Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dennington‑Helgren site plan public hearing continued after noticing and environmental checks requested
Summary
Applicant presented grading, drainage and utility plans for a house and detached ADU at 1102 Pugenic Boulevard; neighbors raised a defect in mailed notices and potential bald eagle nest concerns. Board continued the hearing and directed staff and applicant to repost notices, contact DEC, and return at the next meeting.
Applicant representatives from Sherraver Engineering presented detailed grading, drainage and utility plans for the Dennington‑Helgren project at 1102 Pugenic Boulevard, proposing a single‑family dwelling, a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and site improvements while minimizing tree removal.
Engineer Andy Sherraver described a plan that retains trees with a 4–5‑foot stacked stone retaining wall, a cobblestone edge drain to collect roof runoff, and a proposed water/sewer connection to the Town of Ithaca system across Route 89 to avoid an on‑site septic. Sherraver said the on‑site driveway will be routed to preserve trees and that the existing roadside culvert meets DOT minimum sizing (15‑inch under the highway) while a property pipe will be 24 inches.
During the public hearing, neighbor Mr. Richardson argued that the posted sign and mailed notices were defective — several notices listed the wrong meeting day — and asked that the hearing be continued so absent stakeholders could participate. The board agreed to continue (table) the public hearing to the next meeting, ask the applicant to repost the sign with a corrected date, and have staff redo mailers and affidavits.
A neighbor also raised a possible bald eagle nest near the lakefront and asked whether that requires DEC review. Staff member Neil said that, under state guidance, single‑family dwellings and ADUs are typically treated as Type II actions that do not trigger an EIS; he recommended staff contact the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to confirm any nest‑protection timing windows and asked to try to obtain DEC guidance before the board’s next meeting.
Direct quotes from the meeting included Mr. Richardson’s concerns about notice: “You’ll notice on the affidavit of posting … the meeting today was defectively noticed,” and staff’s environmental clarification from Neil: “Single detached dwelling units and accessory dwelling units are considered Type II actions, which means they don't trigger the need for an EIS.”
Why it matters: residents raised procedural and environmental concerns that could affect permit conditions and allowable construction timing. The board’s decision to continue the hearing gives staff time to correct public notice and to obtain DEC guidance about wildlife protections.
Next steps: applicant to repost sign and reissue mailers with a corrected date and new affidavit; staff to contact DEC and report back before the next meeting when the public hearing will resume.
