1 1 2 STATE OF NEW YORK PLANNING BOARD 3 TOWN OF SKANEATELES 4 ------------------------------------------- 5 SEQR Discussion Major Subdivision 6 LOVELESS FARM DEVELOPMENT, LLC 7 Tax Parcels 051.-01-39.1 and 051.-02-18.1 8 ------------------------------------------- 9 SEQR Discussion in the above matter, conducted 10 at the Skaneateles Town Office, 24 Jordan Street, 11 Skaneateles, New York before JOHN F. DRURY, CSR, 12 Notary Public in and for the State of New York, 13 on June 30, 2015 at 7:30 p.m. 14 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 15 MARK TUCKER Planning Board Chairman 16 SCOTT WINKELMAN Planning Board Member 17 JOSEPH SOUTHERN Planning Board Member BETH ESTES Planning Board Member 18 DONALD KASPER Planning Board Member 19 SCOTT MOLNAR Planning Board Attorney JOHN CAMP Planning Board Engineer 20 HOWARD BRODSKY Planning Board Planner KAREN BARKDULL Planning Board Secretary 21 22 PRESENT REPRESENTING APPLICANT: 23 ANDREW J. LEJA, ESQ. Partner at Barclay Damon 24 Reported By: 25 John F. Drury, CSR, RPR Court Reporter 471-7397 2 1 2 INDEX TO MEMO ON MODERATE/LARGE IMPACT 3 ITEM PAGES 4 Item 1a Impact on Land 6 5 1b 29 6 1d 44 7 1f 48 8 Item 2a Impact on Geological Features 75 9 Item 3L Impact on Surface Water 90 10 Item 4h Impact on Groundwater 94 11 Item 8f Impact Agricultural Resources 102 12 Item 9a Impact on Aesthetic Resources 108 13 9b 114 14 9c 120 15 9d 125 16 9e 128 17 9f 130 18 Item 11c Impact Open Space/Recreation 138 19 Item 17d Consistency w/Community Plans 143 20 Item 18d Consistency with Character 149 21 18f 152 22 23 24 25 3 1 Molnar 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Welcome everyone, 3 we're going to get started for this 4 evening. We're going to be looking at 5 Loveless Farm Subdivision. 6 MR. MOLNAR: Like to take a brief 7 history of where we are, and where we've 8 been and where we are. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, why don't you do 10 that. 11 MR. MOLNAR: So that everyone is 12 familiar with the proceeding this 13 evening, please note that this is a 14 Continuation of the Environmental Review 15 for the Loveless Farm Subdivision. The 16 Planning Board has met at special 17 meetings previously and gone through the 18 Environmental Assessment Form, the Full 19 Environmental Assessment Form submitted 20 by the Applicant, including Part 1, the 21 Project Information, and Part 2, the 22 questions and answers, to which the 23 Planning Board has been directed to 24 answer under the Environmental Review. 25 It is now the Board's procedure to 4 1 Molnar 2 continue and complete Part 3 of the Full 3 Environmental Assessment Form. And just 4 to refresh everyone's recollection, the 5 purpose of Part 3 is to build on 6 evaluations made during Part 2 to decide 7 how significant the Part 2 Moderate to 8 Large Impacts are. And to decide if 9 further information is needed in an 10 Environmental Impact Statement. 11 Part 3 is where the reviewing agency 12 discusses for each potential impact the 13 magnitude, importance, probability of 14 the current changes to impacts, 15 versatility of impacts, geographic scope 16 and cumulative impact in the context of 17 the site in the community. 18 The Part 3 evaluation requires that 19 the Planning Board review the answers to 20 Part 2, which are, we picked up verbatim 21 from the transcript provided by Mr. Drury, 22 my apologies if I mispronounce that. So 23 that we can identify the answers to the 24 questions set forth in Section 2, which 25 resulted in a moderate to large impact 5 1 Molnar 2 finding. Those questions were 3 summarized in a Memo I presented to the 4 Board, which essentially listed them, 5 together with the salient comments that 6 the Board had provided on the record. 7 And now it's the Board's challenge 8 to run through each of those moderate to 9 large findings and determine the 10 significance of the impact, when found. 11 So with that as the background, I 12 recommend that the Board take a look at 13 my Memo of June 23rd, and you'll notice 14 that I summarized in a format each 15 question presented, the sub question 16 underneath that, with a finding of 17 moderate to large impact, and the 18 Planning Board's rationale for that 19 finding. 20 If we can begin with Question Number 21 1 or the first item that I've listed 22 that will begin the process of reviewing 23 the moderate to large impact item. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Number 1, got Impact 25 on Land. Do you want to read through 6 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1a 2 this? 3 MR. MOLNAR: The sub question 4 presented is: a. The proposed action 5 may involve construction on land where 6 depth of water was less than three feet. 7 Now mind you, all of these listed 8 items that I'm going to read through 9 were determined to be moderate to large 10 at the Board's prior meeting. So now is 11 the opportunity to review the 12 significance of them. 13 And the Board's rationale was: The 14 location of the site, the average depth 15 of the water zero to 6, the average 16 being 3. The Applicant called for 3, 17 and the information it provided. And 18 the Board commented: When you look at 19 the full site altogether we have lots 20 right next to the Lake. 21 Those were some of the items. The 22 rationale the Board used to determine 23 the moderate to large impact. Now it's 24 our challenge to further define that in 25 terms of significance. And the 7 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1a 2 significance is defined under, by the 3 DEC in the workbook concerning State 4 Environmental Quality Review is made up 5 of three characteristics. And we'll use 6 these three characteristics in assessing 7 each of the moderate to large impacts. 8 First being, magnitude. Whether 9 it's moderate or large. The second 10 being, duration. And that's short term, 11 medium term, long term or irreversible. 12 And the third being, likelihood or 13 probability. That is whether it's 14 unlikely, possibly will or probably 15 will. 16 I would also recommend to the Board 17 that in terms of viewing the project as 18 a whole, if you'll recall and recollect 19 that the project is the east and west 20 side of 41A, including all of the 21 mitigating factors that the Applicant 22 has offered. Such as the voluntary 23 reduction on height of the homes, and 24 other factors that you've heard 25 throughout the mitigation, such as SWPPP 8 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1a 2 issues, which is mandated by the State 3 for erosion control. And the erosion 4 control plan has been submitted. All of 5 those factors taken together are at your 6 disposal for consideration. 7 So turning back to Item Number 1, 8 Impact on Land sub question a: The 9 proposed action may involve construction 10 on land where depth of water was less 11 than 3 feet. 12 PBM ESTES: To start off, I went 13 back and looked at the New York State 14 DEC guidance for that question. And 15 reading it, it was groundwater and water 16 table are directly related. The 17 construction in areas where depth of 18 water table is less than 3 feet can 19 cause flooding of basements, utilities, 20 and may be difficult to provide 21 stormwater management control to DEC's 22 requirement. 23 So it can threaten the local ground- 24 water quality and I think that's part of 25 the reasons that I think this is of 9 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1a 2 importance, the impact. And I think the 3 magnitude would be significant to that 4 area and to the potential flooding from 5 that area, and also to the groundwater 6 quality, which I know we actually 7 touched on that in another question. 8 The other question that was raised, 9 and some looking at this question was, 10 what is the seasonal variation of the 11 water table on this property? I don't 12 feel we have clear information on what 13 the water table is throughout the 14 property. And then have we looked at 15 what the seasonal variation of that 16 groundwater table is? 17 MR. MOLNAR: If I may ask, is it the 18 recommendation that the Board needs more 19 information concerning the water table? 20 PBM ESTES: I think we do. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: That's a concern 22 where the water is going to run on this 23 property, especially given to the steep 24 slopes. Hard to control what is running 25 off this property. 10 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1a 2 PBM WINKLEMAN: Especially in the 3 steep slopes where the large quantities 4 of earth are going to be moved to 5 accommodate the houses on the hill. 6 Because traditionally in the watershed 7 whenever you dig into the -- get into 8 some shale in the subsoils it seeps all 9 over the place, especially on the slope 10 like that. I'm very skeptical about the 11 groundwater and especially on the steep 12 slopes. 13 MR. MOLNAR: Does the Board find the 14 mitigating factor of the erosion control 15 plan presented by the Applicant and 16 engineer for the requirement that the 17 Applicant obtain a SWPPP and state 18 approval of the SWPPP, does that have 19 any bearing on your decision? 20 PBM ESTES: I think it's difficult 21 for us to assess a SWPPP at this time 22 for that requirement when we don't have 23 all the information on the groundwater. 24 PBM WINKELMAN: Stormwater helps and 25 the SWPPP helps the thing, but it's just 11 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1a 2 the cumulative quantity of engineering 3 in the watershed like this, I think the 4 more that we -- the more that we try to 5 do, that that changes the land, I think 6 we make a bigger footprint and that just 7 invites more disruption to the land and 8 the watershed and the water quality and 9 the ravine. So I think a lighter 10 footprint would be better, instead of 11 digging these large quantities of earth 12 out to accommodate these homes on the 13 slopes. And to build the bridge and 14 take down all the trees and vegetation I 15 think is going to -- it's got to have an 16 adverse effect on the water quality. 17 MR. MOLNAR: If I may, in terms of 18 Item 1a, the magnitude, is it the 19 Board's feeling that it's moderate or 20 large? 21 THE CHAIRMAN: I think it looks like 22 it's going to be large to me, because 23 once we get opening this up through the 24 project, and that takes a while to get 25 stuff stabilized. And I'm really 12 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1a 2 concerned how that's going to, you know, 3 play out as time, in the time frame that 4 it's is being worked on, the disturbance 5 that they're proposing. 6 MR. MOLNAR: That may move into the 7 second criteria of determining 8 significance, the duration. And that is 9 short term, medium term, long term or 10 irreversible. 11 PBM ESTES: I think it's two phases 12 of it. So Mark was commenting on the 13 construction phase, as I think he's 14 correct. But if the groundwater table 15 is high and we start putting septic 16 systems and start putting in, even 17 whatever SWPPP they have, we still have 18 a potential of flooding. So the 19 duration could be long as well. Could 20 be possible that will continue to have 21 flooding issues. If the seasonal water 22 table is high, and we've already cut 23 into the slopes, we could have some 24 flooding issues. And it's going to 25 continue. 13 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1a 2 PBM SOUTHERN: Can't recall, was 3 that deep hole done on this? In terms 4 of percs, did they do six foot percs? 5 MR. LEJA: Entire site was perc'd. 6 PBM SOUTHERN: I understand that, 7 but do they do deep holes? That would 8 reveal whether the subsurface water is 9 there in any amount. 10 MR. LEJA: That was used to 11 determine the actual 3 to 6 foot 12 variation of water table across the 13 site, yes. So they we're more than 6 14 feet deep in order to determine that. 15 PBM SOUTHERN: To determine it, yes, 16 there is that 3 foot water level, okay. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: That raises what's 18 going on on this property. 19 PBM KASPER: I don't think there's 20 been enough information for the 21 groundwater especially on the east side. 22 MR. LEJA: Can I ask what type of 23 information are you looking for? Short 24 of putting holes in the ground to 25 determine water levels, which has been 14 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1a 2 done, what else? And the water table 3 study, or watershed study I should say, 4 which has been done, what else are you 5 looking for specifically? 6 PBM WINKELMAN: The city of Syracuse 7 witnessed the perc tests and the depth. 8 The whole thing, would be good to get 9 that information from them to see how 10 these things perc'd and what the deep 11 hole results were. 12 MR. LEJA: That was provided to the 13 Board. 14 PBM ESTES: And a number of those, 15 as I read through them, and again not an 16 expert on reading the results, but a lot 17 of them were not complete or there are 18 notes in them to say they added water to 19 them to help the drilling, which then 20 gives a false indication of what the 21 water table was. So there were a number 22 of them or at least appeared in the 23 notations on the tests that they weren't 24 completed correctly. 25 MR. LEJA: They were completed 15 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1a 2 correctly. 3 PBM ESTES: They had trouble 4 drilling them. 5 MR. LEJA: Standard practice to do 6 that when you're drilling water wells 7 depending upon the resistance of the 8 soil underneath. But I believe the 9 processes were followed correctly. 10 There is nothing incorrect about what 11 they did. 12 PBM KASPER: City of Syracuse 13 witnessed it. 14 PBM ESTES: The perc provided some 15 information that wasn't -- I'm not 16 suggesting that they didn't do it 17 correctly, I'm just saying that some of 18 the tests that were provided don't give 19 you the adequate information that we're 20 looking for as to what the groundwater 21 table is or the groundwater level. 22 MR. MOLNAR: Would that change 23 seasonally? 24 PBM ESTES: Sure. 25 MR. MOLNAR: Does the Board feel 16 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1a 2 that a seasonal, a groundwater study 3 with seasonal changes, would that be 4 helpful? 5 PBM WINKLEMAN: I think the City of 6 Syracuse probably takes that into 7 account. They've been doing perc tests 8 on the watershed here for a long time. 9 But what strikes me is that there were, 10 I believe there were over a hundred perc 11 tests done. So there were some that 12 passed, but I think the majority of them 13 failed. Which kind of indicates that 14 they'd have to build the engineered 15 above ground mound system at each of 16 these places. So it's, you know, like 17 the rest of the watershed, it's marginal 18 for on site sewer treatment. 19 PBM SOUTHERN: Engineering wise, 20 John, do you see a problem with the 3 21 foot water table in terms of runoff and 22 damage from -- 23 MR. MOLNAR: This question is impact 24 on the land. 25 PBM SOUTHERN: Right. 17 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1a 2 MR. CAMP: No. Modern home building 3 techniques will come equipped with 4 foundation drains. And the stormwater 5 management facilities are designed when 6 using AMC, which is anti-moisture 7 condition too. They're generally on the 8 conservative side in terms of their 9 volume and the predicted rates of 10 discharge to get to the facility. 11 PBM SOUTHERN: So you think it would 12 be like a moderate impact rather than a 13 large, because of the engineering? 14 MR. CAMP: I believe that generally 15 speaking, the New York State DEC 16 Stormwater Management Design Guidelines 17 result in conservatively sized 18 facilities. So even a site with 19 moderate to relatively high groundwater, 20 I believe those facilities would work 21 adequately. Then when you combine that 22 with what would presumably be an 23 adequate building technique, getting 24 water away from the structures, away 25 from the road. And again, assuming that 18 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1a 2 the septic systems are built with 3 respect to the perc tests that were done 4 at the sites, I believe that that impact 5 is mitigated. 6 PBM ESTES: I have to say that my 7 concern with that statement is that 8 statement we heard assume and presume 9 three times, which means we're putting a 10 lot of risk on our groundwater and the 11 water quality based on assuming that an 12 engineering system works. 13 MR. CAMP: Assuming that they're 14 going to be constructed properly, those 15 were the three qualifiers. 16 MR. MOLNAR: Is there any additional 17 information that the Board would like to 18 receive from the Applicant to better be 19 able to answer the question? Is there 20 any additional information which could 21 be requested? 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Based on the water 23 table, right? 24 MR. MOLNAR: Based on the water table. 25 MR. BRODSKY: If I may, I'm sensing 19 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1a 2 there is apprehension about the impact 3 on the water table from this entire 4 project and construction on some 5 individual sites. And there are 6 unknowns that are causing that 7 apprehension. 8 Try to identify them, maybe what we, 9 I'm just suggesting, making a 10 suggestion, is what the Applicant should 11 provide is assurances through an 12 environmental analysis, saying okay, 13 here's the existing conditions, and here 14 are the measures that we will take to 15 ensure the protection of the water 16 table. And they may include monitoring 17 of construction as well as design. 18 We're not normally involved as a 19 Planning Board in construction 20 monitoring as much, that may be 21 something that might be necessary to 22 provide that level of assurance or to 23 relieve that apprehension. I don't know 24 if that's workable or not. 25 MR. LEJA: That's what a SWPPP does. 20 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1a 2 An Erosion Limitation Control Plan does. 3 It lays out the steps the Applicant has 4 committed to as part of the development 5 to ensure that there will be no 6 significant impact to the land. 7 PBM ESTES: When you look at these 8 questions, Scott, the likelihood or the 9 duration, there is the risk factor 10 involved. Say the duration, are we 11 talking just construction and we design 12 a SWPPP plan that we believe is going to 13 work? And let's just say it doesn't. 14 We realize we have to go back and refix 15 it. But that risk is at what cost? And 16 so that's why I consider this to be, not 17 only have a large magnitude but 18 potential for the duration could be very 19 long. And I'm not sure of this, and 20 we've seen, I realize when I say these, 21 we've seen the likelihood of this kind 22 of impact on deep slopes and near our 23 Lake is very high. And I've seen this 24 happen. And for us to close our eyes to 25 it and say this time it's going to be 21 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1a 2 different, I think is not reasonable or 3 responsible of our Planning Board. 4 PBM SOUTHERN: John, engineering- 5 wise have you seen this systems 6 installed under these conditions? Have 7 you heard of a lot, any impacts as a 8 result of them? 9 MR. CAMP: When you say these 10 systems, talking about the septic 11 systems or stormwater management system? 12 PBM SOUTHERN: Either way, both 13 actually with respect to. 14 MR. CAMP: You're more concerned 15 about the septic? 16 PBM SOUTHERN: Yes. 17 MR. CAMP: You know, honestly, the 18 County is the entity that regulates the 19 septic system. So they will have the 20 most experience answering these 21 questions. I'm not aware of a system 22 failing that wasn't overloaded or 23 installed incorrectly. But again, I 24 don't work a lot with them, so it's 25 mostly the County regulations. So, you 22 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1a 2 know, again, the County has learned over 3 the years, and I think they feel pretty 4 comfortable what can be built and what 5 conditions. 6 MR. MOLNAR: Circling back on the 7 duration: Short term, medium term, long 8 term or irreversible. Are there any 9 other comments from the Board on that? 10 PBM SOUTHERN: Well, water to come 11 through there is going to change 12 forever, going to be at the 3 foot level 13 in perpetuity. 14 MR. CAMP: There's some variation 15 over the course of a rainy or dry 16 summer, but it generally doesn't mean 17 that it fluctuates wildly. 18 PBM SOUTHERN: Right. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: It's when you cut 20 into these banks, isn't that going to 21 change? 22 MR. CAMP: He cuts into -- 23 THE CHAIRMAN: We're talking about 24 deep cuts. 25 MR. CAMP: Right, deep cuts in the 23 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1a 2 hillside they can enter groundwater 3 seeps. And they can be managed when 4 they come up, and directed safely around 5 the buildings and other construction. 6 PBM ESTES: We're cutting deep in 7 and then building up. So we've got -- 8 building 3 foot high mounds and then 9 cutting, or I forgot the numbers now, 10 deep cuts in. We're affecting the 11 groundwater table. And once you cut 12 into it and once you've done it, the 13 duration is, that's the impact to the 14 land once you cut into it, that's 15 forever. The water table is going to 16 forever have to adjust to the cuts that 17 we make into the land, for the 18 disturbance that we do on the land. 19 MR. MOLNAR: Moving on with the 20 likelihood. The third of the three 21 suggested criteria by the DEC. That the 22 probability, whether it's unlikely, 23 possibly will or probably will. 24 PBM KASPER: Probably. 25 PBM SOUTHERN: Why? 24 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1a 2 PBM KASPER: Once you make the cut 3 you change the whole water course down 4 to the Lake. It was subsurface, most 5 likely going to come up to the surface. 6 That would be the concern. 7 PBM ESTES: Even with a SWPPP or a 8 mitigation, you have changed the course 9 of the groundwater. You may mitigate 10 some of the water going into the Lake 11 and you may mitigate some flooding, but 12 you have changed the course of the water 13 and the course of the impact on the land. 14 PBM KASPER: True. You're not 15 digging into a river, it might be a 16 spring or something. But you are going 17 to change it. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Bigger bedrock will 19 have to control that. I don't know if 20 we've had much on that for that cut, how 21 you're going to control that. 22 MR. LEJA: First of all, we don't 23 know that we're tapping into any spring. 24 And if we are tapping into a spring then 25 that obviously has to be managed, but 25 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1a 2 there are construction techniques to 3 manage that. 4 Two, as far as changing the course 5 of the water, you've got a deep ravine 6 that cuts across that slope below all of 7 those houses where these cuts will 8 occur. I take issue with they're deep. 9 They're cuts. But where those cuts will 10 occur, there is a ravine that extends 11 far below the surface of where those 12 cuts are going to intrude. So any water 13 that's below the surface there will be 14 cut, captured by that ravine anyway. 15 So when you say you're changing the 16 course of it, you're only affecting 17 small localized areas immediately around 18 the footprint of each home, but the 19 water still continues to flow in a 20 general east to west direction down the 21 slope. 22 Groundwater generally, and John, I 23 think you would agree, groundwater 24 generally follows the topography of the 25 surface land in terms of running a 26 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1a 2 direction of the flow. If you have a 3 hill that's vertical like this, it's 4 rare for groundwater to run this way, 5 across it. It won't run uphill, but it 6 rarely runs that way. So with the 7 imposition of that ravine as a capture 8 mechanism basically for all the water 9 that comes down that hill, either at the 10 surface or running below the surface, 11 this particular, these cuts won't impact 12 the flow of that groundwater to that 13 ravine and ultimately to the Lake. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: But it will around 15 the buildings, and that's got to be 16 controlled and directed more into a 17 certain area. 18 MR. LEJA: Admittedly there will be 19 localized disturbance of the pattern 20 because of the cut of the house. But 21 that will be extremely localized. And 22 by the time you get down to where the 23 ravine is it's flowing exactly where it 24 was anyway, but for the capture of the 25 surface water that will be directed into 27 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1a 2 stormwater handling facilities that 3 aren't there now. 4 So everything that goes down there 5 now washes straight down right into the 6 ravine. After the project there will be 7 stormwater capturing handling 8 facilities, part of the SWPPP committed 9 to by the Applicant, that will actually 10 control the groundwater or control the 11 water flow I should say, better than it 12 is now. And more controlled, at a flow 13 rate that's more controlled than what it 14 is now, it's just random washing into 15 the ravine. 16 PBM WINKELMAN: Groundwater, is to 17 keep the groundwater in the ground doing 18 the natural services it's always done, 19 what's new with these cuts and the steep 20 slopes is that we make that groundwater 21 surface water now. And it does run 22 through your stormwater treatment and 23 all that, but. 24 MR. LEJA: Part of that stormwater 25 treatment includes infiltration. So 28 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1a 2 some of that water is actually returned 3 back to the ground before it ever hits 4 the ravine. 5 PBM WINKLEMAN: Yes, it goes into 6 the sand filter and under-drain, yes. I 7 think that the magnitude is moderate, 8 duration is moderate, and likelihood is 9 probable. How are we going to fill out 10 this? 11 PBM SOUTHERN: I concur. That's 12 reasonable. 13 MR. MOLNAR: So we're working toward 14 a goal, my recommendation to the Board 15 is that when deliberating on each of 16 these moderate to large impacts, and 17 we'll go through all of them this 18 evening, that if acceptable I'll 19 summarize those as well, in the Board 20 moving toward answering the Part 3 21 determination of significance. 22 So what I'll do is, I'll capture the 23 salient remarks again, the reasons why, 24 the rationale, and the finding, and put 25 it into a Draft Resolution, which will 29 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1b 2 give, be an attachment to or yes, an 3 attachment to the Part 3 questionnaire 4 in a Determination of Significance. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Sounds reasonable to 6 me. 7 MR. MOLNAR: Are there any other 8 questions or comments concerning Item 9 1a? If not, moving on to Item 1b. The 10 proposed action may involve construction 11 on slopes at 15 percent or greater. And 12 the rationale for the moderate to large 13 finding was: Moderate to large based 14 upon the view of the lots located on the 15 east side and the existing slopes. 16 Now, assessing that in terms of 17 significance: First, magnitude; second, 18 duration; third, likelihood. I'll ask 19 concerning first, magnitude, is it 20 moderate to large and what is the 21 Board's rationale? 22 PBM ESTES: I took a good look at 23 the east side and looked on the map for 24 the deep slopes that we had. Greater 25 than, almost greater than 15 percent of 30 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1b 2 the east property at 12 percent or 3 greater. I mean when we start 4 excavating, cutting into the slope we 5 increase that even more. And it's a 6 really good indication of what building 7 into the slopes changes or building into 8 the existing slope and how it changes 9 the percent grade. So I would say large 10 magnitude of the destruction of the 11 slopes. 12 PBM SOUTHERN: There are existing 15 13 percent slopes? I thought they were all 14 12. 15 PBM ESTES: Or greater. 16 MR. KASPER: Changing. 17 PBM ESTES: Changing greater than 12. 18 PBM SOUTHERN: When they cut for the 19 houses. 20 PBM KASPER: Yes. When they brought 21 the houses down into. 22 PBM SOUTHERN: But the existing 23 slopes are all pretty close to 12, 13. 24 PBM KASPER: They brought the houses 25 down. 31 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1b 2 THE CHAIRMAN: I guess the thing I 3 don't understand is, the cutting out of 4 the house, are they just digging the 5 foundation for the house or are they 6 leveling an area around the house? I've 7 been confused on that right from the 8 beginning, I'm not sure. 9 MR. MOLNAR: I understood it was 10 being leveled. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: That's what I thought. 12 MR. MOLNAR: So there wouldn't be 13 little pockets, it would be a level cut. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: It would be different 15 cutting out for a house and setting it 16 in there. 17 MR. LEJA: As I recall, the original 18 plan was to have that terrace effect and 19 have that level. But given the Board's 20 sentiments several meetings ago, that 21 they did not care for that, the level 22 was changed to make it more of a pocket 23 style house construction whereby you 24 would not have a terrace with all the 25 houses sitting on top of the terrace. 32 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1b 2 It would be more the gradual, trying to 3 leave as much of the existing slope as 4 possible while putting the houses into 5 the slope, with localized leveling and 6 grading around those houses in a safe 7 manner, but in a manner that also 8 contributes to the overall, the visual, 9 mitigating the visual impact by lowering 10 the houses. And also in a way that 11 allows the stormwater handling to occur 12 appropriately. But it's not the shelf 13 impact, because that would have required 14 more excavation than this Board was 15 comfortable with. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: But there is still 17 that shelf that you're putting in there. 18 You're not just digging a hole and 19 putting a house in. What you're saying 20 you're taking and clearing a little area 21 around it, not the whole thing, but a 22 certain area away from the house. 23 MR. LEJA: Well, necessarily. You 24 have to do a little bit of grading 25 around the house proper just to be able 33 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1b 2 to make sure the water doesn't run 3 towards the foundation. But again, those 4 are typical construction techniques on 5 sloped areas that are commonly applied. 6 We're not proposing anything new or 7 untested. 8 PBM KASPER: Refresh what they're 9 doing, John? 10 PBM ESTES: What about the retention 11 pond and the stormwater management 12 facilities themselves, are we grading 13 off an area so that we're not putting 14 those on a slope as well? So we're 15 going to be draining an area so that we 16 can have a flat area for the stormwater 17 retention pond? 18 PBM WINKLEMAN: Those are done down 19 to the bottom of the flat part just 20 before the work. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Still a slope on it. 22 PBM WINKELMAN: I can't find the 23 slope. 24 MR. CAMP: Speaking of those cuts, 25 the structure there, cuts to fill the 34 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1b 2 embankment. The inner part of it has to 3 be flat so it won't store much water. So 4 like I said, generally constructed with 5 an embankment around the lower end with 6 some excavation on the uphill side. 7 PBM ESTES: Right. 8 MR. MOLNAR: Identify what you're 9 reviewing for your comment. 10 PBM WINKELMAN: I was looking 11 through my different pieces of paper to 12 try to find the slopes. Do we have a 13 steep slopes thing, map for the Loveless 14 Farm submitted by EDR, submitted by 15 Osborne Landscaping, and the grading on 16 that hillside that you're talking about? 17 MR. LEJA: Excuse me, that was 18 submitted by someone that's not 19 affiliated with the Applicant, I would 20 like that noted for the record. 21 PBM ESTES: That's why he referenced 22 it. 23 PBM WINKELMAN: But it's highlighted 24 at 12 to 30 percent grade. They're 25 looking at 15 percent, so it doesn't 35 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1b 2 differentiate between that. Does the 3 Applicant have steep slopes identified? 4 MR. LEJA: The Applicant materials 5 do have in depth description of the 6 topography of the area, existing and 7 proposed. 8 MR. MOLNAR: Karen found some of it 9 right there. Just for the record, Karen 10 Barkdull put up on the screen a 11 submission by the Applicant, prepared by 12 EDR, entitled Section A-A, corrosion 13 specs for slopes, both the east and west 14 side, when looking north and south. 15 And in terms of the east side, it 16 provides it from 41A proceeding down the 17 Fire Lane it will drop a 20 percent 18 grade, to what the Applicant has 19 identified as building envelope. Is the 20 roadway serving those buildings or 21 private roadway, is that within the 22 building concourse? 23 MR. BRODSKY: Yes, should be. 24 MR. MOLNAR: Which is relatively 25 flat. And then proceeding by a 12 36 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1b 2 percent grade, dropping in the property 3 line -- to the property line. 4 PBM KASPER: If you notice the 5 dotted line, that is the existing grade. 6 And they're cutting that much. That's 7 their cut line. So they're still going 8 to be 12 percent grade. 9 PBM WINKELMAN: That's the line that 10 comes from 41A, this comes from the Fire 11 Lane. 12 PBM KASPER: So they are building a 13 12 percent grade. 14 PBM ESTES: And that's form the 15 building lot on the top level. Not 16 talking about the other structures that 17 are being built on the level on the east 18 side, Lot 1. 19 PBM KASPER: Fire Lane 17 is the 20 first two lots up. 21 PBM WINKELMAN: Joe has a topo map 22 that has been highlighted from EDR that 23 shows. 24 PBM ESTES: Now that shows it, that 25 we were concerned about. 37 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1b 2 PBM KASPER: Again, the dotted line 3 is existing and they're creating, which 4 looks like it's 12 percent, and they're 5 creating the shelf. So the back yards, 6 the upper back yards is 30 percent. 7 PBM ESTES: Right. 8 MR. MOLNAR: This is a graphic 9 entitled, Section B-B also produced and 10 submitted by EDR. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: When I look at this 12 looks like they're building a shelf. 13 Different levels, but. 14 MR. LEJA: You're building on a 15 shelf -- or I'm sorry, you're building 16 on a slope. You need to excavate 17 something to create the flat area. I 18 mean it's just construction reality. 19 But a question for the Board, is 20 that a significant enough impact? 21 Again, in context, compared with all the 22 other construction that occurs around 23 the Lake on slopes that are flatter, on 24 slopes that are steeper. 25 MR. MOLNAR: And just for the 38 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1b 2 record, please allow me to announce that 3 this is the level assigned to the Town 4 of Skaneateles, Loveless Farm plan 5 section, dated March 26, 2015 submitted 6 by EDR. 7 PBM KASPER: But it's showing an 18 8 foot cut right there. So you're 9 definitely going to be in the groundwater. 10 PBM ESTES: Right. I think to 11 answer the question -- 12 PBM SOUTHERN: How far does that cut 13 continue across north and south? 14 PBM ESTES: The size of some of 15 these houses, which are the building 16 lots. He was asking from the north to 17 south, so he would have to look at the 18 size of the whole building envelope. 19 MR. CAMP: One of those is the north 20 south Section, I believe. 21 MR. BRODSKY: Is there a plan view 22 of this, of the east side with the new 23 contours? 24 MR. CAMP: A-A Section goes through. 25 PBM WINKELMAN: Here's A-A, B-B. 39 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1b 2 MR. BRODSKY: You can anticipate, it 3 looks like A means to excavate the 4 building envelope which would be larger 5 than or some -- a good portion of the 6 building envelope. But it's not clear, 7 to me. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Not clear, because 9 now they have 18 feet between that home 10 and the next home is what they're saying. 11 MR. BRODSKY: Right, so they may be 12 digging out for the individual home, you 13 would assume that there is going to be 14 some usable yard accompanying that space 15 as well. So what you don't know, and 16 what is -- what kind of excavation 17 impact is occurring at all because 18 you're not seeing any site contours of 19 the plan. You're seeing some section 20 elevations to give you that sense. And 21 you see 18 foot cuts and stuff like 22 that. But you don't know how big of an 23 area is being affected, based upon this 24 plan here. 25 MR. LEJA: That information is 40 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1b 2 provided in the Applicant's plan. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: So you're saying 4 there is going to be 18 feet high 5 between each house, is that what you're 6 saying? 7 MR. LEJA: No, I think if you look 8 at the contour, from the existing to the 9 final grade or final excavation level, 10 there will be some distances that are 11 given on that cross-section A prime. 12 PBM KASPER: They have several 13 cross-sections, B-B, Karen goes to B-B, 14 and that's A-A. Go to the next one B-B, 15 that's that cross-section right there, 16 that's on that one lot. It's a cut of 17 18 feet. 18 Now go back to the original. So 19 B-B, that's where we just saw, B-B. So 20 that's that cross-section right there, 21 is 18 feet cut right there. Now if you 22 go to the next, you know, either to C-C, 23 right there, they're talking 10 foot cut 24 to the house. 25 PBM ESTES: 27 feet from the grade 41 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1b 2 could have. 3 MR. CAMP: If I remember correctly, 4 one of the original versions of the 5 application did not have that much cut, 6 but the Applicant lowered the houses to 7 mitigate for the view from the highway. 8 PBM KASPER: If you go to the A-A, 9 that's going north to south. So you can 10 see the cut right there. Then the next 11 spot was 10. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Still kind of a shelf. 13 PBM ESTES: It's a significant cut 14 into the slope. The concern is, as we 15 talked about, it just goes, the question 16 starts to build on each other, because 17 now once we've started the steeper 18 slopes, then we go back and we start 19 talking about the runoff and the 20 flooding because we've increased the 21 slopes. 22 And on that one, where he shows the 23 stormwater management plan, we still 24 have roadways and walkways and all those 25 other things, and other people's 42 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1b 2 properties that potentially we start 3 having some significant impact too. 4 PBM KASPER: So Scott, what are the 5 choices for b? 6 MR. MOLNAR: To refresh your 7 recollection, the question is, impact on 8 land. b: The proposed action may 9 involve construction on slopes at 15 10 percent or greater. And we have the 11 magnitude: Which is either moderate or 12 large. Then duration: Short term, 13 medium, long term or irreversible. And 14 lastly is likelihood: Unlikely, 15 possibly will or probably will, in terms 16 of the significance. 17 PBM KASPER: I'm going to say large 18 and forever. 19 PBM ESTES: Forever, yes. 20 PBM KASPER: Forever change. And 21 probable. 22 PBM ESTES: No way they can build it 23 without doing it. 24 PBM KASPER: Anticipated problems. 25 PBM ESTES: I agree with that. 43 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1b 2 MR. MOLNAR: Mr. Chairman, I 3 recommend you poll the Board on that 4 determination. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. 6 BY THE CHAIRMAN: 7 Q. Scott, moderate or large? 8 A. Large. 9 Q. Joe? 10 A. Large. 11 Q. Beth? 12 A. Large. 13 Q. Don? 14 A. Large. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm going to say 16 large also. 17 MR. MOLNAR: Duration: Permanent? 18 Irreversible? 19 PBM ESTES: Irreversible. 20 MR. MOLNAR: Is that a unanimous 21 from all the Board members? 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 23 MR. MOLNAR: And lastly, the 24 likelihood. 25 PBM KASPER: Likelihood? There is 44 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1d 2 going to be -- 3 MR. MOLNAR: Large, irreversible, 4 significant. 5 PBM KASPER: Yes. 6 MR. MOLNAR: Choices are: Unlikely, 7 possibly will or probably will. 8 PBM ESTES: Probably will. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Probably will? 10 PBM WINKELMAN: Yes. 11 BY THE CHAIRMAN: 12 Q. Joe? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Beth? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Don? 17 A. Yes. 18 MR. MOLNAR: Moving on to Question 19 1d. Moderate to large impact is 20 identified for, the proposed action may 21 involve the excavation and removal of 22 more than 1,000 tons of natural 23 material. 24 The Board's rationale was, the 25 project will involve excavation, not 45 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1d 2 removed from the site but removed from 3 where it exists. Moving soil and rock 4 around the property and physical 5 alteration. Soil and rock will be 6 excavated. And what the Applicant is 7 doing on the east side is excavating 8 1,000 tons and removing it 600 feet to 9 one side, impacting the land. 10 In terms of assessing the 11 significance of that Item, I'd ask you 12 to please reflect on, articulate your 13 reasons why it's moderate to large 14 magnitude and so forth concerning the 15 rationale. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: I'd say it's 17 definitely large in magnitude during 18 construction at least, there is going to 19 be a lot of change. Going to be opening 20 everything up and moving the whole side 21 basically on the east side, that's what 22 I'm looking at. Talking about raising 23 spots and lowering spots. 24 PBM ESTES: The initial question is 25 the impact on the land, so we're 46 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1d 2 definitely moving all the material 3 around on the land, so I mean the 4 magnitude of the project itself makes it 5 large, but I think it definitely changes 6 the landscape and the contour of the 7 land. At some point you're going to 8 say, you know, can it be regraded or 9 mitigated to look like a different 10 landscape? 11 It's going to forever change the 12 existing look of the land, but the 13 question is whether it changes, you 14 know, it's hard when you start looking 15 at this and you look at it in pieces or 16 you look at it all as one project. So 17 we sit here and talk about all the 18 movement of the excavation when we talk 19 about these houses in here, and all the 20 excavation needed for the raise of the 21 septic system. 22 Then you have to transfer to say 23 what happens with this bridge? What 24 happens with the excavation of the land 25 down at Lot 1? What happens to things 47 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1d 2 that we don't even know about yet, like 3 the community recreation facility and 4 the lakefront. You say it could be, it 5 is a magnitude of large, of changing the 6 land. 7 PBM WINKELMAN: I agree. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Have we really got 9 something that shows where the soil is 10 set out to be moved? 11 MR. CAMP: It's moved to the west 12 side of the highway. 13 MR. LEJA: Actually there were some 14 maps in the application that showed 15 stockpiling. 16 PBM KASPER: I think that aside, 17 you're not going to see it, they'll 18 feather it out. The impact will be on 19 the steep slopes, changing the total 20 landscape. Changing the whole impact of 21 that whole east side. So it is a large 22 impact. 23 PBM ESTES: I would agree, it's a 24 large impact. 25 PBM KASPER: Forever change, and the 48 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1f 2 likelihood it's going to be very 3 noticeable. 4 PBM SOUTHERN: I agree. 5 PBM ESTES: I agree too. 6 PBM WINKELMAN: I agree. 7 MR. MOLNAR: Moving on to Item 1f. 8 The proposed action may result in 9 increased erosion, whether from physical 10 disturbance or vegetation removal, 11 including from treatment from herbicides. 12 And the Board's rationale is: Yes, 13 increased erosion will occur during the 14 project, especially with the cut and 15 houses on the east side. 16 In terms of significance, I'd ask 17 the Board to please provide rationale 18 for the significance, whether it's 19 moderate or large. 20 Considering also obviously the 21 mitigating factors of SWPPP and the 22 Onondaga County's Department of Health 23 review and approval of the septic 24 systems and/or the erosion plan 25 presented by the Applicant. 49 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1f 2 PBM ESTES: There's a lot of 3 vegetation removing going on. 4 PBM WINKELMAN: Especially in Lot 1. 5 And the back woods. 6 PBM ESTES: And the west side. 7 PBM WINKELMAN: West side woods. 8 PBM ESTES: We just outlined the 9 disturbance on the excavation and 10 changing the contour of the land. 11 Setting a precedent to do all those 12 things, how much increased erosion. I 13 think it would be large during the 14 project for sure. 15 PBM SOUTHERN: Stabilized, mitigated 16 when it's completed, but getting there 17 is going to be tough. 18 MR. LEJA: But the erosion control 19 plan does contemplate measures put in 20 place in the midst of construction. And 21 I think this question is geared towards 22 erosion of a detrimental nature. Not 23 just erosion for erosion sake but erosion 24 of a detriment to the environment. 25 PBM ESTES: I think erosion in the 50 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1f 2 groundwater and near the proximity of 3 the Lake that we're talking about I 4 think it would be a detriment. 5 PBM SOUTHERN: If it's not 6 controlled. This is open, if it's not 7 controlled. 8 MR. LEJA: Again, you have to assume 9 that -- 10 PBM SOUTHERN: I think that's what 11 we have to struggle with. 12 MR. LEJA: You have to assume the 13 plans that are submitted and reviewed by 14 your engineer are going to be 15 implemented. You can't assume failure. 16 PBM SOUTHERN: Our problem is we see 17 projects that it isn't. 18 MR. LEJA: But you can't assume 19 failure. 20 MR. MOLNAR: On failure, if the 21 Board, reviewing the application, 22 assessing the moderate to large 23 magnitude and the duration, I think it's 24 the key question here under discussion, 25 short term, medium term, long term or 51 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1f 2 irreversible? 3 PBM SOUTHERN: I think it's long 4 term depending on how long they're going 5 to have to be there and the procedures 6 are going to have to be in place quite a 7 while. 8 PBM ESTES: Look at erosion too, 9 erosion is a natural process that 10 happens all the time. So even on 11 construction, even on normal sites there 12 is erosion going on. And if you 13 maintain the natural habitat it gets 14 picked up by the pastures, it gets 15 picked up by running through the ravine 16 and doesn't necessarily get down to the 17 Lake. 18 When you start disturbing the land 19 and changing the contour of the land 20 even after you started, you know, 21 putting grass and putting things in 22 place you're still going to get a 23 certain amount of erosion all the time. 24 I agree the question is, is it 25 detrimental? And can it be mitigated? 52 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1f 2 But the erosion itself, once you start 3 cutting into the soil it's going to 4 happen, pretty continual. 5 PBM WINKELMAN: I would have to say 6 it would be moderated with the 7 stormwater controls and the SWPPP and 8 all that but there is a potential of 9 moderate magnitude. 10 PBM ESTES: I'd go with moderate, 11 that's all. 12 PBM KASPER: Large during 13 construction and moderate long term. 14 PBM ESTES: Right. 15 PBM KASPER: I've got to say that I 16 don't think the developer has mitigated 17 enough erosion control on the steep 18 slopes the way he's presented it. 19 PBM SOUTHERN: During construction? 20 PBM KASPER: During construction is 21 long term. I think he's left it up to 22 the individual lots for us to handle it. 23 And I don't think it should be handled 24 at that point, I think it should be 25 handled now. At least establish the 53 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1f 2 boundaries of the permanent stormwater 3 protection of the slopes. So I don't 4 think we're satisfied at this point. So 5 it's a highly likelihood we're going to 6 have erosion. 7 PBM ESTES: So we can't separate 8 this question then right, Scott, we have 9 to answer it as construction and in 10 completion? I'm thinking that I have to 11 go back and look, but I thought the 12 purpose was when it's completed. 13 PBM KASPER: It is permanent impact 14 on the land now and forever. 15 PBM ESTES: Right. 16 MR. MOLNAR: The guidance in terms 17 of significance includes the reason 18 supporting the determination, which I'm 19 reading from the DEC website Part 3 20 evaluation form. Bullet point is, 21 repeat this process for each Part 2 22 question where the impact has been 23 identified as potentially moderate to 24 large. But where there is a need of 25 explaining why a particular element of 54 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1f 2 the proposed action will not or may 3 result in a significant adverse 4 environmental impact. 5 And I think in terms of looking at 6 each individual element I encourage the 7 Board to do that. But then answer the 8 question as a whole. So that identify 9 the elements and the factors which make 10 up your rationale, and then answer the 11 question as presented. 12 PBM KASPER: I think the rationale 13 at the last meeting that, yes, increased 14 erosion will occur during the project, 15 especially with the cut in houses on the 16 east side. So we already said it's not 17 going to work, and most likely is going 18 to fail as presented. So it's a large 19 impact. Going to be a permanent one as 20 proposed. Likelihood it's going to fail. 21 PBM SOUTHERN: Even with mitigation? 22 PBM KASPER: What is presented. 23 MR. LEJA: I don't understand. Your 24 town engineer said differently. 25 PBM KASPER: My thought is maybe the 55 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1f 2 slips for the whole overall construction, 3 but the long term around the houses, 4 which really hasn't done any stormwater 5 management around the houses or 6 permanent long term vegetation around 7 the houses. 8 MR. LEJA: But you can't, because 9 your Code breaks it up into subdivision 10 and site plan review for the individual 11 homes. So we left that to the Board, 12 when an individual lot owner comes in or 13 when the individual lot is being 14 proposed for a building, then we come up 15 in with a site plan that address those 16 particular issues. 17 PBM ESTES: Yet our concern is the 18 building lots that are being proposed 19 are what's presenting the problems. 20 PBM WINKELMAN: You put them on the 21 slope. 22 PBM ESTES: Because you put them in 23 an area where we can anticipate, and 24 would be hard to believe that there 25 wouldn't be erosion. And so regardless 56 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1f 2 of what the site plan review looks like, 3 this is what we've got to deal with. So 4 I think this is one of those exceptions 5 or one of those differences, you're 6 right, we need more. 7 MR. LEJA: What information are you 8 looking for? We can't design the 9 buildings right now. 10 PBM KASPER: No, that's not the way 11 I'm looking. At the wish of the 12 developers, you're asking us to do a 13 site plan for each individual, okay? 14 MR. LEJA: We're not asking it, it's 15 required for any house that's proposed 16 within this proximity to the Lake. 17 PBM KASPER: But because of the 18 steep slopes and all the cut, and this 19 was all just in the last three months, I 20 think they have to mitigate or 21 anticipate even on those individual site 22 plans how they're going to be handled. 23 As far as, you know, the cuts, the water 24 is coming around the houses and even 25 stabilizing the steep slopes. 57 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1f 2 MR. LEJA: Water flow around the 3 houses was anticipated in terms of sizing 4 the stormwater detention facilities. 5 PBM KASPER: Right. 6 MR. LEJA: So that was taken into 7 account. 8 PBM KASPER: But you haven't, I 9 think there has got to be an overall 10 general plan how each house is going to 11 be. Where the basement drains are 12 going, the water coming off the 13 driveways, a general idea how that's 14 going to be handled. How all these 15 steep slopes are going to be handled so 16 that it's uniform between each building. 17 And then when it comes in for the 18 individual site plan, all we're going to 19 do is tweak it for that house or that 20 plot plan. But the overall, I think we 21 should have a plan for how, some kind of 22 planning or something to protect the 23 sleep slopes. 24 MR. LEJA: Has the Board done this 25 for any other development before where I 58 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1f 2 could have an example? 3 MR. MOLNAR: As a condition of the 4 overall subdivision, which is after the 5 sketch plan, which is after the 6 conservation analysis, all of which is 7 after this environmental review. 8 MR. LEJA: I'm talking up front now 9 in this type of context, is there 10 another? 11 THE CHAIRMAN: We did one out on 12 County line, four or five lot subdivision. 13 MR. MOLNAR: Subdivision advanced 14 through the process. 15 PBM ESTES: Also each subdivision is 16 different and each location is 17 different. So each one has to be 18 assessed differently and has to be 19 reviewed on its own merits. 20 PBM KASPER: I'm just identifying 21 the problems that I foresee in answering 22 that question. That's how I'm answering 23 it. 24 MR. CAMP: Do you consider the 25 construction phase erosion control? 59 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1f 2 PBM KASPER: I think long term 3 erosion control. 4 PBM WINKELMAN: Because of the lots 5 around the steep slope. 6 PBM ESTES: Adding more slope to it. 7 MR. LEJA: Again, I'm in a bit of a 8 loss, because the Board member is saying 9 we need more information. And I haven't 10 heard that, that hasn't been captured in 11 an official document from the Board or 12 an official statement that I can give to 13 an engineer and say, here's the 14 information we need that the Board has 15 requested issues. 16 PBM KASPER: I think it's all coming 17 to light because we are reviewing this. 18 You know, we're just identifying these 19 things and making us think now. 20 MR. LEJA: I still need to know an 21 answer, what information specifically. 22 And I think you started down that road, 23 but I'm not sure I can take it to 24 someone and say, take this and here's 25 the precise additional information the 60 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1f 2 Board needs. That's what I would like 3 to be able to do. 4 PBM KASPER: That's mine. I don't 5 know about the rest of the Board. 6 PBM SOUTHERN: The runoff -- 7 THE CHAIRMAN: How it's going to be 8 captured. 9 PBM KASPER: And the vegetation, I 10 know we can leave it up to the 11 individual homeowners. 12 PBM ESTES: To stormwater management. 13 PBM SOUTHERN: The ponds have 14 already been designed, is that taken 15 into consideration? 16 PBM ESTES: I don't, I don't know. 17 MR. LEJA: It absolutely had to, to 18 size them. 19 MR. CAMP: Those ponds that have 20 been designed, designed in the past but 21 showing in concept now, are sized for 22 the full build-out of the site, 23 including the development of the homes. 24 That would provide a last level of 25 erosion control there. 61 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1f 2 As far as the site plan approval 3 process, my understanding is always that 4 individual lots, erosion control was 5 going to be looked at at the time of the 6 site plan review. 7 PBM SOUTHERN: We're talking about 8 here now the overall. 9 MR. CAMP: I'm hearing full. 10 MR. BRODSKY: I think Don 11 characterized it well, is that you need 12 to set some basic parameters for the 13 entire subdivision. And yes, you have 14 site plan review, and that is making 15 hopefully minor adjustments within each 16 individual lot. And the Code requires 17 site plan review when you exceed 12 18 percent. That's the Code. 19 PBM ESTES: And we're not required 20 to have stormwater management on each 21 one of those individual lots. We could 22 require that stormwater management be 23 handled for the entire subdivision. 24 MR. CAMP: Stormwater management, 25 both quality and quantity long term are 62 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1f 2 in the ponds that are off the lot. 3 That's the way it's designed right now. 4 PBM ESTES: What about Lot 1, 5 recreation open space, we don't have an 6 idea what's going there yet. How do we 7 address for that? For other areas that 8 haven't been identified? 9 MR. LEJA: It's all been sized 10 already. Lot 1 is taken care of, is 11 addressed in the SWPPP. And 12 recreational area -- 13 PBM ESTES: Where is the erosion 14 control for Lot 1? 15 MR. CAMP: Beth, I suggest you think 16 differently about stormwater management 17 and erosion control, even though they're 18 both managing stormwater. The ponds 19 that you see in the red dash lines are 20 to manage stormwater quality and storm- 21 water quantity once the project is in 22 and stabilized. Erosion control is most 23 typically thought of as during a 24 construction phase concern. 25 PBM ESTES: Except when we're 63 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1f 2 building on steep slopes we should have 3 erosion control all the time. Because 4 it cuts into steep slopes. 5 MR. BRODSKY: Long term. 6 MR. LEJA: That's what the grass 7 does. When you plant grass and 8 vegetation on slopes, that's the erosion 9 control. 10 PBM ESTES: We just circled around. 11 MR. LEJA: You say you want 12 vegetative plans for all the houses as 13 well at this juncture? 14 PBM KASPER: No. Well, the thing is 15 you're going to create a swale behind 16 those lots, and you're showing it on the 17 cross-section, and that's going to be 18 done, right part of the stormwater 19 management swale. Yet, I think they 20 didn't really touch on the long term 21 erosion control on those steep slopes. 22 PBM ESTES: And the basis of our 23 question is, do we think this is going 24 to have a long -- is it likely the 25 duration of the magnitude of erosion on 64 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1f 2 this property, on this land. 3 MR. LEJA: So besides the 4 implementation of control measures 5 during construction, such as silt fence, 6 straw, whatever, around those individual 7 lots, then once the lots are 8 constructed, there will be -- once 9 they're constructed they will be 10 pursuant to a site plan, which will 11 delve into the look of the lot, the look 12 of the building, the other details 13 associated with the site plan, including 14 vegetation on there. 15 The Board is saying that even after 16 vegetation is placed around those lots 17 per the site plan approval that there is 18 still a long term erosion, significant 19 impact consideration with regard to 20 erosion? 21 PBM ESTES: Our question is, the way 22 I see this right now, that we have to 23 look before we grant a subdivision for 24 this property, we have to make the 25 decision of whether we think this 65 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1f 2 subdivision is going to have a major 3 impact on the land. Is that correct? 4 MR. MOLNAR: Yes. You're crossing a 5 few steps to get to a subdivision 6 approval, because prior to that is 7 sketch plan approval, and prior to that 8 is conservation analysis approval. 9 PBM ESTES: Right, but we have to, 10 if we approve or move forward and we 11 have concerns about the stormwater and 12 the erosion on a significant steep slope 13 ravine, Lake-shed, all the areas that 14 concern us. In my opinion it would be 15 irresponsible for us to say, oh, we're 16 going to take care of these things three 17 steps down the road, approve everything 18 now and then cover it under a site plan. 19 Because it's too late then, in my 20 opinion, if we don't address these 21 significant issues now it's going to be 22 too late. 23 MR. LEJA: But it's not too late, 24 nothing is built until the site plan 25 approval is given. 66 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1f 2 PBM WINKELMAN: But you're setting 3 it up on a challenging situation on a 4 steep slope. If it was a flat area it 5 would be not so challenging, we could 6 handle it and the site division, but 7 site plan review. But I believe that 8 that's what they're getting at. 9 MR. LEJA: All the water still runs 10 from 41A down the hill to the ravine. 11 Nothing has changed, regardless of what 12 earth-moving you do in that area, it's 13 all still going to run in that direction 14 and it's all contained in stormwater 15 controls and erosion controls that has 16 been presented as part of the 17 application. 18 Now, if you're looking at long term 19 impacts of erosion, that's not something 20 we can address now. That's something 21 that only happens after you know what's 22 going to be built there. 23 PBM ESTES: If we could go back and 24 read the question again. The proposed 25 action may result in increased erosion, 67 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1f 2 whether from physical disturbance or 3 vegetation removal. 4 PBM WINKELMAN: Vegetation removal 5 on Lot 1. 6 PBM ESTES: And a lot on that -- 7 PBM WINKELMAN: It doesn't function 8 the same. 9 PBM SOUTHERN: It will be different, 10 but there will be vegetation. 11 PBM ESTES: And may it result in 12 increased erosion? 13 PBM SOUTHERN: Is there a drainage 14 district considered for this project? 15 MR. LEJA: This Board has suggested 16 there be a draining district created, 17 yes. 18 PBM SOUTHERN: That's the Town, 19 other level of control in terms of 20 concern over drainage. 21 MR. LEJA: Again, I'm just looking 22 for specific concerns this Board has 23 other than it's likely to be erosion. 24 From where, caused by what, in what 25 volume that would be a significant 68 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1f 2 impact that we have to address in 3 further mitigation? That's all. 4 PBM KASPER: My opinion, it's the 5 cuts for the individual lots, but they 6 are all connected. Most likely there is 7 going to be erosion. 8 PBM ESTES: And the erosion from 9 putting in abutments for a bridge will 10 be very significant to the ravine. 11 MR. LEJA: What's your basis for 12 that statement? 13 PBM ESTES: As soon as you cut into 14 the side of the ravine. 15 MR. LEJA: We're not cutting into 16 the side of the ravine, we're not 17 touching the ravine. Abutments lie 18 outside the boundaries of the ravine 19 according to the application materials. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: 10 foot cut. 21 PBM ESTES: I believe it's greater 22 than that. 23 MR. LEJA: But the ravine itself -- 24 PBM ESTES: Pretty good cut going 25 here. 69 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1f 2 PBM WINKELMAN: Cut of the bank. 3 MR. LEJA: But it doesn't touch the 4 ravine, does it? 5 PBM WINKELMAN: Part of the bank, 6 it's part of the ravine. 7 MR. LEJA: No, it isn't, not 8 according to your regs. 9 PBM WINKELMAN: As far as shale 10 falling and the ravine -- 11 MR. LEJA: Again, there are control 12 mechanisms that are commonly used in 13 construction near water bodies that 14 address those issues. 15 PBM ESTES: That's our next 16 question. We need to finish this one 17 first. 18 MR. MOLNAR: I think we've moving 19 off target of the question. 20 PBM ESTES: I was just looking at 21 the erosion piece. Not just erosion of 22 the steep slope of those four lots, but 23 it's going to be erosion that's going to 24 occur for the construction of the bridge 25 and long term of the bridge and the line. 70 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1f 2 MR. MOLNAR: Is that all in terms of 3 removal of vegetation to complete the 4 driveway in that area of the bridge? 5 PBM ESTES: Correct, and the 6 construction part of it. Removal of 7 trees and materials to construct the 8 bridge. 9 MR. LEJA: All of which is covered 10 in the existing application material. 11 PBM KASPER: Let me ask a question. 12 Scott, is the bridge going to be 13 considered for the site plan for Lot 1 14 or is that being considered overall for 15 the whole project? 16 MR. MOLNAR: My recommendation is 17 that the Board consider it overall, 18 which is Lot 1 doesn't exist but for the 19 bridge. And the bridge doesn't exist 20 but for the overall subdivision. 21 MR. LEJA: Lot 1 could exist without 22 the bridge, we have just simply chosen 23 to put in a bridge for access. 24 MR. MOLNAR: That's highly unlikely. 25 I mean what that means is viewing all 71 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1f 2 things concerning the application 3 without any alternative access, and 4 access comes from the Lake. 5 MR. LEJA: Unless something is 6 negotiated with the next door neighbor. 7 MR. MOLNAR: But that's hypothetical, 8 and I recommend you don't go there in 9 terms of the deliberation. 10 MR. LEJA: But Lot 1 does exist 11 without, can exist without the bridge. 12 That's all I'm saying. 13 PBM ESTES: No, no. 14 PBM SOUTHERN: But we in the 15 subdivision can't create an unbuildable 16 lot. Can't build an unbuildable lot. 17 If you can show access. 18 MR. LEJA: Access through what? 19 It's done. 20 MR. MOLNAR: I don't know that 21 you've obtained C of O for that. 22 MR. LEJA: Again, we're lurching off 23 into -- I'm looking for specific 24 information. 25 MR. MOLNAR: There are various 72 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1f 2 elements that go into this, the answers 3 provided by the Board, which question 4 asks: The proposed action may result in 5 increased erosion whether from physical 6 disturbance or vegetation removal, 7 including treatment from herbicides. 8 In terms of magnitude, the Board has 9 discussed the various elements. Is it 10 moderate or large? 11 PBM WINKELMAN: Should we vote. 12 PBM SOUTHERN: Large during 13 construction, moderate after. 14 PBM WINKELMAN: I would agree with 15 that. 16 PBM ESTES: But that doesn't give us 17 an answer. 18 MR. MOLNAR: I think that's a 19 reasonable answer. 20 PBM ESTES: That's exactly what I 21 wrote down, those exact words, so I 22 would agree with that too. 23 MR. MOLNAR: Then in terms of 24 duration? I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, you 25 have a question? 73 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1f 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Has everyone agreed 3 to the moderate? 4 PBM ESTES: Large during 5 construction and moderate long term, yes. 6 MR. MOLNAR: Then in terms of 7 duration: Short term, medium term, long 8 term, or irreversible? 9 PBM KASPER: Long term. 10 PBM WINKELMAN: Long term. 11 PBM SOUTHERN: With the vegetation 12 and the remediation. 13 PBM ESTES: Do we have a definition 14 of long term? Are we talking four 15 years, are we talking a year after 16 construction? Do we have any content of 17 that? 18 PBM SOUTHERN: Establishing the site 19 back to pre-construction? 20 PBM ESTES: Yes. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: It's going to be long 22 term. There is going to be a lot of 23 disturbance, then to get the vegetation 24 back will take some time. 25 PBM ESTES: What's short term content? 74 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 1f 2 MR. MOLNAR: Short term impact can 3 occur for a few days, weeks or several 4 months and then improve quickly. Medium 5 term impact can be measured in months, 6 over several seasons or perhaps a few 7 years but has an end point, where the 8 conditions improve and adverse impacts 9 dissipate. Long term, these are impacts 10 which last for years or last as long as 11 the activity that generates the impact 12 that continues to take place. 13 PBM KASPER: Long term. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Say long term. 15 PBM ESTES: I would say long term 16 because you have to look at the whole 17 project together. But for the record I 18 still believe, the building of a bridge 19 on the bank would be an irreversible 20 problem. 21 PBM SOUTHERN: Long term we've 22 established, as established it's going 23 to be. Would happen in two to three 24 years. 25 PBM KASPER: Long term fully built 75 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 2a 2 out. Another five years after that. 3 Vegetation growing and everything, long 4 term. 5 PBM SOUTHERN: That's true. You 6 don't know what the duration will be. 7 PBM ESTES: Say long term then? 8 PBM SOUTHERN: Yes. 9 PBM KASPER: Long term. 10 MR. MOLNAR: Lastly, the likelihood: 11 Unlikely, possibly will or probably will. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Possibly. 13 PBM SOUTHERN: Possibly. Possibility 14 of that. 15 PBM KASPER: Yes. 16 PBM ESTES: Yes. 17 (Brief recess then discussion continued). 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Continue. 19 MR. MOLNAR: Now that the break is 20 over, moving on to Question 2. The 21 item, the question overall is, Impact on 22 Geological Features. And the Board 23 found a moderate to large impact 24 concerning sub-question a. And was 25 asked to identify the specific land 76 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 2a 2 forms. The rationale for the Board was 3 the ravine and stream outlet, classic 4 and undisturbed, is a tributary in the 5 Skaneateles Lake watershed, used by many 6 for drinking water. Effect of the 7 bridge is to modify two points on top of 8 the bank, destruction of trees to build 9 the bridge, and construction over 10 ravine. Consequence of use of bridge is 11 going to modify the ravine, cutting the 12 canopy out, and the bridge will have an 13 impact on trees going up from the bottom 14 of the ravine, which will be eliminated. 15 So this is impact on geological 16 features, and identity of the specific 17 land forms. Assessing the determination 18 of moderate to large, we look in terms 19 of significance, first of the magnitude. 20 Is it moderate or is it large in 21 magnitude? 22 PBM ESTES: I believe it's large. 23 And one of the things, I went back and 24 looked at some of the DEC information on 25 water courses and banks. And when you 77 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 2a 2 look at the term you say that the ravine 3 and the banks of the ravine is intended 4 to avoid runoff into the Lake. So when 5 you look at the bank, the bank is there 6 to protect the ravine. When we start 7 disturbing that bank, even though 8 quote-unquote according to however 9 somebody said, we're not touching the 10 ravine, the intent of the regulation is 11 to protect the water course. And that 12 bank is a part of the ravine. So when 13 we start disturbing that ravine, and 14 disturbing that bank, I believe we are 15 disturbing the ravine. 16 PBM WINKELMAN: You have to refer to 17 it differently. Because in the Codes 18 it's top of bank, is something defined 19 according to the streambed, but this is 20 like top of the ravine. Which is the 21 integral part of the conservation value 22 in the woodland. 23 PBM ESTES: The intent is to protect 24 it, you've got to provide that 25 protection. 78 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 2a 2 MR. MOLNAR: The question is based 3 on impact on geological features. 4 PBM WINKELMAN: Geological features 5 are the classic V shaped shale ravine 6 that has been cut for the last 10,000 7 years in the landscape, and that's why 8 it's got high conservation value. 9 That's part of the reason. Steep slopes 10 on both sides, tributary at the bottom 11 going directly into the Lake. And there 12 is the deep woodlands that are going to 13 be fragmented by this bridge getting cut 14 through it. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: You're opening up the 16 canopy on the ravine, which changes the 17 way it's shaded when the sun is there 18 also. 19 PBM SOUTHERN: Raising the 20 temperature of the water. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Raising the 22 temperature of the water when you start 23 losing the shade. 24 PBM ESTES: When it's commented on, 25 the fact that there is thousands of 79 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 2a 2 years, it's a natural geological feature 3 of the land. You put in an, I'm not 4 sure we even have all the sizes, putting 5 in the steps to these abutments and the 6 girders, that affects now the natural, 7 what is the natural erosion and cutting 8 of that property. Because now we have a 9 man-made structure into the design of 10 it. So it's going to change the course 11 of that. 12 MR. MOLNAR: Are there any other 13 geologic features or elements that 14 affect, such as the steep slope or the 15 west side properties of any other 16 elements that come into your thinking? 17 PBM ESTES: I think there were, but 18 at the time, maybe we have to go back 19 and look at how we answered that the 20 first time. I think the first time we 21 answered it I thought we only identified 22 during that discussion. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: That's what was in 24 the notes. 25 MR. MOLNAR: Agreed. So in terms of 80 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 2a 2 significance, is this moderate or large 3 in the Board's opinion? 4 PBM ESTES: Large. I think it will 5 change the land form. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: I have to say large, 7 because you're opening it up, opening 8 the ravine up. Haven't had it. In the 9 future changing the environment. 10 PBM SOUTHERN: Taking an undisturbed 11 natural area and putting in a man-made 12 structure through it. It's going to 13 stand out. Does stand out. Which is 14 never going to change, it's always going 15 to be there. Any mitigation on the 16 bridge itself? 17 MR. LEJA: We moved, the bridge 18 itself was moved, the location, and it 19 was shortened. And in addition, the 20 vegetation that's going to be cleared 21 around the area, was itself curtailed 22 because of that movement. We're not in 23 the woods closer to the northern 24 property boundary. We get out, the 25 further south you go it opens up a 81 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 2a 2 little bit where you have the base of 3 that meadow. Remember, we're not 4 proposing to open up the entire length 5 of the ravine by any stretch. Talking 6 about a very narrow corridor where the 7 bridge is going to go. We don't want to 8 open up more than we need to. There 9 would be no opening of areas there for 10 staging of equipment or staging of 11 materials or anything like that. 12 We're trying to keep it as natural 13 as possible so that the vegetation can 14 grow back in around it. And it just 15 basically melts into the existing 16 topography. Now it won't be seen by any 17 member of the public on a public road or 18 the Lake. That's another thing to keep 19 in mind in terms of overall impact of 20 the future. 21 And as far as the water temperature, 22 the amount of sunshine that's going to 23 hit that water for the very small area 24 where that bridge is going to be, I 25 frankly submit, will have no impact 82 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 2a 2 whatsoever on water temperature of the 3 water flowing through the ravine to the 4 Lake. And again, as far as the trees 5 go, we intend to have the trees regrow. 6 We'll even plant trees there to help 7 that. 8 PBM SOUTHERN: I have trouble 9 picturing it. Can you generate 10 something to give a finished look to 11 what you're proposing? 12 PBM ESTES: The other concern, you 13 think about your answer, because what we 14 have from them this is conceptual 15 abutment structures shown on assumed 16 spread footing pending geo technical 17 recommendations for soil bearing. The 18 actual foundation system required will 19 be determined during final design. 20 So this supposed abutment that I'm 21 concerned about as they are, because as 22 they're posed, and the girders that we 23 see cutting into this top of land area, 24 is all just -- is all just conceptual at 25 this point. 83 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 2a 2 MR. LEJA: Exactly. Thank you, 3 exactly my point. 4 PBM ESTES: It is our concern 5 because we don't know what's going there. 6 MR. LEJA: Excuse me, I would 7 respectfully remind the Board that you 8 asked for that conceptual map or 9 conceptual plan of the bridge. We told 10 you at the time that there would be 11 variations depending upon the geo tech 12 final design. We can't finely design 13 the bridge, because that involves an 14 enormous amount of work. At that time 15 you said, all we want is, conceptually 16 want to get a feel for where it's going 17 to be, where the abutments are going to 18 be. It was presented to you along with 19 the standard qualifiers in there, it was 20 going to be subject to the final design. 21 So respectfully, we did provide you 22 information that you requested on this 23 to give more than you typically would in 24 a subdivision application of this type. 25 We voluntarily provided it. If there is 84 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 2a 2 specific information that you want now, 3 not final design, but something else, 4 we're more than happy to entertain your 5 request. But we need to know what 6 information you want and why. 7 PBM ESTES: When we talked, in my 8 opinion, when we talked about putting a 9 structure of this nature in a 10 significant geological land form, we're 11 going to change the course of that land. 12 MR. LEJA: We're not proposing to 13 change the course of the ravine at all. 14 And I also respectfully point out, that 15 when we talked about design plans for 16 the bridge, you specifically said your 17 engineer is not going to be looking at 18 that. Your engineer is not going to 19 weigh in on the sufficiency of those 20 plans. 21 PBM SOUTHERN: We're talking about 22 the impact of the bridge itself. 23 MR. MOLNAR: Geological feature. 24 MR. LEJA: On the environment, which 25 is why, gladly, we gave you a conceptual 85 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 2a 2 plan. But necessarily, they are 3 conceptual. 4 PBM ESTES: Which means they could 5 be worse or better than what we're 6 looking at. 7 PBM KASPER: The first question is 8 it moderate or large impact? On the 9 geological features, yes, it's a large. 10 PBM ESTES: I think so. 11 PBM KASPER: Do we all agree on that? 12 PBM SOUTHERN: Without knowing 13 anything further, yes. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: I would have to say 15 large too. 16 PBM WINKELMAN: Yes. 17 PBM KASPER: Move on to the next 18 part of the question, long term. 19 MR. MOLNAR: Duration. 20 PBM KASPER: I'm going to say 21 permanent structure. 22 PBM SOUTHERN: Structure itself is 23 permanent. 24 PBM KASPER: In terms of the 25 feature, it's a permanent change. 86 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 2a 2 PBM SOUTHERN: Yes. 3 PBM ESTES: Agreed. 4 PBM KASPER: We can all agree on that. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Agree on that? 6 PBM WINKELMAN: So what do you 7 think, long term or irreversible. 8 PBM SOUTHERN: Long term. 9 PBM WINKELMAN: Long term sounds good. 10 MR. MOLNAR: The likelihood of 11 probability? 12 PBM ESTES: Just for voting purposes 13 then, I'm not sure how the man-made 14 structure into the ravine, I believe it 15 will change course, irreversible changes 16 to the course of the duration. 17 PBM KASPER: That's the second part. 18 The duration of the feature on geology. 19 MR. MOLNAR: Impact on the 20 geological feature. 21 PBM ESTES: You're not going to 22 change it once you build that bridge, 23 it's irreversible. One of our choices 24 is long term or irreversible. 25 MR. MOLNAR: Short term, medium, 87 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 2a 2 long or irreversible. 3 PBM ESTES: I'm voting irreversible. 4 Once you put it there it's there. Once 5 you dig these in, into that shale and 6 into that, and hold up this bridge, it's 7 going to be an irreversible change to 8 the feature. 9 PBM KASPER: Not going to change. 10 It is making a change on a geological 11 feature. It's irreversible. So yes, on 12 the second part it is irreversible. 13 MR. LEJA: It's not technically 14 irreversible. It can be changed. It's 15 not irreversible. 16 PBM ESTES: What was that? 17 MR. MOLNAR: Irreversible impact 18 bullet point. Irreversible impact is an 19 impact that occurs where the environment 20 can't return to it's original state at 21 any time or in any way. 22 And one of the bullet examples is, 23 construction of a structure that 24 permanently alters the scenic view in a 25 negative way. 88 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 2a 2 PBM KASPER: Irreversible. 3 PBM ESTES: Irreversible. 4 MR. LEJA: But one of the other 5 examples is extinction of animal or 6 plants, that's irreversible. 7 MR. MOLNAR: Conversion of prime 8 farm land to residential use. 9 MR. LEJA: Prime farm land, yes. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: You dig that bank, 11 it's irreversible. 12 MR. MOLNAR: Then the guidance 13 concludes, that other impacts may not 14 fit neatly into are medium or long term 15 categories because it may be continuous. 16 The reviewing agency should use the best 17 judgment to determine the category that 18 fits the duration of the impact. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Can we agree now it's 20 irreversible? 21 PBM SOUTHERN: Even if you take it 22 out. Yeah, I guess. 23 PBM WINKELMAN: I think it's long 24 term. 25 PBM SOUTHERN: I'm more comfortable 89 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 2a 2 with the long term myself. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, poll for long 4 term. 5 Q. Scott? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Joe? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Beth? 10 A. You're saying for long term? 11 Q. Long term. 12 A. No. 13 Q. Don? 14 A. No. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm going to be no. 16 So it's irreversible. 17 MR. MOLNAR: Moving on to likelihood 18 or probability. Unlikely, possibly will 19 or probably will. 20 PBM SOUTHERN: Probably. 21 PBM ESTES: The way they build it I 22 don't think. Probably. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Probably? Don, 24 probably? 25 PBM KASPER: Because what we said, 90 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 3L 2 this is a bridge, it's going to be a 3 permanent thing, irreversible. And now 4 you're asking is it going to be 5 probably? So yes, it is probably 6 irreversible. 7 PBM ESTES: The question is weird. 8 PBM KASPER: Third part doesn't make 9 sense because we just said it. It's 10 irreversible. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Probably is what 12 we're saying. 13 PBM WINKELMAN: Yes. 14 PBM SOUTHERN: Yes. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Moving on. 16 MR. MOLNAR: Moving on to Question 17 3, Item L. Other impacts. The question 18 3 was Impact on Surface Water. L was 19 Other Impacts. And the rationale for 20 large determination was the cumulative 21 small impacts which may result from 22 questions A through K results in a 23 moderate to large impact, when added 24 together to impact the surface water of 25 the Lake. Impact on surface water. 91 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 3L 2 PBM KASPER: So our answer was 3 because it's cumulative, so it's large. 4 MR. MOLNAR: Then we have to 5 determine it in terms of significance 6 being moderate or large. 7 PBM SOUTHERN: If you consider 8 mitigation. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Moderate. 10 PBM WINKELMAN: Moderate. 11 MR. MOLNAR: Mitigation, erosion 12 control plan? 13 PBM SOUTHERN: Yes. 14 PBM KASPER: And what we touched on 15 before, all the deep cuts and the steep 16 slopes, mitigating all that. 17 PBM WINKELMAN: 15 on site sewer 18 systems. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Department of Health. 20 PBM KASPER: I'm not worried about 21 it, they maintain the systems all around 22 the Lake and City of Syracuse has done a 23 great job. 24 PBM WINKELMAN: Got to go somewhere. 25 Goes into the ground and just disappears. 92 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 3L 2 PBM KASPER: They have a 50 percent 3 expansion designed on anything if it 4 does fail. Long term they've worked. 5 MR. MOLNAR: In terms of the 6 significance, is the magnitude moderate 7 or large based upon the cumulative small 8 impacts? 9 PBM SOUTHERN: Moderate. 10 PBM KASPER: Say moderate. 11 PBM WINKELMAN: Moderate. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Moderate in terms of 13 magnitude. 14 MR. MOLNAR: Then the duration? 15 Short, medium, long term or 16 irreversible? 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Long term. 18 PBM SOUTHERN: Long term. 19 MR. MOLNAR: For the duration of the 20 project? And then lastly, the 21 likelihood: Unlikely, possibly will or 22 probably will? 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Likely as stated 24 here. 25 PBM SOUTHERN: Lot of variables here 93 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 3L 2 so possibly likely. 3 MR. MOLNAR: Possibly will? 4 PBM SOUTHERN: Possibly. 5 MR. MOLNAR: And guidance under 6 likelihood, the bullet point, possibly 7 will occur. These are impacts that are 8 possible but not likely to occur. An 9 example of an impact that possibly could 10 occur would be the gross inducing aspect 11 of a new 100 lot subdivision. Awkward 12 example. 13 PBM ESTES: Actually, read the 14 example again. You take off the numbers 15 because you've got to put it relative to 16 where we are, but what was the rest of 17 that? 18 MR. MOLNAR: The example reads an 19 example of an impact that possibly could 20 occur, would be the growth inducing 21 aspect of a new 100 lot subdivision 22 development in the city that has had 23 very slow growth and is not near that 24 urbanized area. 25 PBM ESTES: So we would say possibly 94 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 4h 2 will. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 4 PBM WINKELMAN: Yes. 5 PBM SOUTHERN: Yes. 6 PBM KASPER: Yes. 7 MR. MOLNAR: Then the next moderate 8 to large determination was Question 4, 9 Impact on Groundwater. Impact on 10 groundwater h, other impacts. The 11 rationale is uncertainty regarding 12 groundwater availability. 13 PBM SOUTHERN: Read that again. 14 MR. MOLNAR: Question 4. Impact on 15 Groundwater. h: Other. The rationale 16 for moderate to large finding was, 17 uncertainty regarding groundwater 18 availability. 19 PBM ESTES: This was the groundwater 20 recharge in the wells, change of the 21 land. Well, I realize after the last 22 meeting somebody asked, you know, I 23 think we talked about how you could 24 judge that. And I did do a little bit 25 of look, the basic formula is the inflow 95 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 4h 2 of the aquifer response and the outflow. 3 And they do actually, there are eight 4 different methods in which you can study 5 that and see what the groundwater 6 recharge would be based on the number of 7 wells and the depressions. Actually 8 very interesting. But anyway, I digress. 9 MR. CAMP: Pretty involved operation. 10 PBM ESTES: But not uncommonly done 11 on some developments in areas where 12 they're concerned about the groundwater. 13 They're worried about wells in the area 14 if other people have already experienced 15 well issues. 16 PBM SOUTHERN: Certainly got to 17 remain, not going to change that. 18 MR. MOLNAR: Is it the Board's 19 desire to receive additional information 20 from the Applicant to better make a 21 determination for this question? 22 PBM SOUTHERN: What would we want to 23 know, the rate of flow on a well? 24 THE CHAIRMAN: We can't do that. 25 MR. LEJA: I can see you asking for 96 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 4h 2 more information if there was a 3 demonstrated concern on the basis of 4 neighbors around the area or 5 demonstrated problems with that. But 6 you had just the opposite. You had a 7 number of persons testify at the public 8 hearing that they had ample groundwater 9 and have always had such. We're talking 10 about -- 11 PBM ESTES: But they were concerned. 12 MR. LEJA: No, they didn't say they 13 were concerned. They simply said they 14 had adequate groundwater and were not 15 concerned as a matter of fact, I believe 16 was the essence of it. If there is a 17 demonstrated concern, but to date the 18 Applicant's information that he's 19 submitted, including the pump test of 20 all those septic holes, and the like, it 21 doesn't show any type of problem with 22 groundwater recharge. So are we looking 23 for a problem that doesn't exist? Are 24 we looking for proof of a problem that 25 doesn't exist? Are you asking me to 97 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 4h 2 prove a negative, in other words? 3 PBM KASPER: My opinion it's a 4 moderate impact. We've got so much 5 groundwater in Central New York, you 6 know, out of how many lots, they may 7 have to drill two wells on a lot to hit 8 the vein. But we have a stream that 9 runs year round right there. You know, 10 we're Central New York, plenty of 11 groundwater. They already said the 12 average depth of groundwater is three 13 feet, so it's, as far as wells, I don't 14 think it's a concern. 15 PBM WINKELMAN: What's the average 16 depth of the wells around the Lake, some 17 of them on Richard Road, 500 feet depth. 18 PBM KASPER: There is water in 19 Central New York. And, you know, there 20 is always areas that, you know, general 21 area, there is always areas known for 22 bad wells and this is not one of those 23 areas. There is nothing there. 24 PBM SOUTHERN: I agree. 25 MR. MOLNAR: In terms of 98 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 4h 2 significance, the magnitude would be 3 moderate, is that right? And the 4 duration? 5 PBM SOUTHERN: Lowest factor. 6 MR. MOLNAR: Short term? 7 PBM KASPER: Yes. 8 MR. MOLNAR: And the likelihood? 9 PBM ESTES: Wait a minute, how is it 10 short term? Only use the wells for a 11 little while, only use the septic for a 12 little while? Stop flushing after a 13 while or stop pumping after a while? 14 It's either there or not there. 15 PBM SOUTHERN: You may have to 16 redrill, but if you redrill you're going 17 to have other water. 18 PBM KASPER: You could have a very 19 dry summer, maybe run out of water. 20 Most likely they're going to get well 21 water. 22 PBM WINKELMAN: So we can agree on 23 the likelihood would be unlikely. 24 PBM KASPER: Unlikely to have a 25 problem. 99 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 4h 2 PBM WINKELMAN: Duration is not 3 really going to happen. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: I have concerns about 5 the water. I know that, I've seen at 6 these meetings some people have stated 7 they have a concern of water. 8 PBM SOUTHERN: Always a concern. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: You can't just say 10 there is water everywhere. That's been 11 a concern. Because where I am it 12 varies. And I've had trouble getting 13 water myself, so. I mean that's the 14 thing, I guess the only way to get it is 15 you have to go deeper is all. 16 PBM ESTES: Possible that there is 17 an impact? 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Could be. 19 PBM SOUTHERN: But the probability 20 is very low. 21 PBM ESTES: It's not the -- actually 22 it's the impact on the groundwater, not 23 on obtaining the groundwater. 24 PBM SOUTHERN: Right. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: That's what the 100 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 4h 2 question mentions. 3 PBM ESTES: Impact on the ground- 4 water, it would be additional however 5 many wells are being dug affecting the 6 groundwater and the septics on the 7 groundwater. And then the discussions 8 we already had about the cuts in the 9 slope and changing the groundwater flow 10 on some of those. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: As I said, you can 12 get water, it's just how deep you have 13 to go to get it. 14 PBM ESTES: I'd say it's possible 15 that there is an impact on the 16 groundwater. 17 PBM KASPER: They're asking is it an 18 impact overall on all the groundwater, 19 not just on individual wells. Will 20 those 17 wells or 15 wells change the 21 groundwater? Impact the groundwater? 22 PBM ESTES: Yes. 23 PBM KASPER: I say, no. It's a 24 small possibility. 25 PBM SOUTHERN: Small possibility. 101 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 4h 2 PBM ESTES: Okay, I'll go with that. 3 MR. MOLNAR: In terms of magnitude, 4 it would be moderate versus large. And 5 duration, hard to ascertain, whether 6 it's short, medium, long term or 7 irreversible. Does the recharge rate 8 factor into duration? I think 9 seasonality might factor into duration. 10 PBM KASPER: Yes, seasonal. 11 MR. MOLNAR: Any of those affect 12 your decision or comment? 13 PBM ESTES: We also had, I mean we 14 go all the way back to our very first 15 question, we had quite a discussion on 16 the groundwater when we talked about the 17 construction of, and depth of the water 18 less than three feet. A lot of that was 19 answered and talked about there. That 20 was the same groundwater concerns we 21 have here. 22 PBM KASPER: I think the first part 23 was groundwater coming up to the 24 surface. We're altering the surface. 25 PBM SOUTHERN: This is drilling the 102 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 8f 2 wells. 3 PBM KASPER: This is impacts. 4 PBM ESTES: Water quality itself. 5 PBM SOUTHERN: That's got to be 6 moderate. Duration, I don't know. 7 PBM WINKELMAN: Moderate magnitude, 8 moderate duration. 9 MR. MOLNAR: Medium term. Then 10 lastly the likelihood: Whether unlikely 11 possibly will or probably will? 12 PBM KASPER: Possibly. 13 PBM ESTES: Possibly. 14 PBM SOUTHERN: Possibly. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: We agree on possibly, 16 Scott? 17 PBM WINKELMAN: I'll do unlikely, 18 just to be different. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: I'll poll the Board 20 then. 21 PBM SOUTHERN: We just did. 22 MR. MOLNAR: Then moving on to 23 Question 8, Impact on Agricultural 24 Resources. F was determined moderate to 25 large, and that question was the 103 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 8f 2 proposed action may result, directly or 3 indirectly, in increased development 4 potential or pressure on farmland. And 5 the rationale was: Regarding the scope 6 of the project having a subdivision out 7 in the middle of farmland it is going to 8 create a conflict with possible farm 9 operations. 10 PBM WINKELMAN: That's specifically, 11 yes, the lots that are out farthest to 12 the west up on the hill surrounded by 13 active farmland. 14 PBM SOUTHERN: How much actual land 15 is being taken out? I've forgotten in 16 terms of acres. 17 MR. MOLNAR: 46.95. 18 MR. BRODSKY: That's the total 19 acreage. So it's about maybe 15 to 20 20 acres on the west side. You had the 21 small portion of active farmland on the 22 west side, and the barn, which is no 23 longer used obviously. Then you had the 24 wetlands and the hillside. There is the 25 west side plan there. 104 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 8f 2 MR. LEJA: According to Part 1 of 3 the EAF, agriculture land presently 17.3 4 acres. 5 PBM SOUTHERN: Of the total site? 6 MR. LEJA: Yes. 7 MR. BRODSKY: I think they were 8 counting east and west side portions. 9 PBM KASPER: Yes. 10 MR. MOLNAR: Just refreshing your 11 recollection, sub question f reads: The 12 proposed action may result directly or 13 indirectly in increased development 14 potential or pressure on farmland. It's 15 also talking about impact off-site. 16 MR. BRODSKY: And the adjacent land. 17 Karen, if you go to the Google map that 18 you had up earlier you can see the 19 surrounding. That one. So active farm 20 fields surrounding the site to the 21 north, south and west. 22 MR. CAMP: There is less of a 23 proximity question in the Town in 24 general say, as an example. Will the 25 success of this project cause more 105 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 8f 2 people to want to do it and gobble up 3 more farmland? 4 PBM ESTES: That's exactly what I 5 would say. 6 MR. CAMP: Doesn't necessarily 7 matter how much is around there, just 8 more of a market type question. 9 PBM SOUTHERN: I think there is a 10 probability that it would, increased 11 demand. 12 PBM WINKELMAN: RF district. 13 MR. BRODSKY: You have other 14 residential developments on the west 15 side of 41A, further north and I believe 16 south. But definitely north is, that 17 subdivision -- 18 PBM SOUTHERN: You have to get back 19 into the Village before you get into it. 20 MR. BRODSKY: I think south is more 21 old style. 22 MR. MOLNAR: The subject of 23 determination on whether or not this 24 will impact the availability and put 25 pressure on other farmland. It's not so 106 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 8f 2 much -- 3 MR. BRODSKY: Just trying to point 4 out what exists. 5 PBM KASPER: I'd say it's a moderate. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, say moderate. 7 PBM WINKELMAN: Moderate. 8 PBM SOUTHERN: Moderate. 9 MR. MOLAR: Why would you determine 10 moderate? 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, the reason I 12 would say moderate is because of, once 13 you start opening it up where there is 14 development that come in, other 15 developers might see, well, there is a 16 chance that I might be able to develop 17 some land in the community too. 18 PBM KASPER: Successful. 19 PBM SOUTHERN: View shed is on the 20 west side of the Lake Road is great. 21 Lot of the farmers are going to hold 22 firm and not sell their, land that's for 23 sure. That's what would have to happen 24 for more development to take place. But 25 it's a possibility there. If the price 107 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 8f 2 was right they would sell. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Sure. And 4 generations are getting older. 5 PBM SOUTHERN: We have to go 6 moderate or? 7 MR. MOLNAR: Moderate to large. 8 PBM SOUTHERN: Moderate. 9 PBM ESTES: Moderate. 10 PBM WINKELMAN: Moderate. 11 MR. MOLNAR: In terms of your 12 duration: Short, medium, long term or 13 irreversible? 14 PBM ESTES: I think the definition 15 is irreversible, once you take the farm 16 land. 17 MR. MOLNAR: But the impact, 18 pressure on others. 19 PBM ESTES: I'm sorry, you're right. 20 Long term. 21 PBM SOUTHERN: Long term. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Long term. 23 PBM WINKELMAN: Yep. 24 MR. MOLNAR: Lastly, the likelihood, 25 unlikely, possibly will or probably will? 108 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9a 2 PBM KASPER: Probably. Eventually. 3 PBM ESTES: Yes. I think probably. 4 PBM SOUTHERN: Right now unlikely. 5 For the next 10 years, probably. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 7 MR. MOLNAR: Unlikely, these are 8 impacts that have a very low chance of 9 occurring now or in the future. 10 Possibly, these are impacts that are 11 possible but not likely to occur. Then 12 probably, these are impacts that are 13 very likely to occur. 14 PBM SOUTHERN: Probably. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Probably is the 16 answer. 17 PBM WINKELMAN: Probably. 18 MR. MOLNAR: Then moving on to 19 Question 9 a. 9. Impact on Aesthetic 20 Resources. a. The proposed action may 21 be visible from an officially designated 22 federal, state or local scenic or 23 aesthetic resource. 24 And the Board's rationale: The 25 Comprehensive Plan identifies the Lake 109 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9a 2 as an aesthetic resource. The project 3 will be visibly seen from the Lake, from 4 across the Lake, visible from Brook Farm 5 and the state highway. 6 So in terms of significance and the 7 magnitude, first, is it moderate or large? 8 PBM ESTES: Having to go through 9 these all again like we did before I 10 would say it's long term impact. 11 MR. MOLNAR: Why? 12 PBM ESTES: Because I actually, I do 13 believe it is going to be very visible 14 from both the road and from the Lake. 15 And it is a, the Lake is our livelihood 16 for this Town. And we destroy the view- 17 shed of the Lake and destroy the way it 18 looks aesthetically when you're boating 19 on the Lake. And I think it's a large 20 impact. I also think we talked about 21 the view from the tree removal from the 22 Brook Farm property and the proposed 23 mitigation just to put the new spruces 24 up to block it, it doesn't, that sort of 25 aesthetic view. 110 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9a 2 THE CHAIRMAN: I believe it's large 3 also because as stated, on the west side 4 to look at the Lake. I know they've 5 moved the houses down some. I just 6 don't feel it's down enough yet. And 7 I'd like to see it get it somehow so 8 they're not spread out as much, is my 9 concern. 10 MR. MOLNAR: Are there any other 11 comments of the Board members concerning 12 the moderate to large impact? 13 PBM KASPER: Large. 14 MR. MOLNAR: Moderate or large? 15 THE CHAIRMAN: I say it's large at 16 this time. 17 PBM ESTES: Large. 18 PBM SOUTHERN: Take the project as a 19 whole. 20 PBM WINKELMAN: I say large also. 21 PBM SOUTHERN: Comparing to what we 22 have, I've got to say moderate. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: The Board has 24 generally said large. 25 MR. MOLNAR: I heard four large, one 111 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9a 2 moderate are the result of the comments. 3 Then we have the duration: Short term, 4 medium term, long term or irreversible? 5 PBM SOUTHERN: Probably long term. 6 PBM WINKELMAN: Long term. 7 PBM ESTES: Irreversible. Once you 8 make the cuts across, probably long term 9 because they could eventually, but the 10 bridge is part of the overall project 11 and it's irreversible. 12 PBM WINKELMAN: We're talking about 13 aesthetic. 14 MR. MOLNAR: On aesthetics. 15 Proposed action may be -- 16 PBM SOUTHERN: After, it wasn't even 17 there. 18 PBM KASPER: Long term but large. 19 MR. MOLNAR: Then the likelihood, 20 unlikely, possibly or probably. 21 PBM ESTES: I don't know, I'm going 22 to go back, strike up the aesthetic 23 resources and say long term. You take a 24 look at our Lake, you kayak around and 25 float around our Lake, then go to Lake 112 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9a 2 George, is it long term or irreversible? 3 When you see all the development and 4 everything from the aesthetic resource 5 what it's done to what used to be a 6 beautiful Lake. The view of all these 7 developments from the Lake when you're 8 on the water looking at them might be 9 longer than long term. Changing my vote 10 to irreversible for the duration. 11 MR. MOLNAR: Any other comments on 12 that, the duration? 13 PBM KASPER: I'm going long term. 14 What's going to happen in 10, 15 years 15 when these houses are built? It's going 16 to blend in just like the rest of the 17 subdivisions -- all the other houses, 18 not subdivision, all the other houses 19 along the line. It's long term. Nature 20 is going to reclaim it as far as trees 21 and brush. It's changing the whole 22 Lake, it is irreversible, but the 23 overall Lake has changed. And this is 24 one project, but all the single family 25 houses that they're tearing down and 113 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9a 2 rebuilding all that, it's the same 3 thing. So it's long term. 4 PBM SOUTHERN: Yes, I think it's 5 long. 6 PBM KASPER: It's going to blend in 7 eventually. Or we're going to get used 8 to it. 9 PBM SOUTHERN: That's what happens. 10 PBM ESTES: Not part of this. 11 PBM SOUTHERN: It's not necessarily 12 what you want but it's what happens. 13 PBM KASPER: I agree. 14 MR. MOLNAR: Any other comments? 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Where are we at? 16 Back to first? Likelihood. 17 MR. MOLNAR: I understood that the 18 Board's determination was long term. 19 And the likelihood is probable. 20 PBM ESTES: Yes. 21 MR. MOLNAR: That's how I heard the 22 comments. 23 PBM SOUTHERN: Yes. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 25 MR. MOLNAR: Moving on to Question 114 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9b 2 9b. The proposed action may result in 3 the obstruction, elimination or 4 significant screening of one or more 5 officially designated scenic views. 6 And the rationale. Regarding the 7 open space subdivision, we are trying to 8 protect land of conservation value, and 9 the value to the community is view of 10 the Lake. Scenic view of the ravine 11 will not be mitigated with a 275 foot 12 bridge over it. The east side houses 13 haven't been moved down, they're still 14 going to block the view, obstructing it. 15 In terms of significance, magnitude 16 is moderate or large? 17 PBM KASPER: Large, losing the view 18 that's there. So it's very large. Long 19 term, the change is going to be changed. 20 Irreversible actually. 21 PBM SOUTHERN: View is going to be 22 changed, but to what degree? 23 PBM KASPER: Irreversible. 24 PBM SOUTHERN: That's true, but to 25 what degree. 115 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9b 2 PBM KASPER: See the bridge and the 3 houses. 4 MR. LEJA: Won't see the bridge from 5 the road. 6 PBM SOUTHERN: Going to see the tops 7 of houses, yes. Still going to see the 8 Lake. 9 PBM KASPER: In between the houses. 10 MR. LEJA: No, no. 11 PBM SOUTHERN: No. Still going to 12 see the tops of the houses, but also 13 going to see the Lake. 14 MR. LEJA: Yes, but the view is 15 changing. 16 PBM WINKELMAN: Little gentleman 17 farm field down there, gorgeous view of 18 the Lake. 19 PBM SOUTHERN: You're talking about 20 the view of the farm field. View of the 21 Lake hasn't changed. 22 MR. MOLNAR: Proposed action may 23 result in the obstruction, elimination 24 or significant screening of one or more 25 officially designated scenic views. 116 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9b 2 PBM KASPER: Large. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Large. 4 PBM ESTES: Large. 5 PBM WINKELMAN: Large. 6 PBM KASPER: No matter what they do 7 the view is changing. 8 PBM SOUTHERN: Large. 9 MR. LEJA: In that regard, I'll 10 respectfully present to the Board the 11 May 2014 Applicant materials panoramic 12 views showing existing as proposed and 13 mitigated view shed from 41A. 14 PBM KASPER: But we're still seeing 15 roofs. The view hasn't changed and it's 16 a large change. Unobstructed, now we're 17 seeing roofs. 18 PBM ESTES: Just from the Lakeside 19 over the weekend -- 20 PBM WINKELMAN: They can't have any 21 trees in their yard. 22 PBM ESTES: Then this is where we 23 were last weekend. You can see this 24 whole thing. (Shown on iPad). 25 MR. MOLNAR: I think after reviewing 117 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9b 2 what Mr. Leja just provided to the 3 Board, has it changed your opinion in 4 any way? 5 MR. LEJA: There are also panoramics 6 from the Lake that are part of our 7 Visual Impact Analysis Report that are 8 submitted. 9 PBM WINKELMAN: I still don't think 10 they've taken into account the 11 landscaping in the future and the trees 12 growing up in the yards. I don't think 13 it's sustainable that way. That's by 14 just plugging the houses in, you know, 15 using those elevations, but there is a 16 lot more variables that's going to come 17 in and crowd out that. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: When I look at it I 19 see a bit of the road here, so standing 20 back away from the region of the road. 21 PBM ESTES: When you look across the 22 Lake, if you were to imagine the road 23 cut, you're going to see that road cut 24 come all the way down that field. 25 MR. LEJA: No, it's parallel. Not 118 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9b 2 down the field. The road cut is 3 parallel to 41A. 4 PBM ESTES: You're going to see it 5 though. 6 MR. LEJA: I don't believe so, no. 7 The elevation. 8 PBM ESTES: You start cutting into 9 those slopes that's going to become more 10 visible. 11 MR. MOLNAR: So what's the Board's 12 thinking on that in terms of 13 significance, that the magnitude is 14 moderate or large? 15 THE CHAIRMAN: I say it's large. 16 PBM KASPER: Overall large, not just 17 from 41, but from the east side, just 18 changing. 19 PBM ESTES: Large. 20 MR. MOLNAR: And the duration of 21 that, I'm sorry, are you saying moderate 22 to large? 23 PBM WINKELMAN: Say large. 24 MR. MOLNAR: And as to the duration 25 of that, short term, medium term or 119 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9b 2 irreversible? 3 PBM ESTES: I'm going to answer the 4 same way I answered on the last one, I 5 think once you put it all up, once you 6 cut the road, it's a view change. You 7 might get used to the view, but it's a 8 large change. 9 PBM WINKELMAN: Growing that around, 10 slowly crowd out any view that's been 11 mitigated. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: View is going to be 13 irreversible over time. 14 PBM SOUTHERN: Agreed. 15 PBM WINKELMAN: Agreed. 16 MR. MOLNAR: I have that as a 17 unanimous irreversible. Now with 18 respect to possibility: Unlikely, 19 possibly or probably? 20 PBM SOUTHERN: Probably. 21 PBM ESTES: Probably. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Probably. 23 PBM WINKELMAN: Probably. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: That's unanimous, yes. 25 MR. MOLNAR: And we have three more 120 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9c 2 pages to go. We've completed three out 3 of six and we have three more. 4 PBM KASPER: Let's do one more. 5 PBM WINKELMAN: Two and-a-half more. 6 MR. MOLNAR: Still question 9. 7 Impact on aesthetic resources, Item c: 8 The proposed action may be visible from 9 publicly accessible vantage points. And 10 then subsections underneath that. First 11 is seasonally. The rationale was: From 12 or toward the Lake. And then second was 13 year round. The rationale was: Visible 14 from the Lake, visible from Route 41 15 because there is nothing on the trees. 16 That's what was picked up off the 17 transcript. 18 PBM ESTES: I think because we said 19 during the seasons, all the leaves fall 20 and when nothing is on the trees and you 21 are correct. At the risk of an out-roar 22 here, I'm going to repeat what I said 23 before, that I feel like I'm going to 24 choose my words differently this time, 25 I'm going to call it project phasing. I 121 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9c 2 know this is not the pure segmentation 3 but when we talk about the action may be 4 visible from publicly accessible vantage 5 points, I am having a hard time answering 6 these questions when we have not seen or 7 been made aware of any type of activity 8 on the lakefront in terms of lakeshore 9 structures. And I think it is 10 irresponsible for us to look at this and 11 think that nothing is going to be built 12 on the lakefront there. And I know the 13 comment keeps coming back it's not part 14 of the application. But I believe that 15 the -- 16 MR. LEJA: No, I'm sorry, it's not 17 part of the application. 18 MR. MOLNAR: Mr. Leja, please allow 19 her to finish her statement prior to 20 jumping in. 21 PBM ESTES: I said I realize it's 22 not part of the application, but I 23 strongly believe that it's, whatever 24 choice of words we want to use, it's 25 like project phasing. And as soon as we 122 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9c 2 move down the road it's going to become 3 in front of us and we're going to face a 4 very significant publicly viewed from 5 the Lake. 6 MR. LEJA: May I continue? My point 7 of clarification is simply this. It's 8 not that it's not proposed as part of 9 the application, there is nothing 10 proposed period. You talk about phasing 11 as though -- phasing assumes there will 12 be something coming down the road. 13 There is no phasing with respect to Lake 14 front structures. Nothing is proposed 15 period. I've continued to say that and 16 I will continue to say it some more as 17 long as this issue is brought up. 18 PBM ESTES: And from a point of 19 reasonableness, which I believe is what 20 our Board is tasked with, to say that 21 anybody who builds 17 homes and even six 22 homes if we just look at the six on the 23 east side -- 15. 24 MR. MOLNAR: 15. 25 PBM ESTES: -- on the Lake side, so 123 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9c 2 say that they would not propose any type 3 of Lake frontage I think is not 4 reasonable for us to look at it that way. 5 PBM WINKELMAN: So publicly 6 accessible, you're talking about from 7 the Lake? And the last question we 8 talked about the publicly acceptable 9 vantage point from the road, from New 10 York State 41A. 11 PBM ESTES: And removing, you know, 12 taking that off the table again and 13 saying, all right, assume that nothing 14 is going to be proposed and that we 15 could write a condition that it be 16 absolutely nothing built at all on the 17 Lake front, no docks, no piers, no 18 shoreline structures as part of a 19 condition or resolution. We would still 20 see the bridge. And I again hear you, 21 Andy, that says we're not going to see 22 the bridge. But we've already, all for 23 the record, already know that we don't 24 really have a full bridge picture. So 25 to say we're not going to see it then 124 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9c 2 when you stood out at the Lake and look 3 at this ravine and you see the trees, 4 there is. I don't believe you can cut a 5 bridge into this view and not see it 6 from the Lake. 7 PBM KASPER: Let's just answer the 8 question that's there. It's proposed 9 action may be visible, probably all 10 vantage points. Yes, large. No way 11 they're going to hide this project. 12 It's going to be there. And that's what 13 the question is asking. Is it visible? 14 Yes, large. 15 MR. MOLNAR: From both the Lake and 16 the road? Publicly acceptable vantage 17 point? 18 PBM KASPER: Yes, large. No 19 question. That's what the question is. 20 PBM WINKELMAN: Yes. 21 MR. MOLNAR: Other Board members 22 agree? 23 PBM SOUTHERN: Yes. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 25 MR. MOLNAR: With respect to 125 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9d 2 duration, short, medium, long term or 3 irreversible? 4 PBM ESTES: Irreversible. 5 PBM KASPER: Irreversible. It's 6 there. 7 PBM SOUTHERN: Not going to change. 8 MR. MOLNAR: Then the likelihood, 9 is it unlikely, possibly or probably? 10 PBM KASPER: Probably. 11 PBM WINKELMAN: Probably. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Probably. 13 MR. MOLNAR: Then moving on to 14 Question d: The situation or activity 15 in which viewers are engaged while 16 viewing the proposed action is: ii. 17 Recreational or tourism-based. And the 18 rationale is: Recreational lake use and 19 highway views. The reason for the 20 moderate finding. 21 In terms of significance, first the 22 magnitude, is that a moderate or large 23 significance? 24 PBM KASPER: Moderate. 25 PBM SOUTHERN: Moderate. 126 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9d 2 MR. MOLNAR: Why so? 3 PBM SOUTHERN: Mitigation measures 4 have been shown. 5 PBM ESTES: I don't think you can 6 mitigate. Because what we're saying is 7 that the view of the Lake is what your 8 recreational and -- 9 MR. MOLNAR: Situation or activity 10 in which viewers are engaged while 11 viewing the proposed action. 12 PBM SOUTHERN: View of the Lake 13 isn't changed. You put something 14 between you and the Lake. I would agree 15 if you were actually putting something 16 in the Lake. 17 PBM WINKELMAN: I think tourists are 18 going to come to see the bridge. 19 PBM SOUTHERN: Won't be able to see 20 it. 21 PBM ESTES: Point it out every day. 22 Maybe it will increase the tourists. 23 MR. MOLNAR: In all seriousness, is 24 it a moderate or large impact in terms 25 of significance? 127 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9d 2 PBM KASPER: Say moderate. 3 PBM WINKELMAN: Moderate. 4 PBM SOUTHERN: Moderate. 5 PBM KASPER: Lot of people like 6 viewing around the Lake just for the 7 houses, that's a view itself. 8 PBM SOUTHERN: True. 9 PBM KASPER: People come to 10 Skaneateles to see everything, not just 11 water. They come to see the Village, 12 the buildings in the Village, they come 13 to see the old houses, they come to see 14 the farm houses, they come to see barns. 15 So in this question, asking me the 16 question, moderate impact on that 17 question. 18 MR. MOLNAR: And is the duration 19 short, medium, long term or 20 irreversible? 21 PBM KASPER: It's forever. 22 PBM SOUTHERN: Irreversible. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: And all the Board 24 members agree with that conclusion? 25 PBM WINKELMAN: Yes. 128 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9e 2 PBM ESTES: Yes. 3 MR. MOLNAR: Lastly, the likelihood. 4 Is it unlikely, possibly or probably? 5 PBM KASPER: Probably. 6 PBM SOUTHERN: Probably. 7 PBM ESTES: Probably. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Probably. 9 MR. MOLNAR: Then the next sub 10 question 9 e: The proposed action may 11 cause a diminishment of the public 12 enjoyment and appreciation of the 13 designated aesthetic resource. The 14 rationale: All these developments, it 15 is diminishing the view. 16 PBM ESTES: And having listened to 17 Don so elegantly talk about the fact 18 yes, people do come and, I don't, but 19 other people do enjoy just going down 20 looking at this house, that house, that 21 house, as you go down the Lake. So my 22 comment had been that, you know, all 23 these developments when you're on the 24 boat, the view of our Lake is becoming 25 dismal. But as you pointed out for some 129 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9e 2 people they might like looking at those 3 things. 4 PBM KASPER: That's what the Tourist 5 Board is for. 6 PBM ESTES: I think this question is 7 very similar to the one above it, I 8 would almost repeat the answer. 9 MR. MOLNAR: Does it also diminish 10 the view of the Lake? The proposed 11 action may cause a diminishment of the 12 public enjoyment and appreciation of the 13 designated aesthetic resource? 14 PBM ESTES: Yes, I think it does. 15 But the public enjoyment is the judge, 16 that's a good example. So that's why I 17 think Don's example of that is correct. 18 Some people do go down to the Lake to 19 just see what he pointed out. 20 PBM KASPER: So the change is 21 moderate. Some people it's going to 22 affect and some people it isn't. 23 PBM ESTES: That's why I feel the 24 answers are the same as the previous 25 almost. 130 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9e 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Same as previous. 3 PBM ESTES: When we looked at d ii, 4 the ii part that we looked at was the 5 recreational tourism based activities. 6 Now you just come back down to say the 7 public enjoyment. So those two are 8 basically looking at the same, being out 9 and looking at the Lake and what you're 10 enjoying. 11 MR. MOLNAR: Are there any other 12 comments from the Board? 13 PBM WINKELMAN: I'm good. 14 PBM SOUTHERN: Agree. 15 MR. MOLNAR: My apologies, but did 16 we cover the duration of that, short 17 medium, long term or irreversible? 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Irreversible. 19 MR. MOLNAR: Lastly, the likelihood 20 being most likely, possibly or probably? 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Probably. 22 MR. MOLNAR: Moving on to Item f. 23 There are similar projects visible 24 within the following distance of the 25 proposed project. And I think we hit 131 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9f 2 them all. And I identified the 3 rationale: There are developments 4 within one and a half to three, three to 5 five, Emerald Estates, same in terms of 6 density. South of it, if it is the only 7 project it is an impact; if it is a 8 second, third or fourth, it is a bigger 9 impact. 10 And moving on, what is being 11 proposed to the south of this project on 12 the west side there isn't that buildup 13 of houses. If you look across the Lake 14 or on the east side of 41A, one can see 15 that it will look just like the south. 16 The concern is that we continue to 17 develop and build and just continue 18 urban sprawl from one spot to the next, 19 to the next, because everybody is going 20 to say it looks like the place next to 21 them. So you've lost all control of any 22 sort of restricting, how you are going 23 to preserve character of the Town and 24 the Lake. Viewing the whole application 25 as one for a determination, there are no 132 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9f 2 similar projects visible until the five 3 mile limit down to the Whitegate in the 4 Village, which is the only thing that 5 compares to it. For all categories, 6 conclusion is moderate based upon the 7 fact there are no similar land uses on 8 the west side except for the five mile 9 mark. Similar land uses exist in the 10 Village. 11 MR. BRODSKY: Might be good at this 12 point to discuss this question and look 13 at the map and Google Earth imagery and 14 you can see. 15 MR. MOLNAR: So if I heard the Board 16 correctly, it sounded moderate to large 17 impact concerning all three categories 18 of location, whether it was within one 19 and-a-half to three, three to five. And 20 the third category which was zero to one 21 and-a-half, one and-a-half to three, 22 three to five and five plus for the 23 categories. My notes, I don't find 24 moderate at all. 25 PBM ESTES: I think part, without 133 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9f 2 going back and looking at the actual 3 notes from the last time, I do think 4 part of the problem with this question 5 was, sort of how we put it in here. 6 There is just one and you say, okay. So 7 are there similar projects visible from 8 the following distances? So you say, 9 no, there aren't any other projects. 10 And you put one in there. Then you're 11 like wow, that's a big impact. But then 12 you say, are there projects visible from 13 the following distances? And you say, 14 yeah, there is already all this 15 commercial buildup, why do we want to 16 keep doing it? So I think that was sort 17 of, we spun around on that one before. 18 Because it's a tough one to look at. I 19 guess where we said, if it's one it's 20 bad, if it's the second, third or fourth 21 it's even a bigger impact. So we look 22 at it both ways. 23 PBM WINKELMAN: Basically it's major. 24 PBM KASPER: There is no similar 25 project. One on the east side blocking 134 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9f 2 the views right on the slope of the Lake 3 and none of these other projects are 4 even close to being similar. All the 5 other ones are, Emerald Estates is up on 6 the hill, not right down at the Lake, 7 visibly going to see it driving by. All 8 the other ones, none of them are on the 9 Lake side of that main highway. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: But there is a lot to 11 the south like this, as we discussed 12 previously. 13 PBM WINKELMAN: Greenfield Lane and 14 so forth. 15 PBM KASPER: Well, those were one 16 house at a time, this is a major project. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: I see what you're 18 saying, similar project, but it's not 19 like what's there. I guess you go north 20 and don't see it. 21 PBM KASPER: These are all 22 different, one project isn't the show 23 stopper here, but this is one. Not sure 24 next year might be another one and next 25 year another one. 135 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9f 2 PBM ESTES: This all falls under the 3 category of impact under resources 4 again, right? 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 6 MR. MOLNAR: So in terms of 7 significance and the magnitude, is this 8 a moderate or large impact? 9 PBM WINKELMAN: Say moderate. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: I'd say large being 11 like the west side change to what is 12 already on the west side of 41A is what 13 I see it is. 14 PBM KASPER: As far as the resources, 15 it's large. 16 PBM ESTES: I would say the reason I 17 would go to large over moderate because 18 how we answered the last couple. Is 19 that the other ones we were looking, 20 only pretty much the east side was some, 21 yes, the east side because of the Lake 22 and the bridge, with some discussion of 23 the west side. But when you look at the 24 whole, the project as a whole, then 25 you're looking at the woods that you're 136 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9f 2 losing on the west side, you're looking 3 at the farmland, you're looking at the 4 west side. So this whole project as 5 both sides now, has a large impact, 6 especially here on the west side. 7 MR. MOLNAR: Do the other members of 8 the Board agree with that rationale? 9 PBM WINKELMAN: I'm going to stick 10 with moderate. I think it's similar to 11 the existing residential development 12 that's on the, just south of it. It is 13 more dense and more especially on the 14 west side, but I still stick with 15 moderate. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Joe? 17 PBM SOUTHERN: It's moderate on one 18 side and not so much on the other. I 19 think I've got to go with moderate. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: I believe you've got 21 three large and one moderate is what I 22 heard. 23 MR. MOLNAR: Then still in terms of 24 significance, what is the duration of 25 it, short term, medium term, long term 137 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 9f 2 or irreversible? 3 PBM SOUTHERN: Long term. 4 Irreversible. 5 PBM ESTES: Irreversible, once they 6 build it, it's there. 7 PBM WINKELMAN: Long tem. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Long term. 9 PBM KASPER: Because it will blend 10 in, long term, because of the other 11 houses, the other properties right next 12 to it. 13 PBM WINKELMAN: I say long. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Four long, one 15 irreversible. 16 PBM ESTES: I'm irreversible. 17 PBM WINKELMAN: Likelihood. 18 MR. MOLNAR: Yes, the likelihood is 19 it likely, unlikely, possible or 20 probable. 21 PBM ESTES: So is it likely or is it 22 probable that there are similar projects 23 visible within the following distances? 24 MR. MOLNAR: The significance being 25 a moderate, a long term impact. Is it 138 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 11c 2 unlikely, possibly or probably? 3 PBM SOUTHERN: Probably. 4 PBM KASPER: Probably. 5 PBM ESTES: Yes. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Probably. 7 PBM WINKELMAN: Probably. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Unanimous probably. 9 MR. MOLNAR: And that finishes 10 Question 9. 11 PBM ESTES: Only three more to go. 12 Let's get it done. 13 MR. MOLNAR: Question 11. Impact on 14 Open Space and Recreation. Item c was 15 found moderate to large, and that is c. 16 The proposed action may eliminate open 17 space or recreational resources in an 18 area with few such resources. 19 The Board's rationale: The project 20 is one of three remaining views of the 21 Lake from 41A between the Village and 22 Mandana. Part of the Comprehensive Plan 23 preserve all character of Skaneateles 24 and the Lake. Of which, and we get this 25 on so many others, tourism and the 139 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 11c 2 livelihood of this community. And we 3 start diminishing that open space from 4 aspect. The open space is a concern, 5 that it is not being laid out correctly 6 on the east side. It is not open enough 7 or mitigated enough. 8 So this is the impact on open space 9 and recreation. Item c: The proposed 10 action may eliminate open space or 11 recreational resources in an area with 12 few such resources. 13 In terms of significance, I'll ask 14 you first to please address magnitude. 15 Is this a moderate or large magnitude? 16 PBM KASPER: Question is asking two 17 things. Open space and recreational 18 resources, which are two different 19 things. 20 PBM ESTES: You can separate them 21 though. You say, the proposed action 22 may eliminate recreational resources. 23 Say the proposed action may eliminate 24 recreational resources, and you say 25 that's not an applicable question. So 140 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 11c 2 scratch out the recreational resources 3 now and just say the proposed action may 4 eliminate open space in an area with few 5 such resources. And that's really the 6 question we're answering, right? 7 PBM SOUTHERN: One of the few open 8 spaces. 9 MR. MOLNAR: Is that impact moderate 10 or large? 11 PBM KASPER: It is eliminating open 12 space, it's a large. 13 PBM SOUTHERN: Large. 14 PBM WINKELMAN: In the context, this 15 is an open space subdivision where we 16 can protect some of the open spaces. 17 PBM KASPER: That's true. 18 PBM SOUTHERN: We've determined the 19 percentage that needs to be met, to meet 20 that percentage you can say as it should 21 be. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: No, we can adjust 23 that where things are. 24 PBM SOUTHERN: Yes, the location. 25 I'm talking about the amount of the open 141 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 11c 2 space. Not necessarily the location of 3 it. 4 PBM WINKELMAN: So is it moderate or 5 large, folks? 6 PBM SOUTHERN: Say moderate. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: I say large. 8 PBM ESTES: I'd say large. 9 PBM WINKELMAN: I'll say large. 10 MR. MOLNAR: Then I'll ask why? 11 PBM WINKELMAN: I think the 12 rationale that we put on there was well 13 put. There is three remaining nice 14 views of the Lake on 41A, between the 15 village and Mandana. Comprehensive Plan 16 over and over talks about protecting the 17 character of the Town and the rural 18 countryside and views of the Lake. 19 PBM ESTES: When you talk about the 20 open space on the property itself, there 21 is still some discussion of are we 22 putting septic fields in that open 23 space, are we putting recreational 24 centers in that open space? And how is 25 that affecting the overall resource of 142 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 11c 2 the open space? I think we also had 3 some of the roadways, right-of-ways as 4 well. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: I was looking at the 6 layout of where the houses are was my 7 concern. 8 PBM WINKELMAN: Say large. 9 PBM ESTES: Large. 10 PBM KASPER: Large. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Three out of five 12 large. 13 PBM SOUTHERN: Yes. 14 MR. MOLNAR: Then in terms of 15 duration, sort term, medium, long term 16 or irreversible? 17 PBM SOUTHERN: Could be changed. 18 PBM ESTES: I don't see where -- 19 PBM SOUTHERN: As proposed, no. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Long term? 21 PBM SOUTHERN: Yes. 22 PBM ESTES: So, long term means at 23 some point in time you're going to have 24 more open space again? 25 PBM SOUTHERN: Possibly. 143 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 17d 2 PBM ESTES: It is? 3 PBM SOUTHERN: Maybe they don't 4 build all the houses. 5 PBM KASPER: All ranches. 6 PBM WINKELMAN: Irreversible. 7 PBM ESTES: Irreversible. You've 8 eliminated the open space once you've 9 done that. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: I agree, it's 11 irreversible. 12 MR. MOLNAR: Is that three 13 irreversible and two long term? 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 15 MR. MOLNAR: Thank you. And then 16 lastly it's the likelihood. Being 17 unlikely, possibly or probably? 18 PBM KASPER: Probably. 19 PBM ESTES: Probably. 20 PBM WINKELMAN: Probably. 21 PBM SOUTHERN: Yes. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 23 MR. MOLNAR: That was question 11c. 24 Moving on to Question 17. Consistency 25 with Community Plans. Item d. To 144 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 17d 2 determine moderate to large. The 3 proposed action is inconsistent with any 4 County plans or other regional land use 5 plans. 6 And the rationale was: The proposed 7 action is inconsistent with the 2010 8 Development Guide for Onondaga County, 9 which wants in-fill development where 10 the infrastructure is protecting areas 11 like protected watersheds to remain 12 rural. Onondaga County Planning Agency 13 report reviewed the action, and states 14 concern with creation of 18, now 15, new 15 residential lots suburban-style 16 development in a rural area, lack of 17 access to public water and sewer. 18 Onondaga County encourages the Town 19 to the potential long term effects of 20 the subdivision change in the rural 21 characteristic, impact on the water 22 quality of Skaneateles Lake, reduction 23 of open space, farmland and remaining 24 scenic view. 25 Potential conflicts of the 145 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 17d 2 agricultural operations and impact to 3 road safety and mobility. The project 4 also conflicts with the City of Syracuse, 5 Land Protection Plan, Skaneateles Lake 6 Watershed, where they had talked about 7 distance from the intake pipes and 8 things. Project would take a mile 9 and-a-half away, is in a critical 10 management zone and that is delineated 11 on Map 6 for 1995. Delineates the 12 ravine and the 300 foot boundary around 13 it as level C. 14 Based on the that rationale, the 15 question is in terms of significance, is 16 this first magnitude moderate or large? 17 PBM SOUTHERN: Consider our own 18 Comprehensive Plan we are to discourage 19 this type of development in this district. 20 PBM ESTES: So we're not adjusting 21 the magnitude of all this rationale but 22 just adjusting the inconsistency with 23 the Comprehensive Plan? 24 MR. MOLNAR: Right. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: I'd have to say 146 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 17d 2 moderate. Using that open space 3 subdivision is what we're trying to work 4 with. Make it consistent with the 5 Comprehensive Plan. 6 PBM KASPER: This just adds, per 7 County and regional. Not asking our 8 local. 9 PBM ESTES: Yours is the next one, I 10 think. 11 MR. MOLNAR: Question 17 d: The 12 proposed action is inconsistent with any 13 County plans or other regional land use 14 plans. So in terms of magnitude, is it 15 moderate or large? 16 PBM WINKELMAN: I'd have to say 17 large. Suburban like development. 18 Inconsistent with County plan. 19 MR. MOLNAR: Development for 20 Onondaga County, the Onondaga County 21 Planning Agency. 22 PBM ESTES: That's what I was 23 looking at too. 24 MR. MOLNAR: City of Syracuse, Land 25 Protection Plan. 147 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 17d 2 PBM ESTES: Three different counties 3 telling us or three different 4 inconsistent plans. Not even looking at 5 ours. I would say major or large. 6 PBM SOUTHERN: Large. 7 PBM WINKELMAN: That's the thought 8 on that one. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Haven't heard from 10 Don yet. 11 PBM KASPER: I kind of disagree on 12 the County plan, because I was part of 13 that. And this is, the County isn't 14 telling you not to develop. The County 15 plan was to yes, stop the urban sprawl. 16 The County plan really didn't include 17 Skaneateles, it was more sewer and water 18 infrastructure, problems that they're 19 having then. 20 PBM WINKELMAN: Expand on that. 21 PBM KASPER: They wanted, in other 22 towns there is a lot of in-fill lands 23 that's connected to sewer and water. 24 One that they're using, instead of 25 expanding. Which could include 148 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 17d 2 Skaneateles, but we don't have sewer and 3 water in this Town, so this is the 4 option, this is a most space plan. And 5 the County is not telling us not to 6 develop. I mean anybody thinks that 7 Development Guide to say not to develop 8 they might have concerns, but they're 9 not telling us not to allow development. 10 So I'm going to say large. But I just 11 wanted to say that because I was 12 involved in the County Development Plan 13 from the start. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: So we have four 15 large, one moderate. 16 MR. MOLNAR: And in terms of 17 duration, is this short term, medium or 18 long term or irreversible? 19 PBM SOUTHERN: As long as the plans 20 don't change. Could change the plans 21 tomorrow. For the foreseeable future. 22 MR. MOLNAR: Is that long term? 23 PBM SOUTHERN: Long term I think. 24 PBM WINKELMAN: Long term. 25 PBM ESTES: I agree with that. 149 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 18d 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Long term. 3 MR. MOLNAR: And lastly the 4 likelihood: Unlikely, possibly or 5 probably? 6 PBM ESTES: Probably. 7 PBM KASPER: Probably. 8 PBM SOUTHERN: Probably. That's 9 three. 10 MR. MOLNAR: Moving on to Question 11 18. Consistency with Community 12 Character. And found moderate to large. 13 On sub question d: The proposed action 14 may interfere with the use or enjoyment 15 of officially recognized designated 16 public resources. And the rationale was: 17 Large impact to our visual view of the 18 Lake. In response, mitigation plans 19 have been put before the Board in terms 20 of photographs, placement of houses, 21 views from the corridor demonstrating 22 small impact, but from an open space 23 subdivision standpoint they can do 24 better to protect the conservation value 25 of the view shed. 150 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 18d 2 In terms of significance and first 3 magnitude, is that moderate or large 4 magnitude? 5 THE CHAIRMAN: I've been saying 6 large for the east side of how the lots 7 are being placed and what might be built 8 there in the future. 9 MR. MOLNAR: Proposed action may 10 interfere with the use or enjoyment of 11 officially recognized designated public 12 resources. Placement of the homes on 13 the east side? 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 15 PBM ESTES: I guess I was looking at 16 this as looking back at the use of 17 enjoyment. Again, I don't agree with 18 the tour boat story, but it's out there. 19 So I guess you're right, some people 20 they're going to say -- they're going to 21 enjoy it. 22 MR. MOLNAR: Interfere with the use 23 or enjoyment of the officially 24 recognized designated public resources. 25 PBM ESTES: It interferes with mine 151 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 18d 2 because I like looking at the natural 3 view of the Lake. But there is some 4 people like the tour boat and like 5 looking at the houses and the bridge and 6 all that kind of stuff. So I personally 7 would probably go back and say moderate 8 on that. 9 PBM WINKELMAN: Moderate, I agree. 10 PBM SOUTHERN: Moderate. 11 MR. MOLNAR: Interfering with the. 12 PBM WINKELMAN: Moderate. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: I'll say moderate. 14 MR. MOLNAR: In terms of duration, 15 is this short term, medium, long term or 16 irreversible? 17 PBM ESTES: Still irreversible with 18 me. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, it would be 20 irreversible. 21 PBM KASPER: I agree. 22 PBM SOUTHERN: I think I have to 23 agree. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Scott? 25 PBM WINKELMAN: Yes. 152 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 18f 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Make it five. 3 MR. MOLNAR: Thank you. And moving 4 onto the likelihood: Unlikely, possibly 5 or probably? 6 PBM KASPER: Probably. 7 PBM SOUTHERN: Probably. 8 PBM WINKELMAN: Probably. 9 MR. MOLNAR: Do you think that was 10 unanimous? 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 12 PBM ESTES: Yes. 13 MR. MOLNAR: Moving on to the last 14 Question, 18 f: The proposed action is 15 inconsistent with the character of the 16 existing natural landscape. Determine 17 moderate to large on this. 18 Rationale: The proposed action is 19 inconsistent with the character of the 20 existing natural landscape because 21 building on a steep slope on the bridge 22 and the watershed. Based on significant 23 portions in size and importance to the 24 community, if the natural landscape are 25 removed or changed, there are more 153 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 18f 2 buildings, lawns, roads or other 3 structures introduced in an area that is 4 currently rural and undeveloped because 5 the proposed project includes a road 6 that is highly visible where no other 7 built features can be seen, and because 8 the structures are taller than the 9 predominant vegetation when introduced. 10 In terms of significance, starting 11 with magnitude, is this moderate or 12 large? 13 PBM ESTES: I think the proposed 14 action is largely inconsistent with the 15 character of the natural landscape. So 16 I would say large. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: I would agree to 18 that. Large. 19 PBM WINKELMAN: Large. 20 PBM SOUTHERN: Yes. 21 PBM KASPER: Yes, it's the natural 22 landscape, yes. Large. 23 MR. MOLNAR: And in terms of 24 duration, is this short term, medium, 25 long term or irreversible? 154 1 FEAF Part 2 Memo 18f 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Irreversible. 3 PBM SOUTHERN: Yes, not going to 4 ever change it. 5 PBM KASPER: Right. 6 PBM ESTES: The only thing you do, 7 you could look at this question to say 8 once it's done it's no longer existing 9 natural landscape. Then is there a new 10 natural landscape? But I don't think 11 that's what they mean by that. So I 12 would say irreversible. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Scott? 14 PBM WINKELMAN: Yes. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Unanimous. 16 MR. MOLNAR: Then lastly, 17 likelihood: Being unlikely, possibly or 18 probably? 19 PBM ESTES: Probably. 20 PBM KASPER: Probably. 21 THE COURT: Probably. 22 PBM WINKELMAN: Probably. 23 MR. MOLNAR: It was mentioned 24 previously, if it's acceptable to the 25 Board I'll draw up a Determination of 155 1 Colloquy 2 Significance to address each of these, 3 highlighting the rationale, the 4 criteria, the magnitude, the duration 5 and likelihood found for each. Then 6 I'll present it to the Board at its next 7 meeting on the application. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. 9 PBM WINKELMAN: Sounds good to me. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other business 11 this evening? 12 MR. MOLNAR: One suggestion, not 13 Applicant related. If the town Board 14 circulated notice of its intent to act 15 as lead agency for purposes of SEQR 16 review of the Comprehensive Plan. And 17 it has presented the Planning Board with 18 notice of its intent, asking that the 19 Planning Board consent or agree with 20 that. And if there is a statement that 21 has been produced, and based upon the 22 Board's resolution passed endorsing the 23 Comprehensive Plan at the last meeting. 24 I recommend that the Board review the 25 issue and take action upon the notice 156 1 Colloquy 2 that's been served. It has to be filled 3 out by the Board. 4 PBM SOUTHERN: I would say that we 5 endorse the Town's request. 6 PBM KASPER: I second it. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Anymore discussion? 8 PBM WINKELMAN: No. 9 PBM ESTES: No. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor say 11 aye. Opposed? It carries. 12 Motion to close the public hearing. 13 Second? 14 PBM SOUTHERN: Second. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Anymore discussion? 16 PBM ESTES: Our next July meeting is 17 the 28th, is that correct? 18 MR. MOLNAR: I don't think we picked 19 a date. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: July 28th. 21 MR. MOLNAR: For this application, 22 the Loveless Farms Subdivision? 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 7:30. Anymore 24 discussion? 25 PBM ESTES: I want to clear the 157 1 2 record -- never mind. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor say aye. 4 Opposed to close of the meeting? Anyone 5 opposed? Okay, meeting is closed. 6 * * * * 7 C E R T I F I C A T E 8 This is to certify that I am a 9 Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary 10 Public in and for the State of New York, 11 that I attended and reported the above 12 entitled proceedings, that I have 13 compared the foregoing with my original 14 minutes taken therein and that it is a 15 true and correct transcript thereof and 16 all of the proceedings had therein. 17 18 _______________________ 19 John F. Drury, CSR, RPR 20 21 Dated: July 3, 2015 22 23 24 25