LOUNGE
BAR
ARGOS
HOTEL
ROOMS
ABOVE LOBBY
PRINTING PRESS,
416-418 E. State St.
Argos
Parking Lot
ARGOS INN and PRINTING PRESS Shared Parking: Nighttime
October 9, 2015
Page 3
the Printing PressIthaca, NY
ARGOS INN + PRINTING PRESS: USE TYPES AND SHARED PARKING
EARLY EVENING4PM TO 9PMARGOS INN408 E. STATE PRINTING PRESS416-418 E. STATE
SHARED PARKING DIAGRAM: ARGOS INN AND THE PRINTING PRESS
NIGHT TIME9PM TO 1:30AM
DAY TIME8AM TO 4PM
EAST STATE, LLC
D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.LIGHT ELEV=455.4'LIGHT ELEV=456.2'LIGHT ELEV=457.6'LIGHT ELEV=459.0'1.4'±1.1'±11.4'±3.6'±0.2'± CLEAR20'11.5'±19.4'±S 15°25'30" W 161.62'S 70°36'54" E 68.58'N 20°53'38" E 174.56'PIPEFOUNDOF PROP. LINE1.4' NLYPIPE FOUNDFACE OF CURBCURB CUTSTREET LINECONCRETE WALKMERIDIAN OFS 70°38'20'' E30.63'S T R E E T L I N E
C O N C R E T E W A L K
F A C E O F C U R B
S C H U Y L E R P L A C E
C O N C R E T E R E T A I N I N G W A L L
HOUSENO.422-424HOUSENo. 420E D G E O F G R A V E L SANITARYMANHOLEEDGE OF GRAVELGRAVELPARKINGOLD SLATE WALKCONCRETE WALLFREEDMAN (R.O.)591339-002SCHILL & ACHENBACH (R.O.)511086-001N 79°33'02'' W56.10'CITY STREETSCONCRETE WALKCONCRETE WALKCONCRETE WALK5.4'±5.5'±CONCRETE WALLGARAGEPINFOUNDPIPEFOUND4.40'33.10'36.10'69.50'16.73'POLEMEAS. 96.1'± ALONGSTREET LINE TO WEST LINESCHUYLER PLACEGRAVELPARKINGPOLEPOLEBUILDINGNo. 408-410592969-001803/119AUGUSTA & CLARK (R.O.)2508/2592APSEL (R.O.)799/345GIORDANO (R.O.)CURB CUTCURB FACECONCRETE WALKSTONE WALKPIEKUT & LEWANDSKI (R.O.)576 sq. ft.3240 sq. ft.STONE WALLPATIOPATIOPATIOWALKSTONE WALKSTONE WALLUNITY INN LLC (R.O.)549343-003PINFOUNDPINFOUND905/67OLNEY (R.O.)CONCRETE WALK598045-001ROSETREE PROPERTIES (R.O.)CURB FACE42.34' (P TO P)26.19' (P TO P)45.20' (P TO P)116.42' (P TO P)PORCHCONCRETE WALLCONCRETE WALLASPHALT DRIVEPINFOUNDPINFOUNDPINFOUNDPIPEFOUNDSTONE WALLWINDOWWELLWINDOWWELLLEGEND-DOWN SPOUT-LIGHT POLE-UTILITY POLEE.E.-ENTRANCE ELEVATION2.4'±PIPE FOUNDBURIEDPIN FOUND 0.3'SOUTH OF COR2.40'"SUBJECT TO RIGHTS FOR MAINTANENCEOF SEWER AND WATER LINES, SEE160/168, 174/236"GRAVEL DRIVE USED IN COMMON FOR ACCESSTO EAST STATE STREET AND SHARED BETWEENHOUSE 420 AND NO.422-42418' WIDE EASEMENTSEE 769/80CONCRETEWALL27.5'±PUNCH MARK FOUND0.35' SOUTH OF CORCONCRETEWALLRAILROADTIE WALL3.8'±4.6'±4.2'±EL +3'-11"1st Fl. - OfficeEL +0'-0"1st Fl. - Front WarehouseEL +4'-2"1st Fl. - HouseEL +3'-11"1st Fl. - OfficeEL +0'-0"1st Fl. - Front WarehouseEL +4'-2"1st Fl. - House20'-8"27'-11"LOT AREA = 12850 SFMAX. LOT COVERAGE- 50%= 6425 SFEXISTING BUILDINGFOOTPRINT - 7714* SF (60%)*NOTE: EXCLUSIVE OFEASEMENTEXISTING BIKE LANEPROPOSED PERMANENTEASEMENT OR LOT LINEADJUSTMENT (794 SF)*NOTE: LOT COVERAGECHANGES TO 57% ACTUALIF EASEMENT AREA ISPURCHASEDSETBACK20'-0"SETBACK5'-0"SETBACK10'-0"5'-1"76'-0"35'-0"71'-3"120'-2"17'-8"PROPOSEDTURNAROUNDSPACEPROPOSED SLOPED WALKPROPOSED SLOPED WALKEXISTINGTREES TOREMAINDENSECONIFEROUSSCREENPROPOSEDPLANTINGS(TBD)PROPOSEDENLARGEDSTOOP15SPACES15SPACES*NOTE: ARGOSPARKING PERBUILDINGDEPARTMENTRECORDSSHARED PARKING3'-10"5'-2"~2200 FEET~1000 FEET~1000 FEETPROJECTSITEARGOSSENECAGARAGEGREEN STGARAGECAYUGAGARAGESHAREDPARKINGPROPOSED STOOPENLARGEMENT WITHNEW GAURDRAILSNO CHANGES TO WEST FACADEENLARGED STOOP WITH GUARDRAILSNO OTHER CHANGES TO SOUTH FACADEScale:Project No:Date:Drawn by:Checked by:Copyright Jason K Demarest, Architect301 S. Geneva StreetSuite 101Ithaca, New York 14850p: 607.330.4555 f: 607.330.4508www.jkdarchitect.comAs indicated10/16/2015 8:21:13 AMC1.00Site PlanROSB01416 - 418 E STATE STEAST STATE LLC10/16/15JKDJKDITHACA, NY 14850PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0'20'10'20'40'Scale: 1" = 20'-0" 1" = 20'-0"1Site Plan 1" = 200'-0"2Site Context MapPARKING REQUIREMENTS:BUSINESS USES- 1 SPACE PER 250 SF OF NET ASSIGNABLE AREA3652 SF/ 250 = 15 SPACESRESIDENTIAL USES- 1 SPACE PER DWELLING (UP TO 3 BEDROOMS)1 DWELLING UNIT = 1 SPACEBAR/ RESTAURANT USES- 1 SPACE PER 50 NET SF800 SF/ 50 = 16 SPACES**SEE SHARED PARKING SUMMARY**ZONING MAPZONING NOTES:- ALL USES ARE PERMITTED- LOT SIZE, COVERAGE & SETBACKS ARE EXISTING*NOTE: A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED TO RESOLVE EXCEEDED LOTCOVERAGE LIMIT & MINOR SETBACK VIOLATIONSHISTORIC NOTES:- PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO ILPC REVIEW (EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS)B-4R-2aCBD-60CBD-120CBD-100R-3aR-2aRevision ScheduleNumber Description DatePROJECTSITENOTE: BASE SURVEY BY TG MILLER DATED 1/27/15; CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 2' 1" = 10'-0"4West Elevation 1" = 10'-0"3South Elevation0'Scale: 1" = 10'-0"10'5'10'20'
666 SFB1588 SFB741 SFA-21068 SFS-1Code Analysis LegendA-2BS-1PROPOSEDPERMANENTEASEMENTHATCHED AREAIS FOOTPRINTOF DWELLINGABOVE5'-1"OFFICESTORAGEBAR248 SFA-256 SFA-2314 SFBSharedRestrooms880 SFB1 HOUR FIREBARRIER/ENCLOSUREBar SeatingEgresspathLEGALLY EXISTINGBUSINESS USESNEWBUSINESSAREA48'travel1 HOURRATEDCORRIDOR340 SFB246 SFA-2NEWBUSINESSAREA1056 SFBFUTUREBUSINESSTENANTLOUNGESTORAGE2 HOURCOMPARTMENTEXTERIOR WALLSNEW FURRED/INSULATED1112 SFR-31 HOUR FIREBARRIER/ENCLOSURE35'travelCode Analysis LegendR-3ROOFScale:Project No:Date:Drawn by:Checked by:Copyright Jason K Demarest, Architect301 S. Geneva StreetSuite 101Ithaca, New York 14850p: 607.330.4555 f: 607.330.4508www.jkdarchitect.com 1/8" = 1'-0"10/16/2015 8:13:55 AMR1.00Code AnalysisPlansROSB01416 - 418 E STATE STEAST STATE LLC10/16/15JKDJKDITHACA, NY 14850PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONArea Schedule - Code AnalysisName Level Area OccupancyOccupantFactorOccupantLoadA-2 First Floor 248 SF Bar 200 1.2248 SF 1.2A-2 First Floor 56 SF Standing 5 11.256 SF 11.2A-2 First Floor 246 SF Storage (Lounge) 300 0.8246 SF 0.8A-2 First Floor 741 SF Tables & Chairs 15 49.4741 SF 49.4A-2 1291 SF 62.7B First Floor 666 SF Business 100 6.7B First Floor 1588 SF Business 100 15.9B First Floor 340 SF Business 100 3.4B First Floor 1056 SF Business 100 10.63650 SF 36.5B First Floor 880 SF Circulation 100 8.8880 SF 8.8B First Floor 314 SF Restrooms 0314 SF 0.0B 4844 SF 45.3R-3 Second Floor 1112 SF Residential 200 5.61112 SF 5.6R-3 1112 SF 5.6S-1 First Floor 1068 SF Storage (Office) 300 3.61068 SF 3.6S-1 1068 SF 3.6Grand total: 12 8314 SF 117.1 1/8" = 1'-0"1First Floor 1/8" = 1'-0"2Second FloorMINIMUM PLUMBING FACILITIESB- Business:Water Closets- 1 per 25 for the first 50 per gender; 1 per 50 thereafterLavatories- 1 per 40 for the first 80 per gender; 1 per 80 thereafterA-2- Restaurants:Water Closets- 1 per 75 per genderLavatories- 1 per 200 per genderR-3- 1 per dwelling unit*Occupant load split by gender is 50/50 (rounded)REQUIRED FIXTURE COUNTS:B* area: 11 occupants = 1 per genderWater Closets: 1 male/ 1 femaleLavatories: 1 male/ 1 female*Note: Existing business areas have separate legally existing facilitiesA-2 area: 64 occupants = 1 per genderWater Closets: 1 male/ 1 femaleLavatories: 1 male/ 1 femaleR-3 area: Provide 1 bathroomBUILDING AREA PER FLOORFirst Floor- 7272 SFSecond Floor- 1112 SF0'Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"8'4'8'16'Revision ScheduleNumber Description Date
The Printing Press: 416 East State Street Ithaca, NY
LOUNGE VISION STATEMENT
The Printing Press:
416 East State Street, Ithaca, NY
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
The
Printing
Press
Lounge
Vision
Statement
416-‐418
East
State
Street,
Ithaca,
NY
2
LOUNGE VISION STATEMENT
Executive Summary
416 East State Street is adjacent to the recently opened Argos Inn, at 408 East State Street, a conversion of the
historic McCormick-Cowdry Mansion into an inn with 10 guest rooms, an apartment for the inn manager, a
public bar and lounge, called Bar Argos, and a conference room. The front and middle portion of the warehouse
building at 416 East State Street will be occupied as a bar and lounge, with the working name Printing Press,
and will be complementary to the adjacent Argos Inn. Pedestrian and vehicular access to both properties, as
well as landscaping will further connect the adjacent properties.
Left: The Argos Inn. Right: View of the inn lobby and bar parlor.
Background
In the late 1940s the property 416-418 East State Street was owned by entrepreneur and media executive Roy
H. Park, who expanded the property to include his personal office. Around that time, Roy H. Park also owned
408 East State Street, the current location of the adjacent Argos Inn, so a symbiotic relationship between the
two properties has existing for much of the past 50 years. In the early 1950s 416-418 East State Street was
further expanded with the warehouse toward the rear of the property. 416 East State Street at this time also
housed Roy H. Park’s new venture with Duncan Hines, called Hines-Park Foods, a food company largely
known for its popular product at the time, the Duncan Hines Cake Mix. Using money made from Hines-Park
Foods and a later executive position at Proctor and Gamble, Roy H. Park would later found Park
Communications, owner of a number of television and radio stations and publications. In 1954, the warehouse,
toward the rear of the site, was occupied by the Upstate Press, a local newspaper press. Arnold Printing, still in
existence today on Green Street, later occupied the warehouse in the 1960s.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
The
Printing
Press
Lounge
Vision
Statement
416-‐418
East
State
Street,
Ithaca,
NY
3
Bar and Lounge Vision
The lounge will build upon the history of the site as a former printing house. The new lounge, with the working
name Printing Press, will emphasize details from the existing warehouse and recall industrial printing
equipment and other industrial machinery. It will serve as a complement to the adjacent Argos Inn. While the
Argos recalls the interiors of a historic mansion from the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Printing Press will
recall a more industrial aesthetic from the 1940s and 1950s, also emphasizing historic details. We anticipate the
customers at the lounge to be both guests from the Argos Inn as well as locals from Ithaca and the surrounding
area. The typical customer at the Bar Argos ranges from Cornell grad students, to young professionals, to
professors and locals. We expect the same at the Printing Press. The vibe will be a place to relax in a
comfortable atmosphere, meet up with a group of friends, and enjoy a nice cocktail, local cider or glass of wine,
or craft beer. There will also be small plates such as local cheese and charcuterie.
Left: Argos Inn details. Right: View of the Argos Inn bar and lounge.
The lounge at 416 East State Street will have a similar feel to these examples of bars with an industrial aesthetic.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
The
Printing
Press
Lounge
Vision
Statement
416-‐418
East
State
Street,
Ithaca,
NY
4
Left: 19th Century Printing Press. Right: 416 East State St. Warehouse, formerly a printing shop, current condition.
There is a long history of speakeasies and cocktail lounges in New York City and beyond that are designed to
build upon existing historic details and remain respectful of the surrounding neighborhood. Ciro’s, in the image
below, for example in Tampa, Florida, specifically emphasizes “speaking easy” both within and outside of the
establishment. Apotheke, on the next page, emphasizes as secret entrance and very little signage. The
renovation of the Printing Press Lounge at 416 East State Street will be largely interior. The outside of the
building will change very little, beyond restoring the façade, putting on a new coat of paint, and adding
additional landscape while maintaining existing trees. Signage will be kept to a minimum to emphasize the
speakeasy warehouse aesthetic. The experience as a whole serves to recall the past of Roy H. Park and the
former printing press use of the building in the 1940s and 50s when the warehouse was first built.
Ciro’s, a speakeasy and supper club in Tampa, Florida. The 416 E. State St. Lounge will have a similar relaxed vibe.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
The
Printing
Press
Lounge
Vision
Statement
416-‐418
East
State
Street,
Ithaca,
NY
5
Apotheke, a speakeasy bar in NYC. The lounge will also have comfortable chairs and a similar aesthetic.
A-2 Analysis
Occupancy: A-2, B, S-1, R-3
Construction Type: VB
SECTION FORMULA VALUE
1301.6.1 Building Height -1.00
AH = Allowable Height from Table 503 40
EBH = Existing Building Height 24
AS = Allowable Height in Stories 1
EBS = Existing Building Height in Stories 2
1.28
-1
1301.6.2 Building Area A-2 B S-1 Total 0.51
Actual Area 1612 4611 1061 7284
Aa = Allowable Area per Floor 6000 9000 9000
Is = Area Increase due to sprinklers 0 0 0
If = Area Increase due to frontage (see
Frontage increase note below)000
At = Tabular Area per floor; Table 503 6000 9000 9000
Amax = Total area of enitre building 18000 27000 27000
9000 13500 13500
Equation EB13-2:
A-2 B S-1
6000 9000 9000
A-2 B S-1
Amax = 3 x Aa, Per 506.1 of NYSBC 3 18000 27000 27000
Equation EB13-3:
Actual stories
2 9000 13500 13500
Aai/1200 Aai/1200 Aai/1200
Equation EB13-4:5.00 7.50 7.50
0.51 0.76 0.76
i = Value for an individual separated occupancy on a floor.
n = Number of separated occupancies on a floor.
§506.2 Frontage increase.
If = Area increase due to frontage. 0
F = Building perimeter which fronts on a
public way or open space having 20 feet
(6096 mm) open minimum width (feet).
91
P = Perimeter of entire building (feet). 366
W = Width of public way or open space (feet)
in accordance with §506.2.1.30
0
East State LLC
416-418 E State St
Ithaca, NY
CF = Construction Factor. 1 if AH-EBH is
positve. Construction Type Factor shown in
Table EB1301.6.6(2) if AH is negative.
1
Aa,max = Allowable area per floor based on
limitations of 506.4
The value for the building height shall be the lesser value determined using the following formulas in Section 1301.6.1.1.
1301.6.3 Compartmentation 4.00
1301.6.4 0.00
§EB1201.6.4.1 Categories. The categories for tenant and dwelling unitseparations are:
1. Category a - No fire partitions; incomplete fire partitions; no doors; doors not self-closing or automatic closing.
2. Category b - Fire partitions or floor assembly less than 1-hour fire-resistance rating or not constructed in accordance with §708
or §711 of the Building Code of New York State, respectively.
X 3. Category c - Fire partitions with 1-hour or greater fire-resistance rating constructed in accordance with §708 of the Building Code of
New York State and floor assemblies with 1-hour but less than 2-hour fire-resistance rating constructed in accordance with §711 of
the Building Code of New York State or with only one tenant within the fire area.
4. Category d - Fire barriers with 1-hour but less than 2-hour fireresistance rating constructed in accordance with §706 of the
Building Code of New York State and floor assemblies with 2-hour or greater fire-resistance rating constructed in accordance with §711
of the Building Code of New York State.
5. Category e - Fire barriers and floor assemblies with 2-hour or greater fire-resistance rating and constructed in accordance with
§706 and §711 of the Building Code of New York State, respectively.
1301.6.5 Corridor Walls 2.00
§EB1201.6.5.1 Categories. The categories for corridor walls are:
1. Category a - No fire partitions; incomplete fire partitions; no doors; or doors not self-closing.
2. Category b - Less than 1-hour fire-resistance rating or not constructed in accordance with §708.4 of the Building Code of New York State.
3. Category c - 1-hour to less than 2-hour fire-resistance rating, with doors conforming to §715 of the Building Code of New
York State or without corridors as permitted by §1018 (typo in code says 1013)of the Building Code of New York State.
X 4. Category d - 2-hour or greater fire-resistance rating, with doors conforming to §715 of the Building Code of New York State.
Tenant and Dwelling Unit Separations
1301.6.6 Vertical Openings 7.00
VO = Vertical opening value.
1301.6.7 HVAC Systems 5.00
1. Category a - Plenums not in accordance with §M602 of the Mechanical Code of New York State. -10 points.
2. Category b - Air movement in egress elements not in accordance with §1016.4 of the Building Code of New York State. -5 points.
3. Category c - Both Categories a and b are applicable. -15 points.
4. Category d - Compliance of the HVAC system with §1016.4 of the Building Code of New York State and §M602 of the
Mechanical Code of New York State. 0 points.
X 5. Category e - Systems serving one story; or a central boiler/chiller system without ductwork connecting two or more stories. +5 points.
1301.6.8 Automatic Fire Detection 9.00
1. Category a - None.
2. Category b - Existing smoke detectors in HVAC systems and maintained in accordance with the Fire Code of New York State.
3. Category c - Smoke detectors in HVAC systems. The detectors are installed in accordance with the requirements for new buildings in
the Mechanical Code of New York State.
4. Category d - Smoke detectors throughout all floor areas other than individual sleeping units, tenant spaces and dwelling units.
X 5. Category e - Smoke detectors installed throughout the fire area.
1301.6.9 Fire Alarm Systems -5.00
1. Category a - None.
X 2. Category b - Fire alarm system with manual fire alarm boxes in accordance with §907.3 of the Building Code of New York State and
alarm notification appliances in accordance with §907.9 of the Building Code of New York State.
3. Category c - Fire alarm system in accordance with §907 of the Building Code of New York State.
4. Category d - Category c plus a required emergency voice/alarm communications system and a fire command station that conforms to
§403.8 of the Building Code of New York State and contains the emergency voice/alarm communications system controls, fire
department communication system controls, and any other controls specified in §911 of the Building Code of New York State where
those systems are provided.
7
7
1
CF = Construction type factor from Table
EB1201.6.6(2)
PV = Protection value from Table
EB1201.6.6(1).
1301.6.10 Smoke Control 0.00
X 1. Category a - None.
2. Category b - The building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system. Openings are provided in exterior walls at the
rate of 20 square feet (1.86 m2) per 50 linear feet (15 240 mm) of exterior wall in each story and distributed around the building
perimeter at intervals not exceeding 50 feet (15 240 mm). Such openings shall be readily openable from the inside without a key or
separate tool and shall be provided with ready access thereto. In lieu of operable openings, clearly and permanently marked tempered
glass panels shall be used.
3. Category c - One enclosed exit stairway, with ready access thereto, from each occupied floor of the building. The stairway has operable
exterior windows, and the building has openings in accordance with Category b.
4. Category d - One smokeproof enclosure and the building has openings in accordance with Category b.
5. Category e - The building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system. Each fire area is provided with a mechanical airhandling
system designed to accomplish smoke containment. Return and exhaust air shall be moved directly to the outside without
recirculation to other fire areas of the building under fire conditions. The system shall exhaust not less than six air changes
per hour from the fire area. Supply air by mechanical means to the fire area is not required. Containment of smoke shall be considered
as confining smoke to the fire area involved without migration to other fire areas. Any other tested and approved design that will
adequately accomplish smoke containment is permitted.
6. Category f - Each stairway shall be one of the following: a smokeproof enclosure in accordance with §1019.1.8 of the Building
Code of New York State; pressurized in accordance with §909.20.5 of the Building Code of New York State; or shall have operable
exterior windows.
1301.6.11 Means of Egress Capacity 2.00
1. Category a - Compliance with the minimum required means-of-egress capacity or number of exits is achieved through the use of a fire
escape in accordance with §EB605.3.1.2.
2. Category b - Capacity of the means of egress complies with §1004 of the Building Code of New York State, and the number of exits
complies with the minimum number required by §1019 of the Building Code of New York State.
X 3. Category c - Capacity of the means of egress is equal to or exceeds 125 percent of the required means-of-egress capacity, the means of
egress complies with the minimum required width dimensions specified in the Building Code of New York State, and the number of
exits complies with the minimum number required by §1019 of the Building Code of New York State.
4. Category d - The number of exits provided exceeds the number of exits required by §1019 of the Building Code of New York State.
Exits shall be located a distance apart from each other equal to not less than that specified in §1015 of the Building Code of New York State.
5. Category e - The area being evaluated meets both Categories c and d.
1301.6.12 Dead Ends 2.00
1. Category a - Dead end of 35 feet (10 670 mm) in nonsprinklered buildings or 70 feet (21 340 mm) in sprinklered buildings.
2. Category b - Dead end of 20 feet (6096 mm); or 50 feet (15 240 mm) in Group B in accordance with §1016.3, Exception 2 of the
Building Code of New York State.
X 3. Category c - No dead ends; or ratio of length to width (l/w) is less than 2.5:1.
1301.6.13 Maximum Exit Access Travel Distance 13.40
Allowable: 200
66
13.4
1301.6.14 Elevator Control 0.00
1. Category a - No elevator.
2. Category b - Any elevator without Phase I and II recall.
3. Category c - All elevators with Phase I and II recall as required by the Fire Code of New York State.
4. Category d - All meet Category c; or Category b where permitted to be without recall; and at least one elevator that complies with new
construction requirements serves all occupied floors.
Single-story/NA 0
1301.6.15 Means of Egress Emergency Lighting 4.00
1. Category a - Means-of-egress lighting and exit signs not provided with emergency power in accordance with §2702 of the Building Code
of New York State.
2. Category b - Means-of-egress lighting and exit signs provided with emergency power in accordance with §2702 of the Building Code of
New York State.
X 3. Category c - Emergency power provided to means-of-egress lighting and exit signs, which provides protection in the event of power
failure to the site or building.
1301.6.16 Mixed Occupancies 0.00
1. Category a - Minimum 1-hour fire barriers between occupancies.
X 2. Category b - Fire barriers between occupancies in accordance with §508.3.3 of the Building Code of New York State.
3. Category c - Fire barriers between occupancies having a fire resistance rating of not less than twice that required by §508.3.3
of the Building Code of New York State.
1301.6.17 Automatic Sprinklers -4.00
X 1. Category a - Sprinklers are required throughout; sprinkler protection is not provided or the sprinkler system design is not
adequate for the hazard protected in accordance with §903 of the Building Code of New York State.
2. Category b - Sprinklers are required in a portion of the building; sprinkler protection is not provided or the sprinkler system design
is not adequate for the hazard protected in accordance with §903 of the Building Code of New York State.
3. Category c - Sprinklers are not required; none are provided.
4. Category d - Sprinklers are required in a portion of the building; sprinklers are provided in such portion; the system is one that
complied with the code at the time of installation and is maintained and supervised in accordance with §903 of the Building
Code of New York State.
5. Category e - Sprinklers are required throughout; sprinklers are provided throughout in accordance with Chapter 9 of the Building
Code of New York State.
6. Category f - Sprinklers are not required throughout; sprinklers are provided throughout in accordance with Chapter 9 of the Building
Code of New York State
1301.6.18 Standpipes 0.00
1. Category a - Standpipes are required; standpipe is not provided or the standpipe system design is not in compliance with Section 905.3
of the Building Code of New York State.
X 2. Category b - Standpipes are not required; none are provided.
3. Category c - Standpipes are required; standpipes are provided in accordance with §905 of the Building Code of New York State.
4. Category d - Standpipes are not required; standpipes are provided in accordance with §905 of the Building Code of New York State.
1301.6.19 Incidental Use Area Protection 0.00
NA
0
Table EB1301.8 Mandatory Safety Scores
A-2 21 32 32
B 30 40 40
R 21 38 38
S-1 19 29 29
1301.7 Summary
Section Safety Parameters Fire Safety (FS) Means of Egress (ME) General Safety (GS)
1301.6.1 Building Height 0.00 0.00 0.00
1301.6.2 Building Area 0.76 0.76 0.76
1301.6.3 Compartmentation 4.00 4.00 4.00
1301.6.4 Tenant and Dwelling Unit Separations 0.00 0.00 0.00
1301.6.5 Corridor Walls 5.00 5.00 5.00
1301.6.6 Vertical Openings 7.00 7.00 7.00
1301.6.7 HVAC Systems 5.00 5.00 5.00
1301.6.8 Automatic Fire Detection 8.00 8.00 8.00
1301.6.9 Fire Alarm Systems 0.00 0.00 0.00
1301.6.10 Smoke Control 0.00 0.00 0.00
1301.6.11 Means of Egress Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00
1301.6.12 Dead Ends 2.00 2.00 2.00
1301.6.13 Maximum Exit Access Travel Distance 16.50 16.50 16.50
1301.6.14 Elevator Control 0.00 0.00 0.00
1301.6.15 Means of Egress Emergency Lighting 1.00 1.00 1.00
1301.6.16 Mixed Occupancies -5.00 -5.00 -5.00
1301.6.17 Automatic Sprinklers 0.00 0.00 0.00
1301.6.18 Standpipes 0.00 0.00 0.00
1301.6.19 Incidental Use Area Protection 0.00 0.00 0.00
Building Score - Total Value 44.26 44.26 44.26
FS Score ME Score GS Score
B 44 44 44
Mandatory Scores 30 40 40
Score +/-14 4 4
Pass Yes Yes Yes
East State LLC
416-418 E State St
Ithaca, NY
B Analysis
Occupancy: A-2, B, S-1, R-3
Construction Type: VB
SECTION FORMULA VALUE
1301.6.1 Building Height 0.00
AH = Allowable Height from Table 503 40
EBH = Existing Building Height 24
AS = Allowable Height in Stories 2
EBS = Existing Building Height in Stories 2
1.28
0
1301.6.2 Building Area A-2 B S-1 Total 0.76
Actual Area 1612 4611 1061 7284
Aa = Allowable Area per Floor 6000 9000 9000
Is = Area Increase due to sprinklers 0 0 0
If = Area Increase due to frontage (see
Frontage increase note below)000
At = Tabular Area per floor; Table 503 6000 9000 9000
Amax = Total area of enitre building 18000 27000 27000
9000 13500 13500
Equation EB13-2:
A-2 B S-1
6000 9000 9000
A-2 B S-1
Amax = 3 x Aa, Per 506.1 of NYSBC 3 18000 27000 27000
Equation EB13-3:
Actual stories
2 9000 13500 13500
Aai/1200 Aai/1200 Aai/1200
Equation EB13-4:5.00 7.50 7.50
0.51 0.76 0.76
i = Value for an individual separated occupancy on a floor.
n = Number of separated occupancies on a floor.
§506.2 Frontage increase.
If = Area increase due to frontage. 0
F = Building perimeter which fronts on a
public way or open space having 20 feet
(6096 mm) open minimum width (feet).
91
P = Perimeter of entire building (feet). 366
W = Width of public way or open space (feet)
in accordance with §506.2.1.30
0
East State LLC
416-418 E State St
Ithaca, NY
CF = Construction Factor. 1 if AH-EBH is
positve. Construction Type Factor shown in
Table EB1301.6.6(2) if AH is negative.
1
Aa,max = Allowable area per floor based on
limitations of 506.4
The value for the building height shall be the lesser value determined using the following formulas in Section 1301.6.1.1.
1301.6.3 Compartmentation 4.00
1301.6.4 0.00
§EB1201.6.4.1 Categories. The categories for tenant and dwelling unitseparations are:
1. Category a - No fire partitions; incomplete fire partitions; no doors; doors not self-closing or automatic closing.
2. Category b - Fire partitions or floor assembly less than 1-hour fire-resistance rating or not constructed in accordance with §708
or §711 of the Building Code of New York State, respectively.
X 3. Category c - Fire partitions with 1-hour or greater fire-resistance rating constructed in accordance with §708 of the Building Code of
New York State and floor assemblies with 1-hour but less than 2-hour fire-resistance rating constructed in accordance with §711 of
the Building Code of New York State or with only one tenant within the fire area.
4. Category d - Fire barriers with 1-hour but less than 2-hour fireresistance rating constructed in accordance with §706 of the
Building Code of New York State and floor assemblies with 2-hour or greater fire-resistance rating constructed in accordance with §711
of the Building Code of New York State.
5. Category e - Fire barriers and floor assemblies with 2-hour or greater fire-resistance rating and constructed in accordance with
§706 and §711 of the Building Code of New York State, respectively.
1301.6.5 Corridor Walls 5.00
§EB1201.6.5.1 Categories. The categories for corridor walls are:
1. Category a - No fire partitions; incomplete fire partitions; no doors; or doors not self-closing.
2. Category b - Less than 1-hour fire-resistance rating or not constructed in accordance with §708.4 of the Building Code of New York State.
3. Category c - 1-hour to less than 2-hour fire-resistance rating, with doors conforming to §715 of the Building Code of New
York State or without corridors as permitted by §1018 (typo in code says 1013)of the Building Code of New York State.
X 4. Category d - 2-hour or greater fire-resistance rating, with doors conforming to §715 of the Building Code of New York State.
Tenant and Dwelling Unit Separations
1301.6.6 Vertical Openings 7.00
VO = Vertical opening value.
1301.6.7 HVAC Systems 5.00
1. Category a - Plenums not in accordance with §M602 of the Mechanical Code of New York State. -10 points.
2. Category b - Air movement in egress elements not in accordance with §1016.4 of the Building Code of New York State. -5 points.
3. Category c - Both Categories a and b are applicable. -15 points.
4. Category d - Compliance of the HVAC system with §1016.4 of the Building Code of New York State and §M602 of the
Mechanical Code of New York State. 0 points.
X 5. Category e - Systems serving one story; or a central boiler/chiller system without ductwork connecting two or more stories. +5 points.
1301.6.8 Automatic Fire Detection 8.00
1. Category a - None.
2. Category b - Existing smoke detectors in HVAC systems and maintained in accordance with the Fire Code of New York State.
3. Category c - Smoke detectors in HVAC systems. The detectors are installed in accordance with the requirements for new buildings in
the Mechanical Code of New York State.
4. Category d - Smoke detectors throughout all floor areas other than individual sleeping units, tenant spaces and dwelling units.
X 5. Category e - Smoke detectors installed throughout the fire area.
1301.6.9 Fire Alarm Systems 0.00
1. Category a - None.
2. Category b - Fire alarm system with manual fire alarm boxes in accordance with §907.3 of the Building Code of New York State and
alarm notification appliances in accordance with §907.9 of the Building Code of New York State.
X 3. Category c - Fire alarm system in accordance with §907 of the Building Code of New York State.
4. Category d - Category c plus a required emergency voice/alarm communications system and a fire command station that conforms to
§403.8 of the Building Code of New York State and contains the emergency voice/alarm communications system controls, fire
department communication system controls, and any other controls specified in §911 of the Building Code of New York State where
those systems are provided.
7
7
1
CF = Construction type factor from Table
EB1201.6.6(2)
PV = Protection value from Table
EB1201.6.6(1).
1301.6.10 Smoke Control 0.00
X 1. Category a - None.
2. Category b - The building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system. Openings are provided in exterior walls at the
rate of 20 square feet (1.86 m2) per 50 linear feet (15 240 mm) of exterior wall in each story and distributed around the building
perimeter at intervals not exceeding 50 feet (15 240 mm). Such openings shall be readily openable from the inside without a key or
separate tool and shall be provided with ready access thereto. In lieu of operable openings, clearly and permanently marked tempered
glass panels shall be used.
3. Category c - One enclosed exit stairway, with ready access thereto, from each occupied floor of the building. The stairway has operable
exterior windows, and the building has openings in accordance with Category b.
4. Category d - One smokeproof enclosure and the building has openings in accordance with Category b.
5. Category e - The building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system. Each fire area is provided with a mechanical airhandling
system designed to accomplish smoke containment. Return and exhaust air shall be moved directly to the outside without
recirculation to other fire areas of the building under fire conditions. The system shall exhaust not less than six air changes
per hour from the fire area. Supply air by mechanical means to the fire area is not required. Containment of smoke shall be considered
as confining smoke to the fire area involved without migration to other fire areas. Any other tested and approved design that will
adequately accomplish smoke containment is permitted.
6. Category f - Each stairway shall be one of the following: a smokeproof enclosure in accordance with §1019.1.8 of the Building
Code of New York State; pressurized in accordance with §909.20.5 of the Building Code of New York State; or shall have operable
exterior windows.
1301.6.11 Means of Egress Capacity 0.00
1. Category a - Compliance with the minimum required means-of-egress capacity or number of exits is achieved through the use of a fire
escape in accordance with §EB605.3.1.2.
2. Category b - Capacity of the means of egress complies with §1004 of the Building Code of New York State, and the number of exits
complies with the minimum number required by §1019 of the Building Code of New York State.
X 3. Category c - Capacity of the means of egress is equal to or exceeds 125 percent of the required means-of-egress capacity, the means of
egress complies with the minimum required width dimensions specified in the Building Code of New York State, and the number of
exits complies with the minimum number required by §1019 of the Building Code of New York State.
4. Category d - The number of exits provided exceeds the number of exits required by §1019 of the Building Code of New York State.
Exits shall be located a distance apart from each other equal to not less than that specified in §1015 of the Building Code of New York State.
5. Category e - The area being evaluated meets both Categories c and d.
1301.6.12 Dead Ends 2.00
1. Category a - Dead end of 35 feet (10 670 mm) in nonsprinklered buildings or 70 feet (21 340 mm) in sprinklered buildings.
2. Category b - Dead end of 20 feet (6096 mm); or 50 feet (15 240 mm) in Group B in accordance with §1016.3, Exception 2 of the
Building Code of New York State.
X 3. Category c - No dead ends; or ratio of length to width (l/w) is less than 2.5:1.
1301.6.13 Maximum Exit Access Travel Distance 16.50
Allowable: 200
35
16.5
1301.6.14 Elevator Control 0.00
1. Category a - No elevator.
2. Category b - Any elevator without Phase I and II recall.
3. Category c - All elevators with Phase I and II recall as required by the Fire Code of New York State.
4. Category d - All meet Category c; or Category b where permitted to be without recall; and at least one elevator that complies with new
construction requirements serves all occupied floors.
Single-story/NA 0
1301.6.15 Means of Egress Emergency Lighting 1.00
1. Category a - Means-of-egress lighting and exit signs not provided with emergency power in accordance with §2702 of the Building Code
of New York State.
X 2. Category b - Means-of-egress lighting and exit signs provided with emergency power in accordance with §2702 of the Building Code of
New York State.
3. Category c - Emergency power provided to means-of-egress lighting and exit signs, which provides protection in the event of power
failure to the site or building.
1301.6.16 Mixed Occupancies -5.00
X 1. Category a - Minimum 1-hour fire barriers between occupancies.
2. Category b - Fire barriers between occupancies in accordance with §508.3.3 of the Building Code of New York State.
3. Category c - Fire barriers between occupancies having a fire resistance rating of not less than twice that required by §508.3.3
of the Building Code of New York State.
1301.6.17 Automatic Sprinklers 0.00
1. Category a - Sprinklers are required throughout; sprinkler protection is not provided or the sprinkler system design is not
adequate for the hazard protected in accordance with §903 of the Building Code of New York State.
2. Category b - Sprinklers are required in a portion of the building; sprinkler protection is not provided or the sprinkler system design
is not adequate for the hazard protected in accordance with §903 of the Building Code of New York State.
X 3. Category c - Sprinklers are not required; none are provided.
4. Category d - Sprinklers are required in a portion of the building; sprinklers are provided in such portion; the system is one that
complied with the code at the time of installation and is maintained and supervised in accordance with §903 of the Building
Code of New York State.
5. Category e - Sprinklers are required throughout; sprinklers are provided throughout in accordance with Chapter 9 of the Building
Code of New York State.
6. Category f - Sprinklers are not required throughout; sprinklers are provided throughout in accordance with Chapter 9 of the Building
Code of New York State
1301.6.18 Standpipes 0.00
1. Category a - Standpipes are required; standpipe is not provided or the standpipe system design is not in compliance with Section 905.3
of the Building Code of New York State.
X 2. Category b - Standpipes are not required; none are provided.
3. Category c - Standpipes are required; standpipes are provided in accordance with §905 of the Building Code of New York State.
4. Category d - Standpipes are not required; standpipes are provided in accordance with §905 of the Building Code of New York State.
1301.6.19 Incidental Use Area Protection 0.00
NA
0
Table EB1301.8 Mandatory Safety Scores
A-2 21 32 32
B 30 40 40
R-3 21 38 38
S-1 19 29 29
1301.7 Summary
Section Safety Parameters Fire Safety (FS) Means of Egress (ME) General Safety (GS)
1301.6.1 Building Height 1.00 1.00 1.00
1301.6.2 Building Area 10.50 10.50 10.50
1301.6.3 Compartmentation 4.00 4.00 4.00
1301.6.4 Tenant and Dwelling Unit Separations 0.00 0.00 0.00
1301.6.5 Corridor Walls 2.00 2.00 2.00
1301.6.6 Vertical Openings 7.00 7.00 7.00
1301.6.7 HVAC Systems 5.00 5.00 5.00
1301.6.8 Automatic Fire Detection 6.00 6.00 6.00
1301.6.9 Fire Alarm Systems 0.00 0.00 0.00
1301.6.10 Smoke Control 0.00 0.00 0.00
1301.6.11 Means of Egress Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00
1301.6.12 Dead Ends 2.00 2.00 2.00
1301.6.13 Maximum Exit Access Travel Distance 16.50 16.50 16.50
1301.6.14 Elevator Control 0.00 0.00 0.00
1301.6.15 Means of Egress Emergency Lighting 0.00 0.00 0.00
1301.6.16 Mixed Occupancies -10.00 -10.00 -10.00
1301.6.17 Automatic Sprinklers -3.00 -1.50 -3.00
1301.6.18 Standpipes 0.00 0.00 0.00
1301.6.19 Incidental Use Area Protection 0.00 0.00 0.00
Building Score - Total Value 41.00 42.50 41.00
FS Score ME Score GS Score
R-3 41 42 41
Mandatory Scores 21 38 38
Score +/-20 4 3
Pass Yes Yes Yes
East State LLC
416-418 E State St
Ithaca, NY
R-3 Analysis
Occupancy: A-2, B, S-1, R-3
Construction Type: VB
SECTION FORMULA VALUE
1301.6.1 Building Height 1.00
AH = Allowable Height from Table 503 40
EBH = Existing Building Height 24
AS = Allowable Height in Stories 3
EBS = Existing Building Height in Stories 2
1.28
1
1301.6.2 Building Area R-3 10.50
Actual Area 1112
Aa = Allowable Area per Floor 13710
Is = Area Increase due to sprinklers 0
If = Area Increase due to frontage (see
Frontage increase note below)0
At = Tabular Area per floor; Table 503 13710 Unlimited Area Allowed- ADJUSTED TO EQUAL 50% OF MAX FS SCORE
Amax = Total area of enitre building 41130
20565
Equation EB13-2:
R-3
13710
R-3
Amax = 3 x Aa, Per 506.1 of NYSBC 3 41130
Equation EB13-3:
Actual stories
2 20565
Aai/1200
Equation EB13-4:11.43
10.50
i = Value for an individual separated occupancy on a floor.
n = Number of separated occupancies on a floor.
§506.2 Frontage increase.
If = Area increase due to frontage. 0
F = Building perimeter which fronts on a
public way or open space having 20 feet
(6096 mm) open minimum width (feet).
91
P = Perimeter of entire building (feet). 366
W = Width of public way or open space (feet)
in accordance with §506.2.1.30
0
East State LLC
416-418 E State St
Ithaca, NY
CF = Construction Factor. 1 if AH-EBH is
positve. Construction Type Factor shown in
Table EB1301.6.6(2) if AH is negative.
1
Aa,max = Allowable area per floor based on
limitations of 506.4
The value for the building height shall be the lesser value determined using the following formulas in Section 1301.6.1.1.
1301.6.3 Compartmentation 4.00
1301.6.4 0.00
§EB1201.6.4.1 Categories. The categories for tenant and dwelling unitseparations are:
1. Category a - No fire partitions; incomplete fire partitions; no doors; doors not self-closing or automatic closing.
2. Category b - Fire partitions or floor assembly less than 1-hour fire-resistance rating or not constructed in accordance with §708
or §711 of the Building Code of New York State, respectively.
X 3. Category c - Fire partitions with 1-hour or greater fire-resistance rating constructed in accordance with §708 of the Building Code of
New York State and floor assemblies with 1-hour but less than 2-hour fire-resistance rating constructed in accordance with §711 of
the Building Code of New York State or with only one tenant within the fire area.
4. Category d - Fire barriers with 1-hour but less than 2-hour fireresistance rating constructed in accordance with §706 of the
Building Code of New York State and floor assemblies with 2-hour or greater fire-resistance rating constructed in accordance with §711
of the Building Code of New York State.
5. Category e - Fire barriers and floor assemblies with 2-hour or greater fire-resistance rating and constructed in accordance with
§706 and §711 of the Building Code of New York State, respectively.
1301.6.5 Corridor Walls 2.00
§EB1201.6.5.1 Categories. The categories for corridor walls are:
1. Category a - No fire partitions; incomplete fire partitions; no doors; or doors not self-closing.
2. Category b - Less than 1-hour fire-resistance rating or not constructed in accordance with §708.4 of the Building Code of New York State.
3. Category c - 1-hour to less than 2-hour fire-resistance rating, with doors conforming to §715 of the Building Code of New
York State or without corridors as permitted by §1018 (typo in code says 1013)of the Building Code of New York State.
X 4. Category d - 2-hour or greater fire-resistance rating, with doors conforming to §715 of the Building Code of New York State.
Tenant and Dwelling Unit Separations
1301.6.6 Vertical Openings 7.00
VO = Vertical opening value.
1301.6.7 HVAC Systems 5.00
1. Category a - Plenums not in accordance with §M602 of the Mechanical Code of New York State. -10 points.
2. Category b - Air movement in egress elements not in accordance with §1016.4 of the Building Code of New York State. -5 points.
3. Category c - Both Categories a and b are applicable. -15 points.
4. Category d - Compliance of the HVAC system with §1016.4 of the Building Code of New York State and §M602 of the
Mechanical Code of New York State. 0 points.
X 5. Category e - Systems serving one story; or a central boiler/chiller system without ductwork connecting two or more stories. +5 points.
1301.6.8 Automatic Fire Detection 6.00
1. Category a - None.
2. Category b - Existing smoke detectors in HVAC systems and maintained in accordance with the Fire Code of New York State.
3. Category c - Smoke detectors in HVAC systems. The detectors are installed in accordance with the requirements for new buildings in
the Mechanical Code of New York State.
4. Category d - Smoke detectors throughout all floor areas other than individual sleeping units, tenant spaces and dwelling units.
X 5. Category e - Smoke detectors installed throughout the fire area.
1301.6.9 Fire Alarm Systems 0.00
1. Category a - None.
2. Category b - Fire alarm system with manual fire alarm boxes in accordance with §907.3 of the Building Code of New York State and
alarm notification appliances in accordance with §907.9 of the Building Code of New York State.
X 3. Category c - Fire alarm system in accordance with §907 of the Building Code of New York State.
4. Category d - Category c plus a required emergency voice/alarm communications system and a fire command station that conforms to
§403.8 of the Building Code of New York State and contains the emergency voice/alarm communications system controls, fire
department communication system controls, and any other controls specified in §911 of the Building Code of New York State where
those systems are provided.
7
7
1
CF = Construction type factor from Table
EB1201.6.6(2)
PV = Protection value from Table
EB1201.6.6(1).
1301.6.10 Smoke Control 0.00
X 1. Category a - None.
2. Category b - The building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system. Openings are provided in exterior walls at the
rate of 20 square feet (1.86 m2) per 50 linear feet (15 240 mm) of exterior wall in each story and distributed around the building
perimeter at intervals not exceeding 50 feet (15 240 mm). Such openings shall be readily openable from the inside without a key or
separate tool and shall be provided with ready access thereto. In lieu of operable openings, clearly and permanently marked tempered
glass panels shall be used.
3. Category c - One enclosed exit stairway, with ready access thereto, from each occupied floor of the building. The stairway has operable
exterior windows, and the building has openings in accordance with Category b.
4. Category d - One smokeproof enclosure and the building has openings in accordance with Category b.
5. Category e - The building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system. Each fire area is provided with a mechanical airhandling
system designed to accomplish smoke containment. Return and exhaust air shall be moved directly to the outside without
recirculation to other fire areas of the building under fire conditions. The system shall exhaust not less than six air changes
per hour from the fire area. Supply air by mechanical means to the fire area is not required. Containment of smoke shall be considered
as confining smoke to the fire area involved without migration to other fire areas. Any other tested and approved design that will
adequately accomplish smoke containment is permitted.
6. Category f - Each stairway shall be one of the following: a smokeproof enclosure in accordance with §1019.1.8 of the Building
Code of New York State; pressurized in accordance with §909.20.5 of the Building Code of New York State; or shall have operable
exterior windows.
1301.6.11 Means of Egress Capacity 0.00
1. Category a - Compliance with the minimum required means-of-egress capacity or number of exits is achieved through the use of a fire
escape in accordance with §EB605.3.1.2.
X 2. Category b - Capacity of the means of egress complies with §1004 of the Building Code of New York State, and the number of exits
complies with the minimum number required by §1019 of the Building Code of New York State.
3. Category c - Capacity of the means of egress is equal to or exceeds 125 percent of the required means-of-egress capacity, the means of
egress complies with the minimum required width dimensions specified in the Building Code of New York State, and the number of
exits complies with the minimum number required by §1019 of the Building Code of New York State.
4. Category d - The number of exits provided exceeds the number of exits required by §1019 of the Building Code of New York State.
Exits shall be located a distance apart from each other equal to not less than that specified in §1015 of the Building Code of New York State.
5. Category e - The area being evaluated meets both Categories c and d.
1301.6.12 Dead Ends 2.00
1. Category a - Dead end of 35 feet (10 670 mm) in nonsprinklered buildings or 70 feet (21 340 mm) in sprinklered buildings.
2. Category b - Dead end of 20 feet (6096 mm); or 50 feet (15 240 mm) in Group B in accordance with §1016.3, Exception 2 of the
Building Code of New York State.
X 3. Category c - No dead ends; or ratio of length to width (l/w) is less than 2.5:1.
1301.6.13 Maximum Exit Access Travel Distance 16.50
Allowable: 200
35
16.5
1301.6.14 Elevator Control 0.00
1. Category a - No elevator.
2. Category b - Any elevator without Phase I and II recall.
3. Category c - All elevators with Phase I and II recall as required by the Fire Code of New York State.
4. Category d - All meet Category c; or Category b where permitted to be without recall; and at least one elevator that complies with new
construction requirements serves all occupied floors.
Single-story/NA 0
1301.6.15 Means of Egress Emergency Lighting 0.00
X 1. Category a - Means-of-egress lighting and exit signs not provided with emergency power in accordance with §2702 of the Building Code
of New York State.
2. Category b - Means-of-egress lighting and exit signs provided with emergency power in accordance with §2702 of the Building Code of
New York State.
3. Category c - Emergency power provided to means-of-egress lighting and exit signs, which provides protection in the event of power
failure to the site or building.
1301.6.16 Mixed Occupancies -10.00
X 1. Category a - Minimum 1-hour fire barriers between occupancies.
2. Category b - Fire barriers between occupancies in accordance with §508.3.3 of the Building Code of New York State.
3. Category c - Fire barriers between occupancies having a fire resistance rating of not less than twice that required by §508.3.3
of the Building Code of New York State.
1301.6.17 Automatic Sprinklers -3.00
1. Category a - Sprinklers are required throughout; sprinkler protection is not provided or the sprinkler system design is not
adequate for the hazard protected in accordance with §903 of the Building Code of New York State.
X 2. Category b - Sprinklers are required in a portion of the building; sprinkler protection is not provided or the sprinkler system design
is not adequate for the hazard protected in accordance with §903 of the Building Code of New York State.
3. Category c - Sprinklers are not required; none are provided.
4. Category d - Sprinklers are required in a portion of the building; sprinklers are provided in such portion; the system is one that
complied with the code at the time of installation and is maintained and supervised in accordance with §903 of the Building
Code of New York State.
5. Category e - Sprinklers are required throughout; sprinklers are provided throughout in accordance with Chapter 9 of the Building
Code of New York State.
6. Category f - Sprinklers are not required throughout; sprinklers are provided throughout in accordance with Chapter 9 of the Building
Code of New York State
1301.6.18 Standpipes 0.00
1. Category a - Standpipes are required; standpipe is not provided or the standpipe system design is not in compliance with Section 905.3
of the Building Code of New York State.
X 2. Category b - Standpipes are not required; none are provided.
3. Category c - Standpipes are required; standpipes are provided in accordance with §905 of the Building Code of New York State.
4. Category d - Standpipes are not required; standpipes are provided in accordance with §905 of the Building Code of New York State.
1301.6.19 Incidental Use Area Protection 0.00
NA
0
Table EB1301.8 Mandatory Safety Scores
A-2 21 32 32
B 30 40 40
R 21 38 38
S-1 19 29 29
1301.7 Summary
Section Safety Parameters Fire Safety (FS) Means of Egress (ME) General Safety (GS)
1301.6.1 Building Height -1.00 -1.00 -1.00
1301.6.2 Building Area 0.76 0.76 0.76
1301.6.3 Compartmentation 4.00 4.00 4.00
1301.6.4 Tenant and Dwelling Unit Separations 0.00 0.00 0.00
1301.6.5 Corridor Walls 2.00 2.00 2.00
1301.6.6 Vertical Openings 7.00 7.00 7.00
1301.6.7 HVAC Systems 5.00 5.00 5.00
1301.6.8 Automatic Fire Detection 6.00 6.00 6.00
1301.6.9 Fire Alarm Systems 0.00 0.00 0.00
1301.6.10 Smoke Control 0.00 0.00 0.00
1301.6.11 Means of Egress Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00
1301.6.12 Dead Ends 2.00 2.00 2.00
1301.6.13 Maximum Exit Access Travel Distance 16.70 16.70 16.70
1301.6.14 Elevator Control 0.00 0.00 0.00
1301.6.15 Means of Egress Emergency Lighting 1.00 1.00 1.00
1301.6.16 Mixed Occupancies -5.00 -5.00 -5.00
1301.6.17 Automatic Sprinklers 0.00 0.00 0.00
1301.6.18 Standpipes 0.00 0.00 0.00
1301.6.19 Incidental Use Area Protection 0.00 0.00 0.00
Building Score - Total Value 38.46 38.46 38.46
FS Score ME Score GS Score
S-1 38 38 38
Mandatory Scores 19 29 29
Score +/-19 9 9
Pass Yes Yes Yes
East State LLC
416-418 E State St
Ithaca, NY
S-1 Analysis
Occupancy: A-2, B, S-1, R-3
Construction Type: VB
SECTION FORMULA VALUE
1301.6.1 Building Height -1.00
AH = Allowable Height from Table 503 40
EBH = Existing Building Height 24
AS = Allowable Height in Stories 1
EBS = Existing Building Height in Stories 2
1.28
-1
1301.6.2 Building Area A-2 B S-1 Total 0.76
Actual Area 1612 4611 1061 7284
Aa = Allowable Area per Floor 6000 9000 9000
Is = Area Increase due to sprinklers 0 0 0
If = Area Increase due to frontage (see
Frontage increase note below)000
At = Tabular Area per floor; Table 503 6000 9000 9000
Amax = Total area of enitre building 18000 27000 27000
9000 13500 13500
Equation EB13-2:
A-2 B S-1
6000 9000 9000
A-2 B S-1
Amax = 3 x Aa, Per 506.1 of NYSBC 3 18000 27000 27000
Equation EB13-3:
Actual stories
2 9000 13500 13500
Aai/1200 Aai/1200 Aai/1200
Equation EB13-4:5.00 7.50 7.50
0.51 0.76 0.76
i = Value for an individual separated occupancy on a floor.
n = Number of separated occupancies on a floor.
§506.2 Frontage increase.
If = Area increase due to frontage. 0
F = Building perimeter which fronts on a
public way or open space having 20 feet
(6096 mm) open minimum width (feet).
91
P = Perimeter of entire building (feet). 366
W = Width of public way or open space (feet)
in accordance with §506.2.1.30
0
East State LLC
416-418 E State St
Ithaca, NY
CF = Construction Factor. 1 if AH-EBH is
positve. Construction Type Factor shown in
Table EB1301.6.6(2) if AH is negative.
1
Aa,max = Allowable area per floor based on
limitations of 506.4
The value for the building height shall be the lesser value determined using the following formulas in Section 1301.6.1.1.
1301.6.3 Compartmentation 4.00
1301.6.4 0.00
§EB1201.6.4.1 Categories. The categories for tenant and dwelling unitseparations are:
1. Category a - No fire partitions; incomplete fire partitions; no doors; doors not self-closing or automatic closing.
2. Category b - Fire partitions or floor assembly less than 1-hour fire-resistance rating or not constructed in accordance with §708
or §711 of the Building Code of New York State, respectively.
X 3. Category c - Fire partitions with 1-hour or greater fire-resistance rating constructed in accordance with §708 of the Building Code of
New York State and floor assemblies with 1-hour but less than 2-hour fire-resistance rating constructed in accordance with §711 of
the Building Code of New York State or with only one tenant within the fire area.
4. Category d - Fire barriers with 1-hour but less than 2-hour fireresistance rating constructed in accordance with §706 of the
Building Code of New York State and floor assemblies with 2-hour or greater fire-resistance rating constructed in accordance with §711
of the Building Code of New York State.
5. Category e - Fire barriers and floor assemblies with 2-hour or greater fire-resistance rating and constructed in accordance with
§706 and §711 of the Building Code of New York State, respectively.
1301.6.5 Corridor Walls 2.00
§EB1201.6.5.1 Categories. The categories for corridor walls are:
1. Category a - No fire partitions; incomplete fire partitions; no doors; or doors not self-closing.
2. Category b - Less than 1-hour fire-resistance rating or not constructed in accordance with §708.4 of the Building Code of New York State.
3. Category c - 1-hour to less than 2-hour fire-resistance rating, with doors conforming to §715 of the Building Code of New
York State or without corridors as permitted by §1018 (typo in code says 1013)of the Building Code of New York State.
X 4. Category d - 2-hour or greater fire-resistance rating, with doors conforming to §715 of the Building Code of New York State.
Tenant and Dwelling Unit Separations
1301.6.6 Vertical Openings 7.00
VO = Vertical opening value.
1301.6.7 HVAC Systems 5.00
1. Category a - Plenums not in accordance with §M602 of the Mechanical Code of New York State. -10 points.
2. Category b - Air movement in egress elements not in accordance with §1016.4 of the Building Code of New York State. -5 points.
3. Category c - Both Categories a and b are applicable. -15 points.
4. Category d - Compliance of the HVAC system with §1016.4 of the Building Code of New York State and §M602 of the
Mechanical Code of New York State. 0 points.
X 5. Category e - Systems serving one story; or a central boiler/chiller system without ductwork connecting two or more stories. +5 points.
1301.6.8 Automatic Fire Detection 6.00
1. Category a - None.
2. Category b - Existing smoke detectors in HVAC systems and maintained in accordance with the Fire Code of New York State.
3. Category c - Smoke detectors in HVAC systems. The detectors are installed in accordance with the requirements for new buildings in
the Mechanical Code of New York State.
4. Category d - Smoke detectors throughout all floor areas other than individual sleeping units, tenant spaces and dwelling units.
X 5. Category e - Smoke detectors installed throughout the fire area.
1301.6.9 Fire Alarm Systems 0.00
X 1. Category a - None.
2. Category b - Fire alarm system with manual fire alarm boxes in accordance with §907.3 of the Building Code of New York State and
alarm notification appliances in accordance with §907.9 of the Building Code of New York State.
3. Category c - Fire alarm system in accordance with §907 of the Building Code of New York State.
4. Category d - Category c plus a required emergency voice/alarm communications system and a fire command station that conforms to
§403.8 of the Building Code of New York State and contains the emergency voice/alarm communications system controls, fire
department communication system controls, and any other controls specified in §911 of the Building Code of New York State where
those systems are provided.
7
7
1
CF = Construction type factor from Table
EB1201.6.6(2)
PV = Protection value from Table
EB1201.6.6(1).
1301.6.10 Smoke Control 0.00
X 1. Category a - None.
2. Category b - The building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system. Openings are provided in exterior walls at the
rate of 20 square feet (1.86 m2) per 50 linear feet (15 240 mm) of exterior wall in each story and distributed around the building
perimeter at intervals not exceeding 50 feet (15 240 mm). Such openings shall be readily openable from the inside without a key or
separate tool and shall be provided with ready access thereto. In lieu of operable openings, clearly and permanently marked tempered
glass panels shall be used.
3. Category c - One enclosed exit stairway, with ready access thereto, from each occupied floor of the building. The stairway has operable
exterior windows, and the building has openings in accordance with Category b.
4. Category d - One smokeproof enclosure and the building has openings in accordance with Category b.
5. Category e - The building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system. Each fire area is provided with a mechanical airhandling
system designed to accomplish smoke containment. Return and exhaust air shall be moved directly to the outside without
recirculation to other fire areas of the building under fire conditions. The system shall exhaust not less than six air changes
per hour from the fire area. Supply air by mechanical means to the fire area is not required. Containment of smoke shall be considered
as confining smoke to the fire area involved without migration to other fire areas. Any other tested and approved design that will
adequately accomplish smoke containment is permitted.
6. Category f - Each stairway shall be one of the following: a smokeproof enclosure in accordance with §1019.1.8 of the Building
Code of New York State; pressurized in accordance with §909.20.5 of the Building Code of New York State; or shall have operable
exterior windows.
1301.6.11 Means of Egress Capacity 0.00
1. Category a - Compliance with the minimum required means-of-egress capacity or number of exits is achieved through the use of a fire
escape in accordance with §EB605.3.1.2.
2. Category b - Capacity of the means of egress complies with §1004 of the Building Code of New York State, and the number of exits
complies with the minimum number required by §1019 of the Building Code of New York State.
X 3. Category c - Capacity of the means of egress is equal to or exceeds 125 percent of the required means-of-egress capacity, the means of
egress complies with the minimum required width dimensions specified in the Building Code of New York State, and the number of
exits complies with the minimum number required by §1019 of the Building Code of New York State.
4. Category d - The number of exits provided exceeds the number of exits required by §1019 of the Building Code of New York State.
Exits shall be located a distance apart from each other equal to not less than that specified in §1015 of the Building Code of New York State.
5. Category e - The area being evaluated meets both Categories c and d.
1301.6.12 Dead Ends 2.00
1. Category a - Dead end of 35 feet (10 670 mm) in nonsprinklered buildings or 70 feet (21 340 mm) in sprinklered buildings.
2. Category b - Dead end of 20 feet (6096 mm); or 50 feet (15 240 mm) in Group B in accordance with §1016.3, Exception 2 of the
Building Code of New York State.
X 3. Category c - No dead ends; or ratio of length to width (l/w) is less than 2.5:1.
1301.6.13 Maximum Exit Access Travel Distance 16.70
Allowable: 200
33
16.7
1301.6.14 Elevator Control 0.00
1. Category a - No elevator.
2. Category b - Any elevator without Phase I and II recall.
3. Category c - All elevators with Phase I and II recall as required by the Fire Code of New York State.
4. Category d - All meet Category c; or Category b where permitted to be without recall; and at least one elevator that complies with new
construction requirements serves all occupied floors.
Single-story/NA 0
1301.6.15 Means of Egress Emergency Lighting 1.00
1. Category a - Means-of-egress lighting and exit signs not provided with emergency power in accordance with §2702 of the Building Code
of New York State.
X 2. Category b - Means-of-egress lighting and exit signs provided with emergency power in accordance with §2702 of the Building Code of
New York State.
3. Category c - Emergency power provided to means-of-egress lighting and exit signs, which provides protection in the event of power
failure to the site or building.
1301.6.16 Mixed Occupancies -5.00
X 1. Category a - Minimum 1-hour fire barriers between occupancies.
2. Category b - Fire barriers between occupancies in accordance with §508.3.3 of the Building Code of New York State.
3. Category c - Fire barriers between occupancies having a fire resistance rating of not less than twice that required by §508.3.3
of the Building Code of New York State.
1301.6.17 Automatic Sprinklers 0.00
1. Category a - Sprinklers are required throughout; sprinkler protection is not provided or the sprinkler system design is not
adequate for the hazard protected in accordance with §903 of the Building Code of New York State.
2. Category b - Sprinklers are required in a portion of the building; sprinkler protection is not provided or the sprinkler system design
is not adequate for the hazard protected in accordance with §903 of the Building Code of New York State.
X 3. Category c - Sprinklers are not required; none are provided.
4. Category d - Sprinklers are required in a portion of the building; sprinklers are provided in such portion; the system is one that
complied with the code at the time of installation and is maintained and supervised in accordance with §903 of the Building
Code of New York State.
5. Category e - Sprinklers are required throughout; sprinklers are provided throughout in accordance with Chapter 9 of the Building
Code of New York State.
6. Category f - Sprinklers are not required throughout; sprinklers are provided throughout in accordance with Chapter 9 of the Building
Code of New York State
1301.6.18 Standpipes 0.00
1. Category a - Standpipes are required; standpipe is not provided or the standpipe system design is not in compliance with Section 905.3
of the Building Code of New York State.
X 2. Category b - Standpipes are not required; none are provided.
3. Category c - Standpipes are required; standpipes are provided in accordance with §905 of the Building Code of New York State.
4. Category d - Standpipes are not required; standpipes are provided in accordance with §905 of the Building Code of New York State.
1301.6.19 Incidental Use Area Protection 0.00
NA
0
APPENDIX
A:
AREA
OF
EASEMENT,
SHADED
IN
ORANGE.
CITY OF ITHACA
Board of Zoning Appeals Notice of Appeal
APPEAL #2994 215-221 W. SPENCER STREET
(PPM HOMES)
Appeal of Noah Demarest, for PPM Homes, owner of 215-221 W. Spencer Street, for an Area
Variance from Section 325-20 F. (a) [1], Rear Yard Parking Setbacks, requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.
The owner proposes to construct four 3-story residential buildings containing three units each on a
steeply sloped site between West Spencer and West Cayuga Streets. Because of the site’s
topography, the applicant proposes to locate the 12 required off-street parking spaces for this project
in the property’s rear yard, where there is access to Cayuga Street. However, Section 325-20 F. (a)
[1] does not allow parking in a property’s required rear yard setback. The rear yard setback
requirement is 31 feet and the applicant’s design requires parking in 77% of the required rear yard.
The property at 215-221 W. Spencer Street is located in an R-3b zone where the proposed residential
use is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that a variance be granted before a Building
Permit can be issued.
City of IthacaBoard of Zoning Appeals WorksheetAppeal Number 2994Use DistrictR-3bApplicantNoah DemarestAddress215-221 W. Spencer St.Date 1//2015OwnerPPM HomesApplication Type:Column Number234567891011121314/1516Column TitleUseAccessory UseOff-Street ParkingOff-Street LoadingLot Area (Sq. Feet)Lot Width (Feet)Number of StoriesHeight in Feet% of Lot CoverageFront YardSide YardOther Side YardRear yard: % of depth or number of feet, whichever is lessMinimum Building HeightExisting Condition and UseDistrict Regulations for ExistingMultiple Dwelling ZoneNoneRequired400030/4044040%1010525% or 50' but not less than 20'NoneNote Non-Conforming ConditionsProposed Condition and/or Use 4-bldgs 12 apts1220,248165334'-8"24%1419'-8"1172 feetDistrict Regulation for ProposedMultiple Dwelling Zone12NoneRequired14,0004044040%1010525% or 50' but not less than 20'NoneNote Non-Conforming Conditions for ProposalokokokokokokokokokokokNotes:Zoning Violation, Section 325-20 F. (3) (a) [1], which does not allow parking in a required rear yard setback. 77% of the required rear yard setback will be used for park
1.DRAWINGSANDSPECIFICATIONSASINSTRUMENTSOFSERVICEREMAINTHEPROPERTYOFARCHITECTANDAREPROTECTEDUNDERCOMMONLAWCOPYRIGHTPROVISIONS.THEYARENOTTOBEREUSEDEXCEPTBYWRITTENAGREEMENTANDWITHTHEAGREEDCOMPENSATIONTOTHEARCHITECT.IFREUSEDWITHOUTPERMISSION,THEARCHITECTSHALLBEINDEMNIFIEDANDHELDHARMLESSFROMALLLIABILITY,LEGALEXPOSURE,CLAIMS,DAMAGES,LOSSES&EXPENSES.2.DRAWINGSSHALLNOTBEUSEDFORISSUANCEOFABUILDINGPERMITUNLESSSIGNED&SEALEDBYTHEARCHITECT.3.DRAWINGSSHALLNOTBEUSEDFORMULTIPLEORPROTOTYPEDEVELOPMENTWITHOUTWRITTENAUTHORIZATIONFROMTHEARCHITECT.4.THEARCHITECTSHALLNOTBERESPONSIBLEWHERECONSTRUCTIONDEVIATESFROMTHESEDRAWINGSORFROMWRITTENRECOMMENDATIONS.CHANGESTOTHEPLANBYTHEOWNERAND/ORCONTRACTORSHALLBETHERESPONSIBILITYOFTHEPERSONSMAKINGSUCHCHANGES.5.THEOWNERAND/ORCONTRACTORSHALLHOLDTHEARCHITECTHARMLESSFROM&AGAINSTALLCLAIMS,DAMAGES,LOSSES&EXPENSESINCLUDING,BUTNOTLIMITEDTO,ATTORNEY'SFEESARISINGOUTOFORRESULTINGFROMTHEPERFORMANCEOFTHEWORKBYTHECONTRACTOR.6.THEARCHITECTSHALLNOTHAVECONTROLORCHANGEOF&SHALLNOTBERESPONSIBLEFORCONSTRUCTIONMEANS,METHODS,TECHNIQUES,SEQUENCES,ORPROCEDURES,FORSAFETYPRECAUTIONS&PROGRAMSINCONNECTIONWITHTHEWORK,FORTHEACTSOROMISSIONSOFTHECONTRACTOR,SUBCONTRACTOR,FORANYOTHERPERSONSPERFORMINGANYOFTHEWORK,ORFORTHEFAILUREOFANYOFTHEMTOCARRYOUTTHEWORKINACCORDANCEWITHTHECONTRACTDOCUMENTS.7.THECONTRACTORSHALLBERESPONSIBLEFOROBTAINING&PAYINGFORALLTHEREQUIREDPERMITS,INSPECTIONS,ETC.WORKMANSHIP1.ALLWORK,MATERIALSANDEQUIPMENTSHALLMEETTHELATESTREQUIREMENTSOFALLAPPLICABLESTATE&LOCALBUILDINGCODES,REGULATIONS,&THEREQUIREMENTSOFTHEAUTHORITIESHAVINGJURISDICTION2.INSTALLALLPRODUCTSINACCORDANCEWITHTHEMANUFACTURER'SINSTRUCTIONS,RECOMMENDATIONS&THESTANDARDOFRECOGNIZEDAGENCIES&ASSOCIATIONS.PROVIDEALLANCHORS,FASTENERS,&ACCESSORIESREQUIREDFORACOMPLETEINSTALLATION.ALLOWFORTHERMALEXPANSION/CONTRACTION&BUILDINGMOVEMENT.SEPARATEINCOMPATIBLEMATERIALSWITHSUITABLEMATERIALSORSPACING.PREVENTCATHODICCORROSION.PROTECTALUMINUMSURFACESFROMCONTACTWITHMASONRYOROTHERMETALS.PROVIDECONTROLJOINTSATMATERIALS&ISOLATIONJOINTSBETWEENMATERIALS/STRUCTUREASINDICATED&ASREQUIREDBYMANUFACTURERORRECOGNIZEDINDUSTRYSTANDARDS.3.INSTALLPRODUCTSUNDERAPPROPRIATEENVIRONMENTALCONDITIONS(AIRTEMPERATURE,SURFACETEMPERATURE,RELATIVEHUMIDITY,ETC.)TOINSUREQUALITYANDDURABILITY,MAINTAINPROPERPROTECTIONDURINGDRYING/CURING.4.THECONTRACTORSHALL,WITHOUTDELAY&PRIORTOFABRICATIONORINSTALLATION,BRINGTOTHEATTENTIONOFTHEARCHITECTANYDISCREPANCIESBETWEENTHEMANUFACTURER'SSPECIFICATIONSORRECOMMENDATIONS,APPLICABLECODEPROVISIONS,ANDTHECONTRACTDOCUMENTS.5.UNAUTHORIZEDCHANGESTOPLANSBYTHEOWNERAND/ORCONTRACTORSHALLBETHERESPONSIBILITYOFTHEPERSONSMAKINGSUCHCHANGES.PRODUCTOPTIONSANDSUBSTITUTIONS1.ITISTHECONTRACTOR'SRESPONSIBILITYTOSELECTPRODUCTSWHICHCOMPLYWITHTHECONTRACTDOCUMENTS&WHICHARECOMPATIBLEWITHONEANOTHER,WITHEXISTINGWORK,&THEPRODUCTSSELECTEDBYOTHERCONTRACTORS.2.PROVIDEMANUFACTURER'SINFORMATION,SAMPLES,ETC.WHENREQUESTED.3.SUBMISSIONOFASUBSTITUTIONREQUESTBYTHECONTRACTOR,WHEREPERMITTEDONTHECONTRACTDOCUMENTS,SHALLCONSTITUTEAREPRESENTATIONBYTHECONTRACTORTHATHE/SHEHASINVESTIGATEDTHEPROPOSEDPRODUCTORCONDITIONS&DETERMINEDTHATITISEQUALTOORBETTERTHANTHESPECIFIEDPRODUCTORCONDITION,INCLUDINGWARRANTYCOVERAGE,&THATHE/SHEWILLCOORDINATETHEINSTALLATION&MAKEOTHERCHANGES,INCLUDINGMODIFICATIONANDCOORDINATIONOFOTHERWORKAFFECTEDBYTHECHANGE,WHICHMAYBEREQUIREDFORTHEIRWORKTOBECOMPLETEINALLASPECTS.4.THESEDRAWINGSDONOTINCLUDETHEFINALSELECTIONOFINTERIORFINISHMATERIALS,CABINETRY,HARDWARE,FURNISHINGS,&OTHERSIMILAREQUIPMENT.CONTRACTORSHALLPROVIDETHEOWNERWITHALLAVAILABLEOPTIONSTOCHOOSEFROMWHEREAPPLICABLE.5.THECONTRACTORISRESPONSIBLEFORTHEDESIGNOFHEATING,VENTILATION&AIRCONDITIONING,PLUMBING,GAS&ELECTRICALSYSTEMS,INCLUDINGPREPARATIONOFREQUIREDDRAWINGS&COORDINATIONWITHARCHITECTURALDRAWINGS.THEDRAWINGSSHOWTHEGENERALARRANGEMENT&EXTENTOFTHEWORK.GENERALPROJECTNOTESDIMENSIONS1.DONOTSCALEDRAWINGS.WRITTENDIMENSIONSHALLGOVERN.2.CONTRACTORSHALLCHECK,VERIFY&MAINTAINALLDIMENSIONS,GRADES,LEVELS&OTHERCONDITIONSBEFOREPROCEEDINGWITHFABRICATION&CONSTRUCTION.3.COORDINATEEXACTLOCATIONSOFEQUIPMENT,FIXTURES&OUTLETSWITHFINISHEDELEMENTS.4.ALLDIMENSIONSAREFROMFACEOFSTUDORMASONRYSHOPDRAWINGS1.WHERENECESSARYORWHERESPECIFICALLYINDICATED,THECONTRACTORSHALLPROVIDESHOPDRAWINGS&DETAILEDCOMPONENTDESIGNASREQUIREDFORTHEPROPERFABRICATION,INSTALLATION,ANDCOORDINATIONWITHOTHERTRADES.SHOPDRAWINGS:CONTRACTORSHALLFURNISHSHOPDRAWINGSFORALLSHOPFABRICATEDITEMS&WHERECUSTOMARILYREQUIRED&SUBMITELECTRONICSHOPDRAWINGSFORREVIEWINPDFORDWFFORMAT.THECONTRACTORSHALLBERESPONSIBLEFORCHECKINGTHESHOPDRAWINGSFORACCURACY,COORDINATIONWITHOTHERTRADES,&COMPLIANCEWITHTHECONTRACTDOCUMENTSBEFOREBEINGSUBMITTEDFORAPPROVAL.ARCHITECT'SORENGINEER'SAPPROVALOFSHOPDRAWINGSSHALLCONSTITUTEREVIEW&APPROVALOFTHEGENERALARRANGEMENTOFCOMPONENTSTOCOMPLYWITHTHEGENERALINTENTOFTHECONSTRUCTIONDOCUMENTS&INNOWAYRELIEVESTHECONTRACTORFROMHIS/HERRESPONSIBILITYFORCOMPLIANCEWITHTHECONTRACTDOCUMENTS,EVENIFSUCHITEMSARENOTSHOWNONTHESHOPDRAWINGS.THECONTRACTORSHALLCHECKALLDIMENSIONS&CONDITIONSTOINSUREAPROPERFITUNDERFIELDCONDITIONS&SHALLMAKEADJUSTMENTSASREQUIREDTOMAKEPARTSALIGN.ALLREVISIONSTOSHOPDRAWINGSAFTERTHEFIRSTSUBMISSIONMUSTBEPROPERLYIDENTIFIEDONSUBSEQUENTSUBMISSIONS.2.PRIORTOPERFORMINGANYWORK,THECONTRACTORSHALLEXAMINETHEAPPLICABLECONDITIONS&SUBSTRATES&CORRECTANYUNSATISFACTORYCONDITIONSBEFOREPROCEEDINGWITHTHEWORK.VERIFYTHATSUBSTRATE&BASEPLIES/COATSARECOMPATIBLEWITHNEWWORK.NOTIFYTHEARCHITECTPROMPTLYOFANYMODIFICATIONSREQUIRED.3.WORKPERFORMEDOVERANYSURFACECONSTITUTESACCEPTANCEOFTHATSURFACEFORTHESPECIFIEDQUALITYOFTHEWORKBEINGPERFORMEDTHEREON.4.ANYCHANGESTOTHEPLANSBYTHEOWNERORCONTRACTORSHALLBETHERESPONSIBILITYOFTHEPERSONSMAKINGSUCHCHANGES.5.INCLUDEALLCUTTING&PATCHINGFORPENETRATIONSTHROUGHFLOORS,WALLSCEILINGSANDROOFS.DONOTCUTORNOTCHANYSTRUCTURALMEMBERTOREDUCEITSLOADCARRYINGCAPACITY.6.SHOULDUNFORESEENCONDITIONSBEENCOUNTEREDTHATAFFECTDESIGNORFUNCTIONOFTHEPROJECT,CONTRACTORSHALLINVESTIGATEFULLY&SUBMITANACCURATE,DETAILEDREPORTTOTHEARCHITECTWITHOUTDELAY.WHILEAWAITINGARESPONSE,CONTRACTORSHALLRESCHEDULEOPERATIONSASREQUIREDTOAVOIDDELAYOFOVERALLPROJECT.PROVIDETEMPORARYFACILITIES,SERVICEUTILITIES,&PROTECTIONASREQUIREDTOSAFELYEXECUTINGALLWORK.PROTECTADJACENTCONSTRUCTION,ANDINHABITANTS.COMPLYWITHALLAPPLICABLEREQUIREMENTSOFGOVERNINGAUTHORITIESINCLUDING,BUTNOTLIMITEDTOPUBLICUTILITIES.PROVIDE24HOURNOTIFICATIONOFANYDISCONTINUITYOFUTILITYSERVICESWITHOWNER.7.CONTRACTORSHALLBERESPONSIBLETOREMOVEANDLEGALLYDISPOSEOFALLMATERIALSFROMTHEJOBSITE.8.THECONTRACTORSHALLPREPARE&MAINTAINACOMPLETESETOFRECORDCONSTRUCTIONDRAWINGSINDICATINGALLACTUALWORK,MODIFICATION&REVISIONSTOTHEWORKDELINEATEDONTHECONSTRUCTIONSDRAWINGSASWELLASANYCONCEALEDCONSTRUCTIONWORK.INCLUDEANYOTHERINFORMATIONWHICHWOULDBEHELPFULTOTHEOWNER.9.ALLCONTRACTORS&ALLSUBCONTRACTORSSHALLTAKEOUT&MAINTAINWORKMAN'SCOMPENSATIONINSURANCE,ANDPUBLICLIABILITY&PROPERTYDAMAGEINSURANCEACCEPTABLETOTHEOWNER&THEAUTHORITIESHAVINGJURISDICTION.PROJECTCLOSEOUT1.CONTRACTORSHALLPROCUREFINALCERTIFICATEOFOCCUPANCYUPONCOMPLETIONOFTHEPROJECTANDFORWARDSAMETOTHEOWNER.2.CONTRACTORSHALLCLEANTHEPREMISES,TESTAPPLICABLESYSTEMS,ANDLEAVEREADYFOROCCUPANCY.WARRANTIES1.UNLESSOTHERWISEINDICATED,CONTRACTORISTOPROVIDEWRITTENWARRANTYFORAPERIODOFONEYEARFROMTHEDATEOFSUBSTANTIALCOMPLETION.THEWARRANTYSHALLSTATEALLWORKHASBEENCOMPLETEDINCONFORMANCEWITHTHECONTRACTDOCUMENTS,APPLICABLECODES,ANDENFORCINGAUTHORITIESANDTHATALLWORKISFREEFROMDEFECTSOFMATERIALANDWORKMANSHIP.THISISINADDITIONTOANDNOTALIMITATIONTOANYPRODUCTMANUFACTURER'SPRODUCTWARRANTIES.2.ALLELECTRICALWORKSHALLBECARRIEDOUTBYALICENSEDELECTRICIANONLY.ALLWORKSHALLCONFORMTOTHEPROVISIONSOFTHENATIONALELECTRICCODEOFNFPA,LATESTEDITION.3.ALLPLUMBINGWORKSHALLBECARRIEDOUTBYALICENSEDPLUMBER.ALLEQUIPMENT&FIXTURESTOCONFORMTOTHENATIONALSTANDARDPLUMBINGCODE,LATESTEDITION.BUILDINGCODEDATABuildingCodeUse/OccupancyConstructionType2010NYSBUILDINGCODE306.2BuildingHeightNumberofStoriesFloorAreaReference602.5503.1503.1503.1TYPEVB(Sprinklered)60'0"314,000SFDataR2(Residential)ReferenceRequired/AllowedProposed34'8"313,637SFProposedPROJECTDATAProjectNameProjectAddressClientNameClientAddressTaxParcelProjectDescriptionNewfourbuildingmultifamilycomplexonapreviouslydevelopedbutclearedsitesituatedonahillsidealongWestSpencerStreet.Designedasstudentrentalhousing,eachbuildingis3storiestall,16total13bedroomapartmentunits.Thecomplexwillhavecentralizedparkingfor12cars.SiteworkwillalsoincludestairsandpathconnectingWestSpencerSttoSouthCayuga215221WestSpencerStreet215221WestSpencerStreetPPMHomes514SAuroraSt#1A,IthacaNY1485093.75.1ZONINGDATAZoningOrdinanceZoningDistrictUseLotWidthLotDepthCityofIthacaR3bRequired/AllowedLotAreaBuildingAreaLotCoverageBuildingHeightParkingFrontSetbackSideSetback1SideSetback2RearSetbackProposedReferenceMultifamilyResidentialMultifamilyResidential40'8,000sf40%60'1210'10'5'25%NLT20'12412620,473sf13,63712.2%<40'1214'10"10'9"10'9"31'2"DataBuildingCode2010NYSBuildingCodeNUMBERINGA106.1ROOM NAMEA1.101BUILDINGUNITROOMBUILDINGUNITROOMDOORProject#DateSTREAMCollaborativearchitecture+landscapearchitecturedpc123S.CayugaStSuite201Ithaca,NewYork14850ph:607.216.8802www.streamcolab.comDESIGNTEAMSTREAMCollaborativeArchitecture&LandscapeArchitectureDPCNoahDemarestRA,RLA,LEEDAPph:607.216.8802noah@streamcolab.com# PoundORNumber&And@AtACT AcousticCeilingTileAD AreaDrainAFF AboveFinishedFloorALUM AluminumANOD AnodizedBSMT BasementBYND BeyondBOT BottomCIP CastInPlaceCHNL ChannelCJ ControlJointCLG CeilingCLR ClearCMU ConcreteMasonryUnitCOL ColumnCOMPR CompressibleCONC ConcreteCONT ContinuousCPT CarpetCT CeramicTileCTYD CourtyardDBL DoubleDEMO DemolishorDemolitionDIA DiameterDIM DimensionDIMS DimensionsDN DownDR DoorDWG DrawingEA EachEJ ExpansionJointEL ElevationELEC ElectricalELEV ElevatororElevationEPDM EthylenePropyleneDieneMClassEQ EqualEXIST ExistingEXPJT ExpansionJointEXT ExteriorFD FloorDrainorFireDepartmentFEC FireExtinguisherCabinetFIXT FixtureFLR FloorFM FilledMetalFO FaceOfFNDFoundationGA GaugeGALV GalvanizedGWB GypsumWallBoardHC HollowCoreHI HighHM HollowMetalABBREVIATIONSHP HighPointHR HourHVAC Heating,Ventilating,AndAirConditioningIRGWB ImpactResistantGypsumWallBoardILO InLieuOfINSUL InsulatedorInsulationINT InteriorLO LowMAX MaximumMO MasonryOpeningMECH MechanicalMEMBR MembraneMIN MinimumMRGWBMoistureResistantGypsumWallBoardMTL MetalNIC NotInContractNO NumberNOM NominalOC OnCenterOH OppositeHandOZ OuncePCC PreCastConcretePLUMB PlumbingPLYD PlywoodPT PressureTreatedPNT PaintorPaintedPVC PolyvinylChlorideRBR RubberRCP ReflectedCeilingPlanRD RoofDrainREQD RequiredRM RoomSIM SimilarSPEC SpecifiedORSpecificationSPK SprinklerorSpeakerSSTLStainlessSteelSTC SoundTransmissionCoefficientSTL SteelSTRUCTStructureorStructuralT&G TongueAndGrooveTELE TelephoneTLT ToiletTO TopOfTOC TopOfConcreteTOS TopOfSteelTPD ToiletPaperDispenserT/D Telephone/DataTYP TypicalUNO UnlessNotedOtherwiseU/S UndersideVIF VerifyInFieldVP VisionPanelW/ WithWD WoodA1234BCDAsindicated7/8/20154:32:35PMC:\Users\Chris\Documents\215221WSpencerStSITE_chris_stream.rvtG000COVERPAGE2015001215221SPENCERSTREET7/8/2015CITYOFITHACA,NYPPMHOMESSITEPLANREVIEW215221SPENCERSTREETCITYOFITHACA,NYPPMHOMES3"=1'0"1PERSPECTIVEDRAWING LISTSheetNumberSheetNameG000COVERPAGEL101SITEDEMOANDLAYOUTPLANSL102GRADINGANDPLANTINGPLANSA100AREAPLANSBUILDINGA&BA101ABUILDINGAFLOORPLANSA102ABUI.DINGAFLOORPLANSA201ABUILDINGAELEVATIONSA202ABUILDINGAELEVATIONSA101BBUILDINGBFLOORPLANSA102BBUILDINGBFLOORPLANSA201BBUILDINGBELEVATIONSA202BBUILDINGBELEVATIONSA100CAREAPLANSBUILDINGC&DA101CBUILDINGC&DFLOORPLANSA102CBUILDINGC&DFLOORPLANSA201CBUILDINGC&DELEVATIONSA202CBUILDINGC&DELEVATIONSREVISIONSDESCRIPTION DATE
WHWHWHWH1077 SFUNIT B11311 SFUNIT A1TERRACETERRACE59'41/2"26'8"48'41/2"21'4"BENCHBENCH637 SFUNIT A2866 SFUNIT A3PORCHWOOD DECKWOOD DECKPORCH637 SFUNIT B2637 SFUNIT B359'41/2"26'8"48'41/2"26'4"BENCHBENCHBENCH637 SFUNIT A3637 SFUNIT A2637 SFUNIT B2637 SFUNIT B348'41/2"26'8"48'41/2"26'4"4" / 12"6" / 12"6" / 12"6" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"Project#DateSTREAMCollaborativearchitecture+landscapearchitecturedpc123S.CayugaStSuite201Ithaca,NewYork14850ph:607.216.8802www.streamcolab.comA1234BCD1/8"=1'0"7/8/201511:52:44AMC:\Users\Chris\Documents\215221WSpencerStTownhomes_chris_stream.rvtA100AREAPLANSBUILDINGA&B2015001215221WESTSPENCERST07/08/2015CITYOFITHACA,NYPPMHOMESSITEPLANREVIEW1/8"=1'0"C11STFLOORGROSSAREAPLAN1/8"=1'0"C22NDFLOORGROSSAREAPLAN1/8"=1'0"C33RDFLOORGROSSAREAPLANGROSSAREASCHEDULEUNITAREAUNITA1 1311SFUNITA2 637SFUNITA2 637SFUNITA3 866SFUNITA3 637SF4087SFUNITB1 1077SFUNITB2 637SFUNITB2 637SFUNITB3 637SFUNITB3 637SF3625SFREVISIONSDESCRIPTION DATE
1.COORDINATEELEVATIONSWITHFLOORPLANSANDWINDOWSANDDOORSCHEDULES.2.SEESCHEDULESFORHEADHEIGHTSCOORDINATEADJACENTWINDOWANDDOORROUGHOPENINGSTOENSURECONTINUOUSHEADCASINGS.GENERALSHEETNOTESELEVATIONS1ST SUB FLOOR0"2ND SUB FLOOR10' - 0"3RD SUB FLOOR19' - 0"ROOF PLATE28' - 0"C1B46" 12"6" 12"4" 12"C45B461ST SUB FLOOR0"2ND SUB FLOOR10' - 0"3RD SUB FLOOR19' - 0"ROOF PLATE28' - 0"F1F2F5F6U5U4U3U2U6U17C7C23C24C25C26C27F13E16" 12"6" 12"4" 12"12x12FIBERGLASSDIAMONSHINGLESProject#DateSTREAMCollaborativearchitecture+landscapearchitecturedpc123S.CayugaStSuite201Ithaca,NewYork14850ph:607.216.8802www.streamcolab.comA1234BCDAsindicated7/8/201511:53:08AMC:\Users\Chris\Documents\215221WSpencerStTownhomes_chris_stream.rvtA201ABUILDINGAELEVATIONS2015001215221WESTSPENCERST07/08/2015CITYOFITHACA,NYPPMHOMESSITEPLANREVIEW1/4"=1'0"B1WESTELEVATIONBUILDINGA1/4"=1'0"D1SOUTHELEVATIONBUILDINGAREVISIONSDESCRIPTION DATE
1ST SUB FLOOR0"2ND SUB FLOOR10' - 0"3RD SUB FLOOR19' - 0"ROOF PLATE28' - 0"F 2F4F10C21C22C28F 66" 12"4" 12"4" 12"2ND SUB FLOOR10' - 0"3RD SUB FLOOR19' - 0"ROOF PLATE28' - 0"U19U20C9C10B1B2F 54" 12"B36" 12"4" 12"4" 12"Project#DateSTREAMCollaborativearchitecture+landscapearchitecturedpc123S.CayugaStSuite201Ithaca,NewYork14850ph:607.216.8802www.streamcolab.comA1234BCD1/4"=1'0"7/8/201511:53:43AMC:\Users\Chris\Documents\215221WSpencerStTownhomes_chris_stream.rvtA202ABUILDINGAELEVATIONS2015001215221WESTSPENCERST07/08/2015CITYOFITHACA,NYPPMHOMESSITEPLANREVIEW1/4"=1'0"D1EASTELEVATIONBUILDINGA1/4"=1'0"B1NORTHELEVATIONBUILDINGAREVISIONSDESCRIPTION DATE
1ST SUB FLOOR0"2ND SUB FLOOR10' - 0"3RD SUB FLOOR19' - 0"ROOF PLATE28' - 0"F3F7F9F11U30U8U15U11U31U14C36C37C38C39C40C416" 12"3" 12"1ST SUB FLOOR0"2ND SUB FLOOR10' - 0"3RD SUB FLOOR19' - 0"ROOF PLATE28' - 0"F8F 1F12C13C12C18F 76" 12"3" 12"3" 12"Project#DateSTREAMCollaborativearchitecture+landscapearchitecturedpc123S.CayugaStSuite201Ithaca,NewYork14850ph:607.216.8802www.streamcolab.comA1234BCD1/4"=1'0"7/8/201511:53:27AMC:\Users\Chris\Documents\215221WSpencerStTownhomes_chris_stream.rvtA201BBUILDINGBELEVATIONS2015001215221WESTSPENCERST07/08/2015CITYOFITHACA,NYPPMHOMESSITEPLANREVIEW1/4"=1'0"B1SOUTHELEVATIONBUILDINGB1/4"=1'0"D2WESTELEVATIONBUILDINGBREVISIONSDESCRIPTION DATE
2ND SUB FLOOR10' - 0"3RD SUB FLOOR19' - 0"ROOF PLATE28' - 0"U32U33C42C43A1A2F 44" 12"4" 12"6" 12"1ST SUB FLOOR0"2ND SUB FLOOR10' - 0"3RD SUB FLOOR19' - 0"ROOF PLATE28' - 0"MM1U16U29C34C354" 12"6" 12"Project#DateSTREAMCollaborativearchitecture+landscapearchitecturedpc123S.CayugaStSuite201Ithaca,NewYork14850ph:607.216.8802www.streamcolab.comA1234BCD1/4"=1'0"7/8/201511:53:59AMC:\Users\Chris\Documents\215221WSpencerStTownhomes_chris_stream.rvtA202BBUILDINGBELEVATIONS2015001215221WESTSPENCERST07/08/2015CITYOFITHACA,NYPPMHOMESSITEPLANREVIEW1/4"=1'0"D1NORTHELEVATIONBUILDINGB1/4"=1'0"B1EASTELEVATIONBUILDINGBREVISIONSDESCRIPTION DATE
WHWHWHWHWHWH989 SFUNIT C1989 SFUNIT D1TERRACETERRACEW/D33"REFW/D33"REFBENCHBENCH986 SFUNIT C2986 SFUNIT D2TERRACETERRACETERRACE34'7"W/DW/D31'7"BENCHBENCH986 SFUNIT C3986 SFUNIT D3TERRACETERRACETERRACEProject#DateSTREAMCollaborativearchitecture+landscapearchitecturedpc123S.CayugaStSuite201Ithaca,NewYork14850ph:607.216.8802www.streamcolab.comA1234BCD1/8"=1'0"7/8/201510:35:19AMC:\Users\Chris\Documents\215221WSpencerSt_chris_stream.rvtA100CAREAPLANSBUILDINGC&D2015001215221WESTSPENCERSTREET07/8/2015CITYOFITHACA,NYPPMHOMESSITEPLANREVIEW1/8"=1'0"C11STFLOORGROSSAREAPLAN1/8"=1'0"C22NDFLOORGROSSAREAPLANAREASCHEDULEName Area CommentsUNITC1989SFUNITC2986SFUNITC3986SF2962SFUNITD1989SFUNITD2986SFUNITD3986SF2962SF5923SF1/8"=1'0"C33RDFLOORGROSSAREAPLANREVISIONSDESCRIPTION DATE
1.COORDINATEELEVATIONSWITHFLOORPLANSANDWINDOWSANDDOORSCHEDULES.2.SEESCHEDULESFORHEADHEIGHTSCOORDINATEADJACENTWINDOWANDDOORROUGHOPENINGSTOENSURECONTINUOUSHEADCASINGS.GENERALSHEETNOTESELEVATIONS2ND SUB FLOOR0"1ST SUB FLOOR-10' - 0"3RD SUB FLOOR9' - 0"ROOF PLATE17' - 0"G2H1E 2E 1E 3C1C3F2B1B5D3D2D14" 12"2ND SUB FLOOR0"1ST SUB FLOOR-10' - 0"3RD SUB FLOOR9' - 0"ROOF PLATE17' - 0"G1H2B1E1B2WINDOWWELLOUTLINE4" 12"EXISTINGGRADEProject#DateSTREAMCollaborativearchitecture+landscapearchitecturedpc123S.CayugaStSuite201Ithaca,NewYork14850ph:607.216.8802www.streamcolab.comA1234BCDAsindicated7/8/201510:35:36AMC:\Users\Chris\Documents\215221WSpencerSt_chris_stream.rvtA201CBUILDINGC&DELEVATIONS2015001215221WESTSPENCERSTREET07/8/2015CITYOFITHACA,NYPPMHOMESSITEPLANREVIEW1/4"=1'0"B1SOUTHELEVATION1/4"=1'0"D1WESTELEVATIONNOTE:BUILDINGDSIMILARFLIPPEDNOTE:BUILDINGDSIMILARFLIPPEDREVISIONSDESCRIPTION DATE
3RD SUB FLOOR9' - 0"ROOF PLATE17' - 0"B3B46" 12"2ND SUB FLOOR0"1ST SUB FLOOR-10' - 0"3RD SUB FLOOR9' - 0"ROOF PLATE17' - 0"C2C4B8B7E 2E 1D6D5D46" 12"Project#DateSTREAMCollaborativearchitecture+landscapearchitecturedpc123S.CayugaStSuite201Ithaca,NewYork14850ph:607.216.8802www.streamcolab.comA1234BCD1/4"=1'0"7/8/201510:35:50AMC:\Users\Chris\Documents\215221WSpencerSt_chris_stream.rvtA202CBUILDINGC&DELEVATIONS2015001215221WESTSPENCERSTREET07/8/2015CITYOFITHACA,NYPPMHOMESSITEPLANREVIEW1/4"=1'0"B1NORTHELEVATION1/4"=1'0"D1EASTELEVATIONREVISIONSDESCRIPTION DATE
PROJECTLIMITWESTSPENCERSTREET+/50'0"ROWEL.468.00EL.415.50SCAYUGASTREET+/50'0"ROW521SCAYUGASTREET216WSPENCERSTREETProject#DateSTREAMCollaborativearchitecture+landscapearchitecturedpc123S.CayugaStSuite201Ithaca,NewYork14850ph:607.216.8802www.streamcolab.comA1234BCD1/16"=1'0"8/6/201511:22:38AMC:\Users\Chris\Documents\215221WSpencerStSITE_chris_stream.rvtL501SITESECTION2015001215221SPENCERSTREET8/06/2015CITYOFITHACA,NYPPMHOMESSITEPLANREVIEWREVISIONSDESCRIPTION DATEPARKINGBUILDINGC&DBUILDINGA&B
Project#DateSTREAMCollaborativearchitecture+landscapearchitecturedpc123S.CayugaStSuite201Ithaca,NewYork14850ph:607.216.8802www.streamcolab.comA1234BCD8/6/201511:22:33AMC:\Users\Chris\Documents\215221WSpencerStSITE_chris_stream.rvtL001PERSPECTIVES2015001215221SPENCERSTREET8/06/2015CITYOFITHACA,NYPPMHOMESSITEPLANREVIEWREVISIONSDESCRIPTION DATE
Page 1 of 13
Full Environmental Assessment Form
Part 1 - Project and Setting
Instructions for Completing Part 1
Part 1 is to be completed by the applicant or project sponsor. 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; indicate whether missing information does not exist,
or is not reasonably available to the sponsor; and, when possible, generally describe work or studies which would be necessary to
update or fully develop that information.
Applicants/sponsors must complete all items in Sections A & B. In Sections C, D & E, most items contain an initial question that
must be answered either “Yes” or “No”. If the answer to the initial question is “Yes”, complete the sub-questions that follow. If the
answer to the initial question is “No”, proceed to the next question. Section F allows the project sponsor to identify and attach any
additional information. Section G requires the name and signature of the project sponsor to verify that the information contained in
Part 1is accurate and complete.
A. Project and Sponsor Information.
Name of Action or Project:
Project Location (describe, and attach a general location map):
Brief Description of Proposed Action (include purpose or need):
Name of Applicant/Sponsor: Telephone:
E-Mail:
Address:
City/PO: State: Zip Code:
Project Contact (if not same as sponsor; give name and title/role): Telephone:
E-Mail:
Address:
City/PO:State: Zip Code:
Property Owner (if not same as sponsor): Telephone:
E-Mail:
Address:
City/PO:State: Zip Code:
Page 2 of 13
B. Government Approvals
B. Government Approvals Funding, or Sponsorship. (“Funding” includes grants, loans, tax relief, and any other forms of financial
assistance.)
Government Entity If Yes: Identify Agency and Approval(s)
Required
Application Date
(Actual or projected)
a. City Council, Town Board, Yes No
or Village Board of Trustees
b. City, Town or Village Yes No
Planning Board or Commission
c. City Council, Town or Yes No
Village Zoning Board of Appeals
d. Other local agencies Yes No
e. County agencies Yes No
f. Regional agencies Yes No
g. State agencies Yes No
h. Federal agencies Yes No
i. Coastal Resources.
i.Is the project site within a Coastal Area, or the waterfront area of a Designated Inland Waterway? Yes No
ii.Is the project site located in a community with an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program? Yes No
iii. Is the project site within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area? Yes No
C. Planning and Zoning
C.1. Planning and zoning actions.
Will administrative or legislative adoption, or amendment of a plan, local law, ordinance, rule or regulation be the Yes No
only approval(s) which must be granted to enable the proposed action to proceed?
If Yes, complete sections C, F and G.
If No, proceed to question C.2 and complete all remaining sections and questions in Part 1
C.2. Adopted land use plans.
a. Do any municipally- adopted (city, town, village or county) comprehensive land use plan(s) include the site Yes No
where the proposed action would be located?
If Yes, does the comprehensive plan include specific recommendations for the site where the proposed action Yes No
would be located?
b. Is the site of the proposed action within any local or regional special planning district (for example: Greenway Yes No
Brownfield Opportunity Area (BOA); designated State or Federal heritage area; watershed management plan;
or other?)
If Yes, identify the plan(s):
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
c. Is the proposed action located wholly or partially within an area listed in an adopted municipal open space plan, Yes No
or an adopted municipal farmland protection plan?
If Yes, identify the plan(s):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 13
C.3. Zoning
a. Is the site of the proposed action located in a municipality with an adopted zoning law or ordinance. Yes No
If Yes, what is the zoning classification(s) including any applicable overlay district?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. Is the use permitted or allowed by a special or conditional use permit? Yes No
c. Is a zoning change requested as part of the proposed action? Yes No
If Yes,
i.What is the proposed new zoning for the site? ___________________________________________________________________
C.4. Existing community services.
a. In what school district is the project site located? ________________________________________________________________
b. What police or other public protection forces serve the project site?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
c. Which fire protection and emergency medical services serve the project site?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
d. What parks serve the project site?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
D. Project Details
D.1. Proposed and Potential Development
a. What is the general nature of the proposed action (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial, recreational; if mixed, include all
components)?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? _____________ acres
b. Total acreage to be physically disturbed?_____________ acres
c. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned
or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor?_____________ acres
c. Is the proposed action an expansion of an existing project or use? Yes No
i.If Yes, what is the approximate percentage of the proposed expansion and identify the units (e.g., acres, miles, housing units,
square feet)? % ____________________ Units: ____________________
d. Is the proposed action a subdivision, or does it include a subdivision? Yes No
If Yes,
i.Purpose or type of subdivision? (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial; if mixed, specify types)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Is a cluster/conservation layout proposed? Yes No
iii.Number of lots proposed? ________
iv.Minimum and maximum proposed lot sizes? Minimum __________ Maximum __________
e. Will proposed action be constructed in multiple phases? Yes No
i.If No, anticipated period of construction: _____ months
ii.If Yes:
Total number of phases anticipated _____
Anticipated commencement date of phase 1 (including demolition) _____ month _____ year
Anticipated completion date of final phase _____ month _____year
Generally describe connections or relationships among phases, including any contingencies where progress of one phase may
determine timing or duration of future phases: _______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 13
f. Does the project include new residential uses? Yes No
If Yes, show numbers of units proposed.
One Family Two Family Three Family Multiple Family (four or more)
Initial Phase ___________ ___________ ____________ ________________________
At completion
of all phases ___________ ___________ ____________ ________________________
g. Does the proposed action include new non-residential construction (including expansions)? Yes No
If Yes,
i. Total number of structures ___________
ii.Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: ________height; ________width; and _______ length
iii.Approximate extent of building space to be heated or cooled: ______________________ square feet
h. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that will result in the impoundment of any Yes No
liquids, such as creation of a water supply, reservoir, pond, lake, waste lagoon or other storage?
If Yes,
i.Purpose of the impoundment: ________________________________________________________________________________
ii.If a water impoundment, the principal source of the water: Ground water Surface water streams Other specify:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.If other than water, identify the type of impounded/contained liquids and their source.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv.Approximate size of the proposed impoundment. Volume: ____________ million gallons; surface area: ____________ acres
v.Dimensions of the proposed dam or impounding structure: ________ height; _______ length
vi.Construction method/materials for the proposed dam or impounding structure (e.g., earth fill, rock, wood, concrete):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
D.2. Project Operations
a. Does the proposed action include any excavation, mining, or dredging, during construction, operations, or both? Yes No
(Not including general site preparation, grading or installation of utilities or foundations where all excavated
materials will remain onsite)
If Yes:
i .What is the purpose of the excavation or dredging? _______________________________________________________________
ii.How much material (including rock, earth, sediments, etc.) is proposed to be removed from the site?
Volume (specify tons or cubic yards): ____________________________________________
Over what duration of time? ____________________________________________________
iii.Describe nature and characteristics of materials to be excavated or dredged, and plans to use, manage or dispose of them.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv.Will there be onsite dewatering or processing of excavated materials? Yes No
If yes, describe. ___________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
v.What is the total area to be dredged or excavated? _____________________________________acres
vi.What is the maximum area to be worked at any one time? _______________________________ acres
vii.What would be the maximum depth of excavation or dredging? __________________________ feet
viii.Will the excavation require blasting? Yes No
ix.Summarize site reclamation goals and plan: _____________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. Would the proposed action cause or result in alteration of, increase or decrease in size of, or encroachment Yes No
into any existing wetland, waterbody, shoreline, beach or adjacent area?
If Yes:
i.Identify the wetland or waterbody which would be affected (by name, water index number, wetland map number or geographic
description): ______________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 5 of 13
ii.Describe how the proposed action would affect that waterbody or wetland, e.g. excavation, fill, placement of structures, or
alteration of channels, banks and shorelines. Indicate extent of activities, alterations and additions in square feet or acres:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Will proposed action cause or result in disturbance to bottom sediments? Yes No
If Yes, describe: __________________________________________________________________________________________
iv.Will proposed action cause or result in the destruction or removal of aquatic vegetation? Yes No
If Yes:
a of vegetation proposed to be removed ___________________________________________________________
acreage of aquatic vegetation remaining after project completion ________________________________________
purpose of proposed removal (e.g. beach clearing, invasive species control, boat access): ____________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
proposed method of plant removal: ________________________________________________________________________
if chemical/herbicide treatment will be used, specify product(s): _________________________________________________
v.Describe any proposed reclamation/mitigation following disturbance: _________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
c. Will the proposed action use, or create a new demand for water? Yes No
If Yes:
i.Total anticipated water usage/demand per day: __________________________ gallons/day
ii.Will the proposed action obtain water from an existing public water supply? Yes No
If Yes:
Name of district or service area: _________________________________________________________________________
Does the existing public water supply have capacity to serve the proposal? Yes No
Is the project site in the existing district? Yes No
Is expansion of the district needed? Yes No
Do existing lines serve the project site? Yes No
iii.Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to supply the project? Yes No
If Yes:
Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: ________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Source(s) of supply for the district: ________________________________________________________________________
iv.Is a new water supply district or service area proposed to be formed to serve the project site? Yes No
If, Yes:
Applicant/sponsor for new district: ________________________________________________________________________
Date application submitted or anticipated: __________________________________________________________________
Proposed source(s) of supply for new district: _______________________________________________________________
v.If a public water supply will not be used, describe plans to provide water supply for the project: ___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi. If water supply will be from wells (public or private), maximum pumping capacity: _______ gallons/minute.
d. Will the proposed action generate liquid wastes? Yes No
If Yes:
i.Total anticipated liquid waste generation per day: _______________ gallons/day
ii.Nature of liquid wastes to be generated (e.g., sanitary wastewater, industrial; if combination, describe all components and
approximate volumes or proportions of each): __________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Will the proposed action use any existing public wastewater treatment facilities? Yes No
If Yes:
Name of wastewater treatment plant to be used: _____________________________________________________________
Name of district: ______________________________________________________________________________________
Does the existing wastewater treatment plant have capacity to serve the project? Yes No
Is the project site in the existing district? Yes No
Is expansion of the district needed? Yes No
Page 6 of 13
Do existing sewer lines serve the project site? Yes No
Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to serve the project? Yes No
If Yes:
Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: ____________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv.Will a new wastewater (sewage) treatment district be formed to serve the project site? Yes No
If Yes:
Applicant/sponsor for new district: ____________________________________________________________________
Date application submitted or anticipated: _______________________________________________________________
What is the receiving water for the wastewater discharge? __________________________________________________
v.If public facilities will not be used, describe plans to provide wastewater treatment for the project, including specifying proposed
receiving water (name and classification if surface discharge, or describe subsurface disposal plans):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi.Describe any plans or designs to capture, recycle or reuse liquid waste: _______________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
e. Will the proposed action disturb more than one acre and create stormwater runoff, either from new point Yes No
sources (i.e. ditches, pipes, swales, curbs, gutters or other concentrated flows of stormwater) or non-point
source (i.e. sheet flow) during construction or post construction?
If Yes:
i.How much impervious surface will the project create in relation to total size of project parcel?
_____ Square feet or _____ acres (impervious surface)
_____ Square feet or _____ acres (parcel size)
ii.Describe types of new point sources. __________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Where will the stormwater runoff be directed (i.e. on-site stormwater management facility/structures, adjacent properties,
groundwater, on-site surface water or off-site surface waters)?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If to surface waters, identify receiving water bodies or wetlands: ________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Will stormwater runoff flow to adjacent properties? Yes No
iv.Does proposed plan minimize impervious surfaces, use pervious materials or collect and re-use stormwater? Yes No
f. Does the proposed action include, or will it use on-site, one or more sources of air emissions, including fuel Yes No
combustion, waste incineration, or other processes or operations?
If Yes, identify:
i. Mobile sources during project operations (e.g., heavy equipment, fleet or delivery vehicles)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Stationary sources during construction (e.g., power generation, structural heating, batch plant, crushers)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Stationary sources during operations (e.g., process emissions, large boilers, electric generation)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
g. Will any air emission sources named in D.2.f (above), require a NY State Air Registration, Air Facility Permit, Yes No
or Federal Clean Air Act Title IV or Title V Permit?
If Yes:
i.Is the project site located in an Air quality non-attainment area? (Area routinely or periodically fails to meet Yes No
ambient air quality standards for all or some parts of the year)
ii.In addition to emissions as calculated in the application, the project will generate:
___________Tons/year () of Carbon Dioxide (CO 2)
___________Tons/year () of Nitrous Oxide (N 2)
___________Tons/year () of Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
___________Tons/year () of Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF 6)
___________Tons/year () of Carbon Dioxide equivalent of Hydroflorocarbons (H)
___________Tons/year () of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
Page 7 of 13
h. Will the proposed action generate or emit methane (including, but not limited to, sewage treatment plants, Yes No
landfills, composting facilities)?
If Yes:
i.Estimate methane generation in tons/year (metric): ________________________________________________________________
ii. Describe any methane capture, control or elimination measures included in project design (e.g., combustion to generate heat or
electricity, flaring): ________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i. Will the proposed action result in the release of air pollutants from open-air operations or processes, such as Yes No
quarry or landfill operations?
If Yes: Describe operations and nature of emissions (e.g., diesel exhaust, rock particulates/dust):
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
j. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels or generate substantial Yes No
new demand for transportation facilities or services?
If Yes:
i.When is the peak traffic expected (Check all that apply): Morning Evening Weekend
Randomly between hours of __________ to ________.
ii.For commercial activities only, projected number of semi-trailer truck trips/day: _______________________
iii.Parking spaces: Existing _____________ Proposed ___________ Net increase/decrease _____________
iv.Does the proposed action include any shared use parking? Yes No
v.If the proposed action includes any modification of existing roads, creation of new roads or change in existing access, describe:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi.Are public/private transportation service(s) or facilities available within ½ mile of the proposed site? Yes No
vii Will the proposed action include access to public transportation or accommodations for use of hybrid, electric Yes No
or other alternative fueled vehicles?
viii. Will the proposed action include plans for pedestrian or bicycle accommodations for connections to existing Yes No
pedestrian or bicycle routes?
k. Will the proposed action (for commercial or industrial projects only) generate new or additional demand Yes No
for energy?
If Yes:
i.Estimate annual electricity demand during operation of the proposed action: ____________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Anticipated sources/suppliers of electricity for the project (e.g., on-site combustion, on-site renewable, via grid/local utility, or
other):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Will the proposed action require a new, or an upgrade to, an existing substation? Yes No
l. Hours of operation. Answer all items which apply.
i. During Construction:ii.During Operations:
Monday - Friday: _________________________Monday - Friday: ____________________________
Saturday: ________________________________Saturday: ___________________________________
Sunday: _________________________________Sunday: ____________________________________
Holidays: ________________________________Holidays: ___________________________________
Page 8 of 13
m. Will the proposed action produce noise that will exceed existing ambient noise levels during construction, Yes No
operation, or both?
If yes:
i.Provide details including sources, time of day and duration:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a noise barrier or screen? Yes No
Describe: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
n.. Will the proposed action have outdoor lighting? Yes No
If yes:
i.Describe source(s), location(s), height of fixture(s), direction/aim, and proximity to nearest occupied structures:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a light barrier or screen? Yes No
Describe: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
o.Does the proposed action have the potential to produce odors for more than one hour per day? Yes No
If Yes, describe possible sources, potential frequency and duration of odor emissions, and proximity to nearest
occupied structures: ______________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
p. Yes No Will the proposed action include any bulk storage of petroleum (over 1,100 gallons)
or chemical products ?
If Yes:
i.Product(s) to be stored ______________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Volume(s) ______ per unit time ___________ (e.g., month, year)
iii.Generally describe proposed storage facilities ___________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
q. Will the proposed action (commercial, industrial and recreational projects only) use pesticides (i.e., herbicides, Yes No
insecticides) during construction or operation?
If Yes:
i.Describe proposed treatment(s):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Will the proposed action use Integrated Pest Management Practices? Yes No
r. Will the proposed action (commercial or industrial projects only) involve or require the management or disposal Yes No
of solid waste (excluding hazardous materials)?
If Yes:
i.Describe any solid waste(s) to be generated during construction or operation of the facility:
Construction: ____________________ tons per ________________ (unit of time)
Operation : ____________________ tons per ________________ (unit of time)
ii.Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of materials to avoid disposal as solid waste:
Construction: ________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Operation: __________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Proposed disposal methods/facilities for solid waste generated on-site:
Construction: ________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Operation: __________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 9 of 13
s. Does the proposed action include construction or modification of a solid waste management facility? Yes No
If Yes:
i.Type of management or handling of waste proposed for the site (e.g., recycling or transfer station, composting, landfill, or
other disposal activities): ___________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Anticipated rate of disposal/processing:
________ Tons/month, if transfer or other non-combustion/thermal treatment, or
________ Tons/hour, if combustion or thermal treatment
iii.If landfill, anticipated site life: ________________________________ years
t. Will proposed action at the site involve the commercial generation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous Yes No
waste?
If Yes:
i.Name(s) of all hazardous wastes or constituents to be generated, handled or managed at facility: ___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Generally describe processes or activities involving hazardous wastes or constituents: ___________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Specify amount to be handled or generated _____ tons/month
iv.Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of hazardous constituents: ____________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
v.Will any hazardous wastes be disposed at an existing offsite hazardous waste facility? Yes No
If Yes: provide name and location of facility: _______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If No: describe proposed management of any hazardous wastes which will not be sent to a hazardous waste facility:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
E. Site and Setting of Proposed Action
E.1. Land uses on and surrounding the project site
a. Existing land uses.
i.Check all uses that occur on, adjoining and near the project site.
Urban Industrial Commercial Residential (suburban) Rural (non-farm)
Forest Agriculture Aquatic Other (specify): ____________________________________
ii.If mix of uses, generally describe:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. Land uses and covertypes on the project site.
Land use or
Covertype
Current
Acreage
Acreage After
Project Completion
Change
(Acres +/-)
Roads, buildings, and other paved or impervious
surfaces
Forested
Meadows, grasslands or brushlands (non-
agricultural, including abandoned agricultural)
Agricultural
(includes active orchards, field, greenhouse etc.)
Surface water features
(lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, etc.)
Wetlands (freshwater or tidal)
Non-vegetated (bare rock, earth or fill)
Other
Describe: _______________________________
________________________________________
Page 10 of 13
c. Is the project site presently used by members of the community for public recreation? Yes No
i.If Yes: explain: __________________________________________________________________________________________
d. Are there any facilities serving children, the elderly, people with disabilities (e.g., schools, hospitals, licensed Yes No
day care centers, or group homes) within 1500 feet of the project site?
If Yes,
i.Identify Facilities:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
e. Does the project site contain an existing dam? Yes No
If Yes:
i.Dimensions of the dam and impoundment:
Dam height: _________________________________ feet
Dam length: _________________________________ feet
Surface area: _________________________________ acres
Volume impounded: _______________________________ gallons OR acre-feet
ii.Dam=s existing hazard classification: _________________________________________________________________________
iii.Provide date and summarize results of last inspection:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
f. Has the project site ever been used as a municipal, commercial or industrial solid waste management facility, Yes No
or does the project site adjoin property which is now, or was at one time, used as a solid waste management facility?
If Yes:
i. Has the facility been formally closed? Yes No
If yes, cite sources/documentation: _______________________________________________________________________
ii.Describe the location of the project site relative to the boundaries of the solid waste management facility:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Describe any development constraints due to the prior solid waste activities: __________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
g. Have hazardous wastes been generated, treated and/or disposed of at the site, or does the project site adjoin Yes No
property which is now or was at one time used to commercially treat, store and/or dispose of hazardous waste?
If Yes:
i.Describe waste(s) handled and waste management activities, including approximate time when activities occurred:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
h. Potential contamination history. Has there been a reported spill at the proposed project site, or have any Yes No
remedial actions been conducted at or adjacent to the proposed site?
If Yes:
i.Is any portion of the site listed on the NYSDEC Spills Incidents database or Environmental Site Yes No
Remediation database? Check all that apply:
Yes – Spills Incidents database Provide DEC ID number(s): ________________________________
Yes – Environmental Site Remediation database Provide DEC ID number(s): ________________________________
Neither database
ii.If site has been subject of RCRA corrective activities, describe control measures:_______________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Is the project within 2000 feet of any site in the NYSDEC Environmental Site Remediation database? Yes No
If yes, provide DEC ID number(s): ______________________________________________________________________________
iv.If yes to (i), (ii) or (iii) above, describe current status of site(s):
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 11 of 13
v.Is the project site subject to an institutional control limiting property uses? Yes No
If yes, DEC site ID number: ____________________________________________________________________________
Describe the type of institutional control (e.g., deed restriction or easement): ____________________________________
Describe any use limitations: ___________________________________________________________________________
Describe any engineering controls: _______________________________________________________________________
Will the project affect the institutional or engineering controls in place? Yes No
Explain: ____________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
E.2. Natural Resources On or Near Project Site
a. What is the average depth to bedrock on the project site? ________________ feet
b. Are there bedrock outcroppings on the project site? Yes No
If Yes, what proportion of the site is comprised of bedrock outcroppings? __________________%
c. Predominant soil type(s) present on project site: ___________________________ __________%
___________________________ __________%
____________________________ __________%
d. What is the average depth to the water table on the project site? Average: _________ feet
e. Drainage status of project site soils: Well Drained:_____% of ite
Moderately Well Drained: _____% of site
Poorly Drained _____% of ite
f. Approximate proportion of proposed action site with slopes: 0-10%:_____% of site
10-15%: _____% of site
15% or greater: _____% of site
g. Are there any unique geologic features on the project site? Yes No
If Yes, describe: _____________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
h. Surface water features.
i.Does any portion of the project site contain wetlands or other waterbodies (including streams, rivers, Yes No
ponds or lakes)?
ii.Do any wetlands or other waterbodies adjoin the project site? Yes No
If Yes to either i or ii, continue. If No, skip to E.2.i.
iii.Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies within or adjoining the project site regulated by any federal, Yes No
state or local agency?
iv.For each identified wetland and waterbody on the project site, provide the following information
Streams:Name ____________________________________________ Classification _______________________
Lakes or Ponds: Name ____________________________________________ Classification _______________________•Wetlands:Name ____________________________________________ Approximate Size ___________________
Wetland No. (if regulated by DEC) _____________________________
v.Are any of the above water bodies listed in the most recent compilation of NYS water quality-impaired Yes No
waterbodies?
If yes, name of impaired water body/bodies and basis for listing as impaired: _____________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i. Is the project site in a designated Floodway? Yes No
j. Is the project site in the 100 year Floodplain? Yes No
k. Is the project site in the 500 year Floodplain? Yes No
l. Is the project site located over, or immediately adjoining, a primary, principal or sole source aquifer? Yes No
If Yes:
i.Name of aquifer: _________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 12 of 13
m. Identify the predominant wildlife species that occupy or use the project site: ______________________________
______________________________ _______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ _______________________________ ______________________________
n. Does the project site contain a designated significant natural community? Yes No
If Yes:
i.Describe the habitat/community (composition, function, and basis for designation): _____________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Source(s) of description or evaluation: ________________________________________________________________________
iii.Extent of community/habitat:
Currently: ______________________ acres
Following completion of project as proposed: _____________________ acres
Gain or loss (indicate + or -): ______________________ acres
o. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by the federal government or NYS as Yes No
endangered or threatened, or does it contain any areas identified as habitat for an endangered or threatened species?
p. Does the project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare, or as a species of Yes No
special concern?
q. Is the project site or adjoining area currently used for hunting, trapping, fishing or shell fishing? Yes No
If yes, give a brief description of how the proposed action may affect that use: ___________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
E.3. Designated Public Resources On or Near Project Site
a. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in a designated agricultural district certified pursuant to Yes No
Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304?
If Yes, provide county plus district name/number: _________________________________________________________________
b. Are agricultural lands consisting of highly productive soils present? Yes No
i.If Yes: acreage(s) on project site? ___________________________________________________________________________
ii.Source(s) of soil rating(s): _________________________________________________________________________________
c. Does the project site contain all or part of, or is it substantially contiguous to, a registered National Yes No
Natural Landmark?
If Yes:
i.Nature of the natural landmark: Biological Community Geological Feature
ii.Provide brief description of landmark, including values behind designation and approximate size/extent: ___________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
d. Is the project site located in or does it adjoin a state listed Critical Environmental Area? Yes No
If Yes:
i.CEA name: _____________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Basis for designation: _____________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Designating agency and date: ______________________________________________________________________________
Page 13 of 13
e. Does the project site contain, or is it substantially contiguous to, a building, archaeological site, or district Yes No
which is listed on, or has been nominated by the NYS Board of Historic Preservation for inclusion on, the
State or National Register of Historic Places?
If Yes:
i.Nature of historic/archaeological resource: Archaeological Site Historic Building or District
ii.Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Brief description of attributes on which listing is based:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
f. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for Yes No
archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory?
g. Have additional archaeological or historic site(s) or resources been identified on the project site? Yes No
If Yes:
i. Describe possible resource(s): _______________________________________________________________________________
ii.Basis for identification: ___________________________________________________________________________________
h. Yes No the project site any officially designated and publicly accessible federal, state, or local
scenic or aesthetic resource?
If Yes:
i.Identify resource: _________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Nature of, or basis for, designation (e.g., established highway overlook, state or local park, state historic trail or scenic byway,
etc.): ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Distance between project and resource: _____________________ miles.
i. Is the project site located within a designated river corridor under the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Yes No
Program 6 NYCRR 666?
If Yes:
i.Identify the name of the river and its designation: ________________________________________________________________
ii.Is the activity consistent with development restrictions contained in 6NYCRR Part 666? Yes No
F. Additional Information
Attach any additional information which may be needed to clarify your project.
If you have identified any adverse impacts which could be associated with your proposal, please describe those impacts plus any
measures which you propose to avoid or minimize them.
G. Verification
I certify that the information provided is true to the best of my knowledge.
Applicant/Sponsor Name ___________________________________ Date_______________________________________
Signature________________________________________________ Title_______________________________________
EAF Mapper Summary Report Friday, February 27, 2015 11:37 AM
Disclaimer: The EAF Mapper is a screening tool intended to assist
project sponsors and reviewing agencies in preparing an environmental
assessment form (EAF). Not all 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
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.
B.i.i [Coastal or Waterfront Area]No
B.i.ii [Local Waterfront Revitalization Area]No
C.2.b. [Special Planning District]Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF
Workbook.
E.1.h [DEC Spills or Remediation Site -
Potential Contamination History]
Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF
Workbook.
E.1.h.i [DEC Spills or Remediation Site -
Listed]
Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF
Workbook.
E.1.h.i [DEC Spills or Remediation Site -
Environmental Site Remediation Database]
Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF
Workbook.
E.1.h.iii [Within 2,000' of DEC Remediation
Site]
Yes
E.1.h.iii [Within 2,000' of DEC Remediation
Site - DEC ID]
755010, 755015
E.2.g [Unique Geologic Features]No
E.2.h.i [Surface Water Features]No
E.2.h.ii [Surface Water Features]Yes
E.2.h.iii [Surface Water Features]Yes - Digital mapping information on local and federal wetlands and
waterbodies is known to be incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook.
E.2.h.v [Impaired Water Bodies]No
E.2.i. [Floodway]Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF
Workbook.
E.2.j. [100 Year Floodplain]Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF
Workbook.
E.2.k. [500 Year Floodplain]Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF
Workbook.
E.2.l. [Aquifers]No
1Full Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report
E.2.n. [Natural Communities]No
E.2.o. [Endangered or Threatened Species]No
E.2.p. [Rare Plants or Animals]Yes
E.3.a. [Agricultural District]No
E.3.c. [National Natural Landmark]No
E.3.d [Critical Environmental Area]No
E.3.e. [National Register of Historic Places]Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF
Workbook.
E.3.f. [Archeological Sites]Yes
E.3.i. [Designated River Corridor]No
2Full Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report
1
APPEAL #3006 707 MITCHELL STREET
(NICOLE ROY)
Appeal of Nicole S. Roy, owner with Christopher J. Riley of 707 Mitchell Street, for Area Variances
from Section 325-8, Columns 6, 7, 11, 12, and 13, Lot Area, Lot Width, Front Yard, Side Yard, and
Other Side Yard, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The property at 707 Mitchell Street is an existing single-family home with a 9’4” x 8’0” attached deck
on the building’s rear exterior wall and off-set approximately two feet west of the house’s exterior east
wall. The applicant proposes to demolish this deck and construct a larger deck, measuring 11’4” x
11’0” and in line with the building’s east exterior wall. However, the existing side yard, measured
from this east wall to the east property line is only 7’2”. Zoning requires a 10-foot side yard for this
property; the proposed deck will increase the existing side yard deficiency between the east wall and
property line an additional 11 feet.
The property at 707 Mitchell Street has other existing deficiencies, but these deficiencies will not be
exacerbated by the construction of a larger deck. The property has a lot area of 5,227 feet; required is
a minimum lot area of 6,000 SF. The lot width is 45 feet; required is a lot width of 50 feet. The front
yard is 22’9”; required is a 25-foot front yard. Finally, the other side yard is 3’10”; required is a 10-
foot other side yard.
707 Mitchell Street is located in an R-1b Zoning District, where a single-family home is a permitted
use; however, Section 325-38 requires that variances be granted before a Building Permit can be issued.
CITY OF ITHACA
Board of Zoning Appeals – Notice of Appeal
City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals WorksheetAppeal NumberBZA-3006Address707 Mitchell StreetUse DistrictR-1bDate11/3/2015ApplicantNicole S. RoyOwnerNicole S. RoyApplication Type:Area VarianceColumn Number23456 7 891011121314/1516Column Title UseAccessory UseOff-Street ParkingOff-Street LoadingLot Area (Sq. Feet)Lot Width (Feet)Number of StoriesHeight in Feet% of Lot CoverageFront Yard Side YardOther Side YardRear yard: % of depth or number of feet, whichever is lessMinimum Building HeightExisting Condition and UseOne Family2 5227 45 2 20' +18.8% 22'9" 7'2" 3'10" 58'6" or 47%District Regulations for ExistingOne Family Zone1NoneRequired600050 3 35 25% 25 10 1025% or 50' but not less than 20'NoneNote Non-Conforming ConditionsOKOK N/A Def. Def. OK OK OK Def. Def. Def. OK N/AProposed Condition and/or UseOne Family25227 45 2 20' +19.6% 22'9" 7'2" 3'10" 55'6" or 46%District Regulation for ProposedOne Family Zone1NoneRequired600050 3 35 25% 25 10 1025% or 50' but not less than 20'NoneNote Non-Conforming Conditions for ProposalOK N/A OK N/A *Def. *Def. OK OK OK *Def. *Def. *Def. OK N/ANOTES:* Area, Lot Width, Front/Side/Other Side yards are existing deficiencies.
11/3/15
Reason for Appeal
We, Nicole S. Roy and Christopher J. Riley, the homeowners of 707 Mitchell St., Ithaca, NY, are
requesting an area variance from the Zoning Ordinance to expand the deck attached to the
south side(rear of) the property at this location.
The provisions of the zoning ordinance being appealed are Section 325 -8, columns 6, lot area
(existing); 7, width at street (existing); 11, front yard (existing); 12, side yard (expand
deficiency); and 13, other side yard (existing) for a property located in an R-1b district.
The existing deck is 9’-4” wide along the south side of the house (on the side by our shared
driveway with 709 Mitchell Street) by 8’-0” long out from the house. The current deck, which
we believe to have been built in the early 1970’s, has an existing side-yard deficiency of 3.75”.
The property located at 707 Mitchell Street has a 7.1’ side yard to the east of the property,
nearly 3’-0” shy of the required 10’-0” side yard setback currently required in an R-1b zone.
We wish to expand our existing deck by two feet on the east (driveway) side, and three feet on
the south side, to a deck that is 11’-4” wide by 11’-0" long. The overall characteristics of the
deck will remain the same. We are unable to increase the size of the de ck in the other direction
(toward the west), as doing such would block the basement door entry to our home. If we
were to raise the height of the deck to accommodate the basement door, we would block the
access door to the deck (see Fig. 1a and 1b). The new deficiency of the deck as it relates to the
side yard setback, will be 7’-8.5” to the property line. The new deck will be offset from the
corner of the house by approximately 7 inches.
We believe this proposal is modest and reasonable. An increase in the deck size will not create
a problem with access to the shared driveway, or be an eyesore to the neighborhood. The deck
will still be offset from the house, so visually will not present a significant change in character
for the house or the neighborhood.
October 13, 2015
Dear neighbor,
Greetings from the homeowners of 707 Mitchell Street! We are writing to let you know that we
have applied for a variance to the City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals to increase the size of
the deck behind our house.
There currently exists a deck 9’-4”wide by 8’ long attached to the back of our house, on the side
by our shared driveway with 709 Mitchell Street. We plan to expand this deck by two feet on
the east (driveway) side, and three feet on the south side, to a deck that is 11’-4” wide by 11’-0"
long. We cannot expand to the west side of the house, as this would block a doorway. The
overall characteristics of the deck will remain the same.
A variance is necessary because the deck as it currently stands is set bac k 9’-8.5” from our east
side yard property line (just short of the middle of the shared driveway), and 10’ is the required
side yard setback. Expanding the additional 2’ on the east side will bring the deck to 7’-8.5”
from the east side yard property line. However, the existing side yard, measured from this east
wall to the east property line is only 7’-2”. Zoning requires a 10- foot side yard for this
property; the proposed deck will increase the existing side yard deficiency between the east
wall and property line an additional eleven- feet (this corresponds to the new depth/length of
the deck).
The property at 707 Mitchell Street has other existing deficiencies but these deficiencies will
not be exacerbated by the construction of a larger deck. The property has a lot area of 5,227
feet; required is a minimum lot area of 6,000 SF. The lot width is 45 feet; required is a lot width
of 50 feet. The front yard is 22’-9” required is a 25- foot front yard. Finally, the other side yard is
3’-10”; required is a 10 -foot other side yard.
We believe this proposal is modest and reasonable. An increase in the deck size will not create
a problem with access to the shared driveway, or be an eyesore to the neighborhood. The deck
will still be offset from the house, so v isually will not present a significant change in character
for the house or the neighborhood.
Attached is a plan (noting the existing and proposed deck as it relates to our property) and a
Notice of Appeal for our hearing with the Zoning Board on November 3, 2015. You are free to
attend to express your opinion, either for or against. If you have any questions or thoughts on
this issue, feel free to come by our house. We would be happy to discuss it with you.
Sincerely,
Christopher Riley Nicole Roy
10/27/1511/3/15
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
1 of 2
TO:Board of Zoning Appeals
FROM:Planning &Development Board
DATE:October 28,2015
SUBJECT:Comments for Zoning Appeals 2994 &3006
On October 27,2015,members of the Planning and Development Board discussed the above listed Zoning
Appeals and agreed to forward the following recommendations:
APPEAL #2994 215 221 W.SPENCER STREET
Area Variances
Appeal of Noah Demarest,for PPM Homes,owner of 215 221 W.Spencer Street,for an Area Variance from
Section 325 20 F.(a)[1],Rear Yard Parking Setbacks,requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The owner proposes to construct four 3 story residential buildings containing three units each on a steeply
sloped site between West Spencer and West Cayuga Streets.Because of the site’s topography,the applicant
proposes to locate the 12 required off street parking spaces for this project in the property’s rear yard,where
there is access to Cayuga Street.However,Section 325 20 F.(a)[1]does not allow parking in a property’s
required rear yard setback.The rear yard setback requirement is 31 feet and the applicant’s design requires
parking in 77%of the required rear yard.
The property at 215 221 W.Spencer Street is located in an R 3b zone where the proposed residential use is
permitted.However,Section 325 38 requires that a variance be granted before a Building Permit can be issued.
The Board feels that the unique attributes of the site (steeply sloped with street frontage at both the front and
back of the site)present a large barrier to locating the parking such that it will not require a variance.The Board
has worked with the applicant to mitigate concerns about visual/aesthetic impact of the proposed parking
location.The applicant has agreed to install fencing (see Perspectives L001,dated 8/6/15)and landscaping to
block view of parking lot from Cayuga Street adjacent property owners.
The Board recommends granting this appeal.
APPEAL #3006 707 MITCHELL ST.
Area Variance
Appeal of Nicole S.Roy,owner with Christopher J.Riley of 707 Mitchell Street,for Area Variances from Section
325 8,Columns 6,7,11,12,and 13,Lot Area,Lot Width,Front Yard,Side Yard,and Other Side Yard,respectively,
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E.Green Street —3rd Floor Ithaca,NY 14850 5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING,BUILDING,ZONING,&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
JOANN CORNISH,DIRECTOR OF PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT
PHYLLISA A.DeSARNO,DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Telephone:Planning &Development –607 274 6550 Community Development/IURA –607 274 6559
Email:dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email:iura@cityofithaca.org
Fax:607 274 6558 Fax:607 274 6558
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
2 of 2
The property at 707 Mitchell Street is an existing single family home with a 9’4”x 8’0”attached deck on the
building’s rear exterior wall and off set approximately two feet west of the house’s exterior east wall.The
applicant proposes to demolish this deck and construct a larger deck,measuring 11’4”x 11’0”and in line with
the building’s east exterior wall.However,the existing side yard,measured from this east wall to the east
property line is only 7’2”.Zoning requires a 10 foot side yard for this property;the proposed deck will increase
the existing side yard deficiency between the east wall and property line an additional 11 feet.
The property at 707 Mitchell Street has other existing deficiencies,but these deficiencies will not be exacerbated
by the construction of a larger deck.The property has a lot area of 5,227 feet;required is a minimum lot area of
6,000 SF.The lot width is 45 feet;required is a lot width of 50 feet.The front yard is 22’9”;required is a 25 foot
front yard.Finally,the other side yard is 3’10”;required is a 10 foot other side yard.
707 Mitchell Street is located in an R 1b Zoning District,where a single family home is a permitted use;however,
Section 325 38 requires that variances be granted before a Building Permit can be issued.
[recommendation]