HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 1990-03-12 .AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
111HE C AL
State of New York , Tompkins County , ss . :
Gail Sullins being duly sworn , deposes and
says , that she/ he resides in Ithaca , county and state aforesaid and that P TOWN OF ITHACA
}' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEA RING
."�J?
she/he is Clerk PLEASE TKAE NOTICE, that the ^lt
Town _ Board of the Town of f
of The Ithaca Journal a public newspaper printed and published in Ithaca will meet and conduct r
a ublic hearng on April . 9,; 'l
Ithaca aforesaid , and that a notice , of which the annexed is a true own at 7:00 PEast mica .,
Town Hall , 126 East Seneca ' .
Street, Ithaca, New York, to ?.
copy , was published in said paper consider amending Local .Law ..
N2, 1987, increasing the upper
1 \a nc 6 limits , io the sliding pe te , � '1
exemption for Real Property _r 1
owned by persons with lim- ' , „
ited incomes who are 65 years
of age or over and changing 2
the date of application , and
will at this time hear all per
sons in favor of or opposed to
the adoption of said local law. �
2 Jean H. Swartwood
kanthat the first publication of said notice was on the Town Clerk.
March 28, 1990
day of V" 19 �-
�' c
Subscribed and sworn to before me , this day
of' 19 �Q
Notary Public ,
JEAN FORD
Notary public, State of Mew York
No. 4654410
Qualified in Tompkins County
Commission expires May 31, 19�j
FFIDAxIT OF PUBLICATION
11HE jum
ffACA JOUFAAL
State of New York , Tompkins County , ss , :
Gail Sullins being duly sworn . deposes and
says , that she/he resides in Ithaca , county and state aforesaid and that
she/he is Clerk
of The Ithaca Journal a public newspaper printed and published In TOWN OF ITHACA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Ithaca aforesaid , and that a notice , of ti:- hlch the annexed is a true PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the
Town Board of the. Town of
copy , was published in said paper oqh will meet and conduct
a blic hearing on April 9;
199u 0, at 7: 15 P. M. , to consider
2 6 amending the Traffic Ordi-
-� a �� z—1 -- c to yield
sign on Dotes Dive and strop
sign to replace the yield sign
at Stone Quarry and West King
Roads, and will at this time
hear all persons in favor of or
opposed to the amendment to
the Traffic Ordinance.
Jean H. Swartwood
an - that the first publication of said notice was or, the Town Clerk
,^ � March 28, 1990
day of d �0. �cc 19
Subscribed and swo n to before me , this yy�� day
of 19 r
JEAN FORDNotary Public .
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 4654410
Qualified in Tompkins Coun
Commission expires May 31, Inj
AFFMAVIT OFP BLICATION
]PHE . CA JOURNAL
State of New York , Tompkins County , ss . :
Gail Sullins being duly sworn , deposes and
says , that she/he resides in Ithaca , county and state aforesaid and that TOWN OF ITHACA
C . NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING_ ?
Clerk she/he is I PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the..
Town Board of the Town of ,
of The Ithaca Journal a public newspaper printed and published in Ithaca will meet and conduct
a public hearing on April 9,
1990, at 7: 30 P. M. , to consider t
Ithaca aforesaid , and that a notice , of which the annexed is a true a local low amending Town of
Ithaca Local Low N1 , ' 1981 oto
copy , was published in said paper provide for the issuance 'ofl
temporary certificates of occu- i
FPancy, and will at this time ' -
a cc � � �C 1 Mr all persons in favor of or I
opposed to the adoption of.
said local law.
Jeon H . Swartwood
Town Clerk i
March 28, 1990
4!agnd that the first publication of said notice « as on the
day of .rc 19
C>,
Subscribed and sworn to before me , this ( day
of 19
JEAN FORD Notary Public .
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 4654410
Qualified in Tompkins County
Commission expires May 31 , 19 . . /
j
AM DA V 1 T OF PUB LI CATION
"w-- HACA 111 HE ]IT
JOURNAL
State of New York , Tompkins Count .v , ss . :
Gail Sullins being duly sA,vorn , deposes and -
' TOWN OF ITHACA '
says , that she/he resides in Ithaca , county and state aforesaid and that . NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING :;
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the
F ' Town Board of the Town 'of:,
she/he is Clerk Ithaca will meet and conduct I
a public hearing on April 9, .
of The Ithaca Journal � public newspaper printed and published in 14O •1of 7:45 st Seneca
IIII .
Street, Ithaca, New York, , to
Ithaca aforesaid , and that a notice . of which the annexed is a true consider o local law Y to pro-
vide for the issuance of foun-
copy , was published in said paper dation building permits, and
will at this time- hear all per-
� � sons in favor of or opposed to
YL hl rl the adoption of said local law.
Jean H . Swartwood
Town .Clerk
March 28, 1990 .
and that the first publication of said notice was on the 2z
day of YYN0. Y'c ►-N 1990
Subscribed and swo n to before me , this D` / day
of 19
Notary Public .
JEAN FORD
Notary Public, State gf New' Yc
No. 4654410
Qualified in Tompkins County,
Commission expires May 31,. 19. ?/
mss_
TOWN OF ITHACA
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING
March 12 , 1990
At a Regular Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca ,
Tompkins County , New York , held at the Town Hall , 126 East Seneca
Street , Ithaca , New York , on the 12th day of March , 1. 990 , there
were :
PRESENT : Shirley Raffensperger , Supervisor
John Whitcanb , Councilman
David Klein , Councilman
Frank Liguori , Councilman
Karl Niklas , Councilman
ABSENT : Patricia Leary , Councilwoman
Catherine Valentino , Councilwoman
ALSO PRESENT : John Ozolins , Highway Superintendent
John Barney , Town Attorney
Susan Beeners , Town Planner
Andrew Frost , Building Inspector/ Zoning
Officer
Mary Call , Board of Representatives
Graham Gillespie , 550 Warren Road
David Carr , 674 Coddington Road
Michael Welch , 118 Rich Road
Bruce Brittain , Forest Home
Douglas Brittain , Forest Hone
Edward Hallberg , Deer Run
David Kuckuk , 229 Forest Home Drive
Ivar Jonson , 937 East Shore Drive
Sandra Rogers , 250 Troy Road
Dave Auble , 108 Ridgecrest Road
Ellio R . LeMaro , 121 Terraceview Drive
Arel LeMaro , 121 Terraceview Drive
Bill Hilker , Burns Road
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Supervisor led the assemblage in the Pledge �of Allegiance ,
REPORT OF TOWN OFFICIALS
Supervisor ' s Report
Town Supervisor Shirley Raffensperger reported that the revenues
from sales tax for the Town in the first quarter of 1990 were
considerably lower than the comparable quarter in 1989 . First of
all , because the County wide revenues were down and secondly ,
because the City ' s percentage of those revenues was higher than
usual , therefore , all the Towns had a decrease in percentage . It
amounted to a 19 % decrease for the Town of Ithaca for this quarter
from the comparable quarter in 1989 . The 1990 budget projected an
8 % increase in that sales tax so we have a potential budget short
fall of almost $ 100 , 000 in one quarter from the sales tax . She
stated that as she understood it , these things tend to level out
and she certainly hoped so , so we will look at the May sales tax
revenue , the 1990 financial report and other revenues to see how
Town Board Minutes 2 March 12 , 1990
they are holding up and assess our situation in May . She went on
to say that the 1989 audit is now taking place . The Supervisor
noted some meetings that were caning up , on March 15th at the
Highway Barn we will be looking at using that facility as a
recycling drop off center , also on March 21st there will be a Youth
Services :meeting with the County to try to figure out the County
guideline:" for funding and to look at service needs in. the Town ,
etc . , and Councilwoman Valentino will attend that meeting .
Supervisor Raffensperger noted that Senator Seward had notified her
that a bill permitting sales tax revenues to be used for fire
protection costs has passed the Senate and has been introduced in
the Assembly . She noted this was legislation that the Town had
asked for several years ago . Town of Ithaca residents have
received notification of their reassessments , the average
residential increase in the Town was about 2 . 87 . Informal review
days for the Town with the County Assessment Department are March
12th and March 20th . There will be a grievance day scheduled for
sometime in May and will require representation fran the Town
Board . The Tompkins County Department of Planning has asked the
Town Board to send a letter in support of the Aid to Localities ,
Finger Lake Weed Control section of the State budget . Tompkins
County has received nearly $ 200 ,, 000 in State grants some of which
has been used to monitor stream and lake water quality , .perform
experiments on factors which may effect aquatic vegetation: growth
and $ 45 , 000 has been used for computer hardware and software for
their geographical information system . They are also asking us to
support the roll over of prior year funds that were not expended ,
if we do not Tompkins County will loose nearly $ 80 , 000 in State
awarded grants . She stated that she needed a consensus from the
Town Board that it is appropriate for her to write , on behalf of
the Town Board , to support this aid to localities .
Highway :uperintendent ' s Report
Highway Superintendent John Ozolins stated that the lions share of
the work that was done in February was snow removal . Comparing the
overtime for February of this year against last year , so far we had
500 man hours of overtime compared with 422 for last year . We have
just about finished tree trimming on Burns Road and now we will
have to cro back and do same regrading . Several times last month we
used the Parks employees in snow removal operations . He went on to
say that he expects to take the Gradall to Tracy Road Equipment in
Syracuse on Wednesday as one of the bearings that lifts the , boom is
non-existence and then to check the machine all over .
Town Engineer ' s Report
Assistant Town Engineer Erik Whitney noted that the major items
were the 1989 Water & Sewer Improvements , Inlet Valley and Troy
Road replacement tank and he has held numerous meetings with
Stearns & Wheler and they are in the process of gathering survey
data in Inlet Valley of elevations and creek elevations . We are
still in the process of reviewing the final report on the Northeast
video sewer inspections from Pickard & Anderson . Following our
review of their report , we will make some recommendations as to the
amount of money it will take to fix the major flaws they found .
The Trimkansburg Road sewer contract was signed this morning and all
right-of•-way acquisitions have been completed . With regard to the
Pleasant Grove Road movement monitoring , we have performed a second
survey to verify the accuracy . The Burns Road/Coddington Road
realignment , we have received accident data for the area and will
analyze this to use as a further possible justification of the need
to relocate the intersection . The Public Work Committee has more
or less given the storm wager management specifications and draft
ordinance revised and will be mailed to DEC for review and
comments . The contractor retained to perform the drainage work at
�e
Town Board Minutes 3 March 12 , 1990
103 Kendall Avenue will commence the work as soon as the ground
thaws and dries , hopefully in mi&April .
Report of Building Inspector/ Zoning Officer
Building Inspector/ Zoning Officer Andrew Frost reported that twelve
building permits were issued this month . There were no building
permits issued for single family attached , detached or two family
homes . Twelve certificates of occupancy were issued and we
investigated one new complaint with several pending . We made 84
field visits .
Report of Town Planner
Town Planner Susan Beeners stated that the Planning Board had
interviewed two candidates for the vacancy on the Planning Board
with the reconendation of one of the candidates . Subdivision of a
large portion of what is to now be Cornell natural area attached to
Coy Glen4was approved . No action was taken on the Cornell Park and
Ride Lot . The Board recommended the approval of the consultants
schedule for an agreement with Stuart Brown Associates . Cayuga
Lake Estates was asked to look into an alternate plat which would
not have a through connection to Route 89 , The Comprehensive
Planning Committee met and discussed target dates and the whole
program with Ron Brand and a subcommittee was formed to develop a
survey . Ms . Beeners went on to say that the Codes & Ordinance
committee met and discussed the nature of their work to draft and
send on priority types of code modifications that should happen
soon . The East Ithaca Committee met on the 2nd , one committee is
looking at possible alignment of new roads , the other committee is
looking at intersection improvements .
Councilman Niklas remarked that the one thing at the top of the
agenda for the Codes & Ordinance Committee was the issue of
building heights and they hoped to review and pass on a
recommendation for a draft revised ordinance to the Planning Board .
Town Committee Reports
Councilman Whitcomb stated that he was chairman of the Conservation
Advisory Council and that they had met on the lst and established
three subcommittees , an agriculture land use committee , an
environmental review committee and a parks and open space
committee .
Supervisor Raffensperger reported on the Personnel Committee which
has been involved in interviewing applicants for the Town Engineer
position ,. The Supervisor stated that it was possible she would be
asking for a special Town Board meeting in a week or so to consider
the appointment of a new Town Engineer .
REPORT OF COUNTY BOARD OF REPRESENTATIVES
County Board Representative Mary Call reported that there was a
Town representative vacancy on the Human Services Coalition , which
meets on the 4th Friday of each month . She went on to say that the
County was involved with the Joint Maintenance Facility which is a
bus headquarters for the County , City , Cornell and Gadabout and is
part of a State plan to streamline all the transportation
facilities in the County . Mrs . Call went on to say that the County
had passed the Elderly Tax Exemption increase and the trash tag
subsidy is underway and they are looking at different groups of
people who might benefit from the subsidy and how match the County
wants to put into a subsidy program . She went on to note the Flood
Program that the County runs and the Town has put in proposals for
in past years , and that soon the Town will be receiving a letter on
Town Board. Minutes 1 4 March 12 , 1990
this , there is not a lot of money in the program but it has helped
some in past years .
Councilman Whitcomb asked what had happened to the Affordable
Housing Advisory Board and when are they going to meet ?
Mrs . Call replied that they have just finished the appointments and
will be meeting in April . They were waiting for the new Planning
Commissioner to start his employment .
SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING LOCAL LAW # 2 ,
1987 , INCREASING THE UPPER LIMITS OF THE SLIDING SCALE EXEMPTION
FOR REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY PERSONS WITH LIMITED INCOMES WHO ARE 65
YEARS OF AGE OR OVER AND CHANGING THE DATE OF APPLICATION .
RESOLUTION N0 , 54
Motion by Councilman Whitcomb , seconded by Councilman Niklas ,
RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will meet and
conduct a public hearing at 7 : 00 P . M . , on April 9 , 1990 , to
consider amending Local Law #2 , 1987 , increasing the upper limits
of the sliding scale exemption for real property owned by persons
with limited incomes who are 65 years of age or over and changing
the date of application .
( Raffensperger , Whitcomb , Klein , Liguori and Niklas voting Aye .
Nays - none ) .
APPOINTMENT TO TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION NO . 55
Motion by Supervisor Raffensperger , seconded by Councilman Niklas ,
RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approve
the appointment of Eva Hoffmann to the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board to fill the unexpired term , such term expiring December 31 ,
1991 , with the appointment to be effective as of April 1 , 1990 .
(Raffensperger , Whitcomb , Klein , Liguori and Niklas voting Aye .
Nays - none ) .
VACANCY ON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Supervisor Raffensperger noted that Eva Hoffmann having left the
Zoning Board of Appeals to become a member of the Planning Board ,
now leaves a vacancy on the ZBA and she stated that she would like
to have a consensus from the Town Board that we may place a box ad
in the Journal asking for a short bio and statement of interest
from anyone wishing to apply . The deadline would be March 30th
with the ZBA hoping to make a recommendation to the Town Board at
their April 11th meeting . The cost of the box ad will be
approximately $ 150 .
APPOIN'IYK M TO SPECIAL JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO , 56
Motion by Supervisor Raffensperger ; seconded by Councilman Niklas ,
Town Board. Minutes 5 March 12 , 1990
RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approve
the appointment of Tom Richard , 144 Coy Glen Road as a
representative from the Town of Ithaca on the Special Joint
Subcommittee .
( Raffensperger , Whitcomb , Klein , Liguori and Niklas voting Aye .
Nays - none ) .
APPOIN MU4T OF COMMITTEE TO REVIEW LOCAL LAW # 21 1970 , ESTABLISHING
STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE TOWN OF
ITHACA
Supervisor Raffensperger noted that all new Town Board members had
received a copy of Local Law # 2 , 1970 and as the Board members
could see: from the date of the local law, there was a need to
revise it . She then appointed Councilwoman Valentino , Councilwoman
Leary and Councilman Whitcomb to review and revise , with the help
of the Town Attorney , Local Law #2 , 1970 . Councilwoman Valentino
was appointed Chair .
Councilman Niklas asked the new committee to see if , coomittees
like the CAC and the CPC are included because some of -the members
of the committees are not employees or officers .
CONSIDER REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING BOARD OF A REQUEST FOR AN
AMENDMENT TO LOCAL LAW # 6 , 19 8 7 , A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE ZONING
ORDINANCE BY REZONING A PORTION OF LAND AT 136- 146 SEVEN MILE DRIVE
FROM R-30 (RESIDENCE DISTRICT TO R-5 (MOBILE HOME PARK DISTRICT) TO
ALLOW AND INCREASE FROM 52 to 65 LOTS
RESOLUTION NO . 57
Motion by Councilman Niklas ; seconded by Councilman Whitcomb ,
RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby refer to
the Town of Ithaca Planning Board a request for an amendment to
Local Law # 6 , 1987 , allowing an increase from 52 to 65 lots .
( Raffensperger , Whitcomb , Klein , Liguori and Niklas voting Aye .
Nays - none) .
SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE TRAFFIC
ORDINANCE. TO AUTHORIZE A YIELD SIGN ON DATES DRIVE AND A STOP SIGN
TO REPLACE YIELD SIGN AT STONE QUARRY AND WEST KING ROAD
RESOLUTION NO . 58
Motion by Councilman Whitcomb ; seconded by Councilman Klein ,
RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will meet and
conduct a public hearing at 7 : 15 P . M . , on April 9 , 1990 to consider
amending the Traffic Ordinance to authorize a yield sign on Dates
Drive and a stop sign to replace yield sign at Stone Quarry and
West King Road .
( Raffensperger , Whitcomb , Klein , Liguori and Niklas voting Aye .
Nays - none) .
CONSIDER ACCEPTANCE OF OFFER TO PURCHASE LAND ON SHARLEtgE DRIVE
Town Board Minutes 6 March 12 , 1990
Supervisor Raffensperger noted that the Town Board had adopted a
resolution. setting up the procedure and we now have an offer .
Town Attorney Barney stated that the Town received only one bid ,
even though the other two landowners were notified . The only bid
was fron Mr . & Mrs . Clarence Larkin . He went on to say that to
refresh everyones mind , there is a little stub of Sharlene Drive
south of Tudor Road which was dedicated to the Town at one time for
a road but was never opened , never developed , and it is surrounded
on three sides by three landowners . The Larkins are the landowners
on the west and have offered $ 1 , 500 .
RESOLUTIO14 N0 , 59
Motion by Councilman Niklas ; seconded by Councilman Liguori ,
WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca has determined that the section of
Sharlene Road lying south of the southerly right-of-way line of
Tudor Road as extended across Sharlene Road as shown on a map
entitled " Boundary and Lot Date Map - Eastern Heights Subdivision -
Section 2 " made by John S . MacNeill , Jr . , Licensed Surveyor , dated
May 7 , 1968 , as revised , a copy of which map was filed in the
Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office on March 19 , 1969 in Map File F- 7 at
Page 35 , is no longer needed by the Town of Ithaca for highway
purposes , and
WHEREAS , the Town , by resolution adopted December 11 , 1989 ,
authorized the conveyance of said section of Sharlene Road subject
to certain conditions as more fully set forth in the resolution
adopted December 11 , 1989 , and
WHEREAS , pursuant to said resolution , a bid was received from
Clarence Larkin and Mary Larkin dated February 16 , 1990 in the form
of the proposed contract of sale for a purchase price of $ 1 , 500 ,
and
WHEREAS , no other bids were received for the purchase of said
property , and
WHEREAS , the resolution authorizing the conveyance of said property
was published and posted in accordance with law,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town accept the proposed
contract of sale from Clarence Larkin and Mary Larkin for the
purchase of said section of Sharlene Road for a purchase price of
$ 1 , 500 coubject to the conditions set forth in said purchase
contract and the conditions of the resolution of this Board adopted
December 11 , 1989 , and
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town Supervisor be and she hereby
is authorized to execute said contract of sale on behalf of the
Town and to execute the quitclaim deed and any other documents
appropriate or necessary to effectuate the transfer contemplated by
said contract of sale .
( Raffensperger , Whitcomb , Klein , Liguori and Niklas voting Aye . .
Nays - none ) .
PERSONS ' O BE HE
Gary Girard , who stated that he lived in the City of Ithaca went on
to say that he was before the Board to speak about the trail on
South Hill . He stated that he was an environmentalist and a long
distance runner and that he had been running the trail for a long
time , in fact he knew almost every bump in it . The last thing that
Town Board Minutes 7 March 12 , 1990
he usually does is argue against a trail as he felt it was a
wonderful thing and he wished the City would get their act together
a do a little bit more of it . But in this case he really thought
it was an error even though the intentions were very good . It is
an error because part of the trail is part of the old wild flower
trail that has been taken care of over the decades by a bunch of
little old ladies and very gentle people . It used to be a very
useful delicate trail . Most of the upper part is a railroad bed
with a very narrow trail , the need itself over the years has
created the trail . We already have a tremendous amount of hikers
who use the trail , you also have dirt bikes using the trail . It is
a multiple use trail , the only thing your trail would be good for
is bicycles and the cost would be tremendous . The plans that he
has looked at calls for the widening of the trail , between six and
ten feet , the greenery itself is not wider than ten feet . You
clear that and most of it would be open fields and then you will
destroy eighty percent of the charm of that trail . There is a lot
of different wild life there . You will also invite motorized three
wheelers and have no way of enforcing rules . The bicycle riders
that you are creating access to , the path really doesn ' t go that
far and it is not going to be that great for the bicycle riders .
If you could reconsider , he stated that he and a lot of other
people would be happy , the money could be directed to another trail
like a trail from the Octopus through to Taughannock . That trail
would have a purpose because people riding bicycles could go from
the Octopus to Taughannock , 'which is a picnic area , and they would
avoid the Route 89 traffic and it would take them some place . The
South Hill trail is a tiny , fragile trail and clearing it will
allow motorized equipment to go further into the woods . He stated
that he would like to urge the Board to reconsider the proposed
trail as it would be very destructive .
CONSIDER 1.=SED ROAD SPECIFICATIONS
Highway Superintendent John Ozolins noted that the Board had two
copies of the Road Specifications , one showing the changes . He
stated that he , Erik Whitney and the Public Works Committee had
combined the comments from developers , engineers , the State ,
County and the City .
Councilman Klein noted that in paragraph A " 5 " , you list all pipe
drainage must have a 50 year life span and a minimum grade of 1 / 2 % ,
is it generally known what has a 50 year life span?
Superintendent Ozolins replied , as far as materials , there you are
looking tat tar coated galvanized pipe , plastic pipe and some
different grades of steel pipe . Rather than specifying this
particular pipe we put in the requirements that it must have this
life span so it is up to the developer or the engineer to make the
determination . He still has to bring the materials for our review
but we are not saying you will use this pipe or that pipe .
Councilman Klein asked if this was consistent with what the Town
uses for culverts ?
Superintendent Ozolins replied , what he is talking about here is
mainly drainage underneath roads . He was not talking about
driveway culverts as we only provide some advise on installation or
if we happen to damage it .
Councilman Klein replied that to him it wasn ' t that clear and he
assumed it might mean culverts .
Councilman Liguori remarked , if someone was to ask you if coated
galvanized pipe is a 50 year pipe what would you tell them?
Town Board Minutes 8 March 12 , 1990
Superintendent Ozolins replied that he would tell them that coated
galvanized pipe was the correct pipe .
Councilman Niklas remarked that he did not object to this but if a
new material does come out and there is no field data to argue that
it would survive , yet it would appear to have the life expectancy
of a ccmparable project .
Superintendent Ozolins replied that when new material comes out on
the market it comes out with some type of literature usually with
documentation .
Councilman Niklas asked if there was a guarantee on the life
expectancy?
Superintendent Ozolins replied that some manufacturers guarantee
the material , some don ' t .
Councilman Niklas asked the Highway Superintendent if he was aware
of any manufacturer who gave a 50 year warranty ?
The Highway Superintendent replied , not that he was aware of .
Councilman Liguori suggested the specs should say , have a minimum
of ' 50 year life span in accordance with a list on file in the
Highway .Superintendent ' s office . There would then be scene
direction to people as to what the Highway Superintendent considers
a 50 year life span for pipe .
Highway Superintendent Ozolins replied that the 50 year life span
is pretty much what the State uses , he thought .
Councilman Liguori suggested that the Highway Superintendent
contact D(DT for a list .
Councilman Niklas asked if 50 years was a reasonable time to expect
material -to survive ?
Highway superintendent Ozolins replied , yes . He went on to say
that he would add ASTM specs to the material requirements to page
3 , paragraph 5 .
Councilman Klein remarked that he was glad that testing was
included in most of the different layers of road construction but
you don ' t. stipulate what the frequency of that testing is and he
felt that normally you stipulate a test every so many square yards
or whatever it is , to insure a consistency . If you don ' t stipulate
what that frequency is how does the contractor figure what his cost
will be ?
Councilman Niklas suggested that it might also say , an independent
testing agency selected by the Town .
Councilman Klein replied , approved by the Town .
Highway Superintendent Ozolins asked if they might run into the
problem by sending business to a particular person?
Councilman Klein replied no . They have to submit the
qualifications for a specific testing laboratory that you would
review and look at their staff and their experience . There have
been some testing laboratories that have been in serious trouble
for beincr in cahoots with the people they are doing the testing
for .
Town Board Minutes 9 March 12 , 1990
Highway Superintendent Ozolins remarked that what they had done in
the past and what he was looking at doing was taking a loaded truck
and driving it over the surface , if it deflects you have a problem ,
if it doesn ' t then its good to go . We put in the section on
quantifying it so that if there is a problem , say there is an area
that deflects , then we can say there is a problem area either fix
it or take a test to find out what is wrong . There are several
ways of testing a road , one is like the State does . You have
someone there watching it from start to finish to make sure
everything is done but that is not feasible for our staffing .
There are other ways like going out there and checking the finished
product . Right now , the way it is written here , if there is a
problem he could tell the contractor he wanted it checked here ,
here , and here . If you say every "X " number of feet . . .
Councilman Klein replied , you still have final approval but because
you can ' t be there all the time you can still take your loaded
truck and then if there is a problem it can be properly tested .
Supervisor Raffensperger asked , are you saying that an additional
section needs to be added saying something like the frequency the
testing needs to be done ?
Both Councilman Klein and Councilman Liguori felt the frequency
should be stipulated .
Councilman Whitcomb suggested the sentence be changed to read the
nature and frequency of verification by an independent testing
agency will be paid for by the developer and paid for by the Town .
Councilman Klein remarked , you certainly have to reserve the right
to order additional tests if it is not coning up to specifications
but at the same time if you don ' t give the developer laying the
road sane idea of how much testing he is going to be involved with
there is a possibility of a lot of arguments going on .
Supervisor Raffensperger asked if it were possible to say , where
every course that requires inspection , the schedule and frequency
of the testing will be determined by the Town Highway
Superintendent in advance of the beginning of each course . She
stated that the way she understood it , the base course and the
finish course might actually be a year apart .
Highway Superintendent Ozolins replied , the way it is written here
they can put down the subbase , they can put down the base and then
if they meet that with the changes in here , they go ahead and put
down the ;cinder , after they get approval . Each section has to be
tested .
Councilman Niklas suggested the specs say , the nature and frequency
of the verification will be approved by the Town with a minimum
requiremeiit of one test every 100 linear feet .
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING LOCAL LAW #2 , 1980 , PROHIBITING
TRUCK TRAFFIC IN PORTIONS OF THE FOREST HOME AREA AMID CHANGING THE
TONNAGE LIMIT TO REGISTERED WEIGHT
Proof of :posting and publication of a notice of public hearing to
consider a local law amending Local Law #2 , 1989 , prohibiting truck
traffic in portions of the Forest Home area and changing the
tonnage limit to registered weight having been presented by the
Town Clerk , the Supervisor opened the public hearing .
Bruce Brittain stated that he was here tonight to say that his
priorities in being here this evening was to maintain and improve a
Town Board Minutes 10 March 12 , 1990
good working relationship with the Town Board and to somehow
provide a means of getting through traffic out of the Forest Home
Community and also , drafting legislation that would make the law
enforceable . He went on to say that what he would like would be
the means to enforce some simple law that would be simple to
understand , simple to sign and simile to enforce . He stated that
one of tree problems he saw in the present draft is a critical
phrase which appears four times in the proposed amendment , the
critical phrase being "Maximum Gross Weight " which appears as
maximum registered gross weight and maximum gross vehicle weight .
He stated that he thought for internal consistencey in the law that
phrase whatever it turns out to be should be consistent throughout
the law . He stated that he saw the signage as being critical
because if: the drivers coming through cannot read or understand the
signage the same way it is going to be enforced he thought if a
person reads and interprets it one way and a law enforcement
officer reads and interprets it another way we are going to have
upset people . The other is quite frankly , for the last ten years ,
the only enforcement is through voluntary self enforcement and it
would be nice if the signs could actually convey the actual intent
of the law . Mr . Brittain went on to say that he preferred the term
of gross vehicle weight rating . The manufacturer has to rate each
vehicle they produce .
Councilman Klein asked , where is that information ?
Mr . Brittain replied , it is either on the door or on the door frame
of every motor vehicle .
Town Attorney Barney replied that he had spoken to a couple of
people who operate large vehicles and they indicated they were a
little puzzled as he was over the term maximum gross vehicle
rating . They said it was not something , if they were driving a
truck , th<lt they would normally we able to produce to demonstrate
to a police officer what it was . In many instances a truck may be
registered for somewhat less than its maximum gross weight rating .
Also , the maximum registered gross vehicle weight will appear on
every New York State registration so if a police officer stops a
person it. will show that weight . It may or may not show the
maximum vehicle rating .
Councilman Niklas asked Mr . Brittain if he wanted this law to
regulate buses ?
Mr . Brittain replied , it ' s a touchy situation because he could not
stand up and say he was against mass transit . At the same time ,
they do get through buses which are loud , fast and big . He noted
that the Candor bus comes through Forest Home three or four times a
day . As far as he was concerned it was a truck if it was over five
tons .
Councilman Niklas questioned school buses .
Mr . Brittain replied that if it was a local stop that was okay but
the Candor bus does not make stops and also , the through school
buses are not welcome in the community .
Supervisor Raffensperger remarked that this was discussed with a
small group in Forest Hone and she felt the consensus was , at this
point , that we would not add buses . At least it was not a request
of the Forest Hone group to add buses to this because of the
complications . First of all , there is the question of do you want
a bus to go through with 40 people on it or do you want 40 cars
going through and it is a choice which she felt Forest How did not
want to make in the negative as far as buses were concerned . There
is the question of economy and safety , etc . , even with through
Town Board'. Minutes 11 March 12 , 1990
school buses and she did not think the community wanted to address
that particularly . The Supervisor went on to say that as to the
differencE! in the use of maximum gross vehicle weight and maximum
registered gross vehicle weight , do we need to make that
consistent:?
Town Attorney Barney replied , the signage sections should be
changed , the title part doesn ' t matter .
Supervisor Raffensperger went on to say that she did not. know that
this was a perfect revision of this ordinance but she thought it
did to scree extent meet your requirements , the reason you came to
us and said please do something about this ordinance , make it more
enforceable .
David Kuck:uk , 229 Forest Hone Drive stated that if the Board were
to poll t}ze residences as many have done , say ten residents , you
would find that fifteen would say there is too much traffic and
twelve would say trucks are the biggest problem . We have had a law
on the books for ten years which is not enforceable and he felt
that the residents would be satisfied to have the law enforceable
as you are doing tonight .
As no one else present wished to speak , the Supervisor closed the
public hearing .
Supervisor Raffensperger stated that because of the changes made in
the law after it was presented to the Board she would sign a
Certificate of Necessity .
LOCAL LAW NO . 2 - 1990
Motion by Councilman Niklas ; seconded by Councilman Whitcomb ,
LOCAL LAW NO . 2 - 1990
A LOCAL IAW PROHIBITING THROUGH TRAFFIC OF CGeERCIAL VEHICLES ,
TRACTORS , TRACTOR-TRAILER COMBINATIONS AND TRUCKS IN EXCESS OF FIVE
( 5 ) TONS MAXIMCIM GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT ON MCINTYRE PLACE , AND ON
PORTIONS OF FOREST HOME DRIVE AND JUDD FALLS ROAD IN THE TOWN OF
ITHACA
Section 1 . This local law is adopted pursuant to the authority of
Sections 1660 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New
York and Section 10 of the Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of
New York ,
Section 2 . This local law supersedes and replaces Local Law No . 2
for the Year 1980 relating to the same subject matter .
Section 3 . This local law is adopted in order to minimize the
adverse inpact of traffic on the Forest Hone community and certain
of its streets and bridges , and in order to promote the health ,
safety and. welfare of the community .
Section 4 . No through traffic of trucks , commercial vehicles ,
truck tractors , or tractor-trailer combinations , with a maximum
registered. gross vehicle weight in excess of five ( 5 ) tons shall be
permitted on
Town Board Minutes 12 March 12 , 1990
( a ) McIntyre Place .
(b) Forest Herne Drive , between the western terminus of
Plantation Road (also known as Arboretum Road) and
Caldwell Road .
( c ) Judd Falls Road , between Forest Home Drive and the
intersection with Plantation Road ( also known as
Arboretum Road) .
Section 5 . For purposes of this local law, "maximum registered
gross vehicle weight " shall mean the maximum gross vehicle weight
for which the vehicle is registered with the New York State
Department. of Motor Vehicles . If the vehicle is registered in a
jurisdiction other than the State of New York , the term shall mean
the maximum gross vehicle weight for which the vehicle is
registered with the applicable motor vehicle department or similar
agency in the jurisdiction in which the vehicle is registered and
which weight is shown on the registration for such vehicle . If the
Vehicle is registered in a governmental jurisdiction that does not
indicate a maximum gross vehicle weight on registrations , the term
shall mean the manufacturer ' s gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) as
indicated on the vehicle safety certification label .
Section 6 . A violation of this local law shall be a traffic
infraction . Every person convicted of a violation of any of the
provisions of this local law shall for a first conviction be
punished by a fine of not more than Fifty Dollars ( $ 50 . 00 ) or by
imprisonment for not more than fifteen ( 15 ) days or by both such
fine and imprisonment ; for a second such conviction within eighteen
( 18 ) months thereafter such person shall be punished by a fine of
not more than One Hundred Dollars ( $ 100 . 00 ) or by imprisonment for
not more than Forty-Five ( 45 ) days or by both such, fine and
imprisonment ; upon a third or subsequent conviction within eighteen
( 18 ) months after the first conviction such person shall be
punished by a fine of not more than Two Hundred Fifty Dollars
( $ 250 . 00 ) or by imprisonment of not more than ninety ( 90 ) days or
by such fine and imprisonment .
Section 7 . Local deliveries and pick-ups to and from properties
located on the aforementioned Town highways , by vehicles otherwise
prohibited from using said highways by the provisions of this law
shall not be prohibited hereby . Further , fire fighting equipment
and vehicles , and emergency medical service vehicles , otherwise
prohibited from using such highways by the provisions of this law
shall not be prohibited hereby .
Section 80 This local law shall be effective upon the erection or
posting of modified signs or markings giving notice of the
restrictions contained herein and that the maximum weight is
determined by maximum registered gross vehicle weight . Until such
time the previous law which this law supersedes shall remain in
effect .
Supervisor Raffensperger called for a roll call vote .
Councilman Klein Voting Aye
Councilman Liguori Voting Aye
Councilman Niklas Voting Aye
Councilman Whitcomb Voting Aye
Supervisor Raffensperger Voting Aye
Town Board Minutes 13 March 12 , 1990
Local Law No . 2 - 1990 was thereupon declared duly adopted .
PERSONS TO BE HEARD
David Carr , 674 Coddington Road stated that he was here tonight to
speak about the South Hill pathway . He stated that he was one of
the organizers of the petitions that were presented to the Board ,
one last year consisting of 68 signatures from adjacent landowners
that were opposed to the proposed pathway at that time and he also
helped to obtain 240+ signatures last month to bring the pathway
issue to public referendum . As most of us are aware , it was
declared invalid on a minor technicality of not being presented in
a timely fashion . Speaking to the Town Attorney he staged that he
could be corrected on that but that was his understanding , not
being at the court proceedings .
Town Attorney Barney replied that he disagreed on that as to
whether it. was minor or major but that was the basis
Mr . Carr continued , saying that to him in was minor . He went on to
say that to him , not only should the Board not be going to court
against their own Townspeople but he also felt that it is a moot
point when you have 247 signatures which is over the minimum
required percentage of registered voters in the Town signing in
opposition to the proposed pathway . That the Board should take
into consideration what the people are trying to tell it . The cost
of the pathway has increased greatly over the last years estimate
and there are still many items to be considered including easements
over private property , maintenance and safety and patrol of the
pathway , liability insurance , parking and last but not least the
environmental impact on the surrounding area both private land and
the adjacent City water shed . He stated that he was asking the
Town Board , tonight , to make a resolution to abandon any further
planning or preliminary work on the pathway until the issue can be
put to public referendum and let the people vote and decide what is
best for the area . In conclusion , just a little pun , it seemed to
work quite well in Lansing a couple of weeks ago and he thought the
Townspeople were voicing considerable opposition to it and he would
appreciate the reconsidering of the proposal and he stated that he
wanted to add that he was one of the strong opponents of it but he
felt that if it could go to public referendum the will of the
people would be served and also the elected officials would , he
thought , feel better .
Councilman Liguori replied that he did not have strong feelings for
the proposal or against the proposal but he had to say that he did
not know for sure , he did not have any inkling as to what the
public was really saying out there . He felt there was a lot of
discussion out there which suggested to him that this was not an
ordinary issue . This kind of a proposal he called a want , it is
not a need , it ' s not something that the connunity has to do , it ' s
something that the Board and perhaps some others have decided was a
nice thine to do . It has some costs to it which are not
insignificant . The Town of Lansing set an example not too long ago
and they .3aid they did not want to make a decision on. an issue
something like this , an issued that didn ' t involve a Town need but
involve a want . He stated that he would like to suggest that the
Board consider again , why not go to a public referendum? He stated
that he knew the technicality was justified according to a court
that the petition was late according to the courts but he felt
there was a question of fairness here that the Board ought really
consider . He stated that he was not sure whether he would vote for
it or against it at this point but he felt strongly that: this was
something that the public ought decide and not us at the Town Board
Town Board Minutes 14 March 12 , 1990
or a special interest group . He went on to say that he would make
the motion that we have a public referendum on this issue .
Supervisor Raffensperger replied , this is certainly revisiting a
resolution we have already passed . She stated that she would not
second Councilman Liguori ' s motion at this meeting only because we
have two Town Board members who are not present and unfortunately
she did not know he was going to present the resolution nor did any
member of the Board and it was not on the agenda , so we are not
prepared for discussion of it . She stated that she certainly would
be willing- to put it on the agenda for the next meeting if that was
appropriate . She stated that she did not know about revisiting a
resolution already voted on .
Town Attorney Barney replied , the mechanics of it he thought was
that the Board would have to repeal , after having won the case in
court , repeal the motion that was the subject matter of the
petition that was tossed out in court , adopt the resolution over
again and make it subject to a permissive referendum .
Councilman Niklas remarked that the Comprehensive Planning
Committee was thinking about sending out a survey to the residents
of the Town of Ithaca , while this is not a referendum , the question
is , he thought , to get a feeling of what the people in the Town of
Ithaca want .
Mr . Carr replied , our objective as petitioners being all Town
residents , and by the way they are not all in the South Hill area
on the last petition , is to bring it to public referendum .
Councilman Niklas replied , if survey forms were sent out , you said
you would abide by public opinion .
Mr . Carr replied no , he did not say that . He stated that he was
asking for a public referendum not public opinion . The opinion can
be construed in many different ways .
Supervisor Raffensperger replied that an estimate of the legal
requirements was needed with respect to withdrawing the motion that
we have and the reinstituting of one which , as she understood it ,
we would pass that resolution and we would also have as a part of
that resolution , the establishment of a permissive referendum . we
need an assessment of the cost of the referendum .
Councilman Whitcomb asked Mr . Carr if his group was opposed to the
development of this trail or is it opposed to the Town owning the
right-of-way and the development of the trail ?
Mr . Carr replied , there are numerous feelings among the 247
petitioners , scene being opposed outright to it which is his
position being an adjacent landowner and to others who did not like
the procedures that were taken to set the trail up . The so called
public hearing that we had at NCR last year in about October , it
was an informational meeting not a public hearing and we were told
then , being the local residents , we were going to have to accept
and an informal show of hands at that meeting , only 4 out of the 97
people there were in favor of the pathway . Back to our feelings ,
he felt that what it had cane down to now was a feeling of
democracy . He stated that he had not been shown yet , nobody had
shown him in writing where there ever was a public hearing . He
stated that he would like to see this , if it was in 1984 , that was
six years ago .
Town Attorney Barney remarked , there was a public hearing December
29th .
Town Board Minutes 15 March 12 , 1990
Mr . Carr asked , where ?
Attorney Barney replied , here and a resolution adopted .
Mr . Carr replied that he was sorry , he was not aware of that .
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE AND SETTING FORTH CERTAIN FEES RELATING TO THE ZONING
ORDINANCE
Proof of posting and publication of a notice of public hearing to
consider an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance and setting
forth certain fees relating to the Zoning Ordinance having been
presented by the Town Clerk , the Supervisor opened the public
hearing .
Bruno Schickel stated he was from Dryden , and also was President of
the Tompkins County Homebuilders Association . Mr . Schickel went on
to say that we as a body of about 120 members and himself as an
individual , are extremely concerned about this proposal . It seems
that the Town is proposing a sort of user fee essentially which is
the whole point of the structure to make the builder or developer
pay for the cost , every ounce of the cost , incurred by the Town in
reviewing and inspecting this project . He asked why was the
builder or the developer having this cost levied? In a certain
sense , the whole process really is a benefit to the existing
neighbors and residents in the Town of Ithaca . So in a certain
sense you are making the builders pay for protecting or evaluating
the ca munity on a whole . Who is the real user and if it is a user
fee shouldn ' t it be levied against other people . In fact the
people right now pay property taxes and the whole ccamunity is
paying for this process , right at the moment . If you are leveling
a fee on builders , are you going to rose a similar fee structure
with all the other services you have ? The group that was here
earlier , he understood they have been having a real problem with
some of the things and been opposed to some of the things you are
doing or wanting to do , and he was sure that it has taken up an a
lot of staff time , are those people paying? Do you have a
mechanism for those people to pay for the time and cost to the Town
for this . The whole thing is part of the democracy that we live
under and in a certain sense by imposing this fee structure you are
making people pay to gain access to this process and he found this
very troubling . He went on to say that he saw some very large
problems with the fee structure as you have it . It seems extremely
complicated and unworkable in that sense . You basically are going
to have to build a bureaucracy with this structure , you have fees
that are going to be collected at all sorts of levels , you have
escrow accounts for all sorts of different fees , you are going to
have to hire another person just to administer this structure you
are putting in place . Also , it ' s an opened fee structure , there is
not cap and there is not incentive whatsoever for the Town of
Ithaca to imntrol their cost . If anything , the opposite is true .
There is no control on hiring outside consultants for engineering ,
outside legal help , environmental help , because all the cost is
going to be passed on . He stated that he was very concerned that
there was not a mechanism to keep costs reasonable and
undercontrol . It ' s basically unfair because you charge for access
to the process and you charge handsomely for it . He stated that he
had some questions on the basic fee structure . You have fees for
inspections and he asked if there was a schedule for inspections or
is the builder or developer supposed to call for the inspection or
is the builder billed for anytime the Building Inspector feels it ' s
necessary to run out and check the job?
Town Board Minutes 16 March 12 , 1990
Supervisor Raffensperger replied that these were basically utility
inspections and a schedule is already in existence .
Mr . Schickel asked if there was a time when a builder canes before
the Board to get approval for all these stages , is time being
billed?
Supervisor Raffensperger replied , the meeting time is not billed .
Mr . Schickel replied that there was no clear indication that time
taken up in the hearings or formal setting will not be billed . He
went on to ask , when are escrow balances returned? What is a
reasonable period of time ? A period of time should be specified .
He suggested perhaps within a week after all of the work is done
and thing.: are settled . Mr . Schickel asked if interest was going
to be paid ?
Town Attorney Barney replied that it was deliberately out of the
law as it would depend on the magnitude of the deposit and the
administrative mechanism that would need to be set up , he felt
interest would be paid on the larger amounts .
Mr . Schickel asked what were the real hard costs to the Town for
all the pE6ople that you are saying you are covering in 1988 and
1989 , what were your costs .
Supervisor Raffensperger replied , when we came to this and we
certainly are not the first municipality to visit this issue of
development fees . There is a history of many municipalities having
done it . We had a choice of setting up what would basically be
arbitrary fees , an application fee , a flat for a lot , or square
footage for a building . If we had done that , it is possible that
that sort of a structure could be contested in court . The court
would have probably said that we had to justify these costs and you
have to keep track of them . The whole purpose of this escrow
account is for it to be equitable and to keep track of the costs
that we are incurring . We have a schedule of different members of
the staffs salaries , we have attached to the law an estimate of the
per hour costs for a planner , an attorney and a secretary . What we
hope to do is develop a history of precisely what it costs for
review fees .
Mr . Schickel replied that the point he was trying to make was that
you have set certain fees for the escrow and it seems to him that
in coming up with the structure and these estimated fees , you must
have some data to estimate from .
Supervisor Raffensperger replied that the staff did develop that .
They went through quite an exercise to cone up with the estimates .
Town Planner Beeners replied that the staff had figured out the
time spent on review of various projects and also made a comparison
with other municipalities . The escrow would provide a mechanism
for refunding or increasing the escrow . The escrow would be an
incentive for quality in applications .
Mr . Schickel went on to say that basically what the Town is doing
is passing on a cost to the hone buyer that is clearly rather
substantial . You begin with a piece of land and it just increases
the upfront costs you have to pay before you begin to build and it
works to push the smaller developer , the smaller builder out of the
market . Only the developer with bigger pockets can withstand and
accept the additional risks that are required because the risk is
there . You are not saying this is a fee that you are going to pay
for approval , this is a fee you are going to pay whether or not you
Town Board Minutes 17 March 12 , 1990
gain approval . This is not going to help affordable housing . The
new home buyer is the one who is going to have to pay .
Councilman Niklas asked , what percentage are those fees of the
total cost of , let ' s say that a developer would put into a unit ?
Mr . Schic:kel replied that Edward Hallberg had the figures in his
report but he would say that the way the fees are here that the
additional cost on surface seems rather small . But when you start
multiplying it up and adding it on and figuring the carrying cost ,
the actual cost to the home buyer is going to be substantial .
Ed Hallberg , developer of Deerrun remarked that the Board had asked
the direct costs and what they were . He went on to say that he
would walk the Board through a letter he had written today as an
example of how much a $ 100 added cost at the beginning of a project
influences the final cost .
"Typically , when costs are incurred at the very beginning of a
project the monies spent are high risk venture , capital . Sources of
that capital are generally raised through limited partnerships , or
scene other similar vehicle . Typical return on an investment such
as this , would be in the 22-28 % range . If we use 24 % as an
example , the money would have to double every three years . So
let ' s say that a typical project is three years in duration and ,
therefore , the interest payable to an investor would be an
additional_ $ 100 . Real cost = $ 200 .
When the sale price of a house is set by a developer , two things
must be taken into account , total costs , and requiring financing
margins . When arriving at a sale price , acquisition , development ,
and construction costs are totaled , and then approximately 35-40%
is added to cover soft costs of marketing , interest , overhead and
profit . Meal cost at say 38% _ $ 276 . On top of these costs ,
financing banks will normally require a formula of all costs plus
25 % which should be the minimum selling price of the home . Real
cost = $ 345 .
This $ 345 is the immediate effect on sale price of a $ 100 up front
cost to a developer .
What this means to the eventual buyer of the house is shown in his
mortgage . Lets say a typical buyer takes a 90 % mortgage for 30
years , at current rates of 10 . 75 % , therefore , borrowing $ 310 . This
will result in an increase to his or her mortgage of $ 3 per month ,
or $ 1 , 080 for the life of the mortgage . More immediately , the $ 36
per year in increased housing costs will require an additional $ 129
per year income to that buyer (based on a 28 % total housing
cost/ income ratio used by most banks ) .
The real cost then to the new home buyer in terms of how much
income they need is $ 129 . The cost to a local employer in order to
give that buyer the necessary income should be 150-200 % of that
figure . This is arrived at by adding in all necessary taxes for
income , workman ' s compensation , social security taxes , unemployment
taxes , etc . So now the real cost of $ 100 added to the cost of
buying a new home is in the neighborhood of $ 194-256 every single
year which cams out of someones pocket in order to ultimately
finance this cost .
As we discussed the other day , I am not trying to build a mountain
out of a mole hill here , and the arguments can go on forever on
this . The real point is that the effect of increased cost to the
developer can be argued that it isn ' t that much . The overall long
range effect becomes overwhelming . I spoke today with a customer
Town Board Minutes 18 March 12 , 1990
of mine who is a director for one of Ithaca ' s largest employers .
He told me that they are planning to move his entire department to
a southern state because they cannot fill necessary positions in
his company . The single biggest reason he gives for lack of
competitiveness is the cost of housing not only in Tompkins County ,
but in New York State as a whole .
The point: then is this , $ 100 does not sound like that much money .
It is . I have listened for years to legislators pass bills
effecting housing with the tone of " I know its inconvenient , but
its only $ 100 per house " . Please consider the effect you are
having on the entire comunity every time you want to tack on only
" $ 100 per house " . "
Mr . Hallberg went on to say that he would love to go out to the
desert in. New Mexico where the land is flat and everything drains
real well. and we could build houses out there all the time because
it is sunny all the time . Wouldn ' t that be easy . The problem is ,
there are no jobs out there . We as developers don ' t try to do this
to bring people into Town .
Councilman Niklas remarked , are you saying the 1 % extra cost could
tip the balance toward bankruptcy?
Mr . Hallberg replied , is the point we are trying to prove is that
you can bankrupt the builders ? The point is , he stated , was that
he was asking the Board what the long range effect of the economic
health of the community . The community is dependent on jobs , the
more we ,serve , the higher the housing costs which this will be
directly ,attributable to and is going to cost an employer more and
serves as a disencentive to move his business here . No , $ 2 , 000 up
front is not going to bankrupt the builder , the problem is no
customer , that ' s what bankrupts builders . People not moving into
the area is what bankrupts builders and that ' s brought on by no
jobs .
Ivar Jon.son remarked , apparently we are going to have the fees
whether we want them or not but they are very complicated . If
there are to be any fees they should be done with the building
permit after you get the approval . He felt that the Board was
going to find out that a lot of small developers are not going to
be able to do it because it ' s expensive , this money up front , and
it ' s very complicated .
Graham Gillespie , 550 Warren Road stated that he was in the design
profession and also being a member of the Town and a taxpayer he
was kind of coming at it from both sides . He stated that he
appreciated the time and effort that the Planning staff` and Board
put into what seems to be a very fundamental problem . He stated
that his main concern was not so much with the fees as proposed but
with the overall document in terms of the structure and open
endedness and the waivers that are built into the proposal . He
stated that he assumed the whole thing came about because of the
increase in development the Town has seen in the last 5-10- 15 years
and there is a burden placed on the staff having to deal with this .
We experience the same types of problems having the review process
dragged out He went on to say that his main concern with the
document is that they are going to have to implement it with our
clients arid , therefore , we are going to have to understand it . The
main points he wanted to bring up was the interest for the escrow
accounts which needs to be clearly spelled out and if you are going
to set a cap , they should be spelled out . If there are
discretionary measures that should be spelled out clearer as well .
The proposal makes certain fees actual cost of review, on top of a
flat fee , there is some confusion as to what the flat fee covers if
Town Board Minutes 19 March 12 , 1990
the actual cost of review is meant to cover everything associated
with the application .
Supervisor Raffensperger replied , that the actual cost: of review
refers to the section that will be accommodated by the escrow . The
application fee is the initial application fee .
Town Planner Beeners remarked , the non-refundable $ 100 fee that is
listed in. that first column , that includes one public :hearing fee
plus the cost of us receiving the application and processing it .
Mr . Gillespie continued , it talks about the escrow being based on
design estimates . It is difficult to set design estimates given
certain factors that are beyond our control , the Town ' s control ,
etc . If he was doing the estimate and he knew his client is going
to be paying fees based on that he probably wouldn ' t have any
problem with that , there may be some clients who do not want to
take his estimate as what he would be paying fees on . He asked if
that was -the intention of the proposal ?
Town Planner Beeners replied that she thought that the intent of
having a ,staged escrow deposit and the ability of recalculation for
an adjustment to what was put into escrow was partly :intended to
permit that type of changes in the escrow .
Mr . Gillespie remarked , there was some language in there about some
fees not being refundable .
Town Attorney Barney remarked that if you scale down the number of
units from what you originally proposed , you don ' t get your money
back .
Mr . Gillespie went on to ask , with the implementation of this
proposal will a homeowners taxes be going down ? Assuming that this
is meant to address the crunch on Town time .
Supervisor Raffensperger replied , this is probably unlikely .
David Auble , 250 Troy Road stated that he would like to see the
Town staff= be accountable for all of their time as opposed to just
what they use for processing development applications . He stated
that he thought an inordinate amount of time on something like the
recreation way has been utilized in lieu of doing planning
functions , as an example . He felt more time could have been put
into comprehensive planning . He felt a thousand hours had been put
into the recreation way and yet if you look at the results of that
and we are going into a potential referendum on that , it looks as
though developing a project that is counter to the citizens that is
actually :Funding the Towns operations . He stated that he would
like to see a proposal put forth by one of the elected
representatives to have an accounting of all of the Town staff time
that is put into different functions .
Ellio LeMaro stated that he was a resident of Ithaca and a
developer also . He stated that indeed the structure looks kind of
frightening but he understood there was a need for it . One of his
comments would be that first , even though there is a need. for it we
might also think about the consequences . There is ' a multiplier
effect , the amount of money that is going to be the impact of this
fee will be multiplied greatly by the financing and the amount of
money the person will need to buy the home will be multiplied
several tames what it actually costs the developer . The other
concern was that very likely the developers from this town are
going to be excluded out of town developers with more money and
more capacity of risk . He stated that he had proposed another
scale . As the number of units increase the cost per unit
Town Board Minutes 20 March 12 , 1990
decrease; . He asked if there was any consideration for affordable
housing in the scale or are they all going to be treated the same ?
Supervisor Raffensperger replied that they had discussed this and
we share the concern but one of the difficulties at this time is
that the Town does not , at present , have a definition of affordable
housing . What we hope to do in the encouragement of affordable
housing , which many of the Board members think is a priority , is
that we will have to have a package , really , that will define
affordable housing , that will refer it to road specifications for
affordable housing , how to deal with review fees for affordable
housing , however , she did not think they would be able to do that
in bits and pieces .
Bruno Schickel stated that he wanted to add a couple of things .
The point was sort of made that the costs were very small compared
with the overall costs . The percentages are limited . Costs add up
very quickly and when you try to keep the costs under control you
have to take a little bit from every area . The costs as projected
in this analysis is more like $ 200 per lot not $ 100 per lot . He
stated that he understood there was a separate fee structure for
new road: and utilities and the analysis was 10 lots at about
$ 9 , 092 and for residential site plan review 10 at $ 890 . If you
take that for fact , it is closer to $ 200 per lot . He asked if that
was correct?
Town Planner Beeners replied , it ' s only one or the other not both
of those fees .
Mr . Schickel continued this open ended thing . He stated that he
would just like to add that he felt that people need to be looking
at how to reduce regulations . In other words , how to stream line
the proce:"Ds as more and more money is going into regulations . This
sort of thing doesn ' t make the brick and mortar any better . They
make it more costly , they make it further out of reach . He stated
that he felt very strongly that this system which is an open ended
scale , if anything , encourages more regulations , you can hire on
more staff without raising property taxes .
As no one else present wished to speak , the Supervisor closed the
public hearing .
The Supervisor went on to say that they had received many of the
comments that they solicited from developers late in the process .
She stated that a number of the comments had validity but. they were
not substantial enough to justify postponing action tonight . We
can perfect the legislation as time goes on .
Councilman Whitcomb replied that when this was presented a month or
so ago he had questioned the complexity of it and as the Supervisor
explained they were trying to build a data base of what the fees
eventually would be . Does it follow , that at some point , we will
adopt a simple fee structure incorporating what we have learned
from this ?
Supervisor Raffensperger replied yes , because the Courts have
really said that you build this kind of history in order to justify
flat fees , you just can ' t make them up out of thin air , you just
can ' t estimate them . The thing about these , because the escrow is
an estimate which may be increased or refunded , seemed more
equitable and it will build a history that will permit us in a year
or so , to have a much equitable figure . This is an effort to build
a record that will justify a less complex fee schedule .
Councilman Whitcomb replied , so in a year or so , you would invision
a simplified fee schedule ?
Town Board Minutes 21 March 12 , 1990
Supervisor Raffensperger replied , at least looking at it .
Councilman Whitcomb noted that almost all that spoke tonight talked
about the open endedness of it . Is it reasonable to think the Town
would inflate it ' s costs on reviewing a development .
Supervisor Raffensperger replied that they had made a tremendous
effort to make this equitable and the old system was open ended but
in the other way .
Councilman Niklas remarked that by the Town keeping accurate logs
and providing those logs to the developer at the completion of the
development there will be a good checks and balance . If you expect
a service , you would also expect a record of that service and he
felt the Town would provide it . In the sense of the openendedness ,
it is not a black box where money will be dumped in at one end and
vanish at the other , the black box is really totally exposed . The
other side of the issue is the accountability of the developer
where we have seen examples of modifying , revising , modifying ,
revising , and it costs the Town an inordinate amount of money .
Councilman Liguori remarked that he was concerned about the
complexity of it but he went on to say that the developers hire
services of all kinds , they hire consultants , legal as well as
engineers , architects , landscape people , etc . , those they are
paying for . What they are paying for here is not services but
inspections required by the Town through law the Town has passed .
We are discouraging real services which are fee discussions between
the Town Planner and the Town Engineer with the developer . Why
should the developer want to talk to the Town Planner when he knows
that every minute he is talking to them is going to be an
additional expense . He felt it was regressive from that point of
view . He stated that he would prefer a single fee of some sort .
The other thing that he had trouble with was the public hearings .
The public: hearings are not a service to the developer , they are a
service to the people in the Town . They open up the whole process
to give people in the Town an opportunity . Why should the
developer consistently have to pay for more hearings than one , long
hearings and all the rest that goes with it? It seemed to him that
that is going beyond services . He stated that he got the
impression that we are trying to come out even and whatever the
Town spends on developments they ought to recoup that . He felt the
Board should take another hard look at what it was trying to do ,
clarify what the objectives are and decide if we are really talking
about services here or are we talking about mandatory inspections
and then come up with . a fee schedule that is not as complex as
this . He noted that he started out in public services when there
really were public services , when the County inspectors and the
Town inspectors went out and really helped the people and helped
the developers and there was a completely different attitude and
things were really accomplished . We are setting up here an
advisory relationship that will never really run smooth , there will
always be a tendency for more and more inspections , more
regulations because of that advisory relationship and he felt the
Board should really take a hard look at what the Board is really
doing .
Councilman Klein remarked that it was unfortunate that they
received a lot of the comments this evening . He thought that most
of the people on the Town Board and Planning Board try to do their
homework and he for one , likes to review these and it is a little
bit unfortunate when they come in late and raise some point . He
stated that basically he was in favor of the fees and as he looks
at it , as a past member of the Planning Board , there are those who
have really abused the free service by clogging up staff time with
the same projects over and over again . A fee structure will make
Town Board Minutes 22 March 12 , 1990
the process more efficient on both sides . This fee schedule is a
bit overly complex and he would almost rather try to simplify it
before putting it into effect . He stated that he hated to pass
something knowing that in six months or a year down the road you
are going to be making all sorts of revisions . Obviously , there
are bound to be adjustments when something new is passed .
Town Attorney Barney replied , the problem is you are drawing lines .
There are even lines drawn here . It ' s pretty workable , it ' s not
going to be perfect but it is the best we could put together . He
stated that of course they could simplify it but you are trying to
paint with the same brush several different types of projects which
really should be treated quite differently .
Supervisor Raffensperger reminded the Board that they had received
a resolution from the Planning Board which unanimously endorsed
this and the recovery of some of the staff and related costs ,
Councilman Whitcomb asked if there was any free time built into
this schedule , in terms of public service ?
Town Planner Beeners replied yes . Prior to starting the meter
running , prior to the initial application , there are one or two , at
her discreation , meetings which are free . She felt this was the
primary part of this . The developer and staff will have to be more
prepared and come with more material to a meeting .
Councilman Whitcomb remarked , that initially it was mentioned that
if there were additional public hearings it wasn ' t fair to charge
them to the developer . He stated that his understanding was that
if the public hearings were caused by something the developer did
or did not do then they were his responsibility but if the Town
required more public hearings , then the developer wasn ' t charged
for them . He asked if this was correct? Is the first hearing
chargeable: ?
Town Attorney Barney replied , its built into the application fee .
Supervisor Raffensperger replied , we have always had a public
hearing fee , that ' s not new .
Councilman. Whitcomb replied that like Councilman Liguori he
objected to the complexity of the schedule but he would support it
knowing dcwn the road we would try to simplify it .
LOCAL LAW NO . 3 - 1990
Motion by Councilman Niklas ; seconded by Councilman Whitccmb ,
LOCAL LAW N0 . 3 - 1990
A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SETTING FORTH CERTAIN
FEES RELATING TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA
Pursuant to Section 130 of the Town Law of the State of New York
and Section 268 of the Town Law of the State of New York , ' the Town
Board of the Town of Ithaca does ordain and enact as follows :
Section 1 . Territory covered by Ordinance . This ordinance shall
be applicable to all territory within the Town of Ithaca outside
the incorporated Village of Cayuga Heights ,
Section 2 . Amending of Prior Ordinance . This ordinance amends the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance as re-adopted , amended and revised
effective February 26 , 1968 and as subsequently amended as follows :
Town Board Minutes 23 March 12 , 1990
( a) Said Zoning Ordinance is amended by deleting the current
Section 84 , and inserting a new Section 84 , entitled "Fees " reading
as follows :
Section 84 . Fees .
10 Miscellaneous provisions .
( a ) The Town Board , Planning Board , or Zoning Board of
Appeals , as applicable , shall hold no public hearing nor
take any action to endorse or approve any application
until all applicable fees and reimbursable costs have
been paid to the Town with receipt therefor provided to
the respective Board except if costs are deposited in
escrow as hereinafter set forth , action may commence
unless the amount in escrow is found to be inadequate and
the applicant has not replenished the escrow account . In
the event further action by any board shall be suspended
until the applicant has deposited the appropriate amount
back in the escrow account .
(b) Fees shall be calculated by the Building Inspector , Town
Planner , Town Clerk , or by the Deputy Town Clerk
associated with the Engineering , Planning , and
Building/ Zoning Department . When an escrow deposit is
required , if there exists any question as to the required
amount of escrow, the officer collecting the fees shall
consult with the Town Engineer , whose calculation of same
shall be final . Such fees shall be collected by the Town
Clerk or the Town Clerk ' s designee who shall issue a
receipt stating the purpose of the payment . This receipt
must be filed with the application as evidence of
payment .
(c ) All Application Fees paid to the Town in accordance with
the fee schedule shall be non-refundable unless
miscalculated . Except for unexpended escrow amounts or
miscalculated fees , no funds paid to or deposited with
the Town for review or inspection shall be returned to
the applicant should an application be disapproved by the
Town , reduced in scale by the applicant , or otherwise
partially or wholly abandoned .
(d) For purposes of calculating fees , if the proposal
involves a dormitory , two bedrooms shall constitute one
dwelling unit .
2 . Building permit fees .
( a) The fees for a building permit shall be as set forth in
Section 75 of this Ordinance .
36 Application fees and Public Hearing Fees .
(a ) A nonrefundable fee shall be paid along with each
application as set forth in the Fee Schedule of
.Application and Review Fees set forth below ( the "Fee
Schedule " ) to cover expenses related to the
administration and processing of applications , including
agenda or public hearing notice , clerical processing , and
preliminary processing of the application by planning
and/or engineering personnel .
(b) Whenever an application or appeal is filed with the Town
for which a public hearing is required , there shall be
paid simultaneously a fee of $ 50 . 00 to defer the costs of
Town Board Minutes 24 March 12 , 1990
publishing and mailing the notice and application to
appropriate parties , and the cost of transcribing the
proceedings relating to the application or appeal . Such
$ 50 . 00 fee is included in the Fee Schedule set forth
below as part of the initial application fee ( e . g . an
application fee of $ 100 . 00 includes the Public Hearing
Fee of $ 50 , 00 ) .
(c ) If the hearing continues for more than one meeting
necessitating re-publication and/or re-noticing , an
additional Public Hearing Fee shall be paid prior to each
continued hearing . If the matter continues for more than
one meeting but the subsequent meetings do not require a
public hearing , an Agenda Processing Fee shall be paid
prior to each additional meeting at which the matter is
continued without a public hearing . In the discretion of
the Town Board , Planning Board , or Zoning Board of
Appeals , as the case may be , or the person designated to
collect Agenda Processing Fees may be waived with respect
to any subsequent meetings , particularly if the
continuation was necessitated by actions of the Town
Officials and not by the applicant .
(d) The above fees may be waived in whole or in part , or may
be modified by the Town Supervisor , the Town Planner , or
the Town Engineer for good cause shown .
(e ) In the case of Subdivision or Site Plan applications , the
Planning Board , in its discretion , may waive the fee for
a final plat in those circumstances where Final Plat or
Plan Approval is given simultaneously with Preliminary
Plat or Plan Approval .
4 . Review Fees .
( a ) A Review Fee shall be paid as set forth in the Fee
Schedule set forth below . Such Fee is intended to cover
part of the cost of professional services , including , but
not limited to , engineering , planning , legal , and other
expenses incurred by the Town in its review of the
submitted application materials for Preliminary and/or
Final Subdivision or Site Plan Approval .
(b) When the Review Fee set forth in the Fee Schedule is
calculated on a per lot or per unit basis the Review Fee
is non-refundable unless dencaninated as an amount to be
placed in escrow .
( c ) When the Review Fee is stated in the Fee Schedule to be
the Actual Cost of Review, the Review Fee shall be such
actual cost of conducting the review as determined and
billed by the Town . The basis for calculating such cost
shall be the actual costs to the Town for independent
consultant services , legal services , engineering
services , planning services and/or any other services or
expenses of outside consultants plus an amount intended
to reimburse the Town for the time of Town staff
(Engineering , Planning , Legal , Highway Superintendent ,
and others ) devoted to reviewing the proposals . The
amount charged for Town staff shall be determined by
multiplying the number of hours devoted to the proposal
times hourly rates as determined from time to time by the
'Ibwn Board for various staff positions .
(d) An escrow agreement providing for the deposit of the
,mounts set forth in the Fee Schedule in the form
Town Board Minutes 25 March 12 , 1990
directed by the Town shall be executed by the applicant
and the deposit made in the amount set forth in the Fee
Schedule . Sums so deposited and not utilized in the
review process shall be returned to the applicant within
a reasonable period of time after the adoption of the
last resolution finally disposing of the application
(whether by granting or denial of the application) . At
the time of such return , and if no funds are due , at the
time of final disposition of the application the Town
will provide an accounting of the expenses charged to the
escrow account .
( e ) If the review costs are estimated to exceed the amount so
deposited and additional fees are deemed necessary , the
applicant shall be notified of the required additional
amount by the Town Engineer and shall add such. sum to the
escrow account .
( f ) If , in the judgement of the Town Engineer , the deposit
provided for herein exceeds the anticipated reasonable
review costs , the Town Engineer may adjust the deposit to
reflect the anticipated review cost .
(g) Unexpended escrow funds deposited as part of the Review
Fee may be credited against deposits due for the
Inspection Fee , where such is required , upon the filing
of an application for site development or the
construction of improvements .
(h ) For purposes of determining the amount of escrow the
following shall apply :
( i ) As part of the application for Preliminary
Subdivision or Preliminary Site Plan Approval ,
a preliminary estimate of the cost of
improvements shall be provided by the
applicant ' s Licensed Professional Engineer
along with the other items required for a
Preliminary Subdivision or Preliminary Site
Plan Application as set forth in the Town of
Ithaca Subdivision Regulations and the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance .
( ii ) As part of the application for Final
Subdivision or Final Site Plan Approval , a
revised estimate of the cost of improvements
shall be provided by the applicant ' s Licensed
Professional Engineer along with the other
items required for final subdivision
application as outlined in the Town of Ithaca
Subdivision Regulations and the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance .
In the case of subdivision applications , the
terms " cost of improvements " , " improvement
cost " or "project cost " shall mean the costs of
construction of all general site improvements
(whether on or off the specific site involved)
to be constructed by applicant such as grading ,
roads , drainage improvements , sewers , water
lines , and other similar items but excluding
the cost of dwelling units to be constructed on
the subdivision lots . In the case of site plan
applications such terms shall mean the costs of
construction of all site improvements (whether
on or off the specific site involved) including
Town Board Minutes 26 March 12 , 1990
grading , roads , drainage improvements , sewers ,
water lines , buildings and any other
improvement of any nature whatsoever to be
constructed by applicant . In both cases such
terms exclude land acquisition costs ,
architects fees , engineering fees and other
similar non-construction costs .
( iv) The estimates provided with the preliminary or
final application shall be considered , along
with the other items of application and
anticipated review costs , in determining the
amount of review fee escrow .
( v) An estimate of the cost of improvements
provided by the applicant and not by a Licensed
Professional Engineer may be accepted when in
the judgement of the Town Engineer , such
estimate is reasonably accurate . The Town
Engineer may adjust such estimate and the
estimate as so revised by the Town Engineer
shall be the basis of the escrow deposit
calculation .
( vi ) In no event shall an escrow account be
established with less than a $ 200 . 00 deposit ,
which amount shall be a minimum regardless of
the amounts calculated pursuant to the Fee
Schedule .
( i ) In the case of clustered subdivision applications , the
fees set forth for subdivisions shall apply .
( j ) In the case of applications for rezoning , a basic fee as
set forth in the Fee Schedule for initial review of the
general plan by staff and the Town Board shall be
submitted with the initial application . When the
rezoning is referred to the Planning Board for
recommendation , the fee for Site Plan Review -
Preliminary Plan shall be paid prior to any further
review of the general plan by the Planning Board and
prior to any recndation by the Planning Board to the
Town Board . If the Town Board approves an application
for rezoning upon recommendation by the Planning Board ,
and when specific development is proposed , the fee for
Site Plan Review - Final Plan shall be paid to cover the
costs of further review by staff and the Planning Board .
(k) In the case of applications for Special Approval , a basic
fee as set forth in the Fee Schedule for initial review
of the general plan by staff and the Zoning Board of
Appeals shall be submitted with the initial application .
If the application is referred to the Planning Board for
recomnnendation , the fee required for Site Plan Review -
Preliminary Plan shall be paid prior to any further
review of the general plan by the Planning Board and
prior to any recommendation by the Planning Board to the
Zoning Board of Appeals . If the Zoning Board of Appeals
approves an application for Special Approval upon
recommendation by the Planning Board , and when specific
development is proposed requiring further review, the fee
for Site Plan Review - Final Plan shall be paid to cover
the costs of further review by staff and the Planning
:Board . If the application is not referred to the
:Planning Board , the basic fee shall be paid without any
:further fees for site plan review .
Town Board Minutes 27 March 12 , 1990
5 . SEAR-Related Fees .
( a) In addition to the fees required as stated in the Fee
Schedule , the fees for review or preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement involving an application
for approval or funding of an action requiring
preparation or filing of a draft environmental impact
statement shall be determined by the lead agency for each
such application . The fees shall be based on the actual
cost to the Town for reviewing or preparing the draft and
final environmental impact statement , including the cost
of hiring consultants , the salary time of Town employees
and actual disbursements incurred as a result of the
review or preparation of such impact statement , but in no
event shall the fees be greater than that established in
6 NYCRR 617 . 17 . The Town Supervisor , Building Inspector ,
Planner , or Engineer may require , prior to the
commencement of the review or preparation of an
environmental impact statement , a deposit to be made with
the Town in an amount reasonably estimated to cover the
fees set forth in this section .
6 . Inspection Fees .
( a ) In addition to the fees provided for herein , where the
inspection of on or off-site improvements or development
is required , the applicant shall reimburse the Town for
the actual cost to the Town of all engineering , planning ,
highway inspection , legal , consulting , clerical and other
expenses incurred by the Town during the process of
inspection and review of the campletion of site
improvements and the fulfillment of any requirements of
any regulation or resolution pertaining to development
projects which have been granted Final Subdivision or
Site Plan Approval . The costs so incurred shall be
determined by the Town and billed to the applicant . The
basis for calculating such costs shall be the same as set
forth with reference to Review Fees .
(b) An escrow agreement providing for the deposit of the
amounts set forth in the Fee Schedule in the form
directed by the Town shall be executed by the applicant
and the deposit made in the amount set forth in the Fee
Schedule to cover the cost of inspections and compliance
review incurred .
( i ) after final approvals have been given ,
( ii ) in the course of building permit issuance ,
( iii ) during the course of construction of any
improvements including buildings , roads , and
other improvements , and
( iv) during the course of issuing any certificates
of compliance or occupancy .
(c ) .Along with any application for final approval of site
improvements and development construction plans where
such final approval of such plans is required , an
estimate of the cost of improvements shall be provided by
the applicant ' s Licensed Professional Engineer in similar
manner as the estimate is provided for the escrow for the
:review fees . This estimate shall be used along with the
Other items included in the application and in the prior
:review process in determining the amount of inspection
Town Board Minutes 28 March 12 , 1990
escrow . The developer shall make the required inspection
escrow deposit prior to any final approval of said site
improvement and development construction plans and prior
to the commencement of construction of any of such
improvements .
(d ) All of the provisions regarding escrow accounts for
Review Fees shall be applicable to the escrow accounts
for Inspection Fees including authority to the Town
Engineer to waive the requirement that the cost of
improvements be prepared by a Licensed Engineer , and to
increase or decrease the required escrow amount , the
definitions of costs of improvements , and the $ 200 . 00
minimum deposit .
(e ) The inspection fee shall in no case be less than $ 100 . 00 .
( f) The inspection fee may be included as a portion of a
letter of credit or performance guarantee , where
applicable .
(g) Where applicable or where required , no final acceptance
of proposed public improvements , and no final approval of
site construction or site improvements shall be made and
no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued until all
Inspection Fees have been paid or fully escrowed .
(h ) The Town shall return any balance of the deposit to the
applicant upon final acceptance of proposed public
improvements and/or final acceptance of subject. site
improvements together with an account of all expenses
charged to the escrow fund .
Section 1 . Partial Invalidity . In the event any portion of this
Ordinance is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction ,
the validity of the remaining portions shall not be affected by
such declGration of invalidity .
Section 4 . Effect on Pending Projects . Notwithstanding the
provisions. relating to effective date set forth below, the fees set
forth in this amending ordinance shall not apply for a period of
six month:*) to any project in the Town of Ithaca that has received
Preliminary Subdivision Approval or Preliminary Site Plan Approval
prior to the effective date of this amendment . If only a portion
of the project has received preliminary approval , the deferral of
fees pursuant to this section shall apply only to the portion that
has such approval . As to those projects to which this section
applies , the fees shall be payable in accordance with the
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and other regulations in effect
immediately prior to the effective date of this amendment .
Commencing six months from the effective date set forth below, the
fees set forth herein shall be applicable to all of the projects to
which this section applies . All other projects shall be subject to
the fees set forth herein commencing on the effective date of this
amendment .
Section 5 . Superceding Effect . To the extent permitted by law,
the fees set forth in this amendment shall supercede fees for
similar matters set forth in any other law , regulation or
resolution of the Town , including , without limitation , the fees set
forth in the Town ' s Subdivision Regulations . Wherever there is a
conflict between a fee stated elsewhere in any law, regulation , or
resolution adopted prior to the effective date of this amendment ,
the provisions of this amendment shall control .
Town Board Minutes 29 March 12 , 1990
Section 5 Effective Date . This Ordinance amending the Zoning
Ordinance shall take effect ten days after publication and posting
in accordance with Section 133 of the Town Law ,
Supervisor Raffensperger called for a roll call vote .
Councilman Klein Voting Aye
Councilman Liguori Voting Nay
Councilman Niklas Voting Aye
Councilman Whitcomb Voting Aye
Supervisor Raffensperger Voting Aye
Local Law No . 3 - 1990 was thereupon declared duly adopted .
PUBLIC HEi%RING TO CONSIDER AMENDING LOCAL LAW # 11P 19811r TO PROVIDE
FOR THE ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY AND
FOUNDATIO14 BUILDING PERMITS
Proof of :posting and publication of a notice of public hearing to
consider amending Local Law # 1 , 1981 , to provide for the issuance
of temporary certificates of occupancy and foundation building
permits having been presented by the Town Clerk , the Supervisor
opened the public hearing .
As no one present wished to speak , the Supervisor closed the public
hearing .
A motion to approve the amendment to the local law was made by
Councilman Whitccmb ; seconded by Supervisor Raffensperger ,
Councilman Niklas asked how this proposed local law benefitted the
Town? In a lot of ways , the way it is worded now he could see
where it could benefit the developer , inclement weather and
availability of supplies , etc . He asked again , how does this
benefit the Town?
Building Inspector/ Zoning Officer Frost responded , how does it do a
disfavor to the Town? If the Town represents the people , we serve
the people and without compromising safety or what the law would
otherwise permit . It is permitting a process to occur in stages or
phases .
Councilman Liguori remarked , what you are saying is , there is no
point in withholding this opportunity because the Town doesn ' t gain
anything by just enforcing a law to withhold the opportunity for a
temporary permit . What does the Town gain , they don ' t gain
anything .
Town Attorney Barney added , it provides a mechanism in a community
that is very seasonal . Seasonal in a couple of ways , obviously the
natural seasons have a tremendous impact on building in the Ithaca
area and there are occasions where to get a project into the ground
before the architect has had an opportunity to complete all the
plans to the point where a full building permit can be issued and
can make a very sizeable monetary difference to a builder because
if he doesn ' t get it into the ground by December he is not going to
get it into the ground until May . What is the benefit to the Town?
He thought the benefit to the Town was in just having that
flexibility to allow construction to proceed on the basis that it
is less costly than it might otherwise have to be if we were to
adhere to -the rigid rules . We are also seasonal in occupancy here ,
we have two very fine institutions the very nature of which
Town Board Minutes 30 March 12 , 1990
provides for seasonal occupancy and you get a situation where the
other end of the scheme where your construction is almost ccoplete
but not fully complete and you can occupy part of a building quite
safely but not all of it . You may be able to occupy 15 apartments
in a building when it is a 30 unit apartment house and occupy it by
August lot you are going to provide a fairly substantial service
and a degree of flexibility to citizens that you would otherwise be
precluded. from doing .
Councilman Niklas replied , that is very compelling provided there
are adequate safe guards that this isn ' t abused as a fast track to
premature development . He asked about the adequate safe guards .
Town Attorney Barney replied that he had drafted the law quite some
time ago but they did include scene standards in terms of when you
can issue either of these permits . We provided a possibility that
in either instance the Town Board could over turn the initial
decision if the Town Board was so inclined . He stated that he
hoped the Town hires capable people and evaluates those people and
then is prepared to let those people do a reasonable job and give
them scene discretion in some areas and this permits this to happen .
If you are afraid that the person would be arbitrary or bend over
too much for one side or the other , then he felt the approach might
better be to look at that person and see if the person is the right
person for the job rather than say you can ' t ever do these things
because we don ' t trust the individual to ever do that .
Councilman Niklas replied that he did not think anyone ever said
that . He felt the question here was whether it was fair to give ,
not the responsibility to a single person , but the burden should be
that responsibility and decision be challenged in scme litigation .
It ' s not to defuse responsibility it ' s to a certain extent defuse
copibility . What he has seen recently is a situation where
discretionary act was taken and could fall squarely in the lap of a
single individual . He felt this was unfair to the individual .
Checks and balances are useful , the committee decisions are useful ,
in having a Planning Board in whose judgement we trust as well , is
useful and that defusion of responsibility is helpful .
Town Attorney Barney remarked , in that case then you probably
should say that every building permit should be reviewed . It ' s
what the City has gone to and it ' s a lack of trust .
Supervisor Raffensperger remarked , there have been a series of
meetings concerning this and she felt there was no doubt that over
the series; of meetings we have added to the kinds of standards and
circumstances under which we thought this flexibility was
permissible to be given to our Building Inspector .
Councilman. Klein remarked that in prior discussion we have set
adequate standards for both the foundation permits and the
certificates of occupancy and he thought there were bound to be
times when the documents were not quite ready and the foundation
can proceed without any significant problem . The way it is set up
it ' s not going to lead to uncontrolled development it ' s just an
accommodation .
Mr . Frost remarked that the fees themselves would discourage abuse .
Using Correll Quarters as a prime example , there is a case where
the Building Inspector could have issued the certificate but
instead chose to bring it before the Board . It would have been
very costly if they had to have paid for all the temporary
certificates they have gotten .
Councilman Niklas replied that for the record he was not concerned
with his judgement but his objection to this has nothing to do with
Town Board Minutes 31 March 12 , 1990
the individual who is the personality behind the phrase "Building
Inspector " . This is a fundamental objection to putting
responsibility at this level of magnitude on a single individual
when we have this entity called the Town Planning Board ,
Town Attorney Barney remarked that right now there is authority to
grant temporary certificates of occupancy under less restrictive
standards . By adopting this you are actually beefing up the
standards under which temporary certificates of occupancy are
issued . You are of course creating a situation where foundation
permits can be legally issued although we have issued them in the
past and it is done with a fair amount of frequency across the
State .
At this point , Councilman Whitcomb who made the motion and
Supervisor Raffensperger who seconded the motion withdrew the
motion .
SEQR
RESOLUTION N0 , 60
Motion by Supervisor Raffensperger , seconded by Councilman Liguori ,
RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby declare
a negative determination of environmental significance .
(Raffensperger , Whitcomb , Klein and Liguori voting Aye . Nays -
Niklas ) .
A motion was then made by Supervisor Raffensperger , seconded by
Councilman Whitcomb to consider amending Local Law # 1 , 1981 to
provide for the issuance of temporary certificates of occupancy and
foundation building permits .
The Supervisor called for a roll call vote .
Councilman Klein Voting Aye
Councilman Liguori Voting Aye
Councilman Niklas Voting Nay
Councilman Whitcomb Voting Nay
Supervisor Raffensperger Voting Aye
The proposed amendment to Local Law # 1 , 1981 failed .
REVISED ROAD SPECIFICATIONS
Councilman Whitcomb remarked that at the last Public Works
Committee meeting he brought up a concern he had about on Section
B , number: 2 and 3 which deals with street widths and rights-of-
way . He went on to say that at the conference he attended in New
York City in February several of the Board members attended a
meeting ire which a gentleman spoke about the circumstances under
which narrower street widths and rights-of-way might be
appropriate . He asked if we still have the flexibility to require
narrow rights-of-way or narrower street widths given these
specifications as they are written now . Could the Planning Board
waive the 60 ' right-of-way under certain circumstances ? Mr . LeMaro
who was here tonight proposed what he felt was an affordable
subdivision before the Planning Board a couple of months ago and
one of the things he had proposed was a 40 ' right-of way which
would reduce the costs of the infrastructure , it would reduce the
amount of land that was being chewed up by roadways , etc . , in order
to keep the costs of the project down . He stated that he would
Town Board Minutes 32 March 12 , 1990
like to see something like that incorporated sooner or later in our
ordinances and he wondered if this in anyway precludes that ?
Town Attorney Barney replied , you can always amend this but he
stated that he had a little problem with anything less than 49 1 / 2
feet under State law which includes Town roads . We have
traditionally required 60 ' in our Subdivision Regulations . If we
were going to change that then he would need to review State law
and then changes would have to be made here , in the Subdivision
Regulations and anywhere else it appears .
Town Highway Superintendent Ozolins remarked that initially when
this all started last year , the first draft had different street
widths , parking , etc . , and one of the problems they ran into was
the reason why that went to this format and in order to do that we
would have to change the Subdivision Regulations and that is one of
the reasons we haven ' t and also why we only addressed one generic
street .
Councilman Whitcomb remarked that it was a good bet that the
Subdivision Regulations would be changed sometime during the next
year and a half .
Councilman Niklas remarked that the Zoning Board of Appeals had the
power to grant the acceptance of a road that doesn ' t meet these
specifications but still within the State law , it seemed to him
that affordable housing would be a compelling reason .
Town Highway Superintendent Ozolins felt there were enough waivers
in the doctiunent .
Councilman Whitcomb noted that there was a provision for wider
lanes and shoulders but not provision for narrower lanes and
shoulders .
Councilman. Niklas asked about a sentence which would balance a
minimum with some kind of statement that says if it is legal within
the laws of the State of New York an opportunity could be given for
consideration of specifications less than this under compelling
circumstances .
Councilman Klein remarked that it seemed to him it was somewhat the
right of the Planning Board .
Councilman Liguori suggested , 60 ' minimum except for preexisting
reserved right-of-ways and by special approval of the Planning
Board in site plan review.
Erik Whitney , Assistant Town Engineer suggested a variation in the
set back :requirement , you would accomplish the very same thing .
The right-c)f-way , in most cases , is part of the front lawn .
Councilman Whitcomb remarked , if we plan to address this at some
point in our planning process he would withdraw his objections at
the present time .
Town Attorney Barney remarked that he was a little hesitant that a
SEQR Review of this was not being done .
Supervisor Raffensperger asked the Town Attorney if he was saying
that action should be postponed on this until a SEQR was completed?
Town Attorney Barney replied that he wasn ' t going to jump up and
down but he felt a SEQR Review should be completed before the
specifications are adopted .
Town Board Minutes 33 March 12 , 1990
Highway Superintendent Ozolins suggested that if action on the
specifications was going to be postponed , then why not add the
changes proposed to the specifications . As far as the material
requirawnts , add a paragraph also , something on the culvert
specifications and on page 4 and 5 for the subgrade , subbase and
base that whoever does the inspection that it be recognized by scene
agency in New York State . Also , add a minimum of every 100 ' of
roadway .
Action on the Road Specifications was postponed until the April
meeting .
AUTHORIZE REPLACEMENT OF TRUCK # 9 AND # 10 AND APPROVE
SPECIFICATIONS FOR TRUCK # 9 AND # 10 REPLACEMENTS AND AUTHORIZE THE
SALE OF TRUCK # 9 AND # 10 AFTER REPLACEMENTS ARE DELIVERED
Highway Superintendent Ozolins stated that Truck # 9 is the
replacement for the Parks Department pick-up and Truck # 10 is the
replacem olt for the Highway Department pick-up . There is
sufficient money in the budget for the replacements . Truck # 9 is a
1978 Dodge and Truck # 10 is a 1980 Dodge and they are literally
rusting away .
Supervisor Raffensperger asked when the trucks would be delivered .
Highway l3uperi.ntendent Ozolins replied that under State bid
probably no earlier than 60 days for Truck # 9 and 90 to 120 days
for Truck # 10 .
RESOLUTION N0 , 61
Motion by Councilman Niklas ; seconded by Councilman Liguori ,
WHEREAS , Trucks # 9 and # 10 are 12 and 10 years old , both have over
80 , 000 miles on the odometer , and both have serious rust
deterioration , and
WHEREAS , repairs on both trucks are within a few hundred dollars of
the original purchase price , and any monies spent on further
repairs will not be recouped , and
WHEREAS , Truck # 10 was scheduled to be replaced last year , but was
not due to the brake down of Truck #5 and its subsequent
replacement , and
WHEREAS , utilizing State bid is an expenditious and cost effective
means for replacing the two vehicles ,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of
Ithaca hereby accept the specifications for the two trucks , and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board authorize the
replacement of Truck # 9 with a 1990 3 / 4 ton , 4 x 4 W250 Dodge from
Mid City Iodge , Buffalo for $ 14 , 787 and authorize the replacement
of Truck # 10 with a 1990 Chevrolet 3500 , one-ton dump from Action
Chevrolet , Albany for $ 14 , 657 , and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED , that the Highway Superintendent is
authorized to advertise for bids and sell the old Trucks #9 and # 10
once replacements arrive .
( Raffensperger , Whitcomb , Klein , Liguori and Niklas voting Aye .
Nays - none ) .
Town Board Minutes 34 March 12 , 1990
AGREEMENT TO EXPEND MONEY FOR PAVING
Councilman Klein asked , what was the difference between the cold
mix and a, hot mix? How do you determine quality?
Highway Superintendent Ozolins replied , a hot mix canes out of the
heated asphalt a cold mix is something that we will actually make
at the Town Barns . We mix the stone and the oil . The cold mix
doesn ' t have quite the strength that the hot mix does . But a cold
mix tend.; to be a little bit more plyable . Also , cost is another
factor as is speed because we don ' t have to wait in line to get the
hot mix . The only place where it hasn ' t held up is on Burns Road
but that is because of the road base . If you don ' t have a good
base neither hot mix or cold mix will last .
RESOLUTION N0 , 62
Motion by Councilman Whitcomb ; seconded by Councilman Niklas ,
RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby
authorize the execution of the Agreement for the Expenditure of
Highway Moneys .
( Raffensperger , Whitcomb , Klein , Liguori and Niklas voting Aye .
Nays - none ) .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
RESOLUTION N0 , 63
Motion by Supervisor Raffensperger , seconded by Councilman Liguori ,
RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approve
the December 11 , 1989 , December 29 , 1989 and January 8 , 1990
minutes as presented by the Town Clerk .
(Raffensperger , Whitcomb , Klein and Liguori voting Aye . Nays -
none . Abstaining - Niklas ) .
SIGNING Of' BOLTON POINT COMPUTER AGREEMENT WITH DATA GENERAL
Supervisor Raffensperger stated that this was necessary in order
include the provision of the tax exempt number and so we! are doing
this as an agent for the Commission for their lease and purchase of
the computer system .
Councilman Liguori stated that he did not understand why the
Commission could not sign the agreement .
Supervisor Raffensperger replied because there is a question as to
whether or not they can be defined under the code as a tax exempt
institution .
Town Attorney Barney remarked that this was a very wierd creature .
It is a creature of an intermunicipal arrangement and its legal
status ha.c; always been a little bit fuzzy so over the years when
there has been anything in the matter of title it has always been
done by one of the municipalities for the benefit of the Commission
or all of the municipalities collectively for the Commission .
RESOLUTION NO . 64
Motion by Supervisor Raffensperger ; seconded by Councilman
Whitcomb ,
Town Board Minutes 35 March 12 , 1990
WHEREAS , the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission
which acts for the Town of Ithaca in certain matters relating to
the distribution of water and billing for water and sewer usage
needs to obtain a computer , and
WHEREAS , a proposed agreement has been prepared between Data
General Corporation and the Town of Ithaca on behalf of the
Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission pursuant to
which a computer and certain software is being provided to the
Commission to enable it to perform services for the Town of Ithaca
and other municipalities , and
WHEREAS , the Commission which was created by an intermunicipal
agreement between certain municipalities in the Town of Ithaca may
not have authority on its own motion to execute the proposed lease
purchase agreement with Data General Corporation , and
WHEREAS , the Commission has asked that the Town of Ithaca execute
such agreement on behalf of the Commission so that the computer
services will be available for use by all of the municipalities
that are participants in the Commission ,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca enter into a
lease purchase agreement with Data General Corporation for the
leasing of certain computer equipment as more particularly
identified in such agreement for a purchase price of $ 35 , 855 . 40
payable as a lease installment over forty-six months in monthly
installments of $ 776 . 27 with the option to purchase the equipment
at the end of the lease term at no additional cost ,
AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town Supervisor be and she
hereby is authorized to execute such agreement with such
modifications in same as the Town Supervisor , with the advice of
the Attorney for the Town , may deem appropriate or necessary in
order to effectuate the intent of this resolution .
( Raffensperger , Whitcomb , Klein , Liguori and Niklas voting Aye .
Nays - none ) ,
LICENSE AGREE ENT FOR ENCROACHMENT AT 340 FOREST HOME DRIVE
Town Attorney John Barney stated that we have a situation where the
residents at 340 Forest Home Drive have a building which encroaches
slightly on the highway right-of-way line . In the past when a
title question has been raised by the people who sell it the Town
has granted a revocable license to allow the encroachment to remain
there subject to the Town at any time demanding that it be removed .
That is what we are requesting here .
RESOLUTION NO , 65
Motion by Councilman Whitcomb ; seconded by Councilman Liguori ,
RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby
authorize the execution of a license agreement for the encroachment
at 340 Forest Home Drive , subject to the Town having the privilege
of , at any time , having it removed .
(Raffensperger , Whitcomb , Klein , Liguori and Niklas voting Aye .
Nays - none ) ,
PROPOSED AGREEMENT AND SCOPE OF WORK FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
CONSULTANT
Town Board Minutes 36 March 12 , 1990
Supervisor Raffensperger noted that the Board had a copy of the
Planning Boards resolution recommending this and from the
Comprehensive Planning Committee ,
RESOLUTIO14 NO , 66
Motion by Councilman Klein ; seconded by Councilman Niklas ,
WHEREAS , the Ccuprehensive Planning Committee on March 2 and the
Planning Board on March 6 , 1990 have reviewed the proposed
Agreement and Scope of Services of Stuart I . Brown , Associates and
have recommended to the Town Board that such proposed Agreement and
Scope of Services be approved ,
NOW Tf=FORE IT IS RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of
Ithaca approve and hereby does approve the proposed Agreement and
Scope of Services with Stuart I . Brown , Associates , subject to
final approval by the Town Supervisor , Town Planner and Town
Attorney , with the total fee for comprehensive planning services
between March 13 and December 31 , 1990 not to exceed $ 36 ,, 000 , and
with the total fee for services from January 1 , 1991 to March 12 ,
1991 as subject to public hearings on the proposed 1991 budget not
to exceed $ 10 , 000 .
( Raffensperger , Whitcomb , Klein , Liguori and Niklas voting Aye .
Nays - none ) ,
HOURLY RATES APPLICABLE TO DEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPLICATION REVIEW
AND INSPECTION
Supervisor Raffensperger remarked that the Town Attorney felt the
Board should approve this separately .
RESOLUTION N0 , 67
Motion by Councilman Niklas ; seconded by Supervisor Raffensperger ,
RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approve
the hourly rate schedule applicable to development project
application review and inspection for secretarial , engineering ,
planning , highway and attorney for the Town .
(Raffensperger , Whitcomb , Klein , Liguori and Niklas voting Aye .
Nays - none ) .
DISCUSSION OF LIGHTING POLICY
Supervisor Raffensperger stated that we have had in the Town Hall
for sometime a petition from the residents of Danby Road ,
primarily , asking that lighting be provided as a matter of safety
mostly along Route 96B between NCR and Coddington Road , we have
been trying to get from NYSEG the cost of that . Past Supervisor
Desch responded to this last year and explained to the petitioners
that normally the Town of Ithaca sets up a lighting district for
which the adjacent landowners are eventually assessed the cost of
the light's . That has been the stance the Town has taken in all of
the correspondence with the people who live on the Danby Road .
However , on February 23rd we received a letter from NYSEG which
gave us an estimate for Route 96B of $ 6 , 701 a year for the cost but
also said. this road , being major road , would allow the Town to
build these lights under the Town at-large district . ` She stated
that she had checked and the only at-large districts that we
Presently have are the intersection lights which are part of our
lighting policy and the lights on Route 13 . All of the rest of
Town Board Minutes 37 March 12 , 1990
them are individual districts and so she was looking for a
discussion of policy . One of the troubles is that the State of New
York will not permit us to put up just one light , they say we have
to have three . She stated that she was concerned with the cost and
would be a substantial increase .
Councilman Niklas asked what the reasons were for requesting the
lighting?
Supervisor Raffensperger stated that the petition noted that there
are deer crossings there a lot and this particular person almost
hit a deer or did hit a deer and there have been at least five deer
killed each year in that area . There was discussion as to how the
darkness of the road was leading to that problem and also the
safety of pedestrians and Ithaca College students walking along the
road . Several dogs have been killed and also , several_ residents
felt it would deter mail box bashers and other vandals . The
general consensus was that at least one light should be installed
and a number of residents would like to see more lights . There are
ten different households on the petition .
It was noted that neither Ithaca College nor NCR had requested the
installation .
Supervisor Raffensperger remarked that we could contact Ithaca
College and NCR to see if they would be willing to participate in a
lighting district along with the residents .
Councilman Niklas remarked that as someone who lives on 96B and had
to deal with deer , dogs , cats and other wild animals he was not
convinced that lighting will prohibit that at all . There is a
light in front of Cayuga Vista and that happens to be one of the
major crossings for deer in the area , in fact , they seem to like
the light „ He felt terrain had more to do with it than lighting .
Supervisor Raffensperger noted that her correspondence from NYSEG
notes the need for 32 lights and seven additional poles and felt
this was a lot of money and lights at $ 6 , 701 per year . The
Supervisor stated that she would pursue this further and report
back to the Board . She went on to say that the other problem on
lighting was the possibility of the removal of lighting on Route
13 .
Assistant Town Engineer Erik Whitney stated that the City has
removed all of their lights along State Route 13 in the vicinity of
the off ramp , they have kept the lights on the off ramp . One by
one as the street lights got hit by vehicles the City did not
require the owners of the vehicles and their insurance companies to
cover the cost of replacement and the lighting got sparse and the
State did not want it there anymore if it was to remain sparse so
they took the remaining lights down . NYSEG gave us a price for the
removal of the lamp . We would need to have the concrete base and
poles removed . He stated that he was waiting for a price to remove
them .
Supervisor Raffensperger stated that according to NYSEG it would
cost the Town $ 4 , 780 to remove the lights but that does not include
the cost of removing the posts . She stated that it would save the
Town about: $ 4 , 900 a year for the annual lighting charges „
REFUND FOR WATER MAIN ALONG COY GLEN ROAD (HACKBERRY)
Assistant Town Engineer Whitney noted that the Town Board had
passed a resolution on August 7 , 1989 agreeing that if the
developer installed a water main of a size that the Town could use
Town Board. Minutes 38 March 12 , 1990
from Five Mile Drive along Coy Glen Road that the Town would pay
for half of it up to $ 7 , 400 . He has now done such .
RESOLUTION N0 , 68
Motion by Supervisor Raffensperger ; seconded by Councilman Niklas ,
WHEREAS , 9"HE Town Board of the Town of Ithaca approved resolution
# 203 on August 7 , 1989 , agreeing to pay for half the cost. up to but
not exceeding $ 7 , 400 of a 12 " diameter watermain from the
intersection of Coy Glen Road and Five Mile Drive , 275 . 1 feet +/-
along Coy Glen Road to the intersection of Hackberry Lane , and
WHEREAS , the developer , Coy Glen Associates has completed the work
to Town standards as agreed ,
NOW THERF)?ORE BE IT RESOLVED , by the Town Board of the Town of
Ithaca that the Town make payment to the developer in the amount of
$ 7 , 400 .
( Raffensperger , Whitcomb , Klein , Liguori and Niklas voting Aye .
Nays - none ) .
APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT
Linda Nobles , Assistant Budget Officer noted that this was a bill
from Pickard and Anderson that was received late . The bill was
actually paid but no proper budget adjustment was made .
RESOLUTION N0 , 69
Motion by Councilman Liguori , seconded by Councilman Niklas ,
RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approve
the following year-end budget transfer :
Sewer Fund
From : The
G599 $ 6 , 653 . 35 G8120 . 4 $ 6 , 653 . 35
( Raffenspe:rger , Whitcomb , Klein , Liguori and Niklas voting Aye .
Nays - none ) .
PLANNING WORK STUDY INTERN
Town Planner Beeners remarked that this is to give us some
assistance in ccopleting Stream Corridor Mapping and working on the
index for the Open Space Natural Resource Inventory and is for a
short period of time . The net cost to the Town is $ 351 .
RESOLUTION NO . 70
Motion by Councilman Liguori ; seconded by Councilman Whitcomb ,
RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca approve and
hereby does approve the hiring of a work study eligible
undergraduate student for assistance to the Planning Department in
mapping projects , for a total of 135 hours at $ 6 . 50 /hour for the
period between March 13 and May 15 , to be paid out of Planning
Personal :services Account B8020 . 100 .
Town Board Minutes 39 March 12 , 1990
( Raffensperger , Whitcomb , Klein , Liguori and Niklas voting Aye .
Nays - none ) .
FINGER LAKES BUILDING OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION ANNUAL EDUCATION
CONFERENCE
RESOLUTIO14 N0 , 71
Motion by Councilman Niklas ; seconded by Councilman Klein ,
RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby
authorize Andrew Frost , Building Inspector/ Zoning Officer to attend
the Finger Lakes Building Officials Association Educational
Conference , April 2 , 3 , 4 , 1990 , in Rochester , New York .
(Raffensperger , Whitcomb , Klein , Liguori and Niklas voting Aye .
Nays - none) ,
PREPARATION OF BUDGET AND BUDGET ASSISTANCE REQUEST FOR
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
RESOLUTIO14 NO , 72
Motion by Councilman Klein ; seconded by Councilman Niklas ,
RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby
authorizes the Town Planner to prepare a budget and to apply for
budget assistance from the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation for the work program and proposed budget
of the Conservation Advisory Council .
(Raffensperger , Whitcomb , Klein , Liguori and Niklas voting Aye .
Nays - none ) .
MAX ' S DR-VIE
Supervisor Raffensperger noted an additional item to the agenda ,
that of Max ' s Drive .
Town Attorney Barney noted that several months ago the Town Board
approved the acceptance of a portion of Woodgate Lane and about 60 '
of Max ' s Drive . A request has come in from Mr . Wallenbeck to
obtain a building permit to construct a house just south of the 60 '
turn around . At the present time , Max ' s Drive does not go that far
so before we can issue a building permit he would either have to go
to the Zoning Board of Appeals and get a variance or we have to
accept the road and make provisions for the road to be completed .
In view of the fact that the road has had a subbase installed and
we have an application for further subdivision to the east of the
existing subdivision it seemed appropriate to accept the road and
allow Mr . Wallenbeck to get going with his construction this year .
Councilman Whitcomb asked , what stage of construction was the road
in at this moment ?
Highway Superintendent Ozolins replied , the subbase is in and in
fact where the turn around is he has put a lot of material in
there . There was an extremely wet area and he has put about two
feet of big size rock , stabilization and about eighteen inches of
gravel on top . He still has put the base on and surface treatment
along with some ditching , however , until all is done it is a
conditional acceptance .
Town Board Minutes 40 March 12 , 1990
RESOLUTION N0 , 73
Motion by Councilman Niklas ; seconded by Councilman Whitcomb ,
RESOLVED , that the Town Accept approximately 282 feet plus sixty
foot turn--around of Max ' s Drive as shown on a map entitled "Part of
Lands of Robert Drake - off Woodgate Lane - Town of Ithaca -
Tompkins County - New York " dated March 14 , 1986 subject to the
following ::
a . Approval of the construction of such road by the Town
Highway Superintendent and Town Engineer .
b . Approval of the title and deed to such road by the
Attorney for the Town .
c . If the road is not yet constructed , posting of a bond ,
cash or letter of credit in an amount determined by the
Town Engineer and Town Highway Superintendent to be
sufficient to complete construction , in a form approved
by the Attorney for the Town , before the issuance of any
building permits for construction on any of the lots .
( Raffensperger , Whitcomb , Klein , Liguori and Niklas voting Aye .
Nays - none ) .
TOWN OF ITHACA WARRANTS
RESOLUTION N0 , 74
Motion by Councilman Whitcomb , seconded by Councilman Liguori ,
RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves
the Town of Ithaca Warrants dated March 12 , 1990 , in the following
amounts :
General Fund - Town Wide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 44 , 808 . 80
General Fund - Outside Village . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 43 , 902 . 43
Highway Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 63 , 965 . 37
Water & Sewer Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 350 , 414 . 82
Fire Protection Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 475 , 999 . 00
Lighting District Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 555 . 08
(Raffensperger , Whitcomb , Klein , Liguori and Niklas voting Aye .
Nays - none ) .
BOLTON POINT WARRANTS
RESOLUTION NO . 75
Motion by Supervisor Raffensperger , seconded by Councilman Niklas ,
RESOLVED , that the Bolton Point Warrants dated March 12 , 1990 , in
the Operating Account are hereby approved in the amount of
$ 182 , 813 . 19 after review and upon the recommendation of the
Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission , they are in
order for payment
( Raffensp=_rger , Whitcomb , Klein , Liguori and Niklas voting Aye .
Nays - none ) .
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Town Board Minutes 41 March 12 , 1990
RESOLUTIO14 NO . 76
Motion by Supervisor Raffensperger ; seconded by Councilmen Niklas ,
RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby moves
into Executive Session to discuss legal implications of issuing
building permits in view of the Cayuga Heights litigation and also
to discuss possible litigation regarding the Zoning Ordinance and
its occupancy regulations .
(Raffensperger , Whitcomb , Klein , Liguori and Niklas voting Aye .
Nays - none ) .
OPEN SESSION
RESOLUTION N0 , 77
Motion by Councilman Whitcomb ; seconded by Councilman Niklas ,
RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby moves '
back into Open Session .
( Raffensperger , Whitcomb , Klein , Liguori and Niklas voting Aye .
Nays - none ) .
SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING LOCAL LAW # 1 ,
1981 , TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY CERTIFICATES OF
OCCUPANCY
RESOLUTION NO . 78
Motion by Councilman Whitcomb , seconded by Councilman Niklas ,
RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will meet and
conduct a public hearing at 7 : 30 P . M . , on April 9 , 1990 to consider
amending :Local Law # 1 , 1981 , to provide for the issuance of
temporary certificates of occupancy .
(Raffensperger , Whitcomb , Klein , Liguori and Niklas voting Aye .
Nays - none) .
SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING LOCAL LAW # 1 ,
1981 , TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF FOUNDATION PERMITS
RESOLUTION N0 , 79
Motion by Supervisor Raffensperger ; seconded by Councilman Liguori ,
RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will meet and
conduct a public hearing at 7 : 45 P .M . , on April 9 , 1990 to consider
amending Local Law # 1 , 1981 , to provide for the issuance of
foundation permits .
( Raffenspe:rger , Whitcomb , Klein , Liguori and Niklas voting Aye .
Nays - none ) .
ADJOURNME r
The meeting was duly adjourned .
Town Board Minutes 42 March 12 , 1990
Town Clerk