Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 1987-01-27 TOWN OF ITHACA SPECIAL BOARD MEETING January 27 , 1987 At a Special Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , held at the Town Offices at 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 12 : 15 P .M . , on the 27th day of January , 1987 , there were : PRESENT : Noel Desch , Supervisor Henry McPeak , Councilman Shirley Raffensperger , Councilwoman Marc Cramer , Councilman Gloria Howell , Councilwoman Robert Bartholf , Councilman Patricia Leary , Councilwoman ALSO PRESENT : Robert Flumerfelt , Town Engineer Robert Parkin , Highway Superintendent Susan Beeners , Town Planner Paul Tavelli , Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Supervisor led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance . CONSIDER LOCAL LAW ON THE REZONING OF A PORTION OF THE LANDS OF PAUL A . JACOBS , LOCATED AT 136-146 FIVE MILE DRIVE FROM RESIDENCE R-30 DISTRICT TO RESIDENCE R-5 DISTRICT I Paul Tavelli , Attorney for the neighbors opposed to the rezoning stated that he did not have time to prepare for the meeting because he only heard about it two hours ago . He stated that he thought they would have gotten sane notice of scene kind by a miracle we have gotten our hydrologist here but we thought there was going to be reports filed , she was going to have an opportunity to review them and then we were going to have an opportunity for some meaningful dialogue . I 'm handed now a report of three or four pages long that I can give to my engineer but that isn ' t really much meaningful dialogue . When we get notice at ten o ' clock , I don ' t know when it went into the paper but I ' d hoped some letter could have at least been sent to Bill Seldin or myself so we could have had our ducks in line . The other problem I ' ve got , and I talked to Councilman Bartholf about it , he wasn ' t present at the last meeting , he hasn ' t heard our hydrologist , apparently he saw a little of it on television but I don ' t know if that is enough for him to make an informed decision on this thing either . So I have • sane procedural problems with your taking a vote today when we hear about the thing two hours ago . I just don ' t think it ' s fair . Supervisor Desch responded it ' s up to the Board whether or not we take a vote . However , I understand there is new information which none of us have heard yet which we would like to be able to receive . Attorney Tavelli stated that we would like an opportunity to rebut too . Town Board 2 January 27 , 1987 Supervisor Desch stated that he had one question for the Board , to be answered after hearing from the folks present , and that is whether or not the timing of the vote should be at the February 9th meeting which would almost seem to give enough time for whatever comments people would like to make about the additional information and that ' s about two weeks away so that would seem to be one approach that might be acceptable to both sides . Don Josselyn remarked that it certainly would be much fairer then having a meeting like today , I ' ve been on the telephone for two hours for trying to get people here . Supervisor Desch asked if all agreed that this proposal will be an • agenda item for the February 9th meeting , this way you can pass the word and not have to wait for a notice or wonder what ' s having . The Supervisor then suggested that this item come up at 7 : 15 P .M . He reminded all present that this would not be a public hearing as the hearing has already been closed , but we will be delighted to hear your comments . William Albern , Engineer for Mr . Jacobs stated that as you know , I did not have any argument with the consultant regarding the well system . At the same time , driving hone after the last meeting it suddenly dawned on me we have two wells and we can make our own tests , we don ' t have to go out and drill expensive wells . So I asked the owner to have the well driller who drilled some wells , present at the meeting . I 'm going to ask him Mr . Roger Howell to address you . The information that I passed on to Ms . Beeners did not have Mr . Howell ' s name on the document . I would like him, therefore , to acknowledge that this is his document . Basically , what Mr . Howell did was to go out and check the original well and check the draw down in the new well . The original well is a minimum of 300 ' from the nearest property line so you need not drill a well closer than 300 ' to the well that was tested . The well where the draw down was tested was actually 340 ' away , 40 ' should not make any significant difference . Mr . Albern then asked Mr . Howell to discuss what he had done out there and what was his philosophy in light of the existence of the bed of gravel . Mr . Howell stated that he had pumped the well at a little over 12 gallons a minute . He pumped it for 72 hours and it dropped a little over 71 . After we got through pumping it we shut the pump off and in 60 seconds the well was back to it ' s original setting . Mr . Albern asked if the 7 ' was after the first half hour , correct? Mr . Howell responded , right . Mr . Albern then asked , after the half hour how far did it go down after that? Mr . Howell responded , two inches , and then it stayed there . Mr . Albern asked if this was the typical quanity of water you expect to find in that area? Mr . Howell responded , if you are down in the gravel , sure . Councilman Cramer asked Mr . Albern about the document that is amended to his report . Is this the document you are attesting is from Mr . Howell ? Mr . Albern responded , that ' s correct . Mr . Howell stated that it was his document , Town Board 3 January 27 , 1987 Supervisor Desch stated that he would like to ask Mr . Howell a question . There has been quite a bit of discussion in this whole subject about a pattern of poor wells in the larger area . The pattern seems to focus more on the strip along Elmira Road then it does over in the Seven Mile Drive area . From your experience and knowledge of well drilling in that area , are we talking about a different geologic situation , from your perspective , along Elmira Road then we are on Seven Mile Drive ? Mr . Howell responded , it depends on how far back from the gravel you drill , the further up the hill you go the closer the rock is You get in rock you don ' t get the water you get in gravel . • Supervisor Desch asked , take a strip of property centering on Elmira Road , say 200 ' wide on each side , are you likely to drill a well that has pretty good water along Elmira Road or marginal ? Mr . Howell responded , real good water , real good water , but you have to get down in the gravel , you have to go down a couple hundred feet . Supervisor Desch remarked , so basically then the acquifer we are seeing on Seven Mile Drive is the same acquifer . Mr . Howell responded , that is correct . Councilwoman Raffensperger asked , then why are the properties along Elmira Road , for example I heard the grocery store there was without water around Christmas time ? Mr . Howell responded that they were not without water . At the grocery store I drilled a well 20 ' deep and they got 20 gallons per minute . It could not be pumped down at 20 gallons per minutes . The reason they had to drill another well was because of a gas problem there , a car backed over it and ruptured the gas tank and filled the well with gas so that is the reason they had to drill another well . Councilwoman Raffensperger remarked that may be that is something that we can look into . She stated that she had a report from a member of the Planning Board that Bell ' s Grocery and several adjacent residents ran out of water around Christmas time . Mr . Howell responded that Bell ' s Grocery did not run out of water with the original well . Mark Tomlinson , 224 Bostwick Road remarked that Mrs . Sturgeon has reported , and she ' s right off Elmira Road and backing up toward the same area of the proposed development , she ' s has water problems and the fireman who was here last meeting claimed he lived right across the street and had water problems . Supervisor Desch asked if anyone knew how deep the above peoples wells are ? • Mr . Tomlinson responded that he did not know how deep their wells were . Roger Howell remarked that this makes a difference . Mr . Josselyn remarked that on Calkins Road , George Sheldrake had a problem with his well . Mr . Howell responded that Calkins Road was in the rock , I ' ve drilled wells there , you have to go down 450 ' to 5001 . Town Board 4 January 27 , 1987 Mr . Seldin asked Mr . Howell how deep were the two wells on Mr . Jacobs property? Mr . Howell responded , one of them is 200 ' , the other one is about 225 ' . Supervisor Desch remarked , then you have a lot of water in the casing . Mr . Howell responded , definately . The pumps are only set at 100 ' , I know because I set them . Mr . Seldin asked Mr . Howell if the other well was tested at the • same time ? Mr . Howell responded yes , one other well was tested . Mr . Seldin remarked that he understood that we need two wells besides . Mr . Howell responded that Mr . Jacobs did not have two other wells over there that we could test . They don ' t have two wells that are over 200 ' . Mr . Albern stated that the well that was 340 ' away from the tested well had no draw down when the tested well was pumped for 72 hours . Mr . Josselyn asked who ' s well was that? Mr . Albern responded , both were on Mr . Jacobs property . Marjorie Rinaldo Lee asked Mr . Howell about the static water level in the well that he didn ' t pump , what was that? Mr . Howell responded , about 30 ' . Ms . Lee asked if that was the 250 ' deep well ? Mr . Howell responded , no that ' s the 225 ' well . Ms . Lee asked where the wells were on the property , the one you measured is near the barn and the one you pumped is in the park? Mr . Albern remarked that Mr . Howell had measured both of them . Mr . Howell stated that the one that was pumped was in the park . Ms . Lee questioned , the one you pump tested before was by the barn? Mr . Howell - responded , right but I ' ve tested both wells . Mr . Albern remarked that it was interesting to note that on the report on the drawings we reported that the original well had a capacity 14 , 400 gallons per day . This test over 72 hours now is over 17 , 000 gallons per day . So we are reconfirmining the capacity • of that well . Ms . Lee responded that she thought those tests were for two different wells . I thought the original test was for the one behind the barn . Mr . Albern responded that there were two tests . One was for the original well which is a 14 , 000 gallon per day capacity , the other one was for the new well which is the one up by the barn which had a 25 , 000 gallon per day capacity . He only need 12 , 000 gallons per Town Board 5 January 27 , 1987 day . So we are over pumping the wells much , much more than they ever would be pumped in actual use . Mr . Howell stated that the well at the barn he pump tested at 17 gallons per minute . We pulled that one down . Mr . Albern remarked , that was a long time ago . Mr . Howell responded right . The one at the park we test pumped at a little over 12 gallons per minute and we pulled that one down 7 ' . Mr . Tomlinson stated that he would like to know , when these 12 , 000 gallon tanks are in operation , how far are they likely to be drawn down in normal use and under peak loads , how much water is going to be left in the tanks , and how long will it take to bring them up to peak capacity? Mr . Albern responded that he couldn ' t answer that in so many minutes . Mr . Howell remarked that just as soon as you start pulling on the tanks the well pumps come on , so it will probably hold it right there . Mr . Tomlinson remarked , so it will always be full ? Mr . Albern responded no they won ' t always be full but with the high capacity of the wells , 39 , 000 gallons per day capability , and with the slow 12 , 000 gallon per day demand , there are going to be close to full . Mr . Tomlinson remarked , when the fire trucks pull up they won ' t find them empty . Mr . Albern responded no , they won ' t be empty . Now there could be one tank out of service for cleaning . Mr . Tomlinson remarked then that could be a problem . Mr . Albern responded , that ' s not a problem . Remember that 6 , 000 gallons sitting there is better than nothing . We are not furnishing fire protection , it is not the owners responsibility to furnish fire protection . The previous Town engineer , Mr . Fabbroni , noted that we had 12 , 000 gallons of water setting there , why don ' t we put a fire protection connection on it . The owner has agreed to do so , over and above the owner ' s normal requirements . Ms . Lee asked which well will be pumped for usage , the one behind the barn or the current one ? Mr . Albern responded , both of then, both will be connected . I ' ve got one on low and one on high flow . They will both be used to service the park . Mr . Josselyn questioned if Mr . Albern was saying that the new proposed park is only going to need 12 , 000 gallons per day? Mr . Albern responded the entire park , fifty sane mobile hcmes will only need 12 , 000 gallons per day and we have 39 , 000 gallons per day capacity . With the new information , you have 42 , 000 gallons per day capacity . Mr . Seldin asked if , at the February 9th meeting , would it be possible for Ms . Lee to address this new information . Town Board 6 January 27 , 1987 Supervisor Desch remarked that there were two things pertinent with that regard , the Health Department did a spot survey of private water supplies in that area , he asked Ms . Lee if she had seen the report? Ms . Lee stated that she didn ' t think so . The Supervisor stated that the report should be in the record and that Ms . Lee should have a copy . He stated that it was not directly perintent to this particular situation but it raises a point that he felt needs to be considered by the Board and the people who live in that area , and that is what is the desirability for the Town to consider the extension of public water and sewer in that area . Not tomorrow or not next year , but within five years . Within the next couple of months the Town Board is going to be considering extension of water and sewer to a fairly large area of West Hill up past the hospital and that ' s primarily on the basis that we have scene bad well situations in that area . We are seeing along Inlet Valley a number of things happening , we are seeing some inquiries about development taking place , we are seeing parcels of land coming on the market , seeing a need to look at land uses in that whole area . We have just gotten though rezoning a large area on Five Mile Drive and all these things point to the question , as the next priority for water and sewer in the Town , should the Town Board be looking at two years , four years , five years down the road , an extension of water and sewer to that area? If you look at the numbers , and I ' ve looked at some rough numbers , from a pressure standpoint it ' s an ideal location to get the proper pressure from the City system . You ' ve got reservoirs in place that can do it . You don ' t have the same problems that you have up on West Hill with having to add storage and pressure and so on . To do Elmira Road , Five Mile Drive , Seven Mile Drive and I 'm not talking about going back into the undeveloped land anyway , just along those corridors with water itself you are talking about $ 650 , 000 approximately . It really isn ' t that bad of an investment in relation to the benefit that you will get from it . I ' d like the people in the area to be thinking about that aspect , but it seems to me that even though this Board might , and I don ' t want to speak for them , choose that the water supply is more than adequate as the test might show, we still have responsibility to look at fire protection whether it ' s a mobile hone park there or some other kind of residential development , or other development in the Inlet Valley area . Those are the kind of things that are running through my mind which I think are pertinent to this project . Between now and February 9th , talk to your neighbors and see how they feel about it . The cost , generally speaking , where water and sewer is available in the Town now run about $ 116 . 00 per year per unit for debt retirement , that includes the new sewage treatment , it ' s a very reasonable figure . Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that if Ms . Lee is going to prepare a report , a response to this , it would be very helpful to have it even a few days before the Town Board meeting so we have an opportunity to look at it before we come to the meeting . Supervisor Desch asked Ms . Lee if it would be possible to have the report by February 5th? Ms . Lee responded that she would try . SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING LOCAL LAW #3 AND TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF REVISED PLANS - MAJESTIC HEIGHTS Susan Beeners , Town Planner noted that the Board has a copy of the adopted resolution by the Planning Board , one being the SEQR report with respect to the revised plan for Majestic Heights , second is Town Board 7 January 27 , 1987 their resolution , where they are acting as the lead agency in coordinated Type I review which was done in 1983 and being done again in this resolution . They are recommending certain modifications be made to the original law which established the multiple residence district . The primary aspects of this would be the delegation of site plan approval responsibilities from the Town Board to the Planning Board . Another major point is the extension of the time limit in which the project could reasonably be begun and started . There are some SEQR conditions which were tied into Local Law # 3 which are no longer applicable and so it was requested that those be modified . Supervisor Desch suggested that in the interest of time , Ms . • Beeners walk the Board through the changes that the Planning Board made . Ms . Beeners stated that the Board had a copy of the original law and the Board would be receiving the draft local law with modifications this week . Supervisor Desch asked the Board if they were comfortable in setting a date for a public hearing and do you have any problems with what the Planning Board wishes the Town Board to change? Supervisor Desch asked what was the basis for the change in Section 3 , paragraph C ? Ms . Beeners responded , in that section originally a portion of that read that no variance in the construction , development and use of the parcel shall be permitted except as may be permitted by the Town Planning Board with the approval of the Town Board . We were getting into a similar situation as with Eastwood Commons where the Town Board had wanted to get into the approval process . Supervisor Desch noted that this resolution gives the Planning Board the authority to authorize variances rather than make them subject to approval of the Town Board , Councilman Cramer asked if variance approvals weren ' t subject to approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals and on condition of applicant to that Board? Supervisor Desch responded , not in the case of this local law . Susan Beeners added , not with variances to an original site plan . Councilman Cramer remarked that what was bothering him was that one the one hand we granted to the Planning Board SEQR review , we ' ve granted them site plan review and now we are granting them provision of variance , and I for one no absolutely nothing about the scope and magnitude and density of this particular project and I ' m concerned about that . I ' m concerned about giving that much authority to the Planning Board , I don ' t mind site plan and SEQR , I do mind variances . Supervisor Desch stated that it refers to variances in the • construction , development and use of the parcel . You might be concerned with one , two or all three of them, I don ' t know . Ms . Beeners responded after you read on it says by the Town Planning Board or by such persons or agent of the Town as the Planning Board may designate . In my mind it would be understood that if something came up that it looked like it warranted a variance of the normal type then we would take it to the Planning Board and recommend that the Zoning Board take a look at it . If you wish I can report this to the Town Attorney and see whether the language can be modified to include the concerns . Town Board 8 January 27 , 1987 Councilman Cramer stated that he had a fundamental problem with the concept from just a legislative delegation of authority and I guess I would rather have the lead agency stay with the Town Board which then reviews the project , delegates the project to the Planning Board if it so desires and any variances take place by the Zoning Board of Appeals . Otherwise , when you muddy the waters you are asking for problems . Councilwoman Raffensperger asked the Town Planner what the project used to be called? Ms . Beeners responded , Majestic Heights or Bill Manos , prior to that Beacon Hills . • Supervisor Desch stated that the plan for this project is not very different from the Manos original project . Town Planner Beeners stated that it appeared to her that this project was over encumbered at the time of it ' s approval with certain conditions . What does the Board recommend about lead agency status for site plan review at this time ? Supervisor Desch stated that again he felt that if the Board members were familiar with the site plan they would be more comfortable with the Planning Board being lead agent . There really isn ' t that much difference , the density is the same , the positioning of the buildings is slightly different , the parking areas are slightly different in location but the buffers are maintained , the roadway networks are maintained , drainage is maintained and improved in certain instances , so I guess I can only advize that we put the local law together this way and expect some changes . He asked Ms . Beeners to leave out on the table the two plans , the old plan and the new plan and between now and February 9th he asked the Board to stop in and take a look at it , that way you will be in a better position on the 9th . Councilman Cramer remarked and this Board will have a presentation of the proposal on the 9th . Ms . Beeners went on to say that the extension of the time period of forty-eight months which was originally given to the project will expire on March 28 , 1987 and the Planning Board recommends that that time period be extended until April 1990 . The Planning Board did not think that the requirement that the project proceed from east to west was an any longer necessary . It would be just as worthwhile to see the west , next to the swamp , established and stablized as an early phase , if the developer chose to do this first . Supervisor Desch noted , the fact that the entrance off East King Road now is much farther away from the existing development , which was a neighborhood concern of having all the traffic go by the development . Ms . Beeners went on to say that on the last page of the adopted • resolution , the basic change has been the notification of Cornell , 48 hours prior to the blasting and the request that Cornell Plantations be notified about the blasting plans as soon as the developer has them so that they figure out how it might effect their adjacent property . Following that on the last page are the conditions under which the Planning Board has granted final approval to the revised plan . The main one being the amendment of the law which we are proposing and which you will be receiving . Councilman Cramer asked , on item number one referring to the time frame , the 48 month period from the date of February 7 , 1983 , what Town Board 9 January 27 , 1987 does that leave the developer as far as construction time under the present local law? Ms . Beeners responded , under the present local law the 48 months would expire March 28 , 1987 . Councilman Cramer questioned , for completion of the project under the orginial multiple residence zone ? He then asked if the multiple residence zone then revert back as of that date to R- 15 or R-30 zones as are other residence zones in the Town of Ithaca? Ms . Beeners responded , that opportunity would be available for it to revert . • RESOLUTION N0 , 16 Motion by Supervisor Desch ; seconded by Councilman McPeak , RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will meet and conduct a public hearing at 7 : 30 P .M . , on February 9 , 1987 to consider amending Local Law V . 1983 and consider approval of the revised site plan . (Desch , McPeak , Raffensperger , Cramer , Howell , Bartholf and Leary voting Aye . Nays - none ) . SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRIIMEVTS FOR EASTWOOD COMMONS Supervisor Desch stated that the Planning Board took up the matter at a recent meeting . Town Planner Beeners stated that the Planning Board adjourned their further hearings on it until it came back to the Town Board . At the January 20th Planning Board meeting , one significant change to the draft local law was brought before the Planning Board . That change is on page 2 of the draft local law that you have received today , C , section 4B . Supervisor Desch stated that this was a result of the discussion held at our last meeting having to do with the construction of the second connection with Honness Lane , Ms . Beeners , noted the top of page 3 , stating that the Board had discussed this , this is the 4 versus 6 units in a cluster . Paragraph G , has to do with the heights of the buildings . The orginal wording was that no building would exceed two story . As far as the area for which a letter of credit is to be issued , it is a reduction of four units . Construction of Harwick Road from Honness Lane to the intersection of Sunnyslope , 280 ' to a point Just past the buildings that are currently numbered 30 and 31 . The intent of this is to permit the developer , if he gets the necessary approval , to construct buildings 30 , 31 and the pavilion , what would be called the initial phase of the project with certain • requirements that are placed in here as far as the restoration of that site , the installation of the utilities and the construction of that part of the road . Supervisor Desch asked Ms . Beeners about the consideration of our wording of 6B , where it indicates the Planning Board may authorize up to six units in each cluster . Are they comfortable with that our would they like it worded differently? Ms . Beeners responded that she felt the Planning Board was comfortable with this wording . They were uncomfortable with scene Town Board 10 January 27 , 1987 things that I was pointing out in my draft resolution to them as to what additional waivers or other conditions would have placed on the project . However , the language that appears in the local law is satisfactory . Councilman Cramer stated that it seems as though that under this verbage all the clusters in Phase III could be six unit clusters if we allowed this particular language . We have said we allowed four units and we have said that we will provide them the flexibility of allowing a couple of six unit clusters but the local law doesn ' t say that . Councilwoman Raffensperger remarked , when we said this I asked if we couldn ' t say "a " or " any" and the Town Attorney was here then and said no we had to say "each" . Supervisor Desch asked what was the real question? How many six unit clusters are there ? The Town Planner responded , eight 61s . Councilman Cramer questioned , in this language what is to prevent the developer from saying alright this is rendition one , rendition two coming in is going to have all six unit clusters with density increases . Supervisor Desch responded that the density will not increase as long as he does not go beyond 66 units . He could have 11 buildings with six units in it . Now he has 12 buildings . The density as far as the overall project doesn ' t change . Councilman Bartholf added , his limit is 66 , right no matter how he wants to do it . Supervisor Desch noted that the question is whether you are comfortable in giving the Planning Board the authority to approve that density , 66 . Councilman Cramer asked if the original plan did not have a higher density and what is the configuration in the existing Eastwood Commons . Town Planner Beeners responded , three and four units . Councilwoman Raffensperger asked if the Eastwood Commons Association had seen the proposal ? They had a meeting last night . Supervisor Desch responded yes , they are aware of the proposal . Town Planner Beeners went on to say that the overall density of Phase III as originally approved , would have been 68 . Supervisor Desch remarked , we are below the original density . Councilman Cramer asked if the Town would have a real problem in • asking the developer to limit the cluster units to four , may be this is a legal question . Supervisor Desch responded it ' s both a legal question and a policy question . Town Planner Beeners responded , we might see in something like that the loss of the pavilion which might be a real good ccnumity asset to have that , because it will serve the entire association . Town Board 11 January 27 , 1987 Supervisor Desch asked if there was strong sentiment to stand by the original resolution which restricted the number of units per cluster to four? Councilwoman Raffensperger responded that she felt this was typically the kind of decisions that the Planning Board makes , the Planning Board doesn ' t have to approve 61s . Supervisor Desch asked if anyone had a question on the wording of 6C under Section G? Town Planner Beeners remarked that in order to make any further approval of this plan , the Planning Board would have to waive two requirements in the Subdivision Regulations , in the cluster section . One of them being the waiver of the 30 ' height requirement for buildings as required in Cluster Subdivision Regulations and the other is the 30 ' distance between buildings . Supervisor Desch noted that this was normally under their jurisdiction . Ms . Beeners responded that she was just pointing this out . This is why I think it ' s put in here because of their powers to waive certain things under cluster . Supervisor Desch responded that the Board might wish to have the Zoning Board of Appeals judge on the height and distance or you may wish to leave it as is . Councilwaman Raffensperger asked , is it true that what this says , if he comes in and wants a 32 ' high building the Planning Board says no we don ' t think so , so he may go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance , at that point . Supervisor Desch responded yes , as a court of last resort . RESOLUTION NO , 17 Motion by Supervisor Desch , seconded by Councilwoman Howell , RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will meet and conduct a public hearing at 8 : 00 P .M . , on February 9 , 1987 to consider a local law amending the Zoning Ordinance requirements for the Eastwood Commons Multiple Residence Zone . (Desch , McPeak , Raffensperger , Cramer , Howell , Bartholf and Leary voting Aye . Nays - none ) . EXPERT►v NTAL ONE WAY TRAFFIC ON JUDD FALLS ROAD Supervisor Desch stated that he had received a letter from Shirley Egan at Cornell University . The substance of the letter was that unless the Town agrees to excecute a hold harmless clause for the public use of Plantations Road that Cornell would close off the two pieces of that road from Forest Herne Drive to Judd Falls Road�Caldwell Road on February 2 , 19870 Supervisor Desch stated that he responded to the letter saying that a hold harmless was not appropriate because the public has been using the road since Cornell closed the campus in 1970 and if they closed Plantations Road on February 2 the Town would move the one-way experiment to the intersection of Tower Road and Judd Falls Road . He asked the Board if they concurred in this position . There was no opposition to this position . Town Board 12 January 27 , 1987 BUDGET AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION NO . 18 Motion by Councilman Cramer , seconded by Councilman McPeak , Highway Fund RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves the following additional 1986 Year-End Transfers : ( 1 ) To correct transfer , approved at January 12 , 1987 meeting , of $ 10 , 000 from Highway Machinery - Equipment DB5130 . 200 to Highway • Machinery - Vehicle Maintenance DB5130 . 460 -- transfer should be : $ 10 , 000 fran Highway Fund Balance DB909 to Highway Machinery - Vehicle Maintenance DB5130 . 460 and transfer $ 3 , 318 . 49 from Highway Machinery - Equipment DB5130 . 200 to Highway Machinery - Vehicle Maintenance DB5130 . 460 . ( 2 ) Transfer $ 184 . 26 from Highway Snow - Parts & Equipment DB5130 . 200 to Highway - Employee Benefits Social Security DB9030 . 800 . Sewer Fund Transfer $ 7 , 549 . 91 from Sewer Fund Balance G909 to Sewer - Sanitary Sewers Personal Services G8120 . 200 $ 246 . 00 and City Payment G8120 . 481 City Payment . Exact amount of final City Payment for 1986 was not available prior to January 12 , 1987 meeting resulting in request for additional transfer . 1987 Budget Amendment General Fund - Townwide Transfer $ 750 . 00 from Townwide Contingency A1990 to Justices Equipment A1110 . 200 for purchase of copies to be used by Judge Wallenbeck in his Justice ' s office located at his home . (Desch , McPeak , Raffensperger , Cramer , Howell , Bartholf and Leary voting Aye . Nays - none) . ADJOURNMENT The meeting was duly adjourned . Tofu n Cl