1 1 2 STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT 3 TOWN OF SKANEATELES PLANNING BOARD 4 ------------------------------------------- 5 REVIEW OF FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORMS SEQR PART 1 and PART 2 6 LOVELESS FARM DEVELOPMENT, LLC 7 Tax Parcels 051.-01-39.1 and 051.-02-18.1 8 ------------------------------------------- 9 PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION of the above 10 matter, conducted at the Skaneateles Town Office, 24 Jordan Street, Skaneateles, New York before 11 JOHN F. DRURY, CSR, Notary Public in and for the State of New York, on June 1, 2015, 7:30-10:05 pm. 12 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 13 MARK TUCKER, Chairman 14 SCOTT WINKELMAN, Planning Board Member 15 JOSEPH SOUTHERN, Planning Board Member BETH ESTES, Planning Board Member 16 DONALD KASPER, Planning Board Member 17 SCOTT MOLNAR, Planning Board Attorney JOHN CAMP, Planning Board Engineer 18 HOWARD BRODSKY, Planning Board Planner KAREN BARKDULL, Planning Board Secretary 19 PRESENT REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT: 20 ANDREW J. LEJA, ESQ. Partner at Barclay Damon 21 22 23 Reported By: 24 John F. Drury, CSR, RPR Court Reporter 471-7397 25 2 1 2 INDEX TO SUBJECT 3 SUBJECT PAGES 4 PART 1 5 5 Section A. Site Description 6 6 Section B. Project Description 17 7 Section C. Zoning & Planning Info 35 8 Section D. Informational Details 39 9 Section E. Verification 39 10 11 PART 2 12 1. Impact on Land 40 13 2. Impact on Geological Features 53 14 3. Impacts on Surface Water 61 15 4. Impact on Groundwater 78 16 5. Impact on Flooding 93 17 6. Impacts on Air 94 18 7. Impact on Plants and Animals 95 19 8. Impact on Agricultural Resources 109 20 9. Impact on Aesthetic Resources 116 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 Leja 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Counsel, state your 3 name for the record. 4 MR. LEJA: Evening everyone, 5 Mr. Chairman. Andrew Leja, here on 6 behalf of the Applicant from the newly 7 merged firm of Barclay Damon, LLP, as of 8 today. When we left off at the last 9 meeting, the stated intention was for 10 the Board to go through the Part 2 SEQR 11 review of the EAF tonight, get through 12 as much as you could, reserving next 13 Monday, the 8th, as an overflow date if 14 necessary. 15 Now I'm here tonight on behalf of 16 the Applicant. The record, as you know, 17 is extensive in this matter, it's been 18 before you, in one way, shape or form 19 for some time now. And I'm content to 20 rest on that record for the Board's 21 review. Obviously though, if you have 22 any specific questions that you think 23 that I might be able to help with, I'm 24 more than happy to help answer if I can. 25 MR. MOLNAR: After having reviewed 4 1 Molnar 2 the Board's proposed conservation 3 findings and analysis as well as the 4 revised submission from the Applicant 5 from March of 2015, reflecting that 6 there was a reduction in the overall 7 number of residential lots from 17 down 8 to 15, and the different configuration. 9 Take a look again at the SEQR Part 1 and 10 Part 2, to assess the accuracy of all of 11 the information upon which the Board 12 will move forward and review the project 13 under SEQR. 14 Karen has submitted an additional 15 copy of the SEQR long form as submitted 16 by the Applicant, April 2014. And on 17 page 2, the Applicant, the description 18 of the action is, I believe largely 19 generally correct except for the fact 20 that it discusses in a few different 21 locations 17 single family homes. And 22 that should be corrected to 15. 23 MR. LEJA: Given the information 24 submittal that was placed before the 25 Board in March, yes, we would ask that 5 1 Colloquy 2 the SEQR form be amended to indicate 3 that change. Thank you. 4 MR. MOLNAR: Andy, would you like us 5 to amend it for the record, the version 6 we're reviewing? 7 MR. LEJA: Please, if you would, 8 amend your own version and you can make 9 that part of the record. 10 PBM WINKELMAN: Says there is 11 11 proposed lots on the western side and 6 12 on the eastern side. What is the number 13 now? 14 MR. LEJA: 10 and 5. 15 PBM ESTES: Did we not see a height 16 restriction, didn't they have it on the 17 east side? 18 MR. LEJA: East side. 19 PBM ESTES: So that's not reflected 20 here. 21 MR. LEJA: I believe it was a 22 restriction of the height of the homes, 23 the two homes closest to Fire Lane 17 24 would be reduced 5 feet below the 30 25 foot limit set by your Code. They could 6 1 Part 1. A 1 & 2 2 be no taller than 25 feet. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Our code is 35. 4 MR. LEJA: I think it was 30. I 5 think you're right, I'm sorry. I knew 6 it was 5 feet. 7 MR. MOLNAR: For all the homes that 8 will be built in that line? 9 MR. LEJA: No, for the first two 10 closest to Fire Lane 17. 11 MR. CAMP: Southern most. 12 MR. LEJA: Yes, southern most two. 13 MR. MOLNAR: Moving through the 14 project information, we just made some 15 notes and discussed corrections needed 16 to the description of the action. That 17 is on page 1. 18 Page 2, Section A, Site Description. 19 Identifies the present land use as 20 forest and agricultural. 21 Section 2. Total acreage of project 22 area 46.6. And then the additional 23 acreage concerning first the meadowland 24 or brush land. Presently 5.8 acres 25 after completion 5.7 acres. Forested 7 1 Part 1. A 2 2 land, 22.3 acres presently, 13.6 after 3 completion and so forth through section 4 2. Any questions concerning that? 5 PBM ESTES: Yes. What's the 6 reconfiguration? Didn't we take some of 7 the meadowland on the west side and put 8 homes on these? 9 MR. MOLNAR: And reduced the forest 10 impact? 11 PBM ESTES: Reduced the meadowland 12 on the west side I believe. All of 13 these numbers, they changed with the 14 configuration of the new site plan. 15 MR. LEJA: Those changes are 16 reflected in the submittal from EDR, 17 dated March 13 of this year, page 3. 18 Open phase acreage, buildable open 19 space, permeable percentage, overall 20 vegetation remaining. 21 MR. MOLNAR: But that's not -- 22 MR. LEJA: It doesn't track the SEQR 23 chart exactly, no. But it shows the 24 differences in overall acreage usage and 25 availability. 8 1 Part 1. A 2 2 PBM SOUTHERN: But would be no 3 problem to modify the present acreage to 4 reflect the actual conditions would it? 5 MR. LEJA: We can do that. Just 6 update the numbers in A2. To be 7 updated. 8 PBM SOUTHERN: We know what they are 9 from the papers we have. Just have it 10 reflected accurately in here. 11 PBM ESTES: They say it's a 12 completely different breakout. 13 MR. LEJA: Changes are unsubstantial 14 compared with what was already submitted. 15 PBM ESTES: Well, I think Joe's 16 first request is right, to adequately 17 represent what the percent is here. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: We're just off a 19 little on each one. But we do need it 20 updated. 21 MR. MOLNAR: Right, so that it's 22 corrected. So for present purposes we 23 are reviewing the long form provided by 24 the Applicant. And starting with the 25 Information Section, then we'll move on 9 1 Part 1. A 2, 3, 5, 6 2 to Part 2 for a Review of Impact. Is it 3 the Board's intention tonight to review 4 this and to note whether or not we need 5 additional information or is it to do 6 the actual run through and complete the 7 SEQR determination? 8 PBM SOUTHERN: We can work on 9 completing the SEQR determination, but 10 if we run into something where we need 11 more information that stymies us we'll 12 stop. 13 MR. MOLNAR: Continuing the review 14 of the Site Description in Section A, we 15 are just reviewed Section 2, which was 16 the acreage. Section 3 is the 17 predominant soil type. Are there any 18 questions concerning that information? 19 Section 5. Approximate percentage 20 of proposed Project Site with slopes. I 21 don't think that's changing at all. 22 PBM SOUTHERN: That's fixed. 23 MR. MOLNAR: Section 6. Is the 24 project substantially contiguous 2, 4, 25 containing a building site or district 10 1 Part 1. A 7, 8, 9, 10 2 listed by the State or National 3 Registers of Historic Places? Yes. 4 Which is why it's a Type 1 action. 5 7. Is the project substantially -- 6 PBM ESTES: Didn't you say it was 7 yes? 8 MR. MOLNAR: Yes. 6 is yes. 9 PBM ESTES: Sorry, looking at 7. I 10 apologize. 11 MR. MOLNAR: For Category 7, is the 12 project substantially contiguous to a 13 site listed on the Register of National 14 Natural Landmarks? No. 15 8. What is the depth of the water 16 table? Zero to greater than 6 feet. 17 9. Is the site located over a 18 primary, principal or sole source 19 aquifer? No checked. 20 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell 21 fishing opportunities presently exist at 22 the Project Site? No. 23 PBM WINKELMAN: Skipped over Number 24 4. Are there bedrock in the ravine, 25 being exposed, does that count? Don. 11 1 Part 1. A 4, 10 2 PBM KASPER: Being developed. 3 PBM WINKELMAN: I think there is a 4 lot of shale. Shale bedrock. 5 PBM ESTES: 4 should be changed to 6 yes then. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Agreement? 8 PBM SOUTHERN: I don't know if there 9 are outcroppings there or not. I think 10 we're assuming there would be. But I 11 would have to look and see. 12 PBM WINKELMAN: All those ravines 13 have soft shale. 14 MR. MOLNAR: Is exposed shale the 15 equivalent of an outcropping? 16 MR. CAMP: I wouldn't be comfortable 17 answering that question, I would want to 18 consult with somebody back at the 19 office. 20 PBM ESTES: Need more information on 21 that. I have a question about Number 22 10. So he's answered, the Applicant 23 answered Number 10 by, and adding the 24 comment. No public opportunities exist. 25 Is that the extent of the question 12 1 Part 1. A 11 2 though? 3 MR. LEJA: Yes, according to the 4 SEQR. 5 MR. MOLNAR: Yes. It's currently 6 posted land? 7 MR. LEJA: Yes. 8 PBM ESTES: Fishing is not private. 9 Okay. 10 PBM SOUTHERN: It is on the creek, 11 which is the only part that's impacted 12 by this. 13 MR. MOLNAR: Technically the 14 property is the State of New York. 15 Moving on to Question 11. Does the 16 Project Site contain any species of 17 plant or animal life that is threatened 18 or endangered? The answer is no. 19 And then it moves on to state, 20 according to first correspondence with 21 New York Natural Heritage Program, in 22 July of 2013, and Attachment F. And 23 second, the US Fish and Wildlife Service 24 website and field observation by EDR 25 personnel in October of 2009 and July 13 1 Part 1. A 11, 12 2 2013. 3 PBM ESTES: Then it goes on species 4 that are threatened in here. They 5 should be considered in the impact 6 analysis, okay? 7 MR. MOLNAR: Yes. Its says proposed 8 endangered, bog turtle, Eastern 9 massasauga should be considered in the 10 impact analysis but do not necessarily 11 occur on-site. 12 PBM SOUTHERN: Read that last 13 sentence. 14 MR. MOLNAR: NYNHP data and field 15 observations indicate that no threatened 16 or endangered species occur on site. 17 PBM SOUTHERN: I can accept that. 18 MR. MOLNAR: Section 12. Are there 19 unique or unusual land forms on the 20 Project Site? Cliffs, dunes, other 21 geological formation? The answer is 22 yes. Description, the on-site perennial 23 stream lies within steep forested gorge 24 that is considered unique by some 25 community local members. 14 1 Part 1. A 13, 14 2 13. Is the Project Site presently 3 used by the community or neighborhood as 4 an open space or recreation area? The 5 answer is no. 6 The explanation, it's privately 7 owned and not available for public use. 8 PBM ESTES: I agree with the answer 9 -- never mind. 10 MR. MOLNAR: This is the Project 11 Description versus Impact. Section 14. 12 Does the present site include scenic 13 views known to be important to the 14 community? Answer is yes. 15 Explanation: Community members 16 value the view of Skaneateles Lake from 17 the West Lake Road in this location as 18 well as the view of the Project Site 19 from the Lake and opposite shore. See 20 the Impact Summary and Visual Impact 21 Analysis, Attachment H, for further 22 information on this view or potential 23 impact. 24 Section 15. Streams within or 25 contiguous to project area. Answer: 15 1 Part 1. A 15, 16 2 Class AA, NYSDEC protected perennial 3 stream. Section a. Name of stream and 4 the river to which it is a tributary. 5 Unnamed tributary to Skaneateles Lake. 6 PBM ESTES: I thought there was a 7 name for it. 8 MR. MOLNAR: Bentley Brook. 9 MR. LEJA: That's correct, that's a 10 common parlance, but when you look at 11 DEC records, they call it an unnamed 12 tributary in their official records. 13 MR. MOLNAR: My recommendation to 14 the Board is use the common parlance, 15 Bentley Brook. 16 PBM SOUTHERN: It's still State, 17 that's why we're recognizing it. 18 PBM WINKELMAN: Related to the 19 Lovelesses anyway, Bentley. 20 MR. MOLNAR: Section 16 goes on to 21 identify lakes, ponds wetland areas 22 within or contiguous to the project 23 area. The site contains a farm pond, 24 USACE jurisdictional wetlands, isolated/ 25 non-jurisdictional wetlands and is 16 1 Part 1. A 16, 17, 18, 19 2 contiguous to Skaneateles Lake. No 3 NYSDEC Article 24 freshwater wetlands 4 are present. Any questions? 5 Section b. Size in acres of the 6 wetlands. Answer: The farm pond and 7 wetland cumulatively total approximately 8 1.9 acres. 9 Section 17. Is the site served by 10 existing public utilities? The answer 11 is yes. Any questions concerning the 12 utilities or the sub questions? 13 Sufficient capacity, improvements to be 14 necessary to allow construction. 15 Moving on to Section 18. Is the 16 site located in an Agricultural District 17 certified pursuant to the Agriculture 18 and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 19 303 and 304? The answer is, yes. It's 20 in the description: Onondaga County - 21 District 2. 22 Section 19. Is the site located in 23 or substantially contiguous to a 24 Critical Environmental Area, pursuant to 25 Article 8 of the ECL, and Section 6 17 1 Part 1. B 1 2 NYCRR 617? The answer is, no. And 3 that's accurate. There is no critical 4 environmental area adopted there, 5 created. 6 Section 20. Has the site ever been 7 used for the disposal of solid or 8 hazardous waste? The answer is, no. 9 On to Section B, the Project 10 Description. Item 1. Physical 11 dimensions and scale of project. Again, 12 it's an acreage chart. First, a. Total 13 contiguous acreage owned or controlled 14 by the project sponsor: 46.6. 15 Additional description: Development 16 defined as a change in condition from 17 pre-development to post development. 18 That was offered by the Applicant. 19 Section b. Project acreage to be 20 developed: 9.7 acres initially and 26.6 21 acres ultimately. 22 Section c. Project acreage to 23 remain undeveloped: 19.5 acres. (The 24 remaining .5 acre represents the 25 existing fire lane). 18 1 Part 1. B 1 2 Item d. Length of project in miles. 3 NA, not applicable. 4 Item e. If the project is an 5 expansion, indicate percent of expansion 6 proposed: NA. No current project. 7 Item f. Number of off-street 8 parking spaces existing: NA. Proposed: 9 NA. Would there be off-site and off- 10 street parking in the driveway? 11 PBM ESTES: Driveway and for the 12 recreation area. The associated 13 infrastructure and the private 14 recreational area. Will there be 15 parking for those as well as the 16 driveway? 17 PBM SOUTHERN: I don't think we 18 count the driveways normally. 19 MR. MOLNAR: Off-street parking. 20 MR. BRODSKY: Two spots opposite one 21 of the lots there for the shared 22 recreation area that are not part of a 23 lot. 24 MR. MOLNAR: Is that a turn-around 25 for traffic? 19 1 Part 1. B 1 2 MR. BRODSKY: No, those I believe 3 are parking spots, the way it's 4 configured. 5 MR. CAMP: I've always interpreted 6 this question to consider parking spots 7 that are public and/or reserved for use 8 by patrons, even if on private property. 9 PBM ESTES: That's what those two 10 would be there, right there. 11 MR. BRODSKY: That's other members 12 of the Association. 13 PBM ESTES: Wouldn't that be the same? 14 MR. CAMP: I would think so, but I'm 15 not the one to decide. 16 PBM ESTES: You're putting in a 17 recreation area, you know you're going 18 to have visitors, homeowners have extra 19 guests. 20 PBM SOUTHERN: Further proposed 21 drawing two parking places. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Make it two. 23 MR. MOLNAR: Make it two. 24 PBM SOUTHERN: Sure, why not. 25 PBM ESTES: Is there any on the west 20 1 Part 1. B 1, 2 2 side? 3 THE CHAIRMAN: No. 4 MR. MOLNAR: Section g. Description. 5 Maximum vehicular trips generated per 6 hour. The answer is 20. Upon 7 completion of project -- Item h. If 8 residential, number and type of housing 9 units? Here it says initially 17 one 10 family. Ultimately 17 one family. 11 Amend that to 15 on h. 12 Item i. Dimensions in feet largest 13 proposed structure? Maximum 35 height, 14 79 feet in width, 63 feet in length. 15 PBM ESTES: Then do we want -- sorry. 16 MR. MOLNAR: That was the largest. 17 Item j. The linear feet of frontage 18 along a public thoroughfare project will 19 occupy is: And the answer is 1,300 20 feet. Would be along 41. 21 PBM WINKELMAN: 41A. 22 MR. MOLNAR: Section B 2. How much 23 natural material, rock, earth, etc. will 24 be removed from the site? In this 25 category the answer is zero. I think 21 1 Part 1. B 1, 2 2 there was an answer with respect to the 3 cut for the reduction of the house site 4 to protect the view shed. I don't know 5 what the cubic yards of material removed 6 was. 7 MR. CAMP: This is removed from site. 8 MR. MOLNAR: That would be removed, 9 got it. Okay, so that would all remain 10 on site? 11 MR. LEJA: Right. 12 PBM ESTES: So you're saying -- this 13 is saying there will be no material 14 removed from the site, zero. 15 PBM SOUTHERN: That's what it says. 16 PBM ESTES: That's a lot of 17 construction. I find that almost 18 impossible. Never ever seen a 19 construction site not take a dump truck 20 off the sites. And I find that 21 impossible. It is impossible. 22 PBM WINKELMAN: To be determined. 23 MR. CAMP: It's not impossible. 24 PBM ESTES: Let's say we -- 25 MR. CAMP: Construction sites are 22 1 Part 1. B 2, 3 2 built all the time without stuff taking 3 off. 4 PBM ESTES: They're just going to be 5 piling it up somewhere else. 6 PBM WINKELMAN: Conservation areas. 7 MR. CAMP: Part of the site plan 8 approval they'll be required to produce 9 a grading plan, at which time the Board 10 will be able to review that. 11 PBM ESTES: I would just raise that. 12 MR. MOLNAR: Moving on to B 3. Will 13 the disturbed areas be reclaimed? The 14 answer is yes. The answer is yes. 15 3 a. If yes, for what intended 16 purpose is the site being reclaimed? 17 The answer: All temporarily disturbed 18 areas will be reclaimed in support of 19 future residential uses. For example, 20 lawns and landscaping. And future open 21 space to be enjoyed by the homeowners. 22 Section b. Will topsoil be 23 stockpiled for reclamation? Answer is 24 yes. 25 Section c. Will upper subsoil be 23 1 Part 1. B 4 2 stockpiled for reclamation? The answer 3 is, yes. 4 Section 4. How many acres of 5 vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) 6 will be removed from the site? Answer 7 3.4. With a box: There will be a net 8 loss of 3.4 acres of vegetation. See 9 Section A-2 for changes in vegetation 10 type. 11 On to Section 5. Is there a 12 comment, Beth? 13 PBM ESTES: No, I was just trying to 14 figure out where the 3.4 acres came 15 from. If you look at the existing 16 numbers we had. 17 MR. BRODSKY: Probably the houses 18 and the pavement in terms of the actual 19 physical structures put on cumulatively. 20 MR. CAMP: With impervious area. 21 PBM WINKELMAN: Trees will be taken 22 out and lawns put in. 23 MR. BRODSKY: So you lose that 24 meadowland and you have lawn instead, I 25 would think. 24 1 Part 1. B 5 2 PBM ESTES: Right, just the numbers 3 don't add up to that. So when they're 4 updated. 5 MR. MOLNAR: Moving on to Section B 6 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 7 years old) or other locally important 8 vegetation be removed by this project? 9 The answer is, no. 10 PBM ESTES: These are his answers, 11 right? 12 MR. MOLNAR: Wasn't there also a 13 mention that any tree with the specific 14 diameter or larger would not be removed? 15 MR. LEJA: 12 inches at breast 16 height I believe is the restriction that 17 was imposed by this Board. All trees 18 with breast height 12 inches or larger 19 would be saved if at all possible on 20 site. 21 PBM KASPER: There isn't any trees 22 there. 23 MR. LEJA: Mature forest has a 24 specific definition. 25 PBM ESTES: Other locally important 25 1 Part 1. B 5 2 vegetation, that's the key part there. 3 PBM SOUTHERN: What would that be? 4 PBM ESTES: Any disturbance of the 5 ravine. 6 MR. LEJA: We're not proposing a 7 disturbance of the ravine. 8 PBM ESTES: Except for the bridge. 9 MR. LEJA: Bridge the ravine, it 10 won't be disturbed. 11 PBM SOUTHERN: Some trees disturbed. 12 PBM ESTES: Yes, trees cut to 13 install it as well. 14 PBM WINKELMAN: Some aerial 15 photograph of a hundred years ago still 16 had the woods up there on the west side, 17 and woods in the ravine. 18 PBM ESTES: You saw an aerial 19 photograph? 20 MR. MOLNAR: That was my next 21 question, hundred years aerial? 22 PBM WINKELMAN: Beginning of '38. 23 Maybe not quite a hundred. 24 MR. MOLNAR: Moving on to Section B6. 25 PBM ESTES: We're going to leave 26 1 Part 1. B 5 2 that no, then. 3 PBM SOUTHERN: Yes, no. 4 PBM ESTES: Are we leaving that as 5 no? All right, we're leaving it a no. 6 MR. MOLNAR: With the no, why it's 7 no it's 12 inch diameter tree at breast 8 height will be saved. 9 Section B 6. If single phase 10 project: Anticipated period of 11 construction? Answer is NA. Months. 12 Section 7. If multi-phased: 13 a. The total number of phases 14 anticipated? Answer is 2. The note: 15 Phase 1 will occur entirely within the 16 east parcel. Access road and building 17 lots 3 through 6. Phase 2 will occur 18 within all of the west parcel. Access 19 road and building lots 7 through 17. 20 And also the remaining east parcel lots 21 building lots 1 and 2. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Should that be 23 through 3 through 5? 24 MR. MOLNAR: 3 through 5. And 7 25 through 15. 27 1 Part 1. B 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 2 Section b. Anticipated date of 3 commencement of Phase 1: 8 months or 4 August of 2014. I think will be 5 adjusted. 6 And c. Approximate completion date 7 of Phase 1: 11 months or November of 8 2015. That would be a year and three 9 months. 10 PBM KASPER: That's the final phase. 11 MR. MOLNAR: Two phases within 13 12 months. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Can't use those dates. 14 MR. MOLNAR: I think the dates are 15 adjusted, updated. Question d. Is 16 Phase 1 functionally dependent on 17 subsequent phases? Answer, no. 18 Section B 8. Will blasting occur 19 during construction? The answer, no. 20 B 9. Number of jobs generated 21 during construction? Answer: 20. 22 After project is complete: Zero. 23 B 10. Number of jobs eliminated by 24 this project? Answer zero. 25 Question 11. Will the project 28 1 Part 1. B 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 2 require relocation of any projects or 3 facilities? Answer, no. 4 Question 12. Is surface liquid 5 waste disposal involved? Answer, no. 6 Question 13. Is subsurface liquid 7 disposal involved? Answer, no. 8 Question 14. Will surface area of 9 an existing water body increase or 10 decrease by proposal? Answer is no. 11 Question 15. Is the project or any 12 portion of the project located in a 100 13 year floodplain? The answer is, yes. 14 Description. Zone C. And that would be 15 the estuary of Bentley Brook. 16 Item 16. Will the project generate 17 solid waste? Answer: Yes. 18 16 a. If yes, what is the amount 19 per month? 2.5 tons is the answer. 20 b. If yes, will an existing solid 21 waste facility be used? Answer, yes. 22 Item c. If yes, give the name: 23 Skaneateles Transfer Station. Location: 24 Old Seneca Turnpike, Skaneateles. 25 Item d. Will any wastes not go into 29 1 Part 1. B 17-22 2 a sewage disposal system or into a 3 sanitary landfill? Answer: No. 4 Item 17. Will the project involve 5 the disposal of solid waste? Answer. No. 6 Item 18. Will the project use 7 herbicides or pesticides? Answer, no. 8 Note: Individual homeowners may apply 9 pesticides or herbicides to their own 10 lots, consistent with existing practices 11 of other homeowners throughout the area. 12 Item 19. Will the project routinely 13 produce odors (more than one hour per 14 day)? Answer, no. 15 20. Will project produce operating 16 noise exceeding the local ambient noise 17 levels? Answer, no. 18 21. Will the project result in an 19 increase in energy use? Answer, yes. 20 Explanation: Residential electricity 21 usage. 17 residences total. It will 22 adjust to 15. 23 Item 22. If water supply is from 24 wells, indicate pumping capacity. 25 Answer: 7 to 17 gallons per minute. 30 1 Part 1. B 23-25 2 Item 23. Total anticipated water 3 usage per day? Answer: 6,800 gallons 4 per day. Note: Based on EPA data of 5 400 gallons per day per household 6 average in the US. 7 PBM ESTES: We're adjusting 8 everything to 15, then that would change. 9 MR. MOLNAR: That will come down. 10 PBM WINKELMAN: 6,000. 11 MR. MOLNAR: Item 24. Does the 12 project involve local, state or federal 13 funding? Answer no. 14 Item 25. Approvals Required: 15 City, Town or Village Board? NA. 16 City, Town, Village Planning Board? 17 Answer: Yes. Town of Skaneateles, for 18 subdivision approval. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you want to go 20 back to the first one, City, Town 21 Village Board. Do we do a stormwater 22 district or something like that? 23 PBM SOUTHERN: None proposed. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: I think that might be 25 something we might want to propose, but 31 1 Part 1. B 23-25 2 they're not proposing it. 3 MR. MOLNAR: Drainage district? 4 THE CHAIRMAN: For this project. 5 MR. MOLNAR: I think we should fill 6 that in. Potential drainage district. 7 PBM WINKELMAN: Town Board. 8 MR. MOLNAR: Requiring Town Board 9 approval. Submittal date, I'll leave as 10 to be determined. 11 Next item: City, Town or Village 12 Planning Board. Answer is yes. Town of 13 Skaneateles subdivision approval. 14 Beneath that, City, Town Zoning 15 Board they left blank. No variance is 16 required. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: They don't answer or 18 you put no? 19 MR. LEJA: That's no, it should be. 20 MR. MOLNAR: Next item: City, 21 County Health Department? Answer, yes. 22 Onondaga County Health. 23 Next category: Other local 24 agencies? Answer, yes. City of 25 Syracuse Water. 32 1 Part 1. B 23-25 2 Next category: Other regional 3 agencies? No answer there. 4 PBM ESTES: He has no answer but 5 then he has highway department. 6 MR. BRODSKY: That's the state 7 agency, I don't think there are any 8 regional agencies that give approvals. 9 MR. MOLNAR: You mean town highway 10 department approval? 11 MR. BRODSKY: That would be the town. 12 MR. MOLNAR: But does the town have 13 an approval, town highway department 14 have any jurisdiction or review? It's 15 all state. 16 MR. BRODSKY: All state. 17 MR. LEJA: If there is an omission 18 there on some of those boxes sometimes 19 you check them on the computer when you 20 fill out the form and sometimes it 21 unchecks them for you. So I apologize 22 for that, we'll submit an update with 23 those in. 24 MR. MOLNAR: Next category: State 25 agencies? Answer was yes. Beginning 33 1 Part 1. B 23-25 2 with first: New York State Department 3 of Transportation for highway. New York 4 State DEC Article 15, the wetlands. 5 MR. LEJA: No, that's stream 6 disturbance. 7 MR. MOLNAR: Stream disturbance. 8 MR. LEJA: Because if you're working 9 anywhere near a stream, even if you 10 don't touch it, you still need to get 11 their okay. 12 MR. MOLNAR: And SPDES permit for 13 construction discharges. There is no 14 aspect of the project which is concerning 15 construction on the shoreline. 16 PBM SOUTHERN: No federal wetlands? 17 MR. MOLNAR: No present construction 18 in this application concerning any 19 common area on the shoreline for which 20 DEC or Corps of Engineers approval would 21 be required? 22 THE CHAIRMAN: We've got the Army 23 Corps wetland and stuff. 24 MR. BRODSKY: He's speaking about in 25 the Lake area itself. 34 1 Part 1. B 25 2 MR. MOLNAR: Within 50 feet of the 3 Lake. 4 MR. LEJA: No. 5 PBM ESTES: This has been one of the 6 omissions of this project, is that 7 they're not proposing that and yet are 8 we going to entertain an application 9 knowing that they're saying nothing is 10 going to go down there? 11 MR. MOLNAR: Right now however, this 12 Board is not approving anything of that 13 nature. So if and when the Applicant 14 would seek approval for shoreline 15 structures the Board would have, retain 16 its authority and jurisdiction. 17 PBM SOUTHERN: No federal agency. 18 MR. MOLNAR: No federal agency. The 19 answer is no. Or unchecked box. 20 PBM ESTES: We're going to piecemeal 21 it together. We can talk about that at 22 a different point, sorry. 23 MR. MOLNAR: Moving on to Section C. 24 Zoning and Planning Information. 25 Question 1. Does the proposed 35 1 Part 1. C 1-3 2 action involve a planning or zoning 3 decision? The answer being, yes. 4 Concerning a subdivision. 5 Item 2. What is the zoning 6 classification of the site? Answer: 7 Rural farming and forest. 8 Question 3. What is the maximum 9 potential development of the site if 10 developed as permitted by the present 11 zoning? Answer: As per Section 12 148-9G-2a and b in the town zoning code, 13 the permitted density for an open space 14 subdivision is dictated by Dimensional 15 Table 3. It permits the proposed 17 16 building lots. Adjusted to 15. 17 PBM ESTES: No, it's still permitted 18 17. 19 MR. MOLNAR: With a permit greater 20 than 17, if conventionally proposed. 21 MR. BRODSKY: If conventionally 22 proposed? Based upon the design. It 23 would be two acre lots, and theoretically 24 yes. 25 MR. CAMP: Proposed 15 lots. 36 1 Part 1. C 4-6 2 MR. MOLNAR: But the question is, 3 what is the maximum potential development? 4 MR. BRODSKY: I would take out the 5 word it permits a potential 17 lots as 6 opposed to the proposed 17 lots. 7 Because it's a calculation. 8 PBM WINKELMAN: Maximum allowable. 9 MR. MOLNAR: Moving on to Section 4. 10 What is the proposed zoning of the site? 11 Answer: No change in the zoning as 12 proposed. 13 Question 5 or Item 5. What is the 14 maximum potential development of the 15 site if developed as permitted by the 16 proposing zoning? Answer is, NA. 17 Question 6. Is the proposed action 18 consistent with the recommended uses in 19 adopted local land use plans? The 20 answer is, yes. The explanation: The 21 proposed project consists of 17, 22 actually 15, single family residences in 23 an open space residential subdivision 24 within the Skaneateles Lake watershed. 25 Item 7. What is the predominant 37 1 Part 1. C 7-8 2 land use and zoning classification 3 within one-quarter mile radius of the 4 proposed action? Answer: Within one- 5 quarter mile of the proposed project the 6 area is zoned as rural farming and 7 forest, RF. Agricultural land comprises 8 the single largest land use within the 9 vicinity of the proposed project, in 10 addition to residential use, forest land 11 and vacant land. Land uses within the 12 project area will be residential, 13 forested and open space in nature, which 14 is consistent with the adjacent 15 residential/forest uses located to the 16 north and west and consistent with 17 residential uses located immediately 18 adjacent to the project along Fire Lane 19 17, and further south along Wagon Wheel 20 Drive and Greenfield Lane. 21 Any questions or comments concerning 22 that answer? 23 Item 8. Is the proposed action 24 compatible with adjoining/surrounding 25 land uses within one quarter mile? 38 1 Part 1. C 9-11 2 Answer, yes. 3 Item 9. If the proposed action is 4 the subdivision of land, how many lots 5 are proposed? Answer was 17. Corrected 6 now to 15. 7 9 a. What is the minimum lot size 8 proposed? Answer: 1 acre per open 9 space residential subdivision allowances. 10 Section 10. Will the proposed 11 action require any authorizations for 12 the formation of sewer or water 13 districts? Answer is, no. All lots 14 will have private septic and well 15 service. 16 Drainage district, a water district? 17 It says formation of sewer or water 18 district. Water district would be 19 potable water, and sewer would be 20 sanitary. 21 Item 11. Will the proposed action 22 create a demand for any community 23 provided services, (recreation, 24 education, police, fire protection)? 25 Answer, yes. 39 1 Part 1. C 11a, D & E 2 11 a. If yes, is existing capacity 3 sufficient to handle projected demands? 4 Answer, yes. Explanation: Current 5 community services serving the Project 6 Site: Skaneateles Central School 7 District; Skaneateles Volunteer Fire 8 Department; and the Onondaga County 9 Sheriff's Department. 10 Item 12. Will the proposed action 11 result in the generation of traffic 12 significantly above present levels? 13 Answer, no. Any questions or comment on 14 that? 15 Category D. Informational Details. 16 Attach any information that's needed to 17 clarify the project. If there are any, 18 are or may be any adverse impacts 19 associated with the project, please 20 discuss such impact and the measures 21 which would be proposed to mitigate or 22 avoid them. 23 And Item E is the verification. The 24 signature of the Applicant. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: John, you're going to 40 1 Part 2. 1 2 look into the outcrop? 3 MR. CAMP: Yes. 4 MR. MOLNAR: Moving on to Part 2 of 5 the Full Environmental Assessment Form. 6 To be completed by the lead agency. 7 Refresh your recollection, Part 2 is to 8 help the lead agency inventory all 9 potential resources that could be 10 affected by proposed project or action. 11 In the review process the full 12 environmental assessment form begins 13 with Item 1. Impact on land. Questions 14 are as follows. 15 The proposed action may involve 16 construction on or physical alteration 17 of the land surface of the proposed 18 site. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 20 MR. MOLNAR: Yes. Subcategory 21 questions: a. The proposed action may 22 involve construction on land where depth 23 of the water table is less than 3 feet. 24 Is that true here? 25 PBM WINKELMAN: I think it is. 41 1 Part 2. 1 2 PBM SOUTHERN: Their own figures 3 reflect it. 4 PBM WINKELMAN: Zero to 6. Greater 5 than 6. 6 PBM SOUTHERN: So small impact. 7 PBM ESTES: What do you base small 8 impact on? 9 PBM SOUTHERN: Location of the site. 10 The average of the depth of the water, 11 zero to 6, the average is 3. They call 12 for 3. 13 PBM ESTES: When you look at the 14 full site all together we have lots 15 right next to the Lake. 16 PBM SOUTHERN: One lot next to the 17 Lake. 18 PBM ESTES: Have a moderate to large 19 impact. 20 PBM WINKELMAN: Say moderate. 21 PBM SOUTHERN: Considering one lot. 22 PBM ESTES: Not considering one lot. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: I need a better 24 understanding. So I can see what their 25 response is. I suggest moderate. 42 1 Part 2. 1 2 PBM WINKELMAN: I agree. 3 MR. MOLNAR: Question b. The 4 proposed action may involve construction 5 on slopes of 15 percent or greater. 6 PBM KASPER: Moderate to large. 7 MR. MOLNAR: Why? On the east side 8 or the west side? 9 PBM KASPER: East. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: East side. 11 MR. MOLNAR: Item c. The proposed 12 action may involve construction on land 13 where bedrock is exposed, or generally 14 within 5 feet of existing ground 15 surface. 16 PBM SOUTHERN: I don't think so. 17 PBM ESTES: Have to get the 18 definition of the proposed bedrock. 19 MR. CAMP: There is no proposed 20 construction on the stream. So I don't 21 know the definition of bedrock would be 22 a factor in this the way I read it. 23 PBM SOUTHERN: That would be no. 24 PBM ESTES: I guess that goes back 25 to we're looking at a project that 43 1 Part 2. 1 2 doesn't have all the pieces in it if 3 we're saying no construction down on the 4 Lakefront. 5 PBM SOUTHERN: That's what it is. 6 PBM ESTES: Look at the project like 7 this. 8 MR. MOLNAR: So the answer is no or 9 small? 10 PBM SOUTHERN: No. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Small. 12 MR. MOLNAR: Or small. Item d. The 13 proposed action may involve the 14 excavation and removal of more than 15 1,000 tons of natural material. 16 PBM SOUTHERN: No. 17 PBM KASPER: It will involve 18 excavation. 19 MR. LEJA: Excavation and removal. 20 PBM ESTES: Going to be removed, not 21 removed from the site, but removed from 22 where it exists. So that's a large 23 impact. 24 MR. LEJA: No, they're talking about 25 mining a site and removing that material 44 1 Part 2. 1 2 from the site itself. Typically that 3 question refers to mining. 4 PBM ESTES: We're talking about 5 excavating and moving soil and rock and 6 whatever we encounter around the property. 7 PBM KASPER: Question is physical 8 alteration. 9 PBM ESTES: Impact on the land. 10 PBM SOUTHERN: I guess to understand 11 what removal means. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: I understood it to 13 mean taken from the site. 14 MR. CAMP: I agree. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Taken from the site. 16 MR. CAMP: Right. 17 PBM KASPER: Look at the question 18 Number 1. It says full operation of the 19 land surface. 20 PBM ESTES: We're excavating it and 21 removing it. 22 PBM KASPER: Moving it around. 23 MR. MOLNAR: On the site. 24 PBM KASPER: But you are excavating. 25 PBM ESTES: Doesn't say removal off 45 1 Part 2. 1 2 the site. 3 PBM WINKELMAN: I say moderate to 4 large. 5 PBM SOUTHERN: I disagree. If they 6 were taking it from the site I would 7 agree. 8 MR. BRODSKY: Related to question on 9 page 5 of how much natural material 10 rock, earth, etc. will be removed from 11 the site? And that was where we talked 12 about to be confirmed. 13 PBM ESTES: But that's removed from 14 the site. I'm not even talking about it 15 being removed from the site. 16 MR. MOLNAR: But had a question on 17 that. 18 MR. BRODSKY: That's how they 19 connect this question, this evaluation 20 to the fact. It's the relevant Part 1 21 question is D2a. So that's where that 22 question comes from. 23 MR. CAMP: I believe the intent of 24 the question is excavation and removal. 25 Not excavation or removal. 46 1 Part 2. 1 2 PBM ESTES: So when we need to look 3 at, if we say, if it's all one site are 4 we going to be allowed to remove it from 5 the east side all the way over to the 6 west side? 7 PBM SOUTHERN: Remove it from one, 8 take it to the other? 9 MR. CAMP: That's the intent. 10 PBM ESTES: That would be removal 11 from the site when you look at the 12 impact on the land. But you look at the 13 intent of the question from the 14 environmental assessment, what are you 15 doing to the land? What are you doing 16 to that piece of land on the east side 17 if you excavate a thousand tons and 18 remove it and put it over, even if you 19 put it 600 feet over to one side, you've 20 impacted the land. If you move it 21 across the street you've impacted the 22 land. We're looking at the 23 environmental impact. 24 PBM WINKELMAN: What were some of 25 the figures they were talking about, the 47 1 Part 2. 1 2 excavation there to get those houses 3 lower on the lot? 4 and 5, cubic yards. 4 MR. MOLNAR: There wasn't an answer. 5 PBM WINKELMAN: Not an answer in the 6 assessment thing. 7 MR. MOLNAR: I thought there was an 8 answer. 9 PBM KASPER: Thousand ton is 50 10 truck loads. 11 PBM WINKELMAN: Thought I saw a 12 figure like 36,000 cubic yards 13 somewhere in this. In the application 14 somewhere somebody mentioned that. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: To move forward let's 16 take a vote and see where it comes out 17 on the vote. 18 MR. MOLNAR: There was an answer, 19 January 13th answer. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: I think what the 21 statement that some of us are thinking 22 they're moving it, removing from the 23 site, which means taken it off this 24 Project Site is what I think the 25 question is. Then others interpret it 48 1 Part 2. 1 2 as moving it to another spot on the site. 3 PBM WINKELMAN: Which will still 4 have a physical alteration and impact on 5 the land. 6 PBM SOUTHERN: Let's go with the 7 note they have. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Scott, what do you 9 figure it is, are you going to vote on 10 it? 11 PBM WINKELMAN: Moderate to large. 12 MR. SOUTHERN: Small. 13 PBM ESTES: Moderate to large. 14 PBM KASPER: Moderate to large. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm going to say it's 16 small. So moderate to large is what it 17 appears. 18 MR. MOLNAR: Moving on to the next 19 sub question e. The proposed action may 20 involve construction that continues for 21 more than one year or in multiple 22 phases. None. No or small or moderate 23 to large? 24 THE CHAIRMAN: I say small impact. 25 PBM WINKELMAN: Yes. 49 1 Part 2. 1 2 PBM ESTES: I guess my only concern 3 is the longer you have disruptive 4 property around the Lake the larger the 5 impact is. When you have a disruptive 6 property for over a year washing down to 7 the Lake, for the project I look at it 8 as being a moderate impact. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: I think I heard small 10 from most of the Board. 11 MR. MOLNAR: Why small? Because. 12 PBM KASPER: Storm water management, 13 which will leave a small impact if it's 14 done properly. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: If it's done 16 properly, yes. 17 PBM SOUTHERN: Yes. If things don't 18 get done properly we know that, but we 19 have to go in with an assumption if 20 they're done right. If not done right 21 then something has to happen. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Then we have to 23 address it. 24 MR. MOLNAR: I would recommend, 25 Mr. Chairman, poll the Board on e we're 50 1 Part 2. 1 2 doing. 3 (All polling of Board conducted by Chairman). 4 Q. Scott? 5 A. Small. 6 Q. Joe? 7 A. Small. 8 Q. Beth? 9 A. Moderate. 10 Q. Don? 11 A. Small. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm saying small. So 13 small. 14 MR. MOLNAR: Next, sub questions f. 15 The proposed action may result in 16 increased erosion, whether from physical 17 disturbance or vegetation removal, 18 including treatment by herbicide. 19 PBM SOUTHERN: Yes. Transfers 20 erosion during the project especially 21 with the cut and houses on east side. 22 I'd say moderate. 23 PBM ESTES: I agree. 24 PBM SOUTHERN: Potential. Not to 25 say it can't be mitigated, but it's a 51 1 Part 2. 1 2 potential. 3 MR. MOLNAR: Any other thing? 4 Item g. The proposed action is or may 5 be located within a costal erosion 6 hazard area. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: No. 8 PBM SOUTHERN: I think it should be 9 noted under other impacts that if proper 10 procedures are not followed, plans are 11 not -- engineering, how do you say it. 12 MR. MOLNAR: Compliance with the 13 SPDES permit. 14 PBM SOUTHERN: If there is a lack of 15 construction compliance there is the 16 opportunity for a tremendous impact on 17 it. 18 PBM ESTES: I would go a step 19 farther with that. I think this is the 20 phase of all of this, some of these 21 projects, and I don't mean this one in 22 particular, but in general their 23 irreversible impact on the environment 24 if they're not done properly. So you 25 approve something that potentially has 52 1 Part 2. 1 2 the idea of not being done properly, 3 that's an irreversible impact on the 4 environment. If that's a concern that 5 you think they might not be able to 6 mitigate this, then we have to look at 7 that. 8 PBM SOUTHERN: I didn't say it 9 wasn't possible for them to mitigate it. 10 You're saying if they don't mitigate it 11 we're in trouble. 12 PBM ESTES: You start the project 13 and find out they're not doing it right. 14 PBM SOUTHERN: Then shut it down. 15 PBM ESTES: You've already 16 irreversibly impacted the environment. 17 PBM KASPER: There is potential. 18 PBM SOUTHERN: Potential for any 19 project at all. 20 PBM ESTES: Not any project, but for 21 this type of degree on the Lakefront and 22 the ravine you have the potential. 23 MR. MOLNAR: If SPDES permit isn't 24 violated the DEC has a right, then it 25 has a remedy. Just as if there is a 53 1 Part 2 2 2 spill on a farm leading into an aquifer. 3 PBM ESTES: Right. The effects are 4 long lasting, that's all I'm saying. So 5 when you mention is it another impact, I 6 think it's more than just if, if done 7 improperly. 8 PBM SOUTHERN: Perhaps covered with 9 the statements above. 10 MR. MOLNAR: I think in terms of the 11 question, if there is any other impacts 12 concerning impact on the land. 13 PBM SOUTHERN: Right. Pretty well 14 laid out in that. 15 PBM ESTES: The only other impact to 16 the land, maybe it's on the next one, 17 talk about geological features, the 18 removal of vegetation and such. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: We'll move on then. 20 MR. MOLNAR: Move on to Question 2. 21 Impact on Geological Features. Question 22 reads: The proposed action may result 23 in the modification or destruction of, 24 or inhibit access to any unique or 25 unusual land forms on the site. For 54 1 Part 2 2 2 example, cliffs, dunes, minerals, 3 fossils or caves. 4 PBM SOUTHERN: I would say, no. 5 MR. MOLNAR: Conflicting, either no 6 or yes. 7 PBM ESTES: I would say yes, because 8 I think the ravine is considered a 9 unique land form. 10 PBM WINKELMAN: Estuary and the 11 shore. 12 MR. MOLNAR: Modification or 13 destruction of, or inhibit access to any 14 unique or unusual land form on the site? 15 Cliffs, fossils, dunes or caves. 16 Sub question a. Identify the 17 specific land form. 18 PBM ESTES: Ravine. 19 PBM WINKELMAN: Estuary. 20 MR. MOLNAR: And estuary. 21 PBM ESTES: Moderate to large impact 22 may occur. 23 MR. MOLNAR: So we've identified 24 under 2 a, identified the specific land 25 form. It's the ravine and estuary. 55 1 Part 2 2 2 Impact small, no or small impact or the 3 moderate to large impact? 4 PBM WINKELMAN: Moderate. 5 PBM ESTES: Moderate to large. 6 MR. MOLNAR: Articulate why moderate 7 or large? 8 PBM WINKELMAN: It's Skaneateles 9 Lake watershed and the tributary in the 10 ravine and the estuary, a lot of people 11 use for drinking. 12 MR. CAMP: Estuary is not the right 13 word. 14 MR. BRODSKY: Opening where the 15 stream meets the Lake. Estuary is like 16 a river into the ocean. 17 PBM WINKELMAN: I'll say unique 18 floodplain, how else would you describe 19 it? 20 MR. CAMP: Stream outlet, that's 21 what I would suggest. 22 PBM WINKELMAN: Skaneateles Lake 23 watershed, land forms a classic ravine 24 in the Finger Lakes. 25 PBM ESTES: The construction around 56 1 Part 2 2 2 the ravine, construction over the ravine. 3 PBM SOUTHERN: This has to do with 4 the ravine. I would have to ask the 5 question, it says may result in the 6 modification. All right, we're going to 7 build a bridge, we're going to modify 8 the two little points on the top, yes. 9 What are you going to destruct? 10 PBM ESTES: Definitely going to 11 destruct the trees building that bridge, 12 you're going to add, any construction 13 over that ravine and the consequence of 14 the use of that bridge is going to 15 continue to modify that ravine. 16 PBM SOUTHERN: I have to disagree 17 with that aspect. Or inhibit access, 18 how are we inhibiting access? 19 PBM ESTES: We're not inhibiting 20 access. 21 PBM SOUTHERN: Any unique or unusual 22 land form? No. 23 PBM ESTES: Stream outlet. Those 24 are just examples. 25 PBM SOUTHERN: I understand. 57 1 Part 2 2 2 MR. MOLNAR: Any other aspect? 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Aspect of the tree 4 removal. You're going to be cutting the 5 canopy out. 6 PBM SOUTHERN: For the width of the 7 bridge, yes. What percentage of the 8 trees would that represent? Not much. 9 PBM ESTES: We don't know that. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Not sure myself. How 11 much it would be? 12 MR. LEJA: The Board was given a 13 plan showing, at your request, you were 14 given a plan showing the amount of trees 15 that would be affected by bridge 16 construction. So that is there. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I thought that 18 was maybe a little more than I would 19 like to see. 20 MR. MOLNAR: If it's quantified in 21 terms of acreage of trees or dimensions 22 of the trees. 23 MR. LEJA: The Board asked for a 24 physical identification of the area that 25 would be affected by bridge construction. 58 1 Part 2 2 2 So that was shown on the map. 3 MR. MOLNAR: Taking that into 4 consideration, if it's the Board's 5 determination that it's a no to small 6 impact or moderate to large impact? 7 PBM ESTES: I believe it's moderate 8 to large. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Say moderate. 10 MR. LEJA: If I may, you identified 11 the ravine and the stream outlet as the 12 unusual land form. The question asked, 13 how will those unusual land forms be 14 destroyed, modified or destroyed? But 15 yet you're talking about trees on top of 16 the land -- 17 PBM ESTES: You -- 18 MR. LEJA: But just hear me out for 19 a second, please. You're talking about 20 removal of trees above the land to make 21 way for the bridge and the driveway. 22 Some of those trees are going to come 23 back once construction is over. So to 24 the extent you're talking about 25 modification or destruction to the 59 1 Part 2 2 2 unique land form itself, there will be 3 no destruction to the ravine, no 4 modification to the ravine itself, nor 5 to the stream outlet. None of that is 6 proposed as part of the plan. 7 PBM WINKELMAN: Ideally. 8 PBM ESTES: If you could visually 9 pick up something and drop it in place. 10 I would second that with not this ravine 11 but a couple weeks ago I took a walk 12 down Carpenter Falls. Stand in that 13 ravine and you look at that and imagine 14 a 275 foot bridge spanning this ravine 15 and you have ruined that ravine. You 16 have destroyed that ravine. So I say 17 moderate to large. 18 MR. MOLNAR: Understood. The 19 placement of the bridge is going to have 20 an impact upon trees going up from the 21 bottom of the ravine coming up, which 22 will be eliminated in place of the 23 bridge. Is that in the Board's view a 24 no or small impact or moderate to large 25 impact? 60 1 Part 2 2 2 PBM ESTES: We just said moderate to 3 large. 4 PBM SOUTHERN: I disagree, I think 5 it's small. 6 PBM KASPER: Poll. 7 MR. MOLNAR: I recommend a poll. 8 Q. (Chairman) Don? 9 A. Moderate. 10 Q. Beth? 11 A. Moderate. 12 PBM SOUTHERN: Small. 13 PBM WINKELMAN: Moderate. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: I'll say moderate 15 also. 16 MR. MOLNAR: Sub question d. The 17 proposed action may affect or is 18 adjacent to a geological feature listed 19 as a registered National Natural 20 Landmark. I believe that's NA. 21 Or c. Any other impacts? On 22 geological features. 23 PBM ESTES: No, I think your point 24 was well phrased about the tree growth, 25 not just the trees from the base, going 61 1 Part 2 3 2 to disrupt the whole erosion I think. 3 MR. MOLNAR: Any other impact? East 4 side impact? 5 PBM SOUTHERN: No. 6 MR. MOLNAR: Moving on to Question 7 3. Impacts on Surface Water. The 8 proposed action may affect one or more 9 wetlands or other surface water bodies. 10 For example streams, rivers, ponds or 11 lakes. The sub questions begin with a. 12 The proposed action may create a new 13 water body? 14 PBM SOUTHERN: No. 15 MR. MOLNAR: Question b. The 16 proposed action may result in an 17 increase or decrease of over 10 percent 18 or more than a 10 acre increase or 19 decrease in the surface area of any body 20 of water? 21 PBM SOUTHERN: No. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: I'd say no. 23 MR. MOLNAR: John, do you have any 24 thought on that? 25 MR. CAMP: No, to me that would be 62 1 Part 2 2 & 3 2 increasing the size of Skaneateles Lake. 3 PBM ESTES: There is a pond on the 4 west side there. 5 MR. BRODSKY: Wetland pond. 6 PBM ESTES: Are they increasing that 7 at all? 8 MR. CAMP: No. They could disturb 9 that, but it would be difficult 10 mitigation wise. 11 MR. MOLNAR: Moving on, sub question 12 c. Pardon me and pardon my interruption, 13 moving back to Section 2, we just 14 completed that review of item 2 a. 15 Noting it's moderate to large impact, 16 and the vote was four to one. I 17 recommend that the Board check the box 18 up above, Section 2 as yes. Because we 19 left it unchecked when we completed the 20 sub questions. 21 PBM ESTES: Agree. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 23 MR. MOLNAR: Moving back to 3 c. 24 The proposed action may involve dredging 25 more than 100 cubic yards of material 63 1 Part 2 3 2 from a wetland or water body. 3 PBM SOUTHERN: No. 4 PBM ESTES: No. 5 MR. MOLNAR: Item d. The proposed 6 action may involve construction within 7 or adjoining a freshwater or tidal 8 wetland, or in the bed or banks of any 9 other water body. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: No. 11 MR. MOLNAR: Not within the bed or 12 bank of any water body. 13 PBM WINKELMAN: Shoreline structures 14 I'm sure. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Not at this time. 16 We've got our setbacks from the pond and 17 the wetlands and that. 18 PBM WINKELMAN: Okay. 19 MR. MOLNAR: Sub questions e. The 20 proposed action may create turbidity in 21 a water body, either from upland 22 erosion, runoff, or by disturbing bottom 23 sediments. 24 PBM ESTES: Potential is definitely 25 there. 64 1 Part 2 3 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, potential is 3 there. If it's done correctly, small. 4 MR. MOLNAR: No or small? 5 THE CHAIRMAN: No or small. 6 MR. MOLNAR: If they're following 7 SPDES. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: If they're following. 9 PBM WINKELMAN: We're talking 10 Skaneateles Lake watershed here. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 12 MR. MOLNAR: After the project is 13 complete does the Board believe the 14 action would create turbidity in a water 15 body either from erosion, runoff, in 16 those forms concerning stormwater that 17 just runs off the completed site? 18 THE CHAIRMAN: No. 19 PBM KASPER: No. 20 PBM ESTES: It shouldn't. It has 21 the potential to be significant as we've 22 seen though. 23 MR. MOLNAR: Is the Board 24 considering requiring that a drainage 25 district be created for this subdivision 65 1 Part 2 3 2 to manage storm water facilities? 3 THE CHAIRMAN: I would recommend 4 that to the Board. 5 PBM SOUTHERN: I would. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: That's what I would do. 7 PBM ESTES: And the reason being, 8 that's to protect the Lake just from 9 this. So with that background maybe if 10 that's our concern maybe that should be 11 considered moderate. 12 MR. MOLNAR: Andy, has the Applicant 13 given any consideration to the 14 consideration of a drainage district to 15 manage the stormwater quality facility? 16 MR. LEJA: Hasn't come up before, 17 but we would be willing to consider it, 18 sure. 19 MR. CAMP: It would be our 20 recommendation one be created. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: In the past we have 22 done it. 23 MR. CAMP: Some we have some haven't. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Some the Town Board 25 didn't accept. 66 1 Part 2 3 2 PBM KASPER: Only way to protect it. 3 MR. MOLNAR: And is that, do those 4 factors impact your decision on whether 5 the proposed action may include, excuse 6 me, the proposed action may create 7 turbidity in a water body? And the 8 answer is either no or small or moderate 9 to large. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: I guess I'd say small. 11 PBM KASPER: Small. 12 PBM WINKELMAN: Yes. Poll the Board. 13 BY THE CHAIRMAN: 14 Q. Scott? 15 A. Moderate. 16 Q. Joe? 17 A. No to small. 18 Q. Beth? 19 A. Moderate. 20 Q. Don? 21 A. Small. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: I'll say small to 23 moderate. Small, sorry. As a small 24 impact. 25 MR. MOLNAR: Sub question f. The 67 1 Part 2 3 2 proposed action may include construction 3 of one or more intakes for withdrawal of 4 water from surface water. 5 PBM SOUTHERN: No. 6 MR. MOLNAR: Awkward question, 7 intakes for withdrawal of water from 8 surface water. 9 MR. CAMP: Pipe that would go into 10 Skaneateles to draw out water for 11 residents would be an example. 12 PBM SOUTHERN: Says may include, not 13 necessarily happen. 14 MR. CAMP: Wouldn't happen. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Small. 16 MR. MOLNAR: Residents drawing water 17 from the Lake. 18 PBM WINKELMAN: Possible. 19 MR. MOLNAR: Sub question g. The 20 proposed action may include construction 21 of one or more outfalls for discharge of 22 wastewater to surface water. 23 PBM SOUTHERN: No. 24 MR. MOLNAR: The reason for the no? 25 PBM ESTES: Going to have a SPDES -- 68 1 Part 2 3 2 PBM WINKELMAN: New York State Health. 3 MR. MOLNAR: Item H. Proposed 4 action may cause soil erosion, or 5 otherwise create a source of stormwater 6 discharge that may lead to siltation or 7 other degradation of receiving water 8 bodies. 9 PBM ESTES: Yes. 10 PBM WINKELMAN: Potential. 11 PBM SOUTHERN: Of course it might. 12 MR. MOLNAR: Is the impact no or 13 small or moderate to large? Isn't this 14 what we just discussed in the turbidity, 15 upland erosion Item e? 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. No to small if 17 done right. Get the drainage district 18 in that also. 19 PBM WINKELMAN: For the record, poll 20 the Board. 21 PBM ESTES: Yes, should poll it. 22 BY THE CHAIRMAN: 23 Q. Don? 24 A. Small. 25 Q. Beth? 69 1 Part 2 3 2 A. Moderate to large. 3 Q. Joe? 4 A. Small. 5 Q. Scott? 6 A. Moderate. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm going to say 8 small. So it's no to small impact. 9 MR. MOLNAR: Moving on to Question i. 10 The proposed action may affect the water 11 quality of any water bodies within or 12 downstream of the site of the proposed 13 action. Again, similar to e and h we 14 just answered. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Poll the Board again? 16 MR. MOLNAR: I recommend it. 17 BY THE CHAIRMAN: 18 Q. Scott? 19 A. Moderate. 20 Q. Joe? 21 A. Small. 22 Q. Beth? 23 A. I'm going to say moderate, and my reason 24 for it is even if we do each one of these that we 25 say small and you start making them additive, 70 1 Part 2 3 2 eventually they're going to become moderate to 3 large. And questions for repeating because of 4 that. But I believe it to be moderate. 5 Q. Don? 6 A. I'm going to say small. But I'm looking 7 at if it's all engineered. 8 PBM SOUTHERN: That's correct. 9 PBM KASPER: That's what it's 10 supposed to do. If there is a chance, 11 you know, it's not going to be engineered. 12 MR. CAMP: If engineered and 13 constructed properly. 14 PBM KASPER: That's the way we're 15 supposed to be looking at it. Not 16 existing state as it is. 17 PBM SOUTHERN: Right. 18 MR. MOLNAR: Or in a failed 19 condition, nobody assumes that 20 everything fails. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm going to be, no 22 to small impact. So no to small impact 23 is what is decided there. 24 MR. MOLNAR: Move on to sub question 25 j. The proposed action may involve the 71 1 Part 2 3 2 application of pesticides or herbicides 3 in or around any water body. 4 PBM ESTES: Yes. 5 PBM KASPER: Moderate. 6 MR. MOLNAR: Small or moderate or 7 large? 8 PBM SOUTHERN: Small. 9 MR. MOLNAR: May I ask for a reason 10 why? 11 PBM SOUTHERN: Well, the distance 12 from the Lake. The SPDES control that 13 be in place initially. 14 PBM WINKELMAN: And the size of the 15 lot. 16 PBM SOUTHERN: Right. Small area. 17 Get more farm field than you would off 18 one of these spots. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Or a golf course. 20 PBM ESTES: Also putting it right 21 next to the ravine, right into the 22 runoff that's running down to the Lake. 23 So again, our drinking water. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Poll the Board again. 25 Q. Scott? 72 1 Part 2 3 2 A. Small. 3 Q. Joe? 4 A. Small. 5 Q. Beth? 6 A. Small. 7 Q. Don? 8 A. Small. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm small. Small 10 carries it. 11 MR. MOLNAR: Item k. The proposed 12 action may require the construction of 13 new, or expansion of existing wastewater 14 treatment facilities. 15 PBM SOUTHERN: No. 16 PBM ESTES: If 15 of them. I would 17 think so. They're all going to be above 18 ground. 19 PBM SOUTHERN: Expansion of existing 20 wastewater treatment. 21 PBM ESTES: Construction of new or 22 expansion of existing. 23 MR. MOLNAR: Jurisdiction of the 24 county. 25 MR. CAMP: It's a wastewater 73 1 Part 2 3 2 treatment facility, but again presumably 3 it would be constructed in accordance 4 with the Onondaga County Health 5 Department standards and etc. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Say no to small. 7 What's the other Board members think? 8 PBM SOUTHERN: I think that's true, 9 pretty well designed. 10 PBM WINKELMAN: I think I would have 11 to go to moderate on that, they did 120 12 perc tests on there, and 17 of them 13 passed out of the 120. Deep ones. I 14 just look sceptical about on the steep 15 slope. 16 MR. MOLNAR: Without DOH approval 17 for any given residence for the waste- 18 water treatment facility, there will be 19 no residence. 20 MR. CAMP: That is true. 21 PBM KASPER: Say moderate, watershed 22 is moderate. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: We'll do a vote. 24 PBM ESTES: Put 15 of these in, and 25 they're draining into the Lake, and one 74 1 Part 2 3 2 of them fails, we start the process of 3 irreversible damage. Overall action 4 that we're looking at, impact on the 5 surface water. The watershed of 6 Skaneateles Lake. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Poll the Board. 8 Q. Scott? 9 A. Moderate. 10 Q. Joe? 11 A. Small. 12 Q. Beth? 13 A. Moderate. 14 Q. Don? 15 A. Small. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm going to say, no, 17 small impact. So no, small impact of it. 18 MR. MOLNAR: Item l. Any other 19 impacts on the surface water in this 20 Section? 21 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't have any. 22 PBM SOUTHERN: I don't have any. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Got something you 24 want to add? 25 PBM WINKELMAN: Covered. 75 1 Part 2 3 2 MR. MOLNAR: Insofar as all of the 3 answers a through k were no or small, I 4 would recommend the answer be no to 5 match it. 6 PBM ESTES: I would like to poll the 7 Board for the record then. Even though 8 they're small to no impact on these, by 9 the fact we listed, I don't know, I have 10 to do my math, 12 of them, all of them 11 having an impact. When you add them all 12 up together to impact on the surface 13 water on the Lake that's going to be 14 significant and it should be entered 15 yes. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Beth asking for a 17 vote. Any other discussion on it? 18 Q. Scott? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Joe? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Beth? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Don? 25 A. Being cumulative I say yes. 76 1 Part 2 3 2 THE CHAIRMAN: And I'm going to say, 3 no. And it carries as a yes. 4 MR. CAMP: Scott, any concerns about 5 that? 6 MR. MOLNAR: Checking the box marked 7 yes for impact of the proposed action 8 may affect one or more wetlands or other 9 surface water body, despite answering no 10 for all the answers, a through k, is 11 unique. But we're talking about the 12 cumulative value of a series of small 13 impacts. 14 MR. BRODSKY: Also this question is 15 asked first, if yes, then proceed. 16 After going through the detail the Board 17 concluded that maybe it's not that -- 18 it's not in the moderate zone, it's in 19 the small zone. So it's not to say you 20 said no impact. The first question is, 21 is there impacts? Yes. 22 PBM ESTES: If we asked that first 23 we would have said yes. 24 MR. BRODSKY: And you still would 25 have gone through and still come up with 77 1 Part 2 3 2 the same set of answers but the answers 3 may be that they're small impacts. 4 PBM ESTES: Cumulative. 5 MR. BRODSKY: Then suggest as Item 6 l, is the other impact is cumulative. 7 PBM ESTES: I did. Physically put 8 it down, I specifically said that that's 9 why I called for the vote. 10 MR. MOLNAR: We don't have an 11 answer. If we have cumulative small 12 impacts on l. I think it deserves an 13 answer, no or small or moderate or 14 large? 15 PBM WINKELMAN: I think we just told 16 you. 17 MR. MOLNAR: Because we went back 18 and answered the primary question, 19 impacts on surface water. 20 PBM ESTES: Yes. 21 MR. MOLNAR: Is that what the Board 22 would like? 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Poll. Don? 24 PBM KASPER: What was the question? 25 MR. MOLNAR: Item l, cumulative 78 1 Part 2 4 2 small impact is the suggestion. It 3 deserves an answer. 4 PBM WINKELMAN: No or small or 5 moderate to large? 6 MR. MOLNAR: For the record. 7 PBM ESTES: If we put them all 8 together, cumulative small to large. 9 PBM KASPER: Moderate. 10 Q. Beth? 11 A. Yes, moderate. 12 Q. Scott? 13 A. Moderate. 14 Q. Joe? 15 A. Moderate. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Moderate. 17 MR. MOLNAR: 4 to 1, no 5. Impact 18 on Groundwater, Question 4. The 19 question is: The proposed action may 20 result in new or additional use of 21 groundwater or may have the potential to 22 introduce contaminants to groundwater or 23 an aquifer. If yes, answer the 24 questions below. 25 PBM WINKELMAN: 14 new wells there. 79 1 Part 2 4 2 Lot 1 would be drawn from the Lake. 14 3 wells. 4 MR. MOLNAR: New or additional use 5 of groundwater. I recommend we review 6 the sub questions beginning with a. The 7 proposed action may require new water 8 supply wells, or create additional 9 demand on supplies from existing water 10 supply wells. 11 PBM KASPER: I would say small. 12 MR. MOLNAR: I'd ask you to please 13 articulate why. 14 PBM KASPER: Because we're in a 15 watershed, 14 wells aren't going to 16 affect it. 17 PBM ESTES: I don't know, do we have 18 that on this? Do we have data on it? 19 MR. MOLNAR: Proposed for a thousand 20 acres per day, 400 gallons per house. 21 PBM ESTES: I realize that, do we 22 have information on the water table in 23 that particular area in terms of aquifer 24 with the water? 25 MR. CAMP: The Applicant stated the 80 1 Part 2 4 2 wells produce 7 to 17 gallons a minute. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: One of the meetings 4 the neighbors say they have plenty of 5 water. 6 PBM ESTES: I'm not sure, did we get 7 geological data that supported that? 8 MR. LEJA: Applicant submitted a 9 comprehensive watershed study requested 10 by the Board that far exceeded the 11 boundaries of the Project Site. Stated 12 there were no potential significant 13 impacts they could find to the watershed. 14 PBM WINKELMAN: Talking about ground 15 water. 16 MR. MOLNAR: Result in new or 17 additional use of groundwater. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Ground water. 19 MR. MOLNAR: Or may have the 20 potential to introduce contaminants to 21 aquifer. 22 PBM ESTES: I'm not as worried about 23 the contaminant. I guess I can go back 24 and look at the data on the aquifer, 25 then I'm assuming we have. 81 1 Part 2 4 2 MR. MOLNAR: Result in new or 3 additional use of groundwater or 4 potential to introduce contaminants to 5 the groundwater or aquifer. 6 PBM SOUTHERN: Not going to use 7 groundwater. 8 PBM KASPER: Well is groundwater. 9 PBM SOUTHERN: No, runoff is ground 10 water. 11 PBM KASPER: No, that's surface 12 water. 13 PBM WINKELMAN: It's in the ground, 14 you pull it out of the ground to the 15 surface with the stuff that's on there. 16 PBM SOUTHERN: Difference between 17 surface water and groundwater? 18 PBM ESTES: Yes. 19 PBM SOUTHERN: All right, take your 20 word for it. 21 MR. MOLNAR: In the structure of the 22 sub questions the proposed action may 23 require new water supply wells or create 24 additional demands upon supply of 25 existing wells. I think the context is 82 1 Part 2 4 2 groundwater is well water potentially. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Right. 4 PBM WINKELMAN: Did we vote on that 5 small? 6 MR. MOLNAR: Did you find it 7 unanimous? 8 THE CHAIRMAN: We have small. 9 MR. MOLNAR: And sub question b. 10 Water supply demand from the proposed 11 action may exceed safe and sustainable 12 withdrawal capacity rate of the local 13 supply aquifer. 14 PBM ESTES: I feel like we need to 15 make sure we know the answers too by 16 looking back at the data. I'm sure it 17 was provided to us, but I don't have 18 that in front of me right now and I 19 don't know the answer to that. 20 MR. CAMP: What type of data are you 21 looking for? 22 PBM ESTES: Quantity of water in the 23 aquifer, what they expect the flow from 24 the aquifer to be. 25 MR. CAMP: They've given you what 83 1 Part 2 4 2 they expect it to be. Difficult to 3 quantify without a pumping test. I 4 don't know that they've supplied that 5 information is what I'm saying. 6 PBM ESTES: So do we have any 7 relative reference of what other 8 aquifers have done in the area? 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Some neighbors stated 10 they have plenty of water, they're up by 11 the road. I know because I worked on 12 some of the wells, pumping from the Lake. 13 PBM ESTES: If the neighbors were 14 concerned, they have plenty of water and 15 they were concerned they were going to 16 lose it, that's what I'm questioning. 17 How do we quantify that? How do we know 18 whether that's possible? 19 MR. CAMP: Very difficult. 20 PBM ESTES: Yet there should be a 21 way to do it. 22 MR. CAMP: There is a way to do it, 23 sensitive and time consuming. You can 24 construct a series of 17 wells and start 25 to draw water out of them and see how 84 1 Part 2 4 2 that affects the rest of them. 3 PBM ESTES: It can also be modeled. 4 PBM SOUTHERN: Based on what? 5 PBM ESTES: Based on something made 6 out of an aquifer. 7 PBM WINKELMAN: Don't know how much 8 is down there. 9 PBM KASPER: We didn't hear from any 10 of the neighbors complaining the wells 11 are dry or bad. 12 PBM SOUTHERN: I think that's a good 13 measure. 14 MR. CAMP: That's generally the way 15 things get done, studying them. 16 PBM KASPER: Build a house, first 17 thing you put in is a well for water. 18 PBM SOUTHERN: If they don't have 19 water they don't have a house. You're 20 going to get water somewhere. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: That's right. 22 PBM ESTES: So you look at a 23 neighborhood and you say everybody has 24 got great water. Everybody is really 25 happy. Then you put 17 more wells in, 85 1 Part 2 4 2 15 more wells in, 14 new wells in, all 3 in one concentrated little area. And 4 they drill their well. I've got water 5 and you drill your water, I've got 6 water. But Karen sitting there for five 7 years, and all of a sudden she says 8 where is my water pressure? These guys 9 all get their new building permits and 10 houses, and Karen over here with no 11 water anymore. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm telling you it's 13 possible. 14 PBM WINKELMAN: I think the setback 15 to the neighboring properties are 16 greater than the setbacks for the new 17 lots and things from each other. So it 18 will impact the new lots more. But I'd 19 say small. 20 PBM SOUTHERN: Small to moderate. 21 PBM KASPER: Small. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Put small. Do you 23 want to poll the Board? 24 MR. MOLNAR: I would recommend that. 25 BY THE CHAIRMAN: 86 1 Part 2 4 2 Q. Scott? 3 A. Small. 4 Q. Joe? 5 A. Small. 6 Q. Beth? 7 A. Can I refrain? 8 Q. No. 9 A. I guess I just don't know the answer. 10 Logically I think they're going to be okay. 11 Q. Don? 12 A. Small. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm small. So one 14 abstained and four small. 15 MR. MOLAR: Item c. The proposed 16 action may allow or result in 17 residential uses in areas without water 18 and sewer services. 19 PBM ESTES: Residential uses in 20 areas without -- 21 MR. MOLNAR: I think that's true 22 across the Board. Proposed action may 23 allow or result in residential. 24 MR. CAMP: Definitely true. 25 MR. MOLNAR: Is it a small or 87 1 Part 2 4 2 moderate impact on groundwater? 3 PBM SOUTHERN: I think small. 4 PBM KASPER: Small. 5 PBM ESTES: Yes. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Small. 7 PBM WINKELMAN: Small. 8 MR. MOLNAR: Item d. The proposed 9 action may include or require wastewater 10 discharge to groundwater. 11 PBM KASPER: Should be no. 12 PBM SOUTHERN: Groundwater is well 13 water. We're putting in a subsurface 14 sewer. 15 MR. CAMP: Won't let you discharge 16 into the groundwater. Separation 17 requirement. 18 PBM KASPER: Deep hole test and 19 everything. 20 PBM SOUTHERN: Okay. 21 MR. MOLNAR: Is that a unanimous no? 22 PBM SOUTHERN: Yes. 23 MR. MOLNAR: Item e. The proposed 24 action may result in the construction of 25 water supply wells in locations where 88 1 Part 2 4 2 groundwater is or is suspected to be 3 contaminated. 4 PBM SOUTHERN: No. 5 MR. MOLNAR: You'll agree with that? 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 7 MR. MOLNAR: Item f. The proposed 8 action may require the bulk storage of 9 petroleum or chemical products over 10 groundwater or an aquifer. 11 PBM SOUTHERN: No. 12 MR. MOLNAR: Residential 13 application. Item g. The proposed 14 action may involve the commercial 15 application of pesticides within 100 16 feet of potable drinking water or 17 irrigation sources. 18 PBM KASPER: Should be no. 19 MR. CAMP: Town regulation or county 20 regulation. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Or the homeowners 22 regulation. 23 MR. CAMP: Right, any sort of 24 regulation. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: No to small. 89 1 Part 2 4 2 MR. MOLNAR: One house within 100 3 feet of the Lake. Item h. Any other 4 impacts? 5 PBM WINKELMAN: I just again state 6 is that the same? Not an exact science, 7 we're really not sure. 8 PBM ESTES: In looking at the 9 workbook for EAF, they do offer some 10 tips for going back and looking at that 11 a little bit. I'm scanning it very 12 quickly here, so I can't go through it, 13 but I think we can go back and look at 14 it. At this time finding the way we 15 did, I reserve that we may want to go 16 back and look at some of the ideas that 17 they suggest in here. 18 MR. MOLNAR: Tips, the reviewer is 19 not expected to be an expert in 20 environmental analysis. If you are not 21 sure or undecided about the size of an 22 impact it may be helpful to review the 23 sub questions for general questions and 24 consult the workbook. 25 PBM ESTES: Which is what I'm trying 90 1 Part 2 4 2 to do, but it's hard to listen and 3 follow and consult the workbook. 4 MR. MOLNAR: Just bringing it up. 5 PBM ESTES: Coming back for a second 6 meeting, maybe we reserve this one as 7 something we can come back and look at 8 when we have a chance to look at what 9 the workbook suggests. Then when we're 10 talking about the workbook, I also 11 quickly reviewed, it actually does talk 12 about excavation. And excavation is 13 removing from one part of the property 14 to the same property. It doesn't have 15 to be off the property to be considered 16 excavation and removal in the workbook. 17 So we can go back and document that as 18 well. 19 MR. MOLNAR: Any other impacts? 20 Suggestions for item 4 h impact on the 21 groundwater. 22 MR. CAMP: Uncertainty about 23 groundwater availability. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Only thing I can say 25 is that you can get water, might go 91 1 Part 2 4 2 further than you want, maybe have to 3 treat it or something. Because with the 4 experience I've had with it, you can 5 leak like your well being a reservoir. 6 MR. MOLNAR: They keep going down 7 and then they have to filter it. But 8 the water is available. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 10 PBM KASPER: Number 4 should be no. 11 MR. MOLNAR: The overall answer to 12 Question 4, the proposed action may 13 result in new or additional use of 14 groundwater or may have the potential to 15 introduce contaminants to groundwater or 16 an aquifer. As a result of the answers 17 to questions a through g, is the answer 18 then no or yes? 19 PBM ESTES: That's a bad question. 20 MR. MOLNAR: You're right. 21 PBM ESTES: There is no way you can 22 answer that question no based on this 23 project. 24 MR. MOLNAR: May result in new or 25 additional use of groundwater. Yes, 92 1 Part 2 4 2 there is 14 wells. 3 PBM ESTES: You have to answer yes 4 to that. 5 PBM KASPER: I guess so. 6 MR. MOLNAR: Even yes, we move on to 7 the questions concerning impact. All of 8 them were no or small. None were 9 moderate to large. 10 MR. CAMP: The overall question to 11 me on 4, is there an impact on 12 groundwater. Is there an environmental 13 impact? 14 PBM ESTES: I agree, but that's not 15 what the question is. 16 MR. CAMP: You're right. 17 PBM ESTES: Write to the DEC and 18 tell them to change it. 19 MR. MOLNAR: They did, this is the 20 new one. But I don't know that the new 21 form is anymore effective. 22 MR. LEJA: Yes, the Board requested 23 us to submit the new EAF. 24 MR. MOLNAR: Thank you. 25 PBM SOUTHERN: This is the improved 93 1 Part 2 5 2 questioning. 3 MR. MOLNAR: Moving on to Question 4 5. Impacts on Flooding. The proposed 5 action may result in development on 6 lands subject to flooding. 7 PBM SOUTHERN: No. Because 8 everything is out of the footnote. 9 MR. MOLNAR: Development on land 10 subject to flooding? Above the flood 11 zone? 12 PBM SOUTHERN: Yes. 13 PBM WINKELMAN: Not taking into 14 effect steep slopes. 15 PBM KASPER: We have to go to the 16 question. 17 MR. MOLNAR: Floodplain, 500 years. 18 PBM KASPER: D says modify existing 19 drainage pattern. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: But in the flood zone 21 flooding area? 22 PBM ESTES: They're asking that 23 question because you can prevent 24 flooding. When you start changing 25 modification or existing changing 94 1 Part 2 6 2 pattern, that's a weird question. 3 PBM SOUTHERN: I think that's no. 4 MR. MOLNAR: No. Moving on to 5 Question 6. Impacts on Air. Proposed 6 action may include a state regulated air 7 emission source. State regulated air 8 emission source. Reviewing the first 9 sub question a. The proposed action 10 requires federal or state air emission 11 permits, the action may also emit one or 12 more greenhouse gases at or above the 13 following levels: 14 Item b. The proposed action may 15 generate 10 tons per year or more of any 16 one designated hazardous air pollutant, 17 or 25 tons a year or more of any 18 combination of such hazardous air 19 pollutants. 20 PBM SOUTHERN: No. 21 MR. MOLNAR: Discharging pollutants. 22 PBM ESTES: In the workbook it talks 23 about vehicles, construction. It talks 24 about mobile air pollutants from 25 vehicles, from non-permanent equipment 95 1 Part 2 7 2 during construction. List of all 3 sources of air emissions from stationary 4 sources during construction. 5 PBM SOUTHERN: No. 6 PBM WINKELMAN: I still think it's 7 no. Just small, minute. 8 PBM SOUTHERN: Check no. 9 MR. MOLNAR: Is that the conclusion 10 of all Board members, no? 11 THE CHAIRMAN: No for me. 12 MR. MOLNAR: No. Question 7. 13 Impact on Plants and Animals. The 14 question is: The proposed action may 15 result in a loss of flora or fauna. 16 Example question a. The proposed action 17 may cause reduction in population or 18 loss of individuals of any threatened or 19 endangered species, as listed by New 20 York State or the federal government, 21 that use the site, or are found on, over 22 or near the site. 23 PBM KASPER: No. 24 PBM SOUTHERN: No. 25 PBM ESTES: Didn't they list one? 96 1 Part 2 7 2 THE CHAIRMAN: They're ones they 3 consider -- 4 MR. MOLNAR: The answer is no, 5 because? 6 PBM ESTES: They don't say that 7 they're not, they don't know. 8 PBM KASPER: Read the last. 9 PBM ESTES: Last one is talking 10 about animals, not fauna. I don't know, 11 it doesn't say what they're talking 12 about. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: We haven't run into 14 any -- 15 MR. MOLNAR: No endangered species. 16 As relates to this project, no impact on 17 threatened or endangered species, is 18 that the answer to 4? 19 THE CHAIRMAN: It's a no. 20 MR. MOLNAR: Item b. The proposed 21 action may result in a reduction or 22 degradation of any habitat used by any 23 rare, threatened or endangered species, 24 as listed by New York State or the 25 federal government. 97 1 Part 2 7 2 PBM KASPER: No. 3 MR. MOLNAR: Reasoning? Item c. 4 The proposed action may cause reduction 5 in population or loss of individuals, of 6 any species of special concern or 7 conservation need, as listed by the New 8 York State or federal government, that 9 use the site or are found on, over or 10 near the site. Same rationale? 11 PBM KASPER: Yes. 12 PBM ESTES: Except that we're 13 getting away from the endangered now, 14 just talking about special concerns, 15 general habitat. 16 PBM SOUTHERN: Any species of 17 special concern. I don't think there 18 are any. 19 PBM ESTES: Do you know what they are? 20 PBM SOUTHERN: None I'm aware of. 21 MR. MOLNAR: As listed by the New 22 York State or federal government. 23 PBM ESTES: Do we know what they 24 are? How can we say no if we don't know 25 what they are? 98 1 Part 2 7 2 PBM WINKELMAN: I think that's part 3 of our open space thing, we are trying 4 to preserve corridors for these 5 creatures to come and go. 6 MR. MOLNAR: Wolves can be 7 threatened or endangered, but they're 8 not here. So the proposed action would 9 not result in the reduction or 10 degradation. 11 PBM SOUTHERN: Right. 12 MR. MOLNAR: In the population. 13 MR. BRODSKY: Page 4 of the question 14 11, they address the species that were 15 identified, American Hart's Tongue Fern 16 as a plant. Two bat species and two 17 turtle species were identified by the 18 Applicant. But that they have no 19 threatened or endangered species occur 20 on the site. So those are maybe in the 21 area. We know bats are in the area. 22 And we're concerned on a different 23 location but nothing indicated on this 24 site. 25 PBM SOUTHERN: Right. 99 1 Part 2 7 2 MR. MOLNAR: Is the proposed action 3 going to cause a reduction in the 4 population? That's the question. 5 PBM SOUTHERN: Absolutely not. 6 MR. MOLNAR: Conclusion of the 7 Board, unanimously no? 8 THE CHAIRMAN: It's a no. 9 MR. MOLNAR: Item d. The proposed 10 action may result in a reduction or 11 degradation of any habitat used by any 12 species of special concern and 13 conservation need, as listed by New York 14 State or federal government. 15 PBM SOUTHERN: No. 16 MR. MOLNAR: Same rationale as the 17 other question. Item e. The proposed 18 action may diminish the capacity of a 19 Registered National Natural Landmark to 20 support the biological community it was 21 established to protect. 22 PBM KASPER: No. 23 PBM ESTES: Not applicable. 24 MR. MOLNAR: Item f. The proposed 25 action may result in the removal of, or 100 1 Part 2 7 2 ground disturbance in any portion of a 3 designated significant natural community. 4 PBM ESTES: Yes. 5 PBM KASPER: Small impact. 6 MR. MOLNAR: The proposed action may 7 result in the removal of, or ground 8 disturbance in any portion of a 9 designated or significant natural 10 community. 11 PBM SOUTHERN: No designated. 12 PBM WINKELMAN: No. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: So it's no. 14 MR. MOLNAR: No designated. 15 PBM ESTES: What's a designated 16 natural community? 17 MR. CAMP: Something identified by 18 somebody. 19 MR. MOLNAR: Like a critical 20 environmental area. 21 MR. CAMP: Town, county, city, 22 state. 23 PBM ESTES: Is that the definition? 24 MR. CAMP: That's my interpretation 25 what that means, has to be designated by 101 1 Part 2 7 2 somebody with authority to do so. 3 PBM ESTES: But it doesn't throw in 4 any regulatory body here as to what 5 designates it. 6 MR. CAMP: Anyone with that 7 authority. Are you aware of anybody 8 with authority designated that as a 9 natural whatever? 10 MR. MOLNAR: DEA or something like 11 that? 12 PBM ESTES: I just think, and I 13 apologize going through all these, but 14 some of these we need to know the 15 definitions before we say no to some of 16 these I believe, that's my concern. 17 MR. MOLNAR: I agree, but -- 18 PBM ESTES: Saying no to something 19 and we don't know what the definition is 20 then we are not answering it. 21 MR. CAMP: Has to be designated by 22 somebody that you're aware of. 23 PBM ESTES: I'm just asking who that 24 is. I'll find it. Move on. 25 MR. MOLNAR: For the present 102 1 Part 2 7 2 purposes, no. Item g. The proposed 3 action may substantially interfere with 4 nesting/breeding foraging or over- 5 wintering habitat for the predominant 6 species that occupy or use the Project 7 Site? 8 PBM KASPER: I'm going to say 9 moderate. 10 PBM ESTES: Definitely that's going 11 to happen. 12 PBM KASPER: Raccoons are going to 13 be disturbed during construction. 14 MR. MOLNAR: Is the size of the 15 impact, no to small, or moderate to 16 large? 17 MR. CAMP: Is it more than 10 acres? 18 PBM ESTES: It's going to 19 substantially interfere with that entire 20 ravine natural habitat. 21 MR. CAMP: Question specific is more 22 than 10 acres. 23 MR. MOLNAR: That's h. 24 MR. CAMP: Am I on the wrong one? 25 PBM ESTES: I would say moderate to 103 1 Part 2 7 2 that. 3 PBM KASPER: Woodchucks and 4 everything else. Short term. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: I'd say small. 6 PBM SOUTHERN: Me too. 7 PBM WINKELMAN: I'd say small. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Vote on it? 9 MR. MOLNAR: I would recommend that. 10 BY THE CHAIRMAN: 11 Q. Scott? 12 A. Small. 13 Q. Joe? 14 A. Small. 15 Q. Beth? 16 A. Moderate. 17 Q. Don? 18 A. Moderate. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm small. So small 20 impact. 21 MR. MOLNAR: Item h. The proposed 22 action requires the conversion of more 23 than 10 acres of forest, grassland or 24 any other regionally or locally 25 important habitat. First identify the 104 1 Part 2 7 2 habitat type and information. Locally 3 important habitat. 4 PBM ESTES: Farmlands, meadowlands 5 and woodlands are all important 6 habitats. So I would say, yes. 7 MR. CAMP: That's more than 10 8 acres, that I don't know. 9 MR. MOLNAR: Requires the conversion 10 of more than 10 acres I think. 11 MR. BRODSKY: Based upon that chart 12 on page 3, they're going to be -- they 13 are old numbers, not the updated numbers 14 but the old numbers show a loss of 15 approximately 9 acres of forestland and 16 17 acres of agricultural land. So 17 that's the net change of the types of 18 land. 19 MR. MOLNAR: But if it's regionally 20 or locally important habitat land is the 21 next. 22 MR. CAMP: I look at that as 10 23 acres as the trigger, and then the other 24 things considered. 25 MR. MOLNAR: Which constitutes 105 1 Part 2 7 2 habitat as being converted. 3 PBM KASPER: Moderate. 4 MR. MOLNAR: I'll restate h. 5 Proposed action requires the conversion 6 of more than 10 acres of forest, grass- 7 land or any other regional or locally 8 important habitat. First, did I ask 9 habitat type information source to be 10 identified? 11 MR. BRODSKY: We haven't identified 12 the habitat as unique or wildlife that 13 is endangered or unique, so that's the 14 problem in that. You're clearly 15 removing certain amounts of forest and 16 agricultural land and converting them 17 over to some other use. Are they 18 actually used as significant habitats is 19 the question? 20 PBM ESTES: I disagree with that 21 definition, how that was just phrased. 22 MR. BRODSKY: Okay. 23 PBM ESTES: We are taking land and 24 more than 10 acres, in my opinion 25 anyway, it's regionally and locally 106 1 Part 2 7 2 important. If we remove all of our 3 grasslands and our woods and our forests 4 in the Town of Skaneateles, that's what 5 make its locally important. It's that 6 we're a rural community and that makes 7 it locally important to the community. 8 It doesn't say in here that it's locally 9 important to a particular species of 10 animal, it says locally important. 11 MR. BRODSKY: That's the context of 12 this Section. 13 PBM ESTES: I know, important 14 because we're rural and we want animals 15 and creatures living here. We'll lose 16 it all. 17 PBM WINKELMAN: I would say that the 18 mature woodland and the ravine and also 19 on the hill to the west that they're a 20 very large chunk of woodland. And with 21 this development it is getting a bit 22 fragmented with the bridge and the Lot 23 Number 1, and also the lots up here, so 24 I think that might be moderate. And I 25 think the impact is getting very close 107 1 Part 2 7 2 to 10 acres on the forest. 3 PBM ESTES: These numbers aren't 4 correct anymore. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: But also got the open 6 land that you're putting houses on. 7 PBM ESTES: Absolutely. 8 PBM WINKELMAN: I'll vote moderate. 9 BY THE CHAIRMAN: 10 Q. Scott? 11 A. Moderate. 12 Q. Joe? 13 A. Small. 14 Q. Beth? 15 A. Moderate. 16 Q. Don? 17 A. Small. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm small. Small 19 impact. 20 MR. MOLNAR: Item i. Proposed 21 action, (commercial, industrial or 22 recreational projects only) involves 23 used of herbicides or pesticides. This 24 is neither commercial, industrial or 25 recreational. Am I correct? 108 1 Part 2 7 2 THE CHAIRMAN: So it's no. 3 MR. MOLNAR: So it's NA. And j. 4 Other impacts. And the question is 5 impacts on plants and animals. 6 PBM ESTES: I think overall the 7 impact, at least during the terms of the 8 construction, is going to be major on 9 all the fauna and animals in that area. 10 What returns is yet to be seen. But 11 when you start adding 17 homes, 12 recreation areas and other facilities, 13 you can be assured that you pretty well 14 cleared out any habitat for any animals 15 in that area. 16 PBM KASPER: But there is hundreds 17 and hundreds of acres around here -- 18 PBM ESTES: We hope. 19 PBM KASPER: -- deer will move to. 20 You won't get rid of the deer. 21 PBM ESTES: You keep approving 22 subdivisions like this, you push them 23 farther and farther to suburbia. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Question is -- 25 MR. BRODSKY: They adapt and come 109 1 Part 2 7 2 back. 3 PBM ESTES: Red foxes. You guys are 4 picking out the few ones that are 5 impact, deer and woodchucks, what about 6 the red foxes that are beautiful running 7 through this area. 8 MR. MOLNAR: No, they're not. My 9 opinion. 10 PBM KASPER: I think it will be such 11 a small impact over all area. 12 PBM WINKELMAN: Ideally in an open 13 space subdivision we're creating, saving 14 some conservation areas that are high 15 value. 16 PBM ESTES: Okay. 17 MR. MOLNAR: So the overall answer 18 would be no to 6 and 7. And we're on 19 page 5 of 10. Continue? 20 THE CHAIRMAN: I think we'll go a 21 little further here and then quarter of. 22 MR. MOLNAR: The Question 8 is, 23 Impact on Agricultural Resources. The 24 proposed action may impact agricultural 25 resources. The example questions begin 110 1 Part 2 8 2 with a. The proposed action may impact 3 soil classified within the soil group 1 4 through 4 of the New York State Land 5 Classification System. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: 1 through 4. 7 MR. MOLNAR: And is the impact no or 8 small or moderate to large? 9 PBM WINKELMAN: Acreage land. 10 MR. BRODSKY: They're answer is 31 11 acres of land is classified 1 through 4 12 on page 3. They don't clarify how much 13 of that actually impacted. That's the 14 basis for you to begin to analyze it. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: There isn't much, 16 that hillside is not really a tillable 17 field. Unless you wanted to wash it 18 into the Lake. The other side is a 19 small area is tillable when we walked it. 20 PBM SOUTHERN: Previously farmed. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, previously 22 farmed. But besides the largest field, 23 and that's not something that you're 24 going to -- 25 MR. BRODSKY: Amount of practice 111 1 Part 2 8 2 since you wouldn't till that, you 3 wouldn't farm that field. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Impossibility someone 5 would, but then you're going to have a 6 lot of runoff, mud and everything else. 7 PBM WINKELMAN: I say small. 8 MR. SOUTHERN: Small. 9 PBM ESTES: Small. 10 MR. MOLNAR: Small is the answer by 11 all Board members. b. The proposed 12 action may sever, cross or otherwise 13 limit access to agricultural land, 14 (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, 15 vineyards, orchard, etc.). 16 PBM WINKELMAN: No. 17 MR. MOLNAR: Not applicable. 18 Item c. The proposed action may result 19 in the excavation or compaction of the 20 soil profile of active agricultural land. 21 PBM SOUTHERN: Active, no. 22 MR. MOLNAR: No. Item d. The 23 proposed action may irreversibly convert 24 agricultural land to non-agricultural 25 uses, either more than 2.5 acres if 112 1 Part 2 8 2 located in an Agricultural District, or 3 more than 10 acres if not within an 4 Agricultural District. Irreversibly 5 convert. 6 PBM ESTES: Yes. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Not an Ag District. 8 MR. BRODSKY: Whether that was a 9 state Agricultural District, it did 10 identify Onondaga District 3, I believe. 11 MR. MOLNAR: 2. 12 MR. BRODSKY: It would be the west 13 side area would be active, most recently 14 active agricultural land. And I don't 15 think -- one or two lots that may take 16 out some formerly active agricultural 17 land there. 18 MR. MOLNAR: The proposed action may 19 irreversibly convert agricultural land 20 to non-agricultural land. 21 PBM KASPER: Small impact. 22 PBM WINKELMAN: Small. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Small. 24 MR. MOLNAR: Everyone agree with 25 small? Item e. The proposed action may 113 1 Part 2 8 2 disrupt or prevent installation of an 3 agricultural land management system. 4 PBM SOUTHERN: I don't know that. 5 MR. MOLNAR: Disrupt or prevent 6 agricultural land. 7 PBM SOUTHERN: No. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: No. 9 MR. MOLNAR: Item f. The proposed 10 action may result, directly or 11 indirectly, in increased development 12 potential or pressure on farmland. 13 PBM KASPER: Moderate. 14 PBM WINKELMAN: Scope on it, having 15 a subdivision out in the middle of 16 farmland like that, it's going to create 17 a conflict with possible farm operations. 18 They specified that in their comments 19 and I agree that it's moderate. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Moderate, yes. Check 21 moderate. 22 MR. MOLNAR: Moderate. Item g. The 23 proposed project is not consistent with 24 the adopted municipal Farmland 25 Protection Plan. 114 1 Part 2 8 2 PBM ESTES: Do we have a municipal 3 Farmland Plan? 4 PBM WINKELMAN: Onondaga County. 5 PBM ESTES: What does it say? 6 MR. MOLNAR: Farmland Protection 7 Plan. 8 PBM WINKELMAN: Want to keep as much 9 land viable farms as possible. I think 10 it's more of a gentleman farm after he 11 sold off all the viable pieces. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, he sold off all 13 the viable stuff. So I guess small. 14 PBM KASPER: Small. 15 PBM WINKELMAN: Small. 16 MR. MOLNAR: Small. h. Any other 17 impacts? And as a result of those 18 questions a through g, Question 8 19 begins: Impact on Agricultural 20 Resources. The proposed action may 21 impact agricultural resources. 22 PBM ESTES: Can I go back to item e? 23 Prevent installation of agricultural 24 land management system. Want is an 25 agricultural land management? 115 1 Part 2 8 2 PBM WINKELMAN: Strip cropping or 3 something, if there was a subdivision up. 4 MR. LEJA: CAFO would be an example. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Could be, but you 6 have to have enough animals for that. 7 What were you about going to say Scott? 8 Other thing is like programs and stuff 9 they take care of runoff and animal, 10 fine in the amount of extreme that's the 11 type of management. 12 PBM ESTES: For that particular 13 farmland or some other? 14 MR. MOLNAR: Agricultural farmland. 15 PBM KASPER: Even adjoining may 16 disrupt the management. 17 PBM ESTES: That's what I was 18 wondering, adjoining farm up the stream. 19 Okay, that's what I was asking, thank 20 you. 21 PBM WINKELMAN: CAFO upwind. 22 PBM KASPER: So question 8 is a no, 23 right? 24 PBM SOUTHERN: Yes. 25 PBM WINKELMAN: Yes. 116 1 Part 2 9 2 MR. MOLNAR: All right. We still 3 have questions 9 through 18. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Let's go to Question 9. 5 MR. MOLNAR: Impact on Aesthetic 6 Resources. The land use of the proposed 7 action are obviously different from or 8 are in sharp contrast to, current land 9 use patterns between the proposed 10 project and a scenic or aesthetic 11 resource. Sample questions beginning 12 with a. Proposed action may be visible 13 from any officially designated federal, 14 state or local scenic or aesthetic 15 resource. 16 PBM SOUTHERN: Not a federal. 17 MR. MOLNAR: Or designated federal, 18 state or local or aesthetic resource. 19 PBM ESTES: Yes. 20 PBM KASPER: Say moderate. 21 MR. MOLNAR: Brook farm is designated. 22 PBM ESTES: Right. So the question 23 to that? 24 MR. MOLNAR: It's historic, is it 25 scenic or aesthetic? 117 1 Part 2 9 2 PBM ESTES: Is the Lake itself 3 considered scenic and aesthetic? If you 4 can see this from the Lake, some of it 5 is a local aesthetic resource. 6 PBM WINKELMAN: I think so. With 7 the Comprehensive Plan, should be in 8 there a hundred times. Want to protect 9 the view of the Lake and protect the 10 water quality as scenic. 11 MR. MOLNAR: Designated local. 12 PBM ESTES: I would say yes, then. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Moderate then. 14 MR. MOLNAR: Moderate to large. The 15 reasoning behind moderate to large? 16 PBM ESTES: The way the question is 17 worded, visibly see it from across the 18 Lake, visible from the Lake, visible 19 from Brook farm. 20 PBM KASPER: In our Comprehensive 21 Plan. 22 PBM WINKELMAN: And the view from 23 the state highway. 24 MR. MOLNAR: Moving on to sub 25 question b. The proposed action may 118 1 Part 2 9 2 result in the obstruction, elimination 3 or significant screening of one or more 4 officially designated scenic views. 5 PBM WINKELMAN: Not officially 6 designated. 7 PBM SOUTHERN: But it is local. 8 PBM WINKELMAN: But in general, the 9 Comprehensive Plan wants to protect 10 views of the Lake from the highway. 11 PBM SOUTHERN: Small. Considered 12 mitigating factors. 13 PBM KASPER: I'd say small. 14 PBM ESTES: Because it's not 15 designated? 16 PBM KASPER: Yes. 17 PBM ESTES: Obstruction or 18 elimination of screen or one more, the 19 whole screening thing with the trees, 20 supposed to come down a long time ago. 21 PBM SOUTHERN: Haven't had to come 22 down yet. 23 MR. CAMP: I thought this was not 24 designated. 25 PBM WINKELMAN: Not specifically 119 1 Part 2 9 2 designated, but after that list of 3 designated scenic views it's stated that 4 this is not an all inclusive thing. And 5 that generally they would like to 6 preserve views of the Lake from the 7 highway for the public. 8 MR. CAMP: Scott, what do you think 9 of that reviewed in detail? 10 MR. MOLNAR: The Comprehensive Plan 11 I believe supports that conclusion right 12 there. I have it with me. 13 Comprehensive Plan, page 47. Following 14 list of views is recommended as a 15 starting point of recognizing that there 16 are many other notable views worthy of 17 preservation throughout the town and the 18 village. 1. Is Sandy Beach, from 19 north, south, east and west. 2. Is 20 Village waterfront parks. 3. Is view of 21 Village from Route 20. 4. Is West Lake 22 Road. 5. Is Hencoop Road. 6. Is Coon 23 Hill Road. Looking west from half way up 24 the hill. 7. Is Richard Road just south 25 of Pork Street intersection. 8. Is East 120 1 Part 2 9 2 Lake Road at Pork Street. 9. Is long 3 view of creek from high point of County 4 Line Road. 10. Is Highland Avenue at 5 Old Seneca Turnpike. 11. Is the long 6 view, Sheldon Road and County Line Road 7 to the south. 12. East Lake Road two 8 and-a-half miles from the Village. 13. 9 Is West Lake Road. 14. Is Crow Hill 10 Road looking southeast. Falcone's farm 11 from all sides, sorry, was number 13. 12 West Lake Road, Falcone's farm from all 13 sides. 15. Shepard Road looking north. 14 16. Hillside Drive looking southeast and 15 southwest. 16 PBM WINKELMAN: I think that first 17 says intro, this list is not exhaustive. 18 And it's been brought to our attention 19 by the Community that there is only two 20 or three nice views of the Lake from 41A 21 remaining between Skaneateles and 22 Mandana. I'd say large. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Large. 24 MR. LEJA: If I may ask, with the 25 mitigation proposed, what exactly is 121 1 Part 2 9 2 being obstructed and screened? With the 3 mitigation proposed? 4 PBM ESTES: With what mitigation? 5 MR. MOLNAR: May result in the 6 obstruction, elimination or significant 7 screening of one or more officially 8 designated scenic views. 9 MR. LEJA: Officially designated. 10 PBM WINKELMAN: Twenty years from 11 now somebody plants a tree in their back 12 yard that's a hundred feet tall, you 13 know, who's going to be around to say 14 you're obstructing the view? 15 MR. LEJA: That's legal under the 16 code right now. Someone can plant a 17 tree in their yard and let it grow how 18 ever way they want, and that's legal 19 under the code, right? 20 PBM WINKELMAN: Yes, if it's a 21 building lot. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 23 PBM ESTES: If it's a building lot. 24 PBM WINKELMAN: It may obstruct this 25 significant view. 122 1 Part 2 9 2 MR. LEJA: So any views that cross 3 any one that's, any building lots, 4 necessarily could be blocked and 5 screened in the future at some point? 6 PBM ESTES: Can't take care of the 7 things that have already happened, we 8 can only take care of things moving 9 forward. 10 MR. LEJA: Right. 11 PBM WINKELMAN: Part of the open 12 space subdivision, we're trying to 13 protect land of conservation value. And 14 the value to the community is the view 15 of this Lake. 16 MR. LEJA: Exactly, and I would say 17 with the proposed mitigation that view 18 of the Lake from West Lake Road is 19 preserved. In its entirety. Per this 20 Board's request to the Applicant for 21 mitigation. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't feel 23 comfortable with really some of that 24 what's proposed, I've stated that in the 25 past. 123 1 Part 2 9 2 MR. LEJA: I understand, but you 3 can't dispute that the view of the Lake 4 has been preserved from West Lake Road. 5 MR. MOLNAR: Obstruction or 6 elimination of significant screening of 7 one or more. 8 PBM ESTES: The question is may. 9 MR. MOLNAR: No and small or 10 moderate and large? 11 PBM ESTES: Based on the question, 12 may result, I would say moderate to 13 large. 14 MR. BRODSKY: Depend in part what 15 they proposed and what you in turn 16 impose upon them as mitigation. It's 17 possible for it to be a small impact 18 depending on how they place the houses 19 and how low they put them. 20 PBM WINKELMAN: That's year one. 21 Year 10 -- 22 MR. LEJA: How so? 23 PBM WINKELMAN: Plants trees in 24 their back yard. 25 MR. LEJA: Place a restriction on 124 1 Part 2 9 2 it. And they have to come back to you 3 for site plan approval. 4 PBM SOUTHERN: We say, no, you can't 5 plant any trees there, buddy, that's 6 done. 7 MR. MOLNAR: Site plan approval or 8 subdivision approval. 9 MR. BRODSKY: Conservation. 10 PBM WINKELMAN: Unenforceable. 11 PBM ESTES: Scenic view of the 12 ravine, you're not going to mitigate 13 that with a 275 foot bridge over it. 14 MR. LEJA: Not viewed from any 15 public area. 16 MR. MOLNAR: Proposed action may 17 result in obstruction, elimination or 18 significant screening of one or more 19 officially designated scenic views. 20 PBM SOUTHERN: I say small impact. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Let's vote on it. 22 Q. Don? 23 A. Small. 24 Q. Beth? 25 A. Moderate. 125 1 Part 2 9 2 Q. Joe? 3 A. Small. 4 Q. Scott? 5 A. Moderate. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm going to say 7 small at this time. Still have some 8 concerns. 9 PBM ESTES: I'm concerned with, I 10 guess my next question is, and I'm 11 guilty of having said this as well 12 tonight, when we say at this time. So 13 does that mean that we continue through 14 this and we have next week to look at 15 this, we can come back and change some 16 of these answers? 17 MR. MOLNAR: I would recommend to 18 you that "at this time" is taking the 19 project in all the context entirely and 20 all of the aspects that you know that 21 have been presented to this Board. 22 That's what I would recommend the Board 23 view, the project as it knows it in its 24 application and in its final form. If 25 at some point in the future, and this is 126 1 Part 2 9 2 entirely hypothetical, the project 3 Applicant would like to do something 4 different, that would make "at this 5 time" an important demarcation. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Change my vote to 7 moderate, I'm feeling more toward that 8 right now. 9 MR. MOLNAR: I would ask why? 10 THE CHAIRMAN: I feel that the 11 houses haven't been moved down, they're 12 still going to block the view, obstruct 13 some of it. And that's been my concern 14 from the start, I just don't feel 15 comfortable with it. Proposed on the 16 project. 17 MR. MOLNAR: That tilts the vote to 18 moderate, 3 to 2. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, moderate. 20 MR. MOLNAR: Sub question c. The 21 proposed action may be visible from 22 publicly accessible vantage points, such 23 as 1, seasonally, for instance screened 24 by summer foliage but visible during 25 other seasons. Or 2, year round. 127 1 Part 2 9 2 The question, is the proposed action 3 may be visible from publicly accessible 4 vantage points by seasonally or year 5 round? Dealing with seasonally. 6 PBM WINKELMAN: Towards the Lake. 7 MR. MOLNAR: With respect to 8 seasonally only, is it moderate to large 9 or no to small? 10 PBM SOUTHERN: I'd say it's moderate. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: I'll say moderate. 12 PBM ESTES: Moderate. 13 PBM KASPER: Yes. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: I think moderate is 15 what's preferred by the Board. 16 MR. MOLNAR: All right. And now 17 year round? 18 PBM KASPER: Same. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Say moderate. 20 MR. MOLNAR: Proposed action may be 21 visible from publicly accessible vantage 22 points year round. 23 PBM WINKELMAN: I say small because 24 there is nobody out at the Lake then. 25 MR. SOUTHERN: Year around it's small. 128 1 Part 2 9 2 PBM ESTES: Nobody drives at 41 in 3 the winter time. But the other part 4 about year round though, it's even more 5 noticeable because there is nothing on 6 the trees. 7 MR. MOLNAR: If there's nobody on 8 the water looking up, then? 9 PBM ESTES: Neighbors. 10 MR. MOLNAR: Skating. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Let's vote on it. 12 Don? 13 PBM ESTES: What are we voting on? 14 THE CHAIRMAN: C, year round. 15 MR. MOLNAR: C, Roman II. 16 Q. Don? 17 A. Moderate. 18 Q. Beth? 19 A. Well, they are publicly accessible, I'm 20 going to say moderate. 21 Q. Joe? 22 A. Small. 23 Q. Scott? 24 A. Small. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: And I'm moderate. So 129 1 Part 2 9 2 moderate. 3 MR. MOLNAR: Sub question d. The 4 situation or activity in which viewers 5 are engaged while viewing the proposed 6 action is: 1. Routine travel by 7 residents, including travel to and from 8 work. 2. Recreational or tourism based 9 activities. 10 Answering item 1. Routine travel by 11 residents, including travel to and from 12 work. Is that no or small or moderate 13 to large? 14 PBM SOUTHERN: Small or what? 15 MR. MOLNAR: Viewers are engaged 16 while viewing the proposed action? 17 PBM ESTES: Those are the two 18 reasons we just gave when we say 41 and 19 the Lake. Traveling and recreational. 20 So I would say yes to both, moderate. 21 MR. MOLNAR: As long as they're not 22 texting. 23 PBM SOUTHERN: Should be looking at 24 the road, not the Lake. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. 130 1 Part 2 9 2 PBM SOUTHERN: I have no idea. 3 PBM WINKELMAN: We're getting tired. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Lefts just finish 5 this one. 6 MR. MOLNAR: 2. 7 MR. LEJA: Because I'm not tired and 8 I don't understand the question either. 9 MR. MOLNAR: The situation or 10 activity in which the viewers are 11 engaged while the proposed action, while 12 viewing the proposed action. First is 13 routine travel by residents, including 14 travel to and from work. And no or 15 small impact or moderate to large? 16 PBM KASPER: Going to get so used to 17 the thing. 18 PBM WINKELMAN: Small to the routine 19 traveler. 20 PBM KASPER: Yes. 21 PBM WINKELMAN: Moderate to the 22 recreational tourism industry. 23 PBM KASPER: Yes. 24 MR. MOLNAR: Is that the consensus 25 of the Board? 131 1 Part 2 9 2 PBM ESTES: Definitely moderate for 3 the recreational tourism. I still think 4 there is a large percentage of our 5 regular routine people think it's 6 moderate. I enjoy looking at the Lake 7 every time I go by it, so I'd say 8 moderate to both. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: I'll be moderate to 10 both also. Take a vote. 11 Q. D i: Scott? 12 A. Small. 13 Q. Joe? 14 A. Small. 15 Q. Beth? 16 A. Moderate. 17 Q. Don? 18 A. Small. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: And I'm going to say 20 moderate. So small carries. 21 Q. On D ii. Recreational or tourism. Scott? 22 A. Moderate. 23 Q. Joe? 24 A. Moderate. 25 Q. Beth? 132 1 Part 2 9 2 A. Moderate. 3 Q. Don? 4 A. Moderate. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm moderate, so it's 6 5 moderate. 7 MR. MOLNAR: Item e. The proposed 8 action may cause a diminishment of the 9 public enjoyment and appreciation of the 10 designated aesthetic resource. 11 PBM SOUTHERN: Yes. Moderate or 12 small. 13 PBM KASPER: Moderate. 14 PBM WINKELMAN: Same question over 15 and over. 16 MR. MOLNAR: Proposed action may 17 cause a diminishment of the public 18 enjoyment and appreciation of the 19 designated aesthetic resource. 20 PBM SOUTHERN: See above. Small. 21 PBM ESTES: I'd say moderate. Out 22 on the Lake this past week and start 23 seeing all these developments on the 24 side, and it is diminishing the view. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, take the vote. 133 1 Part 2 9 2 Q. Don? 3 A. Moderate. 4 Q. Beth? 5 A. Moderate. 6 Q. Joe? 7 A. Small. 8 Q. Scott? 9 A. Small. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm going to be 11 moderate. So moderate. 12 MR. MOLNAR: Item f. There are 13 similar projects visible within the 14 following distance of the proposed 15 project. First category: Zero to a 16 half mile. Second category: One-half 17 to 3 miles. Third category: 3 to 5 18 miles. And last category: 5 plus 19 miles. Moderate or small impact? 20 PBM ESTES: There are ones within 1 21 and-a-half to 3 and 3 to 5 that I would 22 consider moderate to large impact. 23 MR. MOLNAR: Similar projects 24 visible within the following distance. 25 So that visible, is it moderate to large 134 1 Part 2 9 2 or no to small? 3 PBM SOUTHERN: 15 house subdivision? 4 MR. MOLNAR: How many similar 5 projects? 6 PBM ESTES: How wide is the Lake at 7 that point? 8 PBM KASPER: It says projects 9 visible. 10 PBM ESTES: Very visible. 11 MR. MOLNAR: Similar project visible 12 within the following distances? 13 PBM WINKELMAN: Just as visible as 14 this one, I think that's the question. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Even lane 17. 16 PBM ESTES: Emerald Estates. 17 MR. CAMP: My interpretation of this 18 question was always to try to get out, 19 is this project different than what's 20 around it within these radii? I will 21 admit I don't understand how you're 22 supposed to answer. 23 PBM SOUTHERN: Same in terms of 24 density. 25 MR. BRODSKY: South of it. 135 1 Part 2 9 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Looks like what 3 they're proposing. 4 PBM ESTES: But does that make it 5 good or bad? 6 MR. BRODSKY: They're not asking 7 that. 8 PBM KASPER: Similar project, that's 9 all. 10 PBM ESTES: I would look it up but 11 my battery died. 12 MR. MOLNAR: There are similar 13 projects visible within the following 14 distance of the project. What does that 15 impact? 16 MR. CAMP: Again, my interpretation 17 was if this project were the only one 18 around it or it was different that the 19 surrounding area, then it would be 20 bigger impact. That's the way I've 21 always looked at this. 22 PBM SOUTHERN: So no. 23 PBM ESTES: Both ways, if it was the 24 only one impact, if it's a second, third 25 and fourth, it also has even a bigger 136 1 Part 2 9 2 impact because you just made everything 3 even worse. So if that's the 4 interpretation then it's going to be 5 moderate to large either way you read 6 the question. 7 MR. MOLNAR: There is a picture up. 8 MR. CAMP: My interpretation is if 9 it's different than the surrounding area 10 then it would be a bigger impact. 11 MR. MOLNAR: On the west side of 41A 12 perhaps not, but on the east side. 13 MR. BRODSKY: Good point. 14 MR. CAMP: This is a pretty small 15 shot of the area right there. If you 16 zoom it out to 5 miles that would give 17 you a better overall picture. 18 MR. BRODSKY: Does the workbook give 19 any suggestions? 20 PBM ESTES: My battery died. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: I think, Scott, we 22 should stop right here and come back to 23 this one. 24 MR. MOLNAR: Yes. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Because I think it's 137 1 2 -- 3 MR. MOLNAR: This is a fairly 4 important question overall. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: And I think it's time 6 to adjourn this meeting. Do we have a 7 second? 8 PBM KASPER: Second. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Any discussion? All 10 in favor? Opposed. Ayes carried. 11 * * * * 12 C E R T I F I C A T E 13 This is to certify that I am a Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary 14 Public in and for the State of New York, that I attended and reported the above 15 entitled proceedings, that I have compared the foregoing with my original 16 minutes taken therein and that it is a true and correct transcript thereof and 17 all of the proceedings had therein. 18 _______________________ 19 John F. Drury, CSR 20 21 Dated: June 4, 2015 22 23 24 25