Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 1987-10-05 TOWN OF ITHACA REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 5, 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 5th day of October, 1987, there were: • PRESENT: Noel Desch, Supervisor Henry McPeak, Councilman Shirley Raffensperger, Councilwoman Marc Cramer, Councilman Gloria Howell, Councilwoman Patricia Leary, Councilwoman ABSENT: Robert Bartholf, Councilman ALSO PRESENT: Robert Flumerfelt, Town Engineer John Barney, Town Attorney Mary Call, Board of Representatives Henry Theisen, Chamber of Coerce Herbert D. Brewer, Chamber of Commerce Stuart Lewis, Chamber of Commerce Richard L. Atkins, Atkins House Corp. Bruce Brittain, Forest Home Improvement Association PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Supervisor led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance. REPORT OF TOWN OFFICIALS Town Supervisor's Report Parking on Shoulders of Coddinqton Road Supervisor Desch stated that the Town had received a number of communications about the hazards of joggers on Coddington Road as well as traveling vehicles due to cars parking on the shoulders, particularly near the Ithaca College entrance. "I would like to consider ways to alleviate this problem by a no parking ban from the City line to Rich Road. I believe with a little planning the property owners and occupants have alternatives." It is critical that we move forward next spring with a first phase of the South Hill bikeway from Hudson Street to perhaps Northview. NYS Dept. of Audit and Control - Audit of Bolton Point Supervisor Desch noted that the State has colleted the audit of Bolton Point and that he had met with the auditors. Their report is expected to be forwarded to the Town in two to three months. The comments were quite similar to the Town audit, nothing major. Microphones Supervisor Desch remarked that the staff had been struggling with the recording system. He went on to say that the two microphones had been sent back for repairs, we now have them back, but there still is a problem picking up all the statements that should be Town Board 2 October 5, 1987 considered for the minutes. Mike Ocello has come up with a proposal to put a stand in the middle and then put three to five microphones on it. The problem with that is the price, $2,400. It is an issue that perhaps we need to go the next step with. Town Engineer's Report Town Engineer Robert Flumerfelt reported that on the Water and Sewer Projects, Phase I contract was awarded to Vacri Construction Corporation and that it was expected the contract would be signed on the 8th. They should be able to get started about the third week in October. We are currently staking out the manholes for the sewer part of the project. We are preparing the plans for the next phase. We hope to have that ready to go out to bid in early • November and receive the bids in the latter part of November. Hospital Access Road The Town Engineer stated that the Hospital Access Road contract has been made to the Hill Construction Company of Dundee. All the parties involved in the project have committeed themselves to the funds necessary. As soon as they sign the contract we should be able to go ahead with this project. Supervisor Desch noted that the Hospital has commi.tteed themselves, in writing, to their $45,000. Drainage Project The Town Engineer stated that the drainage and paving project in Roat, Orchard and Blackstone areas is about to start. A meeting was held with the residents on September 22nd and our major drainage improvements are centered around the Orchard and Roat Street intersection with some minor development of swails and replacement of worn out driveway culverts, then repaving of the streets. Work should start there Tuesday. Town Heating and Air Conditioning System Town Engineer Flumerfelt reported that the consulting engineer on the Town heating and air conditioning system renovation for parts of this building, Bill Albern, reports that he will have his specifications done by the end of the week so we will be able to take bids on the replacement of these heating and air conditioning units. i Cinder and Salt Spreader The Town Engineer reported that bids have been taken on the salt and cinder spreader, received bids from three companies. There will be an item later on, recommending the award be made to Seneca Supply. Highway Facility Heating System Town Engineer Flumerfelt noted that the heating contract work for the Highway Facility is just about completed, start up is scheduled for this Wednesday. Councilman Cramer stated that the shoulders on Forest Home Drive have been completed. The paving project on Salem Drive plus the • shoulders and driveways have been done to Town specifications. There are a few minor things. The Kay Street paving project is complete with minor shoulder work completed today to the satisfaction of the neighbors. He stated that he felt they were ready to move onto the drainage problems, across the street. He noted that the Highway Crew had done an excellent job and requested the Board members drive the newly paved streets to see for themselves. Town Board 3 October 5, 1987 Building Inspector/Town Zoning Officer's Report Building Inspector/Town Zoning Officer Andrew Frost distributed copies of his draft Building Permit which he hopes to be able to being using in the next twenty days when the new fee schedule becomes effective. The packet included an instruction sheet, a revised building permit application, a plot plan, a sample sketch a comment sheet which will be revised, and canpensation insurance information. Town Planner's Report Town Planner Susan Beeners stated that in spite of the fact we had a slight "lull" in August, as far as developer applications, it does not seem to be getting any slower overall. There are a lot of • applications for smaller projects caning in, people who want to get started on their projects before winter. She went on to say that one or two Codes & Ordinance Committee meetings have been held since the last Town Board meeting. The Town Attorney and herself have drafted sane draft amendments to clear up a few places, such as front yard definitions, yard requirements and occupancy in residence districts. Hopefully they will be meeting once or twice a month. Some will be policy items. Paul Look has been assisting her with base maps. Mr. Look, Eric Whitney and herself have met with the staff at CLEARS who are still interested in devising a geographic system on either US or MACK, using the Town as a pilot project but trailoring it for specific municipal needs that we have here. REPORT OF COUNTY BOARD OF REPRESENTATIVE Mary Call, County Board of Representatives reported that she would like to quickly update the Board on the landfill search. It is getting very close now. The Phase II report is in the hands of the Committee and will be to the Board of Reps by the end of next week. The Board will then begin to meet on this and it will became a public document after the Board makes its decision. All of SEAR requirements are underway. She went on to say that the piece that was important to the Town was the piece on recycling. Recycling will need to be, must be, a part of any solid waste management plan that the County goes into. Probably what would happen is that they would pick an entity like the Village of Cayuga Heights which has its own collection and is a relatively small controlled population and start with the Village or some other small municipality do recycling on a small scale basis first. Eventually, it will Probably be, if not mandated by the County, County wide, it will at least be mandated to the extent you can. Supervisor Desch asked Representative Call if it had been determined that the County has satutory authority to do that? Representative Call responded, we do not because we do not control the flow of garbage which the City does and the Village does so they can do this, they control the collection of garbage. She went on to say that in regards to a large entity caning into the area and buying a large track of land for a landfill, which would be an interstate landfill as well as from other counties, we are horrified by that and trying to figure out just exactly what they are doing. Councilman Cramer asked Representative Call if the Board had received a resolution from the Village of Richford and the County of Tioga regarding the SWI Proposal and the Village Board resolution against the proposal? County Representative Call responded yes and also there is an Intercounty Committee consisting of herself and Frank Proto from Town Board 4 October 5, 1987 this County and some Richford people and some Tioga County people who will meet soon on this matter. Councilman Cramer asked if the County Board had received any response from DEC on the Landstram site and is there any pressure the Town can place on behalf of the County? Representative Call responded, if you have any connections, anything will help. She went on to say that the County had requested a deadline extension from the State. Region 7 has apparently sent the application to Albany and it is somewhere in Albany. • BUDGET AMENDMENTS Councilwoman Raffensperger asked why the Town was supplementing the Fire Contract? Supervisor Desch replied, this is to make the total of the first year contract. When we passed the budget last year we were unclear where we would contract for fire protection, if you remember we put $38,700 in other contracts, they money was there except for the difference of $16,242. The final number was not determined until after the first of the year. RESOLUTION NO. 201 Motion by Councilman Cramer; seconded by Councilwoman Howell, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorize the following budget amendments: FIRE PROTECTION FUND Transfer $38,700 from SF3410.493 Fire Protection Other Contracts and $16,242.54 from Fire Protection Fund Balance to SF3410.491 Fire Protection City of Ithaca Contract. Total of transfer $54,942.54. HIGHWAY FUND Appropriate $5,000 from Highway Fund Balance and transfer to DB5130.460 Highway Fund Vehicle Maintenance. GENERAL FUND TOWNWIDE Transfer $500 from A1620.200 Town Hall Equipment to A1620.412 Town Hall Maintenance. Appropriate $2,000 from General Fund Townwide Fund Balance and transfer to A1440.400 Engineer Contractual. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . RESPONSE TO AUDIT REPORT Supervisor Desch presented to the Board the following response to the State Audit report: Overdrawn Appropriations To prevent the occurrence of overdrawn appropriations, budget amendments are presented to the Town Board for approval as necessary throughout the year. Town Board 5 October 5, 1987 Employee Retirement System Benefits The Town of Ithaca Personnel Manual has been revised requiring that all persons hired by the Town of Ithaca be given the opportunity to join the New York State Retirement System. If membership is optional and the employee declines membership a signed statement to that effect is kept on file. Department Approval of Claims No invoices are paid without verbal approval of the department head. In the future all vouchers will be signed by the cognizant department head prior to payment rather than accepting verbal approval. Monthly Gas Allowance • The Town's crossing guards are no longer give a gasoline allowance but are reimbursed for mileage within their payment for services. Civil Service Certification of Payrolls The payrolls are certified by the Chief Fiscal Officer of the Town in a timely manner. Tompkins County Personnel Office has not been interested in certifying Town payrolls for many years. The Town will confirm whether such is still the case. Town Justice Court The Justice Court administration has taken the necessary steps to implement a monthly reconciliation of accounts and assure timely payments to the proper jurisdictions and/or persons. Supervisor Desch stated that action had already been taken on three of the items before the State report had been received. No action is necessary on the part of the Board. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT - EAST SHORE DRIVE Supervisor Desch asked the Town Planner if there was anything that stands out in Part I that the Board should be directed to? Town Planner Susan Beeners replied, as the proposal stands now, we are looking at the proposed rezoning of the Bowman parcel which is about 15,600 square feet for the Chamber's Tourist Information Center and Visitors Convention Bureau. The Chamber request described in their letter dated September 14, 1987, included other similar non profit offices. The building is rather modest in size, such that the other uses that might be possible there, is a contingency for the future. The Environmental Assessment Part I Points out sane interesting facts as shown on a diagram. Surface coverage as proposed is not significantly different than what is there presently. She went on to point out Item No. 11 in Part I, that asks if the project would require relocation of any projects with facilities, she stated that she has been told by members of the Chamber that they have offered for salvage the existing building. Councilman McPeak questioned, they are expecting to move the buildings fra . the site? Town Planner Beeners responded, at this time it being proposed to have them relocated for a worthy cause. She went on to say that, there is sane concern by the Citizens to Save Stewart Park group as far as the question as to whether the Chamber facility would encroach into Stewart Park and also whether the parcel that the Chamber would like to have rezoned to Special Land Use District is too small. She stated that in her review she has tried to touch on those concerns as well as general site feasibility. The City of Town Board 6 October 5, 1987 Ithaca has endorced the granting of a license subject to final site plan approval by the Board of Public Works. We have had in this general area a number of changes that have been represented some degree of intermunicipal cooperation, with the development of the Youth Bureau and the annexation of certain lands to the City and certain lands to the Town in this area. She stated that in this area there is a great amount of public use lands and a great amount of land that is devoted to transportation that adjoins this site to the South and to the East. Rather than see this as a small residential zone she saw it as instead as an addition to public land use area, as a transitional area. To the North we have a couple of run down properties that may not return to residential development, then you have seasonal residences and land devoted to sewage disposal, a marina and a considerable amount of vacant land. The residences that are down there are half owner occupied and half rental. Supervisor Desch remarked that the Board was looking at a conditional negative declaration, a conditional negative declaration being based on the recommendation of A, B, C, D, E, and F. Councilwoman Raffensperger asked the Town Planner to clarify for her, this is a Special Land Use District, how large is it? Town Planner Beeners responded about 15,600 square feet, about 1/3 of an acre. Councilwoman Raffensperger questioned, all of which is to be used by the Chamber? Town Planner Beeners responded, by the Chamber and the visitors to the Convention Center and Tourist Bureau. Councilwoman Raffensperger remarked, period. Town Planner Beeners responded period, but as she understood it from the Chamber's proposal they would like to have other tourist related non-profit offices as a future possibility. She stated that the Chamber offices, Convention Center and Tourist Bureau is what we are looking at for the current proposal. Councilman Raffensperger noted that the Town Board had referred this to the Planning Board, do we have a recommendation from the Planning Board? Town Planner Beeners responded, you don't as yet. The Planning Board examined a sketch plan for the possible rezoning of the adjacent Wells parcels in combination with the Chamber. The Planning Board felt that at this time they would prefer only to look at having the Chamber rezoned. They will be looking at it in a public hearing Tuesday night. She stated that in the meantime she had an inquiry from the landowner adjacent to the North as to whether or not his land could be rezoned at the same time. You will receive a formal resolution after they have their public hearing. The Town Board as lead agency is the one who has to make the environmental significance determination and if a conditional negative determination is made a 30 day public comment period is required prior to any further action on this Board's part. She stated that since she has had the Chamber discussing this development with her since about June, she felt it was best all around to be a little more expedient in this and start the conditional negative declaration public comment period at this time because it would save a months time for the Chamber if this Board is interested in the idea and also it would open up the proposal for more public comment. Town Board 7 October 5, 1987 Councilwoman Raffensperger replied that her concern was that the Board is being asked to make a negative declaration of environmental significance on a project on which the Town Board has not had a public hearing and the Planning Board has not had a public hearing. She stated that she was not opposed the project, she was opposed to that kind of a sequence. Supervisor Desch replied, that's why its called a conditional negative declaration. Councilwoman Raffensperger replied, usually a conditional one means its conditional upon those conditions attached to the negative declaration, not that we can change our minds, that our negative declaration is conditional. Town Attorney Barney responded, that is correct. On the environmental aspect of it a conditional negative declaration you do not have to have a public hearing. Its just an accident the way the meetings came together this month, normally you meet the second Monday and the Planning Board meets the first Tuesday and the Planning Board would have met, and you would have had a full scale recommendation for this Board next Monday. If we waited then this would not have come to you before November and if you saw fit to grant a conditional negative declaration action could not then be taken until December because of the 30 day waiting period. The Town Attorney went on to say that the Board was not obligated by the finding of a negative declaration to take any action. The actual action on the rezoning will cane after the Planning Board approval or disapproval or recommendation, and after a full scale public hearing on the rezoning. Councilwoman Raffensperger remarked, we have had special meetings before. She stated that she had a great deal of concern because the negative declaration of environmental significance is a very important phase in the decision making and to do without the Planning Board recommendation, which we asked for, for any public hearing, bothers her. Supervisor Desch remarked, it doesn't mean that during the 30 day comment period, if sufficient comment is made, that you can't change that determination. Town Attorney Barney replied, that is true. That the reason for the 30 day comment period. If during the 30 day comment period there are ccRunents that are made such that you look at it and say wait a minute, we now have heard from people and they don't think that a negative declaration is appropriate here, even a conditional negative declaration, you can change that. There is no reason for a 30 day comment period if you couldn't change it. You have three choices with the environmental significant, one is the findings that there is a possibility of a positive environmental significance, the second is to say there is no environmental significance period, and the third is to say there is possibly environmental significance but the mitigating measures that are set forth as conditions eliminate those environmental concerns or reduce them to nonsignificance. • RESOLUTION NO. 202 Motion by Councilman McPeak; seconded by Councilman Cramer, WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of a Conditional Negative Determination of Environmental Significance with respect to a request for the rezoning of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. Town Board 8 October 5, 1987 6-18-2-10, located at 904-906 East Shore Drive, from Residence District R-15 to Special Land Use District (Limited Mixed Use) for the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce, Visitors and Convention Bureau, and Tourist Information Center. 2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board has been legislatively designated to act as lead agency for environmental review. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, the City of Ithaca, the Tompkins County Planning Department, and the New York State Department of Transportation are involved agencies in coordinated review. 3. The Town Planner has recommended that a conditional negative determination of environmental significance be made by the Town Board, and has recommended that such determination be filed and that a thirty-day public comment period be held, pursuant to SEQRA. THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board, legislatively acting as Lead Agency in the environmental review of the proposed Special Land Use District (Limited Mixed Use) for the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce, Visitors and Convention Bureau, and Tourist Information Center, make and hereby does make a conditional negative determination of environmental significance for such District, subject to the following conditions and requirements: a. Concurrence of potentially involved agencies as to the designation of the Town Board as Lead Agency in the environmental review of the proposed District, as such agencies were notified on September 15, 1987 and were requested to concur no later than October 15, 1987. b. The filing of the conditional negative determination of environmental significance pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law, to include a 30-day public comment period, prior to any final consideration of the proposed rezoning by the Town Board. C. The review by the Planning Board of the general site plan and the consideration of a recommendation by the Planning Board to the Town Board with respect to the requested rezoning. d. The granting of a license by the City of Ithaca to the applicant for use of City lands for access and parking. e. The requirement that no more than 10 employees will occupy the premises at any one time. f. The requirement that no activities will be conducted between 10:30 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. g. The requirement that no activities will be conducted which will cause disturbing noise, odors, or glare to any • adjacent landowners. h. The compliance of the developer and all subsequent landowners with all conditions and requirements that may be set forth in any legislation rezoning the subject property. (Desch, McPeak, Cramer, Howell and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none. Abstaining - Raffensperger) . Town Board 9 October 5, 1987 SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT - EAST SHORE DRIVE RESOLUTION NO. 203 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman Cramer, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will meet and conduct a public hearing at 7:30 P.M., on November 11, 1987 to consider the establishment of a Special Land Use District - East Shore Drive. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . • FALL CLEAN - UP DAY RESOLUTION NO. 204 Motion by Councilman Cramer; seconded by Councilman McPeak, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby sets the date of November 2, 1987, as Fall Clean-up Day in the Town of Ithaca. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . PROTECTIVE COVENANTS FOR WESTWOOD HILLS PROJBC<r Supervisor Desch asked the Town Attorney if he had had a chance to check over the covenants? Town Attorney Barney replied that he had sent some comments over to Mrs. Holmberg and that he could see some of his comments have been incorporated into the latest draft. Supervisor Desch asked if these were strictly comments or other features? Scott Reynor replied that the current draft is substantially the same with the additions supplied by Mr. Barney on the definition of a family and the enforcement by the Town of Ithaca and a few modifications. Other than that, it is the same document the Town Board has seen before. Supervisor Desch questioned, you don't have the problem of dealing with association lands, coRMn lands like you do with the other project covenants, as there is no association. Town Planner Beeners replied this is correct, there is no association, no common lands. This is basically what the Planning Board looked at except it incorporates the revisions that the Town Attorney suggested. • Supervisor Desch asked if the Planning Board had adopted a resolution of recommendation, at this point? Town Planner Beeners replied they did not, there was a presentation and review. We have not really gotten to the formal recommendation. Town Board 10 October 5, 1987 Councilwoman Raffensperger remarked, we have seen so many of these lately, with all kinds of nice names, why does this one not have a rental provision in it? Town Attorney Barney replied that the only reason we have not put it in is that these are detached single family houses that don't have the same kind of multiple residence potential that some of the other clusters have. He stated that he did not suggest it in his comments and he was not sure if the Board wanted it or not. They are three lots attached like to a single driveway. Councilwoman Raffensperger asked how many units are covered by this? • Mr. Reynor replied, twenty-one. He stated that his feeling was that if a professor purchased a home then went on sabatic leave for a year, that person should not be prevented from renting. Councilwoman Raffensperger noted that there were other proposals to be considered tonight that have rental provisions, and she wondered why there were not in this particular project. Town Attorney Barney replied that this time it was a semi-rational decision. Mr. Reynor stated that their marketing rationale is for a more traditional neighborhood that disfavors rentals. Councilwoman Raffensperger questioned page 4, noting that when she first read it she thought it meant any homeowner in the community and the Town of Ithaca and it really means it can be enforced by the Town of Ithaca too, right? Town Attorney Barney remarked that it could be made more clear by inserting the word "by" in two more places, "by any homeowner or by -the Town of Ithaca". Supervisor Desch remarked that it would be hard to market these for rental with the restriction of three people. Town Attorney Barney remarked that rental, in other covenants, does Provide for a provision that no unit will be rented for more than one year in any thirty-six month period or for no more than twenty-one months in a five year period. Councilwoman Leary asked why does the definition of a family have no more than three unrelated persons living together as a household unit, why can't you just leave it at three unrelated persons why do you have to get into how they are living. Town Attorney Barney replied that there was no particular reason, that was the McMinn type language which we are trying to use. Requiring the resemblance of a single family occupancy whether its made up by the normal blood related, adopted type of family or by three persons that are living together, the thought is that they should live similar to the other in the sense that they have one principal economic unit and that sort of thing. Councilwoman Leary remarked that she really didn't agree with that. She stated that she did not like getting into asking people how they are living together or why they are living together. Supervisor Desch asked if anyone had any thoughts about this aspect? Town Board 11 October 5, 1987 Town Attorney Barney asked Councilwoman Leary where she would draw the line in terms of physical facilities that you would permit. This is not designed so much to get to the intrapersonal relationship so much as if you have a house which is a single family house it's not three mini apartments. Councilwoman Leary replied that she did not see where it talks about physical layout. Town Attorney Barney replied, single housekeeping unit, basically one kitchen, one living roan without a hot plate or refrigerator in every bedroom. RESOLUTION NO. 205 • Motion by Councilwoman Howell; seconded by Councilman Cramer, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approve the Covenants for Westwood Hill Project as presented. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . BLACK OAK LANE COVENANTS, BY-LAWS AND RESTRICTIONS Edward King, Attorney for the project, stated that he and John Barney had had a long discussion this morning. He stated that he had underlined all the changes that Town Attorney Barney had suggested in his letter to the Board, dated 10/5/87. Town Attorney Barney asked if the Board wanted to delegate to the Town Attorney the authority to highlight the changes or did they want him to continue, as before, line by line. He stated that he could quickly summarize. Supervisor Desch questioned page 26, Article 13, the last three lines, he stated that he did not find any reference to Building Permits in this section and this bothered him. It implies that construction would have to be approved. Town Attorney Barney replied that any action taken on the Declaration is subject to matters of law, including construction, it doesn't need to be specifically stated. Town Attorney Barney continued saying that on page 35, he had suggested that the definition of a family be included. Page 35 also includes some period of time as far as easements are concerned. Page 36, the Town has the right but not the obligation to enforce the Declaration has been inserted. The period of the Declaration has been extended from twenty years to thirty years and any material changes will be subject to Town approval. The right to annex, on page 37, has been reduced to ten years. He went on to say that this was about it, as far as what was not discussed by the Board. The Town Attorney remarked, going back to the items we have discussed, almost all of them have been taken off with the exception of three items. We still have the quorum requiring presence of the Class B member. He stated that he was not quite so concerned about this now as Mr. King had fixed it so that the Class B member ceases to exist after five years from the date of the Declaration. Supervisor Desch asked if the wording of the management contract had been changed, in the latest draft? Town Board 12 October 5, 1987 Town Attorney Barney remarked that this was the third point. He then noted on page 14 of the first draft, give the developer the priviledge to maintain, among other things, model units, equipment, all of that sort of thing related to construction on the common area indefinately. He stated that he had originally suggested that we should put sow sort of time limit on this. Mr. King feels five years might be a little short, so he suggesting some new language in a letter. He then asked Mr. King if he had received his letter. Mr. King replied that he had seen Mr. Barney's letter and it still disturbed him that you are effectively suggesting termination after a certain period. This could prevent us fran going forward with construction if the units south of the glen are not developed in six years for economic reasons. • Mr. Barney replied that his language did not do that, the language he suggested related to phasing. He said that his language provided that the rights would terminate within three years of the completion of that phase. In effect we are saying you have three years to continue operating but at the end of that three years your equipment should be off of the phase. Mr. King replied that the problem there is the way this is set up, there are two phases that have no common land associated with them. That would mean he would have to come and stand on land he wants to develop, if his right to put anything on common land around it had terminated. He went on to say that in looking at the thing it occurred to him what we could do instead, suppose that if the five years had elapsed since the completion of the last phase, so that if he wishes to continue construction of another phase, he must then give notice to the Homeowners Association and let them have a public hearing. The problem is, is that the entire Phase I is the entrance into the whole project. Town Attorney Barney asked, how long should the people in Phase I be subject to having a tractor right next door their house or a model unit in their apartment building? Mr. King inquired, why couldn't he maintain a model unit? Town Attorney Barney replied, traffic. At sane point it should end. The way it is drawn right now, he can construct forever and he can put equipment on the property forever and he can have a sales unit there forever. Mr. King, speaking to the Town Attorney, stated that he saw his language as just terminating his right to build, he has lost his land and the value of it. Town Attorney Barney replied, he is conveying it to someone else, the Homeowners Association, and he is reserving the right to continue to use it and of course, what is fair under those circumstances. Mr. King replied that he felt a public hearing would be sufficient. . Town Attorney Barney replied, but that does not bind him. Supervisor Desch asked if it would be possible to distinquish the common areas that he would need to use from the common areas that he would not need to use? Mr. King replied that he could be limited to a reasonable use of a reasonable small area, you could say that. Town Board 13 October 5, 1987 Supervisor Desch remarked, you are talking about three phases. How many units in each phase? Mr. King replied there are five phases, four units in Phase I, four units in Phase II, three in Phase III, three in Phase IV and five in Phase VI. But with them goes all of Phase I land, everything to the South back down behind the glen. That is a completed Phase and if you say five years after that you can't use any common land for anything, he could find himself in a bad situation. Phase IV has very little land with it. Councilwoman Raffensperger asked what Phase IV was, open land? Mr. King replied no, there are units on this also. Supervisor Desch asked why would the developer need that access except for ingress and egress to any of the common areas above the line of those phases? Mr. King replied that there might be situation where he would need to store materials. Supervisor Desch asked why, if he is doing Phase III it is natural to store the material back where Phase VI is supposed to go. Mr. King replied, but suppose he develops Phase V first and conveys all that land. Attorney Barney remarked, let the Homeowners Association make the decision. The way this reads, he has the total control. If, in his opinion, he decides to store material in front of my $100,000 condo, I should have some control. Councilwoman Raffensperger asked if it could be said that after a certain period of time, that can be done only with the consent of a majority of present homeowners. Mr. King replied, there again you give perhaps a small number of unit owners the right to say, this project is all through, buddy. Town Attorney Barney replied no, it just says you can't put equipment up on Phase I. Mr. King stated, suppose you say Phase V is completed, so there is no land left for common land. The Homeowners Association should not have the right to just cut him off from further construction. The shouldn't be able to say you just can't do it. That is why that language is so strong, there have probably been cases where the unit owners would rather have a small development and they say thanks for all your land, now go away. Supervisor Desch asked, is your big problem with common areas or are you equally troubled with the description, maintain on his units lots? Town Attorney Barney responded, of course his unit lots are really • the outside walls. It's the common areas, suppose you complete Phases I and II these people buy in and made arrangement to have a lawn and all of a sudden there is dirt and machinery surfacing eight or nine years after they bought their unit. You kind of expect it when you are buying into a new unit in a new area where construction is going on, on a regular basis. He went on to say that at some point you say that belongs to the Homeowners Association and they get control over it, not the developer having the privilege of using it indefinately. Town Board 14 October 5, 1987 Supervisor Desch commented, with the exception of the last phase it should be easy to build the other phase by containing the construction material within the unit lots of that phase. Mr. Barney added, or with the phase itself which includes more than the unit lots. The only one that might be a problem is if he chose to construct Phase VI and Phase III, then decided to do Phase IV he would have a problem. But if we put this provision in and he knows it is there it may effect a bit the way he does his project so that he is not trespassing, in effect, on land that he has conveyed to the Homeowners Association. Supervisor Desch asked the Town Planner if there was any restrictions on the phasing of the project and which one should scome first? Town Planner Beeners replied, no. Six has not received approval. But there is no order or conditions on phases. Supervisor Desch remarked that it seems reference to the common areas outside of the particular phase should be removed. Town Attorney Barney stated that his proposed language, which the Board had not seen, was three years from the completion of the phase or ten years from the date of the declaration. Town Attorney Barney went on to say that there was one other area where he and Mr. King had not agreed and that was the termination of the management agreement. He stated that he had suggested that we provide that if the manager or party to the management agreement was either the developer or a person affiliated with the developer that the agreement could be terminated by a two-thirds vote of the residents without the manager or developer having a vote and that a subsitute management agreement could be put into place by the same vote. Mr. King thought about that and came back with a response that said that for voting purposes on management agreements the developer would have one vote per lot as opposed to his prior three votes per lot. However, when you work that out coupled with the two-thirds voting requirement it still means there has to be 13 lot owners voting to terminate the management agreement before you can terminate it because there are 19 lots and you need to have two-thirds of them in favor of it. It would mean that the developer would still have, technically, control until there were only six lots remaining. I indicated that I was going to point this out to the Board tonight and suggest that we go with the language I had proposed. When the management agreement is with someone affiliated with a Class B member, the vote on it will be done without the Class B member voting. Mr. King felt this would be okay with his client. Supervisor Desch asked if the third hand-out incorporated all the changes? Town Attorney Barney replied that the third hand-out included all the changes. • Supervisor Desch went on to say that due to the fact we have one unresolved area plus the need to review what we had handed out, he asked the Town Attorney what he recommended. Town Attorney Barney replied, that if Mr. King was willing to accept his recommendation of three years. from the completion of a phase, our ten year outside limit from filing the Declaration that he would recommend that the Board approve it tonight. There is a time problem on their part they need to get it approved because it Town Board 15 October 5, 1987 is part of their Offering Documents which they have to submit to the Attorney General. Supervisor Desch asked, are you saying that once a phase is started, any phase, that phase shall be completed in this timeframe? Town Attorney replied, no. What I'm saying is for purposes of trespass on to a common area the developer can only trespass on the common area of a finished phase for up to three years after the completion of that phase. After that time he must put his equipment and goods somewhere else, or for a period of ten years from the date of the filing of the Declaration whichever is • earlier. Supervisor Desch asked the Town Attorney why he was being so lenient with the three years? Town Attorney Barney replied, in response to my argument with Mr. King this morning. Supervisor Desch replied, I shouldn't have asked you that way, is three years the right number? Town Attorney Barney replied, in looking at it from a buyers standpoint, a buyer moves into a development they see people or hear people hammering on the next door building and they see piles of sand there for the concrete mixers and that sort of stuff and it's not unreasonable to say you are going to have to live with that for some period of time after you have bought into a new area, but three years is probably long enough and at some point you should be able to say at least it's going to move down to the next area. Mr. King remarked that he would like to suggest again that the word terminate is too strong to use. Requiring him to get the permission of the Association for storage on finished areas is more reasonable as long as the language says such consent will not be unreasonably withheld. He stated that he was afraid that in some situations you just might be restricted from developing when everybody knows what the plan was if he couldn't put up one more unit because the Homeowners would say no to using land that he needs to use to get the construction done. This is standard, how could any project be assured completion without this kind of language. Town Attorney Barney replied that many of our projects sometimes require completion and go one step beyond and require posting of funds to insure completion, upfront. The Town Attorney then asked, how about if we take my language and then add unless extended by the consent Homeowners Association, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld? Mr. King replied, let the developer tell them what he wants to store where and let him get their consent which will not be unreasonably withheld. • Town Attorney Barney replied, it's more than just storage, that paragraph covers a lot of things, the maintenance of a storage office, the maintenance of a business office. Supervisor Desch replied that it sounds like we need to look at this more before we decide the wording. We need to know the period that material will be laying around. He agreed there could be a real problem for the people who bought early and want to be able to see the pond and can't because of material laying around it. Town Board 16 October 5, 1987 Mr. King replied that when you know there is going to be a building put up there sometime and you know that it might be several years down the road. Supervisor Desch remarked that he was thinking of Eastwood Commons as as example, there is a lot of discomfort on the part of the people in Eastwood Commons about a building going up on Lot #33. On the other hand, if you have a vacant lot that you don't own next to you you always have the risk too. Councilwoman Raffensperger asked, didn't you just say you were willing to have the time limit and to say that the developer must present a plan to the Homeowners Association which they would approve and may not unreasonably withhold? Mr. King replied, if they wanted to put a derick in the pond they could say no way. That's not unreasonable for them to say so. Give them both an opportunity to talk it out and to adjust any problems. Councilwoman Howell remarked, the people who buy in that first phase, they will see exactly what is going on from their phase and know it will be going on for awhile. She went on to say that she thought the Board could loosen up a bit but not too much. She stated that she could understand what the Town Attorney was saying. Mr. King replied that he thought the developer should give at least 15 days advance written notice to the Association detailing his intent to resume construction and to store or rest materials and equipment, etc., then if the Association so desires they can hold a public hearing on the matter, the developer being required to attend the meeting and explain what he proposes to do and at that point the Association must approve. Town Attorney Barney responded, may approve, and may not unreasonably withhold their approval. Councilwoman Raffensperger asked if there was language in the Declaration on the definition of a family? Town Attorney Barney responded that there was language in his letter this morning, he then asked Mr. King if it had been incorporated into the document? Mr. King replied no, not yet. Town Attorney Barney asked if there was any problem in including it? Mr. King replied again, your definition of a family is one single individual or others related by blood or marriage. Town Attorney Barney replied that he had suggested two but may be it should be three as these are more apartments than separate detached homes but that's a decision for the Board. Mr. King remarked, two or more persons related by blood or marriage living together in a single housekeeping unit or a single person or no more than two unrelated persons living in a single housekeeping unit. Councilwoman Howell asked how many bedrooms are there? Mr. King replied some have three bedrooms and three bathrooms. Town Board 17 October 5, 1987 Supervisor Desch replied that it should be three according to the scale of the units. Councilwoman Raffensperger asked if all the units had three bedrooms? Mr. King replied no, some have three and some have two. Councilwoman Raffensperger replied that the two comes from discussions we had a long time ago because if you have a two family house you may have no more than three unrelated persons in two units. So if you allow two in each then you are getting an average of four for two units so you are slightly increasing it. This is • where the number two came from a long time ago in some other development. Councilwoman Leary questioned, so you are saying average out two? Supervisor Desch replied no, we need to decide either two or three. Councilwoman Raffensperger said what she was saying was where it came from. It relates back to what we have in the Zoning Ordinance for a two family house. Councilwoman Leary remarked, but this isn't a two family house. Councilwoman Raffensperger responded no, it's a four family house or a six family house. Mr. King stated that he had suggested some language at the top of page 5 of the first addendum, (page 35) this provision should not be construed to limit occupancy by live-in care persons for sick, elderly or infirmed owners. Councilwoman Leary remarked, that's nice but you still are not providing for the economic problem, the cost of these units and since some of them have three bedrooms. Councilwoman Raffensperger replied, if they have three bedrooms and we said you could only have two unrelated persons, then with three bedrooms they can go to the Board of Zoning Appeals and ask for a variance. Councilwoman Leary asked, why not say three people in a three bedroom and two in a two bedroom, so people don't have to go the Board of Zoning Appeals. Town Attorney Barney asked if you could do this in an R-15 zone, have a three bedroom apartment on one side and a three bedroom apartment on the other side and then end up having that house occupied with six unrelated persons? Councilwoman Leary replied that she did not see any problem. Town Attorney Barney replied that it was contrary to the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance does not permit that. • Councilwoman Leary replied, but this isn't that, it isn't a two family house. Mr. King remarked that he did not expect too many young families would be purchasing them at these kind of prices. You are going to get elderly people and some of then are going to need help or somebody living with them in dealing with the elderly we find more and more want to stay in their home as long as they possibly can. Many will stay home and burn the place down because of their Town Board 18 October 5, 1987 infirmaties. He stated that he had seen many of them try to bring younger people in to live with them to kind of help them out. Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that she had a little problem with three because of the restrictions we have on two family houses in the same zones in the Town. Councilwoman Leary replied, that is why I said make it two in a two bedroom unit and three in a three bedroom unit. Mr. King stated that he could see an elderly couple and suddenly there is only one and they need some help. . Councilwoman Howell replied that's okay, nursing care is provided for here. Supervisor Desch asked Councilwoman Raffensperger if she was comfortable with three unrelated persons in the case of a three bedroom unit but not with a lower number of bedrooms? Councilwoman Raffensperger replied that is right, not as an average. Supervisor Desch asked the Board what was their pleasure in terms of the live-in assistance. He then asked Mr. King where the wording was? Mr. King replied, on page 5, "PROVIDED HOWEVER that this provision shall not be construed to prvent or limit occupancy by live-in care persons for sick, elderly, or inform Owners". Town Attorney Barney remarked that he had difficulty with this. You are allowing a variance to your Zoning Ordinance. Your Zoning Ordinance specifies what you can do and in using Mr. King's language in effect it is saying you can have the occupancy allowed in the Zoning Ordinance plus you can have a live-in person if you are old an infirmed. Our Zoning Ordinance makes no provision for that and he was not sure the Board wanted to make an exception for this particular project. Supervisor Desch added, a person would need to come in for a variance. Mr. King remarked, suppose we just add some language that a variance is possible. RESOLUTION NO. 206 Motion by Councilman McPeak; seconded by Councilwoman Howell, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approve the Covenants, By-Laws and Restrictions for Black Oak Lane project subject to the modifications proposed by the Town Attorney, and FURTHER, subject to the inclusion of the definition of a family to Provide for two unrelated persons in an apartment, except in the • three bedroom apartments which will allow three unrelated person. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROPRIATION OF FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING MONIES Town Board 19 October 5, 1987 Proof of posting and publication of a notice of a public hearing to consider appropriation of Federal Revenue Sharing monies having been presented by the Town Clerk, the Supervisor opened the public hearing. Supervisor Desch stated that the reason this is being done, at this time, is because the statutory period during which the money can be spent is running out and, therefore, in order not to lose those funds we must reallocate them to whatever we might choose to reallocate them to. Councilwoman Raffensperger asked if this, in fact, does not mean that we are reducing our commitment to the Inlet Valley Park in the future? Supervisor Desch responded, this is correct. As no one present wished to speak for or against the reallocation, the Supervisor closed the public hearing. RESOLUTION NO. 207 Motion by Councilman McPeak; seconded by Councilwoman Raffensperger, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorize the following proposed use of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds: Transfer $12,658 from B7140.402 Parks Construction for Inlet Valley Park to B8020.400 Planning Contractual $3,658 for aerial photos and B8020.200 Planning Equipment $9,000 for computer/word processing equipment and programs. Appropriate unexpended fund balance in Federal Revenue Sharing which consists of accumulated interest plus small allocation received in 1987 totaling $10,797.39 plus September interest as follows: A1990.400 General Fund Townwide Contingency $5,000 to reimburse Contingency used for Unallocated Insurance. A1450.200 General Fund Townwide Elections Equipment $2,500 for voting machine. A1670.200 General Fund Townwide Engineering Equipment for computer equipment $3,297.39 plus September 1987 interest. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA TRAFFIC CONTROL LAW TO ADD STOP SIGNS AT TWO INTERSECTIONS IN FOREST HOME AND THE RELOCATION OF A YIELD SIGN AT • PENNSYLVANIA/KENDALL AVENUE INTERSECTION Proof of posting and publication of a notice of a public hearing to consider a local law amending the Town of Ithaca Traffic Control Law to add stop sings at two intersections in Forest Home and the relocation of a yield sign at Pennsylvania/Kendall Avenue intersection having been presented by the Town Clerk, the Supervisor opened the public hearing. Town Board 20 October 5, 1987 Supervisor Desch stated that it will be necessary to adjourn the hearing on the matter of the stop signs, but asked Mr. Bruce Brittain to share any comments he had received from the Forest Hume Civic Association with the Board. Mr. Bruce Brittain replied, basically that there are two intersection in Forest Home, presently, that are dangerous intersections expecially for pedestrian traffic. We thought that by adding stop signs it would increase pedestrian safety and also add a little control to those intersections. The proposal was well received by the Forest Hume Improvement Association. Mr. King asked if this involves a stop sign at the bottom of Judd Falls Road where it comes into Forest Home Drive, do the cars coning west having crossed the bridge and coning up to Judd Falls Road, do they have to stop there? Supervisor Desch replied yes, that would be a three-way stop. Mr. King stated that he drove throught there quite often and his impression was that that might cause quite a lot of confusion as to who goes first. Supervisor Desch remarked that there is also a problem with stacking and who get across the bridge. Mr. King felt that the people coning west should have the right-of-way and those coning down Judd Falls Road would stop as they always have and from Beebe Lake they would stop. So that you have one with a clear right-of-way otherwise they will be standing there looking at each other wondering who is going to go. Supervisor Desch remarked that it was a problem for pedestrians if you only have two out of three. Town Engineer Flumerfelt added, plus having the impression that it is an all-way stop intersection but this way one approach would still have clear sailing through there so there would be a danger. Councilwoman Howell remarked that the County had tried this on Mitchell Street and Judd Falls Road and it didn't work. As no one else wished to speak, the Supervisor closed the public hearing. RESOLUTION NO. 208 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilwunan Raffensperger, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adjourn the public hearing to consider a local law amending the Town of Ithaca Traffic Control Law to add stop signs at two intersections in Forest Hone and the relocation of a yield sign at Pennsylvania/Kendall Avenue intersection until 8:00 P.M., on November 16, 1987. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, and Leary voting • Aye. Nays - none) . FINANCIAL STATEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 209 Motion by Councilman Cramer; seconded by Councilwoman Raffensperger, Town Board 21 October 5, 1987 RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approve the September Financial Report. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . NEW FIRE STATIONS Supervisor Desch remarked that there was not to much to tell the Board except that the project is 100% over budget, in other words, its a million two per station instead of $600,000. He stated that he had a copy of Mr. Egners report which he gave to Councilwoman Leary to take with her and then give to Councilwoman Howell who pass it on. We have to reduce the budget, it may mean program cut backs plus design cut backs. He asked the Board members for their comments. Supervisor Desch felt that the original estimate probably did not have a lot of creditability to it but on the other hand spending $123 a square foot for fire station is out of line. Councilwoman Howell remarked that we don't need anything fancy we need something functional. WATER ACCOUNT REFUNDS Councilman McPeak asked if there was a time limit for hooking to the sewer, as in the case of Mr. Duffy? Supervisor Desch responded, until we formally adopt a resolution, we can't take any action. Councilwoman Howell stated that she felt it should be in the Newsletter that that Town is going to start requiring people to hook to the sewer where available. RESOLUTION NO. 210 Motion by Councilman McPeak; seconded by Supervisor Desch, WHEREAS, Gary Duffy, 340 Warren Road was charged for public water on his September water bill, and WHEREAS, Mr. Duffy is not connected to the public sewer, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorize that a refund in the amount of $10.58 be made to Gary Duffy, 340 Warren Road, Ithaca, New York, Account Number 3661. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . RESOLUTION NO. 211 • Motion by Councilman Cramer: seconded by Councilwoman Howell, WHEREAS, the June water bill of James R. Houck, 113 Clover Lane showed a water bill, in the amount of $873.86 for the month of June, and WHEREAS, upon calling Bolton Point, the Houcks were told to call in a new meter reading and a new bill would be issued, and Town Board 22 October 5, 1987 WHEREAS, the Houcks did not receive a corrected bill and the $873.86 was added to their September bill, making the bill $963.03, and WHEREAS, when the Houcks finally received a corrected bill, $7.12 penalty was added to the corrected bill, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorize a refund of $7.12 be made to James R. Houck, 113 Clover Lane, Ithaca, New York, Account Number S838. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . rACCEPTANCE OF BIDS ON MATERIAL SPREADER RESOLUTION NO. 212 Motion by Councilman Cramer; secondec by Supervisor Desch, WHEREAS, on September 29, 1987, three bids were received for a new cinder/salt spreader ranging in amounts from $6,465 to $7,943, and WHEREAS, Seneca Supply Corporation is the lowest bidder, in the amount of $6,465, meeting all of the Town's specifications, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the bid of Seneca Supply Corporation in the amount of $6,465 be accepted and that the order for purchase of the spreader be placed immediately. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A LOCAL LAW ON IMPORTATION OF SOLID WASTE Supervisor Desch asked the Town Attorney if he had had a chance to look at this, at all? Town Attorney Barney replied that he had read the material that the County provided. He stated that he had not looked into it in any great detail, at this time. RESOLUTION NO. 213 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 8:30 P.M., on November 16, 1987, to consider a local law prohibiting the importation of solid into the Town of Ithaca. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . • PRESENTATION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR 1988 Supervisor Desch presented the following 1988 Budget message for the Town of Ithaca: The 1988 budget differs from previous years in a number of ways with respect to the chart of accounts as well as program changes. We have, for example, incorporated a portion of the sales tax into Town Board 23 October 5, 1987 the part-town portion of the budget. We have also expended the chart of accounts to enable us to better track certain sub-accounts. For ease of understanding I will try to explain the highlights of both the revenue and expenditure changes. Revenues While the annual sales tax figure for the Town of Ithaca is about $1,100,000, our first year will consist of only three quarterly payments the first of which will come on May 1, 1988. If needed we could retain the three quarters or $810,000 and issue a revenue anticipation note to cover our cash needs until May. • However, in my judgement it is better for Town taxpayers to experience a transition over 2 - 3 years in the decrease in the Town rate and the increase in the County rate rather than a far more dramatic change in either rate. Therefore, the Town budget identifies a need for $557,733 in sales tax revenue enabling us to return at least $252,000 to the County. These numbers are based on no increase over 1986 revenues which we know represent a safe figure. The County in other words will get back perhaps 10 - 15% more than the $252,000 by the end of 1988. We have for a number of years very carefully looked at the distribution of town-wide and part-town services. The 1988 budget shifts portions or all of certain services to the part-town budget since this is where we provide most of the service. The shift involves the crossing guards, a portion of shared services and unallocated insurance. The total amounts to about $80,000. The required tax levy will, therefore, be substantially less for town-wide and part-town taxes with the exception of the fire protection district levy which reflects the increase relating to the new fire contract with the City. The only other significant revenue change is the increase in zoning fees relating to the change in building permit fees. Expenditures In the town-wide budget the major increase is in the joint youth project representing the extent to which I feel we should go with the City in our negotiations. It reflects an increase of $8,000 or 10% in one year. At this stage of our negotiations it is not apparent that the City can justify a higher figure. The increase to $350,000 is not only outrageous but unfounded. It would add $1/$1000 of assessed value by itself and represent a tax rate increase of 76%! It may well mean that we will need to set up our own program. The major decreases involve the transfer to part-town of a portion of the unallocated insurance, the crossing guards and a part of shared services to the extent that these services involve activities outside the Village of Cayuga Heights. In the part-town budget there are a number of personnel additions namely an assistant town planner ($20,000) , an assistant building inspector at half-time for one-half year ($10,000) , and • engineering/planning/zoning clerk for one-half year at full-time ($6,000) and a parks maintenance person to start April 1st ($7,200) . There will also be a project inspector but this probably will be on a contract basis and charged directly to the water/sewer capital project. On the equipment side we have included an additional computer and funds for the next phase of the copying machine replacement. Town Board 24 October 5, 1987 The parks projects focus on the construction of the Gradview Park ($18,000) and a start on Deer Run and Woolf Lane parks. This is less than the amount requested by staff but in my judgement is representative of the work level that can be accomplished. Note that the Inlet Valley project is not included. This does not mean that there is no longer a commitment to the project, it means that any activity is unlikely in 1988. Federal Revenue Sharing funds committed for this purpose had to be reallocated in 1987 so we did not lose them. If the situation changes, a budget amendment could be made to appropriate funds from the part-town fund balance. In the highway budget the major change is the continuing commitment to roadway improvements. The 10 year plan for 1988 calls for repaving of Winston Drive and Poole Road and resurfacing of ® Homestead Circle, Compton Road and Brandywine Drive. The result of the East Ithaca Traffic Study will also tell us what the specific needs are for Judd Falls Road and Caldwell Road. These projects have been our top priority for three years and can be accomplished in keeping with an overall plan for the area. Approximately $35,000 is included for the Park Lane extension project. The Town responsibility is the same as stated in the past, the construction of the drainage and the hauling away of excavated materials and hauling in of the gravel. The utility company and the developer (Frandsen) will pay for the relocation of the gas main. In the fire protection budget the expense shown is in keeping with the second year cost identified in the fire contract with the City. The amount includes the necessary 5% downpayment on the Town share of the cost of the new fire stations now required by local finance law prior to financing of capital project. The water and sewer funds reflect no change in the benefit assessment rates particularly as they relate to the new water and sewer project. The $10/unit increase will take place in 1989 after the project is completed. The increased revenue reflects the growth in usage in the system. The budget also includes the necessary 5% downpayment required for the water and sewer financing. Tax Rates The town-wide part of the budget reflects a 6.5% increase in the rate for such services. The overall part-town decrease including fire protection reflects a 12% decrease and overall for those taxpayers outside the Village of Cayuga Heights there would be a 90 decrease if this budget is adopted. Care should be taken that we not mislead Town taxpayers into thinking that the bill they receive on January 1, 1988, which includes Town and County taxes, will be lower. It will be higher depending upon the amount of the County levy of which they will experience nearly the full increment for the first time. This, as we have said a number of times, is as it should be. The County Board and not the Town Board should be called upon to defend its own budget. The Supervisor then went through the budget, page by page, pointing out the changes that he spoke about in his budget message. Supervisor Desch called the Board's attention to a letter from Mayor Gutenberger, dated September 29, 1987 requesting another Assistant Fire Chief position which was not included in the rooster that was frozen as part of the six year fire agreement. They have written to us stating that they would like us to include that our 1988 budget. Also, they would like to add the position of Account Town Board 25 October 5, 1987 Clerk/Typist. The remainder of the letter talks about contractual items that in essence are already contractual items and included in the budget. He went on to say that in his own view, he could not justify to the Board a recommendation that we agree to pay for our share of the addition of these new people. We had many many months of discussions about the support level that was required and both City and Town, at that time, came to the conclusion that additional personnel were not needed. Other than the question of the Training Officer which is not covered in way of this, at this point. Councilwcman Raffensperger asked if this Assistant Fire Chief is the Training Officer? • Supervisor Desch replied, no. Long term, this Assistant Fire Chief will probably not be the Training Officer. The person filling the fifth Assistant Fire Chief position will not be the training officer. The feeling during the discussions was that there should be a County role in the training of fire fighters in Tompkins County. By approving this it doesn't particularly help our case. Supervisor Desch went on to say that any changes the Board would like to incorporate into the budget should be submitted by October 19th. If not, after this date the Tentative Budget will become the Preliminary Budget. BOLTON POINT TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR 1988 Supervisor Desch presented the following 1988 Budget Message for the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission: The coming year promises to be a very challenging one not only in terms of monitoring our finances but also in providing services to an "exploding" service area. I believe the decisions we have made this year will go a long way in meeting the demands that these challenges will place on our staff. In fact it is highly likely that we will find 1988 a most enjoyable year. Although the expense side of the budget is shown to be an increase of 1,668,550.00/1,550,464 or 7.6%, it is very probable that the revenue side will increase proportionately or perhaps slightly more rapidly primarily because of some large users such as Lansing Schools, Lansing State Girls School, Village of Lansing commercial growth, i.e., motel, restaurants, etc. and very substantial residential growth in the Town of Ithaca. Caution, however, dictates that we monitor our first quarter cash flow carefully before purchasing equipment items, particularly items over $500. It is significant to note how little I have decreased the department recommendations (i.e., $18,670) . This not only shows that the requests in my judgement are both modest and defensible. Some of the replacements that we have deferred can no longer wait. Personnel The cost of living and merit pool has been set at 6% at the recommendation of the Personnel Committee. The Personnel Committee will then make specific salary improvement recommendations prior to • final budget adoption. We have discussed the issues relating to our employee salaries in relation to the market and in relation to their level of responsibility. In 1988, I believe we should take another close look at this whole arena in conjunction with completion of work on the Personnel Manual. The appropriations shown represent both a shift in the locations of salary line items and the additions of people. Specifically, Ray Thomas moves from Transmission/Distribution to Administration and we have added the position of Distribution Meahanic Trainee. The Town Board 26 October 5, 1987 personnel line item under administration also is increased to show the full year of Gail Zabawsky and Pam O'Dell's salary. Equipment Both the Administration and Distribution Departments have asked for new computer capability. I have not included the total request since I believe further study will show that the requirements can be met with a combined system or perhaps with Distribution gaining use of the system now used for Utility Billing. There is also a desire by the Town of Ithaca Engineering and Accounting Departments to interface with Bolton Point. The department requests for twelve sets of Westinghouse contacts for the plant pump controls at $1,000/set. This is little doubt • that some of these contacts will soon cause problems. However, beyond the purchase of perhaps two sets of each of the two sizes, I would like to investigate the feasibility of resilvering the points at a far lower cost. This probably can be done at one of the Cornell Research facilities providing we have an inventory of at least one set of spares. With regard to the leasing of Trucks, we need more time to see if there is a way to achieve Fleet Status by pooling the rolling stock of the five member municipalities. This could achieve major savings to some, if not all, of the members. Failing the development of a sound leasing plan, we have included enough money to continue with the one truck per year replacement program. This should suffice even though we are slightly behind schedule since no truck purchases have been possible this year. The growth in the system coupled with meter deficiency problems uncovered by the start up of the new billing program dictate that we continue the testing of large meters and the purchase of a larger number of meters than have been possible in the past. Contractual Expenses Electricity costs are projected to increase 4% with the additonal increment shown attributable to increased production of water. Under Distribution the cost of electricity at the Snyder Hill Road pump station is included per agreement a year ago since this will become a pump station that serves more than one municipality now that the Town of Dryden District is approved. The Administration budget includes a change in the chart of accounts to separate out the costs involved with Gail's operation (.401 - .439) and Don's operation (.440 - .458) . This will enable us to monitor the full cost of the various services each division provides. The one notable increase is in account .411 Printing and Postage. This is primarily a separation out from Data Processing of the meter read cards, bills, permit forms, etc. Revenues We gain $25,125 in debt reduction which is particularly helpful as • it has been in the past. It is also a pleasure to report we have made our 11th bond payment. It's nice to be on the down side of the schedule. Also of significance is the fact that there is only one more year when the debt reduction of about $25,000 does not occur, namely 1990. I am quite confident that the connection charge revenue will met $80,000 (320 units) from the Lansing Districts. I am hopeful that the rate of construction progress will continue and that this revenue will benefit us early in the year. Similarly, but on a Town Board 27 October 5, 1987 broader scale, I forsee a very major upturn in the consumption due to remarkable high levels of growth in all sections of the economy in our service area. The projections I cone up with for 1989 are even higher from what we see at the Planning Board levels in all five municipalities, i.e., : Dryden - Monkey Run District (NYSEG immediate - Armory later) Town of Lansing - Lucente District - Village Circle Village of Lansing - Fisher property Town of Ithaca - New water improvements plus several large subdivision proposals. These could easily add $150,000 in new revenue each year. Any 1988 cash flow problems should be short lived and, if necessary, revenue anticipation notes could be issued to avoid a water rate increase. Conclusions As we look all around us both locally, nationally and internationally we have reason to be very pleased and proud of the service that we provide. Of the utmost importance is the willingness of everyone associated with Bolton Point to deal head on with problems that occur and to strive for perfection even within sometimes rather limited resources. The year ahead, we expect, will be another enjoyable chapter in this venture that started as a seed in Walter Schwans' mind 17 years ago. Supervisor Desch highlighted his budget message, remarking that there was a chance that a rate increase might be necessary in 1988. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A LOCAL LAW AMENDING LOCAL LAW N0. 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 ENFORCEI= 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 REQUIRE,4ENTS RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION UNDER SUCH LOCAL LAW Proof of posting and publication of a notice of a public hearing to consider 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 prcanulgated 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 local law having been presented by the Town Clerk, the Supervisor opened the public hearing. Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that she had a question on Section 7.2 which says that all other buildings, structures, premises, and uses within the Town of Ithaca to which the Building Code applies shall be periodically inspected. . . . . she noted that we have never had before, periodic inspection of all buildings in the Town so she was raising the question that if this is required, do we have the staff to do it? If you say you are going to do it and then don't, isn't there a liability in that? Town Attorney Barney stated that he did not see a major liability in that if it does not cone to terms. The regulations that we are Town Board 28 October 5, 1987 working under stated that we should provide for periodic inspections and the model ordinance provides for it at specific intervals be it annually or bi-annually. We talked about it and concluded because of our staffing situation it would be inappropriate to say we are going to do this every year or every two years, therefore, periodically seemed a safe term to use. He went on to say that it does give the Building Inspector an opportunity, if he suspects a problem. RESOLUTION NO. 214 Motion by Councilwcman Raffensperger; seconded by Councilman • McPeak, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby make a negative determination of environmental significance pertaining to a local law amending Local Law No. 1 of the year 1981. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . LOCAL LAW NO. 14 - 1987 Motion by Councilman McPeak; seconded by Councilman Cramer, LOCAL LAW NO 14. - 1987 TO AMEND TOWN OF ITHACA LOCAL LAW NO. 1 FOR THE YEAR 1981 CHANGING THE REFERENCE FROM THE STATE FIRE PREVENTION CODE TO THE NEW YORK STATE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE AND AMENDING THE ENFORCEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS Local Law No. 1 of the Town of Ithaca for the year 1981 entitled "A Local Law to Adopt the New York State Fire Code" is hereby amended as follows: 1. Section 1 of said local law is amended to read as follows: "Section 1. livability. This local law shall provide the basic method for administration and enforcement of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Building Code") in the Town of Ithaca, and shall establish powers, duties, and responsibilities in connection therewith." 2. Section 3 of said local law is amended to read as follows: "Section 3. Administration. The Building Inspector and Zoning Enforcement Officer (hereinafter "Building Inspector") is hereby designated to administer and enforce the Building Code within the Town of Ithaca. In the event the Building Inspector is not available, the Town Supervisor of the Town of Ithaca is authorized to administer and enforce the Building Code and to issue permits thereunder." 3. Section 5.1 is amended to read as follows: "5.1 The Town Board may adopt rules and regulations for the admininstration and enforcement of the Building Code. Such rules and regulations shall not conflict with the Building Code, this local law, or any other provision of law." Town Board 29 October 5, 1987 4. A new Section 5.A. entitled "Building Permits" is added to such local law to read as follows: Section 5.A.1. Building Permits. No person, firm, corporation, association or other organization shall commence the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, improvement, repair, removal, or demolition of any building or structure, nor install heating equipment, without having applied for and obtained a Building Permit from the Building Inspector. No permit shall'be required under those circumstances set forth in the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the "Zoning Ordinance") under which no permit is required." • 5.A.2. Applications for Building Permits may be obtained from the Building Inspector. A completed application must be delivered to the Building Inspector and must include: (a) The signature of the applicant or authorized agent; (b) A description of the site on which the proposed work is to be done; (c) A statement of the use or occupancy of all parts of the land and of the proposed building or structure; (d) A brief description of the proposed work; (e) The estimated cost of the proposed work with appropriate substantiation as may be required by the Building Inspector; (f) The full name and address of the owner and applicant and, if either be a corporation, the names and addresses of responsible officers; (g) A set of plans and specifications for the proposed work; (h) A site plan showing the location of the proposed work on the site and showing the property lines of the site; (i) The fee required pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance; (j) A statement that the work shall be performed in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, the Building Code, and other applicable state and local laws, ordinances and regulations; (k) Such other materials, information, or items as may be reasonably required by the Building Inspector in order to determine whether the proposed work will be in compliance with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, including the Zoning Ordinance, the Building Code, and this local law. • The Building Inspector may waive the requirement of plans and specifications and may waive such of the other requirements in those circumstances where the work to be done involves minor alterations or where such required information is not otherwise necessary. 5.A.3. At the option of the Building Inspector the Building Inspector may require that the plans and specifications be accompanied by a certification from a registered architect or Town Board 30 October 5, 1987 licensed professional engineer of this state that such plans and specifications comply with the applicable provisions of the Building Code and all local ordinances and requirements. 5.A.4. The applicant shall notify the Building Inspector of any changes in the informaltion contained in the application during the period for which the permit is in effect. A permit will be issued when the application has been determined to be complete and when the proposed work is determined to conforom to the requirements of the Building Code, the Zoning Ordinance, and any other applicable laws, rules or regulations. The authority conferred by such permit may be limited by conditions, if any, contained therein. • 5.A.5. All work performed pursuant to such permit shall be in accordance with the information and representations made in the application for a permit and there shall be no deviations therefron without the prior approval of the Building Inspector. Such approval may be withheld until sufficient information is provided to the Building Inspector in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the Building Inspector to demonstrate that the proposed deviation is in compliance with the Building Code, the Zoning Ordinance, this local law, and all other applicable laws, rules and regulations. 5.A.6. A Building Permit, when issued, shall be prominently displayed on the property or premises to which it pertains. 5.A.7. A Building Permit, once issued, may be suspended or revoked if the Building Inspector or other appropriate officer determines that the work to which it pertains is not proceeding in conformance with the application, with the Building Code, with The Zoning Ordinance, with any other law, rule, regulation or ordinance, or with any condition attached to such permit, or if there has been a misrepresentation or falsification of a material fact in connection with the application for the permit. 5.A.8. A Building Permit shall expire one year from the date of issuance or upon the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (other than a temporary Certificate of Occupancy) , whichever occurs first. The permit may, upon written request, be renewed for successive one-year periods provided that (i) the permit has not been revoked or suspended at the time the application for renewal is made; (ii) the relevant information in the application is up to date; (iii) a renewal fee of the greater of $15.00 or 5% of the original Building Permit fee. At the option of the Building Inspector, where the work disclosed by the application may reasonably be expected to take longer than one year, the Building Inspector may issue an initial Building Permit for a term of greater than one year, but in no event greater than three years, the term to be length of time it would be reasonably anticipated to complete the work set forth in the application." 5. There is added to such local law a new section to be Section 5.B. entitled "Building Construction Inspection" to read as follows: Section 5.B. Construction Inspections. 5.B.1. Work for which a Building Permit has been issued shall be inspected for approval by the Building Inspector prior to enclosing or covering any portion thereof and upon completion of each stage of construction including but not limited to, Town Board 31 October 5, 1987 building location, site preparation, excavation, foundation, framing, superstructure, electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning, fire protection and detection systems and exit features. It shall be the responsibility of the owner, applicant, or his agent, to inform the appropriate inspector that the work is ready for inspection and to schedule such inspection. To facilitate such inspection and to insure compliance with appropriate zoning and building code requirements, the Building Inspector may require submission at the appropriate stage of documentation to substantiate such compliance including, without limitation, the following items: (a) As built survey maps by a locensed surveyor showing • the location of the foundation relative to property boundary lines and dimensions of the structure; (b) Appropriate certifications from an engineer relative to water, sewage, structural integrity, and such other items as the Building Inspector may deem reasonably appropriate certifying that the stated items are in accordance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations; (c) Certificates from appropriate electrical inspection agencies such as New York Board of Fire Underwriters certifying that the electrical work is in compliance with all applicable laws, codes, rules and regulations. 5.B.2. The Building Inspector or his designee shall have the power to order, in writing, the remedying of any condition found to exist in, on, or about any building, structure or premises in violation of the Building Code, the Zoning Ordinance, or any other applicable law, rule or regulation, and shall have the authority to state the time period within which such condition mlust be remedied. Such orders may be served upon the owner or his authorized agent personally or by registered mail sent to the address set forth in the application for any permit submitted to the Town of Ithaca or to the owner's or agent's las known address. If such condition is not remedied within the time set forth, among any other remedies that may be available to the Town of Ithaca, the Building Inspector or his designee may revoke the Building Permit for such construction and no further construction shall occur until a new permit has been issued. 5.B.3. The Building Inspector or his designee shall have the right of entry, at all reasonable hours, to any building, structure, or site where work or activity is contemplated or being done under the provisions of this law, or to any building or site alleged to be unsafe to life or health, upon the exhibition of proper evidence of their position at the Town. Interference with such authorized entry is an official capacity shall be punishable as a violation of this local law." • 6. A new Section 5.C. entitled "Certificates of Occupancy" is added to said local law reading as follows: "Section 5.C. Certificate of Occupancy. 5.C.1. Except as set forth below in Paragraph 5.C.2., a building or structure for which a Building Permit has been issued shall not be used or occupied in whole or in part until the Certificate of Occupancy shall have been issued by the Building Inspector or such other person designated by the Town of Ithaca. Such Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued Town Board 32 October 5, 1987 when, after final inspection, it is determined that the construction and other work has been completed in compliance with the Building Code, the Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable laws, rules and regulations. 5.C.2. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued by the Building Inspector pending final completion of the work provided the use or occupancy of the building shall not present a danger to any person or property. Such temporary certificate may require such conditions and safeguards as will protect the safety of the occupants and the public and may also require a performance guarantee acceptable to the Town of Ithaca Town Board that all improvements to be made by the applicant in ccopliance with the Building Code, the Zoning Ordinance, this local law, and other applicable laws, rules and regulations, will be made. A tmeporary Certificate of Occupancy, at the discretion of the Building Inspector, may be renewed an indefinite number of times. 5.C.3. A Certificate of Occupancy may be issued for any building or individual dwelling unit at any other time after inspection thereof by request, determination of compliance and payment of the prescribed fees." 7. The title to Section 6 - "Permits" is amended to read "Section 6. Use Permits." 8. Section 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and the first sentence of 6.4 are amended to read as follows: "6.1. Upon payment of the fee, as prescribed in the schedule of fees adopted by the Town Board, Use'Permits shall be issued by and bear the name and signature of the Building Inspector and shall specify: Activity or operation for which such permit is issued. Address or location where activity or operation is to be conducted. Name and address of permittee. Use Permit Number and date of issuance. Period of Use Permit validity. At the option of the Building Inspector a Use Permit may be combined with a Building Permit if such ccmbination is appropriate. 6.2. Use Permit shall not be transferable and any change in activity, operation, location, ownership, or use shall require a new Use Permit. 6.3. Use Permit shall continue until revoked or for a period of time designated at the time of issuance. An extension of the Use Permit time period may be granted provided a • satisfactory reason can be shown for failure to start or complete the work or activity authorized within the required time period. 6.4. Use Permits shall be obtained for the following." 9. Section 6.5, 6.6 and 6.7 are amended to read as follows: "6.5. Consolidated Use Permits. When more than one Use Permit is required for the same property or premises, a sing Town Board 33 October 5, 1987 Use Permit may be issued lising all materials or operations covered. Revocation of a portion or portions of such consolidated Use Permit, for specific hazardous materials or operations, shall not invalidate the remainder. 6.6 Location of Use Permits. Use Permits shall be kept on the property or premises covered by the Use Permit or carried by the Use Permit holder. 6.7. Revocation of Use Permits. Use Permits may be suspended or revoked when it is determined there is a violation of a condition under which the Use Permit was issued, or there has been misrepresentation or falsification of material facts in • connection with the Use Permit application or a condition of the Use Permit." 10. Section 7, "Inspection" is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 7. Fire Safety Inspections. 7.1 The Building Inspector shall conduct periodic inspections of areas of public assembly as defined in Part 606 of Title 9 of the Official Compliation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York, or any successor part of said regulations, at least once per year. Such inspections may be made at any reasonable time. 7.2. All other buildings, structures, premises, and uses within the Town of Ithaca to which the Building Code applies shall be periodically inspected for compliance with the provisions of the Building Code as they apply to fir prevention and safety. 7.3. An inspection of a building or dwelling unit may be performed at any other time upon (a) request of the owner or authorized agent; (b) receipt of a written statement specifying grounds upon which the subscriber believes a violation of the Building Code, Zoning Ordinance, or other law, rule or regulation exists, or (c) other reasonable and reliable information that such violation exists. 7.4. If entrance to make an inspection is refused or cannot be obtained the Building Inspector or his designee shall have the right to make such inspections as are set forth above in this local law or, in the alternative, may apply for a warrant to make an inspection to any court of competent jurisdiction." 11. Sections 8.1 and 8.2 are amended by deleting the phrase "State Fire Prevention Code" where it occurs in each of those sections and inserting instead the words "Building Code." 12. Section 8.4 of said local law is amended to read as follows: "8.4. Violation orders may be served by personal service, by mailing by registered or certified mail sent to the address set forth in the application for any permit submitted to the Town or to the property address, or by posting a copy thereof on the premises that are the subject of the notice of violation and mailing a copy on the same day as posted, enclosed in a prepaid wrapper, addressed to the last known address of the owner as set forth in the Town of Ithaca records, or if none, in the most recent tax roll available to the Town of Ithaca. 13. Sections 9.1 and 9.2 are amended by deleting the words "State Fire Prevention Code" where they appear and inserting instead the words "Building Code." Town Board 34 October 5, 1987 14. Section 12. "Review Board' is hereby amended to read as follows: "Section 12. Bariance and Review. 12.1 A request for a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance shall be processed in accordancw with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. 12.2 A request for a variance from the provisions of the Building Code and an appearl to review determination of or failure to render a determination by the Building Inspector based upon the Building Code shall be processed with the appropriate Board of Review as provided in Title 19 of the New • York Official Compliance of Codes, Rules and Regulations, Part 440, or any successor rules, regulations or statutes." 15. 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 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. 14 - 1987 was thereupon declared duly adopted. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE DELETING EXEMPTION OF AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS FROM THE ORDINANCE, EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF AN ALTERATION TO ANY BUILDING, ADDING REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, AND INCORPORATING REFERENCES 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 Zoning Ordinance deleting exemption of agricultural buildings from the Ordinance, expanding the definition of an alteration to any building, adding requirements to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy, 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 comment for or against the proposed amendments, the Supervisor closed the public hearing. LOCAL LAW NO. 15 - 1987 • Motion by Councilman Cramer; seconded by Councilwoman Raffensperger, LOCAL LAW NO. 15 - 1987 TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND TO REFLECT THE ADOPTION OF THE NEW YORK UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE Town Board 35 October 5, 1987 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. Article XIV, Section 75, first paragraph is amended to read as follows: "Section 75. Permit to Build. No principal building or accessory building, nor any other structure, including but not limited to, tanks, power and pump stations, swimming pools, and signs (except as permitted by the Town of Ithaca Sign Law) , in any district shall be begun, erected, constructed, enlarged, improved, renovated, repaired, or altered, without a • permit to build issued by the person designated by the Town Board, except that no building permit shall be required for repairs, alterations, or renovations, to existing buildings provided that the repairs, alterations, or renovations: 1. cost less than $10,000.00; 2. do not materially affect structural features of the building; 3. do not affect fire safety features such as smoke detectors, sprinklers, required fire separations and exits; 4. do no involve the installation or extension of electrical, plumbing, or heating systems; and 5. do not include the installation of solid fuel burning heating applicances and associated chimneys and flues. No such permit shall be issued, except pursuant to written order of the Board of Appeals, where the proposed construction, alteration or use would be in violation of any provision of the Ordinance. No such permit shall be issued, except pursuant to written order of the appropriate authority granting variances where the proposed construction, alteration or use would be in violation of any Provision of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code or any successor statute. 2. Article XIV, Section 76, first paragraph, is amended to read as follows: "Section 76. Certificate of Occupancy. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be required for all work for which a building permit is required to be issued under this Ordinance or under any other Ordinance or Local Law of the Town of Ithaca or under the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code or any successor statute. Further, a Certificate of Occupancy shall be required for all buildings which are converted from one general occupancy classification to another and such classifications are defined in part 701 of Title 9 of the Official Compliation of Codes, Rules and . Regulations of the State of New York, or any successor rules or regulations. The issuance of building permits and Certificates of Occupancy shall be governed, in addition to the requirements of this Ordinance, by the requirements of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code, the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, and any similar or successor statutes, and in accordance with the requirements of any laws, ordinances, rules or regulations of the Town of Ithaca including, without limitation, Local Law No. 1 of the year 1981 as the same has been subsequently amended. Town Board 36 October 5, 1987 3. 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 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. 15 - 1987, was thereupon declared duly adopted. NEWSLETTER Supervisor Desch remarked that the only item missing from the Newsletter was the requirement to hook up to the sewer. He went on to say that in the case of hooking up to the sewer there are so few and that we know who they are that we can write them letters. Councilwoman Howell replied, we don't have to put it in the Newsletter, just write them a letter so that they are aware of it. RESOLUTION NO. 215 Motion by Councilwoman Howell; seconded by Councilman McPeak, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approve the 28th Town of Ithaca Newsletter. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . COMPUTER ACQUISITION Eric Whitney, Assistant Engineer remarked that after several telephone calls, and being told that certain things can't be done, he stated that he felt they had put together a package where they could communicate with the old display writers and use their printer. Supervisor Desch asked the Town Planner to comment on the Transportation Package. Town Planner Susan Beeners replied that the Transportation Study is being done to be on McIntosh, and that study will be available to us in the Spring. Eric Whitney has talked about the possibility of being able to have someone take the information from this MCZRANS Study and reprogram it so it will be usable on the IBM, otherwise we would need to look at getting a little MAC to run that program. Supervisor Desch asked if this was included here? Town Planner Beeners replied no, that is not included in here. Councilman Cramer stated that he had no problem with the basic configuration but that he did have a question for the Town Attorney. He went on to ask, when you have a $13,000 budget, Town Board 37 October 5, 1987 shouldn't this be advertised and submitted to all potential venders? Town Attorney Barney replied, unless you want to purchase each item separately. Eric Whitney remarked that the IBM convenience kits would be through IBM, the Autocad would have to come through the only Autocad representative in the area, and the two computers happen to be a quote from the same vender as the Autocad is. There is no clone 100% compatable with IBM software. • RESOLUTION NO. 216 Motion by Councilman Cramer; seconded by Councilman McPeak, WHEREAS, two additional computers and supporting software are needed. The Engineering Department needs another unit for use in field note reduction and computer-aided drafting and design. The Town Planner needs a computer for word processing to take advantage of planning software developed by Cornell University and Tompkins County, and to aid in the development and updating of planning maps, and WHEREAS, the cost of meeting the above-noted needs is estimated as follows: 1. Hardware for Engineering Department - $4,000 2. Hardware for Planning Department - $4,000 3. Software for Engineering Department - $3,000 4. Software for Planning Department - $1,000 5. Installation - $2,000 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, to authorize purchase and installation of computers and software as listed in the supplement to this Resolution. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . TOWN OF ITHACA WARRANTS RESOLUTION NO. 217 Motion by Councilman Cramer; seconded by Councilwoman Howell, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves the Town of Ithaca Warrants dated October 5, 1987, in the following accounts: • General Fund - Town Wide... ... .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ...$ 37,035.24 General Fund - Outside Village... . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .$ 14,750.62 Water & Sewer Fund. . . . .. . . ...... .. ..... ........ . .$215,132.15 Highway Fund. . . . . .. ... ... . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. ... .$ 48,267.96 Lighting District Fund. ... . . . . . . . . .. .. . . ...... . . .$ 439.80 (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . Town Board 38 October 5, 1987 BOLTON POINT WARRANTS RESOLUTION NO. 218 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman Cramer, RESOLVED, that the Bolton Point Warrants dated October 5, 1987, in the Operating Account are hereby approved, in the amount of $59,299.21 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 and Leary voting Aye. • Nays - none) . EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 219 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilwoman Raffensperger, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adjourns into executive session to discuss pending litigation. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . OPEN SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 220 Motion by Councilwoman Howell; seconded by Councilman McPeak, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby moves back into open session. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Crag, Howell and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . ADJOURZE NT The meeting was duly adjourned. Clerk •