Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 1987-09-14 TOWN OF ITHACA REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 14, 1987 At a Regular 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 5:30 P.M., on the 14th day of September, 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 John Barney, Town Attorney Edward W. King, 1356 Slaterville Road Deborah Dietrich, Board of Reps Alfred DiGiacomo, 1025 Hanshaw Road Gretchen Herrmann, 433 Bostwick Road Herbert D. Brewer, Chamber of Commerce ` Charles L. Becker, Chamber of Commerce Trudy Wythe, 2560 N. Triphammer Road Beverly Livesay, Board of Reps Joseph Ciaschi, 1121 Taughannock Blvd William Downing, 215 N. Cayuga Street Edward Austen, 255 DuBois Road Robin Percey, Valley Manor Timothy Ciaschi, S. Titus Avenue Scot Raynor, 1139 Ellis Hollow Road Andrew Sciarabba, Chamber of Commerce Doria Higgins, 2 Hillcrest Drive Representatives of the Media: Debbie Munch, WHCU News Fred Yahn, Ithaca Journal PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Supervisor led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance. EAST SHORE DRIVE SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT • Andrew Sciarabba, Chairman of the Relocation Committee for the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce stated that he would like to bring the Board up to date with a brief outline. He went on to say that about a year and a half ago the committee began looking for a site for the Chamber's offices since the downtown location is insufficient and with their expanded roll in tourisum, we need to have more accessibility for people visiting the community. So we identified the corridor on Route 13 from about Green Street going north as a target area and investigated many many properties. For various reasons we were unable to acquire or find a suitable piece Town Board 2 September 14, 1987 of property for us. We were approached by the City originally because of the consideration of making the information booth now by the park a more permanent site and that's what started our investigation of this particular site. After the public outcry arose as to having the use of park property we gave up on this idea. It then occurred to us that we could still be down in the area we wanted to be in and be located possibly in the Town of Ithaca and still be in the approximate area we wanted to be in. We approached the owners of that property, the Bowman's, and they indicated to us a willingness to consider selling their property to us, which we would then use for the Chamber site. Mr. Sciarabba went on to say that the Bowman site is not a very large site, very narrow, and in order to have enough safe access for the property, as well as parking, we did appear before the City to request a driveway and parking area over park .land, accessing the Bowman property. Parking available to the Chamber, visitors and the Youth Bureau, either exiting or entering from East Shore Drive in a circle and utilizing space with setbacks of the building on the site. That was our initial discussion with the Town and the Town seemed to be well receptive to the idea and it came back that the R-15 classification which the property is located in does not provide for offices or businesses, 'similar to what the Chamber would be. He went on to say that the Chamber was not a business, we are not for profit, but we certainly are not residential or a public building, eventhough we have a lot of public use of our building. The R-15 classification does not classify us properly. It was suggested that we consider a Mixed Use District, we thought that was a good idea. What we are applying for is the creation of a mixed residential, office, Chamber of Commerce district which would incorporate approximately two to two and one-half acres of land. The properties involved would be the Bowman property, which is the first property in the Town of Ithaca, the two properties to the north which are owned by Mr. Wells, Parcel Nos. 8 and 9, and the Signorelli property, 7.3 as well as some of the property under 13, Conrail property. This would exceed the two acres which is kind of a bench mark for creating such a district. He went on to say that the area itself, even though it is zoned R-15, has major buffers around it. We think that the area itself is not an abundent residential area. Many of the properties there are in very bad shape, many of them are being used basically as rental properties eventhough they are residential and in a very short distance you get into commercial, industrial zone, marina's, construction company, the sewage treatment plant is here as well as the Youth Bureau. The area itself does not lend itself to residential. This would not be an undue hardship. The Mixed Use District, he stated as he understood it, means you could have both residential and the other categories. Mr. Sciarabba went on to say that the second diagram shows the layout or what the potential would be for the Mixed Use District. A and B being a small office building with parking with exit and entrance off Route 34. He went on to say that it is important for the Board to understand what the Chamber was trying to acccoplish here. We are not trying to become a big business, our revenues come from our members and their fees they pay for membership in the • Chamber. The Chambers goal are to promote the ecomony of the community. Tourism is probably one of the cleanest industries that are going, there is no polution from that, there is no long term housing requirements for tourism, people come, they visit the community, they leave. That is why many cities are going into tourism as a way of opening the economic climate. We have looked at a number of properties, since we are a not-for-profit organization we don't have a big reserve in the bank. We have to be in an area that is accessable. This area is the cross road of the cmmmity, all of the roads come into that area and because of Town Board 3 September 14, 1987 that commercial property values are very, very high. It's not an area that is easy for us to find property within our means. Supervisor Desch replied that the first step, if the Board chooses, is to refer the matter to the Planning Board and the Planning Board will decide what the criteria for a district would be. Presumably it would be relatively narrow, it would categorize the type of activity you are talking about and whatever else the Board would feel it could recommend back to this Board, which it would then by local law, if it so chose, create the special district. The Planning Board would, in any event, retain authority over the site plan approval once that came along. Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that she did not understand how we have gotten from the one to a much larger area. Are we saying this is because the Town does not have any other alternatives for permitting that without rezoning a larger area? Supervisor Desch replied that there have been a number of discussions about that issue as to what the future use of the land throughout that area will be, twenty years down the road, along the lake. The feeling being that as time goes on, this type of activity would seem, from a land use standpoint, be appropriate. Certainly the residential type use is not doing particularly well and the pressure because of property values in that area are going to continue to suggest that business type of activity. Councilwoman Raffensperger asked if these were Planning Board discussions? Town Planner Beeners replied that the Planning Board reviewed, earlier, back in June, they have not reviewed the possibility of rezoning, as proposed tonight. Supervisor Desch responded, one of the things you get into obviously when you try to do this sort of thing on a small site is a tight ingress and egress and these are the types of things that we throw back at the Chamber and say, look you have some hazzardous conditions, you have site distance and so on, so perhaps you should be looking at a bigger area so that is what they have come back with. Doria Higgins, stated that she was speaking for Citizens to save Stewart Park, we are a group who has been struggling for a year to get the City of Ithaca to establish guidelines for the preservation and restoration of Stewart Park, we think it needs restoration quite desperately. We have also been struggling against having the Park replanted. She stated that she would like to say that they are definately for the Chamber of Commerce and we think the tourist bureau has been doing a superb job, infact a member of our group, has been working there during the summer as a volunteer. We are though very opposed, we were opposed to the City of Ithaca giving park land which really belongs to the public, giving of it to a private organization and we are even more appalled to learn that park land is going to be used to became an asphalt parking lot. A lot of people say it is just an unimportant end of the park, it • doesn't matter, it sort of has been destroyed by the Youth Bureau anyway, but the thing is that this kind of encroachment on park land on a green space is going on all over the world. It's going on in this City, we are in the process of loosing the Inlet Valley Park to what we don't know but the term is alienated, the green space in Collegetown and now we are loosing Stewart Park. one of the things we think is that the lot is clearly too small for the purposes of the Chamber of Commerce. If they had a large lot that was large enough for their purposes, I think we might agree with the idea of getting around zoning laws, but when this lot is Town Board 4 September 14, 1987 clearly, it is too small even for it's present zoning category which is R-15, only 60 feet across and I think for R-15 it's supposed to be 100 feet across, or something like that. State zoning laws, as you may know, are very clear in forbidding what is called spot zoning. This is spot zoning which clearly favors for a profit only one person and she stated that she felt the history of the Chamber requesting zoning variances down there clearly documents the facts that the person who is going to, or the entity who is going to profit, from this rezoning is the Chamber of Commerce and I think it's clearly a legal point that could be argued and one that could possibly be won if it came to a court decision. There are other legal problems involved here, the decision of the City of Ithaca to let the Chamber have the park -land is also legally questionable. It is illegal in the State of • New York for park land to be leased, it is legal for park land to be licensed. And what distinguishes licenses is that it is renewable each year. Now the first few versions of the resolution which gave the Chamber permission to do this used the term lease, the Chamber-of Commerce's own map used the term lease, so I think it can be argued, very successfully, that the intent was to lease. They are using the term licensing now to get around the law and we have documents from the City of New York Park Commission and from the State Department of Parks and Recreation showing many court decisions where they use the word licensing, the court said was not legal if the fact itself is not licensing, so there is question here about what is being done. She went on to say that she just wanted the Board to know that it was not a hard and fast easy thing. Mrs. Higgins went on to say that another question about what the City has done is that their resolution said granted the land designated in what they called Modified Proposal A. But there are two different plans with that same label, Modified Proposal A. One of them, you may remember, had the Chamber's own parking lot overlapping the the other not overlapping and this is also called Modified Proposal A. On legal advice we wrote to the Mayor several months ago asking for clarification of this and we have not heard from him since. But that resolution, in other words, is cloudy and ambigious and needs to be clarified itself. There are laws to protect the public against what is being done and eventhough there is an attempt to get around them we should remember that one of the great beauties of this community is Stewart Park. The reason we got so many signatures to our petition, 7,000, without any effort was because this community loves Stewart Park. There is something wrong, in this day and age, to be giving park land to a private organization to make an asphalt parking lot. She stated that she did not think there was any way to argue that this is right. She stated that she felt what the Chamber of Commerce is doing for our Town is marvelous and we support them wholeheartily but we do not support using park land for a private organization. She noted that some people also argue that this will enhance the area, she stated that she could see from Route 34 that this might be more enhancing but from Stewart Park when you look up here now you see trees, vines and greenery and you are protected from Route 34 and you don't see the houses. The Chamber of Commerce intends to go to the very boundary of that land and build another building by George Haskins who did the Youth Bureau. Now the Youth Bureau is a handsome building, however, it towers overwhelmingly over the park. It really encroaches upon the ambience of the park. It's much taller than it has to be, it's a half story above ground level, there may be a technical reason for that, but there is no technical reason for the pitch of the roof which takes it up almost another half story so that you have a building here that is a story and a half taller than it has to be for the functions inside it. This enormous looking building has the same footprint, the footprint of this building is no larger than the little unobtrusive Tin Can, Town Board 5 September 14, 1987 believe it or not. We would like to urge you to help the Chamber of Commerce find a good spot. Let's try finding them a spot that is large enough for their purposes, that is located for their purposes, but that will not impinge on one of the most beautiful of local parks to achieve their aims. LANDFILLS Gretchen Herrmann, 433 Bostwick Road stated that she wished to address the landfill site known as ELF 3. Let's not forget that this is right on the border of Town of Enfield and the Town of Ithaca. This is something that seems to have been forgotten because it has the EN prefix. The net impact will be as much, if not more, on the Town of Ithaca as the Town of Enfield because of its location on top of a very steep hill. She went on to say that you probably are aware that this is the most populated site of the original 23 as far as we could make out. Dr. Crance who lives in the area delivered to the Board of Representatives on August 11, a map that he had made along with pictures of the 109 residents within three tenths of a mile of the perimeter of the area. We have a little difficulty in being perfectly precise because they have changed the boarders of the site and we do not know precisely where they are. This is very close to the City of Ithaca, as you know, Sheffield Road is two and a quarter miles to the City of Ithaca boundaries. It would be visible from higher up elevations and from north even, according to the engineers reports. Depending upon wind currents and what really happens with the odors, nobody really knows, there could be some impact on the Town of Ithaca and quite likely in the City of Ithaca. There is an enormous Population bulge in the Drew Park area, there are some 52 houses that again are all within a half mile, eastward, that is all down hill, of the proposed site area. Noise pollution could be great given that its on a hill and the noise would echo terribly, that is something that is hard to measure but that is something that a very real possibility. Perhaps the most distressing thing is the characteristics of the ground, the engineers initial reports says there is an artisian condition with water surging upwards, there is only 25 to 35 feet of soil to bedrock, unless everything is done masterfully and there are no loop holes at all, and we never know anything in this world that is like that, no mistakes, there seems to be a real possibility of pollution. If pollution does occur the drainage goes eastward down Poole Road and into Coy Glen. Also, down along the slope toward the South to the base of Route 327 around Treman Park. What happens there, is that the stream goes along then disappears into the ground and this goes into the aquifer that feeds all of the wells in the area of Turback's including the new Waldorf School in that area as does the Coy Glen aquifer which is a part of that same mass. She stated that she thought Susan Beeners had the maps for that area. Mrs. Herrmann went on to say that if it does pollute and there is always that question, with a landfill, the results could really be quite devastating. So what we are asking, since the impact is so great, on the Town of Ithaca that all of the representatives for the Town of Ithaca on the Tompkins County Board of Representatives be asked to support the residents of the Town of Ithaca and vote against having the landfill site and EN 3. Supervisor Desch asked if the Board members had any questions on the draft resolution? The plan would be, if adopted, to send a certified copy of the resolution to the Board of Representatives. Town Planner Beeners stated that she felt there was well over 109 houses in a half mile radius. Town Board 6 September 14, 1987 Mrs. Herrmann replied that it was in the block parameter, again without knowing the actual parameters of this site which has been changed and we do not know, this is the one mile square block between Sheffield Road, Bostwick Road, Enfield Center Road and Van Dorns Road. That's the three tenths of a mile with the population. Deborah Dietrich, County Board of Representatives, urged the Board to support the resolution. She stated that she had been holding meetings with the residents of Enfield and the Town of Ithaca since March. In March no one thought it was very serious. Now that it is one of the final three, she stated that she felt it was very important that the Town makes it's position clear, on behalf of the Town residents. Beverly Livesay, County Board of Representatives stated that she would just like to comment that she thought that the Board had received an excellent presentation and that to the best of her knowledge, a very factual one. The only thing she stated that she would comment on in the wording of the resolution, and you do with it as you will. Mrs. Livesay stated that she was on the Solid Waste Management Committee and that Deborah Dietrich was not, although she has sat in on many meetings, the way the County Board has directed the Solid Waste Management Committee to proceed is to not make recommendations and so on, so say that these are the three finalists is certainly an interpretation that everybody is putting on it, but it is not from the charge, there are actually 24 - 28 sites some which have been tested further than other and so on and so forth. So the wording that you urge the Board to exclude ENV 3 from further consideration, is very understandable both from the stand point of the residents who would like to get it over with, there certainly is a lot of sympathy on the part of individual committee members to give this kind of relief not only to EST 3 residents but to people who live in any of the other sites but there aren't any who are really off the hook, at this point. So if you want to send it with this wording that is fine, people are using terminology like this, if you want to use a little bit different terminology saying that it certainly should not be selected as the site, or whatever. Supervisor Desch replied that we want to make it pretty clear that we don't believe that they should give it anymore thought. Mrs. Livesay replied that what she was saying was that that is not going to happen because of the way they are all considered, they will all be reported out with all of the facts, with the environmental assessments and so on, and then a selection will be made. Its just not going to happen that no further consideration will be given, to say all of these reasons, say why it should not be chosen might be more to the point. She stated that eventhough she was in sympathy with why you want to do this, she stated that she was not telling you what to do, she thought there had been a great deal of misunderstanding when, she stated that she heard thing like final three sites and this sort of thing. She went on to say that she just wanted to clarify this and then the Town should do whatever they wish. Supervisor Desch asked if there were any comments from the Board? Councilwoman Howell replied that she felt the Board should go with the resolution, as presented. Councilman Cramer agreed with Councilwoman Howell. Councilwoman Raffensperger remarked that whether its in the last three or the last five or the last twenty-two or whatever, we still Town Board 7 September 14, 1987 feel as strongly that it is not an appropriate site, whatever its present state of consideration. Mrs. Livesay replied that that was what she was saying, it might be stronger to say its not an appropriate site, do not choose this site, or whatever. She stated that she felt the Board should make as strong a statement as they feel they want to make. Councilman Cramer replied that he felt the Board had made that statement, he stated that he felt the Board had gone on record on numerous occasions, individuals of us have. He stated that he felt there was very serious environmental issue here, he stated that he felt that environmental issue has to be addressed by this Town Board and subsequently by the County. He stated that he felt the site should be excluded from the list for environmental reasons and he stated that he felt the Board should take as strong a stand as the Board can possibly take with the County Board for even considering this particular site. Councilman Cramer stated that he was willing to accept the wording already in the proposed resolution. Councilwoman Raffensperger stated to the Town Planner, that not everyone is aware of the fact that the critical environmental area was designated by Town of Ithaca. This should be in there. RESOLUTION NO. 177 Motion by Councilman Cramer; seconded by Counciwoman Howell, WHEREAS, the Tompkins County Board of Representatives Solid Waste Management Committee has given further consideration to potential Landfill Site EN-3 through the completion of field tests, and WHEREAS, the test results are now available and these results futher substantiate and supplement the previously stated basis for rejecting further consideration of this site, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca urges the Tompkins County Board of Representatives to exclude potential Landfill Site EN-3 from further consideration for the following reasons: Preliminary test results indicate that Site EN-3 has relatively shallow bedrock, an artesian condition, accessibility problems, and other constraints that may make this site less feasible for landfill development than other sites tested, and that may lead to significant adverse impacts to the environment with respect to surface and groundwater contamination, traffic safety, and visual, noise, and odor impact. There may be a significant adverse impact on approximately 52 homes in the Drew Park Subdivision area of the Town of Ithaca with respect to water supply, traffic, and visual, noise and odor pollution, as well as to a total of more than 100 homes within a one-half mile radius of the site. • The site is one mile from the Coy Glen Critical Environmental Area designated by the Town of Ithaca in 1979 and which has also been designated a Tompkins County Unique Natural area. There may be a significant adverse impact on the water quality of a large aquifer which is within 1/3 mile of the site, and which is the source of water for many residences and several businesses in the Inlet Valley/Elmira Road neighborhood of the Town. Town Board 8 September 14, 1987 The cost to the County to provide public utilities to the developed residential areas adjoining the site in the Town of Ithaca and the Town of Enfield is an unacceptable burden to County taxpayers. The development costs for use of Site EN-3 as a landfill are excessive in terms of the limited tonnage that can be placed there due to topography, soil conditions, on-site gas lines, and the hazardous nature of roads which would be used to haul routes. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, Bartholf and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . REPORT OF TOWN OFFICIALS Town Supervisor's Report OSHA Inspection Supervisor Desch noted that the Town had been inspected by OSHA and a number of deficiencies in Town Hall have to be corrected by October 21, 1987. He stated that he was appointing the Town Clerk to see to it that these items are corrected. A copy of the report is available for anyone interested in it. All the items are minor. Highway Superintendent The Supervisor stated that in the absence of Robert Parkin, he had appointed Bert Dean as Acting Superintendent, inorder to provide proper direction to the efforts that need to be completed this year. We expect Bob back in two weeks. He went on to say that he would appreciate Board ratification of this appointment. RESOLUTION NO. 178 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman Cramer, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby ratify the appointment of Bert Dean as Acting Highway Superintendent effective September 10, 1987 during the absence of Highway Superintendent Robert Parkin. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, Bartholf and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . Youth Services Supervisor Desch stated that on Tuesday, September 22, 1987 we will be having the first meeting on the Youth Services matter with City officials. He went on to say that he would like to alert the Board and the public that it may be too costly for the .Town to continue a joint relationship with the City in this area. The requested increase from $75,000 per year to $350,000/year would cause a tax increase of $1.00/1,000 in the tax rate, a 77% increase. Clearly other alternatives will be evaluated but these cannot be created overnight. City Centennial Supervisor Desch went on to say that the Town has been asked to budget $5,000 in 1988 for the City of Ithaca Centennial. A conversation with the auditors at Audit and Control indicate that such an appropriation would be illegal since there is not direct benefit to the Town taxpayers. The 1988 budget will, therefore, not include this item. Perhaps some inkind services would be appropriate. Presentation of the Tentative Budget Town Board 9 September 14, 1987 Supervisor Desch noted same conflicting dates for this meeting. He proposed that it be held on October 5 and that we also have our regular October meeting at that time since October 12th, our normal date is a holiday. We would have the meeting at 5:30 P.M., and present the budget at 7:30 P.M. He asked if anyone opposed this? Codes & Ordinances The Supervisor stated that the Codes & Ordinance Commitee had met on September 3rd and appointed Henry Aron as its Chairman. We have • lengthy list of items that has evolved from our June workshop and • number of items that staff and Board members have brought to the attention of the Town Planner. The Committee, he stated as he understood it, will be submitting a package of materials consisting • of administrative clarification that need not be held up pending decisions on broader issues that will take more time. Their next meeting is October 8. Roat Street Drainage/Paving Supervisor Desch noted that the plan for drainage is nearly complete and will be presented to the neighborhood at a meeing on Monday evening, September 21st at Town Hall. The Town Engineer will have more later in this meeting. East Ithaca Traffic Study The Supervisor noted that the combined City/County/Town/Cornell effort is underway. The Committee is reviewing the methodology and format of surveys and the timetable for them. Warren Road Drainage Supervisor Desch remarked that the Town is now working with the County to resolve conflicts between water mains, their new storm sewers, pedestrian paths, etc. It may give us the opportunity to replace 3-4 of the 50 year old water services under the road. We have indicated to the County any water main relocations will be their cost. Fire Station Schematics The Supervisor continued, noting that the Joint Fire Station Committee will be meeting on September 16 at Town Hall to review the schematic plans being prepared. Federal Revenue Sharing Money Supervisor Desch noted that the Board would need to set the date for a public hearing, since we are meeting on the 5th, to consider the remainder of the Federal Revenue Sharing money, primarily the interest earned this year and a very small payment that we received earlier this year. The total amount is about $10,000. RESOLUTION NO. 179 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 7:00 P.M., on October 5, 1987 to consider the appropriation of remaining Federal Revenue Sharing money. • (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, Bartholf and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . Supervisor Desch remarked that this does not include the final payment which is being held up in Congress. Town Engineer's Report Town Board 10 September 14, 1987 Town Engineer Robert Flumerfelt stated that he had distributed, before the meeting, his monthly report and several items that will cane up later in the evening. Water & Sewer Main Bids He went on to say that the Town had taken bids on September 2nd for Phase I of the construction of water and sewer main improvements and received what he felt were very good bids, expecially one excellent low bid and we hope the contractor will soon be underway. The Engineer went on to say that the design and contract documents for Phase II have been started and hope to be able to take bids in late November. Hospital Access Road Bids have been received for the Hospital Access Road, they were opened this morning, and again he stated that he felt good bids had been received. Approximately $20,000 lower than the first bidding because of a realignment of the roadway and a change in the subbase material that we proposed to be used. We still have to review the bids that were received and make a recommendation and an award for that. Safety Improvements for the Honness Lane/Pine Tree Road Intersection The Town Engineer noted that the Board had information in their folders for some recommendations for safety improvements for the Honness Lane/Pine Tree Road Intersection. There is presently quite a bad visibility problem as you approach the intersection from Honness Lane and make the stop, the visibility to the left isn't too bad but to the right there is obstruction by a tree, pole and the ends of two hedges. Drainage Improvements for Blackstone/Orchard Streets Area The Town Engineer stated that as with the Kay Street area, we can accomplish our objectives for improving the drainage with a minimum amount of work there with improving the culverts, principally under the intersection of Orchard and Roat Streets, with some other minor ditching and culvert replacement and repaving. At the meeting planned with the residents of that area we hope that any other problems will be brought to light so that we can account for those and accomplish the job with minimum disruption to the area. Highway Garage Heating - Town Engineer Flumerfelt stated that the heating contract for the highway garage is almost finished, the contract just needs to install thermostats, make some electrical connections and test the system. Bids for new Salt/Sand/Cinder Spreader The Engineer noted that this week the advertisement for the new salt/sand/cinder spreader was placed in the newspaper. Bids will be opened on September 29th. Building Inspector/Zoning Officer Report Building Inspector/Zoning Officer Andrew Frost reported the Town Board had already received his report for the month, a couple of weeks ago. Town Planner's Report Town Planner Susan Beeners reported that there was no written report from her, at this time. She went on to say that the Supervisor had reported on most of the items she had been involved with. Ms. Beeners reported that she had attended the meetings of the East Ithaca Transportation Study Committee and that the Town Town Board 11 September 14, 1987 Attorney and herself would be meeting to prepare packages of revisions for the Codes and Ordinance Committee meetings. The only Planning Board meeting that was held since the last Town Board meeting was one in which the Briarwood Subdivision, 26 lots, off Birchwood Drive and Birchwood Drive North, was given final subdivision approval. The Ciaschi, West Wood Hills proposal, was given preliminary approval for 21 single family cluster homes. There was a sketch plan for a 10 lot subdivision on Coddington Road that was reviewed but it does not appear that the applicant will be coming back any time real soon. There was a sketch plan review for a proposed neighborhood shopping area on the corner of Troy and King Road. That one will be returning in another couple of weeks with some other commercial proposals for different parts of South • Hill, which are being looked at very carefully by the Planning Board in context of the Comprehensive Plan for that type of a facility. REPORT OF COUNTY BOARD OF REPRESENTATIVES County Representative Deborah Dietrich thanked the Town Board for their action tonight on the Landfill Resolution. She went on to say that she was interested in the contracts on the Hospital Access Road because she stated that she had talked to NYS DOT in Syracuse today, that traffic light situation is somewhat contingent on that road getting underway. What DOT is saying is that the traffic light may not be installed until spring. The quicker they can see something happening with the access road, the quicker we can get them moving. County Representative Beverly Livesay stated that she just wanted to mention to the Board that they might want to have the Town Attorney review the Zoning Ordinance in light of the out of Town landfill companies that apparently are descending heavily on our State. She stated that she did not think one should assume anything and should review any documents you have to see how best you can tighten it up. There were a few "white" areas in the Town of Ithaca. Mrs. Livesay went on to say that she would like to comment on the report of Youth Services and the increase in cost. She stated that she felt the Town of Ithaca might look at what kind of change, in relationship, the Town could have with the City. In other words, should the Town have their own Youth Committee advising the Town on what to do, should there be an effort to make this a joint City/Couty Youth Bureau rather than having just a reacting situation. She stated that she was sure that the County Youth Bureau Director would be glad to assist. Supervisor Desch replied that he was sure these were going to be very interesting negotiations. Some what similar to the Fire Contract but in some way more difficult. He reminded those present that the City, by one vote, voted down the plan for a joint City/Town and YMCA facility. BUDGET AMENDMENTS • RESOLUTION NO. 180 Motion by Councilman Cramer; seconded by Councilwoman Howell, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorize the following budget amendments and transfers: GENERAL FUND TOWNWIDE Town Board 12 September 14, 1987 Transfer to Town Board Contractual A1010.400 $102.50; transfer from Town Board Equipment A1010.100 $100.00 and Supervisor Equipment A1220.200 $2.50 Transfer to Supervisor Contractual A1220.400 $75.66; transfer from Supervisor Equipment A1220.200 $75.66 Transfer to Unallocated Insurance A1910.400 $5,063.53; transfer from Appropriated Fund Balance $5,063.53 Transfer to Crossing Guard Contractual A3120.400 $20.00; transfer from Crossing Guard Equipment A3120.200 $20.00 • GENERAL FUND OUTSIDE VILLAGE Transfer to Traffic Safety B3310.400 $963.22; transfer from B1990.400 Contingency $963.22 Transfer to Zoning Equipment B8010.200 $187.94; transfer from Appropriated Fund Balance $187.94 Transfer to Planning Contractual B8020.400 $1,500.00; transfer from B1990.400 Contingency $1,500.00 Transfer to Health Insurance B9060.800 $5,000.00; transfer from Contingency B1990.400 $5,000.00 Transfer to Zoning Contractual B8010.400 $700.00; transfer from Appropriated Fund Balance $700.00 Transfer to Disability Insurance B9055.800 $175.00; transfer from Appropriated Fund Balance $175.00 HIGHWAY FUND Transfer to Unemployment Insurance DB9050.800 $2,640.00; transfer from Appropriated Fund Balance $2,640.00 (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, Bartholf and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . WAIVE PENALTY ON WATER BILL RESOLUTION NO. 181 Motion by Councilwoman Raffensperger; seconded by Councilman Cramer, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorize a refund in the amount of $3.11 for penalty be .made to F. B. Agard, 1023 Hanshaw Road, Ithaca, New York, Account Number 186-0202343. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, Bartholf and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . • PART TIME PLANNING ASSISTANT RESOLUTION NO. 182 Motion by Councilwoman Raffenperger; seconded by Councilman Cramer, WHEREAS, there is a need for technical assistance and completion of special projects in the Planning Department, and Town Board 13 September 14, 1987 WHEREAS, Paul Look has worked in this capacity for the Town of Ithaca during the summer months, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorize the employment of Paul Look as part-time Planning Assistant from September 15, 1987 to December 31, 1987, at $6.00/hour, to a maximum of 15 hours/week. Appropriation account to be charged B8020.100 Planning Personal Services, AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that a budget amendment is hereby approved to transfer funds from General Fund Outside Village Appropriated Fund Balance to B8020.100 Planning Personal Services in the amount of $1,500. • (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, Bartholf and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . PART TIME ENGINEERING ASSISTANT RESOLUTION NO. 183 Motion by Councilman McPeak; seconded by Councilmen Howell, WHEREAS, there is a need in the Engineering Department for additional technical assistance, and WHEREAS, Brian Miller who has worked for the Town of Ithaca through the Cornell Work Study Program is available for the Fall Semester through work study, NOW 'THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorize the employment of Brian Miller as part-time engineering aide from September 15, 1987 through December 31, 1987, at a rate of $6.00/hour up to maximum of 15 hours/week. Appropriation account to be charged General Fund Engineering Personal Services A1440.100. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, Bartholf and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE TOWN OF ITHACA TRAFFIC LAWS RESOLUTION NO. 184 Motion by Councilwoman Howell; seconded by Councilman Cramer, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will meet and conduct a public hearing at 7:15 P.M., on October 5, 1987, to amend the Town of Ithaca Traffic Laws by adding stop signs at two intersections in Forest Home and the relocation of yield signs at Pennsylvania/Kendall Avenue intersection. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, Bartholf and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A LOCAL LAW REZONING TAX PARCELS N0. 6-23-1-11.112 AND 6-23--1-11.113 LOCATED OFF WOOLF LANE AND GROVE ROAD FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30 TO RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15 Proof of posting and publication of a notice of a public hearing to consider a local law rezoning Tax Parcels No. 6-23-1-11.112 and 6-23-1-11.113 located off Woolf Lane and Grove Road from Residence Town Board 14 September 14, 1987 District R-30 to Residence District R-15 having been presented by the Town Clerk, the Supervisor opened the public hearing. Supervisor Desch suggested that the Board review the Environmental Assessment first and then asked the Town Planner what the total acreas was? Town Planner Susan Beeners replied, 23.05. Supervisor Desch asked if this was the total of both parcels? Ms. Beeners replied, yes. • Supervisor Desch noted that the Environmental Assessment Form Part 2A, provides a narrative on the impact on land, water, plants, animals, open space, transportation, noise and odor, impact on growth and character of the neighborhood. For the benefit of those persons present the Supervisor read the following: impact on growth and character of community or neighborhood - "The proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use from undeveloped land to secondary growth vegetation to developed land, in an area where residences are a permitted land use, and where the development of public water and sewer services has been petitioned for by local residents and has been planned for by the Town. The proposed rezoning from R-30 to R-15 would result in a density increase which is considered supporable in this area of West Hill with its access onto State and County roads and its proximity to public facilities and professional offices, provided that vegetation conservation and landscaping as proposed are accomplished, and provided that adequate open space is retained in potential project phases, as may be required by the Planning Board. The proposed 21 single-family detached units as proposed, with a donation to the Town of 1.8+1- acres of open space, would represent a density of approximately 2.2 units per acre, which is within the requirements of the proposed R-15 rezoning and the maximum 3.5 permitted units of cluster subdivision. The following summarizes existing and potential permitted residential densities: R-30 current permitted density without public water and sewer: 0.8 dwelling units/acre (single-family dwellings) 1.6 dwelling units/acre (two-family dwellings) R-30 potential permitted density with public water and sewer: 1.15 dwelling units/acre (single-family dwellings) 2.3 dwelling units/acre (two-family dwellings) R-15 potential permitted density: 2.2 dwelling units/acre (single-family dwellings) 4.4 dwelling units/acre (two-family dwellings) 3.5 dwelling units/acre (maximum density for clustered subdivision) Proposed Westwood Hills Clustered Subdivision - Phase I (21 dwelling units with 1.8 acres open space donated on a total of • 1.2+/- acres) : 2.5 to 2.2 dwelling units/acre. The latter figure was based on 9.43 acres for Phase I, with 500+/- feet of road connection to Dubois Road deducted." The Supervisor noted that the Planning Board had proposed a negative determination of environmental significance. Edward Austen, 255 DuBois Road stated that looking over the area of Trumansburg Road, Woolf Lane and DuBois Road, most of those building lots and homes there are sitting on much more than 1,500 Town Board 15 September 14, 1987 square foot lots, in fact most of them are well over 30,000 square foot. He stated that he thought that subdivision to- 1,500 square foot lots is a much higher density than the surrounding area and he stated that he would like to see it remain 30,000 square foot. Supervisor Desch noted that he had received today, a copy of a letter dated September 11th, sent to the Planning Board from Mr. & Mrs. Dengler. "Please be advised that we are stongly against the approval of a proposed 21 unit single family detached clustered subdivision proposed to be located on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Numbers 6-23-1-11.112 and 6-23-1-11.113. Such a development is not in keeping with the nature of the neighborhood and is not • appropriate with the surrounding area. It can possibly cause both drainage problems and traffic problems for the residents of Woolf Lane and Dubois Road. The original plan with larger lots for the development would be far more suitable." Scott Reynor, Consultant for the Westwood Hills Project, stated that he would like to say a few things, firstly responding to the letter. He went on to say that they had done some drainage calculations and the engineers have looked at the amount of traffic to be generated by this project and the systems that are there currently are capable of handling an increase that the project would present. He went on to say that the other is that what we are striving to do, in general, with this project is to get away from being pigeon-holed into trying to have attached housing that would be totally out of the character of the neighborhood. By allowing detached housing in that area, which would be permissible under the zoning, we feel this would be a gross misuse of the land and we are trying to compensate for the fact that we are trying to get detached housing by putting the houses on smaller than usual lots, however, we are going in as a cluster subdivision and not your typical R-15 subdivision. We feel this is the only alternative we have to attached housing is to build detached which is really in keeping with the neighborhood. Supervisor Desch asked if the density for Phase II was likely to be comparable to Phase I? Timothy Ciaschi replied that Phase II to the South, 11 or 12 units, and the way he stated that he had set it up, he donated that land and said that everytime he had another phase that he was going through he would add 10% more open space, so already that cut it down to 8 or .9 units. He noted that he was not going to get his proposed 55 units. Supervisor Desch replied, it fair to say that the density for the overall project, when it's done, will be lower than the density of Phase I. Mr. Ciaschi replied, that is correct. Mr. Reynor added, as part of Phase I, there is 21% of the entire parcel of land that has been set aside for open space, for future use by the Town for playground or recreational area. That's double what the usual requirement is. Supervisor Desch responded that it was pretty much likely that most of the traffic from this subdivision will go down Dubois Road and then out to Route 96. Mr. Reynor replied, at this point yes. The development will start from the East and work its way West. Town Board 16 September 14, 1987 Victor Lazar, 108 Woolf Lane stated that Mr. Austen had already pointed out that most of the area has lots larger than 15,000 square feet, they are closer to almost an acre and then some. Some of the lots are an acre and a half and almost two acres. Mr. Ciaschi points out that he is very willing to increase the open space in Phases II and III. He stated that he would urge Mr. Ciaschi to consider starting with Phase I to keep that open space and to be more nearly the land area per unit housing that is there now. Councilwoman Raffensperger asked how many units per acre was proposed in the project? Town Planner Susan Beeners replied, that what has been arrived at • for Phase I, which is the 21 lots, is a density of about two units per acre. Councilwoman Raffensperger asked if this was on the 10.2 acres? Ms. Beeners replied, correct. She felt that the density on the remaining acreage would be close to 2.2 units per acre. As no one else present wished to speak for or against the proposal, the Supervisor closed the public hearing. Mr. Lazar then stated that there was one more factor to be considered. At the last meeting, which he attended, there was the matter of the cost of the sewer and water system going in, at that time there was no agreement as to the cost and how it was going to be born by the individual residents already there and the area to be developed. Has this agreement been reached? Supervisor Desch replied, we will be getting to that in a moment. Yes, it has. The Supervisor asked if there were any further questions on the Environmental Assessment by the Board members? Councilman Cramer noted that he had one question. On Part 2A, impact on aesthetic resources, it talks about "cottage" effects. He asked the Town Planner to take a moment and describe to the Board what "cottage" effect is? Town Planner Susan Beeners replied that the way the project has been designed there are these little mini clusters with three traditional style homes of fairly small size, clustered together with a common driveway. This is similar to some of the cottage type communities that you would see in some of the European or English towns. That's where she had gotten this wording. Councilman Cramer asked what kind of square footage will each cottage unit have? Ms. Beeners replied, from 1,000 to 1,200 square feet. Mr. Reynor added, that is living space, it does not include the deck or the garage. They are one and one-half story. Councilwoman Raffensperger remarked that she keeps hearing the Town Planner and Mr. Ciaschi saying what may be done in Phase II and what will be done in Phase III. She remarked that this makes her feel a little bit uncomfortable to be rezoning on a may be. However, may be she had misunderstood what had been said. The Town Planner replied, may be it should be looked at with just the bare bones of what is permitted in an R-15 density on the remaining land. Just put the cluster aside, what we are really talking about is what could the developer or another developer be Town Board 17 September 14, 1987 able to do on that remaining 10.8 acres. With the 10% open space dedication that may be required, on that land, we would be looking at, with the R-15 density from the 2.2 units an acre, single family, to 4.4 units per acre with two families on a lot or three and one-half units per acre if we kept this cluster. With the 10.8 acres, there could be 40 or so units, looking at it roughly like that and that would be tempered down because of the roads and everything. It is a very difficult type site to develop because of the fact that there are so many road connections that either have to be made to existing roads or that have been required to be provided just in case there is development South and North. I can't give you the exact figure but the Planning Board would be looking at achieving the density that would be somewhat ccmpatable with the adjacent properties. • Supervisor Desch stated that that was why he had asked the question about the Phase II density. All things indicate that it would be lower. Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that she was very sympathetic to the present landowners who have said here that they have houses on lots that exceed the minimum. This has happened before so that what is there has much larger lots is that what is now being permitted is very, very small. She stated that she felt that buffers or open space or transitions zones really cut down on that kind of disagreement of how the land should be developed. Supervisor Desch wondered what the number of developed parcels that abut on the undeveloped land was? Looking at the map he noted three or four houses. Town Planner Beeners replied that there were approximately eight that have houses on them that abut the project. The Town Supervisor asked if Mr. Lazar's property was the closest? Mr. Lazar replied no. Neil Alling's property would be the closest. Councilwoman Raffensperger asked if there had been much public discussion at the Planning Board meeting? She noted that she had tried to get the minutes but they were not ready and she wondered how many people in the public came and talked about their concerns about this rezoning. She stated that the Board really had not had a lot of imput about the project. Town Planner Beeners replied that there was some concern about why all of a sudden this possible change to a small R-15 lot. Concerns about the country atmosphere out there, this sudden rather abrupt change in density. There were several members of the DuBois Road, Woolf and Grove Road area that made comments like that. She went on to say that what her opinion was that she felt there was a lot of land on West Hill, particularly on the East side of DuBois Road, and also on the West side of Trumansburg Road with different natural features. Site constraints are going to limit the extension of utility lines in the forseeable future and that a lot of what is considered the character of West Hill is going to be preserved. This site here is not one where views are terribly critical. It is in a very central location and that this is what her opinion was on this development. Supervisor Desch noted that there are large areas on West Hill already zoned R-15 that today do not have public water and sewer. He stated that he did not know why, way back in 1954, they were zoned that way, expect that probably in anticipation, right after the ordinance was adopted, of the extension of public utilities. The practical matter is that in the other areas of the Town where Town Board 18 September 14, 1987 this kind of rezoning has taken place, it has been of necessity because even people with four and five acre parcels, with one house on them, have cane in with requests to subdivide those and to leave themselves with a 15,000 square foot lot. It's just a practical size in a lot of areas in todays world to maintain. Mr. Reynor remarked that the properties along the East on DuBoise Road, those houses that are facing DuBois Road their back yards which are very deep are boardering the development. If you have walked the site you will know that along that East edge there is a hedge row made of mature trees and that would stay inaddition to a 30' buffer that's required as a set back from the property line adjacent to the East. You have a very natural set back there. • Those lots are very deep. There is going to be a big gap from DuBois Road, you are going to drive in a couple hundred feet of road before you actually see the development. He went on to say that he thought this in itself was a transition. You might argue that if you look at it from an airplane you might say this was a denser approach to the surroundings but he felt that the site is somewhat isolated from its neighbors. There are two lots to the West that are undeveloped. With the exception of Alling and Lazar, they are the only two hogs that are right up against the development. Mr. Lazar stated that the developer should not depend upon other peoples property to afford a visual impact of the area. If they want that they should develop it (provide it) themselves. Councilwoman Raffensperger questioned, this is an environmental impact statement (assessment form) on the proposal as tentatively approved by the Planning Board as cluster? Town Attorney Barney replied no, this may be what you have there but you are really being asked to rezone R-30 to R-15. Councilwoman Raffensperger replied, this is what we have. Supervisor Desch remarked, this is the environmental assessment for the Phase I portion. Town Planner Beeners remarked that this form includes both Phase I, the Phase I subdivision and the proposed change from R-30 to R-15. Supervisor Desch remarked, this is why you say 23 acres. Ms. Beeners replied, right. Town Attorney Barney stated that he did not want to speak for the Town Planner but if you look at the front page it indicates that it is dual in the interest of staff time. He stated that he felt the Town Planner had put it together with a dual purpose in mind. It's a Planning Board subdivision and a Town Board rezoning. Supervisor Desch replied, that if you look at the last paragraph on the recommendation where the Town Planner recommends a negative determination of environmental significance be made by the Town Board with respect to the proposed rezoning of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 6-23-1-11.112 and 6-23-1-11.113 from Residence District R-30 to Residence District R-15. The only thing that he felt the Board needs to make clear is that when Phase II is done, another environmental review has to take place specific to that site plan at the Planning Board level, not related to the zoning but related to the site plan. RESOLUTION NO. 185 Town Board 19 September 14, 1987 Motion by Councilman McPeak; seconded by Supervisor Desch, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed rezoning of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 6-23-1-11.112 and 6-23-1-11.113 from Residence District R-30 to Residence District R-15. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, Bartholf and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . CIASCHI AGREEMENT • Supervisor Desch noted that the Board had before it a revised draft of the agreement relating to the provision of water and sewer to that area. He then asked the Town Engineer to comment on the current draft. Town Engineer Flumerfelt stated that basically what the Town has been negotiating and is in the process of negotiating an agreement with Mr. Ciaschi for construction of water and sewer mains by him as the developer through the length that would connect the lower area of DuBois Road with Woolf and Grove Roads area and Tr unansburrg Road and also included in this agreement are the items pertaining to the actual work involved by the developer and a timetable for accomplishing this. He noted that he had the September 2nd version of the agreement and asked the Town Attorney, if necessary, to help him with further changes. He went on to say that basically what is needed from the developer are the agreement to provide an easement so that the Town can construct, under the contract, the 900 feet approximately of water and sewer mains extending from DuBois Road up to the proposed intersection in the subdivision where eventually Grove Road and Woolf Lane would intersect. That was originally an almost squared off section, East-West road in a North-South connector between Woolf and Grove. Now it has more of a curve. Councilman Cramer noted that the Engineer had said the Town, the Agreement says Ciaschi, who is designing and who is constructing? Town Engineer Flumerfelt replied, both. They are designing and constructing a certain portion in the westerly part of the project. Supervisor Desch noted that the Town is designing and constructing the DuBois Road westerly to the intersection. The work that Ciaschi was doing before and the work that the Town was doing before (a slight change in the road) is the same. Councilwoman Raffensperger question if Mr. Ciaschi will be constructing the water and sewer line going from Grove Road over to the South? Supervisor Desch replied, from the intersection of the future Grove Road to the future Woolf Lane on up to the end of the present Woolf Lane. It would be a future sewer line as part of Phase II that would go from that point up to the end of the present Grove Road. • Councilwoman Raffensperger noted that the original agreement or discussion was that Mr. Ciaschi would construct the water and sewer lines running from Grove Road over both ways, this has been changed, right? Supervisor Desch, right. Councilwoman Raffensperger replied that this is what she had asked at the last meeting. She went on to say that she would like to Town Board 20 September 14, 1987 know how this all has changed since the Board approved the first concept. Supervisor Desch replied that this is the only change. The reason for this is that with part of the development going into a future phase, changes the timing of the construction of the sewer. The water service to the properties on Grove Road will be served by the line Ciaschi is putting up Woolf Lane and will be back fed that way, so that the people in the Town on Grove Place will be getting water at the same time as all of the other people in the area will be getting water. The properties on Grove Road and Grove Place, the sewer will be put in because its part of the contract but there will not be a point of connection from that sewer down to the sewer • that Ciaschi is building as part of phase I. So what we did was ask the people on Grove Road and Grove Place if they had had any current problems with their septic systems and they said no they would not be connecting to the sewer system unless the Town mandated it at some point in the future. So this was a key question as to the amount of time we felt appropriate to give the developer to connect that piece of sewer. The water line we don't care when the developer puts that in because it doesn't effect the service to the properties that we originally intended to service. Tim Ciaschi remarked that the agreement states two years. Supervisor Desch replied, the agreement reads October 15, 1989 in paragraph 11. As the developer you actually want another year, right. Mr. Ciaschi replied yes, I would like three. Supervisor Desch continued, in terms of the overall agreement, what else have we changed? Town Attorney Barney replied, those were the main changes, however, there were a lot of changes in the language to accomplish the substance of the changes. Supervisor Desch remarked, the other thing that was changed was the question of whether or not the road has to be in before the utilities or after. Town Engineer Flumerfelt remarked that he had not seen the last version of the agreement but he thought it would probably be to Ciaschi's benefit as the developer, as well as to the Town's contractor to not completely grade the new roadway up from DuBois Road until the water and sewer main are installed. For construction sake, if the area were cleared and stumps were grubbed out it would be a benefit. Our main concern is getting the water and sewer lines covered with sufficient materials before freezing weather. Councilwoman Raffensperger asked if there was anything in this water and sewer that is inconsistent with our application to Audit and Control? • Town Supervisor Desch replied, it is identical. Victor Lazar remarked that -he was not clear on one point, what is the distance between the power line near Woolf Lane and the back of the DuBois Road properties? Mr. Reynor responded, that the road was 1,500 feet long. Town Board 21 September 14, 1987 Supervisor Desch speaking to the Town Engineer, asked him if when he talked to the people on Grove Road, were they satisfied with three years? Town Engineer Flumerfelt responded that most of them were satisfied with making it late 1990. Supervisor Desch replied, then the date in item 11 can be changed to October 15, 1990. RESOLUTION NO. 186 • Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilwoman Howell, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves the agreement with Timothy Ciaschi, for Westwood Hills in substantially this form presented to the Board. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, Bartholf and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that the Town Board had a Planning Board recommendation, and once again she stated that she did not know what happened at the Planning Board level, which says that they recommend that the Town Board does rezone this, to be effective once water and sewer are provided to these lands. Is this rezoning contingent upon this? Town Attorney John Barney replied, no. You can defer the rezoning if you want to until the water and sewer is installed or the Town Board can reject the recommendation of the Planning Board and adopt the rezoning. Supervisor Desch remarked that Certificates of Occupancy would not be issued until the area has water and sewer anyway. -Councilwoman Raffensperger asked why had the Planning Board included these restrictions? Supervisor Desch replied that he was not there, but as he understood it, the Planning Board said if Mr. Ciaschi executed the agreement with the Town to provide utilities they were comfortable with R-15. As far as Phase II is concerned, if the developer goes back in for site plan approval on an R-15 basis, but does not have any utilities, he isn't going to get building permits or Health Department approval. He is tied by this agreement to put the utilities in, anyway. So it wouldn't make any sense to try to develop those remaining parcels with wells because you would be spending more for wells than for public water. LOCAL LAW NO. 11 - 1987 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman Bartholf, • FOCAL LAW NO. 11 - 1987 TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE REZONING THE CIASCHI PROPERTY OFF OF WOOLF LANE AND GROVE ROAD FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30 TO RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15 The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as readopted, amended, and revised, effective February 26, 1968, and subsequently amended, be further amended as follows: Town Board 22 September 14, 1987 1. The zoning map dated July 1, 1954, as amended to date, is hereby further amended by rezoning the lands described on Schedule A incorporated into this local law from Residence District R-30 to Residence District R-15. 2. This local law shall take effect upon its filing with the Secretary of State or twenty days after its adoption, whichever is later. SCHEDULE A ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND situate in the Town of Ithaca, • Tompkins County, New York, being shown generally as Tax Parcel Nos. 6-23-1-11.112 and 6-23-1-11.113 on the Town of Ithaca tax maps located between the ends of the current Grove Road and Woolf Lane and DuBois Road. Supervisor Desch called for a roll call vote. Councilman Bartholf Voting Aye Councilman Cramer Voting Aye Councilwoman Howell Voting Aye Councilwoman Leary Voting Aye CouncihTan McPeak Voting Aye Councilwoman Raffensperger Voting Aye Supervisor Desch Voting Aye Local Law No. 11 - 1987, was thereupon declared duly adopted. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO INCREASE THE FEES FOR BUILDING PERMITS, CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY AND TO REQUIRE A FEE FOR PUBLICATION OF NOTICES OF HEARING Proof of posting and publication of a notice of a public hearing to consider the adoption of a local law amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to increase the fees for building permits, certificates of occupancy and to require a fee for publication of notices of hearing having been presented by the Town Clerk, the Supervisor opened the public hearing. As no one present wished to speak for or against the proposed fee schedule increase, the Supervisor closed the public hearing. LOCAL LAW NO. 11 - 1987 Motion by Councilman McPeak; seconded by Councilwoman Raffensperger, LOCAL LAW NO. 11 - 1987 TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO INCREASE THE FEES FOR BUILDING PERMITS, CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY AND COST OF PUBLICATION The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as readopted, amended, and revised effective February 26, 1968, and subsequently amended, be further amended as follows: 1. The schedule of fees set forth in Article XIV, Section 75 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as follows: Town Board 23 September 14, 1987 Value of Improvement Fee $ 1 - $ 5,000.00 $ 15.00 $ 5,001 - $ 10,000.00 $ 25.00 $ 10,001 - $ 20,000.00 $ 40.00 $ 20,001 - $ 30,000.00 $ 60.00 $ 30,001 - $ 40,000.00 $ 80.00 $ 40,001 - $ 50,000.00 $ 100.00 $ 50,001 - $ 150,000.00 $ 200.00 $ 150,001 - $ 250,000.00 $ 300.00 $ 250,001 - $ 500,000.00 $ 400.00 $ 500,001 - $1,000,000.00 $ 600.00 $1,000,001 - $5,000,000.00 $1,000.00 • $5,000,001 and over $2,000.00 2. The second paragraph of Article XIV, Section 76, is amended to read as follows: "The fee for the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy shall be $25.00." 3. The second sentence of Article XIV, Section 77, paragraph 4, is amended to read as follows: "The applicant shall pay $20.00 for the publication of notices of the hearing required by law." 4. This local law shall take effect upon its filing with the Secretary of State or 20 days after its adoption, whichever is later. Supervisor Desch called for a roll call vote. Councilman Bartholf Voting Aye Councilman Cramer Voting Aye Councilwoman Howell Voting Aye Councilwoman Leary Voting Aye Councilman McPeak Voting Aye Councilwoman Raffensperger Voting Aye Supervisor Desch Voting Aye Local Law No. 12 - 1987, was thereupon declared duly adopted. Councilwoman Raffensperger remarked that the Board had talked, sometime ago, about fee for planning and environmental features. Supevisor Desch replied yes, we talked about how to do that on score kind of demand type basis, as we end up spending a lot of time reviewing proposals that never materialize. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ORDINANCE REGULATING UNSAFE BUILDINGS AND COLLAPSED STRUCTURES ADOPTED JULY 7, 1960, TO CHANGE THE REFERENCE FROM THE NEW YORK STATE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE TO THE NEW YORK STATE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE Proof of posting and publication of a notice of a public hearing to consider a local law amending the Town of Ithaca Ordinance regulating unsafe buildings and collapsed structures adopted July 7, 1960, to change the reference from the New York State Building Construction Code to the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Town Board 24 September 14, 1987 Building Code having been presented by the Town Clerk, the Supervisor opened the public hearing. As no one present wished to comment for or against the proposed amendment, the Supervisor closed the public hearing. LOCAL LAW NO. 13 - 1987 Motion by Councilman McPeak; seconded by Councilman Cramer, LOCAL LAW NO. 13 - 1987 • TO AMEND THE TOWN OF ITHACA ORDINANCE REGULATING UNSAFE BUILDINGS AND COLLAPSED STRUCTURES TO REFLECT ADOPTION OF THE NEW YORK STATE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE The Town of Ithaca Ordinance regulating unsafe buildings and collapsed structures adopted July 7, 1960, effective August 7, 1970, as the same may have been subsequently amended, is amended as follows: 1. The reference in the first paragrpah, last sentence is changed from "New York State Building Construction Code" to "New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code." 2. This local law shall take effect upon its filing with the Secretary of State or twenty days after its adoption, whichever is later. Supervisor Desch called for a roll call vote. Councilman Bartholf Voting Aye Councilman Cramer Voting Aye Councilwoman Howell Voting Aye Councilwoman Leary Voting Aye Councilman McPeak Voting Aye Councilwoman Raffensperger Voting Aye Supervisor Desch Voting Aye Local Law No. 13 - 1987, was thereupon declared duly adopted. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE DELETING EXEMPTION OF AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS FROM THE ORDINANCE, EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF AN ALTERATION OF ANY BUILDING, ADDING REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE, AND INCORPORATING REFERENCES TO THE NEW YORK STATE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE Proof of posting and publication of notice of a public hearing to consider the adoption of a local law amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance deleting exemption of agricultural buildings from • the ordinance, expanding the definition of an alteration of any building, adding requirements to obtain a Certificate of Compliance and incorporating references to the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code having been presented by the Town Clerk, the Supervisor opened the public hearing. As no one present wished to speak for or against the proposed amendment, the Supervisor closed the public hearing. Town Board 25 September 14, 1987 Town Attorney John Barney stated that Secretary of State's Office has mandated that if we choose to enforce the State's Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code, we must have in our laws certain provisions regarding enforcement. Back when the Town adopted the old Building Code in 1980 to 181, we adopted a fairly comprehensive ordinance, Local Law No. 1, 1981, which set out a number of the enforcement procedures. The problem is that we had some inconsistent procedures in that local law in contrast to what was in our Zoning Ordinance. For example, relating to permits to build and that sort of thing. What we have attempted to do now is to take the new requirements from the new building code and incorporate them into the Zoning Ordinance where appropriate, modify the Zoning Ordinance as necessary and also modify Local Law • No. 1 for 1981 to reflect these changes. The main area where there was some differences were in the permit to build section and the certificate of occupancy section. We are now proposing to amend Section 75 relating to permit to build and to put in language that substantially conforms to what the Secreatry of State says we have to provide for. However, in doing that we did make some assumptions which you may choose to accept or may choose to reject. For example, the old zoning ordinance authorizes construction of accessory buildings in an Agricultural District without the need to obtain a building permit. We have deleted that in the proposal you have infront of you. The State Building Codes does permit, under certain circumstances, accessory building, generally, not only in a Agricultural District, but generally to be constructed without a building permit if they are smaller than the limitations placed on them. The Town Attorney went on to say that he thought when the Zoning Ordinance was originally adopted in 1954 we had a tremendous amount of agricultural land in the Town, at this juncture it seems, from an enforcement standpoint, better to require a permit to build anything, with the exceptions listed one through five and not make a distinction whether it was an Agricultural District or another district. You may choose to do otherwise. The law was drafted using that assumption. Before you did not need a building permit to alter a building, you could alter a building as long as you did not enlarge it or do anything with the exterior of the building you did not have to have a building permit. We have now broadened that out to quite a bit more. We have been involved in a couple of situations were the need to get a building permit for an alteration was a question, this attempts to resolve that question. He went on to say that our ordinance, at the moment, does not specifically require somebody to get a Certificate of Occupancy once you have gotten a building permit. The Secretary of State now demands that whenever a building permit is required a building shall not be occupied until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. So we amended the Zoning Ordinance to provide for that and also a Certificate of Occupancy. Councilman Cramer asked, if someone comes in and has an existing single family house and they want to put an apartment in the basement and yet the base already has plumbing, heating and electric, and the renovation costs are less then $10,000.00, do they need a building permit? • Building Inspector/Zoning Officer Andrew Frost replied, regardless of what this might suggest or not suggest, he stated that his answer would be yes because it's an occupancy conversion from a building code classification of an A-1 single family occupancy to an A-2 which is a two family code, which requires that if you have a conversion, which this would be, it needs to follow a building code and with that there would be other features, fire safety features, for example. Town Board 26 September 14, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF A LOCAL LAW AMENDING LOCAL LAW NO. 1 OF THE YEAR 1981, CHANGING THE REFERENCE FROM THE STATE FIRE PREVENTION CODE TO THE NEW YORK STATE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE, EXPANDING THE ENFOMNENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE STATE OF NEW YORK UNDER THE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE AND CHANGING VARIOUS DEFINITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION UNDER SUCH LAW Proof of posting and publication of a notice of a public hearing to consider the adoption of a local law amending Local Law No. 1 of the year 1981, changing the reference from the State Fire Prevention Code to the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and • Building Code, expanding the enforcement and administrative provisions in accordance with regulations promulgated by the State of New York under the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and changing various definitions and requirements relating to construction under such law having been presented by the Town Clerk, the Supervisor opened the public hearing. As no one present wished to speak for or against the proposed amendment, the Supervisor closed the public hearing. RESOLUTION NO. 187 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilwoman Howell, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adjourns the public hearings on the adoption of a local law amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance deleting exemption of agricultural buildings from the Ordinance, expanding the definition of an alteration of any building, adding requirements to obtain a Certificate of Compliance, and incorporating references to the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and the adoption of a local law amending Local Law No. 1 of the year 1981, changing the reference from the State Fire Prevention Code to the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code, expanding the enforcement and administrative provisions in accordance with regulations promulgated by the State of New York under the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and changing various definitions and requirements relating to construction under such law until 8:00 P.M., on October 5, 1987. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, Bartholf and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . COVENANTS AND BY-LAWS FOR BLACK OAK LANE Supervisor Desch asked the Town Attorney where he was in the review process? Town Attorney Barney replied that he was about one-third of the way through the covenants and that he has not had a chance to read them in their entirety. He went on to say that he was having a little trouble with the definition of lot owners. The concept is that • there are two types of lots, Class I which is the class that goes to the subsequent purchaser of the lots and Class II are basically the lots retained by the developer. The developer retains Class B status indefinately, in a lot of areas, as I read it. In that capacity has the right to veto certain actions on the part of the Homeowners Association or has the right to control the Homeowners Association. For example, if the Homeowners Association wants to give an easement it not only takes a majority of the Homeowners but the developer has to consent to the granting of the easement. Town Board 27 September 14, 1987 Mr. King replied that when the units have been constructed and sold and there are only four units left, then the control shifts to the Association. He went on to say that this was a typical developer control. Town Attorney Barney remarked that a quorum was defined as a presence of 500 or more of the Class A and the presence of the Class B member. So the Class B member can simply decline to show up for a meeting and no action can be taken. Mr. King replied that is true until you get enough people into the development the developer really is the Homeowners Association. • Town Attorney Barney replied that there was no time limit on this, it goes forever. Mr. King replied no, the Class B classification ends at some point. Mr. King went on to say that these Covenants and By-Laws are based on Co monlands concept which was approved by the Board. The new concept instead of using Class A and Class B is to say that the developer shall retain control until he has so many units left. The idea, of course, is that he has to be able to move and accomplish the construction in all phases inorder to complete the project before he actually turns over complete control to the unit owners. One of the problems that is encountered is that some developers will dump the Homeowners Association on to the unit owners before the project is complete and leave them with a lot of his problems that-he should have taken care of. Supervisor Desch asked when would it be feasible for the Town Board to meet again, would the 28th be okay? RESOLUTION NO. 188 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman McPeak, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will meet at noon on September 28, 1987 to consider the Covenants and By-Laws for the Black Oak Lane project. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, Bartholf and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . AUTHORIZE AWARD OF BID ON PHASE I OF THE WATER AND SEWER PROJECT RESOLUTION NO. 189 Motion by Councilman Cramer; seconded by Councilman McPeak, WHEREAS, twelve bids were received Septmber 2, 1987 for Phase I Construction of Water and Sanitary Sewer Mains - 1987 Improvements, ranging in base bid amount from $792,000.00 to $1,310,775.00 and in total bid amounts, including optional work items, from $837,000.00 to $1,3560,075.00, and • WHEREAS, the proposal of the low bidder is lowest in cost both inclusive and exclusive of the optional work items, and WHEREAS, the low bidder, Vacri Construction Coroporation of Binghamton, New York, has met allof the requirements and formalities required for submission of his bid, and appears to be a reputable contractor, having satisfactorily performed similar work for the Town of Ithaca under the Phase I contract for water and sewer extensions in the 1984 improvements project, Town Board 28 September 14, 1987 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, that the Town Supervisor be authorized to award the contract for Phase I Construction of Water and Sanitary Sewer Main - 1987 Improvements, to Vacri Construction Corporation in the base bid amount of $792,000.00, AND FURTHER, that the award include the optional work items in the amount of $45,000.00 for a total of $837,000.00, pending satisfactory negotiation of an agreement with Timothy Ciaschi, developer of a proposed subdivision between DuBois Road and Woolf Lane, whereby said developer will provide easements and construct water and sewer mains necessary for completion of the planned Town water and sewe extensions. • (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, Bartholf and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . HOSPITAL ACCESS ROAD Town Engineer Robert Flumerfelt reported that the bids for the Hospital Access Road were opened earlier today and that he had not had a chance to fully review the bids. We received eight bids, the lowest bid was about $20,000 lower than the first bidding. RESOLUTION NO. 190 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman Cramer, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby accept the apparent low bid of Hill Construction, on the Hospital Access Road subject to the complete review by the Town Engineer and the Town Attorney and further subject to completion of the financial arrangements with the other participants. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, Bartholf and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . 78th ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF NEW YORK STATE MAGISTRATES ASSOCIATION RESOLUTION NO. 191 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilwoman Howell, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorize Justice Merton Wallenbeck, Justice Warren Blye and Court Clerk Lury Wallenbeck to attend the 78th Annual Conference of New York State Magistrates Association at Ellenville, New York, October 4, 5, 6, and 7, 1987. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, Bartholf, and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . BUILDING OFFICIALS CONFERENCE RESOLUTION NO. 192 Motion by Councilman Bartholf; seconded by Councilman McPeak, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorize Building Inspector/Zoning Officer Andrew Frost to attend the New York State Building Officials Conference at Ellenville, New York, October 7, 8, and 9, 1987. Town Board 29 September 14, 1987 (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, Bartholf and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . PINE TREE/HONNESS LANE INTERSECTION Town Engineer Flumerfelt presented the following report on the Honness Lane/Pine Tree Road Intersection: In reponse to concer of motorists and area residents regarding safety at the intersection of Honness Lane and Pine Tree Road, particularly due to poor visibility for the driver on the Honness Lane approach to the intersection, a condition survey was done. The resulting indication is that the accomplishment of a few relatively minor work items could greatly improve drivers' visibility. The intersection is presently controlled by a STOP sign on the Honness Lane approach. The driver's vision of Pine Tree Road traffic, when stopped at this approach, is somewhat blocked to the left (north) by a large double mailbox, but much more severely restricted to the right (south) by a utility company pole, the trunk of a hickory tree (about 18" diameter) , and the ends of two hedges. When the driver is stopped, the trees and utility pole nearly appear to combine in width, side by side, forming one wide obstruction. All of the obstructions to good visibility lie within the 50 foot right-of-way of one or both roads, Pine Tree Road being • County Road and Honness Lane, a Town road. The hickory, although • stately tree, is only 8feet from the edge of the Pine Tree Road pavement (in itself a safety concern) and severely intrudes into the electric wires running in four directions from the power pole only 12 feet away. Another hickory, if not even larger and more shapely exists in the Cassels' yard only 12 feet from the aforementioned tree, and, for this reason, loss of the roadside tree might not be so hardfelt. My recommendations are as follows: 1. Move the double mailbox on the north side of the intersection back about 3 feet and request that the County place some additional shoulder material for the mail truck. 2. Request that the County and/or utility company remove the hickory tree closest to Pine Tree Road. 3. Remove approximately 8 feet from the ends of the two hedges projecting into the highway right-of-way. Relocation of the utility pole would be very difficult since it holds both north-south and east-west runs of wires. Accomplishment of the above recommendations would, however, at relatively little cost or difficutly, improve drivers' visibility to a very acceptable level and greatly improve safety conditions at the intersection. Councilwoman Raffensperger remarked that she was very uncomfortable about doing any of this proposed work until the people had been contacted. She went to say that she noticed the Town Engineer talked about the right-of-ways, noting that she was sure the Town Engineer had checked the deeds, but that many of the deeds on Pine Tree Road go to the center line. She wondered about the Cassell's property, how their deed read. Town Engineer Flumerfelt responded that he had looked at the deeds but that he could not recall what it said about the right-of-way except that it is 50 feet. He noted that the right-of--way on both Town Board 30 September 14, 1987 roads was 50 feet. He stated that he always thought that within that 50 foot right-of-way, that the County in this instance on Pine Tree Road, would have the right to clear obstruction. Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that many of the deeds go to the center of the road and because of this, when the County put in the storm sewers, the County had to negotiate with us what they could do off the paved portion of the road. This is something, she stated that she was sure the Cassells would remember. You need to deal with this in a reasonable manner. Supervisor Desch added, also on the mail box which should be moved back, the Post Office should be consulted on this. Town Engineer Flumerfelt stated that he had tried to contact the Cassels today, without any luck. No action was taken on the recommendation. The Town Engineer will talk with property owners who would be involved with any changes. RENOVATION OF TOWN HALL HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM Town Engineer Robert Flumerfelt stated that after looking at the approximate costs estimated by the Consulting Engineer, William Albern, on the heating and air conditioning renovations, if we replace our present units the three in the Board room and the three in the Engineering Department, with similar new units which are somewhat quieter, it would be by far the cheapest and simplist solution to our problems. Estimated cost of about $10,000 for new units up stairs and down, plus the $1,500 engineering fee, or $11,500 versus the other option of putting three new units upstairs and a central system for the Board room, which would be still more quieter but more expensive or a total of $25,000. He stated that his recommendation would be to replace the units with similar ones, both upstairs and down. Councilman Cramer asked what will happen to existing heating plant in the other portions of the building? Town Engineer Flumerfelt replied that these would remain the way they are. Supervisor Desch remarked that it did not make sense to spend $25,000 on heating and ventulating in this building because in some point in time we are going to need more space, probably sooner than later. RESOLUTION NO. 193 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilwoman Howell, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorize to take bids on the renovation of the Town Hall heating and ventulating system. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, Bartholf and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . EAST SHORE DRIVE SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT Supervisor Desch asked the Board members for their opinions as to whether they were comfortable in referring this matter back to the Planning Board? Town Board 31 September 14, 1987 Councilwoman Raffensperger replied, in the resolution of referral, can we ask them to investigate other possible solutions, or any other alternatives that are open to us? Town Planner Beeners replied that she felt all the other alternatives had been investigated. Councilman Bartholf asked, how much land is Stewart Park giving up for this proposal? None are they? Supervisor Desch replied that the question is that probably a thousand different people in Ithaca have a thousand different answers as to where Stewart Park starts and ends. You could say that the Youth Facility encroaches on Stewart Park, it either does or it doesn't. If it does, you then have to ask the question why is that anymore of a problem or less of a problem than the Chamber building would be in terms of the environment. You certainly are leaving a tremendous amount of open space. Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that as she understood the project, it was for a wider use than just the Chamber building. She went on to say that as she understood it, there were potential plans for this, she asked if she had misunderstood this? Supervisor Desch replied, that his understanding was that the Mixed Use Zone would be from a business standpoint, pretty clearly defined, so that it would be something like we did at the Biggs Complex and Odd Fellows where it would be narrowly defined in terms of what is permitted. Councilwoman Raffensperger remarked, but it isn't just going to be that Chamber building setting there? Supervisor Desch replied, it depends on what they come back with. Susan Beeners replied, you have an attachment that shows the preliminary general plans for the 2.3 acres. The Chamber was encouraged by me to go out and talk to adjacent neighbors and see whether there could be some type of a unified plan for limited professional office development. From a land use concept she felt this was good because we would have a transitional zone where there now is badly run down property. Councilwoman Howell remarked that to see something looking nice and kept up well, would be an asset, that area is really not well kept. Councilwoman Raffensperger remarked that she felt the plans looked real nice but her question was what else is attached to this that we don't know about. Councilman Cramer questioned, what if one of the adjacent property owners come back and say they do not want to sell their property and they do not want a Multiple Use Zone in the area. What will happen to the Chamber proposal? Is the property too small a parcel for the Board to consider for rezoning irrespective of the mixed use? Are we telling the Chamber that this is the only type of provision we will accept? Supervisor Desch replied possibly, because the property is so narrow the ingress and egress problems are real. They need more space to get a unified ingress and egress to that whole area. Town Planner Susan Beeners noted that the access was being taken care of now by the license from the City, but as we have interpreted the provisions of the Special Land Use District it Town Board 32 September 14, 1987 appears that a two acre minimum might be necessary for the establishment of a district of this type. Councilwoman Raffensperger replied that a variance could be given as variances certainly have been given before. RESOLUTION NO. 194 Motion by Councilwoman Howell; seconded by Councilman McPeak, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby refers the Special Land Use District for the Chamber of Commerce, per their letter of September 15, 1987, to the Planning Board, and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board be requested to review other mechanisms for providing for use of the land. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, Bartholf and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . VILLAGE OF LANSING BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED "SUN DOWN FARMS" DEVELOPMENT Supervisor Desch stated that the only reason for this item was that the Board needs to indicate to the Village of Lansing that we agree with their being lead agency. Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that the Town Planner had assured her that she would keep track of the proposal. She went on to say that she has had telephone calls from people in Forest Home who are disturbed about the potential for the project. With Triphammer Road and everything we should show interest in the progress, especially with traffic. Susan Beeners stated that she had talked to the Village Zoning Officer about this project and the Beck Subdivison which is across the street. RESOLUTION NO. 195 Motion by Councilman McPeak; seconded by Councilman Cramer, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby declares that it does not object to the Village of Lansing being lead agency for the Sun Down Farms proposed project. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, Bartholf and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . AUTHORIZE TOWN ATTORNEY TO DEFEND ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON THE BOWER LAW SUIT RESOLUTION NO. 196 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilwoman Raffensperger, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorize the Town Attorney to represent the Zoning Board of Appeals in the matter of the Bower law suit. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, Bartholf and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . Town Board 33 September 14, 1987 TOWN OF ITHACA WARRANTS RESOLUTION NO. 197 Motion by Councilman Cramer; seconded by Councilman Bartholf, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves the Town of Ithaca Warrants dated September 14, 1987, in the following accounts: General Fund - Town Wide. ... . . ....... .. . . . . . . .$51,989.36 General Fund - Outside Village. .. . ...... ......$15,101.40 Highway Fund. . . . . ... .. . . . . .. . .. ... ... ..... . ...$82,705.16 Water and Sewer Fund. . . .... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .$46,787.11 Lighting District Fund.. .$ 447.96 (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, Bartholf and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . BOLTON POINT WARRANTS RESOLUTION NO. 198 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman McPeak, RESOLVED, that the Bolton Point Warrants dated September 14, 1987, in the Operating Account are hereby approved, in the amount of $573,638.97 after review and upon the recommendation of the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission, they are in order for payment. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, Bartholf, and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . AUTHORIZE ATTENDANCE AT ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE SEMINAR RESOLUTION NO. 199 Motion by Councilman McPeak; seconded by Councilman Cramer, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorize Constance E. Allen to attend the workshop, "Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the Workplace" to be held at Tompkins Cortland Community College, September 23, 1987. Cost of workshop is $30.00 plus mileage to be charged to General Fund Townwide Budget Contractual A1340.400. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, Bartholf and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . FINANCIAL STATEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 200 Motion by Councilman Cramer; seconded by Councilwoman Raffensperger, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approve the August Financial Statement. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, Bartholf and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . Town Board 34 September 14, 1987 Councilwoman Leary asked if it was necessary for the Town Board to take any action on County Representative Livesay's suggestion about looking into our zoning to see if it protects us enough against private landfills? Supervisor Desch replied that the Town Attorney would be looking at this and it is something that the Codes and Ordinance Committee should discuss. Councilwoman Leary then asked about the item in the Supervisor's report about the request to donate $5,000 for the Ithaca Centenial. She asked what about the inkind services, is that legal? Supervisor Desch responded, only if it can be shown that it benefits the Town. He stated that he had no idea what the City might need. The problem is that the activities take place almost totally in the City. We will just have to ask the City if there are any inkind services that relate to activities in the Town. ADJOURIZ= The meeting was duly adjourned. Town Clerk