Developers to pursue permissible segmented SEQR for Water's Edge at 683 Third St.; board sets expectations

The developers of the Water's Edge proposal at 683 Third Street told the Planning and Development Board on Jan. 28 that they intend to pursue a permissible segmented SEQR review and to resubmit a reduced, legally developable first phase.

Project representatives said the revised concept reduces the project to a maximum of 200 housing units — the threshold the team identified as buildable without a secondary fire apparatus access under the New York State Building Code — split between a larger southwest building (proposed 160 market‑rate units) and a smaller southeast building (proposed 40 mixed‑income units targeted at 30–80% of area median income). The team said the southeast building is oriented to improve views for the mixed‑income residents and that the applicant plans supportive services for frail and elderly tenants in that building.

The presenters said the revised plan removes previously proposed shoreline docks and other waterfront improvements from the initial phase; instead the design locates buildings toward the southern portion of the site, brings parking under the southwest structure where practical, and proposes parallel public parking along the primary entrance drive for waterfront visitors and market patrons. The applicant proposed a 1:1 parking ratio and said it would screen exterior mechanicals and break up long parking runs with landscaping. Developers also described targeted pedestrian connections to the waterfront trail and the Ithaca Farmers Market and said they will minimize any temporary trail disruptions during construction.

Board members asked detailed questions about whether the second, undeveloped portion of the site could ever be legally developed and how the land would be maintained in the interim if phase 2 could not proceed. Planning consultant Adam (attorney/consultant) explained the legal rationale for permissible segmentation: because a future residential phase depends on a secondary fire access that is not yet achievable (and may require crossing third‑party property), the team can lawfully seek review for the portion they can build now, provided the environmental review is no less protective and future cumulative impacts would be assessed if phase 2 is proposed later.

Board members asked the applicant to return with clear interim plans showing what the undeveloped portion will look like while remaining private land or, if the applicant prefers, options for short‑term public use. Members emphasized the need to avoid an interim condition that would be an eyesore (fencing, bare ground) and requested more detail on first‑floor programming, whether parking occupies ground‑floor frontage on the water side and how the project will avoid a monolithic wall along the waterfront. The board voiced support for the Danish/Nordic aesthetic precedent the team described, asked for consistent materials across both buildings, and requested more detail about energy and low‑carbon building strategies.

The board did not take a formal land‑use vote but accepted the applicant's intent to proceed with a segmented SEQR pathway and told the team to work with staff on a schedule and on the SEQR submittal. Applicant representatives agreed to return in the next month with a more detailed SEQR/SEQR package and schematic revisions.