HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2016-03-07Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board
Monday,March 7,2016
Agenda
1.Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
2.Persons to be Heard and Board Comments
a.City of Ithaca Parks - Liz Vance
b.Chainworks
3. 5:30 p.m. Public hearings:
a. Public Interest Order - Park Lane Water Main Replacement Water Improvement
Subject to Permissive Referendum
i.Consider SEQR
ii.Consider Adoption
b.Proposed local law amending Chapter 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code title
"Zoning: Special Land Use Districts" to add standards for deer fences pertaining
to the view area protection in §271-10H(14)for Special Land Use District No. 9
(Limited Mixed Use,Cornell Precinct 7)
i.Consider SEQR
ii.Consider Adoption
c.Proposed local law amending Chapter 153 of the Town of Ithaca Code titled
"Fees" to add escrow fee procedures and to require escrow fees for applications to
rezone to Planned Development Zone
i.Consider Adoption
4. Discuss and consider amendment to the fee schedule for Planned Development Review
applications
5. Discuss and consider setting a public hearing regarding a proposed Local Law entitled
"Authorizing a Monetary Gift to the City of Ithaca to Support Cass Park and Stewart Park
Recreational Facilities
6.Discuss County's request for additional funding for Pine Tree Road Pedestrian Bridge
Project
7.Discuss and consider approval of an increase in budget for the 2016 Joint Youth
Commission Programs and authorize the Town supervisor to sign revised contracts.
8.Approve plans,specifications and bid documents for:
a.Sapsucker Woods Water Main Replacement Project
b.Christopher Circle Water Main Replacement Project
c.Park Lane Water Main Replacement Project
9. Discuss and consider a proposed Encroachment License for 932 East Shore Drive and
authorizationfor Supervisorto sign same
10.Discuss and consider setting a public hearing regarding a proposed local law Providing
for a Moratorium on New Two-Family Dwellings, and on the Addition of a Second
Dwelling Unitto an Existing One-Family Dwelling,fora Period ofThree Hundred Sixty
Five (365) Days
11.Discuss Cayuga Lake Watershed Update - Issues Prioritization Sheet
12.Discuss and consider setting the Local Advisory Board of Assessment Review
13.Continue discussion on sign law revisions
14.Consider Consent Agenda Items
a.Approval ofTown Board Meeting Minutes
b.Approval of Town of Ithaca Abstract
c.Approval of Bolton Point Abstract
d.Donate surplus mower to Lake viewand authorize Supervisor tosign agreement
e.Authorize the establishment of a sick bank
f.Approve revised job description for Water Sewer Maintenance Supervisor
g.Budget Amendments for year-end closures
15.Review of Correspondence
16.Report of Town Officials
17.Considerexecutivesessionto discussunion negotiations
18.Adjournment
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
I,Paulette Terwilliger,being duly sworn,say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca,
Tompklns County, New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of
the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published In the official
newspaper,Ithaca Journal:
•ADVERTISEMENT/NOTICE
--p^TICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
NOTICE OF ESTOPPEL
n NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF PUBLIC INTEREST ORDER
LL re.:Special Land Use Districts -Deer Fencing
Chapter 271 of TOI Code
Location of Sign Board Used for Posting:
Town Clerk's Office
215 North Tloga Street
Ithaca,NY 14850
Town website at www.town.lthaca.nv.us
Date of Posting:2/16/2016
Date of Publication:2/16/2016
Paulette Terwilliger
Town Clerk
STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)SS:
TOWN OF ITHACA)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 22"^^dayof
February,2016.
ry Public
Debra DeAuglstine
Notary Ptblic -Stale of NewYork
NO.01DE6148035OualtfiedinTompkinsCounty ^
My Commission Expires June 19,20 /o
Townof llhiaca ,
NotiMof Public Hearings |
The Ittieca Town BoaRl |
hold a puU<c heanng a Town ;
2ISN.TogaSt.on ihe (
7th of K/arch 2016 St (
5:30p.m.(or ihe purpose of <
consfdedng a proposed local ^
lawamending Chapter 153of y
the Town of Ithaca Code,ti-,
ded 'Fees',lo add escrow ,
fee procedures andtorequite |
escrow fees for appHcatlons (
to rezone to Planned Devel-,
optnent Zone
The Ithaca Town Board wlH
holda public hearlrtg al Town
Hall.215 N.Tioga Si on Ihe
71h day of March 2016 at
5:30p.m.forthepurposeofa
proposed local lawamendlttg
Chapter271 of ihe Town of
Ithaca Code,titled 'Zoning;
Special Land Use Distncte',
to add standards for deer
Fences pertaining to the vien
erea protection in Section
27l-IOHf1>lor SpecialLand
Use District No. 9 (Umlted
Mixitd Use, Cornell Precinct
7)
Information on the proposed
local laws are available front
the Town Oed or on Ihe
town's websile at
www.town,fthaca.r^.UB
Alette Terwilliger
TownOetli
Fehniaiy 16.2010
2/16/2016
—T
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
1,Paulette Terwiiliger,being duly sworn,say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of
the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official
newspaper,Ithaca Journal:
n ADVERTISEMENT/NOTICE
JICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
•NOTICE OF ESTOPPEL
•NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF PUBLIC INTEREST ORDER
LL re.:Fees Chapter 153 of TOI Code
Location of Sign Board Used for Posting;
Town Clerk's Office
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca,NY 14850
Town website at www.town.ithaca.nv.us
Date of Posting:2/16/2016
Date of Puialication:2/16/2016
Paulette Terwiiliger
Town Clerk
STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)SS:
TOWN OF ITHACA)
Sworn to and subscribed before methis 22"^dayof
February,2016.
ry Public
Debra DeAugistine
NotaryPublic-State of New York
NO.01DE6146035
Oualified in Tompkins County .^
My Commission Expires June 19,20 /o
1 pTownofIthaca(
.Nobce of Public Heartngs £
The Hhaca Town Board wil £
hold a public hearing at Town £
Hall.2I5N.Tioga St.onthe (
7lh day of March 2016 at £
5:30p.rn.for the purpoae c
considering a proposed local
law amending Chapter 153of y
the Town of Ithaca Code,tl-g
lied 'Fees',to add escrow g
fee procedures and to require
escrow lees for appVcallons ^
to rezone to Planned Devel-g
opment Zone j
The Ithaca Town Board wil 2
holda public hearingat Town-
HaV.215 N.Tioga St.onthe ^
7lh day of Match 2016 at ^
5:30p.m.for the purpose a ^
proposed local lawamendrig
Chapter 271 of the Town of ^
Ithau Code,tilled 'Zoning;g
Special Land Use Districts',
to edd standards for deer
fences pertaining to the view g
ares protection in Section
271-10H(!)for SpecW Land ^
Use District No.9 CUmiled ^
Mixed Use.Cornell Pretinci ,
2Infonnstionon the ptopoeed
local laws are avertable from ~
the Town Cterk or ofi the
town's whitest
viww.town.lthaca.ny.us
Paulette Terwiiliger .
Town Oerk ^
February 16,2016 g2/16/2016 ^
Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board
Monday,March 7,2016
Minutes
1.Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
Meeting called to order at 5:00 p.m. Mr.Goodman noted that there is a full agenda with two
presentations and public hearings on water projects but he noted that there were a lot of people
present wanting to speak to the proposed moratorium. Mr. Goodman explained that the public
hearing is under consideration for the April meeting and that would be the time to address the
board. That being said, he stated that he will give people the chance to speak tonight but will
limit comments to 3 minutes given the number of people and the full agenda.
2.Persons to be Heard and Board Comments
City of Ithaca Parks - Liz Vance (Attachment 1)
Ms.Vance distributed a handout titled Creating a Plan for Parks &Recreation describing and
supporting the proposal to do a study to develop a long-term master plan for the City of Ithaca
with a focus on Stewart and Cass parks.
Ms. Vance noted that the Town has been a partner with the City through its contributions to the
water front parks and recreation facilities and this year, the City has a capital project to conduct a
study and develop a master plan with an estimated cost of $80K-$100K. The company would
come for 8-12 months to study City parks with an emphasis on the waterfront parks,looking at
how the parks should be funded as well as how the City should organize management and
oversight of the park as well as what types of updates should be done to the park and how those
should be funded and how do we maintain infrastructure and make sustainable improvements
and what should be prioritized. The consultant would also be asked what the financial
requirements would be to implement a master plan and what types of other resources are out
there and available.
Ms. Vance thought the master plan is important and especially to the Town. She quoted from the
handout that according to their data, the Town of Ithaca residents are 30%of the users of the
City parks. A plan would support municipal leaders in supporting and maintaining parks and
facilities and look at equitable contributions and funding.
The County is contributing $30K toward the study and the City $20K and she is asking that the
Town make an additional contribution of $15K toward the study, above the $85K budgeted for
the yearly support.They are submitting a grant for additional funding.
Board Comments ~
Mr.Goodman noted that the board could discuss this later in the agenda when it considers setting
a public hearing for the gift to the City for support of the parks, but this would be the time to ask
Ms.Vance any questions.
Town Board Meeting,March 7,2016 Pg 1
Mr.Howe asked if they solicited more than one quote for the study and Ms,Vance responded
that they did not;they looks ata company named Greenplay who are leaders in doing this type of
study.They have planners,engineers,facility managers and recreation professionals.They have
done a number of studies throughout the United States and they were looking for companies with
experience withparkand recreation expertise on staffso they could bring that to the table.Ms.
Vance added that this study is being taken on by Ms.Cornish,Director of Planning,
Superintendent of Public Works,Mike Thorn and herself and they are just beginning to piece
together a draft RFP and once that is done they will be calling on the county representatives to
review it and add anything they would like;she would hope there would be town representatives
at that table to add questions that they want answered. She added that she had talked to Mr.
Goodman about adding looking at the trails and how they tie in to the parks so the town's input
wouldbe soughtonhowto shapethisstudy.
Mr.Levine asked if they plan to ask other municipalities for contributions toward the study and
she responded that they did not have plansto at this time.
Ms.Hunter asked if they were intending to have the consultant look at the possible roleof the
county in taking over the parks and Ms.Vance responded that she was sure that will come up
and some shape of that question will be answered as noted in the handout. Ms. Hunter asked fi
there was going to be any attention paid to identifying additional city parks or was there no
intention to add any parkland within city?Ms.Vance responded that the plan is to work with
what we have and in fact,look at areas that may be underutilized and determine if they are
needed withthe focus on Stewart andCass parks.
Chainworks (Attachment 2)
James Gensel, Fagen Engineers
Mr.Gensel went through a PowerPoint presentation.They wanted to update the town and noted
that they went through the Scoping Document and produced the draft Generic Impact Statement
(DGBIS)to address all the concerns listed in the Scoping Document.The next step is to
determine adequacy of DGEIS which the City is doing tomorrow night;the Town Planning
Board has submitted comments to them to consider.Mr.Gensel stated that they are addressing
those questions and then if the City declares it adequate,it will become public and start the
public hearing phase of the project.
Mr.Gensel turned to the presentation which showed an overview of the property with what they
are calling the Draft Concept Plan which is the basis of the analysis.The slides showed the
concept drawings and blocked drawings of the sizes and placements of the planned structures
along with their use.This is not the draft site plan and will change,but itis the concept.
Mr.Gensel stated that there is a Phase 1 of the project and they are asking for a zoning
amendment for the planned unit development in the city and a Planned Development Zone in the
town as well as a site plan approval for the entire site,and final site plan approval for phase one
which will consistof buildings 21 and24intheCityand33and34inthe Town.
Town Board Meeting,March 7,2016 Pg 2
As part of the DGEIS,they had to look at different alternatives;the do nothing alternative is
required and includes building within existing zoning and existing record of decision or ROD
from DEC. A ROD is what the DEChas approvedfor the site. The currentROD requiresthem
to clean it up to an industrial standardbut what they are looking for is a ROD amendment so they
can clean it up to residential level and have residential development on site.
Mr. Gensel stated that they are looking at removing the portion that is in the never developed or
"virgin" area from the current Rod because there hasn't been industrial activity on that section
and it should be taken out of the DEC's review which would allow that site to be developed
earlier in the process than potentially areas with some environmental concerns. That is the area
in the Town. Mr. DePaolo asked if that has been proposed to DEC and Mr. Gensel responded
that they have and it will take a while. Mr. DePaolo asked if there have been soil-borings to
support the request and Mr. Gensel responded that there have been tons of testing including soil
vapor and water testing as well as soil borings and the only area that is of potential concern is the
sewer line.
The next alternative they looked at for the GEIS is the development of the site with the industrial
zoning in place, but there was only so much more that could be added on in the existing state
which would be two more additional industrial areas in existing parking areas. This is just
another alternative that the GEIS process requires you to look at.
There are a number of other types of zones within the property but cumulatively they are still a
small portion of the property and so they based it on the DEC ROD as described above;
mitigated to an industrial standard.This is outlined in the DGEIS.
The next alternative is the potential maximum development of the site which was roughly the
same outline as the concept drawing but they added some floors and residential development in
the surface parking areas. That added approximately 25 percent to the concept proposal of 1.7M
sq ft. to bring it to 2.1M sq ft.
Mr.Gensel stated that they concept is now to divide the property into zones they call CWl which
is conservation;CW2 which is residential with small retail like coffee shops; CW3 which is the
mixed use with office,retail and residential and CW4 which is the industrial core of the site.All
of the analysis in the zoning in the DGEIS goes to these zones.There are impervious surface
rates,parking rates,building height rates etc. all broken down to the individual areas and zones.
For example,in CWl,the maximum amount that can be built is 25,000 sq. ft. with the biggest
building being 2,000 sq. ft.Those are some of the design guidelines,which are a work in
progress, but go to the zones. These will be worked out with the municipal planning boards
during the approval process.
Mr.Gensel went through the slides depicting the concept buildings and thoroughfares.
Mr.Gensel noted that the next step is to go to the City as Lead Agency to determine adequacy
and if it is adequate it will move to the public phase which will have the DGEIS at the library,
city and town hall,online.They are available on a thumb drive also.The public hearing phase is
60 days during which all comments will be collected and then those comments will be answered
Town Board Meeting,March 7,2016 Pg3
and approved as adequate then move to the approval phases. Some of the planning phases such
as the Planned Development Zone process will be running concurrently with this process,
Ms. Ritter stated that there is a joint meeting between the City and Town Planning Committees is
scheduled for later in March and assuming that adequacy is met, the town board comments
would be discussed at that time and the Town Board has to develop a Finding Statement as an
involved agency.
Persons to be Heard
Mr.Goodman reminded the public that there will be a 3 minute limit due to the number of
people present and asked if anyone was here to speak to something other than the proposed
setting of a public hearing for the moratorium;two gentlemen were and Mr.Goodman asked
them to speak first.
Brain Eaton,Energy Action Planning Advisory Committee and Solar Tompkins
representative,Environmental Council and Energy Roadmap Steering Committee
Mr. Eaton stated that the committee just finished a feasibility report on the different potentials of
various renewables and demand management which is going to the County Legislature on the
April 5"^and then be made public.He stated that he was here today regarding the Maplewood
development which ties into the Energy Roadmap; we need to move forward with demand
management and energy efficiency technologies.Mr.Eaton stated that he and others have done
presentation on the heating and cooling with the climate in mind which talks about the use of
heat pumps using a lot of case studies and data and this is something that they would like to
project into the discussion during the review of this project and the developers can do a lot better
than 30%efficiency;you can build to 80-90%efficiencyusing passive house technologyat the
sameor veryclose to traditionalbuildingcosts. Mr.Eaton statedthat theyhave shownthorough
their data that this is possible and it is all part of the evolution towards emissions goals that have
been set by the County, City and Town. People don't trust the heat pump technology but it has
been around a long time and proven and it needs to be done in a big way to meet the gas
reduction goals.
Mr. Eaton stated that he hopes they can participate in this process and do a presentation to the
Boardto showhowtheEnergyActionPlancanbe usedto developtheplanningtoolsto integrate
reductions into plans.
David Marsh,Local 785 Laborers UnionandPresidentof theTompkinsCortlandTradeCouncil
Mr.Marsh wanted to letthe Board knowthat Maplewood isontheirradarbecausethe developer,
EDR, is out of Memphis Tennessee and they will be involved in the proceedings because they
want to see local labor used on this project.He stated that it is an approximately $80M
investment with an interesting partnership between Cornell and EDR. Mr. Marsh stated that
currently,the 16 acres is owned,built and maintained by Cornell so therefore our tradespeople
that are here in the communityare workingon that; under this arrangement, that is not clear. He
stated thathehasmetwith Cornell but they arenot committing to anything atthispointand they
Town Board Meeting,March7,2016 Pg 4
are a little concerned.He hopes to meet with the developer and maybe have good news about
their using local labor, but if not, they will be watching this closely.
Mr.Goodman stated that he learned today that Haynor Hoyt will be the contractor they will be
working with and Mr. Marsh said he was aware of that and they are out of Syracuse and he can
discuss some details and concerns with him at a later time.
Mr.Goodman turned to those wanting to talk about the proposed moratorium and reiterated that
what the Board is considering tonight is setting a public hearing for the April ll^''meeting,
assuming the Board wants to do that. Mr. Goodman reminded the group that Persons to be
Heard is a time to speak to the Town Board but they do not get into a discussion or back and
forth between speaker and board. The other way to give input is to email comments to the board,
to the Town Clerk or schedule a meeting with him before the April 11 public hearing.
Orlando lacovelH,Mr.lacovelli stated that he has lived on south hill most of his life and he and
his brothers have been developers over the last 50 years; Jim lacovelli started with a house on
Kendall Ave. in 1951 and they have continued to build up to and through this year. They find is
a very big hardship and inadequate use of space to eliminate duplexes. Duplexes provide a
cheaper source for the community to be able to rent a place and they are much more efficient
than a three bedroom house would be. Mr.lacovelli stated that he has seen the rules changed
from what they have been able to do when he first moved back here to what they are able to do
now and economically, the Town is moving away from what is economical for people in the
Town of Ithaca.
Ron Ronsvalle,(Attachment 3 - Mr.Fabroni's email)Mr.Ronsvalle stated that he lives in
Lansing now but he grew up in Ithaca and put himself through Cornell painting houses and his
company;Perfect Painters,Heritage Builders,Heritage Park Townhomes and he has been in
business 35 years. He is a member of the Ithaca Landlords Association and a member of the
Tompkins Cortland Homebuilders Association and a Certified Green Builder and Master
Graduate Builder with the National Association of Homebuilders.He stated that he owns several
lots on Kendall and Pennsylvania Avenue and he believes in private enterprise. He stated that he
has duplexes and the landlords in that neighborhood do a great job in policing their own
properties.
Mr.Ronsvalle stated that his engineer, Larry Fabroni, and he met with the past Town Supervisor
and the Planner,Susan Ritter as well as the Highway Superintendent and Mr.Fabroni has a plan
that he uses to describe what they have done in Dayton where he went to college and he would
like to call a meeting with Mr. Goodman to discuss this again since nothing happened with the
prior Supervisor.Mr. Fabroni works with many of the developers present and he asked his
attorney to hand out the document that Mr. Fabroni prepared. Mr. Goodman responded that Mr.
Fabroni emailed them to the Board already and they are now part of the record.
Mr.Ronsvalle wanted to make it very clear that several of them were here tonight but there are
more property owners that will be affected. He is a builder and had plans to continue building
and this will put a big cog in his program and he is against any moratorium.
Town Board Meeting,March 7,2016 Pg 5
Evan Monkmeyer wanted to address the economics of duplexes;thetax exempts charge $lk a
bed to live on campus and these off campus housing is leased for $400-$600 a bed. He stated
that we pay our real estate taxes, we pay our Town, County and School taxes and that is a benefit
to the community and these duplexes are reasonably cost or priced out so that the builder can
come in withan economic package to offerit to the rental market at a lower rentandhe thought
the Board should take that into consideration.
Travis Cleveland,Cleveland Estates,Mr.Clevelandstatedthathe developedClevelandEstates
across from Ithaca College Circle and he is opposed to this moratorium. He stated that he has
seven building lots right now that are under contract to be sold with the intention of building a
single family with an accessory apartment duplex on them and by passing this moratorium, it
will create a tremendous hardship on him; roughly $400K.
Mr. Cleveland stated that the subdivision is surrounded by the Circle Apartments, Solar
Apartments, Cayuga Vista Apartments and Townhouses not to mention it is in a High Density
Residential zone where Ithaca College is only a Medium Density Residential zone. He thought
that it is an embarrassment to the town when the town allows a 500 unit Cornell building to go
up but they are trying to stop residential people from building on their private land. He added
that his road is a private road that he paid for and he believes it is wrong and embarrassing to
invade property owner's rights.
Mr. Cleveland asked about the process of the moratorium since the Planning Committee pushed
this to the Town Board and what the board is voting on tonight. Mr. Goodman responded that
this is the regular process for making any changes to zoning laws; the committee discusses a
proposalfirst and makes a recommendation to the town board who in turn sets a public hearing.
The draft law can change before action is taken by the town board. Mr.Cleveland continued to
ask questions and Mr. Goodman asked him to call and make an appointment to talk to him.
There were no other people wishing to address the board under Persons to be Heard and Mr.
Goodman turned to the board for comments;none.
Mr. Goodman moved Item 9 up since Ms. Augusta was present. The board agreed.
Item 9 Discuss and consider a proposed Encroachment License for 932 East Shore Drive
and authorization for Supervisor to sign same
Mr.Goodman asked for a motion and a second to start the discussion.Ms.Hunter moved the
proposed resolution and Mr.Howe seconded.
Mr. Hebdon gave the background on the item stating that the property has two sanitary sewer
easements in place since 1989 and 2011,respectively. The homeowner has requested permission
to put a drivewayandsome retainingwallsin the easements.Mr. Hebdonstatedthat they will be
a dry-fit retaining wall and the way the encroachment license is written, if the Town has to do
any repairs, we will basically remove it and leave it there and the homeowner will be responsible
for any repairs after the maintenance or repairs made.He stated that the requestdoes take up a
significant amount of the easement with one taking up 70% of the easement and the other about
Town Board Meeting, March 7,2016 Pg 6
30% of the easement area. Mr. Hebdo stated that the town can get to the manhole covers and
basic maintenance,but if there is a break in one of the mains,we will have to tear the walls out
and do some extra work to get to the sanitary lines.
Mr. DePaolo asked if the extra work needs to be done to access the infrastructure, who pays the
expense for the extra work and Mr. Hebdonresponded the Town would pay for that.
Mr.Goodman asked if the town has ever done anything like this before and Mr. Hebdon
responded that we do have other license agreements where people have built a little bit over an
easement line and Ms.Brock responded that all of those encroachments licenses have been after
the fact when a slight encroachment was discovered, usually when the owner goes to sell the
property.There are no license agreements for structures to be built on an easement, and none at
the magnitude of this encroachment. Mr. Goodman stated that he is concemed about setting
precedent and if this is approved,others will come.
Mr.Goodman invited Ms. Augusta to the table to answer questions from the board.
Mr.Goodman asked her why she needs this encroachment to build over the sewer easement and
Ms. Augusta responded that part of the story is that she also owns the property next door, across
the railroad tracks on the lakeside and part of the redevelopment plan was to get parking and
storage for the house they are living in and possibly an in-law apartment. In looking at the big
picture,they want to get storage down at the railroad level instead of the roadside level and the
way to do that is to have this driveway over the easement area to get to the lakeside level and
have parking at the roadside level. She added that the top will be gravel to make it easier to
unearth the infrastructure if that is needed.
There were no other questions for Ms. Augusta and Mr. Goodman turned back to the board.
Mr.Howe asked Mr.Hebdon if he could speak to how much of an issue it would be to get to the
infrastructure if needed and Mr. Hebdon responded that it would depend on where the break or
issue happened. The driveway would be disrupted and they have made a provision in the
construction plans to put concrete encasement around the pipe to if the town had to pull the pipe
out, it would be easier and might not need to remove the walls.Essentially a couple of hours of
extra work but things would be left for the homeowner to retum the area to the former state.
Mr.DePaolo wondered why we would incur the liability and costs involved to deconstruct and
reconstruct whatever was put on the easement and Mr.Hebdon responded that the way it is
written,the town only does the deconstruction.
Ms. Hunter looked to number 4 on the agreement that seems to say the town could charge for the
extra time it would take to remove any structure on top of the easement.Some discussion
followed and Ms.Brock stated that the language could be made clearer.Ms.Augusta stated that
it was her understanding that the deconstruction would be the town's cost because that would
have to happen regardless of whether there was something on the easement and she would be
responsible for the reconstruction costs. Mr.DePaolo stated that the question is whether it would
take some extra time but it seemed that Mr.Hebdon was saying that was negligible.
Town Board Meeting,March 7,2016 Pg7
Mr.Goodman asked what the age of the infrastructure was and Mr.Hebdon stated the main line
that runs parallel to the tracks was put in about 1988 and the line that comes across East Shore
Drive was part of the 2011 project. Mr. DePaolo asked what the useful life expectancy was and
Mr. Hebdon responded there are 20-30 years left but this is an area that has a train going by once
or twice a day and that may impact the lifespan of the infrastructure.
Ms. Hunter asked about the existing structure on the property in question that Ms. Augusta was
looking to use as storage and an in-law apartment and Ms. Augusta responded that they call it the
"shack"and they use it as storage. She stated that she wouldn't live in it,but it does have what
she would call a crawl space of about 5 feet high then the next level with the kitchen area and the
roadside level which was the living space. Ms. Hunter said then it has historically been living
space and on water and sewer and electric. She asked how people got to it before and Ms.
Augusta responded that resolving this parking issue will determine how they proceed with the
rest of the development. Ms. Hunter again asked how people got to the existing structure and
Mr. Hebdon responded that they parked at the roadside level and went through the house which
is even with E Shore Drive or go down the stairs to the lakeside area.
Mr. Levine asked how essential the encroachment is to achieving her goals and whether they
havea viableplan B and Ms. Augustarespondedthat they are a family of 5 with a child driving
in the next few years and she has not been able to move all of her stuff from their old house
becausethere is nowhereto put it and so to her, it is a necessityrather than a nicety. Mr. Levine
asked if they were able to increase their parking without the encroachment and Ms. Augusta
responded that they are going to be increasing their parking but the situation is complex and
under litigation right now; she stated that she owns the property to the center of the road, but the
neighbor parks on it so one of the reasons for going down below is to help with the parking
situation right now because that resolution may be a while coming.
Ms. Bleiwas stated that she is concerned with some of the verbiage in the license agreement and
terms like "reasonable efforts"because it opens the door for interpretation of "reasonable"and
this seems to be a consideration that is being given away for $1 and we should have a blanket
statement that the town is not responsible without any qualifying statements.
Mr. Goodman stated that the town has many other encroachments that areJust a comer of a deck
or something similar and usually at the edge of an easement and not over the actual infrastructure
itselfand this lookslikeit is on the infrastmcture andhe is concemed aboutsettinga precedent
and particularly along this stretch of East Shore Drive. Mr.Goodman was also concemed about
any additional costsif we haveto remove the wall because it is going to cost something to the
town regardless of our having to be there anyway. He thought instead of changing the license
agreementto allow to charge for work in the future, we could charge something up front because
in essence we are giving up property rights and he also wondered if that would be a gift and
therefore not allowed.Ms. Brockstated that a license is not interestin a propertyso the town is
not givingup a property rightper se. Shedid say that shedid not see the map in the hard copy
that shows the easements and that would be useful to show the board where the easement is
exactly because the proposed driveway is over the sewer line itself.
TownBoard Meeting,March 7,2016 Pg 8
Mr.Goodman stated that he was not ready to vote on this because he would like more
information on the likelihood of others along East Shore Drive wanting the same arrangement
and should we be getting come compensation for what we are giving up.
Ms. Augusta asked if the proposal could be split into north and south sides because they have to
go through the State and they are asking where the Town weighs in on the plan before they will
issue a permit.
Mr.DePaolo stated that he would like to see the property before voting on something like this
because it is really hard to envision. Ms. Bleiwas moved to table the question to an
indeterminate date,seconded by Mr. DePaolo. Ms. Leary stated that if the main objection is that
this would set precedent and other people making similar requests, that is unknowable and if that
is a deal breaker, we do not need to put this off any further. Ms. Leary stated that she felt we
should judge applications on a case-by-case basis and we shouldn't assume that this would open
the floodgates and she did not think an action on this application obligates the board to grant
similar requests from other residents.
Mr.Goodman responded that each board member will have to decide for themselves the question
of setting precedent. Mr. Goodmancalled the question regardingtabling the item; unanimous.
3.5:30 p.m.Public hearings:
a.Public Interest Order -Park Lane Water Main Replacement Water Improvement
Subject to Permissive Referendum
Mr.Goodman opened the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the
board on this topic and the hearing was closed.
Under SEQR,Mr.DePaolo noted that this is described as a modification but it involves
expanding the pipe capacity from 6" to 8" and Mr. Hebdon stated that it changed to 6" when they
put Eastern Heights in but everywhere else it is 8" and all 6"throughout the town is being
standardized to 8"pipe when work is being done. Mr.DePaolo stated that he believes that any
expansion in the capacity of the pipe diameter constitutes an expansion of the water system and
thinks it needs to be treated as such under SEQR.He didn't know if there was any buildable
land in the area but it needs to be reviewed as an expansion.Would there be land that would be
precluded from development given the design of the current system versus the 8"main but this
isn't an in kind replacement if the size is going up. Mr.Hebdon turned to the SEQR form and
stated that he did note the increase in size on the form and everything down below this area is
park land and preserves.The difference in capacity for this one is only going to affect fire flow
and there is no area down there that would allow for something larger than what is allowed there
anyway.A six story unit would still not be served by the 8" so an increase is not going to
increase development and he asked if that statement in the future would help and Mr. DePaolo
said it would.
Town Board Meeting,March 7,2016 Pg 9
Ms.Hunter stated that we have this conversation every time and it never seems tobe allowing an
increase in development andthat leads tothe question of whether greater development would be
allowed and it seems that a larger pipe would allow for greater development than was possible
when the pipe was smaller and if indeed that isthe case andwecan allow ourselves to agree that
thatis the case,what does that mean procedurally?Does that mean we flip the switch and have
todoa full EIS or what would bethe impact of acknowledging that this may have a pro growth
impact because we never get to that point. Ms. Brock responded that the Town Board would
have to consider whether the impact is significant or potentially significant.Ifthe Board thought
it was, then you would declare a positive environmental impact and do a full EIS. Ms. Brock
stated thattherecanbe impacts,but it might be determined thatinthe scheme of things it is not
significant so saying thereis an impact does not necessarily mean it has to be declared positive.
Ms. Hunter asked if there was a standardized formula for determining what constitutes a
significant impact in a situation like this and Ms. Brock responded that there is some criteria in
the SEQR regulations and Mr.Goodman thoughtthis wouldbe a goodtopicfor a study session
to determinehow we would handle these if they were significant and what criteria we should use
to make that determination.
Mr. DePaolo added that there is some land that is down from the improvementbut Mr. Hebdon
responded that it could be developed under the current size so the increase does not affect that
potential development. Mr. Hebdon added that when the Northeast Study was done, all the 6"
inchlineswere noted to change to 8" to meetfire flow and this will continually comeup so the
discussion should happen.
TB Resolution 2016-038:SEQR -Park Lane Water Main Water Improvement Project,
Whereasthis action is the replacement of sectionsand relocation of the existing route to
increase efficiencyknownas theParkLaneWaterMainWater Improvement Projectand
Whereas this is an unlisted actionfor whichtheTownof IthacaTownBoardis actingin
an uncoordinatedenvironmentalreview withrespect to the projectand
Whereas the Town Board, at a public hearing held on March 7, 2016 reviewed and
accepted as adequate the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), Parts I and II for this action
submitted by the Town Engineer, along with other application materials; Now therefore be it
Resolved: that the Town of IthacaTown Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance,in this uncoordinated environmental review, in accordance with the
NewYorkState Environmental QualityReviewAct for the above referenced action as proposed
based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3.
Moved:Rod Howe Seconded:Tee-Ann Hunter
Vote:Ayes:Howe,Hunter,Levine,DePaolo,Bleiwas,Goodman andLeary
TB Resolution No.2016 -039;PUBLIC INTEREST ORDER In the Matter of a Proposed
Water Improvement in the Town of Ithaca,Tompkins County,New York,pursuant to
TownBoard Meeting,March 7, 2016 Pg 10
Article 12-C of the Town Law,to be known as the Town of Ithaca Park Lane Water Main
Replacement Water Improvement,and establishing the Park Lane Water Main
Replacement Water Improvement Area
Present: Bill Goodman, Supervisor; Rod Howe, Pamela Bleiwas.Tee-Ann Hunter, Eric Levine,
Pat Leary,and Rich DePaolo
Motion made by Rod Howe,seconded by Eric Levine
WHEREAS,a plan, report and map, including an estimate of cost, have been duly
prepared in such manner and in such detail as has heretofore been determined by the Town
Board of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, relating to the establishment and
construction, pursuant to Article 12-C of the Town Law, of water system improvements to be
known and identified as the Town of Ithaca Park Lane Water Main Replacement Water
Improvement, and hereinafter also referred to as the "Improvement,"to provide such water
Improvement including extensions, to the present Town water improvement, such water system
Improvement to be constructed and owned by the Town of Ithaca; to serve a benefitted area in
said Town to be known as the Town of Ithaca Park Lane Water Main Replacement Water
Improvement Area, and hereinafter also referred to as the "Water Improvement Area"; and
WHEREAS,after said plan, report and map, including estimate of cost, were prepared by
a competent engineer,duly licensed by the state of New York, and filed in the office of the Town
Clerk, the said Town Board did, on February 8, 2016, duly adopt an Order reciting the proposed
Improvement,a description of the boundaries of the proposed benefited area, the maximum
amount proposed to be expended for the Improvement,the proposed method of apportioning the
costs of such Improvement,the proposed method of financing to be employed, the fact that a
plan, map and report describing the same are on file in the Town Clerk's office for public
inspection,and specifying that said Town Board shall meet at the Town Hall, 215 North Tioga
Street,in Ithaca,New York,in said Town,on the 7'*^day of March,2016 at 5:30 PM Prevailing
Time, for the purposes of conducting a public hearing on such proposal to provide said
Improvement,and to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof concerning the same, and
WHEREAS,copies of said Order were duly published and posted according to law, and
said Town Board did, at the time and place specified in said Order, duly meet and consider such
proposal and held a public hearing in which it heard all persons interested in the subject thereof,
who appeared at such time and place,concerning the same, and
WHEREAS,the Town Board now desires to authorize the Improvement based on the
evidence offered at such time and place, and
WHEREAS,at its regular meeting on March 7,2016,the Town Board determined
approval,construction and implementation of the Improvement,which is an Unlisted Action
pursuant to the regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
promulgated pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, will not result in any
significant adverse environmental effects;and
Town Board Meeting,March 7,2016 Pg 11
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the Town Board that it be and herebyis
determined as follows:
(1) The notice of hearing was published and posted as required by law and is otherwise
sufficient.
(2) That all of the property within the proposed benefited area is benefited by the
proposed Improvement.
(3)That all of the propertybenefited is included within the proposedbenefited area.
(4) That the proposed method of apportioning the costs of the Improvement should not be
changed.
(5) It is in the public interest to authorize,establish,and make the Town of Ithaca Park
Lane Water Main ReplacementWater Improvement as hereinafter described, and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby approve, authorize and
establishthe Town of IthacaParkLaneWaterMain Replacement Water Improvementin the area
of the Town described as follows and as more particularly shown and described in said plan,
reportandmap presently on file in theofficeof theTown Clerk:The Improvement proposed in
connection withthe establishment of theWater Improvement Areaconsistsof the replacementof
approximately 2,700 LF of existing 8" and 6"water mains with a new 8"water main in the same
alignment beginning in the general vicinity of the intersection of Regency Lane/Snyder Hill
Road and ending in the general vicinity of the intersection of Park Lane/John Street,together
with related ancillary facilities, at an initially determined maximum estimated cost to said Water
Improvement Area of $500,000,and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED,that the area hereby determined to be benefited by said Town
of Ithaca Park Lane Water Main Replacement Water Improvement is all of that portion of the
Town outside of the Villageof Cayuga Heights, and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED,that all of the allocable costs of said Improvement shall be
bornewhollyby propertywithintheTown of IthacaPark LaneWaterMain Replacement Water
Improvement Area,being the entire areaof the Town outside of the Village of Cayuga Heights,
and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the maximum proposed to be expended by the Town of
Ithaca for the Improvement,including costs of rights of way,construction costs,legal fees and
other expenses,is $500,000,which shall be financed as follows:at the option of the Town,by
temporary financing under use of available reserves or a bond anticipation note,and upon
maturity of the bond anticipation note, the issuance of serial bonds of said Town of Ithaca to
mature in annual installments overa periodnot to exceed40 years,such bondsto be paid from
assessments levied upon and collected from the several lots and parcels of land in said Water
Improvement Area which are deemed benefited by said Improvement,so much uponand from
each as shall be in just proportion to the amount of the benefit which the Improvement shall
confer upon the same, and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Order is subject to a permissive referendum in the
mannerprovidedinTown LawArticle7 andTown LawSection209-q,andbe it
TownBoard Meeting,March 7,2016 Pg 12
FURTHER RESOLVED,it is hereby determined that the estimated expense of the
aforesaid Improvement does not exceed one-tenth of one per cent of the full valuation of the
taxable real property in the area of said Town outside of villages and, therefore, in accordance
with the provisions of subdivision 13(a)of Section 209-q of theTown Law, the permission of the
State Comptroller is not required for such Improvement,and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED,that pursuant to subdivision 6(d)of Section 209-q of the Town
Law, the Town Clerk is hereby directed and ordered to cause a certified copy of this Order to be
duly recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Tompkins within ten days of the date
this Order becomes effective pursuant to Town Law Section 91, which when so recorded, shall
be presumptive evidence of the regularity of the proceedings and action taken by the Town
Board in relation to the aforesaid Improvement.
The question of the adoption of the foregoing Order was duly put to a vote on roll call,
which resulted as follows: Howe, Aye; Hunter, aye; Leary, aye; Goodman, aye; Bleiwas, aye;
DePaolo,aye and Levine,aye.
The Order was thereupon declared duly adopted.
b.Proposed local law amending Chapter 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code title "Zoning:
Special Land Use Districts"to add standards for deer fences pertaining to the view
area protection in §271-10H(14)for Special Land Use District No. 9 (Limited Mixed
Use,Cornell Precinct 7)
Mr.Goodman opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m.There was no one wishing to address the
board on this topic and the hearing was closed.
Mr.DePaolo had a question about the SEQR form as it pertains to wildlife and a biological
corridor and the answer of no impact (pg 7 11a).Ms. Brock thought that item 7 details the
impact to animals and covers the other and Mr. DePaolo didn't know if a biological corridor has
been established.Ms.Ritter added that the Planning Board discussed this and the applicants
were asked to investigate types of fence that would let in some wildlife while keeping the deer
out. Mr.DePaolo asked that "which could potentially interfere with the foraging habit and
migration of deer and other small animals"be added to Item 7 on page 5 of the SEQR form.
Some discussion followed and Ms.Ritter reiterated that they will have to come in for site plan
approval and they have been asked to address the concern regarding small animals.
TB Resolution 2016-040:SEQR:Proposed Local Law No.2 of 2016 Amending Chapter 271 of
the Town of Ithaca Code titled "Zoning:Special Land Use Districts",to add Standards for
Deer Fences Pertaining to the View Area Protection in §271-10h(14)for Special Land Use
District No.9 (Limited Mixed Use.Cornell Precinct 7)
Whereas,this action is the enactment of a local law amending Chapter 271 of the Town
of Ithaca Code,Titled Zoning,Special Land Use Districts to add standards for deer fences in the
Town Board Meeting,March 7,2016 Pg 13
View Area Protection portion of §271-10H(14),Special Land Use District No. 9 (Limited Mixed
Use,Cornell Precinct 7);and
Whereas, this is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board is acting as
Lead Agency in an environmental review with respect to the enactment of this local law; and
Whereas, the Town Board, at its regular meeting held on March 7,2016,has reviewed
and accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF),Parts 1, 2 and 3, for
this action, prepared by the Town Planning staff; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Town of IthacaTown Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation
Law, 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review, and Chapter 148
Environmental Quality Review of the Town of Ithaca Code for the above-referenced action as
proposed,based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF
Parts2 and3, and,therefore,aDraft Environmental ImpactStatementwillnot be required.
Moved:Tee-Ann Hunter Seconded:Pamela Bleiwas
Vote: Ayes - Hunter, Bleiwas, Goodman, Leary, Levine, Howe and DePaolo
TB Resolution 2016-041;Adopt Local Law No.2 of 2016 Amending Chapter 271 of the Town
of Ithaca Code,titled "Zoning:Special Land Use Districts",to add Standards for Deer Fences
Pertaining to the View Area Protection in §271-10h(14)for Special Land Use District No.9
(Limited Mixed Use,Cornell Precinct 7)
Whereas,there is a proposal in front of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the
construction of an 8-foot tall, open-wire deer fence located within the View Area Protection
section of Special Land Use District No. 9 (Limited Mixed Use, Cornell Precinct 7),§271-
10H(14),and
Whereas,the provisions of §271-10H(14)include parameters for roads,building sizes,
building additions and lampposts, but remains silent on fences, and
Whereas the proposed local law to allow deer fences up to 8-feet in height in §271-
10H(14) is consistent with the Town of Ithaca's Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan that
was established in 2011,and will also allow Cornell Universityto move forward with the deer
fence construction project mentioned in the first Whereas clause, and
Whereas, at its meeting on February 8, 2016, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca
reviewed and discussed the proposed local law and adopted a resolution fora public hearing to
beheldby said Town Board on March 7,2016 at 5:30 p.m.to hearall interested parties on the
proposed local law entitled "A Local Law Amending Chapter 271 Of The Town of Ithaca
Code,Titled ^Zoning:Special Land Use Districts',To Add Standards For Deer Fences
Pertaining To The View Area Protection In §271-10H(14)For Special Land Use District
No. 9 (Limited Mixed Use,Cornell Precinct 7)",and
Town Board Meeting,March 7, 2016 Pg 14
Whereas,notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal,and
Whereas,said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the
Town of Ithaca and all partiesin attendance were permittedan opportunity to speakon behalfof
or in opposition to said proposed local law, or any part thereof, and
Whereas, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act
("SEQRA")and its implementingregulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, adoption of said local law is
a Type I Action for which the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, acting as lead agency in an
environmental review with respect to adoption of this local law, has, on March 7, 2016, made a
negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as
adequate the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts 1, 2 and 3, and
Whereas, the Town Board finds that the new use proposed for the View Area Protection
provisions in Special Land Use District No. 9 (Limited Mixed Use,Cornell Precinct 7) will
further the health and welfare of the community and is in accordance with the Comprehensive
Plan;now,therefore,be it
Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithacahereby adopts Local Law 2 of 2016
entitled "A Local Law Amending Chapter 271 Of The Town of Ithaca Code,Titled
'Zoning:Special Land Use Districts',To Add Standards For Deer Fences Pertaining To
The View Area Protection In §271-10H(14)For Special Land Use District No. 9 (Limited
Mixed Use,Cornell Precinct 7)",and it is further
Resolved,*that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file said local law
with the Secretary of State as required by law.
Moved:Rod Howe Seconded:Pamela B leiwas
Vote: Ayes -Howe,Bleiwas,Leary,Levine,Hunter,Goodman and DePaolo
c.Proposed local law amending Chapter 153 of the Town of Ithaca Code titled "Fees"
to add escrow fee procedures and to require escrow fees for applications to rezone to
Planned Development Zone
Mr.Goodman opened the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the
board on this topic and the hearing was closed.
Mr. DePaolo questioned the term "escrow fee" versus "escrow deposit" and whether it is a fee or
a deposit. Basically is the word "escrow" enough to imply that you get the money back if it isn't
used.Some discussion followed and Mr.Levine and Ms.Bleiwas did not think there is an issue
with the term legally as it is stated and detailed in the law and Ms.Brock stated that she could
look in the Town Code but we do charge escrows in other sections and she based this on those to
keep them inline.
Town Board Meeting,March 7,2016 Pg 15
Mr.DePaolo also asked if the new law applies to major modification of existing PDZs or just
newones and Ms. Ritter responded that the modification of an existingis a flat fee that went up
slightly but does not trigger the escrow. Mr. DePaolo segued into the fee schedule and asked
about time spent on the different actions and Ms. Ritter explained that they are based on best
guesses of time it takes to do the average action.
TB Resolution 2016-042:Adopting Local Law 3 of 2016 Amending Town Of Ithaca Code
Chapter 153,Titled "Fees,"To Add Escrow Fee Procedures And To Require Escrow Fees
For Applications To Rezone To Planned Development Zone
Whereas,at its meeting on February 8, 2016, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca discussed a
proposed local law to amend Town Code Chapter 153 to provide escrow fee procedures and to
require escrow fees for applications to rezone to Planned Development Zone and adopted a
resolution for a public hearing to be held by said Town on March 7, 2016 at 5:30 p.m. to hear all
interested parties on the proposed local law entitled "A Local Law Amending Town Of Ithaca
Code Chapter 153,Titled "Fees,"To Add Escrow Fee Procedures And To Require Escrow
Fees For Applications To Rezone To Planned Development Zone";and
Whereas, notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal;and
Whereas,said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town
of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in
opposition to said proposed local law, or any part thereof,and
Whereas,pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA")and
its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, it has been determined by the Town Board
that adoption of the proposed local law is a Type II action because it constitutes "routine or
continuing agency administration and management, not including new programs or major
reordering of priorities that may affect the environment,"and thus this action is not subject to
review under SEQRA;and
Whereas, the Town Board finds it is in the best interest of the Town and its citizens to adopt the
local law;now,therefore,be it
Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts Local Law No. 3 of 2016
entitled "A Local Law Amending Town Of Ithaca Code Chapter 153,Titled "Fees,"To Add
Escrow Fee Procedures And To Require Escrow Fees For Applications To Rezone To
Planned Development Zone",and be it further
Resolved,that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file said local law with the
Secretary of State as required by law.
Moved:Pamela Bleiwas Seconded:Tee-Arm Hunter
Vote:Ayes—Bleiwas,Hunter,DePaolo,Levine,Leary,Goodman and Howe
Town Board Meeting, March 7,2016 Pg 16
4. Discuss and consider amendment to the fee schedule for Planned Development Review
applications
Ms. Brock asked about the "without new roads and public utilities" and to her it seemed it should
say "private" because she thought it would be more labor intensive for private. Mr. Hebdon
respondedthat all privatehas to go throughthe Countyso it is actuallyless work for privatethan
public infrastructure.
TB Resolution 2016-043;Amend the Town of Ithaca Development Application Fee
Schedule
Whereas,TB Resolution 2009-227 adoptedthe establishment and settingof feesby town
board resolution;and
Whereas, Planning Department reviewed the fees established for development review
applications and submitted recommended changesto the Operations and Personnel Committeeto
partially cover the real costs of the application process to the Town. These costs include staff
review, coordination, and preparationof materials to assist the Board(s),legal counsel's time in
reviewingand providingguidanceto staff and Board(s),publication of noticesto the public,and
administrative support,and
Whereas,the Operations and Personnel Committee has reviewed and discussed the
proposed changes to the development review fees and, at its meeting on January 20,2016,
recommended modification of the development review fees to the Town Board; now therefore be
it
Resolved,that the Ithaca Town Board approves the following revised application fees,
effective for applications submitted after March 7,2016:
Subdivision Review:
Sketch Plan
1-10 new lots (without new roads or public utilities) ~ $125;
All Others ~ $125 plus $5 per lot;
Preliminary Plat
1-10 new lots (without new roads or public utilities) ~ $125 plus $25/lot;
All others ~ $125 plus $50/lot;
Final Plat
Lot Line Modification (Administrative Review)~$75;
Site Plan Review:
Initial Sketch Plan ~$125;
Preliminary Plan:
Estimated project costs of $1-$50,000 ~$250
Estimated project costs of $50,001-$100,000 ~ $350
Town Board Meeting, March 7,2016 Pg 17
Projects Involving Interior Work Only—$200.00;
Rezoning:
Planned DevelopmentZone ~ $350 plus initial escrow fee of $2,500 and any associated
site plan and/or subdivision fees;
Planned Development Zone amendment ~$200
Rezoning other than a Planned Development Zone ~$350, plus pertinent site plan fees
Moved:Bill Goodman Seconded:Rod Howe
Vote: Ayes -Goodman,Howe,DePaolo,Leary, Hunter, Levine and Bleiwas
5.Discuss and consider setting a public hearing regarding a proposed Local Law entitled
^'Authorizing a Monetary Gift to the City of Ithaca to Support Cass Park and Stewart
Park Recreational Facilities
TB Resolution 2016 -044:Set a public hearing regarding proposed Local Law entitled
"Authorizing a Monetary Gift to the City of Ithaca to Support Cass Park and Stewart Park
Recreational Facilities'*
Whereas,the Town Board adopted a budget for 2016 including an amount of $83,620 for
a contribution towards City Parks, of which approximately $ 38,000 would result in a special
benefit to Town residents, but the remainder would be considered a gift, now therefore be it
Resolved,that the Ithaca Town Board will hold a public hearing at Town Hall, 215 N.
Tioga St.on the 11^day of April 2016 at 5:30p.m.for the purpose of considering a proposed
local law to authorize a monetary gift to the City of Ithaca to support Cass Park and Stewart
Park recreational facilities.
Moved:Bill Goodman Seconded:Tee-Ann Hunter
Vote:Ayes -Goodman,Hunter,DePaolo,Leary,Levine,Howe and Bleiwas
Mr.Goodman updated the Board stating that Mayor Svante called to see if we would increase
our contribution to put toward the study that Ms. Vance was outlining.The County put $35K
into city parks last year and the board thought that was going towards replacing our contribution
level and so to actual capital projects or the parks but they want to use that money towards this
study.Mayor Svante thought they would have a better chance with the application to the Park
Foundation for funds if the Town put some money in too. Mr.Goodman stated that he had told
Ms. Vance if they want to use any of our "gift"toward the study they are welcome to do that and
while he is not keen on giving more money, if it does help get additional money, he would
consider it, but see it as an advance of the money we would be giving them next year and
decrease the amount next year.
Mr. DePaolo asked if the City was driving this study or the County and Mr.Goodman responded
that he thinks it is the City more than the County and Mr. DePaolo stated that he thinks the City
is probably trying to show that it is overpaying and that other people should pay more so he was
not in favor of spending more money on something that might show that we need to spend more
Town Board Meeting,March 7,2016 Pg 18
money. Mr.DePaolo thought that we already give a substantial amount and a gift and if the City
wants to make a case that we should pay more money they should make that case on their own
money.
Ms.Hunter stated that she was not in favor of any additional money and she would like to see the
money we have given go towards facilities. She added that when she has encouraged our
continued support she was supporting the parks staying up and running and not toward a study.
We have been denied a seat at the table on decisions regarding the parks and a letter to the Park
Foundation detailing our commitment in the past and future should be sufficient, adding that
County support is also from town residents.
Mr. Levine stated that he is on the fence about it; he does not like they haven't asked any other
municipality for support and we have stated before that we are happy to contribute if other
municipalities are. On the other hand, it would be nice if the results of this study were that the
County should be taking over more of this burden and carrying more of the towns through the
County tax. He didn't know what was likely to happen, if anything, based on a study and since
they are not asking for a lot, it could show inter municipal support.
Mr. Howe stated that he agrees with Mr. Levine, he is not set against it, but he is not convinced a
study is going to get them any further information than is out there already and he thinks they are
simply delaying the decisions that need to be made.
Ms. Leary asked what the Town would get from the study?It seems more about what the City
needs to do etc. etc. and even though Ms. Vance mentioned our trails, that would be an
expansion of the study and we contribute to that by having the trails and they are where they are
so what is there to study. Ms. Leary also stated that the City didn't ask us if they should do a
study, they are just asking for money, so this isn't a good precedent.
Ms. Bleiwas asked for a brief history on the topic and Mr. Goodman explained that the Town
had contributed every year and recently we asked for what benefit we were getting and they
charge town residents the city cost for the rink and pool. Using those figures we calculated the
benefit we get and the remainder is a "gift".
Mr. Solvig added that the board should make it clear that the town is not going to be giving any
more money regardless of what the study says and that if you do agree to contribute toward it,
you are not saying you will abide by or agree with whatever the study states or "find."
Mr.Goodman added that he has told the Mayor that his budget will have a cut to the funding and
that this year's contribution was to give them time to find other funding.
Ms.Hunter stated that she was concerned that Ms. Vance indicated that the study is not looking
at any new parks and in fact may be looking at decreasing some parks which will put even more
pressure on our parks as the City continues to densify so we should be saving our park monies
for our own parks. Mr. Goodman agreed and added that when Ms. Vance approached him, he
told her if the town did contribute to a study, he would like to get something in return such as a
survey of who uses our parks and trails because the city and county do not contribute toward
Town Board Meeting, March 7,2016 Pg 19
them and he is interested in increasing our trails and connecting them and that will take a lot of
our money.
Mr.Goodman stated that it seems no oneis really interested in participating in the studyandhe
will call the Mayor and Ms. Vance and let them know that.
6. Discuss County's request for additional funding for Pine Tree Road Pedestrian Bridge
Project
Mr. Goodman handed out a sheet detailing the progress history of the project and the Town's
contributions. In 2013 the Town approved spending $35K then a revised budget estimate went
up by $400K,mostdue to the location of the trail because Comell didn't want it going through
their horse pasture so it needed a retaining wall which added a lot of expense. Comell doubled
theirs and we doubled ours from $35K to $70K last September. The County put it out to bid and
the low bid was over $180K. Mr. Mareane called and said that Comell was going to add $25K
and asked if the Town would be willing to put in any more. The total project is $2.1M with a lot
of that coming from State and Federal funding. The County accepted the bid and approved the
contract and he was not in favor of adding any more money from the Town. The Board agreed
with Mr.Goodman and Ms. Leary added that most of the people using the walkway are affiliated
with Comell and may be residents of the Town so it is an important amenity but we did not
authorize the increase in costs and had no control in that process so we shouldn't pay more and
Mr. Goodman added that the Town will be maintaining it and that is a significant expense.
7.Discuss and consider approval of an increase in budget for the 2016 Joint Youth
Commission Programs and authorize the Town supervisor to sign revised contracts.
Mr. DePaolo explained that the net increase is $1,761 which is basically a clerical error from the
County not including the standard increase in the JVC Budget for Coddington Road that we
approved and based our amount on.
TB Resolution 2016-045:Approval of Increase in Budget for 2016 Joint Youth Commission
Programs and Authorization for the Town Supervisor to Sign New Contracts
Whereas, the Town values highly its Youth Programs for the many benefits provided for
the Town's young people; and
Whereas, the Joint Youth Commission (JYC) has ably facilitated many of the Town's
youth programs for many years; and
Whereas, the Town has received a communication from the JYC requesting an increase
in the 2016 Ithaca Town Budget for various Youth Programs due to increased contributions from
Tompkins County approved by the County Legislature subsequent to the Town Board's approval
of the 2016 Ithaca Town Budget on October 19, 2015; and
Town Board Meeting, March 7,2016 Pg 20
Whereas,the JYC has also requested the Town increase its Youth Programs contribution
for 2016 from $88,052 to $89,813,an increase of $1,761;now therefore be it
Resolved,that the allocation to the JYC Programs in the 2016 Ithaca Town Budget be
increased by $11,614 as follows:
• General Townwide Fund -Expenditures
-Account A7320.461:Coddington Road Community Center -Summer Youth
Employment Program is increased from $10,673 to $13,135.
-Account A7320.464:Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County - Youth
Employment Program is increased from $77,487 to $84,753.
-Account A7410.466:Learning Web -Community Career Exploration &
Apprenticeship Program is increased from $43,111 to $44,997.
And be it further
Resolved, that the revenue for the JYC Programs in the 2016 Ithaca Town Budget be
increased by $37,435 as follows:
•General Townwide Fund -Revenue
-Account A2350:Youth Services -County is increased from $28,000 to $65,435.
And be it further
Resolved, that the Ithaca Town Board hereby approves and authorizes the Town Supervisor
to execute contracts with the following service provider(s):
a.Coddington Road Community Center for the Summer Youth Employment Program in the
revised amount of $13,135.
b.Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County for the Youth Employment Program in the
revised amount of $84,753.
c. Learning Web for the Community Career Exploration &Apprenticeship Program in the
revised amount of $44,997.
d.Tompkins County for the disbursement of funds.
Moved:Rod Howe Seconded:Rich DePaolo
Vote:Ayes -Howe,DePaolo,Hunter,Leary,Levine,Goodman and Bleiwas
8.Approve plans,specifications and bid documents
TB Resolution 2016-046 :Approval of contract documents and bid specifications for the
Sapsucker Woods Road Water Main Replacement Improvement Project
Whereas New York Town Law Article 12-C,§ 209-q(7) states that after a resolution
authorizing a sewer,drainage or water improvement becomes effective,contracts for the
improvement may be let in the manner provided by Town Law § 197, and
Town Board Meeting,March 7,2016 Pg 21
Whereas Town Law §197 requires that the Town Board adopt definite plans,
specifications,estimates and the proposed contract(s)for sewer,drainage and water
improvements,and
Whereas plans,specifications,estimates and the proposed contract(s)for the Sapsucker
Woods Road Water Main Replacement Improvement Project are on file in the Town Clerk's
office and have been available for review by the Town Board since March4, 2016, now therefore
be it
Resolved that the Town Board does hereby approve and adopt the plans, specifications,
estimates and proposed contract(s)for the Sapsucker Woods Road Water Main Replacement
Water Improvement Project on file in the Town Clerk's office, dated March 4, 2016, and
authorizes the Town Clerk to advertise the request for bids for the project.
Moved:Tee-Ann Hunter Seconded: Pat Leary
Vote:Ayes -Hunter,Leary,Levine,Goodman,DePaolo,Bleiwas and Howe
TB Resolution 2016-047:Approval of contract documents and bid specifications for the
Christopher Circle Water Main Replacement Improvement Proiect
Whereas New York Town Law Article 12-C,§ 209-q(7) states that after a resolution
authorizing a sewer,drainage or water improvement becomes effective,contracts for the
improvement may be let in the manner provided by Town Law §197,and
Whereas Town Law §197 requires that the Town Board adopt definite plans,
specifications, estimates and the proposed contract(s) for sewer, drainage and water
improvements,and
Whereas plans,specifications,estimatesand the proposed contract(s)for the Christopher
Circle Water Main Replacement Improvement Project are on file in the Town Clerk's office and
have been available for review by the Town Board since March 4, 2016, now therefore be it
Resolved that the Town Board does hereby approve and adopt the plans, specifications,
estimates and proposed contract(s) for the Christopher Circle Water Main Replacement Water
Improvement Project on file in the Town Clerk's office,dated March 4,2016,and authorizes the
Town Clerk to advertise the request for bids for the project.
Moved:Tee-Ann Hunter Seconded: Pat Leary
Vote: Ayes -Hunter,Leary,Levine,Goodman,DePaolo,Bleiwas and Howe
TB Resolution 2016-048 ;Approval of contract documents and bid specifications for the
Park Lane Water Main Water Improvement Proiect
Town Board Meeting, March7, 2016 Pg 22
Whereas New York Town Law Article 12-C,§ 209-q(7) states that after a resolution
authorizing a sewer,drainage or water improvement becomes effective,contracts for the
improvement may be let in the manner provided by Town Law §197,and
Whereas Town Law §197 requires that the Town Board adopt definite plans,
specifications,estimates and the proposed contract(s)for sewer, drainage and water
improvements,and
Whereas plans, specifications, estimates and the proposed contract(s) for the Park Lane
Woods Road Water Main Replacement Improvement Project are on file in the Town Clerk's
office and have been available for review by the Town Board since March 4, 2016, now
therefore be it
Resolved that the Town Board does hereby approve and adopt the plans,specifications,
estimates and proposed contract(s)fortheParkLaneWater Main Water Improvement Project on
file in the Town Clerk's office,dated March 4,2016,and authorizes the Town Clerk to advertise
the request for bids for the project.
Moved:Tee-Ann Hunter Seconded:PatLeary
Vote: Ayes - Hunter, Leary, Levine, Goodman, DePaolo, Bleiwas and Howe
9.Moved up Discuss and consider a proposed Encroachment License for 932 East
Shore Drive and authorization for Supervisor to sign same
10.Discussand consider setting a public hearing regarding a proposed local law Providing
for a Moratorium on New Two-Family Dwellings, and on the Addition of a Second
Dwelling Unit to an Existing One-Family Dwelling,for a Period of Three Hundred Sixty
Five (365)Days
Resolution was moved by Mr. DePaolo and seconded by Ms. Bleiwas for discussion. Mr.
DePaolo noted that a change was made from an earlier draft to make an exception to owner-
occupied dwelling units adding a secondary dwelling and he talked with Ms. Brock about a few
other modifications;
Mr. DePaolo gave an overviewof what brought the board to this point sayingthat the Town has
beentalkingaboutour troublesome lackof regulations regarding rental properties in general and
how they create a burden on Code enforcement with an ill-defined set of rules and certain
builders in the Town have taken advantage of the fact that our regulations are not sufficiently
designed to reach their intent, which was to allow for people to supplement their income as
owner-occupants or to provide an apartment for family members or to provide a variety of
options for the Town but what we have is the proliferation of the equivalentof duplex housing
even though duplexes are only allowed in clustered subdivisions in the Town. Mr.DePaolo
stated thathe thinkswhat weneed to do, what we shouldhavedone a long time ago, is to figure
out how we want to regulate rental properties and we may end up wanting duplex housing in
certain parts of the town but we should be able to regulate where and how it takes shape. We
should consider architectural standards instead of looking the other way while these polups
Town Board Meeting, March 7,2016 Pg 23
continue to spread without any clear geographic definition.We have to involve the builders and
have an honest dialogue with them about we want as a town and what they want but without
some kind of construct, we are going to continue with these "bunker"style units. We can do
better and we are not turning our backs on the student population or the need for housing but it is
not working as it is now.While it may be advantageous economically for builders to continue
under the current system, that is not our primary concern, it is a concern, but affordability is
another concern but right now,single family neighborhoods are at a tipping point in some areas
of the town and we have to address this problem so that everyone knows what the rules are
moving forward.
Mr.DePaolo noted that other board members have been involved in discussing this through other
boards and committees and Ithaca College just looks the other way instead of providing student
housing and Cornell is a little bit better but it is time to address the regulations.
Ms. Leary stated that she went along with this at the Planning Committee level but now that she
is revie\ying the draft, she had a lot of concerns. She stated that the Findings and Purpose
bothers her and she was not sure the overall aim would be accomplished with a moratorium.Ms.
Leary thought the board could still meet with builders and think about ways to address problems,
but she didn't see how the basic question,the basic problem,would be addressed by architectural
standards and landscaping standards. She is very bothered by the fact that we are targeting
students by specifically saying that students are a problem. She didn't understand how we can
single them out. She agrees that it is a problem and our definition of family is being abused, but
she didn't know how changing the architecture would address the problems of student partying
etc.Students have to live somewhere.
Ms. Leary pointed to letter c in the Findings and Purpose statement which talks about needing
high-end housing and that is quoted from the Comp Plan but why do we need that?The more
attractive and high quality housing is the more unaffordable it is and we have to balance those
needs.She stated that there are mentions of "neighborhood character"and e.talks about the
dozens of 2-family dwellings that have been built over the last 2 decades and that is changing the
character but if this has been happening over two decades, that is the character of the
neighborhood now. Ms.Leary stated that she has heard "neighborhood character"over and over
which to her is code for we want things to stay the same. She asked if we want apartment
complex after apartment complex or do we want a variety of housing options that includes what
looks like one-family housing with a secondary unit.
Ms. Leary thought that when the town allowed for 2-family dwellings it was also to provide a
variety of housing options and not necessarily owner occupied only. A lot of these are built and
managed by local developers and landlords and this moratorium brings up legal issues and may
not address the issue.
Mr.DePaolo responded that students are not a protected class under Fair Housing and he is not
saying that we should eliminate or reduce student housing but what he is saying is that we have
to really define where student housing should happen.He stated that we are not closing the door
on students living in accessory apartments;they can live in accessory apartments.We are not
Town Board Meeting,March 7,2016 Pg 24
closing thedooron builders building;they can build other types of houses or dwellings while we
are considering howto regulate apartof the housing stockthatis unattractive andover occupied.
Mr.DePaolo didnot think that stopping a certain type of housing forthevery short time we are
talking about is going eliminate housing options.He added that he thinks there should be
duplexes in parts of the town and we need to figure out whereand we need to find out what the
Ithaca College housing initiative is so that can be factored in.We justcan't say do whatever you
want anymore.
Ms.Bleiwas asked what effect this would have in terms of permits and Mr.Bates responded that
last year we had seven applications for new structures and six for accessory apartments for
existing structures.He added that since this idea has been out there,he has had 5 developers
calling asking what if they got the permit in now,would they be allowed to build and one of
those developers had three he wanted to build.He added that the argument the builders are
givingfor why they are building the types they are is that the Town won't allow themto build
what they want.Mr.Bates disagrees and said the Town will let them build them,but they don't
want to spend the extra money so they build them the way they areforthe cheapest possible.
Ms.Bleiwas asked if they could build a 3-unit just as cheaply and Mr.Bates responded that they
are building the 2-units because single and two family units are regulated much differently and
there are more requirements which add costs.
Ms.Hunter stated that we have spent years looking at Form Based building and the associated
architectural standards and we should take the time to look at those and see how they apply to
this particular housing demand that we have.We can't allow ourselves to be totally developer-
driven in these situations and we need to set the standards and take the time to set those
standards.She added that she does not want the Board to allow developers to throw up housing
that is profitable for them but degrades the character of the neighborhoods.She felt it was the
Board's responsibility to set the standards and she does not have any problem with taking the
time to do that.
Mr.Howe asked ifthe Committee had talked about needing the full year because that isa lotof
time and Mr.DePaolo responded that we don't have a crystal ball and itis hard to say but if we
start with six months and we aren't done, then we would need to extend it and it seemed easier to
take the year and if we finish early,we can rescind it.Mr.DePaolo added that six months may
have the sameeffectas one year when you consider the construction season;in six months we
would be in the middle of the winter.
Mr.Levine stated that the builders came in with some self-righteous attitude that they were doing
something great for the town and he would like to come up with a list of the things wedo not
think they are doing right so we can let them know that those are the reasons we feel we have to
do something.
Ms. Learystated that althoughstudentsare not a protectedclass,she understood that one cannot
single out a certain group and we have talked about this before.If we could,we could have
solved this already so she didn't understand how we could now.Ms.Brock responded that this
Town Board Meeting,March 7,2016 Pg25
law is not sayingthat there is no student housing,but may be lookingat some owner-occupancy
requirements and Ms. Leary asked why we would look at a requirement like that when that is not
the problem; the problem is developers that want to build them as cheaply as possible. One-
family or two-family and we are specifically saying "students"in this draft. Ms. Brock
responded that they are putting four students in each building and they are building the units
identically because they have figured how to make the basement part-way out of the ground to
get around that requirement.Ms.Leary responded that two-family houses can be attractive and
she didn't understand why we can only have them in clustered developments...Mr.DePaolo
responded that that is the discussion that has to happen during this moratorium because he agrees
with her.Mr.Goodman added that that is what the moratorium is for;to ask ourselves what
exactly is it that we want to do because what we have in the Code right now is not accomplishing
what we want to see. We could come up with an idea that the Kendall Ave and Pennsylvania
Ave is gone now and we should let it all become student housing and they could build what they
want which seems to be side-by-side duplexes.
Ms. Leary again stated that we are saying students in the law and there are renters who aren't
students that will be affected by this and she did not want the Board to overregulate it to the
point where we make housing unaffordable for permanent residents.
Mr.Goodman referred to what Mr.Bates had said,which seems to be a total of about 20 units
that we are putting a hold on for a year and Cornell will be building 400 units for graduates and
professional students so the 20 units are not going to affect the overall housing market.
Mr. DePaolo agreed, saying that it is not going to create a problem and it is more of an aesthetic
to think about what happens in the interim if more houses are picked off and severely modified
for a profit motive. We have an opportunity to do something much better and we need to
temporarily stop what is happening to do that.
Ms.Bleiwas asked if we can still make this change within a year, why have the moratorium?We
would have 20 additional units and is that enough to warrant risking litigation when we could
study and change the code within the same year.
Ms.Hunter asked if the Findings and Purpose statement could be changed to word it in a way
that Ms.Leary was happier with and Ms.Leary responded that it would although she was still a
little hazy about what the goal is and she would like to work on the definition of family at the
same time since that seems to be the crux of the problem more than landscaping.She was also in
favor of having a 6 month time period open to extension.
Mr.DePaolo turned to the one substantive question which is defining what constitutes
"construction on the structure itself is underway"so people can't dig a hole and say they have
started work so they are exempt.Ms.Brock noted by law it is "undertaken substantial
construction and substantial expenditure"they could say the moratorium doesn't apply to them
and that is a case-by-case determination.She would like something more definitive than
"substantial"to be as clear as possible.Discussion followed. The Board decided to use "unless
construction is already underway (footers poured)"which applies to new construction or
Town Board Meeting,March 7,2016 Pg 26
additions to current. A few more questions arose and that may be changed to "all footers" or
"footers completely poured."
Mr.Goodman called the question and stated that other changes could be done at the study
session.
TB Resolution 2016 -049:Setting a public hearing regarding a proposed Local Law
Providing for a Moratorium on New Two-Family Dwellings^and on the Addition of a
Second Dwelling Unit to an Existing One-Family Dwelling,for a Period of Three Hundred
Sixty-Five (365)Days
Be It Resolved,That the Town Board of the Town of Ithacawill hold a public hearing at
the Town Hall,215 North Tioga Street,Ithaca,New York on the 11^*^day of April,2016 at 5:30
p.m. for the purposeof considering a proposedlocal law Providing for a Moratorium on New
Two-Family Dwellings,and on the Addition of a Second DwellingUnit to an Existing One-
Family Dwelling, for a Period of Three Hundred Sixty-Five (365)Days
Resolved,that at suchtime andplaceall persons interested inthe proposedlocallawmay
be heard concerning the same; and it is further
Resolved, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca is hereby authorized and directed to
publish a notice of such publichearing in the Ithaca Journal and to post a copy of same on the
signboard of the Town of Ithaca.
Moved:Rich DePaolo Seconded:Pam B leiwas
Vote: Ayes- DePaolo,Bleiwas,Levine,Goodman,HoweandHunter Nays- Leary
11.Discuss Cayuga Lake Watershed Update -Issues Prioritization Sheet
Moved to study session
12.Discuss and consider setting the Local Advisory Board of Assessment Review
TB Resolution 2016 -050:Establishment of Local Assessment Review Board
Resolved that Rich DePaolo and Eric Levine are appointed to the Local Assessment Review
Boardas required byTompkinsCountyAssessmentwith RodHoweservingas an alternate.
Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Pat Leary
Vote: Ayes - Hunter, Leary, Levine,Goodman,DePaolo,Bleiwas and Howe
13.Continue discussion on sign law revisions - Moved to Study Session
14.Consider Consent Agenda Items
TB Resolution 2016 -051:Adopt Consent Agenda
Town Board Meeting, March 7,2016 Pg 27
Resolved,that the Town Board ofthe Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the
following Consent Agenda items:
a. Approval of Town Board Meeting Minutes NONE
b.Approval of Town of Ithaca Abstract
c.Approval of Bolton Point Abstract
d. Donatesurplusmowerto LakeviewandauthorizeSupervisorto signagreement
e.Authorize the establishment of a sick bank
f. Approve revisedjob descriptionfor Water Sewer MaintenanceSupervisor
g.Budget Amendments for year-end closures
Moved:Rod Howe Seconded:Tee-Ann Hunter
Vote: Ayes -Howe,Hunter,Leary,Levine,Goodman,DePaolo and Bleiwas
TB Resolution 2016 -151a:Approval of Minutes of February 22,2016 Pulled -None
TB Resolution 2016 -051b:Town of Ithaca Abstract
Whereas the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town
Board for approval of payment;and
Whereas the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now
therefore be it
Resolved that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said
vouchers in total for the amounts indicated.
VOUCHER NOS.252 -305
General Fund Town wide 28,899.17
General Fund Part Town 11,036.68
Highway Fund Part Town 40,586.84
Water Fund 23,048.51
Sewer Fund 22,433.15
Sapsucker Water Tank Replace 32,204.43
Risk Retention Fund 89.00
Fire Protection Fund 255,000.00
Forest Home Lighting District 163.23
Glenside Lighting District 58.78
Renwick Heights Lighting District 64.72
Eastwood Commons Lighting District 149.45
Clover Lane Lighting District 17.38
Winner's Circle Lighting District 57.67
Burleigh Drive Lighting District 59.04
West Haven Road Lighting District 179.51
Town Board Meeting,March 7,2016 Pg 28
Coddington Road Lighting District 106.97
Trust and Agency 2171.82
TOTAL 416,326.35
TB Resolution 2016-05Ic:Bolton Point Abstract
Whereas, the following numbered vouchers for the SouthernCayuga Lake Intermunicipal
Water Commission have been presented to the governing Town Board for approval of payment;
and
Whereas, the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now,
therefore,be it
Resolved, that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said
vouchers.
Voucher Numbers:60-103
Check Numbers:16413-16456
Capital Impr/Repl Project $ 12,392.00
Operating Fund $51.218.55
TOTAL $63,610.55
Less Prepaid $2,152.68
TOTAL $61,457.87
TB Resolution 2016-051d:Approval to Transfer Surplus Lawn Mower to Lake View
Cemetery Co.Inc.
Whereas, the Town of Ithaca owns a 2012 Grasshopper Zero-Turn Lawn Mower Model
725DT with 25HP Kubota Diesel Engine,Serial No.6214040,with 61"Powerfold Deck, Serial
No. 6241685, hereinafter referred to as the "Equipment",purchased in 2012 at a cost of $13,266;
and
Whereas, through the approval of the 2016 Ithaca Town Budget, the Town Board
authorized the purchase of a new Zero-Turn Lawn Mower to replace the existing Equipment; and
Whereas,the existing Equipment was given a trade-in value of $6,800 in December,
2015;and
Whereas,the Town has received a request from the Board of Trustees of Lake View
Cemetery Co. Inc. ("Cemetery") to transfer the ownership of the Equipment to the Cemetery,
where the Equipment will thereafter be used only on Cemetery property for the necessary and
proper maintenance of the Cemetery;and
Whereas, the Town wishes to support the management and maintenance efforts of the
Cemetery, to the extent allowed under NYS General Municipal Law, which would otherwise
becomethe responsibilityof theTown upon the dissolutionof theCemeteryCorporation;and
Town Board Meeting, March 7,2016 Pg 29
Whereas,NYS General Municipal Law Section 165-a explicitly authorizes this type of
gift; now therefore be it,
Resolved,that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby declare the above
described Equipment to be surplus and no longer needed by the Town, and authorizes the
transferof the abovedescribedEquipmentto Lake ViewCemeteryCo. Inc.;and be it further
Resolved, that the Town Supervisor is authorized to sign an Agreement with Lake View
Cemetery Co.Inc.forthe transfer of the above described Equipment to the Cemetery,subject to
the approval of the Attorney for the Town.
TB Resolution 2016 -05Ie:Approve Creation of a Sick Bank for Shannon Sanzi
Whereas,the Human Resources Manager recommends the creation of a Sick Bank for
Shannon Sanzi under the Family Health Related Leave, which employees can donate a one time
amount up to 40 hours of their sick time to Shannon;and
Whereas,the sick time donated shall be used solely for the hours that Shannon is out of
work under a Family Medical Leave recovering and providing care for her newborn child; now,
therefore,be it
Resolved, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves the creation of a Sick
Bank for Shannon Sanzi,in which employees can donate a maximum of 40 hours of their sick
time;and be it further
Resolved,the employees donating time will abide by the attached policy and complete
the Leave Donation Authorization Form,and be it further
Resolved, that the Sick Bank for Shannon Sanzi will be dissolved when the Family
Medical Leave ends without further action by the Town Board.
TB Resolution 2016-051f:Approval of Revisions to Job Description -Water and Sewer
Maintenance Supervisor
Whereas,the Personnel &Organization Committee reviewed revisions to the Water and
SewerMaintenanceSupervisorjob descriptionto betterdescribethedutiesof the position;now,
therefore,be it
Resolved, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the attached
revised job description for the Water and Sewer Maintenance Supervisor position.
TB Resolution 2016 -OSlg:Approval of Final Budget Transfers,Amendments and
Modifications for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31,2015.
Town Board Meeting,March 7,2016 Pg 30
Whereas,in preparation of closing the budgetary and accounting records of the Town
of Ithaca, the Town Finance Officer has reviewed all budgetary revenue and appropriation
accounts for the fiscal year ending December 31,2015,and
Whereas,this review disclosed certain budgetary revenues and expenditures
requiring transfers, amendments or modifications needed to close the budgetary and
accounting records of the Town of Ithaca for the fiscal year ending December 31,2015,and
Whereas, these findings are summarized below showing the net impact on the Fund
Balance in each operating fund or fund group:
General Townwide Fund
Beginning Fund Balance at 1/01/15
ADD:Total Revenues
LESS:Total Expenditures
Ending Fund Balance at 12/31/15
Net Increase to Fund Balance from 2015 Operations:
Genera!Part-Town Fund
Beginning Fund Balance at 1/01/15
ADD:Total Revenues
LESS:Total Expenditures
Ending Fund Balance at 12/31/15
Net Increase to Fund Balance from 2015 Operations:
Highway Part-Town Fund
Beginning Fund Balance at 1/01/15
ADD:T otal Revenues
LESS:Total Expenditures
Ending Fund Balance at 12/31/15
Net Increase to Fund Balance from 2015 Operations:
Water Fund
Beginning Fund Balance at 1/01/15
ADD:Total Revenues
LESS:Total Expenditures
Ending Fund Balance at 12/31/15
Net Increase to Fund Balance from 2015 Operations:
Sewer Fund
Beginning Fund Balance at 1/01/15
ADD:Total Revenues
LESS:Total Expenditures
Ending Fund Balance at 12/31/15
Net Increase to Fund Balance from 2015 Operations:
Capital Project Funds Group
Town Board Meeting,March 7,2016
3,117,429.04
4,688,487.78
$3,495,445.19
$378,016.15
$833,739.82
1,337,045.25
1,300,191.51
870,593.56
$36,853.74
$1,709,668.79
2,884,915.58
2769.365.43
$1,825,218.94
$115,550.15
$2,091,324.84
4,157,429.40
3.844713.00
$2,404,041.24
$312,716.40
$2184,797.38
2778,513.77
2.213.909.94
$2,749,401.21
$564,603.83
Pg 31
Beginning Fund Balance at 1/01/15
ADD:Total Revenues
Less:Total Expenditures
Ending Fund Balance at 12/31/15
Net Increase to Fund Balance from 2015 Operations:
Risk Retention Fund
Beginning Fund Balance at 1/01/15
ADD:Total Revenues
LESS:Total Expenditures
Ending Fund Balance at 12/31/15
Net Increase to Fund Balance from 2015 Operations:
Fire Protection Fund
Beginning Fund Balance at 1/01/15
ADD:Total Revenues
LESS:Total Expenditures
Ending Fund B alance at 12/31/15
Net Increase to Fund Balance from 2015 Operations:
Lighting District Funds Group
Beginning Fund Balance at 1/01/15
ADD:Total Revenues
LESS:Total Expenditures
Ending Fund Balance at 12/31/15
Net Decrease to Fund Balance from 2015 Operations:
Inlet Valley Cemetery Expendable Trust Fund
Beginning Fund Balance at 1/01/15 $
ADD:Total Revenues
LESS:Total Expenditures
Ending Fund Balance at 12/31/15
Net Increase to Fund Balance from 2015 Operations:$
Debt Service Fund
Beginning Fund Balance at 1/01/15
ADD:Total Revenues
LESS:Total Expenditures
Ending Fund Balance at 12/31/15
Net Decrease to Fund Balance from 2015 Operations:
935,818.29
3,065,366.91
2.993.89673
1,007,288.47
71,470.18
141,875.36
28,597.03
10,155.89
160,316.50
18,441.14
1,038,139.45
3,609,064.70
3,374,613.40
$1,272,59075
$234,451.30
5,565.29
13,209.27
13,711.16
5,063.40
(501.89)
9,075.82
6.94
$9,082.76
6.94
$1,427,187.31
989,897.12
2140.882.74
$276,201.69
$(1,150,985.62)
Now,therefore,be it
Resolved,that this Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Finance Officer to
record all year end budget transfers, amendments and modifications, including all other
Town Board Meeting,March 7,2016 Pg 32
changes deemed appropriate and necessary, to close the financial records for the Town of
Ithaca for the fiscal year ending December 31,2015.
15.Review of Correspondence
Mr.Goodman noted the letter from the City regarding changing N Tioga Street parking to
metered or getting rid of all parking to allow for biking.
16.Report of Town Officials
Mr. Goodman reported that he started talks with Cornell regarding Maplewood and the
additionalcosts to theTown andthat Cornellmay have to payforthose services.
Ms. Hunter would like to know more about the local labor question also and from the AOT, she
knew theStatewas starting to really lookat requiring local laborfortheir supported projects.
Mr.Goodmanshowedthe Boardthe awardfrom NYMIR for havinga safeTown.
17.Consider executivesessionto discuss union negotiations- Postponed.
18.Adjournment
Meeting adjourned upon a motion and a second at 9 pm.
Submitted.
Paulette Terwilliger,Town Clerk
Town Board Meeting, March 7,2016 Pg 33
Full Environmental Assessment Form
Part 1 -Project and Setting
Instructions for Completing Part 1
Part 1isto be completed bythe applicantor project sponsor.Responses become partofthe application for approval or funding,
are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification.
Complete Part1basedon information currently available.If additional research or investigation wouldbeneededtofully respond to
any item,pleaseansweras thoroughly as possible basedoncurrent information;indicate whether missing information doesnotexist,
or is not reasonably available to the sponsor; and, when possible,generally describe work or studies which wouldbe necessary to
update or fully develop that information.
Applicants/sponsors mustcompleteall items inSectionsA & B. In SectionsC, D & E,most itemscontainan initialquestionthat
must be answered either "Yes" or "No". If the answer to the initial question is"Yes", complete the sub-questions that follow.If the
answer to the initial question is "No", proceed to the next question. Section F allows the project sponsor to identify and attach any
additional information. Section G requires the name and signature of the project sponsor to verify that the information contained in
Part lis accurate and complete.
A.Project and Sponsor Information.
Name of Action or Project:
Amend Town Code Chapter 271 to add standards for deer fences to Section 271-10 H(14),View Area Protection
Project Location (describe,and attach a general location map):
Town of Ithaca Special Land Use District Number 9 - Limited Mixed Use,Cornell Precinct 7
Brief Description of Proposed Action (include purpose or need):
The proposed action includes adding language to the Town Code,Chapter 271,pertaining to Cornell's Precinct 7 area
(Special Land Use District No. 9), to allow deer fences up to 8-feet in height among the list of uses and standards
permitted in View Area Protection section of the regulation.The language for the View Area (271-10 H(14))includes
parameters for roads,building sizes,building additions and lampposts,but remains silent on fences.The proposed
modification will allow Cornell to protect their agricultural research fields located within the Precinct 7 boundary from
excessive deer browsing and damage.
Name of Applicant/Sponsor:Telephone:607-273-1721
Town of Ithaca E-Mail:
Address.Tioga Street
Ithaca State:
NY
Zip Code:.
^14850
Project Contact (if not same as sponsor; give name and title/role):Telephone:607-273-1747,ext.121
Christine Balestra,Planner E-Mail'cbalestra@town.ithaca.ny.us
Address:
215 North Tioga Street
City/PO:
Ithaca
State:
NY
Zip Code:
14850
Property Owner (if not same as sponsor):Telephone:607-255-2668
Cornell University E-Mail:dmc86@corneII.edu
Address:
P.O.Box DH
City/PO:
Ithaca
State:
NY
Zip Code:^14853
Page 1 of 13
B.Government Approvals
B.Government Approvals, Funding, or Sponsorship. ("Funding"includesgrants,loans,taxrelief,andanyother forms of financial
assistance.)
Government Entity If Yes:Identify Agency and Approval(s)
Required
Application Date
(Actual or projected)
a. City Council, Town Board,EYesflNo
or Village Board of Trustees
Ithaca Town Board February 8,2016,public hearing on
March 7,2016
b. City, Town or Village LHYesENo
Planning Board or Commission
c, City Council,Town or DYesENo
Village Zoning Board of Appeals
d. Other local agencies r~IYesENo
e. County agencies EYesDNo County Planning Department GML 239 review
only;no official approval.
f. Regional agencies r~IYesENo
g. State agencies OYesENo
h. Federal agencies l~lYesENo
i.Coastal Resources.
i. Is the project site within a CoastalArea, or the waterfrontarea of a Designated Inland Waterway?IZlYesENo
ii.Is the project site located in a community with an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program?E YesENo
Hi.Is the project site within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area?•YesENo
C.Planning and Zoning
C.l.Planning and zoning actions.
Will administrativeor legislativeadoption, or amendmentof a plan, local law,ordinance,rule or regulation be the EYesDNo
only approval(s) which must be granted to enable the proposed action to proceed?
•If Yes, complete sections C, F and G.
• If No, proceed to question C.2 and complete all remaining sections and questions in Part 1
C.2.Adopted land use plans.
a. Do any municipally-adopted (city, town, villageor county) comprehensive land useplan(s) includethe site EYesDNo
where the proposed action would be located?
IfYes,doesthe comprehensive plan include specific recommendations forthesitewherethe proposed action EYesDNo
would be located?
b. Is the site of the proposed action within any local or regional special planning district (for example: Greenway
Brownfield Opportunity Area (BOA); designated State or Federal heritage area; watershed management plan;
or other?)
If Yes,identify the plan(s):
c. Is the proposed action located wholly or partially within an area listed in an adopted municipal open space plan,
or an adopted municipal farmland protection plan?
If Yes,identify the plan(s):
Town of Ithaca AQricullural and Farmland Protection Plan,adopted November 2011
Page 2 of 13
•YesENo
EYesQNo
C.3.Zoning
a.Is thesite of theproposedactionlocatedin a municipalitywith an adoptedzoninglawor ordinance.0 YesdNo
If Yes, what is the zoning classification(s)including any applicable overlay district?
Special Land Use District No. 9
b.Is the use permitted or allowed by a special orconditional use permit?n/a;action involves changes in allowable uses.•YesdNo
c.Is a zoningchange requested aspartof the proposed action?d Yes0No
If Yes,
/.What is the proposed new zoning for the site? The action will notresultinnewzoning;it will change language andusesinan existing zone.
C.4.Existing community services.
a. In what school district is the project site located?Ithaca City School District
b. What police or other public protection forces serve the project site?
Tompkins Countv Sheriff Department
c. Which fire protection and emergency medical services serve the project site?
Ithaca Fire Department
d. What parks serve the project site?
The Comell Plantations Arboretum is located across the street from oropertv within Cornell's Precinct 7 boundarv.
D.Project Details Sections D.- E.are not requiredto be completed forthis action;see C1.
D.l.Proposed and Potential Development
a. What is the general nature of the proposed action (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial, recreational; if mixed, include all
components)?
b. a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action?acres
b. Total acreage to be physically disturbed?acres
c. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned
or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor?acres
c. Istheproposedactionan expansion of anexistingprojector use?d Yesd No
/.If Yes, what is the approximatepercentage of the proposedexpansion and identifythe units (e.g., acres, miles,housing units,
square feet)? %Units:
d.Is the proposed action a subdivision,or does it include a subdivision?dYes dNo
If Yes,
/.Purpose or type of subdivision? (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial; if mixed, specify types)
a.Is a cluster/conservation layout proposed?dYes dNo
Hi.Number of lots proposed?
/v.Minimum and maximum proposed lot sizes? Minimum Maximum
e.Will proposed action be constructed in multiple phases?d YesdNo
/.If No, anticipated period of construction:months
a.If Yes:
• Total number of phases anticipated
• Anticipatedcommencementdate of phase 1(including demolition)month year
• Anticipated completion date of final phase month year
• Generally describe connectionsor relationshipsamong phases, including any contingencieswhere progress of one phase may
determine timing or duration of future phases:
Page 3 of 13
e. Doestheprojectsite contain,or is it substantially contiguous to,a building,archaeological site,or district
which is listed on, or has been nominated by the NYS Board of Historic Preservation for inclusion on, the
State or National Register of Historic Places?
IfYes:
/.Nature of historic/archaeological resource:•Archaeological Site nHistoric Building or District
/;.Name:
Hi.Brief description of attributes on which listing is based:
•YesDNo
f. Istheprojectsite,or any portionof it, locatedinor adjacentto an areadesignatedassensitivefor
archaeologicalsites on the NY State HistoricPreservationOffice (SHPO)archaeologicalsite inventory?
•YesQNo
g. Haveadditional archaeologicalor historicsite(s) or resourcesbeen identifiedon the project site?
IfYes:
/.Describe possible resource(s):
OYes^No
//.Basis for identification:
h. Isthe project site within fives miles of any officially designatedand publiclyaccessible federal,state, or local
scenic or aesthetic resource?
IfYes:
/.Identify resource:
•Yes^No
//.Nature of, or basis for, designation(e.g., establishedhighway overlook, state or localpark, state historic trail or scenicbyway,
etc.):
Hi.Distance between project and resource:miles.
i. Isthe project site locatedwithin a designated river corridorunder the Wild, Scenicand Recreational Rivers
Program 6 NYCRR 666?
IfYes:
/.IdentifV the name of the river and its designation:
•YesQNo
a.Is the activity consistent with development restrictions contained in 6NYCRR Part 666?•Yes^No
F.Additional Information
Attach any additional information which may be needed to clarify your project.
If you have identified any adverse impacts which could be associated with your proposal, please describe those impacts plus any
measures which you propose to avoid or minimize them.
G.Verification
1certify that the information provided is true to the best of my knowledge.
Applicant/Sponsor Name Town of Ithaca.William D.Goodman
Signature
Date
Title Town Supervisor
Page 13 of 13
Full Environmental Assessment Form
Part 2 -Identification ofPotential Project Impacts
Part 2 is to be completed by the lead agency.Part 2 is designed to help the lead agency inventory all potential resources that could
be affected by a proposed project or action. We recognize that the lead agency's reviewer(s) will not necessarily be environmental
professionals. So, the questions are designed to walk a reviewer through the assessment process by providing a series of questions that
can be answered using the information found in Part 1.To further assist the lead agency in completing Part 2, the form identifies the
most relevant questions in Part 1that will provide the information needed to answer the Part 2 question. When Part 2 is completed, the
lead agency will have identified the relevant environmental areas that may be impacted by the proposed activity.
If the lead agency is a state agency and the action is in any Coastal Area,complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding
with this assessment.
Tips for completing Part 2:
• Review all of the information provided in Part 1.
• Review any application,maps, supporting materials and the Full EAF Workbook.
•Answer each of the 18 questions in Part 2.
•If you answer "Yes"to a numbered question, please complete all the questions that follow in that section.
• If you answer "No"to a numbered question, move on to the next numbered question.
• Check appropriate column to indicate the anticipated size of the impact.
• Proposed projects that would exceed a numeric threshold contained in a question should result in the reviewing agency
checking the box "Moderate to large impact may occur."
• The reviewer is not expected to be an expert in environmental analysis.
• If you are not sure or undecided about the size of an impact, it may help to review the sub-questions for the general
question and consult the workbook.
• When answering a question consider all components of the proposed activity, that is, the "whole action".
•Consider the possibility for long-term and cumulative impacts as well as direct impacts.
Answer the question in a reasonable manner considering the scale and context of the project.
1.Impact on Land
Proposed action may involve construction on,or physical alteration of,[UnO 0 YES
the land surface of the proposed site. (See Part 1,D.l)
If "Yes answer questions a - /'.If "No move on to Section 2.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No,or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may involve construction on land where depth to water table is
less than 3 feet.
E2d •
b. The proposed action may involve construction on slopes of 15%or greater.
E2f •
c. The proposed action may involve construction on land where bedrock is exposed, or
generally within 5 feet of existing ground surface.
E2a •
d. The proposed action may involvethe excavationand removalof more than 1,000 tons
ofnatural material.
D2a •
e. The proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year
or in multiple phases.
Die •
f. The proposed action may result in increased erosion, whether from physical
disturbance or vegetation removal (including from treatment by herbicides).
D2e,D2q •
g. The proposed action is, or may be, located within a Coastal Erosion hazard area.
Bli •
h Other imoacts*proposed action would allow for future construction of 8-foot tall deerfences within'the View Protection Area of Cornell's Precinct 7 agricultural research fields.There will be
no other physical alteration of any land within or surrounding Precinct 7.
0 •
Page 1 of10
2.Impact on Geological Features
The proposed action may result in the modification or destruction of, or inhibit
access to,any unique or unusual land forms on the site (e.g.,cliffs,dunes,0NO Q YES
minerals,fossils, caves). (See Part 1. E.2.g)
If "Yes answer questions a-c.If "No move on to Section 3.
Relevant
Parti
Question(s)
No,or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a.Identify the specific land formfs)attached:E2g ••
b. The proposed action may affect or is adjacent to a geological feature listed as a
registered National Natural Landmark.
Specific feature:
E3c ••
c.Other impacts:••
3.Impacts on Surface Water
The proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other surface water 0 NO dl YES
bodies (e.g., streams, rivers, ponds or lakes). (See Part 1.D.2, E.2.h)
If "Yes answer questions a -I.If "No move on to Section 4.
Relevant
Parti
Question(s)
No,or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may create a new water body.D2b,Dlh ••
b. The proposed action may result in an increase or decrease of over 10%or more than a
10 acre increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water.
D2b ••
c. The proposed action may involve dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material
from a wetland or water body.
D2a ••
d. The proposed action may involve construction within or adjoining a freshwater or
tidal wetland,or in the bed or banks of any other water body.
E2h ••
e. The proposed action may create turbidity in a waterbody, either from upland erosion,
runoff or by disturbing bottom sediments.
D2a,D2h ••
f. The proposed action may include construction of one or more intake(s) for withdrawal
of water from surface water.
D2c ••
g. The proposed action may include construction of one or more outfall(s)for discharge
of wastewater to surface water(s).
D2d ••
h. The proposed action may cause soil erosion, or otherwise create a source of
stormwater discharge that may lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving
water bodies.
D2e ••
i. The proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or
downstream of the site of the proposed action.
E2h ••
j. The proposed action may involve the application of pesticides or herbicides in or
around any water body.
D2q, E2h ••
k. The proposed action may require the construction of new, or expansion of existing,
wastewater treatment facilities.
Dla,D2d ••
Page 2 of 10
1.Other impacts:••
4.Impact on groundwater
The proposed action may result in new or additional use of ground water,or 0NO Q YES
may have the potential to introduce contaminants to ground water or an aquifer.
(See Part 1. D.2.a, D.2.C,D.2.d, D.2.p, D.2.q, D.2.t)
If "Yes answer questions a-h.If "No move on to Section 5.
Relevant
Part!
Question(s)
No,or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may require new water supply wells, or create additional demand
on supplies from existing water supply wells.
D2c ••
b. Water supply demand from the proposed action may exceed safe and sustainable
withdrawal capacity rate of the local supply or aquifer.
Cite Source:
D2c ••
c. The proposed action may allow or result in residential uses in areas without water and
sewer services.
Dla,D2c ••
d. The proposed action may include or require wastewater discharged to groundwater.
D2d,E21 ••
e. The proposed action may result in the construction of water supply wells in locations
where groundwater is, or is suspected to be,contaminated.
D2c,Elf,
Elg,Elh
••
f. The proposed action may require the bulk storage of petroleum or chemical products
over ground water or an aquifer.
D2p,E21 ••
g. The proposed action may involve the commercial application of pesticides within 100
feet of potable drinking water or irrigation sources.
E2h, D2q,
E21,D2c
••
h.Other impacts:••
5.Impact on Flooding
The proposed action may result in development on lands subject to flooding.0 NO Q YES
(See Part 1.E.2)
If "Yes answer questions a-g.If "No move on to Section 6.
Relevant
Parti
Question(s)
No,or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may result in development in a designated floodway.
E2i ••
b. The proposed action may result in development within a 100 year floodplain.
E2j ••
c. The proposed action may result in development within a 500 year floodplain.
E2k ••
d. The proposed action may result in, or require,modification of existing drainage
pattems.
D2b,D2e ••
e. The proposed action may change flood water flows that contribute to flooding.
D2b,E2i,
E2i,E2k
••
f. If there is a dam located on the site of the proposed action, is the dam in need of repair,
or upgrade?
Ele ••
Page 3 of10
g. Other impacts;
6.Impacts on Air
The proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source.
(See Part 1.D.2.f.,D,2,h,D.2.g)
If "Yes answer questions a-f If "No move on to Section 7.
|7|no •yes
Relevant
Part!
Question(s)
No,or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. If the proposed action requires federal or state air emission permits, the action may
also emit one or more greenhouse gases at or above the following levels:
i. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide (CO2)
ii. More than 3.5 tons/year of nitrous oxide (N2O)
iii. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon equivalent of perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
iv. More than .045 tons/year of sulfur hexafluoride (SFa)
V.More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide equivalent of
hydrochloroflourocarbons (HFCs)emissions
vi. 43 tons/year or more of methane
D2g
D2g
D2g
D2g
D2g
D2h
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
b. The proposed action may generate 10 tons/year or more of any one designated
hazardous air pollutant, or 25 tons/year or more of any combination of such hazardous
air pollutants.
D2g ••
c. The proposed action may require a state air registration, or may produce an emissions
rate of total contaminants that may exceed 5 lbs. per hour, or may include a heat
source capable of producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour.
D2f, D2g ••
d. The proposed action may reach 50%of any of the thresholds in "a"through "c",
above.
D2g ••
e. The proposed action may result in the combustion or thermal treatment of more than 1
ton of refuse per hour.
D2s ••
f.Other impacts:••
7.Impact on Plants and Animals
The proposed action may result ina loss of flora or fauna.(See Part 1.E.2.m.-q.)ONG 0 YES
If "Yes answer questions a - j.If "No move on to Section 8.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No,or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a.The proposed action may cause reduction in population or loss of individuals of any
threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the Federal
government,that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site.
E2o El •
b. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by
any rare,threatened or endangered species,as listed by New York State or the federal
government.
E2o •
c. The proposed action may cause reduction in population,or loss of individuals,of any
species of special concern or conservation need, as listed by New York State or the
Federal government,that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site.
E2p El •
d. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by
any species of special concem and conservation need, as listed by New York State or
the Federal government.
E2p El •
Page 4 of 10
e. The proposed action may diminishthe capacity of a registered National Natural
Landmark to support the biological community it was established to protect.
f. The proposed action may result in the removal of, or ground disturbance in, any
portion of a designated significant natural community.
Source:
g. The proposed action may substantially interfere with nesting^reeding,foraging, or
over-wintering habitat for the predominant species that occupy or use the project site.
h. The proposed action requires the conversion of more than 10 acres of forest,
grassland or any other regionally or locally important habitat.
Habitat type & information source:
E3c El
E2n
E2m
Elb
i. Proposed action (commercial,industrialor recreationalprojects, only) involves use of D2q 0
herbicides or pesticides.
The proposed action would allow deer fences In the "View Protection Area"(VPA)of Cornell's ~
j. Other impacts: Precinct 7,whichcould potentiallyInterfere with the foraging habitat ofdeer and other small animal^
in the area.However,the VPA encompasses a small portion of Precinct 7 and such interference
would not be considered significant.Deer fences proposed for the VPA would require Planning
Board site plan and special permit but would be Type II actions pursuant to NYCRR Part 617.5(c)(3).~
8.Impact on Agricultural Resources
The proposed action may impact agricultural resources.(See Part 1. E.3.a. and b.)
If "Yes answer questions a-h.If "No move on to Section 9.
•no [✓Iyes
Relevant
Parti
Question(s)
No,or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may impact soil classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the
NYS Land Classification System.
E2c, E3b
•
b. The proposed action may sever, cross or otherwise limit access to agricultural land
(includes cropland,hayfields,pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc).
El a,Elb El •
c. The proposed action may result in the excavation or compaction of the soil profile of
active agricultural land.
E3b •
d. The proposed action may irreversibly convert agricultural land to non-agricultural
uses, either more than 2.5 acres if located in an Agricultural District, or more than 10
acres if not within an Agricultural District.
Elb,E3a El •
e. The proposed action may disrupt or prevent installation of an agricultural land
management system.
El a,Elb El •
f. The proposed action may result,directly or indirectly,in increased development
potential or pressure on farmland.
C2c,C3,
D2c,D2d
•
g. The proposed project is not consistent with the adopted municipal Farmland
Protection Plan.
C2c El •
h ' t • proposed actionwould limit deer andsmallanimalaccess to Cornell's agricultural.u er impacts.^jthin the "View Protection Area"of Precinct 7,which would benefit theresearch El •
on form crops.The proposed action Is consistent with the Town of Ithaca's Agricultural
and Farmland Protection Plan that was established in 2011.
Page 5 of10
9.Impact on Aesthetic Resources
The land use of the proposed action are obviously different from, or are in
sharp contrast to, current land use patterns between the proposed project and
a scenic or aesthetic resource.(Part 1.E.l .a,E.l.b,E.3.h.)
If "Yes answer questions a-If "No go to Section 10.
•no [TIyes
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No,or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a.Proposed action may be visible from any officially designated federal, state, or local
scenic or aesthetic resource.
E3h El •
b. The proposed action may result in the obstruction,elimination or significant
screening of one or more officially designated scenic views.
E3h,C2b El •
c. The proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points:
i. Seasonally (e.g., screened by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons)
ii.Year round
E3h
El
El
•
•
d. The situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed
action is:
i. Routine travel by residents,including travel to and from work
ii.Recreational or tourism based activities
E3h
E2q,
Elc El
El
•
•
e. The proposed action may cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment and
appreciation of the designated aesthetic resource.
E3h El •
f. There are similar projects visible within the following distance of the proposed
project:There isan 8-foot tall,open wire deer fence surrounding the
0-1/2 mile Cornell Dllmun Farm on NYS Route 366,located approximately 1/4
Vt -3 mile Precinct 7 View Protection Area.
3-5 mile
5+mile
Dla,Ela,
Dlf,Dlg
El •
p.,,Theproposedaction would allow deerfences upto8feetInheight within the "Viewg.Utner impacts,protection Area"(VPA)of Comell's Precinct 7.Deer fences proposed for the area would
reauire Planning Board site olan aooroval and soeclal oermlt but would be Tvoe 11 actions
pursuant to NYCRR Part 617.5(c)(3).
El •
10.Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources
The proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological 0NO •YES
resource.(Part 1. E.3.e, f. and g.)
If "Yes answer questions a - e.If "No go to Section II.
Relevant
Parti
Question(s)
No,or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous
to, any buildings,archaeological site or district which is listed on or has been
nominated by the NYS Board of Historic Preservation for inclusion on the State or
National Register of Historic Places.
E3e ••
b. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous
to, an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NY State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO)archaeological site inventory.
E3f ••
c. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous
to, an archaeological site not included on the NY SHPO inventory.
Source:
E3g ••
Page 6 of 10
d.Other impacts:••
e. Ifany of the above (a-d) are answered "Yes", continue with the following questions
to help support conclusions in Part 3:
i. The proposed action may result in the destruction or alteration of all or part
of the site or property.
E3e, E3g,
E3f
••
ii. The proposed action may result in the alteration of the property's setting or
integrity.
E3e,E3f,
E3g,El a,
Elb
••
iii. The proposed action may result in the introduction of visual elements which
are out of character with the site or property, or may alter its setting.
E3e,E3f,
E3g, E3h,
C2,C3
••
11.Impact on Open Space and Recreation
The proposed action may result in a loss of recreational opportunities or a [^NO YES
reduction of an open space resource as designated in any adopted
municipal open space plan.
(See Part 1.C.2.c,B.l.c.,E.2.q.)
If "Yes answer questions a - e.If "No go to Section 12.
Relevant
Parti
Question(s)
No,or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may result in an impairment of natural functions,or "ecosystem
services", provided by an undeveloped area, including but not limited to stormwater
storage,nutrient cycling,wildlife habitat.
D2e,Elb
E2h,
E2m,E2o,
E2n,E2p
••
b. The proposed action may result in the loss of a current or future recreational resource.
C2a,Elc,
C2c,E2q
••
c. The proposed action may eliminate open space or recreational resource in an area
with few such resources.
C2a,C2c
Elc,E2q
••
d. The proposed action may result in loss of an area now used informally by the
community as an open space resource.
C2c,Elc ••
e.Other impacts:••
12.Impact on Critical Environmental Areas
The proposed action may be located within or adjacent to a critical NO |_J YES
environmental area (CEA).(See Part 1.E.3.d)
If "Yes answer questions a - c.If "No go to Section IS.
Relevant
Part!
Question(s)
No,or
small
Impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
Impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource or
characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA.
E3d ••
b. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the qualityof the resourceor
characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA.
E3d ••
c.Other impacts:••
Page 7 of10
13.Impact on Transportation
The proposed action may result in a change to existing transportation systems.|^N0 Q YES
(See Part 1.D.2.j)
If "Yes answer questions a-g.If "No go to Section 14.
Relevant
Parti
Question(s)
No,or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. Projected traffic increase may exceed capacity of existing road network.
D2j ••
b. The proposed action may result in the construction of paved parking area for 500 or
more vehicles.
D2j ••
c. The proposed action will degrade existing transit access.
D2j ••
d. Theproposed actionwill degrade existingpedestrian or bicycle accommodations.
D2j ••
e.The proposed action may alter the present pattern of movement of people or goods.
D2j ••
f.Other impacts;••
14.Impact on Energy
The proposed action may cause an increase in the use ofany form ofenergy.0NO 1 IVES
(See Part 1.D.2.k)
If "Yes answer questions a-e.If "No go to Section 15.
Relevant
Parti
Question(s)
No,or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a.The proposed action will require a new,or an upgrade to an existing,substation.D2k ••
b. The proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission
or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two-family residences or to serve a
commercial or industrial use.
Dlf,
Dlq,D2k
••
c. The proposed action may utilize more than 2,500 MWhrs per year of electricity.D2k ••
d. The proposed action may involve heating and/or cooling of more than 100,000 square
feet of building area when completed.
Dig ••
e.Other Impacts:
15.Impact on Noise,Odor,and Light
The proposed action may result in an increase in noise,odors,or outdoor lighting.0NO 1 IVES
(See Part 1.D.2.m.,n., and o.)
If "Yes answer questions a - f.If "No go to Section 16.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No,or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by local
regulation.
D2m ••
b. The proposed action may result in blasting within 1,500 feet of any residence,
hospital, school,licensed day care center, or nursing home.
D2m,Eld ••
c. The proposed action may result in routine odors for more than one hour per day.D2o ••
Page 8 of 10
d. The proposed action may result in light shining onto adjoining properties.
D2n ••
e. The proposed action may result in lighting creating sky-glow brighter than existing
area conditions.
D2n,Ela ••
f.Other impacts:••
16.Impact on Human Health
The proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure 0 NO Q YES
to new or existing sources of contaminants.(See Part 1.D.2.q., E.1.d. f. g. and h.)
If "Yes answer questions a-m.If "No go to Section 17.
Relevant
Parti
Question(s)
No,or
small
Impact
may eccur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action is located within 1500 feet of a school, hospital, licensed day
care center,group home,nursing home or retirement community.
Eld ••
b. The site of the proposed action is currently undergoing remediation.
Elg,Elh ••
c. There is a completed emergency spill remediation, or a completed environmental site
remediation on, or adjacent to, the site of the proposed action.
Elg,Elh ••
d. The site of the action is subject to an institutional control limiting the use of the
property (e.g.,easement or deed restriction).
Elg,Elh ••
e. The proposed action may affect institutional control measures that were put in place
to ensure that the site remains protective of the environment and human health.
Elg,Elh ••
f. The proposed action has adequate control measures in place to ensure that future
generation, treatment and/or disposal of hazardous wastes will be protective of the
environment and human health.
D2t ••
g. The proposed action involves construction or modification of a solid waste
management facility.
D2q,Elf ••
h. The proposed action may result in the unearthing of solid or hazardous waste.
D2q,Elf ••
i. The proposed action may result in an increase in the rate of disposal, or processing,of
solid waste.
D2r,D2s ••
j. Theproposedactionmayresultin excavationor otherdisturbancewithin2000feetof
a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste.
Elf,EIg
Elh
••
k. The proposed action may result in the migration of explosive gases froma landfill
site to adjacent off site structures.
Elf,Elg ••
1.The proposed action may result in the release of contaminated leachate from the
project site.
D2s,Elf,
D2r
••
m.Other impacts:
Page 9 of 10
17.Consistency with Community Plans
The proposed action is not consistent with adopted land use plans.0NO ||yES
(See Part I.e.1,C.2.and C.3.)
If "Yes answer questions a - h.If "No go to Section 18.
Relevant
Parti
Question(s)
No,or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action's land use components may be different from, or in sharp
contrast to, current surrounding land use pattem(s).
C2,C3,Dla
Ela,Elb
••
b. The proposed action will cause the permanent population of the city, town or village
in which the project is located to grow by more than 5%.
C2 ••
c. The proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations.C2, C2,C3 ••
d. The proposed action is inconsistent with any County plans, or other regional land use
plans.
C2,C2 ••
e. The proposed action may cause a change in the density of development that is not
supported by existing infrastructure or is distant from existing infrastructure.
C3,Dlc,
Did,Dlf,
Did,Elb
••
f. The proposed action is located in an area characterized by low density development
that will require new or expanded public infrastructure.
C4,D2c,D2d
D2j
••
g. The proposed action may induce secondary development impacts (e.g.,residential or
commercial development not included in the proposed action)
C2a ••
h.Other:••
18.Consistency with Community Character
The proposed project is inconsistent with the existing community character.0NO ||yES
(See Partl.C.2,C.3,D.2, E.3)
If "Yes answer questions a-g.If "No proceed to Part 3.
Relevant
Part!
Question(s)
No,or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may replace or eliminate existing facilities,stmctures,or areas
of historic importance to the community.
E3e, E3f, E3g
••
b. The proposed action may create a demand for additional community services (e.g.
schools, police and fire)
C4 ••
c. The proposed action may displace affordable or low-income housing in an area where
there is a shortage of such housing.
C2,C3,Dlf
Dlg,Ela
••
d. The proposed action may interfere with the use or enjoyment of officially recognized
or designated public resources.
C2,E3 ••
e. The proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and
character.
C2,C3 ••
f. Proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape.
C2,C3
Ela,Elb
E2g,E2h
••
g.Other impacts:••
Page 10 of 10
Full Environmental Assessment Form
Part 3 -Evaluation ofthe Magnitude and Importance ofProject Impacts
and
Determination ofSignificance
Part 3 provides the reasons in support of the determination of significance. The lead agency mustcomplete Part 3 for every question
in Part 2 where the impact has been identified as potentially moderate to large or where there is a need to explain why a particular
element of the proposed action will not, or may, result in a significant adverse environmental impact.
Based on the analysis in Part 3, the lead agency must decide whether to require an environmental impact statement to further assess
the proposed action or whether available information is sufficient for the lead agency to conclude that the proposed action will not
have a significant adverse environmental impact.By completing the certification on the next page,the leaid agency can complete its
determination of significance.
Reasons Supporting This Determination:
To complete ±is section:
Identify the impact based on the Part 2 responses and describe its magnitude.Magnitude considers factors such as severity,
size or extent of an impact.
Assess the importance of the impact.Importance relates to the geographic scope, duration,probability of the impact
occurring, number of people affected by the impact and any additional environmental consequences if the impact were to
occur.
The assessment should take into consideration any design element or project changes.
Repeat this process for each Part 2 question where the impact has been identified as potentially moderate to large or where
there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action will not, or may, result in a significant adverse
environmental impact.
Provide the reason(s) why the impact may, or will not, result in a significant adverse environmental impact
For Conditional Negative Declarations identify the specific condition(s) imposed that will modify the proposed action so that
no significant adverse environmental impacts will result.
•Attach additional sheets,as needed.
The proposed action Includes adding language to Town Code,Chapter 271,pertaining to Cornell's Precinct 7
area (Special Land Use District No. 9),to allow deer fences up to 8-feet In height among the list of uses and
standards permitted In the "View Area Protection"section of the regulation.
The proposed amendment to Special Land Use District No.9 was Initiated by planning staff In response to
Cornell's Interest In protecting their agricultural research fields located within Precinct 7 that have been
experiencing ever-Increasing damage by wildlife,primarily deer.The proposed language modification will allow
Cornell to protect these research fields from excessive deer browsing and damage.
Proposed future deer fences will be similar to the one that exists on Cornell's Dllmun Farm,located
approximately 1/4 mile up the road from the Precinct 7 View Protection Area,along NYS Route 366.Such
fences have large,open-wire features and are specifically designed to minimize visual Impacts and preserve
the open space character of an area.
As described In Part 2,the proposed action Is consistent with the Town of Ithaca's Agricultural and Farmland
Protection Plan that was established In 2011.Although the action would Interfere with the foraging habitat of
deer,rodents and other small animals In the View Protection Area,It would benefit research fields by reducing
the Impact of wildlife browsing on farm crops.The View Protection Area encompasses a small portion of
Precinct 7 and such Interference would not be considered a significant environmental Impact.
Determination of Significance -Type 1 and Unlisted Actions
SEQR Status:0 Type 1 Q Unlisted
Identify portions of EAF completed for this Project:0 Part 1 0 Part 2 0 Part 3
Uponreview of the informationrecorded on this EAF,as noted, plus this additionalsupport information
and consideringboth the magnitudeand importanceof each identified potentialimpact, it is the conclusion of the
as lead agency that:
0 A.This project will result inno significant adverse impacts onthe environment,and,therefore,an environmental impact
statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued.
•B.Although this project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment,that impact will be avoided or
substantiallymitigatedbecause of the followingconditionswhich will be requiredby the lead agency:
Therewill, therefore, be no significantadverse impactsfromthe project as conditioned,and, therefore,this conditionednegative
declaration is issued. A conditioned negative declaration may be used only for UNLISTED actions (see 6 NYCRR 617.d).
• c.This Project may result in one or more significant adverse impacts on the environment,and an environmental impact
statement must be prepared to further assess the impact(s) and possible mitigation and to explore alternatives to avoid or reduce those
impacts. Accordingly, this positive declaration is issued.
Name of Action:Amend Town CodeChapter 271 toaddstandardsfordeer fencestoSection271-10 H(14),View Area Protection
Name of Lead Agency:ithaca Town Board
Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency;William D.Goodman,'
Title of Responsible Officer:
Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency:r Date:y[(^
Signature of Preparer(ifdifferentfrom Responsible Officer)c"^D^te
For Further Information:
Contact Person:Christine Baiestra
Address:215 N.Tioga Street
Telephone Number:607-273-1747
E-mail:cbalestra@town.ithaca.ny.us
For Type 1 Actions and Conditioned Negative Declarations,a copy of this Notice is sent to:
Chief Executive Officer of the political subdivision in which the action will be principally located (e.g..Town /City /Village of)
Other involved agencies (if any)
Applicant (if any)
Environmental Notice Bulletin:http://mvw.dec.nv.gQv/enb/enb.html
Short Environmental Assessment Form
Part 1 -Project Information
Instructions for Completing
Part 1-Project Information.The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1.Responses
become part ofthe applicationfor approvalor funding,are subject to publicreview,and may be subjectto furtherverification.
Complete Part 1based on information currently available.Ifadditional research or investigation would be needed to fiilly
respond to any item, please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information.
Complete all items in Part 1.You may also provide any additional information whichyou believe will be needed by or useful
to the leadagency;attachadditionalpagesas necessaryto supplementany item.
Part 1 >Project and Sponsor Information
Town of Ithaca
Name of Action or Project:
Park Lane Watermain Reconstruction
Project Location (describe, and attach a location map):
Snyder Hill Rd down Regency Lane,Joanne Dr, Park Lane to John St.
Brief Description of ProposedAction:
Replace approximately 1050 linear fl existing 8 inch Cast Iron water main with new 8 inch Ductile Iron water main and Services.1650 linear ftof
6 inch cast iron water main will tre replaced with 8 inch ductile water main.
Name of Applicant or Sponsor:
Town of Ithaca Public Works Department
Address:
106 Seven Mile Drive
City/PO:
Ithaca
Telephone:607-273-1656
E-MaiI:publicworks2town.ithaca.ny.us
State:
NY
Zip Code:
14850
1.Does the proposed action only involvethe legislativeadoption of a plan, locallaw,ordinance,
administrative rule, or regulation?
If Yes, attach a narrativedescriptionofthe intentof the proposedaction and the environmentalresourcesthat
may be affected in the municipalityand proceedto Part2. If no, continueto question2.
NO YES
13 •
2. Does the proposedaction requirea permit,approvalor funding fix>m anyothergovernmentalAgency?
If Yes, list agency(s)name and permit or approval:
Tompkins County Health Department
NO YES
•13
3.a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action?.19 acres
b. Total acreage to be physically disturbed?
c. Total acreage(project site and anycontiguousproperties)owned
or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor?
.19 acres
.19 acres
4. Check all land uses that occur on, adjoining and nearthe proposed action.
Q Urban l~l Rural (non-agriculture)[•Industrial n Commercial Residential (suburban)
•Forest •Agriculture •Aquatic •Other (specify):
•Parkland
Page 1 of 3
5. Is the proposed action,
a. A permitteduse underthe zoning regulations?
b.Consistent withtheadopted comprehensive plan?
NO YES N/A
•13 •
•13 •
6. Is the proposedactionconsistentwiththe predominantcharacterof theexistingbuiltor natural
landscape?
NO YES
•0
7. Is the site of the proposedaction locatedin,or does itadjoin, a state listedCritical Environmental Area?
If Yes,identiiy:
NO YES
[3 •
8. a. Willtheproposedactionresultina substantial increase intrafficabovepresentlevels?
b. Are publictransportationservice(s)availableat or near the site of the proposedaction?
c. Areany pedestrian accommodations or bicycleroutesavailableon or nearsiteof the proposedaction?
NO YES
[3 •
• 0
•0
9. Does the proposedaction meetor exceed the state energycode requirements?
If theproposedactionwillexceed requirements,describedesign features and technologies:
NO YES
0 •
10.Willthe proposedactionconnecttoan existing public/private watersupply?
If No,describe method for providins potable water:
NO YES
•0BoltonPointWaterSystem.
11.Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities?
If No, describe method for providing wastewater treatment:
Will not generate Wastewater
NO YES
0 •
12.a. Does the site contain a structure that is listedon either the Stateor National Register of Historic
Places?
b. Is the proposedaction located inan archeologicalsensitive area?
NO YES
0
0
•
LT
13.a. Doesany portionof the site of the proposedaction,or landsadjoining the proposedaction,contain
wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal, state or local agency?
b. Would the proposedaction physicallyalter, or encroach into,any existing wetlandor waterbody?
If Yes,identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres:
NO YES
0 •
0 •
-------
14.Identifythe typical habitat typesthat occur on,or are likelyto befoundon the projectsite. Checkall that apply:
Q Shoreline L]Forest Q Agricultural/grasslands IZ]Early mid-successional
O Wetland Q Urban Q]Suburban
1S.Does the site of the proposed action contain any species ofanimal, or associated habitats, listed
by the State or Federal government as threatened or endangered?
NO YES
0 •
16.Is the projectsite located in the 100 year flood plain?NO YES
|/|1 1
17.Will the proposed action create storm water discharge,either from point or non-point sources?
IfYes,
a.Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties?Q NO I jYES
b. Willstorm water discharges bedirectedto establishedconveyancesystems (runoffand stormdrains)?
IfYes,briefly describe:DNO FHyES
NO YES
0 •
Page 2 of 3
18.Doesthe proposedaction include construction orother activities thatresultinthe impoundment of
wateror other liquids(e.g. retentionpond,waste lagoon,dam)?
IfYes,explain purpose andsize:
19.Has the site of the proposedactionor an adjoiningproperty been the locationof an activeor closed
solid waste managementfacility?
If Yes, describe:
20. Hasthesite of the proposedactionor an adjoiningpropertybeenthesubjectof remediation(ongoingor
completed)for hazardous waste?
If Yes, describe:
NO
0
NO
0
NO
0
YES
•
YES
•
YES
•
I AFFIRM THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE ///
Applicant'sponsor name:/o ix/ry Date:
Signature:f
PRINT FORM Page 3 of 3
Agency Use Only (If applicable]
Project:
Date:
Short Environmental Assessment Form
Part 2 -Impact Assessment
Park Lane Watermain Reconstruction
Part 2 is to becompleted by the Lead Agency.
Answerallofthe following questions inPart2 usingthe information contained inPart I andother materials submitted by
theprojectsponsoror otherwise available tothe reviewer.When answering the questions the reviewer should beguidedby
theconcept"Have my responses beenreasonableconsideringthescaleandcontextoftheproposedaction?"
No,or
small
Impact
may
occur
Moderate
to large
impact
may
occur
1.Willtheproposedactioncreatea material conflictwithanadoptedlanduseplanorzoning
regulations?0 •
2. Will the proposed action result ina changeinthe use or intensity of use of land?0 •
3. Will the proposedactionimpairthecharacteror quality ofthe existingcommunity?0 •
4. Will the proposedaction havean impacton the environmentalcharacteristicsthatcausedthe
establishment ofa Critical EnvironmentalArea(CEA)?
0 •
5.Will the proposedactionresultinan adversechangeinthe existingleveloftrafficor
affect existing infrastructurefor masstransit, bikingor walkway?0 •
6. Willthe proposed actioncausean increase intheuseof energy andit failsto incorporate
reasonablyavailableenergy conservationor renewableenergyopportunities?0 •
7. Will the proposed actionimpactexisting;
a. public / private water supplies?
b.public / private wastewater treatment utilities?
0 •
0 •
8. Will the proposedactionimpairthecharacteror quality of importanthistoric,archaeological,
architectural or aesthetic resources?0 •
9. Willthe proposedaction resultinanadversechangeto natural resources (e.g.,wetlands,
waterbodies,groundwater,air quality,floraand fauna)?0 •
10.Will the proposedaction result inan increasein the potentialforerosion, floodingor drainage
problems?0 •
11.Will the proposed actioncreatea hazardto environmentalresourcesor humanhealth?0 •
PRINT FORM Page 1 of2
Agenqr Use Only [If applicable]
Project:[Park Lane WaterMain
Date:
Short Environmental Assessment Form
Part 3 Determination ofSignificance
Forevery question inPart2thatwas answered "moderate to large impact may occur",orifthereisa needto explain whya
particular element ofthe proposed action may or will not result ina significant adverse environmental impact,please
complete Part 3.Part3 should,in sufficient detail,identify the impact,including any measures or design elements that
havebeen included bythe project sponsor to avoid orreduce impacts.Part3 should also explain howthelead agency
determined thatthe impact mayorwillnotbe significant.Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting,
probability of occurring,duration,irreversibility,geographic scopeand magnitude.Also consider the potential forshort-
term, long-termand cumulative impacts.
Tli^portion of the project Is a replacement "in kind"with the same size water main.Asection of existing 6inch
main on Joanne Dr and Park lane is being replaced with a new 8 inch main. This will assure adequate fireflowto
this area,however the area that can be served will remain unchanged.The Town of Ithaca has standardized the
minimumsize ofwater mains being placed to be 8 inches. When considered inthe context ofthe entire Townpublic
water system,however,the increase in size of this main inthis location is not expected to have a significant impact
on growth and development.
•Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above,and any supporting documentation,
that the proposed action may resultinone or morepotentiallylargeor significantadverse impactsand an
environmental impactstatement is required.
r~n/Check this box ifyou havedetermined,basedon the informationand analysisabove,and anysupportingdocumentation,
that the proposedaction will not resultinanysignificant adverseenvironmental impacts,i
/q ca/»->Q-f "f L c /}vP
,.Nameof^ead /\gency
Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency ^Title If Rejiponsibje Officer
Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (if different from Responsible Officer)
PRINT FORM Page 2 of2
CREATING A PLAN FOR PARKS &RECREATION
ITHACA TOWN BOARD MEETING
For more inrormation contact:
Liz Vance,Director
Ithaca Youtli Bureau
..i
Office:607-273-8364
or ;^'f 'i''!
JoAnn Cornish,Director '
Planning and Economic
Development '^
Office:607-274-655p~j3^^J^"
EmaiL'r
tueifeinHHH
MARCH 7,201fi
Why We Need a Park &Recreation
Master Plan
Weneed to developa long-term master plan forparks and recreation
withinthe Cityof Ithaca,with a special emphasis on CassParkand
Stewart Park.These facilities and programs are unique attractions that
are enjoyed regionally and shouldbesupported efficiently and effectively
forlongterm use.This plan will guide decisions relatingto futurecapital
projects,maintenance,programming,donationsand funding.
The parksand recreation facilities and programsare utilized by residents
from many different municipalities within our community.This study
will help ensurethat the voices and input of thesevaried users and their
representatives are includedin the plan asitis developed.
There are many stakeholders and groupsinterested in the useof Cass
and Stewart Parks and having access to the Cayuga Lake waterfront.
These groups have variousresourcesinvestedin the parks, and diverse
ideas of how the parksshould be utilizedand maintained. It will be
important to havea masterplan to helpguide decisions about park and
recreation revitalization,maintenance,access,development and cost
sharingthat dealswith these interests and needsin a comprehensive and
strategic way.
Why is the Master Plan important
to the Town of Ithaca?
1.Town of Ithaca residents use and value the
waterfront parks and facilities.Our data shows
that 30%of park and recreation users are Town
of Ithaca residents.
2.This plan supports municipal leaders in finding
an equitable way to share the cost of supporting,
maintaining and revitalizing these facilities and
parks for the benefit of all who use it.
3.Access to waterfront parks,an Olympic size
swimming pool,pavilions,an ice rink,athletic
fields,playgrounds,a fitness trail,tennis courts,
and more supplement existing pocket parks and
increase available recreation experiences for
Town residents.
4.Partnering with the City and County to support
and develop this study and plan,protects the
Town's interest and investment in area parks
and recreation.
5.This plan will ensure that the resources
contributed by all stakeholders will be used
efficiently to preserve and enhance these
resources for years to come.
The cost of the Master Plan
is budgeted at $100^000.
Current contributors to
funding the plan include
the City of Ithaca and
Tompkins County.It is
expected that we will also
seek supportfrom local
privatefoundations.
What We Hope to Learn
•How Should Cass and Stewart Parks be funded?
• How Should the City of Ithaca organize management
and oversight of the parks?
•What are development options and possible
amenities for underutilized parks?
•What should updates to Cass Park look like?How
should they be funded?
•How do we maintain infrastructure and make
sustainable improvements?What projects do we
prioritize?
•What are our financial requirements and resources?
._JJ
CHRINUJDRKE•15TRICTwww.chainworksdisfricf.com
EUNCHAINEDPROPERTIESLLCSiloliVIEWFROMCHAINDRIVELOOKINGNORTH01.26.2016CHRINjJJQRKS•I5TRICT
iUNCHAINEDPROPERTIESLLCVIEWFROMWESTENDOFGATEWAYTRAILLOOKINGSOUTH01.26.2016CHRINLUDRKB•I5TRICT
FOltRIHR.OORTHtRDaOORSECONOaOORFIRSTFLOORWESTELEVATIONFOURTHaOORSECONDaOOREASTELEVATIONFOURTHaOORS'"THIRDaOORsfcoNoaooRFIRSTFLOORNORTHELEVATIONUNCHAINEDPROPERTIESLLCDOUBLEHUNGWINKIWS—PATNTB3CONCRETETDbUBLEHUNGWINDOWSALUMINUMCOMPOStreALUMINUMSTORErPAINTEDPANEL SYSTEM..FRONT ENTRANCECONCRETE'\SYSTEM-ALUMINUMCOMPOSITEALUMINUMSTOREFRONTPANEL SYSTEM»ENTRANCESYSTEMT~r~r~r•PAINTEDCONCRETEDOUBLEHUNGWINDOWS'•'<ALUMINUMCOM-f,POSUEPANaf.•fi.SYSTEMPROPOSEDELEVATIONS•BUILDING2101.26.2016CHRINUJDRKS•I5TRICT
*.>ir'-UNCHAINEDPROPERTIESLLC4'.**•"''•*'**•^.•.^^I>**f..*>^^•••••'S'V•.'"/'a'-•'-j-<»'•"•"•''!"••>-'CONCEPTUALVISIONFORTHECWD01.26.2016CHHINLUORKB• ISTRICT
UNCHAINEDPROPERTIESLLCCONCEPTUALSITELAYOUTPLAN•BIRD'SEYEVIEW01.26.2016CHHINLUDRKB•I5TRICT
r\UNCHAINEDPROPERTIESLJ-CNATURALSUBAREA(CWI)TOTAL^ONtAREA1.0^9.404CSF/ACRESNEIGHBORHOODGENERALSUBAREA[CW2)TOTAL ZONEAfiEA-92J274GSf/JI.17ACRESNEIGHBORHOODCENTERSUBAREA(CW3|ICIAlZONEAREA- IyM.639GSF/39.73ACRESINDUSTRIALSUBAREA(CW4)TOTALZONEAREA-44/340GSF!10.27ACRES'/-PROPOSEDREZONINGREGULATINGPLAN01.26.2016CHHINUJDRKB•(STRICT
DevelopSiteutilizingttiemaximumbuild-out.Density25%greaterthanpreferredProject.my^'r'lTFfTrLUNCHAINEDPROPERTIESLLC'K'Tj][-RESIDENTIALrnOFFICE/COMMERCIAL'>%•»..•REASONABLEALTERNATIVES:MAXIMUMDEVELOPMENTSCENARIO01.26.2016CHRINLUDRK5GIBTRICT
5out of 7zoning clossifi^tipns at the site ore not industrid^iTHowev^r^^^^^'^pment wouldjDe-j^ffiited to industrial and ancillaryallowsindustrialuses,so dev
uses.
UNCHAINED PROPERTIES LLC
RESIDENTIAL
OFFICE/COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES:DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXISTING ZONING
01.26.2016
CHRIN LUDRK5 •I5TRICT
UNCHAINEDPROPERTIESLLCREASONABLEALTERNATIVES:NOACTION01,26,2016CHRINLUDRKB•IBTRICT
LEGEND
Lv/i Office /Mixed Use
Project Drive Identification
Residential Use
industno!Use
Sidewalks / Trails (Treatment Varies)
Apartments -Walk Up
y Apartments -Double Loaded Corridor
Apartments -Towntiouse
N#New Building Designation
rwn»
UNCHAINED PROPERTIES LLC
^JSSUtA-
™•..v-vv^•••
'WtiiM
PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT PLAN
01.26.2016
CHRIN LUDRK5 •I5TRICT
PARCELOU-UNCHAINEDPROPERTIESLLCEXISTINGSITE01.26.2016CHHINLJJDRK5DISTRICT
TO.WATKINSJSLEN:T^(2yMiLES)']'''i^....TOWATERLOO(42'MiLESl•i"-.1••UNCHAINEDPROPERTIESLLC-V• •TOHORSEHEADS(28MILES)"-'CAYUGALAKETOAUBURN(37,MILES)-vZ-<'+-vi-\CHAINWORKSDISTRICTTOWAVERLY//(36MILES)ITHACAVIllLAGEOFVf"/CAYUGAHEIGHTSV-JIICORNELLUNIVERSITY««....CITYOFITHACA^79;;— "TOWNOFITHACAXXv?''..i'i-X''XTOWHITNEY,'f>OINt|£,-!-^,(32MILES)?-.•.A""•-t.'r' ' •TOCORTLAND(32MILES)wTOWNOFDRYDENPROJECTLOCATION01.26.2016CHRINLUDRKB•I5TR1CT
APRIL2014-publicmeetingtointroducetineCInainWorks DistrictJULY2014-submissionofPionnedUnitDevelopment(PUD)andPlannedDevelopmentZone(PDZ)applicationsAUGUST2014-publicinformationsessionregardingttierezoningofftieSiteAUGUST/SEPTEMBER2014-submissionofSitePlanReviewapplicationsOCTOBER28,2014-CityPlanningBoardestablistiedasLeadAgencyand. •'PositiveDeclarationof EnvironmentalSignificance/FEAF,,Parts2and3,-fNOVEMBER2014-publicinformationsessionregardingttieinitialenvironmental'findingsfortfie95-acreSite^"^*NOVEMBER18,2014-public.scopingmeeting;•>•1."I'o-'JANUARY13,2015- FinalScfpingDocumentfortheDGEISadoptedJANUARY2015-JANUARY2016-projectteamdevelopsprojectandDGEIS2•f'T'JANUARY5,2016-subrinissionofDGEIS,forAdequacyRevievv/1.fWHEREWE'VEBEEN01.26.2016ONCHAINEDPROPERTIESU_CCHHINLUDRKBDISTRICT
UNCHAINEDPROPERTIES-developerPAGANENGINEERS&LANDSURVEYORS-projectleadandcivilengineeringHARTER,SECREST,ANDEMERY-environmental,landuse,andzoninglawCHAINTREUL|JENSEN|STARKARCHITECTS-architectureandplanningWHITHAMPLANNING ANDDESIGN-projectplanningapprovalsSTREAMCOLLABORATIVE-zoningdevelopmentanddesignguideiinesLABELLAP.C. -environmentalconsultingSRF& ASSOCIATES -trafficandtransportationengineeringRANDALL+WEST-LEEDNDandplanningconsultingBROUSCONSULTING -publicoutreachAUSTIN+ MERGOLD -architecture,brandingandoutreachUNCHAINEDPROPERTIESLLCCHAINWORKSTEAM01.26.2016CHRINLUDRKB• ISTRICT
CHRINLUDRKE•lETRICT01.26.2016
To:Town Board:
From:Lawrence P.Fabbroni,P.E.,L.S
Re:Proposed Two Family Moratorium
Date:March 6.2016
Iam writing to oppose the contemplated moratorium on two family homes for the following reasons:
1. The problems stated for the need for a study period are for the most part past history.Five years ago the
sheriffs office was asked to patrol areas more frequently and other than one or
two block parties the problems of noise can be traced to isolated incidents since.
2. The owner/builder/maintenance people directly affected by this capricious action are the heart and sole
of the Ithaca community.They are among several multi-generational families who have served and
improved the Town housing needs over my 42 years in Ithaca. The action shows little respect for the fact
that they build,maintain,and police their properties on a daily basis. They have largely provided the new
and safe housing for the rental demand in the town since the mega apartment projects in the northeast
of the early 1970s. Unlike town favored mega apartment projects on west hill there is not the blotter of
police calls and arrests because the owners are on the job daily and minutes away upon complaint.
3. Inparticular the history of the Pennsylvania-Kendall Avenue rebirth can be best learned and told byJim
and Antoinette lacovelli.Jim grew up with hisfamily on KendallAvenue and has continued to livein the
neighborhood now well into his80s. His brothers and extended family have transformed the old early
1900s settlement of poorly insulated homes some contaminated with asbestos to modern safe durable
housing. Others likeRonRonsvallegrew up on South Hilll and contributed to history that isbeing ignored..
4.Larry and Jim lacovelli proposed building brick multi-family or side by side duplex homes while leaving
empty lots for open space and after doing so several times progressively,the politics or prejudices in the
Town stopped that successful approach leavingonly the legal gray box approach you now see multiple
times over. The town instead of addressing their perceived wants and needs with the owners head on
continues through this proposed obstruction of the moratorium to attempt to achieve poorly defined
outcomes through more regulation rather than engagement and compromise.The results will be just as
unsatisfactory aesthetically as the regulatory changes of the past 30 years.
5. Your misconceived or false reasons will affect multiple talented tradesmen lives for a full year at the start
ofplanned activities forthisconstructionseason andshouldbesubjectto damagesThe timing and length
of the moratorium shows no concept or consideration for fine craftsmen and their livelihoods.
6.Irrespective ofthe above points, this actionisor borderson discrimination ofrenters whether students
or persons of modest or limitedincomeand has no placeinthe governance of a town with over40%
rentals properties. I have presenteda modelof towngown50 yearsuccess in managingoff campus
housing from the University of Dayton several times topast administrations with absolutely no followup
discour.se or even the professionalcourtesyof noticeof this latestambushof rights.
7. Ifyoutook the two hoursat the assessment officeittook meto determine that the Pennsylvania-Kendall
neighborhoodisat least 85%rental propertiesyouwouldproceed more cautiously inyourcourseof
action and determine a cooperative course of dialogue rather than taking a precipitous action that will
waste a lot of everyone's time discussing the owners 'rights and damages in court.
After giving most ofmyprofessionallifeto anonymously improving the Town of Ithacainfrastructurethis
latest example of your losingtouch with the real doers who have invested over generations in the town
isvery disappointing.Itseems there are those whoare allabout wielding power bequeath to them versus
those taxpayers and workers that have made the Town they care about workinspite ofthe misguided.
•heritageparkTDWNHSEKENDALLAVENUECORPMISC,RENTALFORr^XPURTOSESOM<Y...V^hCKUtni>»vWb1ipttm.otfTurr•».o*tArut,OfintACAr^fntIm)•«uiCw^Tw>/ftVmf^Mnw>UHmTruMVtartAntUANnto'"'pQ•-'Ai.p^i?-k'D'hNI'-jeiAur]\''rl1.1JIM8.ANTOINETTElACDVELL'.A,,L;1-itj'lL..[_![iO'v.LB'JIJD>lACOVELLlSTEElETOWNOPniUCAuamjaewwn