HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2014-06-09¢! Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board
Monday, June 9, 2014 at 5:30 p.m.
215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850
Agenda
Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
2. Report of Tompkins County Legislature
3. Report of Ithaca Common Council
4. Persons to be Heard and Board comments
5. 5:30 p.m. Public Hearing on a Proposed Local Law 12 of 2014 Amending the Town
of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270 Entitled "Zoning", to Eliminate Site Plan Requirements
for Rooftop and Building -Mounted Solar Collectors
a. SEQR
b. Consider adoption
6. Discuss Chainworks request for a Planned Development Zone for the Emerson site
and consider referral to the Planning Committee
7. Consider setting a public hearing regarding a Local Law 13 of 2014 to Override the
Tax Levy Limit Established in General Municipal Law §3-C
8. Consider setting a public hearing regarding a noise permit for the annual St. Catherine
of Sienna Parish Festival
9. Discuss and consider Planning Committee recommendation regarding the Troy Road
development and consider whether the Planned Development Zone process should
continue
10. Discuss and consider authorization to apply for funding through Office of Parks,
Recreation, and Historic Preservation for development of the Town park on East King
Road
11. Order Setting a Public Hearing Regarding a Proposed Water Improvement for the
Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, in connection with other Members of
the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission, pursuant to Article 12-
C of the Town Law, to be known as the NYS Route 13 Water Main Crossing Water
Improvement, and establishing the Town of Ithaca NYS Route 13 Water Main
Crossing Water Improvement Area
12. Discuss and consider resolution to accept and adopt the Tompkins County Multi -
jurisdictional All -Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
13. Discuss and consider approval of Medicare Supplement Plan
14. Consider authorization to award Winner's Circle Roadway Reconstruction Contract
15. Consider authorization to award Coddington Road Watermain Contract
16. Consider authorization to award Christopher Circle Tank Project contract
17. Discuss and consider approval of possible change order for the extension of
paving/shoulder treatment on Caldwell Road Forest Home Drive Bridge
Reconstruction Project
18. Discuss and consider approval of a partial refund of PILOT payment for tax year
2014 for TP # 62.-2-1.124
19. Discuss and consider approval of the 2015 AOC (PEGASUS) Budget
20. Consider authorization to increase the Open Space Reserve Fund
21. Report of Committees
22. Report of Town Officials and Review of Correspondence
23. Consider Consent Agenda Items
a. Approval of Town Board Minutes
b. Town of Ithaca Abstract 1
c. Town of Ithaca Abstract 2
d. Bolton Point Abstract
24. Consider Adjournment
MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
F Monday, June 9, 2014 at 5:30 p.m.
1.,
MINUTES
Board Members Present: Herb Engman, Supervisor; Bill Goodman, Deputy Town Supervisor;
Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Rich DePaolo, and Rod Howe Absent: Tee -Ann Hunter
Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning, Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement;
Mike Solvig, Director of Finance, Judy Drake, Director of Human Resources; Paulette
Terwilliger, Town Clerk; and Jim Weber, Highway Superintendent
Agenda Item 1 Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item 2 Report of Tompkins County Legislature
Peter Stein gave an update on the County's budget process noting that this is the first year since
he has been a legislator that they have decided to stay within the 2% cap. Mr. Stein also noted
that the expansion to the jail has been a hot topic and brought more people out to meetings than
he can recall for any other topic. He stated that in his mind, it is not about how many people we
incarcerate, which he thinks is too high across the United States and that issue should be
addressed, but rather the savings the County will realize if it can cut down on having to board out
inmates. He added that it is also a small benefit to the inmates since most would be closer to
their families if able to stay in Tompkins County rather than being boarded out.
Agenda Item 3 Report of Ithaca Common Council — None
Agenda Item 4 Persons to be Heard and Board comments
Ms. Laura Johnson -Kelly, President of Lakeview Cemetery Corporation
Ms. Johnson -Kelly thanked the town for their support of the cemetery reorganization and gave a
brief overview of the situation stating that the cemetery is over $100,000 in debt both to the State
and utility and materials vendors. She went on to say that under NYS law the cemetery is
allowed to ask for help from a municipality and they are asking the town for help with mowing
for this year while they attempt to reorganize. She noted that people use the cemetery almost as
a park for running, jogging, relaxing etc. and it is a beautiful cemetery but they desperately need
help. Ms. Johnson -Kelly stated that there have been a number of resignations from the cemetery
board of directors because it is overwhelming and most are retired people who have found
themselves working 40-60 hours a week trying to help.
Mr. Engman asked Mr. Weber if he could send out a request for quotes and turned to the board
stating that the question is whether or not to move forward with that noting that if the board is
going to have to take over the cemetery if it fails we would have to mow at some point and this
might give the cemetery the time to focus on fundraising. The Board agreed that Mr. Weber
should move forward with the request for quotes.
TB 6-9-2014 pg 1
Cindy Bowman, Forest Home Improvement Association — Ms. Bowman read Mr. Brittain's
email and the Association's support for the change order extending the rehabilitation project 55
feet at Caldwell Rd. (Attachment #1)
Troy Rd Development
Ali Brooks presented a petition with 138 signatures to the Board regarding the proposed high -
density rental development on Troy Rd. She stated that with the number of signatures, it is
obvious that it is not just the adjacent landowners that are concerned about his development;
three are signatures from all the area streets' residents. She read a few of the comments listed.
(Attachment #2)
Jim Semp, 302 E King Rd — Mr. Semp thanked the board for their time and attention and stated
that a group of adjacent homeowners to the proposed Troy Rd development are submitting a
formal petition to the board. (Attachment #3) He read the petition which referred to Town Law
Section 265 which would require a 3/41h majority to allow the zoning change.
Board Comments
Mr. Engman thanked the Public Works Department for preparing the Forest Home Park for the
planting of trees this past weekend. He reported that about 12 residents gathered for a work
project and we were able to plant 37 bushes because the PW workers had left topsoil and mulch
dug the holes with a post hole digger for us and the volunteers were very thankful and it
engenders a lot of good will and gratitude toward the town and department.
Agenda Item 5 5:30 p.m. Public Hearing on a Proposed Local Law 12 of 2014
Amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270 Entitled "Zoning", to Eliminate Site Plan
Requirements for Rooftop and Building -Mounted Solar Collectors (Attachment #4 -SEQR)
Mr. Engman opened the public at 6:07 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the board on
this topic and the hearing was closed.
TB Resolution No. 2014 — 098: SEQR Proposed Local Law amending Chapter 270 of the
Town of Ithaca Code, entitled "Zoning" to Eliminate Site Plan Requirements for Rooftop
and Building -Mounted Solar Collectors
Whereas, this action is the enactment of Local Law 12 of 2014 amending Chapter 270 of the
Town of Ithaca Code, entitled "Zoning" to eliminate Site Plan requirements for rooftop and
building -mounted Solar Collectors; and
Whereas, this is an Unlisted Action for which the Town Board is acting as Lead Agency in an
environmental review with respect to the enactment of this proposed local law; and
Whereas, the Town Board, at their regular meeting held on June 9, 2014, has reviewed and
accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), Parts 1, 2 and 3 for this
action; now, therefore, be it
TB 6-9-2014 pg 2
Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation
Law, 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review, and Chapter 148
Environmental Quality Review of the Town of Ithaca Code for the above -referenced action as
proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF
Parts 2 and 3, and therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Rod Howe
Vote: Ayes — Goodman, Howe, Leary, Levine, Engman and DePaolo
Absent — Hunter
Mr. Goodman reported this went through the Codes and Ordinances Committee and Ms.
Hoffmann was not in favor of the change because she felt it took some powers away from the
Planning Board and he had assured her he would express her concern to the Board. Mr. DePaolo
suggested changing the word "loosening" to the word "modifying"; friendly amendment agreed
to.
TB Resolution No. 2014-099: Adopt Local Law 12 of 2014 Amending the Town of Ithaca
Code, Chapter 270 entitled "Zoning", to Eliminate Site Plan Requirements for Rooftop and
Building -Mounted Solar Collectors
Whereas, the special regulation of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Law relating to Solar Collectors
was first adopted in 2006 to permit the installation of solar panels (called "solar collectors" in the
law) in all zoning districts of the Town; and
Whereas, the Town Board is interested in encouraging the installation of more solar panels in the
Town as part of its efforts to encourage alternative energy use and reduce the production of
greenhouse gas emissions; and
Whereas, the Town's Codes and Ordinances Committee has discussed modifying some
requirements in the Zoning Law to make it easier for property owners in the Town to install
more solar panels; and
Whereas, at its April 9, 2014 meeting the Codes and Ordinances Committee voted to recommend
that the Town Board amend the Zoning Law to allow the installation of rooftop and building -
mounted solar collectors on buildings that are part of a site plan review, without requiring that
the building owner obtain site plan approval (or modification of an existing site plan) from the
Town Planning Board for the solar collectors; and
Whereas, a properly publicized public hearing was held on June 9, 2014 and all parties in
attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said local law,
or any part thereof; and
Whereas, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and
its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, it has been determined by the Town Board
that adoption of this local law is an Unlisted Action for which the Town Board, acting as lead
TB 6-9-2014 pg 3
agency in an environmental review with respect to the adoption of this local law, made a
negative determination of environmental significance on June 9, 2014, after having reviewed and
accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Parts 1, 2 and 3 prepared by the
Town's Planning staff; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby adopt Local Law 12 of 2014
amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270 entitled "Zoning", to eliminate Site Plan
Requirements for Rooftop and Building -Mounted Solar Collectors, and it is further
Resolved, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file said local law with the
Secretary of State as required by law.
Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Rod Howe
Vote: Ayes — Goodman, Howe, Leary, Levine, Engman and DePaolo
Absent — Hunter
Agenda Item 9 moved forward
Discuss and consider Planning Committee recommendation regarding the Troy Road
development and consider whether the Planned Development Zone process should continue
Mr. DePaolo gave an overview of the discussions from the Planning Committee. Mr. DePaolo
reported that the project team has been in several times and provided the committee with a lot of
information; a market study, a preliminary traffic study, and some draft PDZ language. The
committee also heard from residents and had subsequent discussions with the development team
and the committee was informed that residents were preparing protest petitions and based on that
and the need for a possibly 3/4 vote required to move a zoning change forward, the committee felt
it should come to the whole town board.
Mr. DePaolo noted that 2 of the 3 members of the committee indicated they would like to
explore the concept further and consider additional PDZ language and he noted that he was not
one of those 2. He stated that he didn't know whether the board wanted to get into detail on
rationales, but he feels the developer has been candid with the town and the information has been
ample and forthcoming but he doesn't feel that on sound planning principle we can justify
prioritizing the Smart Growth concepts that we are espousing in our draft Comp Plan and at the
same time justify putting this development where it is currently being proposed. Mr. DePaolo
stated that he does not have a problem with the development per se, he thought that there are
areas in the Town that have been identified as high -density growth areas and a development of
this type would be better suited in those areas. He does not think it is in the right place and that
on balance that is the most important thing to him and why he did not support an affirmative
recommendation to the Board.
Nonetheless, as the Planning Committee only constitutes 3 members of the Board and the Board
may feel otherwise, the Committee thought it was a good idea to bring it back to the full Board
for discussion.
TB 6-9-2014 pg 4
Ms. Ritter noted that there is a cover memo from her and the developer is here if there are any
questions about the project. She stated that the question is whether the Town Board wants the
Planning Committee to continue working on a PDZ or not.
Mr. Goodman stated that he thinks it is worth pursuing further because we don't have any
language in front of us and there would be room for negotiations. His main question is about
process and if a majority of the board decides it is worthwhile to go forward in looking at a PDZ
should that be continued through the Planning Committee given Mr. DePaolo's views on the
project or should an ad hoc committee be formed. Mr. DePaolo responded that he doesn't feel
that his participation should be nullified based on his preliminary opinion about the project.
Having said that, he went on to say that the reason he suggested that the project team come here
and we discuss this as a Board is that there is a substantial issue at play here which is that the
Section 265 protest letter requires 6 affirmative votes to change the zoning on this parcel and so
although he is not here to count heads, he leaves it up to the project team to do the math and
figure out how far down this road they are willing to go; how much money and time they would
like to spend to ultimately arrive at a place where the decision they are after might not be
forthcoming. He stated that he is trying to be honest with people and allow the project team to
evaluate the situation based on the reality not based on wishful thinking.
Mr. Levine spoke, stating that he agreed with Mr. DePaolo, saying that there are a lot of things
he likes about this project; he likes the developer, he likes the people that put it together, but the
location is no one of the things he likes and that is what trumps it for him. This is a low density
area of Town. The Town offers a lot of different areas; there are people who like to live in
higher density, medium density, but a lot of homeowners, dozens of them, chose to purchase
homes in a low density are of this character and he did not feel that it is fair to impose a high -
density area, particularly one that is going to be 100% rental units, in this area. While he does
feel there is a place for this in the Town and this is a very responsible developer who he would
like to see develop in the Town, he cannot support it in this particular location. He is opposed
and he has heard Ms. Hunter express concerns also so given that and the protest letter, the
developer and the Board can do the math and decide whether to continue or not.
Mr. Engman interjected with what he felt was a little more background noting that this this
parcel gave the Comprehensive Planning Committee a lot angst because they didn't know what
to do with it; leave it the way it is or change it. Similarly, the Town Board had the same problem
when they looked at the land use maps but we all agree that at some point this parcel will get
developed so the question becomes, in what way. The proposal on the board right now is 166
units and if it is developed under current zoning, it will have 154 units possible. Mr. Engman
didn't think there was a lot of difference between the two except that under current zoning, most
of the site would get developed whereas under the proposal, it is all concentrated in one area and
only a few parcels would have new neighbors so he is confused on the impact on the neighbors.
He went on to say that traffic is an issue but that would increase either way and the type of
development many times determines the traffic and single family homes scattered throughout the
site would most likely engender more traffic than you would with rental units because you have
bigger families with more activities etc. He agreed that this is not an ideal site but we don't have
any ideal sites; people say the same thing on West hill.... It's a great project but not here... so
where do you put it? We are going to need housing in the Town of Ithaca and that housing will
TB 6-9-2014 pg 5
either take place in the other places in the town or outside of the town and we will still get all the
traffic coming through the Town to get to the jobs, but none of the control. Our goal has been to
get development as compact as possible and as near to the City or development centers as
possible and we have one here at King Rd and people may not have to go all the way through the
center of Ithaca to get to all services. He was perplexed that letting it happen under current
zoning is somehow better than this proposal and he also doesn't think that the Town Board can
make decisions based on suppositions and we can provide a feeling of the Board to the
developers and they will have to decide whether they want to move forward if the petition shows
that the 20% has been reached. Mr. Engman felt that there were a lot of ifs, ands, and buts and
the question is whether this Board wants to continue working on it or say it is probably not
worthwhile.
Ms. Leary stated that it sounds like the only way any developer can get any housing up in the
Town of Ithaca is to purchase parcels around land they are interested in developing so the
neighbors can't automatically stop every proposal that comes in. She stated that we have seen
this before; we have seen adjacent landowners come in and require the Board to have a near
unanimous vote to approve a development and that happens again and again and again. No
matter where it is in the Town we have NIMBY resistance because people have housing, they're
fine, they don't want anyone else to have housing. She went on to say that we have a desperate
need for housing in the Town, especially rental units and as a life-long renter who has lived in
the same apartment for 35 years, she stated that rental units are not the same as student housing.
She stated that she knows lots of people in her building and everywhere else in Cayuga Heights
and Cornell Heights and they are not students, they are long-term residents who rent. Some
people can't afford to buy their own house and they are paying exorbitant rent because there is
not enough supply in this town. If people on the Board and residents use the traffic increase as
the eternal fall back against development, but that is what you get in a growing and prosperous
community and we should be glad we have traffic problems and that we are not dying like other
areas upstate.
Ms. Leary asked if we really need a near -majority or if there was any other recourse the
developer could take noting that they have already cut the number of units and changed the
requirements so it would discourage students from getting these apartments and designed it with
no more than 2 bedrooms so you don't have party central with 4-6 students in one unit. She felt
the developer has done everything he can to meet the objections of the neighbors but they still
don't want it because they still keep thinking it is just going to be students so the rest of the
residents have to suffer because of the selfishness of people who already own their own homes.
She asked if there was anything else the developer could do. Mr. Engman responded that we
don't know and he suspects the developer knows those laws better than we do and it is not our
job as a government to figure that out.
Mr. Howe weighed in as another member of the Planning Committee who was supportive of at
least looking at the PDZ language noting that it doesn't mean we are approving the project, and
we all agree there will be mitigations that will need to happen but he was supportive of trying to
craft some PDZ language. He asked if we should move forward though if there is not going to
be enough support from the Board. Mr. Engman responded again that he did not think that we a
can make decisions based on supposition and we have to get to a point where we actually know
TB 6-9-2014 pg 6
that and we don't at the moment. He added that Ms. Leary triggered another thing in his mind
and that is that one of the things he thought was very positive in this proposal is having an on -
site manger. One of the reasons we have such problems with students on Pennsylvania Ave and
Kendall Ave is there is no on -site manager there but if there are lots for sale on this parcel and
anyone can buy them, there is nothing from preventing the construction of more of those ugly
little houses like the ones on Pennsylvania and Kendall Aves to put students into so the residents
may get that which they are trying to avoid by maintaining the status quo.
Mr. Levine responded to Ms. Leary's comments saying that he did not think that these
homeowners are selfish and he didn't think that was a fair way to characterize this. He
understands that the Town could use some rental properties in places but even the impact
statement for our new Comprehensive Plan requires us to look at the impact of where it is being
placed and he does not believe that she is interested in looking at the impacts and that her
analysis applies to every area in the Town when right here we have a low density area and where
as Mr. Engman said, you could build a similar number of units under the current zoning, you can
on paper, but in practical terms you really can't because of the topography and the layout of the
land and he did not believe you could do it. He thought that the way that it could happen would
be consistent with other houses in this area and this property will be developed but in a way that
is consistent with the neighborhood and he thinks that is the way it should be.
Ms. Leary asked a process question; asking if the Board needed 6 votes to continue the process
and Mr. Engman responded that what he thinks is wanted is a sense of the board as to what each
person thinks about continuing the process and it will be up to the developers to say whether they
want to continue working knowing how may support that or not and knowing that there is the
possibility with the petition that that effort may be wasted. Ms. Leary responded that it seems
that 4 are in favor of continuing the process and Mr. Engman formally asked the Board; the sense
of the body was 4 for continuing and 2 against with one member absent.
Mr. Bates (the developer) — Spoke from the audience and noted that Mr. DePoalo has been very
open about this as well as the openness of the Planning Committee and Staff working with him.
He added that at this point he would like to continue with the process in that development of the
language may allow us to find different avenues of ways to cooperate and ways to do this. He
added that he would like to suggest that when you have a willing developer who is willing to
look at a lot of options and we keep talking about "as of right" and things like that, there are
complications in both ways with the existing zoning. The questions of how many units to build
is both topographical and market issues. He then talked about the impact, and they sketched out
under existing zoning with just the 30K sgft lots, 55-65 units can be developed and that impact
would be the same as what is proposed now. He would like to continue working with the Town
but there are options for him to develop as of right uses or cluster uses but he is trying to
accommodate the concerns he hears.
TB 6-9-2014 pg 7
Agenda Item 6 Discuss Chainworks request for a Planned Development Zone for the
Emerson site and consider referral to the Planning Committee
The representatives reviewed the presentation given to the Board in their packets and posted
online. This has been discussed a number of times in various meetings and the next step is to
refer it to the Planning Committee to begin drafting PDZ language.
Mr. DePaolo had a few preliminary questions: He asked about the number listed as the target
number of parking spaces and the range is very wide; .5 -1.5 per unit. The representative
responded that given the amount of existing parking lots they are still thinking everything
through and what and where potential housing, manufacturing and retail will be there so it is still
a wide range. Mr. DePaolo asked why the acreage listed is the entire site instead of just the
acreage in the Town. Ms. Ritter responded that during SEQR we would be looking at the entire
site but they will research the correct response.
Mr. Howe asked if there was going to be some sort of integrated approach to working with the
City and the Town so repeat presentations will not have to be held etc.? Ms. Ritter responded
that we are using our PDZ process and the City is using their Planned Unit process but we are
hoping to get some informational meetings held jointly. She added that there will be one Lead
Agency which will probably be the City. The Town has a lot more of the open space than the
City but we do hope a lot of the core language will be the same.
Mr. DePaolo noted that there is a reference to TCAD and he asked if there was going to be a tax
abatement requested? The representative responded that at this point, TCAD is helping with
traffic studies and that is why they are listed.
Mr. DePaolo stated that there is a reference to this site being tributary to the Danby Rd tank and
he didn't know what that meant. The representative responded that that was based on the total
site and they were not sure at this point where the utilities would be for the new area but the site
is within the area that would be served by the Danby Rd tank.
Mr. DePaolo also noted the response that "typical lawn maintenance" would use herbicides and
pesticides etc. and the representative responded that is typical language for routine landscape and
lawn maintenance and responding no would prohibit any and all so it is standard to answer yes.
Mr. DePaolo noticed that the table listing the amount of acreage changing should probably equal
each other and the representative responded that was a typo and he would change it.
Mr. Engman noted that the question is whether or not to g to the planning Committee and all
members agreed that it should be referred to the Planning Committee and Ms. Ritter added that it
would be the June 21s' meeting.
Agenda Item 7 Consider setting a public hearing regarding a Local Law 13 of 2014 to
Override the Tax Levy Limit Established in General Municipal Law §3-C
TB 6-9-2014 pg 8
TB Resolution No. 2014 - 100: Setting a Public Hearing regarding a proposed Local Law
13 of 2014 to Override the Tax Levy Limit Established in General Municipal Law U-C
Resolved that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will hold a Public Hearing on July 14, 2014
at 5:30 p.m. regarding adoption of a local law to override the tax levy limit established in
General Municipal Law §3-C.
Notice of this public hearing shall be published in the official newspaper not less than 5 days
prior to the hearing.
Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Bill Goodman
Vote: Ayes — Goodman, Howe, Leary, Levine, Engman and DePaolo
Absent — Hunter
Agenda Item 8 Consider setting a public hearing regarding a noise permit for the
annual St. Catherine of Sienna Parish Festival
Mr. DePaolo stated that he would be abstaining because he would be performing at the festival.
TB Resolution No. 2014 -101: Set Public Hearing regarding a Noise Permit application
for the St Catherine of Siena Festival
Whereas the Town of Ithaca has received a Noise Permit application from St. Catherine of Siena
Parish for their annual Festival on September 20`h from 4pm to 9 pm and September 21S` from 11
am to 4 pm, now therefore be it
Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will hold a public hearing at the Town
Hall, 215 N. Tioga St., Ithaca, on the 141h day of July 2014, at 5:30 p.m. for the purpose of
hearing all persons interested in the proposed permit and considering approval
Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Rod Howe
Vote: Ayes — Goodman, Howe, Leary, Levine, and Engman
Abstention — DePaolo Absent — Hunter
Agenda Item 10 Discuss and consider authorization to apply for funding through
Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation for development of the Town park
on East King Road (SEQR Attachment #5)
TB Resolution No. 2014-102: SEQR: Development of Town park on East King Road
Whereas, this action is for the development of the East King Road Park, as part of a grant
opportunity New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation; and
Whereas, this is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board is acting in an
uncoordinated review with respect to the development of the East Ding Road Park; and
TB 6-9-2014 pg 9
Whereas, the Town Board, on June 9, 2014, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short
Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) Parts 1, 2, and 3 for this action; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance, in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality
Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed based on the information in the SEAF
Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the SEAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, an Environmental
Impact Statement will not be required.
Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Rod Howe
Vote: Ayes - Goodman, Howe, Leary, Levine, Engman and DePaolo
Absent - Hunter
Discussion - Mr. DePaolo stated that he thought the lay of the land up there doesn't lend itself to
providing anything more than what people have there in their own yards in the area and although
he thought it would be an improvement to the site, it isn't big enough to allow for amenities
beyond what they already have and he wondered why we would expend money to give people in
the area what they already have. Given our fiscal restraints, he questioned the expenditure of the
matching funds. Ms. Ritter responded that whenever you have a park in a neighborhood it does
give shared space for people to meet in more of a social space and that is very important in our
neighborhood planning. She added that this particular space also has really great views and that
was a major impetus for this park to allow everyone to enjoy those views. Mr. Levine added
that he is very familiar with the area and there are a lot of kids around there that would benefit
from a shared space for pick-up games and the like. Mr. Engman added that that was his thought
also, a shared space for informal pick-up games. Mr. DePaolo responded that he was not aware
there was a big enough flat area for that type of activity and Mr. Smith responded that it is about
2.5 acres and added that within a quarter of a mile there are 250 houses who would probably use
the park. Mr. DePaolo responded that he is convinced it is worth it then.
TB Resolution No. 2014-103: Authorization to apply for funding through the Office of
Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation - Environmental Protection Fund Municipal
Grant Program for the development of a Town park on East King Road
Whereas, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation (OPRHP) has
announced the availability of funding through the Environmental Protection Fund Municipal
Grant Program (Consolidated Funding Application), which includes a "park acquisition,
development, and planning program" category, and
Whereas, project are reimbursed for up to 50 percent of their eligible expenditures, and
Whereas, the Town of Ithaca has owned this parkland since 1998 / 1999, which is currently
vacant, and
Whereas, the Town estimates the total cost to be $233,300 for the design and construction of this
park site, and
TB 6-9-2014 pg 10
Whereas, this park project is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board,
acting in an uncoordinated review, made a negative determination of environmental significance
on June 9, 2014, and
Whereas, grant applications are due by June 16, 2014, now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Supervisor of the Town of Ithaca is hereby authorized and directed to file an
application for funds from OPRHP in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental
Protection Fund Municipal Grant Program, in an amount not to exceed $233,300, and upon
approval of said request to enter into and execute a project agreement with OPRHP for such
financial assistance to the Town of Ithaca for the development of the East King Road park site.
Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Rod Howe
Vote: Ayes — Goodman, Howe, Leary, Levine, Engman and DePaolo
Absent — Hunter
Agenda Item 11 Order Setting a Public Hearing Regarding a Proposed Water
Improvement for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, in connection with
other Members of the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission, pursuant
to Article 12-C of the Town Law, to be known as the NYS Route 13 Water Main Crossing
Water Improvement, and establishing the Town of Ithaca NYS Route 13 Water Main
Crossing Water Improvement Area
Mr. Engman gave an overview of the project, noting that it is a Bolton Point project and we as a
partner and fiscal agent have to be involved with the approval process. Bolton Point is tagging
onto a Village of Lansing project to go under Route 13 and pay for the difference in cost between
the smaller pipes the Village would put it and the larger pipes that will help Bolton Point.
TB Resolution No. 2014 -104: Order Setting a Public Hearing Regarding a Proposed
Water Improvement for the Town of Ithaca. Tompkins County, New York. in Connection
with other Members of the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission,
pursuant to Article 12-C of the Town Law, to be known as the NYS Route 13 Water Main
Crossing Water Improvement. and establishing the NYS Route 13 Water Main Crossing
Water Improvement Area
Present: Herb Engman, Bill Goodman, Rich DePaolo, Pat Leary, Rod Howe, and Eric Levine;
Tee -Ann Hunter absent
Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Rod Howe
Whereas, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, in conjunction
with the Village of Lansing and the Village of Cayuga Heights, and the Towns of Lansing and
Dryden, has determined and agreed to participate in the provision of a joint water project for a
new water main crossing under NYS 13 and connection of the new main to the existing Southern
TB 6-9-2014 pg 11
Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission (SCLIWC) water system pursuant an
Agreement of Municipal Cooperation for Construction, Financing and Operation of an Inter -
Municipal Water Supply and Transmission System (the "Intermunicipal Agreement"); and
Whereas, a map, plan and report, including an estimate of cost, have been duly prepared in such
manner and in such detail as has heretofore been determined by the Town Board of the Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, relating to the establishment and construction, pursuant to
Article 12-C of the Town Law, of water system improvements to be known and identified as the
NYS Route 13 Water Main Crossing Water Improvement, (the "Improvement") of the Town of
Ithaca, to provide such water Improvement to the present Town water system, such water system
Improvement to be constructed and owned by the Village of Lansing and used by SCLIWC on a
temporary emergency basis whenever it cannot use its existing water main under NYS Route 13;
to serve a benefitted area in said Town to be known as the NYS Route 13 Water Main Crossing
Water Improvement Area (the "Water Improvement Area"); and
Whereas, said map, plan and report, including estimate of cost, were prepared by a competent
engineer, duly licensed by the State of New York and have been filed in the office of the Town
Clerk of said Town, where the same are available during regular office hours for examination by
any person or persons interested in the subject matter thereof, and
Whereas, the area of said Town determined to be benefited by said NYS Route 13 Water Main
Crossing Water Improvement Area consists of the entire area of said Town excepting therefrom
the area contained within the Village of Cayuga Heights; and
Whereas, the Improvement proposed in connection with the establishment of the Water
Improvement Area consists of approximately 425 feet of 18-inch ductile iron pipe, gate valves,
connections to SCLIWC's existing water main and other necessary fittings and related ancillary
facilities, at an initially determined maximum estimated cost to said Water Improvement Area of
$120,154, it being determined that the (1) additional $107,324 of the $227,487 aggregate
maximum estimated cost shall be initially apportioned and allocated to the Villages of Lansing
and Cayuga Heights and water districts in the Towns of Lansing and Dryden, and that (2) the
ultimate share of the cost to be allocated to the Town of Ithaca pursuant to the aforedescribed
Intermunicipal Agreement shall be determined on the basis of benefits received or conferred or
to be received or conferred from the aforesaid Improvement; and
Whereas, said $227,478 maximum estimated cost shall be authorized to be paid from the
SCLIWC Capital Improvement/Replacement fund, which fund contains revenues paid by
SCLIWC members to SCLIWC for water sales from SCLIWC to its members, with the Town of
Ithaca's share paid by money in this fund from water rates from the Town of Ithaca Water
Improvement Area; and
Whereas, said maximum estimated cost, as to the Town of Ithaca, of $120,154 is not greater than
one -tenth of one per centum of the full valuation of taxable real property in the area of the Town
of Ithaca outside of any villages; and
TB 6-9-2014 pg 12
Whereas, the Improvement to be constructed and owned by the Village of Lansing and used by
SCLIWC on a temporary emergency basis will be subject to a use agreement between the
SCLIWC members and the Village of Lansing, which agreement will apportion the expenses of
construction of the project between the SCLIWC members and the Village of Lansing; and
Whereas, it is now desired to call a public hearing for the purpose of considering said map, plan
and report, including estimate of cost, and the providing of the Improvement, and to hear all
persons interested in the subject thereof concerning the same, all in accordance with the
provisions of Section 209-q of the Town Law;
Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered, by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins
County, New York, as follows:
Section 1. A public hearing shall be held by Town Board of the Town of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York, at the Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, in Ithaca, New York, in
said Town, on the 23`d day of June, 2014, at 5:30 o'clock P.M., Prevailing Time, to consider the
aforesaid plan, report and map, including estimate of cost, and the question of providing the
Improvement, and to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof concerning the same and to
take such action thereon as is required by law.
Section 2. The Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish a Notice of
Public Hearing regarding the aforesaid Improvement to be published once in the official
newspaper, and also to post a copy thereof on the town signboard maintained by the Town Clerk,
not less than ten (10) nor more than twenty (20) days before the day designated for the hearing as
aforesaid, all in accordance with the provisions of Section 209-q of the Town Law.
Section 3. This Order shall take effect immediately.
The question of the adoption of the foregoing Order was duly put to a vote on roll call, which
resulted as follows: Herb Engman, aye; Bill Goodman, aye; Pat Leary, aye; Eric Levine, aye;
Rich DePoalo, aye; and Rod Howe, aye.
The Order was thereupon declared duly adopted.
Agenda Item 12 Discuss and consider resolution to accept and adopt the Tompkins
County Multi jurisdictional All -Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
TB Resolution No. 2014 -105: Authorize the Acceptance and Adoption of the Multi -
Jurisdictional All -Hazard Mitigation Plan Update in conjunction with Tompkins County
by the Town of Ithaca
Whereas the Tompkins County Planning Department, with the assistance from Barton &
Loguidice, P.C., has gathered information and prepared the Multi -Jurisdictional All -Hazard
Mitigation Plan Update for Tompkins County, New York; and
TB 6-9-2014 pg 13
Whereas the Multi -Jurisdictional All -Hazard Mitigation Plan Update for Tompkins County, New
York has been prepared in accordance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and Title 44
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 201; and
Whereas Title 44 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 201.6(c)(5) requires each local government participating
in the preparation of a Multi -Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan or Plan Update to accept and adopt
such plan; and
Whereas the Town of Ithaca, has reviewed the 2013 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, has found
the document to be acceptable, and as a local unit of government, in conjunction with Tompkins
County, has afforded its citizens an opportunity to comment and provide input regarding the Plan
Update and the actions included in the Plan;
Whereas the Town of Ithaca will consider the Tompkins County HMP Update during the
implementation and updating of local planning mechanisms, and will incorporate the hazard
assessment data, hazard vulnerabilities, and mitigation actions in these mechanisms, where
applicable; now therefore, be it
Resolved that the Town of Ithaca, as a participating jurisdiction, adopts the Multi -Jurisdictional
All -Hazard Mitigation Plan Update for Tompkins County, New York, dated December 2013.
Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Eric Levine
Vote: Ayes — Goodman, Rowe, Leary, Levine, Engman and DePaolo
Absent — Hunter
Agenda Item 13 Discuss and consider approval of Medicare Supplement Plan
Ms. Drake can an overview noting that we have been hoping to get this for many many years and
with the consortium we have been pushing to get it through committee. It is a potential savings
for both the town and the retirees.
TB Resolution No. 2014 -106: Approve Offering Medicare Supplement Plan
Whereas, there has been interest for years from Retirees to have the option of a Medicare
Supplement Plan in place of remaining on the active employee health insurance plan; and
Whereas, the Greater Tompkins County Municipal Health Insurance Consortium (Consortium)
has approved a Medicare Supplement Plan with five options for prescription drug coverage to be
available September 1, 2014; and
Whereas, the Personnel and Organization Committee has reviewed the Medicare Supplement
Plan and the different prescription drug options available through the Consortium; and
TB 6-9-2014 pg 14
Whereas, the Personnel and Organization Committee recommends the Town considering
offering a Medicare Supplement plan with the three tier prescription drug option 3T10
($15/30/45) at an estimated monthly premium of $442.40; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, the Town Board approves offering the Consortium Medicare Supplement plan with
the three tier prescription drug option 3T10 ($15/30/45) at an estimated monthly premium of
$442.40, effective September 1, 2014; and be it further
Resolved, Medicare eligible Retirees will be notified of an open enrollment period for them to
have the option to switch from the active employee plan to the Medicare Supplement plan for
effective September 1, 2014.
Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Rod Howe
Vote: Ayes — Goodman, Howe, Leary, Levine, Engman and DePaolo Absent — Hunter
Agenda Item 14 Consider authorization to award Winner's Circle Roadway
Reconstruction Contract
TB Resolution No. 2014- 107: Authorization to Award Contract and Establishment of
Capital Protect Fund for the Town of Ithaca Winners Circle Reconstruction Protect
Whereas on June 4, 2014 the Director of Public Works/Highway Superintendent received bids
for the Town of Ithaca Winners Circle Reconstruction Project for the reconstruction of Winners
Circle from the intersection of State Route 79, Slaterville Road, to the Cul-du-sac, matching the
existing length and width, and other related ancillary facilities, and
Whereas the Director of Public Works has reviewed the bids and qualifications of the bidders
and has recommended that the lowest responsive and responsible bid of $170,780.00 for the
total project made by Bothar Construction, 170 East Service Road, Binghamton, NY 13901, is a
qualified bid, and
Whereas at the November 18, 2013, Town Board meeting, the Town Board adopted a 2014
Ithaca Town Budget which included monies for the reconstruction of Winners Circle and
identified the maximum amount of $250,000.00 to be expended by the Town of Ithaca for this
improvement, and
Whereas at its regular meeting on June 9, 2014, the Town Board has determined approval,
construction and implementation of the Improvement are a Type II Action pursuant to the
regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation promulgated
pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, because the Action constitutes
"repaving of existing highways not involving the addition of new travel lanes", "replacement,
rehabilitation or reconstruction of a structure or facility, in kind, on the same site," and thus
approval, construction and implementation of the Improvement are not subject to review under
SEQRA;
TB 6-9-2014 pg 15
Resolved that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca authorizes the award of the contract for the
Town of Ithaca Winners Circle Reconstruction project to Bothar Construction, subject to final
approval of the contract documents by the Town Engineer and Attorney for the Town, and be it
further
Resolved that the Town Supervisor is authorized to execute such contract upon such approval;
and be it further
Resolved that the Director of Public Works is authorized to approve change orders to such
contract upon receipt of appropriate justification provided that the maximum amount of such
change orders shall not in the aggregate exceed $17,000.00 without prior authorization of this
Board, and provided further that the total project cost, does not exceed the maximum authorized
cost of the project, and be it further
Resolved that the Town Finance Officer is directed and authorized to record all necessary and
appropriate budgetary and cash transactions transferring $187,780.00, bid amount plus 10%
contingency, to establish the construction account and $12,220.00 for ancillary project and
bonding costs, for a total budget of $200,000.00 for the capital project fund "Town of Ithaca
Winners Circle Reconstruction Project."
Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Bill Goodman
Vote: Ayes — Goodman, Howe, Leary, Devine, Engman and DePaolo
Absent — Hunter
Agenda Item 15 Consider authorization to award Coddington Road Watermain
Contract
TB Resolution No. 2014 - 108: Authorization to Award Contract for Construction of the
Town of Ithaca Coddington Road Water Main Replacement Water Improvement and to
Establish the Town of Ithaca Coddington Road Water Main Replacement Water
Improvement Capital Project Fund
Whereas on June 4, 2014 the Town of Ithaca Director of Public Works/Highway Superintendent
received bids for the Town of Ithaca Coddington Road Water Main Replacement Water
Improvement for the replacement of 9,640 feet of existing ductile iron main with new 8" water
main made of Polywrapped Ductile Iron pipe, new valves, hydrant connections and related
ancillary facilities will be placed as necessary, and
Whereas the Director of Public Works has reviewed the bids and qualifications of the bidders
and has recommended that the lowest responsive and responsible bid of $1,119,000.00 for the
total project made by Vacri Construction Corporation, One Brick Avenue, Binghamton, NY
13901, is a qualified bid, and
Whereas at the November 18, 2013 Town Board meeting under Resolution No. 2013-143 the
maximum amount of $1,540,000.00 was authorized to be expended by the Town of Ithaca for
this improvement, now therefore be it
TB 6-9-2014 pg 16
Resolved that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca authorizes the award of the contract for the
Town of Ithaca Coddington Road Water Main Replacement Water Improvement project to Vacri
Construction Corporation, subject to final approval of the contract documents by the Town
Engineer and Attorney for the Town, and be it further
Resolved that the Town Supervisor is authorized to execute such contract upon such approval;
and be it further
Resolved that the Director of Public Works is authorized to approve change orders to such
contract upon receipt of appropriate justification provided that the maximum amount of such
change orders shall not in the aggregate exceed $111,000.00 without prior authorization of this
Board, and provided further that the total project cost, including the contract, engineering, legal
and other expenses does not exceed the maximum authorized cost of the project, and be it further
Resolved that the Town Finance Officer is directed and authorized to establish a "Town of Ithaca
Coddington Road Water Main Replacement Water Improvements" capital project fund to record
all necessary and appropriate budgetary and cash transactions, and transfer $1,119,000 bid
amount plus a $111,000 contingency to establish the construction account, and $20,000 for
ancillary project costs, for a total capital project fund budget of $1,250,000.
Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Rod Howe
Vote: Ayes — Goodman, Howe, Leary, Levine, Engman and DePaolo
Absent — Hunter
Agenda Item 16 Consider authorization to award Christopher Circle Tank Project
contract — Pulled
Agenda Item 17 Discuss and consider approval of possible change order for the
extension of paving/shoulder treatment on Caldwell Road Forest Home Drive Bridge
Reconstruction Project
Mr. Engman gave an overview noting that the County does not have a firm amount yet and Mr.
Weber suggested that $16,000 because this may create a delay for the contractor. This amount
would be the Town's responsibility, the buffer built into the original project should not be
counted on to cover these costs although there may be some that could be applied at the end.
Mr. Levine stated that he assumed that is a big discount because they are on site right now but
asked how much would it cost as a separate job? Mr. Weber responded that it is hard to say
because we have committed to other improvements and if we did our own work this would be
folded into that other large project.
Mr. DePaolo asked Mr. Weber about his characterization of the Town as having agreed to do a
certain amount of work? He commented that if it is economical to do it now, instead of when the
rest of the road needs replacement, then that is fine, but there are plenty of roads in the Town that
have worse sections of road and this should not be about the squeaky wheel getting the funds and
we need to make sure we are not applying one standard to Forest Home and another standard to
TB 6-9-2014 pg 17
everybody else. Mr. Engman responded that it is more that the crews are there and the other was
stretches were just done and this would make it consistent.
Ms. Leary suggested changing the resolution to make the point that we are doing this for those
reasons and not on the request of a singular resident. Change approved.
TB Resolution No. 2014 — 109: Approval of Increase in Proiect Scope for the Proposed
Extension of Paving/Shoulder Treatment Limits on Caldwell Road of the Upstream Forest
Home Drive Bridge Reconstruction Proiect
Whereas at the Town board Meeting on April 13, 2009 the Town of Ithaca authorized the
Execution of an Agreement with Tompkins County for the Reconstruction of the Upstream
Forest Home Bridge over Fall Creek, and
Whereas Tompkins County has begun work on the Upstream Forest Home Drive Bridge
Rehabilitation which includes the reconstruction and realignment of Caldwell Road Forest Home
Drive intersection, and
Whereas an increase in the project scope to include additional pavement and shoulder work up to
and through the entry feature on Caldwell Road, approximately 55 feet, would be an efficient use
of resources for infrastructure improvements consistent with the Forest Home Traffic Calming
Plan, and
Whereas the estimated cost of the proposed change order prepared by John Lampman, is $14,000
and
Whereas based on the current contract the Town of Ithaca's obligated participation is $91,360,
and
Whereas the Town has $102,715 set aside in this capital project fund which will need to be
increased, which, now therefor be it
Resolved that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes Tompkins County to
proceed with issuing a change order for the requested increase in the project scope, and to
authorize the Finance Officer to increase the capital project fund account by an amount not to
exceed $16,000.00 such additional funding to be appropriated from the General Fund reserves.
Moved: Pat Leary Seconded: Herb Engman
Vote: Ayes — Goodman, Howe, Leary, Levine, Engman and DePaolo
Absent — Hunter
Agenda Item 18 Discuss and consider approval of a partial refund of PILOT payment
for tax year 2014 for TP # 62.-2-1.124
TB 6-9-2014 pg 18
TB Resolution No. 2014-110: Partial Refund of Pilot Payment for Tax Year 2014 for Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62.-2-1.124.
Whereas, Ellis Hollow Associates/Conifer Realty, LLC has requested a partial refund of the
$87,011.40 Payment In Lieu Of Taxes (PILOT) for Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62.-2-1.124
(Ellis Hollow Apartments) submitted to the Town Receiver of Taxes on February 17, 2014, on
the basis that a computational error resulted in an overpayment of $12,499.40; and
Whereas, the Town Receiver of Taxes has reviewed the request for a partial refund of the PILOT
payment and verified that the claimed computational error did result in a $12,499.40
overpayment, and has recommended that a refund is due to Ellis Hollow Associates/Conifer
Realty, LLC in the amount of $12,499.40 for the year 2014; and
Whereas, payment of this refund consists of $8,249.85 from the Ithaca City School District,
$3,314.84 from Tompkins County, and $934.71 from the Town of Ithaca, for a total amount of
$12,499.40; and
Whereas, the Town has received the amounts of $8,249.85 from the Ithaca City School District
and $3,314.84 from Tompkins County, now, therefore, be it
Resolved, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes a payment of $12,499.40 to
be paid to Ellis Hollow Associates/Conifer Realty, LLC, 183 East Main Street, Suite 600,
Rochester, New York 14604, for overpayment of 2014 Payment In Lieu Of Taxes for Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62.-2-1.124.
Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Rich DePaolo
Vote: Ayes — Goodman, Howe, Leary, Levine, Engman and DePaolo
Absent — Hunter
Agenda Item 19 Discuss and consider approval of the 2015 AOC (PEGASUS) Budget
TB Resolution No. 2014 -111: Adoption of the 2015 PEG Access Studio Budget
Whereas the Franchise Agreement between Time Warner Entertainment and the City of Ithaca
signed in 2003 (the terms of which continue until a new franchise is ratified) authorizes Time
Warner Entertainment to collect $0.15 per subscriber per month to be used for equipment and PEG
Access Studio facility maintenance; and
Whereas the Franchise Agreement outlines the creation of an Access Oversight Committee which
shall be responsible for approving the timing, use and amount of PEG access equipment acquired
each year over the term of the agreement; and
Whereas the Access Oversight Committee has recommended approval by participating
municipalities of a 2015 budget in the amount of $30,000; and
TB 6-9-2014 pg 19
Whereas the Franchise Agreement states that participating municipalities, including the Town of
Ithaca, must adopt the annual PEG Access Studio budget by June 30 of the preceding year; now
therefore be it
Resolved that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca adopts the 2015 PEG Access Studio budget as
approved by the Access Oversight Committee.
Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Bill Goodman
Vote: Ayes — Goodman, Howe, Leary, Levine, Engman and DePaolo
Absent — Hunter
Agenda Item 20 Consider authorization to increase the Open Space Reserve fund
TB Resolution No. 2014-112: Increasing the Open Space Plan Reserve
Whereas, the Open Space Plan Reserve was created by the Ithaca Town Board on October 2,
1997 for the future development of parks, preservation of open space, and acquisition of
development rights; and
Whereas, as of the year ended December 31, 2013 the balance of the Open Space Plan
Reserve totaled approximately $758,248 in reserved Fund Balance within the General Townwide
Fund; and
Whereas, this Town Board indicated its intention to increase the Open Space Plan Reserve by the
amount of $75,000 in the 2014 Town of Ithaca Budget; now therefore be it
Resolved, that this governing Town Board hereby designates an additional $75,000 of
unreserved Fund Balance of the General Townwide Fund as reserved for the Open Space Plan,
and be it further
Resolved, that the Town Board approves, authorizes and directs the Town Finance Officer to
transfer $75,000 from the General Townwide Fund account to the Open Space Plan Reserve
account.
Moved: Eric Levine Seconded: Rich DePaolo
Vote: Ayes — Goodman, Howe, Leary, Levine, Engman and DePaolo
Absent — Hunter
Agenda Item 21 Report of Committees
Agenda Item 22 Report of Town Officials and Review of Correspondence
Mr. Bates reported that the Municity program is installed and training has started.
Ms. Ritter reported that Department staff attended the Congress of New Urbanism seminar in
Buffalo last week which was excellent.
TB 6-9-2014 pg 20
Agenda Item 23, Consider Consent Agenda Items
TB Resolution 2014 -113: Adopt Consent Agenda
Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the
following Consent Agenda items:
a. Approval of Town Board Meeting Minutes of 5-12-2014
b. Approval of Town of Ithaca Abstract #1
c. Approval of Town of Ithaca Abstract #2
d. Approval of Bolton Point Abstract
Moved: Pat Leary
Seconded: Rich DePaolo
Vote: Ayes — Goodman, Howe, Leary, Levine, Engman and DePaolo
Absent — Hunter
TB Resolution 2014 —113a: Approval of Minutes of May 12, 2014
Whereas, the draft Minutes of the May 12, 2014 meetings of the Town Board have been
submitted for review and approval, now therefore be it
Resolved, that the Town Board hereby approves the submitted minutes as the final minutes of the
meeting May 12, 2014 of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca.
TB Resolution No. 2014 -113b: Town of Ithaca Abstract #1
Whereas the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for
approval of payment; and
Whereas the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now
therefore be it
Resolved that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in
total for the amounts indicated.
VOUCHER NOS. 5370 - 5427
General Fund Town wide
34,286.81
General Fund Part Town
3,325.83
Highway Fund Part Town
6,186.32
Water Fund
16,850.55
Sewer Fund
1,764.42
Risk Retention Fund
290.82
Fire Protection Fund
264,792.00
Forest Home Lighting District
158.74
TB 6-9-2014 pg 21
Glenside Lighting District
50.50
Renwick Heights Lighting District
52.23
Eastwood Commons Lighting District
136.47
Clover Lane Lighting District
15.66
Winner's Circle Lighting District
55.09
Burlei h Drive Lighting District
53.00
West Haven Road Lighting District
155.55
Coddin ton Road Lighting District
93.03
Debt Service
772.00
TOTAL
329,039.02
TB Resolution No. 2014 -113c: Town of Ithaca Abstract #2
Whereas the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for
approval of payment; and
Whereas the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now
therefore be it
Resolved that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in
total for the amounts indicated.
VOUCHER NOS. 5428 - 5499
General Fund Town wide
164,201.44
General Fund Part Town
4,898.48
Highway Fund Part Town
198,676.86
Water Fund
72,395.01
Sewer Fund
80,188.92
Trust and Agency
8,171.00
TOTAL
528,531.71
TB Resolution No. 2014-113d: Bolton Point Abstract
Whereas, the following numbered vouchers for the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water
Commission have been presented to the governing Town Board for approval of payment; and
Whereas, the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers.
Voucher Numbers: 226-277
Check Numbers: 15290-15289
TB 6-9-2014 pg 22
Burdick Hill Tanks Project
$
335.60
Capital Impr/Repl Project
$
1,199.90
Operating Fund
$
68,994.84
TOTAL
$
70,530.34
Less Prepaid
$
34,881.18
TOTAL
$
35,649.16
TB Resolution 2014 —113e: Authorize Supervisor to sign an Agreement with Steve Eddy
for the maintenance of Saponi Meadows Park land
Whereas the Town has land referred to as "Saponi Meadows" which is intended for a town park
in the future, and
Whereas Mr. Eddy has farmed this land in the past since it adjoins his land and this farming
negates the need for the town to maintain the land until such time as a park is established, now
therefore be it
Resolved that the Town Board authorizes the Town Supervisor to sign a five-year agreement
with Mr. Eddy for the mutually beneficial maintenance/farming of the Saponi Meadows
property.
Agenda Item 24 Consider Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 7:20p.m. upon a motion and a second.
Respec itted by
Paulette Terwilliger
Town Clerk
TB 6-9-2014 pg 23
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
I, Paulette Terwilliger, being duly sworn, say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of
the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official
newspaper, Ithaca Journal:
O , TISEMENT
OTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
O NOTICE OF ESTOPPEL
O NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF PUBLIC INTEREST ORDER
Local Law amending Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270, entitled
"Zoning," eliminating the requirement for Site Plan
Modification for Building -Mounted Solar Collectors
Location of Sign Board Used for Posting:
Town Clerk's Office
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Date of Posting: 5/30/2014
Date of Publication: 6/3/2014
Paulette Terwilliger
Town Clerk
STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS:
TOWN OF ITHACA)
Sworn #a and subscribed before me this c2 -- day of
2014.
Debra DeAugistine
Notary Public - State of New York
No. 01 DE6148035
Oualified in Tompkins County
My Commission Expires June 18, 20
j
JY Town 0f Ithaca
gh Public Hearing
xn The Ithaca Town Board will ;
in- hold a pub8c hearing at the
'er Town Hall, 215 North Tioga
Id- Street, Ithaca, NY on the 9th I
m day of June, 2014 at 5:30 r
1: p.m for the purpose of con- r
n- sidedng a proposed local law I
n; amending the Town of Ithaca t
7) Code, Chapter 270, entitled 1
lit 'Zoning,' eliminating the re• r
!n- quirement for Site Plan Modi-
dd fication for Building -Mounted
is- Solar Collectors At such
er time and place all persona In.
8) terested In the proposed to-
8 cal law may be heard con-
■- ceming the same. Informa-
e- tlon can be requested by con-
u! tacting the Town Clerk at
!0 t0wnclerk0town.tthsca.ny.us
at Paulette TervWliper
n Town Clerk
6/3/2014
Paulette Terwilliger
From: Bruce Brittain <brucebrittain@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 9:46 AM
To: Paulette Terwilliger; Paulette Terwilliger
Subject: Extending Upstream Bridge Project to Caldwell Rd Entrance
Hi Paulette --
I sent this e-mail to the members of the Town Board on Friday (electronically). Could you please also make hard -copies for them to
look at during Monday night's Board meeting? (It pertains to Agenda Item No. 17.)
Thank you very much.
--Bruce
DATE: June 6, 2014
TO: Town Board Members
FROM: Bruce Brittain
RE: Extending Upstream Bridge Project to Caldwell Rd Entrance (Agenda Item No. 17)
As you know, Tompkins County is working on the upstream bridge in Forest Home. This project includes not only rehabilitating the
bridge itself, but also rebuilding the approaches. The County has already extended the eastern approach to include the Caldwell Road
/ Forest Home Drive intersection, and short extensions of each road beyond this intersection. Roadway rebuilding is being done in
accordance with the Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan: roadway width, shoulder treatment, intersection realignment, etc.
The County's rebuild of Caldwell Road stops some 55 ft short of the entrance feature. It would make sense to extend the project to the
entrance feature, as called for in the Traffic Calming Plan. Thus, roadway width, shoulder treatment, etc would start at the entrance,
where it should, rather than 55 ft later. Doing so would also mean that one entrance to the community would be complete.
Based on the unit bid prices submitted by the bridge contractor (Economy Paving), John Lampman has estimated that the cost of
extending the project would be $13,400, as detailed below. This cost would be entirely borne by the Town. The contractor is willing
to do the work.
Full Milling (1.5" deep) - $4,750
Paving Lanes - $1,300
Integrally Colored Polymer Wearing Surface for Shoulders - $6,682
Striping Center & Edge Lines - $440
Roadside Soil and Seed - $225
I realize that this is a difficult time to ask the Town to expend scarce resources on a roadway project. However, with the contractor
already on site, this seems like a great opportunity to get one more piece of the puzzle completed.
Thank you for your consideration. I will be out of town, and so unable to attend Monday's Board meeting. However, I hope that an
officer of the FHIA will be able to attend. In the meantime, I would be happy to discuss this further with you, and will try to answer
any questions that you might have.
petitions, ' ?C.�� 'i sa'�ti p�'� 7.�" yi F 'f.,.r�i� _ tti :.;• .6t?i MMt v'� yy(y�•^a e"�+,g� e•..
YOUR VMCE Mors
PA US
This petition has collected eir!! jA
134 signatures
using the online tools at 'Pet't'ons.com
PV;61 pfiir--CY� q;it 01 ,�effw ev�
t';�QF4 A,o�T no t-4-;-Ool
m, ei—OF -I"'i ns r1worall-100
Printed M2014-06-09 4
q-N .4 i2 ?,Id t 3t -b e b f I p f Jd ;,i ;et r i e -m qo. I -4,v e f I j r Ii i f 1. S
:ram .--Fnj tmZ, ev;iq fii wn vra'
9i't to 1-:..3 s;
Page I of 13 , :.
Speak Out Against the Troy Road High Density Rental Unit
Development
About this petition
We object to the proposed change in zoning laws from low density to high density for the parcel of
land located on Troy Road between Coddington and East King Roads, and to the new high density
rental unit housing development that is being considered for this site. We believe that the
infrastructure is not in place to support this significant increase in population and traffic, and that large
multi -story rental complexes are contrary to the existing character of the area.
Page 2 of 13
Signatures
1. Name: Ally Rooks on 2014-06-01 12:17:36 1 1,-I•.� hr
Comments:
2. Name: Stephen Peterson on 2014-06-02 00:47:35
Comments:
3. Name: Beth Peterson on 2014-06-02 00:50:05
Comments:
4. Name: Leslie Byron on 2014-06-02 01:09:10 1
Comments: M�Gj
5. Name: Alexander Shuhan on 2014-06-02 01:32:23
Comments:
6.
Name: Julie Schnepel on 2014-06-02 01:44:50
Comments:
7.
Name: Jonathan Musgrave on 2014-06-02 01:48:43
Comments:
8.
Name: Gregory Evans on 2014-06-02 02:52:56
Comments:
9.
Name: Jen Cook on 2014-06-02 03:08:56
Comments:
10.
Name: Susan Cook on 2014-06-02 03:10:55
_
Comments: NO ZONING CHANGE 11 The area and the roads cannot hand) this high
density development.
11.
Name: Janet Gaivan on 2014-06-02 04:32:03
r
b
Comments:
12. Name: Peter Farley on 2014-06-0212:05:07 oZ t p � . \L; t ac�,
Comments: This parcel was zone for low density and it should stay that way.
13. Name: Dave Burbank on 2014-06-0213:36:13
Comments: I live at 161 Whitetail Dr
Page 3 of 11
14. Name: Tom Pfaff on 2014-06-0213:36:52
Comments: l 4 x C-cr
15, Name: Mary I. Arlin on 2014-06-02 14:08:56
Comments:
16. Name: Michael Cook on 2014-06-02 16:41:00
Comments:
17. Name: Emily Barker on 2014-06-0216:55:49
Comments:
18. Name: Lee Byron on 2014-06-0216:56:52
Comments: � wc`
19. Name: Kaiya Bercow on 2014-06-02 16:57:37
Comments:
20. Name: Gideon Casper on 2014-06-02 17:13:07
Comments:
21. Name: Hayden Frank on 2014-06-02 17:15.49
Comments:
22.
Name: Josh Jacobson on 2014-06-0217:29:27
Comments:
23.
Name: Janice Pfaff
on 2014-06-0217:29:51
Comments:
24.
Name: hate terepka
on 2014-06-02 17:42:48
Comments:
25.
Name: Laura Miller
on 2014-06-0218:09:03
Comments:
26.
Name: Mike Finkelstein on 2014-06-02 19:07:01
Comments:
27.
Name: molly krause
on 2014-06-02 21:06:29
Comments:
Page 4 of f 1
28. Name: Sharif Younes on 2014-06-02 21:52:36
Comments: I object to the proposed change in zoning laws.
29. Name: Adam Zinder on 2014-06-02 21:55:37
Comments:
30. Name: Brennen Montgomery on 2014-06-02 23:18:16
Comments:
31. Name: Linda Case on 2014-06-03 01:07:34
Comments: Troy Road has already added a large number of rental units that students are
renting. Party noise, litter, garbage and beer cans are already a problem on the street.
Drainage and flooding are a constant problem on Troy Road as well as Coddington Road.
Without major infrastucture changes, allowing this kind of building would be ridiculous.
0-0
32. Name: Josb Martinez on 2014-06-03 01:24:53
Comments:
33. Name: Wendy Fonder on 2014-06-03 01,25:58
Comments: i \
34. Name: Jamie Vanucchi on 2014-06-03 01:26:43
Comments: High density development should occur closer to the city where existing
infrastructure can support it. Building high density development here will result in all the
issues of sprawl and greenfield development... increased traffic, increased car use and
emissions, loss of habitats, increased infrastructure costs, etc. Towns across the US have
figured this out, why can't the Town of Ithaca? While other towns and cities are greening
their stormwater systems via green infrastructure like bioswales and rain gardens, the
Town of Ithaca is PAVING drainage areas, creating MORE impervious surface and
sending polluted water more quickly to our waterways. Come on Town of IthacalI
35. Name: mane honigbaum on 2014-06-03 01:27:58
Comments:
36. Name: Larry Honigbaum on 2014-06-03 01:37:21
Comments: 139 whitetail Dr.
37. Name: Elizabeth Walkenbach on 2014-06-03 01:41:29
Comments:155 Whitetail Drive
38. Name: Jean Hardwick on 2014-06-03 01:42:44
Comments: 14 Marcy Court Ithaca, NY
39. Name: Mary Martin on 2014=06-03 01:46:25 L/
Pegs 5 of 11
Comments: 174 Whitetail Drive
40. Name: David Barr on 2014-06-03 02:23:56
Comments: 131 Whitetail Drive
41. Name: Emmett Van Slyke on 2014-06-03 02:46:06
Comments:
42. Name: Karen Dumont on 2014-06-03 03:02:47
Comments: 168 Whitetail Dr.
43. Name: Deane Cook on 2014-06-03 03:33:44
Comments:
44. Name: maria and Paul Muscente on 2014-06-03 11:26:06 S Q its.
Comments: we are very opposed to this project. 00
45. Name: Jennifer Kay on 2014-06-03 11:46:18
Comments:
46. Name: Dan Miller on 2014-06-0311:49:08
Comments:
47. Name: Julie Whitten on 2014-06-03 12:22:37
Comments:
48. Name: Marc Israel on 2014,06-03 12:48:49
Comments: This amount of traffic will be very dangerous for all walking along the road
and will ruin the neighborhood.
49. Name: Jane Bryant on 2014-06-0312:58:07
Comments:
50. Name: Molly Israel on 2014-06-03 13:06:40
Comments:
51. Name: Arnie Germain on 2014-06-03 13:07:41
Comments:
52. Name: Carlyn Buckler on 2014-06-03 13:41:56
Comments: 233 Troy Rd, Ithaca, NY
Page 6 of 11
53. Name: Terri Stoff on 2014-06-03 13:55:13
Comments: I � S P 0�uxjl-- I2ok,
54. Name: Fred Estabrook on 2014-06-0314:00:53
Comments: this very real and serious issue must be managed by our local officials better
than it has been in the past.
55. Name: Darese Doskal on 2014-06-03 14:02:58
Comments:
56. Name: Cheryl Welsh on 2014-06-0314:13:37
Comments:
57. Name: Kathy Farley on 2014-06-0315:02:26
Comments:
58. Name: Kelly Tindall on 2014-06.0315:58:58
Comments: 522 Coddington Road
59. Name: Julie Kupien on 2014-06-03 16:22:03 13��
Comments:
60. Name: Linda Cimakasky on 2014-06-0316:47:14
Comments:
61. Name: Laurie Linn on 2014-06-0316:58:04
Comments:
62. Name: tom swensen on 2014-06-0318:07:20
Comments:
63. Name: Jane Kaplan on 2014-06-03 20:24:57
Comments: 170 Whitetail Drive
64. Name: Tina Snead on 2014-06-03 21:06:10
Comments:
65. Name: Harry M. Kaiser on 2014-06-0414:25:58
Comments:
r
66. Name: James E. Semp on 2014-06-0414:34:37
Comments: 302 E. King Rd. Ithaca, NY
Page 7 of 11
67. Name: Melissa A. Hines on 2014-06-04 14:42:15
Comments: 46 Chase Lane
68. Name: Christopher Morgan Loy on 2014-06-0414:52:35
Comments: 173 Whitetail Drive, Ithaca
69. Name: Arhiene Flowers on 2014-06-0415:43:15
Comments:
70. Name: Steven Lovass-Nagy on 2014-06-0415:48:39
Comments:
71. Name: Matt Clauhs on 2014-06-0415:49:58
Comments: 4 LaGrand Ct. Ithaca, NY
72. Name: Ann Poe on 2014-06-0416:00:27
Comments:
73. Name: Anna bennett on 2014-06-0417:00:05
Comments: I am concerned about this project on multiple levels, mainly for the increase
In traffic on our already crumbling south hill roads as well as speeding in our
neighborhoods which is now a lot of families with young children. 183 E KING Road
74. Name: Andrew Smith on 2014-06-0418:38:49
Comments:
75. Name. Robert Barker on 2014-06-04 19:38:03
Comments: How does the developer plan on addressing the infrastructure issues - road
traffic and sewage. Is there control over the quality of the construciton?
76. Name. Barbara and Ron Provus on 2014-06-04 21:51:41
Comments: We are very opposed to this developmentl It would change the whole area.
77. Name: David Patz on 2014-06-04 23:01:10
Comments: It is beyond me why an area zoned residential and covered in woods and
farm land would be rezoned to meet the request of a for profit developer. Clearly,
development is naturally occurring along Danby Road and should be limited to that area.
As for the developer promising senior housing etc, that should be in writing and any
issues and costs associated with traffic, pedestrians, and municipal services should be
bom by the developer. Why should the taxpayers continually carry these costs. Our
model going forward should be as demanded in historic communities forcing developers
to carry all costs of created by their development . I do n
Page 8 of 11
78. Name: Matthew Sullivan on 2014-06-05 01:45:22
Comments: 11 LaGrand Ct.
79. Name: Stephen Pope on 2014-06-05 02:54:23
Comments: 14 Chase Lane, Ithaca
80. Name: Victoria Hastings on 2014-06-0512:37:37 i S3,� ` �r
Comments:
81. Name: Rory Rothman on 2014-06-05 13:56:15
Comments: 24 Chase Lane, Ithaca, NY 14850
82.
Name: Linda A. Pope on 2014-06-05 20:43:54
Comments:
83.
Name: John and Simona Tadros on 2014-06-06 02:31:40
Comments:
84.
Name: Elizabeth Shuhan on 2014-06-0612:35�6
Comments:137 Ridgecrest Road
85.
Name: Gary Carlson on 2014-06-0619:24:32
Comments:
86.
Name: Patricia Wasyliw on 2014-06-06 19:44:39
1
Comments:
87.
Name: John W. White on 2014-06-0714:53:36
Comments:
I l L JO ,�
'�[
My address:
88.
Name: Zenon Wasyliw on 2014-06-0715:06:28,
WtWT,
Comments:
89.
Name: Illa Burbank on 2014-06-0717:00:43
Comments: 161 Whitetail Dr.
90.
Name: Levon Barseghyan on 2014-06-0717:03:17
Comments: 154 Whitetail Dr
91.
Name: Francesca Molinari on 2014-06-0717:17:21
Comments:154 Whitetail Drive
Page 9 of 11
92. Name: Catherine Peterson on 2014-06-0718:04:16
Comments:
93. Name: Nick Shuhan on 2014-06-0719:38:54
Comments:
94. Name: Susan Brower on 2014-06-07 21:15:30
Comments: Intersection of Troy and King is already a hazard, which can only be made
worse by increased volume.
95. Name: Kelly Brower on 2014-06-07 21:17:23
Comments: I live at 430 Troy Rd with Susan Brower.
96. Name: Kathy Smith on 2014-06-07 21:45:31 �,;, Or
Comments:
97. Name: Jane Dunnick on 2014-06-07 21:57:56
Comments: The infrastructure does not support a high density development in this area.
98. Name: Istvan Burbank on 2014-06-07 22:07:04
Comments: Local Resident
99. Name: Victoria Wasyliw on 2014-06-07 23:48:03
Comments: 21 Marcy ct.
100. Name: kim dunnick on 2014-06-08 00:23:06
Comments:
101. Name: Deborah Montgomery on 2014-06-08 00:31:25
Comments: I definitely object to scope of this project. Having lived on SH for 26 years I
totally agree with the above statement.
102. Name: Andrew Cove on 2014-06-08 00:38:44
Comments:
103. Name: sean kuplen on 2014-06-08 01:14:30
Comments: 138 whitetail dr Ithaca ny 1W0
104. Name: Julie Stamm on 2014-06-08 01:58:13
Comments:
Pie 10 0f f i
105. Name: Shane Henderson on 2014.06-08 12:06:58
Comments: 1 J �6 L," k-A� Y3('
106. Name: John Blume on 2014-06-08 22:43:59
Comments:
107. Name: Drucy Glass on 2014-06-08 23:20:51
Comments:
108. Name: Brenda Ross on 2014-06-08 23:30:30
Comments: I (V �1�n }• Y�
109. Name: Robert Ross on 2014-06-09 02:10:20
Comments:
110. Name: Barry Jacobson on 2014-06-09 04:29:58
Comments:
111. Name: Phong Diep on 2014-06-0910:29:32
Comments:105 Southwoods Drive, Ithaca
112. Name: Rachel Ossman on 2014-06-0911:51:22
Comments:
113. Name: John Luginsland on 2014-06-09 12:15:48
Comments: I live at 118 Southwood Dr, and i do not believe that the area can handle the
increase in traffic.
114. Name: S Myers on 2014-06-0912:25:41
Comments: Sharon Myers
115. Name: Tigran Chatrchyan on 2014-06-09 12:35:44
Comments: I object to this rental housing development project.
116. Name: Catherine Hackett on 2014-06-0913:02:10
Comments:
117. Name: Jeremy Haefele on 2014-06-0913:22:17
Comments:
118. Name: Brian Kay on 2014-06-0913:25:11
Comments:
Pegs 11 of 13
119. Name: Penny Romantic on 2014-06-0914:05:38 O .
Comments:
120. Name: Judy Tennant on 2014-06-09 14:18:07
Comments:
121. Name: Jennifer Colvin on 2014-06-09 14:22:56
Comments:
122. Name: Anne LaPointe on 2014-06-0914:28:46
Comments:
123. Name: Michelle Emr on 2014-06-0914:37:55
Comments: This neighborhood cannot support the increased traffic this project would
create and the Infrastructure of this neighborhood cannot support this as well. Please do
not change the zoning laws for this area.
124. Name: William Fritz on 2014-06-0914:51:41
Comments:
125. Name: Thomas Romantic on 2014-06-0914:52:04
Comments:
126. Name: Sasha Beram on 2014-06-0915:13:55
Comments: I live at 112 Southwoods Drive and my in laws bought a house on Troy Rd
between Coddington and East King.
127. Name: Russell Martin on 2014-06-0915:19:52
Comments:
128. Name: Leigh Ann Vaughn on 2014-06-0916:10:50
Comments:
129. Name: Mike Giebelhausen on 2014-06-0916:14:44
Comments: This seems like a really bad idea.
130. Name: Joshua Chappie on 2014-06-09 16:20:40
Comments: I am moving into the nearby Southwoods neighborhood (112 Southwoods)
and am concerned about the negative impacts a high density rental housing development
would have on traffic congestion, the cleanliness of the region and environment, and
overall property values. It would also significantly alter change the character of the
surrounding area which currently consists of single family homes and was a major factor
Page 12 of 13
in my choice to buy a home Nero.
131. Name: Elissa Giebelhausen on 2014-06-09 17:13:49
Comments:
132. Name: Beth Rhoades on 2014-06-0917:23:33
Comments:
133. Name: sue and cliff chappie on 2014-06-09 18:27:49
Comments: we just bought the house at 107 troy rd we are not in favor of changing the
density
134. Name: Tom LaFalce on 2014-06-0919:59:52
Comments:
Page 13 o/ 13
Town of Ithaca Board
215 North Tioga St~
Ithaca, NY 14850
June 9, 2014
Under the provisions of New York Town Law, Section 265, we the undersigned,
comprising ownership of at least 20% of the land immediately adjacent to and/or
opposite from the Troy Road parcel proposed for a zoning change by Rural Housing
Preservation Associates, hereby file with the Ithaca Town Board a letter of protest
against the change.
In accordance with the requirements of Section 265, an affirmative vote of at least
three -fourths of the Town Board shall be required to ratify the requested zoning
change from Low Density Residential to Planned Development Zone.
Signature
Printed Name r Address of affected property c�
J hn in /I r
0
�7COCOi t ah U'.Allctco g_
67y 2 c��1yRL `'�vl
we., �; \ ao 3/\JZY "k, �p
PIr W'11WW1AM-_11,_1MWAM5_
— r
����_�Gi�.
Mi,
ME
Signature Printed Name Address of affected property
r is 7
C S ( U Pd
i��t A MWMW/.�Jliid
617.20
Appendix B
Short Environmental Assessment Form
Instructions for Completing
Part 1 - Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses
become part of the application for approval or funding, are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification.
Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully
respond to any item, please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information.
Complete all items in Part 1. You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful
to the lead agency; attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item.
Part 1 - Project and Sponsor Information
Name of Action or Project:
Modification of Town Code Section 270-219.1 - exemption for roof and building mounted solar collectors as it pertains to site plans.
Project Location (describe, and attach a location map):
Town of Ithaca
Brief Description of Proposed Action:
The action is enactment of a local law that would modify Town Code §270-219.1, titled "Solar collectors and installations". The modification
would apply only to rooftop or building -mounted solar collectors and exempt their installation, or changes in their installation, from any site plan
approval by the Planning Board (initial and modified site plans). Current thresholds for site plan modification, as outlined in Town Code §
270-191, necessitates most solar collection installations on commercial, institutional, industrial and multi -family buildings to require Board
approval due in large part to the cost threshold in § 270-191 A.(3) that states "Construction, alteration, or renovations affecting the exterior of a
building or the site anticipated to cost more than $20,000". The solar collectors would still be subject to NYS Building Code and require a
building permit. Enactment of the local law reduces Town of Ithaca bureaucratic hurdles as it relates to installation of these relatively small
scale solar collectors.
Name of Applicant or Sponsor:
Telephone: 607-273-1747
Town of Ithaca
E-Mail:
Address:
215 N. Tioga Street
City/PO:
State:
Zip Code:
Ithaca
NY
14850
1. Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan, local law, ordinance,
NO
YES
administrative rule, or regulation?
If Yes, attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that
❑
17
may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no, continue to question 2.
2. Does the proposed action require a permit, approval or funding from any other governmental Agency?
NO
YES
If Yes, list agency(s) name and permit or approval:
F-1
❑
3.a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? acres
b. Total acreage to be physically disturbed? acres
c. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned
or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? acres
4. Check all land uses that occur on, adjoining and near the proposed action.
❑ Urban [—]Rural (non -agriculture) [—]Industrial [—]Commercial ❑ Residential (suburban)
❑Forest ❑Agriculture El Aquatic ❑Other(specify):
❑Parkland
Page 1 of 4 1 RESET
5. Is the proposed action,
a. A permitted use under the zoning regulations?
b. Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan?
NO
YES
N/A
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural
landscape?
NO
YES
❑
❑
7. Is the site of the proposed action located in, or does it adjoin, a state listed Critical Environmental Area?
If Yes, identify:
NO
YES
❑
❑
8. a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels?
b. Are public transportation service(s) available at or near the site of the proposed action?
c. Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near site of the proposed action?
NO
YES
❑
❑
❑
❑
9. Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements?
If the proposed action will exceed requirements, describe design features and technologies:
NO
YES
10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply?
If No, describe method for providing potable water:
NO
YES
❑
❑
11. Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities?
If No, describe method for providing wastewater treatment:
NO
YES
❑
❑
12. a. Does the site contain a structure that is listed on either the State or National Register of Historic
Places?
b. Is the proposed action located in an archeological sensitive area?
NO
YES
❑
❑
❑
NO
❑
YES
13. a. Does any portion of the site of the proposed action, or lands adjoining the proposed action, contain
wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal, state or local agency?
b. Would the proposed action physically alter, or encroach into, any existing wetland or waterbody?
Yes, identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres:.
❑
❑
❑
El
14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on, or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply:
❑ Shoreline ❑ Forest ❑ Agricultural/grasslands ❑ Early mid -successional
❑ Wetland ❑ Urban ❑ Suburban
15. Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal, or associated habitats, listed
by the State or Federal government as threatened or endangered?
NO
YES
❑
❑
16. Is the project site located in the 100 year flood plain?
NO
YES
17. Will the proposed action create storm water discharge, either from point or non -point sources?
If Yes,
a. Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? ❑ NO DYES
b. Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems (runoff and storm drains)?
If Yes, briefly describe: ❑ NO ❑YES
NO
YES
❑
❑
Page 2 of 4 1 RESET
18. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that result in the impoundment of
water or other liquids (e.g. retention pond, waste lagoon, dam)?
If Yes, explain purpose and size:
NO
YES
❑
❑
— --
19. Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed
solid waste management facility?
If Yes, describe:
NO
YES
❑
20. Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation (ongoing or
completed) for hazardous waste?
If Yes, describe:
NO
YES
❑
❑
I AFFIRM THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE
Applicant/sponsor name: Date:
Signature:
Part 2 - Impact Assessment. The Lead Agency is responsible for the completion of Part 2. Answer all of the following
questions in Part 2 using the information contained in Part I and other materials submitted by the project sponsor or
otherwise available to the reviewer. When answering the questions the reviewer should be guided by the concept "Have my
responses been reasonable considering the scale and context of the proposed action?"
No, or
Moderate
small
to large
impact
impact
may
may
occur
occur
I . Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning
❑
regulations?
2. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land?
Z
EL
3. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community?
❑
4. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the
establishment of a Critical Environmental Area (CEA)?
5. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or
❑
affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway?
6. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate
IZI
❑
reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities?
7. Will the proposed action impact existing:
Z
❑
a. public private water supplies?
�✓
b. public ' private wastewater treatment utilities?
8. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, archaeological,
❑
architectural or aesthetic resources?
9. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources (e.g., wetlands,
❑
waterbodies, groundwater, air quality, flora and fauna)?
Page 3 of 4 1 RESET
No, or
Moderate
small
to large
impact
impact
may
may
occur
occur
10. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding or drainage
problems?
11. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health?
✓❑
Part 3 - Determination of significance. The Lead Agency is responsible for the completion of Part 3. For every
question in Part 2 that was answered "moderate to large impact may occur", or if there is a need to explain why a particular
element of the proposed action may or will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact, please complete Part 3.
Part 3 should, in sufficient detail, identify the impact, including any measures or design elements that have been included by
the project sponsor to avoid or reduce impacts. Part 3 should also explain how the lead agency determined that the impact
may or will not be significant. Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting, probability of occurring,
duration, irreversibility, geographic scope and magnitude. Also consider the potential for short-term, long-term and
cumulative impacts.
The proposed action would eliminate the need to include roof or building mounted solar collectors in initial or modified site plans- A building
permit would still be required for any proposed installation, insuring that the plans meet health and safety design standards. Little to no visual
impact or change in neighborhood character is anticipated to result from enactment of the the law given that any panel installation would be
located on buildings and rooftops. The proposed local law seeks to facilitate the use of roof and building mounted solar collectors in the Town of
Ithaca by simplifying the regulatory process.
The local law is consistent with the Town's draft Comprehensive Plan, and while the draft Plan has not yet been formally adopted by the Town
Board, it has undergone significant public review and input. The draft Plan includes the following goal: "Encourage and facilitate the production
and use of renewable energy"; and the following recommendation under this goal: "Revise Town regulations to facilitate local renewable energy
production and uses (e.g. revise Town Code, streamline permit process, reduce permit fees)."
❑ Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above, and any supporting documentation,
that the proposed action may result in one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts and an
environmental impact statement is required.
Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above, and any supporting documentation,
that the propose action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impa ts. %
Na a of Lead Agency c Datt
l
Print or Type N me of Re on ' Offic r in Lead Agency TiO of Responsible Officer
/V9natuK of KeAons_ibWYficer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (if different from Responsible Officer)
PRINT I Page 4 of 4 RESET
)P�Weo_+"J
6I7.20
Appendix B
Short Environmental Assessment Form
Instructions for Completing
Part 1 - Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses
become part of the application for approval or funding, are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification.
Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully
respond to any item, please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information.
Complete all items in Part 1. You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful
to the lead agency; attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item.
Part 1 - Project and Sponsor Information
Name of Action or Project:
East King Road Park Development
Project Location (describe, and attach a location map):
East King Road, across from Ridgecrest Road (Tax Parcel No.'s 44-1-4.314 and 44-1-4.321)
Brief Description of Proposed Action:
The proposed project involves the development of the park with a vehicle entrance, parking for 4-5 vehicles, a small playground, benches and
picnic tables, a flat open lawn area, landscaping, enhancing a small pond adjacent to East King Road, and signage. This park has terrific views
to the north and east, so the grading of the site will involve creating a raised area to improve the views. The project will also include a trail
connection from the main park area down to Whitetail Drive for a pedestrian entrance to the park.
Name of Applicant or Sponsor:
Telephone: 607-273-1721
Town of Ithaca
E-Mail:
Address:
215 N Tioga Street
City/PO:
State:
Zip Code:
Ithaca
NY
14850
1. Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan, local law, ordinance,
NO
YES
administrative rule, or regulation?
If Yes, attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that
❑
may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no, continue to question 2.
2. Does the proposed action require a permit, approval or funding from any other governmental Agency?
NO
YES
If Yes, list agency(s) name and permit or approval:
NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation (possible funding); Tompkins County Highway Department (Highway
❑
❑✓
Work Permit); Town of Ithaca Planning Department (possible Site Plan Approval)
3.a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? +/- 2.4 acres
b. Total acreage to be physically disturbed? +/_ 2.0 acres
c. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned
or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? +/_ 2.4 acres
4. Check all land uses that occur on, adjoining and near the proposed action.
❑ Urban m Rural (non -agriculture) [—]Industrial [-]Commercial 0 Residential (suburban)
❑Forest ❑Agriculture El Aquatic ❑Other (specify):
RIParkland
Page 1 of 4
5. Is the proposed action,
a. A permitted use under the zoning regulations?
b. Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan?
NO
YES
N/A
❑
a
❑✓
❑
❑
❑
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural
landscape?
NO
YES
❑
1 R1
7. Is the site of the proposed action located in, or does it adjoin, a state listed Critical Environmental Area?
If Yes, identify:
NO
YES
8. a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels?
b. Are public transportation service(s) available at or near the site of the proposed action?
c. Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near site of the proposed action?
NO
YES
Fv_1
❑
RI
❑
9. Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements?
If the proposed action will exceed requirements, describe design features and technologies:
-- -
NO
YES
❑
✓❑
10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply?
If No, describe method for providing potable water:
NO
YES
❑
11. Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities?
If No, describe method for providing wastewater treatment:
NO
YES
❑
12. a. Does the site contain a structure that is listed on either the State or National Register of Historic
Places?
b. Is the proposed action located in an archeological sensitive area?
NO
YES
❑✓
❑
❑✓
❑
13. a. Does any portion of the site of the proposed action, or lands adjoining the proposed action, contain
wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal, state or local agency?
b. Would the proposed action physically alter, or encroach into, any existing wetland or waterbody?
Yes, identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres:
%Mak4MLd on,gitP (doar-art to Fact K*ng Road) wifl be modified far St=wate an amenity [or to a nark
NO
YES
❑
❑
ElIf
RL
14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on, or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply:
❑ Shoreline ❑ Forest 21 Agricultural grasslands 0 Early mid -successional
0 Wetland ❑ Urban ❑ Suburban
15. Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal, or associated habitats, listed
by the State or Federal government as threatened or endangered?
NO
YES
❑✓
❑
16. Is the project site located in the 100 year flood plain?
NO
YES
17. Will the proposed action create storm water discharge, either from point or non -point sources?
If Yes,
a. Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? ❑✓ NO ❑YES
b. Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems (runoff and storm drains)?
If Yes, briefly describe: ❑ NO AYES
stormwater would be directed to existing nand/wetland (to be improved).maintained on site, or to nearby roadside ditches
NO
YES
El
Page 2 of 4
18. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that result in the impoundment of
water or other liquids (e.g. retention pond, waste lagoon, dam)?
If Yes, explain purpose and size: —
NO
YES
❑
❑
19. Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed
solid waste management facility?
If Yes, describe:
NO
YES
❑
20. Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation (ongoing or
completed) for hazardous waste?
If Yes, describe:
NO
YES
I AFFIRM THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE
Applicant/sponsor name: Town of Ithaca (Michael Smith, Senior Planner) Date: June 6, 2014
Signature:
Part 2 - Impact Assessment. The Lead Agency is responsible for the completion of Part 2. Answer all of the following
questions in Part 2 using the information contained in Part 1 and other materials submitted by the project sponsor or
otherwise available to the reviewer. When answering the questions the reviewer should be guided by the concept "Have my
responses been reasonable considering the scale and context of the proposed action?"
No, or
Moderate
small
to large
impact
impact
may
may
occur
occur
1. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning
❑
regulations.
2. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land?
❑�
3. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community?
RI
4. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the
Z
El
establishment of a Critical Environmental Area (CEA)?
5. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or
❑
affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway?
6. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate
❑
reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities?
7. Will the proposed action impact existing:
❑
a. public % private water supplies?
❑✓El
b. public private wastewater treatment utilities?
8. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, archaeological,
❑
architectural or aesthetic resources?
9. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources (e.g., wetlands,
Elwaterbodies,
groundwater, air quality, flora and fauna)?
Page 3 of 4
No, or
Moderate
small
to large
impact
impact
may
may
occur
occur
10. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding or drainage
problems?
11. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health?
Z
Part 3 - Determination of significance. The Lead Agency is responsible for the completion of Part 3. For every
question in Part 2 that was answered "moderate to large impact may occur", or if there is a need to explain why a particular
element of the proposed action may or will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact, please complete Part 3.
Part 3 should, in sufficient detail, identify the impact, including any measures or design elements that have been included by
the project sponsor to avoid or reduce impacts. Part 3 should also explain how the lead agency determined that the impact
may or will not be significant. Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting, probability of occurring,
duration, irreversibility, geographic scope and magnitude. Also consider the potential for short-term, long-term and
cumulative impacts.
The Town of Ithaca owns approximately 2.4 acres of park land located off East King Road and Whitetail Drive on South Hill. The project involves
constructing a new park and trail connection in this location. The park will include a vehicle entrance, parking for 4-5 vehicles, a small
playground, benches and picnic tables, a flat open lawn area, landscaping, enhancing a small pond adjacent to East King Road, and signage
This park has terrific views to the north and east, so the grading of the site will involve creating a raised area to improve the views. The project
will also include a trail connection from the main park area down to Whitetail Drive for a pedestrian entrance to the park. The Town of Ithaca
acquired these two properties in 1998 and 1999 and they have remained vacant since then.
The current site is a mix of open areas that the Town mows annually, gravel, and some wooded areas along the proposed trail connection. The
properties are not located within an Agricultural District or a Unique Natural Area.
❑ Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above, and any supporting documentation,
that the proposed action may result in one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts and an
environmental impact statement is required.
❑� Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above, and any supporting documentation,
that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impa ts.
Town of Ithaca Town Board
Name of Lead Agency Date
Herb Engman Town Supervisor
Print or Type Name of gesponsibLe Officer Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer
Signatur o espon a Offic7lfLead Agency Signature of Pr arer (if different from Responsible Officer)
PRINT Page 4 of 4
MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
June 9, 2014
TB Resolution No. 2014 -105: Authorize the Acceptance and Adoption of the Multi -Jurisdictional
All -Hazard Mitigation Plan Update for Tompkins County by the Town of Ithaca
Whereas the Tompkins County Planning Department, with the assistance from Barton & Loguidice, P.C.,
has gathered information and prepared the Multi -Jurisdictional All -Hazard Mitigation Plan Update for
Tompkins County, New York; and
Whereas the Multi -Jurisdictional All -Hazard Mitigation Plan Update for Tompkins County, New York
has been prepared in accordance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and Title 44 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), Part 201; and
Whereas Title 44 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 201.6(c)(5) requires each local government participating in the
preparation of a Multi -Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan or Plan Update to accept and adopt such plan; and
Whereas the Town of Ithaca, has reviewed the 2013 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, has found the
document to be acceptable, and as a local unit of government, has afforded its citizens an opportunity to
comment and provide input regarding the Plan Update and the actions included in the Plan;
Whereas the Town of Ithaca will consider the Tompkins County HMP Update during the implementation
and updating of local planning mechanisms, and will incorporate the hazard assessment data, hazard
vulnerabilities, and mitigation actions in these mechanisms, where applicable; now therefore, be it
Resolved that the Town of Ithaca, as a participating jurisdiction, adopts the Multi -Jurisdictional All -
Hazard Mitigation Plan Update for Tompkins County, New York, dated December 2013.
Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Eric Levine
Vote: Ayes — Goodman, Howe, Leary, Levine, Engman and DePaolo
Absent — bunter
(Town Clerk)
Adopted and signed June 9, 2014