Planning Board of the Village of Aurora
Aurora, New York 13026-9790 

Draft Minutes
Joint Public Hearing
October 12, 2011

Present:  Planning Board (PB)- Nancy Gil, Chair; Patricia Bianconi, Ann Balloni, 
			Frank Zimdahl and Alan Connors.  
	   Community Preservation Panel (CPP)-  Derwood Crocker, Christopher MacCormick: Chair Pro-tem, Claire Morehouse

Also Present:   Village Residents:  David Brooks, Michael Peter, Larry Church, Charles 				& Marsha Echelbarger, Jeffrey Blum, Randi Zabriskie, and Grace Bates.
	Town of Ledyard Residents: L. John Miller, David Kauber, Virgil & Jacci Farlow, 			Melissa Miller and George Slocum.
		Deborah Brooks, Deputy Village Clerk
		Sue Edinger and C. Greg Rhoad from the Aurora Inn, Inc. 
		Bruce King and Aino Parlo from Holmes & Kallquist
Aurora Inn employees:  Tina Post, Emily Ambrose and Tracy Brandenburg

Absent:  Community Preservation Panel Chairman Avery Ayers

  	PB Chairwoman Gil called the Planning Board meeting to order at 7:04 PM by opening the Public Hearings for Application #11-05 Pleasant Rowland and the Aurora Inn, Inc. on the property called Abbott House located at 453 Main Street .
	PB Chairwoman Gil announced that the first item of business was to go through  the State Environmental Quality Review - Long Form.  She noted that the applicant had already filled in pages 1-10, but they would quickly review their answers.  

	Pg 2 - Applicant’s name is Pleasant T. Rowland, LLC located at 453 Main Street, Aurora, NY  13026.
		Description of action - The applicant intends to renovate the Abbott House to create ten (10) guest rooms for overnight accommodations.  The work will involve exterior and interior renovations at the Abbott House, the demolition of the garage, creation of adequate parking spaces and installation of geothermal wells.

	Pg 3 -A. Site Description:
		1. Present Land Use:  Residential (suburban)
		2. Total Acreage of project area: 2.08 acres
Roads, Buildings and other paved surfaces .25 acres presently and after completion.
Other:  Lawn 1.83 acres presently and after completion.
		3.  What is predominant soil type(s) on project site?  Silty loam/weathered shale & gravel.    A. soil drainage 100% of site well drained
		4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on the project site? NO
		5.  Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes?  0-10% 5%.
		6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places? YES
		7.  Is project substantially contiguous to a site list on the Register of National Landmarks? NO	
		8. What is the depth of the water table?  383.5 feet
		9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? NO
		10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? NO
	Pg 4 -	11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? NO
		12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations?  NO
		13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area?  NO
		14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? YES  Views of Cayuga Lake
	Mrs. Zabriskie also suggested adding the Greek Temple located on the south west corner of the property, as it has been there for many years.
		15. Streams within or contiguous to project area:  NONE
		16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: CAYUGA LAKE 		 b. Size (in acres): 42,956 acres
	Mrs. Echelbarger noted the spring that runs along the edge of the property  Mr. Peters corrected her saying that the spring is on his property when it crosses State Rte 90

	  Pg 5 - 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? YES
a. If YES, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection?  YES
b. If YES, will improvements be necessary to allow connection?  YES
	Ms Parlo and Mr. King added that there is a need to increase the water supply to Abbott House from under Rte 90 to accommodate the need for the sprinkler system   Mr. King noted that the line currently change from one inch to two inch on east side of house and they have already spoken with Aurora’s Superintendent of Public Works, Mr. Wilmot.  Ms Parlo noted there was no change needed for the electric or sewer.

		18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304?  NO
		19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617?  NO
		20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes?  NO
	B. Project Description 
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate). 
a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor:  2.08 acres
b. Project acreage to be developed:   .13 acres initially;   .13 acres ultimately. 
c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped: 1.95 acres.
d. Length of project, in miles: (if appropriate) 
e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed.%  N/A
	Chairwomen Gil questioned the need to change this due to the addition of the proposed catering kitchen.  Mr. King noted that for now the kitchen has been tabled and they would be returning to the board at a later date to do that project.  

f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 4; 11  proposed 
Discussion ensued on the need to have a ten (10“) setback from the adjoining property owner and the drawings show only a five (5’) foot setback.  The Boards agreed that the applicant should adjust there plans to include 12 parking spaces  
g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour:  1 or 2  (upon completion of project)? 
	Discussion was had  on how the applicant answered this question.  Mr. King noted that they took the daily average number of cars over a period of several weeks.  He further stated that the facility would not be as busy during the week thus reducing the count.
h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: 
		One Family 	Two Family 	Multiple Family    Condominium 
Initially 
Ultimately 
i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure:  5”0”height; 15”0”width; 12”0” length. 
j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is?  238.82 ft. 

2. How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site?  0 tons/cubic yards.   
	Discussion ensued on how the Geo-Thermal would be installed  Mr. King stated that this project would be less evasive, using shallow wells, than the E. B Morgan project because technology has advanced considerably.  This project would be installed in the west (rear) yard of Abbott House not the front as E. B. Morgan House.

3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed    YES
a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? 
	The property will be properly landscaped at the end of construction.
b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation?  YES
c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? YES
4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site?   .05 acres. 
	Mrs. Echelbarger, whose property overlooks the proposed parking lot, questioned their answer on this subject as she felt they would be disturbing the agricultural/residential lot proposed for parking on Sherwood Road. She explained that the lot is currently leased to Mr. Yale and that he has sub leased to a Mennonite couple who have just reseeded the fields with clover for crops for next year.  Ms. Edinger noted she wasn’t aware of how Wells College (lot owner) was using the location.  
	Mr. Echelbarger asked if there were any drawings available on how this proposed parking lot would be configured.  Mr. King said that they had no drawings at this time as they have not formulated how to develop the lot yet.
	Mr. Zimdahl (PB) asked the Boards to consider having an Environmental Impact Study done to see how the Inns of Aurora facility would affect the Villages way of life.  Mr. Zimdahl noted that the increased traffic flow for all three facilities on any given weekend could result in a nightmare situation.  The Boards agreed that there would be traffic problems in the future with having so many event facilities in such a small proximity.

	Pg 6 - 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? NO
6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction: 12 months, (including demolition) 
7. If multi-phased: 
	a. Total number of phases anticipated (number)
	b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1: year, (including demolition) 
	c. Approximate completion date of final phase:   month  year. 
	d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 
8. Will blasting occur during construction?  NO
9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 40-50; after project is complete 1
Housekeeper in residence during rental visits  
	CPP Deputy Chairman MacCormick questioned the number of employees at this facility. Mr. Rhoads responded that there would be one full time (housekeeper), but they would move staff in for the day to the various events as needed.

10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project  0
11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities?  NO  
	( Mr. Echelbarger left 8:40 PM)
12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved?  NO
	a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc) and amount 
	b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 
13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved?  NO
14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal?  NO
15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain?  NO
16. Will the project generate solid waste? NO
	a. If yes, what is the amount per month?  tons 
	b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? 
	c. If yes, give name; location 
	d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? 
	Pg 7 - e. If yes, explain: 
17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? NO
       	a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. 
	b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. 
18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides?  NO
19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? NO
20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? YES
	Discussion ensued.  Mr. Zimdahl (PB) noted that all events will generate a certain amount of noise especially when music and alcohol is involved.  Ms. Balloni (PB) & Mr. Blum (CPP elect) believed this question pertained to during work hours only.  Mr. King noted he felt it applied to after work.  Mr. Peter noted that as an adjoining property owner, he would hope the Inn would be respectful of the neighbors and control the type of noise (band volume) and time events ended.
	The Boards discussed how the catering kitchen would work.  Mr. Rhoad outlined the concept by saying that the food itself would be prepared at the Aurora Inn kitchens then transported to Abbott House where they would use the caterng (staging) kitchen to set up serving trays and steamer dishes to serve for the event. 
	(Mr. Echelbarger returned 8:46 PM)

21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? NO        If yes, indicate type(s) 
	Mr. King noted that with using the Geo-Thermal they would be using less as the house currently uses electric.
22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity      gallons/minute. 
23. Total anticipated water usage per day   750 gallons/day. 
24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? NO

	PG 8 - 25. Approvals Required:
City, Town, Village Board   NO
City, Town, Village Planning Board   YES  Site Plan Approvals & Special Use Permit

City, Town Zoning Board  NO
City, County Health Department YES Temporary Residence Permit

Other Local Agencies   YES   CPP - Certificate of Appropriateness

Other Regional Agencies  YES  Cayuga County Planning Board/GML Section 239

State Agencies  YES    NYS DEC

Federal Agencies  NO
	Mr. Zimdahl (PB) once again asked the Boards to consider asking for an outside, professional group to do an Environmental Impact Study (EIS).  He noted that as they discussed the project, he has been making a list of item that need to be addressed such as number of people in the community at any given time, consider the number of cars in the village; how traffic flows, etc.  PB Chairwomen Gil noted that the Planning Board could ask County Planning for help with an EIS when they submitted the 239GML Review.  
Grace Bates arrived 7:50 PM)  Mr. Zimdahl noted that he has added crime to his list.  Mr. King suggested that the County do the traffic study.  
	At this point, the discussion turned to who would do the study and what to be looking for in the study.  Mr. King noted that the applicant might do a limited study, but that the full study could cost several thousands of dollars.  Mr. Zimdahl pointed out that the Village’s Zoning Law provided that the applicant can be required to do the study at their cost (Section 904 E.).  
	CPP Deputy Chairman MacCormick asked how many rooms were needed to make this project work.  Ms. Edinger  responded they would have 30 rooms.  Mr. Rhoad noted  8 at Aurora Inn, 10 at E. B. Morgan House, 10 at Abbott House & 3 at Leffingwell House.  PB Chairwomen Gil informed the Boards that the Inns of Aurora have submitted an application for Leffingwell House, too.  Mr. Rhoad noted that the Leffingwell House facility would be used for family rental where small weddings or anniversary events could take place. 
	Further discussion from the Boards questioned the need for NYS DOT to be notified.  Mrs. Bianconi (PB) noted that a permit to install the new water line under State Rte 90 would be required.  Mr. King said that they wouldn’t be any changes to the road so DOT would not need to be notified, they just had to get a “work“ permit to do the job.  	
	PB Chairwoman Gil questioned using gravel at the Sherwood Road entrance.  Mr. Echelbarger questioned how the proposed Sherwood Road parking lot entrance would work with Court Street and how the farmer would get to his other fields if the entrance he used was redesigned to accommodate parking of cars for events and buffered for the neighbors.   
	Ms. Gil asked what the width of the curb cut is at the proposed Sherwood Road entrance.  Mr. King informed the Boards that he had no idea the size and if farm equipment would be allowed to enter the fields east of proposed parking lot as no plans have been prepared yet.  Mr. King added that the curb cut is just east of the entrance to Court Street.  (Slocum left 8:12 PM)  
	At this point, PB Chairwoman Gil retrieved the Village’s maps for review by the Boards.  CPP Deputy Chairman MacCormick noted that the CPP would have to review this part of the plan when filed with the Village Clerk before any further decisions could be made.  The PB agreed that they needed a better map to visualize the lot(s) involved as they couldn’t tell if the location in question was separate from the main farm land. 
	 The Boards reviewed Village law section 903 C.2.f. in which the Village Law states that drawings and maps may include location, design, type of construction, of all parking and truck loading areas showing access and egress.  (Jacci Farlow left 8:20 PM)
It was noted that other documents maybe needed by PB.  Mr. King said a limited list would be better for the applicant than to do an Environmental Impact Study. 
	 Mr. Zimdahl (PB) voiced his concerns that a Master Plan for the full scope of the Inns of Aurora be submitted to the PB. He noted that his list of concerns now include lighting the parking lot, noise, crime, the strain on the Aurora Volunteer Fire Department (AVFD) and their Emergency Management Team (EMTS), security in the area for neighbors and visitors coming into the area.  Ms. Morehouse (CPP) asked how many people might be coming into the village for events. Mr. Rhoad  responded that they can handle about 150 at the Aurora Inn, about 100 at E. B. Morgan House, about 150 at Abbot House and about 50 at Leffingwell House for a total of 450 guests.
	Ms. Brandenbury added that these locations would make for great destinations for executive conferences for businesses to use during the week.  She asked that the Boards approve this project to help her promote conference events to these facilities.  Mr. King noted that this could be another possible use for any of the locations and would be cost effective.  (Brandenbury left 8:30 PM)
	Mrs. Echelbarger noted that she had served on the Town of Oswego PB and that she knew that there were issued to be addressed under NYS Code pertaining to how agricultural land is uses in a residential area.  
	PB Chairwoman Gil asked the Boards to refer to the Village Zoning Map in the Law.  The Boards agreed to add agriculture/residential to question #2 of Part 1. 
	PB Chairwoman Gil asked Ms. Balloni (PB), member of AVFD, if she had any concerns about how the department could handle multiple situations.  Ms. Balloni replied that the County has a Mutual Aid Program in place and the department would call in additional help from outside the Fire District when needed.

	C. Zoning and Planning Information 
	1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? YES
If Yes, indicate decision required: 
Zoning amendment 			Zoning variance 
Site plan 				Special use permit  YES
New/revision of master plan 		Resource management plan 
Subdivision 				Other   YES 

	Pg 9 - 2. What is the zoning classification(s) of the site? RESIDENTIAL
3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning?    Subdivided into numerous residential lots.
4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? N/A
5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning?  N/A
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans?  YES
7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a ¼ mile radius of proposed action?   RESIDENTIAL     COMMERCIAL
8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses with a ¼ mile? YES
9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? 
NOT ANSWERED
a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 
	Pg 10 - 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts?  NO
11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection?  YES
a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand?  YES
12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels?   Changed from NO to YES by Boards.
a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic.  YES
	Mr. King informed the Boards that the applicant could do a “trip generation” study could be done for the village streets and the proposed parking lot.  (G. Bates returned at 8:35 PM)   Mrs. Echelbarger asked the Boards to do the study for all the businesses in the Village to get an accurate study during prime season not now after summer is over.  Deputy Chairman MacCormick noted that this study though interesting wasn’t required by the CPP.  PB Chairwomen voiced her concern that with the addition of Leffingwell House to the Inns of Aurora business that they are in error of segmentation.   Mr. Rhoad again explained the used of all the facilities to the Boards.
	Ms Ambrose noted to the Board that those attending events would not all be driving individually but would share rides so there would not be a huge number of cars in the community.  Mrs. Echelbarger questioned how the proposed parking lot would have lights on at all times.  Mr. Rhoad responded that no plans have been made yet.  (Virgil Farlow left 8:45 PM)

D. Informational Details 
Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. 

E. Verification 
I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. 
Applicant/Sponsor Name PLEASANT T. ROWLAND
Date:  9-14-11
Signature:   PB Chairwoman Gil noted that the SEQR needed an original signature on the front page.
Title   SOLE OWNER

If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. 

Planning Board as the Lead Agency completed the following: (Miller left 8:58 PM)

PART 2 -PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE 
	Pg 11 -Impact on Land
1. Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the project site?  YES 
	Ms. Morehouse (CPP) asked if they had considered using mesh parking lot ground cover then planting grass.  Mr. King responded that there would not be enough recovery time between events to keep the area green.    
	Mrs. Echelbarger again asked how many cars would be using the lot, would the lot be maintained between events and protect the neighbors privacy.  Ms. Edinger said they may have 200 spaces to accommodate all the events possible.  Mr. King again noted that no plans have been generated for this area, but suspected that some sort of buffers or fence would be used.  Mr. Echelbarger stressed the need for some sort of security in the parking lot as they have had several problems already from the youth of the area in the fields.  (Echelbargers left 9:15 PM)
	Ms. Edinger suggested that the PB ask for help with the wording of questions from Cayuga County Planning or from the Village Attorney.  Mr. King added that a zoning attorney would be able to aid the boards to understand the questions asked in the SEQR.  PB Chairwoman Gil informed the Boards that they could finish up and she would discuss their concerns and get help with answers from County Planning.
	
Examples that would apply to column 2 
C Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%.  
Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. 
Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. 
Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. 
Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. 
Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. 
	Pg 12- Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. 
Construction in a designated floodway. 
Other impact:  POTENTIAL LARGE IMPACT
REMOVE GARAGE, REMOVE CONCRETE; POROUS ASPHALT DRIVES ADDED
Chairwoman Gil noted that they will have to do Part 3 of report with this declaration.

2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on 
the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.
 		Specific land forms: 

	Impact on Water 
3. Will Proposed Action affect any water body designated as protected? 
(Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, 
ECL)        NOT ANSWERED 
Developable area of site contains a protected water body. 
Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. 
Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. 
Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. 
Other impacts: 
4. Will Proposed Action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? NO  
A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of 
water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. 
Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. 
Other impacts: 
	Pg 13 - 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or 
quantity?   NO 
Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. 
Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. 
Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. 
Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. 
Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. 
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. 
Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. 
Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. 
Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. 
Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. 
Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. 
C Other impacts: 
	Pg 14 -6. Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water 
runoff?  NO
Proposed Action would change flood water flows 
Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. 
Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. 
Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. 
C Other impacts: 
	IMPACT ON AIR 
7. Will Proposed Action affect air quality? NO  
Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. 
Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. 
Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU’s per hour. 
Proposed Action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. 
Proposed Action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. 
C Other impacts: 
	IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 

8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? NOT ANSWERED
Examples that would apply to column 2 
Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near the site, or found on the site. 

Pg 15 - Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. 
Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, 
Other impacts: 
9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? 
NO  
Examples that would apply to column 2 
Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. 
Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. 
Other impacts: 
	IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 
10. Will Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? NOT ANSWERED
Examples that would apply to column 2 
The Proposed Action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) 
Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. 
The Proposed Action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. 
	Pg 16- The Proposed Action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff). 
Other impacts: 
	IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 
11. Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources? (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20, Appendix B.) 
Examples that would apply to column 2 
C Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. 
Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. 
Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. 
C Other impacts: 
	IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 
12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, 
prehistoric or paleontological importance?  NOT ANSWERED
Examples that would apply to column 2 
Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. 
Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. 
Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory.

	Pg 17- Other impacts: 	

	IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 
13. Will proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? NO 
Examples that would apply to column 2 
The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. 
A major reduction of an open space important to the community. 
Other impacts: 
	IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 
14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6NYCRR 617.14(g)?  NO
 
List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA. 
Examples that would apply to column 2 
Proposed Action to locate within the CEA?
Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource?
Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the resource?
Proposed Action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the resource? 
C Other impacts: 
	Pg 18- IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 
15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? NOT ANSWERED
Examples that would apply to column 2 
Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods.  Small to moderate 
Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems.  NOT ANSWERED
Other impacts: 
	IMPACT ON ENERGY 
16. Will Proposed Action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? NO 
Examples that would apply to column 2 
Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the municipality. 
Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. 
Other impacts: 
	NOISE AND ODOR IMPACT 
17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? NO 
Examples that would apply to column 2 
 Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. 
Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). 
Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. 
Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. 
Other impacts: 
	
	Pg 19- IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 

18. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? NO 
 Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. 
Proposed Action may result in the burial of “hazardous wastes” in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) 
Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquefied natural gas or other flammable liquids. 
Proposed Action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. 
Other impacts: 
	IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY 
				OR NEIGHBORHOOD 
19. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community? NOT ANSWERED
Examples that would apply to column 2 
The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. 
The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. 
Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. 
Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use. 
Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. 
Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) 
	Pg 20 - Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects? NOT ANSWERED 
Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment.?  NOT ANSWERED 
Other impacts:

20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environment impacts?   NOT ANSWERED
(Please note page 20 was not included in the Boards packet, so not reviewed.)

(If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If you Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 

	PB Chairwoman Gil noted that if the applicant was willing to do traffic study and produce a written statement that would answer the Boards lists of concerns, she saw no reason to do Part 3 of the SEQR.  
	Ms. Balloni and Mr. Connors (PB) noted that if the answers received would address the problems; they felt small to moderate would be an appropriate answer to question on page 12 - other impacts and the noise issues.  CPP Deputy Chairman MacCormick asked if that Board agreed with this change.  All ayes with CPP.
	PB Chairwoman Gil noted that she would contact Cayuga County Planning to discuss the questions left unanswered by the boards and the added concerns before completing the SEQR and signing it.

Part 3 - EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS 

Responsibility of Lead Agency 

Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. 

Instructions (If you need more space, attach additional sheets) 

Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 

1. 
Briefly describe the impact. 
2. 
Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by 
project change(s). 
3. 
Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. 
To answer the question of importance, consider: 

! The probability of the impact occurring 
! The duration of the impact 
! Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value 
! Whether the impact can or will be controlled 
! The regional consequence of the impact 
! Its potential divergence from local needs and goals 
! Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. 

Page 1 of EAF

THIS AREA FOR LEAD AGENCY USE ONLY 

DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Type 1 and Unlisted Actions 

Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: 

Part 1     CHECKED AS DONE

Part 2 	  CHECKED AS DONE

Part 3 	  Unchecked

Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: 

A. 
The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared.   Unchecked

B. 
Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.*   CHECKED
	Mr. King recommended they do a negative declaration with conditions being met prior to the issuance of the Special Use Permit.  The PB agreed that a traffic survey be done by the Inns of Aurora during the time of events use and that a parking design and management plan be presented to the boards.

C. 
The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the 
environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. 
Unchecked

*A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions 

Name of Action   ABBOTT HOUSE- GUESTHOUSE CONVERSION

Name of Lead Agency   Village OF AURORA PLANNING BOARD

Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer 

Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency  NANCY GIL, PLANNING BOARD CHAIR
Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) 

Date October 12, 2011

	Chairwoman Gil asked for a motion of the PB to close Public Hearing #1 for the SEQR. Ms. Bianconi moved to close the SEQR Public Hearing at 10:03 PM.  Seconded by Mr. Connors.  Motion Carried.
	CPP Deputy Chairman MacCormick opened the second Public Hearing by asking his Board to approve the demolition of the garage located at 453 Main Street.  Mr. Crocker moved the demolition of the garage without the addition of the catering kitchen.  Seconded by Ms. Morehouse.  Public Comment- Ms. Zabriskie noted that Mr. Abbott was planning to replace the garage prior to his death.  Mr. Zimdahl noted that the garage would make a nice storage area, if it could be moved.  Having no further comment Deputy Chairman MacCormick closed the hearing at 10:05 PM. The CPP noted that the proposed excavating, is more a grading issue and not a concern to them.  Deputy Chairman MacCormick called the vote.
Crocker	AYE
Morehouse 	AYE
MacCormick	AYE

	The public was asked for comments.  Ms. Zabriskie noted that this was a good move for the community and that all the events at the E. B. Morgan House, which abuts her property, have been well managed.
	Ms. Post & Ms. Ambrose both voiced, as employees of the Aurora Inn, that they felt the area was in need of growth and this project was a way to gain economic stability for the Inn while promoting the beauty of the area to the public.
	PB Chairwoman Gil closed the final Public Hearing at 10:20 PM.  The members of the CPP all agreed to adjourn.(Crocker left at 10:20 PM).

REGULAR MONTHLY MEETING

Present:  Planning Board (PB) - Nancy Gil, Chair; Patricia Bianconi, Ann Balloni,
				Frank Zimdahl  and Alan Connors.  
	   
Also Present:   Community Preservation Panel - Christopher MacCormick & Claire Morehouse
		Village Residents:  David Brooks, Jeff Blum, Randi Zabriskie, Michael 						Peter & Larry Church 
		Town of Ledyard Residents: Tina Post, Emily Ambrose & Melissa Miller
		Deborah Brooks, Deputy Village Clerk
		Sue Edinger and C. Greg Rhoad from the Aurora Inn, Inc. 
		Bruce King and Aino Parlo from Holmes & Kallquist
		
	 Chairwoman Gil opened the monthly meeting at 10:21 PM.  
Chairwoman Gil asked for approval of the Minutes for September 14, 2011.   Mrs. Bianconi moved approval of the September 14, 2011 Joint Public Hearing with CPP Minutes and the Regular Monthly Meeting.  Mr. Connors seconded the motion.  Motion Carried 5:0.
	Discussion - Ms Balloni asked that on page one in the fourth paragraph down they add “including the discussion of the proposed Geo-Thermal system“ to the end of the sentence.  Ms. Bianconi noted in the fourth line from the bottom of the first page that the time for events to end is 11 PM not 10 PM.   Ms. Gil also noted on page two the misspelling of “too” should be “to” just before the adjournment of the Public Hearing. The Board approved the Minutes with corrections as follows:  Gil, Balloni, Bianconi & Connors voted AYE with Zimdahl abstaining as he was absent.  Motion Carried 4:0:1.

 	Announcements - Chairwoman Gil informed the Board of the upcoming class put on by Cayuga County Planning at BOCES on November 16, 2011.  The Board members agreed to attend and the clerk was asked to RSVP.
	Ms. Gil also noted classes being held by Bond, Schoneck & King in Syracuse on October 26th regarding several topics on zoning issues.  She noted that it fulfills 1.5 credit hours of the 4 needed each year.  
	 
	Changes to the agenda:  none

Old Business:
	Chairwoman Gil noted that she would draft a letter of the PB concerns regarding Application # 11-05 to the Applicant and ask them for the reassurances to satisfy each item.
	She will also file the SEQR with Cayuga County Planning for the 239 GML approval after discussing with them the list of concerns and how to finish SEQR questions left blank.  
	Listed items reviewed are as follows:  parking, lighting, signs, traffic flow, noise for neighbors (Mr. Peter noted exhaust fans are very noisy), security at parking lot.  Several other items brought up were the reflection of taxes on home owners with this project, impact on the fire department, need to have police in village, parking for buses/limos, the Sherwood lot is in the Indian Land Claim so what restrictions are there on this property use and the need to have proper paperwork from Wells College on Sherwood Road lot use.
	Chairwoman Gil notified Ms. Edinger that no approval would be given tonight, but to expect a letter of their concerns and that the application/SEQR would go before Cayuga County Planning.

	New Business:

	 Chairwoman Gil read aloud to the PB Application # 11- 16?  from Pleasant Rowland and the Aurora Inn regarding the Leffingwell House proposal.  The Chair asked that the Clerk place a legal notice in the official newspaper setting a Public Hearing for November 9, 2011 at 7 PM. (Edinger, Rhoad, Parlo, King, Zabriskie, Post, M. Miller& Ambrose left 11:05 PM)

	Application # 11- 15 :  Cynthia Patella of 181.08-1-26.1 State Rte 90 requesting  for the installation of a 7’X7’ storage shed and dock on the lake shore property across from St. Patrick Cemetery which require a Special Permit.
	The Board discussed at length the location of the property noting the following items:  
1]  Checked village zoning map and question whether in the flood hazard zone,
2] Section 500 page 26 reviewed,	
3] Minimum habitable floor area read - pg 26 500 B#1  1,200 sq. ft.
4] Discussed the use of a RV mobile trailer seasonally on property.  It was noted by the board that mobile trailers are not allowed in the Village Zoning Law, but location of that section was not found due to the lateness of the hour.
5} No connection to services such as water, sewer, etc.
6] Dimension tables reviewed pg 27 
7] Discussion of dock - no indication on application of type to be used.
	Mr. Peter asked the Board what the requirements are.  Chairwoman Gil read section 405 A. #6 from the Village Zoning Law aloud.  Mr. Zimdahl suggested if Mr. Peter was going to change his dock that he should contact the Village Code Officer and Army Corp of Engineers before starting any project.  (Peter & Church left 11:30 PM)

	Mrs. Bianconi moved to table Application # 11-15 due to lack of information; the need to check out flood hazard zone; the lack of utilities and use of a mobile home on the property.  Seconded by Mr. Connors.  Motion Carried 5:0.

 	Next Meetings will be:
		Regular Monthly Meeting- November 9,  2011 at 7:00 PM

Attending the County PB at BOCES Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 7:00 PM .

	Chairwoman Gil moved adjournment at 11:35 PM.  Seconded by Mr. Zimdahl.    Motion carried 5:0.

Respectfully submitted,

Deborah M. Brooks
Deputy Village Clerk