The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTB Minutes 2012-08-13Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, August 13, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 * Information on the agenda items follow below. Requests for additional information, hard copies or questions regarding the items should be directed to the Town Clerk at 273-1721. Agenda 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance 2. Report of Tompkins County Legislature 3. Report of Ithaca Common Council 4. Quarterly Report - Board of Fire Commissioners 5. Persons to be Heard and Board comments 6. Public Hearing re.: Changes to the Official Town Map a. Consider Approval 7. Public Hearing re.: Local law to revise the EcoVillage Planned Development Zone (PDZ) a. SEQR b. Consider Adoption 8. Public Hearing re.: Local law amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding definitions of and requirements for garages and woodsheds a. SEQR b. Consider Adoption 9. Public Hearing re.: Local law amending Chapter 225 of the Town of Ithaca Code, titled "Sprinkler Systems" to exempt certain buildings from sprinkler requirements a. Consider Adoption 10. Public Hearing re.: Noise permit application for St Catherine of Sienna's Festival a. Consider A^r-oyal 11. Discuss and consider approval of revised Agricultural Committee Organizational structure 12. Discuss and consider approval of updated Town Zoning Map 13. Amend and restate the Model Plan of the Deferred Compensation Plan i \ 14. Consider setting a PH regarding a local law to override the tax levy limit established / in General Municipal Law §3-C ^ 15. Discuss Referral of a request for No Parking on Slaterville Road to NYS DOT 16. Consider Consent Agenda Items a. Approval of Town Board Minutes July 23''^ and 27"', 2012 b. Town of Ithaca Abstract c. Bolton Point Abstract d. Appointment of Administrative Assistant Position e. Sale of surplus item - Public Works - 1998 Brush Bandit f. Close Capital Project Fund - Snyder Hill Road Reconstruction g. Close Capital Project Fund - Snyder Hill Road Water Main Replacement h. Close Capital Project Fund - Warren Road Walkway i. Close Capital Project Fund - Hungerford Hill Pump Station j. Close Capital Project Fund - Town Hall Roof Replacement 17. Report of Town Officials 18. Report of Town Committees and Intermunicipal Organizations 19. Review of Correspondence 20. Consider Adjournment TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Debra DeAugistine, being duly sworn, say that I am the First Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York 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: a ADVERTISEMENT ^;:s4iqtice of public hearings Public hearings for Town Board Meeting of August 13, 2012 Location of Sign Board Used for Posting: Town Clerk's Office 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 August 6, 2012 lugustji^, 2012 Date of Posting: Date^of Publication;^ Debra DeAu^is^e irst Deputy Town Clerk STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS: TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of .2012. Notary Public PAULETTE TERWILUGEn Notary Pufotio, Stale of New Yofk No. 01TE6156809 Qualified in Tompkins County CodvniSBkjn Expires Oeoember 4 TOWNOFimACA PUBLIC HEARINGS ThB Town Board has scheduled five public hear ings at its meeting to be hM at Town Hell. 215 N Tioga St on August 13. 2012 beginning at 5:45 | p.m. The public heahnga. wHI be c^ned and hdd in the following order: I 1. Public hearing regarding i proposed changes to the S Official Town Map I 2. regarding a local taw to < revise die EcoVillage Plan- I ned Development Zone | <PD2) i 3. regarding a locd law i amending the ZorSng Cliap- ter of die Town of (thau Code regarding definitions of and requirements for ga rages and wood^eds 4. regarding a local law amending Chapter 225 o^ the Town of Ithaca Code, ti tled ■SprinWer Systems' taexempt certain buildings from sprinkler requirements5. regarding a noise permitaf^ication for St Catherine of Sienna's FestivalInlormalion is avaflabte via the Town Clerk's Officeand on our website. Paulette Tetwilliger TownCtefk 8/4/2012 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, August 13, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. Minutes Board Members Present: Herb Engman, Supervisor; Bill Goodman, Deputy Town Supervisor; Pat Leary, Tee-Ann Hunter, Eric Levine, and Rich DePaolo Absent: 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 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance Mr. Engman called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. 2. Report of Tompkins County Legislature – None 3. Report of Ithaca Common Council – None 4. Quarterly Report – Board of Fire Commissioners Bill Gilligan reported from the distributed material (Attachment #1) Mr. Gilligan highlighted the recent discussions regarding the Volunteer Companies and their organizational structure. Discussions revolve around the number of companies and the use of the 2% monies funding their support. The City Attorney has some concerns. Some of these companies go back to the mid 1800’s and were the beginnings of the fire protection organization for the area. The basic proposal is to reduce the 8 active volunteer companies which have a total membership of 14 persons down to one company in an effort to streamline the companies while still working with the membership and showing them the consideration due to them for there years, in many cases, decades, of service in one capacity or another. Mr. Gilligan stated that the Chief has reviewed the budget being submitted with the Commission and the impacts of following the Mayor’s requested 10% reduction would probably mean closing two stations and eliminating 12 firefighters. Even with a 2% decrease in the budget, staffing at outlying stations would be limited; it is difficult to say what the impact would be and he did not want to speculate on the outcomes if either scenario were enacted. He assumes the Mayor and Chief will be meeting with the Town Board to discuss impacts and options. Mr. Gilligan went on to say the Charter review continues and they have begun posting the agendas and the minutes on the website. TB 8.13.2012 Page 2 of 28 Questions from the Board Herb asked about his statement that a 10% cut in personnel costs would result in a 12 person reduction or layoff and does that mean that all of the layoffs would take place with lower paid positions because the math doesn’t work out; if you take the average salary the math works out to 7 layoffs. That being said, if you have 7 to 12 less people, wouldn’t you need one less lieutenant? Mr. Gilligan said the simple answer is that the reductions would start at the lower end of the wage scale due to seniority. Chief Parsons added that if it comes to layoffs, it does start from the bottom up; last in first out. He added that the City did put out a retirement incentive but it did not yield any results. There are 34 people eligible to retire at the end of this year and there are only 66 people working now. Mr. Goodman followed-up asking if some people would be bumped down if as Mr. Engman asked, a lieutenant position was no longer needed? The Chief responded that they do not have a lot of senior staff right now but if they do reduce staff and move down a person, it would ripple down and push a firefighter out. Mr. Engman asked if this was controlled by civil service and the Chief responded that it was. Mr. Levine asked what the split of volunteers was: fire police, firefighter etc. The Chief responded that there are 3 active interior firefighters, 1 support firefighter and the rest are fire police (10). Mr. Engman noted that there is mention in the report regarding the potential for recruiting more volunteers and asked if the reduction was made to 1 volunteer fire company, would any additions be to that 1 company or would they add more companies as recruitment happened? The Chief responded that the main focus is to get the volunteers in one group that can act cohesively as one company. He noted that these companies were formed as neighborhood companies and it was a gathering place and that is lost now. We are a city instead of small villages. He felt that in the past the quick fix of bunker programs were attempted but it is a 3-year cycle with a lot of time and effort and you don’t get the experience and training done before they are graduating and gone. He felt that the focus should be on permanent residents and developing those interested in service instead of a bunker program that attracts students and is very costly. 5. Persons to be Heard and Board comments Resident on Route 79 – The gentleman described people parking along the side of the road to go to swim in the gorge and the line of cars has created serious safety concerns due to sight issues when exiting your driveway, inability to move over for emergency vehicles and pedestrians and cyclists who are forced out into traffic. He quoted figures regarding speed and how much time you need to stop and at 45mph you need to be able to see about the length of a football field to be able to stop. Adopted 9 10 2012 TB 8.13.2012 Page 3 of 28 He was also concerned about the garbage and empty alcoholic beverage containers and the people who are discarding those are possibly drinking and driving. He and his neighbors are requesting no parking signs for all these reasons. Mr. Engman noted that a letter was sent to all residents along Route 79 asking their opinions on no parking signs and what they should say. That process should be done soon and then we can ask the state. Mr. Engman added that it will probably not happen until next swimming season due to logistics, but thanked him for his comments. Fred Esterbrook – Coddington Rd Mr. Esterbrook addressed the board regarding campfires and woodstove smoke and air pollution. He stated that he has been living for the last 10 years next door to a residence whose people routinely have a campfire numerous nights during the week and also has a wood stove burner. He quoted an article from the Journal and the burning law from the state and the caveat is that his neighbors yard is very small so the smoke is very close as well as the draft due to the valley/gorge. Every time there is a fire, the smoke comes right to his house. He feels it is an oversight in the law that exempts campfires because it does not take into account the size of a yard. He suggests there should be a setback regulation or amend the law to restrict campfires on lots less than 2 acres to provide protection to neighbors who are affected. He added that he has had COPD for years that he can’t prove is related but he assumes it is and he is also concerned about the sparks and risk of fire at his house. He added that if it was once in a while maybe he could tolerate it but it is a regular occurrence and people should have a right to enjoy their own property and residence without smoke. Mr. DePaolo asked how far his house is from the campfire? Mr. Esterbrook thought it was about 60 feet and when there is a fire, the smoke is thick. He added that he has supplied DEC and TC Health Dept with pictures of his furnace filters that are blackened by the smoke from the wood stove. It is unfortunate, but the geography causes a downdraft and there is soot and ash all over his yard and cars due to it. There should be some solution and he would be grateful if the town would consider this. Board Comments – Mr. Goodman commented that in the past the Codes and Ordinances Committee has talked about looking into regulating wood-fired boilers as other municipalities have but have not gone into campfires and wood stoves. He added that they could the board wanted them to. Mr. DePaolo added that through the email exchange it is obvious there is a lot of frustration surrounding the issue and he thought it would be worth looking at the nuisance aspect of it. Ms. Leary agreed noting that this is worse than smoking in her opinion and municipalities have spent a lot of energy and money researching that. Adopted 9 10 2012 TB 8.13.2012 Page 4 of 28 Mr. Engman noted that the Town of Caroline has submitted their draft law regarding banning gas drilling The public hearings regarding EcoVillage and the sprinkler law were moved up on the agenda due to public being present to address the board. 6. Public Hearing re.: Local law to revise the EcoVillage Planned Development Zone Mr. Engman opened the public hearing at 6:15 p.m. One resident of EcoVillage stated that she was in favor of the zoning change. There was no one else wishing to address the board and the public hearing was closed. a. SEQR There was some discussion on the SEQR form and how some of the standardized questions are difficult to answer because you don’t know if it is asking about the zoning as it is, or the zoning that will be in place if approved. Ms. Brock felt the answers given were correct with the addition under #12 of “Town Board creation of the Planned Development Zone TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012- 144: SEQR: Proposed Local Law Amending Chapter 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled Zoning: Special Land Use Districts, To Change EcoVillage Planned Development Zone Provisions Relating to Commercial Uses WHEREAS, this action is the adoption of a local law amending Zoning Chapter 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code to amend the Planned Development Zone for EcoVillage; and WHEREAS, this is an unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board is acting in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to the enactment of the proposed local law; and WHEREAS, the Town Board, at a public hearing held on August 13, 2012, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Parts I and II for this action, along with other application materials; RESOLVED: that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance, in this uncoordinated environmental review, in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed based on the information in the SEAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the SEAF Part II, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. MOVED: Tee Ann Hunter SECONDED: Pat Leary Adopted 9 10 2012 TB 8.13.2012 Page 5 of 28 VOTE: Ayes – Hunter, DePaolo, Levine, Engman, and Leary Abstention – Goodman Absent – Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. b. Consider Adoption TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-145: Adoption of a Local Law Amending Chapter 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled Zoning: Special Land Use Districts, To Change EcoVillage Planned Development Zone Provisions Relating to Commercial Uses WHEREAS, on July 5, 2012, the Planning Committee recommended that the Town of Ithaca Town Board enact the proposed local law to allow for a limited number of small commercial buildings in one area of PDZ No. 8; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 2012, a resolution was duly adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca for a public hearing to be held by said Town Board on August 13, 2012, at 5:45 p.m. to hear all interested parties on a proposed local law entitled “A Local Law Amending Chapter 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled Zoning: Special Land Use Districts, To Change EcoVillage Planned Development Zone Provisions Relating to Commercial Uses”; 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 proposed local law, or any part thereof; and WHEREAS, the adoption of this local law is an unlisted action, pursuant to Part 617 of the Implementing Regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code (which laws and regulations thereunder, including the Town’s local law, are collectively referred to as “SEQR”); and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Town Board, acting in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to the enactment of the local law, has, on August 13, 2012, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and II; and WHEREAS, the Town Board finds it is in the best interests of the Town and its citizens to adopt the local law; NOW, THEREFORE, be it Adopted 9 10 2012 TB 8.13.2012 Page 6 of 28 RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts said local law entitled “A Local Law Amending Chapter 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled Zoning: Special Land Use Districts, To Change EcoVillage Planned Development Zone Provisions Relating to Commercial Uses”, and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file said local law with the Secretary of State as required by law, and it is further RESOLVED, that this law shall take effect upon filing with New York Secretary of State. MOVED: Tee Ann Hunter SECONDED: Pat Leary VOTE: Ayes – Hunter, DePaolo, Levine, Engman, and Leary Abstention – Goodman Absent – Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. (Local Law #9 of 2012) 7. Public Hearing re.: Local law amending Chapter 225 of the Town of Ithaca Code, titled “Sprinkler Systems” to exempt certain buildings from sprinkler requirements Mr. Engman opened the public hearing at 6:22p.m. Noah Demerest, a local architect involved in a recent building permit application involving the need for a sprinkler, addressed the board. He stated that in working with clients and drawing the plans for smaller buildings which at the state level are not required to have sprinklers and in fact mercantile and factory buildings up to 12K sq ft are not required to have sprinklers and he wondered about the history of why we have a more restrictive law than the sate. He also pointed out a discrepancy in the current law which basically lists every place that is exempt for a sprinkler and it lists a home- based day care facility because it is governed by the state. You can have up to 14 children and not need a sprinkler, yet the small workshop he is working on is required to have one. There was no one else wishing to address the board and the hearing was closed. Discussion Mr. Goodman started the discussion by stating that the Agricultural Committee did submit a statement regarding this proposed law and reminded the board that he has reported at other meetings that he was in favor of more exemptions than the Codes and Ordinances Committee (COC) wanted to do and wanted to add more exemptions. He thinks it is onerous for the smaller buildings and farming buildings that the state would not require a sprinkler but we are. He went on to say that as he understood it, the law was put in place in the 1980s after a fire in which some students were hurt and although Adopted 9 10 2012 TB 8.13.2012 Page 7 of 28 that is laudable, the smaller buildings that have windows and doors readily available are effective for protecting human life and needing a sprinkler becomes cost-prohibitive for the small business owner or farmer. Ms. Hunter asked about past variances and our ability to grant variances in the future and was assured that we do. She asked Mr. Goodman if this was holding up a particular project and whether he was asking for this to go back to committee? Mr. Goodman responded that it would depend on the majority feeling of the board since the committee already did not support his thought on being less restrictive. Mr. Bates that when this first came to committee he went through the criteria that the state has and the COC said they only wanted to change the square footage in a storage building. He wanted to address the agricultural building which is different from agri-business. The Town exempts agricultural buildings that are truly agricultural and not agribusiness. Where they cross the line to an agri-business use in when it is open to the public and there is a difference of opinion between the state and the Dept of Agriculture and until the state defines, they go with that line. Mr. DePaolo asked about the vote at the committee level, which was four to one, and thought the COC probably looked at other things, but the square footage seems the easier way to base something rather than the use of a building but he thought the use might have a big determining factor or whether a sprinkler is needed. Mr. Bates responded that the committee did look at different use scenarios and felt that in most cases the size they recommended would be a good threshold for types of uses that may need review for a variance. Mr. Engman asked about the Agriculture Committee’s (Ag Comm.) recommendation and whether the proposed law addresses it and Ms. Brock stated that it does not. Agricultural buildings are exempt but the interpretation of what an agribusiness structure is. Mr. Bates thought that the Ag Comm. was asking the Board to make a determination that the state can’t agree upon yet. The State Division of Codes states that if you invite the public into the building for selling of products, that’s retail; the state Agriculture and Markets wants to call that agriculture. Mr. Engman asked if we are on legal ground to make that interpretation or if we had to follow the State Division of Code’s? Mr. Bates thought the Town would have to send that determination to the State for approval as less restrictive and he thought that would be a question of Ms. Brock. Ms. Brock responded that the more restrictive applies. Mr. Engman moved to table the motion until the September meeting of the Town Board to gather more information on what we can and can not do. Mr. Goodman seconded. Discussion on the motion to table the resolution: Mr. DePaolo asked whether or not we want to get past the current restrictions to allow the people being held up to move forward and then revisit the draft. Mr. Goodman thought there wasn’t anyone waiting. Mr. Bates asked for clear direction from the Town Board to the Committee on what they wanted them to look at. Mr. Levine asked what the downside would be to passing this and Adopted 9 10 2012 TB 8.13.2012 Page 8 of 28 then making additional adjustments. Mr. Goodman thought it would only be the additional paperwork of filing and public hearings. He also asked the other board members who are on the committee what they thought. Ms. Leary stated that she was in favor of looking at it again because the other members are members of the Planning and Zoning Boards and they get the requests for variances and she noted that Mr. Levine was absent on the day they voted to move their recommendation to the Town Board. She felt that the idea at the committee level was to remove the most onerous and most variance-requested circumstances and was a “first cut” at changes. Mr. Demerest spoke again stating that he believes the agribusiness angle is a red herring and it is the retail small business’ that are under or around 1,000 sq ft adding that that in order to even request a variance, you have to go through the process of planning the whole system out and have engineered drawings etc which adds significant time and costs to small business proposals. Mr. DePaolo thought Mr. Demerest was setting a threshold that suited his proposal not the intent of the change. Mr. Demerest agreed adding that variance process is fine, but there should be some kind of threshold for the small retail or boutique size retail spaces. Mr. Engman thought that this discussion was not really about the small retail enterprises but the larger agricultural retail outlets. Discussion followed on what prompted the referral to the COC and Mr. Bates responded that the colleges had numerous variance requests and the Codes Department asked the Committee for clarification on the law. He would like the Board to pass what is presented tonight and then refer it back to the committee and invite interested people to come to the COC with input. Mr. Engman stated that he would like to see a comprehensive review of the law and look at where we may have made mistakes and become too restrictive costing the town and applicants’ time and money that may not be necessary. That being said, he would like to see the COC discuss the Ag Comm recommendations and he withdrew his motion to table the resolution with Mr. Goodman seconding and the original motion to pass the resolution to change to the law as stated was brought back to the Board. Mr. DePaolo stated that he would not like to limit the discussion at COC to agribusiness, but to look at all the concerns raised and Mr. Goodman assured the Board that they would look at the whole and solicit comments from outside representatives. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012- 146: Local law amending Chapter 225 of the Town of Ithaca code, titled “Sprinkler Systems”, to exempt certain buildings from sprinkler requirements WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Town of Ithaca has received many request in recent years for variances from Chapter 225 of the Town of Ithaca Code titled “Sprinkler Systems” for storage buildings; and Adopted 9 10 2012 TB 8.13.2012 Page 9 of 28 WHEREAS, the Town Board had requests from its constituents to review Chapter 225 “Sprinkler Systems” and consider exempting storage buildings from the requirement for sprinklers; and WHEREAS, the Town Board referred this matter to the Codes and Ordinance Committee for recommendation; and WHEREAS, Codes and Ordinance Committee reviewed and discussed the issue and felt that some storage buildings should be exempt; and WHEREAS, the town’s Code and Ordinance Committee, at its June 20, 2012 meeting voted to send suggested changes with a recommendation to adopt local law #10 of 2012 amending Chapter 225 of the Town of Ithaca Code, titled “Sprinkler Systems”, to exempt certain buildings from sprinkler requirements; and WHEREAS, the Town Board held a duly advertised public hearing at its meeting on August 13, 2012; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, it has been determined by the Town Board that adoption of this local law is a Type II action because it constitutes “routine or continuing agency administration and management, not including new programs or major reordering of priorities that may affect the environment,” and thus adoption of this local law is not subject to review under SEQRA, Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby adopt Local Law #10 of 2012 Amending Chapter 225 of the Town of Ithaca Code, titled “Sprinkler Systems”, to exempt certain buildings from the sprinkler requirements which shall take effect upon filing with the New York Secretary of State. MOVED: Tee Ann Hunter SECONDED: Pat Leary VOTE: Ayes – Hunter, DePaolo, Levine, Engman, Leary and Goodman Absent – Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. (Local Law #10 of 2012) 8. Public Hearing re.: Changes to the Official Town Map Mr. Engman opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the board and the hearing was closed. Adopted 9 10 2012 TB 8.13.2012 Page 10 of 28 TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012- 147: Adoption of Amendments and Revisions to Official Map of the Town of Ithaca WHEREAS, Section 270 of New York Town Law authorizes the Town Board to establish an official map of that part of the town outside the limits of any incorporated city or village showing the streets, highways and parks theretofore laid out, and may also show drainage systems; and WHEREAS, the current Official Map of the Town of Ithaca was last revised in 2010 and has not been changed or amended since then; and WHEREAS, Section 273 of New York Town Law authorizes the Town Board to change or add to the official map of the town so as to lay out new streets, highways, drainage systems or parks, after first referring any such proposed changes or additions to the Planning Board for a report thereon; and WHEREAS, the Town Highway Superintendent/Director of Public Works prepared a draft proposed, revised Official Map, dated March 2012, showing the current and proposed streets, highways, parks and trails in the Town of Ithaca, which represented changes from the 2010 Official Map; and WHEREAS, the Town Board discussed the draft revised Official Map as described above at its regular meeting on April 9, 2012, and referred the proposed changes to the Official Map to the Planning Board for a report and recommendation; and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board reviewed the draft Official Map, dated March 2012, held a public hearing on the draft Official Map at its meeting on April 17, 2012, and recommended that the Town Board adopt the proposed revised Official Map with the changes ultimately shown on the July 9, 2012 draft along with the following additional changes: the elimination of the loop road serving the Cornell golf course and Moakley House; and WHEREAS, the Highway Superintendent/Director of Public Works has made the changes recommended by the Planning Board, and in addition made formatting changes to the Official Town Map, and has changed the Creation Date of the draft revised Official Map of the Town of Ithaca to July 9, 2012; and WHEREAS, at its July 9, 2012 meeting, a resolution was duly adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca for a public hearing to be held by said Town on August 13, 2012 at 5:45 p.m. to hear all interested parties on the proposed changes to the Official Map of the Town of Ithaca; and Adopted 9 10 2012 TB 8.13.2012 Page 11 of 28 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 the proposed changes to the revised Official Map; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, it has been determined by the Town Board that adoption of the proposed local law is a Type II action because it constitutes “mapping of existing roads, streets, highways, natural resources, land uses and ownership patterns,” and thus this action is not subject to review under SEQRA; NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby accepts and adopts the amendments and revisions to the Official Map of the Town of Ithaca as shown on the July 9, 2012 version of the Official Map, which version shall hereafter constitute the Official Map of the Town of Ithaca, effective August 14, 2012. MOVED: Tee Ann Hunter SECONDED: Rich DePaolo VOTE: Ayes – Hunter, DePaolo, Levine, Engman, Leary and Goodman Absent – Horwitz 9. Public Hearing re.: Local law amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding definitions of and requirements for garages and woodsheds Mr. Engman opened the public hearing at 7:01 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the board and the hearing was closed. SEQR Discussion – Ms. Brock had a question about regarding the term “relax” and “strengthen” appearing in two locations. The board decided on the term “clarifies” and the change was made to the SEQR form. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012- 148: SEQR: Local Law Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code to revise the definition of and requirements for garages and woodsheds WHEREAS, this action is the adoption of a Local Law amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled Zoning, to revise the definition of and requirements for Garages and woodsheds; and Adopted 9 10 2012 TB 8.13.2012 Page 12 of 28 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 August 13 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: Eric Levine VOTE: Ayes – Hunter, DePaolo, Levine, Engman, Leary and Goodman Absent – Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. Consider Adoption Discussion Mr. DePaolo thought the resolution and law as stated discriminates against people who burn other type of wood such as limbs etc by saying cord-wood vs gathered wood. Mr. Bates thought the intent was to delineate the storage of wood that is to be burned, not a lawnmower, rakes etc. Mr. DePaolo thought the term “cord wood” made that not the case. Mr. Engman had the same concern, noting that he has a bunch of unused wood that he is going to burn but it is not cord wood. Discussion followed and the Board decided to change “cord wood” to “fire wood”. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012- 149: Local Law Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code to revise the definition of and requirements for garages and woodsheds. WHEREAS, the constituents of the Town of Ithaca were constantly requesting interpretations of the zoning code as it relates to garages and accessory buildings from the Code Enforcement office of the Town of Ithaca; and WHEREAS, the Code Enforcement office felt the code as it relates to garages and accessory buildings seemed complex to interpret and for the code office to enforce; and Adopted 9 10 2012 TB 8.13.2012 Page 13 of 28 WHEREAS, the Town Board also had requests from its constituents to review wood sheds as they pertain to accessory buildings and their locations; and WHEREAS, the Town Board felt it was important to support the citizens of the Town of Ithaca in their efforts to reduce the use of fossil fuels; and WHEREAS, both the issues, garages and woodsheds, were reviewed by the town’s Codes and Ordinance Committee; and WHEREAS, the changes to the zoning code for garages and woodsheds would affect similar sections of Zoning Code of the Code of The Town of Ithaca; and WHEREAS, the town’s Codes and Ordinance Committee, at its June 20, 2012 meeting voted to send suggested changes with a recommendation to adopt local law #11 of 2012 Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code to revise the definition of and requirements for Garages and woodsheds; and WHEREAS, the Town Board advertised and held a public meeting on August 13, 2012 ; 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 August 13 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; and WHEREAS, the Town Board made 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 determined that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby adopt Local Law # 11 of 2012 - Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code to revise the definition of and requirements for garages and woodsheds. Adopted 9 10 2012 TB 8.13.2012 Page 14 of 28 MOVED: Pat Leary SECONDED: Bill Goodman VOTE: Ayes – Hunter, DePaolo, Levine, Engman, Leary and Goodman Absent – Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. 10 Public Hearing re.: Noise permit for St Catherine of Sienna’s Festival TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012 - 150: Approval of Noise Permit for St. Catherine of Siena Parish Festival WHEREAS a noise permit application was received for the annual St. Catherine of Siena Parish Festival to be held on September 15 and 16, 2012 from 3:00pm – 10:00pm and thth 10:00am – 5:00 pm respectively, and WHEREAS these events involve the playing of music or audio, which sound may not be confined to the Parish grounds, and WHEREAS a public hearing was scheduled and notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal and notification made to nearby neighbors through hand-delivered flyers, and WHEREAS said public hearing was duly held on August 13, 2012 at a meeting of the Ithaca Town Board and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said noise permit application, and WHEREAS this same event has been held in the past and no complaints have been received by the Town NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board hereby approves a noise permit for the St. Catherine of Siena Parish Festival. MOVED: Rich DePaolo SECONDED: Tee Ann Hunter VOTE: Ayes – Hunter, DePaolo, Levine, Engman, Leary and Goodman Absent – Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. (Local Law #11 of 2012) 11 Discuss and consider approval of revised Agricultural Committee Organizational structure Mr. DePaolo had a question about the Purpose section on page 1, paragraph 4; the sentence “issues with Town Staff” and wondered what the intent was for that sentence. He was concerned if this was to provide a grievance process or giving a forum for Adopted 9 10 2012 TB 8.13.2012 Page 15 of 28 concerns and what would be the outcome of “concerns with town staff?” Would there be disciplinary action? Mr. Smith responded that he thought this section came from the farmer interviews and there were general concerns that there be a place that the Ag Committee Farmers could voice a concern because they didn’t know where to go with concerns and they were interested in having somewhere to go to and to have a more formal connection with the town. Mr. DePaolo asked if we had this type of verbiage in any other committee language and felt it might too much. Ms. Hunter suggested that the word “staff” be changed to “operations” so it did not imply an individual. The Board agreed and the change was made. Mr. DePaolo asked about Lance Able and who he was. Mr. Smith responded that he is a partner in New Leaf Environmental that is new to the area and that is why he is an associate member. Ms. Brock was concerned about number 2.7 and the word “shall” instead of “may” because shall is a definite commitment by the town. The Board agreed is should be changed to “may.” Ms. Brock was also concerned with the organizations being the members of the committee and the Board should consider changing the Code Chapter 18 which defines citizen committees. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-151: Approval of proposed changes to the organizational structure of the Town’s Agriculture Committee and appointment of membership and officers WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca’s Agriculture Committee was established on October 5, 1992 by the Town of Ithaca Town Board; and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca recently adopted the Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan (November 2011) which included the recommendation to “reactivate and support the Town of Ithaca’s Agriculture Committee” (Recommendation 3-g) and included a “Proposed Charter of the Town of Ithaca Agriculture Committee” (Appendix G); and WHEREAS, the Town’s Agriculture Committee meet on March 27, 2012 and July 31, 2012 and discussed the proposed new organizational structure and recommended the structure be adopted by the Town Board; and WHEREAS, the Agriculture Committee also discussed membership and officers for the new Agriculture Committee for the remainder of 2012, and has provided a recommendation to the Town Board, Adopted 9 10 2012 TB 8.13.2012 Page 16 of 28 WHEREAS, at the regular meeting on August 13, 2012, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca has reviewed the “Rules of Procedures for the Town of Ithaca Agriculture Committee”, dated August 6, 2012, and WHEREAS, this action is a Type II action pursuant to Part 617.5 (c) (20) and (27) of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), and Chapter 148 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca titled “Environmental Quality Review”, thereby not being subject to further environmental review, NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby re-establishes the Town of Ithaca Agriculture Committee and adopts the “Rules of Procedure for the Town of , dated August 6, 2012, a copy of which is attached hereto Ithaca Agriculture Committee” and made part of this resolution, and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby appoints the following farm operations (member organizations) and the designated contacts, to the Agriculture Committee: Steep Hollow Farm (Christianne M. White) Tree Gate Farm (Sharon Tregaskis) Sweyolakan Farm (Jamie Baker) Laughing Goat Fiber Farm (Lisa Ferguson) Forest Family Farm (Claire Forest) A.J. Teeter Farm (Debbie Teeter) Ithaca Equestrian Center (Russ Wedemeyer) RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby appoints the following officers to the Agriculture Committee: Christianne M. White – Chair Sharon Tregaskis – Vice-Chair RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby appoints Lance as an Associate Member to the Agriculture Committee. Ebel MOVED: Bill Goodman SECONDED: Eric Levine VOTE: Ayes – Hunter, DePaolo, Levine, Engman, Leary and Goodman Absent – Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. Adopted 9 10 2012 TB 8.13.2012 Page 17 of 28 12 Discuss and consider approval of updated Town Zoning Map The updates are the addition of changes to the zoning map that have been approved by the town over the past few years that have not been shown or updated on the official Zoning Map. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012 - 152: Approval and acceptance of revised Zoning Map (Effective April 1, 2004 and revised December 11, 2006 and August 13, 2012) to reflect previously approved rezonings WHEREAS, seven zoning changes have been enacted through local laws by the Town Board since the current official Town of Ithaca Zoning Map, Effective April 1, 2004 and revised December 11, 2006, including rezonings enacted by Local Law No. 18, 2008 (Tax Parcel No. 36.-1-4.2/La Tourelle), Local Law No. 1, 2011 (Belle Sherman Cottages), Local Law No. 11, 2011 (Ithaca Beer Co.), Local Law No. 15, 2011 (Ithaca Beer Co.), Local Law No. 1, 2012 (Ithacare), Local Law No. 6, 2012 (Tax Parcel No. 28-1- 10.42/Tree Gate Farm), Local Law No. 7, 2012 (Conifer West Hill Senior Housing Development), and WHEREAS, a revised Town of Ithaca Zoning Map, Effective April 1, 2004, Revised December 11, 2006 and August 13, 2012, has been prepared and presented to the Town Board for review, and WHEREAS, at the regular meeting on August 13, 2012, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca has reviewed the revised Town of Ithaca Zoning Map referenced above, and WHEREAS, this action is a Type II action pursuant to Part 617.5 (c) (19) and (20) of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), and Chapter 148 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca titled “Environmental Quality Review”, thereby not being subject to further environmental review, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby determines that the revised Zoning Map, Effective April 1, 2004, Revised December 11, 2006 and August 13, 2012, correctly incorporates changes made to the official Town of Ithaca Zoning Map, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and accepts the revised Town of Ithaca Zoning Map, Effective April 1, 2004, Revised December 11, 2006 and August 13, 2012, and determines that such map shall be used as the official Town of Ithaca Zoning Map until superseded by further action of the Town Board, or until further modified by local law. Adopted 9 10 2012 TB 8.13.2012 Page 18 of 28 MOVED: Rich DePaolo SECONDED: Bill Goodman VOTE: Ayes – Hunter, DePaolo, Engman, Leary and Goodman Abstention – Levine Absent – Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. 13 Amend and restate the Model Plan of the Deferred Compensation Plan Ms. Drake explained that this is a state requirement to update and accept our deferred compensation plan which is established by the state and we have to accept their changes when they are made. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012- 153: Amend and Restate the Model Plan of the Deferred Compensation Plan WHEREAS, the New York State Deferred Compensation Board (the ""), Board pursuant to Section 5 of the New York State Finance Law ("") and the Section 5 Regulations of the New York State Deferred Compensation Board (the ""), Regulations has promulgated the Plan Document of the Deferred Compensation Plan for Employees of the Town of Ithaca (the "") and offers the Model Plan for adoption by local Model Plan employers; WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca, pursuant to Section 5 and the Regulations, has adopted and currently administers the Model Plan known as the Deferred Compensation Plan for Employees of Town of Ithaca; WHEREAS, effective August 26, 2011 the Board amended the Model Plan to adopt provisions  Reorganizing and updating sections to improve the overall readability and eliminate unnecessary numerical references (annual limits) from the Model Plan document.  Including employer elections within the plan document including: suspension of deferrals following an unforeseeable emergency withdrawal, automatic distributions from small and inactive accounts, loan design parameters and Roth deferrals and in-plan conversions are permissive. The Model Plan document includes a Schedule A where the employer may indicate the election of one or more of these provisions.  Clarifying the first date a participant may make deferrals in compliance with Code Section 457(b) and timing requirements for any subsequent changes to deferral rates or allocations between pre-tax and after-tax deferrals.  Clarifying compensation available for deferral for purposes of calculating contributions and recognizes that employers use various methods in determining the order of deductions taken before a deferral percentage is applied.  Including provisions related to HEART Act of 2008 regarding treatment of differential pay and qualifying distributions for active military service in compliance with the HEART Act, including suspension of deferrals for six months following Adopted 9 10 2012 TB 8.13.2012 Page 19 of 28 distribution.  Making technical recognition of the waiver of RMDs for 2009.  Clarifying that a beneficiary form must be received in good order to be considered valid.  Clarifying that the Model Plan will only accept rollovers from Eligible Retirement Plans comprised of pre-tax amounts and amounts may be rolled in by participants, beneficiaries (other than inherited accounts) and alternate payees. Model Plans may roll account balances out to Eligible Retirement Plans that include post-tax amounts if the receiving plan separately accounts for them.  Clarifying that a beneficiary of a deceased participant may roll a distribution directly to a Roth IRA, in addition to plan participants.  Including language allowing for future delivery of participant communications through electronic means, where appropriate.  Codifying that periodic and lump sum payments must be a minimum of $100 per payment, unless the Committee selects a different minimum, and sets a maximum annual number of partial distributions.  Clarifying that the $50,000 loan limit includes the highest loan value in the last twelve months from the Model Plan and other employer plans. Regarding participants who have defaulted on a Plan loan, subsequent loans would not be allowed until defaulted loan is repaid. Removes requirement that a participant must wait until the term of the original loan expires before applying for a new loan, assuming the defaulted loan is repaid.  Providing guidance on the handling of the receipt of special proceeds such as SEC settlements payable to former participants.  Allowing a surviving spouse beneficiary to name a beneficiary on their account.  Including the 5 year option for non-spousal beneficiaries to receive distributions and makes distribution rules consistent for pre- and post-age 70½ deaths.  Allowing earlier distributions due to severance of employment as long as a balance of $500 remains in the account for 45 days after a severance from employment.  Providing that outstanding loans from another New York state 457(b) plan may be allowed to be transferred or rolled in with a full account transfer.  Removing the Power of Attorney Language since the acceptance of a power of attorney is governed by State law and not required in the Model Plan document.  Clarifying the requirement that Committee actions must be taken at a public meeting in accordance with Article 7 of the Public Officers Law.  Limiting indemnification to Committee Members only. WHEREAS, the Board has offered for adoption the amended and restated Model Plan to each Model Plan sponsored by a local employer in accordance with the Regulations; and Adopted 9 10 2012 TB 8.13.2012 Page 20 of 28 WHEREAS, upon due deliberation, the Town of Ithaca has concluded that it is prudent and appropriate to amend the Deferred Compensation Plan for Employees of the Town of Ithaca by adopting the amended Model Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca hereby amends the Deferred Compensation Plan for Employees of the Town of Ithaca by adopting the Model Plan amended effective August 26, 2011, including the optional provisions in Schedule A, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. MOVED: Tee Ann Hunter SECONDED: Pat Leary VOTE: Ayes – Hunter, DePaolo, Levine, Engman, Leary and Goodman Absent – Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. 14 Consider setting a PH regarding a local law to override the tax levy limit established in General Municipal Law §3-C Mr. Engman noted that the Budget Committee does not see us exceeding the 2% cap, but this is a safety measure just in case. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012- 154: Setting a Public Hearing regarding a Local Law to Override the Tax Levy Limit Established in General Municipal Law §3-C RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will hold a Public Hearing on September 10, 2012 at 5:45 p.m. regarding adoption of a local law to override the tax levy limit established in General Municipal Law §3-C. Notice of this public hearing shall be published in the official newspaper not less than 5 days prior to the hearing. MOVED: Pat Leary SECONDED: Rich DePaolo VOTE: Ayes – Hunter, DePaolo, Levine, Engman, Leary and Goodman Absent – Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. 15 Discuss Referral of a request for No Parking on Slaterville Road to NYS DOT Mr. Goodman gave an update on the emails and calls he has received so far from the mailing the town sent stating that only one person is against it so far. He addressed Mr. Horwitz’s concern and question about resident parking and that is beyond our control and would need state legislature action. Discussion followed on various complaints about the traffic and parking issues. Ms. Hunter stated that she has heard from residents concerned about guest parking and wondered since it won’t happen this season anyway, should we asking the state legislature about resident parking. She Adopted 9 10 2012 TB 8.13.2012 Page 21 of 28 added again that this is a symptom of a larger problem of no swimming access for residents and we depend on tourism and tout it in our Comprehensive Plan but have no access to legal swimming. Mr. DePaolo responded that he is against permit parking, thinking that it is elitist and just because you live on the road, you don’t own the road. There are pros and cons of any road you live on and you know that going in. Ms. Leary disagreed that it is elitist, but, it is not within our power to grant anyway but we should look into the option. She went on to talk about working with the City on parking and access to recreation. Mr. Levine commented that when we established the no parking at Commonland, we knew we were going to have to deal with the parking moving out to Route 79. Mr. Engman noted that the town had a request years ago for resident parking permits and getting the state legislature to approve it wasn’t that bad, but the administration of it was much more involved. He also thought the issue is not necessarily for water access as it is about unmonitored water access to party and we should work with the City and maybe the Town of Ulysses to see what we can do. One solution is cleaning up Stewart Park but it is a regional issue because any access other than that would be up the lake. Mr. DePaolo noted that the idea to form a natural silt catcher and dredge the southern end of the lake was brought to the EPA. 16 Consider Consent Agenda Items TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-156: Consent Agenda BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the following Consent Agenda items: a.Approval of Town Board Minutes July 27, 2012 th b.Town of Ithaca Abstract c.Bolton Point Abstract d.Appointment of Administrative Assistant Position e.Sale of surplus item – Public Works – 1998 Brush Bandit f.Close Capital Project Fund – Snyder Hill Road Reconstruction g.Close Capital Project Fund – Snyder Hill Road Water Main Replacement h.Close Capital Project Fund – Warren Road Walkway i.Close Capital Project Fund – Hungerford Hill Pump Station j.Close Capital Project Fund – Town Hall Roof Replacement MOVED: Bill Goodman SECONDED: Tee Ann Hunter VOTE: Ayes – Hunter, DePaolo, Levine, Engman, Leary and Goodman Absent – Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. Adopted 9 10 2012 TB 8.13.2012 Page 22 of 28 TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-156a : Approval of Minutes of July 27, 2012 WHEREAS, the draft minutes of the July 27, 2012 meetings of the Town Board th 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 July 27, 2012 of the Town Board of the Town of th Ithaca. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -156b: 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. 2507 - 2564 General Fund Town wide 20,088.26 General Fund Part Town 9,037.17 Highway Fund Part Town 37,789.00 Water Fund 87,330.72 Sewer Fund 1,088.48 Fire Protection Fund 301,973.00 Forest Home Lighting District 132.40 Glenside Lighting District 38.66 Renwick Heights Lighting District 55.53 Eastwood Commons Lighting District 136.74 Clover Lane Lighting District 16.07 Winner’s Circle Lighting District 54.90 Burleigh Drive Lighting District 54.45 West Haven Road Lighting District 162.61 Coddington Road Lighting District 97.10 TOTAL 458,055.09 Adopted 9 10 2012 TB 8.13.2012 Page 23 of 28 TB Resolution No. 2012-156c: 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: 1103-1174 Check Numbers: 13978-14049 Burdick Hill Tanks Project $ 300.00 N. Trip Rd T-main Project $ 425.00 Operating Fund $ 135,238.13 TOTAL $ 135,963.13 Less Prepaid $ 20,419.77 TOTAL $ 115,543.36 TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-156d: Appointment of Administrative Assistant- Code Enforcement Department WHEREAS, there is presently a vacancy in the full time position of Administrative Assistant for the Code Enforcement Department; and WHEREAS, the interview committee interviewed 4 candidates from the certified eligible listing for the position; and WHEREAS, the committee has determined that Lori Kofoid possesses the necessary knowledge and skills to satisfactorily perform the duties of the Administrative Assistant position; and WHEREAS, Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement, appointed Lori Kofoid as Administrative Assistant, effective August 6, 2012; Now, therefore be it Adopted 9 10 2012 TB 8.13.2012 Page 24 of 28 RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the appointment made by the Director of Code Enforcement, of Lori Kofoid as Administrative Assistant, effective August 6, 2012; and be it further RESOLVED, this is a full time position at 37.5 hours a week, at the hourly wage of $24.15, which is an estimated annual salary of $47,092, from account number B8010.100, in Job Classification “M”, with full time benefits; and be it further RESOLVED, a mandatory minimum of twenty-six (26) week probationary period applies, which ends February 11, 2013, with no further action by the Town Board if there is successful completion of the probationary period as determined by the Director of Code Enforcement. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-156e: Sale of Surplus Items-Public Works Department —1998 Brush Bandit Chipper WHEREAS: the Town of Ithaca has a 1998 Brush Bandit Chipper; and WHEREAS: through the approval of the 2012 budget, the Town Board authorized the purchase of a new chipper, and WHEREAS: based on data from Auction Companies relative to comparable sales and the “Blue Book” value which is approximately $12,000.00, and WHEREAS: the Town of Newfield would like to purchase the 1998 Brush Bandit Chipper for $12,000.00; and now therefore be it, RESOLVED: the governing Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby declare the above-described equipment to be surplus and no longer needed by the Town; and FURTHER RESOVED: that the above described equipment be transferred to the Town of Newfield for the price identified, with the money from the sale going into the Cash Reserve —Highway Equipment (DB230) account. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012– 156f: AUTHORIZATION TO CLOSE THE SNYDER HILL ROAD IMPROVEMENT CAPITAL PROJECT FUND WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca authorized the Snyder Hill Road Improvement Capital Project Fund under Resolution No. 2011-112a on June 27, 2011; and Adopted 9 10 2012 TB 8.13.2012 Page 25 of 28 WHEREAS, the Town Highway Superintendent/Director of Public Works and Town Engineer have certified the Snyder Hill Road Improvement project has been completed to the satisfaction of the Town; and WHEREAS, after satisfying all obligations and liabilities of the fund there remains a positive equity in the approximate amount of $20,446.23, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, after discussion with the Town Highway Superintendent/Director of Public Works this Town Board declares said project complete; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves, authorizes and directs the Town Finance Officer to close the accounting and financial records for the Snyder Hill Road Improvement Capital Project Fund; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves, authorizes and directs the remaining equity in the Snyder Hill Road Improvement Capital Project Fund be transferred to the Debt Service Fund for payment of principal and interest of the 2011 Public Improvement (Serial) Bonds. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012– 156g: AUTHORIZATION TO CLOSE THE SNYDER HILL ROAD WATER MAIN WATER IMPROVEMENT CAPITAL PROJECT FUND WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca authorized the Snyder Hill Road Water Main Water Improvement Capital Project Fund under Resolution No. 2011-069 on April 11, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Town Highway Superintendent/Director of Public Works and Town Engineer have certified the Snyder Hill Road Water Main Water Improvement project has been completed to the satisfaction of the Town; and WHEREAS, after satisfying all obligations and liabilities of the fund there remains a negative equity in the approximate amount of $3,733.79, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, after discussion with the Town Highway Superintendent/Director of Public Works this Town Board declares said project complete; and be it further Adopted 9 10 2012 TB 8.13.2012 Page 26 of 28 RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves, authorizes and directs the Town Finance Officer to close the accounting and financial records for the Snyder Hill Road Water Main Water Improvement Capital Project Fund; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves, authorizes and directs that the existing negative equity in said fund be offset by a transfer from the Water Fund. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012–156h: AUTHORIZATION TO CLOSE THE WARREN ROAD WALKWAY CAPITAL PROJECT FUND WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca authorized the Warren Road Walkway Capital Project Fund under Resolution No. 2009-091b on May 11, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Town Highway Superintendent/Director of Public Works and Town Engineer have certified the Warren Road Walkway project has been completed to the satisfaction of the Town; and WHEREAS, after satisfying all obligations and liabilities of the fund there remains a negative equity in the approximate amount of $20,529.71, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, after discussion with the Town Highway Superintendent/Director of Public Works this Town Board declares said project complete; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves, authorizes and directs the Town Finance Officer to close the accounting and financial records for the Warren Road Walkway Capital Project Fund; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves, authorizes and directs that the existing negative equity in said fund be offset by a transfer from the General Townwide Fund. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012–156i: AUTHORIZATION TO CLOSE THE HUNGERFORD HILL PUMP STATION WATER IMPROVEMENT CAPITAL PROJECT FUND WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca authorized the Hungerford Hill Pump Station Water Improvement Capital Project Fund under Resolution No. 2011-068 on April 11, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Town Highway Superintendent/Director of Public Works and Town Engineer have certified the Hungerford Hill Pump Station Water Improvement project has been completed to the satisfaction of the Town; and Adopted 9 10 2012 TB 8.13.2012 Page 27 of 28 WHEREAS, after satisfying all obligations and liabilities of the fund there remains a positive equity in the approximate amount of $30,155.41, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, after discussion with the Town Highway Superintendent/Director of Public Works this Town Board declares said project complete; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves, authorizes and directs the Town Finance Officer to close the accounting and financial records for the Hungerford Hill Pump Station Water Improvement Capital Project Fund; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves, authorizes and directs the remaining equity in said fund be transferred to the Water Fund. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-1561: AUTHORIZATION TO CLOSE THE TOWN HALL ROOF REPLACEMENT IMPROVEMENT CAPITAL PROTECT FUND WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca authorized the Town Hall Roof Replacement Improvement Capital Project Fund under Resolution No. 2011-130 on August 8,2011; and WHEREAS, the Town Highway Superintendent/Director of Public Works and Town Engineer have certified Town Hall Roof Replacement Improvement project has been completed to the satisfaction of the Town; and WHEREAS, after satisfpng all obligations and liabilities of the fund there remains a positive equity in the approximate amount of $61,843.41, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, after discussion with the Town Highway Superintendent/Director of Public Works this Town Board declares said project complete; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves, authorizes and directs the Town Finance Officer to close the accounting and financial records for the Town Hall Roof Replacement Improvement Capital Project Fund; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves, authorizes and directs the remaining equity in the Town Hall Roof Replacement Improvement Capital Project Fund be transferred to the Debt Service Fund for payment of principal and interest of the 2011 Public Improvement (Serial) Bonds. Adopted 9 10 2012 TB 8.13.2012 Page 28 of 28 Minutes of July 23, 2012 TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-157 Approval of Minutes of July 23, 2012 WHEREAS, the draft minutes of the July 23'"*^, 2012 meetings 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, with changes, as the final minutes of the July 23'"^, 2012 of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca. MOVED: Bill Goodman SECONDED; Rich DePaolo VOTE: Ayes - Hunter, DePaolo, Levine, Engman, and Goodman Abstention - Leary Absent - Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. ^^t6:^Report of Town Officials Mr. Engman asked Mr. Weber about a couple of items on his report and Mr. Weber explained. Report of Town Committees and Intermunicipal Organizations - None ^ T8., Review of Correspondence Ms. Leary asked how the Board was leaving the woodsmoke issue and Mr. Goodman stated that he would bring it to the COC for an initial discussion and report at the Study Session for the Board to decide where to go from there. Ms. Hunter asked about the Forest Home Park draft agreement and Mr. Engman stated that it just came in and it will be on a future agenda for discussion. Consider Adjournment Meeting was adjourned upon motion and a second at 8:03 p.m. Submitt Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk ( % Adopted 9 10 2012 \s- \ Boarrd of Fire Commissioners Report to Ithaca Town Board August 13, 2012 The following is a summary of the Board of Fire Commissioners quarterly report to the Ithaca Town Board for the 2nd quarter of 2012 including the year to date call activity summary: Included with this report are: • The Fire Chiefs Report given at the July 10,2012 BFC meeting. This includes the Fire Marshal's Report & Fire Prevention Bureau activity. • The financial operations summary through June 30,2012. • The department call activity reports for January 1- June 30,2012. Fire Department Operational Staffing (June 30.2012). • As of June 30,2012 the Active Fire Fighting staffing totaled 64 (on duty staffing-1 Chief, 5 Assistant Chiefs, 9 lieutenants, & 49 Fire Fighters) plus 1 Deputy Chief on per diem. This includes the three new recruit firefighters hired in February, who are now on shift assignments. • The Fire Chief expects to fill the open Deputy Chief position in August. • The department has filled the administrative coordinator's position - June Overslaugh began work in late July. This position replaces the Office manager position. The Administrative Assistant position is currently vacant and will not be filled. There is a temporary assistant helping out for a transition period. Volunteer Company Organization - the Board of Fire Commissioners has been working with the City Attorney's Office, the Fire Chief, members of the 8 volunteer companies, and the current active volunteers in the department to reorganize the active volunteer structure in the department. A public hearing to review issues related to the current volunteer compeuiy structure was held on June 2f in the Common Council Chambers. The City Attorney reviewed a number of legal concerns with the current structure with 8 volunteer companies and 14 active volunteers and the distribution and use of 2% funds (foreign fire insurance tax funds). The Fire Chief spoke regarding his desire to increase the number of volunteers in the department to supplement and support the career staff. Both he and the Board are interested in having an effective and administratively efficient method of recruiting and supporting an increased number of active volunteers. A number of individuals representing the eight volunteer companies raised questions and concerns about any restructuring and concerns about the commitment of the Department and the City to supporting a volunteer system. There has been further discussion of the reorganization of the volunteer companies at the regular July 10''* meeting of the Board and at a special meeting held on July 31,2012. The Special Meeting on July 31^' was to review the Department's 2013 budget submission to the Mayor and the proposed restructuring of the volunteer companies, which would reduce the number of companies from 8 to 1 active company. BFC Report to Town of Ithaca Board 13 Feb. 2012 2013 Fire Department Budget - At the July 31^' meeting, the Fire Chief reviewed the 2013 budget that he was submitting to the Mayor for review and discussion. The Mayor had asked all departments to prepare their budgets with a 10% reduction from the 2012 budget. The impact of this on the fire department would require a reduction of 12 fire fighter positions in the department. In all likelihood this scenario would require the closing of 1 or 2 fire stations. A 2% reduction in the total budget for the department would still have a significant impact on the level of service provided to the community. Stations would not be closed but some stations would likely only be staffed approximately 80% of the time. The Chief will be reviewing this budget with the mayor and the town as the 2013 budget process moves forward. Items in progress; 1 Charter Review- the BFC continues to review and discuss changes in the charter relating to the role and responsibilities of the Board of Fire Commissioners. 2 Resource recovery -the Board will be reviewing the status of a draft recommendation sent for review to the City Attorney. 3 County Fire-Disaster - EMS Advisory Board- no new action on this issue. 4 Training Center Facility Project - this is still under consideration, no construction has been authorized due to the training site being located on land designated as City Park land. ^ 5 The Board is working with the Fire Chief and the City Clerk's Office to begin posting BFC meeting agendas and minutes on the City Website. Agenda's for meetings in 2012 have been posted. http://www.egovlink.com/ithaca/docs/menu/home.asp?path=/public documents300/ithac a/publisheddocuments/Agendas 6 Town Ad Hoc Fire Service Committee and Town concerns about the cost of Fire Service to the Town. Members of the Board of Fire Commissioners have had detailed presentations by the Fire Chief on the cost of IFD operations and the impact on service delivery that would need to occur with various levels of staffing reductions. The Board would like to remain involved with the Town in the on-going discussions on this complex issue. 7 The Board is reviewing the role of volunteers in the Ithaca Fire Department- see information above regarding reorganization of volunteer companies. Respectfully Submitted, Bill Gilligan Chair, Board of Fire Commissioners Page 2 ^ ^ Iv ITHACA 310 West Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5497 OFi-icH OF 'fhk firf: chikf Tdephoiic; 6(1?, 272-125 i l ax. 6(>7/2-'2-2~95 MEMORANDUM 4 o: Board of Fire Commissioners From: Tom Parsons, Fire Chief Dale: Julyl0'\2012 Re: Fire Chief s Monthly Report to the Board of Fire Commissioners LIFE SAFETY DIVISION Administration 1) Career Personnel Report PERSONNEL STAFFING LEVELS 1 Chief I Deputy Chief (per diem) 5 Assistant Chiefs 9 Lieutenants 49 Fire Fighters 64 Uniform Personnel Administrative Coordinator (currently being filled with a part-time employee) Administrative Assistant fotal employees as of 3/12/2012 - 66.5 a) Hiring/Recruitment Committee • None c) Retirements: • None d) Promotions: • None e) Recruit Fire Fighters: ".An i:<jual Opportunity limpioyrr willi ii coinmilimMU ti) worklorcc divci-sitit iUion," Page 2 of4 - Fire Chiefs Monthly Report July 10 ,2012 • The department's 3 new firefighters; Nicholas Raponi, Nicolas T ier, and Matthew Watros, have completed most of tlieir training. They have now been assigned to shift. d) Vacancies: • Deputy Fire Chief: 1 will be interviewing Deputy Fire Chief Candidates later this month. After inter\'ievvs, a decision on appointment will be made in August. • Administrative Coordinator: I have offered the Administrative Coordinator Position to June Overslaugh who currently is an Administrative Coordinator at GIAC. June will be starting with the Fire Department on or about July 23'^'^, 2012 2) Budget Status a) A budget Status Report: A draft of the Budget was submitted to the Mayor on July 2'"', 2012. I'm waiting feedback on the draft, before 1 begin work in finalizing the budget. We will need to schedule a Special Meeting of the Board of Fire Commissioners to review the Budget Submittal. As requested by the Mayor drafted a budget that cuts 10% of personnel costs and 1% non-personnel costs from the approved 2012 budget. The preliminary estimates are that our personnel ' lines in the budget will be cut nearly $500,000, with additional increases of $300,000, due to raises and step increases, that will also need to be absorbed into the budget reductions. b) Capital Budget - The new Pumper/Aerial Tmck has been ordered. We are expecting deliveiy in June of 2013. 3) County Communications and 911 Program: a) The consultant hired by Tompkins County who is reviewing the 911 Center Operations, is developing his final report and will be submitting it to Tompkins County later this summer. 4) Grants and Donations a) Training Center Project Funding; No Report 5) Resource Recovery Legislation No New Report - The City and Administration Committee of Common Council has voted to send this proposal to the Budget Review committee. ^4^ Page 3 of4 - Fire Chiefs Montlily Report July lO"', 2012 6) City Charter Update No New Report - Delegated to a committee establislied by the Board of Commissioners Operations 1) Mutual Aid Calls: Quarterly Report 2) Selected Calls - No Report 3) Support No Report LIFE SAFETY DIVISION Fire Prevention Bureau 1) Code Enforcement Division: The Codes Enforcement Division received 37 complaints for the Months of May and June. There were 9 complaints forwarded to the City of Ithaca Building Department. There were 23 complaints closed out, and 30 complaints remain open since January 2012. The Code Enforcement Division performed 195 fire safety and property maintenance inspections or re-inspections. The Code Enforcement Division issued: 30 Operating Pennits for Assembly Occupancies; 15 Fire Alarm Certificates of Compliance; 3 Fire Sprinkler System Certificate of Compliance; 1 Fire Pump Certificate of Compliance; 3 Operating Pemiit for Hazardous Occupancy; ruid 29 Certificates of Compliance for Fire and Property Maintenance Inspections for May and June of 2012. 2) Fire Investigation Unit: There were two fire investigations performed in June for a structure fires at 323 Elmira Rd. and 301 Eddy St. in the City of Ithaca. The cause of the fires were accidental and caused minimal damage 3) Public Education: Page 4 of 4 - Fire Chiefs Monthlv Report My 10", 2012 \ There was Ifire drill witnessed, 14 public education events, and 4 child car seal inspections perfonned by the department in May and June. OPERATIONS DIVISION Response 1) Qiuuterly Call Report 2) Emergency Management No report Support 1) Training Center Quailerly Report Training Quailerly Report ' Volunteer Recruitment and Retention 1) Suramai ies of Service Hours: Quarterly Report 2) There are currently 14 Active Volunteer Firefighters and Fire Police 3) Requests from Company Members to become active: No Requests Received Ithaca Fire Department Incident Type Period Comparisons Alarm Date Between {01/01/2012}and {06/30/2012} Incident Type 01/01/2012 01/01/2011 01/01/2010 01/01/2009 to to to to 06/30/2012 06/30/2011 06/30/2010 06/30/2009 100 Fire, Other 3 1 5 4 111 Building fire 14 19 19 22 112 Fires in structure other than in a building 0 2 0 0 113 Cooking fire, confined to container 15 8 8 17 114 Chimney or flue fire, confined to chimney or 0 1 2 2 118 Trash or rubbish fire, contained 3 3 1 12 130 Mobile property (vehicle) fire. Other 1 0 0 0 131 Passenger vehicle fire 6 7 6 4 132 Road freight or transport vehicle fire 0 0 0 2 134 Water vehicle fire 0 0 0 1 138 Off-road vehicle or heavy equipment fire 1 0 0 0 140 Natural vegetation fire. Other 6 1 5 7 141 Forest, woods or wildland fire 0 0 1 1 142 Brush or brush-and-grass mixture fire 2 0 1 0 143 Grass fire 1 0 2 1 150 Outside rubbish fire. Other 4 2 3 3 151 Outside rubbish, trash or waste fire 5 4 5 1 Dumpster or other outside trash receptacle fire 3 1 3 1 Outside stationary compactor/compacted trash 0 0 1 0 Special outside fire. Other 3 3 1 3 1/0 Cultivated vegetation, crop fire. Other 0 1 2 0 240 Explosion (no fire), Other 0 0 0 1 243 Fireworks explosion (no fire)0 0 1 0 251 Excessive heat, scorch burns with no ignition 1 1 1 0 300 Rescue, EMS incident, other 7 13 16 37 3001Gorge Rescue, EMS incident. Ground Evacuation 1 0 0 0 311 Medical assist, assist EMS crew 15 12 20 116 320 Emergency medical service, other 5 0 0 0 321 EMS call, excluding vehicle accident with injury 946 1038 897 704 322 Motor vehicle accident with injuries 53 54 38 57 323 Motor vehicle/pedestrian accident (MV Ped)14 7 3 11 324 Motor Vehicle Accident with no injuries 15 18 14 2 3311Lock-in / Knox Box Access Required 2 0 1 0 3312Lock-in / Force Entry Required 2 0 1 0 341 Search for person on land 2 0 0 0 342 Search for person in water 0 0 1 1 350 Extrication, rescue. Other 2 0 0 0 351 Extrication of victim(s) from building/structure 0 1 0 0 352 Extrication of victim(s) from vehicle 2 1 2 0 353 Removal of victim(s) from stalled elevator 4 5 12 2 356 High-angle rescue 0 0 2 1 /^^Gorge Rescue, High-angle Extrication 0 1 0 0 Water & ice-related rescue, other 0 1 1 0 08/13/2012 10:50 Page Ithaca Fire Department Incident Type Period Comparisons Alarm Date Between {01/01/2012} and {06/30/2012} Incident Type 01/01/2012 to 01/01/2011 to 01/01/2010 to 01/01/2009 to 06/30/2012 06/30/2011 06/30/2010 06/30/2009 361 Swimming/recreational water areas rescue 0 1 0 1 363 Swift water rescue 0 1 0 0 365 Watercraft rescue 0 0 1 0 381 Rescue or EMS standby 2 1 5 0 400 Hazardous condition, Other 24 33 46 34 410 Combustible/flaiTunable gas/liquid condition.4 9 2 1 411 Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill 2 3 6 11 412 Gas leak (natural gas or LPG)21 27 48 11 413 Oil or other combustible liquid spill 2 3 2 4 421 Chemical hazard (no spill or leak)0 0 0 2 422 Chemical spill or leak 2 2 1 0 423 Refrigeration leak 0 0 0 1 424 Carbon monoxide incident 4 6 13 17 440 Electrical wiring/equipment problem, Other 8 3 7 2 441 Heat from short circuit (wiring), defective/worn 1 2 1 0 442 Overheated motor 4 1 3 2 443 Breakdown of light ballast 1 3 2 5 444 Power line down 17 14 13 8 445 Arcing, shorted electrical equipment 12 8 9 6 451 Biological hazard, confirmed or suspected 0 1 0 0 460 Accident, potential accident. Other 0 1 0 1 461 Building or structure weakened or collapsed 1 3 0 2 463 Vehicle accident, general cleanup 6 0 5 18 471 Explosive, bomb removal (for bomb scare, use 0 0 1 0 480 Attempted burning, illegal action. Other 3 0 1 0 481 Attempt to burn 0 0 0 1 500 Service Call, other 55 69 73 95 510 Person in distress. Other 7 4 9 4 511 Lock-out 1 5 5 5 520 Water problem. Other 5 7 6 6 521 Water evacuation 0 10 2 2 522 Water or steam leak 7 9 13 10 531 Smoke or odor removal 4 2 7 0 540 Animal problem. Other 1 0 0 0 542 Animal rescue 0 1 1 0 550 Public service assistance. Other 4 9 13 12 551 Assist police or other governmental agency 13 12 8 18 552 Police matter 0 3 2 2 553 Public service 3 1 4 2 554 Assist invalid 1 2 5 1 555 Defective elevator, no occupants 0 0 0 1 561 Unauthorized burning 2 2 8 4 571 Cover assignment, standby, moveup 1 1 1 4 08/13/2012 10:50 Page Ithaca Fire Department Incident Type Period Comparisons Alarm Date Between {01/01/2012} and {06/30/2012} Incident Type 01/01/2012 to 01/01/2011 to 01/01/2010 to 01/01/2009 to 06/30/2012 06/30/2011 06/30/2010 06/30/2009 600 Good intent call, Other 36 34 46 42 611 Dispatched & cancelled en route 6 6 8 51 6111Dispatched & cancelled en route - By Dispatcher 4 8 4 0 6112Dispatched & cancelled en route - By Bangs 75 42 70 48 6113Dispatched & cancelled en route - By CUEMS 32 36 23 10 6114Dispatched & cancelled en route - By CU EH&S 19 24 20 6 6115Dispatched & cancelled en route - By IC Safety 4 4 1 0 6116Dispatched & cancelled en route - By Other EMS 0 0 1 0 6117Dispatched & cancelled en route - By MA Dept 3 4 0 1 6118Dispatched & cancelled en route - By IPD 2 3 4 4 6119Dispatched & cancelled en route - By Other 0 1 0 0 621 Wrong location 1 2 1 1 622 No Incident found on arrival at dispatch address 9 13 9 0 631 Authorized controlled burning 2 4 3 2 632 Prescribed fire 0 0 2 1 641 Vicinity alarm (incident in other location)0 1 2 0 650 Steam, Other gas mistaken for smoke. Other 0 3 3 2 Smoke scare, odor of smoke 5 14 5 21 Steam, vapor, fog or dust thought to be smoke 4 2 2 0 Smoke from barbecue, tar kettle 2 0 1 2 6bl EMS call, party transported by non-fire agency 0 1 0 1 671 HazMat release investigation w/no HazMat 19 15 9 3 700 False alarm or false call. Other 6 9 11 14 7001False alarm or false call. Other - Medical Alarm 7 11 0 0 710 Malicious, mischievous false call. Other 3 6 2 9 711 Municipal alarm system, malicious false alarm 0 0 12 8 712 Direct tie to FD, malicious false alarm 0 0 2 12 713 Telephone, malicious false alarm 2 0 1 1 714 Central station, malicious false alarm 14 28 18 16 715 Local alarm system, malicious false alarm 0 2 1 2 721 Bomb scare - no bomb 2 1 0 0 730 System malfunction. Other 27 25 27 32 731 Sprinkler activation due to malfunction 1 5 3 22 733 Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 20 21 33 36 734 Heat detector activation due to malfunction 3 4 3 8 735 Alarm system sounded due to malfunction 61 60 40 34 736 CO detector activation due to malfunction 14 8 9 5 740 Unintentional transmission of alarm. Other 45 56 54 208 741 Sprinkler activation, no fire - unintentional 7 5 12 7 742 Extinguishing system activation 1 0 0 0 743 Smoke detector activation, no fire -220 296 268 276 7^^ Detector activation, no fire - unintentional 112 83 97 13 Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 66 66 67 17 08/13/2012 10:50 Page Ithaca Fire Department Incident Type Period Comparisons Alarm Date Between {01/01/2012} and {06/30/2012} Incident Type 01/01/2012 01/01/2011 01/01/2010 01/01/2009 to to to to 06/30/2012 06/30/2011 06/30/2010 06/30/2009 746 Carbon monoxide detector activation, no CO 9 12 13 1 800 Severe weather or natural disaster. Other 2 0 0 0 813 Wind storm, tornado/hurricane assessment 0 0 0 6 900 Special type of incident. Other 0 0 2 1 911 Citizen complaint 0 0 0 1 Totals 2201 2379 2287 2230 08/13/2012 10:50 Page 4 )7r>Incident Type Summary (Modified)Alarm Date Between {01/01/2012} And (06/30/2012)Good intent Caii 10%sHazardous Condition (No Fire) 5%-^Overpressure Rupture, Expiosion, Overheat(no fire) 0.0%-Aiarm & Raise Gail 28%Severe Weather & Natural Disaster 0.0%ervice Cali 5%Rescue & Emergency Medical Service Incident 49%False Alarm & False GallFireGood Intent CallHazardous Condition (No Fire)Overpressure Rupture, Explosion. Overheat(no fire)Rescue & Emergency Medical Service IncidentService CallSevere Weather & Natural Disaster IFD Responses - Electrion District1/1/2012 through 6/30/2012FireOverpressureRuptureEMS RescueHazardousConditionService CaitGood intentAlarm / No FireSevere WeatherotherTotalCity - 1st Ward, District 1, NE. West Hill202042660040aty - 1st Ward. District 2. W. West Hill00S3111860079City - 1st Ward, District 3. SW, Southwest40S86811120099City - 1st Ward, District 4, S, Lower South Hill10IS4S330031City - 1st Ward, District 5, S, Upper South Hill0013324130035City - 2nd Ward. District 1, NE, Triangle40346411170076City - 2nd Ward, District 2, S, Southside, Titus90104714168800238City - 2nd Ward, District 3, W, Fulton, Court, Lin7088146224500182City - 2nd Ward, District 4, Commons East Business609971820SO00200Gty - 3rd Ward, District 1, E, Cornell Campus107541406010182City - 3rd Ward, District 2, E, Colleqetn BelSher0018S34370067City - 3rd Ward, District 3, SE, BelSher, E State201142240025Qty - 4th Ward, District 1, NE, West Campus1017107250051City - 4th Ward, District 2, E, Middle East Hill2011203290047City - 4th Ward, District 3, E, Lower Collegetown21SI8245510124City - Sth Ward, District 1, N, Fall Crfc and Wllw001713480033City - Sth Ward, District 2, N, Fall Cr1<, Gun HilS014343130042City - Sth Ward, District 3, NE, Cornell Heights20IS434330061City - Sth Ward, District 4, Farm, Aurora, King101014270025Town - District 1, NW, Trumansburq Rd103536360054Town - District 2, SW, Bostwick & Elmira Rds201341200022Town - District 3, S, Stone Quarry and South Hill2065142100084Town • District 4, E, Ellis Hollow to Slateryille1059219240096Town - District S, NE, Cornell Campus to NE103304170028Town - District 7, N, Village of Cayuga Hgts0000010001Town - District 9, N, East Shore and Renwick1031013009Town - District 10, S, Ithaca College406322S3000106Town - District 11, SE, Troy Coddingtn Slaterville001920160028Town - District 12, E, Maple Ave101120020016Town • District 13, S, South of King Rd001330020018Town - District 14, W, Mecktenburq Rd006036690084Town - District IS, N, Hanshaw, Highgate, Trip.0000010001Out of Districts0S1240001733 )IFD Responses 1/1/2012 through 6/30/2012□ Other□ Severe Weather□ Alarm / No FireGood Intent■ Service Call□ Hazardous Condition■ EMS Rescue■ Overpressure Rupture■ Fire&\ \Election District Ithaca Fire Department ResponsesJanuary 1st to September 30th 2011Overpressure/HazardousGood intentSeverePercentage ofDistrictFireRuptureEMS/RescueConditionService CaiiCaiiAiarms/No FireWeatherOtherTotalincidentsCity of ithaca461639818113743210141864.43%City of ithaca - Corneii Property4083424777102189.90%City of ithaca - ithaca College00300000030.14%Town of ithaca60285191722580040718.49%Town of ithaca - Cornel] Property2075082800502.27%Town of ithaca - ithaca College40502252500884.00%Outside ithaca505124000170.77%Overpressure/HazardousGood intentSeverePercentage ofDistrictFireRuptureEMS/RescueConditionService CaiiCaiiAiarms/No FireWeatherOtherTotalincidentsTotal City501725858318450920163974.47%Total Town1203422619351110054524.76%Outside ithaca505124000170.77%Total2201))3 )Ithaca Fire DepartmentResponses - 1/1/2012 through 6/30/2012Q-aQ-Q-p.C-2.-A%V\<5.\n othern Severe Weather■Alarms/No Fire■ Good Intent Call■ Service Call□ Hazardous Condition■ EMS/Rescue■ Overpressure/Rupture■ Fire-A%\'b'<>3^District\% Ithaca Fire Department Responses by MunicipalityJanuary 1st to Junes 30th 201218001600140012001000800600400200n Othern Severe Weathern Alarms/No FireI n Good Intent Calln Service Call□ Hazardous Condition■ EMS/Rescue■ Overpressure/Rupture■ FireTotal CityTotal TownMunicipalityOutside Ithacaz:>) r)Ithaca Fire Department Responses by MunicipalityJanuary 1st to June 30th 2012100%Town of thacaCity of IthacaI Outside IthacaITown of IthacaI City of Ithaca Ithaca Fire Department IFD False Alarm Cause Report Alarm Date Between {01/01/2012} And {06/30/2012} False Alarm Cause Total Percent of All: Bomb Scare, No Bomb 2 0.3 % Detection Device, Cleaning 7 1.1 % Detection Device, Damage 7 1.1 % Detection Device, Dust 70 11.2 % Detection Device, Extinguisher 1 0.1 % Detection Device, Insects 7 1.1 % Detection Device, Malfunction 62 10.0 % Detection Device, Painting 4 0.6% Detection Device, Water 15 2.4 % Dispatch Error 7 1.1 % Duct Detector, Dust 1 0.1 % Fog-Smoke Machine 1 0.1 % Malicious, Phone Call 2 0.3 % Malicious, Pull - Private Alarm 15 2.4 % None 14 2.2 % PERS, Emergency Button 7 1.1 % PERS, Pendenant 6 0.9% Pull Station Unintentional 29 4.6% Smoke, Cooking NO FIRE 183 29.5 % Smoke, Illegal Drug Use 2 0.3% Smoke, Soldering-Welding 1 0.1 % Smoke, Solid Fuel Appliance 4 0.6% Smoke, Tobacco Product 13 2.1 % Sprinkler, Contractor 5 0.8 % Sprinkler, Flow Switch Malfunction 3 0.4 % Sprinkler, Frozen Pipe 4 0.6 % Sprinkler, Physical Damage 1 0.1 % Sprinkler, Water Surge 9 1.4 % Steam, Bathroom or Shower 4 0.6 % Steam, Cooking 1 0.1 % Steam, Laundry 4 0.6% Steam, Other 12 1.9% System Activation, Contractor 36 5.8 % System Activation, Malfunction 67 10.8 % System Activation, Power Out 1 0.1 % ; ^ 08/12/2012 07:51 Page 1 Ithaca Fire Department IFD False Alarm Cause Report Alarm Date Between {01/01/2012} And {06/30/2012} False Alarm Cause Total Percent of All System Activation/ Weather System Activation,Malicious Trouble Alarm 2 1 10 0.3 % 0.1 % 1.6 % Total Incident Count 620 08/12/2012 07:51 Page 2 Count of Incidents by Alarm HourAlarm Date Between {01/01/2012} And {06/30/2012}130-120-110-100-Aim Hour )400-350-300-250-200-150-100-50-Incident Responses by Day of WeekAlarm Date Between {01/01/2012} And {06/30/2012}SunMonTueWedDay of Week NameThuFriSat Ithaca Fire Department Volunteer Hours Report (Summary) Staff Id > "2000" and Date Between {01/01/2012} And {06/30/2012} n Staff Id Alt Id Name Total 4602 Adams, Andrew J 24.50 3258 Baker, Lyman E 25.85 3584 Bordoni, Jack D 25.65 4413 Cantone, Frank 153.47 4600 Canzler, Raymond 15.50 4601 Cook, Jeffrey H 34.93 3883 Cornelius, Dave 20.38 4188 Gilligan, William 124.07 4087 Gingras, Scott E 4.50 4301 Gould, Jack 25.65 4153 Longo, Robert 25.00 4193 Maas, Daniel I 158.83 3793 Rogers, James 25.54 4212 Wilbur, Richard 9.00 672.87 /n / 1 08/12/2012 07:48 Page BudgetAccountNumbers- I Administration &Planning 12050Fire PreventionZ I Bureau 12100 I "*8ISafely Section12150Response SectionSupport Section i12250_ I Emergency— I I ManagementI i ^ I 12300Training Bureau12350rMembershipSection 12400Service / DutySection 12450Ithaca Festival12500BalancePercentExpended5«1^\,g0^UJcQ.(Q(DCQi§o go oo -»■C N3ro0)Z3O(DO) 2012 REVENUE SUMMARY BY ACCOUNTJune 2012RevisedREVENUEPCT Remaining • AverageCollected i REVENUE Mthly ( ProjectedYTD REVENUEFire Code inspection1565 I $17,450$15,236$2,214 1^,539$7$30,472Home & Comm Services |2/89 J$700Public Safety Services2260 $5,00012% I $4,384 $103$1,232Fire Protective Services$3,135,000$1,313,07842% I $1,821,922 j $218,846 |$2,626,156$18,700$1,550$1,558Rental of Real Property 2410$10,900$9,350Rental of EquipmentPublic Safety Permits2550 $7,000$3,836$3,164 !$639$7,672Fines & Forfeited Bail2610 $1,500$1,475Minor SalesSale of Equipment2665 l$0Insurance Recoveries$8,000$8,359$1,393$16,718Ottier Compensation for Loss 2690 $50Refund Prior Year Expense2701 $200$20,87410437% -$20,674 J $3,479$41,74842705 1 $730,485Gifts & Donations$730,485$701,445Unclassified Revenue2770 $600Home & Community Senrice 3989 $0$3,916,985$1,371,417 |35.0% '*'" "^568 j$228,570 |$3,444,2804:3 =Nd/btonooo.aoseaeseeetoSQSo0SO!to0to.00IIaIISIS.it‘a0(a22’-5/fljt1‘7’&7):-‘%7//ZW?/àFvvj‘4’%3t_aC.,4.,%ck‘A.-I.;—_—:•,I--.,....,..2.•...-._L.......i.1iVIJ-b1d7\“c\-..a—P.rg.4.108N8oj“NE:N.8[S-r)OOODOZ)O0OODOOQOOOQOO0OOO‘àc\OOODoI\NF2.rIis-Sa.___I_________________1’U0-•i4--z1-I1”#HoIyiondlin4nd1)56O4C—z14_Vf-Llt’-bc’11fr\izJflJ-fl%alCi604y1’VNoIJ-VF\-z1j4oD1J__tts1tti--d\1c-4kni—iitoii--tj,U.-—a.....,...&r,Aa———a □□□□□□□ Town Assigned Project ID Number Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY ONLY PART 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) 1. Applicant/Sponsor EcoVillage 2. Project Name Proposed Amendments to EcoVillage PDZ 3. Precise location (street address, road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map:) Rachel Carson Way, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-26.84 4. Is proposed action: NEW? X EXPANSION? MODIFICATION/ALTERATION? 5. Describe project briefly: (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other relevant items): Proposal involves a Local Law amending Chapter 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code, titled "Zoning: Special Land Use Districts", to change the EcoVillage Planned Development Zone provisions relating to commercial uses. Specifically the law would: expand the types of limited commercial uses allowed at EcoVillage; and allow commercial uses to occur within a specified location of EcoVillage and within this area up to five buildings could be constructed to provide the commercial uses, providing that the interior floor area of any one building not exceed 1,000 square feet per floor area, and that the total floor area for all floors (except a basement used solely K, for storage) of all buildings not exceed 7,000 square feet. (Attach separate shcet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.) 6. Amount of land affected: Approximately 1.1 acres Initially (Q-5yrs) X Acres (6-lOyrs) x (>10yrs) X Acres 7. How is land zoned presently? Planned Development Zone (#8) 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? Yes NO If no, describe conflict briefly: N/A The proposal seeks to modify the existing zoning to allow future proposed uses that are not currently allowed in the PDZ. 9. Will proposed action lead to a request for new: Public Road? YES NO X Public Water? YES NO X Public Sewer? YES NO X 10. What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? Residential X Commercial X Industrial Agriculture X Park/Forest/Open Space X Other Please Describe: 11. Does proposed action involve a permit, approval, or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal, State, Local?) YES NO X If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding: 12. Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval? YES X NO If yes, list agency name and permit/approval. Also,/state whether it will require modification.y'es, list agency name and permit/approval. Also,/State wiietlier it will require modiiication. . ' I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORAJATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO tViE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/Sponsor Name (Print or Type): s ^ Jg.e.y"e^c...-tr-^ Signature and Date: PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town; Use attachments as necessary) proposed action exceed any Type 1 threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.12 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES NO X If yes, coordinate the review process and use the full EAF. J. Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6 YES NO X If no, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency, if any. C. Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: ( Answers may be handwritten, if legible) Cl. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production and disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: None Anticipated. The proposed action is adoption of a iocal law amending PDZ No. 8 (EcoVillage) to allow limited commerciai uses within the PDZ. The commerciai uses would be restricted to a specific iocation within the EcoVillage PDZ and would be limited to 7,000 square feet of commercial space-with no single commercial use building to exceed 1000 square feet per floor. C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources? Community or Neighborhood character? Explain briefly: None Anticipated. Commercial structures built subsequent to the law's enactment will be restricted to a specified area (approximately 1.1 acres in size) and will require site plan approval by the Planning Board to insure consistency with the community/neighborhood character. C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish, or wildlife species, significant habitats, unique natural area, wetlands, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: None Anticipated. C4. The Town^s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly: None Anticipated. The proposed action will aiiow additional but limited commercial services to be provided at EcoVillage to serve neighborhood residents, visitors and others. Some limited commercial uses (mostly personal and professional related services/home occupations) currently take place in the EcoVillage neighborhood. The proposed PDZ ''^Modifications would expand the allowed uses but restrict the types and size of the commerciai area. The limited expansion of the mixed use within this growing EcoVillage neighborhood is consistent with the general goals of the Town. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly: None Anticipated. C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-C5? Explain briefly: None Anticipated. C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy) Explain briefly: None Anticipated. D. Is there, or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? YES NO X If yes, explain briefly: E. Comments of staff , CB , other attached. (Check as applicable.) PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca) Instructions: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important, or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope, and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting material. Ensure that the explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately address. Check here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. X Check here if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on Attachments as necessary the reasons supporting this determination. Town of Ithaca Town Board Name of Lead Agency Preparer's Signature(If different from Responsible Officer) Herb Engman. Town Supervisor ^.J^^ame & title of Responsible Officer In Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer DATE: 9'V .i^alnre of ReSndhsible Omcemh Lead Agency 617.20 "S/l 3/1 a_ Appendix A State Environmentai 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 anaiysis 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-iarge, 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: 1^ i Part 1 1^1 Part 2 I Ipart 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: H 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. □ 8. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there wiil not be a significant effectfor this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* I i 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 defuiitions of and the requirements for garages and woodsheds. Name of Action Town of Ithaca Town Board Name of Lead Agency Herbert Engman Town of Ithaca Supervisor Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible GITi! ^ ^^ Sign^rSof ^sponslpiiyofficer in Agency Signature^of Prepare? (If different from responsible officer) 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 definitions of and the requirements for garages and woodsheds. 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 State Zip Code Business Telephone Description of Action: 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 amending the definition of garages and adding woodsheds and wked^the location requirement for both garages and woodsheds throughout the different zones of the town. Page 2 of 21 Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. SITE DESCRIPTION Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present Land Use: □ Urban El Industrial □ Commercial El Residential (suburban) Rural (non-farm) □ Forest □Agriculture □ ^h-r amendments will affect aU zoning designations in the Town. n/a .acres.2. Total acreage of project area: 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) i Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate ty pe) PRESENTLY n/a acres nM acres n/a acres n/a acres n/a acres n/a acres n/a acres acres AFTER COMPLETION acres acres acres aaes acres acres acres acres 4. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Not applicable; a high variability of soil types exist within each zone. a. Soil drainage: I I Well drained % of site □ Moderately well drained % of site. LI 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). 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 zones, 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 zone. nQ-1Q% % rilO-15% % □ 15% or greater % 6. Is project substantiail^ontiguous to. or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or National Registers ofaiiv c B □Historic Places?Yes No 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? □ Yes Hno 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? I lYes i I No Not applicable 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? B Yes □ No Page 3 of 21 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? [^Yes [3No According to NYS DEC Heritage Program (Nature Explorer website) there are several species of endangered plants/animals whose presence in the Town have been documented. The proposed action will have no adverse impact on these species. Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations? Hves n No Describe: 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? 0 Yes 0 No If yes, explain Several NYS and Town parks and trails exist within the project areas 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? [^Yes nNo 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 project area: Streams of various sizes exist throughout the Town and occur within the areas addressed m this action a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributaiy 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area Ponds and wetlands occur m many areas of the Town. b. Size (in acres) Page 4 of 21 „ niw n K. Includes areas served and not served by utilities. ('^^17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? L-J Yes L-J No 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 in anagricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and304? 0Yes Qno 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? Q Yes Q No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? Yes fTlNo B Project Description The proposed action will apply to all zones 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: 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 FIno E N/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? □ Yes □ No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Yes FD 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? □ 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? I I Yes I I No Not applicable If yes, explain: 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal Involved? □ Yes CUno 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? L_|ves LJno Not applicable If yes, explain: 15. Is project or any portion of project located In a 100 year flood plain? I I Yes I Ino Not applicable 16. Will the project generate solid waste? Yes ID 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? Qyos O No Page 6 of 21 e. If yes, explain: 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? I Ives I Ino 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)? I Ives I Ino 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 D 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? Q Yes Q No Not Applicable If yes, explain: Page 7 of 21 25. Approvals Required: City, Town, Village Board H Yes □ No Type Zoning modification Submittal Date 8/13/12 Yes I ' i No City, Town Zoning Board □ Yes H No City. County Health Department □ Yes No Other Local Agencies Other Regional Agencies El Yes d No ClYes H No Tompkins County Planning GML referral for County recommendation. State Agencies □ Yes No Federal Agencies I Iybs LsJno C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? I ■ jYes LJ No If Yes, indicate decision required: □ Zoning amendment Id Zoning variance □ New/revision of master plan □ Site plan □ Special use permit □ Resource management plan i 1 Subdivision □ Other Page 8 of 21 2. What is the zoning classlfication(s) of the site? The proposed action will apply to lands in all zoning designations in the Town 3. 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? Not applicable 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? Yes □ No The proposed action is intended to clarify current zoning provisions in the Town Code by adding specific language to regulate definitions of and the requirements for garages and woodsheds. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a Va mile radius of proposed action? The proposed action will apply to lands in all zonmg designations m the Town. ^ 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses with a Va 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? j j Yes E No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection? Clves EJno a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? Cl No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? Yes El No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic. Qyos 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. Verirication I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name Town of Ithaca Date 8/7/12 Signature Title 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 General Information (Read Carefully) 1 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. I 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. 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? Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes In the project area exceed 10%. n n Yes □no • Construction on land where the depth to the water table Is less than 3 feet. □□Yes oz □ • Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. □□Yes Oz □ Construction on land where bedrock Is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. □□□Yes n z o • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. □□□Yes oz □ • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove ["j □□Yes □no more than 1,000 tons of natural material (I.e., rock or soli) per year. Page 11 of 21 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change Construction or expansion of a santary landfill.□□□ves Dno Construction in a designated fioodway.□□□ves Dno Other impacts:□□nves Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)[gNO QYES • Specific land forms: impact on Water Will Proposed Action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15,24,25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL)QNO □YES □ves nNo Examples that would apply to column 2 Developable area of site contains a protected water body.□□riYes riNo Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. □riYes □ no • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. □riYes riNo • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland.□□LjYes □ no Other impacts:□□Dyss □ no Will Proposed Action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water?□no Qyes Examples that would apply to column 2 A10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. □□riYes oz□ • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. □□1 1 Yes □ z O •Other impacts:□□riYes oz □ Page 12 of 21 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? [^No Qyes Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action wiil require a discharge permit.□□en No • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. □CJves C]no Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. □□nves e^No • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. □ • Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater.□□nves Qno • Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. nVes FIno • Proposed Action would use water In excess of 20,000 gallons per day. □□Dves Qno • 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. □□^^Yes C3no • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. □□□ves Qno • Proposed Action will allow residential uses In areas without water and/or sewer services. □□en Yes ^nNo • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or Industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. □n ^Yes riNo • Other impacts:□□rTves Page 13 of 21 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change 6. Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? [T|N0 riYES 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. n □ □ other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR Will Proposed Action affect air quality?|TjNO QYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action will Induce 1.000 or more vehicle trips In any given hour. Proposed Action will result In the Incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. Proposed Action will allow an Increase In the amount of land committed to Industrial use. Proposed Action will allow an Increase In the density of Industrial development within existing Industrial areas. Other Impacts: □ □ □ □ □ □ IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species?□ no nVES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near the site, or found on the site. n □□yos Ono □lOYes Qno □riYes □no □Qyos □no □dlYes □no n DjYes Ono n ElYes Qno n OYes E]no n OYes Qno n QYes PIno d] dlYes ^^No □ DYes □No Page 14 of 21 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat.□□nves • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. □[^Yes IQno • Other Impacts:□□Dves Dno 9. Will Proposed Action substantialiy affect non-threatened or non- endangered species?EjNO □YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. □□^^Yes PIno • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally Important vegetation. QjjYes riNo • Other impacts:□□idJYes CZIno IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. 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.) □□ClYes riNo • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. □nYes PIno • 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. □□QYes PI No Page 15 of 21 1 Small to Moderate Impact The Proposed Action would disrupt or prevent Installation of agricultural land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to Increased runoff). Other Impacts D IMPACT ON AESTHEnC RESOURCES 11. Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources? (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum In Section 617.20, Appendix B.) Qno Qyes Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different 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 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 significant screening of scenic views known to be Important to the area. • Other Impacts: □ I 1 □ 12. IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Will Proposed Action Impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontologlcal Importance?□no Oyes Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or 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 the project site. • Proposed Action will occur In an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. n 2 Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change □ Dves □No □ ves n n Qyes Ono □ [Hyes Ono □ Dyes CIno □ Qyes Ono □ Dyes □ 0 CD Yes n n n Yes n No No No Page 16 of 21 1 Small to Moderate Impact Other Impacts;□ IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities?0NO □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)?0NO Qyes List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA. Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action to locate within the CEA? • Proposed Action will result In a reduction In the quantity of the resource? • Proposed Action will result In a reduction In the quality of the resource? • Proposed Action will Impact the use, function or enjoyment of the resource? • Other Impacts: 2 Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change □ □ Yes n No □□□ Yes □no □□riYes I~Ino □□□ Yes C]no □□□Yes □no □□Yes □no □□□ yss □ z o □□Yes CDno □□□yss □ no Page 17 of 21 1 Small to Moderate Impact IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?□ no nVES 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. • Other impacts: IMPACT ON ENERGY 16. Will Proposed Action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? 0NO nVES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy In the municipality. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an 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 □ □ NOISE AND ODOR IMPACT 17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? □no Qyes 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. Other impacts: 2 Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change n riYes i I No n nYes Ono O GlVes Ono D Qves Dno □ Dves Dno n dves di □□Qves □ □□Qves □ □□nves □ □□Oves □ □□Oves n No No No No Page 18 of 21 1 Small to Moderate impact 2 Potential Large impact 3 Can impact Be Mitigated by Project Change IMPACT ON PUBUC HEALTH 18. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? [^NO riYES ^Yes □no• Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (I.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, 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" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) riYes oz □ •Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquefied natural gas or other flammable liquids. i^^Yfts oz □ •Proposed Action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. □□CYes [][3no •Other impacts:□□[^Yes □ z O f' IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NBGHBORHOOD 19. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community?[^NO QYES 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%. □□□Yes oz □ •The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. □□□yss oz□ ! •Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. □ □□yss □z o •Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use.r~i □yss □no •Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. n riYes □no s Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.)□riYes □no Page 19 of 21 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future □□n^es nNo projects. Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment.□□nves riNo Other impacts:□□Clves in No 20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environment impacts?□ no nYES General comment applicable to action: No negative impacts are anticipated. The proposed action clarifies and strengtbeas^ome of the provisions of the the Zoning Code regarding the definitions of and the requirements for garages and woodsheds. 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 >i/13/iZ..j-:erjO47TownofIthacaZoningMapEffectiveDecember11,2006,RevisedDecember11,2006,andAugust13,2012LakefrontResidential(LR)LowDensityResidential(LDR)IMediumDensityResidential(MDR)HighDensityResidential(HDR)MobileHomePark(MHP)MultipleResidence(MR)VehicleFuelandRepair(VFR)OfficeParkCommercial(OPC)NeighborhoodCommercial(NC)CommunityCommercial(CC)LakefrontCommercial(LC)Agricultural(AG)Conservation(C)PlannedDevelopmentZone(P)LightIndustrial(LI)Industrial(I)0.511.5TownofIthaca215NorthliogaStreetIthaca,NY14850NOTE:ReferalsotoTownofIthacaZoningOrdinanceandtoTownBoardlocallawsandordinancesrezoningcertainareasforadditionalinformationonspecificboundaries.TheofficialsignaturesbelowcertifythismapastheOfficialZoningMapoftheTownofIthaca,effectiveApril1,2004,adoptedbytheTownBoardbyResolutionNo.195onDecember8,2003,revisedDecember11,2006byTownBoardResolutionNo.2012-263,andrevisedonAugust13,2012byTownBoardResolutionNo.2012-152.rbEnwnervisorQ0ml2MilesPauletteTerwilliger,TownClerk 08/05/2011 Town Clerk Monthly Report July 01, 2011 - July 31,2011 Page 1 nt#Account Description Fee Description Qty Local Share M i<^55 Marriage License Marriage Fee 34 595.00 Marriage T ranscript Marriage T ranscript 4 40.00 Misc. Copies Misc. Copies 1 14.20 Tax Search Tax Search 1 5.00 Sub-Total:$654.20 A1557 Impound Fees Impound Fees 3 140.00 Sub-Total:$140.00 A2191 Park Rental Fee Park Rental Fee 1 25.00 Sub-Total:$25.00 A2544 Dog Licensing Female, Spayed 54 504.00 Female, Unspayed 4 68.00 Male, Neutered 61 621.00 Male. Unneutered a 136.00 Sub-Total:$1,329.00 B2109 Electrical Permit Electrical Permit 8 833.00 Sub-Total:$833.00 B2110 Zoning Board Meeting Appl.Zoning Board Meeting Appl.1 100.00 Sub-Total:$100.00 P 1 Building Permit Building Permit 28 3,125.00 Building Permit Extension Building Permit Extension 4 522.50 Sign Permit Sign Permit 1 90.00 Temp. Certif. of Occupancy Temp. Certif. of Occupancy 1 325.00 Sub-Total:$4,062.50 B2113 Operating Permit Fee Operating Permit Fee 3 7,600.00 Sub-Total:$7,600.00 B2115 Add. Mtg. Fee Agenda Process Add. Mtg. Fee Agenda Process 1 30.00 Add. Mtg. Fee PH Process Add. Mtg. Fee PH Process 1 50.00 Site Plan Final Plat Site Plan Final Plat 2 3,000.00 Subdiv. Rev Final Plat Subdiv. Rev Final Plat 2 630.00 Subdiv. Rev Initial App Subdiv. Rev Initial App 1 100.00 Sub-Total:$3,810.00 B2691 Fill Permit Fill Permit 1 100.00 Sub-Total:$100.00 TA30 Bid Spec Deposit Bid Spec Deposit 7 0.00 Sub-Total:$0.00 08/05/2011 Town Clerk Monthly Report July 01,2011 - July 31,2011 Page 2 '>unt#Account Description Fee Description Qty Total Local Shares Remitted; Amount paid to: NYS Ag. & Markets for spay/neuter program Amount paid to: State Health Dept. Total State, County & Local Revenues:$19,579.70 Total Non-Local Revenues: To the Supervisor: lection 27, Sub 1, c illiger, Town Clerk, monies, the application of which atejjtherwise provided for by law. Pursuant to Section 27, Sub 1, of the Town Law, I hereby cert Local Share $18,653.70 SLo'-h 161.00 765.00 $926.00 ify that the foregoing is and true statement of all fees and monies received by me, Paulette Tenwilliger, Town Clerk, Town of Ithaca during the period stated above, in conrrectiotr with my office, excepting only such fees and upervis Town Clerk Date TOWN OF ITHACA Public Works Department Months of June/July Board Report August 13,2012 Town Board Meeting Roads: Stormwater Project on Old Gorge Road was completed. Driveway culverts were replaced at Eastern Heights Drive and Drew Road. Brush and tree limbs were cleared from signs and problem areas around most of the town, along with cutting on the inlet flood control levee in the town s section and stormwater detention ponds. Roadside mowing and trail-side mowing with our flail mower continued. Stone was stockpUed for surface treating. Tub grinder was on site to grind our brush drop-off pile into mulch on June 7^ - Cayuga Heights assistance was provided by supplying front end loader and operator cmd sharing the cost. An open house was held for the Town Board members on June Demonstrations of several new pieces of equipment were performed along with a tour of the facilities. All roads scheduled for surface treating in August were repaired, along with previous excavations and potholes. A section of roadside ditch on Sand Bank Road was cleared by removing rock and then lined with concrete to create a more effective swale and protect the edge of road. We assisted tlie Town of Newfield by providing our excavator with an operator. We assisted tlie Town of Newfield by sending two operators to train on their motor grader by shaping gravel roads. The Towns of Newfield and Ulysses provided us with trucking for other projects. Grading and site preparation for our pole barn addition was performed. Paint striping of crosswalks and stop bars began. Ditches were cleaned on West King Road. A snow plow turn-around (hammerhead) was installed at the end of Grove Road. A road crossing culvert was replaced at the intersection of Woolf Lane and Grove Road. Several sections of failed pavement on Eastern Heights Drive were milled and re- paved. Shoulders were repaired in several areas of Town and new shoulder material was installed on Elm Street Extension. Two seasonal laborers began work in early June. Our new Telescoping Boom Excavator was delivered in Jime. I \ Parks, Trails, and Preserves: • Regular grounds maintenance and weekly site inspections continued. • The old playground at Tareyton Park was demolished and removed. The installation of new equipment began. • Our sununer youth crew assisted with the Tareyton Park playground along with mulching at most sites. They worked at East Shore Park, performed playground inspections, and other tasks as assigned. • The area disturbed by our culvert installation on South Hill Trail was hydro-seeded. Planting locations were flagged and plant material ordered for fall installation. • Hazardous trees at Lisa Lane Walkway and several other park and trail sites were cut and removed during an extended drought period, which allowed us to slow down on mowing and catch up on other tasks. • Compost, wood mulch, and donated manure were stock-piled at West Hill Community Garden. • Ball field maintenance and support were provided at Valentino Field as summer league play and two State tournaments for the Cal Ripken League were hosted. Irrigation of the field was required during the drought. • Pervious pavement was installed at the Tutelo Park pavilion and the lawn restored. Site work and layout of the new playground began. • Several lawn drains were installed along Warren Road Walkway and poorly drained areas were raised with topsoil and then hydro-seeded. Water: Water main and valve repairs were done at 100 Christopher Circle, 121 Park Lane, Peimy Lane, and Schickle Road. Hydrant and valve maintenance continued. Transmission main mowing was performed. Performed water quality testing at Ridgecrest Water Tank. Sewer: Performed weekly sewer pump station maintenance. Responded to a total of 180 DSNY mark-outs. A new pump station Hd was installed at Forest Home Drive. Plugged sewers were addressed at 1572 Slaterville Road, 313 St. Catherine Circle, Five Mile Drive, and Mecklenburg Road. Engineering: Inspected 29 simple SWPPPs. Oversaw six full SWPPPs. Project Management and Job Inspection for: o East Shore Drive water main replacement o Penny Lane water main replacement o Northview water tank replacement Survey, design, and project administration work for 2012 Capital Projects: o New Pole Barn - Public Works o Annex Extension / Addition - Public Works o Harris B. Dates Drive o Tutelo Park Playgrormd o East Shore Park pavement repair and drainage o Prepared design alternatives for the King Road drainage Completed construction on Permy Lane and East Shore Drive water mains and Hungerford Hill water tank rehabilitation. Assisted Bolton Point with design of transmission main replacement. Development: o Inspection of new sanitary sewer at Ecovillage TREE Managed the work program for two summer interns which included inspections, surveying, data collection, performing pavement condition surveys, scannmg existing facihty plans, curb cards, hydraulic investigation for South Hill Trail culvert pipes. August/September Projects: 1. Surface-treating of roads and Grandview Park parking lot August 7'^ - 9^*^. 2. Regular groimds maintenance and site inspections. 3. Hazardous tress removal with contractor's bucket truck at road, park and trail sites. 4. Shoulder installation on Seven Mile Drive, Salem Drive, Birchwood Drive, Pinewood Drive, Sycamore Drive, Maplewood Drive. 5. Road striping of crosswalks and basketball courts, traffic calming installations in Forest Home area. 6. Continue roadside and easement mowing. 7. Sign work. 8. Hydrant painting. 9. Tutelo Park playground construction. 10. Install Fibar wood mulch at Tareyton Park playground with assistance of Cornell's P.O.S.T volunteers on August