No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2012-03-12Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, March 12, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. t--tv 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Agenda I. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance 2. Report of Tompkins County Legislature 3. Report of Ithaca Common Council 4. Persons to be Heard and Board comments 5. 5:45 p.m. Public Hearing — Proposed Local Law Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code Regarding Deposit and Removal of Fill a. Consider SEQR b. Consider Adoption 6. 5:50 p.m. Public Hearing — Proposed Local Law Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code Regarding Timber Harvesting and Other Requirements in Conservation Zones and Adding Related Definitions a. Consider SEQR b. Consider Adoption 7. Discuss Request for Speed Limit Reduction — Judd Falls Road a. Refer Request to Tompkins County Highway Department 8. Consider Forwarding Comments to the County Regarding Development Plans for Biggs Property 9. Consider Setting Public Hearings Regarding Draft Local Laws Amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code Entitled "Zoning" to Add Stream Setback Provisions and Adding Related Definitions 10. Consider Approval of UAW Collective Bargaining Agreement 11. Consider Approval of a Resolution in Support of a Grant Application by the County for Evaluation of Shared Highway Services 12. Consider Approval of Changes to Fees for Code Enforcement/Building Department 13. Consider Consent Agenda Items a. Approval of Town Board Minutes of February 27, 2012 b. Approval of Town of Ithaca Abstract c. Approval of Bolton Point Abstract d. Approval of Surplus Equipment — Trailer at Public Works e. Approval of Permanent Appointment of Civil Engineer — Dan Thaete / f. Approval of Regular Appointment of Finance Officer — Mike Solvig g. Ratify Provisional Appointment of Distribution Operator Trainee — Weatherby 14. Report of Town Officials Consider Establishing Interview Committees for Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals Positions Consider Appointing Members for the Board of Assessment Review 15. Report of Town Committees 16. Intermunicipal Organizations 17. Review of Correspondence 18. Consider Executive Session to Discuss Collective Bargaining 19. Consider Adjournment TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, being duly sworn, say that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, Ithaca Journal: ! its 00 L ADVERTISEMENT: Notice of Public Hearings TOWN OFfTHACA P Deposit and Removal of Fill and Timber Harvesting PUBLIC NOnCE y The Town Board well hold h public heaitngs on March L 12. 2012 at Its Regular s Meeting held at 215 N. Tkr y, i- ga St. Ithaca on proposed C c Local Laws Amending the i a Zoning Chapter of the 1, Date of Publication: February 28, 2012 ,t Town of Ithaca Cade re, f garding: f �- 5:45 p -m. Deposit and Fie. r- mcval of Fill 5:50 p.m. Timber Harvest. ing, and Other Regilre- Location of Sign Board Used for Posting. Town Hall Lobby ments inConservation Zones and Adding Related Public Notices Board moor lions. - Information regarding these 21{ 5 North Tioga Street t proposed Local Laws can i be obtained from the Town Ithaca, NY 14850 Clerk or on the Town 1 Website at ww w.town.lthaca.ny Paulette Terwilliger Date of Posting: February 28, 2012 TOwncle1k 607-273.1721 1128NO 12 Pau ette Terwilliger Town Clerk STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS: TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 28th day of Februrary. N ry Public - Debra DeAugistine Notary Public - State of NPw York No. 01 DE6148035 ouat-lrfl:d in Tompkins County L My Commission Expires dune 19, 20 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, March 12, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Minutes Board Members Present: Herb Engman, Supervisor; Bill Goodman, Deputy Town Supervisor; Pat Leary, Tee -Ann Hunter, Eric Levine, Rich DePaolo, and Nahmin Horwitz Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning, Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Mike Solvig, Director of Finance, Judy Drake, Director of Human Resources; Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance Mr. Engman opened that meeting at 5:34 p.m. Items were added to the agenda with Board approval Report of Tompkins County Legislature Peter Stein — Mr. Stein reported that the Legislature will be moving to the old courthouse building where the Planning Department is. The space has a lot more room for spectators but does not accommodate all of the staff He also reported that the Legislature has been approached about allowing rifle hunting and although it is a very controversial issue, he felt that it was not a simple one and the data you can see on the DEC website shows very few of the accidents are from someone shooting at an animal and injuring a bystander. He was not sure where in the County the 500 foot distance would be applicable; certainly not where he lives in the northeast area of town. He went on to say that many other counties do allow rifle hunting and Tompkins is the only one along the Pennsylvania border that does not. Mr. Stein noted that discussions on of services is being talked about and the Public Safety Committee has been asked to look at DPW and other committees have been tasked with looking at their areas of oversight Ms. Hunter asked if the Legislature is considering a resolution in support of a living wage and Mr. Stein responded that he did not now. Ms. Leary answered that one is going to be brought up for discussion at the next meeting. Mr. DePaolo asked if Mr. Stein was in support of rifle hunting in all areas or just some and Mr. Stein responded that if the county did pass a law it would certainly not apply to everywhere, but some portions of the county that meet the definition of open space; there must be a definition of that somewhere. Mr. Stein noted that he is not an expert on the topic but that the DEC website has a lot of information available with maps and reports. Mr. Engman asked when the Legislature is planning on moving offices and Mr. Stein said he would let us know. TB 3-12-2012 Page 2 of 23 Persons to be Heard and Board comments Bernadette Bosco addressed the Board regarding 121 Snyder Hill Rd. Ms. Bosco just moved to Ithaca and bought a house in the Eastern Heights neighborhood close to this one and there is lots of noise, constant traffic and she basically described a drug house to the Board. She recently witnessed a fight between two people there and the police had to be called. She said she has called the police many times and she is concerned about her children who catch the school bus right in front of the house. Mr. Engman asked who went to the house after her calls and she stated that no one ever came and talked to her personally, so she did not know if it was the City Police or the Sheriffs. Mr. Engman explained that the Sheriff is responsible for noise complaints which are enforceable under out code and asked her to please let the Board know if they were unresponsive. Mr. DePaolo suggested she talk to the transportation garage to move the bus stop. Ms. Bosco responded that there are other children that pick up the bus there also. Ms. Hunter asked if it was an owner -occupied residence or a rental and Ms. Bosco responded that she did not know for sure, but thought it was a rental. Mr. DePaolo added that there are some monitoring systems through Ithaca College which monitors problems like this and there are some serious consequences if the behavior is not changed. Mr. Engman responded that the Town will look into her complaint and see what we could determine and anything we can do. 5:45 p.m. Public Hearing — Proposed Local Law Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code Regarding Deposit and Removal of Fill The public hearing was opened at 5:58. There was no one wishing to address the Board and the hearing was closed. TB Resolution No. 2012- 046: SEAR: Proposed Adoption of a Local Law Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code Regarding Deposit and Removal of Fill WHEREAS, this action is the adoption of a Local Law Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code Regarding Deposit and Removal of Fill; and WHEREAS, this is a Type I action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) 6 NYCRR Part 617 and Chapter 148 (Environmental Quality Review) of the Town of Ithaca Code, for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board is acting as Lead Agency and the only involved agency in conducting the environmental review with respect to the adoption of said Local Law; and WHEREAS, the Town Board, at a public hearing held on March 12, 2012, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), Parts I and II, for this action, prepared by the Town Planning staff, RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and the implementing regulations thereof and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code, for the TB 3-12-2012 Page 3 of 23 above referenced action as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF II and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Nahmin Horwitz Vote: Ayes — DePaolo, Levine, Engman, Goodman, Leary, Hunter and Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. TB Resolution No. 2012- 047: Resolution Adopting a Local Law Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code Regarding Deposit and Removal of Fill WHEREAS, at its November 12, 2009 meeting, the Planning Committee of the Ithaca Town Board reviewed proposed amendments to the Town's Conservation Zone zoning provisions regarding timber harvesting and the deposit and removal of fill and sent the proposed amendments to the Town's Codes and Ordinances Committee for review and revision; and WHEREAS, the Codes and Ordinances Committee thereafter reviewed and revised the proposed amendments at a number of its meetings, and at its August 24, 2011 meeting, referred to the Town Board its proposed local law entitled "Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code Regarding Deposit and Removal of Fill"; and WHEREAS, one of the purposes of the local law is to clarify and establish stricter requirements for the deposit and removal of fill in all zones of the Town, with particular emphasis on protecting Conservation Zones and wetlands from impacts associated with earth -moving activities; and WHEREAS, at its October 17, 2011 meeting, the Town Board referred the proposed local law to the Planning Board and Conservation Board for review and recommendation; and WHEREAS, at their respective November 1, 2011 and November 3, 2011 meetings, the Planning Board and Conservation Board recommended adoption of the proposed local law, with the Planning Board recommending certain revisions; and WHEREAS, at its January 18, 2012 meeting, the Codes and Ordinances Committee reviewed the suggested revisions from the Planning Board, revised the proposed local law, and referred the proposed local law back to the Town Board for consideration of approval; and WHEREAS, the Town Board reviewed and discussed the proposed local law "Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code Regarding Deposit and Removal of Fill" at its regular meeting on February 12, 2012; and WHEREAS, the Town Board adopted a resolution for a public hearing to be held by said Town on March 12, 2012 at 5:45 p.m., to hear all interested parties on the proposed local law; and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal; and TB 3-12-2012 Page 4 of 23 WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said Local Law, or any part thereof, and WHEREAS, pursuant to article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617 (SEQR), and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code, adoption of said Local Law is a Type I action for which the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, acting as lead agency in an environmental review with respect to adoption of the Local Law, has on March 12, 2012 made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Parts I and II prepared by the Town's Planning staff, for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts I and II referenced above; NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts the Local Law Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code Regarding Deposit and Removal of Fill. Moved: Tee -Ann Hunter Seconded: Rich DePaolo Vote: Ayes — DePaolo, Levine, Engman, Goodman, Leary, Hunter and Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. 5:50 p.m. Public Hearing — Proposed Local Law Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code Regarding Timber Harvesting and Other Requirements in Conservation Zones and Adding Related Definitions The public hearing was opened at 6:00p.m. There was no one wishing to address the Board and the public hearing was closed. TB Resolution No. 2012- 048: SEOR: Proposed Adoption of a Local Law Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code Regarding Timber Harvesting and Other Requirements in Conservation Zones and Adding Related Definitions WHEREAS, this action is the adoption of a Local Law Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code Regarding Timber Harvesting and Other Requirements in Conservation Zones and Adding Related Definitions; and WHEREAS, this is a Type I action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) 6 NYCRR Part 617 and Chapter 148 (Environmental Quality Review) of the Town of Ithaca Code, for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board is acting as Lead Agency and the only involved agency in conducting the environmental review with respect to the adoption of said Local Law; and TB 3-12-2012 Page 5 of 23 WHEREAS, the Town Board, at a public hearing held on March 12, 2012, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), Parts I and II, for this action, prepared by the Town Planning staff, RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and the implementing regulations thereof and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code, for the above referenced action as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF II and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Tee -Ann Hunter Vote: Ayes — DePaolo, Levine, Engman, Goodman, Leary, Hunter and Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. Board Comments Mr. DePaolo thanked the committee for all their work on this law. Mr. Goodman brought the Board's attention to the recommendation from the County requesting that the Town us "Forest Management Plan" instead of "Sustainable Forest Management Plan" because it may cause confusion to those who know the difference between the two. Mr. Marx from the County was in the audience and Mr. Engman asked him to explain. Mr. Marx explained and basically, qualifying for a "Sustainable Forest Management Plan" is a lengthy, expensive process similar to LEED certification for buildings or NOFA certification for organics. Discussion followed. Motion made by Mr. Goodman, seconded by Mr. Levine to remove the word "Sustainable" where it appears as part of "Sustainable Forest Management Plan". Ms. Leary wanted the minutes to reflect that we are encouraging sustainable management and we are removing the word only to avoid confusion. TB Resolution No. 2012- 049: Resolution Adopting a Local Law Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code Regarding Timber Harvesting and Other Requirements in Conservation Zones and Adding Related Definitions WHEREAS, at its November 12, 2009 meeting, the Planning Committee of the Ithaca Town Board reviewed proposed amendments to the Town's Conservation Zone zoning provisions regarding timber harvesting and the deposit and removal of fill and sent the proposed amendments to the Town's Codes and Ordinances Committee for review and revision; and WHEREAS, the Codes and Ordinances Committee thereafter reviewed and revised the proposed amendments at a number of its meetings, and at its August 24, 2011 meeting, referred to the Town Board its proposed local law entitled "Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code Regarding Timber Harvesting and Other Requirements in Conservation Zones and Adding Related Definitions"; and TB 3-12-2012 Page 6 of 23 WHEREAS, the purpose of the local law is to clarify and expand the rules for timber harvesting in Conservation Zones to ensure that the intended purposes of Conservation Zones are met, including the preservation of outstanding natural features and the prevention of unnecessary destruction of woodland areas; and WHEREAS, at its October 17, 2011 meeting, the Town Board referred the proposed local law to the Planning Board and Conservation Board for review and recommendation; and WHEREAS, at their respective November 3, 2011 and November 15, 2011 meetings, the Conservation Board and Planning Board recommended adoption of the proposed local law with certain revisions; and WHEREAS, at its January 18, 2012 meeting, the Codes and Ordinances Committee reviewed the suggested revisions from the Planning Board and Conservation Board, revised the proposed local law, and referred the proposed local law back to the Town Board for consideration of approval; and WHEREAS, the Town Board reviewed, discussed and revised the proposed local law "Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code Regarding Timber Harvesting and Other Requirements in Conservation Zones and Adding Related Definitions" at its regular meeting on February 12, 2012; and WHEREAS, the Town Board adopted a resolution for a public hearing to be held by said Town on March 12, 2012 at 5:50 p.m., to hear all interested parties on the proposed local law; and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said Local Law, or any part thereof, and WHEREAS, pursuant to article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617 (SEQR), and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code, adoption of said Local Law is a Type I action for which the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, acting as lead agency in an environmental review with respect to adoption of the Local Law, has on March 12, 2012 made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Parts I and II prepared by the Town's Planning staff, for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts I and II referenced above; NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts the Local Law Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code Regarding Timber Harvesting and Other Requirements in Conservation Zones and Adding Related Definitions. TB 3-12-2012 Page 7 of 23 Moved: Nahmin Horwitz Seconded: Eric Levine Vote: Ayes — DePaolo, Levine, Engman, Goodman, Leary, Hunter and Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. Discuss Request for Speed Limit Reduction — Judd Falls Road Mr. DePaolo noted that he does not have a problem with this in general because many roads should be lower but wanted to make sure that the Board realizes that there are other areas of the Town that may request the same and this sets a precedent and others areas may request the same. TB Resolution No. 2012 - 050: Petition to Lower Speed Limit on Judd Falls Rd WHEREAS the Town of Ithaca has received a petition from the residents in the area of Judd Falls Road to request a speed limit reduction from 30 mph to 25 mph and WHEREAS the Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan calls for the roads in the hamlet to have a 25 mph speed limit Now therefore be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby request that Tompkins County forward to New York State Department of Transportation Traffic Safety Division the Town's request to reduce the speed limit to 25mph on Judd Falls Road between the intersection with Plantations Road and the intersection with Forest Home Drive in the hamlet of Forest Home Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Eric Levine Vote: Ayes — DePaolo, Levine, Engman, Goodman, Leary, Hunter and Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. Consider Forwarding Comments to the County Regarding Development Plans for Biggs Property Ms. Leary began the discussion stating that the question put to the Board was "can we live with this" and she said she could but she would like to change the first bullet point because she doesn't feel the board "strongly" supports the concept. It goes a little too far and although the second bullet point gets to the concerns, she felt the first sentence was too strong. Ms. Hunter asked what was going to happen with our comments and what are we expecting to happen. Mr. Engman said his assumption is that the County would take them into consideration and if and when they have proposals come in from the RFP, they would go through the Town's normal permitting process. He felt that this did not change the process of the Town regarding whether it fits the zoning and that sort of thing. Ms. Hunter noted that as it is currently configured it does not fit the current zoning and it would require a Planned Development Zone (PDZ) and she asked if we were indicating that these were our only potential concerns with the project as proposed and that if these listed concerns were addressed we would be drafting a PDZ. TB 3-12-2012 Page 8 of 23 Mr. Engman responded that it was his understanding that this was a response to the proposed issuance of an RFP and that is it. Ms. Hunter went on to say that she agrees with all of the comments but the first point is a big one. The location of the project is the biggest concern and the other comments pale in comparison to the fact that it is proposed in a place that the Town is not envisioning for this type of use in our Comprehensive Plan process. Although she understands that we have been offered the opportunity to comment on the draft, there is a big problem with the first point in terms of the location. She asked if there have been further steps taken to address that concern. Mr. Engman commented that the Town has investigated other potential sites because we did say early on that this was not our preferred site and we have talked with a number of other landowners and there don't seem to be any other viable options in the immediate area. We have tried and failed. Mr. Engman added his own comment regarding the first bullet paragraph, in particular the last sentence that reads "as described in the RFP, the viability of the County's proposed housing project seems to be predicated on the success of the County's vision for the hospital node on West Hill which is not currently in accordance with the Town's vision." That seems to be a bit of an over statement in that he felt that we could not know what the County's vision is in terms of this particular project. He thought that it was driven more by the fact that the County happens to own the land and not that it is based on a hospital node. In effect, the Town has been talking about growth areas or nodes, and we have said the one on West Hill should be across the road and in a slightly different site. So he felt that sentence was objectionable because it injects something into our position that is not visible to him. Mr. Engman moved that the last sentence be struck, seconded by Ms. Leary. Mr. DePaolo felt that it was a fair and accurate description of the what the County's draft RFP indicated and he recalled that there are certain assumptions in the RFP, certainly with respect to pedestrian connections, which rely heavily on the development of this medical center node and he felt that is why the word "predicated" was in there because there is a synergy in what the County is hoping to achieve there and if that statement is true, then it is also true that we don't feel as a Town that the medical center is not the best place for a development focus area and those two things are pointed out in that bullet. The Board asked Mr. Marx to speak to the issue. Mr. Marx said he agreed with both speakers in that the RFP does refer to the idea of a larger development in the hospital area and there are other commercial and residential development coming in the area. It is correct that we do refer to a development focus area in our terms but that focus area is evolving and he agrees with Mr. Engman's suggestion in that the viability of the proposal is not predicated on a the success of the hospital node. Mr. DePaolo countered that another sentence says that there will be integration into a large develop focus area which must provide for future pedestrian connections to fully integrate this community and that presupposes that there is a community to connect to. So the viability is somehow tied in with there being a community within walking distance of the development because words like "must" are used in the RFP. Mr. Marx responded that the Cayuga Medical Center, the Cornell property across the road, the Museum of the Earth etc would be part of the community and the hope would be that this area would be developed in such a way TB 3-12-2012 Page 9 of 23 as to provide for pedestrian access. What it will all be is still up in the air, but the whole idea is for the community to be walkable. Ms. Leary commented that if anyone is fit enough to walk from their houses to their cars then they will be able to walk to the other places mentioned Mr. Goodman commented that these are fairly initial comments from us; comments on a draft, preliminary concept. He didn't know if he felt the need to wordsmith this document. These are ideas that have discussed at the Town Committee and Board levels and if this is just going to be used to put out a preliminary RFP going out to a select few developers for comment, we will have additional time to refine our ideas and until there is a detailed proposal, he has no idea what his feelings or comments would be regarding its appropriateness. Nobody should presuppose that these comments are in anyway saying we will accept anything that are a result of the RFP. There will be a lot of factors that will come into play when a specific proposal comes in. Mr. Engman called for a vote on the amendment to strike the last sentence. Nays — Mr. Levine, Mr. DePaolo and Ms. Hunter; Ayes — Mr. Engman, Mr. Goodman, Ms. Leary and Mr. Horwitz. Motion carried. There was no further discussion on the resolution as amended. TB Resolution No. 2012-051: Comments on the Tompkins County Housing Development Proposal for the Biggs Property on Harris B. Dates Drive WHEREAS, the Town has received the draft Preliminary Concept for Biggs Property Development RFP (Request for Proposal) which seeks to develop a mixed use +/- 70 -unit residential community on 29 acres of County -owned land in the Town of Ithaca as part of a United States Environmental Protection Agency Climate Showcase Communities Grant(CSC); and WHEREAS, the Town has also received the Draft Pedestrian Neighborhood Regulations (2/8/12) developed as part of the CSC project; its language intended to be incorporated into a new proposed Planned Development Zone for the County -owned land and facilitate the creation of a neighborhood whose form and layout are designed to enhance a sense of community including an emphasis on the pedestrian rather than the automobile; and WHEREAS, the Town has been asked to comment on the proposed CSC housing development proposal on the County -owned land which is anticipated to require a rezoning by the Ithaca Town Board; and WHEREAS, the Town has carefully considered the County proposal as described in the draft RFP and in the draft Pedestrian Neighborhood Regulations and discussed the proposal and associated documents at a Planning Committee meeting held on February 16, 2012, and at Town Board meetings held on February 27, 2012 and March 12, 2012; TB 3-12-2012 Page 10 of 23 NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED that the Town of Ithaca Town Board submits the following comments on the draft Preliminary Concept for Biggs Property Development RFP (Request for Proposal) and the Draft Pedestrian Neighborhood Regulations: While the Town Board strongly supports the concept of an energy efficient, compact, pedestrian -oriented housing development, the proposed location on Harris B. Dates Drive for this 70 -unit housing development is believed to be less than ideal. This location near the hospital is currently contemplated (through the Town's Comprehensive Plan process) as being most suitable for other institutional type uses, such as an assisted living facility or nursing home, while development of mixed use, dense, walkable and inter -connected neighborhoods are envisioned as being more appropriately located to the south and on the west -side of State Route 96/Trumansburg Road. The proposal to exclude cars from the interior of the neighborhood community and restrict them to parking area(s) along the perimeter, as described in the draft Pedestrian Neighborhood Zoning (PNZ) Regulations, is laudable in its intent to enhance the sense of community and create a pedestrian -friendly environment. The RFP would suggest that the restrictions on cars are based on the lessons learned from the 20 years of developing EcoVillage, however, the maximum parking distance stated in the PNZ of "not more than 1250 feet from the main entry of any building" is at least twice the distance of the furthest residence from the parking areas at EcoVillage and significantly further than the average EcoVillage residence. It is recommended that the PNZ language provide a more realistic expectation for the location of parking relative to the residential units and insure that flexibility is provided so that motor vehicle accessibility can be accommodated as residents' mobility needs change (through aging, accidents, etc). Because the proposed development seeks to attract a broad spectrum of residents and be replicable in other locations, the likelihood of attracting a wide variety of individuals will be enhanced if the accessibility to motor vehicles is made reasonably convenient (i.e. shorter distances). The features of this car -restricted development, as described in the RFP and PNZ documents, would likely appeal to those individuals who for reasons of choice or necessity do not own a car. However, the sparsely populated West Hill area is a largely a car -dependent area with no services outside of the Cayuga Medical Center and some specialized medical offices in the Professional Building complex. The type of development envisioned by the PNZ would be most conducive in the Town's more urbanized or mixed use suburban areas such as the East Hill area. In the RFP point scoring system, a developer can achieve points by establishing passive recreation trails for the new community's use within the undeveloped wooded portion of the County property. The RFP should also consider including points for creating or contributing to a connection to the Black Diamond Trail. Pedestrian access for transit service will be an important component of this proposal and the RFP should acknowledge this and include a requirement for the siting of a bus shelter at the nearest possible bus access point (i.e. at the professional building driveway and Harris B. Dates Drive). TB 3-12-2012 Page 11 of 23 The proposed development would potentially be an ideal carshare location and exploring the possibility of having a dedicated spot built into the community should be included in the RFP. The RFP does not address how the provision of 20% affordability would be enforced and administered, nor does it indicate intent to ensure affordability over the long-term for subsequent buyers. This will need to be clarified and detailed in any future Planned Development Zone. The property seems to have a potentially inflated assessed value which could impact development interest in the project and the County's expectations for selling the land. According to Tompkins County Assessment, the Harris B. Dates Drive property is listed as having an appraised value of $500,000 for the 25.5 acres of undeveloped land. The appraisal currently classifies the property use as vacant commercial. The term "non -affordable" is used on page 2 (5th bulleted item) which states "Develop at least half of the "non -affordable" units so they would be affordable to middle income households..." This should be replaced with the term "remaining" rather than "non -affordable." Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Bill Goodman Vote: Ayes — DePaolo, Levine, Engman, Goodman, Leary, Hunter and Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. Consider Setting Public Hearings Regarding Draft Local Laws Amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code Entitled "Zoning" to Add Stream Setback Provisions and Adding Related Definitions Mr. DePaolo had a number of comments and questions Section D — Add a reference to the Town website Page 9, Section e3 Interrelationship between el and e3 and the difference between "maintenance" and "repair". Mr. Goodman reviewed what the committee talked about and that it comes down to a judgment call that is appealable to the Board. There is no clear way to delineate the two it is a case-by-case judgment. The inference is that no maintenance or repair can change the footprint of structure, at that point it becomes a renovation. Mr. Goodman thought the paragraphs above gave additional details that helps make it clear that maintenance and repairs are allowed. Page 11, 9 — Reference to tree cutting and Mr. DePaolo asked if we should reference our Timber Harvesting Law. Mr. Goodman thought the Stream Setback Law is even stricter than the Timber Harvesting so this would supersede in cases where they conflict. TB 3-12-2012 Page 12 of 23 Pg 13 — The verbiage "sealed container" was discussed. What exactly is a "sealed container" and why can't you have a compost pile such as the common 3 -sided enclosures. Discussion followed. Motion made by Ms. Leary, seconded by Ms. Hunter to change the end of the sentence to read " unless they are contained in a manner that does not allow leaching." Motion passed unanimously. Pg 14 10a Mr. DePaolo was not clear on who would make the determinations and using what criteria will be used to determine what design would not lead to downstream siltation. Discussion followed. Mr. Weber was concerned that there are different reviews by different professions. Ms. Brock noted that Mr. Hebdon, Town Engineer did review the draft law and did not have an issue with this particular but Mr. Weber thought he may have been looking at it from a different perspective than what the Board was discussing now. Mr. Engman noted that both Planning and Codes would be looking at any plans and any determination made by either of them is appealable to the Town Board. Mr. Engman asked if there were any additional changes or discussion regarding the substance of the law because the motion on the floor is to set a public hearing. There were none. TB Resolution No. 2012 - 052: Setting a Public Hearing Regarding a Local Law Amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled "Zoning" to Add Stream Setback Provisions and Related Definitions BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will hold a public hearing at the Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York on the 9th day of April 2012 at 5:45 p.m for the purpose of providing full opportunity for citizen participation and input in the preparation of a proposed local law amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code, titled "Zoning" to add Stream Setback Provisions and Related Definitions 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 and to post a copy of same on the signboard of the Town of Ithaca. Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Pat Leary Vote: Ayes — Goodman, Leary, DePaolo, Levine, Engman, , Hunter and Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. The Board discussed having large and/or complex draft laws as discussion items at Study Sessions. Consider Approval of UAW Collective Bargaining Agreement Mr. Horwitz had a question about job rate and Ms. Drake explained. TB 3-12-2012 Page 13 of 23 TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012 - 053: Approval of Contract with the United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 2300 for the Non -Management Technical, Office and Clerical Staff of the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission WHEREAS, August 1, 2011 the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission's (Commission) received a letter requesting recognition of the non -managerial technical, office and clerical employees to be represented by the United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 2300 for the purposes of collective bargaining; and WHEREAS, the Commission, in good faith, on August 4, 2011 recognized UAW Local 2300 as the exclusive representative for collective bargaining purposes of all Account Clerk Typist(s) and Technical Services Coordinator, excluding all seasonal or temporary employees; and WHEREAS, on February 27, 2012, the Commission's negotiating team reached tentative agreement on a contract with the UAW's negotiating team; and WHEREAS, the employees in the bargaining unit ratified the tentative contract on March 5, 2012; and WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed and approved the tentative contract at the March 8, 2012 meeting of the Commission; and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Town Board has reviewed the tentative contract and determined it to be acceptable; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Town of Ithaca Town Board does hereby approve the tentative contract between the UAW Local 2300 and the Commission; and, be it further RESOLVED, the Town of Ithaca Town Board authorizes the Commission's negotiating team to sign the contract as presented. Moved: Tee -Ann Hunter Seconded: Herb Engman Vote: Ayes — Hunter, Engman, DePaolo, Levine, Goodman, Leary, and Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. Consider Approval of a Resolution in Support of a Grant Application by the County for Evaluation of Shared Highway Services Mr. Engman noted that this is the item Mr. Stein referred to and TCCOG has initiated a proposal for a review of existing and possible shared services. It was stressed that this is a study and does not lock or in any way imply the Town's commitment to doing anything. This would look at what we are doing now, document it, and see if there is anything we are missing. We have numerous shared services and this would be an overall review. TB 3-12-2012 Page 14 of 23 Mr. Engman moved and Mr. DePaolo seconded adding a WHEREAS to reference Tompkins County Council of Governments to make it clear. Unanimous. Motion made by Mr. Engman, seconded by Ms. Leary to add another WHEREAS stating that Tompkins County would agree to administer the grant. Unanimous. Mr. Engman noted that the County has no authority to make a municipality do any recommendation that may come out of this study. TB Resolution No. 2012- 054: Supporting a NYS DOS Local Government Efficiency Grant Application to Study the Feasibility of Shared Services for Tompkins County and Local Roads for Cost Savings and Efficiency Measures WHEREAS, the Tompkins County Council of Governments has considered highway efficiencies in recent years, and WHEREAS, the New York State Department of State has available funds for the 2011-2012 Local Government Efficiency Grant Program, and WHEREAS, this grant program can assist the Town of Ithaca in identifying opportunities to cooperate with other local governments in the area to reduce the cost of providing services, and WHEREAS, the cost to maintain local roadways and bridges represents a large share of all municipal and county budgets and property tax levies, and WHEREAS, at a time when the cost to maintain highway infrastructure is growing rapidly and local budgets are tightly constrained, it is increasingly difficult to maintain basic highway infrastructure at a cost that can be supported by local budgets, and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca and its Highway Department would benefit from reducing the cost of adequately repairing and maintaining these roadways, and WHEREAS, a study to evaluate the county and local roads system and identify areas where inter -municipal cooperation, shared services, or redistributions of responsibilities could result in a more efficient system of providing quality highway services and lower costs for the repair and maintenance of existing roads, and WHEREAS, Tompkins County has agreed to administer the grant if awarded, and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca, on behalf of its citizens, supports this effort and grant application for approximately $100,000, with a required local cash match of 10% that shall be allocated among the participating municipalities. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca supports the County and Local Road Local Government Efficiency Grant Program application, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca agrees, if awarded, to participate and assist in all phases of the County and Local Road Shared Service Local Government Efficiency Grant Study. TB 3-12-2012 Page 15 of 23 Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Rich DePaolo Vote: Ayes — Goodman, DePaolo, Engman, Leary, Horwitz, Levine and Hunter Motion passed unanimously Consider Approval of Changes to Fees for Code Enforcement/Building Department Ms. Hunter thanked Mr. Bates for reviewing and updating his fee schedule. TB Resolution No. 2012- 055: Amend the Town of Ithaca Fee Schedule WHEREAS, TB Resolution No. 2009-227 adopted the establishment and setting of fees by town board resolution; and WHEREAS, the Director of Code Enforcement has reviewed the fees established for the Code Enforcement Department and made recommended changes to the Operations and Personnel Committee; and WHEREAS, the Operations and Personnel Committee, at its March 6, 2012, reviewed the recommendations of the Director of Code Enforcement and recommends modifying the Code Enforcement fees of the Town of Ithaca fee schedule to the Town Board; Now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the attached Code Enforcement Fee Schedule, and directs the Director of Code Enforcement to amend the Town of Ithaca Fee Schedule to show these changes effective March 12, 2012. Moved: Tee -Ann Hunter Seconded: Tee -Ann Hunter Vote: Ayes — DePaolo, Levine, Engman, Goodman, Leary, Hunter and Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. Consider Authorizing Human Resources Manager to Act as Appointing Authority Mr. Engman explained the background of the resolution; essentially authorizing Human Resources to approves hires for filing with Civil Service. The Town has always done this, but did not have the resolution on file with the County/Civil Service. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-056: Authorize Human Resources Manager to act as Appointing Authority WHEREAS, the Town Supervisor, as the official appointing authority is responsible for and authorized to hire and pay employees, file discipline and termination charges, file payroll certifications, and all other required filings by civil service; and TB 3-12-2012 Page 16 of 23 WHEREAS, in the Town of Ithaca the Town Board takes formal action on all permanent and provisional appointments of all regular staff for the Town and Bolton Point Water System, including any action that changes a rate of pay, hours or level benefit, unless the action was part of a disciplinary action; and WHEREAS, the Human Resources Manager has been responsible for the signing and filing of civil service forms and actions as required follow up to all Town and Bolton Point actions for many years; and WHEREAS, Tompkins County Civil Service has developed an on-line application and administration system, which requires forms to be completed using an electronic authorization by the "Appointing Authority" which is the Town Supervisor; and WHEREAS, the County is requesting board action by municipalities if they wish to authorize a Level 1 user that is not the official appointing authority (Town Supervisor); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Town of Ithaca Town Board does hereby authorize the Human Resources Manager to act as a Level 1 Appointing Authority for internet filing of actions for Civil Service; and be it further RESOLVED, this action does not diminish the authority of the Town Supervisor as the official Appointing Authority for the Town of Ithaca. Moved: Tee -Ann Hunter Seconded: Nahmin Horwitz Vote: Ayes — DePaolo, Levine, Engman, Goodman, Leary, Hunter and Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. Discuss and Consider Resolution Opposing a County Request to Permit Rifle Hunting for Big Came in Tompkins County Mr. Engman gave the background and noted that the Tompkins County Legislature will be considering a request to allowing rifle hunting at their next meeting. TB Resolution No. 2012 - 057: Opposing a County Request to Permit Rifle Hunting for Big Game in Tompkins County WHEREAS the Tompkins County Legislature has been asked to request from the State permission for hunters to use rifles to hunt big game within the County and WHEREAS rifles have the capability to shoot bullets that can travel miles in distance compared to the shorter distance of the currently allowed shotguns and TB 3-12-2012 Page 17 of 23 WHEREAS shotguns have the advantage of requiring closer contact with the intended target, thus improving better identification of the target and what is behind it and WHEREAS for decades hunters have successfully used shotguns for killing big game and WHEREAS there is no compelling need to introduce longer -shooting rifles for big game and WHEREAS the Town of Ithaca, and major portions of the rest of the County, are relatively highly populated and thus present more people and property that might be affected by stray bullets and WHEREAS the use of rifles may prompt some property owners to deny access to their land for hunting Now therefore be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca expresses its opposition to permitting big game hunting with rifles in Tompkins County and FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Board recommends to the County Legislature that it not request permission from the State to allow big game hunting with rifles and FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be immediately conveyed by the Town Clerk to the Tompkins County Legislature. Moved: Herb Engman Seconded: Rich DePaolo Vote: Ayes — Goodman, DePaolo, Engman, Leary, Horwitz, Levine and Hunter Motion passed unanimously Discuss Living Wage Mr. Engman noted that at the rally this afternoon, there was some discussion about whether there should be an emphasis on a living wage in NYS rather than just a minimum wage. Mr. Engman thought the Board should discuss and consider the difference and support for it. He went on to explain that the basic argument of the Worker Center is that the minimum wage is not a wage that anyone can really live on; a person can't buy food and gasoline and still buy health insurance. That being said, a living wage is designed specifically so you can do that. The difference in dollars is close to $5.00. The minimum wage right now is $7.25 and a living wage in Tompkins County is $12.78; quite a difference. At the State level, Mr. Silver has proposed an increase in the minimum wage to $8.50; however Mr. Engman noted that that would not even cover inflation over the past years when there was no increase. At a national level, the President is proposing a $9.50 an hour minimum wage. New York can act independently to set a minimum TB 3-12-2012 Page 18 of 23 wage and nearby states are considering forming a consortium to consider the same level of increase at the same time to eliminate the argument that one state competes against another. Mr. Engman concluded by noting that there is a lot of activity on this topic right now and at the last meeting the board passed a resolution in support of raising the minimum wage. The question now is do we want to discuss the possibility of supporting a living wage in place of a minimum wage. Discussion: Ms. Leary added that she spoke to Pete Myers about this and they chose the $12.78 figure because they calculated the cost of the State sponsored health plan along with food and gasoline. She reminded the board that when they passed the resolution last month, they talked about how the minimum wage would have increased to over $10 if it had kept up with inflation from 40 years ago. Ms. Leary noted that she asked Mr. Myers at the rally if the Living Wage Coalition literally wants to raise the minimum wage to the living wage rate and he responded that they have not taken it that far, but that they want support of the principle of a living wage. Mr. Horwitz asked how this minimum would apply to high school students and Ms. Leary said there is no difference right now and one doesn't know how important that high schooler's income is to the family he lives with. Ms. Leary talked about child labor laws and the different schools of thought on whether and how much children should work. Mr. DePaolo wondered if the living wage amount is based on a single -person household and Ms. Leary thought it was. Mr. DePaolo went on say that he would feel more comfortable with this as an agenda item that has been posted in advance and also by receiving some research materials supporting what is being said. He felt the Board would benefit from time to consider and giving people the opportunity to see it on the agenda and speak if they would like. Mr. DePaolo stated that this is not as simple an issue as it seems and those members who are actively involved in the issue understand it better and are more passionate about it. Mr. Engman asked Ms. Leary if Mr. Myers had any kind of a timeline to determine if the board had additional time to think about this and Ms. Leary responded that she did not ask him that particularly, but felt that the movement around the minimum wage legislation is in the Legislature right now. She stated that she has volumes of material on the topic and she did forward a lot of that in preparation for the resolution in support of an increased minimum wage last month. Mr. DePaolo asked what action the board was talking about taking here and Mr. Engman responded that there is no draft resolution prepared and the discussion is whether there is any interest in trying to do something tonight or not. Ms. Hunter agreed with Mr. DePaolo's thoughts, saying that she would like to see it on an agenda and have additional information. She stated she has a deep concern about the ability of young people to get a job and also on small businesses' ability to hire young people. There is no apprenticeship program or affordable higher education here in the US as there are in other countries and young people need to work. Ms. Hunter stated that she would like information on the ability and willingness of employers to pay $12 or more to a minor with no training or TB 3-12-2012 Page 19 of 23 experience to perform a menial job. She asked Ms. Leary if there was a youth component to this initiative that would address those kinds of concerns and Ms. Leary did not think there was. Ms. Hunter went on to say that she would certainly be willing to consider it, but not in a light or uninformed way and she would also like to know how we feel we are going to have an impact on this issue and is it worth our time and energy on this or is it like throwing something in the wind. Mr. Goodman stated that he agrees with the principle of a living wage but thought maybe the board could invite Mr. Myers to a meeting. Ms. Hunter thought an opposing opinion would be good to have also so both sides of the issue could be heard. Mr. Engman stated that he has been immersed in this for many years and the argument has always been that you are going to destroy young people's ability to get a job but it has never happened. He added that given today's economy, there is no reason a young persons' ability to get a job should in some way trump an older person's effort to get a job who is more likely to be supporting a family. Ms. Hunter thought that ideologically it is a great idea, but she is not sure we have the support structure in place for children and young adults that may really be affected by this. Mr. Levine spoke about one point that is often overlooked in that in that businesses who do not pay a good wage or a living wage are actually transferring the costs to the whole because many people who do not earn a living wage are on public assistance which we all pay for. Mr. DePaolo asked what the Board was being asked to support; the idea of a living wage or an actual number. He went on to talk about the ripple effect and the increased cost of wages being passed on to all consumers. Mr. Engman suggested that unless someone would like to put a resolution on the table, it should be put on the study session agenda so someone could construct a resolution with supporting evidence for the board's consideration. Discussion followed with Ms. Hunter asking if there were any studies on the issue of youth employment and extending a living wage to 14 and 15 year olds and other minors where a living wage, higher than a minimum wage, was instituted with no differences for minors and what happened. Ms. Hunter felt that the issue is a national one and out of the Board's purview putting those members who feel uninformed or not as educated on the subject in the position of voting for something they truly do not understand or voting against it and seeming to oppose something that on the surface sounds very good. Consider Consent Agenda Items TB Resolution No. 2012-058: Consent Agenda BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the following Consent Agenda items: TB 3-12-2012 Page 20 of 23 a. Approval of Town Board Minutes of February 27, 2012 b. Approval of Town of Ithaca Abstract c. Approval of Bolton Point Abstract d. Approval of Surplus Equipment — Trailer at Public Works e. Approval of Permanent Appointment of Civil Engineer — Dan Thaete f. Approval of Regular Appointment of Finance Officer — Mike Solvig g. Ratify Provisional Appointment of Distribution Operator Trainee — Weatherby Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Rich DePaolo Vote: Ayes — DePaolo, Levine, Engman, Goodman, Leary, Hunter and Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. TB Resolution No. 2012- 058a: Approval of Minutes of February 27, 2012 WHEREAS, the draft minutes of the February 27, 2012 of the Town Board have been submitted for review and approval; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board hereby approves the submitted minutes as the final minutes of the February 27, 2012 of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca. TB Resolution No. 2012 - 058b: 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. 1815 -1853 General Fund Town wide 98,356.98 General Fund Part Town 4,736.25 Highway Fund Part Town 9,717.52 Water Fund 1,459.99 Sewer Fund 985.22 Town Hall Roof Replacement 8,502.00 Fire Protection Fund 253.910.00 TOTAL 377,667.96 TB 3-12-2012 Page 21 of 23 TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-058c: Bolton Point Abstract WHEREAS, the following numbered vouchers for the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission have been presented to the governing 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. Voucher Numbers: 788-848 Check Numbers: 13663-13723 Burdick Hill Tanks Project $ 200.00 Operating Fund $ 78,167.24 TOTAL $ 78,367.24 Less Prepaid $ 5,514.19 TOTAL $ 72,853.05 TB Resolution No. 2012- 058d: Scrap of Unuseable Item -Public Works Department— Owens Trailer WHEREAS: the Town of Ithaca has a 1990 Owens Trailer that is not road worthy and is in disrepair; and WHEREAS: the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department currently has several useable trailers; and now therefore be it, RESOLVED: the governing Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby declare the above- described equipment to be in permanent disrepair and no longer useable by the Town; and FURTHER RESOVED: that the above described equipment be scrapped with the money from the sale going into the Cash Reserve—Highway Equipment account. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-058e: Permanent Appointment of Civil Engineer. WHEREAS, the Town Board on August 8, 2011 provisionally appointed Daniel Thaete, PE, to the position of Civil Engineer, pending results from the next civil service exam; and WHEREAS, the Tompkins County Personnel has provided the certificate of eligible listing for the title of Civil Engineer, and Daniel Thaete was one of the top three candidates; TB 3-12-2012 Page 22 of 23 NOW, THEREFORE, BE ITRESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca does hereby appoint Daniel Thaete, retroactive to February 27, 2012, to the position of Civil Engineer in the permanent status with no current change in compensation or benefits; and, be it further RESOLVED, a twenty six (26) week probationary period applies, with no further action by the Town if there is successful completion of the probationary period as determined by the Highway Superintendent. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-058f. Permanent Appointment of Finance Officer. WHEREAS, the Town Board provisionally appointed Michael Solvig to the position of Finance Officer effective December 28, 2010, pending results from the next civil service exam; and WHEREAS, the Tompkins County Personnel has provided the certificate of eligible listing for the title of Finance Officer, and Michael Solvig was one of the top three candidates; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca does hereby appoint Michael Solvig, retroactive to March 5, 2012, to the position of Finance Officer in the permanent status with no current change in compensation or benefits; and, be it further RESOLVED, a twenty six (26) week probationary period applies, with no further action by the Town if there is successful completion of the probationary period as determined by the Town Supervisor. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-0582: Provisional Appointment of Distribution Operator Trainee- SCLIWC. WHEREAS, the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission has a vacancy in the Distribution Operator Trainee position in the Distribution Department; and WHEREAS, the Commission on March 8, 2012, appointed Gregg Weatherby to the provisional position, effective March 19, 2012 from an open recruitment process; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca does hereby ratify the Commission's appointment of Gregg Weatherby to the position of Distribution Operator Trainee in the provisional status, effective March 19, 2012 at $16.04 per hour with full time benefits; and be it further RESOLVED, the candidate must take and be a reachable candidate from the next civil service exam for the position. TB 3-12-2012 Page 23 of 23 f Report of Town Officials Consider Establishing Interview Committees for Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals Positions Mr. Engman noted that we now have a pool of 3 or 4 people interested in the open positions and an interview committee needs to be established. Mr. DePaolo, Mr. Goodman, Mr. Engman and Ms. Drake along with Ms. Ritter and Mr. Bates and the chair of the board. Consider Appointing Members for the Board of Assessment Review Mr. Levine and Mr. DePaolo agreed to serve again and Mr. Horwitz agreed to be the alternate. Report of Town Committees — None Intermunicipal Organizations — None Review of Correspondence — None Consider Executive Session to discuss the employment history of a particular person and an update on collective bargaining Motion made by Mr. DePaolo, seconded by Mr. Goodman (7:58p.m.) unanimous Motion made to re-enter open session made by Ms. Hunter, seconded by Mr. DePaolo (8:09p.m.) unanimous. / Motion made to adjourn by Ms. Hunter, seconded by Mr. Goodman (8:10p.m.) unanimous Submitted Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Fees BUILDING PERMIT (projects other than the installation of heating units) Value of Improvement Fee $1 - $2,500.99 $50.00 $2,501 - $5,000.99 $60.00 $5,001 - $10,000.99 $65.00 $10,001 - $20,000.99 $80.00 $20,001 - $30,000.99 $150.00 $30,001 - $50,000.99 $200.00 $50,001 - $100,000.99 $300.00 $100,001 - $150,000.99 $600.00 $150,001 - $250,000.99 $900.00 $250,001 - $350,000.99 $1,200.00 $350,001 - $500,000.99 $1,600.00 $500,001 - $750,000.99 $2,000.00 $750,001 - $1,000,000.99 $2,500.00 $1,000,001 -$2,500,000.99 $4,500.00 $2,500,001 - $5,000,000.99 $6,500.00 $5,000,001 - $10,000,000.99 $8,500.00 10,000,001 - $20,000,000.99 $10,000.00 Over $20,000,000.99 $0.60 per $1,000 value of improvement ELECTRICAL PERMIT Residential 0 & 2 family homes and associated structures) Application fee $100, includes 2 site inspections. Additional inspections and in -office time, $35 per 1/2 hour. Commercial Electrical Service Application fee $200, includes vehicle mounted generators. Inspection and in -office time, $35 per 1/2 hour. Portable generator $50 for 1 visit, $70 per hour thereafter. OPERATING PERMIT Type of Building Fee Mobile Home Park $200.00 annually Multiple dwelling, 3 to 5 units $100.00/building Multiple dwelling, 6 to 10 units $150.00/building Multiple dwelling, 11 or more units $200.00/building Non -Residential use $100.00/building Installation of Heating Unit FIREWORKS Heating Unit Size Fee Value of Display Fee Up to 185,000 BTU $50.00 $1 _$10,000 $150.00 185,000 to 1,000,000 BTU $150.00 $10,001 - $50,000 $300.00 Over 1,000,000 BTU $500.00 Over $50,000 $500.00 TENT PERMIT $50.00 SIGN PERMIT $100.00 WORKING WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT The fees set forth shall be doubled if work is commenced prior to the issuance of a necessary permit or if work exceeds work permitted by an issued building or foundation permit. BUILDING PERMIT EXTENSION The first extension shall be the greater of $50.00 or 50% of the building permit fee. Subsequent extensions shall be equal to the original building permit fee. FOUNDATION WORK ONLY The greater of $100.00 or 50% of the fee for the building permit, calculated on the estimated full value of the entire building. (Non- refundable and is not credited towards building permit fee.) TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY The greater of $100.00 or 50% of the building permit fee. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS $100.00 with letter from property owner requesting certificate. FIRE SAFETY INSPECTION AND RE -INSPECTION $50.00 for the first hour (1 -hour minimum), $30 per additional hour. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION $100 per appearance; $30.00 additional meeting; $50.00 additional public hearing. FILL PERMIT $100.00; additional fees apply if Zoning Board of Appeals and/or Planning Board approval is necessary. Revised 03/07/2011, 08/08/2011, 10/17/2011, 03/2012, 12/2014 ?�1 Planning Department Report — For January & February 2012 Submitted to the Ithaca Town Board for March 12, 2012 meeting Planning Board — Development Reviews Park Lane — 23 -Lot Subdivision — Consideration of a sketch plan proposal for a 23 -lot subdivision off Park Lane south of John Street (Medium Density Residential Zone). The proposal involves the construction of two new roads to provide access for 22 new residential lots and one lot reserved for stormwater facilities. The proposed Edwin Drive is located on the west side of Park Lane and will contain 6 residential lots while the proposed Brian Drive is on the east side of Park Lane and contains 16 residential lots.. This project was originally submitted to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in 2007 for preliminary subdivision approval, but did not receive any approvals. William P. Frandsen, Owner/Applicant; Theodore E. Lauve, P.E., Agent. Conifer Senior Living on West Hill (West Hill Drive) — Consideration of preliminary site plan and subdivision approval, but no approvals were granted. The Planning Board requested that the applicant return with more complete plans and in particular address insufficiencies related to stormwater management, relocation of public utilities, and a variety of site and architectural details. The proposal involves developing approximately 5 acres of a +/-33 acre parcel for a new 3 -story, 72 unit senior housing facility (21,000 +/- square foot footprint) on a new road off of West Hill Drive. The proposal would also involve the rezoning of approximately 4.796 +/- acres e0ft\ from Medium Density Residential Zone to a new Multiple Residence Zone. Cornell University, Property Owner; Conifer Realty, LLC, Applicant; Passero Associates, Agent. Ithaca Biodiesel Cooperative (Elmira Road/NYS Route 13) — Consideration of a sketch plan proposal for the Ithaca Biodiesel Cooperative to convert an existing building and site to accommodate a new biodiesel business at 615 Elmira Road (Light Industrial Zone). The project involves adding outdoor storage tanks, concrete containment dikes, an open canopy on the west side of the building as well as new signage. Ithaca Realty, LLC, Property Owner, Ithaca Biodiesel Cooperative, Inc., Applicant; James Jones -Rounds, Agent. Poole Road, 2 -Lot Subdivision — Received preliminary and final subdivision approval for a 2 -lot subdivision located at 134 and 128 Poole Road (Low Density Residential Zone). The proposal involved subdividing 0.151 +/- acres, which contains an existing garage, from the southeast corner of 134 Poole Road, which will then be consolidated with 128 Poole Road. Richard J. Krizek and Janet Krizek, Owners/Applicants. LaTourelle (1150 Danby Road) — Provided a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for sign variances for the LaTourelle Resort (Planned Development Zone No. 1). The recommendation was to keep three existing entrance signs near Danby Road and the three existing awnings with lettering. Walter Wiggins, Owner; Scott Wiggins, Applicant. Northview Water Tank (Coddington Road) — Granted preliminary and final site plan approval for the replacement of the Northview water tank located on the west side of Coddington Road (350 Coddington Road) at the end of an access drive. The project involves replacing the existing 200,000 gallon steel water tank (34' in diameter and 30' in height) with a new 500,000 gallon glass lined water tank (48' in diameter and 39' in height) in the same location. The project also involves grading, modifications to the existing fence and several new stormwater elements. Ithaca College, Property Owner; Town of Ithaca, Applicant. Other Actions of the Planning Board: • Election of Hollis Erb as Vice -Chair for 2012. • Discussion of a letter from Integrated Acquisition and Development that commented on the Board's conduct at the December 20, 2011 meeting during consideration of the proposed temporary contractor parking at the former location of the Courtside Racquet and Fitness Center off Pine Tree Road. • Discussion of upcoming projects at the Town of Ithaca Public Works Facility with Creig Hebdon, Town Engineer. Comprehensive Plan Update/Comprehensive Planning Committee The Comprehensive Plan Committee completed its review of Chapter 2 - Goals and Recommendations and moved on to the Chapter 3 - Future Land Use Plan. The Future Land Use Plan includes a map of proposed land uses in the Town and associated descriptions of the proposed land use categories. Planning Committee At the January meeting committee members reviewed the results from the transportation modeling analysis provided by Tom Mank of the Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation Council. The modeling was based on several development scenarios produced by Planning staff for areas on West Hill area currently contemplated for a Neighborhood Plan (through the Comprehensive Plan process). The committee requested additional information from Tom Mank which is anticipated to be available for the March committee meeting. For the February meeting the committee discussed the County RFP (Request for Proposals) for the Biggs property development concept and the associated draft Pedestrian Neighborhood Regulations. The committee's comments were provided to the Town Board for the February Study Session meeting. Codes and Ordinance Committee The committee recently completed work on the Stream Setback Law, modifications to the Conservation Zone concerning timber harvesting, and the fill permit modifications. All of these local laws will or have been forwarded to the Town Board for consideration of enactment. Conservation Board The Board finalized and submitted their comments to NYS DEC (by the January deadline) concerning the revise Draft SGEIS for natural gas drilling. The Board sent out press releases and will be making a decision on the Richard B. Fischer Award. In addition to several long-standing committees (Environmental Review Committee, Scenic Resources, and R. Fischer Award) the Board has established two new committees including the Communications Committee (which will include the R. Fischer Award) and the Coy Glen Conservation Zone Committee. Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan John Brennan of NYS Agriculture and Market contacted staff to discuss the Town's Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan. Mr. Brennan assured staff that the Plan will be accepted by the State, but also offered suggestions for the Town's Plan, including the idea of initiating a Transfer of Development Rights program as a means of protecting farmland. 2 1 Other Department Activities • Indian Creek Farm Agricultural Conservation Easement — Staff recently met (extended phone interview) with NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets staff to go over the draft easement language and preliminary site plan map for the Indian Creek Farms. Ag and Market staff provided feedback and requested various modifications to the document. Staff will be meeting with Attorney for the Town to discuss the necessary changes. • Staff attended the Tompkins County Agricultural Summit — Understanding the Economic Impact of Tompkins County Agriculture (2/24/12) held in Dryden. The summit featured various speakers, including area farmers. • Staff met with members of the Conservation Board's newly formed Coy Glen Conservation Zone Committee to provide a status on the work done thus far and the work needed to move the proposal forward. • Staff attended a meeting coordinated by the IT Department of Tompkins County. Various County (GIS, Planning, Highway, Assessment) and City staff attended the meeting and discussed the options and the funding issues related to obtaining high resolution aerial Pictometry imagery covering the Tompkins County area. • Planning staff attend the webinar — Opportunities and Challenges in Rural Tourism Planning, 3 617.20 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially -large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially -large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. THIS AREA FOR LEAD AGENCY USE ONLY DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: E Part 1 E Part 2 Part 3 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. FIB, 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. EIC. 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. *A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Amending Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding the Deposit and Removal of Fill Narne of Action Town of Ithaca Town Board Name of Lead Agency Herbert Engman Town of Ithaca Supervisor Print or Typp. Name of RPspnnsihle Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Agnure of ponsible ficer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) oh 1)__/ �`— Date Page 1 of 21 PART 1 --PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the ! application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. Name of Action Amending Zoning Chapter of the Town Code Regarding the Deposit and Removal of Fill Location of Action (include Street Address, Municipality and County) The zoning changes will affect areas throughout the Town. Name of Applicant/Sponsor Town of Ithaca Address 215 N. Tioga Street City/ PO Ithaca State NY Zip Code 14850 Business Telephone 607-273-1747 Name of Owner (if different) n/a Address City / PO Business Telephone Description of Action: State Zip Code The proposed action is the enactment by the Town of Ithaca Town Board of a local law that would amend the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code by clarifying, expanding and establishing stricter requirements for the deposit and removal of fill within all zones in the Town, with particular provisions for protection of lands within Conservation Zones or in proximity to a wetland. Page 2 of 21 Please Complete Each Question --Indicate N.A. if not applicable i*" A. SITE DESCRIPTION \Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present Land Use: Urban ❑ Industrial ® Commercial 0 Residential (suburban) ® Rural (non-farm) Forest ® Agriculture ❑ Other The zoning amendments will affect all zoning designations in the Town. 2. Total acreage of project area: n/a acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24,25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) r4� Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION n/a acres acres n/a acres acres n/a acres acres n/a acres acres n/a acres acres n/a acres acres n/a acres acres Other (Indicate type) n/a acres acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Not applicable; a high variability of soil types exist within each area. a. Soil drainage: r Well drained % of site ElModerately well drained % of site. Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? acres (see 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? F■ Yes ❑ No Areas of bedrock outcropping are common in parts of the a. What is depth to bedrock (in feet) Town and occurrences are possible in each of the areas. 5, Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: Not applicable, slope percentages highly variable within each area. 170-10% % 1710-15%-% M 15% or greater % 6. Is project substantiall contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places? ■ Yes ® No Enfield Falls Mill & House at R.Treman State Park are within a Conservation Zone. 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? 1:1 Yes No 8. What is the depth of the water table? (in feet) Not applicable, water table is variable within each area. 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? MYes ® No Not applicable 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Fol Yes ®No Hunting is likely in Conservation Zones. Page 3 of 21 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or- endangered? EYes 1:1 No According to NYS DEC Heritage Program (Nature Explorer website) there are several species of endangered plants/anim whose presence in the Town have been documented. The proposed action will have no adverse impact on these species. / 1 12. Are there any unique or ur rMlYes ❑ No . Describe: on .e., Lands within the Town vary significantly, but include gorges and waterfalls; many of the gorges are considered geologically significant for having walls of exposed shale and sandstone from the Devonian age. 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? nYes ❑ No If es, explain: Several NYS and Town parks and trails exist within the project areas. /"tel 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? E]Yes ®No The Town's draft Scenic Resource Inventory & Analysis report (dated 12/7/11) identifies important scenic views located throughout the Town. 15. Streams within or contiguous to oroiect area: 16. Streams of various sizes exist throughout the Town and occur within the areas addressed in this action. a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary LaKes, ponas, wetiana areas witnin or contiguous to project area: Ponds and wetlands occur in many areas of the Town and are especially prevalent within Conservation Zoned areas. b. Size (in acres): Page 4 of 21 w 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ❑ Yes ® No Includes areas served and not served by utilities. a. If YES, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ®Yes ®No b. If YES, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ®Yes ®No 18. Is the site located inf4Yes gricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25 -AA, Section 303 and 304? ® No proposed action will apply to some areas designated as Agricultural District. 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? ®Yes FJNo The proposed action may apply in the future to an area designated as a CEA; the Town's one CEA is proposed to be rezoned from Residential to Conservation. 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? F1Yes No B. Project Description The proposed action will apply to lands throughout the Town. 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate). a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor: N/A acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: N/A acres initially; N/A acres ultimately. c, Project acreage to remain undeveloped: N/A acres. d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (if appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed. N/A % f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing N/A ; proposed g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour: N/A (upon completion of project)? 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: height; width; length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? ft. 2. How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? N/A tons/cubic yards. 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed ®Yes 1-1NoFN/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Yes ® No l c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ®Yes No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? N/A acres. Page 5 of 21 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally -important vegetation be removed by this project? ❑ Yes ❑ No Not applicable 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction: months, (including demolition) Not applicable 7. If multi -phased: Not applicable a. Total number of phases anticipated (number) b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1: month year, (including demolition) c. Approximate completion date of final phase: month year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 0 Yes ❑ No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? ❑ Yes ❑ No Not applicable 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction N/A; after project is complete Not applicable 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project N/A . Not applicable 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? ❑ Yes ❑ No Not applicable If yes, explain: 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? !_J Yes "No Not applicable 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? ❑ Yes ❑ No Type Not applicable 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? ❑ Yes ❑ No Not applicable If yes, explain: 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? ® Yes 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ® Yes ® No Not applicable a. If yes, what is the amount per month? tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑No Not applicable c. If yes, give name ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? ❑Yes Page 6of21 11 No M r e. If yes, explain: 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? []Yes ❑No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. Not Applicable b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? E]Yes EINo Not Applicable 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? E]Yes FINo Not Applicable 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? 0 Yes F No Not Applicable 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? ❑ Yes M No Not Applicable If yes, indicate type(s) 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity gallons/minute. Not Applicable 23. Total anticipated water usage per day gallons/day. Not Applicable 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? Yes [] No Not Applicable If yes, explain: Page 7 of 21 25. Approvals Required: City, Town, Village Board El Yes ❑ No City, Town, Village Planning Board ❑ Yes P71 No City, Town Zoning Board ❑ Yes � No City, County Health Department ❑ Yes M No Other Local Agencies no Yes ❑ No Other Regional Agencies ❑ Yes r7M No State Agencies ❑ Yes r7m No Federal Agencies ❑ Yes P7 No Type Submittal Date Zoning modification 3/12/12 Tompkins County Planning 2/24/12 GML referral for County recommendation. i C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? rM7Yes ® No If Yes, indicate decision required: ❑ Zoning amendment ❑ Zoning variance ❑ New/revision of master plan ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site plan ® Special use permit ❑ Resource management plan ❑ Other Page 8 of 21 2. What is the zoning classification (s) of the site? ' 1 3 Che proposed action will apply to lands in all zoning designations in the Town. /hat is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? Vot applicable 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? 5 See #2 above. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? Not applicable 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? El Yes M No Che proposed action is intended to clarify current zoning provisions in the Town Code by adding specific language to regulate he deposit and removal of fill in the Town, with special requirements in Conservation Zones or lands in proximity to wetlands. eoftk`7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a 'A mile radius of proposed action? , IThe proposed action will apply to lands in all zoning designations in the Town. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses with a '/a mile? ® Yes ® No N/A 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? Not applicable a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? Page 9 of 21 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? ® Yes 0 N 11, Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection? Yes F No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? 0 Yes M No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? Yes IF No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic. ®Yes ® No 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 Town of Ithaca Signature (Christine Balestra) Title Planner Date 2129/12 If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Farm before proceeding with this assessment. Page 10 of 21 PART 2 - PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information (Read Carefully) In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. ! In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumulative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 20 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. C. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box(column 1 or 2)to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. Identifying that an Impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. e. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. f. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. r'o*\ Impact on Land Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change 1. Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the project site? NO ®i YES ® Action will expand provisions for regulating the deposit and removal of fill in the Town. Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot ❑ ® ® Yes ® No 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 ® ® ®Yes ® No is less than 3 feet. • Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more ® ® Yes M No vehicles. • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or ® ® ®Yes E]No generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or El O Yes ®No involve more than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove ® ® ® Yes [:] No more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Page 11 of 21 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact • Construction or expansion of a santary landfill. M 11 • Construction in a designated floodway. ❑ • Other impacts: ❑ 2. Will there bean effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.) no NO 11 YES • Specific land forms: 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change / 1 ❑Yes []No' ❑Yes []No ❑Yes ❑No 0 17 ❑Yes 17 No 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) NO❑ YES Proposed Action will protect wetlands from impacts associated with earth -moving activities. Examples that would apply to column 2I • Developable area of site contains a protected water body. ® ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No, • Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of ® © ❑ Yes ❑ No a protected stream. • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No body. • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. ❑ ® ❑ Yes ❑ No • Other impacts: ® ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 4. Will Proposed Action affect any non -protected existing or new body of water? E] NO ❑YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • 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: Page 12 of 21 ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ® No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑Yes 0 N i 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? IFINO ®YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • 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. • Other impacts: Page 13 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change M 0 FiYes rNo M D DYes ®No ® ® E]Yes F1No 11 1:1 ❑ Yes ❑ No F ❑ ❑ Yes 1:1 No M Yes 17 No ® Yes F No M ❑ Yes 11 No 17 M 0 Yes E]No F] ❑ Yes 17 No 11 F Yes 17 No F El FlYes 17 No 6. Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? ME NO F1 YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • 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. • Other impacts: 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change (410) r� ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ® ® ®Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes []No IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will Proposed Action affect air quality? r7, NO ❑YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any ® ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 1 given hour. • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No of refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour ® ® ❑Yes ❑ No or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. • Proposed Action will allow an increase in the amount of land © ❑ ❑Yes ❑No committed to industrial use. • Proposed Action will allow an increase in the density of 0 ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No industrial development within existing industrial areas. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? NO El YES Proposed Action will strengthen previsions in the Code to fiirther protect sensitive natural areas. Examples that would apply to column 2 • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 1 Federal list, using the site, over or near the site, or found on the site. Page 14 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. El ❑ ® Yes 0 No • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, E 1:1 Yes E]No other than for agricultural purposes. • Other impacts: ® ® ® Yes ®No 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non -threatened or non - endangered species? ME NO MYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident ® ® ® Yes M No or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of ® ® ® Yes ❑ No mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. • Other impacts: ® ® M Yes ®No IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? in! NO ® YES 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. Page 15 of 21 ® ❑ ® Yes ® No 1 ❑ Yes ❑ N o ® 11 ❑ Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources? (If necessary, use 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by ❑ Impact Impact Project Change • The Proposed Action would disrupt or prevent installation of r 1 Yes ❑ No, agricultural land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain ❑ ❑ ❑ lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such • Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of ❑ ® measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to ❑ No aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce increased runoff). their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources? (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20, Appendix B.) [ NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 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 ❑ ® © Yes ❑ No 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ Nor significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? E NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or Yes No 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No the project site. • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. Page 16 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change • Other impacts: El 17 M Yes F1 No 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 ®YES 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)? JNO ®YES List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA. ® M 0 Yes ❑ No M No ® E]Yes nNo M Yes 17 ElYes 0No Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action to locate within the CEA? El F1 rlYes M No • Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quantity of the M M Yes riNo resource? • Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the ❑ r7 ❑ Yes nNo resource? • Proposed Action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the ❑ ® r7Yes r7No resource? • Other impacts: ® [71 MYes 0No Page 17 of 21 IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? 1.7 NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. rlthar imnnr•tc- 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change r � ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON ENERGY ❑ []Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ©No IMPACT ON ENERGY ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ 16. Will Proposed Action affect the community's sources of fuel or ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ energy supply? ❑ No ❑ NO ❑YES ❑ ❑ ❑Yes No i Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action than 5% increase in the ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No will cause a greater use of any form of energy in the municipality. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No 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: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No NOISE AND ODOR IMPACT 17, Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? ❑ NO ❑YES 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. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes No i Other impacts: LJ III LJYes VJ No r"1 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 18. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? NO ®YES • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of ri El Yes 0 No hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, D 17Yes 0 etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be No a chronic low level discharge or emission. • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" ® 11 ❑Yes M No in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquefied ® 17 E]Yes F7No natural gas or other flammable liquids. • Proposed Action may result in the excavation or other rl 11 []Yes ❑ No disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of E r7Yes MNo solid or hazardous waste. • Other impacts: ❑ M ❑Yes EINo IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 19. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community? F NO ®YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The D 17Yes 0 permanent population of the city, town or village in which the No project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating M ❑Yes M No services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. • Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or ® 0 17]Yes ❑ No goals. • Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use. ® ® ❑Yes ®No • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, E r7Yes MNo structures or areas of historic importance to the community. • Development will create a demand for additional community ® 0Yes ❑ No services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) Page 19 of 21 • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. Othar imnarte- 20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environment impacts? r7- NO ®YES General comment applicable to action: 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change ® ® ®Yes ®No! 1 El ❑ Yes ® No ❑ ® F7 Yes ❑ No No negative impacts are anticipated. The proposed action clarifies and strengthens some of the provisions of the the Zoning Code regarding the deposit and removal of fill in all zones, with particular emphasis on protecting Conservation Zones and wetlands from impacts associated with these activities. 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 Page 20 of 21 MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD MONDAY MARCH 12 2012 TB Resolution No. 2012- :Resolution Adopting a Local Law Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code Regarding Deposit and Removal of Fill WHEREAS, at its November 12, 2009 meeting, the Planning Committee of the Ithaca Town Board reviewed proposed amendments to the Town's Conservation Zone zoning provisions regarding timber harvesting and the deposit and removal of fill and sent the proposed amendments to the Town's Codes and Ordinances Committee for review and revision; and WHEREAS, the Codes and Ordinances Committee thereafter reviewed and revised the proposed amendments at a number of its meetings, and at its August 24, 2011 meeting, referred to the Town Board its proposed local law entitled "Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code Regarding Deposit and Removal of Fill"; and WHEREAS, one of the purposes of the local law is to clarify and establish stricter requirements for the deposit and removal of fill in all zones of the Town, with particular emphasis on protecting Conservation Zones and wetlands from impacts associated with i earth -moving activities; and WHEREAS, at its October 17, 2011 meeting, the Town Board referred the proposed local law to the Planning Board and Conservation Board for review and recommendation; and WHEREAS, at their respective November 1, 2011 and November 3, 2011 meetings, the Planning Board and Conservation Board recommended adoption of the proposed local law, with the Planning Board recommending certain revisions; and WHEREAS, at its January 18, 2012 meeting, the Codes and Ordinances Committee reviewed the suggested revisions from the Planning Board, revised the proposed local law, and referred the proposed local law back to the Town Board for consideration of approval; and WHEREAS, the Town Board reviewed and discussed the proposed local law "Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code Regarding Deposit and Removal of Fill" at its regular meeting on February 12, 2012; and WHEREAS, the Town Board adopted a resolution for a public hearing to be held by said Town on March 12, 2012 at 5:45 p.m., to hear all interested parties on the proposed local law; and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said Local Law, or any part thereof; and WHEREAS, pursuant to article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617 (SEQR), and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code, adoption of said Local Law is a Type I action for which the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, acting as lead agency in an environmental review with respect to adoption of the Local Law, has on March 12, 2012 made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Parts I-andII prepared by the Town's -Planning -staff, for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts I and II referenced above; NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts the Local Law Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code Regarding Deposit and Removal of Fill. MOVED: SECONDED: VOTE: ka 414C � �v �J 617.20 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM eurpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of signiFcance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially -large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially -large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. THIS AREA FOR LEAD AGENCY USE ONLY DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Type 1 and Unlisted Actions entify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: '❑ Part 1 ❑ Part 2 ❑Part 3 .pan 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. FIB, 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.* ❑ 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. *A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Amending Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding Timber Harvesting and other requirements in Conservation Zones Name of Action Town of Ithaca Town Board Name of Lead Agency Herbert Engman Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency gnature o R pc nsible f cer in Le gency 611 Date Town of Ithaca Supervisor Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) Page 1 of 21 PART 1 --PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. Name of Action Amending Zoning Chapter of the Town Code Regarding Timber Harvesting and Other Requirements in Conservation Zones Location of Action (include Street Address, Municipality and County) The zoning changes will affect areas in the Town zoned as Conservation. Name of Applicant/Sponsor Town of Ithaca Address 215 N. Tioga Street City / PO Ithaca State NY Business Telephone 607-273-1747 Zip Code 14850 Name of Owner (if different) n/a Address r City / PO Business Telephone Description of Action: State Zip Code The proposed action is the enactment by the Town of Ithaca Town Board of a local law that would amend the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code by: (1) Adding definitions "biological corridor," "clear -cutting," "diameter at breast height," "non-native invasive species," "timber harvesting," and "wetland," to the Zoning Chapter. (2) Creating clear guidelines for timber harvesting in Conservation Zones to regulate cutting or clearing of trees and to further protect sensitive natural areas in the Town of Ithaca. Page 2 of 21 Please Complete Each Question --Indicate N.A. if not applicable SITE DESCRIPTION ,ysical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present Land Use: ❑ Urban ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ❑ Residential (suburban) ❑ Rural (non-farm) Forest ❑ Agriculture ❑ Other The zoning amendments will affect Conservation Zones. Locations are in various areas of the Town that encompass a wide variety of physical settings. 2. Total acreage of project area: n/a acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24,25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) (00k� Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION n/a acres acres n/a acres acres n/a acres acres n/a acres acres n/a acres acres n/a acres acres n/a acres acres Other (Indicate type) n/a acres acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Not applicable; a high variability of soil types exist within each area. a. Soil drainage: ❑ Well drained % of site ❑ Moderately well drained % of site. ❑ Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? acres (see 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ❑■ Yes ❑ No Areas of bedrock outcropping are common in parts of the Town and occurrences are possible in each of the areas. a. What is depth to bedrock (in feet) 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: Not applicable, slope percentages highly variable within each area. 00-10% % 010- 15% % ❑ 15% or greater % 6. Is project substantiall contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places? Yes ❑ No Enfield Falls Mill & House at R.Treman State Park are within a Conservation Zone. 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? ❑ Yes ENo What is the depth of the water table? (in feet) Not applicable, water table is variable within each area. g, Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ❑Yes ❑ No Not applicable 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? EYes ❑ No Hunting is likely in Conservation Zones. Page 3 of 21 bNo 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered?❑Yes o According to NYS DEC Heritage Program (Nature Explorer website) there are several species of endangered plants/anima whose presence in the Town have been documented. Occurrences are known or likely to be within Conservation Zoned lar, each Southern Grizzled Skipper last documented in 1970 in the South Hill Swamp area. Several wetland plant species, including 3 sedge species (Glaucous, Reflexed, James) last documented in early 2000, Swamp Lousewort in 1977, Marsh Horsetail in 1999. Exact locations of these species are not specified by DEC. No other threatened or endangered species have been documented in the Town within the last 50 years. The proposed action will have no adverse impact on these species. 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations? EYes ❑ No Describe: Lands within the Town's Conservation Zones include gorges and waterfalls; many of the gorges are considered geologically significant for having walls of exposed shale and sandstone from the Devonian age. 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, explain: Several NYS Parks exist within the Conservation Zones. 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? ❑■ Yes ❑No The Town's draft Scenic Resource Inventory & Analysis report (dated 12/7/11) identifies important scenic views and some of the locations are within Conservation Zoned areas. 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: 16. Streams of various sizes exist throughout the Town and occur within the areas addressed in this action. a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: Ponds and wetlands occur in many areas of the Town and are especially prevalent within Conservation Zoned areas. k C:-... l:.. .. ...-,. Page 4 of 21 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ❑ Yes ❑ No Includes areas served and not served by utilities. a. If YES, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ❑ Yes ❑ No b. If YES, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ❑ Yes ❑No 18. Is the site located inEYes. gricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25 -AA, Section 303 and 304? ❑ No proposed action will apply to some areas designated as County Agricultural District 1. 19. Is the site located in or substantiail contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? ❑ Yes No The proposed action may apply in the future to an area designated as a CEA; the Town's one CEA is proposed to be rezoned from Residential to Conservation. 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? ❑ Yes ❑o No B. Project Description The proposed action will apply to lands throughout the Town that are zoned CZ. 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate). a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor: N/A acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: N/A acres initially; N/A acres ultimately. c, Project acreage to remain undeveloped: N/A acres. d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (if appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed. N/A % f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing N/A ; proposed g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour: N/A (upon completion of project)? 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: height; width; length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? ft. 2. How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? N/A tons/cubic yards. 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed ❑Yes ❑ No M N/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? /01K� b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ❑Yes ❑ No c, Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ❑ Yes ❑ No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? N/A acres. Page 5 of 21 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally -important vegetation be removed by this project? ❑ Yes ❑ No Not applicable 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction: 7. If multi -phased: Not applicable a. Total number of phases anticipated (number) months, (including demolition) Not applicable b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1: month year, (including demolition) c. Approximate completion date of final phase: month year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? ❑ Yes ❑ No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? ❑ Yes ❑ No Not applicable 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction N/A ; after project is complete Not applicable 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project N/A . Not applicable 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? ❑ Yes ❑ No Not applicable If yes, explain: 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? ❑ Yes ❑No Not applicable ni 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? ❑ Yes ❑ No Type Not applicable 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? ❑ Yes ❑ No Not applicable If yes, explain: 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? ❑ Yes ❑ No Not applicable 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ❑ Yes ❑ No Not applicable a. If yes, what is the amount per month? tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ❑ Yes ❑ No c. If yes, give name ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? 17 Yes Page 6 of 21 ❑ No e. If yes, explain: 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? ❑Yes 17 No Not Applicable 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? ❑Yes ® No Not Applicable 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? © Yes ❑ No Not Applicable 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? ❑ Yes ❑ No Not Applicable 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? ❑ Yes ❑ No Not Applicable If yes, indicate type(s) 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity gallons/minute. Not Applicable 23. Total anticipated water usage per day gallons/day. Not Applicable 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? ❑ Yes ❑ No Not Applicable If yes, explain: Page 7 of 21 25. Approvals Required: C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? aYes ❑ No If Yes, indicate decision required: Zoning amendment ❑ Zoning variance ❑ New/revision of master plan ❑ Subdivision; ❑ Site plan ❑ Special use permit ❑ Resource management plan ❑ Other Page 8 of 21 Type Submittal Date City, Town, Village Board F Yes ❑ No Zoning modification 3/12/12 City, Town, Village Planning Board ❑ Yes ❑ No City, Town Zoning Board ❑ Yes ❑ No City, County Health Department ❑ Yes ❑ No Other Local Agencies ❑� Yes 17No Tompkins County Planning 2/24/12 GML referral for County recommendation. 1 Other Regional Agencies ❑ Yes ❑ No State Agencies ❑ Yes ❑� No Federal Agencies ❑ Yes ❑ No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? aYes ❑ No If Yes, indicate decision required: Zoning amendment ❑ Zoning variance ❑ New/revision of master plan ❑ Subdivision; ❑ Site plan ❑ Special use permit ❑ Resource management plan ❑ Other Page 8 of 21 2. What is the zoning classification(s) of the site? FOR 3 rhe proposed action will apply to lands zoned as Conservation. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? Not applicable 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? See #2 above. 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? vot applicable 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? 0 Yes ❑ No Che proposed action is intended to clarify current zoning provisions in the Town Code by adding requirements for timber iarvest uses in Conservation Zones. 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a '/a mile radius of proposed action? /2M1 The proposed action will apply to various areas of the Town zoned as Conservation. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses with a '/a mile? Yes No N/A If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? Not applicable a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? Page 9 of 21 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? ❑ Yes ❑■ No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection? ❑ Yes ❑E No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ❑ Yes ❑ No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ❑ Yes 0 No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic. ❑Yes ❑ No 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 Town of Ithaca pate r o s Signature (Christine Balcstra Title Planner If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. Page 10 of 21 PART 2 - PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency "ONneral Information (Read Carefully) In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. ! In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumulative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 20 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. C. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box(column 1 or 2)to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. Identifying that an Impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. e. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. f. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. Page 11 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change Impact on Land 1. Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the project site? N O a YES r7 Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot ❑ Yes ❑ No 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 Yes No is less than 3 feet. • Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more ❑ ® Yes ❑ No vehicles. • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or 17 ❑ Yes 0No generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or n ❑ Yes ❑ No involve more than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove n Yes r7No more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Page 11 of 21 1 2 Small to Potential Moderate Large Impact Impact • Construction or expansion of a santary landfill. ❑ ❑ • Construction in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ • Other impacts: 0 ❑ 2, Will there bean effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.) RNO 17 YES • Anarifir land fnrms- 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) ElNO F1 YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • 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. • r)thar imnnMe• 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change ❑Yes ❑No -- ❑Yes ❑No ❑Yes [:]No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes [:]No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes 1:1 No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes E] No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 4. Will Proposed Action affect any non -protected existing or new body of water? ❑. NO ❑YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No area. n • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No Page 12 of 21 Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? 1ENO F1 YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • 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. • Other impacts: Page 13 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change ❑ ❑ ❑Yes 11 No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ N o ❑ ❑ 11 Yes 11 No ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No 6. Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? ❑o N 0 ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • 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. Othar imnartz- 1 2 3 - Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ [--]Yes [--]No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will Proposed Action affect air quality? Fol NO ❑YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No l� given hour. • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No of refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. • Proposed Action will allow an increase in the amount of land ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No committed to industrial use. • Proposed Action will allow an increase in the density of ❑ ❑ [--]Yes ❑No industrial development within existing industrial areas. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ [--]Yes ❑No IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? 0 NO ❑ YES proposed Action will strengthen provisions in the Code to further protect sensitive natural areas. Examples that would apply to column 2 • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No Federal list, using the site, over or near the site, or found on the site. Page 14 of 21 elook1 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No other than for agricultural purposes. In r'n n Pn Other impacts: !—J "Yes "No F- 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non -threatened or non - endangered species? ❑ NO ❑ YES 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. Othor imnartc- _1 IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 0. Will Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? ❑ NO ❑ YES 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. Page 15 of 21 ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ [:]Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ Nc ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ® ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change • The Proposed Action would disrupt or prevent installation of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No agricultural land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain ❑ ❑ - lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such patterns, whether man-made or natural. measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to • Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of ❑ increased runoff). ❑ Yes ❑ No aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources? (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20, Appendix B.) ❑o NO ❑YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use ❑ ❑ ❑ []No patterns, whether man-made or natural. Yes • Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Project components that will result in the elimination or ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No significant screening of scenic views known to be important to ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No the area. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON M15TUMU AND ARGMAEOLOUsIGAL RE5OUKGES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? 19 NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 ❑ ❑ ❑ []No • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or Yes 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No the project site. • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. Page 16 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ []Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? M NO ❑YES 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 • nfhcr immnr fc- 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)? MmO ❑YES List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ N o ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action to locate within the CEA? ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quantity of the ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [--]No resource? • Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑No resource? • Proposed Action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No resource? • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No Page 17 of 21 IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? ❑ NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. nfhcr imnnrtc- 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON ENERGY ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ 16. Will Proposed Action affect the community's sources of fuel or ❑Yes F-1 No ❑ ❑ energy supply? ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑. NO J7 YES 11-1 in rl _ _ n _ . Examples that would apply to column 2 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the Yes No use of any form of energy in the municipality. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 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: ❑ ❑ F1 Yes ❑ No NOISE AND ODOR IMPACT 17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? ❑. NO ❑YES 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. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes F-1 No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No 17 11-1 in rl _ _ n _ . Other impacts: t._1 !J "Yes !_i No 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ 18. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑ NO 17 YES ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No 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" ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquefied ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No natural gas or other flammable liquids. • Proposed Action may result in the excavation or other ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 19. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community? ❑ NO ❑YES 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.) Page 19 of 21 ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. r)thar imnartc- 20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environment impacts? [F]NO ❑YES 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes E] No General comment applicable to action: No negative impacts are anticipated. The proposed action clarifies and strengthens some of the provisions of the Conservation Zone in the Zoning Code, in order to further protect sensitive natural areas and creates clear guidelines for timber harvesting in Conservation Zones to regulate cutting or clearing of trees. 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 Page 20 of 21 W ENGINEERS REPORT For Northview Tank Replacement The Northview Tank fed from the East Hill transmission tank through Pearsall St PRV. The Northview Tank is a steel tank 36 feet in diameter and 30 feet in height. The tank was built in 1954 and holds 200,000 gallons. Northview tank serves 200 customers using 60,000 gallons a day. This tank supports the Ridgecrest and Troy Road tank systems by supplying water to them. In 2008, an underwater camera was deployed into the tank inspecting the interior side wall and tank bottom. The Tank showed large areas where the existing interior coating has pealed off and rusted underneath. There are areas on the interior that also show a significant loss of wall thickness to the steel sides. Given the age of the tank and the deterioration of the steel the tank is made of, the best option to replace the tank. The size of the new tank will be increased to 500,000 gallons to help stabilize system pressure when the Ridgecrest and Troy Road tanks are filling. By replacing the tank on the same site the amount of the piping and site work will be reduced. The Cost of the tank replacement will be approximately $515,000.00 okr' - 1 . i � Ir w. r f• L c r.e�� �,�.•. 4 'i _ '• '4 a s_ - y '+M - � y� . -._.4�. ��ll 1'" t'� h +�J+�.tj�+�Fh '�. • Tf` ih•- ;.��', =,^�` " t r: •'� �i+'f.- 'i w _ �: � •'a� M. �y�,•�,y�"�+[. � � *'���� �. �"'�.i ;. jr� Kra^,� {�-•� ��"� ` � � - �•+. � • . itr'� �"+'�4�••y u-7.".,�'r'!1t i4'� ��'.r yid y.-.yt - Y� ,�y,,, _ 'S. � • �'-�r. 74 mak.: w. •� `�C riei�nirik fent kiln .'•tib � _'kE�.* ti� . �;� - 1 {'�, !�•. ,. new ' t 3. •4 a f: f -i- �. �,' '� �� �, ` � it .4.' �., �-:����_ �� ti-_�•�[�. - � tet,,' �-.%I w. �� ..qy.. �/ all { - IAW l ;�. y�• ,1� i0 I IED t _ .v���~ ..ti..s� ��v:...."'��a�:::a»i`:x�:F .��i,.ar _ � _..4�._..;.:�.�3�:� .���cy`• ..�/ -- iTW OF WET' GEE TO TLOCR ADff .ALS.Av A GLARO RAIL' 1 8 SAi SASE Ki BOT TW A=ft i 70 FLOOR RPL I r1P1. 0. PLAN ACUSS OQLIi d Wfr e Fn. 11. ft1e 11a AC Pr T— WN10L/✓r ELEVATION ryeavlli VEk i61 E ew.' Roor XE IOxi —j TP' Q 511UL SNEV W-c- MDM. TA.mE I tilt Northview Tank —ysFT— Imes Firm Tm sift OVERFLOW PIPE W Q V + U � O �[J c v L U O z O CL k— PROJECT CAPITAL COST ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION BIDDING PROCESS CONTRACT ADMIN CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ENGINEERING DESIGN GEOTECHNICAL INSPECTION LEGAL ROW ACQUISITION PERMITS SURVEY TESTING Northview Tank Repiacment ENGINEERS Amount Spent Amount ESTIMATE Remaining $ 250.00 $ - $ 250.00 $ 508,000.00 $ - $ 508,000.00 $ 310.50 $ 310.50 $ - $ 3,200.00 $ 3,200.00 $ - $ 150.00 $ 150.00 $ - $ 2,540.00 $ - $ 2,540.00 TOTAL COST $ - $ 514,450.50 $ 3,660.50 ENGINEERS REPORT For DANBY ROAD TANK REPLACEMENT The Danby Road tank is fed from the East Hill transmission tank through Pearsall St PRV. The Danby tank feeds the Ithaca College Water system through a pump station beside the tank to an Ithaca College owned tank. The Danby Road tank is a steel tank 50 feet in diameter and 35 feet high. The tank was built in 1954 and holds 500,000 gallons. The Danby tank zone has 17 customers (including Ithaca College) using 352,000 gallons a day. The Tank is located in the Ithaca College Campus (see enclosed map) near Jim Butterfield Stadium. In 2008, an underwater camera was deployed into the tank inspecting the interior side wall and tank bottom. The Tank showed large areas where the existing interior coating has pealed off and rusted underneath. There are areas on the interior that also show a significant loss of wall thickness to the steel sides. Given the age of the tank and the deterioration of the steel the tank is made of, the best option to replace the tank. The new tank would have the same 500,000 gallon capacity as the existing tank. By replacing the tank on the same site the amount of the piping and site work will be reduced. The Cost of the tank replacement will be approximately $650,000.00 62 ��. ::�"r r, - + � 'ii' A.+',', i .''�... Y' '. �y�.�Bl-�lyl4�p��1�. . ^i, �' n '1 N , i ►*�� � .J„r t ,� � -\', ,._ �� w�kRkt � �1tcl lkrpll [}M.,"„1 illaFk - I� �y\'\!'Y���'Y; _ ` '�. \ i ,� � ^J J'F-i. � ..�• #.I�' 1 �p HilklfFff '•7'i f 11<rl � y� _,b. ir�f v�. � ;Ei, - �w .. ` �tFt�:� k 1 1!{ht RRY k I �I' IF[IFFH i1! R:.� � ♦ � � t' rrF � ' �'Ir _ � k F�M'rF FF4F \J;a ._,� �•� ±�-: 1 '-`'.' '� �' {'+ k +e"r• �..F :ti °�y �� , k �,,� 1,��.��}r � ��-c� �-ca-; .;r` +. / .. f r • '• //`.-r'7 r- 'q �y_./ ;�E.. 1 .y7�•. s,y_- RR"rt.a� ek'• `•• :�\ •-� -'�� _ � 1. } `y �, � y� �� I, 1 N°�ITy off' b� r` v 1 ! nTY. Ir9rar ar.. yfW Ype• roxw carci �.a. PL AN Q Danby Road Tank Q � 0 Rps R4L<�4Y 0A917T � CL d GOARO RAIL VEYTIL.TM R V O+ LApOCR 6 SOETT IOP 6 R0Q CV Cmlwet a Pant pr fen. CA♦ C+GE ItIP tv�. Sp.NlerPw W KIC.77 O T POP W SKLL UtCy C (2 L7 Q MTTi L.00EA AWG 70 %" xoY.l.xYlEl wr �' Y.Ie�E 9rM1 PipR l 001 Tp OF T"T CAGE TO FLOW nQY. 1 R6' O .[GESS SKf! .t Piw Yin ! menu hA� laW Sib -S $ O.Y EI 0 h F(Gd LElEL ",so f,l r7• Y sler Yr yle.n ��FPr rewE�+u...r liocrl�rrm i. + L + EL EVA TI ON OVERFLOW PIPE ACCOUNT # PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION ENGINEERS Amount Spent Amount ESTIMATE Remaining BIDDING PROCESS $ 250.00 $ CONTRACT ADMIN $ - $ CONSTRUCTION $ 524,700.00 $ - CONTRACT DOCUMENTS $ 310.50 $ 310.50 ENGINEERING DESIGN $ - $ - GEOTECHNICAL $ 3,200.00 $ 3,200.00 INSPECTION $ - $ - LEGAL $ $ ROW ACQUISITION $ $ - PERMITS $ 150.00 $ 150.00 SURVEY $ - $ - TESTING $ 2,540.00 $ - TOTAL COST $ - $ 531,150.50 $ 3,660.50