Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 1996-06-15 ARCHIVE COPY TOWN OF ITHACA REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING JULY 158 1996 5:30 P.M. At a Regular Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County, New York held at the Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York there were present: PRESENT: Catherine Valentino, Town Supervisor; Carolyn Grigorov, Councilwoman ; David Klein , Councilman ; Edward Conley, Councilman ; Ellen Harrison , Councilwoman ; Mary Russell , Councilwoman ; John P . Wolff, Councilman , ALSO PRESENT: Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk/Director of Administrative Services ; John Barney, Attorney for the Town ; Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering ; Fred Noteboom , Highway Superintendent; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning ; Andrew Frost, Director of Building and Zoning . . THE : Mark Macera , Ithacare Center; Cynthia Yahn , Board of Fire Commission; Lauren Stanforth, Ithaca Journal ; Marjorie and D. P. Loucks, 116 Crest Lane; Catherine Spencer, 121 Kelvin Place ; Phil Zarriello, 1011 Taughannock Blvd . ; Ellen Lane , 104 Halegon Hill Road ; Karen Baum, 1252 Ellis Hollow Road ; Ed Cope ( EMC ) , RD # 1 , Box 137 , Berkshire; John Majeroni , 539 Warren Road; Margaret C. Husworth, 232 Renwick Drive; Terry Nicholetti Garrison, 233 Forest Home Drive; R. B . Fischer, 135 Pine Tree Road ; Betsy Darlington , 204 Fairmount Avenue; Peter Fortunato , 172 Pearsall Place; Dan Hoffman , .607 North Tioga Street; . Bruce Brittain , 135 Warren. Road; Harriet B . Brittain, 135 Warren Road; Douglas B. Brittain, 135 Warren Road ; Bob McGuire, 233 Cherry Street; Bob Romanowski , 160 Bundy Road; Brian Wilbur, Chief, Ithaca Fire Department; Charles Jennings, 304 East Falls Street; Frank Shipe, 236 Forest Home Drive; Margery Shipe, 236 Forest Home Drive; Ruth Mahr, 103 Judd Falls Road ; . Marian Cutting , 10 The Byway; Stan Seltzar, 228 Forest Home Drive ; Nancy Rical , 228 Forest Home Drive; Larry Thompson , 32 Dove Road ; V. L. Lance, 140 Forest Home Drive; Richard Lance, 140 Forest Home Drive; Nancy Ramage, 964 East State Street; Bill Hilker, 277 Burns Road ; Shirley Hilker, 277 Burns Road ; Jim Hilker, . 255 Burns Road ; Guy Gerard , 209 Giles Street. CALL TO ORDER: Supervisor Valentino called the meeting to order at 5: 32 p. m. , and led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance . AGENDA ITEM NO 3 - REPORTS OF TOWN OFFICIALS C. Director of Planning w See attached . Councilman David Klein - Is the Saddlewood Farms proposal on the Planning Board Agenda tomorrow night? p p 9 9 for Jonathan Kanter - The Saddlewood Farms proposal was scheduled for tomorrow night, the Planning Board has postponed it because Saddlewood representatives would not ,be able to be at the t TOWN BOARD MINUTES 2 JULY 159 1996 meeting. The earliest the Saddlewood Farms proposal would be on the Planning Board' s agenda would be August 20, 1996 . Councilman Klein - Did they get an extension on the tax breaks they requested? Mr. Kanter - We do not know. D. Director of Building and Zoning - See attached . Councilwoman Mary Russell - Has the problem on the corner of Route 96B and King Road been taken care of? Andrew Frost - It seems to have been nicely graded . Be Highway Superintendent - See attached . Councilman Klein - When does the work at the Dewitt Pond start? Fred Noteboom - Either next week or the following week. E. Town Clerk/Director of Administrative .Services v See attached . Councilwoman Ellen Harrison - The statement of the adjustments that were made to approximately half of the people on the tax roll , what is the nature of these adjustments? Joan Lent Noteboom - They are water and sewer benefit assessments. The calculation of how many units per property. Supervisor Valentino - We found a lot of inconsistencies . The Town is trying to bring them into compliance. We have reviewed half the list of benefit assessments. Councilwoman Harrison - Review of the formula will follow ? Supervisor Valentino - Yes. We first needed to look at the individual assessments to see what the problems were. Then go from there to find the law that complies with the present . formula and make any changes. I AGENDA ITEM NOy 4 - REPORT OF TOWN COMMITTEES. Councilman John Wolff - The ADP Committee continues to make progress on networking the units for the Town. Staff of the Planning Department, Engineering Department, and Town Clerk' s office, are working very hard to take care of the loose ends and move forward. The County Cable Commission will have a progress report at the next meeting . TOWN BOARD MINUTES 3 JULY 159 1996 Supervisor Valentino - Have the Cable By-Law revisions been discussed? Councilman Wolff - Yes . I have been in touch with Attorney Barney's staff. They have indicated there were a few problems that need to be worked out. Councilwoman Russell - Recreation Partnership met on July 11 , 1996 . They discussed their $46, 000. 00 budget short fall and the possible solutions. Councilman Wolff - What percentage of the total budget is the short fall ? Councilwoman Russell - The total. of the expenditures are $ 1 million . The Recreation Partnership voted to request that the County support the program for $35, 000. 00, as they did last year. We then discussed solutions to make up the other $11 , 000, such as ways to distribute that between the other members of the partnership. They also discussed the possibility of a meeting between the elected officials of the municipal partners later this month . Councilwoman Harrison - I am looking forward to meeting again with the Transportation Committee, some things on the agenda were not formatted due to my absence. Councilman Klein - The Public Works Committee met at the end of June , the minutes will be out soon . The Committee discussed the Town's culvert policy. The Committee inspected some driveways , and the Highway Superintendent will be looking at these findings for revisions. The Committee discussed the construction of Forest Home Bridge, The County will be placing adequate DETOUR signs during the work on the bridge . The Committee looked at some reconstruction sketches for the Dewitt retention pond . Mr. Walker is finishing the sketches for the Highway Department to do the excavating . There is an agenda item for approval of some rental equipment, because 1 , 200 yards of fill will need to be excavated to increase the capacity. Supervisor Valentino - When is the next Public Works Committee meeting? Councilman Klein - Thursday, July 25 , 1996 . Councilwoman Grigorov - The Sign Committee has not met since the last meeting. Supervisor Valentino - The Town Hall Blue Ribbon Committee will have a meeting July 16, 1996. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 - REVIEW OF CORRESPONDENCE. Councilman Conley - The Veteran' s Volunteer Fireman' s Association has requested approval to conduct Games of Chance, which includes the bell jar. Is this approval just a matter of the Town Board accepting it? Is it regulated by the Town Clerk? Mrs . Noteboom - My understanding is that the State has to approve the bell jar after the Town i TOWN BOARD MINUTES 4 JULY 159 1996 amends its Local Law allowing them to. Councilman Conley - Does there need to be a referendum? Mrs. Noteboom - No, since it is a State Law it would be alright for the Board to amend the Local Law. Councilman Conley - Does the amendment of the Local Law come before this Board? i Mrs. Noteboom - The Attorney for the Town should be able to answer that. Councilman Conley - There was a letter of request from the Veteran' s Volunteer Firefighters that the j Town allow them to conduct Bingo. Afterwards they thought it covered the bell jars, it did not. They shouldn't have to wait for this to be a public referendum . Attorney John Barney - When the Town Board adopted the Local Law authorizing gambling in that circumstance, it was subject to mandatory referendum and put on the ballot. I would need to check into whether the Local Law could be amended without the necessity of a referendum . i I Councilwoman Grigorov - I have talked to neighbors near the South Hill Recreation Way about the maintenance and limiting the Town vehicles used . Residents say they walk the trails and have noticed workers are very careful when working on the trail . Councilman Klein - Mr. Hoffman is objecting to noise and motorized vehicles for maintenance . Supervisor Valentino - The cutting schedule was to be worked out. Councilwoman Russell - What is done on the trails with motorized vehicles? i Mr. Noteboom - It depends on the situation . This year there were a few problems with areas being washed out. A little more maintenance was done this year than last year. Supervisor Valentino - It would be almost impossible for the Town to maintain those trails without putting motorized vehicles on them from time to time , we do try to limit those times . AGENDA ITEM NO 7 - PERSONS TO BE HEARD. j I A. Brian Wilbur, Fire Chief - Brian Wilbur, Fire Chief - Presented is information the Fire Department spent a great deal of time on . We encourage the Board to contact the Fire Commissioners or me if there are any questions. The Town may be aware that the Commission has been looking at the Fire Departments, environment to try to resolve some problems . The main problem is that alarms keeping going up and career staffing stays flat. i TOWN BOARD MINUTES 5 JULY 159 1996 Councilwoman Grigorov - Are they paid career staffing? Chief Wilbur - Yes . Councilwoman Grigorov - What years are these figures covering? (See Attached) Chief Wilbur - 1967 to 1995 on alarms . Career staffing is from 1978 to December 1995. A report that was written in one of the journals indicates a natural trend in which the author calls " Civic Engagement" . The trend for people to join everything from clubs to bowling leagues rather than being volunteer firefighters, the author's conclusion shows pretty well what is happening with the Ithaca Fire Department in terms of volunteers . The chart picks up a significant trend starting in the early 1950's continuing to the present, and it will get much worse. This author' s conclusion is based on the existence of television . The impact of people's interest engaging civically is significant. It effects the Fire Department because they rely on volunteers . If this Board looks at the Fire Department status in terms of 77 present members, it mirrors pretty well what is going on nationally. That is the problem , there is not enough people . The Fire Commission did a significant study looking at what the firefighters do , where they do it, and how they do it. They came up with series of recommendations. The Fire Commission wants to maintain career manning at no less than 11 , which is what the departments are doing now. At any given time there are at least 11 career people on duty. The Fire Commission wants to change the minimum career apparatus assignment to two persons per vehicle, it is one right now If a fire truck goes by during the day, there would only be one person on the truck. Currently there are 10 vehicles in service, and there are 11 people. The proposal is to take the same 11 people and disperse them among six vehicles . They would be changing their minimum staffing on a vehicle from one person to two people per vehicle. Councilwoman Harrison - If staffing is going down , what is the rationale? Chief Wilbur - For example, in the north end there would be a career paid driver on the fire truck. He would take the truck to the fire and be met in the neighborhood by resident volunteers who would assemble an adequate team to do the work. That is not happening now It is not to say that we do. not have any volunteers, because we do , but not what we need . In order to create a safer environment, develop teams more quickly, and to comply with OSHA, we need to go from one person on a vehicle to two people on a vehicle. When vehicles are going out of service, that means they need to close fire stations. The Fire Commission has proposed closing Station 7 at the north end of Town on North Tioga Street. They also are proposing to put out of service for day time hours only Station 6 on West Hill , this is a Town station . This would leave Station 5 on South Hill open along with Central , Station 9 or East Hill and Collegetown . The reason they could put Station 6 out of service during the day and have it opened at night is because of bunkers . There are student bunkers who are a stable force who could be deployed to make two people per vehicle. This would be somewhat dynamic depending on the number of people on duty and the number of bunkers available. This would reduce some vehicles going to some of the alarms . Currently we are sending the same number of vehicles to every alarm whether it is a noisy furnace or a fire alarm sounding in a high rise. They propose to change that with the change in staffing and deployment. There TOWN BOARD MINUTES 6 JULY 159 1996 would be vehicles in service more often because they would not be sending as many of them to some of the alarms. They intend to take advantage of the huge investment that Cornell University has already made and that Ithaca College is in the process of making to protect buildings by identifying those that are fully sprinkled , fully detected , and non-residential . This should reduce response to those buildings . i Councilwoman Russell - What does that mean? Chief Wilbur - Right now, they would send six vehicles . For example , the Theory Center at Cornell University is a new building and fully sprinkled with a full fire protection system. What the Fire Commission is proposing to do under the . new plan is to send three vehicles , an engine from j Collegetown, an engine from downtown , and the duty crew. This would manage the risk by relying on the fire systems that are there. The Fire Commission would not be doing this to residential buildings or any commercial risk buildings even though they are protected , such as Morse-Chain or the hospital . A full crew would be responding to those. They would be changing how they deploy their officers so there would be an officer at Station 9. Currently all the duty officers are at Central Station and they will be changing their response so they could manage this reduced response with the deployment. The Fire Commission would be asking the City for additional staffing which they do every year because they do not have enough people. The message from Mayor Cohen is grim , but that is the point, they do not have the people they need. The prospect of getting people they need is not good , and the fact that they are dramatically losing people over the years for a variety of reasons means that they can not simply pretend to operate the same way they have in the past because it is not the same. They have analyzed their situation and planned the program out, and they are ready to implement it August 1 . They intend to fully evaluate it every step of the way to see if it is doing what they want it to . If it does not work, they would need to change it because there would be too many factors at stake. They will be continuing to monitor situations and make sure the coverage is provided where it is needed. This is a package that the Fire Department has developed working with the Fire Commission . The Fire Commission endorsed these points in June. We are presenting it to the Town Board so the Town knows what the Fire Department would be doing . j i Councilman Klein - Does the Town, under contract with the City, have any say in closing the Station in the Town? i Chief Wilbur - The Fire Commission sees this strictly as an operational issue. They are providing the same response to the Town as to the City. If there is a light rescue where a person is down in the Town , the City would get the same response . Similar to a building fire , it would get the same number of people. What the Fire Commission is doing when there is fire , rather than riding with seven people, the would be arriving with nine people. They would be putting a couple more people P P � Y 9 on the scene initially than before. Attorney Barney - The Town needs to look at the contract because there is provision related to the West Hill station . TOWN BOARD MINUTES 7 JULY 154) 1996 Councilman Conley - Chief Wilbur has been doing a lot of work with the City and other municipalities , and I would like to have a meeting some place with the members of the City, the Town , the Mayor, the fire chief, and the Town Representatives on the Board of Fire Commission . There are some issues about volunteers that I would like to discuss so there would be a better understanding of what is going on . Supervisor Valentino - The Town would need to review the contract, and the Town would need to put something together. Councilwoman Grigorov - There is no problem with equipment, the problem is just man power. Chief Wilbur - The problem is staffing , there is just not enough people. To suggest that they continue to operate the way they do without recognizing the factor that they do not have enough people is not appropriate . There is a significant issue of safety. They have been analyzing this since last fall when they realized the prospect of getting more people was zero. They have been reevaluating by looking at what they do and how they do it, to try to come up with something to address as many of the problems as they can . On a temporary basis , they do not see this being a long term way to proceed . They see the need to either address the staffing problem or to better address how they deploy for the long term . Councilman Conley - Volunteering is a critical issue for everyone , but especially because of laws, regulations, and the sophisticated equipment. The training becomes a lot more critical . It is not like the old days when all that was needed were people. Now they need people that know how to run the equipment. Chief Wilbur - This profession is like any other profession , if the environment changes dramatically they have to change with it. Councilman Conley - It would be very helpful for everyone to have such a meeting. Supervisor Valentino - I will look into having a meeting with interested Board Members and Commissioners attending. Chief Wilbur - There is good news related to the ongoing effort to resolve the staffing problem . Earlier they submitted a grant under the Federal Americore Program , and the initial expectations were that it would not be funded , but they just heard it would be funded for 40 educational awards. This would be a voucher to be payable toward tuition for students who provide service in their bunker program . Councilman Wolff - What does that mean? Chief Wilbur - The bunker program could house up to 40 people. The average population, since they built new stations and did some renovations to facilitate this program , has been approximately 23. With the Americore Program they hope to get the bunker population up to what they hoped to i TOWN BOARD MINUTES 8 JULY 15, 1996 i be when they invested all the money in the stations. The Americore grant, depending on the configuration , could mean as much as $4, 000 . 00 per bunker. Councilwoman Harrison - In the report, there was a comment about not having much cooperation from Cornell University and Ithaca College. Cornell University is trying to reach out to the community currently. It seems that this would be in everyone's best interest. Chief Wilbur - It has to do with how they recruit people. They have the best network to get to the students . We also need their assistance in better communications to the students that would be interested in the program so they could fill the program . We are not getting a level that would be appropriate. Councilwoman Harrison - That seems like an easy thing to do because it would benefit Cornell University and Ithaca College as well . Chief Wilbur - The Americore grant is currently a one year funded program , but one year is better than no years. This would be the first of its kind in the nation . We are breaking new ground and the fire department is proud of that. We are demonstrating the effort to provide fire protection at the best and most effective cost that we can for the community. Supervisor Valentino - I will be in touch with Chief Wilbur to arrange a meeting for everyone' s convenience. AGENDA ITEM NOO 97 - VILLAGE OF LANSING 'S REQUEST TO EXTEND THE WINSTON COURT WATER MAIN TO IMPROVE WATER SERVICE TO THE SAPSUCKER WOODS ROAD TANK GRID. (ARROWWOOD DRIVE - PARKWEW HEALTHCARE CAMPUS PROJECT,. Daniel Walker - The Town Board had a request from the Village of Lansing to provide water service to a portion of the Village of Lansing adjacent to the north corner of the Town of Ithaca line between Warren Road and property that Cornell University owns . Arrowwood Drive is proposed for development behind the Convenient Care Center on Warren Road . The Town has several cooperative arrangements with the Village where the Town takes water from some of their mains. The proposal is a development on land that Cornell University owns to take water from the Sapsucker Woods Road tank grid by constructing a new water main from the Winston Court area going northward across the Village line, and then running westerly back to a connection with the existing water main on Warren Road. This would allow a higher pressure available from the Village of Lansing's system on Warren Road. It would be adequate pressure to supply residents or commercial buildings in the lands owned by Cornell University. The benefit for the Town is that a number of large volume users including BOCES, the apartment complex on Warren Road , the Dewitt Middle School , and several other facilities are on a dead end water main . This will provide additional fire flow and redundancy if there is a water main break on the supply lines. It will provide looping that would ensure the liability of the Town's system . From a standpoint of Intermunicipal cooperation, it is recommended that this approval be considered. Cornell University' s developer is TOWN BOARD N UNUTES 9 JULY 159 1996 offering to pay the full construction cost. Portions of the lines would be dedicated to the Town of Ithaca. A portion of the water main would become the property of the Village of Lansing within the Village . This is the normal dedication of water lines . Councilman Conley - Is it always helpful to loop the lines? Mr. Walker - Yes . Councilman Conley - This would be an improvement to the Town of Ithaca , as well as help them? Mr. Walker - Right. Councilman Conley - You are recommending this? Mr. Walker - Yes. Councilman Conley - Has Bolton Point commented on this? Mr. Walker - Bolton Point feels it is a wise idea because there are some weaknesses . Right now the Convenient Care Center is operating on a very low pressure situation . Under the current concerns of the Health Department, they may have rights to a booster pump to maintain adequate pressure, and for fire protection it would be an important consideration. At this point, it is similar to approving locations of water mains for new subdivisions or developments. If this Board approves the concept, there would be no acceptance of any improvements tonight because there are no improvements to accept for ownership of the pump. The next step , if the Board wants to proceed , is to formalize an agreement with the Village of Lansing for the supply of water to pump to the Town of Ithaca . Councilman Conley - Could this Board provide a resolution that gives them the authority to start? Mr. Walker - The resolution would need to be approved for concept and the location of the water for public improvements. There have been some questions about the impact of this development on drainage. There will be a meeting with the developer and representatives of the Village of Lansing Planning Board on Wednesday to discuss these. Supervisor Valentino - Mr. Kanter and Mr. Walker should go to the meeting to talk about the drainage problems with the Village of Lansing . Councilman Klein - The Public Works Committee did discuss this proposal . The down stream properties in the Town and the Village can not tolerate any increase . Councilwoman Harrison - Would part of the resolution say something about that? TOWN BOARD MINUTES 10 JULY 154) 1996 Attorney Barney - I will make sure it is in the agreement with the Village of Lansing . Mr. Walker - One of the concerns during the Village of Lansing Planning Board's review process was that there was no formal notification of our Planning staff. This project is adjacent to the Town' s properties and could have impact in a number of ways, such as drainage and traffic. The Town is trying to build a working relationship with the Village of Lansing Planning Board to address these issues as they come up . Councilwoman Harrison - Are there any precedents that this Board should be thinking about in terms of this agreement and in what they would be proposing to do? If this comes up in a few years in a slightly different way, if someone else wants it, is it setting a precedence for this Board? Mr. Walker - There have been a number of situations with the Village of Cayuga Heights and the Village of Lansing where the Town does take water being passed through . There are a number of agreements for water and sewer transmission with the Town of Dryden . Councilwoman Harrison - Is this anything new? Mr. Walker - No. Supervisor Valentino - This is the direction that the Town is trying to work towards, cooperation doing something like this helps us and helps them at the same time. Mr. Walker - The Town is entering into the, Bolton Point system , Cornell University system , and the City of Ithaca system. The Water Distribution system is about to have a major comprehensive study that the City is leading because they have the biggest interest and need. The members of Bolton Point are in support of looking at how the Town is delivering water to see if the Town is doing it in the most cost effective and efficient way. The Town should expect a few more opportunities to improve efficiency. Councilwoman Harrison - Is there a draft resolution for this proposal? Mr. Walker - No . Supervisor Valentino - Could the Town accept their request for the extension of the water main improvement with the understanding that the Town of Ithaca drainage concerns are to be adequately addressed. Attorney Barney - Approve the conceptual idea of extending the water conditional upon execution of mutually acceptable agreement brought to this Board, include that in the course of the development a provision be made to prevent additional run off to the Town of Ithaca. Mr. Kanter - When the plans from the Village of Lansing arrived there were two parcels which had TOWN BOARD MINUTES 11 JULY 159, 1996 gone through their site development approval . There were additional lots with future commercial development potential in this particular area , as well as a possible future subdivisions further to the Northeast having access off Bentwood Drive. There are Intermunicipal development issues that the Town needs to look at as this goes along . This water improvement should benefit everyone. One thing that might happen with the Village of Lansing is a closer coordination of reviews of these types of proposals as they unfold, including the effects on the adjacent municipalities . Traffic is an issue the Town should be worried about, but there was no detail traffic analysis done, so in future developments of this size something a little more in depth might be included. Councilwoman Harrison - Should that be included as part of this resolution , that the traffic increases would be addressed? Councilwoman Grigorov - Would this cause a lot more development? Mr. Kanter - This Board could include the traffic issue, but it would be taking the developer back through the review process. I would focus it toward any future development proposals that have been of this nature. Councilwoman Harrison - What is the nature of this development? Mr. Kanter - Lots 1 and 2 are being developed as health care facilities. Councilwoman Harrison - How many doctors are involved? Mr. Kanter - I am not sure of the details . Supervisor Valentino - At this point, things are pretty general . Maybe this Board could add another phrase for consideration of traffic and of other intermunicipal concerns to alert them to communicate with the Town of Ithaca. Attorney Barney - Proceed , with review by this Board for information regarding traffic and density before final approval of contract. John Majeroni of Cornell Real Estate - The Village did consider the traffic. The conclusion they reached with these two medical buildings was that it was not going to crush any serious threshold. Part of the approval agreed to an intersection analysis . I am in the process of doing that analysis to identify what thresholds of traffic there are from Arrowwood and Warren Roads , where improvements would be necessary, and what the nature of the improvements would be. Supervisor Valentino - The Town would like to share this information . Is there a problem with that? Mr. Majeroni - No. i I TOWN BOARD MINUTES 12 JULY 159 1996 Councilwoman Harrison - How many doctors are they expecting to have? Is this going to be like the Professional Building at the Hospital? Mr. Majeroni - No, these buildings are 9, 000 square feet, that will look like the Village Campus office by McDonalds on North Triphammer Road . They would be the same type of scale by the same developer. Councilwoman Harrison - Ten to fifteen doctors per building? Mr. Majeroni - That seems right. There would be two other lots left for future commercial development. There is some residential development which is part of the Town . The developer plans to come in next year before the Planning Board with a proposal . This is located on the Town side of Arrowwood Drive behind the Child Care Center. RESOLUTION NO. 125: Motion made by Supervisor Valentino, seconded by Councilman Conley that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves the concept of extending the water main to Warren Road to serve the Arrowwood Drive Parkview, Health Care Campus Project and to improve service to the Sapsucker Woods tank grid subject to the following: a. Upon the execution of a mutually acceptable agreement between the Village of Lansing and the Town of Ithaca. b. Provision within the said agreement that there shall be no additional drainage run off in the Town of Ithaca as result of this project. C, That the Town of Ithaca shall be allowed to review and have approved by the Town Board all environmental factors, such as traffic, drainage , etc. A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye ; Councilman Klein , aye; Councilwoman Harrison , aye ; Councilman Conley, aye; Councilwoman Russell , aye; Councilman Wolff, aye. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 - REPORTS OF TOWN OFFICIALS. A. Town Engineer - See attached . AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 - PUBUC HEARING: TO CONSIDER A. "LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MODIFYING THE CHECKLIST REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVALS ". Supervisor Valentino opened the public hearing at 6: 21 p. m . The Town Clerk had proof of postings TOWN BOARD MINUTES 13 JULY 15, 1996 and publications. As no one from the public came forward wishing to be heard, Supervisor Valentino closed the public hearing at 6:22 p. m . ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEM NO 1 - CONSIDER REQUESTING THAT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON THE PROPOSED INCINERATOR AT THE NEW YORK STATE COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE BE RESCINDED Councilman Wolff - Most of the concerns are going to be articulated this evening and have already been articulated in past Town Board meetings. This issue has been considered for awhile, and in . the recent months has seen an increase in public interest and concern .. The language of this resolution is identical to what is being offered to the County Board of Representatives authored by Beverly Livesay. They are withholding their action on this resolution pending the outcome by the Town of Ithaca. I offer this particular resolution in hopes that this would actually have an impact on the authorities overseeing this project. There is a lot of background information . Councilwoman Harrison - I am delighted that the community has raised the issue and that it will be getting the kind of consideration that it should have had. Councilwoman Russell - In the 5th WHEREAS , it says "the incineration of plastics , plastics are not currently incinerated at the New York State College of Veterinary Medicine. I would like to reinforce that is not currently being done. There is a difference between what is going on now and what is being proposed . It is very important to make it. clear that plastics are a very big concern . I would like to include this as an amendment in the resolution . Councilman Klein - Does a copy of the resolution go to SUCF? Councilman Wolff - Yes. * Councilwoman Harrison - What about copies to the DEC? Councilman Wolff - We will be sending copies of the information to both of them . Supervisor Valentino - The Town needs to make sure that the information is sent to all the appropriate agencies. Councilman Wolff - One of the things that was discussed was the lack of information and the lack of public record . The part where people come and speak would be to establish a public record. I do not know if the Town has done this in the past or what the appropriate procedure is. Is it possible to allow people to submit statements in writing that would then be made part of the public record? Supervisor Valentino - The information the Town receives from the public would be included as part of the file for the public record. I I TOWN BOARD MINUTES 14 JULY 15, 1996 Attorney Barney - The Board might want to. ask the public to raise their hands to show how many people would like to speak on this issue . i Supervisor Valentino - How many people from the public were here to speak in favor of the resolution? Supervisor Valentino counted 20 individuals present who were in favor of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 130: Motion made by Councilman Wolff, seconded by Councilwoman Russell that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby requests that ,the Negative Declaration be ! rescinded and that the project sponsor prepare an environmental impact statement. i A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: i Supervisor Valentino, aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye ; Councilman Klein , aye; Councilwoman Harrison , aye ; Councilman Conley, aye; Councilwoman Russell , aye; Councilman Wolff, aye. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO 9 . CONSIDER SEAR RELATED TQ As "LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MODIFYING THE CHECKLIST REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVALS RESOLUTION N0, 119: Motion made by Councilwoman Harrison, seconded by, Councilman Klein 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 and , therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be require. d . A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye ; Councilman Klein , aye; Councilwoman Harrison , . aye; Councilman Conley, aye; Councilwoman Russell , aye; Councilman Wolff, aye. Carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO 10 CONSIDER ENACTMENT OF A, "LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA SUBDMSION REGULATIONS MODIFYING THE CHECKLIST REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVALS ". i RESOLUTION NO. 120: Motion made by . Councilman Conley,, Seconded by Councilwoman Grigorov that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby .enact. Local Law No. 6/1996 a , " LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN - OF ITHACA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MODIFYING THE CHECKLIST REQUIREMENTS FOR'.SUBDIVISION APPROVALS"; and be it further RESOLVED , that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file the said local. law as required by law. f TOWN BOARD ME UTES 15 JULY 15, 1996 A roll call vote on the resolution resulted as follows : Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilwoman Harrison , aye; Councilman Conley, aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilman Wolff, aye. Carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM Nop 20 - CONSIDER ARRANGEMENTS FOR WATER AND SEWER CONNECTION IMPROVEMENTS FOR ITHACARE PROJECT. Mr. Walker - The Ithacare project has received their final Planning Board approval for 115 , 000 square feet. I have determined the satisfactory point for connection to the Town' s water system is the existing water main on the opposite side of Danby Road . The original plans , provided by Ithacare's consultants shows the connection from a six inch water main on the same side of the road as Ithacare. In viewing the load on the six inch water main and the demands placed by a 115, 000 square foot structure, I do not feel it is appropriate to use a six inch water main to serve that type of structure. In fact, there is approximately a half mile or more of cast iron pipe water main which has significant water pressure because the Ridgecrest tank above it provides high pressure when the pressure valve is open. There have been a significant number of water main breaks on that line when the pressure values open and slam shut for the purpose of fire protection . The adequate connection point for Ithacare is on the east side of Danby Road . That would require boring underneath the State Highway. I have not seen an estimate of actual cost figures from Ithacare. They have represented that this would be a significant burden on them to bore the road and provide the water service . The Town' s normal stance toward all developers is that, other structures need to be improved to suit the development. Developers provide the infrastructure and build them to the Town ' s specifications, then the Town Board is very willing to take over the operation and maintenance of the facility. The developers are normally expected to front the total cost. A letter to Supervisor Valentino states that Ithacare has requested the Town consider sharing the cost of some of the improvements . One improvement that would be beneficial to the Town would be to provide a loop, similar to the Arrowwood site proposal , by crossing Danby Road with an eight inch line and connecting to the existing six inch water main . This would provide redundancy if there was a break in the six inch water main , and improve fire flows for everyone. To run from the eight inch main on the east side of Danby Road would cost an estimated $58, 000. 00, and including putting a boring under the road to run water to the building site. The proposal Ithacare wants , is to connect to the six inch water main on the south of the property 880 feet into their site . Running the service in this direction would be approximately $43 , 000. 00. The third scenario would be to run an eight inch water main to face the property, then connect a six inch line into the property, that would cost approximately $46 , 000. 00 . Running six inch or eight inch across would cost approximately the same. Running the eight inch would make the connection easier to make the loop. The cost of 550 feet of eight inch water main would be approximately $27 , 000. 00. My first recommendation to the Town Board would be to have Ithacare build the eight inch crossing with their service , that would give the Town good redundancy and the best possible system . At the minimum , Ithacare should be expected to provide the water service from the eight inch main , and then the Town would have the opportunity to provide service. i TOWN BOARD MINUTES 16 JULY 154, 1996 I Councilwoman Harrison - The eight inch exists to the point at the crossing? Mr. Walker - The eight inch water main runs all the way to the fire stations on the east side of the parcel . Councilwoman Harrison - There is six inch service on the west side to the south side of the Ithacare property? Mr. Walker - Correct. Councilman Klein - Why would Ithacare need to use the eight inch instead of the six inch? Mr. Walker - Their engineer said six inches is fine, and they could probably get the flow that they need, but I will not recommend the reliability of that system . I will not recommend for it to be considered the sole source. Bolton Point staff does not recommend that, and I do not think that the Health Department will recommend that either. Councilwoman Harrison - How would doing an eight inch be effective? Mr. Walker - The Town would need to tie in with the eight inch on the east side of the road . I Councilwoman Harrison - Without tying across the road , you would not be able to recommend this? Mr. Walker - Ithacare only has a connection point on the west side of the road that is adequate for that facility. Councilman Klein - Would Ithacare need a separate line for fire service? Mr. Walker - Ithacare would be bringing a six inch main into the building , and they would be branching a line for domestic water off of the six inch main. They would have a six inch fire line, and their domestic line would be a four inch . I Councilman Klein - Would these be separate entrances? Mr. Walker - They would be separate entrances into the building. The primary separation is for the backflow prevention. Councilwoman Harrison - The $58, 000 . 00 estimate is not for the redundant system? Mr. Walker - No, that would be strictly for them to have an end connection to the Town' s eight inch line. Councilwoman Russell - What was the $46 , 000 . 00 estimate for? TOWN BOARD MINUTES 18 JULY 159 1996 Councilwoman Harrison - Is there any particular reason why this should not be done as an overall capital improvement plan where the Board could make those choices looking at all the other possibilities before spending that amount of money? Is there any pressing reason that it should be done at this time? Mr. Walker - No. Councilwoman Harrison - I would like to recommend that this Board wait and make that decision as part of a general alternate improvement plan . Mr. Walker - The only advantage to that would be to piggy back onto an existing contract. There would be less mobilization cost and the Town could save 10% to 15% on the cost. Councilwoman Harrison - It seems $40, 000. 00 would be better spent in the. context of the Town's overall needs for water. There may be more pressing things to do with it. Councilman Klein - The Town' s part would be $27 , 000. 00? Mr. Walker - To extend the eight inch main would be approximately $27 , 000. 00. Councilman Conley - What this Board is asking Ithacare to do is to put an . eight inch pipe across the road to enter their project? Mr. Walker - Yes . Councilman Conley - Would this be fed off a six inch main? Mr. Walker - No, Ithacare would need to tie into in the eight inch main on the east side of the road to provide adequate service to their facility. Councilwoman Harrison - What is the request to this Board? Mr. Walker - Ithacare made a request to Supervisor Valentino and, the Town Board has to consider cost sharing their installation . Councilwoman Harrison - Do you mean spend the $58 , 000. 00? Mr. Walker - Yes . Councilwoman Harrison - How could this Board possibly do that considering that Arrowwood was just considered? Attorney Barney - The only cost sharing this Board could do would be to pick up the cost of coming TOWN BOARD MINUTES 17 JULY 159 1996 Mr. Walker - The $46 , 000 . 00 would be to run an eight inch line along the road , then run Ithacare's six inch service to their facility. Councilwoman Harrison - That would not be adequate? Mr. Walker - The section across the road would not be adequate. The road . crossing would be estimated at $35, 000. 00. Councilman Klein - Would that be for a tunnel ? Mr. Walker - 100 foot long boring . Councilman Conley - Would that hold a six inch line or eight inch line? Mr. Walker - An eight inch line. I will not recommend anything less than eight inches for installation . The cost of an eight inch pipe over a six inch pipe is less than $2 . 00 per foot. The excavation is the expensive part. Councilwoman Russell - The eight inch line, which currently exists, is new pipe that does not have problems? Mr. Walker - It is a much larger pipe. Eight inches would handle twice the flow as six inches . Councilwoman Russell - The six inch being an old iron pipe has problems , where the eight inch on the east side of the road is a newer pipe? 1 Mr. Walker - They are about the same age. Portions of both are cast iron and that makes it a little more brittle . The problem is when a six - inch line has fire flows coming -through or it hits a bigger surge. An eight inch would absorb more of the surge because it is a larger diameter and it has more volume. The Town has had much better reliability .with the eight inch pipe. . There have been several water main breaks with the six inch . The loop I suggest should provide adequate protection . Councilman Klein - Are you looking for this Board to concur with your recommendation? Mr. Walker - Ithacare requested assistance for this installation cost. The minimum Ithacare needs to do is to connect to the eight inches , and that would be adequate for their facility. They are required to build this. . The Board should consider . paying for a portion of the eight inch pipe for the loop. Councilman Klein - Would this improve service in the general vicinity? Mr. Walker - Yes, it would provide a better reliability factor. It will not make the pressure any better and it would not make the flows any better. i TOWN BOARD MINUTES 19 JULY 15, 1996 under the road from the other side. Mr. Walker - The portion under the road to the property line would become a Town water main . Mark Macera of Ithacare - When Ithacare proposed this project, early on the issues of utilities were the key issues. Ithacare looked at the water as one of the several utilities that were needed . There is a six inch line within ten feet of the southeast comer of the property site. Ithacare engineers have done their calculations looking at all Federal , State, and local standards. Ithacare has met all of the requirements for both capacity and pressure for both domestic and fire protection . There have been discussions about improving this area which has not been done. In discussions with Town staff, it might have not proved to be a more reliable system because of the inherent problems to cross the road. Ithacare does not have a problem with that. The question as part of the SEOR and the EIS was that the site plan that was approved was a system that goes under the road to the east side attaching to an eight inch pipe. It would then loop to the six inch pipe on the west side of the road . There are all kinds of benefits to be noted regarding historical problems with the system . The issue of the loop system should be done whenever possible as it will provide a benefit to many Town residents. Ithacare does not have a problem proceeding with those plans , even though it increases their cost, they simply want to share those costs with the Town and not have the Town require Ithacare to go under the road when it is not needed . Even if it could be agreed upon to show the need, it would defer significant benefits to all the Town residents north of Ithacare. I would like the Town to go ahead and participate with Ithacare in sharing the cost. Councilwoman Harrison - How do the Town residents benefit by the eight inch main going under the road? Mr. Walker - It would benefit the parcel immediately north of Ithacare. This parcel currently has water benefits available to it from the main on the opposite side of the road. If this main was to cross the road and this parcel was developed in the future, they could build the water main back to connect onto that. Councilwoman Harrison - That's not the Town land , that would be up to who ever owns that parcel? Mr. Walker - Yes . Councilwoman Harrison - If the Town spends the money to build the eight inch pipe on the west side, it would not benefit anyone further south? Mr. Walker - It would provide a benefit if there was a water main break as the water may not be shut Off, Councilwoman Harrison - How would it do that? Mr. Walker - The line would be approximately one half mile long , if there is a water main break I TOWN BOARD MINUTES 20 JULY 154) 1996 towards King Road there would be 20 to 30 properties that would not have water service while the Town was repairing the line. Councilwoman Harrison - How does this change it? Mr. Walker - The Town has a valve approximately every 600 feet, if there was no connection there would be no benefit. Councilwoman Harrison - Unless the Town spends $27 , 000. 00 to connect that stretch of the road? Attorney Barney - There would also be less usage on the six inch main . Councilwoman Harrison - We are assuming there would be less usage if we allowed Ithacare to go ahead without doing anything new, otherwise there would not be less usage. Attorney Barney - The choice would be forcing Ithacare to cut across the road. Councilwoman Harrison - How does the SEQR address the water issue? Mr. Walker - The general site plan showed the water connections. Mr. Macera - The loop and the loop system as part of the site plan . Councilwoman Harrison - Part of the benefits that would have been assessed as part of the SEQR would have weighed against the cost, the Town would get the benefit of the water loop. If the Town does not get that, does it violate any legal terms? Mr. Walker - It was not the major issue in the SEAR. Mr. Kanter - It was more of a description, . There were a lot of areas as part of the site plan that were detailed like that. The sewer issues might have been involved very significantly in terms of the issues that were raised on down hill problems. Mr. Macera - Ithacare proposed and introduced all the infrastructure necessary, including their costs because it was to Ithacare's benefit. Councilwoman Harrison - Was this discussed before, did Mr. Walker and Ithacare' s engineer discuss these issues? Mr. Walker - Ithacare's engineers have asked for all the water service information. From the beginning , I was telling Ithacare that they should be connected to the eight inch line to provide service to that facility. TOWN BOARD MINUTES 21 JULY 159 1996 Mrs. Noteboom - If the properties that will be south of Ithacare linked on the same side of the road go from six inch to an eight inch would the water pressure decrease for them? Is there enough pressure when Ithacare hooks up an eight inch line to a six inch line farther down? Mr. Walker - Ithacare was only connected to the six inch and there was a fire flow occurrence for pressure testing. Mr. Wiggins tested this also because he would be at the south end of the water main and he has a significant fire flow in his facility. Alarms go off because pressure drops, which could happen more often with a 115 , 000 square foot facility. Under normal day-to-day operations, unless there was extreme flow, it would not decrease the pressures . Mr. Macera - This would be self-serving, but it would be no different than adding other residential customers. They would use more water, but Ithacare' s water consumption would be for food and showers, like other residents. Ithacare does not see this any differently recognizing the acceptable calculations of standards that exist. Ithacare does not need to go under the road for additional capacity. Ithacare is willing to pay, but the increased cost should be shared with the Town . Ithacare . would benefit in terms of back up, redundancy, and the insurance it provides . It would be difficult to argue that the Town does not benefit from that, and it has been suggested that the Town is not going to attach the southeast comer of the Ithacare site to the main that goes across the road. Councilman Conley - What is the significance of the flow and pressure of properties south with the addition of another project? Mr. Walker - There is another project north of Ithacare. Cayuga Vista south of the Ithacare area is coming before the Town Board tonight for acceptance of sewer location for seven lots. Supervisor Valentino - What is the cost sharing the Town would need to do? Mr. Macera - Whatever is reasonable to negotiate among the parties . Supervisor Valentino - The Town ordinarily would expect the developer to pay the entire cost. Councilwoman Russell - Is there any precedent to sharing ? Supervisor Valentino - Has the Town done this before when there was a real benefit for the Town sharing the cost? Mr. Walker - In my experience, the Town has not shared costs in at least the last five years. There was a project on Trumansburg Road proposed where the Town would share the cost for development. The project did not happen. The Town extended a water main approximately 250 feet to complete a loop , and the development did not happen , that was the Indian Creek development. The Town built a line between Dubois Road and the end of the water main 200 feet shy of Dubois Road because it was expected that Indian Creek would be built. The Town expects the developers to help in the construction costs. TOWN BOARD MINUTES 22 JULY 15, 1996 Councilwoman Grigorov - The Town did not do anything for Indian Creek, it was supposed to be for the Town . Mr. Walker - The Town provided potential planning information and showed them where sewer connections and water connections could be made to serve that property, and they were committed to providing the actual infrastructure improvements . Attorney Barney - The Town has extended water to Coddington Road Community Center. Mr. Walker - Correct. i Attorney Barney - If the Town is considering an entire loop system there would be benefits both to the Town and the developer. If the Town is considering a straight connection , there would be no benefits. i Councilman Klein - Ithacare' s engineers say that by their calculations they can connect into the existing main with the existing six inch. Mr. Walker says this is not suitable, I do not know how much leverage or authority the Town has in overriding Ithacare' s engineers. Mr. Walker - The site plan approval says the infrastructure improvements would need to be approved by the Town Engineer prior to any construction . Mr. Kanter - I do not think this Board will be reaching a final conclusion tonight. There will be a meeting scheduled with Ithacare, as requested in the letter, with representatives of the Town and representatives of Ithacare to work out more of the details. Mr. Walker - The meeting will be based on whether or not the Town Board feels it would be appropriate to cost share the infrastructure improvements for the Ithacare project. Councilwoman Harrison - This Board should look into this issue in the context of a full capital plan to be sure that this is one of the top priorities . i Councilman Conley - Ithacare's engineers say that they could exist on the six inch line . Is there any thing that the Town can do to say, no , they can not do that? Mr. Walker - I already said no. This is a good judgement on the basis of the systems overall integrity. i Supervisor Valentino - I think the plan always said that there was going to be an eight inch pipe line. Is it true that the water to the facilities was going to be an eight inch line? Mr. Macera - There would be a loop connection . Ithacare began discussions cautioning that the Town indicated they wanted a loop connection. However, there has not been any resolution of that. TOWN BOARD MINUTES 23 JULY 15, 1996 Supervisor Valentino - Even if there was not a loop connection , if the Town had the eight inch coming across the road. it would be Ithacare' s responsibility. It seems that the discussions have always been that the Town was going to require an eight inch coming under the road . Is that correct? Mr. Macera - The Town Board determines granting water rights. The Town engineer has indicated that he prefers that Ithacare goes under the road . The issue from the outset was attaching to the six inch line, the question was interpretation of the requirements, figures, and performances, that Ithacare has already provided . Going under the road for Ithacare is not needed to provide water service. Attorney Barney - The site plan that was approved showed the water coming from where? Mr. Macera - Across the road from the east side with an eight inch connection at the junction that Mr. Walker indicated. At the junction, a valve facilitating a connection to the six inch line at the southeast corner of the Ithacare site. Attorney Barney - The approved site plan that went through the process showed all of that? Mr. Macera - Yes. Attorney Barney - Now because Ithacare's engineers have done a more intensive calculation that differs with the Town engineer, Ithacare would like to modify the site plan as approved? Mr. Macera - Ithacare does not want to change anything . The issue is at the front end of the review process when Mr. Walker suggested that the Town wants the connection to cross the road. Mr. Walker further indicated that it had to be a loop connection as well . There were discussions on the issues of cost, but there was not resolution of those issues. The issues were always being put off. Ithacare needs to move forward with the building permits and other necessary financing for utility service . Ithacare can not wait on the water issue any longer. Ithacare has asked the Town for meetings to discuss this issue, but there have not been any resolutions . Mr. Walker - In the meetings , the cost was represented as being Ithacare' s responsibility. Supervisor Valentino - I have heard people saying that they are not particularly interested in doing cost sharing at this point regardless of what line the Town decides to end up with . What is the consideration of the Town Board , that we should not be involved in the cost sharing at this point? Councilman Conley - On the other side of the issue , I am amazed that the Town of Ithaca has no history of incentives that would attract a development they want. I felt that Ithacare was an asset to this community. I know there was a lot of problems, but overall I thought this project would benefit TOWN BOARD MINUTES 24 JULY 15, 1996 the community. Supervisor Valentino - That is not where this Board is at, this is already a development. Councilman Conley - I know that, but I hear what is being asked . The history of the request and understanding the issues is the point. I am just voicing the other side of the issue. Councilwoman Harrison - Ithacare would be paying water and sewer benefit use but would not be paying property taxes? Mr. Macera - Yes, because Ithacare is tax exempt for property taxes . Councilman Wolff - There has been no precedent for this sort of thing by the Town? Councilwoman Klein - There has been some cost sharing with Cornell University. Has the Town done this before in similar situations for water hook ups? Mr. Walker - The Route 366 piece, the Town accepted the water main. Councilman Klein - Has Cornell paid for the entire construction ? Mr. Walker - No cost was paid by the Town , but the Town is taking it over. Supervisor Valentino - The Town may have done it in the past, but it is not the general policy. The Town expects the developers to pay for their water and sewer connections. Councilman Klein - This has been consistent through the review process . Mr. Walker - The pressure test and flow test that the Town has on the six inch line shows that they could get °X" amount of water with "X" amount of pressure out of it. What is does not show, is that there is a complex system of pressure regulating valves and tank zones which are very delicately balanced. The fire department used one fire hydrant and panicked because about every 15 seconds or less the flow increased. The pressure bells rang as each one opened and they got more and more water. They panicked and shut the valve, the shock wave blew the pipe right out of the ground. That is the type of thing I am worried about with this system . Mr. Macera - It would be happening again now, with or without Ithacare' s project. Mr. Walker - No, Ithacare being a 115, 000 square feet facility with three private fire hydrants and sprinklers puts a big load on the system . Mr. Macera - It is more convenient to do it now, at this point, in this fashion requiring Ithacare to pay for a new road to loop the system . TOWN BOARD MINUTES 25 JULY 159 1996 Supervisor Valentino - I do not think Mr. Macera is talking about a loop any more . Councilman Wolff - Based on the site plan , Ithacare was going to go into the road anyways? Mr. Macera - No . Councilwoman Grigorov - Yes, based on the site plan? Mr. Walker - In the original proposal , Ithacare' s engineers wanted to connect to the six inch main , I said no. The final site plan showed the connection across the road with the condition that any water connection or utility installation final plans be approved by the Town Engineer prior to construction . Supervisor Valentino - The proposal that Ithacare got approval for, says that the main would be going under the road with an eight inch line. What is the sense of the Board? Councilwoman Grigorov - If the Town did the loop , then the Town would pay for the loop , but they would have to do the connections . Councilman Klein - Since this has been consistent with the approval process the Town is not asking Ithacare to change something now after the fact, I think that the Town should not consider cost sharing. Councilwoman Grigorov - Was former Supervisor John Whitcomb talking before about sharing the cost? Mr. Macera - Early on in the project when Mr. Whitcomb was still Town Supervisor, the position remained the same. Councilwoman Grigorov - Mr. Whitcomb did not accept anything? Mr. Macera - No . Councilwoman Harrison - I would not be in favor of changing the Town's policy. Councilman Conley - Does following the plan just as it was approved throughout all the process give the loop Ithacare is looking for? Mr. Macera - Yes. Councilman Conley - Does Ithacare have the complete loop they need? Mr. Macera - No. TOWN BOARD MINUTES 26 JULY 159 1996 Supervisor Valentino - The Town would still need to pay for the loop. Mr. Macera - No, that is not true, it is part of the site plan. There is a loop connection , plus access across the road, all at Ithacare' s cost. Mr. Walker - No, because the loop connection is not a loop connection as Ithacare's engineers showed . They were showing a curve box which makes it a private road right-of--way. It would provide two sources to Ithacare, but it does not provide a main loop. The section of six inch main from the South side of the Ithacare property to the service line is not necessary. Mr. Macera - We're misinterpreting , there is a loop connection from the eight inch on the east, and the six inch on the west side of the road . That is what was proposed and approved in the site plan . Attorney Barney - This Board says all they are concerned about is that Ithacare gets it' s water as Mr. Walker has suggested , from across the road . Mr. Macera - Is the Town ever going to connect to take the benefit of the connection under the road? Attorney Barney - Mr. Macera is talking about $ 15, 000. 00, isn't it going to cost $46, 000 . 00 to go across the road? Mr. Macera - Ithacare would dispute the cost figures. Mr. Walker - I have asked for cost estimates , and have not received them yet. Mr. Macera - Ithacare has the bid , but there is no way Ithacare could have cost figures for that yet. Mr. Walker - Ithacare could give estimates . Supervisor Valentino - Councilwoman Russell , how do you feel about this proposal? Councilwoman Russell - I do not feel that the Town should change the precedent already made. Councilman Wolff - 1 also have not yet been persuaded; but I am not opposed to this proposal either. Councilman Conley - I hear what every one has been saying, but the benefits were discussed earlier of having a loop system connected, and then something came up to say that the Town does not have to do that now, that it could be done in the future whenever the Town wanted to. If the Town completes the capital improvement, would that be a benefit to Ithacare? Mr. Macera - No . Councilman Conley - It would not have benefit to Ithacare for what they are doing? TOWN BOARD MINUTES 27 JULY 159 1996 Councilwoman Harrison - No. Councilman Conley - Even if the Town did their part at the same time? Mr. Macera - No. Councilwoman Harrison - Mr. Macera, do you care if the Town builds the north/south eight inch line along Ithacare property to make a loop connection? Councilwoman Grigorov - Or is that something Ithacare is anxious for the Town to do? Mr. Macera - Ithacare would like to see that done as the best engineering of the utilities . Councilwoman Grigorov - Is that the share Ithacare had in mind? Mr. Macera - To share the cost of the loop system . The issue is, as I went through the original information , that the engineer's calculation shows the volume and pressure is capable of meeting all domestic needs and fire protection. Ithacare does not need to go beyond that. There is a question of the integrity of that system , should Ithacare improve it because it is better for us. Of course it would be better for Ithacare. Councilwoman Grigorov - What is the share that Ithacare had in mind , that the Town build the loop and Ithacare pays for their connection? Mr. Macera - No, Ithacare's request is to go under the road . Councilwoman Grigorov - Ithacare wants the Town to share the road cost? Mr. Macera - Yes, that is all Ithacare is asking . Supervisor Valentino - I am also with the majority of the Board on this issue. The Town of Ithaca will not cost share with Ithacare at this point. Mr. Macera - Thank you for considering this issue. AGENDA ITEM NO 18 - CONSIDER BUTTERMILK VALLEY ESTATES DECLARATION OF CONVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS. Attorney Barney - As a condition with a cluster subdivision the Town Board has the authority to approve declaration of covenants . Mr. Wiggins produced two sets of restrictive covenants: one is related to the subdivision generally and one is related to Lot #69. In accordance with the directions from the Planning Board I reviewed these covenants and made some suggestions to incorporate into the declaration. Changes are highlighted on the copies supplied to the Town Board. These i TOWN BOARD MINUTES 28 JULY 159 1996 declarations are satisfactory and have met all the requirements . Councilwoman Harrison - Would this project be built in a few phases? Mr. Wiggins - Yes. Councilwoman Harrison - The Town has run into problems with other subdivisions where Phase II never happened, and the Town had expected roads to be built. I want to make sure that the Town has already dealt with that in this project. The Town should make sure they have explained this process . Mr. Kanter - There are other conditions that the Planning Board adopted in the resolution that Councilwoman Harrison is talking about. Councilwoman Harrison - The Town is comfortable that if this project stopped at Phase I , for some unknown reason, that the Town would not be left with an unacceptable road system , water system , or any other issues? Mr. Kanter - Yes . Attorney Barney - Right now Phase I is like a "Y° , with a dirt road connection . i Councilwoman Harrison - Who would maintain the road? Mr. Noteboom - It would become Town property if the Town accepted it. Mr. Kanter - It would be described as a temporary easement for road connection . Councilwoman Harrison - Who would maintain that as a roadway so fire trucks could get across if needed? How would that be maintained if Phase II never happens? Attorney Barney - The Town would have the authority to maintain the roadway. Councilwoman Harrison - Does the Town want to do that? i Attorney Barney - I do not know how the Town could approve a project and impose on someone who owns the property the responsibility to maintain the road . The Town would be taking the title to an easement that crosses for purposes of fire protection . Councilwoman Harrison - What happens if Phase II never happens? Attorney Barney - The Town would have a "Y" shaped public road with an easement of 25 feet width across . TOWN BOARD MINUTES 29 JULY 15t 1996 Councilwoman Harrison - What traffic would it take 20 years from now, would it still be a passable road? Mr. Noteboom - The Town might never have to connect those roads. Mr. Walker - Each "Y" coming out is approximately 150 feet, so it would be like two cul-de-sacs. Councilwoman Harrison - How would a fire truck get in there and turn around? Mr. Noteboom - If Phase I stopped there, the Town would build a cul-de-sac on each one. Councilwoman Harrison - Who would build it? Attorney Barney - Phase I calls for a hammer head turn around at each end of the cul-de-sac line for temporary use until further Phases are completed . Councilwoman Harrison - They would be built in a way for a fire truck, if the project stopped at Phase I , to turn around on a paved road the Town would have accepted as a Town road? Mr. Noteboom - Yes . Councilwoman Harrison - In addition there is a dirt trail ? Attorney Barney - Yes . Mr. Kanter - The park issues which are often times put off until the future were not put off in this case. The small park will be given to the Town , and the 18 acres would be given to the State Park. RESOLUTION NO, 126: Motion made by Councilman Conley, seconded by Councilman Wolff that the Town Board in accordance with authorization granted by the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations and Section 278 of the Town Law does hereby approve the Declaration of Restrictions applicable to substantially all of the lots in the Buttermilk Valley Estates subdivision and further approves the Declaration of Restriction related to Lot 69 in said subdivision as submitted to this meeting, with such minor changes therein as may be agreed upon by the Town Supervisor upon the recommendation of the Town Planner, Town Engineer, and Attorney for the Town . A vote on the resolution resulted as follow. Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Klein , abstain ; Councilwoman Harrison , aye; Councilman Conley, aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye; Councilman Wolff, aye. Motion carried . AGENDA ITEM NO 11 - PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER A. LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN BOARD MINUTES 30 JULY 159 1996 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING THE SIX MILE CREEK VALLEY CONSERVATION DISTRICT Supervisor Valentino opened the public hearing at 7: 30 p . m . The Town Clerk had proof of postings and publications . Peter Fortunato of 172 Pearsall Place . " I live in the Town of Ithaca and am the town representative on the City' s Six Mile Creek Advisory Committee . I have been delegated by the Committee to reiterate our support of the proposed Town Conservation District in the Six Mile Creek area . The City's Six Mile Creek Advisory Committee feels so strongly about the concept and the importance of implementing the zoning changes that we would like to reiterate our support for the the original draft of the proposal, that there be a 500 foot buffer area between development and the gorge area. The Planning Committee actually reached a different decision on it, and I still want to talk to you again about the importance of conserving that region . The City is acquiring some properties in the area. It is an extremely valuable region in so many ways. Many people will speak about the value. I urge the board to have foresight. I urge the Board to consider rezoning so that there is lesser density of housing as what was proposed in the original draft. Include cluster housing as proposed in the original draft so that the Town could go on record as having had the foresight to protect the region. We know very well how desirable it is to live in that basin and to live in that watershed. I think if the Board looks out along South Hill toward the Deer Run development or if the Board looks out on the other side across Route 79 beyond Honness Lane , they would have noticed how houses filled in. You would know how different it looks now than it did ten years ago. Certainly the Six Mile Creek Advisory Committee and I , as a property owner living in the Town of Ithaca in the Six Mile Creek Watershed, understand the real estate value of a lot in the area, but it is one of those situations where we need to consider what the Town is trying to protect. Is the Town trying to protect what is available now for people, or is the Town talking about ten or twenty years from now/? What about the seven generation number that a lot of people are beginning to take very seriously, that is only in about 100 years. What do we want there in 100 years? What kinds of choices and sacrifices are people willing to make now for them? I am urging the Board to consider the ideals that are at stake here and the reasons why the Planning Committee originally proposed that 500 foot buffer and the cluster housing . " Guy Gerard of 209 Giles Street - " I am gratified to see that this long awaited action has come before the Town Board for consideration . I know it is a result of a lot work and a steadfast vision of what the greater good for this community is about. I want to encourage the Town Board to pass this measure . As a City resident I will make arguments from that point of view. On June 19, 19911 George Frantz asked the City to do two things. One was to allow use some of the City property for the bike trail and to transfer a crucial easement to satisfy the conditions of the federal government. It was a reasonable request, and approved by the council . I was present at the meeting , and the decision was not a quick "yes" . There was a lot of scrutiny by the council based on two things . One was the protection of the area , and I remember George making statements that were very clear emphasizing that the will and the intent of the Town was to protect the area. One fact was that there would be a limited access to the down side part from the Recreation Way so it would prohibit or TOWN BOARD MINUTES 31 JULY 154) 1996 prevent excessive development. Mr. Frantz also mentioned a 500 feet buffer zone. During that time the concept of cooperation was emphasized . Within the City Council , there were some members who wanted to spell out some specific concerns and ask the Town to guarantee that those concerns were going to be addressed. Members of the City Council were saying no, we do not have to do that. If the Town says they were going to do that, we believe them and we trust them. There was a realization that this area was to be a border between the Town and City. It is a community area and it is very important for the whole community, not just because of the trees, deer, and the squirrels, but I think even for the economic factor. The economic growth and benefits are usually obvious on the basis of shelter or what is going to happen now. Very often the policy is a long term process. I think to protect the quality of life in this area and to give people another reason to want to live in this area , and because it is also part of the economy benefit factor, that the Conservation District should be approved. " Bill Hilker of 277 Bums Road - 1 have a presentation of my own, and I have been asked by the Bakers to read a statement. They are also residents of the Town of Ithaca who have land . This letter is from two brothers who own a piece a property which has been given to them by their deceased parents. The letter was read into the record . (See attached . ) Councilman Wolff - The Baker' s are not residents of the Town , but they own land in the Town of Ithaca? Mr. Hilker - That is correct. This statement is on behalf of my wife and myself to the Town Board Town of Ithaca from William and Shirley Hilker regarding the Six Mile Creek Conservation District. The statement was read. ( See Attached . ) Councilman Klein - Could Mr. Hilker clarify the issue of closed meetings? Councilwoman Harrison - And providing housing? Councilman Klein - I would like to know what meetings specifically.. Mr. Hilker - One specific incident was at a Conservation Meeting, we were told to leave. Councilman Klein - Was it a public meeting? Mr. Hilker - It was a public meeting . We did receive an apology from former Supervisor Raffensberger afterwards. Councilwoman Harrison - So this happened before John Whitcomb's term as Supervisor? Mr. Hilker - Yes , it was during the creation of the whole thing . Councilwoman Harrison - That explains why this Board did not hear about this . TOWN BOARD MINUTES 32 JULY 159 1996 Mr. Hilker - The same Committee broke up into very small committees and had their meetings , as open meetings, but in individual residences scattered throughout the Town . They were almost impossible to get to. Councilman Wolff - It sounds like you are not opposed to the substance of what this district is. If there was a method of financial compensation, assuming that you can measure a cost, you would be in favor of this? Mr. Hilker - The compensation would be for the loss of development rights. Under those conditions, I would probably be in favor of it. But I would be in favor of it if it is imposed upon the whole Town for areas similar to Six Mile Creek simultaneously. Councilman Wolff - There are people in the Town who feel that way, that it should be done in all areas, not just Six Mile Creek? Mr. Hilker - This is one of things that we have been faced with. This is the third battle for the Six Mile Creek residents that we had to fight over the last five or six years . We are a test case area . The Board only fights to put up with one small area of people at a time , so that stops the townspeople from becoming a consortium of voices to say we do not want this , or this is the way we want it to happen. I think this is an illegal situation, in terms of zoning, doing one area not the whole. It also leaves those of us in Six Mile Creek with a very small voice to the Town Board , Richard Fischer of 135 Pine Tree Road - "As we all know the Six Mile Creek Valley is heavily forested. It provides ideal habitant for some of our favorite birds . Birds like the Skull Antangiter, the Oven Bird, the Red Eye Burl , the Red Star, and so forth. It does not provide habitat for another very common local bird known as the Cow Bird. What about this Cow Bird? It is a very interesting bird as birds go. The Cow Bird has never learned to make it's own nest, so why doesn't it become extinct since it has no place to lay its eggs? The female Cow Bird is an expert at finding other birds nests . She lays her eggs in the other birds nest and they become foster parents . She locates a bird nest and watches it, and when she thinks the time is ready to lay her own eggs she would sneak into the nest around 4 : 30 a . m . or 5: 00 a . m . , waiting for the host bird to go off the nest so she could do her dirty work, which takes about one minute. She can actually time the laying of her eggs . Once she lays her eggs, she takes one of the host eggs with her, sometimes all of them . She may lay as many as three eggs in one nest. The eggs usually hatch before the eggs of the host because they have a very short incubation period of about 12 days . So the young Cow Bird gets a head start on the host bird. After awhile, the young Cow Bird begs for food so hard that the parents feed it rather than their own young. They do not know who was fed last, they can not count. The Cow Birds grow up at the expense of the host species and the host species die, but the Cow Bird young live and finally fly out. The parents take care of them for a week or two . They beg for food so hard that a passing Red Star would actually stop and give their food to that bird rather than to it' s own . The Cow Bird does not like forested areas , it likes to nest in brushy places and in forest edges. But careful research has shown that the Cow Bird could penetrate a woodland up to 300 yards, beyond that it would not penetrate the woods . If we take the Six Mile Creek Valley forest land and cut it up into TOWN BOARD MINUTES 33 JULY 15, 1996 little segments we are going to make perfect habitat for the Cow Bird . The Cow Bird would cause a reduction in the species of birds that we prefer. In addition to the Cow Bird we would be creating a situation which would make the habitat for favorable the House Friend, The House Friend has a nasty habit, it can not tolerate the presence of other birds in it' s neighborhood , so when it finds the other nests it breaks up the eggs cutting off the competition . We need to be very careful about how we subdivide the Six Mile Creek Valley or we will decrease some of our favorite birds , ° Jim Hilker of 255 Burns Road - " I like the new proposal , and the fact that it excludes my land. I do not like the stripping of the development rights of other properties without just compensation . My father, Bill Hilker, touched on that quite a bit. If you are going to take away the development rights you need to purchase them. People have bought these lands with all those rights and all that value. If any kind of legislation is going to be proposed along those lines it ought to be very definite as to what you are doing . You ought to know what legal ratifications there are with this. I know this is a very emotional issue. A lot of people are in favor of it. I like the wilderness and wildlife too, but at the same time I value owners rights when they purchase something or when they own something . I do not believe it should be taken away to satisfy the heavy emotional issue. It is a good idea to conserve what we have, but try it with the whole Town , all the sensitive areas at one time . There is no need for this to be put in immediately, there is no huge development that is proposed for the Six Mile Creek Valley at this time. Would it be possible and feasible to consider a town wide Conservation District in all sensitive areas , and see what kind of majority response you obtain from that? I do not think the apathy as far as what is going on at Six Mile Creek should be construed as a "yes" vote that we all support this . A majority of people not speaking says that we really do not understand what is going on , it does not effect our value so we do not really care , so lets stay out Of it, we have our own busy lives to deal with. If you were to make it town wide you would find a lot more people worried about their value and their property rights. Ithaca' s growth has not seen leaps in bounds in quite some time. I am a builder of houses , and I have not built a house in Ithaca in a few years, and I have not had inquiries about doing so. I have been even trying to pre-sell some houses in Ithaca , and I can not even get the phone to ring . Ithaca is not a growing area to be so worried about. I live in the valley. I really enjoy it. I see many people come into that valley and use it as a park. There have been huge parties in the valley with people whooping and hollering and going onto private property. When people see a conservation zone an isolated area that is pretty, they think "this is a nice park lets go check it out. " That is not the intent, is it? It is not the intent of this conservation zone to make it look like a big park open to the public, but that is what people see. Many times I have seen 30 to 50 cars parked along Burns Road , not just for people walking the Recreation Way. These trails used to be deer trails but now they are mountain bike trails and people trails. It is just really inviting a lot of people. In State Parks where there are a lot of people walking , the trails have all kinds of erosion taking place . We can be defeating the purpose of what this whole thing was intended to be. These kind of points really need to be looked at in more detail . Some of you might have been involved in this whole zoning idea from the start and some of you were not, but I think it really needs more work, even possibly making it a media issue. If the press is here, have them publicize the idea, and lets make it a town wide conservation district for all these spots that were mentioned on the Comprehensive Plan . See what kind of town wide response you get. There are a lot of people in this Town sitting back and watching to see what happens in Six Mile i TOWN BOARD MINUTES 34 JULY 159 1996 I Creek tonight, if it has passed or not. I urge you to think a little more about it before you vote on it tonight. " Nancy Ramage of 964 East State Street - ° I am a member of the City of Ithaca Six Mile Creek Committee . I came to plead for protection of the creek. The creek is one of the most precious resources of Ithaca . I do not mean the City, I do not mean the Town , I do not mean the County, mean Ithaca as all of those put together. The trouble with the notion of allowing development is that we-might lose. We do not know exactly what will happen, but by allowing anything , something might destroy the very precious area that we have. I come to you as someone who treasures the natural wildlife area. I hope very sincerely that you will be able to protect for the future, not just for me and my children , but for the long haul . " Betsy Darlington of 204 Fairmount Avenue - " Many people for many years have been working on the Six Mile Creek. There are a lot of special areas in the Town. I agree with Mr. Hilker that it would be wonderful to have some of the other wonderful places protected in this way, but I think if you had to pick out one area that was more important than any others I would pick Six Mile Creek. It is important biologically, it is important for the City water supply as the only creek that supplies the City with water. It is important for the recreation because of all the public money used to make the recreation trail . Better policing would be highly desirable. A lot of things that some have feared are apparently happening . It is not just people in the City who have been working on this , there have been people in the Town working on this. It has been a prime target area of the Finger Lakes Land Trust from the day we started in 1989. There are a number of conservation easements that people have donated to the land trust along the charter, out to the Town of Dryden and close to the head waters of Six Mile Creek. Dr. Fischer and Robert Wesley are excellent people to speak for the importance of this area biologically. I have brought a bird list which was compiled by a graduate student at Cornell in 1988, which shows 192 species in the area. A number of them are threatened species or are species of concern in the state. I have Bill Dresser's plant list for the Six Mile Creek wildflower area. A number of those plants are scarce or rare in the Cayuga Lake basin . It really is a very special area, and I think it is really important to protect these places for the future. I think about Central Park in New York City, when many years ago there was a terrific battle over setting that aside. The developers wanted to develop it, and it was a long and hard battle that they lost. People who live in New York City think it would not be the same without Central Park. It is important for all walks of life in New York City. These areas are really needed in terms of 100 or 500 years from now It would take tremendous foresight for you to pass this. There are rare plants , birds , and other species. The wildflowers alone are unsurpassed in variety. I have been told that it is one of the best places in all of New York State to see spring wildflowers . Zoning might reduce property values, however, the whole area will be protected . When somebody goes to sell their house, a big selling point will be that there can not be a subdivision right next to them . That could very well increase the value of their property. I know people who live along Six Mile Creek who are thinking of moving because of the fear of development next to them . Now that this has come up they are thinking about staying . They do not want to have a subdivision next to them . They treasure the wildlife that is around them . Even if they protect their own property if all the people around them develop, their property is spoiled. I also would urge the Town to join with the City in purchasing land . TOWN BOARD MINUTES 35 JULY 15, 1996 The City has made several purchases already and is line to make several more. Given this land is important to the Town as well as the City, it would seem as though it would be highly desirable for the Town to join with the City in buying some of the parcels that are particularly important to protect. If there are people who do want to protect this land , maybe they would be willing to sell . I urge you to adopt the 500 foot buffer. Five hundred feet in the outdoors is not very much , 200 feet is practically nothing. With a building , 200 feet seems to go on forever, but outside it is not very much. I have other things I question , like the inclusion of a golf course being permitted . A golf course is a tremendous user of pesticides and fertilizers , and they are basically biological deserts. I do not think that they should be allowed , certainly not below the railroad bed . Whenever practical , native species should be planted. One of the greatest threats to this District is the invasion of alien species. I would suggest that you take "that to the extent practicable" out. There is one section that says buildings should be located in wooded areas to minimize the impacts . Here is a place where the biological impacts are at odds with each other. If you built in the wooded area you are fragmenting the forest, and the sort of thing Mr. Fischer talked about with the tropical migrant birds Will happen. If buildings have to be in the Woods rather than at the edges of the woods or out in the open. It is not as attractive that way, but it is much worse for the wildlife if you fragment the forest. We all know when you walk the recreation trail how different it is when you are close to the City and practically walking in someone's backyard . The different of feeling when you walk out farther, you do not see the houses and you feel like you are not invading someone's privacy. I think that is one of things we want to protect. It is a treasure . n Dan Hoffmann of 607 North Tioga Street - " I am the Chair of the City' s Six Mile Creek Advisory Committee. The only reason that a natural area exists in the Six Mile Creek area is that almost 100 years ago the City of Ithaca chose that area for its water supply and acquired a large parcel of land. For reasons then related to water supply, they chose not to develop it. Since that time the area has come to be valued for other reasons than just water supply. The natural area now serves recreational purposes for not just City residents, but for Town residents, particularly with the addition of the Recreation Way on the South Hill side. However, it is a historical fact that when the City acquired and thereby protected the land at the core of this region , it was dividing that boundary for environmental or biological reasons. The boundary is very irregular, and privately owned land now comes very close to Six Mile Creek. It intrudes into an , otherwise publicly owned area that is not going to be developed. This was recognized at least as long as ago the early 1980's. I served on the City Council at that time, and have followed the efforts to protect the Six Mile Creek since then. As early as 1983 or 1984, representatives of the City and the Town were meeting together to figure out ways to enhance protection for this area . It has been a very long process , and I am glad to see that the Town is now at this point where it is poised to take action that will provide real protection . The City has used various strategies to increase the protection of that area and has expended significant amounts of public money to acquire land to ensure the area Would be protected . The City is the largest land owner in the area. I hope the Town will take into consideration the City's intention and hope for this area . I believe I can speak as a City government official in support of the Conservation District. The City' s Six Mile Creek Advisory Committee has voted on more than one occasion in strong support of the Conservation District. We believe the regulations you are contemplating are reasonable and appropriate . They will go a long way toward providing the kind TOWN BOARD MINUTES 36 JULY 15, 1996 of protection that is needed . There will be needed supplementary steps , including acquisition of development rights or land in particular critical areas. It is understandable why the Town is approaching this area before other areas based on the long history of concern for this area . The Six Mile Creek Advisory Committee strongly supports the wider buffer, the 500 feet. We feel that 200 feet will not preserve the kind of natural setting and natural experience that people now have along the Recreation Way, 200 feet in an open area is not a lot space. I would suggest that if you are uncomfortable with having a buffer that wide for the entire length of the Recreation Way or the entire length of the southern boundary, that you might consider the wider buffer along the Recreation Way up to Bums Road. In terms of protecting the public investment in the Recreation Way, I think that the wider buffer will be very much appreciated . In later years it will be seen as a wise step. If you choose the narrow boundary now, it will probably be too late to change it later, ° Mr. (Bill) Hilker - Many people speaking have tied the Recreation Way to the Conservation District. I wanted to go on record as saying that there is probably no place on the Recreation Way that you can see past 150 feet, so why the 500 foot buffer? When the Recreation Way was proposed and came before this Board, we asked for some way of protecting the private properties. That never did come. There has been tremendous amounts of trespass. We had to place unsightly trespass signs on our property to keep people from walking right through our yard while we are having parties or eating out. It is a very annoying situation , and those things that were promised to us on the Recreation Way never came to pass , including the parking on Burns Road . Parking is a very dangerous situation with cars going 45 to 55 MPH . People parking right up next to the driveway, we can not see to get out. We have asked for signs to be put up for, " no parking" that has not happened . Sooner or later somebody is going to get seriously hurt. There was a court case not long ago regarding a car rolling over, a woman was almost killed on Bums Road . Another car rolled over again about four or five weeks ago. There are still accidents at the rate of at least one a month on that road . That is a very dangerous thing . The traffic is from people coming to the South Hill Recreation Way. There is almost no way to get cars through there at times when a large number of people use the trail . Councilwoman Harrison - Whose road is Burns Road? Mr. Noteboom - It is a town road . Councilwoman Harrison - Is the Town allowed to set speed limits there? Mr. Noteboom - No , it is a State system . Councilwoman Harrison - How about the parking issue? Is that under the Town? Councilwoman Grigorov - They could park in the permitted parking zones. Mr. Gerard - I just want to acknowledge that this Board has a very difficult choice to make . I have not heard any speaker tonight that I could disagree with . When I heard Mr. Hilker and his son TOWN BOARD MINUTES 37 JULY 159 1996 speak, I can understand about the private property rights in terms of development and investment. When the Recreation Way came up, I was on the same side as Mr. Hilker for different reasons . I do not know what the real answer is. The Town could buy property to make up the loss of value for some people, the Town could view that as an investment. It would be like buying property rights in terms of preventing development, and also make up for those individuals that have value in their property taken away from them . Supervisor Valentino closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 25 p. m . Councilwoman Grigorov announced she would abstain from voting on this issue as she owns land in the area . Attorney Barney - I have researched the abstentia vote and it is up to Councilwoman Grigorov to make her personal decision to vote or not. The General Municipal Law and the Town's current Local Law and Town Ethics, really deals with contracts. It would suggest that the person who is interested in a contract with the Town should disqualify himself/herself from voting. Councilwoman Russell - I will also abstain from voting on this issue because I own land within the district. Councilman Conley - I have read the Planning Board comments regarding financial compensation for development rights , or the Town buying the land . Attorney Barney mentioned the answer was defensible, one of the Planning staff felt his plans was defensible. What about the development rights or property rights? Attorney Barney - The Town could choose to adopt legislation which would authorize acquisition of development rights, and then impose upon the people from whom the Town buys those rights a provision from. State Law does authorize that type of legislation if the Town chose to do that. Councilman Conley - Would this end up in court? . Councilwoman Harrison - The part that Councilman Conley referred to in the minutes from the Planning Board , was Mr. Frantz' statement on what the Town could do with five or seven acres. Councilman Conley - I did not think anything about five acres or seven acres, that is a different issue. Some people thought that five acres was plenty and seven acres was excessive, but I was going to ask about that separately. Attorney Barney - Would it end up in court? Any person could bring a law suit. Councilman Conley - I know that, but is it something that is normally negotiated with the Town? Attorney Barney - The process is done through authorizing legislation , then the Town would go to i TOWN BOARD MINUTES 38 JULY 154) 1996 i a property owner and ask to buy their development rights . Councilwoman Harrison - Would that be voluntary? Attorney Barney - Yes . I do not know whether it is an acceptable combination or not. I think it is strictly voluntary negotiation with each land owner. Councilman Conley - Some land owners may decide not to sell . Attorney Barney - That is correct. Councilman Conley - But the Town is giving them a chance or at least an option . Attorney Barney - Correct. Supervisor Valentino - It is not enabling legislation , the State does enable the Town to pass that legislation if this Board chose to. Mr. Kanter - That is one of the alternative approaches in the Comprehensive Plan , institute some kind of purchase and development rights or a transfer rights program for areas like Six Mile Creek. i Councilman Conley - This statement has a revision date of 1995 and 1996, which is correct? Mr. Kanter - The Planning Staff puts revision dates to show that there were previous versions. What Councilman Conley is referring to is a listing of parcels entitled " Private Parcels Effected by Six Mile Creek Conservation District" . It was revised several times because there were several different proposals including what land it would encompass, what parcels would be included , etc. It has been revised several times, that is what the revisions are reflecting. What this Board has in front of them now are the parcels that are being considered for inclusion in the Conservation District. The purpose of this listing was to get comparisons of what would be allowed under the existing zoning on those parcels, and the contrasting future development potential if the Conservation District were approved. It would be theoretical development potential that this table is presenting , not necessarily that somebody could go there and build if they came to the Planning Board. It was just looking generically at each parcel based on parcel size and the current zoning . Councilwoman Harrison - I have the read the minutes from the Planning Board. The only change that was recommended from what this Board sent to them as a draft was a change in the 200 feet ! versus 500 feet distance from the Recreation Way. Is that right? Mr. Kanter - I would not classify it as a change. The Town Board referred the proposal to the Planning Board with both alternatives as possibilities. The Planning Board came back with a recommendation of the 200 foot boundary. TOWN BOARD MINUTES 39 JULY 159 1996 Councilwoman Harrison - The original considered by the Planning Committee and presented to the public at meetings had the boundary at Coddington Road . There were a number of comments at a very warm public meeting held at South Hill school last summer. At that meeting, a number of people raised a compelling argument, which is to have this zone apply to people' s houses and back yards, where they live , where they would be able to put a play house for their kids, etc. It seemed to complicate their lives beyond the value that it would have had . The Planning Committee , with significant discussion , recognized that if the Town moved the boundary to 500 feet from the sewer line, it would include most of the resource areas that need protection . Other people felt that 200 feet would be sufficient. My own sense is that this Board should be thinking of it in terms of resource protection, and less in terms of recreational use of the Recreation Way. This Board needs to keep their eyes on what the real charge is , resource protection . The Planning Board was asked to look at the 200 feet versus 500 feet because this Board felt the District should not be in people' s back yards. I think it is very clear that there are other areas of the Town we should be looking at with the idea to enact some similar districts . When the Planning Committee had discussions about a town wide district or looking at individual areas , they felt that the resources in the individual areas to determine need for protection were different. This is the only area where public water is an issue. The Committee felt it deserved the highest priority because there is long history in trying to protect this area. Mr. Hilker is correct, the Town should be applying this elsewhere, and it is our intention to go ahead and do so, but not as directly as this District stands , because there are different l resources in different areas that will make the Town tailor those zones somewhat differently. Another issue raised was that if the Town did this town wide, the majority of voices would be heard and the implication would be that people would not want the Town to do this. Even within this District, if the Town were to count property owners affected by this proposed district, I do not believe a majority of them would be against it. The Board has heard a lot of people within the district who spoke in favor of this. Some are in favor because they value the land , and they bought with the intent not to subdivide. The property values will not necessarily decline. There are a lot of people who live in the Ithaca area because they value the natural surroundings . They would be much more inclined to buy a seven acre parcel if they knew there could not be a subdivision of a R-30 density next door. This Board was elected overwhelmingly, primarily because of it' s stand in terms of Conservation issues. If this board was to listen to the majority of the Town' s residents they would be listening to those people who elected them . The public feels strongly that these kinds of measures are required, and they expect them from the Board. If this Board listens to only the people that come to speak at the hearings, we tend to hear people who are dissatisfied . Important issues were brought out that the Board tried to address as this proposal was revised . Councilman Conley - I have lived in Ithaca all my life and I know a lot of the property owners who have owned these lands for generations , such as the Bakers . They have these lands and are now seeking some sort of compensation for that. I think this may be an issue this Board should take a look at. I am not saying I don't support this district. I am just trying to make it fair for people who own land. The Conservation Board had also been discussing possible tax reductions in this area. That is something the County does, not the Town. Would this be something to send to the County? Councilwoman Harrison - It would be taken to the County when approved . i TOWN BOARD MINUTES 40 JULY 159 1996 Supervisor Valentino - This may be something to influence the County, but it is not currently the case to allow tax reductions for the Conservation District. Councilman Conley - It would be a new concept for the County also? Attorney Barney - I think if this Board rezones the District, which reflects a change in value it would also affect their assessment. The assessment is supposed to be at the highest and best use of the property. The highest and best use right now, is that owners could develop two and a half dwellings per acre. After rezoning they could only develop one house per seven acres . Then the assessment would see the highest and best use as fewer units per seven acres , then the evaluations would go down. Mr. Kanter - The effect of density would be two units per seven acres. There had been some discussions on taking out the second unit provisions , but it was decided to add that back in the current proposal for the Board to settle as another residential zone. A lot owner would be able to build either one or two dwelling units on a lot if it met the lot size requirement. Councilman Conley - I am not sure what that means. Isn't it seven acre zoning? Mr. Kanter - It is seven acre minimum lot size. To determine the density it would be averaged out F over the Conservation District land area . The zoning would allow either one dwelling unit or two dwelling units to be built on each of those seven acre lots. The result would not be seven acre lots T built all throughout the Conservation District, but clustering of those units on smaller portions of tracks. The seven acre lot size is really a density factor, and to determine the effect of density they would factor in the second dwelling unit. Councilman Wolff - I am a strong supporter of the idea of preserving the quality of life, the Town would be preserving that. I do not see the notion of compensating those who may be adversely effected by these actions as contrary to that goal . I believe the Town could do both, and I think that the Town should explore the possibility of compensating those people. Councilman Klein - What would be the mechanism for the Town to explore it? Should the Town pass this legislation then explore it, or should the Town explore it before the legislation? Should the Town get appraisals , or should the Town ask property owners to file grievances? Attorney Barney - I do not know that without legislation the Board has the authority to simply write a check based on a land owner's claim that their property had decreased in value due to the rezoning . That is unconstitutional . What this Board could do before the change of zoning is to consider the zoning district in a context of authorizing legislation where the Town acquires development rights . Councilman Klein - Can that be somewhat exclusionary , every property affected , the Town buys? TOWN BOARD MINUTES 41 JULY 154) 1996 Attorney Barney - The Board needs to separate the two . The Board could say the rezoning gives rise to the right to have the person be compensated for some lost development rights. One is a voluntary program that solicits the landowners who want the Town to buy their right to develop that land . The other is done through rezoning. Councilman Wolff - To clarify what Attorney Barney just said, prior to passing this proposal the Town should fully explore this first? Attorney Barney - If that is the direction this Board wants to go. These are two separate propositions. The development rights that would be purchased now would be two units out of every seven acres. Councilman Conley - I am in favor of the Conservation District, but I am just thinking of the fairness factor, I am not sure if I agree with what Mr. Hilker said about that density of the buffer should be 200 feet rather than 500 feet. I do understand the fact that things could be moved out where there is some sort of buffer. I thought 200 feet sounded fair, and I would like to be in favor of that. I hope this Board is not just saying they will explore the compensation program . Maybe this resolution should not be voted on until that was resolved or in place. Attorney Barney - It sounds like Councilman Conley is linking the two together, the need to have the development rights transfer legislation in place , acquire the rights , and then rezone. If the Town is not linking the two, then the Town could rezone. Councilman Conley - If the Town has a Conservation District, does that mean the Town can not go back and enact an overlay? I am not linking the two at all . I am not saying that I am not going to support this because the Town does not have development rights in place . Councilwoman Harrison - If the Town passes this District tonight and rezones, then the Town may want to approve a purchase of development rights program and fund it. If the Town says the first priority is going to be in the Six Mile Creek area then the Town would set some criteria and purchase the development rights as they would exist under the Conservation Zone . Attorney Barney - The problem is the rezoning . The Town would have to have transfer of development rights legislation in place first, and act under that. Supervisor Valentino - If the development rights legislation is a voluntary program and a person comes to the Board and wants the Town to buy the rights , they loose the right to develop it. That would be the choice of the property owner. Councilwoman Harrison - A key property owner has been vocally against the provisions of this District. I believe the City was attempting to purchase the land or development rights from that owner. It is a very important point that the Town would not get continuous contiguous protection if it is a voluntary protection program . The Town has talked about this for many years, and the TOWN BOARD MINUTES 42 JULY 159 1996 Planning Committee has worked very hard at public meetings to gain input. It is quite clear that it is within the rights of municipalities to exercise their police power to change zoning. If the Town scratched this to work on a purchase of development rights , the Town Board would not have lived up to what the public expects. Attorney Barney - The Town has the right to elect it's police power. I do not know where Mr. Frantz was quoting law when he was quoting it to the Planning Board , but the number of acres with the change of zoning concerns me. It is a substantial change for rezoning, and there are cases involving as few changes as from 5, 000 square feet to 50 , 000 square feet limitations over the ten fold reduction in density. The court has found that to be a regularity taking instead of municipal taking . There are . cases in the New York which have been upheld to the top court. In 1980 , they decided a case involving a five acre partial rezoning of a municipality. The State sustained that five acres . Councilwoman Harrison - Any legal challenge would rest on the fact that this has been a process involving comprehensive planning for the Town . The Town has many areas that are zoned appropriately for relatively high density. The Town is not arbitrarily zoning the whole Town for seven acres trying to keep people out. I think the Town is grounded in sound thinking . Mr. Kanter - The over all density effect of the proposed seven acre density is not a ten fold change, it is approximately a 50 percent decrease. Many parcels are split by the Conservation District boundaries. Large portions of some properties remain in their original zoning, either RA 5 along Slaterville Road or R-30 along Coddington Road. When this Board looks at the numbers , the seven acre zoning using the 200 foot boundary from the right-of-way deals with a 50 percent reduction . I thought that was one of the important highlights since the Board has discussed trying to come to a conclusion about whether to consider the issues of zoning and the compensation as a linked issue . I would strongly recommend that this Board not do that because the Comprehensive Plan said not to do that. The Comprehensive Plan suggested this Board go ahead and look at the zoning change, and as a supplement, look at other ways of helping to additionally preserve lands in the area . Such as purchase of development rights, transfer of development program, and tax abatement. I think the intent of all the different Boards and Committees was that the zoning change is a separate issue. Part of the Parks and Open Space update is to look at the purchase of development rights program. My recommendation is not to link the two questions. Attorney Barney - I agree for different reasons, if the Board feels that there should be compensation they should rethink whether they want to rezone . Councilwoman Harrison - If the Board, as a group , are not willing to look at rezoning in this kind of fashion , I think the Town' s Comprehensive Plan is a farce . I think that this was predicated on re- evaluating the Town . If the Board is not willing to do that then the Town should revise the Comprehensive Plan . Supervisor Valentino - I think that a lot of work has gone into this, and a lot of people have given I TOWN BOARD MINUTES 43 JULY 159 1996 input over a long period of time during public hearings. The comments from the public have been taken into consideration in a thorough process . I do not have a problem with that. I think that the Planning Board and the other groups have done an outstanding job in putting this together. There are things in it that I personally do not agree with , but like every law and ordinance that this Board has passed , it is not " set in stone" . The Board can come back and make changes that might be appropriate. This is the first time the Town has done something like this, so I would be willing to vote "yes" on this proposal tonight. I do feel very strongly that the other parts of the Comprehensive Plan that deal with tax abatement and development rights could be done. The Board should stop talking about it and try to move on , because I think there are some things that the Board should be looking at as fairness issues. As people figure out how important the Conservation area is and decide how much it will cost for development rights , it would put more of a value on what they think the Conservation area might be in the future . Hopefully, then with some of the development rights and abatements in place , the Town would be extremely careful on how we proceed with some of those plans . Councilman Klein - I agree with Supervisor Valentino's statement. I think that this has been a long time issue with public hearings and a lot of changes for the good based on concerns of the public. As far as the devaluation of land , I am not sure that it really does that. I think in most communities spot zoning is in the most exclusive areas . There are a variety of zones in the Town with small lot zoning and large lot zoning , so I do not think that is unreasonable . As some people pointed out tonight, it makes this area uniquely attractive for anybody who wants to develop the land because they have a lot of flexibility. They could still develop it by clustering . In some areas of California they built houses on the hill sides and mud slides and fires destroy the environment because of over building at that kind of density . Some of the land in this District is not suitable for development of roads and housing . I think the town has done a conscientious job. AGENDA ITEM NO 12 = CONSIDER SEAR RELATED TO As "LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING THE SIX MILE CREEK VALLEY CONSERVATION DISTRICT. " RESOLUTION NO. 121: Motion made by Councilwoman Harrison, seconded by Councilman Wolff 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 and , therefore , an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required . A roll call vote on the resolution resulted as follows : Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, abstain ; Councilman Klein , aye; Councilwoman Harrison , aye ; Councilman Conley, aye; Councilwoman Russell , abstain ; Councilman Wolff, aye. Motion carried . AGENDA ITEM NO 13 - CONSIDER ENACTMENT OF A. "LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN TOWN BOARD MINUTES 44 JULY 159 1996 i OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING THE SIX MILE CREEK VALLEY CONSERVATION DISTRICT. " RESOLUTION NO, 122: Motion made by Councilwoman Harrison, seconded by Councilman Klein that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby enact Local Law No. 7/1996 a , " LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING THE SIX MILE CREEK CONSERVATION DISTRICT" ; and be it further RESOLVED , that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file the said local law as required by law. Councilman Conley - I will be voting for this motion , but I also will be looking for something in the future that will deal with the other issues. If the Town restricts land that we deal with it up front first. A roll call vote on the resolution resulted as follows : Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, abstain ; Councilman Klein , aye; Councilwoman Harrison, aye; Councilman Conley, aye; Councilwoman Russell , abstain ; Councilman Wolff, aye. Motion carried . Councilman Wolff - I would like to ask for clarification of the buffer zone, what will it be? Supervisor Valentino - It would be 200 feet. AGENDA ITEM N04 15 - CONSIDER EASEMENT REPEALING ESTABUSHMENT OF CHASE LANE UGH77NG DISTRICT. RESOLUTION NO. 124: Motion made by Supervisor Valentino, seconded by Councilman Conley that the resolution of the Town Board adopted May 13, 1996, entitled Resolution Establishing Chase Lane Lighting District After Public Hearing" be and the same hereby is repealed pursuant to the authority granted to the Town Board in Section 93 of the Town Law. Councilwoman Harrison - There were a substantial number of people who did not want a light in the district at all , and there were a substantial number of people who wanted the lighting district. This reopens the issue for legal purposes? Supervisor Valentino - This puts it back to the residents for them to decide. They are having their own local meetings to see what they can work out. A vote on the resolution resulted as follows : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye; Councilman Klein, aye ; Councilwoman Harrison , aye; Councilman Conley, aye; Councilwoman Russell , aye; Councilman Wolff, aye. TOWN BOARD MINUTES 45 JULY 159 1996 Carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NOO 16 - CONSIDER EASEMENT WITH CORNELL UNIVERSITY RELATED TO THE FOREST HOME WALKWAY. Attorney Barney - I have submitted materials to the Town' s insurance agents , and I have also had some more discussions with Shirley Egan of Comell . There is a concern with the indemnity clause. Comell wants the Town to indemnify them for any injuries that may occur on the walkway regardless of how they occur. Since the walkway goes along the edge of the Cornell University golf course, I am cautious about the Town taking on liability for the access. Ms . Egan will be getting back to me about this . AGENDA ITEM Now 19 = CONSIDER ACCEPTANCE OF THE LOCATION OF SEWER LINES AND FUTURE ROAD RESERVATIONS FOR CAYUGA VISTA SUBDIVISION ON VISTA LANE. Mr. Walker - The modified subdivision was converted from town house cluster structures to seven additional building lots . To build those lots they have to relocate sewer lines approximately 20 to 30 feet in the front yard. There is a reservation for access to the back lands of a 60 foot right-of-way between lot 5 and lot 6 . Supervisor Valentino - Is the Town in compliance with this proposal ? Attorney Barney - They are not in compliance with respect to Section 7, they are not owner occupied as they are supposed to be. They are less likely to be in non-compliance with this proposal than if they were forced to develop condominiums . Supervisor Valentino - It might help, but it will not make it any worse. Attorney Barney - Correct. Mr. Kanter - Another benefit is the lot layout, as now proposed , it will help get some of the buildings away from the wet areas that were identified on the site . There would be some environmental benefit to this new layout. Councilman Klein - Has this been approved by the Planning Board? Mr. Kanter - It has received preliminary approval . Councilman Klein - The Town Board needs to accept the location of the sewer lines? Mr. Kanter - Correct. RESOLUTION NO. 127: Motion made by Councilman Conley, seconded by Councilman Wolff that TOWN BOARD MINUTES 46 JULY 159 1996 the Town Board hereby approves the locations of the proposed streets , utilities, and other facilities proposed for dedication to the Town, as shown on the submission entitled " Revised Subdivision Plat, Cayuga Vista Grover-Mazza Clustered Subdivision" , prepared by Lawrence Fabbroni , P . E . JL. S . , dated April 13, 1996, subject to compliance by the subdivider with all conditions and requirements that have been or may be imposed by the Planning Board as part of further project consideration . A vote on the resolution resulted as follows : i Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Klein , aye; Councilwoman Harrison , aye ; Councilman Conley , aye; Councilwoman Russell , aye; Councilman Wolff, aye. Carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO. 21 - CONSIDER POSSIBLE ACQUISITION OF INLET VALLEY PARCELS FROM TOMPK/NS COUNTY. Mr. Kanter - Planning staff has talked to the Town Board about this several times . The Town and the City need to make a definite decision on whether to acquire these parcels . If so, how? I have set up a meeting with representatives of the City for July 29, 1996 , to discuss this issue. These parcels have been put on the tax auction plat for non payment of taxes, and the County has put them back on the roll because of our interest. The amount of back taxes on these parcels now comes to just over $ 10, 000. 00 . Supervisor Valentino - How many acres is it? Mr. Kanter - The total acreage is approximately 18 with a cost of $560. 00 per acre . Councilman Klein - The Town has the opportunity to buy these parcels for taxes rather than have the parcels be sold at auction? i Mr. Kanter - If neither the City nor the Town decide to acquire these parcels, the parcels would go back on the auction block. I know that there is at least one private individual who would like the chance to buy these parcels . Councilwoman Grigorov - Is this anything the Town would like to keep or just divide it to sell ? Mr. Walker - It is near the Conservation District, and near the flood zone . Mr. Kanter - These parcels are adjacent to the proposed future Black Diamond Trail that the State is going to build. It has access means from the northern parcel , and there is a town owned strip of land that goes from Five Mile Drive over to the railroad right-of-way. i Councilwoman Grigorov - Where is the cemetery? I TOWN BOARD MINUTES 47 JULY 15, 1996 Councilwoman Harrison - Across the street. Supervisor Valentino - There is an old foundation that we would have to have the Highway Department clean up , but it is pretty much open space . Councilman Conley - Why would the Town want to buy these parcels? Supervisor Valentino - Originally, the Town was going to buy it to help the City. Attorney Barney - The City needed the land? Councilwoman Harrison - The City still can buy the land , but the question is would the Town want the City to buy the land? The City' s original plans were for fairly intensive development. It would be more appropriately used as a natural area . Attorney Barney - It has been used for as a dumping location . If the Town is thinking of it as a passive park, some mechanisms have to be established for policing the parcels on a fairly regular basis , otherwise the people will be dumping garbage there. Councilwoman Harrison - There was not a lot of garbage out there today, did some one recently clean it up? Attorney Barney - There was an area of old tires. Councilman Klein - Could the Town barricade the entrance? Attorney Barney - We might be able to do that. There are a couple of bunkers that would need to be taken care of and cleaned up . Mr. Kanter - I am not sure we would be able to barricade the driveway because it also serves the railroad area . Councilwoman Harrison - It could be barricaded on the far side? Mr. Kanter - Yes. Councilman Conley - Is the Town talking about buying this parcel because the price is right? What is the Town going to use it for? Mr. Kanter - The Planning staff has identified it as potential park area. The southern part of the property is identified as the Knungundo Woods unique natural area which has significant mature trees vegetation related to the flood plain area . It is largely a flood plain area . The value is to preserve it in it' s natural state . TOWN BOARD MINUTES 48 JULY 159 1996 i Supervisor Valentino - The Town could sell it to the City if we felt what they would use it for is appropriate. The Town would have some control over that. The person who wants to purchase the land wants to buy the parcel for lumber which would mean the woods and natural area would be gone eventually. Councilman Klein - The Town could purchase it as general purpose land and sell it to the City if needed . Why hasn't the City bought it already? i Supervisor Valentino - They have some kind of problem with what land they want to exchange for park land. Mr. Kanter - The City got that question answered by the State Parks Department. The City could go ahead and acquire the parcels as general purpose land and State Parks would allow them to exchange it at a later point. It would be better to have it sold directly to the City. If there are any environmental contaminations the Town would buy onto them once the Town became the owner, but if the City bought it they would buy the contaminations. We have done an inspection and we did not j see any environmental problems . Councilwoman Harrison - If the Town does not buy these parcels, does the Town know what will take place? j I Mr. Kanter - I think the City would acquire it, which would put it into public ownership. The question i is whether the City would use it as substitute land for the South West Park. The City could sell it to a private person . i Councilwoman Harrison - If the City wanted general purpose land and they decided they did not want to change it to park land, since this land is in the flood plain does that preclude development? i Mr. Kanter - Correct. Councilwoman Harrison - It says that the person would have to develop it in a way that does not increase the flood level for other people down stream , but it potentially could become an expansion of the Solid Waste Facility or industrial area . j Mr. Kanter - The original plan , which was a joint plan by the Town and the City, was to have these parcels as more of an active park. That was in the 1984 Park's Plan . Councilwoman Harrison - This is not part of the current plan? Mr. Kanter - It is not part of the current draft. The current draft identifies it as passive recreation . i Councilman Klein - When does the Town have to commit? TOWN BOARD MINUTES 49 JULY 154) 1996 Attorney Barney - The Board needs to decide tonight. Mr. Kanter - There is a meeting set up for July 29 . 1 anticipate that the City would want to act on it very soon after that. Councilman Klein - I think that the Town should agree to buy it, unless the City wants to buy it. Mr. Kanter - If the Town decides to buy it they need to decide where those funds will come from. Councilwoman Harrison - The City would be a fine first option, why be in the middle of that if the City chose to do it? Attorney Barney - Suppose the Town had the City agree that there would be a passive park. Mr. Kanter - The City was drafting a Memorandum of Understanding with the Town to do this. I have not passed out the original draft because it went into a lot of things that would confuse the issue. The Town should work up an agreement with the City that is very specific. Councilwoman Harrison - What is the benefit for the City to agree to that? Attorney Barney - The land would be available for a land exchange . Mr. Kanter - Part of the earlier discussions with the City involved doing something with the land as a joint effort. The City is still interested in that, so the Town would need to better define what exactly it would like to see happen with the property. Supervisor Valentino - The Town will go to the meeting with the City. We are willing to have the City buy it first as a passive recreation area , if they don't, the Town could buy the parcels. Then next step would be to determine where the money would come from . Councilman Klein - Can we take the money from the Capital Reserves fund? Attorney Barney - It would need to come out of current surplus , or the Town could have a referendum vote to get approval to purchase it. Supervisor Valentino - What do you mean current surplus? Attorney Barney - The fund balance. Supervisor Valentino - There is enough in the fund balance, but there is not enough in contingency. Mrs . Noteboom - There could be a budget amendment to move monies from fund balance to the contingency account. TOWN BOARD MINUTES 50 JULY 159 1996 Mr. Kanter - Could the Town do that after the July 29, 1996 meeting with the City, if that looks like the way it should go? Supervisor Valentino - There would need to be a resolution to move some money from fund balance anyway. There is a special Town Board meeting on July 29, by then this Board would have better estimates . There will be a resolution on July 29, for the possible approval and necessary amendment. i AGENDA ITEM NO 22 - CONSIDER ACCEPTANCE OF RESIGNATION AND RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO THOMAS RICHARD. SEWER JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBER. RESOLUTION NO. 128: Motion made by Councilwoman Harrison , seconded by Councilman Conley that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca accepts with regret the resignation of Mr. Thomas Richard as a representative of the Town of Ithaca on the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant Sewer Joint Subcommittee; and be it further RESOLVED , that the Town Board hereby expresses their appreciation to Mr. Richard for his dedication and exemplary service to the Town of Ithaca during his tenure on the said subcommittee. A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: Supervisor Valentino, aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye ; Councilman Klein, aye; Councilwoman Harrison, aye ; Councilman Conley, aye; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilman Wolff, aye. Carried unanimously. i AGENDA ITEM NO. 23 = CONSENT ITEMS: CONSIDER RESOLUTIONS APPROVING AND/OR AUTHORIZING THE FOLLOWING: RESOLUTION NO. 129: Motion made by Councilman Conley, seconded by Supervisor Valentino that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve and/or adopt the Consent Agenda Item resolutions No. 23(a) - 23(d) , 23(f) - 230) , and 23( I ) - 23(m) as presented and/or amended . Consent agenda item 23(e) , 23( k) , and 23(n ) are removed from consideration at this time. A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilwoman Harrison, aye; Councilman Conley, aye; Councilwoman Russell , aye; Councilman Wolff, aye. Carried unanimously. ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEM NO 2 = CONSIDER RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SCLIWC TO PARTICIPATE IN THE REGIONAL ISSUES OF THE CITY OF ITHACA 'S COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM EVALUATION. TOWN BOARD MINUTES 51 JULY 159 1996 Supervisor Valentino - The Town of Ithaca and Cornell University have a strong interest in what the City might want to do with their water evaluation . There could be some benefits to the Town , and it would save the Town some money in upgrading the water system . City representatives came to the last Commission meeting and said the City is going to move forward. The City wants the Town to enter into a verbal Memorandum of Understanding to join the City. The City is going to bear 50% of the cost. Cornell University will pay for 25% , and the other 25% will be paid by the SCLIWC Partners. The Commission share, at this point, will be approximately $21 , 000. 00. The Commission agreed at the meeting to authorize an amount not to exceed $30, 000. 00 for this study. There would be a Memorandum of Understanding signed by the City, Cornell University, and the Commission. The resolution authorizing the Commission to go forward needs to be passed by each partner individually showing commitment to paying their share of the study. Mr. Walker - The City has talked about additional studies for developing a water system model . The Engineer staff is working on a model to be completed to fit in with the City' s schedule. The City is developing a proposal with some of the cost being paid by the Commission . It would be appropriate for some of that cost to paid by the Town . The City had a proposal to do the remainder of the modeling in the Town of Ithaca and for the Village of Cayuga Heights . That proposal would have put them above the $30, 000. 00 the Commission authorized. Those numbers were preliminary. I have not seen any contracts . Councilman Klein - The $30, 000. 00 is for the base contract, but anything above that amount would be asking them to do more work? Mr. Walker - Yes, but the resolution is worded for the $21 , 000. 00, then the other work would not exceed $30 , 000 , 00 . Councilwoman Harrison - What is this for? What is it about? Mr. Walker - This is for a total water system evaluation . There are three water systems , the City of Ithaca, Cornell University, and the Bolton Point System . Due to political considerations they , have always been kept separate, even though , from an engineering standpoint they should be interconnected. They would be much more efficient to operate with just one system. Councilman Klein - Cornell 's system is ancient and is in need of upgrading . Mr. Walker - Half of Cayuga Heights used to be fed directly from the City' s system and then Bolton Point cut the lines. The Town could then receive water through the City to get to the West Hill area and avoid paying the pumping costs. Supervisor Valentino - It looks like the City will redo their Six Mile Creek water shed , but that will not be enough water for them . Councilwoman Harrison - Is this looking strictly from an engineering perspective, or it is also looking TOWN BOARD MINUTES 52 JULY 15, 1996 at it from a point of view of others? i Mr. Walker - The first phase will look at how it will work from an engineering standpoint, and from a cost analysis of producing water. i Councilwoman Harrison - What is the second phase? Mr. Walker - The extra work that the Town has been building for the model may not be ready when they are ready to combine the three models. Councilman Klein - Could you explain what you mean by model? Mr. Walker - It is a hydrologic model of the water system . What the Town could actually do on a time base simulation , how the pumps work, and how the storage works. Councilwoman Harrison - They need that to do this study, and it is not done yet? Mr. Walker - Correct, some of the work may be to fine tune the Town's model to make it immigrate, but the main contract is to immigrate the separate models that each system has . Supervisor Valentino - It looks like everyone would benefit from this. RESOLUTION NO. 131 : Motion made by Supervisor Valentino , seconded by Councilwoman Grigorov that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes the SCLIWC to participate financially by expending up to a maximum of $30, 000, and by providing its staff time in the regional issues of the Study ( City of Ithaca's Comprehensive Water System Evaluation ) . A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: Supervisor Valentino, aye ;. Councilwoman Grigorov, aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilwoman Harrison , aye ; Councilman Conley, aye; Councilwoman Russell , aye; Councilman Wolff, aye. Carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO. 23 () - CONSENT ITEMS (CONTINUEI. BOLTON POINT BUDGET AMENDMENT. A general discussion was held, and the Town Board agreed to have the Supervisor investigate the matter further before voting on the issue. The resolution as presented . was to include an amendment to cover the cost of the City of Ithaca's Comprehensive Water System Evaluation . Tabled until another time . AGENDA ITEM NO 14 = SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE TRAFFIC ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT PARKING ON PORTIONS OF CREST LANE. TOWN BOARD MINUTES 53 JULY 15, 1996 RESOLUTION NO. 123: Motion made by Councilman Conley, seconded by Councilwoman Harrison that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise for a public hearing to be held at the next regular meeting of the Town Board on August 12 , 1996, at 6: 30 p. m . , in order that the Town Board may consider an amendment to the Traffic Ordinance to prohibit parking on portions of Crest Lane . A vote on the resolution resulted as follows : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye; Councilman Klein , aye; Councilwoman . Harrison , aye ; Councilman Conley, aye; Councilwoman Russell , aye; Councilman Wolff, aye. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO@ 24 - EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion made by Councilman Wolff, seconded by Councilwoman Russell to move into Executive Session to discuss individual personnel concerns. Carried unanimously. The Board began Executive Session at 10: 02 p. m . Motion made by Councilman Conley, seconded by Councilwoman Grigorov to resume regular session . Carried unanimously . The Board resumed regular session at 10: 24 p . m . The Town Board had a discussion regarding the downtown Post Office location as the site for a new Town Hall . Supervisor Valentino explained the site will probably not work with the space being offered by the Postal authorities . AGENDA ITEM NO. 25 - ADJOURNMENT. As there was no further business to come before the Town Board a motion was made by Councilman Conley, seconded by Councilwoman Russell to adjourn . Carried unanimously. Supervisor Valentino adjourned the meeting at 10: 25 p. m . espectfully submitted , •7L oan Lent Noteboom Town . Clerk/Director of Administrative Services "*Special Town Board Meeting - July 29, 1996 @ 5: 30 p . m . " "'Next Regular Meeting - August 12 , 1996 @ 5 : 30 p. m . *"""'Minutes Transcribed by Deborah A. Kelley. OF ITt TOWN OF ITHACA 21 04� 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y : 14850 � Y TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 Town Board Meeting 7/ 15/96 Agenda Item No , 9 SEAR : LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MODIFYING THE CHECKLIST REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISION . APPROVALS Resolution No . 119 WHEREAS , this action is the consideration of a , " LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MODIFYING THE CHECKLIST REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVALS" ; and WHEREAS , this is an unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to the enactment of local laws ; and WHEREAS , the Town Board , at a public hearing held on July 15 , 1996 , has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form , Parts I and II 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 and , therefore , neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form , ' nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required . MOVED : Councilwoman Harrison SECONDED : Councilman Klein Supervisor Valentino , aye , Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilwoman Harrison , aye ; Councilman Conley, aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilman Wolff, aye . Carried unanimously. DATED : July 15 , 1996 Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk OF 1P TOWN OF ITHACA 2104^� 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y. 14850 � Y TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 Town Board Meeting 7/ 15/96 Agenda Item No . 10 Enactment : Local Law No. 6/1996 Amending the Subdivision Regulations Modifying Checklist Requirements for Subdivision Approvals Resolution No. 120 WHEREAS , the properly advertised Public Hearing has been held to consider a , "LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MODIFYING THE CHECKLIST REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVALS now therefore be it RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby enact Local Law No . 6/1996 a , " LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MODIFYING THE CHECKLIST REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVALS" ; and be it further RESOLVED , the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file the said local law as required by law. MOVED : Councilman Conley SECONDED : Councilwoman Grigorov ROLL CALL VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilwoman Harrison , aye ; Councilman Conley, aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilman Wolff, aye . Carried unanimously. DATED : July 15 , 1996 Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk OF Ip X99 TOWN OF ITHACA ,p� �o4� 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 Town Board Meeting 7/ 15/96 Agenda Item No . 12 SEQR : Proposed LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING THE SIX MILE CREEK VALLEY CONSERVATION DISTRICT Resolution No . 121 WHEREAS , the Town Board has proposed a local law amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance by establishing the Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District, to be located generally between Coddington and Slaterville Roads and the City of Ithaca and Town of Danby and Town of Dryden boundaries ; generally following the established R- 30 Residence District boundaries and 200 feet west of the right-of-way of the South Hill Recreationway and railroad grade , as shown on a map entitled " Exhibit A - Town of Ithaca Proposed Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District" ( revised 6/26/96) , and WHEREAS , the Town Board referred said proposed local law to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for their recommendation pursuant to Town of Ithaca Town Board Resolution No . 40 , dated March 11 , 1996 , and WHEREAS , the Planning Board , after holding a Public Hearing on May 7 , 1996 , and a follow-up public meeting on May 21 , 1996 , and after reviewing the above- referenced local law, a Full Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and II prepared by the Town planning staff, and other materials , has recommended that the Town Board enact the proposed Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District , and WHEREAS , the enactment of the proposed local law to establish the Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District is a Type I action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act , 6 NYCRR Part 617 , and WHEREAS , the Town Board has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form ( EAF) , Parts I and II , prepared by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department; 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 and , therefore , an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required . TB Res. No , 121 7/ 15/96 Page 2 . MOVED: Councilwoman Harrison SECONDED: Councilman Wolff ROLL CALL VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov, abstain ; Councilman Klein , aye; Councilwoman Harrison , aye; Councilman Conley, aye; Councilwoman Russell , abstain ; Councilman Wolff, aye. Motion carried . DATED: July 15 , 1996 Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk OF 1p 9 TOWN OF ITHACA ,y� �o4� 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 Town Board Meeting 7/ 15/96 Agenda Item No . 13 Enactment: Local Law No . 7/1996 Amending the Zoning Ordinance by Establishing the Six Mile Creek Conservation District Resolution No . 122 WHEREAS , the . properly advertised Public Hearing has been held to consider a, "LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING THE SIX MILE CREEK CONSERVATION DISTRICT" , now therefore be it RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby enact Local Law No . 7/ 1996 a , "LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING THE SIX MILE CREEK CONSERVATION DISTRICT" ; and be it further RESOLVED , the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file the said local law as required by law. MOVED : Councilwoman Harrison SECONDED : Councilman Klein ROLL CALL VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov, abstain ; Councilman Klein , aye; Councilwoman Harrison , aye ; Councilman Conley, aye ; Councilwoman Russell , abstain ; Councilman Wolff , aye . Motion carried . DATED : July 15 , 1996 Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk OF1r F _ 9 TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 Town Board Meeting 7/ 15/96 Agenda Item No. 14 Public Hearing Date - Amendment to Traffic Ordinance Limited Parking , Crest Lane Resolution No. 123 BE IT RESOLVED , the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise for a public hearing to be held at the next regular meeting of the Town Board on August 129 1996 , at 6 : 30 p . m . , in order that the Town Board may consider an amendment to the Traffic Ordinance to prohibit parking on portions of Crest Lane . MOVED : Councilman Conley SECONDED : Councilwoman Harrison Supervisor Valentino , aye; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilwoman Harrison , aye ; Councilman Conley , aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilman Wolff, aye . Carried unanimously DATED: July 15 , 1996 �Uvcros- Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk OF 1p ti a TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 Town Board Meeting 7/ 15/96 Agenda Item No . 15 RESOLUTION REPEALING THE RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CHASE LANE LIGHTING DISTRICT Resolution No . 124 WHEREAS , on May 13 , 1996 , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca duly adopted a resolution establishing the Chase Lane Lighting District after a public hearings and WHEREAS , certain questions have arisen with respect to the proposed lighting district configuration , the nature of the fixtures to be used , and other matters relating to the lighting district; and WHEREAS , the Town Board does not wish to require the persons who object to the lighting district in its present form to compel a referendum ; and WHEREAS , the Town Board wishes to have the Town Engineer study the matter further to consult with the residents of the proposed lighting district before finalizing the district , NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca that the resolution of the Town Board adopted May 13 , 1996 , entitled " Resolution Establishing Chase Lane Lighting District After Public Hearing " be and the same, hereby is repealed pursuant to the authority granted to the Town Board in Section 93 of the Town Law. MOVED : Supervisor Valentino SECONDED : Councilman Conley Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilwoman Harrison , aye ; Councilman Conley, aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilman Wolff, aye. Carried unanimously. DATED : July 15 , 1996 Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk OFlp 9 TOWN OF ITHACA �,� �04^� 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 Town Board Meeting 7/15/96 Agenda Item No . 17 Village of Lansing Arrowwood DriveParkview Health Care Campus Project Extension Winston Court Water Main Resolution No . 125 WHEREAS , the Village of Lansing has requested that the Town of Ithaca Town Board. consider extending the Winston Court water main to provide water service to the said Village of Lansing for the Arrowwood Drive Parkview , Health Care Campus Project; and WHEREAS , the proposal includes construction of a water main from the Winston Court water main to the Town of Ithaca Warren Road water main , which will improve water service within the Sapsucker Woods tank zone ; now therefore be it RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the concept of extending the water main to Warren Road to serve the Arrowwood Drive Parkview, Health Care Campus Project and to improve service to the Sapsucker Woods Road tank grid subject to the following : A. Upon the execution of a mutually acceptable agreement between the Village of Lansing and the Town of Ithaca . B . Provisions within the said agreement that there shall be no additional drainage run off in the Town of Ithaca as a result of this project. C . That the Town of Ithaca shall be allowed to review and have approved by the Town Board all environmental factors , such as traffic, drainage, etc . MOVED : Supervisor Valentino SECONDED : Councilman Conley Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilwoman Harrison , aye ; Councilman Conley, aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye; Councilman Wolff, aye . Carried unanimously. DATED : July 15 , 1996 - r^� Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk OF ITl, TOWN OF ITHACA ,�,� �04� 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 Town Board Meeting 7/ 15/96 Agenda item No . 18 Resolution Approving Declaration of Restrictions Buttermilk Valley Estates Resolution No . 126 WHEREAS , Buttermilk Valley Estates is a cluster subdivision that has. received preliminary subdivision approval from the Planning Board and final subdivision approval with respect to Phase I of the development , subject to the approval of the Declaration of Restrictions by the Town Board ; and WHEREAS , the Developer has presented to the Town Board proposed restrictive covenants relating to the entire proposed subdivision and the same have been reviewed and modified by the attorney for the Town ; and WHEREAS , the Attorney for the Town recommends the approval of the modified Declaration of Restrictions ; and WHEREAS , Walter and Joyce Wiggins have also submitted a Declaration of Restriction pursuant to which Lot 69 will be conveyed to the Buttermilk Falls State Park; and WHEREAS , the Attorney for the Town has recommended approval of this Declaration , NOW , THEREFORE , be it RESOLVED , the Town Board in accordance with authorization granted by the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations and Section 278 of the Town Law does hereby approve the Declaration of Restrictions applicable to substantially all of the lots in the Buttermilk Valley Estates subdivision and further approves the Declaration of Restriction related to Lot 69 in said subdivision as submitted to this meeting , with such minor changes therein as may be agreed upon by the Town Supervisor upon the recommendation of the Town Planner , Town Engineer and Attorney for the Town . MOVED : Councilman Conley SECONDED : Councilman Wolff Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Klein , abstain ; Councilwoman Harrison , aye ; Councilman Conley , aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilman Wolff , aye . Motion carried . DATED : July 15 , 1996 oan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk OF 1p _ 9 TOWN OF ITHACA }- 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 �4� .104 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 Town Board Meeting 7/ 15/96 Agenda Item No . 19 Acceptance of Location of Utilities and Future Road Reservation Cayuga Vista Subdivision Resolution No . 127 WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , on June 4, 1996 , granted Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed Subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 39- 1 =25 . 2 and 39- 10- 1 , consisting of 7 clustered lots , and relocation of sewer facilities , to be located on Vista Lane , Residence District R- 15 , as shown on a submission entitled "Revised Subdivision Plat , Cayuga Vista Grover- Mazza Clustered Subdivision" , prepared by Lawrence Fabbroni , P . E ./L. S . , dated April 13 , 1996 , subject to the several conditions ; and WHEREAS , a condition of the preliminary subdivision approval is the approval and acceptance by the Town Board of the location of all proposed streets , utilities , and other facilities proposed for dedication to the Town , all prior to consideration of final subdivision approval ; now therefore be it RESOLVED , the Town Board hereby approves the locations of the proposed streets , utilities , and other facilities proposed for dedication to the Town , as shown on the submission entitled "Revised Subdivision Plat , Cayuga Vista Grover- Mazza Clustered Subdivision" , prepared by Lawrence Fabbroni , P . E ./L. S . , dated April 13 , 1996 , subject to compliance by the subdivider with all conditions and requirements that have been or may be imposed by the Planning Board as part of further project consideration . MOVED : Councilman Conley SECONDED : Councilman Wolff Supervisor Valentino, aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilwoman Harrison , aye ; Councilman Conley, aye; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilman Wolff, aye . Carried unanimously. DATED : July 15 , 1996 Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk OF 1P� 9 TOWN OF ITHACA ,�,� �o�^b 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 � Y TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 Town Board Meeting 7/ 15/96 Agenda Item No . 22 Resignation and Appreciation Thomas Richard Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant Sewer Joint Subcommittee Resolution No . 128 WHEREAS , Thomas Richard , 144 Coy Glen Road , Ithaca has served on the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant Sewer Joint Subcommittee as a representative for the Town of Ithaca since 1993; and WHEREAS , Mr . Richard has submitted his resignation as the said representative ; now therefore be it RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca accepts with regret the resignation of Mr . Thomas Richard as a representative of the Town of Ithaca on the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant Sewer Joint Subcommittee ; and be it further RESOLVED , the Town Board hereby expresses their appreciation to Mr. Richard for his dedicated and exemplary service to the Town of Ithaca during his tenure on the said subcommittee . MOVED : Councilwoman Harrison SECONDED : Councilman Conley Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilwoman Harrison , aye ; Councilman Conley, aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilman Wolff , aye . DATED : July 15 , 1996 ' Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk -S EAL- qty OF I r TOWN OF ITHACA 04� 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 Pr Y TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 Town Board Meeting 7/15/96 Agenda Item No . 23(a)=23(m ) Consent Agenda Items Resolution No . 129 BE IT RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve and/or adopt the Consent Agenda Item resolutions No . 23 (a) - 23 (d) , 23 (f) = 23 (j) , and 23(1 ) = 23 (m ) as presented and/or amended . Consent agenda item 23 (e) , 23 (k) , and 23 (n ) are removed from consideration at this time . MOVED: Councilman Conley SECONDED : Supervisor Valentino Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilwoman Harrison , aye; Councilman Conley, aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilman Wolff , aye. Carried unanimously. DATED: July 15 , 1996 C), I 1z � J;nJz Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk �1y OF I r a TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 Town Board Meeting 7/ 15/96 Agenda Item No , 23 (a) Approval Town Board Meeting Minutes Resolution No . 129(a) WHEREAS , the Town Clerk has presented the Town Board Meeting Minutes for the regular meeting held on June 10 , 1996 to the Town Board for their review and approval ; and WHEREAS , the Town Board has reviewed the minutes for the said meeting ; now therefore be it RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve and adopt the minutes for the regular meeting held June 10 , 1996 as the official minutes for the said meeting . MOVED : Councilman Conley SECONDED : Supervisor Valentino Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilwoman Harrison , aye; Councilman Conley, aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye; Councilman Wolff, aye . Carried unanimously. DATED: July 15 , 1996 Q 9 Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk �1y OF 1P TOWN OF ITHACA �� zi o4� 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 � Y TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 Town Board Meeting 7/ 15/96 Agenda Item No . 23 (b) TOWN OF ITHACA WARRANTS Resolution No . 129(b) WHEREAS , the warrant with the following numbered listing of vouchers has been presented to the Town Board for approval of payment; and WHEREAS , the said warrant has been audited for payment by the Town Board ; now therefore be it RESOLVED , that the Town Board does hereby authorize the payment of said vouchers as numbered and listed on the warrant . General Townwide Vouchers : No . 377 , $7 , 463 . 99 ; No . 378 , $21 , 123 . 63 ; No . 379 , $30 , 604 . 60 ; No . 380=434 , $789879 . 80 . General Part Town Vouchers : No . 142 , $ 14 , 190 . 19 ; No . 143 , $4 , 631 . 28 ; No . 144 , $63 . 11 ; No . 145 , $ 14 , 805 . 90 ; No . 146- 169 , $ 15 , 821 . 38 . Highway Part Town Vouchers : No . No . 213 , $ 12 , 266 . 68 ; No . 214 , $4, 665 . 27 ; No . 2157 $ 12 ,275 . 31 ; No . 216-250 , $ 19 , 896 , 66 , Water Fund Vouchers : No , No . 78 , $ 1 , 145 . 84 ; No . 79 , $ 100 . 82 ; No . 80 , $ 1 , 240 . 96 ; No . 81 -899 $432 , 577 , 75o Sewer Fund Vouchers : No . 84 , $ 1 , 665 . 04; No . 85 , $ 100 . 82 ; No. 86-87 , $ 178 . 92 ; No . 88 , $ 1 , 503 . 76; No . 89= 109 , $264 , 669 . 63 . Lighting District Vouchers : No . 17- 19 , $ 1 , 149 . 85 . MOVED : Councilman Conley SECONDED : Supervisor Valentino Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilwoman Harrison , aye; Councilman Conley, aye; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilman Wolff , aye . Carried unanimously. DATED : July 15 , 1996 Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk OF Ir TOWN OF ITHACA �� zi o¢� 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 Town Board Meeting 7/ 15/96 Agenda Item No . 23 (c- 1 ) Budget Amendment - Independent Auditor' s Resolution No . 129 (c- 1 ) WHEREAS , there is an insufficient budgeted amount in the General Fund appropriation line item Independent Auditors , Contractual to cover the expenses for payment of accounting services to the firm of Ciaschi , Dietershage , Little , Mickelson , LLP for the year 1996 ; and WHEREAS , the Town Board wishes to follow the Town of Ithaca Procurement Policy and the mandates of the NYS Comptroller' s Office by not allowing any expenditures without the appropriation line item being adequately funded; now therefore be it RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby authorize and direct the Town Supervisor/Fiscal Officer to make the following General Fund Budget Amendment to provide for adequate funding to cover the expenses of the independent auditor' s services for the year 1996 . GENERAL FUND TOWNWIDE : FROM : Contingency - A1990. 400 $ 51000 . 00 TO : Independent Auditor' s = Contractual A13200400 $ 5 , 000 . 00 MOVED : Councilman Conley SECONDED : Supervisor Valentino Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilwoman Harrison , aye ; Councilman Conley, aye; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilman Wolff, aye. Carried unanimously. DATED : July 15 , 1996 Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk OF 1p F _ 9 TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 Y 04 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 Town Board Meeting 7/ 15/96 Agenda Item No . 23 (c -2) Budget Amendment - Donation Youth Conservation Corps Resolution No , 129 (c-2) WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca has received an anonymous donation of $ 10 , 000 for the expressed purpose of funding the Youth Conservation Corps projects ; and WHEREAS , under the Uniformed System of Accounts for Towns as defined by the Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Municipal Affairs it is necessary that the said donation be accounted for within the Town of Ithaca General Part Town Budget by authorization of an amendment to the said fund by the Town Board ; now therefore be it RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby authorize and direct the Fiscal Officer to make the following budget amendment to the General Part Town Budget to account for the anonymous donation of $ 10 , 000 for the Youth Conservation Corps projects ; and be it further RESOLVED , the Fiscal Officer is hereby authorized and directed to encumber to the fiscal year 1997 any amount of the said donated funds which may be remaining as of December 31 , 1996 , General Part Town = Debit : 8510 Estimated Revenues $ 10 , 000 . 00 B2705 Gifts & Donations , Youth Conservation Corps $ 10 , 000 , 00 Credit : 8960 Appropriations $ 10 , 000 . 00 B7140 . 407 Youth Conservation Corps Donation Cont . $ 10 , 000 . 00 MOVED : Councilman Conley SECONDED : Supervisor Valentino Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye; Councilwoman Harrison , aye ; Councilman Conley, aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilman Wolff, aye . Carried unanimously. DATED : July 15 , 1996 ,u Jan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk �y OF 121 TOWN OF ITHACA _ 21 4� 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 Town Board Meeting 7/ 15/96 Agenda Item No . 23 (d) BOLTON POINT WARRANTS Resolution No . 129 (d) WHEREAS , the warrant with the following numbered listing of vouchers for Bolton Point , Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission (SCLIWC) has been presented to the Town Board for approval of payment; and WHEREAS , the said warrant has been audited for payment by the Town Board ; now therefore be it RESOLVED , that the Town Board does hereby authorize the payment of said vouchers as numbered and listed on the warrant. Operating Fund Vouchers : No . 1164= 1219 , $99 , 676 . 36 MOVED : Councilman Conley SECONDED : Supervisor Valentino Supervisor Valentino , aye; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilwoman Harrison , aye ; Councilman Conley, aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilman Wolff, aye . Carried unanimously. DATED : July 15 , 1996 rn-r� Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk OF I T� _ TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 Town Board Meeting 7/ 15/96 Agenda Item No . 23(f) Agriculture Committee Appointments Resolution No . 129(f) WHEREAS , the term of office for five members of the Agriculture Committee expired on June 12 , 1996 ; and WHEREAS , it is necessary that the Town Board reappoint these said members in order for the Agriculture Committee to have a quorum ; now therefore be it RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby reappoint the following individuals to the Agriculture Committee retroactive to June 12 , 1996 for term of office indicated . TERM OF OFFICE James Ainslie , 245 Hayts Road June 13 , 1996 - December 31 , 1996 Jamie Baker, 380 Bostwick Road June 13 , 1996 - December 31 , 1996 Nelson Eddy, 430 Bostwick Road June 13 , 1996 - December 31 , 1996 John Bokaer- Smith , 120 East York St . June 13 , 1996 - December 31 , 1996 Jennifer Bokaer- Smith , 120 East York St . June 13 , 1996 - December 31 , 1996 MOVED : Councilman Conley SECONDED : Supervisor Valentino Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilwoman Harrison , aye ; Councilman Conley, aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilman Wolff, aye . Carried unanimously DATED : July 15 , 1996 Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk OF 1p F a TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 Town Board Meeting 7/15/96 Agenda Item No . 23 (g) Fall Brush and Leaf Pick Up Dates Resolution No . 129 (g) WHEREAS , the Highway Department provides yard refuse disposal services for Town . of Ithaca residents ; and WHEREAS , twice annually the Highway Department will collect brush and leaves from the roadsides; now therefore be it RESOLVED , that brush pick up by the Highway Department will commence on October 15 , 1996 , until finished and leaf pick up will commence on November 4 , 1996 , until finished . MOVED : Councilman Conley SECONDED : Supervisor Valentino Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilwoman Harrison , aye ; Councilman Conley, aye; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilman Wolff, aye . Carried unanimously. DATED : July 15 , 1996 r� Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk �ZyOFlp a TOWN OF ITHACA ,�� �]04� 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 � Y TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 Town Board Meeting 7/15/96 Agenda Item No . 23 (h ) Authorization for Rental of Highway Equipment Resolution No , 129 (h ) WHEREAS , due to the flooding in January 1996 , the Highway Department has an overload of work to complete this summer; and WHEREAS , there is a need for more equipment to handle some of this burden , now therefore be it RESOLVED , on the recommendation of the Public Works Committee , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby authorize the Highway Superintendent to rent an excavator. Funds for the rental of the said excavator shall be expended from either the DB8760 or DB5110 account . MOVED : Councilman Conley SECONDED : Supervisor Valentino Supervisor Valentino , aye; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilwoman Harrison , aye ; Councilman Conley, aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilman Wolff, aye . Carried unanimously. DATED : July 15 , 1996 Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk OF 12P a TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 � Y TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 Town Board Meeting 7/15/96 Agenda Item No . 23 ( i ) Appointment of Highway Employees Resolution No . 129 (1) WHEREAS , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca approved the hiring of two additional Laborers and one Motor Equipment Operator on June 10 , 1996 , ( Resolution No . 113) ; and WHEREAS , the Highway Superintendent has conducted interviews for these positions ; and WHEREAS , the Highway Superintendent feels that David J . Boyes and Eric A . Griffin possess the necessary skills and experience to satisfactorily perform the duties of the Laborer positions ; and WHEREAS , the Highway Superintendent feels that Jeffrey S . Dean (currently a Laborer) possesses the necessary skills and experience to satisfactorily perform the duties of the Motor Equipment Operator position ; now therefore be it RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the appointment of David J . Boyes as a full time Laborer at $7 . 50 per hour, effective July 1 , 1996 ; Eric A. Griffin as a full time Laborer at $7 . 50 per hour, effective July 29 , 1996 ; and Jeffrey Dean as a full time Motor Equipment Operator at $8 . 90 per hour, effective July 15 , 1996 . Per Civil Service requirements , an eight week minimum probationary period applies , not to exceed 26 weeks , after which a performance review will be made to determine regular employment status . Full time benefits apply. MOVED : Councilman Conley SECONDED : Supervisor Valentino Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilwoman Harrison , aye ; Councilman Conley, aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilman Wolff, aye . Carried unanimously. DATED : July 15 , 1996 Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk fly OF I T'f'y F 9 TOWN OF ITHACA 1 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 � Y TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273--8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 Town Board Meeting 7/ 15/96 Agenda Item No . 23(j) NYS Association of Town Superintendents of Highways 67th Annual Conference Resolution No . 1290) WHEREAS , the New York State Association of Town Superintendents of Highways , Inc . Is annual meeting is being held on September 25 through September 27 , 1996 ; and WHEREAS , Highway Superintendent , Fred Noteboom wishes to attend said conference ; now therefore be it RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the attendance of Fred Noteboom , Highway Superintendent at the said conference ; and be it further RESOLVED , the cost of attending the said conference shall not exceed $500 . 00 , and shall be expended from account A5010 . 410 . MOVED : Councilman Conley SECONDED : Supervisor Valentino Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Klein , aye; Councilwoman Harrison , aye ; Councilman Conley, aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilman Wolff, aye. Carried unanimously. DATED: July 15 , 1996 x Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk OF I r TOWN OF ITHACA n ,� 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 Town Board Meeting 7/ 15/96 Agenda Item No . 23 ( 1) Salary Adjustment - Part Time Justice Typist Resolution No . 129( 1) WHEREAS , the hourly pay rate of the Part Time Justice Typist , Michelle Townley was found to be below the hiring rate of her proposed classification ; now therefore be it RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves an adjustment in the salary of Michelle Townley, Part Time Justice Typist from $7 . 00 per hour to $7 . 35 per hour effective with the bi -weekly payroll on July 26 , 1996. Part time benefits apply. MOVED : Councilman Conley SECONDED : Supervisor Valentino Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilwoman Harrison , aye ; Councilman Conley, aye; Councilwoman Russell , aye; Councilman Wolff, aye . Carried unanimously. DATED : July 15 , 1996 Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk OF 1 ,% a TOWN OF ITHACA 1 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 � Y TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 Town Board Meeting 7/ 15/96 Agenda Item No . 23 (m ) Independent Auditor' s Report Resolution No , 129(m ) WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca has received the Financial Report for the fiscal year ended December 31 , 1995 from the independent auditing firm of Ciaschi , Dietershagen , Little , and Mickelson , Certified Public Accountants ; and WHEREAS , by Town law said report must be made available for public inspection at the Town Clerk' s office; now therefore be it RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve and accept for filing the Independent Auditors Financial Report for the fiscal year ending December 31 , 1995 ; and be it further RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby authorize and direct the Town Clerk to advertise that the said report is available for public inspection at her office as prescribe by law. MOVED : Councilman Conley SECONDED : Supervisor Valentino Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye; Councilman Klein , aye; Councilwoman Harrison , aye; Councilman Conley, aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilman Wolff , aye . Carried unanimously DATED : July 15 , 1996 -+SL7 Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk OF 1p F a TOWN OF ITHACA 2104�- 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 Town Board Meeting 7/ 15/96 Additional Agenda Item No, 1 Requesting that the Negative Declaration on the Proposed Incinerator at the New York State College of Veterinary Medicine Be Rescinded Resolution No . 130 WHEREAS, the State University Construction Fund (SUCF) proposed to build an incinerator for regulated medical waste as well as pathological waste at the New York State College of Veterinary Medicine , and WHEREAS, a negative declaration of environmental significance was made by SUCF in 1993 after an Environmental Assessment Form ( EAF) was completed , and WHEREAS, no environmental impact statement was made, and WHEREAS, the EAF does not address many concerns of the community, including the availability of alternatives , and WHEREAS, the title of the project , as stated on the EAF , " Rehabilitation of Incinerator to Meet Codes" may have misled some people because the project involves the construction of a new incinerator, and the incineration of plastics which are not presently incinerated at the New York State College of Veterinary Medicine , and WHEREAS , the incineration of plastics poses potential risks to public health , and WHEREAS, circumstances have changed significantly since the Negative Declaration was adopted in 1993 , including the development of new technologies , and WHEREAS, new information has become available since the Negative Declaration was adopted including new information on the health effects of dioxins , and WHEREAS, the project may involve the incineration of regulated medical waste from other sources , including at some future time , regulated medical waste from Cayuga Medical Center, and TB Res. No. 130 7/15/96 Page 2. WHEREAS, the project has been significantly modified since the Negative Declaration was adopted , including a change in the size of the chimney, and WHEREAS, at a Cornell sponsored meeting on June 24, 1996, the Dean of the Veterinary College indicated his willingness to take time for further review of this project, and WHEREAS, officials of Cornell University have acknowledged that public input is beneficial and the preparation of an environmental impact statement would allow for such input , and WHEREAS, an environmental impact statement would allow for official public input and would address many concerns of the community, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby requests that the Negative Declaration be rescinded and that the project sponsor prepare an environmental impact statement . MOVED % Councilman Wolff SECONDED: Councilwoman Russell Supervisor Valentino, ayes Councilwoman Grigorov, aye ; Councilman Klein , ayes Councilwoman Harrison , aye ; Councilman Conley, ayes Councilwoman Russell , ayes Councilman Wolff, aye. Motion carried unanimously. DATED : July 15 , 1996 Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk �1y OF 1P F _ TOWN OF ITHACA �,� n o4� 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 � Y TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 Town Board Meeting 7/ 15/96 Agenda Item Additional No , 2 Authorizing the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission (SCLIWC) to Participate in the Regional Issues of the City of Ithaca' s Comprehensive Water System Evaluation Resolution No . 131 WHEREAS , the SCLIWC has expressed the desire to participate financially and by providing its staff time for the regional issues of the City of Ithaca' s Comprehensive Water System Evaluation (the Study) ; and WHEREAS , the SCLIWC expects the Study to provide ideas and suggestions to continuously improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the combined Bolton Point - Municipal Water System ( BP- MWS) ; and WHEREAS , the SCLIWC plans to use revenues from its existing fund balance and water rate structure to pay for the cost of its participation in the Study; and WHEREAS , the cost of SCLIWC ' s participation in this Study attributed to its share of the initial proposed City of Ithaca contract with O' Brien & Gere Engineers , Inc . Is approximately $21 , 000 ; and WHEREAS , the cost of SCLIWC ' s participation in this Study attributed to its share of the proposed City of Ithaca contract with O' Brien & Gere Engineers , Inc. plus any additional work ordered by SCLIWC of O' Brien & Gere Engineers , Inc. is not to exceed $30 , 000 ; and WHEREAS, the SCLIWC has requested that , if the existing Agreement of Municipal Cooperation (AMC) does not authorize it to participation in the Study , that the five municipal parties to . the AMC consider such authorization ; and WHEREAS , the SCLIWC has requested that the Town of Ithaca consider and provide authorization for SCLIWC to participate in the Study; now therefore be it i TB Mtg, 7/15/96 Res , No , 131 Page 2 . RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes the SCLIWC to participate financially by expending up to a maximum of $30 , 000 , and by providing its staff time in the regional issues of the Study (City of Ithaca' s Comprehensive Water System Evaluation ) . MOVED : Supervisor Valentino SECONDED : Councilwoman Grigorov Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilwoman Harrison , aye ; Councilman Conley, aye; Councilwoman Russell , aye; Councilman Wolff, aye. Carried unanimously. DATED: July 15 , 1996 - Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk OF I r TOWN OF ITHACA FlNAL . - � 4� 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 Town Board Meeting July 15 , 1996 5 : 30 p. m . AGENDA 1 . Call to Order. 2 . Pledge of Allegiance . 3 . Reports of Town Officials : a . Town Engineer. b. Highway Superintendent. c. Director of Planning . d . Director of Building and Zoning . e. Town Clerk/Director of Administrative Services . 4. Report of Town Committees . 5 . Report of Tompkins County Board of Representatives . 6 . Review of Correspondence: a . Daniel Hoffman , Maintenance South Hill Recreation Way. b . Veteran Volunteer Firemen 's Assoc. - Games of Chance . . 70 6:00 p. m. = PERSONS TO BE HEARD. a . Brian Wilbur, Fire Chief b . Representative of New York State Police 86 6: 15 p.m. - PUBLIC HEARING : To consider a , " LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MODIFYING THE CHECKLIST REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVALS" . l TB Mtg . - Agenda 7/15/96 Page 2 . 96 Consider SEQR related to a, "LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MODIFYING THE CHECKLIST REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVALS" . 100 Consider enactment of a , " LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MODIFYING THE CHECKLIST REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVALS" . 118 7: 30 p.m. = PUBLIC HEARING : To consider a , "LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING THE SIX MILE CREEK VALLEY CONSERVATION DISTRICT" . 12 . Consider SEQR related to a, "LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING THE SIX MILE CREEK VALLEY CONSERVATION DISTRICT' . 130 Consider enactment of a , " LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING THE SIX MILE CREEK VALLEY CONSERVATION DISTRICT' . 140 Set public hearing date to consider an amendment to the Traffic Ordinance to prohibit parking on portions of Crest Lane . 15 . Consider resolution repealing establishment of Chase Lane Lighting District. 160 Consider easement with Cornell University related to the Forest Home walkway. 17. Consider Village of Lansing ' s request to extend the Winston Court water main to improve water service to the Sapsucker Woods Road tank grid , (Arrowwood Drive - Parkview Health Care Campus Project) . 180 Consider Buttermilk Valley Estates declaration of covenants and restrictions. 199 Consider acceptance of the location of sewer lines and future road reservations for Cayuga Vista Subdivision on Vista Lane. 20 . Consider arrangements for water and sewer connection improvements for Ithacare project. 21 . Consider possible acquisition of Inlet Valley parcels from Tompkins -County. TB Mtg . - Agenda 7/15/96 Page 3. 22 . Consider acceptance of resignation and resolution of appreciation to Thomas Richard , Sewer Joint Subcommittee member. 23 . Consent Items : Consider resolutions approving and/or authorizing the following : a. Town Board Meeting Minutes an 6/ 10/96. b . TOWN OF ITHACA WARRANTS . c. Budget Amendments . d : BOLTON POINT WARRANTS . e . Appointment = Conservation Board . f. Appointments as Agricultural Committee . g . Set Date for Fall an Brush/Leaf Pick- up . h . Authorization for Rental of Highway Equipment. i . Appointment Highway Employees . j . Approval of attendance at Highway Superintendent's Conference. k. Authorization for Town Justices' to attend mandatory training seminar. I . Salary Adjustment, Justice Part Time Typist. m . Acceptance for filing - 1995 Financial Report by Independent Auditor' s , 240 Consider EXECUTIVE SESSION . 25 . Consider ADJOURNMENT. Town Board Meeting 7/ 15/96 ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS 1 . Consider requesting that the negative declaration on the proposed incinerator at the New :York State College of Veterinary Medicine be rescinded . 2 . Consider resolution authorizing the SCLIWC to participate in the Regional Issues of the City of Ithaca' s Comprehensive Water System Evaluation . AGENDA ITEM Va ITHACA FIRE DEPARTMENT Resource Reallocation Project ( RRP ) Summary of Conclusions 13 JUN 96 STAFFING ISSUES Conclusion : The Ithaca Fire Department is seriously understaffed . Discussion : In the master planning process that preceded the new City-Town Fire Contract, analysis was conducted to determine the positions necessary , at that time , to properly staff the department. Although the need for an increase in staffing was clearly indicated , there was never any agreement to include that increase in the contract. In 1993 , studies done by the Recruitment-Service- Retention task force concluded that no less than 14 fire fighters should arrive on the first alarm for a structure fire . To provide this , it was estimated that at least 240 active volunteers would be required . To provide a realistic recruiting goal , that number was reduced to 120 , with the argument given that not all vehicles would have full staffing . This means that the goal is to be able to have one fully staffed first alarm response , with a skeleton force of personnel and a standard complement of apparatus on hand for simultaneous alarms . The following table summarizes the positions requested and approved during the operating budget process for each year since the City-Town contract was executed . year 1988 198 199 199 199 199 199 199 1996 199 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 reqd 77 81 71 70 70 70 67 73 73 79 appd 59 61 70 70 70 67 67 67 67 ? Conclusion : Replicating the large volunteer forces of the past is not possible ; recruiting adequate numbers of volunteers is not a realistic or achievable goal for solving the staffing shortages . Discussion : Despite a concentrated and professionally developed effort to address the recruitment, service , and retention issues affecting IFD' s volunteer personnel , the additional number of volunteers available to provide service falls far short of both historical numbers and current needs . Ithaca Fire Department June 1996 Resource Reallocation Project Report page 2 Sociological studies support this conclusion in that it is reported that civic engagement in many forms is decreasing dramatically nationwide . Given the opportunity in the past, the Common Council chose not to .engage in a length of service awards program ( LOSAP ) for volunteers as a means of improving recruitment and retention efforts . Conclusion : Expecting to recruit significantly larger numbers of student bunkers is not a realistic means of solving the staffing shortages . Discussion : Despite a significant investment in facilities that opened in 1990 , the bunker program within the Ithaca Fire Department has not been at capacity (36) since that time . An ( unweighted ) average of bunkers for the years 1990 to the present is 23 . Reluctance or outright refusal on the part of local educational institutions to assist the fire department in recruiting prospective bunker fire fighters has played a role in this situation . Recent changes in bunker duty scheduling to make the schedule less demanding has not been in place long enough to evaluate the impact. Bunkers cite the demands of working other jobs and the need for cash as a significant reason for their inability to stay with the program . Financial pressures are significant for many college students and IFD is not immune to the impact. Conclusion : Increasing the number of career fire fighters is the only sure way of addressing the staffing shortage . Discussion : Although continuing effort to recruit volunteers and bunkers will occur, the chronic lack of volunteers and bunkers is the only way to address the shortage of personnel is to hire career fire fighters . Ithaca Fire Department June 1996 Resource Reallocation Project Report page 3 RESPONSE AND OPERATIONAL ISSUES Conclusion : One fire fighter per vehicle is unsafe and inefficient . Discussion : OSHA ( NYSDOL/PESH ) is still unsure what the enforcement of the OSHA "2 in - 2 out" rule will be . Current speculation is that they will enforce a 2 in - 1 out rule , meaning that at least two fire fighters must be teamed together to enter a hazardous atmosphere , and at least one properly equipped and trained fire fighter must be on hand on the outside to be able to go in and effect a rescue if the interior fire fighters get into trouble . More importantly, the presence of nationally recognized standards that require something different than IFD is doing with regard to our operations puts us at a significant liability risk should an injury or death occur under these conditions . Apparatus accidents are a chronic problem . Much of this can be related to the fact that only one person is on a vehicle . The addition of another will permit guided backing and positioning maneuvers , as well as another set of eyes and ears to check for hazards. Deployment of apparatus and/or equipment from apparatus is frequently highly labor intensive . One person on a vehicle is at risk for personal injury under these conditions and others are at risk if a critical operation is delayed due to the lack of personnel to complete it. The concept of teaming to accomplish a task is both more efficient and safer. NFPA 1500 , the Fire Department Safety Standard , recognizes and requires teams of at least two to accomplish certain tasks . Conclusion : The current deployment of personnel does not effectively utilize the apparatus available . Discussion : The sheer number of in -service apparatus puts a fire vehicle and one person near a fair amount of the district . However, for that same reason , IFD currently sends six vehicles to get seven people on the scene . The need to collect several fire fighters at the scene to permit teams to be developed quickly is key to the RRP ' s mission . Conclusion : The location of officers needs to be changed to permit greater flexibility in response , code enforcement , maintenance , and supervisory responsibilities . Ithaca Fire Department June 1996 Resource Reallocation Project Report page 4 Discussion : Currently, all three duty officers function out of Central Fire Station . The area with the most density and frequency of alarms is East Hill - Station 9' s district. Assigning an officer to Station 9 will permit that officer to quickly act on everything from alarms to code enforcement issues . This will enable a change in the response for East Hill that would reduce the apparatus assigned to many East Hill alarms . Conclusion : The current inventory and use of apparatus does not effectively utilize the staffing available . Discussion : With one person per vehicle , we are required to assemble several vehicles before enough personnel are available to use a smaller number of vehicles that might be required to manage the incident. Conclusion : The current inventory of apparatus is required to adequately protect the community . Discussion : Although implementation of the RRP conclusions will reduce the number of vehicles in- service , ISO ratings , distance , square mile area of district , population centers , and other factors dictate maintaining the current inventory of apparatus . A reduction in in- service apparatus will most likely result in a down-grading of the City' s ISO rating from a 4 to a 5 . The impact of this would be a potential increase in insurance rates for certain properties . To cope in the short term will require defining call - in procedures for emergencies so that reserve apparatus is staffed as soon as possible . Conclusion : Current first due districts are not designed so that the vehicle with the shortest travel time is dispatched first . Discussion : A significant portion of Station 6 ' s district is not readily accessible from Station 6 . More often than not , downtown apparatus can , and does , arrive first. In addition , the reconstruction of the Octopus will build in additional travel time for Station 6 , especially for Taughannock Boulevard and the Floral Avenue areas . Conclusion : Certain protected buildings may be served with a reduced initial response without an inordinate increase in risk . a Ithaca Fire Department June 1996 Resource Reallocation Project Report page 5 Discussion : A protected structure is considered to be one with a full sprinkler system and fire detection and alarm system . Statistics will show that protected structures enjoy a higher level of protection , and a lower loss per incident rate . Using IFD data, it is apparent that the risk of a significant incident occurring in a protected structure is less than an unprotected structure . This occurs because of earlier alarms which permit earlier intervention by the fire department, and fixed suppression systems operating before the arrival of the fire department. This concept is being restricted to application on non-residential buildings only at this point . Conclusion : Since IFD is so understaffed , full consideration must be given to any advantage that may be gained through the use of improved procedures . Discussion : Reducing the response on certain alarms and reinforcing flexibility in modifying the assignment to the duty officer so that more apparatus is in-service will result in more personnel being available more often . The corollary here is that if more personnel are in-service more often , the chance that they will be available for a structure fire or other true emergency will be greater. Conclusion : A minimum of 6 or 7 properly staffed fire stations are necessary to provide the minimum acceptable travel time to a call . Discussion : Although ISO prescribes a seven square mile response area per station , which translates into four to five stations , the geography of the community forces the larger number. On the other hand , if more properly staffed stations are not possible , then the ones remaining should be optimally located to provide the most effective response time to the entire district . Conclusion : Station 7 has outlived its usefulness as an in -service fire station . Discussion : Much of Station 7's district is redundantly covered by Central Fire Station . Closure of the station will result in an increased travel time of approximately two minutes and twenty seconds to the north end from Central Fire Station . The Station suffers from maintenance problems and is least efficient in terms of bunker or other program space . There have been initiatives to close this station going back to Chief Weaver. Ithaca Fire Department June 1996 Resource Reallocation Project Report page 6 Conclusion : The space available within fire department facilities for program needs is not sufficient to meet demands. Discussion : The new construction and renovations which occurred in ' 1989- 1990 focused primarily on creating additional and different residential space than had been available prior to that time . The intent was to improve the bunker accommodations so that the bunker program might be reinvigorated . What was not addressed were administrative , storage , training , and other program demands. Consequently, administrative function is impaired , which adversely affects a variety of administrative functions , including code enforcement . Conclusion : Since IFD is so understaffed , full consideration must be given to any advantage that may be gained through the use of new technology and equipment. Discussion : The ability to mount and maintain an extensive research and development function within the department is critical . Developments in the area of suppression technology (Class A Foam , nozzles) , communications and dispatch (CAD , MDT's , data retrieval) , computerization (administration , code enforcement, training) , must be sought out to assist the department in coping with the constant resource constraints that exist. Outside the department , municipal water supplies and installation of sprinkler systems are areas where improvements can be made which will impact the delivery of fire protection . TRAINING ISSUES Conclusion : Since IFD is so understaffed , the personnel we do have must be superbly trained and physically fit to be able to do what is being asked of them . Discussion : Performance and competence issues must be emphasized ; every fire fighter must be prepared to perform at peak levels . Training required to insure that we are equal to the demands being placed on us must be developed and delivered . Conclusion : The need for a full time municipal training officer ( MTO) still exists . Discussion : With the departure of Randy Novak in 1991 , the MTO position was vacated and never filled . The current arrangement has Assistant Chief Wheaton wearing two hats : one as � L Ithaca Fire Department June 1996 Resource Reallocation Project Report page 7 MTO , the other as code enforcement officer. The code enforcement position comes from the promotion of then Deputy Chief Brian Wilbur to Fire Chief, and the subsequent vacancy that occurred in the Deputy Chief' s position that was never filled . With the demand for training so critical , and the demand for code enforcement similarly critical , the need for an MTO is greater than ever. The ability to deliver training with in-house resources is limited in that voluntary time/money is a budgetary constraint over which we have little control . FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU ISSUES Conclusion : Preparing for and delivering emergency services consumes so much time that proactive measures to reduce the risk of fire are understaffed and the work is not done . Discussion : Chapter C ( Fire Prevention Code) mandates have not been completed since it was mandated in 1984. As an example , places of assembly are to be inspected no less than once per year . This has only ever been partially completed . The department responds primarily to complaints and new construction/renovation concerns that are brought from the City or Town Building Departments . Conclusion : The need for a full time staff position to manage the code enforcement efforts of the fire department still exists . The need for additional code enforcement specialists still exists . Discussion : As noted above in the MTO discussion , one person wearing two hats is not working . The justification had been made for these positions previously and the department regressed when previous budget constraints prevented filling of the positions . Ithaca Fire Department June 1996 Resource Reallocation Project Report page 8 RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations are made to address the current situation . They do not in any way suggest that reductions in force or facilities are practical or proper. This considers the severe shortage of resources (people) by attempting to improve the safety and efficiency of fire department personnel , while minimizing the impact of the changes on the delivery of services . 1 ) Maintain career minimum manning at no less than eleven . 2 ) Change minimum career apparatus assignment to two persons per vehicle , except for the command vehicle (963) . 3 ) Close Station 7 . 4 ) Put the engine at Station 6 out of service during the day , and those times when less than two bunkers or Class I volunteers are available for duty at Station 5 and Station 61 5 ) Reduce in -service apparatus to : 4-5 engines 1 aerial truck 1 command vehicle Reconfigure two engines to become rescue-engines . 6 ) Maintain a reserve fleet of: 1 -2 engines 2 aerials Reconfigure rescues for specialty rescue and major incident support 1 heavy rescue (configured for hazmat and confined space rescue) 1 light rescue (configured for rope and water rescue) 7 ) Change duty assignments so that a lieutenant is assigned to Station 9 . 8 ) Change alarm response assignments to deliver the largest number of personnel to alarms which have the highest probabilities of being structure fires . Reduce the response to i certain protected structures and other alarms to maintain higher levels of in -service apparatus . Insure at least three persons arriving if the possibility of a hazardous environment exists . Full response of 3 engines , 1 truck , 1 command car (2-3 officers , 6 -7 fire fighters ) to : reported or suspected structure fire fire alarm from residential property I . Ithaca Fire Department June 1996 Resource Reallocation Project Report page 9 Reduced responses (examples ) : EMS - nearest engine ( 1 officer and 1 fire fighter, or 2 fire fighters) MVA/Rescue - one rescue engine , one engine ( 1 officer, 3 fire fighters) Odor investigation , no smoke or fire reported - two engines ( 1 officer, 3 fire j fighters ) Smoke detector activations with first hand report of no smoke or fire seen - two engines ( 1 officer , 3 fire fighters) Natural gas leak, inside - one engine , one truck, one command car (2 officers , 3 fire fighters ) Equipment problem , no smoke or fire reported - two engines ( 1 officer, 3 fire fighters ) Protected property , non- residential - two engines , one command car (2 officers , 3 fire fighters ) Specialty rescue - nearest rescue/engine , 1 engine , 1 support rescue (heavy or light rescue driven by fire fighter from aerial) ( 1 officer, 4 fire fighters ) Reduction enroute : Fire alarm with subsequent first-hand information which reports no smoke or F fire , or other passive cause for the alarm (e .g . Shower steam) 9 ) To provide the necessary attention to the areas of code enforcement and training , request the following position in the operating budget for 1997 : f 1 Assistant Chief - Code Enforcement Officer. t 1 0 ) To provide the support necessary , request the following administrative position in the operating budget for 1997 : 1 Administrative Assistant - Financial . z 1 1 ) To permit placing a critical vehicle back in service , request the following fire fighter/EMT positions in the operating budget for 1997 : 10 Fire Fighter/EMT' s i 1 2 ) Develop long term recommendations for station locations that provide better distribution of stations in the district. 1 3 ) Encourage the Town to develop new transportation corridors to improve the effectiveness of Station 6 , 1 4 ) Realign "first due" district maps . 1 5 ) Implement by 01 AUG 96 . i D U AGENDA. ITEM Jl1�1 ! 91996 Town of Ithaca June 17 , 1996 Planning Board i OWN OF ITHACA i 126 E . Seneca St. -- ' Ithaca , NY 14850 I am a strong supporter of the intent of the proposed Six Mile Valley Conservation District , i . e . , to preserve and protect the natural beauty , wildflowers , birds , and wildlife , etc . of the area . Unfortunately as now written the proposal contains serious flaws . Several requirements actually will defeat the objectives in the long term . One requirement not only is self defeating environmentally , but also causes serious economic losses . Additionally , the proposal contains no special protection for the rare wildflowers found primarily in the gorge areas . Specific exampies : 1 . Each lot must have 300 ft. of highway frontage . That is 5 times the distance required for " reasonable access " as specified in other residential zones . Highways are very disruptive environmentally , why deliberately maximize them? 20 Each lot must have lengths and widths of hundreds of feet, even if the total area is O . K . This makes no sense environmentally . In fact, the more nearly square a lot is , the smaller will be the amount in " edges " , per unit of total area. Reduced " edges " means reduced desirable habitat for birds and wildlife . 3 . The area contains rare species of wildflowers . These are located in the gorges , primarily . The peril to these rare species comes from the people who traverse the gorges , not from dwellings on the surrounding upland . The proposal does nothing to address the actual peril to rare wildflowers . 4 . " Clustering " is mentioned as a possible option , but is not defined . This must be done with great care . If not, dwellings may be concentrated on a small area and the tract as a whole will eventually become forest , and forests are relatively poor habitats for birds and wildlife . 50 The 7A minimum lot size tends to defeat the basic purpose of the district in the long term because it guarantees that more than 90 % of the valley will eventually become forest. Reducing the lot size to 3 . 5 acres would double the " edges " which are desirable habitats for birds and wildlife . 6 . A major concern of several landowners is the probable loss in value of their land if the 7A requirement becomes law . The Planning Board recognizes this probability and is suggesting a reduction in assessments . But even if this is granted , it does nothing to replace the lost capital . Reducing the lot size to perhaps 3A would go a long way towards solving this problem , while at the same time enhancing the probability that the goals of the Conservation District would be met , both now and into the distant future . Town of Ithaca June 17 , 1996 Planning Board June 17 , 1996 Page 2 It is disappointing that even after our repeated objections over the past several years , the above specific concerns still are in the proposal . It was particularly frustrating when Mr. Franz, after learning of Mr. Barney ' s views on the difficulty of defending the 7A vs . a smaller lot size, vigorously defended the large size on the basis " it was legal " . He still does not seem to realize we are basing our objections on its lack of value environmentally , as well as the fact there is no plan to provide fair economic treatment of land owners . Sij ely , '1 Robert D . Sweet 1401 1/2 Slaterville Road Ithaca, NY 14850 cc : Supervisor Valentino - 126 E. Seneca St. , Ithaca, NY 14850 �uSa tJ. r 71J Snip 78 M T. Tompkins County JUL 12 =0 � 5 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING • e Y' i ' fl,f�l5l: 121 East Court. Street — '-+ i • __. . :. i Ithaca,. New York 14850 James W. Hanson, Jr. Telephone (607) 274-5560 Commissioner of Planning FAX (607) 274=5578 July 8 , 1996 Mr. Jonathan Kanter Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Subject: Six Mile Creek Conservation District, Zoning Ordinance Amendment Dear Mr. Kanter: In response to your June 17 letter, the Tompkins County Planning Department has review the proposed Six Mile Creek Conservation District, Zoning Ordinance Amendment information . The County Planning Department concurs with the designation of the Town of Ithaca Town Board as lead agency. Also , to reiterate the Department' s comments from our §2394 and-m of the New York State General Municipal Law review of this project, the County Planning Department is supportive of the Town' s efforts to protect the Six Mile Creek watershed, because the proposal will help maintain a high quality of life for the residents of Tompkins County through the protection and appropriate use of this resource . If you have any questions regarding our comments , please contact Katherine White at 274-55MW jSi ce rely yours , es anson, Jr. mmissioner of Planning 4M � a RecYcled paper AGENDA ITEM # 11 May 7 , 1996 Town of Ithaca Planning Board 126 E . Seneca Street Ithaca , New York 14850 A reasonable objective for preserving the natural character of the Six Mile Creek Valley is one we can all support . However , the radical 7 - acre zoning remedy you are seeking is unbelievable to us and especially so because it seems totally unnecessary , its legality is most questionable and , if enacted will constitute blatant overkill by government with absolutely no regard for the affected land .,owners . In spite of the soothing rhetoric which has been developed by the sponsors of this proposal there can be no honest question that owners of the land are going to have most of their land rights and land values taken away from them . While current R - 30 owners made hard - earned land investments under zoning that promised the possibility of 10 houses on 7 acres , the same owner can build only 1 house after this zoning change . Thereby , he will have lost ninety percent of his investment and possibly more in fact , because , unless the owner has farm land , he will have lost all of his land value and will be left with the privilege of paying taxes and hunting rabbits . No one is going to talk seriously about developing 7 - acre housing . Provisions in the proposed ordinance such as the requirement for 300 feet of street frontage are obviously designed to prevent any possibility for development . The owner with 6 acres is permitted no housing or other realistic use for his land while his immediately adjoining R - 9 neighbor is permitted as many as 29 housing units on exactly the same acreage . Does this make sense ? The representation that any development would pose serious environmental problems at all sites in the Valley is a gross exaggeration . It is a given that no one wants to or will be allowed to build on steep slopes . It is our belief that owners have always respected and now more than ever will continue to respect sensitive areas , Those of us who have observed the Valley for 60 - 70 years know that the environment is thriving as never before . There are many more trees than 60 - 70 years ago . There are wild flowers that we never saw in our youth . The much talked about erosion is non - existent after 70 years In the nearly level , well - drained areas with which we are most familiar . If there is erosion on the steep wooded slopes , 7 - acre zoning by itself will not change a thing . Continued farming as permitted in the proposed zoning is probably the worst possible alternative from an erosion standpoint . With the abandonment of farms the habitats for wildlife are growing rapidly throughout Tompkins County and New York State , Birds and animals are flourishing immediately adjacent to the Winner ' s Circle development . Deer sleep in plain sight of the homes . Coveys of wild turkeys pay daily visits to homes in that area . In 1991 when the need for a zoning change was first voiced , a Justification promoted at that time was the protection of the Ithaca water supply . An editorial in the Ithaca Journal• characterized this claim as a " sham " . We should not tolerate another " sham " which says that 7 - acre zoning is needed to protect the Ithaca water supply . It would seem that all of the authority needed by the Planning Board to exercise reasonable protection of the Ual ley is already in . place . The stringent environment review required in any subdivision request should in itself suffice for this protection . There is no question that a lot of housing may be " inapppropriate " in many areas of the Ualley . At the some time there are other areas where it is highly " appropriate " . Every land owner should have the right for this review as it applies to his specific land . If the Planning Board needs additional authority to establish conditions such as the required planting of trees , such authority should be granted . The control system can certainly be fixed as needed without resorting to a measure which makes a joke out of the " fee simple " rights granted in our deeds . The proposed zoning change should cause all property owners in the Township to wonder what rights to their land they really have and where the Township will strike next . They should consider the inevitable loss of ratables as these actions continue . However , with all subterfuge aside , if the Planning Board and the people in the Town still demand an absolutely clean , essentially untouched natural area throughout the Ualley they must be prepared to pay for it and have the means of payment determined before , not after , a radical zoning change . Governments throughout the country have programs for purchasing development rights . The 1992 Open Space Report sponsored by the Town of Ithaca lists other options which can be pursued for this purpose . It is ironic to us that the Town seems to have ignored the options listed in its own report . If these and other options are all unsatisfactory then the beneficiaries who are the taxpayers in the Town should authorize a bond issue to purchase Land outright or to otherwise compensate owners for their losses . We have been given a sound legal opinion that radical zoning changes without compensation have been prohibited by courts throughout the land . The U . S . Congress is currently working on HR - 925 which is to stop Federal agencies from any abuse of owners ' rights and values without compensation . We should not have to resort to legal action at this local level . With due consideration we hope that the Town will recognize that , the proposed zoning change without compensation is morally wrong by any measure . Good neighbors do not commit acts of this kind against their neighbors , We thank the Planning Board for the opportunity to speak . Sincerely , �j Carlton H . Baker 354 Calvert Circle , Kennett Square , PA 19348 ( 610 ) 444 - 0962 �L c DeWitt T . Baker , DUM 223 East Corning Road , Corning , New York 14830 ( 607 ) 962 - 610 Copies to : Town Supervisor Property Owners Ebert and Ann Sifsdee 915 Coddington 9Z9ad Ithaca, NY14850 607-2734436 Ithaca Town Board 126 E Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 July 15, 1996 To members of the Ithaca Town Board We will be unable to come tonight to the hearing before the town board on the subject of the proposed Six Mile Creek Conservation district. We would like to reiterate what you probably know already, that we are in favor of the adoption of the Conservation District in order to preserve a beautiful and ecologically rich area for the future of the town and its residents . If some means can be adopted which could give some compensation, perhaps in the form of tax relief, to those who would suffer economic loss from the adoption of the district, it seems to us this would be fair. I am sorry that we could not attend in person. Sincerely, Ann L Silsbee and Robert H Silsbee July 8 , 1996 Catherine Valentino, Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca 110 Eastern Heights Drive Ithaca, New York 14850 PROPOSED SIX MILE CREEK VALLEY CONSERVATION DISTRICT Dear Ms, Valentino , Over the past six years the writers and others have given the Planning Board compelling arguments for some moderation in the plans for a Six Mile Creek Conservation District. Attached is our presentation at the public hearing on May 711996 . The arbitrary selection of seven-acre zoning together with other extreme requirements such as 350 feet of street frontage make any building a practical impossibility and effectively "takes-out" most of the land values which owners now have . The proposed zoning' s stated purpose "to provide a regulatory framework through which development can occur" becomes a deception . In its present form the plan is carefully designed to essentially stop all building or development in the Valley . Most bothersome was this Planning Board's follow-up discussion at the May 21 st meeting. Discourse about compensating owners by reducing their taxes is meaningless. In the event of seven-acre zoning one should assume that there would be an automatic tax adjustment. This has nothing to do with compensating owners where substantial assets are lost. The primary discussion at the May 21 st meeting centered on whether the Township could take away these land assets and still defend this in court. Mr. Barney had sent advice that a smaller change in zoning would be easier to defend. Mr. Frantz challenged Mr. Barney's admonition and convinced all but one that a seven- acre zone could be defended . That seemed to be the major consideration and the zoning proposal was approved . We trust that the Town Supervisors will consider what has really happened in the history of the Valley . The one-half owned by the City has long been a large conservation area. For many reasons much of the adjoining lands have gone back to nature and would never qualify for development. There has evolved a vast, flourishing, heavily wooded , self-made conservation area which is growing year by year within the existing environmental and R -30 zoning restraints. Where in this most favorable situation can anyone see the need for extreme zoning changes with all the injustice and controversy that would follow ? Thus far all appeals have gone unheard. The Town Supervisors are our last . best hope that someone will listen . Sincerely, Carlton H . Baker 354 Calvert Circle , Kennett Square , PA 19348 (610) 444-0962 C� / DeWitt T. Baker, DVM 223 East Corning Road, Corning, New York 14830 (607) 962-6100 Copies to:Town of Ithaca Board Members July 15 , 1996 To : Town Board , Town of Ithaca From : Willis & Shirley Hilker Re : Six Mile Creek Conservation District We have attended several years of meetings , hearings and have now arrived at the Town Board Public Hearing . Through out this process we have continually asked the question what is the Town seeking to preserve that is unique to the Six Mile Creek Valley " . There have been various statements that the area is unique but . there has been no showing that endangered species of either plant or animal life exists . It has not been shown that there are scenic views from any of the private lands . The water in six mile creek is purer now than at any time in the past as far as records have been kept . The issue of preserving open space seems to be the most often sited reason but why is open space more important in the six mile creek valley than in the rest of the town ? We have heard over the course of these meeting that the town is interested in preserving the natural character of the area . We all agree that this is an admirable undertaking but why the other areas , similar to six mile creek not included in the district . Areas which come to mind are the inlet valley , Coy Glen , Cascadilla Gorge , and the slopes on each side of Cayuga Lake . In fact all areas of the Town of Ithaca have there own special character . Why are not areas with views included ? Does the Town Board feel they have a defensible position by imposing the district on only one portion of the town ? Is this not spot zoning in its worst form? The severe value impact on the private lands is expected to be born by the property owners with the benefit accruing to all residents of the Town . Why is there no provision for paying for the rights which are proposed to be taken ? The statement of tax abatement made by the planning board is a minuscule remedy for the value proposed to be taken . The present language of the proposal requires a seven acre lot for this district but the remainder of the Town would still be no more than two thirds of an acre by zoning . An extreme frontage is purposes as well as side and rear yards , not so with other areas having the same unique characteristics . Those of us who have relied on land as a retirement vehicle are now having . that value reduced to below the original purchase price . Would any of you be any less upset if your retirement were to suddenly be diminished ? Many of us who have followed this process from its inception have been unable to attend meetings which were held simultaneously , in private residences , and in one , instance we were told to leave , not from a standpoint of disruption but for closed meeting in violation of state law . This has been a very stressful process for us as resident of the Town of Ithaca . We feel , as do others in the proposed district , that we are being left little alternative to legal action . We ask the Town Board to protect our rights and property value by voting down the proposed Conservation District . 2 Memo to : George Frantz, Town Planner Cc: Susan Beeners, Town Planner CAC From : Betsy Darlington , CAC Chair to� Re : What "s so special about Six- Mile Creek Date: July 20 , 1988 This memo is to give you the information you requested about Six-Mile Creek , explaining some of the things that make it an unusual, special-- indeed, unique--natural area . I talked to Bob Wesley to get more specific information, and I hope that you will have a chance to also . He is recognized among local botanists and other naturalists as one of the leading plant ecologists in this area . Cornell Plantations, the Nature Conservancy , Tompkins County, and the City of Ithaca are among those who hire him to do plant inventories, etc . Most of the botanical portions of this letter will be reporting on what Bob Wesley told me . Recently , I wrote to ornithologist Stephen Mountainspring for his list of birds, which I now have . After talking to you , I asked Beth Mulholland . to send me the numbers of rare plants (she wont give out the list itseif- its a tightly guarded secret because they have had so much trouble with plant thefts!) . Beth is also going to send me an article about Six-oMile Creek, written by Professor Emeritus Richard B . Fischer (well known throughout the state for his knowledge of environmental issues and natural history) . I will tell you about these when I receive them . -------------------------- Virtually all of what we call " SixomMile Creek ," from the old railroad bed down to the water (on the south side), and for some distance on the north side, is on the EMC 's list of unique areas in the county . The south side in particular is regarded as very undisturbed and valuable, but the whole area contains many features that make it deserving of special protection : 1 . It contains a number of unusual, rare, threatened, or endangered plants . 2. It supports a large number of birds (at least 192 species), including 3 on the states "threatened" list and 8 on its "special concern" list . 3. It contains a large , contiguous, and relatively undisturbed forest (one reason it supports so many species of wildlife and plants) . 4. It contains a rich diversity of species and ecological communities . 5. It contains the water supply for most of the city and some of the Town of Ithaca , with obvious implications for future activities in the area . 6. It has highly erodible soils on the slopes . 7 . It contains fine examples of a variety of forest types that are no longer well represented because of human destruction . For example, one community of old beech woods is as old and rare as anything in the county . Some other examples : * South-facing slopes with their oak-hickory forests and the associated herbaceous plants such as trailing arbutus, rue anemone, some unusual rock tresses, moss phlox, 4- leaved milkweed, rock saxifrage, pussy-toes, fragile fern , and some species I wont name because of their rarity . * North-facing slopes with their hemlocks, ferns, and again , some rare species . * Tops of slopes with a dry , warm climate, featuring trailing arbutus, various unusual sedges, some unusual lichens, wintergreen , partridgeberry, 3 ovate-leaved violet , fringed polygala, 4-leaved milkweed, and some rarities. * Fields that were once farmed and which support a number of - interesting wildflowers-various asters and goldenrods, for example--and young trees and shrubs . ( Also some interesting birds--e .g . blue- winged warblers and willow flycatchers--that require this sort of second-growth habitat .) Eventually these fields will revert back to forest , which will be a fine thing . But in the . meantime, they are of ecological importance (and interest) in their own right . As for birds, a number of species require a large uninterrupted expanse of forest to successfully breed . The forest fragmentation that is occurring nearly everywhere is having a severe impact on their populations . An article in the June 21 NY Times said, " once-common woodland songbirds have plunged into steep population declines in forest tracts fragmented by suburban sprawl 0" Neotropical migrants are arnong those whose numbers are declining precipi- tously because of this: vireos, flycatchers, warblers, and thrushes, for example . Ovenbirds and two different waterthrushes are three examples of warbler species found at Six- Mile that require large expanses of forest . Likewise , red-shouldered hawks, on the NYS threatened list . I have a list of birds found in the Six- Mile Creek area by Stephen Mountain- spring who was a graduate student in ornithology at Cornell a few years ago . ( He went on to work for the Fish and Wildlife Service in Hawaii, and rediscovered a bird that people thought had been extinct since the early 1900 's .) The list he sent me of 192 species was compiled in over 100 field trips spanning 1975- 1980 . Each trip lasted 44 hours, in all seasons, and all hours of the day and night . His list includes 8 species on the states " special concern" list and 3 species on the "threatened" list . I don 't know how many species on his list are rare or threatened in the Cayuga Lake Basin . If you would like a copy , led be happy to send it to you . Six- Mile Creek (and I mean the entire area , not just the part along the creek itself) is of such great importance that disturbances from humans must be minimized . It is VPry imrun -p , �+ - - L -- ' rr Checklist of the vascular Plants of the Six4j'dle Creek Ravine ANNOTATED TO SHOW SPECIES IDENTIFIED ALONG SOUTH HILL RECREATION WAY ROUTE S . C . B . , 2 / 24 / 89 Ferns and " Fern Allies " — - Adiantum pedatum - Maidenhair fern Asplenium platyneuron - Ebony spleenwort f CRS ; , �t Asplenium trichomanes - Maidenhair spleenwort , Athyrium filix-femina subsp. angustum - Lady fern �jYr(} .cl. Athyrium thelypteroides - Silvery spleenwort Botrychium matricariifoli= - Matricary grape fern-ivt iw� Botrychium oneidense - ( R ) Botrychium virginianum - Rattlesnake fern Camptosorus rhizophyllus - ?,Talking fern - ( R) i, stoptaris bulbifera - Bulb fern- Cystopteris fragilis - Fragile bladder fern Dennstaedtia punctilobula - Hay-scented fern Dryopteris . goldiana - Goldie is fern sca,-CL 61 .� ihyopteris hexagonoptera - Broad beech fern K Dryopteris margina.lis - Marginal shield fern Dryopteris noveboracensis - New York fern Dryopteris spinulosa _ Spinulose shield fern Dryopteris thelypteris - Marsh `fern = POSSIBLE DISPLACEMENT .quisetum a_*wense - Common horsetail Lauisetum hie�-nale - Scouring rush OF S:dALL PROPORTIONS OF SPECIES REPRESEN- Lycopodium complanatum subsp . flabelliforme - Ground pine TATION OR STAND . Lycopodium obscurum - Ground pine I�atteucia struthiopteris - Ostrich fern r SIGNIFICANT SPECIES Groclea sensibilis - Sensitive fern TO BE TRANSPLANTED OR REPLACED Osmurda claytoniana - Interrupted fern Osmunda regalis - Royal fern Polypodium virginianum - -American polypody Polystichum acrostichoides _ Christmas fern Pteridium aquilinum - Bracken Woody Plants Trees and Shrubs Acer ginnala - Amur maple - ( NN ) Acer negundo - Box-elder Acer pennsylvanicum - Striped maple Acer platanoides - Norway maple - ( NN ) Acer rubrum - Red maple „ cer saccharum - Sugar maple Acer spicatum - Mountain maple Aescuius hippocastanum -. Horse chestnut - ( NN ) Ailanthus altissima - Ailanthus , Tree -of-heaven - ( NN ) Alnus incana - Speckled alder ArGielanchier arborea - Shadbush �' Berberis thunbergii - Japanese barberry - O."l ) Berberis vulgaris - Covr=n barberry Betula lento - Black birch Betif! a lutea - Yellow birch Car~ivius caroliniana - Ironwood - 2 - Carya cordiformis - Bitternut Carya ovata - Shagbark hickory Ceanothus americanus - New Jersey tea Catalpa bignonioides - Catalpa - ( NN ) Celastrus scandens _ American bittersweet Cercis canadensis - Redbud - (NN ) Clematis virginiana - Wild white clematis Cornus alternifolia - Alternate-leaved dogwood Cornus amomum - ' Silky dogwood Cornus alba subsp. stolonifera - Red-osier dogwood Cornus florida - Flowering dogwood Cornus racemosa - Gray dogwood Corylus americana - American hazelnut Cotoneaster zabelii - Cotoneaster - ( NN ) Crataegus pruinosa - WaXy -fruited thorn Diervilla lonicera - Bush honeysuckle Dirca palustris - Leatherwood Elaeagnus um'bellata - Autumn olive - ( NN ) Epigaea repens - Trailing arbutus Euor�ymus alatus - Burning bush - ( NN ) Euonymus fortunes - Evergreen bittersweet Fagus grandifolia - American beech Forsythia suspensa _ Forsythia - ( NN ) Fraxinus americana - White ash Gaultheria procumbens - Wintergreen Hamamelis virginiana - Witch hazel Hedera helix - English ivy - ( NN ) Juglans nigra - Black walnut ' Juniperus virginiana - Red cedar Ligustrum vulgare - Common privet - ( NN ) Lindera benzoin - Spicebush T,iriodendron tulipifera - Tulip tree Lonicera tatarica - Tatarian honeysuckle - ( M1 ) Yagnolia acuminata - Cucumber tree Ma.lus pu i l a - Common apple _ INN ) Menispermum canadense - Moonseed Morus alba - White mulberry - ( NN ) Ostrya virginiana - Hop hornbeam Parthenocissus quinquefolia - Virginia creeper Philadelphus sp . - Mockorange - ( NN ) Pinus resinosa - Red pine Pinus strobus - White pine Platanus. occidentalis - Sycamoreq buttonwood f Populus alba - White poplar - ( NN ) Populus deltoides - Cottonwood Populus tremuloides - Trembling aspen Prunus avium - Sweet cherry - ( NN ) i Prunus pennsylvanicum - Pin cherry Prunus serotina - Black cherry Prunus virginiana - Chokecherry Pyrus communis - Pear - ( NN ) Quercus alba - White oak / Cuercus borealis - Northern red oak - 3 - Quercus coccinea - Scarlet oak Quercus prinus - Chestnut oak Quercus velutina - Northern black oak �' Rhamnus cathartica - Common blackthorn - ( NN ) Rhamnus frangula - Alder buckthorn - ( NN ) Rhododendron periclymenoides _ Pink azalea Rhus toxicodendron - Poison ivy Rhus typhina _ Staghorn sumac Robes cynosbati - Prickly gooseberry Ribes sativum - Red currant - ( NN ) Robinia pseudo-acacia _ Black locust _ ( NN ) Rosa canina _ Dog rose _ ( M! ) Rosa caroling - Dwarf rose / Rosa multiflora - Multi-flora. rose - ( NN ) Rosa setigera _ Prairie rose _ ( NN ) Rubus allegheniensis - Allegheny blackberry Rubus caesius _ European dewberry - ( NN ) Rubus flagellaris _ Northern dewberry Rubus idaeus subsp . strigosus - Red raspberry Rubus occidentalis - Blackcap Rubus odoratus _ Flowering raspberry Salix alba - White willow - ( NNl " Salix amygdaloides ~ Peach-leaved willow Salix bebbiana - Bebbts willow Salix discolor - Pussy willow Salix fragilis _ Crack willow _ ( NN ) Salix sericea - Siiky willow Sambucus canadensis - Elderberry Sambucus racemosa subsp . pubens - Red-berried elder Sassafras albidum _ Sassafras Solanum dul.camara - European bittersweet . ( MI ) Taxus canadensis - American yew i Tilia americans - Basswood Tsuga canadensis - Canada hemlock ' Uimus americana - American elm U-I =s thomasii - Rock elm Vaccinium angustifolium _ Early upland blueberry Viburnum acerifolium Maple-leaved viburn= � Viburnum dentatum _ Arroww000d Viburnum lentago - Nannyberry Viburnum opulus subsu . trilobum _ Cranberry bush Vitis aestivalis - Summer grape Vitis vulpina subsp , riparia - Frost grape Castanea dentata _ American chestnut r i Herbaceous Flowering Plants Acalypha rhomboidea - Three-seeded mercury / Achillea millefolium - Yarrow _ ( NN ) Actaea alba - White baneberry J Actaea rubra - Red baneber:y 3 Aegopodium podagraria -..Goutweed - ( NN ) Aethusa cynapium - Fool ' s parsley - ( NN ) Agrimonia gryposepala - Tall agrimony �Agropyron repens - Quack grass--( NN ) ' Agrostis stolonifera - Bent grass � ( NN ) Ajuga repens - Bugleweed - ( NN ) Alisma plantago-aquatica - Water plantain Alliaria officinalis - Garlic mustard - ( NN') Allium canadense - Wild garlic Allium tricoccum Wild leek Ambrosia artemisiifolia - Common ragweed Amphicarpa bracteata - Hog peanut Anacharis canadensis - Waterweed Anaphali.s margaritacea - Pearly everlasting Andropogon gerardii - Beard grass Andrropogon scoparius - Beard grass Anemone quinquefolia - Wood anemone Anemone vi.rginiana - Tall anemone Anenonella thalictroides - Rue anemone Antennaria neglecta - Pussyts toes. / ;;ntennari.a plantaginifolia - Pussy ' s toes Anthoxanthum odoratum - Skeet vernal grass -( NN ) �. Apios americana - Groundnut Apocynum cannabinum - India_*z hemp Aquilegia canadensis - Wild columbine Arabis sp . Aralia nudi.caulis - Wild sarsaparilla Aralia racemosa -- Spikenard � Arctium lappa - Great burdock - ( NN ) Arenaria serpyllifolia - TIIVme-leaved sandwort - ( NN ) . Arisaema triphyllum - Jack-in the-pulpit Artemisia vulgaris - Common mugwort - ( NN ) A� urum : canadense = Wild ginger Asclepias incarnata - Swamp milkweed Asclepias quadrifolia - Four-leaved milkweed Asclepias syriaca - Common milkweed Asclepias tuberosa - Butterfly weed Aster cordifolius - Heart-leaved aster /Aster divaricatus - White wood aster Aster ericoides - Ma.ny- flowered aster Aster laevis - Smooth aster Aster lateriflorus - Starved aster Aster macropY�yllus - Large -leaved aster Aster novae- angliae - New-England aster Aster puniceus :aster sagittifolius i Aster simplex - White field aster Aster undulatus - Wavy-leaved aster S4c•-4 '_ c.. � ° �k . IJf Barbarea vulgaris - Winter cress - ( NN ) I Bidens cernua - Nodding bur marigold Bidens frondosa - Beggar. ts ticks Bidens vulgata - Beggar ' s ticks Brachelytrum erectum Bromus kalmii Bromus latiglumis - Brome grass Bromus purgans - Brome grass Calamagrostis ' canadensis - Blue joint Caltha palustris - Marsh marigold Campanula rapunculoides - Bellflowers -( NN ) Campanula rotundifolia - Bluebell Carex albursina Carex aurea Carex blander Carex careyana. Carex cephaloidea Carex cormoluta Carex crinita Carex deweyana Carex digitalis Cax'ex eburnea Carex (lava Carex gracillima Carex hirtifolia , Carex hitchcockiana Carex jamesii Carex laxiculmis Carex laxiflora Carex leptonervia Carex oligocarpa Carex pedunculata / Carex pensylvanica Carex plantaginea Carex platyphylla Carex prasina Carex retroflexa C'.arex rosea Carex scoparia Carex sparganioides Carex stipitata Carex tenera Carex torta Carex virescens Carex woodii Carlina vulgaris Caulophyllum thalictroides - Blue cohosh Centaurea maculosa - Knapweed - ( NN ) Cerastium vulgatum - Common mouse-ear chickweed - ( NN ) Chaenorrhinum minus Chelidonium majus - Celandine - ( NN ) i Chelone glabra Turtlehead �/ Chenopodium album - Lamb ' s quarters - 0114 ) Chrysanthemum leucanthemum _ Daisy - ( MJ ) o�Cichori.um intybus - Chicory - ( NN ) Cicuta maculata _ Water hemlock Cirsium vulgare - Bull thistle - ( M4 ) t: Claytonia caroliniana - Broad-leaved spring beauty nI Claytonia virginica - Narrow-leaved spring beauty Collinsonia canadensis - Horse balm �i Conium maculatum _ poison hemlock - ( N1I ) Lr Convallaria majalis - Lily_of the-valley - ( MI ) .c Convolvulus sepium - Hedge bindweed - 0, 1J ) C Coptis trifolia subsp . groenlandica _ Gcldthread Coronilla varia - Crown vetch - ( NN ) Cuscuta gronovii - Common dodder Dactylis glomerata - Orchard grass Danthonia spi.cata - Wild oat grass Daucus carota - Wild carrot - ( NN ) Dentaria diphylla - Two-leaved toothwort Dentaria laciniata - Toothwort Desmodium canadense - Bush trefoil Desmodium dillenii - Dillents Aick trefoil Desmodium glutinosum - Tick trefoil Desmodium nudiflorum _ Tick trefoil Dianthus armeria - Deptford pink - ( N.1•1 ) Dicentra canadensis - Squirrel corn Dicentra cucullaria - Dutchman ' s breeches Digitaria ischaemum - Low crab, grass - ( 11I ) ' oDigitaria sanguinalis - Crab grass - ( NIJ ) iDipsacus sylvestris - Common teasel -( Nifl /Echinochloa. crusgalli - Baz-nyard grass Echinochloa pungens Echinocystis lobata - Wild cucumber Eleocharis palustris Elymus canadensis Elymus riparius Epifagus virginiana - Beechd.rops Epilobium hirsutum - Great hairy willowherb - ( !?N ) Epipactis helleborine - Helleborine - ( 1"4 ) Erigeron annuus - Daisy fleabane Frigeron canadensis - Horseweed Lrigeron philadelphicus - Fleabane Erigeron strigosus - Daisy fleabane Frigeron pulchellus - Robin ' s plantain Fr ythronium americanum - Yellow adder ' s tongue Eupatorium maculatum - Joe Pye weed Eupatorium perfoliatum - Boneset Eupatorium rugosum - Jhite snakeroot Euphorbia maculata - Spotted spurge � Festuca elatior - Meadow fescue - ( NIA ) Fragaria virginiana - Field strawberry Galeopsis tetrahit - Hemp nettle - ( NN ) i Galinsoga ciliata - Dooryard weed - ( NN ) Galium aparine - Cleavers Galium lanceolatum - Wild liquorice Galium mollugo - ( NN ) Galium triflorum - Sweet-scented bedstraw � Geranium maculatum - Wild geranium iGeranium robertianum - Herb Robert Geum canadense - White avens Glecoma hederacea - Gill-over-the -ground -( NN ) Glyceri.a maxima subsp . grandis - Reed meadow grass Helianthus decapetalus - Wild sunflower Helianthus divaricatus - Wild sunflower Hemerocallis fulva - Orange day lily -( NN ) Hepatica americana - Hepatica Hepatica acutiloba - Hepatica Heracleum montegazzianum - Giant hogweed - ( NN ) Hesperis matronalis - Rocket . - ( NN ) Hieracium venosum - Rattlesnake-weed Hydrocotyle americana - Water pennywort Hydrophyllum. canadense - Waterleaf Hydrophyllum virginianuum - Waterleaf Hypericum perforatum - Common St. Johnfs 4n;vvrort - ( NN ) Fystrix patula - Bottle-brush grass Impatiens capensis - Spotted touch-me-not Impatiens Pa lida - Pale touch-me-not Iris pseudacorus - Water flag - ( NN ) Iris versicolor - Blue flag Jurcus effusus Lactuca biennis - Blue lettuce Lactuca scariola - Prickly lettuce - ( NN ) Laportea canadensis - Wood nettle Lapsana communis - Nippleweed - ( NN ) Leonurus cardi.aca - Motherwort - ( NN ) Linaria vulgaris - Butter-and-eggs - ( NN ) Lobelia inflata - Indian tobacco Lobelia siphilitica - Great blue 'lobelia Lotus corniculatus - Bird ' s-foot trefoil - ( NN ) Luzula acuminata - Wood rush Luzula saltuensis - Wood rush Lychni.s alba - White campion - ( NN ) Lycopus americanus - Water horehound Lycopus uniflorus - Bugleweed Lysimachia ntn=ularia - Moneywort -( NN ) Iythrum salicaria - Purple loosestrife -( NN ) Maianthemum canadense - Canada mayflower Malva moschata - Musk mallow - ( NN ) Melampyrum lineare subsp . latifolium _ Cow wheat Melilotus alba - White sweet clover - ( NN ) Mentha arvensis - Field mint Milium effusum - Millet grass Mi.aulus ringens - Monkey flower Mitchella repens - Partridge berry Mitella diphylla - Mitniort Monarda fistulosa - Wild bergamot /Monotropa uniflora Indian pipe Muhlenbergia frondosa Muhlenbergia tenuiflora i Myosotis scorpioides - Forget-me-not - ftnl ) 1•Vriophyllum spiratum. subsp. exalbescens - Water milfoil Najas marina - Large naiad Narcissus cv. - Daffodil - ( NN ) Nepeta cataria - Catnip - ( NN ) Oenothera biennis - Evening primrose Origanum vulga.-z - Wild marjoram -( NN ) Oryzopsis asperifolia Oryzopsis racemosa Osmorhiza claytonii - Hairy sweet cicely Osmorhiza longistylis - Long-styled sweet cicely Oxalis stricta - Yellow wood sorrel Panicum capillare - Old-witch grass Panicum dichotomum Panicum lanuginosum Panicum latifolium Pastinaca sativa - Barsnip - ( NN ) Pedicularis canadensis - Wood betony Penstemon hirsutus - Hairy beard-tongue Phalaris arundinacea - Reed canary grass i Phleum pratense - Timothy _ ( NN ) Phryma leptostachya - T.opseed Phytolacca americana - Pokeweed Picris hieracioides - Bitteraeed - ( NN ) Pilea pumila - Richweed Plantago lanceolata - English plantain - ( NN ) i Plantago major - Common plantain - ( NN ) Poa annua _ Annual blue grass - ( NN ) Poa alsodes Poa sylvestris Poa trivialis - Rough-stalked meadow grass - ( NN ) Podophyllum peltatum - May-apple Polygala paucifolia - Fringed polygala Polygala senega - Seneca snakeroot Polygonatum pubescens - Small Solomon � s seal Polygonum cuspidatum - Giant knotweed , Japanese smartweed - ( NN ) Polygonum persicarla - Lady ' s thumb - ( NN ) - Polygonum scandens - Climbing false buck heat Polygonum virginianum - Viginia knotweed Potamogeton crispus - Pondweed Potentilla recta - Rough-fruited cinquefoil. - N ff ) Potentilla simplex - Common cinquefoil Prenanthes alba Prenanthes altissima - Rattlesnake root ,..� Prunella vulgaris - Self-heal - ( NN ) Pyrola sp . Ranunculus abortivus - Small-flowered . buttercup Ranunculus acris - Tall f ielld buttercup - ( 1dN ) Ranunculus ficaria - Lesser celandine - ( 1411 ) Ranunculus repens - Creeping buttercup - ( NN ) Ranunculus sceleratus - Accursed buttercup / Rudbeckia hirta - Black-eyed Susan - ( NN ) Rudbeckia triloba - Thin-leaved coneflower - ( NN ) Rumex acetosella - Sheep sorrel - ( Ntd ) Rumex crispus - Curly dock - ( NN ) S&gi± tar a 1atifolia - Broad-leaved arrowhead i Sanguinaria; canadensis - Bloodroot Sanicula canadensis _ Sanicle Sanicula gregaria - Sanicle Sanicula marilandica - Sanicle Sanicula trifoliata - Sanicle Saponaria officinalis - Bouncing Bet - ( mfl Sature ja vulgaris - Basil _ 044 ) Saxi.fraga virginiensis - Early rock saxifrage Schizachne purpurascens _ purple oat Scilla siberica - Blue squill - ( NN ) Scirpus atrovirens Seirpus cyperinus Scirpus microcarpus _ Scirpus validus Sedum ternatum - Ternate stonecrop Senecio aureus - Golden ragwort Senecio vulgaris - Groundsel - ( ?TN ) Setaria lutescens - Golden foxtail - ( NN ) Setaria viri.dis - Green foxtail - ( NN ) ` Suvvl a.cina racemosa - False Solomon ' s seal Szailax hispida - Green briar Smilax herbacea - Carrion vine Solanum carolinense - Horse nettle � Solanum nigrum _ CoMaon nightshade Solidago altissima, - Goldenrod Solidago bicolor - Silverrod Solidago caesia - Wreath goldenrod Solidago canadensis - Canada goldenrod i Solidago flexicaulis - Goldenrod Solidago graminifolia - Grass-leaved goldenrod Solidago juncea _ Early goldenrod Solidago nemoralis - Gray goldenrod Solidago rugosa - Rough-stemred goldenrod iSolidago squarrosa - Goldenrod Sonchus oleraceus - Com:rnon sow-thistle Sorghastrum avenaceum Sparganium americanum bur_reed Schenopholis internedia Sphenopholis nitida Stellaria media - Common chickweed - ( NN ) Streptopus roseus - Twisted stalk i'aenidia integerrima - Yello: pimpernel / Taraxacum officinale - nandelion - ( W - 10 _ Thalictrum dioicum _ Early meadow rue Thalictrum polygamum - Tall meadow rue e Tiarella cordifolia - Foam flower . . Torilis Japonica - ( NN ) _ Tragopogon pratensis - (roans beard - ( NN ) 'Tiifolium pratense - Red clover - ( NN ) /Trifolium repens - Creeping white clover - (NN ) Trillium erectum - Red trillium Trillium grandiflorum - Targe white trillium iTussilago farfara - Coltsfoot - ( NN ) Typha angustifolia -Narrow leaved cattail Typha latifoli.a. Common cattail Urtica dioica - Stinging nettle - ( NN ) Uvularia grandiflora - Large bellwort Uvularia perfoliata - Perfoliate bellwort Uvularia sessilifolia - Sessile-leaved bellwort iVerbascum blattaria - Moth mxl e1n _ ( NN ) Verbascum, thaps;= - Common mullein - ( NN ) Verbena hastata - Blue vervain Verbena urticifolia - White vervain Veronica officinalis - Common = speedwel? Veronica sepyllifolia -Thyme-leaved speedwell Vicia caroliniana - Spring vetch Vicia villosa _ Winter vetch - ( NTN ) Viola blanda - tdhite violet Viola canadensis - Canada violet Viola incognita - White violet ✓ .f V / �;:.;!--; Viola latiuscula - Broad-leaved blue violet Viola soraria - Meadow blue violet Viola pensylvanica - Ste= ed yellow violet Viola pubescens - Stemmed yellow violet Viola rostrata - Long. spurred . violet Viola striata -Creamy violet /vi.nca minor - Periwinkle - ( NN ) �Ialdsteama fragarioides _ Barren ' strawberry Xanthi.um orientate - Cocklebur Zizia aurea - Golden Alezanders CHECKLIST OF ITIE BIRDS OF SIX-MILE CREEK ITHACA , NEW YORK Fxplunatory Notes Area covered : This list covers the birds found jp the watershed of Six-mile Creek , bounded on the NORTH by 'NY route . 79 , on the EAST by ' Burns Road , on the SOUTH by Coddington Road , and on the WEST by Giles Street . Birds of similar habitats in adjacent areas should have similar occurrences . Data collection : This .list is a suinmary from my field notes for field work conducted between September 2 , 19'7`5 , and April 22 , 1980 . Over 100 field trips were made during this . period . A typical. field trip would last 4 -.6 hours . Field trips were made at all times of day and night , in all types of weather ( especially weather favorable to observe birds ) , and at all settsons . I was usually alone in the field , although occasionally was accompanied by other birders . At the time the study began I had about 5 years of very active field experience and was thoroughly fziniliar with all of the regularly occurring , species in the area . During the study I was a graduate student in ornithology at Connell University . Species occurrence : This list includes 192 species that were positively identified by myself , with one exception . For the Northern Hawk-Owl I relied on a report by veteran observer Dorothy McIlroy made during this period . Abundance : Seven abundance categories are used . The abundance given is that, for the season during which the bird is most frequent , and is based on how many of the species one is likely to see in the area during a 6 -hour field day-, or , for the rarer species , during a typical year . Very Common ( 9 species ) = > 25 birds /day ' Common ( 18 species ) = 10 - 24 birds /day Moderately Common ( 38 species ) = 4 - 10 birds/day Unconunon ( 54 species ) = 1 - 3 birds /day Very Uncommon ( 29 species ) = 1 -6 birds/y_ear Hare ( 28 species ) = not recorded annually , X1 record Very Rare_ ( 16 species ) = 1 record during study period Breeding SL- al.us : Breeding records are divided into 2 categories , definite and very probable . The definite category has 34 species and indicates that a nest , nest building behavior , or young barely able to fly were „ observed . The very probable category has 44 species and indicates that singing males and females were present in a localized area ( breeding territory ) the whole summer. , and family groups ( i . e . , with ,young birds well capable of flight ) were seen towards the end of the summer in those same local areas . In my opinion all of the very probable breeders were in fact brerclers , but I could riot prove this . /14) V la SP eel Record # SPECIES ABUNDANCE BREEDING 1 Common Loon Rare 2 Pied - billed Grebe Very Uncommon 3 American Bittern Very Uncommon 4 Great Blue Heron Uncommon 5 Great Egret Very Rare 6 Green - backed Heron Uncommon 7 Black ; crowned Night = Heron Uncommon 8 Tundra Swan Rare 9 Snow Goose Rare 10 ;Canada Goose Very Uncommon 11 Wood Duck Very Uncommon 12 Green - winged Teal Very Uncommon 13 American Black Duck Very Uncommon gag 14 Mallard Uncommon Definite 15 Northern Pintail" Rare 16 Blue - winged Teal Rare* 17 Northern Shoveler Rare ' - 18 Gadwall Rare - • + 19 American Wigeon Rare 20 Ring - necked Duck Very Uncommon 21 Lesser Scaup Rare 22 Common Goldeneye Rare 23 Bufflehead Very Uncommon 24 Hooded Merganser Very Uncommon 25 Common Merganser Rare 26 Ruddy Duck Very Rare 27 Turkey Vulture Moderately Common '( l. tj" 28 Osprey Very . Uncommon 29 Northern Harrier Very Uncommon 30 Sharp - shinned Hawk Very Uncommon 31 Cooper ' s Hawk Very Uncommon 32 Northern Goshawk Very Uncommon Very Probable Uncommon Ne.e &4 .tfk,., 4 ��., .� :, : r�. •., 33 Red - sKouldered Hew Uncommon 34 Broad - winged Hawk e�s35 Red - tailed Hawk Moderately Common Definite 36 American Kestrel Moderately Common Definite 37 Merlin • Very Uncommon 38 Ring - necked Pheasant Moderately :Common; Very Probable 39 Ruffed Grouse Moderately Common Definite 40 Wild Turkey Very Rare .° 41 Virginia Rail Very Rare 42 Sora Rare 43 Common Moorhetl Rare 44 American Coot Uncommon 45 Semipalmated Plover Very Uncommon 46 Killdeer Uncommon 47 Greater Yellowlegs Rare 48 Lesser Yellowlegs Rare 49 Solitary Sandpiper Very Uncommon 50 Spotted Sandpiper Uncommon 51 Sanderling Rare 52 Semipalmated Sandpiper Rare 1 53 Least Sandpiper Rare 54 Common Snipe Very Uncommon Uncommon Uncommon Very Probable 55 American Woodcock 56 Ring - billed Gull Uncommon 57 Herring Gull 58 Rock Dove Moderatel .y . Common 59 Mourning Dove Moderately Common Definite Uncommon Very Probable 60 Yellow - billed Cuckoo Very Uncommon Very Probable ' gh 61 Black - billed Cuckoo Uncommon Very Probable 62 I? astern Screech - Owl -- 63 Great; Horned Owl Moderately Common Definite 64 Northern Hawk - Owl Very Rare 65 Barred Owl Uncommon Very Probable 66 Long - eared Owl Uncommon Very Probable u^a'S7 Short - eared Owl Very Rare 68 Northern Saw - whet Owl Uncommon Very Probable Spt+ "ct,Nauv-.69 Common Nighthawk Uncommon 70 Chimney Swift Moderately Common 71 Ruby - throated Hummingbird Rare ' 6f72 Belted Kingfisher Moderately Common Definite ' x873 Red - bellied Woodpecker Uncommon 74 Yellow - bellied Sapsucker Uncommon ' 81975 Downy Woodpecker Common Definite ' 8876 Hairy Woodpecker Moderately Common Definite 14,877 Northern Flicker Moderately Common Definite ' 8878 Pileated Woodpecker , Uncommon Definite 79 Olive - sided . Flycatcher Rare • ' 9980 Eastern Wood - Pewee Common Definite 81 Yellow - bellied Flycatcher Very • Uncommon 82 Alder Flycatcher Very ' Uncommon ' 9883 Willow Flycatcher Very Uncommon Very Probable ' 8984 Least Flycatcher Uncommon Igq; 85 Eastern Phoebe Uncommon . Definite 18886 Great Crested Flycatcher Moderat'ely. Common Very Probable 18887 Eastern Kingbird Very Uncommon 88 Purple Martin Rare 89 Tree Swallow Uncommon '8890 Northern Rough - winged Swallow Uncommon Very Probable 91 Bank Swallow Common Definite 92 Barn Swallow Common Definite ' 8893 Blue Jay Moderately Common Definite ' gg94 American Crow _ Common Definite 95 Fish Crow Rare 96 Common Raven Very Rare 18997 Black - capped Chickadee Very Common Definite ' gg98 Tufted Titmo.use Uncommon Very Probable 99 Red - breasted Nuthatch Uncommon ' 88100 White - breasted Nuthatch Moderately Common Definite 101 Brown Creeper Moderately Common Very Probable 102 Carolina Wren Uncommon Very Probable 88103 House Wren Moderately . . Common Definite 104 Winter Wren Uncommon Very Probable 105 Marsh Wren Uncommon ' 106 Golden - crowned Kinglet Common Very Probable 107 Ruby - crowned Kinglet Moderately Common 108 Blue - gray Gnatcatcher. Uncommon Very Probable "Straw) 109 Eastern Bluebird Uncommon Definite ' 88110 Veery Moderately Common Very Probable 111 Gray - cheeked Thrush Uncommon 112 Swainson ' s Thrush Moderately Common 113 Hermit Thrush Uncommon • 186114 Wood Thrush Common Very Probable 115 American Robin Very Common Definite ' 88116 Gray Catbird Common Very Probable 117 Northern Mockingbird Very Uncommon Very Probable 118 Brown Thrasher Uncommon Very Probable 119 Bohemian Waxwing Very Rare 120 Cedar Waxuring Common Very Probable 121 European Starling Very Common ' Definite 188122 Solitary Vireo Uncommon Very Probable 123 Yellow - throated Vireo Moderately Common Very Probable 124. Warbling Vireo Uncommon Very Probable 125 Philadelphia Vireo Very Uncommon F9126 Red - eyed Vireo Very Common Definite 118127 Blue - winged Warbler Moderat. el. ,y Common Definite 128 Tennessee Warbler Moderately Common 129 Orange - crowned Warbler Very llnra„m n n 130 Nashville Warbler Moderately Common 131 Northern Parula Uncommon 88112 Yellow Warbler Common Very Probable ' 98133 Chestnut - sided Warbler Uncommon Very ,Probable 134 Magnolia Warbler Uncommon 135 Cape May Warbler Uncommon t 136 Black - throated Blue Warbler Uncommon ' 137 Yellow - rumped Warbler Very Common ISV138 Black - throated Green Warbler Common Very Probable 139 Blackburnian Warbler Moderately Common Very Probable 140 Prairie Warbler Uncommon ' ' Very Probable 141 Palm Warbler Uncommon 142 Bay - breasted Warbler Uncommon . 143 Blackpoll Warbler Moderately Common 144 Black - and - white Warbler Moderately Common Very Probable 145 American Redstart Common- Very Probable 146 Worm- eating Warbler Very Rare . 188147 Ovenbird Moderately . Common Very Probable 148 Northern Waterthrush Uncommon , ' gg149 Louisiana Waterthrush Moderately ' Common Definite 150 Kentucky Warbler Very Rare 151 Connecticut Warbler Very Rare 152 Mourning Warbler Rare 88153 Common Yellowthroat Moderately Common Very Probable 154 Hooded Warbler Very Rare 155 Wilson ' s Warbler Moderately Common 156 Canada Warbler Moderately Common Igg157 Scarlet Tanager Moderately Common Very Probable ' $8158 Northern Cardinal Common Definite ' g8159 Rose -breasted Grosbeak Moderately Common Very Probable ; � 8g160 Indigo Bunting Moderately Common Very Probable ' 8g161 Rufous - sided Towhee Common Very Probable 162 American Tree Sparrow Moderately Common 163 Chipping Sparrow Moderately Common Very Probable 164 Clay - colored Sparrow Very Rare 188165 Field Sparrow Moderately Common Very Probable 1• 5po " cd,v, ,.1•166 Vesper Sparrow Rare 188167 Savannah Sparrow Very Uncommon Mzj •• 168 Grasshopper Sparrow Very Rare SettZ 1 UDC + 0'169 . Henslow ' s . Sparrow Very Rare 170 Fox Sparrow Uncommon ' 23171 Song Sparrow Very Common Definite 172 I . inco .ln ' s Sparrow Rare Uncommon Definite 173 Swamp Sparrow 174 White - throated Sparrow Very Common 175 White - crowned Sparrow Uncuuunun ' $8176 Dark - eyed Junco Common 177 Snow Bunting Rare X88178 Red - winged Blackbird Very Common . Definite Uncommon Very Probable 179 Eastern Meadowlark Very Uncommon 180 Rusty Blackbird Very Common Definite ' 8g181 Common Grackle Common Very Probable 1bg182 Brown - headed Cowbird Uncommon Definite ' 88183 Northern Oriole Uncommon 184 Purple Finch Very Uncommon 185 House Finch Rare 186 Red Crossbill Very Rare 187 White - winged Crossbill (tare 188 Common liedpoll Uncommon Definite 189 Pine Si. ski. n Common Definite )88 190 American Goldfinch Co Common 191 Evening Grosbeak Uncommon 192 House Sparrow. * ; . C7 , '1 �r� ; f ;A MEMORANDUM TO: Cathy Valentino Ithaca Town Board Members Town of Ithaca Department Heads John Barney FROM: John P . Wolff J�� SUBJECT: Resolution Regarding Proposed Cornell Incinerator DATE: July 15 , 1996 As you know, I have become increasingly involved in the many unresolved issues pertaining to the proposed Cornell Veterinary college incinerator. It is my strong belief that the numerous concerns shared by persons that would be affected by the project ought to be fully resolved prior to any further proceedings of the project. I further believe that there exists the opportunity to engage the various institutions and agencies involved with the project in a meaningful dialogue in order to fully scrutinize the merits of the proposal, possible alternatives to incineration, and potential dangers that this project might pose to the public health and environment. I believe that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would achieve this. To this end, I strongly urge the passage of the resolution (additional item 91 ) proposed for the consideration of the Town Board for the July 15 , 1996 meeting. The resolution calls on the State University Construction Fund to rescind the negative declaration that was issued for the project following the completion of an Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) in 1993 . It is due to this negative declaration that an EIS will not be required for the project. While an EIS may have some limitations, it is clear that an EIS is the nest available means to resolve disputes and bring issues and concerns into the public spotlight for full examination and to establish a public record. As you know, this sentiment was strongly articulated on behalf of the Town of Ithaca in the eloquent letter from Cathy Valentino to Ray Nolan of the DEC dated Ylay 26, 1996 . The County Board of Representatives will be considering a similar resolution. Representative Beverly Livesay has proposed a version to the County Board for consideration. It is anticipated that the County Board will approve such a resolution following similar action by the Town. Although the Town has no direct authority to affect the deliberations of this project, I am confident that this resolution will be an effective and persuasive tool in ultimately achieving an environmental impact statement for the project. Finally, you may be interested to note that the level of puolic interest and concern (primarily among Town of Ithaca residents) has increased in recent months as news of the proposal and its potential dangers has spread. I have enclosed additional materials to provide background information on the subject. Thank you for your consideration, please contact me if I can be of any service. kwifCUld[tCn JIfeC:Of ' �� {''� Michele Sardinia I f i l V t.7 e an of the �� ei c o l l e g e and a ;�o �il n o a c a --'-Aa e! � eveicoment I Howard G.0 board member disagree on the level of public ; n lit ? rocur,:;cn � irectcr Leslie :: taf has gone � nio CUs oonfrovers ' al incinerator plan , C � r.tr, er Barbara Ross ; �TOHN j�VOLFF ..;, ran .;ascurces fair?`;cr ry Wiiy an e". .Viro nlm_,�entta -imp Q-, � Ct C Lul e Sa) a CU 1 We welcome the opportunity lions lying outside r:e SuCF's normally culminate in a formal Much nom' az ' ,° - . � .._ . . that the State University Con- field of responsibility. Environmental Impact State - discussed lore' pr :;- oces struction Fund ( SUCF) offers Our concerns cluster in four ment (EIS), t ° -- ; ( Lnty,• l �tt�•' Ci,miS us :�dondav for a �rartk exchange categories - We wor:., about However, the SUCF com- (SUCc/' ndner_ : or information about the pro- potential hazards in the waste pleted instead a Full Environ- the New ith journalists Thtirsdosed incinerator for Cornell s flow itself, particularly about mental Assessment Form Veterinary Medic - Y Vererinary College, possible toxins in the medical (FE,� which claimed that the In the various I; e of a 1 ;7-Loot inciner- As members of the commu- wastes. about the impact of ash project would not have a sigrtiii- have taken eic College. The thunder pity who would be directly and chemicals on public health cant impact on the environ - those in Tae I : = = re5ected their moods, atfected by any pernicious con- and the environment. and about ment. claims hX. e coot, questions. Their con- sequences of a new incinerator. the possibilities or importing As a result, they issued a public h::s i.Or h., -Search. we have both strop; and vested hospital and vete:•inar: wastes "negative declaration'' and a f*.rll ty to comp -onstruction Fund interests in issues of the envi- to a state-of-the-art rac1ir . EIS review was. ',vaived. Given As Dean Gf M11 isn and 't responsible to ronment and of personal health. We are concerned as well the risks to public health inher- last Septeriber. r re needs to be a more And thouih we understand the about flaws in the ,.,odelin_ on eat jn a project of this magni- the record_ ire from Cornell, a cr: reria ov which the Deoar which the poterrttiai n.:.v incner- rude and the number of issues to set the re Z meat of Environmental Conser- ator has been deserted amcu- of great concern to the ubijc, while it is ;rye - = _en scheduled for varion ( DEC) larly in what appears to ee inap- we can' t imagine why the pro- stare asen d epartmets of EZVi- ( calls the set- propriate meteoroio�cai data jest was dere^nined not to h�:e loch re ^e:� s. C entatives. It still tin ; '' rural , " and the minuscsie butt: rare on a sigrllitC3r]I impact. CifIC:a1S 1rQe° f we are con- which the model is based, At an Town of Ithaca ?'.an. - ' a public ree::^ :- ca residents + s" cerned for the Also. the proposed height of ring Board meeting in October. I pre%: 11;on. i,.� ; 4 *w thousands of the smoke sracl� — 17 / feet 1992, in response to a Question was in the ,.Ica not sure it is , ea b. Tte,� are being ^ Cornell Uni - rather than the _95 feet that about what would trismir a flail in Octobe:. these valid conce rns. versify stilt eood englneerrg oracices su; environmental impac —sr�dv. r. Acc:)rutr:_ -'.) :e the DEC in vlav dents and staff Best — seems based.en e°.agger- Lary Thompson of the Cornet it was well who work in ated faith in the pinceint acvi- Veterinar; School said such a locai o "'ci.% :s )r public input by ;aa01 ff the vi raei of the mede ; • study wouid occur if. to one opporrun jr: ': rest Home con muni- and who also Autocla�nrg s an alter ative interested party, the incin.eracor SUCF rroiec : would be vulnerable to any method o waste dig Gsal uti- isa major concern: cleaner. sae :. ; cloy n:efer ( (J = lcwr. potencai harm. lined by some VC 'd7:nary col - �lanv of us. who share just incinerate -. as "�'e -; disappointed We do not prejudge the leges, such as the Universir; of such major concerns. belie•:e rne _ limr. SI:C = .while town coup- probability of harm . Though California at Dalis. that a full study is not only des " - envjronTte .^.tai haCs really at risk is several of us have requested Further, the l ;nivprS: ty of able but necessary; indeed.eye review proced: r: documents, data and answers to Wisconsin has desimed a waste believe this is precisely the type York Stare ammer, home the a variery of questions at numer- management system ,hat puts or project for which the erniron- ronmenrai Corset: lnd pet' times over the past three emphasis on rep:cling as well as mental impact study process Inronlatj^n ;' e hags an ertvi- -eeded on the incin- ;ears. we do not yet have ade - incineration. was desimed. I has been avai'u':*e quate intonation on which to We wonder whether Cornell Consequently. we have asked through SUCF jULlce the proposal. has studied these oer:'ers. the SUCF and the DEC to ' requesr. In incinerator are level- It is oniv rair to sav, however, undo^ake a full Environn:entrl rives of the ` We lit this euesticLi another rte. A four-page series wav : V by waw ircjr. er orlon and the univ: si-:^: . P that a ;cod deal of the infonna- , Imcacr Studv.. M the potential haz- ( tion we have Gained. as well s r. e ' • I best ° 1 re , mined to e If a new inc:n°nror Were d to 4u . : i data. rxamole: On our difficulty in acquiring it. has option " for Comeil and for our be built, it would affect borh Home reside . i _antsil_.ed �-inddata be ,. n unser`i1in _. Because this Curneil and the ccmununiri for ` and state ui=c: i . t r -ommunirv, and :.V What process : C�^tint at S':,Lc e. I issue is complex and s0 imccr- were aiternatives rzje� tnanv decades. ( four ve Jc : re ores se) informa- rant to the community and to Finally. flaws in the review Both purties must under - ( ago. Dr. L.lm: -Irm Road fac-ilirr. In CornL ll . ��e have sent t0 the process are of serious 2r== Stand what its impacts '.Lr_ ula be ( tor o [ }? lU�. :_n ' is simolv `::ant :o in dvance. a summary ro tus . Ac 7rC1[iC iU ^r0'•'S:OnS Qf and enOw that the t7Cr°T riln�' :meet '.viii? is: r? . Ui )ur :TialOr Concerns. SJ tl'iaC r_rl1 State En :irorre.^: : i QUljl- hVC : eS huts' :'; Ily e:. p (Qrcci all r_:e l;rt Jut di � Cussion can be both � 1e :y – , ` : alternative meth c v i �• od e of i_pusir._ i i (l _zed [he % ._e ` i 'SCt1r( ' � the _ nciucin, . • G-iUe" ' lnLl 0170 five . C r Oc Ver Sc;lool wastes. I t 0 5e " \ , rs clans : 7 OtiG Si� C is rCau :rJC :G dertar-e _ e � e41, Mn I art t. e ( ` . C 'asned them as well r0 a thornu'�^ re'.ie%v Gr -' OOten- — I CUmmuf. lt' _ _ i UGGVCt lnit ': ii tnC r:ai ? nv:rQfi:T.0^. i I . ' C :: . Or _ I�illff sits on the Town .)i i;h va ( 1(: C . . . lit:S ❑ Tl :iit ' t )Q [ ? DC� ^r• -' :; ' ` • � ECLO�L'-= OtleS:icrs ;,;ard. Other rnnnulntr•J C.•RCr '� i :nl: -•o � ssu. _ ihiit :iecvistcn ^ a-'<- – ., _ .u.vtrioruin � :n rills cniumn were i l� ir�+L � — T !` : r : or... :. ' ;;�C. ':.'1 ;:1 '. . c lai' a ac : Brcu 1rnier - 7 r. �u : . _ :f : DEC any ) ::.e . _ - .Cic t '•i' ci� roC > •- il � .Lf : .. �'.! ; ' r''14er, i CO '_rT4% e ' l:u..'.$- '- � " •a.•: . . .�i . , . .t�ta:7r. 1 :21her*m_ ��?nncn ICI! .: YL:._r ._ _ . • _ _ .. :�.• tl:.. . ,. 'iC': ril.� = ••ICLLId -:I+� '�Cl';( i %ilS(N.:'::. :Cpl :� ::: F.d❑ i t,uCClaliCnS tsamsra mioss ..i int. Itna"V a icuir 7a: Human tee°-u..Pces Juecto: f . TTMCA _ uRAJA L 21 / 4 I DITORL4L I I rail.. . CU Do Qt � Ana incu� process us N1 erator ! ! yi f ! C o pose Town of Ithaca residents met with journalise i zursday `te; morning to tali: about the downside of a 17'-foot mciner- ator stack at Cornell `s Verennan' College. The thunder nity that roared across The Commons reflected their moods, arr as did stacks of data and scores of questions. Their con- segue tern isn't borne of anger, but of research. we is Whereas the State University Construction Fund inters ( Sli F) is eager, to begin building and isn' t responsible to ro"''n` local entiries, it is obvious that there needs to be a more :rt:d t trite: open review process. Under pressure from Cornell, a ment hastily called public meeting has been scheduled for Mondav and «ill involve SU.CF and Department of Envi- �> ronmental Conservation (DEC) representatives. It still isn' t enough. Forest Home and other Town of Ithaca residents f arena against file incinerator. They're just not sure it is the best and safest wav to do the job. Thev are being ! _ back:. d 'av town leaders, who echo these vaiid concerns. S=.n.7.1' sor Cathv_ Valentino wrote the DEC in Mav, saving that she felt opportunities for public input by Wolff Town of Ithaca government. the Forest Home cetnMuni- ty and others have been "cut short." Would Tornok ns Cc' aty Board IZeo . Dooley K efe : iU-Ibwn eotend of lthacaj said Thursday that she was "very disapeointed We that the university doesn ' t seem to care, " while town coun - probat cIi nW. nb2 : John `,Volff added, "What ' s re2liv at risk is severa peopie :s health — ins reckless. " docarn, ilZ.re are two items that really hammer home the a varier point '.vhv ;Wore public hearings — and perhaps an envi- ous tin, :on mental impact statement — are needed on the fncin- tears, . uuate i erato � rroject: judge f9 Feople with concerns about the incinerator are level- It is headed and have done the homework. A four-page series that a of questions touch on everything from4 the ootendal haz- Lion we ards of waste 'ow to mereorolozical data. Example: On our dim the weather front, incinerator consultants used wind data been u: gathered from the National Weather Center at S�,Tacuse. issue is even thoug_n the same (and likely more precise. trl2ornlc- tans to tion is available at Cornell's Game Farm Road faciiitt: In Cornel. T other similar scenarios. uneasy residents simpiv :want to of our.` . know w1w. of our dis too rnuCh time has passed .,inc� Cornell u' rg_ u Me Orde:iv a SUCF to conduct a full present:aion on its plans in C'cto- we her 199=. 'vaiemino notes cnanees have been i,ade at the oruvid _ t vet moil:'Ta rind iht sl=ounding area and the DEC ::2siI:c 'Ot of The lr'_ ^ '.SP. t val1Q. `." rri7le : I and io recinct Oritn ning ine Cornell Orc a-:. . I scur: of . e ci: a eu'1 I' nc ine ut0 r sire — was . 'ce � �'_r �0 ;:.Tone; _. ; sn cia land-uz dt$ir'.Ct 1 .^. a=... : ;, anon? of t ;�t'lr_ ��� � '_� � • ^$for:. T1 ? '_ r_ iin n$= -.)Ow'�' In thlS pro Ze$S. 79U L Cv° _ _ a-c '. �il'v'in' ' _L t I :. � . .. . _ _oil° tee : .s _o io -:;n - . _ = ':Vt _: , li. :,? _ _ , ,, t! t a $ Itli 1nt _. _i$ii; : . • i is June 18 , 1996 Mr . Chris Marcella Director of Consultant Design State University Construction Fund P . O . Box 1946 Albany , New York 12201 - 1946 Dear Mr . Marcella : We welcome the opportunity you offer next Monday , June 24 , for a frank exchange of information about the proposed incinerator for Cornell ' s Veterinary College . As members of the community who would be directly affected by any pernicious consequences of a new incinerator , we have both strong and -rested interests in issues of t _.e environment and of personal health . And , though we understand the criteria by which the DEC calls the setting " rural , " we are concerned for the thousands of Cornell students and staff who work for many hours a day in the vicinity and who also would be vulnerable to any potential harm . We do not prejudge the probability of harm . Though several of us have requested documents , data , and answers to a variety of cues r ons at numerous times over the past three years , we do not yet have adequate information on wPici, to judge the proposal . It is only fair to tell you , however , that a good deal of the information we have gained , as well as our difficulty in acquiring has been unsettling . Because this issue is complex and so important to the community and to Cornell , we send to you in advance a summary of our major concerns , so that our discussion can be both orderly and productive , we ask as well that you provide opportunity at the meeting for follow - up questions . It may be important to assure that decision maters from the DEC and Cornell are also . present to answer questions lying outside the SUCF ' s field of responsibility . As you can see , our concerns cluster in four categories : potential hazards in the waste f low itself , flaws in the modeling on which the potential new incinerator has been designed , flaws in the revieW process for the project , and , finally , what seems an inadequate review of alternative posS _ billties for disposing of Vet School wastes . at an Ithaca Town Planning Board meeti g in, October , 1992 , i n full response to a questicn about what : � culd trigger a ?? 'T ? rvimental ? mpact St ::CV , ?" . ' _:CmpS . i: Of the CCrne _ l `Teterl nar_J SChoCI Said. sL2C _^_ a study wou .Ld a c = u Z _ _ , CO One interest = d arty , = he 2 -?C : aeraCOr is a itta ` 0 = :. CLiCe _ O i: s , 'e1 �?o s :'_ a = e osz such major concerns , believe z:haz _ .0 Studs is nct cniv desirable but necaSSa =_T ; _ ride ° df +e . . ' C _ _ _.0).= t0 IMaC _ _ . � a brC jeCt for which a Sti�GV dOLlla ca tlCre apzrooriate titan rir �. i1i3 sne . COnsecuent . v , we a S k that Ycu reScind the negative declaration and Call impact Study . : = a new incinerator were to 10 b Hilt , it would affect both, Cornell and the community for many decades .4 � O � _^_ - r 41 S itluSt understand S taL?Q filil what its imnactS would be and know that the dererminina bodes have fully explored all alternative meticds of disposing of Vet School wastes . we look forward to speak_zc with you next Mondav . Sincerely , , • tin Wo 1 f Ithaca Town Board and other interested members of t e cc=uni tv Nancy Brcak ( Art History , Ithaca Cc _ 1 = ce ) Dooley Kiefer ( Tompkins COu tV BCard C = Representatives ) Ruth uahr ( President , c Crest Home = mrr :, vement Association ) Catherine Penner ( writi "c_ Program , It haca College ) Stan Seltzer ( `?athematics and Compute = Scie_^. ce , Ithaca College ) lvf;: k wvT ocki ( Soil , Crop and JCi ° nceS , C =-nel _ ) u^ er awl _ _g s Y n r �chn Gu � e _^.� e _ �= a C David S tewa _ _ Ra v Nola_ QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED VETERINARY SCHOOL INCINERATOR I . Potential hazards of the waste flow The proposed incinerator would dispose of materials that , when burned , would produce residual substances , including ash and chemicals , that may have adverse impacts on both the public health and the environment . Current Waste Stream ' • We understand that the proposal is intended to solve an existing problem faced by the Cornell Vet School , namely , how. to dispose properly of the existing waste stream : bedding , carcasses , and medical wastes . Currently , what is Cornell burning , where does it come from , and where does it go ? Proposed Waste Stream • How will this differ from the current waste stream ? • Specifically , what toxins will be emitted and at what levels ? Which of these toxins concern you the most ? What steps would be taken to eliminate the harmful effects of heavy metals , such as mercury , cadmium , and lead , that would be released into the atmosphere ? • We understand that the permit Cornell is seeking does not allow for the disposal of hospital waste . We also understand that this possibility is not precluded in the future , what are Corne ll ' s intentions in this regard ? Can Cornell guarantee that they will not seek such a permit in the . future ? Operation • Who would be responsible for the operation of the proposed facility ? What departments , agencies , offices , and specific individuals have which responsibilities ? Moni tori ncr and Comol i ance • Who would be responsible for monitoring the compliance and performance of the proposed faci li = v ? What would such monitoring activities consist of ? Would monitoring records be publicly available ? II . Modeling concerns it is through the modeling process zhc, �. issues of great concern to t : e public health are addressed . ?. successful model provides a clear indication to :rnat extent pup : c health and the quality 2 of life in the community would be affected . A key factor in measuring the impact on public health is determining to what degree potentially harmful emissions are diluted by the air . Another important measure is the anticipated concentration of chemicals at ground level. . We therefore cannot overstate the importance of the quality of the model . A number of flaws in the modeling process raise questions about the validity of its results . Meteorological Data We understand that use of data from a national weather service center is required ; the consultants used . wind data from such a center at Syracuse . Cornell maintains a meteorological tower on Game Farm Road that records identical information , which was and is available . It is likely that local data differ from Syracuse data . • Why weren ' t data from the Game Farm Road facility consulted for purposes of assessing the validity of the Syracuse data ? Did Cornell offer such data for this purpose ? • If the use of local data produced substantially different results , wouldn ' t Cornell owe i to itself and the community to take such results into consideration ? Similarly , upper air data are available from Buffalo , Albany , and P i ttsburgh . Using Albanv ' s data in r= he model - - instead of Buffalo ' s , whose upper air patterns are more similar to our own ; or , aiternatively , an average of data from all three cities - - `further compromises the results of the model . • Why were Albany data chosen , a^d why were no steps taken to develop a source of more accurate upper air data ? Burn Rate • The proposed incinerator would have the capacity to burn 60 grams per second . Why did the modeling study you undertook assume a burn rate of only one gram per second ? • By assuming such a low burn rate , does this not underestimate the accumulation or. chemicals at ground level as well as fly ash ? • If a higher burn rate were assumed , how would this affect the model results ? • What burn rate does Cornell i n: = = -: d to use ? Stack weiaht / Wind Load 3 In order to ensure that pollution be dispersed upwards rather than downwards , the stack height must comfortably exceed the height of the wake created by the wind flow over the facility and nearby structures . According to good engineering practices , using the results of the model study , the proposed height for the smoke stack should exceed 295 feet . • Why do you consider your proposed stack height ( 177 feet ) to be prudent ? • Was a wind load study undertaken to determine the impact of wind on the proposed slender structure ? Will guy wires be necessary ? ( The wind against the guy wires would create a humming noise even under modest winds that would further diminish the quality of life for the residents , staff , and students , all of whom spend a considerable amount of time in the area . ) Model Methodolocry • What is the margin of error of the model output ? • What public domain models are available that could test the accuracy of the model used by the consultants ? Population kssumctions Due to the assumptions in the modeling study , the number of persons who would be exposed to the emissions has been underestimated . We understand that the DEC definition of population counts only permanent residents . However , the students , faculty and staff who spend considerable time in the vicinity should be considered . As a result of this problematic definition , the area affected has been classified as rural and this assumption was adopted in the model . • How would the results of the model differ if the area were classified as urban ? • The model assumes no population growth . Why do you consider this. a valid modeling assumption for a community that continues to grow ? , Future Construction Importantly , plans for future buildings and campus expansion were not considered in the modeling stud . Given that there have been a number of . buildings proposed for tlne area , the exclusion of suc �n information from the model is an oversight that seriously undermines the validit .i of the mode ' . 4 • Is it Cornell ' s intention to cease all construction of new buildings in this area ? How would changes in population and any new construction projects in the surrounding communities affect the results of this model ? III . Alternatives to incineration • Autoclaving is an alternative method of waste disposal utilized by some other veterinary colleges . Was this method considered ? • Was the recycling method of waste disposal utilized at the University of Wisconsin examined as an option ? • Why was incineration determined to be the best option ? By what process were alternatives rejected ? N . Due process According to provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review ( SEQR ) Act , the State University Construction Fund ( SUCF ) is required to undertake a thorough review of the potential environmental impact of this project . For a project with potentially significant impact or cone = oversy , the review process would normally culminate in a formal Environmental Impact Statement ( EIS ) . The SUCF completed instead a Full Environmental Assessment Form ( FEAT" ) that claimed that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment . They issued a " negative declaration " and a full EIS review was waived . Since 1992 , residents have been actively seeking information . Cornell University officials assured the public that an EIS would be undertaken if there were public concern . • Given the risks to public healzn inherent in a project of this magnitude and the number of issues of great concern to the public , why was the project determined not to have a significant impact ? • Don ' t the several errors and misrepresentations in the FEAT warrant a reconsideration of the negative determination that resulted in the waiver of EIS recuirements ? • Since the negative determination , why hasn ' t Cornell actively sought an EIS ? Does chis lack of activity indicate that Cornell is not interested in public involvement in this project ? it is clearly incumbent upon the SUC -' , the DEC , and in the best inte _ est of Cornell , to undertake the full EIS process . OF 17Y C MCD TOWN OF ITHACA LFY ,y� �o�4- 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N . Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 May 17, 1996 Raymond J. Nolan New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Division of Regulatory Services 1285 Fisher Avenue Cortland, New York_ 13045-1090 Re: Cornell University Veterinary College Incinerator Dear Mr. Nolan: I am writing to express the Town of Ithaca' s concern regarding the potential environmental impacts and planning implications or' the proposed Cornell University Veterinary College Incinerator. Over the past several weeks, thanks in large part to the research and legwork of Ruth Mahr, President of the Forest Home Improvement Association TF11A) , a number of potential issues and concerns have been identified which I believe require very dose attention by your department, and should involve full public involvement and participation. I understand that DEC is now reviewing the proposed Incinerator project in conjunction with air quality and solid waste permits that would be required, and that DEC will have to conduct its own environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) and make a determination regarding the significance of any environmental impacts. The Town of Ithaca had indicated concerns when the State Construction Fund conducted its own environmental review in 1993. Although a process of public participation and input was initiated at that time, for some reason, that process was never adequately advanced, and I believe that opportunities for public input by the Town of Ithaca government, the Forest Home community, and other interested groups were cut short. One of the Town' s concerns is that the location of the facility is very close to an established residential neighborhood, and in the midst of a growing part of the Cornell University campus . The area certainly should not be characterized as a rural one. In fact, Precinct 7 (containing the Cornell Orchards), directly to the south of the proposed Incinerator, was recently rezoned by the Town as a Special Land Use District in recognition of the future campus expansion anticipated by Cornell University. The original environmental assessment conducted by the State Construction Fund should have investigated alternative sites for this project. I Raymond J. Nolan May 17, 1996 Page 2 believe that it is not too late for DEC to require such an investigation as part of its environmental review. Air quality, and accompanying public health, are really the central concerns associated with this project. I am very glad to hear that DEC, as part of the permit review process, has initiated a new air quality modeling study. The Town looks forward to seeing the results of that study. The concern remains, however, that the modeling study should be very specifically focused on the local conditions within which the facility will be operating. That includes the use of local climatological data, local topographic and microclimate conditions, and most importantly, the recognition of the location of an urbanized area and population concentration in the vicinity of the project Related to both of the above concerns is stack height. If the facility is located at the proposed site, it is imperative that the stack is high enough to properly disperse emissions away from developed areas. At the same time, it must be recognized that the higher the stack, the larger the visual impact on surrounding areas will be. A preliminary photographic analysis done by Town of Ithaca staff in 1993 clearly demonstrates that even the currently proposed stack height of 177 + / - feet would be highly visible from a number of surrounding vantage points, and that the visual impact could be significant. The information Ruth Mahr has unveiled regarding the conversion of the current facility, which is a characterized as a pathological incinerator, to a medical waste incinerator, is alarming to say the least, and certainly warrants the closest possible scrutiny. Such a change was obviously downplayed during the State Construction Fund' s environmental review in 1993, and should trigger a closer look at the potential environmental impacts by DEC, as well as full public participation by the community. Not only does the change to a medical waste incinerator involve the obvious air quality considerations that Ruth Mahr has raised, but also, as aptly put by Ruth, should be a public policy issue, and could have lonb term implications about how medical wastes are disposed of county-wide. This is a solid waste planning and policy issue that requires full public involvement I understand that you have indicated that DEC will be distributing the draft permits and its own Environmental Assessment Form to the Town of Ithaca, Forest Home Improvement Association, and other interested groups for public comment. I would urge you at this point, prior to the issuance of the draft permits , to take the above concerns into consideration, and open up the environmental review process for full public involvement. This is a project that has important implications for the community, and should receive the hard look that SEQR requires and that appears to Raymond J. Nolan May 17, 1996 Page 3 be warranted for this project. Please keep me informed of the status of your review. Sincerely, ,. Catherine Valentino, Supervisor Town of Ithaca cc: Commissioner Michael Zagata, N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Ralph Manna, Regional Permit Administrator, D.E.C. Assemblyman Marty Luster Beverly Livesay, Tompkins County Board of Representatives James Hanson, Jr., Commissioner, Tompldns County Planning Department Hunter R. Rawlings, III, President, Cornell University David Stewart, Director of Public Relations, Cornell University Gregg F. Travis, Director, Statutory Office for Capital Facilities, Cornell University Town of Ithaca Town Board Candace Cornell, Chair, Town of Ithaca Planning Board Phillip Zarriello, Chair, Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Ruth Mahr, President, Forest Home Improvement Association Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning, Town of Ithaca Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering, Town of Ithaca Additional Agenda # 1 L� mw6 ' REMARKS TO ITHACA TOWN BOARD July 15 , 1996 1 I TO ®F ffHgCA I will try to be brief and not repeat what others have said about the hazards of burning plastics , questionable aspects of the modeling process , and consideration of alternatives to incineration . I want to make three points . ( 1 ) Cornell officials would have you believe that the issue of the safety of the proposed incinerator is a Forest Home issue . For example , Saturday ' s letter in the Ithaca Journal from Vice President Dullea opens " Earlier this month , Forest Home resident Bruce Brittain 0 0 11 and Dean Loew in an op - ed piece ( June 21 ) says that " representatives of the Veterinary College and the university have responded to inquiries from Forest Home residents If Cornell wants to demonize Forest Home , so be it . But look around . Leaders of environmental groups , neighborhood groups , and other organizations , as well as other concerned citizens have attended meetings such as this one , the county board meeting two weeks ago , the public meeting on June 24 and expressed their - concerns and asked questions ; they have written letters to the Journal . They are riot all Forest Home residents . It should be clear that concerns about the proposed incinerator extend to all parts of the town of Ithaca and beyond . ( 2 ) Cornell officials would have you believe that these concerns are recent . This is simply not true . Virtually all the important questions were raised at the October 20 , 1992 , town planning board meeting . They weren ' t answered very well there ; concerns were not allayed . Cornell simply kept things under wraps . I would also note that the majority of questions raised at that October 1992 meeting came from members of the planning board - - questions about what would be burned , emissions , alternatives . The town has a clear record of its concerns regarding this project ; and we all appreciate your support on this issue . Finally , ( 3 ) Cornell officials would have you believe that they are not opposed to the environmental impact statement process , per se ; they point out that they filed an EIS for the Mann Library . Should an incinerator that would burn in excess of 600 , 000 pounds per year - - including regulated medical waste , an incinerator that would emit dioxins - - undergo less public scrutiny ? Cornell officials want to avoid a full environmental impact statement for this project . There are too many unanswered questions , and it is encouraging that Dean Loew ' s response to the June 24 meeting was " I ' m hearing things tonight that make me want to take a closer look at this . " ( It is also alarming . ) This is a matter with potential impact on public health - - and an EIS would insure that members of the community will have the opportunity to share in that closer look - - as is appropriate . Stan Seltzer 228 Forest Home Drive i FOREST HOME IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION Additional Agenda 1 July 15 , 1996 RE : Proposed regulated medical waste incinerator , Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine : Resolution supporting rescission of the negative declaration of significance . Statement to the Town of Ithaca Board in support of the resolution to rescind the negative declaration of significance . Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of this resolution . On behalf of the Forest Home Improvement Association I have , on numerous occasions , expressed our concerns about this project . We believe that incineration of medical wastes has the potential for significant impacts on the public health and the general Tfelfare of residents of the Town of Ithaca . Ve have called for an assessment of these impacts and an ,analysis of alternatives . Such an assessment would be provided in an environmental impact statement . A rescission of the negative declaration issued by the :state University Construction Fund in September 1993 would open the way for an environmental impact statement . We are gratified that you are considering this resolution and hope you will support it . I am distributing a copy of the statement I made on behalf of the Association at the public informational meeting on June 24 , 1996 . It contains the many reasons for our concerns . Ruth gahr , President Forest Home Improuement Association Statement for public informational meeting , June 24 , 1996 . Following is a statement on behalf of the Forest Home Improvement Association. Our position today has not changed since the first- -and only other - -public informational meeting , which was held in October 1392 . The proposed reg-.elated medical waste incinerator on the Cornell University campus has the potential for as significant , negative enivronmental impact . rye called for an environmental impact statement in 3992 . Our voices were not heard . Tie continue our call , but now it is wren more emphatic . Our concerns have heightened over the intervening years . Ve are more aware of the risks to public health- - such as mental retardation , learning disabilities , cancer , and diminution of reproductive capacity- -attributable to the dioxins that are a by- pri:oiuct of incinerating plastics . And we are aware of effective alternatives to burning plastics , such as waste reduction , autoclaving and landfilling . Iffe are aware of the deficiencies in the air modeling study for this proposal , for example the assumption that this is a rural area and use of Syracuse and Albany weather data . And we are aware of ways that this study could be improved , like using local weather data : dropping the assumption that an area with numerous buildings and 23 , 0000 students and employess has the population and topographical characteristics of a rural area , sand factoring in projected development in the vicinity of the nets School over the lifetime of this facility . Te know that the air modeling study , with all its shortcomings and kmcertainties : has led to a determination of a stack height for the proposed incinerator that is only barely above the building wake of the new veterinary Iiedicine building , and that emissions from this stack may be drawn into the bulding ' s air intake system . We are also aware that during inversions . emissions , which ideally should achieve maximum dispersal , could instead be concentrated locally . We are aware that the facility promises the best available � incineration technology :and monitoring capability . But we are also aware that mechanical and human errors will occur , and that the incineration technology will not be 1009 effective in preventing the formation of dioxins , or dispersing them over a wide area . Ve know , for example , that the medical waste incinerator at SMY Health Science Center , wbich has been used as an example for this one , emitted over three hundred times the permit level for dioxin in tests performed in 1994 . ?fie also know that in the second and third quarters of 1995 , after SUNY HSi. assumed control of the facility , monitoring equipment, failures and operator error occurred on numerous occasions , and that carbon monoxide emissions - -used to test incomplete burning -- exceeded standards also on numerous occasions . And we know that in 11995 there were complaints of worker illnesses , such as breathing problems and burning eyes , in Crouse - Irving , which has a similar incinerator , presumably because emissions were , in fact. , entering the air intake system . Although we are told that the present, permit does not include the incineration of medical wastes from the (:ayuga Medical . enter : l we know that that possibility was part of this proposal as recently as this past February . And we know that it could be proposed again in the future . This ?could add 175 , 000 pounds of regulated medical wastes to the Vet school ' s 90 , 000 - 125 , 000 pounds per year , trebling the amount of medical wastes burned in this facility . In sum , our position remains unaltered and unequivocal . Ve are deeply concerned about the potential that this project has for harmful impacts on the public health ; that an environmental impact statement , which Mould have assisted decision-makers in making . an environmentally and economically well - informed choice from :among available alternatives , was never done ; and that there has not been any meaningful public participation in this decision . It is not too late for the University to benefit from the knowledge gained since 1992 , including new information on the hazards of dioxin for human health ; on alternative , cost effective disposal technologies ; and on the performance and monitoring difficulties in existing incinerators . An environmental impact statement would offer the opportunity for a rational reassessment of this project using current knowledge . It may be that incineration is the best alternative today . We don ' t know ; we don ' t know if you know . Given the seriousness of the concerns with incinerating i medical wastes , isn ' t it imperative that we find out ? We called in 1992 for an environmental impart statement and expected public involvement in so important a decision. We continue our call for the equivalent of such a study and for the necessary public participation. Our call now is even more urgent . Additional Agenda . # 1 135 Warren load Ithaca , NY 14850 July 11 , 1996 Mr . Chris Marcella Director of Consultant Design State University Construction Fund PO Box 1946 Albany , NY 12201 - 1946 Dear Mr . Marcella . Thank yo. for comin„ tc ?cst south ' s public �.�eti relative to Cornell _ University ' s proposed Vet School incinerator . The meeting was a good one , and brought out much useful information . I think I have found the problem which contributed to the Urban vs Rural classification difficulty for the area surrounding the incinerator : When determining Ithaca ' s population density , Doucet and Mainka Engineers made two assumptions . o That the Town of Ithaca ' s population is evenly distributed , and o That the area within 3 km of the stack would all be within the Town of Ithaca . Unfortunately , both of these assumptions are incorrect . The Town of Ithaca ' s population is not evenly distributed , but mostly clustered on East Hill , with a secondary cluster on South Hill . Most of this population is within 3 km of the proposed stack . In addition to the Town of Ithaca ' s population , the area within 3 km of the stack also includes a large part of the City of Ithaca , much of the Village of Cayuga Heights , and part of the Town of Dryden . The City of Ithaca is fairly densely populated , especially the last Hill section which is within 3km of the stack , and includes Collegetown and most University residential halls and fraternities . The Village of Cayuga Heights is also a fairly dense residential area . Although the Town of Dryden is generally less densely populated , the Hamlet of .Varna and two trailer parks fall Within the 3 km limit . Thus , a true population analysis of the area within a 3 km radius of the proposed incinerator stack would include people living in four different municipalities , and would be well above the 21 , 206 resident population figure required to classify this area as Urban . Including the faculty and staff who are on the Cornell Campus during the day would push this figure still higher . I understand how- Mr . Doucet ' s lack of familiarity with the Ithaca area could have led to these errors . i" Page 2 i Although this is a serious problem , there is an easy solution : She computer modeling simply needs to be redone taking into account accurate population figures . Please note that this is not a matter of debate , but rather a factual error which will need to be corrected . Shank you for your attention to this matter . Sincerely , Bruce Brittain xc : Lawrence Doucet Irving Freedman Peter Lindabury Franklin Loew Martin Luster Ruth Mahr Raymond Nolan 1 Larry Thompson John Wolff Town Engineer ' s Report for 7 / 15 / 96 Town Board Meeting DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Eco - Village Construction activity has included water system installation , building construction , sewer lateral installation , drainage installation and maintenance activities related to sediment and erosion control systems . Erosion and sediment control facilities are being maintained adequately . EARTH FILL PERMITS Five Mile Drive , Immaculate Conception Filling at the site has continued through the month of June . Sediment control fencing is being maintained around the fill area . The contractor has been keeping the roadway clean . TOWN HALL The Town Engineer has been working with the Town Supervisor and the Town Hall Committee to continue the development of a plan to replace the existing facility . The committee met on June 4 , 1996 and reviewed the status of the Post Office building . The committee reviewed potential Town Hall locations including sites on East Hill and the Inlet Valley area . WATER PROJECTS The Town Engineering staff is continuing to work with the Bolton Point staff to implement the Master Metering Program for connections to the water transmission main . The project has been approved and the construction contract awarded . Construction will start mid - July . The Town Engineering staff is assisting the Bolton Point staff in construction administration . The Town Engineer is continuing to meet with the City Engineer and SCLIWC member municipal engineers to develop a proposal for an engineering evaluation to include the entire water infrastructure for the area . This evaluation is being done in conjunction with the City of Ithaca water supply study . SEWER The Forest Home pump stations continue to be a major maintenance issue , and as the stations are over 20 years old , a recommendation for replacement / upgrade of the controls and pumps will probably be included in the Water and Sewer capital plan . The Muriel Street sewer easement through the backyards on the west side of the street has been cleared and most of the restoration has been completed . Work has started on the sewer cleaning and maintenance work and Town Engineer ' s Report 7115196 2 final restoration of the area . Portions of the sewer was inspected with the video equipment rented for joint use by the SJS . PEREGRINE HOLLOW SEWER DISTRICT The Town of Dryden request to purchase IAWWTP capacity for the extension of service to the Snyder Hill sewer district is under consideration by the SJS . Review of this request by the committee has been tabled pending the update of the Intermunicipal Sewer Agreement , HIGHWAY AND PARKS The Forest Home Bridge Project contract has been awarded and construction is scheduled to start with an anticipated bridge closing on July 16 . STORMWATER Development of a stormwater management plan has made a top priority by the Town Board and the work plan is being developed . The development of a plan for the Northeast drainage system which includes the Dewitt Detention Pond is being completed along with improvements for Brandywine Drive . Construction by Town crews will be starting in July . BENEFIT ASSESSMENT Benefit Assessment questions and townwide assessment review is started . Approximately half of the Town parcels have been reviewed and changes have been submitted to the County Assessment office . Owners of properties with assessment changes will be notified by letter from the Town . C : \MEMOS\ERPT9606 . REP Agenda Item #3c Planning Director' s Report for Tuly, 15, 1996 Town Board Meeting DEVELOPMENT REVIEW The following are the major actions that were considered by the Planning Board. Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision, Danby Road Final Subdivision Approval was granted at the June 18, 1996 meeting for Phase I of the subdivision, consisting of the first 14 clustered lots. Cornell University Library Annex Addition, Palm Road Preliminary Site Plan Approval was granted at the June 18, 1996 meeting for a 15,000 + /- square foot addition to the existing Library Storage Facility (Library Annex) in Cornell University' s Precinct 71 Saddlewood Farms Apartments, Mecklenburg Road Consideration of a determination of significance of environmental impact is scheduled for the July 16, 1996 meeting, at which it will be determined whether an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. Cornell University Lake Source Cooling Project, 1000 East Shore Drive Consideration of sketch plan for the proposed lake pumping facility and heat exchanger on East Shore Drive, along with the proposed alignment of the chilled water pipe route, is scheduled for the July 16, 1996 meeting. CURRENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROTECTS The following are significant accomplishments or issues that have been dealt with over the past month . Conservation District: Town Board will be holding public hearing to consider enactment of the proposed Six Mile Creek Conservation District at the July 15, 1996 meeting. Refer to materials previously distributed and in Board packets . County Waterfront Study: A summary of the focus group discussions held on May 18, 1996, has been prepared by consultants and distributed to participating groups for review and comment (refer to attached) . A follow-up public meeting is scheduled for July 27, 1996, at the City of Ithaca Youth Bureau. Cornell Vet School Incinerator: Director of Planning attended public meeting held by Cornell University, the State University Construction Fund and the State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) on June 24, 1996, regarding the Cornell Veterinary School Incinerator project. (Refer to attached memo dated 6 / 25 / 96 for a summary of my observations on that meeting.) Tompkins County Economic Alliance: Director of Planning has attended several meetings held by the Chair of the Tompkins County Board of Representatives concerning economic issues of countywide interest. Discussions have focused on the possibility of initiating a countywide economic development plan / strategy. This is an informal group that will probably continue to meet every three weeks or so during the summer. Coddington Road Community Center Pavilion: Planning staff provided design and technical assistance to the Coddington Road Community Center (CRCC) in preparing plans for a new picnic pavilion that will be constructed in July and August. This is a cooperative effort among CRCC, the Town of Ithaca, the Joint Youth Commission, the Ithaca Youth Bureau, and the Youth Employment Service. The necessary approvals have also been obtained from the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals. MPO Joint Policy / Planning Committee Meeting: Planning Director attended the joint Policy and Planning Committee meeting held on June 18, 1996. The Director of the Ithaca - Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC) presented its Annual Report (a copy is available in the Planning Department if any Board members are interested in reviewing it) . An update on the status of organizing for the Northeast Corridor Study was given by the Director of ITCTC . The State Department of Transportation assures us that funds will be made available for this study. The County Department of Public Works has agreed to be the lead agency for administrative / funding purposes . Because of the County Budget process and timeframe, the study will be initiated in 1997, and will be included in the County' s Capital Budget. The study will require a local contribution of approximately $3 ,000 from each participating municipali / organization to meet the required total local match of $20,000. ITCTC will be sending a formal request to participating municipalities for commitments of local funding and an update on the formal scope / RFP process. [Note: The 1996 adopted Planning Department Budget includes sufficient funds in the "Planning Study" account for this purpose, and as we get toward the end of 1996, we may want to think about encumbering these funds to count as our local share for this project in 1997.] The Director of ITCTC is supposed to be preparing a Request for Proposals (RFP) to provide parameters for the study and to hear from consultants on their proposals for the study. Filename: 1 files\ townb d \ tpre0796.m em TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS TOWN BOARD MEMBERS FROM: JON KANTER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING RE: COUNTY WATERFRONT STUDY DATE: JULY 10, 1996 As a member of the County Waterfront Study Oversight Committee, I have been asked to distribute the attached summary of the focus group findings for your review and comment. Please review the attached document entitled Tompkins County Waterfront Study - Focus Group Notes: Master List for items which apply to the Town of Ithaca in particular. These items have been developed in three separate public focus groups related to the Tompkins County Waterfront Study. These lists are being transmitted for your consideration. The Oversight Committee will be letting the public know that this list has been transmitted to you at our next public meeting to be held on July 27, 19960 None of these items have been expanded upon, beyond the listing. The Master List is merely a summary of comments that the public made at our meeting on May 18, 1996. It should also be pointed out that wording of "action items" can be changed if you have any suggestions - they are not set in stone. Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions on the listing. Att. Tompkins County Waterfront Study FOCUS GROUP NOTES: MASTER LIST Attached are the revised summaries of each of the focus group discussions. We have a record copy of verbatim comments for each focus group on file. However, we have reformntted and reorganized the focus group notes as follows: I . Elimination of repetitive notes. 2. Modified notes to be action-oriented i.e. change a note like noise pollution to reduce/regulate noise pollution, 3. Formatted notes to show focus group preference with indication in parenthesis (*). 4. Additional notes have been added which were sent to us subsequent to the focus group sessions. Subsequently, comments from all three focus groups were combined in the Master List that brings together notes from the revised summary lists. Once again, redundant comments were eliminated, and notes were combined and aggregated into categories. They are: a. Cultural and Natural Heritage Corridor/Greenway b. Lake Basin Resource Management Plan c. Site Specific Proposals for Increasing Public Access to the Lake • Public Dock/Port Development • Upgrade Park Facilities • Public Boating/Ferry/ Water Taxi Facilities • Stewart Park Rehabilitation d. City of Ithaca Urban Waterfront Development Plan The Master List of Focus Group comments, includes all previously summarized notes from the three focus groups: 1 . Resource Protection 2. Recreation Opportunities, and 3 . Economic Opportunities Focus group comments have been consolidated into categories in the Master List which cut across interest areas. Redundancy in the notes has been eliminated and notes have been rewritten in an active voice when appropriate. In addition, for each category of information, a proposed action has been identified. NOTES A. Cultural And Natural Heritage Corridor/Greenway Action a. Link natural and cultural heritage interpretation and signage. Coordinate corridor/trail design critical linkages in Waterfront Study. b. Identify corridor destinations and routes thematically and Coordinate corridor/trait design create linkage. critical linkages in Waterfront Study. C. Consider eco-tourism when promoting the corridor. Advisory Board on Tourism and Development. d. Consider wildlife corridors in a greenway plan. Tompkins County Greenway Coalition. e. Consider on and off road trails, design and maintenance Coordinate corridor/trail design standards. critical linkages in Waterfront Study. f. Consider a comprehensive plan of interconnected trails Coordinate corridor/trail design including municipal and state parks. critical linkages in Waterfront Study. Tompkins County Waterfront Study FOCUS GROUT' NOTES: MASTER LIST NOTES - continued A. Cultural And Natural Heritage Corridor/Greenway Action g. Consider trails on Con-Rail right-of-way. Coordinate corridor/trail design critical linkages in Waterfront Study. h. Consider bus, water taxi, bikeway, pedestrian routes with water- Coordinate corridor/trail design based access. critical linkages in Waterfront Study. i. Provide boardwalk/water access at edge in all commercial areas. Coordinate corridor/trail design critical linkages in Waterfront Study. j . Provide services along trail, i .e. bike parking, restrooms, etc. Coordinate corridor/trail design critical linkages in Waterfront Study . k. Roller blading facilities should be included to : Coordinate corridor/trail design • make trails smoother to accommodate roller blading critical linkages in Waterfront Study. • adapt ice rinks for summer use • make Black Diamond Trail surface roller blade compatible B. Lake Basin Resource Management Plan Action a. Develop a Watershed Management Plan with a focus on water Health and Environmental Quality quality, including potable water. Committee, Tompkins County Board of Representatives. b. Consider waste water treatment including a septic systems Health and Environmental Quality management plan. Committee, Tompkins County Board of Representatives. C, Identify the Lake and associated viewsheds in the Management Health and Environmental Quality Plan, Committee, Tompkins County Board of Representatives . d. Identify and remediate siltation in the Lake and need for City of Ithaca, Planning and dredging. Development Committee. Consider solid organic deposition at the south end of the Lake. City of Ithaca, Planning and Development Committee. f. Consider the carrying capacity for development in the Lake Planning Community Development basin. P e. and Education Committee,FTom Tompkins County Board of Representatives. g. Consider consequences of salt mining below the Lake and New York State Department of catastrophic risks and economic benefits. Environmental Conservation, Cortland Office. h. Consider a Harbor Management Plan related to public water Health and Environmental Quality rights, noise levels, wake action erosion and motorized craft Committee, Tompkins County Board emission speed. of Representatives. i. Develop a Comprehensive Study of biological resources i.e. New York State Department of fish, aquatic birds and migratory populations. Environmental Conservation, Cortland Office. J. Develop a multi-municipal Lake-based planning organization. Tompkins County Planning Federation . k. Reaffirm protection of significant natural areas and support the Health and Environmental Quality land trust, conservation zones and easements, etc. Committee, Tompkins County Board of Representatives. 1. Develop education programs related to conservation of Tompkins County Cooperative significant natural and cultural resources. Extension . M, Regulate Lake levels as related to property and resource New York State Thruway Authority. protection. 2 Tompkins County Waterfront Study FOCUS GROUP NOTES: MASTER LIST C. Site Specific Proposals for Public Access to Lake Action a. Public Dock Selected project(s) for development in • Transient docking. Waterfront Study. Coordinate with • Fishing access. Tompkins County Cooperative • Water taxi/ferry tie-up. Extension . b. Upgrade Park Facilities Recommend: • Consider maintenance standards and funding City of Ithaca Parks Commission and (Intermunicipal). Town of Lansing, Department of • Develop tree planting program . Public Works and Supervisor, Larry • Improve edge access including shore based angling for use Sharpsteen and Jeannine Kirby. by youths and handicapped fishing. • Extend season of Lake use. • Provide campground(s). • Program more sporting events. C, Public Boating/Ferry/Water Taxi Facilities Consider as part of Waterfront Study. • Locate a permanent facility for the Cascadilla Boat Club. • Evaluate site options at Stewart/Cass Parks, D.O.T. site for crew boat house. • Evaluate ferry proposal from Taughannock State Park to Myers Point. d. Stewart Park Rehabilitation Selected project(s) for development in • Design public pier. Waterfront Study. • Boat house renovation/restoration. • Amphitheater/performance area (performance arts center). • Plaza between pavilions (eliminate parking). • Lake edge stabilization. • Remove old beach bulkhead. D. City of Ithaca Urban Waterfront Plan Action • Create economic diversity within commercial development Select projects(s) for development in proposals with a vision of Ithaca on the waterfront. Waterfront Study. • Focus on regional tourism to include Cornell University Advisory Board on Tourism and and Ithaca College tourism with a natural resource bias. Development. • Create a liaison with financial institutions, a partnership of Advisory Board on Tourism and business, city and banking. Development and Chamber of Commerce. • Create a long-term vision for local industry . Refer to Tompkins County Economic Development Committee and City of Ithaca Department of Planning and Development, Planning Board. • Redevelop properties along the " inlets" at west end of the Refer to City of Ithaca Dept. of City. Create city-based incentives to redevelop businesses Planning and Development/Planning with municipal assistance. Board. • Integrate marinas and other land-side use. Town of Lansing, Department of Public Works and Supervisor, and New York State Fingerlakes Parks. • Identify historic and cultural resources. Selected project(s) for development in Waterfront Study. • Coordinate public parking. Selected project(s) for development in Waterfront Study. 3 Tompkins County Waterfront Study FOCUS GROUP NOTES: MASTER LIST NOTES - continued ' D. City of Ithaca Urban Waterfront Plan Action • . Identify inlet island "gateway" to the City and the Lake. Selected project(s) for development in Waterfront Study. • Provide incentives for more rentals of non-motorized Refer to City of Ithaca Dept. of water crafts. Planning and Development/Planning Board. • Consider impact of commercial/industrial development Town of Ithaca and City of Ithaca on residential use. Planning Boards. • Redevelop existing business sites prior to developing Refer to City of Ithaca Dept. of unbuilt sites. Planning and Development/Planning Board. • Relocate the Department of Transportation (D.O.T.) an d Conceptual plan in Waterfront Study. . create a redevelopment plan for this site. • Provide transient docking near services. Selected project(s) for development in Waterfront Study. • Consider public transit connections from waterfront to Ithaca - Tompkins County downtown. Transportation Council/Ithaca Transit. 4 Tompkins County Waterfront Study FOCUS GROUP NOTES: RESOURCE PROTECTION Resource Protection I . Clarification of oversight committee. ( 3 ) 2. Is study subject to regulatory process? 31 Is County lead agency? 4. Resource protection/ dealt with more broadly. include utilization enhancement. 5 . Where is human resource development to enhance dialogue & cooperation. Need mechanism. ( 1 ) Vision 6. Water quality plan with watershed management. (8) 7. Quality, clarification of resource as Lake resource. 8. Inputs from outside County study area. 9. Consider waste treatment related to increased development. 10. Lake is a scenic resource. 11 . Identify, protect and enhance viewsheds to Lake. 12. GEIS for overall plan? (2) 13 . Plan as comprehensive, balanced approach. (3 ) 14 . Natural Heritage Trail around Cayuga Lake, State Parks partner. (5) 15 . Natural landscape, its cultural heritage (4): Palento logical Institute Cornell Plantations Destinations along route thematically inter-related. Linking & providing consistent interpretation & identification . 16. Awareness & identification of types of tourists we want to attract - ecotourism. 17. Visual amenity, environmental health acceptable level of development, mitigation of existing problems. 18. Make most of resource that addresses local quality of life as well as tourism development. Issues 19. Erosion, silting in Lake through deposition. Difficulty in navigating shallow waters. (6) 20. Wood deposit; disposal of driftwood; prevention? ( 1 ) 21 . Water quality affected by siltation. (6) 22. Sewage treatment, septic tanks and municipal treatment ( 1 ): effectiveness magnitude service area 23 . Does City treatment of Six-Mile Creek improve Lake water quality? 24. Increased development if on septic may aggravate problem. _ 25 . Control of access and damage by increased use: protecting people protecting resources 26. Cargill Salt - consequences of mining operation (2): mechanism for oversight risk/catastrophic failure/benefit analysis 27. Increase of noise on Lake over past ,years (6): large motorboats jet skis - "cigarette" boats 28 . Wake causing shore damage. 29. Emissions from motor boats. How does this relate to Federal Standards? 30. Permitting of individual actions through environmental review process. 31 . Include biological resources ( I ) : 5 Tompkins County Waterfront Study FOCUS GROUP NOTES: RESOURCE PROTECTION fish birds mobile populations 32. Impact of actions outside area (2): proposed marina at Cargill Point identify projects: can we affect them? municipal coordination to manage Lake wide planning organization, (7) 33 . Wildlife corridors to allow (5 ): acquisition connectivity awareness. ( 1 ) management 34. Concem for influx of tourists/new residents on "Southern Gateway". 35 . Historic/natural resources should be interpreted and presented accurately. 36. "Trails" to be friendly to pedestrians and bicyclists. (2) 37. Maintenance of shoulder trails, by DOT. 38. Greenway Coalition - comprehensive Plan of interconnected trails. (7) 39 . Include Buttermilk Falls and connection to Lake in study. (3 ) 40. Garbage along Black Diamond Trail : illegal dumping & policing need mechanism for clean-up once clean, stays clean 41 . Waste management of new development. 42. Run-off from chicken farms. 43 . Lake Source Cooling Project impacts. 44. Erosion of waterways to Lake. (5) 45 . Intermunicipal Plan to maintain waterways and Lake stabilization. 46. Greenway Plan. 47. Coordination withibetween existing project Greenway Plan/Natural Heritage Trail. ( 1 ) 48. Protect areas where people interact with Lake, including (3): Lake cliffs Hog Hole Biological station 49. Preserve Ak places along Lake (4): Salt Point, North of Myers Point as example of "wild" place destroyed. Land Trust - conservation, easements as mechanism. -_ Lack of valuing, understanding wild places by municipal officals, DOT. 50. Lobbying and education of municpal officals/DOT etc. to preserve wild places (5). 51 . Boating accidents related to debris. 52. Watershed studies available as models for intermunicipal cooperation. 53 . Make area user friendly. 54. Limited linkage and accessibility between Ithaca and the parts of Cayuga Lake that are north of Lansing' s Myers Point. 55 . Jet skiers, noise pollution is intolerable. We need to regulate their use. 56. Flood control has been mismanaged with regards to protecting lake dwellers property. 57. It is true that Cayuga Heights and the Kendal community development dump their sewage in Cayuga Lake? 58 . Regulation of size of structures of shore i .e. docks, boat houses etc. especially in residential areas. 6 Tompkins County Waterfront Study FOCUS GROUP NOTES: RESOURCE PROTECTION 59. The Cayuga Inlet portion of the proposed Black Diamond Trail offers an excellent opportunity for creating a scenic greenway within the City of Ithaca. It would be useful to provide separate bike and pedestrian paths along the Flood Control Channel. 60. Single most-useful project: bike/pedestrian bridge from the Old Port Harbor area over to inlet island. The Octopus replacement project has made it difficult to connect routes of the Ithaca Bike plan to the west shore of Cayuga Lake. 61 . Move the DOT facilities (6 acres) just south of Steamboat Landing to the former Grossman 's location. i 7 Tompkins County Waterfront Study FOCUS GROUP NOTES: RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES Recreation Opportunities 1 . Ferry Service, more charter cruises to take better advantage of Lake areas. ( 1 ) 2. Rails with trails on Con Rail line. 3 . Grossman ' s parking lot may be used for Farmers Market. ( 1 ) - 4. Regulate boat emission standards. ( 1 ) 5 . DOT site is not highest and best use of land they occupy. (2) 6. Multi-use path, Stewart Park, Farmers Market, West End, Black Diamond Trail with low impact construction . (5) 7. Inner city waterways are important to lakefront enhancements. (2) 8 . Municipalities should be responsible or capable of funding and maintenance. 9. Upgrade maintenance of public park facilities. 10. Preserve trees on streets and in parks. (2) 11 . Use more trees in public projects, no net loss of trees! (3 ) 12. Preserve road connection between Cass and Treman Marine Park. ( 1 ) 13 . Encourage student projects such as civil engineer students, bridges and other project. 14. Multi-use trail along Conrail Line from Stewart Park and Myers Point. (2) 15 . !et ski ban. 16. Education and enforcement of boat traffic. 17 . Develop lake cliffs trail. ( 1 ) 18 . Provide services (rest rooms) along trails. 19. Reconsider trolly on East Hill , downtown and to Stewart Park. 20. Consider Inlet Island boardwalk to preserve public access. ( t ) j 21 . Streams should be included in study - bridges and pedestrian access. 22. Cascadilla Boat House - preserve and renovate for new users 23 . Consider lake level and function of absorption of lake water. 24. Municipal/county-wide policy for acquisition of lake edge property as it becomes available. ( 1 ) 25 . Farmers Market. (3 ) 26. Dock Project: public access transient docking fishing access parking and mass transit water taxi for Cass Park, Stewart Park, Old Port Harbor, Wegmans, etc. bus linkage from downtown multi-modal route 27 . Controlling lake level. 28. Coordination of regulatory/permitting process for low impact lake edge modification. ( 1 ) 29. East-west bikeway linkages across Fulton and Inlet are poor. ( 1 ) 30. Swimming at Stewart Park is desirable. (2) 31 . Natural Heritage Trail mapped route with signage. 32. Roller Blading Facilities (2) : smoother/wider surfaces adapt ice rinks for summer use Black Diamond Trail - roller blade accessible 33 . West end develop mix of residential , commercial and recreational uses. Encourage trail links for bikes and pedestrian. Public access to vacant/underutilized parcels on West end. ( 1 ) 34. City pier/dock at Stewart Park. (2) I 8 Tompkins County Waterfront Study FOCUS GROUP NOTES: RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES 35. Land preservation ( I ): hog hole Salt Point @ Myers Point land trust and other strategies 36. Noise pollution ( 12): jet ski - county wide ban 37. Bike-related visionlissues (2): Cass Park, Stewart Park waterfront trail Black Diamond will be backbone Farmers Market, Stewart Park Old Port, Farmers Market 38. Bicycle/pedestrian bridge - Old Port area to Inlet Island at Court. ( 1 ) 39. Ithaca Bicycle Coalition ( 1 ): preserve and enhance pedestrian and bicycle access to waterfront bicycle parking at points along trail 40. Signage ( 1 ) : directional comprehensive program 41 . Speed limit and traffic pattern - signage and enforcement on Inlet and Flood Control Channel. (2) 42. Farmers Market pier - ensure that boat traffic is not impacted. 43 . Treman Marina and impact of expansion of Hogs Hole. 44. Biological field station - existing birding location - impact of increase traffic. . 45 . Water level control ( 1 ): reduces seasonal access impact on public/private facilities 46. Impact of Cornell Lake Source Cooling project on public access. ( 1 ) 47. Develop waterfront plan with maintenance and design standards. ( I ) 48. Improve trail access to Cass Park from Stewart park. ( 1 ) 49. Link Buttermilk State Park, Spencer Road to South Hill Recreation . 50. Connectivity via trails between county destinations. 51 . Improve public access to lake outside city limits. (2) 52. Limited access for youth for shore based angling. 53 . Handicap fishing access with any development should be accessible. 54. Performing Arts Center in Stewart Park. (3 ) 55. Sound/noise control of performing areas. 56. Cascadilla Boat Club (4): outgrown current boat house ` community rowing 200 member/participants weather/lake access - find new location DOT site south of Farmers Market Cass Park "cut-out" Possible 57. Collegiate rowing facility ( I ) : new development should not interfere with existing rowing traffic 9 Tompkins County Waterfront Study FOCUS GROUP NOTES. RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES 58. Stewart Park: 59. Cascadilla Boat House rehabilitation. 60. Amphitheater/performance stage. ( 1 ) 61 . Plaza between pavilions (eliminate parking). ( 1 ) 62. Lake edge stabilization. ( 1 ) 63 . Bulkhead wall removal/swimming beach. 64. Sedimentation control - impact on swimming. 65. Bike Path construction and bicycle parking. 66. Hog's Hole - preservation. I 10 Tompkins County Waterfront Study. FOCUS GROUP NOTES: ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES Economic Opportunities I . More tourist resources will improve local quality of life. (2) 2. Economic diversity is essential. 3 . "We" are tourists. (A reminder that in other communities y& are also touirsts). 4. Commitments to land-side uses. (3 ) 5 . Problem : Ithaca is not perceptually on lake. 6. Create formal participants network. (3 ) 7. Education about hydrologic pollution "cycle". (3 ) 8. Review existing survey from tourists. 9. Conference and tourism (college and university) links. ( l ) 10. Focus area on water and tie-together waterfront. 11 . Liaison with financial institutions. ( 1 ) 12. Plan needed to recognize water rights. ( 1 ) 13 . Slow Cornell crew coach. 14. Improve quality of life and use of lake for non-boater. (3 ) 15. Not to discourage commercial use of lake. 16. Tourism with an environment bias. (3 ) 17. What "distinguishes" this project area from the region. ( 1 ) 18. Connect water to community(s). (6) 19. Integrate land-side and marina development. ( 1 ) 20. Distinguish waterfront regulation from others. ( 1 ) 21 . Sporting events programming . ( 1 ) 22. Linkages benefit businesses and natural resources. 23 . Overuse of boats and noise and reduction in tourism. (2) 24. Provide good campgrounds. 25 . Harbor management and water use education. (2) 26. Residents first, tourism second. (2) 27. Consider demographic economy . 28. Protect environmental assets. (4) 29. Balance of economic development and natural resources. (6) 30. Extend season of lake use . 31 . Reposition properties on west end and incentives from city and cooperation. (5) 32. Enhance multi-modal links to lake. ( 1 ) 33 . Human scale development. ( 1 ) 34. "Long-term " vision of industry. 35 . Tourist lake "hub" and connection to resource. (7) Cornell hotel convention 36. Enhance existing commercial area while preserving natural resources. (3 ) 37. Develop forecasts and economic development trends. (2) 38. Resources to community that follows state/local plan. 39. Gentrification limitation . (3 ) 40. Historic;appropriate resources. ( 1 ) 41 . Municipal commitment to plan cooperatively. ( 1 ) 42. Land use controls (multi-municipal ). (2 ) 43 . Intermunicipal compacts. ( 5 ) 44. Municipal business assistance. (3 ) 45 . Consider Natural Heritage Corridor ( multi-county). ( 1 ) 46 . Interpretive scenic cultural resources. ( 1 ) Il Tompkins County Waterfront Study FOCUS GROUP NOTES: ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES 47. Access and transportation connections. ( 5) 48. Identify locations where development exists and improve while protecting historic natural areas. ( I ) 49. Consider impact of development on lake residents. (2) 50. Balance economic and natural resources. ( 1 ) 51 . Protect natural resources that support tourism . (2) 52. Consider impact on West end existing businesses. (3) 53 . Intermunicipal cooperation with an enforcable plan. (2) 54. The lake is the drinking water for 1000 ' s of people, plan must protect the quality of this valuable resource. 55 . Improve safety on the lake. (Jet skiers). 56. Provide more places to rent canoes or small sailboats, fewer motorized craft. 57. Pursuade the state to stop renting slips at the marina to commercial enterprises. 58. Establish low-noise zones. 59. Make Inlet Island attractive, except for the Station Restaurant and the lookout point, its an eyesore, terrible gateway to the City. 60. Keep development away from the cliffs. 61 . Protect the natural resources. 62. Balance gentrification impacts and develoment on lake residential economic development. 63 . Coordinating the public parking areas over the southern waterfront area could benefit all the proposed activities. 64. Water taxi or ferry idea more than just back and forth accross the inlet. If a pier were developed at Stewart Park, a taxi might run regular service from there to the Treman Marina, Cass Park, the IFM, and the Old Port area. 12 TOWN OF ITHACA C 0 Py PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: CATHY VALElNTINO FROM: JON KANTER RE: CORNELL VET SCHOOL INCIl*tERATOR - SUMMARY OF JUNE 24, 1996 PUBLIC MEETING DATE: JUNE 25, 1996 I attended the public meeting regarding the proposed Cornell Vet School Incinerator, which was held last night at Morrison Hall. Over 100 people attended the meeting, which did not end until after 11 :00 p.m. The following are my observations on several highlights and how the meeting concluded. 16 Dioxins as a public health issue: The big objection / question raised by many members of the audience was the health risk associated with dioxins, which would be present as a result of burning medical wastes (especially plastics) in the Incinerator. There didn' t seem to be too much concern about burning animal carcasses, as is the current practice. There was discussion by Cornell representatives that they might consider separating the medical wastes out and not burn those in the Incinerator. An alternative disposal and/ or recycling process might be feasible for medical wastes . Franklin Loew, Dean of the College of Veterinary Medicine, indicated that this discussion raised questions in his mind about whether it was a good idea to burn medical waste in the Incinerator given the possible presence of dioxins and the proximity of campus and residential populations, and that he would investigate alternatives for disposing of medical waste. 20 Is it possible that DEC would require a DEIS?: Ray Nolan of DEC indicated that it was not likely that DEC would require an Environmental Impact Statement for the Incinerator. DEC's responsibility is to approve the permits, which are very technical in nature, and if the standards set by EPA and DEC for Incinerators are met, he would find it difficult to issue a Positive Declaration. In order to require a DEIS, DEC would have to rescind the Negative Declaration that was issued by the State Construction Fund several years ago . -2- Many members of the audience urged DEC to consider requiring the preparation of a DEIS, so that there would be an opportunity for substantial public input into the review process. DEC's response was that there will be that opportunity even without a DEIS. The draft permits will be circulated by DEC for public comment There would be at least 30 days for members of the public to send written comments to DEC. (It was not clear when the draft permits would be available for review.) 39 Franklin Loew indicated that Cornell would probably hold another public information meeting, most likely sometime in the Fall, presumably before the draft permits are issued. There were many questions asked, and there was a good exchange of information. This memo is not intended to summarize all that was discussed, but only to highlight what I thought were the important conclusions/results of the meeting. Please let me know if you have any specific questions on what transpired. Me Town Board Agenda Item 3b Highway Superintendent ' s Monthly Report June 1996 Town of Ithaca Town Board , July 15 1996 In June , the Highway / Parks Department worked 195 hours on FEMA projects . This includes finishing touches on Sand Bank Road : Regrading and seeding . The guide rails still need to be put up before the project will be finished . Other FEMA projects include West Haven Road , which is finished except some ditching ; East Ithaca Recreation Way ; and Coy Glen Road . The crews also worked at finishing Stone Quarry Road . We worked 50 . 5 hours of time on Stone Quarry Road . This includes eight hours of over time . There is a dead line ( July 19 ) for the completion of this road , which the Town has met . The road work is finished . The Town was granted $ 30 , 000 to work on this project . As was discussed at last month ' s meeting , the Town will be submitting documents for extra money for this project , because there was more work to be done to fix the road . During June , the Highway / Parks crews worked on repaving Winthrop Drive , Simsbury Drive , Brandywine Drive and Sandra Place . They worked 320 hours of time , which 81 hours were over time . There were several times , when putting down pavement and shoulders work , that warranted working late to get a job " to a stopping place " or finished . Another Permanent Improvement project worked on in June was replacing a pipe on Pennsylvania Avenue . Work on General Repairs included working in the Highway/ Parks facility , making shoulder material ( pug mill ) , equipment maintenance , etc . These projects totaled 382 . 25 hours . Machinery maintenance took 149 hours of time . We worked 13 hours restoring a driveway from a water main break , and 63 hours of time on sewer maintenance projects , including help on the sewer camera crews . Annual roadside mowing , along with some brush trimming on Sapsucker Woods Road , took 123 hours . July Projects 10 Start Dewitt Pond Project . 2 , Continue Work on FEMA Projects . 3 . Roadside Mowing , 4 . Improvements to Highway / Parks Facilities , 5 . Preparations for Oil and 'Stone . ghk Agenda Item 3b 1 Parks and Open Space Manager ' s Monthly Report , June 1996 i Town of Ithaca Town Board , July 15 , 1996 i . Routine Maintenance consumed 268 hours of Parks staff time . This includes working at Salem Park , site checks , clean ups , and bark mulching at all play structure sites . 2 . The Town constructed a screener for top soil , so we worked 30 hours on this project . Along with this , eight hours were spent on lawn restorations . �I 3 . We worked eight hours spraying roundup in miscellaneous places . 4 . The Parks crews worked at the Eastern Heights Recreation Way ( Ithaca , Hiking Tail ) for 16 hours . This project is part of the FEMA work . 51 The Town rented a tub grinder ( to chip up brush that has accumulated throughout the year ) . we had to supply person power to put the brush in the grinder . This took a total of 14 hours . 6 . Muriel Street sewer line was seeded , which completed this project , except for moving a tree . This will have to wait until fall . We spen 64 hours there this month . 7 . Parks continued its mowing of park and trail sites , which took 144 hours . This will continue throughout the summer . 80 Parks crews helped Highway crews on several occasions this month ; namely , Sand Bank Road , paving , and Judd Falls Road . This took 49 hours of our time . Parks July Protects 10 Continue mowing . 2 . Work with YCC . 3 . Preparation for Oil and Stone on Trails , ghk r TOWN OF ITHACA REPORT OF BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 1996 YEAR TO DATE YYPE OF PERMIT YEAR # OF PERMITS AMOUNT # F AMOUNT SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED 1996 0 0 0 0 RESIDENCES 1995 0 0 SINGLE FAMILY DETACEaM 1996 0 0 2 1369000 2FSIDENCTS 19951 2 200,000 10 IA4000 1996 0 0 13 292749930 17WO FAMILY RESIDENCES 1995 0 0 0 0 . 1996 2 32,000 9 1749738 U NOVATIONS 1995 1 40,000 9 217,493 1996 1 18,000 1 18,000 :ONVT?RSIONS OF USE 1995 2 11,000 4 47,364 1996 0 0 3 110029 ►DDTTTONS TO FOOTPRINT 1995 1 22,000 8 127,850 1996 0 0 0 0 AUL11PLE RESIDENCES 1993 0 0 0 0 T Ides Plaza replace air conditioning in bowbg lanes 22 000 1 Cayuga Medical Cmter nmoVa ion portion of lad Soon 155,714 1996 2 177,214 9 663,652 3U _ 1995 1 10400 3 194,656 1996 0 0 0 0 ►GRICULTURAL 1995 0 0 0 0 1996 0 0 0 0 NDUsnUAL 1995 0 0 0 0 1996 1 CU Hasbrouck Aparmienta replace 14 budditigs boilers 292,000 11 7,588,720 DUCATTONAL 1995 0 0 4 510 346 GSCELLANEOUS 1996 0 0 13 96,174 'ONSTRUCTZON 1995 12 69,484 33 223,470 'OTAL NUMBER OF 1996 6 319 214 63 11063,143 ERNIM 133TM3) 1995 19 332,484 73 2324,181 'OTAL FEES 1996 6 1,215 66 16,470 .ECEIVED 1 19951 19 885 73 3,260 late Prepared Twy 10, 1996 reni L. Hotford ad Depa [Heat Secretary - 2 - I TOTAL CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY ISSDF,D THIS MONTH - 18 1. 153 East King Road - renovation of existing singlewfemily dwelling 2. 1251 Thunansburg Road - conversion of school bnilding into mixed occupancim 3. l27 Salem Drive - 15- x 16' exterior wooden deck 4. 620 Elm Stmt Extension - two story addition of bedrooms and bathrooms S. Christopher Circle - pole ban around masonry pump house. 6. 638 Elmira Road - roof repair. ?. 638 Elmira Road - kitchen hood extingiushing systen. S. 113 Penny Lane - finish cellar spec& 9. 126 .:cyder FID Road - existing single-family dwelling, lo. 172 East King Road - new hoapicare residence and administrative offices - temporary. 11. 9'0 Danby Road (Ithaca) - creation of 33,000 square foot tenant space in cds ft building - temporary. 12. 124 Birchwood Drive South • new lwo•li a ily dwelling. M 126 Birchwood Drive South - new two-family dwelling 14. 355 Stone Quarry Road - 26' x24' detached garage 15. 224 Bostwick Road - install wood stove and chimnry. 16. 1478 Mecklenburg Road - adsting accessory budding on property - temporary. 17. 16 Judd Falls Road , budding renovations (around court #5) - temporary. 18. 508 Coddmgton Road - install ftnaces. TOTAL CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY YEAR TO DATE, 1996- 69 TOTAL CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY YEAR TO DATE, 1995 - 69 INQUMMS/COMPLAIIM INVESTIGATED THIS MONTH - 4 1. 305 Sheffield Road - property maintenance - abated 2. 704 Five Mile Drive • m • abated. 3. 306 Coddington Road - noise - abated 4. 104 Piuewood Place • property mintenance - pending, From Ma 19967 11796: 1. 1478 Mecklenburg Road - property maintenance • abated 2 MI Hmira Road - property maintenance - pendin& From tASt ice' 1. Ehrhra Road - IM pammit - pending. 2. 123 Honness Lane - zoninyoccupancy • pending 4. Various properties - sign violations - pead'arg. F nn March 1996; 1. 658 Five We Drive • budding codelzommg - pending. From Februaty_1996: 1. 1200 Danby Road - property maintenance - abated 2. 172 Calkin Road - property maintenance - pending. • 3 - :From October 1995 L. 3L0 St Catherine Circle - property maintenance - pmcEn8- From September 1995: L. 140 Ridgecred Road - building code - abated. wrom Ma 1995: I . U52 ?lanby Road - zoning and bmlding code - pending legal action nvtaApa11221: 1. 128 Salon Drive - illegal baserueut apartment - pemlio& From Man h 1994: L. 132 Forest Home Drive - budding code - pending state variance. From Fdm= 1993: L. l55 Poole Road - ZBA conditions violated - pend4 TO - COMPLAINTS 1NVESTIGATED YEAR TO DATE, 1991 - 46 T COMIPLAINTS U4VF.S7TGATED YEAR TO DATE, 1993 - 46 VLSITS THIS MONTH • 89 Qnif adding Code • 51 Local Law and Zoning Inspections - 30 Poe Safety - 5 (1 business, 4 apattrnerlt complemm [51 building& 339 units, 1 community budding, I larntiry buddingD Fire Safety Reinspections - 3 (1 business, I motel, 1 reduarant) Poe Occrarmces - 0 Fire Occurrence Reinspections • 0 TOTAL FIELD VISITS YEAR TO DATE, 1996 - 538 DOTAL FIELD VISITS YEAR TO DATE, 1995 . 484 TOTAL SIGN PERMITS THIS MONTH • 0 TOTAL SIGN PERMITS YEAR TO DATE, 1996 . 3 TOTAL SIGN PERMITS YEAR TO DATE, 1993 - 7 ZONING ROARD ROAR OF APPFALS I MEETING - 4 CASES • AGENDA ATTACHED TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , JUNE 26 , 1996 7 : 00 P . M . By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday , June 26 , 1996 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , ( FIRST Floor , REAR Entrance , WEST Side ) , Ithaca , N . Y . , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P . M . , on the following matters : APPEAL of Ithaca College , Appellant , Bruce Hatch , Agent , requesting a Special Approval under Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 3 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be c permitted to locate a 66 ' x 84 ' modular building for a period of two years at Ithaca v College , 953 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 41 - 1- 30 . 2 , Residence District R- p15 . Said structure , located by Dillingham Center , will be utilized for two classrooms . ,4 APPEAL of J . M . Blakely , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of a Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be R permitted to replace an existing garage with a new larger structure on a nonconforming v° lot located at 332 Forest Home Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 66 - 3- 5 , Residence E District R- 15 . The parcel of land is non conforming with regard to lot width , lot 0 area , and front yard setback . A variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 is also being requested , as the proposed garage will have a west side yard building setback of 9 ' ( 10 ' required ) . DAPPEAL of EcoVillage Co-housing Cooperative , Appellant , Elizabeth Walker , Agent S requesting a variance from the requirements of Town of Ithaca Local Law #7 , as amended , "Requiring Sprinkler Systems to be installed in buildings , " to be permitted to 0 construct a " common house " without a sprinkler system installation , at 1323 Mecklenburg -1bajq(, Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1- 26 . 2 , Special Land Use District #8 . Said common house will serve as an area of assembly for cooperative members and their guests . i A APPEAL of Alfred Eddy , Appellant , Stephen Eddy , Agent , requesting a variance from the P requirements of Article V . Section 18 , Paragraph 7 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning ROrdinance , to maintain a wholesale and retail produce business at 827 Elmira Road , Town 0 esidence District R- 30 . Said ordinance limits V of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 35- 1 - 10 . 1 , R E such a use to a roadside stand or other structure for the display and sale of farm products incidental to farming and as a seasonal convenience to the owners of the land . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 : 00 p . m . , and said place , hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent or in person . Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs , as appropriate , will be provided with assistance , as necessary , upon request . Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing . Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer 273 - 1783 Dated : June 19 , 1996 Publish : June 21 , 1996 -� -1 0 Z O !n D D �- D D D 0 O Z { ,ZDj Z O Z ( - N! no m � m �_ �� N Ja N J b CO N 0C) 3 O -i Z O VWi COT COT O .COT O Z m O 1 0 0 alo , c) , 01 X m Q N No Q N wm Z 0 Ca 44 w N m Z 'O C) Z' v Z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 D v Z D N Q O y O °o °o °o °o °0 00 °0 00 N N m N z � 0 0 0 0 v O z m rn �4 C4 D 0 rn m c0 � �Nn � ° !Q °-�° CO m � O 00 m 0 00 0 0 0 00 00 m r r 0 mmry mmC -i v_ S, 3v m z � z o Q z (rp 0 0 0 0 0 =� Z 0 00 O �- °o °0 00 00 ° 0 o N 0 0 O ..� Q m Z Q m 0 � ` 0 � m D or 0 C D m 0 O 0 � m N O O N 0 0 0 0 � m m O O w O O O M m 10 .10 01010 0 m z m m C 3 D 3 D O o N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (A ? °o Z °o °o °o °o °o °o °o Z Z Q 0 m m m m m 3 a rn ►v a 3 � � -, � D 0 y Z o o O 00 0 o y z o 00 1 1 1 1 1 00 00 Oo 00 00 00 m -+ z Muni O O N M C O r � N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v O v W A N N �4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CT O CT �1 O O CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CT O i OF 1p F _ 9 TOWN OF ITHACA V8r211 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 Y Og TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 Agenda Item No , 3 (e) Town Clerk' s Monthly Report For Town Board Meeting 7/15/96 Town Clerk: Deputy Betty Poole continues to work on the adjustments to the water and sewer benefit assessments with the Engineering Department . The adjustments have been made to approximately half of the properties on the tax roll . The County has been contacted about the necessary time frame for submission of the adjustments to coincide with the 1997 budget process . Records Management: Deputy Mary Saxton continues to work on updating the inventory in the archival vault so that records will be easily accessed when the work on the indexing continues . Additional files have been found while making space in the vault. These files are being reviewed for retention according to the SARA MU - 1 Schedule . Betty has updated the reference binder for Appointments to Boards and Committees and is beginning work on indexing the deeds , easements , agreements and contracts files. During* this process a "tickler file" will be created to track the dates the agreements and contracts need renewing or updating . Accounting : On June 19 , the representatives from Ciaschi , Dietershagen , Little , Mickelson , L. L. P . , Certified Public Accountants conducted the exit meeting regarding the annual audit of the Town of Ithaca for 1995 . (Acceptance for filing of the report is on the agenda . ) Supervisor Valentino and several staff members have reviewed and seen demonstrations of two accounting software packages . We will be setting up demonstrations with two other companies in July. Figures and information are being compiled to begin the budget process . Department Heads will receive worksheets to calculate their anticipated fund balance for the year 1996 , based upon their anticipated revenues and appropriations until year end . Respectfully submitted , Joan Lent Noteboom Town Clerk/Director of Administrative Services r /t . kt, rILA ( .1. � 7r'- • FORM NO. 1002-H TOWN CLERK'S MONTHLY REPORT Wilt4AMSDNIAW OWN CO., vx:toR, NY145" TOWN OF I TIiACA NEW YORK (Month) June 19 96 TO THE SUPERVISOR: Pursuant to Section 27, Subd. 1 , of the Town Law, I hereby make the following statement of all fees and moneys received by me In connection with my office, during the month above staled, excepting only such fees and moneys the application and payment of which i are otherwise provided for by law: ( LICENSE CATEGORY NUMBER OF LICENSES SOLD OR ISSUED COMMISSION COMMISSION TOTALUSED SENIOR (65 + / Military Disability) FISHING - SEASON HUNTING (Small Game) SIG GAME (Deer and Bear) TRAPPING BOWHUNTING (Big Game License Required) MUZZLELOADING (Big Game License Required) SPORTSMAN FISHING - J DAY JUNIOR TRAPPING (Under 16 yrs.) SPECIAL SECOND DEER PERMIT (See Big Game Guide) TURKEY PERMIT (Available at DEC offices only) NON-RESIDENT FISHING - SEASON NON-RESIDENT HUNTING - SEASON (Small Game) NON-RESIDENT BIG GAME (Deer ONLY) NON-RESIDENT FISHING - 5 DAY NON-RESIDENT HUNTING - 5 DAY NON-RESIDENT MUZZLELOADING NON-RESIDENT BOWHUNTING NON-RESIDENT BEAR TAG NON-RESIDENT COMBINATION NON-RESIDENT TURKEY PERMIT (Available r DEC oetces orb) ! JUNIOR ARCHERY (14.15 Years) LOST LICENSE (55.00 Per Stamp Lost) IYUO JUNIOR HUNTING ( 12.15 Years) f 4900 ADD - TOTAL COMMISSIONS b IS 00 1 1 Marriage Licenses No. 23 to No. 33 @8o75 s 96 . 25 r Marriage Certificates @ _3 Marriage Transcripts @ 10 . 00 30 . 00 A 1255 TOTAL TOWN CLERK 'FEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f 130 . 25 A 1010 — 1090 REAL PROPERTY TAXES f l INTEREST and PENALTIES f A 2001 PARK and RECREATION CHARGES A 2110 ZONING FEES f A 2115 PLANNING FEES f T A 2590 GAMES OF CHANCE TOWN SHARE . . . . . . . LICENSES FEE f TOTAL A 2540 BINGO TOWN SHARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LICENSE f FEE $ . TOTAL A 2544 t8 DOG LICENSE 3191610 - F to 3191627 - J @ $ 2 , 00 36 . 00 f� DOG LICENSE - t�1� �OZS ZSYXt�( ��vi<I t� dL�[ 9562365 - L to 9562400- A @ $ 2 , 00 94 . 00 l 1 Purebred License 20733 PS24OU — 2 . 00 A 2545 OTHER LICENSES Tax Searches 14 @$ 5000 70 , 00 A 2555 BUILDING PERMITS Zon I ng Ordinance 3 @ $ 8 . 50 25 , 50 A 2590 OTHER PERMITS Copies and Misc . 19 , 70 A2655 MINOR SALES Subdivision RegU&BtiOnS I P $ 3 , 00 3100 A 2770 OTHER UNCLASSIFIED REVENUES ComprehenS i ve 81 an 1 P $ 12 . 00 .9 Enumeration 66 P $ 1 . 00 DHI'S TOTAL TOWN REVENUES TO SUPERVISOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amount paid to SUPERVISOR for Games of Chance Licenses Amount paid to SUPERVISOR for State Share of Bingo Licenses e Amount paid to D.E.C. for Conservation Licenses 43 . 00 Amount paid to COUNTY TREASURER for Dog Licenses 1 36 . 95 Amount paid to STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT for Marriage Licenses 123 . 75 Amount paid toNYS Ag F Mark Ptc >F EXlff(df1( X1El(&1f( . 57 . 00 Amount paid to State for Sales Tax on Sale of Dogs SPCA Contract ' Received Payment of these amounts: TOTAL DISBURSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; 1 I July 1 , 1996 V . A Supervisor STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF TOMPKI NS TOWN OF ITHACA Joan Lent Noteboom being duly swom, says INatsshe Is the Clerk of the Town of Ithaca that the far egoinb 18 a. f{rll and true statement of all Fees and Moneys received by It er during the month above stated, excepting only such Fees the application and payment of which are otherwise provided for by low. ? , I ,ot , it ' Subscribed and Sworn to before me this r. Giti Town Clerk I r day of J (. 199('0 Notary Public Prepare In duplicate. Remit original to Supervisor, retain copy for Clerkes record. / ly OF l p TOWN OF ITHACA ,�,� �04� 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 � Y TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 JUNE PERSONNEL REPORT FOR JULY MEETING 1 . SETTING UP / INSTITUTING PROCESS FOR EMPLOYEES TO SIGN UP FOR PHP AND BC / BS INSURANCE ; COMPLETED JUNE 24 , 1996 2 . NUMBER CRUNCHING SAVINGS BY OFFERING PHP HEALTH INSURANCE 3 . FINALIZING EMPLOYEE EVALUATION FORM 4 . ARRANGING WITH HEALTH DEPT HEPATITIS SHOT NUMBER 2 IN A SERIES OF THREE . ( FINAL SHOT SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 6 , 1996 ) 5 . WINDING DOWN WITH FINALIZING NEW PAYROLL SYSTEM ( DATARITE ) : RUNNING PARALLEL TO OUR JUNE 28th PAYROLL 6 . REVIEWING PERSONNEL MANUAL 7 . HANDLING DAY - TO - DAY PERSONNEL CONCERNS monlet Agenda Item No , 3(e) TOWN OF ITHACA RECEIVER OF TAXES FINAL REPORT Presented July 15 , 1996 Miscellaneous Payments to Town Supervisor 2/5 Fee: Ck . Returned for Insufficient Funds $ 22 . 00 2/7 Interest Receiver of Taxes Checking Account - (Jan ) 446 . 66 2/7 Installment Service Charges - 1 % of Total 219 . 26 2/13 Installment Charges - ($ 1 . 00 x 386 Bills) 386 . 00 (Received from Tompkins County) 3/4 Fee: Ck. Returned for Insufficient Funds 55 . 00 3/4 Interest & Penalties on Tax Bills - ( February) 11655 . 50 3/8 Interest Receiver of Taxes Checking Account 283 . 05 4/4 Interest & Penalties on Tax Bills - ( March ) 11352 . 48 4/4 Interest Receiver of Taxes Checking Account 2 . 30 5/8 Interest & Penalties on Tax Bills - (April ) 21782 . 66 5/8 Late Notice Charges - (April ) 10 . 00 5/8 Interest Receiver of Taxes Checking Account 4 . 57 6/ 10 Interest Receiver of Taxes Checking Account 11 . 39 6/ 10 Interest & Penalties on Tax Bills - ( May) 61703 . 99 6/ 10 Balance Interest & Penalties on Tax Bills 152 . 63 7/ 1 Received from Tompkins County - Notice Charges Unpaid on Warrants 281 . 00 7/ 15 Miscellaneous Balance Checking Account - ( Paid upon 14 . 32 statement from bank to balance . ) TOTAL MISC . PAYMENTS TO SUPERVISOR : $ 14, 382 . 81 Total by Catagory Miscellaneous Payments to Town Su ep rvisor Installment Penalties - ( 1 % of Total ) $ 219 . 26 Installment Charges - ( From Tompkins County) 386 . 00 Fee : Checks Returned for Insufficient Funds - 77 . 00 Interest : Receiver of Taxes Checking Account - 747 . 97 Interest & Penalties - 12 , 647 . 26 Notice Charges : 291 . 00 Miscellaneous Balance Checking Account - 14 . 32 TOTAL MISC . PAYMENTS TO SUPERVISOR : $ 14 , 382 . 81 Agenda Item No . 3(e) Receiver of Taxes Final Report - 7/96 Page 2 . 1996 In Lieu of Taxes Due: Groff Associates , Ellis Hollow Elderly Housing $ 11521 . 67 Ithaca Elm - Maple Houses , Inc . $ 81349 . 80 TOTAL IN LIEU OF TAXES DUE : $ 9, 871 . 47 Billed : Tompkins County Medical Office Bldg . $3 , 571 . 78, Town ; $8 , 207 . 73 , Fire . (Will not be received , Tompkins Co . Billed to Warrant) Received : Groff Associates , Ellis Hollow Elderly Housing $ 27 , 618 . 30 (Town Portion - $ 1 , 521 . 67 , Balance School & County) Received : Ithaca Elm- Maple Houses , Inc . $ 42 , 828 . 00 (Town Portion - $8 , 349 . 80 , Balance School & County) Miscellaneous Payments To Tompkins County 2/2 Installment Service Charges $ 15 , 739 . 26 3/8 Interest : Receiver of Taxes Checking Account $ 225 . 28 4/4 Interest: Receiver of Taxes Checking Account 69 . 03 5/8 Interest : Receiver of Taxes Checking Account 34 . 39 6/ 10 Interest : Receiver of Taxes Checking Account 69 . 67 Total Interest Checking Account : $ 398 . 37 TOTAL MISC . PAYMENTS TO TOMPKINS COUNTY: $ 169137 . 63 Respectfully submitted , Joan Lent Noteboom Receiver of Taxes Town of Ithaca I e. Ff N 7 O V \ TOWN OF ITHACA SETTLEMENT WITH TOMPKINS COUNTY 1996 TOWN & COUNTY TAXES SUMMARY OF TAX COLLECTIONS FOR TOWN OF ITHACA - 1996 - TOWN AND COUNTY TAXES TOTAL WARRANT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 7 , 288 , 192 . 84 TOWN OF ITHACA WARRANT - $ 3 , 648 , 842 . 62 PAID TO SUPERVISOR - DATE : 1 / 11 CK#f 275 $ 7559000 . 00 DATE : I.23 CK# 277 $1, 210 , 722 . 00 DATE : 1 29 CK# 281 $ 650 , 000 . 00 DATE : 2 / 5 CK# 286 $190332120962 DATE : CK# $ DATE : CK# $ DATE : CK# $ DATE • CK# $ DATE : CK# $ DATE : CK# $ DATE : CK# $ DATE - CK# $ DATE : CK# $ DATE : CK# $ DATE : CK# $ DATE - CK# $ DATE : CK# $ DATE : CK# $ DATE : CK# $ DATE : CK# $ DATE : CK## $ TOTAL PAID . . . . $ 3 , 648 , 842 . 62 TOMPKINS COUNTY WARRANT TO COLLECT . . . . . . . . . . $ 3 , 639 ; 350 . 22 LESS : PUBLIC SERVICE AND SPECIAL FRANCHISES TO BE COLLECTED DIRECT BY BUDGET & FINANCE . . $ 2472032979 LESS SECOND PAYMENT ON INSTALLMENTS . . . . . . . . $ 3149783980 = - TOTAL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 3 , 077 , 533 . 63 b TOWN OF ITHACA SETTLEMENT WITH TOMPKINS COUNTY 1996 TOWN & COUNTY TAXES PAYMENTS TO COUNTY : DATE 2 / 7 PAYMENT # 1 CK . # 290 $ 129009000000 DATE.21 13 PAYMENT # 2 CK . # 296 $ __ 300t_000900 DATE � , PAYMENT #_ CK . # 297 $ _ 25 . 000 . 00 DATB 3 4 PAYMENT # CK . # 300 $ _ 65 . 000 . 00 DATE_� PAYMENT #�_ CK . # 305 $ 900000 . 00 DATE 4 / 4 PAYMENT #_ 6 CK . # 308 $ 40 . 000 . 00 DATE 4 / 12 PAYMENT # 7 CK . # 311 $ _ 25 . 000 00 DATE 4 / 30 PAYMENT #�_ CK . # 312 $ _ 75 - 000 . 00 DATE S / 8 PAYMENT # 9 CK . # 317 $ 28 . 000000 DATE. � PAYMENT #1Q.. CK . # 319 $ 50 . 000 00 DATE PAYMENT # CK . # $ DATE PAYMENT # CK . # $ LESS TOTAL PAYMENTS TO COUNTY . . . . . . $ 295981000 . 00 SUB — TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . , $ 479 , 533 . 63 V . A . ADJUSTMENTS — ( NET ) . . . . . . . . . . . . $ -------------- ASSESSMENT ADJUSTMENTS — ( NET ) . $ --- ----------- COUNTY RESOLUTION ADJUSTMENTS --- ----------- RESOLUTION # — 0046000000 $ SUB — TOTAL . 0 so & * Soo a * $ 4799533 . 63 OTHER ADJUSTMENTS — ---------- DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED $ LESS UNPAID TAXES FOR 1996 $ 3682208. 59 SUB — TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ _ 111 , 325 . 04 i i PAGE 3 TOWN OF ITHACA SETTLEMENT WITH TOMPKINS COUNTY 1996 TOWN COUNTY TAXES SUB - TOTAL CARRIED FORWARD . . . . . . , , , 4$ 111 , 325 . 04 BALANCE DUE TOMPKINS COUNTY UPON RETURN OF WARRANT . - PAID CK . # 320 DATE 6 / 7 / 96 $ 111 , 325 . 04 BALANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ . . . . . . . - 0 - . . . . . . . . DATE • June 7 , 1996 JgAN LENT NOTEBOOM WN CLERK/RECEIVER OF TAXES I i II �zy OF I r TOWN OF ITHACA ,�� 2i o4� 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I , Joan Lent Noteboom , 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 local newspaper, (Ithaca Journal) : Notice of Public Hearing : " LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING THE SIX MILE CREEK VALLEY CONSERVATION DISTRICT" . Location of Sign Board Used For Posting : Town Clerk' s Office 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Date of Posting : July 1 , 1996 Date of PublicationAuly 1 , 1996 Y-� Town Clerk, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this / day of JILL 11996 .1 .Qlu, Notfiry Public Mary J. Saxton Notary Public, State of New York Registration #01SA5044003 Qualified In Tioga County My Commission Expires May 22, 1997 1 ' PUBLIC HEARING.',,' . -•,TOWN !OFA ITHACA"Mi4.Rr PLEASE°•TAKEAOTICE;'' thot," the'•Town' Board !'oVthe",Tow`n Fof: 9thacdl.wil[Fhold:a' publl6t . th1heea;;Troiof n w.gg nraHt 'cthll e�',1reg6uElacra.'hmSeeen l>- eTaMin Board:onl*. ;ingg .$ 1996; 70,•'p.mb of =, : eca Street 'Ithac6,! .New;York,o'- rin >orderrt at- they; mo"�Co� �+.L J,AMENDINGJHHOWNIOF•: ,.ITHACA; ZONIN,G..:'ORD1-t. NAN -EPBY.��ESTABLISHING:;: STHEPSIXi ILE` GREEK' VALLEY.b 'CONSERVATIbN; DISTRICV " � l6nd :; <H7 , ♦v ¢ PLEASE TAKEt'FURTHER 'Nd TICS; r Ir Itizens;?' at; ?the';; n aforemetio'nedlrtime4 and,$ r place > shollsbe�affodedrfhe + opportunl . .;j.6 voice . ei�tap%i I,proval or• oppoSit on;of �.tha ,' , soid ordinance t• : , . ' . '- ? , ,PLEAS E ' TAKE`'FURTHER, NC :? ; NICE;r;individuals;;with';visual; impairments;,^heann'g ;impcir11 c" ments or othiuspecial rieeds; Jwill`:be,�proyided`: witfi `cssirr„ toncwoCnecessory,�`.uponrra quest , Personr'desiring` assis- I( tarim musty make'ya request;„ not less than 48 hours ppnorij Ito the hme of'tfie"public hear �Ing,roYr_ -%. i4v�if+r L�t. ��iM2��Vt�if - ;:Jogn:lent"Notekioom ; '" - ` = ' Town°,Clerk,. 1 • i -q3tr;w Y' OF I r TOWN OF ITHACA �,� zi o4� 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE TOWN OF ITHACA PLEASE TAKE NOTICE , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will hold a public hearing at the regular meeting of the Town Board on July 15 , 1996 , at 7 : 30 p . m . , at the Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York in order that they may consider a , "LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING THE SIX MILE CREEK VALLEY CONSERVATION DISTRICT' , and PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE , all citizens at the aforementioned time and place shall be afforded the opportunity to voice their approval or opposition of the said ordinance . PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE , individuals with visual impairments , hearing impairments or other special needs , will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request . Persons desiring assistance must make a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing . Joan Lent Noteboom Town Clerk July 1 , 1996 PUBLISH : Monday, July 1 , 1996 r; i i : � OF IT� TOWN OF ITHACA ,�� zi o4� 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I I J oan Lent Noteboom , 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 local newspaper, ( Ithaca Journal ) : Notice of Public Hearing : "LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MODIFYING THE CHECKLIST REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVALS" . Location of Sign Board Used For Posting : Town Clerk' s Office 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Date of Posting : July 1 , 1996 Date of Publication : July 11 1996 s,� Town Clerk , Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this /,S - day of & , 19 . ONQffiry Public Mary J. Saxton Notary Public, State of New York Registration #01SA5044003 Qualified in Tioga County My Commission Expires May 22, 1997 I { ;*`;:�P,UBLIC HEARING- f TOWN OF ACA'ilTH PLEASE; TAKE:?NO TICE,' that: -'the :.Town'°Board'i'of.,,the .Towni of,,Ithoca?twII1 ,j' hold 'aspublici shearingg dtathe,�,regulbr„meojS ing'of the':7own?Boa"rd:'on•''July:' ,15, *1996' 'drr6 at: the Town , Halllk,126: Egat'S�en 4 (,eca Street' ;Ithaca, New, Yorkf ;in" order?+t�at'•'.theyy4:'may`,con-,; slde � ` 'c;b a l'O'CAU -CAW? I AMEN DING.THE:TOWN:OFa4 ITHACA : SUBDIVISIONtREG; ` ULATIONS .MODIFYING•THE CHECKLIST: REQUIREMENTSi ; F0R.+ SUBDIVISI0W1AP�` .RROVALS w, .'and ��;r,{�js„h;`�,SYr :E;1 al PLEASE .TAKE` FURHx Rti TI sNO ct= the• roforemenhon6d `p'`Nme; .ondl pi6ce. ehallhI56. afforded the1 i'opportunityfvolce' rheir,ap; . Provo . orMopposi ion,.;o ,. a; k said local low, 'and 't '•';PiLEpAaSlrErn`*fe T`AniotKsy;Eid-liFeeUaRTwnHg�E TICE, oindividal41t TI lV I apsb,N ays igl menWoIr6the`r0pklal 'needs, it ' -wMP 'be i� i-tance,.os^necegsdry upon:ce; ti .quesh<Per'sons';desinng asiir l. tance? rP,ust: rmaker;a reguegf. $,not less tlicn�48 hours print wejtfine of the,publi*c, earl Joanaent�Noteboan(. 19v' t� 4Town°Cler I ii OF 1P TOWN OF ITHACA zi � 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE TOWN OF ITHACA PLEASE TAKE NOTICE , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will hold a public hearing at the regular meeting of the Town Board on July 15 , 1996 , at 6 : 15 p . m . , at the Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York in order that they may consider a , "LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MODIFYING THE CHECKLIST REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVALS" , and PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE , all citizens at the aforementioned time and place shall be afforded the opportunity to voice their approval or opposition of the said local law, and . PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE , individuals with visual impairments , hearing impairments or other special needs , will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request . Persons desiring assistance must make a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing . Joan Lent Noteboom Town Clerk July 1 , 1996 PUBLISH : Monday, July 1 , 1996 i I .,