7575 Van Buren Road, Baldwinsville, NY 13027
October 2007 PB minutes
October 1, 2007
The Regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Town of Van Buren, held at the Town building, 7575 Van Buren Road, Baldwinsville, New York, was called to order at 7:00p.m.
Those present joined in the Pledge Allegiance to the Flag.
Roll Call: Harold Crandon present
James Virginia present
James Ruddock present
Eric Knapp present
Fred Thomas present
Mary Frances Sabin present
Anthony Geiss, Chairman present
Also present: Brad Hunt, Attorney
Craig Desormeau, Deputy Codes Officer
Jim Billings, Town Engineer
Vera Cavallaro, Planning Board Secretary
MINUTES:
Ms. Sabin made corrections to sentence structures.
Motion #07-191 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to accept the September minutes as amended. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously on a roll call vote that follows:
Mr. Virginia yes
Mr. Thomas yes
Mr. Knapp yes
Mr. Crandon yes
Mr. Ruddock yes
Ms. Sabin yes
Mr. Geiss, Chairman yes
RIVERIDGE DEVELOPMENT, LLC - PUBLIC HEARING
River and Daboll Rd. Tax Map Parcel ID# 045-01-01.2
Mr. Mastroianni was present to address the Board.
Motion #07-192 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to waive the reading of the Public Notice. Mr. Ruddock moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
Mr. Geiss explained to the audience how the Public Hearing would be conducted.
Mr. Mastroianni said that the project is located west of the intersection of River Rd and Daboll Rd. in the Town of Van Buren. To the side of this project is the Seneca River and further down is Jack's Reef. The total parcel is 144 acres and they are looking to do a residential subdivision on the southern half.
Mr. Mastroianni said that a Public Hearing was conducted prior to this but there have been changes made since that time based on Town and County comments. Originally they had a roadway that connected to the south and the County requested that they make it align with Daboll Rd as the entrance point and by doing that they made a cul-de-sac to accommodate the lower lots. Lots 11 and 12 had driveway access on to River Rd and the County commented that they didn't want driveway access on to River Rd and the County wanted internal driveways so they put in another cul-de-sac at that point. The alignment, elevation, and everything else has remained the same but they have done some lot modifications and the lots have been shifted slightly to make one of the lots more appealing aesthetically and they have a total of 26 lots with the remainder being the
27th lot but they are not looking for approval for phase two which will be lot 27 right now and the project will contain all Town designated roads.
Mr. Geiss said that this is phase one and there is a future phase two that will also tie back up into River Rd.
Mr. Geiss opened the Public Hearing for comments from the public.
Mr. Lawrence Peterson of River Rd. stated that River Rd is pretty well shrubbed up on the sides and the visibility is very poor in some areas and he thinks that should be looked into because there are large farm equipment that use that road quite a bit and he would also like to know how much his taxes are going to go up on account of this.
Ms. Deb DiRoma of River Rd stated that she has been attending the Planning Board meetings in regards to this development since it started and hopes it will not get through. This development will completely change the character of the area, the peaceful rural charm that her family has enjoyed by owning property across the River since the 1940's will be destroyed forever. She challenges answers on the environmental assessment form from the Riveridge file dated May 7, 2007 Section A number 14 says no scenic views important to the community are included on site and her neighbors and herself completely disagree with that. The applicant states in Part Two of the form that the forty or so homes after phase two comes in will not affect aesthetic resources and she disagrees with that and she believes that there will be a potentially large impact as a
housing development of $300,000 plus homes is in sharp contrast to the current surrounding land use values and this development will largely impact her enjoyment of the area. The applicant states on the form that there will be no noise impacts and the form asks if the development will produce noise exceeding ambient noise levels for outside structures and atleast two years of construction noise is quite above the ambient noise level that they now enjoy which consists of farm equipment at times in the spring and fall, occasional motor boats going the excepted speed limit on the River, crickets, birds, locusts, and a few lawn mowers. The thought of forty or so more weekly lawn mowers not to mention trash trucks, traffic, and personal noise will affect her property. Noise carries hardily across open water. Nothing is even mentioned about light pollution. Part of the quiet beauty of the area at night is the almost complete darkness and in her estimation there is no better place to star
gaze or watch a meteor shower and this peace will be completely disrupted by the 40 or so homes grouped together. Also the thought of all those septic system so closely together and the fact that they are on the River concerns her. The applicant also shows 2 drainage ponds and she would like to know if these ponds will be monitored so they don't become stagnant or algae filled with drainage from the fertile farm fields running into them. The applicant states on the form that there is only a wetland near the northern boundary and she believes that there is a small wetland in phase one. She understands issues regarding the canal system are not the Planning Board's concern but Part Two number 4 asks for the affects on any non protected body of water and she is certain many of the owners of River front lots will want docks or boat houses not to mention the marina that the developers want to locate in phase two. Several sections on that side of the River are notoriously shallow and she
would like to know what will be stirred up should sections be dredged for the docks for large boats. In Part Two the applicant disregarded the section on the impact of plants and animals that there will or will not be an application of pesticide or herbicide more than once or twice a year other than for agricultural purposes. Her best guess says people who purchase expensive show homes would probably go with the four step a year lawn care application and she would like to know if this will run directly into the River and will the wild ducks, herrings, osprey, and even bald eagles that are constantly spotted in the area decide to share their environment with 40 or so human families and she is afraid that this wildlife will be forced out and she won't be seeing them anymore. In section B, 1, G nothing is noted regarding the number of vehicular trips and in section C number 12 the applicant states the project will generate traffic significantly above the present levels and that the
existing roads are adequate to handle it, ultimately the applicant is projecting around forty houses and on an estimate of only two cars per household she can't imagine 80 more cars trying to get to and from work patiently waiting to get by large farm machinery on these narrow rural two lane roads. In Part two the applicant states there will be a small to moderate increase in residential traffic in the immediate area and it seems like a potentially large impact to her. An example of this can be the housing boom in the Town of Cicero, what it was just a few years ago is a rural quiet area and it is now common to have to wait up to two or three cycles at the traffic light. A concern of setting an important precedent for future projects was not even acknowledged on the form. In Part Two number 10 the applicant states a small to moderate impact on the irreversible conversion of more than 10 acres of agricultural land or more than 2½ acres in an Ag district; this land was approved
by NYS as the only farm in Onondaga County for a farmland protection grant in 2005. This grant was denied by the land owners Michael and Karen Hooper after the publication of that grant generated a higher monetary offer for the land. Since the State felt these 144 acres were worth protecting as farmland forever she believes it merits a potentially large impact. At the last Planning Board meeting Mr. Mastroianni questioned the Board for delaying the project further after two years but remember many months there was no action by the developer and the developer wasn't even on the agenda so if it takes years to be certain a project such as this is the right and fair decision for all involved is done correctly following all the rules so be it. Also at the last meeting it was brought up that variances are being asked for about 40% of the lots in phase one and she would hope that a competent professional developer would be happy and able to work within Town Codes. If 40% of the project can
not be developed by abiding by Town codes then perhaps it is not the correct project for the area. If there ultimately is no way to stop this development she hopes that all Town departments keep an extremely watchful eye on the project to be certain that all Codes and approved plans are fully being adhered to. From what she has heard attending these Planning Board meetings her faith in the Riveridge parties involved in not strong. Simple things like incorrect dates and the changing lengths of some short access roads on maps or leaving wetlands completely off maps which when questioned by the Board are brushed off as simply mistakes make her wonder if they really are just careless. She is very concerned that these simple mistakes could have huge repercussions on the area that she loves later on.
Mr. Arnold Johnson and he and his brother own land just to the north of this project and one of their main concerns is the amount of water flowing because the ground slopes in their direction. They are concerned that there is going to be more runoff and they want to make sure that the runoff is controlled adequately and does not flow across the top of their land to create erosion because they have beautiful fields there and they don't want any of the nice topsoil washed away. They want to make sure that if this project goes through that the water runoff is controlled.
Mr. Desormeau asked Mr. Johnson to point out the property that they own.
Mr. Paul Johnson said that his brother just spoke about the drainage and the engineer was supposed to contact them regarding this issue from the last meeting and they have not heard anything. The land is 50ft higher through there so he doesn't see anyway that the water will not run across their property and right now there are already drainage issues in the spring with the ponding of water and they have the underground drain tiles across there which are four inch tile and they can only handle so much water but it works fine the way it is right now and if they put houses in there they are going to have roads, driveways, paved rooftops, lawns that aren't going to be able to filtrate water as quickly as when they are tilled so it is going to increase the erosion. He doesn't see any way for this area to be developed, he can see maybe putting some
houses along the river but this is just going to ruin the whole area.
The Board had a discussion about which engineer was to meet with Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Doug True of Gunbarrel Rd. said that he is a small farmer in the Town of Van Buren and he has been for about 10 years and a half hour ago he was sitting on a tractor plowing up marginal farmland, if not poor farmland and it is discouraging to see productive farmland like this taken out of production. Roughly 300 years ago people came into this area with horses, oxen, shovels and picks and they cleared that property and it has taken 300 yrs to make it productive the way that it is now and it has been maintained properly for a number of years. He knows for a fact that it has been maintained properly because he spent 5 years working for Onondaga County Soil and Water Conservation District as a soil and water conservation expert writing environmental and agricultural management plans for farms all around Onondaga County and there are a lot of
environmental concerns that he can see just by looking at this preliminary map but he won't even start to get into that because there could be an argument and he doesn't want to do that but he thinks that it is unfortunate that a piece of property like this that is of high agricultural value is taken out of agricultural production when there are other places in the County and in the Town that are more suitable for development. Development and agriculture do not mix and he is speaking first hand on that because he has had to deal with land owners and producers as a mediator when he worked for the County. Another concern that he has is that he is a school bus driver for Baldwinsville Central School District and he transports some of the children of the folks that are in the audience right now on River Rd and he understands that the Onondaga County DOT engineer wrote that the road was adequate to handle the increase in traffic but he disagrees. He travels that road everyday in a 30,000
pound school bus full of 30 to 40 children and the way he sees cars early in the morning traveling he is not real comfortable with the way it is right now and he can only imagine how much worse it would be in the future when they have 40 some odd houses in the first phase and who knows how many in the second phase if this development goes through.
Ms. Sharon Nash of Plainville Rd said that her home is directly across at the beginning of the state ditch and she is against it also because they moved out here 20yrs ago to get away from the city and all the hubbub and noise and she enjoys looking out into the wild so to speak and seeing the blue herrings and the eagles, the beavers building dams and she is also concerned that there is going to be 27 to 40 more homes plus a marina which will be more boat traffic. People already believe that the State ditch is the miracle mile between their house and Cross Lake and the land erosion has been feet from their back yard since they moved there 20yrs ago. Where the boat speed limits are posted no one cares; the big boats come in from Hooper's marina and go flying down through there and it is like a race track and so they add 40 more homes with 40
more big boats and they will be big boats because people are going to be buying these expensive homes and she just doesn't agree with the whole thing because it is going to take away from getting away from it all.
Mr. Norm Brown of Plainville Rd said that he lives just up from the State ditch and his concern is the wetland area. When the water is high across from his house it goes back into the woods a couple hundred feet so he doesn't know how close the applicant thinks that they can come to the River or clear the woods out because there are quite a bit of woods there and the folks that live next to him have all mentioned eagles; they have photos of eagles mating there, there are mating pairs of young and old ospreys and there are all kinds of exotic birdlife now and if the developer cuts those woods across from his house he can't help but believe that there are some wetlands there that need to be protected and once again as the other gentleman mentioned some runoff coming from the development. The wildlife and the wetlands are a concern of
his.
Mr. Geiss asked if there was anyone else that wished to speak on this project.
Motion #07-193 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
RIVERIDGE DEVELOPMENT, LLC - SUBDIVISION
River and Daboll Rd. Tax Map Parcel ID# 045-01-01.2
Mr. Mastroianni and Mr. Scott Chatfield were present to address the Board.
Mr. Geiss said at the last meeting the Board talked about reviewing the SEQR and the Board members and engineer have looked at it and Mr. Billings mentioned he had some questions.
Mr. Billings said that the Board needs some clarification and as they go through Part 1 he finds what he thinks are inconsistencies but maybe not, he thinks they just might need to be clarified.
Mr. Billings asked if it was the Board's intent that this EAF and SEQR action be for the entire site, both phases one and two.
Mr. Geiss said yes.
Mr. Billings asked Mr. Mastroianni if that was his understanding as well.
Mr. Mastroianni said that the EAF that the Board has is just for phase one.
Mr. Billings said that the Board can't take SEQR action on the whole project if they only have an EAF that applies to phase 1 and that is something that the Board needs to talk about.
Mr. Mastroianni said at application time they were directed to make sure everything was just for phase 1, number of lots and everything before it went on because phase two would be totally separate so this is geared just towards phase one. It talks about the entire 144 acres but it focuses on phase one because it had to go to County.
Mr. Billings said that is the clarification he was looking for that this EAF applies to phase one.
Mr. Geiss said that they would do another EAF for phase two.
Mr. Billings said that it is a little confusing the way that they have it written and just for clarification the 144 acres is the entire site and the initial phase in which they do address in part one. Number 6 on page four asks if this is a single phase project, the time for the anticipated project and the applicant states 18 months.
Mr. Mastroianni said yes for phase one.
Mr. Billings said in number 7 in multi phased the applicant has some number in there so it is their intent that this EAF address only phase one, so this is not multi phased.
Mr. Mastroianni said yes.
Mr. Billings said that he thinks that they need to clarify that in the EAF.
Mr. Billings said that a question he has on Part one number 2 they do show the present condition and the after completion. They show 30 acres of wetland before and 30 acres of wetland after; so what is being said is that there are no wetland impacts in phase one.
Mr. Mastroianni said yes, and pointed out the wetland.
Mr. Billings said that there will be wetland impacts on phase two.
Mr. Geiss asked if the 30 acres are all in phase one.
Mr. Mastroianni said no, the whole wetland in both phases is 30 acres.
Mr. Billings said that is the problem the EAF has to be either everything or just phase one and he thinks that is where the Board is getting confused.
Mr. Mastroianni said that came in with the County comments when the comments went in for phase one and the County came back and said wetlands were not shown on the north part of the parcel so they tried to gear this to reflect how County was looking at it.
Mr. Billings said at a minimum he would suggest that this EAF describe what is included and what isn't and the EAF should make it clear that the 144 acres is the entire site and the present and after completion additions are for the entire site not just for phase one.
Mr. Mastroianni said that under the description of action they have written subdivision of 144 acres into 26 residential lots and the remainder to be undeveloped and that is the action for phase one.
Mr. Billings said right, but under site description it is for the entire project both phases one and two. It is confusing.
Mr. Billings said that the intent is that the EAF addresses just phase one but the site description in Part A describes the entire project and that is a bit confusing and he doesn't know if it's right or wrong.
Mr. Mastroianni said when they got back from County, County was talking about the wetland on the northern part which wasn't brought in so that seemed to be the way to go and they put the EAF together that way and technically this part of the project is to split out 26 building lots and one lot at the top being lot 27. If it was two different parcels than he can see it being done that way but with it being one parcel he thinks that they have to address the entire parcel.
Mr. Billings said maybe it is just a clarification or a note to be added to the EAF that this is for the entire project.
Mr. Chatfield said that the reason why the 144 is there is because the phase 2 is at this point merely one large undeveloped lot so they included the overall numbers in because that is part of the subdivision which would be lot 27. They don't intend to touch it at this point in time until they actually go through this whole process again for phase 2 but it is part of the subdivision.
Mr. Billings said that for purposes of this there is no phase 2.
Mr. Chatfield said correct, in terms of development that is correct it is simply lot 27 of the subdivision.
Mr. Ruddock said that the EAF is for the 144 acres and that is a residual lot from the subdivision because the Board is subdividing those 144 acres.
Mr. Billings said that the applicant is saying that lot 27 is the remainder.
Mr. Chatfield said that it is just an undeveloped lot at this point, one large undeveloped lot in to which there will be no improvements at this point until they go back through this process again from square one.
Mr. Billings said this action that the Board will take is on the first 26 lots only and this EAF addresses only that land.
Mr. Chatfield said as it relates to the details of the construction of those 26 lots, the problem is they have a 144 acre parcel and they are seeking to divide that but they can't ignore the 47 acres that is not to be touched it is just one big lot but they can't ignore it because it is that parcel that is being divided.
Mr. Billings said he agrees he just wants to be clear that the SEQR action that the Board is being asked to take is only on the first 26 lots. They are calling it phase one on the drawing but they are not calling it phase one in the EAF because this is phase one.
Mr. Mastroianni said the reason is because it is one parcel, if it was multiple tax numbers then they could say it is only affecting one parcel but with it being one tax number they have to address the whole 144 acres he can't say less when there is more to it.
Mr. Billings said that he just wants to be clear that this EAF that the Board is being asked to look at from a SEQR standpoint is for what they are calling phase one and that is not clear in the EAF and maybe some notes should be added to it.
Mr. Geiss asked Mr. Hunt if this could be segmented.
Mr. Hunt said that the Board can choose to segment it but the most important thing he thinks is that the resolution be clear as to what the significance determination applies to whether it is just phase one or phase one and two. The SEQR regulations do say that segmentation generally speaking is contrary to the intent of SEQR and if the Board is going to do a segmented review the Board ought to give reasons for why the Board is doing so and in particular if the Board does determine that there is a potential significant adverse impact the Board is going to need to decide whether an EIS would address phase one only or both phases and the SEQR regulations say they have a bias against segmentation but they don't prohibit it.
Mr. Ruddock said that the action of the Board is to subdivide 144 acres, so the SEQR is on 144 acres. The Board might only look at the impact of what is being constructed upon but the SEQR runs on the entire chunk of land unless the Board segments it out but to him that top chunk is a part of the subdivision not part of site plan, site plan will be a different story but with subdivision that is all included and all part of SEQR and he is not against it but the Board needs to have it clarified on what the SEQR is on and what pieces the Board is doing SEQR on so that the Board is not looking at something down the road that is different that what everyone thought was being looked at tonight.
Mr. Billings said the EAF addresses the entire 144 acre site but addresses the impacts of the first 26 lots.
Mr. Mastroianni said that if they look at the description of the action which says subdivision of 144 acres of land into approximately 26 lots for residential development and the remainder to be one undeveloped lot and it also talks about 3300ft of proposed road way.
Mr. Billings said the project as defined is a 27 lot subdivision.
Mr. Hunt asked if it is the applicant's intention that they would come back for separate SEQR determination to the impact of phase 2.
Mr. Mastroianni said yes.
Mr. Ruddock said that it would be SEQR decision and site plan for the undeveloped lot.
Mr. Ruddock asked if there is any drainage moving from any one of the 26 lots towards the 27th lot.
Mr. Billings said there can't be, preliminary drainage information that they have shows that it is mitigated on site and it has to be mitigated and detained on site. They are not far enough in their design to have the details because it is preliminary but their preliminary investigation shows that it will be detained on site.
Mr. Ruddock said it has to be or the EAF goes to the undeveloped lands and it can't be segmented.
Mr. Mastroianni said that is why they have gone to that point and not beyond it because it drains back in on the developed area and past that point it would go over to phase 2.
Mr. Billings said again the action here is subdivision as they pointed out; the Board is not looking at site plan.
Mr. Billings said on number 11 talks about species of animals that are threatened or endangered and the applicant stated no and asked if there was any documentation from DEC stating that.
Mr. Mastroianni said that he will provide the Town with letters and that the US Fish and Wildlife did a walk through and also their wetland biologist did an Indiana Bat inventory for maternity trees out there and she has the letter for that.
Mr. Billings said so at some point the Board will get a letter that confirms that.
Mr. Mastroianni said yes from Fish and Wildlife.
Ms. Sabin asked for the date of that visit and will the date be included in the letter.
Mr. Mastroianni said yes.
Mr. Billings said number 15 which states streams within or contiguous to the project area the applicant notes the Seneca River but his environmental people tell him that the stream actually has a name which is tributary 27e and that should be labeled and noted on this as well and basically that is the wetland on the north end.
Mr. Mastroianni said ok.
Mr. Billings said under B project description, it states project acreage to be developed just for clarification is 51 acres and that is what they are calling phase 1.
Mr. Mastroianni said correct.
Mr. Billings asked if the 26 lots are 51 acres.
Mr. Mastroianni said that they don't conclude 51 acres but they are calling for developable area. They are only going off the center line assuming 300ft each way. They are not going down along the trees or taking anything off down along the shore; the part that is going to be impacted is only 51 acres of land.
Mr. Billings said but it doesn't include anything above that line.
Mr. Mastroianni said correct.
Mr. Billings said number 4 under project description it asks how many acres of vegetation will be removed from the site and the applicant has noted 0 acres and that conflicts with number 2 where they are showing a one acre difference and he thinks the zero is incorrect.
Mr. Mastroianni said that the way that they looked at it is that it wasn't going to be removed from the site because the trees are going to be ground up and used for mulch.
Mr. Billings said that he doesn't think that was the intent. They are removing vegetation from the site so he thinks that needs to be changed from zero to whatever it is.
Mr. Geiss said that in the EAF it does say that they are going to be removing and stock piling topsoil also.
Mr. Billings said clearly they are removing vegetation in one form or another and he thinks the zero is incorrect and the Board has determined that this is a single phased project so they would not fill out number 7 and that needs to be changed and it is confusing to fill both questions 6 and 7 out because they are saying it is only going to be one phase.
Mr. Billings said number 15 which asks in any portion of the project is in the 100 year flood plain and he would like the applicant to confirm that the answer is no because he knows the 100 year flood plain dips in on the north end.
Mr. Mastroianni said that they have none according to the surveyors on the southern portion of the property but they do have a flood line on the north portion.
Mr. Billings said on number 20 it says will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels and he thinks the answer to that is yes if nothing else due to construction.
Mr. Mastroianni said that their view was that the sound or loudness was just common.
Mr. Billings said that he thinks typically they would note that as a yes and note during construction.
Mr. Mastroianni said that's fine.
Mr. Billings asked about question 16 which asks if the project will generate solid waste.
Mr. Thomas asked if construction debris will be burned, buried or thrown away because there is bound to be waste on a construction site.
Mr. Mastroianni said that it will be taken away by the contractor.
Mr. Billings said that is solid waste so it should probably be noted yes.
Mr. Billings said under approvals required they didn't note Ag and Markets and they are going to need to note that because this is a State agricultural area.
Mr. Billings said number 2 under zoning they noted the zoning classification as AR-80 and on number 3 they noted the maximum potential development of the site under present zoning and they noted 26 building lots and again that is just for this phase.
Mr. Billings said under number 4; what is the proposed zoning, they put N/A and that should be AR-80 as well.
Mr. Mastroianni said that they are not changing it.
Mr. Billings said that it is still AR-80.
Mr. Mastroianni said just a point of clarification if on number 4 they put AR-80, how will they answer number 5.
Mr. Billings said it is the same number 26.
Mr. Billings said question 6 asks if the proposed action is consistent with the recommended uses in the adopted local land uses and they have noted yes and he questions that and asked if this was consistent with the Town's comprehensive plan for this area and they note that yes it is consistent and he questions that also.
Mr. Chatfield told the Board to note that the question is the use of the property and the use to the property is residential and the zoning designation which is reflective of the comprehensive land use plan and it must be because all zoning has to be in accord with the comprehensive plan is residential and that is why the answer is yes. That statement is not the equivalent of does it meet all the geometric requirements of the code, that is a different issue, the question is as to use is it in accord and the answer is yes. There are issues with respect to the geometry which they know about and which they will be dealing with but his earnest opinion is the answer to that question is yes and it has to be because that is what the comprehensive plan calls for in the AR-80 is single family residential.
Mr. Billings said they are honing on the word uses being residential.
Mr. Chatfield said yes, he thinks that is what this is meant to get at because if they are proposing to use property in a manner inconsistent with the comprehensive plan or inconsistent with the zoning regulations there is a whole other issue here that would be involved and that is not the case here.
Mr. Billings asked if the Board was satisfied with that.
Mr. Geiss said this is agricultural/residential and that is what AR-80 is, the residential definition of AR-80.
Mr. Virginia said that there is a State declared agricultural area here and part of SEQR is to determine alternate locations that would better suit the need and the question that he has for the developer is has alternative locations that would better suit the need been looked at for this subdivision.
Mr. Chatfield said early on with the Asian American cases and a number of other cases dealing with SEQR since it went into effect on November 1, 1977 one of the very first things that was the subject of a substantial amount of litigation was the question of to what degree does a developer have to identify alternative sites other than the sites under control. In order to address that concern of alternatives and the Courts initially were mixed on it, then the Court of Appeals has spoken and it has remained consistent for the last 15 years that the obligation of the developer to identify alternatives where some issue has been identified creates the potential of adverse environmental impact is limited to those properties under the developers control.
Mr. Chatfield said that the developer can not be required to go out and look at other parcels and say why don't they develop some place else, likewise if they are talking about a County approved State certified Ag district. Under 25aa of the Ag and Markets Law of that whole provision having a constitutional basis is designed to protect and preserve agricultural property if the owners of the property seek to use it agriculturally and it is sometimes referred to as the right to farm law. It's reason for existence is because agricultural activities is the one activity that is identified in the State Constitution and there isn't any other commerce or business activity that is mentioned in the Constitution but agriculture is and what the State Legislature did in 25aa of the Ag and Markets Law is say as municipalities develop, as farmland is
converted into residential purposes there is a potential conflict and everyone knows that, between the existing dairy farmer who wants to keep their cows pastured in their field and deal with their manure on their hay lots and so forth and the adjacent residential uses so this whole process was set up to have this County approved, State certified Ag district so if a bonafide farmer wants the protections of the 25aa they can get into the program, get their land designated as Ag land under the Ag and Markets Law and then neither the municipality or neighbors can take any action which unreasonable restrict agricultural activities on those properties however that is not a self enforcing statute. That statute has to be applied for and utilized by the land owner. It is a protection to the farmer not a protection to neighbors to stop farmland from being converted into other activities so the Johnson's, if their land is in an Ag district under Ag and Markets Law and assuming they are
bonafide farmers, then their property is entitled to those protections and the people that live in these homes will not be able to complain.
Mr. Johnson said they will.
Mr. Chatfield said that is why the statute is in place and he can't say that they won't, people being what they are, but the reason why the statute is in place is to give the agricultural industry those protections so as it relates to the environmental issues associated with it simply because it is in an Ag district land does not create any prohibition about its use nor any obligation on the part of the developer to seek other land not in the Ag district. This land was owned by whoever and it was their land and they have the right to sell it, to use it, to farm it, or to do what they wish to it and that is one of the basic tenants of everyone. Everyone owns land and it is their land and they resist people telling them how and what they can do with it. The Town's zoning regulations say that what the developer wants to do is perfectly
permissible and that is to sell it to someone that wants to put it into uses which are permitted under the zoning regulations.
Mr. Geiss asked if Mr. Billings had any other items in part one that needed to be gone over.
Mr. Billings said that is all he had for part one.
Mr. Geiss said looking at this further the Board was to look at part two specifically and determine what the impacts are and then determine after that whether the Board finds a positive or negative declaration on this and whether the Board would like a Environmental Impact Statement based on that so what he would like to do is start going through section two and the first item is impact on land.
Mr. Geiss said throughout this he has noted that the applicant had some answers that would apply but in each case in the application they are all labeled as column one and not column two which was one of his overall observations.
Mr. Geiss said item one asks will there be any affect on unique or unusual landforms found on the site and there are cliffs, the river, and shoreline so he thinks there are some unique landforms that could be affected by this development and he is open to discussion as to if the Board wants to call that a moderate or large impact but that is one thing that he has noted on number 1 and asked if anyone else had any comment on that.
Mr. Virginia said that he had mentioned the same thing as far as the cliffs and asked Mr. Mastroianni if they are going into the cliffs.
Mr. Mastroianni said that they are going very shallow on the lots probably only 200ft back as far as the building envelope and everything else and there is nothing planned for back in the area where there is the sharp cliff drop off so he put down minimal because they are not really impacting that area in phase one at all.
Mr. Geiss asked if there would be any impact on the river and the shoreline.
Mr. Mastroianni said none at all.
Mr. Geiss said no one will have a dock or boathouse.
Mr. Mastroianni said that their part of the project does not indicate any kind of clearing or any kind of work along the shoreline and what happens 20 years in the future he can't tell but they are not calling for any of that to be disturbed down there.
Mr. Geiss said as part of the applicants home construction but he was looking at lot development and there will be some shoreline impact because people aren't going to buy river lots unless they can get to the river.
Mr. Desormeau asked if they were limiting the construction only to construction of homes and no dockage coming through vegetation out to the river.
Mr. Mastroianni said that's correct.
Mr. Desormeau asked if that is going to be forever green.
Mr. Mastroianni said for their part of the project but they don't know what is going to happen 20 to 30 years from now.
Mr. Billings said that is not part of the project and the Board has to focus on the project and the project as they are currently describing it and that would require a separate permit in the future.
Mr. Geiss said that he hears what they are saying about the project but he is looking at development of this parcel in total and his perception is that the Board is making lots with houses on a river and they are not building but there is an impact to the river.
Mr. Mastroianni said that it says affect on unique or unusual landforms such as if there were bluffs or cliffs and they are not affecting or clearing anything out of there. Yes there will be a house several hundred feet back from the cliff but they are not affecting that landform. They are not putting down a use or filling or changing the course of the river and that is the way he read what that means.
Mr. Geiss said that he guesses he read that a little different because he read that it said cliffs and then the river shoreline and they are building lots along the shore and his perception of lots along the shore he considers the front of the lot as the river itself if they live on water at all so there is an affect of how the river and the shoreline is ultimately going to be handled with the development of that property. If it stays as farmland he would have any of that or potential for any of that so he has to look at what is going to happen and that is what he was thinking when he said it.
Mr. Mastroianni said that he doesn't know if any Board members have gone out there but for quite a ways up there they do have fully developed trees and brush all along and there is no place where it goes right down to the water. It is pretty thick all across there. The area through the middle is the part that is the agricultural farm land and there is a very large tree lot going down to the river.
Mr. Geiss said any time they are near water he has seen fire stairs going down to water, stairways that look like they drop 50ft almost straight down to the water and he has also seen over in that area where they have crossed through woods, through wet areas a lot of the years to get to a boat hoist out by the flowing river in this part of the river.
Mr. Chatfield said that it is reasonable to assume that the individual home owner may down the road want access to the water which is what the Board is suggesting but they are simply indicating that as part of this subdivision proposal and as far as the work that they are going to be undertaking that is not what they are involved in nor will they be involved. Should the individual homeowner after they get there want to apply for permission to build a set of stairs down the cliff or a dock into the river they will have to apply the same as any other land owner, they are going to have to apply for appropriate permits from the DEC and /or Corp of Engineers and would have to go through that process and obtain their individual permission and get the appropriate contractors to do the work etcetera. This is not part of their project. Right now with
people that live over there if they want to put a dock out in front they have to go through the process the same as these individual folks would have to go through the process.
Mr. Geiss said that the applicant does admit that there is going to be a potential.
Mr. Chatfield said of course, these are going to be individual single family owned houses and once they build the house and sell it to the person they have no control over what they are going to want or not want to do the same as any other homeowner; they are just going have to go through the same rules and regulations as every other home owner.
Mr. Geiss said that he understands but their action would lead up into this other action.
Mr. Chatfield said that the question that they are wrestling with here is whether there is a potential for a significant adverse environmental impact associated with activity that will affect unusual landforms and he supposes one can debate whether the river front really qualifies as unusual simply because it is river, that is a matter of degree but they are not proposing as part of this project to develop river front property. That is to say they are not going to put in as part of this portion of the project any marinas or intense development of the river. That would be up to the individual property owner down the road.
Mr. Geiss asked if property owners down the road would be submitting a SEQR for doing this.
Mr. Billings said they would need a permit.
Mr. Geiss said they need a permit but the Board wouldn't see it.
Mr. Chatfield said that they would need a permit from the DEC and the DEC would be the lead agency.
Mr. Billings said the worse case if the Board chooses the Board could simply answer that yes and note the river front and show a small to moderate impact.
Mr. Geiss said that is what he is proposing.
The Board discussed the Town code that states that lots on the river have the front yard towards the river and the back yard towards the road.
Mr. Geiss said that he would propose a small to moderate impact on number 2 because of the cliffs and shoreline.
Mr. Hunt said that he would note in doing the significance determination the SEQR regulations do say that the lead agency must consider reasonably related long term, short term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts including other simultaneous or subsequent actions which are included in the long and short term plan of which the action under consideration is a part or likely to be undertaken of a result thereof.
Mr. Hunt said that he doesn't think it is inappropriate under SEQR to consider likely consequences of the action.
Mr. Geiss asked if any one else had comments on item 2 that they would like to address.
The Board agreed that item 2 would be a small to moderate impact.
Ms. Sabin asked on item 1 if the Board was sure that the construction of the land depth to the water table is less than 3ft. The applicant didn't check anything there.
Mr. Mastroianni said that they did extensive deep hole tests for septic systems and deep holes were done to atleast 6ft in some places and it was County monitored and some places they went down to 7 or 8ft just to check in different kinds of soil and aside from one area they only reached water down around 4½ft.
Ms. Sabin asked if the construction that will continue for more than one year would be small to moderate impact or would that be considered a larger impact. Is the Board looking at small to moderate being development of the land, putting in the infrastructure, and the utilities since this is an eighteen month plan and the second portion of this being the actual building of the home sites and she had a question as to whether that would be considered small to moderate or a potentially large impact.
Mr. Mastroianni said that he looks at it as the longer term they are going, the longer the span for construction and technically they are going to have less environmental impact at any one time. If they went in there and started 28 houses immediately, built within 5 months there would be more of an impact as far as land being cleared and everything else whereas if they are going in randomly. After major construction is done they have to get vegetation growing within 30 days. They are going to have less of an environmental impact over eighteen months versus one season.
Mr. Billings said that it very subjective.
Mr. Geiss said that he didn't have any problem with small to moderate.
Mr. Billings said that this question is specific to the land.
The Board decided that item 1 would be a small to moderate impact.
Mr. Billings said that he was told that the Seneca River is protected and he thinks that needs to be revisited and it's tributary. Now again if the Board is looking at phase one only maybe they are not getting into that segment but it would require a yes answer in this case.
Mr. Mastroianni said that he will check that.
Mr. Billings asked if there are no impacts to the existing wetland in phase one.
Mr. Mastroianni said that is correct.
Mr. Geiss said that they are not dredging or going into the water so there are going to be no impacts like the impacts in the examples in the EAF.
Mr. Geiss read item 5 which asks if the proposed action will affect surface or ground water and the applicant has marked yes and stated that the proposed action will require a drainage permit.
Mr. Billings said that he would almost suggest that would be a column two with a yes in column three because he thinks it is a large impact but it can be mitigated.
Mr. Geiss said three spots from the bottom states proposed action will allow residential areas without water and/or sewer services.
Mr. Billings said again he thinks that should be a column two and a yes in column three because it will be mitigated, there will be water.
Mr. Geiss said yes, water to the site and he has noted that the lots are greater than 2 acres which can accommodate a septic system.
Mr. Virginia said the applicant has a very different use recommended for this land than what exists today as agricultural and they are obviously going to have turf grass there and large deposits of fertilizer from those homeowners so his question is how is that going to affect the ground waters that could be running toward the river.
Mr. Mastroianni said there are two points he would like to bring up; first off the affect on ground water he normally takes that as if they have wells in the area or if they were going to have some kind of commercial well or large draw down everything on top, the run off is going to be collected and sent to the detention areas for settling then that is going to be discharged to the river. So that is all going to be handled under DEC regulations.
Mr. Billings said that Mr. Virginia brings up a point with the septic systems and that would be the only impact to ground water.
Mr. Mastroianni said for the septic systems to be approved, if it is a regular conventional system from the bottom of the pipe they have to be atleast two feet from the ground water. If it were less than that they would have to have a different kind of system so the State laws are in affect to protect ground water from being contaminated.
Mr. Virginia asked if the lots have all been perked.
Mr. Mastroianni said that all lots have been perked, deep holes have been done randomly and the County came out and they did 2 lots in a row and they were similar so they jumped up 2 lots. Bruce Douglas from Onondaga County was there with them.
Ms. Sabin said that they stated that the water table was about four and a half to maybe five feet.
Mr. Mastroianni said yes, the most shallow that they found and because of the topography they had no ground water at all. They had some more towards River Rd.
Mr. Billings said the key to that question is will it adversely affect ground water and he would suggest that the answer to that is no.
Mr. Virginia said he had put small to moderate with it being mitigated with the systems involved.
Mr. Geiss asked if the proposed action will alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water run off; the applicant answered no however his understanding is that they are altering through their drainage network that they have proposed.
Mr. Mastroianni said currently everything aside from one portion; everything else goes down to the river or works its way to the river one way or another.
Mr. Geiss said for the Johnson property they have a drainage easement around the edge and that is being then carried over to the top detention area.
Mr. Mastroianni said correct.
Mr. Billings said that he clearly thinks that is a yes because they are changing surface water run off patterns even though it may or may not be a problem they are still changing it.
Mr. Geiss read Item 7 which asks if the proposed action will affect air quality and the applicant has noted no and asked if anyone had any comment on that.
Mr. Geiss read Item 8, Impacts on plants and animals which asks if the proposed action will affect any threatened or endangered species.
Mr. Billings said that he doesn't think the Board will know that until the Board receives a determination from the agency.
Mr. Mastroianni said that they will provide letters from Fish and Wildlife.
Mr. Chatfield asked if the Town has copies of the Onondaga County Resource Inventory management Maps that were prepared by Les Montessori because he checked through those on this project and didn't see any threaten or endangered species identified on the County Resource Inventory Map but he doesn't know if the Town has those.
Mr. Billings said that he has a list from Onondaga County and the Indiana Bat is one that comes to mind and that is throughout Onondaga County but again that needs to be determined and again all the Board needs is some documentation.
Mr. Geiss said that there was a comment this evening on eagles and asked if there was any identification with regard to Eagles when Fish and Wildlife did their review.
Mr. Mastroianni said no, they didn't come up with anything.
Ms. Sabin asked if the Eagle was on the list of protected wildlife.
Mr. Billings said yes and read the list that states all the protected or endangered animals.
Mr. Mastroianni said that the areas that they are impacting are open agricultural areas and they are not taking out nesting areas or things like that.
Mr. Billings said that he doesn't disagree but the Board still needs documentation.
Mr. Geiss read number 9 which states will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species and the applicant has indicated no.
Ms. Sabin said based on the comments from the people in attendance tonight, the thought would be yes.
Mr. Mastroianni said that the comments that were mostly given by the audience were water birds such as herrings, osprey and things like that which are down along the shoreline; not something that dwells in open agricultural land and very few things run through there other than field mice and things like that. They are going with the scope of the project and he would say there would be no affect on that.
Mr. Billings said that they have a note on other impacts that says removal of .06 acres of successional woodland and he would suggest that they change that to a yes with a minor impact.
Mr. Mastroianni said that they are removing a hedgerow.
Mr. Billings said that shows that something is being impacted so he would suggest that they show a minor impact.
Mr. Geiss read question 10 which states will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources and the applicant has indicated yes, that the construction activity would excavate or impact the soil profile of the agricultural land and they have also indicated that the proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or if located in agricultural district more than 2.5 acres. They have indicated a small to moderate impact.
Ms. Sabin said if they are totally changing 41 acres from farmland to housing for 50 - 70 years she has a question as to how they can consider that a small to moderate impact.
Mr. Billings said the threshold he thinks it is actually 2.5 acres if he is reading that correctly because it is in an Ag district so they are certainly doing that and that is probably a column two response.
Mr. Geiss said that he agrees that the major impact here is that they are changing from agricultural to a residential nature and with that and the next question on aesthetic resources too they are using a different use and that is probably one of the major things that he came up with, the others he would call peripheral on this but this he agrees is one of the major impacts that they have.
Mr. Billings said that he would suggest that on column three the mitigation is a no because there is no way that they can mitigate that.
Mr. Geiss read question 12 which states will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources and the applicant states no however he is looking at the same thing that Ms. Sabin brought up; proposed lands or project components obviously different or in sharp contrast to the current surrounding land use patterns whether man made or natural and the land use pattern here is farmland/agricultural at this time and they are going to development and he would call this a potential large impact but can impact be mitigated by project change and again he thinks that the Board is looking at the same thing as above but he is open to discussion.
Mr. Knapp said that several people have made comments tonight that aesthetically the impacts on the people that live across the river or use the river, those people would be considered as well.
Mr. Geiss said yes, that follows with some of the comments.
Mr. Chatfield said that he would agree with Mr. Knapp's assessment that even though it is in the Town of Lysander the Board needs to consider that and he would submit that when the Board considers that they can't reach that conclusion that what they are proposing is different than the surrounding area. The entire Lysander side is developed with single family residences, some seasonal and some year round, indeed on this side for the most point there aren't any present but there are before and after. Seeing a residence along the river seems to him not to be significant or out of character and the Board knows the river a lot better than he does, he has traveled up and down it a few times on a boat but it seems to him if someone is traveling up and down the river one of things that they see is river front residential use so he thinks when the
Board considers the environs as a whole as opposed to simply this particular parcel what they are proposing is not out of the character of that which is in the neighborhood.
Mr. Geiss said he was looking at it as the surrounding land use patterns and the Board also heard from a farmer in the middle that has farmland, that this is going to change from that aspect where this is farmland and it is changing to a housing development for Van Buren and he doesn't disagree about what was said about river development but the Board is seeing a change here on this property.
Mr. Knapp said the first example refers to surrounding land use patterns but the subsequent examples make use to this particular parcel and they are changing the character of this parcel regardless of what surrounding uses are.
Mr. Chatfield said that he concurs wholeheartedly, if they look there now they will see mostly trees on a substantial portion of it if they are off site looking at it but they are not going to be disturbing substantial trees in that area; what will remain however, what they are talking about here is aesthetic resources. If they are viewing this aesthetic resource from the Town of Lysander's point of view because they are talking about visual resource, point of view is everything. It is where they stand to look that creates a visual resource but if they are looking at it from the Lysander point of view looking back what is the change that they will see. In one part they will see some of the residences, in the part with the substantial trees and the cliff, the trees will substantially screen the residences but depending on how tall the trees
are they might be able to see a roof; does that fit into the character of proposed land uses of the project components obviously different or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns whether man made or not and are they talking about affecting a visual aesthetic resource and the Board could use the visual addendum at the rear. On the other hand to the extent that the Board would like to say yes and identify this as small to moderate he agrees.
Mr. Virginia said that he thinks that this is subjective because if they look at it at night they are going to see once a farm field that was dark lit up so he thinks it is all dependent upon the perspective that one takes when they are evaluating part two.
Ms. Sabin said if they are on the side of the property not on the river side but on the opposite side there will be a substantial change.
Mr. Chatfield said yes, they will be able to see these homes.
Mr. Geiss said what he had there which goes along with the item above was that there is a column two potential large impact that can not be mitigated.
Mr. Geiss said that on the question for impact on historical and archeological resources he noted no because the applicant has completed an archeological study.
Mr. Mastroianni said they completed an archeological study about a year ago and the SHPO sign off letter was provided to the Town.
Mr. Billings asked Mr. Mastroianni to confirm the third bullet on number 12 which reads the proposed action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory and asked if this site was on the NYS Site Inventory and stated that this should be marked a yes with little impact. This property is shown as sensitive on the NYS Site Inventory even though SHPO signed off on it.
Mr. Mastroianni agreed that should be marked yes with little impact.
Mr. Geiss read number 13 which asked if the proposed action will affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities. The applicant has marked no and he didn't have any comment on this one.
Mr. Billings said that he would suggest a positive impact because they are going to pay park fees.
Mr. Geiss read question 14 which asks if the proposed action will impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14(g). The applicant has marked no.
Mr. Billings said that is a no because there is nothing critical in that area.
Mr. Geiss read number 15 which asks if there will be an effect to existing transportation systems. The applicant has marked yes, increase in residential traffic in the immediate area and they have listed it as a small to moderate impact. He believes there has been a traffic study done and that is what came out of the study.
Mr. Billings said that someone pointed out tonight that the County has accepted it which to him would make this a small to moderate impact.
Mr. Geiss read question 16 which asks if the proposed action will affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply. The applicant indicated no.
Ms. Sabin asked if this was going to be set up as its own lighting district and everything else.
Mr. Geiss said yes, this would be its own district whether they put lights or anything in there would be up to them to do but yes lighting and a water district will be set up for here and they are going to have their own drainage facilities for this.
Mr. Mastroianni said that the developer is considering putting yard lanterns down through instead of street lights to keep the lighting down in front of the residences.
Mr. Geiss read number 17 which asks if there will be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action. The applicant has indicated no.
Mr. Billings said that he thinks that should be a yes with a caveat that it will be during construction. He thinks that they have to identify that there will be noise during construction.
Mr. Mastroianni said that it would be the third item down which states proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside the structures.
Mr. Geiss said yes, it would be vehicle traffic and construction vehicles and he would have this as a small to moderate impact.
The Board agreed.
Mr. Geiss read number 18 which asks will the proposed action affect public health and safety. The applicant has indicated no.
Mr. Geiss went through the examples under impact on public heath and the Board agreed that there was no impact.
Mr. Geiss read number 19 which asks if the proposed action will affect the character of the existing community. The applicant indicated yes and included additional services with a small to moderate impact.
Mr. Geiss said that he looked at the item above that says proposed action will change in the density of land use and here the density is allowed in AR-80 but it is going to change the actual density and he sees that as an impact.
Ms. Sabin said that she had that checked as a potential large impact.
Mr. Geiss said that he had that as well and that it could not be mitigated.
Mr. Chatfield said an example of the kinds of things that would relate to a potentially large impact as given by the first bullet point; a permanent population increase in the Town in excess of 5% and they are talking about 100 people maybe 120 if they count two children per home. He doesn't know the top population of the Town of Van Buren but he suspects that amount is not 5%.
Mr. Geiss said that he agrees and he doesn't have any trouble with that bullet point at all but he doesn't think it relates to the fourth bullet point down though and they don't connect as he reads this document, they're individuals.
Mr. Chatfield said the density of land use.
Mr. Geiss said yes, they don't need the first bullet to say something about the fourth if he is not mistaken.
Mr. Chatfield said yes and no, these are examples; that is not to say it is an exhaustive list it is just to give the Board an idea of the order of magnitude and kinds of things that are being talked about. To suggest that the construction of 20 or 30 homes in a Town the size of Van Buren will have a significant impact on the growth and character of the neighborhood or community given that it is compliant with the zoning regulations and therefore the master plan can clearly contemplate the potential for this use seems to him to be a little inconsistent.
Mr. Geiss said that Mr. Chatfield brought up the master plan and the master plan contemplates if anything, wherever they go on in an AR-80 that they need to have public utilities to supply it. It also looks at not encouraging development out in the AR-80 in so doing however in this case they are in between as he is looking at it and others are welcome to chime in but they have water which actually isn't there yet but it is down the road and it is down the road because no one up in that area wanted it when the water went in but water is there but there is no sewer in this area so it falls in between in the land use document. There is a positive here and a negative here. Yes, there is no significant change in population however in this area there is no other land development like this that has gone on so in this it is causing a change in
density and that is the reason he really wants to look at this and evaluate what is going on.
Mr. Billings read the third from last bullet on number 19 which asks if the proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects and he would suggest that is an impact because it certainly does set a precedent out there.
Mr. Virginia said that he had that as a potential large impact based on the non conforming lots primarily and the fact that the recommendation that the Board makes to the ZBA would set a precedent for a developer coming in with a subdivision that is not within the variances required by code.
Mr. Geiss said he agrees and he also sees it as a yes and a potential large impact because there is a potential for future developments out in this area and that there is a water line so there are other potentials.
Mr. Hunt said one other thing he would note on number 19 is that the Town's Comprehensive Plan does contemplate a greenway corridor along the Seneca River which is another possible impact.
Mr. Geiss read number 20 which asks is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts. The applicant has indicated no.
The Board and the applicant agreed that the answer to question 20 is a yes.
Mr. Geiss said the Board has a couple things to do. The Board has to do an evaluation to determine if there is a positive or negative declaration to do with regard to SEQR and should the Board do that he would like to list either positive or negatively why the Board is doing that and secondly if the Board decides that it positive then the Board also needs to decide if a impact statement is needed.
Mr. Hunt stated that one way the Board could approach this and he believes the Board has identified 6 items where there is a potentially large impact here and what the EAF form instructs for those 6 items the Board would now go to part 3 and evaluate whether the potentially large impact can be mitigated and whether it is an important significant adverse environmental impact.
Mr. Geiss said what he has for the 6 items are; Impact on Water - Number 5 - Will the proposed action affect surface or ground water and the applicant had yes and that the proposed action will require a discharge permit. The Board recognized this as a potential large impact and that it could be mitigated by a discharge permit and DEC regulations.
The Board decided that number 5 was not an important significant adverse environmental impact.
Mr. Geiss read Item 5 - which asks if the proposed action will allow residential areas uses in areas without water and or sewer. The Board had this item as yes and that it could be mitigated. The Board decided this item was not an important significant adverse environmental impact.
Mr. Geiss read Impact on Agricultural Land and Resources - Item 10 - which asks if the proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or if located in an Agricultural district more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. The Board has this item as a potentially large impact that can not be mitigated by a project change.
Mr. Geiss said that if number 10 is combined with the impact on aesthetics where they are looking at the change in the area and where the Board also on Item 11 looked at the land and different forms the Board had a potential impact that can not be mitigated, he was looking at those together and he would look at that as an important item.
Mr. Ruddock said that he agrees that they combine themselves together but when they are looking at SEQR it talks about these specific areas and that is why they break them down; there is the impact on air, the impact on plants and animals, impact on agricultural land and if they think of it as an impact on 10 and on 11 then there are two points and if they join them together that makes it harder to mitigate it and it makes it an EIS type of action that they really need to discuss so he doesn't think the Board needs to put them together but they can be addressed in an EIS if that is the case.
Mr. Geiss said that he is looking at both being important.
Mr. Ruddock said down on the bottom part of this form it says so now they determine that it can't be mitigated because they can't do it because it is one and two, now they have to decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this is important then the criteria that they suggest might be things that they would want to ask themselves such as the probability of the impact occurring and for number ten it is yes, the durability of the impact is forever - is it irreversible including permanent lost resource value, yes forever, will or can the impact be controlled, doesn't apply; the regional consequences of the impact, the regional consequence of the impact is that they are losing 40 plus acres in a Town of blank. He is not sa | ||