Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2011-03-21 Study Sessionof the Ithaca Town Board Monday, March 21, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Minutes Meeting called to order at 4:32 p.m. All Board Members and Staff Present except for Mr. Solvig. Mr. Engman noted that there was a new packet of information regarding the Waldorf School’s request to use the Biggs Building as a temporary location for their school and this would have to be taken into consideration when discussing a possible moratorium. Mr. Engman also noted that a request for a count of written comments regarding the moratorium was received and we have 11, including the one received today. Consider setting a Public Hearing regarding a Noise Permit for: Ithaca College “Kick Back” Quad Celebration on May 6, 2011 from 2:00 – 6:00 p.m. TB RESOLUTION No. 2011 - 049: Set Public Hearing Regarding a Noise Permit for Ithaca College’s Kick Back Event BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will hold a public hearing th at the Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York on the 11 day of April 2011 at the 5:54 p.m. regarding a noise permit application for the Ithaca College Kick Back event on May 6, 2011 from 2:00 – 6:00 p.m. and it is further RESOLVED , that at such time and place all persons interested in the proposed noise permits will have an opportunity to express their concerns and/or support. MovedSeconded : Rich DePaolo : Eric Levine Vote : Ayes: Engman, Goodman, DePaolo, Hunter, Leary, Levine and Horwitz. Motion passed unanimously. Review Draft Agenda for Regular Meeting The draft was reviewed and it was noted that there were a lot of public hearings although none seemed overly controversial. Mr. DePaolo thought a place holder should be added for the possibility of setting a public hearing regarding a local law enacting a moratorium on development on west hill. Mr. Engman also noted that at SAC we had a conversation with Ms. Brock regarding the last minute changes that are put on the desks just prior to meetings and it was decided TBS 3-21-2011 Page 2 of 10 that we would try to get the drafts to her a week earlier than usual so she could get comments and suggested changes back to staff prior to the mailout. Town Official’s Reports Mr. Horwitz had comments about the Pine Tree Rd Bridge. He feels that the money spent on the walkway is a great use of funds but not the money to be spent on the bridge. He explained that his opposition has nothing to do with trucks but rather the bicyclists and pedestrians that will use the renovated walkway and if the bridge is expanded it will essentially make the walkway more dangerous for those users. Mr. Engman noted that this is not a Town project and we have no say in the bridge portion of the project, but there is an alternate proposal that will not include the bridge replacement. Report from Committees a. Budget Committee – Mr. Levine noted that there have been a number of calls regarding the water rate increase and the Ithaca City sales tax is up 7% which is a good sign. There was some additional discussion on the tax cap issue. b. Codes and Ordinances Committee – Mr. Goodman reportedthat they continued work on the definition of garages and changes to the Conservation Zone, particularly trees and cutting them. He hopes to move that on to the Board next month. They will then restart work on the stream setback law. The definition of garage vs accessory building was briefly discussed. c. Comprehensive Plan Committee – Mr. Engman reported that they had an interesting discussion on East Hill and South Hill growth areas and they will be looking at the south end of Route 13 which will be more commercial. This is working towards mapping potential growth areas. d. Operations Committee – Mr. Engman reported that they reviewed the fireworks fee schedule which is on tonight’s agenda and the draft of the request for proposals on the Town Hall HVAC system as well as reviewing the property maintenance draft law. Mr. Bates gave an update on the closing of Emerson. Basically, whoever has 51% of the building within their jurisdiction takes jurisdiction. In the past there was a MOU suggested for the few properties that are shared between the town and the city and he is working with City officials to draft an MOU. e. Planning Committee – Mr. DePaolo reported that they reviewed the draft moratorium local law which was moved to the Town Board. f. Personnel Committee – Ms. Hunter reported thatthey worked on the Code of Conduct which was forwarded to Bolton Point and the Teamsters as well as the Funeral Leave/Bereavement Policy. They also talked about training for Board members and their role in personnel issues. They also continued to look at the TBS 3-21-2011 Page 3 of 10 pay scale and points system for different jobs. Connie Clark’s last day is coming up and she noted that Mike and Judy are meeting and working on a proposal to bring to the Board regarding the position and the duties. g. Public Works Committee – Mr. Goodman reported that they discussed Mr. Monkmeyers request to take over some water infrastructure and they discussed the stormwater report from the DEC. We received a “satisfactory” grade which is the best you can get but they had a lot of comments and we submitted a report back to them. Mr. Weber noted that that was done in association with the Stormwater Coalition. They also discussed the 5K racerequest and the draft notice regarding the Ridgecrest Rd Tank water issue. AdHoc Committees a. Youth – Mr. DePaolo reported that they met with the Chair of the Education Department at Ithaca College and discussed ideas on service learning and they have leads on how to integrate service learning. They talked about evaluations and the need to have a better handle on standard measures of evaluation for the programs we have. They talked about the possibility of a town-wide need survey focused on recreation and youth. b. Fire Committee – Had a long discussion with a gentleman that was in the service for many, many years focusing on benefits and offering small incentives. They also talked about EMTs and how that has evolved. They talked about visiting our existing fire stations and Bangs Ambulance. c. Asset Management – Ms. Hunter reported that Mr. Horwitz has drafted a proposal and he explained that it is a general approach that doesn’t identify specific projects, but yet gathers an estimate of foreseeable expenses, add a fraction for unanticipated “emergencies” and break that down into what you would like to establish reserve funds for and what you want to bond for. d. Police – Mr. Engman reported that they met with Peter Stein who is focusing on speeding problem areas. Discuss and Consider Establishing a Local Advisory Board of Assessment Review Board Members explained the process to Mr. Horwitz who agreed to be the backup. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 050: Appointments to Local Advisory Board of Assessment Review WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Local Advisory Board of Assessment Review will hold their review proceedings in May 2011, date TBA, at Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York; and WHEREAS , it is necessary that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca appoint two representatives to attend the said proceedings; TBS 3-21-2011 Page 4 of 10 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby appoints Eric Levine and Rich DePaolo to serve on the Local Advisory Board of Assessment Review; and FURTHER RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca appoints Nahmin Horwitz to serve as Alternate Representative; and FURTHER RESOLVED , the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward a certified copy of this resolution to the Tompkins County Assessment Department. MOVEDSECONDED : Bill Goodman : Tee-Ann Hunter VOTE : Ayes: Engman, DePaolo, Levine, Leary, Horwitz, Hunter and Goodman Motion passed unanimously Discuss Draft Property Maintenance Law a. Consider setting a PH regarding a Local Law Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code to Require Compliance with the Property Maintenance Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code Mr. DePaolo asked what the actual changes to the law are. Mr. Bates responded that the prohibited acts have been changed and basically they strengthened the language and gave the authority to the Town instead of the Courts for enforcement. The new law is very particular about what the Town has to do and the timeline for doing it and if everything is done according to the law, the Town would then be able to go in and clean up the property. Discussion followed. Mr. DePaolo’s main concern was the description of prohibited vehicles. There are seasonal vehicles, classic vehicles etc that this would seem onerous to the owner. Mr. Bates responded that the State has also passed very stringent new requirements regarding idle cars and the intent of this law is to clean up properties, not go after classic or seasonal cars. People can play word games to avoid having to remove junk cars so the language is in there to cover loopholes, not to go after somebody. Mr. Bates also noted that it applies to front yards, not back yards. Discussion followed on the wording regarding vehicles. The focus was “old” and “second hand”. Mr. Bates reiterated that the intent was to be able to enforce property maintenance which we receive many complaints on. Mr. DePaolo then addressed composting. There is wording in the draft law that seems to prohibit composting. Mr. Bates responded that composting is addressed in an existing law that requires composting to be a certain distance from the property line. Mr. Engman noted that there is wording in there that states “as long as it is not visible from a state highway or road and/or from a neighbors property.” Discussion followed. TBS 3-21-2011 Page 5 of 10 Mr. Bates reiterated that this is not punitive and they will not be searching for violations, but simply to enforce the maintenance of problem properties that we receive complaints on. The complaint is the trigger. Mr. DePaolo then discussed the building materials and whether having a building permit would allow the building materials. Mr. Bates responded that an active building permit would allow that. This is a tool, not a weapon and we have gone to court a few times and not been able to address the problem because the existing law was weak. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011- 051: Set Public Hearing Regarding, “A Local Law Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code to Require Compliance with the Property Maintenance Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code” BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will hold a public hearing th at the Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York on the 11 day of April, 2011 at 5:47 p.m. for the purpose of providing full opportunity for citizen participation and input in the preparation of a proposed local law amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code to require compliance with the Property Maintenance Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code; and it is further RESOLVED , that at such time and place all persons interested in the proposed local law may be heard concerning the same; and it is further RESOLVED , that the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca is hereby authorized and directed to publish a notice of such public hearing in the Ithaca Journal published in the City of Ithaca, Ithaca, New York, and to post a copy of same on the signboard of the Town of Ithaca, said publication and posting to occur not less than ten days before the day designated above for the public hearing. MOVEDSECONDED : Tee-Ann Hunter : Rich DePaolo VOTE : Ayes: Engman, Hunter, DePaolo, Goodman, Horwitz, Levine and Leary Motion passed unanimously Discuss a Moratorium on West Hill Mr. DePaolo started the conversation stating that there seemed to be a general agreement that language to outline the objectives for a study period needed to be done. He did modify a pre-existing moratorium law to fit West Hill and distributed it to the Board. It was discussed at the Planning Committee and whether properties would be exempted was still undecided. Mr. DePaolo stated his preference would be to do this sooner rather than later and have a target date to focus on and set a public hearing for the May regular meeting followed by a vote. TBS 3-21-2011 Page 6 of 10 Ms. Leary discussed the waiver portion of the draft. She wanted to include the current Comprehensive Plan as a consideration and also add a more positive statement about whether a project is promoting the general welfare of the community. Mr. DePaolo did not agree with using the present Comp Plan because one of the reasons for the moratorium is that the Comp Plan is in flux. Discussion followed. Ms. Ritter gave an overview of the Waldorf School proposal at the Biggs B building. They would only be using a small portion of the school for 1-2 years while they build their permanent school. The traffic generated would be at the end of the peak rush and the children are busses and carpooled in with teachers coming in throughout the day. As the draft local law is written now, it would not be allowed because it would need a special permit and site plan approval. It seemed that the Board was not concerned about the Waldorf School use but Ms. Ritter noted that Ms. Brock was concerned about not being arbitrary in the exception. Mr. DePaolo felt that this was a re-use of an existing, not a new development so that would be exempt but Ms. Brock was concerned about traffic generation since there is zero traffic now. Discussion followed. The Board focused on the three projects in varying stages of the process; Waldorf School, Holochuck and Conifer. Mr. Horwitz thought that having exceptions defeats the purpose of the moratorium (except the temporary school) and the study that may or may not say development is good where those projects are planned. Mr. Goodman talked about redrawing the lines to accommodate the school proposal. Discussion followed on redrawing the map for the possible exceptions and where the lines would be. Mr. DePaolo felt that there must be language that can be drawn up to exclude what we think we want to see on West Hill. Mr. Engman asked what Ms. Brock had said about waivers. Ms. Ritter stated that Ms. Brock was not in favor of a waiver system because of the difficulty in finding neutral language for criteria that would not be seen as arbitrary. Mr. Engman noted that it sounds like the challenge is to decide if we want exemptions and then turn it over to staff and legal to find a way to make it happen. It sounded like the Board would like the Waldorf School exempted. Ms. Hunter asked about the senior living project and whether we could place restrictions on a re-zoned parcel. Discussion followed on what could happen during a re-zoning. Ms. Leary felt that she would rather have Conifer exempted up front or carved out because of the state financing. Mr. Horwitz would rather take the whole waiver portion out because it prejudges the outcome of the study the moratorium is meant to allow time for. Mr. DePaolo understood his comment agreeing that one can’t judge the community when you don’t know what the community is going to be. Mr. Goodman talked about the allowed single-home building that would be allowed now and how that would be true sprawl and the only way to get people out of their cars and into public transportation that would help with the traffic situation is to have high density development. Mr. Engman added that that is what is possible in a Planned TBS 3-21-2011 Page 7 of 10 Development Zone and he felt that would have been a better way to go. Discussion followed. Ms. Hunter responded that it seemed we were considering a lot of small PDZs and instead we should be looking at a larger one and we only have one commitment now which is what stopped the PDZ. Mr. Engman thought that a PDZ would commit future developers to what is put in the PDZ. Mr. Levine asked if the submission date of the 3 proposals could be a factor in being exempted. Discussion followed. Ms. Hunter restated that the traffic is the issue and we need to look at that and find out what the tipping point is for what is too much traffic. Once that is determined, then the planning could happen. Mr. Levine asked about Town traffic problems versus City traffic problems and Ms. Hunter felt they were too intertwined and just because we don’t have jurisdiction we can’t ignore it but Mr. Levine asked what about the next town up. Traffic problems are still going to be there because the development is going to happen. Ms. Hunter responded that she felt we should have the time to study it. Mr. Engman responded that the solution that has been on the table for years is nodal development within our borders so we have some control over the traffic that is generated. The Mayor has asked DOT to look at the traffic signals and to look at a comparability study to see if West Hill really is worse than other areas such as East Hill. The Route 96 Corridor Study was already done. Ms. Ritter felt that the Study did not take it the next step and talk about projected growth in the other municipalities and help define what kind of densities we could and will be looking at in the future. Ms. Leary brought it back to carving out the parcels under discussion. More discussion on different parcels and PDZs because there is the other Goldenrod parcel on the horizon. Mr. Goodman felt that there seemed to be a majority of the Board that felt that Holochuck and Conifer will ultimately fit into the plan for West Hill and the easiest way would be to adjust the eastern boundary to allow the three. Mr. DePaolo responded that that would allow 33% of the Tompkins County projected development on West Hill according to their study and it would foreclose on future planning. You either plan or you are in damage control. He felt that we have an opportunity to pause on these developments and plan for the development. Ms. Hunter added that there are things that we want from developers and we need the pause to plan for those and keep the control for asking for those in our hands. Ms. Leary thought we could still involve the developers and ask for things. Mr. Engman reiterated that he doesn’t like Holochuck per se, but they have gone through the process and it is unfair to tell them no now and the fact that a significant amount of land is going to go to the NYS Parks. Ms. Hunter asked what we are putting a hold on if we exempt these three? Discussion followed. Mr. Engman asked procedural questions such as do we want to get a sense of the body for what we want staff and legal counsel to prepare for the next meeting to vote on. How many people would recommend excluding Conifer 4 to 3. How many people would recommend excluding Holochuck 4 to 3. The sense of the body was to TBS 3-21-2011 Page 8 of 10 have staff work with counsel to make those exclusions and those recommendations to be brought to the next Town Board meeting. It was agreed that the sense of the body regarding the Waldorf School being excluded was already discussed and it was a yes. The suggested changes to the current draft local law were done. Discuss Possible Town Board Member Retreat Training on the relationships between Town Board Members and Staff particularly as it pertains to reviews. Discussion followed. Dates were discussed and Ms. Drake will work on scheduling one. Discuss Bi-Monthly Reports from Department Heads Mr. Engman reported that SAC discussed having written reports submitted every other month because of the time involved. Discussion followed. It was decided that half would report one month and the other half the next with pertinent verbal reports given when necessary. Consider Consent Agenda Items Only two items were ready for a vote and they were voted on separately. 1. Approval of Town Board Minutes – Pulled 2. Town of Ithaca Abstract 3. Authorization for Supervisor to sign Community Gardens Contract – Pulled 4. Authorization for Supervisor to sign Babe Ruth, Inc. MOU regarding use of Tutelo Park Ballpark TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011-052: Town of Ithaca Abstract WHEREAS , the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for approval of payment; and WHEREAS , the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now therefore be it RESOLVED , that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in total for the amounts indicated. VOUCHER NOS. 254 - 317 General Fund Town wide 51,077.19 General Fund Part Town 7,588.38 Highway Fund Part Town 31,109.33 Water Fund 351,127.14 Sewer Fund 4,433.17 Warren Road Walkway Forest Home Traffic Calming Fire Protection Fund TBS 3-21-2011 Page 9 of 10 Risk Retention Fund 39,716.00 Forest Home Lighting District 66.30 Glenside Lighting District 26.32 Renwick Heights Lighting District 35.05 Eastwood Commons Lighting District 48.01 Clover Lane Lighting District 6.04 Winner's Circle Lighting District 9.09 Burleigh Drive Lighting District 21.22 West Haven Road Lighting District 84.18 Coddington Road Lighting District 48.95 Trust and Agency Debt Service TOTAL 485,396.37 MOVED: Tee-Ann Hunter SECONDED: Bill Goodman VOTE: Ayes: Engman, DePaolo, Hunter, Levine, Leary, Goodman and Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. There was discussion on whether moving this to a submission with other yearly contracts tied the Town in to only allowing Babe Ruth to use the field. Ms. Terwilliger noted that there is a 30-day cancellation by the Town written in the MOD and other verbiage added so the League can not monopolize the field into the summer. This is one of the Youth Programs the Town supports and has wide participation from Town youth and is a good use of the field. The concern was more for the summer months where the League sometimes extends play and safeguards were put in to allow for resident's use of the field if planned. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 053: Authorizing Supervisor to Sign the Memorandum of Understanding with the Ithaca Babe Ruth League, Inc. WHEREAS the Town of Ithaca has historically signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Babe Ruth League, Inc. for the use of theTutelo Park ballfield in the past, and WHEREAS the Memorandum of Understanding has been modified to allow its submission yearly with other annual contracts, agreements, and MOU's and WHEREAS the season begins on or about April 25^^ and having the MOU approved yearly will be more efficient. Now therefore be it RESOLVED that the Memorandum of Understanding with the Babe Ruth League, Inc. shall be submitted for approval with other yearly contracts and agreements, and Be it Further TBS 3-21-2011 Page 10 of 10 RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to sign the Memorandum of Understanding with the Babe Ruth League for 2011 season. ' ^ MOVED; Tee-Ann Hunter SECONDED: Eric Levine VOTE: Ayes: Engman, DePaolo, Hunter, Levine, Leary, Goodman and Honwitz Motion passed unanimously. Review of Correspondence - None Consider Adjournment Meeting adjourned upon motion at 7:58 p.m. Submitted/by, Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk