Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board wrestles with how to define 'streams' in town guidance; asks staff for concise recommendation
Summary
Ulysses Planning Board spent most of the meeting debating a draft recommendation to the town board on how to identify watercourses—balancing USGS maps, GIS datasets and DEC wetland determinations—raising concerns about setbacks, property‑record 'landmines,' and asking staff to prepare a one‑page executive summary and sample DEC language for legal review.
The Ulysses Planning Board spent the bulk of its Sept. 16 meeting reviewing a draft recommendation to the town board on how the town should identify and treat streams and intermittent watercourses for planning and permitting purposes.
Board members debated whether the town should rely primarily on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps (the current zoning baseline), use GIS datasets that identify many more intermittent watercourses, or defer to New York State DEC determinations for wetlands and other delineations. Members said GIS layers can produce far more mapped watercourses than USGS topographical maps and warned that adding GIS‑only features to property records can create unforeseen constraints for owners.
Members pointed to examples in the transcript where USGS mapping showed a small number of intermittent streams along the lakefront while GIS layers identified substantially more features over the same distance; the board said those differences can change setback exposure dramatically on narrow lots. Several speakers emphasized that GIS data should be verified in the field and that the town should be careful about burying GIS‑only watercourse notes in property records without clear annotation indicating whether the mapped feature is recognized under current zoning.
Legal and procedural questions were a central part of the discussion. The board reviewed a staff/legal interpretation that the planning and zoning boards have authority under state law to place conditions on approvals (for example, requiring buffers or mitigation) as part of site review, while the building department’s authority differs. The board also reviewed the current zoning language that cites USGS maps, a New York state–licensed geologist, or Tompkins County soil and water resources as recognized sources for stream classification, and discussed whether to recommend an administrative zoning clarification or a formal code amendment.
Practical proposals the board coalesced around included:
• Prioritize USGS mapping and DEC determinations as baseline authoritative sources, use county/state GIS and owner submittals as supplemental information, and require on‑site verification when datasets conflict.
• Ask property owners to obtain DEC determinations or a qualified hydrological/geological assessment where the board believes a watercourse exists but it is not listed in zoning sources.
• Avoid embedding unannotated GIS‑only watercourse flags into property records; instead include explicit language in resolutions or records explaining whether the finding exceeds current zoning and whether it was used as a condition of approval.
• Prepare a short executive summary (bullet points) of the recommendation for the town board and request that the town board or town legal review the language before formal action.
Board members requested that staff supply sample DEC positive‑determination letters used in recent local cases to help craft recommended wording. The board agreed to refine the language in bullets and return the item for additional review before transmitting a recommendation to the town board.
