HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 1989-04-10TOWN OF ITHACA
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
;^ril 10, 1989
At a Regular Meeting of the Tcwn Board of the Town of Ithaca,
TonE^ins County, New York, held at the Town Hall, 126 East Seneca
Street, Ithaca, New York, on the 10th day of April, 1989, there
were:
PRESENT:
ALSO PRESENT!
Noel Desch, Supervisor
Henry McPeak, Councilman
Shirley Raffensperger, Coimcilwaran
Robert Bartholf, Councilman
Patricia Leary, Cbxmcilwatian
David Klein, Councilman
John Whitcarb, Councilman
John Ozolins, Highway Superintendent
John Barney, Town Attorney
Erik Whitney, Assistant Town Engineer
Edward Olmstead, Ithaca Fire Department
Lisa E. Blackwell, Cornell University
Stephen Sackett, 181 Kendall Avenue
t^nrtle Whitcanb, 233 Troy Road
Carolyn Grigorov, 126 Snyder Hill Road
Bill Hilker, Bums Road
Robert De Lery, 122 Linn Street
Karl Niklas, 1005 Danby Road
Ed Cobb, 1005 Danby Road
Orlando lacovelli, 270 Pennsylvania Avenue
David Carr, 674 Coddington Road
Ralph lacovelli, 240 Pennsylvania Avenue
Mary Rollins, 139 Northview Road
N. W. Rollins, 139 Northview Road
Bill Steel, 121 Kendall Avenue
David Bowlsby, 262 Pennsylvania Avenue
Kinga Gergely, 106 Juniper Drive
B. Siirpson, 112 Pine View Terrace
Ron Siirpson, 112 Pine View Terrace
Robert Cotts, 115 Northview Road
Dave Auble, 250 Troy Road
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Supervisor led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance.
REPORT OF TCWN OFFICIALS
Sijpervisor's Report
Supervisor Desch reported that the Tcwn had received a request frcm
the Winner's Circle developers to establish a lighting district to
encompass their development. This came to our attention as the
agenda was being mailed so it didn't get on the agenda but we
should set a hearing date for our May meeting in order to keep the
process as simple as possible. The developer and new property
owners will be paying for the costs of the li^ts \^ch has been
established hy NYSEG. In the meantime, the district description
will be provided for the notice.
Tcwn Board Minutes 2 i^ril 10, 1989
RESOLUTIOJ NO, 79
Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Coimcilman McPeak,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will meet and
conduct a public hearing at 7:00 P.M., on May 8, 1989 to consider
establishing a lighting district for the Winner's Circle
development.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Klein and Whitccmb
voting Aye. Nays - none).
Kendall Avenue
Supervisor Desch stated that the Town has been asked to help
resolve seme minor errors on an \mdeveloped portion of Kendall
Avenue, on behalf of several private property owners, v^re a
survey correction will result in lots that are 6" to 9" less than
the 50' frontage requirement. A piece of Kendall Avenue would be
extended at the property owners expense - a role that the Town
might coordinate. Since something like eight plots are involved,
we have suggested that one map describing the v^ole correction area
be made.
Route 96
Supervisor Desch stated that the Board has been invited to a
meeting at City Hall on Route 96 vdien Mr. Siraberg will be meeting
with Ccnmon Council on April 17th at 7:00 P.M.
Water and Sewer Studies
Supervisor Desch noted that the engineers doing our water and sewer
studies are well underway having met jointly with us and also the
City to complete the data gathering phase. The report on Elmira
Road is due i^ril 20th.
New Engineer
Supervisor Desch noted that the new Town Engineer starts tomorrow
and is with us this evening. Our staff has a nice orientation
program ready in addition to a challenging stack of work to be
done.
Computers
Supervisor Desch stated that we are making good headway on the
computer acquisition thanks to staff teamwork. Zoning now has the
unit engineering was using for their CAD work and we now have a
much faster CAD machine for engineering's work.
Highway Superintendent's Report
Highway Superintendent John Ozolins remarked, as far as activities
for the highway on maintenance we have changed over one cinder
truck back into a dump tinick and we have had a couple other trucks
serviced. As far as road activities, we spent over a week on Stone
Quarry Road pruning as well as removing some dead trees. We put in
a drain tile underneath West Haven Road because the water was
bubbling up and we are still having problemis with that. He stated
that he did not know if it was water in the ground working its way
up or if it is still caning down the sewer line. Today we dug
along the shoulder of the road and put in scrnie more stone. We will
be picking up the road sweeping on Friday and this will be a about
a two week activity. Also, we will be looking at sane of the catch
basins especially in the Forest Hone area as well as Winston Court.
A vacuum sweeper will be used to clean out the d^ris in the catch
basins. The Highway Superintendent stated that he hoped to start
the paving projects on May 1st. We will be using our trucks, a
truck from Dryden as well as a possible truck from Newfield. He
Town Board Minutes 3 April 10, 1989
stated that he had also arranged to rent seme other trucks so that
they can get as many tons a day as possible and get the paving over
as quickly as possible.
1989 PAVING PLAN
The Highway Superintendent stated that he has broken down the
report to roads to be paved and the material costs, they do not
include the man hour costs or the equipment costs. The Highway
Superintendent stated that he had excluded West Haven Road from the
planned roads to be paved because with the development that will be
going on up on the northern end of West Haven and with the State
redoing the Mecklenburg Road there will be a lot of traffic on West
Haven Road and so rather than putting it down and having it beaten
apart by all the truck traffic, he planned to wait a year.
RESOIOTigj NO. 80
Motion by Councilman Bartholf; seconded by Councilman McPeak,
RESOLVED, that the Tcwn Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approve
the Agreement for the Expenditure of Highway Moneys.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Klein and Whitccmb
voting Aye. Nays - none).
The Highway Superintendent presented the Parks Department report,
he noted one item, that being nesting boxes. He stated that the
Parks Department has had a lot of problem with the placing of the
boxes because of vandalism. He did not know vtot could be done
about it but it is beccming necessary to replace the boxes once and
sanetimes twice a year.
Si:5)ervisor Desch asked, how many boxes do we own?
Mr. Ozolins replied, they are all over, he did not know how many
but there are a lot.
Supervisor Desch suggested that the Parks Manager give the Board an
estimate of the cost.
Town Engineer's Report
Assistant Tcwn Engineer Erik Whitney stated that about 1,000 feet
of the gravity main is in on the East Shore Sewer Project. They
have had to jump aroimd a bit because of the difficull^ of getting
easements and now there is a problem between Conrail and the Town
of Ithaca in the negotiations of the right of way occupations lease
agreement. If we do not arrive at a solution in two weeks it could
incur considerable delay time costs. Friday we received the
Liebermah easement. Mr. Whitney noted that Larry Salmi has been
doing an excellent job as inspector on the project and has kept a
beautiful log and photos of the project. Phase II, Taughannock
Boulevard, is complete except for seme minor restoration and clean
up and a rather large problem with settlement. It looks like about
a half mile section of shoulder will have to be replaced as soon as
the asphalt plants open up. We are going to have to provide
metering for both the sewer and water on Taughannock Boulevard at
the City line sometime in the future. The Caitpbell Avenue section
of Phase I Sewer was stopped a year ago because of the detour and
are scheduled to resume construction on April 17th. Mr. Whitney
noted that the studies were undeirway for the 1989 Water and Sewer
Projects for Inlet Valley, West Hill and South Hill.
Town Board Minutes 4 ^ril 10, 1989
Building Inspector/Zoning Officer's Report
Building Inspector/Zoning Officer Andrew Frost reported that for
the month of March, 15 building permits were issued for a total
construction cost of a little over $650,000. We issued sane
building permits up at a development just above Ithaca College,
those building permits were for foundations only. He went on to
say that for the month of March 22 Certificates of Coipliance were
issued, 14 corplaints, 97 field visits, 39 uniform code
inspections, 5 fire occurrences, 50 zoning inspections and 4 fire
safety inspections.
Town Planner's Report
Town Planner Beeners stated that there was an ^ril 6th
Comprehensive Planning Subcanmittee meeting to discuss the
Comprehensive Plan Draft Statement and guidelines, the meeting will
be continued Thursday as it ran a little late. The consultant
expects, after receiving the minutes from on the meeting on the 6th
and this Thursdays meeting that he would then be preparing a draft
preliminary report to present to the Conprehensive Planning
Subcominittee with his overall recairoendations as far as planning,
around the last week in ^^ril, the first week in May. The Town
Planner went on to say that the Town Board had received her staff
comments on the South Hill Recreational Rivers Designation v^en it
was initially proposed to the Planning and Development Coninittee of
the City. She stated that she expected to have a more detail
report on it for the Planning Board next Tuesday. The City has
endorsed designation of the river within the City as a recreational
river and is asking for similar endorsement by the Town. However,
she stated that she has not received any formal notice or inquiries
about it.
Supervisor Desch remarked, the MI resolution did not exclude Beebe
Lake, he asked if this was intentional?
The Town Planner replied, the proposal as it is before the State
and as she understood it with everjtody was excluding Beebe Lake.
There is a problem getting a map showing actual boundaries.
The Town Planner went on to say that she had done field visits to
College Circus and Briar Patch Veterinary Hospital. College Circus
was to discuss with adjacent residents the planting plan and to get
their input. Brian Patch was to discuss the project with the
veterinarian v^o is building the project down on the Elmira Road.
REPORT OF COUNTY BOARD OF REPRESEMIATIVES
No County Representatives were present at the meeting.
1988 INVESTMENT REPORT
The 1988 Investment Report was presented to the Town Board noting
the previous years investment income. The Board accepted the
report, however, no action by the Board was necessary.
SALARY ADJUSTMENTS
RESOLUTION NO. 81
Motion by Councilwcman Raffensperger; seconded by Councilman
Bartholf,
WHEREAS, P. Erik Whitney has assumed the responsibilities of Town
Engineer since the termination of Robert Flumerfelt, and
Tcfwn Board Minutes 5 ^ril 10, 1989
WHEREAS, P. Erik Whitney has perfontied these additional
responsibilities with a high degree of professionalism and
efficiency,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of
Ithaca hereby approve a salary adjustment for P. Erik Whitney of
$1,850 (1/2 the difference between the Assistant Town Engineer and
Town Engineer Scilaries for a 3-inonth period) to be paid in two
separate additional checks on April 14 and T^ril 28 to minimize the
tax burden.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffenspeirger, Bartholf, Leary, Klein and Whitconib
voting Aye. Nays - none).
RESOLUTION NO. 82
Motion by Councilman McPeak; seconded by Councilwcman Leary,
WHEREAS, Patricia Punger has assumed an increased level of scope of
responsibilities in the Payroll and Personnel functions of the
Town, and
WHEREAS, a new job title of Payroll/Personnel Administrative
Assistant and a new job description for this position have been
created to reflect these changes, and
WHEREAS, the Personnel Ccnmittee has reviewed these changes and
reconinends that they be accepted,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of
Ithaca hereby approve the new job title and description and that
Patricia Punger receive a salary adjustment of $1.00 per hour
effective April 10, 1989, in recognition of these changes.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Klein and Whitccmb
voting Aye. Nays - none).
RESOLUTION NO. 83
Motion by Councilwcman Leary; seconded by Councilwcman
Raffensperger,
WEffiREAS, Sally Alario has assumed an increased depth and breadth of
responsibilities for the accounting functions of the Town, and
WHEREAS, the job title has been changed to Accounting Supervisor
and the job description for this position has been updated to
reflect these changes, and
WHEREAS, the Personnel Coranittee has reviewed these changes and
reccsiroends that they be accepted,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of
Ithaca hereby accepts the revised title and job description and
that Sally Alario receive a salary adjustment of $1,200 annually
effective i^ril 10, 1989, in recognition of these changes.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Klein and Whitccrab
voting Aye. Nays - none).
CHASE ROAD ALIGNMENT
Town Board Minutes 6 April 10, 1989
David A\±>le, developer of the Chase Farm Project stated that they
had actually debated in withdrawing the proposal for a change in
the intersection of Chase Lane and LaGrand Court to incorporate an
island in the middle because of reservations by Town staffs
regarding the safety and maintenance and they respect the staffs
concerns. He stated that they decided to go ahead though and put
it on the table because they had a fair amount of design costs into
it as this point. He stated that their real interests were in
making the coMiunity a little bit more pedestrian friendly. He
stated that they had polled sonne neighbors and they feel it is an
inprovement. He stated they had done sane additional research and
they are still feeling it is an inprovement. He stated that they
felt that at least if it does present a burden to the Town at least
they would have an example to point to that would give thou a
reason to refuse future requests of this kind. So, they would like
to put it up to the Board to evaluate it and give the developers
their feelings on it.
Supervisor Desch ronarked that one concern he had was the
responsibility for the maintenance of the island. He stated that
he was concerned in the Town assuming a responsibility there that
it would not be in a very good position to acccanmodate he level of
maintenance desired.
Mr. Auble replied, one of the reasons that he was actually
considering pulling it back, he started to see more and more of
that concern and seeing v^t the Tcwn Planner was concerned about.
He stated that he guessed their feeling was that with good design
they could pretty much alleviate that problon. We are not here to
put a burden on the Tcwn and they feel that they are concerned
about the safety of the residents and this would be an overriding
concern. Because of that our feeling is to go forward with the
proposal. Our construction schedule is such that we need to get a
decision, otherwise they would be able to postpone it for a couple
of weeks but at this point we are caught in a bind.
Councilman Whitconb remarked that since the proposal was put
together he understood that sane of the signage was reduced?
Mr. Auble replied, in our meeting today with the Tcwn Planner,
Highway Si:perintendent and Assistant Engineer we did cone to seme
agreement to reduce seme of the signage.
Si:pervisor Desch asked the Town Attorney vtot would h^jpen if the
Tcwn said okay, this is not a bad idea or we can live with it
providing we don't own the circle in the middle, therefore, we
don't have any maintenance on it?
Tcwn Attorney Barney replied, you are supposed to get a 60'
right-of-way, are we going to get 60' around the circle?
Mr. Auble replied, no it is not 60'.
Town Attorney Barney remarked, if we don't own the circle then he
felt there should be the 60' minimum highway width all around it.
It seemed to him the abutments or painted islands would almost have
to be owned by the Town. He asked if the island was just paint
stripes on the road?
Mr. Auble replied no, the island would be curbed.
Town Attorney Barney remarked that his next question was vdio was
going to own the island after the developer has left the area?
Supervisor Desch rouarked, there is no homeowners association in
this particular case.
Town Board Minutes 7 i^ril 10, 1989
Mr. Auble remarked that Mr. Lesser (Planning Board) mentioned that
the maintenance of the foot path would be kind of a similar
situation and since the Town would be basically overseeing that or
responsible for it that this was a similar situation.
Town Attorney Barney replied that we would either have an easonent
or we would own the foot path. If we don't own the circle then it
becanes an interesting question as to whether or not we want to
have it.
Supervisor Desch remarked, one problem is that if we don't own it
is controlling visibility around it \fthich would be a concern.
The Tcwn Attorney added, if you owned it and it didn't work out you
could pave it over.
Councilvranan Raffensperger asked, v^t about plowing it?
Highway Superintendent Ozolins replied that that was his major
concern. It's one thing to have sonething like this in a
cul-de-sac, here you are looking at major road. You would have to
go through this at least twice. He went on to say that this was an
inconvenience and if this happens to beccme a fad and we get more
of these he was going to need more equipment and more people. If
we didn't have to plow it but the more snow we get the longer it
will take.
Councilman Klein asked, in the Southwoods Subdivision isn't there a
cul-de-sac with an island in it?
Highway Superintendent Ozolins replied yes there is, however, if
this was just a straight cul-de-sac it woiild not be a problem and
in fact he wouldn't mind seeing something like this in a straight
cul-de-sac for the simple reason that right now we clean out
cul-de-sac and dump the snow in somebodys shoulder in front of
their house. If there was an island in the middle its one way
aroimid, the other way around and you are out.
Councilwoman Raffensperger remarked, if we were to get similar
requests in other subdivisions it seemed to her the Board would be
adding quite a biarden for our Parks Department and our Highway
Department and one that she foimd a little hard to justify. She
stated that she understood the safety concerns, the road as
designed is not a straight shot vAiich she felt was very attractive
and perhaps as a safety kind of device was not absolutely
necessary.
Mr. Auble replied, they had the suggestion of speed bumps or
something because it really was a concern in that area and they
really feel safety is iirportant, if a child, elderly person or
handicapped person crosses the road to their mailboxes, its already
a hazard on the Troy and Ridgecrest Road area. They just wanted to
make it a little more pedestrian friendly.
Councilman Whitcomb asked if there was any way it could be put in
on a trial basis, establishing no precedent?
Supervisor Desch replied sure, if they are willing to take it out.
Except they would be throwing away a fair amount of money.
Mr. Auble replied that they were willing to risk it.
Councilwoman Raffensperger ronarked, but you can't really take out
that circular pattern, you can take out the middle, right?
Supervisor Desch replied, you could pave it over.
Tcfwn Board Minutes 8 i^ril 10, 1989
Mr. Auble remarked, you could actually do a little different design
that would probably help the Highway Department, a rectangular type
design. There are a number of different things that could be done
that would be an alternative to that.
Supervisor Desch remarked, suppose we approved it subject to the
Town Engineer and the Town Highway Superintendent approval?
Councilman McPeak remarked, Mr. Auble has said he was willing to
give it a try and then if it doesn't work we will correct the
problon.
Councilwcman Raffensperger asked, if it doesn't work can it be
remedied?
Si:5)ervisor Desch replied, it should be built into the resolution as
a one year trial. The developers are going to be there for more
than a year and there will be a letter of credit or an escrow
account that will extend beyond that so there will be funds
available. He want Mr. Auble to realize that the Town had the
authority to spend the money if the Town were to take it out. It
would be the developers cost either way if the Town said take it
out.
Councilwcman Raffensperger asked, who is going to own the middle
and v^o is going to maintain it?
Supervisor Desch replied, the Town would own it vdiich means the
Town will probably be maintaining it.
Councilwcman Leary asked, if we didn't maintain it vdio would?
Supeirvisor Desch replied, nobody. There isn't going to be anybody
there.
Mr. Auble ronarked, we have looked at some designs that he felt
they could assure the maintenance of being basically maintenance
free.
Town Attorney Barney asked \diat the surface of the island was going
to be?
Mr. Auble replied, we have had several suggestions and we have a
landscape architect v^o will evaluate and suggest plantings. He
also felt the Town Planner's background as a botanist will be
helpful in evaluating their suggestions and he felt they could
suggest plantings that would be virtually maintenance free.
Councilman Klein remarked to go back to Southwoods, even though the
Highway Superintendent addressed that in terms of snow plowing but
vdio owns that island?
Town Planner Beeners replied, the Town owns that. This is,
however, the first three-way intersection so it is siabstantially
different than the others.
Town Attorney Barney asked, has somebody studied the safety aspect
of having something studc in the middle of a road? It's one thing
to have it in a cul-de-sac where you are coming to the end of a
road anyway but it seemed to him another thing Tdien you have it
vdiere you have an intersection with a straight shot through.
Supervisor Desch remarked, that's the reason for all the signage.
Town Board Minutes 9 i^ril 10, 1989
Tcwn Attorney Barney added, if scxnebody gets injured because they
run into that laitp post stuck in the middle of the road there, for
sure we will be involved in a law suit.
Town Planner Beeners stated that her concern was the vegetation in
the island v^ch could be es^pensive to maintain.
Supervisor Desch asked the Board what their pleasure was. He asked
if there was a motion to do scmething, if not we will just send it
back and let them think about it sane more.
Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that she would like to hear the
concerns of all the staff and the legal concerns before she voted
on it one way or another.
Si:?)ervisor Desch felt staff should have the opportunity to look
into it. He felt the answer was no on this one but if they had an
opportunity in the futiare, v^en there was staff time to look into
it in detail, we wouldn't exclude listening to it again, since the
developer need to move forward.
mOCATIOJ OF TCWN COURT TO TOMPKINS COUNTy
Supervisor Desch stated that the only thing left to do in moving
the Town Court is the final details with the County. He expected
to meet with Mert Wallenbeck and Scott Heyman soon.
Councilwoman Raffensperger asked vdiat the cost would be?
Supervisor Desch replied, it should be nothing.
RESOLUTION NO. 84
Motion by Councilman McPeak; seconded by Councilwoman
Raffensperger,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby formally
request the County to permit the Town to use the County Court
facilities both in the newer Court Hoxise and the older Court House.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Klein and Whitcomb
voting Aye. Nays - none).
APPOINTMENT OF TOWN REPRESENTATIVE m COUNTY YOUTH BUREAU
RESOLUTION NO. 85
Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman McPeak,
WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca has not had a representative on the
County Youth Board for seme time, and
WEIEREAS, Mrs. Pamela J. Hanna resides in the Town of Ithaca, has
been actively attending the Youth Board meetings and is qualified
and interested in serving,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of
Ithaca hei?eby appoints Pamela J. Hanna as the Town's representative
to the County Youth Board for the ratainder of a 3-year term
expiring on December 31, 1989.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Klein and Whitccmb
voting Aye. Nays - none).
Town Board Minutes 10 ^ril 10, 1989
CERTIFICATE OF OOCUPAICY
Town Attorney Barney stated that he and the Building Inspector have
discussed this and are in agreonent with all but the paragraph with
the brackets. He went on to say, the Certificate of Occupancy
serves multiple roles, the roost ccanomon role is probably v^ere you
have new construction and at the conclusion of that construction
the Building Inspector certifies that the construction roeets with
the plans and in conformance with the Unified Building Code and the
Zoning Ordinance. The first three paragraphs take care of that
certification. The second role that the Certificate of Occupancy
or the Certificate of Compliance, vtotever you want to call it,
serves is that vtoi you have existing construction or existing
inprovements you are either transferring title or a bank is
financing and they want some evidence frcxn the local municipality
that as far as that municipality is concerned it is in compliance.
Historically we have certified only compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance. The records that the Town kept over the years weren't
really that easy to interpret so that the person vdio was acting as
Building Inspector was comifortable in certifying anything other
than vdiat had been accomplished during his or her reigns and Mr.
Frost had the same reservations. The question is vhether or not
the Tbwn want's to go a little out on the limb and make this
certificate for lenders and perspective buyers. He stated that
this is basically vhat this paragraph with the bracket is. If we
have the records, if an inspection is made and if the Building
Inspector is reasonably satisfied that he has adequate information
to make the certification, he can then certify that the building
does meet Building Codes and was constructed in accordance with the
Building Code that was in effect vhen it was constructed. If he
doesn't have that information then he simply doesn't check that box
and the certificate doesn't do that. He stated that the Building
Inspector questions vhether we need or want to do it at all.
Building Inspector/Zoning Officer Andrew Frost replied that on the
current certificate of vhich this obviously is a new format, vdiat
we do on the current certificate vtoch says a building complies
with the Zoning Ordinance, building code and other related laws of
the Town of Ithaca. For existing building we scratch out v^ere it
say building code and we do certifications for the Zoning Ordinance
and other local laws. He stated that his reservations have always
been, (1) based upon prior records that we have have not been
really complete in \tot the Town actually approved originally, if
there was a building permit in the construction of the building,
(2) even with buildings that he may have ajproved two years ago you
have certain deteriorations that will occur, perhaps to the
foundation, the framing behind the walls that you can't observe,
the electrical systeams. We do not do the electrical inspections,
for example. There may be some breakdown in the electrical systems
and we certify that the building meets building code and maybe they
have an electrical fire the next month, he felt that put the Town
in an avtaard position. Foundations obviously are below soil you
cannot see a crack in there that may give way. Typically you don't
hear about a building falling apart due to failed foundations and
we don't hear that often about buildings that bum up because of
electrical fires but his reservations are that in dealing with
something that has all of a sudden aged in the process and then
certifying somnething that has existed for a year, two years, five
years, twenfy-five years.
Town Attorney Barney replied that the language was crafted to
deliberately not say it meets building code, as the language says
the inspection revealed no apparent deficiencies. He can't tell
v^at is going on between the sheetrock and the wall.
Town Board Minutes 11 i^ril 10, 1989
Supervisor Desch asked, vdiat do you do in the case of existing
buildings now?
Mr. Frost replied, the one thing in terms of building code, there
is a section of the building code that gives you certain things
that apply to existing buildings, smoke detector being inside the
building. We walk through the building to see if there are any
gross problems, for exanple the foundation is totally falling
apart, we have seen hot water heaters that are not vented, we have
seen gas vent pipe either from a furnace or a hot water heater that
are disconnected. The things that very obviously jurtp out and slap
you in the face, we will do a cover letter. The certificate once
again only certifies from a zoning standpoint and we will note on
the certificate "see attached letter". The attached letter will
address any building concerns. Usually things can be resolved
between the current owner and the buyer.
Supervisor Desch asked, if you didn't have this paragraph in here
would you have a separate certificate of occupancy for existing
houses?
Mr. Frost replied, only from a zoning standpoint. He stated that
banks have never come back to him as asked why he wasn't certifying
frcm a building code standpoint.
Town Attorney Barney remarked, if we took that paragraph out we
would use this certificate for both but the third paragraph would
be limited, as it is now, to just new construction so there would
be no building code certification at all in connection with
existing buildings.
Mr. Frost remarked that in discussions with the Town Attorney he
did not think the City of Ithaca certified it fran an electrical
standpoint. And then he got to thinking about mechanical, we don't
turn on the air conditioner or heaters to see vdiat the mechanical
situation is. If you want to cover the building perhaps we need to
be discussing vdiat we are excluding.
Councilman Klein remarked that he did not see vhat purpose is
served by the bracketed paragraph. He stated that he could
certainly understand the zoning caipliance because that's sonething
the Town can do to determine vhether a structure is occupied within
zoning classification but he thought the burden of a building
inspection should really be, in the case of a bank, should be on
their people to assess the condition of it and not put the burden
on the Building Inspectors Department even with apparent and other
types of legalistic phrases to sort of get the Town off the hook
but he felt this was putting an awful lot of responsibility on the
Town staff to inspect buildings.
Town Attorney Barney replied, the problem, and he had no axe to
grind, was that the sophisticated lender usually wants a
certificate from a public official that is more than just a zoning
certificate. He heard \tot the Building Inspector was saying, that
no bank has ever come back, but he did not think that the common
residential kind of mortgage loan, they say they want a certificate
of occupancy, he did not think anjtoiy ever reads them, they walk
into the closing and you see a certificate of occupancy on top
together with a pile of papers for that closing and on they go to
something else. A sophisticated lender with a fairly sizable
commercial transaction usioally does want something more than that.
There is no law that says we have to do it.
Mr. Frost replied, there are also people in the business vho go out
and do those kinds of things, they certify it from a building code
standpoint.
Town Board Minutes 12 ^ril 10, 1989
Mr. Barney replied, except that those people in business are not
necessarily going to have access to our records. The Building
Inspector is the one v^en the building is constructed and goes out
and expects and says okay that foundation is put in according to
the requirements because you inspected it during various times of
construction. A contracted building inspector will never see that,
never have access to that.
Councilman Klein remarked that his problem was with existing
buildings.
Mr. Barney replied that any building that the Building Inspector
inspects today and gives a certificate of occupancy beccmes an
existing building tcmorrow, next week or next year or two years
frcm now.
Mr. Frost remarked, that a couple of things start to happen, one is
the foundations are backfilled the electrical system starts to have
a certain amount of wear and tear as well as the heating system.
He went on to say that for years they have certified new buildings,
we do not in all cases require nor do we get survey maps as an
as-built, so we certify these properties but without a survey map
we cannot accurately determine v^ether they have proper setbacks,
front and side yards so we built into this resolution, should you
adopt the new certificate of ccnpliance, authorizing the Building
Inspector to get survey maps, if he deems necessary.
RESOLUTICM NO. 86
Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman Klein,
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca recognizes the need
to revise and amend the existing Certificate of Cotpliance
(Occxjpancy), and
WHEREAS, said Town Board further recognizes the need for obtaining
a property survey map, prepared by a New York State licensed land
surveyor, in order to determine ccmpliance with the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of
Ithaca accepts and authorizes the use of the revised and amended
Certificate of Occu^jancy, without the bracketed paragraph, as
presented on April 10, 1989, and
FURTHER IT IS RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes the Town
Zoning Enforcement Officer/Building Inspector to require the
submission of a property survey map, prepared by a New York State
licensed land surveyor, prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy,
AND FURTHER IT IS RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes
the Town Zoning Enforcement Officer/Building Inspector to waive the
requirement for a property survey map v^en at his discretion, it is
deemed unnecessary, except in those cases v^ere such waiver may be
in conflict with other requirements for a property survey map
irtposed by a Board of the Town of Ithaca or by applicable laws,
rules, or regulations.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Klein and Whitccan±>
voting Aye. Nays - none) .
SPEED LIMIT REDUCTIONS - WARREN ROAD AND CODDINGTON ROAD
Town Board Minutes 13 April 10, 1989
RESOLUTIOJ NO. 87
Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman McPeak,
WHEREAS, the section of Warren Road between Hanshaw Road and the
Village of Lansing line has seen increased traffic and
construction, and
WHEREAS, the residents of Warren Road have requested a reduction of
the speed limit to 30 MPH,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of
Ithaca hereby authorizes the Highway Si:^)erjLntendent to apply to the
New York State Department of Transportation through the Tonpkins
County Ccnimissioner of Public Works to reduce the speed limit on
Warren Road from Hanshaw Road to the Village of Lansing line from
40 MPH to 30 MPH,
AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that petition also be entered to extend
the School Zone northward to the Town/Village line to encompass the
Ithaca Childcare Center.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Klein and Whitcanb
voting Aye. Nays - none).
RESOLUTIOJ NO. 88
Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Coimcilman Whitconib
WHEREAS, the residents of the Coddington Road have petitioned the
Town of Ithaca for a reduction in the speed limit,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of
Ithaca hereby authorize the Highway Superintendent to apply to the
New York State Department of Transportation through the Tat^dcins
County Ccmmissioner of Public Works to reduce the speed limit on
Coddington Road from 930 Coddington Road to the Town line from 55
MPH to 45 MPH.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Klein and Whitcatib
voting Aye. Nays - none).
PERSONS TO BE HEARD
No one present wished to speak at this time.
FIRE STAFFING COMMITTEE
Supervisor Desch stated that in addition to himself he would like
to appoint Councilwcman Raffensperger and Councilman Bartholf to
the Fire Staffing Ccmmittee.
RESOLUTION NO. 89
Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman McPeak,
RESOLVED, that the TOwn Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approve
the appointment of Councilwcman Raffensperger and Councilman
Bartholf, with S\:5)ervisor Desch, to the Fire Staffing Conmittee.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Klein and Whitccmb
voting Aye. Nays - none).
Town Board Minutes 14 Pipril 10, 1989
RESPGSrSE TO THE SOUTH HILL PETITION FOR REZOJING FROM R-9 TO R-15
Supervisor Desch remarked that normally a petition for rezoning
would be referred to the Planning Board for their study.
Councilman Whitcorab asked, vAiy the Planning Board?
S\:^rvisor Desch replied, the Planning Board would study the
request and make a reccninendation to the Town Board.
Councilwcman Raffensperger added, we usually do that and in the
meantime they can figure out how it got to be R-9 anjdicw.
A lady in the audience remarked, isn't that the area that was
multiple and just got changed to R-9.
Supervisor Desch replied no, as far as he could remember it has
been R-9 since the first zoning map was adopted.
Town Planner Beeners added, this has been R-9 since the 1960's.
Karl Niklas, 1006 Danby Road stated that he would just like to say
that they have been trying to investigate the history behind the
original rezoning and have been unable to find documentation or
rational as to v^y the current plots of land, or lands that are on
this petition were rezoned to R-9. The best piece of documentation
that they have been able to find is from sane newspaper clippings.
He stated that it was the desire of all the signatures to the
petition to establish their properties as R-15 frcm their currently
zoned R-9.
Councilwcman Raffensperger remarked, they are currently R-15 sized.
RESOLUTION NO. 90
Motion by Councilman McPeak; seconded by Councilman Bartholf,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereto refer to
the Planning Board for their study and recommendation the petition
received fron the South Hill residents for rezoning frcm R-9 to
R-15.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Klein and Whitccrab
voting Aye. Nays - none).
PUBLIC FACILITIES FOR INDIAN CREEK RETIRByENT COMMUNITY
Supervisor Desch stated that this item is not ready for the meeting
tonight.
WATER ACCOUNT REFUND
RESOLUTIOSr NO. 91
Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilwcman Raffensperger,
WHEREAS, the property at 153 East King Road was charged for sewer
on the September 1988, Deconber 1988 and March 1989 billing cycle,
and
WHEREAS, the property is not connected to the public sewsr,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of
Ithaca hereby authorize a refund of $41.20 for sewer and $6.04
Town Board Minutes 15 i^ril 10, 1989
sewer surcharge, total refund of $47.24 be paid to Itzick and Susan
Vatnick, 153 East King Road, Ithaca, New York. Account Number
V-4043.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Klein and Whitccmb
voting Aye. Nays - none).
assessment REFUND
RESOLUTION NO. 92
Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman McPeak,
WHEREAS, Steve Heslop, 242 DuBois Road was charged 2.45 units of
water and 2.45 units of sewer on his 1989 Town and County Taxes,
and
WHEREAS, Mr. Heslop should have been charged 1.45 units of water
and 1.45 units of sewer,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Tdwn of
Ithaca hereby authorize a refund of $64.00 for water and $62.00 for
sewer, total benefit assessment refund of $126.00 be paid to Steve
Heslop, 242 DuBois Road, Ithaca, New York, Tax Parcel No.
23-1-11.111 upon the payment in full by Mr. Heslop of the 1989 Town
and County Taxes.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Klein and Whitccmb
voting Aye. Nays - none).
SEQR DBTERMINATiaJ ON SOUTH HILL TRAIL
Town Planner Susan Beeners noted the revisions in the SEQR
documents vMch are underlined. (Copy attached to minutes). The
Town Planner noted that the City may require site development plan
approval but that will not be fully determined until the Town
applies for a building permit. At that point, the Building
Commission will review the application and decide \tether it is
subject to a building permit or not and vdiether site plan approval
will be necessary. It has not been possible for us during the last
month to get any determination from the City as to the need for a
building permit.
Supervisor Desch asked the Town Planner, for the publics benefit to
discuss her proposed draft resolution.
Town Planner Beeners replied that vdiat her draft resolution
proposes is that the Town Board tonight make a negative
determination of environmental significance for the portion of the
trail within the Town of Ithaca subject to having the State Parks
and Historic Preservation Office concurrence on the lead agency
status.
Supervisor Desch noted correspondence fran residents of Ndrthview
Road, Betsy Darlington, Juniper Drive Civic Association and minutes
of the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board.
Councilman Klein remarked that there were many references to the
Towns intent to run a road along that right-of-way. He stated that
he did not know v^y those rumors had surfaced but he would like to
dispel that.
14rlb-2 (,2/87)-7c
617.21 SEQR
Appendix A
State Environmental Quality Review
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
Purpose: The full EAF Is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, In an orderly manner, whether a project
or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant Is not always easy to answer. Frequent
ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It Is also understood that those who determine
significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert In environmental
analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting
the question of significance.
The full EAF is Intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination
process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow Introduction of Information to fit a project or action.
Full EAF Components: The full EAF Is comprised of three parts;
Part 1: Provides objective data and Information about a given project and Its site. By Identifying basic project
data. It assists a reviewer In the analysls that takesnslace In Parts'^ and"3.~ —
Part 2: Focuses on Identifying the range of possible Impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides
guidance as to whether an Impact Is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether It Is a potentially-
large Impact. The form also Identifies whether an Impact can be mitigated or reduced.
Part 3: If any Impact In Part 2 Is Identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 Is used to evaluate whether or not the
Impact Is actually Important.
Revisions made to Part I, pages 3, 4, 5 as
underlined, 4/10/89
^^termination of SIGNIFICANCE —Type 1 and Unlisted Actions
Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: XX® P^^t 1 XSC Part 2 DPart 3
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 If apdiS8?rl?^anWany other supporting
Information, and considering both the magltude and importance of each Impact, It Is reasonably determined by the
lead agency that:
XKJ A. The project will not result In any large and important lmpact(s) and, therefore. Is one which will not
have a significant Impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared.
□ 8. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significanteffect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described In PART 3 have been required,
therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.*
□ C. The project may result In one or more large and Important impacts that may have a significant Impact
on the'environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared.
• A" Conditioned Negative Declaration Is only valid for Unlisted Actions
South Hill Recreation Way
Name of Action
Town of Ithaca Town Board
Name of Lead AgencyNoe3r BcGchj- j^L. fvj ^^m^pervisor
Print o Type Name of l^esponslble Officer In Agency Title of Responsible Officer
Susan C. Beeners, Town Planner i fZlkffSignature of Responsible OfKcer In Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer)
144.4^Date
part 1-project information
Prepared by Project Sponsor
NOTICE; This document Is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have. a.significant.effect
on the environment. Please complete the entire form. Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered
as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional
information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. ^ . , r' -' b n •
It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currentlyjayaiiable and will not involv^.^
new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify
each instance. n liiiiM;t%- rTM!*'
NAME OF ACTION
South Hill Recreation Way > :'MTt 22 y L ' n
LOCATION OF ACTION 0neluda StrMt Address, Munleipallty tnd County) • • >'4 '
Vicinity Coddington Road, between Hudson Str^t and Bums Road ' f
NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR
- - — Town of Ithaca Planning Board ...
BUSINESS TELEPHONE
6Q7 2"^ 1747- -
ADDRESS _ .
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, NY 14850 . 'STATE ZIP CODE
NAME OF OWNER (If different)
•See Appendix A - Landowners (Attached)
BUSINESS telephone
{ )
ADDRESS
CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Development of a 3.4 mile long recreational trail, primarily on
former railroad rights of way.
Please Complete Each Question—Indicate N.A. If not applicable
A. Site Description
Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.
Present land use: DUrban XSlndustrial DCommercial XSResidential (suburban) 3CQRural (non-farm)
XKIForest □ Agriculture Trail route presently used by walkers.
2. Total acreage of project area: 25
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE
acres.
joggers, skiiers, etc.
sewer mains. ■
PRESENTLY
Portions contain
AFTER COMRLETION
10.50
10.35
Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural)
Forested
Agricultural (includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.)
Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) •.
Water Surface Area
Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill)
Roads, buildings and other paved surfacesOfhar »yp«*i cxisting paths. old rr bed .
Made land, Hudson silty clay loam, Lordstown, Toiler,
Ovid soils
4.15
acres ^
acres
acres
acres .
acres ^
acres
acres
acres
1Q-5Q acres
10.35 acres
acres
^ acres
' ''acres
0
"OS"acres
acres
What is predominant soil type(s) o-- project site?
^^Moderately well drained % of sitea. Soil drainage: X^vVell drained ^ % of site
X@ Poorly drained % of site
b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NVS
Land Classification System? NA acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370).
4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? X3Yes DNo
a. What is depth to bedrock? 20" + (in feet)
2
5, Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: j • VStQ»in% QQ^ - % QiO-i 5% __L %f ?ee Note beKwr. %
6. is project substantially contiguous to. or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the, National
Registers of Historic Places? QYes XXNo - ... . . - . . i i t •
/ 7. Is project substantially contiguous to.a site listed on the Register of National Natural Liandmarks? ' QYestr'i «XSNp>t;
8. What is the depth of the water table? 3 + fin feet) ' ' c 'T;.n ... 1 ii .vd ..;.
• . ®- fi5'^fii'9!:a<e4.ore' » primarv, principal, or sole source aquifert ,,, ;,aYes,o;,?SNpji,s;,i,:.,,,,,;V,^:rt
10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project arear ^Yes .•
11..Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threaten^ or<^endanger^?^- !
T DYes ^QNo According tn S«a^TT~A • .. .rc-',-! ' f f-.K n
1 Identify each species ■■•■"aoC'.''. v.'i:..'12.'Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the proiect~Srte?'(l.e., cllffs~dunesr other "geological'foritwtT^hs) j i-.^GlYes - DNo Describe bedrock outcroppings,jilocally interesting mvihes on ^
:— eastern end. • ' —
13. Is-the project site- presently used by the community or'neighborhood as an open space or recreation area?JSlYes DNo If yes, explain Inntrct-anHing ii«?^ for wa.1klng- jogging, cross-country-
14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the commurfity? skiing
□Yes X3No (None officially desigiated)
15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: Several unnamed streams cross under former railroad r/w,
a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary Six Mile Creek
16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: NA. ^
a. Name —b. Size (In acres)
17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? XSYes GNo CPbrtions are ggggnB^iiS 8$ti6$i®fdr
a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? NA GNo t-rg-il
b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? GYef^A GNo
18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article-25-AA7-
Section 303 and 304? GYes XKlNo (900 +/- feet abut AgricuTtoal^D^rict
19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated'pdr^arit-tb Article
of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? GYes EMo (560 +/- feet to City Six Mile; Cireek C.E.A.) , 4
20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? ' ■ / GYes - ^ XXNo ' 1 jc; ^
Note for No. 5:-2.65 miles of former rr row includes 12,95 aores: with slopes over 10co^ised of foimer railroad cuts, fills. No dis-turbance proposed as part of. this proj^t.
B. Project Description 1 :?rA;,,:v( ,qqc.
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) " : ac-rf j -lj h ia. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 25 acres.(seeking ^eas^men"^
b. Project acreage to be developed: acres initially; ' acres ultimately. '
c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped SltS acres. V'a ^
d. Length of project, in miles: ^-4 (|f appropriate)
e.. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed %; ••
f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 0 proposed 0
g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per. hour 24*/— (upon completion of project)?
h. If residential: Nun .ber and type of housing ur its: NA
One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium
Initially ___________
Ultimately ____________ ' ' ''''
i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure NA height; width; length.
j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? *^25at entrances on Ctoddington, Hudson, Jurns, Juniper, Crescent Place
"■»vn.c'&»"t f ir'nV
I. How much natural material u e. rock, earth, etc.] will be removed from the sitei" ^ tons/Cubic yards
3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? XX/es DNo DN/A
a. If yes, for what intend., purpose is the site being reclaimed? recreational trail, conservation areas
b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? XSYes DNo
c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? DYes DNo NA
4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 0 acres.
5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project?
DYes
6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction X _ nrtonths, (including demolition).
7. If multi-phased:
a. Total number of phases anticipated ^ (number).
b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month year, (including demolition).
c. Approximate completion date of final phase month IQQO year.
d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? DYes XSNo
8. Will blasting occur during construction? DYes )2SNo
9. Number of jobs generated: during construction SlSUIIElSE^: after project is complete 0
m I-U.. u.. *1.:,. r\ WOrksrS)10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project «.Q
11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities?X3No If yes, explain
12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? DYes XSNo
a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount
b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged
13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? DYes XENo Type n
14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? C
Explain n
15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? GYes
16. Will the project generate solid waste? DYes ^i^o
a. If yes, what is the amount per month tons
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? DYes GNo
c. If yes, give name ; location
d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill?
e. If Yes, explain
SNo
GYes
17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? DYes XSNo ^ ^
a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month.
b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years.
18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? DYes
19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? GYes 3£SNo
20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? DYes -^No
21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? GYes XXNo
If yes . indicate type(s)
22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity gallons/minute.
23. Total anticipated water usage per day NA gallons/day.
24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? XEYes GNo
If Yes, explain N.Y.State Environmental Quality Bond Act . Town of Ithaca^neral Fund
(primarily force account)
of Ithaca (jeneral Fund
25. Approvals Required:
Type
Submlttal
Date
City, Town, Village Board ^Yes □No
City, Town, Village Planning Board □Yes □No
City, Town Zoning Board □Yes □No
City, County Health Department □Yes □No
Other Local Agencies □Yes □No
Other Regional Agencies □Yes □No
State Agencies (NYSDPRHP)□Yes □No
Federal Agencies □Yes □No
Project Authorization.5/9,12/12/88
5/30/88 •n
(Note: Portion in City may
SSNo r^uire Site iltevelOTanent
Plan Approval)
□site plan
C. Zoning and Planning inforniation
1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? . QYes
If Yes, indicate decision required:
□zoning amendment □zoning variance- □special use permit Qsubdivision
□new/revision of master plan □resource management plan □other
2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? Indjustrial. Residence R-9,R~15,R-30; R-l-A,, . in City3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning?
Narrowness of site means most likelv the max. use would be as transmrtation and utility
4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? NA ■ — rrr".
5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning?
. . NA ■ - r ^ .
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ^dSlYes '^□No
i$9^^||ecdt^redominiant land use(sy and zoning classifications within a V* mile radius of proposed actionf? _ - A
Zoning is as described in C2 above-fe—~ ^open space ^industry (Therm).
8.
9.
10.
11.
Is the proposed action com})SflBf4 "With 'iHj^l^ing/surrounding land uses within a Vi mile?
If'the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? NA
a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? -
;HS}Yes DNo
n
12.
Will proposed action require any auth6rization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? □Yes
Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police,
fire protection)? XSYes □No
a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ]Qyes □No
Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? □Yes
a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? □Yes □No
D. Informational Details
Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project If there are or may be any adverse
impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or
avoid them. (Refer to Attachments)
E. Verification , Mef
I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. '
Applicant/Sponsor Name George R. j^antz
Signature .
Date , 1989TUIe Assistant Town Planner, on behalf of
Town of Ithaca Parks Dep^tmentIf the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete tne Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding
with this assessment.
5
Part 2-PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE
Responsibility of Lead Agency
General Information (Read Carefully)
• In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been
reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst.
• Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant.
Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply
asks that it be looked at further.
• The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of
magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and
for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate
for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3.
• The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and
have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question.
• The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question.
• In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects.
instructions (Read carefully) .
a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact.
b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers.
c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the
impact If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold
is lower than example, check column 1.
d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3.
e If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to m^erate
impact also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This
must be explained in Part 3.
IMPACT ON LAND
1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?
□NO KYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed
10%.
• Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than
3 feet
• Construction^of paved parking area for 1,(X)0 or more vehicles.
• Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within
3 feet of existing ground surface.
• Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more
than one phase or stage.
• Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,(X)0
tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year.
• Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill.
• Construction in a designated floodway.
• Other impacts
2. Will there be an effect to ...ly unique or unusual land forms found on
the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)BlNO DYES
• Specific land forms: —
1
Small to
Moderate
Impact
2
Potential
Large
Impact
3
Can Impact Be
Mitigated By
Project Change
SI □□Yes GNo
□□□Yes GNo
n □□Yes GNo
□□Yes GNo
IS □□Yes GNo
□□□Yes . GNo
□□□Yes GNo
□□□Yes GNo
□□□Yes GNo
□□□Yes GNo
IMPACT ON WATER
3 Will proposed action affect any water body designated as
' (Under Articles IS. 24.25 of the Environmental
Examples that would apply to column 2 . ^ .
• Developable area of site contains a protected water body.
• Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a
protected stream.
• Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body.
• Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland.
• Other impacts: —
4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected
of water?
Examples that would apply to column 2 ^
. A10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water
or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease.
. Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area.
• Other Impacts: —- "
1
Small to
Moderate
Impact
□YES5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater _
quality or quantity?Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action will require a discharge permit.• Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does nothave approval to serve proposed (project) action.. Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45gallons per minute pumping capacity.
• Construction or operation causing any conumination of a water
supply system.
• Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. «.o««ntlv• Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which present y
do not exist or have inadequate capacity.• Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20.000 gallons per
day.. Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into anexisting body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual
contrast to natural conditions.. Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemicalproducts greater than 1,100 gallons.. Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water
and/or sewer services.• Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrialrequire new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storag
facilities.
• Other impacts:-
6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or
water runoff?Examples that would apply to column 2• Proposed Action would change flood water flows.
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
2 1 3
Potential Can Impact Be
Large Mitigated ByImpact 1 Project Change
□
□
□
□
□
DVes DNo
□Ves DNo
QVes ONo
QVes DNo
□Yes DNo|^
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□Yes DNo
□Yes DNo
□Yes DNo
□Yes □ no
□Yes □ No I
□Yes □ No
□Yes □no
□Yes □ No
□Yes □no
□Yes 1
□Yes □no
□i °□Yes □no
□ .□j □Yes □No
□□Yes □No
□Yes DNo
Ti □□Ves DNo
• Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion.
• Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns.
• Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway.
• Other impacts:
a^^alfdhri tAjlfV
IMPACT ON AIR
ISNO □YES
1 11 2 1 ^
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
□1 °□Yes □no
□□□Yes □no
□□□Yes □No
□□Yes □No
7. Will proposed action affect air quality?
Examples that would apply to column 2> Prnpo^pd Action will induce 1.000 or more vehicle trips in any given
hour.
• Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of
refuse per hour.
• Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or. a• heat source producing more than 10 million BTU s per hour.
• Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed
to industrial use.
•' Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial
development within existing industrial areas.
• Other impacts: — —
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8 Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered■ species? SNO DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federallist, using the site, over or near site or found on the site.
• Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat
• Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other
than for agricultural purposes.
• Other impacts:- —
9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened ornon-endangered species? HNO DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident ormigratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species.
• Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acresof mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important
vegetation.
IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES
10 Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources?KNO DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2• The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agriculturalland (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.)
8
□
□
□
□□ .□Yes □ No
□■□□Yes □ No
□□□Yes □ No
□□□Yes □ No
□..□□Yes □ No
□□□Yes1 f
□ No
□
□
□
□■ □□Yes □No
□□1 □Yes □no
□□□Yes □No
□□1 □Yes □no
□Yes QNo
□Yes nNc
□Yes DNo
• Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of
agricultural land.
• The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres
of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District, more
than 2.5 acres of agricultural land.
• The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural
land management systems (e.g.. subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches,
strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm
field to drain poorly due to increased runoff)
• Other-impacts: —"
1 2 1 ^
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large 1 Mitigated By
Impact Impact 1 Project Change
□□1 DYes GNo
□□1 GYcs DNo
□□1 GYes GNo
11
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCESWill proposed action affect aesthetic resources? BnO DYES(If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21, _
Appendix B.)
Examples that would apply to column 2Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from,or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether
man-made or natural.Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users ofaesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce theirenjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource.Project components that will result in the elimination or significantscreening of scenic views known to be important to the area.
Other impacts: — —
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? HNO DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2• Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantiallycontiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register
of historic places.• Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the
project site.• Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for
archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory.
• Other impacts:^ —
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
DYcs DNo
□ I DYes DNo
□ 1 DYcs DNo
□ I DYes DNo
□ I DYes DNo
□Yes DNc
G G GYes Gno
G G □Yes GNo
G □1 GYes GNo
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing orfuture open spaces or recreational opportunities?Examples that would apply to column 2 GNO I2LYES
• The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity.
• A major reduction of an open space important to the cominunity.. other impacts: <;i* I
-fa -hTAAA
□
□
□ I DYes GNo
□ DYes DNo□ 1 DYes DNo
HNO DYES
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
ISNO
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods.
• Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems.
• Other impacts: -—-— —
IMPACT ON ENERGY
15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or
energy supply? DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of
any form of energy in the municipality.
• 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 major commercial or industrial use.
• Other impacts: —
NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS
16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result
of the Proposed Action? END DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive
facility.
• Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day).
• Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local
ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures.
• Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a
noise screen.
• Other impacts:.
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safe^ nwcc
SNO LjYcb
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of
accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level
discharge or emission.
• Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any
form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating,
infectious, etc.)
• Storage :acilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural
gas or other flammable liquids.
• Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance
within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous
waste.
• Other impacts: —
1 1 2 1 ^ 11 Small to Potential 1 Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By 1
Impact I Impact Project Change
G G 1 GYes GNo 1
G G □Yes GNo
a □□Yes GNo
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□ I DYes DNo
□ I DYes DNo
□DYes DNo
G 1 °□Yes GNo
G G □Yes GNo
□G □Yes GNo
G a 1 GYes □ No
□□□Yes GNo
□Yes DNo
□ I DYes DNo
□ 1 DYes GNo
□ I DYes GnO
G 1 DYes ONo
10
18
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER
OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
Will oroDOsed action affect the character of the existing community?^ ]gNO DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the
project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%.
The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services
will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project
Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals.
Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use.
Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures
or areas of historic importance to the community.
DevdopmenTwilI create a demand for additional community-services-
(e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.)
Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects.
Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment.
Other impacts:^ —
1 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
□□□Ves □No
□□□Ves □ No
□□□Ves □ no
□□□Ves □ No
□□□Ves □No
□dVes rifsjo
•. □□□Ves □no
□□□Ves □no
□□□Ves □ No
r
19. Is there, or is there likely to be. public controversy related topotential adverse environmental impacts? DNO [SYES
If Any Action in Part 2 is identified as a Potential Large impact orif You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of impact, Proceed to Part 3
Part 3—EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS
Responsibility of Lead Agency
Part J must be prepared If one or more Impactfj) is considered to be potentially large, even If the Impaetfs) may be
mitigated.
Instructions
Discuss the following for each impact identified In Column 2 of Part 2;
1. Briefly describe the impact u \2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s).
3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important.
To answer the question of importance, consider:
• The probability of the impact occurring
• The duration of the impact• Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value
• Whether the impact can or will be controlled
• The regional consequence of the impact
• Its potential divergence from local needs and goals
• Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact.
(Continue on attachments)
11
SEAF
South Hill Recreation Way
APPENDIX A
Landowners
THERM, INC., P.O. Box 220, Ithaca, NY-^ 14851
City Parcel: 10-91-4-1
Town Parcels: 6-54-2-1
6-53-1-12
6-54-4-1
NYSEG, P.O. Box 287, Ithaca, NY 14851"
6-54-7-50
6-53-1-22.2
6-53-1-22.3 ,
6-51-1-2
6-48-1-13 (portion)
JOHN I. SINCEBAUGH, 1861 Hanshaw Road, Ithaca, NY 14850
6-53-1-13
6-53-1-22.1
DONALD & HELEN STREET, 290 Burns Road, Ithaca, NY 14850
6-48-1-14.1
SCB/n "
1/27/89
The proposed South Hill Recreation Way will consist of
an 8 foot wide oil and stone trail and alternatively with a
2-foot cinder strip from Renzetti Place in the City of
Ithaca to the vicinity of Juniper Drive in the Town of
Ithaca, with spurs to Coddington Road auid Kendall Avenue.
The section of the trail from Northview Road southeasterly
to Burns Road will be maintained as an 8-foot wide cinder
path. The trail will use the abandoned Delaware,
Lackawanna, and Western railroad beds for approximately 85
per cent of its length. Easements, are being obtained from
Therm, Inc., New York State Electric and Gas Corporation,
and several other property owners.
In a later phase will be considered an extension
southeast of Burns Road to the vicinity of the Town Line,
where a connection might be possible to the Coddington Road
Community Center through possible future open space
reservations on adjacent lands.
PART 2-A. SEQR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. SOUTH HILL RECREATION
mi
TMPAdT OKI T.ANR
imt, At least ninety per cent of the trail route is
currently used as a path and is also the route of existing
or potential utilities. Trail development will be phased
over a period of two years, with revegetation to be
completed promptly upon completion of the minor clearing and
grubbing needed for trail improvement.
Work would include selective clearing, pruning, and
grubbing, minor drainage improvements, culvert cleanout, the
reworking of the existing cinder railroad base along the
majority of the trail, with the addition of new base and
surfacing along the portions of the trail not along the
railroad beds such as northwest of Juniper Drive, where the
trail would generally follow a sewer main right of way.
Many portions of the trail are already cleared for a
width of 6 to 10 feet or more. The trail would be widened
where necessary for construction and maintenance access.
Trail alignment would be kept similarly to that of the
existing trail, deviating from the centei^. line in some
locations. In the western areas such as near Pennsylvania
Ave. and Coddington Rd., trail alignment-will be adjusted to
minimize proximity to existing residences.
Any areas disturbed during construction are proposed to
be revegetated as soon as practicable. Selective vegetation
clearing will retain stands of significant vegetation.
Removal of significant trees and other vegetation is to be
minimized. Erosion control measures will be implemented
where necessary during construction and revegetation will
occur promptly upon the completion of improvements. Bedrock
outcroppings along portions of the trail will not be
significantly altered.
The post development width of the trail would be kept to
the minimum necessary for occasional access for trail
monitoring and trail bed maintenance, and for access by
police or emergency vehicles. Post-construction maintenance
along the majority of the trail will be generally limited to
light utility vehicles, with maintenance by roller,
bulldozer, or grader every 5-7 or more years if needed for
remedial and maintenance work.
Types of post-construction maintenance would include
the removal of hazardous trees or branches maintenance of
new landscaping for naturalization, the roiling of the
cinder path, and the resurfacing of the oil and stone
sections of the trail every 7-9 years. Winter maintenance
would generally be limited to plowing a section between
Coddington Road and Renzetti Place for pedestrians, but a
portion of that section would also be accessible for
cross-country skiiers.
Approximately 100 feet of trail may involve
construction on slopes of 10-15 per cent and greater. This
section is located at the Burns Road entrance to the trail.
Construction activity will involve widening an existing
footpath which connects the railroad bed with Burns Road, or
constructing a new ramped path. Any final design of the
Burns Road trail entrance will be coordinated with Town
planning for Phase III Burns Road improvements. No
significant disturbance of the existing slope and path is
exjpe^ted, and areas will be- revegetated promptly to mitigate
minor impacts of trail widening.
There has been public inquiry as:to whether the trail
could be narrowed to 8 feet,- and could have a narrower and
less,linear horizontal clearance than-existing Town trails
in East Ithaca near Honness Lane and Game Farm Road. A
6-foot wide trail would be generally suitable for the
recreational usage anticipated, but would be unsuitable for
effective operation of the trail such as for enforcement,
maintenance, and, especially in the long range, for adequate
emergency and fire protection along the Six Mile Creek
corridor.
It is expected that*limiting clearance and slightly
curving the trail along the centerline of the railroad bed,
substantially as the trs^il is presently, ^will mitigate
perceived visual and land impacts. Construction access
initially will require a slightly wider area than that which
will be needed for long term management of the trail, but
this will be only a temporary impact.
Benefits with respect to adequate provision for
emergency and maintenance vehicles in any possible future
watershed management of public or private lands outweigh
minor impacts of the improvement and development of a trail
to the dimensions described. Visual impacts will be
mitigated where possible through the diversion of the trail
alignment off of the centerline of the railroad bed
similarly as is presently.
IMPACT ON WATER
No significant adverse impact to water bodies or water
quality is expected as a result of this action.
Most of the trail would be along former railroad rights
of way. The trail would cross several streams which are
designated as protected by the NYS DEC. All crossings would
be on existing drainage structures built for the railroad,
and no disruption of any stream beds is anticipated.
Minor grading and swales along the trail between the
upper and lower switchback will slightly alter localized
drainage patterns but will improve drainage in the area and
will be subject to erosion control and revegetation
measures. No significant change to drainage patterns or
increase in surface runoff is expected.
IMPACT QN AIR
No significant adverse impacts are expected from the
low scale of vehicular activity associated with
construction, maintenance, and use of the trail. After
trail development, no motorized vehicles except for
maintenance vehicles, and no fires, would be allowed on the
trail pursuant to Town trail regulations.
IMPACT QN PLANTS AND ANIMALS
The upper railroad right of way has been under
consideration by the City of Ithaca as an adjoining
landowner as a boundary to a potential critical '
environmental area. The Town of Ithaca has recognized the
right of way as a potential trail for several years, with
the City watershed lands contemplated for conservation
overlay zone designation in the Town Comprehensive Park and
Open Space Plan.
A portion of the trail route from Renzetti Place
connects with several paths which connect to the Six Mile
Creek Wildflower Preserve. City Watershed lands which abut
the trail right of way north of Pearsall Place for a length
of approximately 620 feet are primarily used for water '
supply management and not for recreation.
Inventories have b^en conducted of the plant and animal
species in the Six Mile Creek Watershed area. No unique
wild life habitats were mapped by the Tompkins County
Planning Department (March 1974), but the City Watershed
lands have been designated by the County as a Unique Natural
Area due to their value as an important natural recreation
area. The trail is separated from critical drainage and
forested areas along most of its route by active and
inactive farm fields and by brushland.
The construction of the trail and the moderate increase
in trail use is not expected to adversely impact plant and
animal species along the trail route, especia^y considering
its existing long term use and informal maintenance. Field
inventories have revealed few areas within the trail route
that have unique species likely to be disrupted by the trail
(see attached Plant Inventory). Plant species that would be
subject to selective clearing or pruning would be mainly
invasive hedgerow plants, brush, and small saplings. Plants
on the New York State Protected Native Plants list such as
shield fern and bloodroot, and mosses that are within small
portions of the trail route will be identified and protected
through conservation measures, or relocated or replaced.
Trail design between Juniper Drive and Burns Roid will
be kept rustic and natural in character with surrounding
landscape to the extent possible while maintaining access
for maintenance and protecting the trail from erosion.
Thorny plants such as Autumn Olive and Hawthorn will, be
used as barrier pl2Uitings along with appropriate fencing to
discourage access to adjacent private lands and areas where
such is required. Overinvasive species such as Multiflora
Rose will not be used along the trail. Ground cover will
Include Tournament Fescuei a fine-textured grass which does
not need mowing, and wildflowers such as native Asters.
Any impacts to vegetation will be minor and temporary
in nature, with trail development not expected to be
disruptive to unique or valuable species, and with disturbed
areas to be revegetated using native species. Establishment
of the trail will most likely encourage the conservation of
other significant vegetation along the trail corridor
outside of the right of way.
IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES ~
No significant adverse impact is expected. The trail
route crosses between several former and now inactive farm
fields, and is intersected by several crossings between
these fields. Signage, barrier plantings and fencing or
gates will be used to discourage access off the trail while
maintaining access for the property owner.
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
The proposed trail is not expected to be significantly
different visually from its current condition, as described
above. Selective cleari;ng and revegetation, and selective
routing of the trail will assist in mitigating minor impacts
of trail development. Signage, gates, fencing, and
landacaping will be designed to be compatible with the
surroundings.
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Trail construction will involve the minor reworking of
approximately 8 inches to 1 foot of depth of cinders along
the old railroad beds, which were built around 1850. Any
old hardware or other artifacts found will be documented and
conserved in coordination with local historic agencies. No
specially significant archeological features are known that
would be adversely impacted, with artifacts expected to
consist only of old railroad spikes. The existing drainage
structures are worthy of some local historical interest and
will be preserved as cultural landmarks. Education about
the trail will be pursued with other local agencies and with
the school system.
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE ANT) RRnREATIOW
No major recreational or open space reduction or
adverse impact is expected. Trail development by the Town
will enhance the existing, long term use and maintenance of
the trail by walkers, joggers, bicyclists, and cross-country
skiiers.
There will be a beneficial impact with respect to
completion of a major section of the Ithaca area recreation
way system which has been contemplated by the Town, as well
as by the City of Ithaca and New York State, for several
years. The route would be compatible with the Circle
Greenway trail network and would provide an opportunity for
a supplementary extension of that network. In addition the
trail will provide outdoor recreation and education
opportunities for students of the South Hill Elementary
School, which is adjacent to the Hudson Street terminus of
the trail. The school currently uses the trail route for a
cross-country skiing program.
Under Town management, the trail will enhance the Six
Mile Creek area open space system, and will assist as an
organizing element for additional open space conservation.
The design of the trail is planned to minimize trespassing
and 'networking'. The expanded use of the trail by local
residents will enhance monitoring and enforcement. Town
regulations would be effectively posted. Signage to
prohibit trespassing off of the trail will be designed in
coordination with adjacent property owners.
IMPACT QN TRANSPORTATION
Use of the trail by pedestrisuis, runners, and
seasonally by bicyclists and cross-country skiiers will
increase over its existing longstanding dse for such
activities. The trail will provide an off-road alternative
to the use of Coddington Road, which is hazardous to
pedestrians and bicyclists. The western portions of the
trail are expected to be used to some extent by pedestrians
walking between the residential areas of South Hill in the
vicinity of Coddington Road and the downtown area of Ithaca.
Based on Town experience with similar trails which it has
developed in East and Northeast Ithaca (3.5 miles total) no
significsoit adverse impacts or conflicts with respect to
multiple use of the trail is expected.
The section of the trail from Renzetti Place to Juniper
Drive will be designed for possible future winter plowing
with a section also kept skiiable. The section of the trail
between Juniper Drive and Burns Road is expected to be
utilized primarily for recreational activities such as
walking, biking, and jogging in the summer and walking and
X-C skiing during winter months. No major commuter use of
this section of the trail, nor any winter plowing, is
anticipated.
No parking facilities for trail users are planned at
present. Because much of the trail is in developed or rural
residential areas and is readily accessible to many
potential users, the majority of trail users are expected to
arrive at trail entrances on foot. Should demand warrant,
it would be possible to develop limited parking near the
Burns Road entrance to the trail in coordination with
planned Burns Road safety improvements or, with future trail
extension to use existing parking facilities at the
Coddington Road Community Center. Available parking on
nearby City streets is expected to meet any parking needs at
the western ends of the trail. Any new parking designated
for trail users would be developed to be compatible with the
concepts which are generally set forth in City Six Mile
Creek Watershed Lands use policy.
Farm lane crossings are limited to a few locations
along the trail. Existing crossing rights held by property
owners whose property is bisected by the trail route would
not be adversely impacted by the trail improvement.
IMPACT ON ENERGY
Because of the availability of onsite materials such as
cinders in the .railroad beds, and the limited amount of land
disturbance which would be necessary for construction,
energy expenditure is minor and of no significant adverse
impact.
NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS
There would be a temporary localized impact with
respect to trail construction machinery and equipment. This
impact is not considered to be significant. Noise from
trail bikes and snowmobiles would be reduced in that such
use along the trail wou^-d be prohibited.^.
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
No significant adverse impact is expected. Beneficial
impacts will occur with respect to a safe, off-road trail.
Closure of the trail during deer hunting season is proposed
to alleviate possible conflicts.
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBQBfiOQP
Trail use will represent an increase in the intensity
of land use, in that existing usership of the trail will
increase. Any potential adverse impacts are expected to be
^ite-localized and substantially mitigatable. Beneficial
impacts related to both conservation open space and
recreation will occur.
There will be benefits to the community in the
improvement of a trail already used for recreation, with
public maintenance and enforcement. Unregulated use is
likely to continue without trail improvement by the Town.
With improvement, it will be accessible to a wider range of
the population and will be subject to land and use
management and regulation.
In addition, the trail is expected to have a beneficial
impact in encouraging the retention of significant
vegetation and open space on property along its corridor,
particularly as conservation and recreational open space
reservations are made in the future. Buffer plantings will
be installed along the trail near existing residences, as
well as throughout the length of the trail.
The trail is consistent with community plans and goals
as officially adopted. The trail is compatible with the
concepts for Six Mile Creek land use regulation and open
space designations that have been approved or considered by
the Town, the City, and other agencies. In the Town
Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plan, the trail route and
its possible connections were shown, aa was the possible
designation of the Six Mile Creek Watershed Lands as a
Conservation Overlay Area.
The historic character of the former Railroad beds
would not be adversely impacted, as subject to the
conservation measures involved in trail construction
described above.
There will be the potential for an increased demand for
enforcement services, from the Sheriff's Department and Town
Parks and Zoning Departments, which is considered to be
within those agencies' capabilities. It is expected that
the enhanced accessibility of the trail to regular, local
residents will also assist the monitoring of the trail.
The Trail is not expected to adversely impact possible
future land use in the area. Given both longstanding
planning and intermunicipal discussions about Six Mile Creek
area conservation and management needs, and other area
comprehensive planninng,, it is expected that any possible
future development of lands adjacent to or within the trail
route would be adequately addressed in further review.
The alternative of no trail improvement by the Town
would mean continued unmonitored use of trails on public and
private lands and no mechanism for adequate enforcement, as
well as a lost opportunity for establishment of access for
long term public and private lands emergency and fire
protection.
Trail development would be similar in concept and use
to existing Town trails, and could stimulate further
development of both local and intermunicipal multiple use
open space corridors. No significant adverse precedent
would be set.
19. Public concern has been heard with respect to several
aspects, including the proximity of the trail to the City
Six Mile Creek Watershed lands and other wooded areas.
Areas of concern by some include possible loss of landscape
character, overuse of watershed lands, uncontrolled or
enhanced access, and damage to plants and animals. Areas of
concern by others i-.clude privacy in residential areas such
as near Pennsylvania Avenue, and loss of existing use of the
trail by snowmobiles and trail bikes.
Potential adverse impacts related to public concerns
are expected to be substantially mitigated through a number
of factors described in this review, including
site-specific, conservation-oriented design and management,
coordinated with adjacent property owners and existing trail
users.
In evaluation of the proposed trail, it is unlikely
that significant adverse impacts would occur. It is
expected that impacts would be small to moderate and would
be mitigated through specific trail landscape design and
signage along the trail route. There would be mitigating,
regional benefits with respect to development of a link
within a possible future Ithaca area trail system, though
the trail as proposed can operate separately from any other
short or long range trail plans. The proposed trail would
act as an organizing element for future land uses in the Six
Mile Creek corridor.
A negative determination of environmental significance
is recommended for the proposed South Hill Recreation Way.
Localized impacts are expected to be substantially
controlled in specific trail design and development, as
proposed. Neighborhood and regional benefits are expected
with respect to the proposed trail development.
REVIEWER: Susan C. Beeners, Town. Planner
t
DATE: January 27, 1989, revised March 8, 1989
n
Town Board Minutes 16 i^ril 10, 1989
Town S\:5)ervisor Desdi replied that neither is it considered to be a
road or a sewer possibility, it's not on the Master Plan for sewer
nor is it on the Master Plan for roads.
Assistant Planner George Frantz ronarked that last year they had
addressed that with people from the City and explained to them
there were no Town plans for a road on the railroad bed. We
thought we had that cleared up last year.
Councilman Klein remarked, and the reason for the 66' width?
Tcwn Planner Beeners replied, that provides enough space for proper
buffering it allows the for the Town to arrange with private owners
at the boarder between their propeirty and this right-of-way for the
appropriate signage to discourage access off of the trail. We do
not expect to ever have to build out to the property line, the 66',
it would be appropriate for vegetation management for the Town to
have the ability to manage that entire 66' as a green line.
Councilwcman Raffensperger asked about the width of the trail
itself, noting the Board had received a lot of comments about this.
Town Planner Beeners replied, the 8' is an accepted state and
national standard, that is the minimum that is used by the State
Parks Commission in any of its trail construction especially v^en
it is a multi use trail. To bring it down to anything less than
the 8' would preclude life safety and enforcement, monitoring
vehicles.
Supervisor Desch asked, vdiat would happen if it was cinders
throughout and none paved?
Town Planner Beeners replied, it can be cinders but we see a need
between Rozetti Place and Juniper Drive to have it be oiled and
stoned as there is nothing there now.
Assistant Planner Frantz rotiarked, another problem is handicapped
accessibility. Any sort of soft surface such as cinders can hinder
people in vAieel chairs and even baby carriages. The pavement is
for safety. He asked the Board to visualize two people walking
side by side on the trail and a bicycle ccming, if you have
anything less than 8' scmebody has to leave the trail \^ther it's
the bicycler or the pedestrians so 8' is really an appropriate
width given the usages of the trail.
Councilwcman Leary relied they wouldn't really have to leave the
trail, they could just let people walk in front of them.
Mr. Frantz replied, you don't want trail users constantly on the
look out for a possible accident.
Councilwcman Leary asked, \tet about this building permit? Would
it be better to wait to see vdiat the City says about it?
Town Planner Beeners replied, we think it can be broken out and it
would be appropriate for the Town to declare a "neg dec" on the
section within the Town, the City has been given ample time in
their own environmental review regulations as well as SEQR
regulations to respond to the status of lead agency concurrence.
It can be separated out, it might take several months for the City
to get that section in the City reviewed under site plan review.
That also happens to be the most torn up section of the trail and,
therefore, there should be no environmental significance.
Assistant Planner Frantz added, the City has yet to give us a
definite answer as to vtether or not we even need a building
Town Board Minutes 17 ^ril 10, 1989
permit. He stated that he did not see how they could not approve
the Town's site plan based on existing zoning and allowable uses.
Supervisor Desch replied, sr^pose there is never any action in the
City, then the piece within the City would not get built. If they
did not concur, the trail would end basically at the Tcwn/City line
which is Pearsall Place. It's really to the City's benefit that
that piece get built by the Town if anything is going to get built
at all.
Councilwonan Leary remarked to the Town Planner, you are saying
that it's not just 8' wide it would actually be 12' wide as far as
vtot is cleared, is that right?
The Town Planner replied, at the present time seme places are
cleared 12', other places it's narrowed in with weedie types of
bushes v^ch appear after it's cleared. She noted that this trail
was maintained by the railroad as late as the mid '50's so it's not
that a natural area is being disturbed by this proposed
development. The pavement vdiich people seem to be worried about,
or cinders, has to be at 8' in order to have a trail that would
operate effectively, not only for user safety but also for
enforcement. And as has been pointed out by us at several meetings
including Six Mile Creek and Planning and Development Board, it
would be in the City's interest to consider benefits of having
possible emergency vehicle access scmevdiere near the reservoir and
this would appear to be a natiiral location for it. Their stated
goals recently in trying to formulate seme plans for Six Mile Creek
land use policies have been towards water shed conservation and she
thought that in a long period of drought, for instance, \^ere would
be an appropriate access route? On this trail you have a woodland
trail, an old railroad bed v^ere vehicular access is possible.
Councilman Whitccmb asked about enforcement. He asked \dTo would
enforce the rules and regulations on this trail and how? One of
the concerns of seme of the neighborhoods is the control of
motorized trail bikes in their backyards.
Town Planner Beeners replied, the Sheriff's Office, the Zoning
Officer and the Parks Department would be available for receiving
calls and the Zoning Officer and the Sheriff would be responsible
for enforcement, just like in the parks.
Supervisor Desch asked if the Gorge Ranger might not have a role?
Town Planner Beeners replied, the Gorge Ranger has now extended his
or her route to cover the portion down on the lower switchback. It
is possible that something could develop, with further cooperation
with the City, in having a patrol through the entire area. Right
now there is no mechanism, if there is a trail bike on the NYSEG
right-of-way there is no mechanism unless you call NYSEG and have
them call the Sheriff for enforcement. She stated that vtot they
found on the other trails is that just with that increased use by
regular neighborhood residents the enforcement can become easier.
Councilworaan Leary remarked that another problem she had was
neighborhood use, we are standardizing it but certain neighborhoods
have expressed a desire to use trail bikes, that is vdiat they are
using it for now. It doesn't have the support of some of the
people vdio will be using it.
Town Planner Beeners replied, it would be nice to plan for a
facility in the Town v^ere you can have trail bike use and
snowmobile use, however, those two would be the most damaging to
the land off of the trail route.
Town Board Minutes 18 i^ril 10, 1989
Councilman Whitcohb noting that Mr. HiUcer was doing seme research
on the historical background and public input, he asked Mr. Hilker
if he found vtot he was looking for in the records?
Mr. Hilker replied that the only reference to this trail was a very
primitive concept of the trail \(diich envolved, and this was the
only time there was a public hearing, v^ch involved the use of
trail bikes, etc., and specified trail bikes vdiich is \tot the
neighborhood usage of the trail is at this time and this is vtot
the children or the youth of the area use it for. It is
substantially used for this purpose by the youth of the area. The
only public hearing that had been allowed for this type of a trail
was to the affect that this was one of the considered uses for it.
Supervisor Desch asked, v^at was the date of the hearing?
Mr, Hilker replied, in '84 or '86, seme such thing. This area of
the trail system was only stated to be a possibility at the time
and it presented itself as a possible inclusion into the trail
system and that that would be one of the possible uses of that
portion. What is being presented now is total exclusion of the
uses of the trail and the youth that are using it now. If you stop
them from using that portion of it and we are talldLng about an area
that is not intrusive upon houses out there by trail bikes because
nobody lives along that section and there are no ccnplains. He
stated that he was the only house next to the railroad track all
the way out throu^ there. They respect our privacy and they cone
through slow. If they are shut off from the use of this area there
is only one place for thon to go and that is down into the water
shed and they will do it. You don't stop kids from enjoying
themselves.
Supervisor Desch replied that the question, Mr. Hilker has given
one answer, the question as to v^ether this was designated as a
trail in the 1984 revision of the Open Space Plan is something
that, if you have a question about it you need to do your own
research, however, his msmory is different. He remembered that it
was in fact at the time of the approval of the Open Space and Park
Plan Revision that it was designated as such. The details of the
design and such, obviously even after this action, would have to be
worked out.
Mr. Hilker replied, just that alone leaves this document deficient
in that the document says it does not displace any recreational
facilities out there now and it does. It very definitely does.
Councilwoman Leary remarked that she had another question, how many
positive findings do you need to make a positive finding of the
v^ole impact? For example, on number 14 you say there are not
officially dedicated scenic views but the question is does the
present site include scenic views known to be important to the
community? In the opinion of the Conservation Advisory Council
there are lots of scenic views, that's just an example.
Town Planner Beeners replied, with that there are a lot of scenic
view all over Ithaca and she thought that the only outstanding view
that she would pick as special is v^ere NYSEG went and cut trees
down in their right-of-way towards the Bums Road, that's the only
place v^ere you have a clear view. You see the new Bums Road and
East Hill in the distance. No views would be dismpted in trail
constmction.
Supervisor Desch remarked, your question about the yes answers is
v^ether or not they are responded to in the mitigating measures dLn
Part II, that is the answer. There can be many many more yes
Town Board Minutes 19 April 10, 1989
answers but if they are not mitigated then you have to move in the
other direction of a positive determination.
Assistant Planner Frantz remarked, there is no intention here to
change any of those views or disrupt then.
Mrs. Rollins, 139 Northview Road stated that Mr. Frost requires a
written letter before he will investigate anything and she wondered
how this will work into the framework of Mr. Frost being very
effective in controlling things on the trail. If you have to write
him a letter about trail bikes it's not going to work.
Supervisor Desch remarked that he would be leaving in five minutes
and the Deputy Supervisor Henry McPeak would be taking over.
Si:5)ervisor Desch stated that the Board had had scmething like three
to four months of public discussion, we have reviewed the comments
and we have encouraged people to suhxnit them in writing and he felt
the Board needed to arrive at a point vdiere it decides if it has
enough information to vote in support of it or against it and he
felt the Board was at that point.
Councilwcman Raffensperger stated that she felt very uncomfortable
in having the number of people here v^o obviously thou^t they were
going to have the chance to say something and she stated that she
would be supportive of some kind of summary statements hy people in
the neighborhoods ^o want to give the Board their last shot, but
not for a long period of time because people have had several
opportunities.
Supervisor Desch ronarked that he thought that if the Board was
going to do that they ought to start reading the resolution so
that people, if they are going to have the opportunity to ccrament,
will ccmment either with respect to the deficiency of the
resolution or amendments or propose changes or v^tever but just to
take more testimony in abstract he did not think was going to add
to the process. He then asked the Town Planner to read the
proposed resolution.
Deputy Supervisor McPeak then asked for ccmments from the public.
Bill Hilker stated that he had already addressed vAiat he considered
a positive impact on the SEQR document depriving the residents and
particularly the youth of the area of the availability of the use
of the trail as it has been used for years. He stated that he
thought this was a very positive inpact. A second positive inpact
is that this document has still not addressed the parking issue for
the trail. If any private citizen came and projected this same
type of thing they would be required by the Planning Board to
present a parking plan and show vAiere the parking spaces were going
to be. He stated that he felt the Town has no less of a
responsibility. The third issue is that the City is very hesitant
about this trail because they received enough flack so to speak, or
ccmments from the public that they are not totally in favor of it
at this point. NYSEG is in the same position, they have received
enough input that they are hesitant about it. You have received a
petition from the vast majority of people vdio live along this area
v^o are totally imfavorable to it. He thought that these things
ought to be taken into consideration and he thought that the only
opinion that the Board could ccme to with those type of
considerations is a positive impact on this.
Orlando lacovelli stated that he lived on Pennsylvania Avenue and
had brought seme pictures to show that there is a positive inpact
on the neighbors in that area. When we were at the meeting at NCR
we were shown seme pictinres that seem to suggest that it wasn't a
positive inpact on the neighbors. He stated that he had taken
Town Board Minutes 20 i^ril 10, 1989
these pictures and there are some other houses that he did not
include but he had taken these pictures from directly in the middle
of the railroad bed. Mr. lacovelli went on to say that as the
Board could see vhen the pict\ires come around that seme of these
houses are just a few feet off of the old railroad bed and that is
the center of the railroad bed, not the 66'. When you suggest that
the 66* be put out there that means that you could even be closer
to the houses than he has shown on the pictures. It seemed to him
that the very least you could do is limit the size of that trail.
66', v^en the old railroad bed used to run up there with about 8',
seems unreasonable to him.
David Carr, 674 Coddington Road remarked that the previous persons
had pretty much covered a lot of things he wanted to say. He
stated that he still questioned the cost of the project. He stated
that he did not believe, and a number of people in the rocm were in
the construction business, that there is no way that that trail can
be built for that amount of money. He stated that he was also
concerned with the width and he understood that there still was no
easement from the Gas and Electric and you have seme individuals
that you have to get easements from, vdiere does the money ccme from
if you have to condemn the property? What if NYSBG were to say you
are not going to get any portion of the railroad bed? What do you
do then? That would be a siabstantial cost to the Town. He stated
that he was concerned about the cost of construction, condemning
the property and you certainly don't need a 66' width out there for
a bike path if it were to take place. He stated that he has walked
that trail hundreds of times frcm \^ere it starts to v^ere it ends,
more so than probably any one in the room, and it doesn't vary much
over 12' and so he didn't see any reason to have a 66' width. But
he was still concerned with the cost and the law enforcement. Is
the County prepared, are there additional deputies available? Who
is going to take care of this? He stated that there was still 66
signatures on a petition that has been circulated all over, and if
necessary he could have gotten more, but he felt that was ample it
was approximately 90% of the landowners, people that actually own
land on both sides of the railroad bed. Not people that live on
Coddington Road, Juniper, Northview or any place else, these are
the people that own the land. Don't they deserve seme
consideration of their property before it' s ranmed down their
throats?
David Bowlsby, 262 Pennsylvania Avenue stated that \^en Mr. Carr
says being craiimed down your throat that is v^at he felt. He
stated that he was right on the railroad bed, he had a nice house
there and he paid a lot of money for the house and for people to
tell him they are going to put a bike path, a public thing, up by
his house and he was not the only one, as those pictures showed and
he was probably one of those pictures, this is ridiculous and for
v^o? How many citizens are going to use this $104,000 public thing
they are putting along by his house and along everybody elses
house. How many people are going to use it for that kind of money?
It's a beautiful little thought but you don't have any parking
there. He stated that he had apartments and he had to have ample
parking for those apartments they should have airple parking for
anything they want to do. They don't even have parking, let alone
aitple for one that is called a decent legal parking lot.
Ron Simpson stated that he lived in the Juniper Drive area. Mr.
Siirpson went on to say that he used the recreation way frequently
for biking, jogging and walking and he guessed the point he would
like to make was that he could understand many of the problens with
the 66' thing and seme of the privacy issues that have been raised.
He stated that he thought they were iirportant and that he thought
mcst of those can be solved. The one point that he wanted to make
is that he thought that in ccmraunities \tere they have had these
Town Board Minutes 21 April 10, 1989
abandoned rsiilroad tracks that it is a resource and you can use it
or you can lose it. He thought it was an iirportant recreational
asset to the canmunity. It is used by many people and he would
like to see it designated as recreation space. It has a great
potential, it a tremendous asset but he would also like to see it
developed to a minimal degree so that many of the concerns
e3q)3:essed here are really honored. He felt that as much as the
natural could be preserved in the state of the trail it would be to
their benefit and the ccarammity. But his primary point was that if
don't designate it as recreation space now we will lose it and
he would hate to see that.
Deputy Supervisor McPeak asked if anyone had any new information
that the Board had not heard?
Mr. Carr remarked that he had one item that he had passed over.
Mr. Carr stated that a couple of meetings ago it was mentioned
about closing it during hunting season, has anybody looked into
this any further?
Town Planner Beeners replied, not since that point. Before she had
discussed with a DEC Office in Cortland and the Town's insiirance
agent and it is still proposed as a way that conflict between
hunters and other recreational users could be minimized would be to
close it during shotgun season.
Mr. Carr remarked, just keep in mind that on both sides, farther
out, it is private property on both sides in many areas and a
person is free to hunt right up to that 66' line so if in fact this
proposal takes place seme very careful consideration should take
place to honor the sportsman.
Robert Cotts, 115 Northview Road stated that he had a short
ccmnent. He thought seme balance was needed. Mr. Sirtpson's
cemment reflects a statement that he read fron the Juniper Drive
Association, seme people on Northview Drive met, seme twelve of us,
and we sent a note to the Planners on it. He thought that the Town
Board's view on tliis should be a Town's view not a neighborhood
view. If this is set up it's going to be a Town park and you
should think about how people in the Town will use it not just how
those of us that live next to it will use it. He stated that he
did not know if he could speak for the Northview Road people but he
thought that on the v^ole, on the balance they were in favor of it
he felt they had the same attitude that Mr. Sirtpson expressed that
it's an asset and we shouldn't lose it. The kinds of concerns are
about the ones Mrs. Rollins expressed about the noise of bikes,
snowmobiles, etc., and in fact they would like to see better
fencing than planned to keep these vehicles off this trail and we
would also reccmmend that the trail be a more modest development
especially South of Juniper Drive vMch would not require, for
exairple, maintenance by trucks. It would only have to be about 6'
wide, a simple trail, the siitpler the better to maintain the
wilderness quality.
Town Building Inspector/Zoning Officer Andrew Frost remarked tliat
he had a little reservation himself in spelling out the enforcement
issue of having the Zoning Officer scmehow designated as a E)ark
ranger. Agreeing that people do expect seme immediate responses
and he as Zoning Officer to put his car on this trail and drive
looking for violators was not exactly vhat he wished to do.
Coxmcilwcman Leary remarked that she had an idea. Rather than vote
on it, we have heard many many opinions and they all seem to be
saying at least don't overdue it. The perception was, she thought,
even among people vho are really supportive of the ideal of the
trail, including the Conservation Advisory Council of the City and
Town Board Minutes 22 i^ril 10, 1989
she thought they raised scxne good points and they have a certain
amount of expertise, that she felt there was a consensus that maj^
some of this should be reworked and then come back with a new
environmental statement for the Board to vote on. If we say no,
there is a positive declaration then they will have to prepare a
real long, drawn out draft. Her thinking was that rather than have
to....maybe everybody else likes the idea but for herself she
thought that there were so many differences between viiat is
proposed and vdiat so many people have been suggesting that she
could not vote a negative declaration and rather than other people
who may feel the same way turn it down and make the staff go
through all the trouble, she would just say give it back to them
for now and just have them really take those suggestions seriously
and make seme of those changes and then cone back.
Councilwcman Raffensperger remarked that she guessed she felt it
was unfair to the staff to send it back to them unless we know
exactly \tot kind of changes we want. They have addressed the
question of the width, and she thought it was clear at the meeting
that was held on Soutii Hill that the staff is committed to making
individual accommodations to landowners to particular kinds of
concerns. To say that the project in general will not have
negative environmental significance does not require that each "i"
be dotted in the vdiole proposal, in her opinion.
Councilwcman Leary replied, for example the question of the width
that's not an individual concern, many people have said that the
width of the trail was just a little too wide, it's a little too
clean, it's a little too manicured. That's not something that you
can accommodate on a landowner to landowner basis, it's something
kind of basic to the trail.
Councilwcman Raffensperger remarked that she thought she understood
up at South Hill that there would actually be some of that. That
the v^ole trail didn't have to be exactly the same, it doesn't all
have to be paved, it doesn't all have to be cindered.
Councilwcman Leary replied, but it all has to be the 8' width, like
you are saying, right?
Town Planner Beeners replied, that is our proposed objective to
maintain 8' through there.
Councilwcman Leary remarked, more than 8' actually, cleared. She
stated that from \diat she had heard it's more of a judgement
decision about the advisability of bringing in motorized vehicles,
emergency vehicles and how sophisticated the vehicles have to be to
maintain it. It's not a clear cut case v^ere we really can say we
absolutely needs the 8'. We need the 8' if we want to send
ambulances in but do we have to send ambulances in?
Assistant Town Planner Frantz replied, well again we are
recommending the 8' not so much for onergency vehicles but that is
the standard nationwide. The American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials standards, the Finger Lakes State
Parks Commission standards. The American Society of Landscape
Architects standards, it's the standaixi used by Onondaga County
Parks, it's the standard use by a number of other governmental
agencies vbich have developed this kinds of trails. And again,
it's based on the anticipated use by people and he thought that
especially in the Western portion vtere the trail is in a developed
area and the largest number of potential users live, he really felt
that 8' was the minimum safe width.
Town Board Minutes 23 ^ril 10, 1989
Councilwcroan Leary asked about one sentence, "numerous woodland
trails throughout the City, Town, State and nation are not
accessible to such vehicles".
Town Planner Beeners asked, is this a woodland trail or is this a
recreational trail? Is it a primitive woodland trail or is it a
recreational woodland trail? Are certain management and safety
needs as well as this minimum width for clearing things that should
be ccmpelling reasons to have this type. There are plenty of
opportunities on existing and potential rustic woodland trails to
have that type of a feeling. From the overall management
standpoint, in that Six Mile Creek corridor it has to be
considered.
Councilwcman Leary replied, so you don't actually consider this a
woodland trail? This is a little bit more?
Town Planner Beeners replied that she considered it a woodland
trail but it's not a primitive one where you can really maintain it
effectively using a backpack and a hatchet. The safety aspects,
does the Tcwn want to accept v^at she thinks will probably be about
a two mile length between Juniper Drive and Buims Road with no
vehicular access available if there was an emergency?
Councilwcman Leary asked, you can't get in there now, is that
right? You don't have vehicular access as it stands now?
Assistant Planner Frantz replied no, not from Nbrthview to Bums
Road. There is access from one City right-of-way, however, it is
very far out on Coddington Road. There is a barricade just South
of Northview Road vMch prevents any access.
Councilwcman Leary remarked that vdiat she was getting at she
thought, was this sort of going to be an upgrade from a woodland
trail to something else because then you are changing sort of the
vdiole nature of the v^ole thing.
Assistant Planner Frantz replied, it's on a different level from
the interlocking trail like the Finger Lakes trail or the trail at
Buttermilk and of course the trails in the City water shed but it
is also to be used by a broader range of people. People v^o can't
physically use the other trails.
Councilwcman Leary asked how would you answer the point about the
closeness of the properties?
Town Planner Beeners replied, those photographs are showing some
residences on the up and down hill from the railroad bed near
Pennsylvania Avenue. We have done several inspections through
there and think that the types of visual and privacy concerns that
these people have can be controlled through plantings and also
\^ere necessary we can put up a fence. These houses are probably
the worst case situations along the trail. Generally there is an
elevation of about 15' between the trail and the houses on
Pennsylvania or Coddington.
David Bowlsby stated that he had one quick comment. He thought
somebody had said it should be looked at a little differently.
Here we are talking about this little road behind ever^^xdy's
houses, just a little section of it, v^y do they need it. There is
one little change that they could do right there. If everyone who
had houses on it they would vote no, they have Hudson Street
coming in there with no houses. They have to go through this
little section up bdiind Pennsylvania Avenue, there are 50 houses
in that little section.
Town Board Minutes 24 J^ril 10, 1989
Deputy Supervisor McPeak asked the Board how they wanted to
proceed?
Councilwcman Raffensperger replied that she was very respective of
the different point of view but she felt it was very unfair to ask
people to cane out to many more meetings \(^le we delay making a
decision.
Deputy Supervisor McPeak remarked, the first thing we need to do is
vote on the impact statement.
Councilwcman Raffensperger replied that's right, that is the
decision that we have tonight.
Councilman Whitconb remarked, unfortunately that is the only
decision we have to make tonight is the impact statement.
Scmevdiere along the line scmebody dropped the ball inviting public
participation into the design process. Here tonight we are trying
to decide vdiat the environmental impact is, we are trying to
redesign the trail and it's getting all jumbled x:?).
Mr. Carr remarked, the sequence of construction is assanine. You
are going to start at Cass Park. The meeting that we had at NCR
and the Town Planner stressed this three or foxar times, all that
was really concerned about up there was the pathway that we are all
tallcing about right now. Her statements were well you can park
right in the neighborhood, we are going to build one fron Juniper
Drive, have a little park, come down from Coddington Road Community
Center, this is all in the scope of things. What if things never
materialize? What if the City never builds their portion? What if
nothing comes from Cass Park up along the Inlet, up South Hill,
vdiat have you got, you have got a little trail that goes no place
for may thousands of dollars. It's like putting your roof on then
putting your foundation in. Why don't we start at Cass Park, he
stated that he personally, if somebody had sense enough to build
that path from the beginning to the end, he would vote for it
himself. But to go up there and dig a hole and chop down trees,
and there are trees, and make a pathway for three and a half miles
with no parking facilities. He stated that it was going to effect
his view from his front porch and no place for anybody to go. Get
on your bike and ride to the end and turn around and come back. It
needs some reviewing.
Town Planner Beeners replied, this trail can function totally
independent of any State trail improvanents that there might be
down in the Inlet. It works quite well with the State trail if
they ever happen but this can serve the larger South Hill
neighborhood.
Councilwcman Leary remarked that it seemed to her it was making
this trail into a higher level trail then it already is, so just by
that she would say it has some inpact and, therefore, she would say
it is a positive impact, so that is v^y she would vote no.
Town Planner Beeners ronarked to Councilwcman Leary that she may
recall if she had read the review which she had had for several
months with substantially no changes, in here v^t we do is attempt
to weigh the irrpacts of going in and redoing a trail that is
already used by the public. Sure, there is going to be seme land
disturbance but we try to wei^ that with the current unmonitored
use and everything with benefits of having it be under Town control
v^ere there is the ability for enforcement and the opening it for
the benefit of a larger resident population vdiere mothers of
children will not be afraid to go down there because they know they
will run into other mothers and kids.
Tcwn Board Minutes 25 April 10, 1989
Councilwonan Leary stated that she was not speaking against the
project.
Town Planner Beeners replied that she was only asking Councilwcroan
Leary to look at it in it's entirety especially as it has been
presented in the SEQR review.
Councilman Wliitccnib asked, if he voted for a negative declaration
on this environmental iitpact statonent viiat kind of assurances does
he have that further design considerations will taken into effect,
that the 8' wide trail, the paving, the disturbance of the trail,
etc., will be looked at any further? He stated that he did si:5)port
the concept of the trail but he was just not comfortable with the
design of the trail.
Town Attorney Barney replied, the design is not cast in concrete,
the issue is vdiether as presented tonight there is a significant
environmental inpact. If you elected to decide there is not a
significant environmental impact as presented tonight and if the
scope is somehow reduced, either the width of something else,
obviously you have a lesser impact. If the scope were increased it
would have to come back for a new determination. What you are
doing tonight is not voting aye or nay on the specific design, it's
is this concept the program having a significant environmental
iitpact.
Councilman Klein added, just because something has an impact and
virtually anytiiing you do has an impact, can be mitigated and he
felt that was always the dilemma on voting on these EAF's.
Obviously just creating the trail is an impact but are there
aspects in putting the trail in that could ininimize that impact.
He stated that he would also assume that the Board would be
approving a final design of the trail.
Town Planner Beeners replied, if the Board would like to. As far
as the design details go right now, we are working with 8', we are
working with minimizing the clearance to have it be 12', to be as
narrow as possible to just get a pickup truck or a Sheriff's car
through. We are working with specific landscape need along v^ere
the houses are on Pennsylvania Avenue and throughout the trail
route. Specific landscape design, specific designed barricades and
signage because we run into several different kinds of situations
down there.
Councilwcman Leary remarked, so we are not just approving the
concept, she did not see it that way at all, if it were just the
concept we wouldn't be talking about this at all.
Councilwcman Raffensperger remarked, we have already approved the
concept a long time ago.
Councilwcman Leary replied right, we are talking about specifics
now.
Mr. lacovelli stated that he did not understand, is this coming
back to this Board or not for design approval?
Town Attorney Barney replied, that is a question that the Board
needs to determine, you can say the Board wants to see the final
design. It should be a separate resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 93
Motion by Councilman McPeak; seconded by Councilwcman
Raffensperger,
Town Board Minutes 26 P^ril 10, 1989
WEIEKEIAS:
1. This action is the consideration of a negative determination
of environmental significance for the proposed South Hill
Recreation Way project,
2. This is an Unlisted Action v^ch has been reviewed as a Type I
action/application. The Town of Ithaca Town Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for
environmental review of the Recreation Way route in the Town
of Ithaca.
3. The City of Ithaca has been requested, on March 1, and March
8, 1989, to convey their concurrence on the Town Board acting
as Lead Agency for environmental review of this project. No
official ccnment has been received the City of Ithaca
within the 15-day requirement of Section 36.6, D2, of the City
of Ithaca Environmental Quality Ordinance. The City Director
of Planning and Development has advised the Town Planner that
a building permit application must be sutmitted by the Town
for the portion of the trail within the City prior to any
further determination by the City as to Lead Agency status for
said portion in the City.
THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED, that the Town Board, acting as Lead
Agency in the environmental review of the proposed South Hill
Recreation Way project in the Town of Ithaca, make and hereby does
make a negative determination of environmental significance for the
proposed action within the Town of Ithaca, subject to concurrence
on Lead Agency status by the New York State Office of Parks and
Historic Preservation, v^ch is an involved agency and vMch is
providing a portion of the funding for the project.
Deputy Supervisor McPeak called for a roll call vote.
Councilman Bartholf Voting Aye
Councilman Klein Voting Aye
Councilwoman Leary Voting Nay
Councilwcman Raffensperger Voting Aye
Councilman Whitccmb Voting Nay
Deputy Supervisor McPeak Voting Aye
The resolution was duly adopted.
RESOLUTIC^ NO. 94
Motion by Comcilman Whitcomb; seconded by Councilwcmian Leary,
RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca that before there
are any expenditiores of funds for the South Hill Recreation Way
that the final design be submitted to the Town Board for its review
and approval.
Deputy Supervisor McPeak called for a roll call vote.
Councilman Bartholf Voting Aye
Councilman Klein Voting Aye
Councilwoman Leary Voting Aye
Councilwcman Raffensperger Voting Aye
Councilman Whitccmb Voting Aye
Deputy Supervisor McPeak Voting Aye
Tcwn Board Minutes 27 l^ril 10, 1989
The resolution was duly adopted.
IN-LIEU OF PAYMENT FOR FIRE SERVICES FROM EDlX:ATIONMi INSTITUTIONS
Deputy Supervisor McPeak stated that he did not see any information
on this item.
Councilwatian Raffensperger remarked that there did not seem to be a
draft resolution from the Supervisor but that she was really quite
concerned that we very soon respond to the City's resolution asking
us to ask Cornell University and Ithaca College for additional
in-lieu of payments.
It was suggested that perhaps a special meeting would be necessary.
Town Attorney Barney remarked that they were in the process of
trying to close on the two fire station sites that are being
donated respectively by Cornell and Ithaca College and it maite the
reason you don't have anything tonight is that it just a matter of
timing. On one hand you are getting the land and do you want to at
that time approach them for money.
Councilworaan Raffensperger felt this item should be dealt with soon
and asked the Deputy Supervisor to inform the Supervisor to
schedule a special meeting.
FEBRUARY AND MARCH FINANCIAL REPORT
RESOLUTIOJ NO. 95
Motion by Councilwcman Raffensperger; seconded fcy COimcilman
Baitholf,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby aj^rove
the F^ruary and March Financial Report as presented.
(McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Klein and Whitccmb voting
Aye. Nays - none).
ACCEPTANCE OF ROADS
JOHN STREET
Tcwn Highway Superintendent John Ozolins remarked that there was
still a lot of work to be done on John Street, the road is there,
however. As it stands right now both the Town Engineer and himself
have to make sure that the work is done correct.
Deputy Supervisor McPeak suggested that action on John Street be
postponed until the May meeting, if it is complete by then.
HARRIS B. DATES DRIVE
RESOLUTION NO. 96
Motion by Councilman Klein; seconded by Deputy Supervisor McPeak,
WEiEREAS, the Town of Ithaca has completed construction of Harris B.
Dates Drive, with drainage improvements, and
WEffiREAS, final roadway construction inspection has been conducted
by the Town Engineer,
Town Board Minutes 28 i^ril 10, 1989
NCW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the TDwn of Ithaca Town Board
accepts said Harris B. Dates Drive as a Town Highway subject to
receipt of the necessary easonents or rights of way frcm Tcnpkins
County and Tatpkins Ccninunity Hospital, and subject to ccnpletion
of survey maps, deed description, and marketable title,
satisfactory to the Town Attorney.
(McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Klein, and Whitccmb voting
Aye. Nays - none).
RATIFY PURCHASE OF COMPUTER FOR AUTOCAD
RESOLUTION NO. 97
Motion by Coimcilwotian Raffensperger; seconded by Councilman
Bartholf,
ViHEREAS, the 1989 Budget included funding for a ccnputer system for
the Zoning Department, and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Departmsnt needs could be met with a ccnputer
of the type used by Mike Ocello for AUTOCAD plotting, and
WHEREAS, there was an iitmediate need for a faster ccxiputer with
more memory and a higher resolution display for AUTOCAD plotting
support, and
WHEREAS, a Town Hall staff ccmmittee of computer users and
potential users felt the best alternative was to purchase a faster,
386 PC with 2 megabytes of memory and high resolution monitoring
for AUTOCAD plotter support and move the current PC used by Mike
Ocello to Zoning,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of
Ithaca hereby approves the purchase of a NBC 386 SX computer, not
to exceed $4,499 for AUTOCAD plotter support and the transfer of
the current PCs Limited AT compatible computer to the Zoning
Department for automation of Zoning records and correspondence.
(McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Klein and Whitccmib voting
Aye. Nays - none).
TCWN OF ITHACA WARRANTS
RESOLUTION NO. 98
Motion by Coimcilwcman Raffensperger; seconded ty Councilman
^fcPeak,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves
the Town of Ithaca Warrants dated i^ril 10, 1989, in the following
amounts:
General Fund - Town Wide $ 45,497.66
General Fund - Outside Village $ 29,675.03
Highway Fund $ 30,207.85
Water & Sewer Fund $287,225.66
Capital Projects Fund $ 24,562.49
Lighting Districts Fund $ 444.82
(McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Klein and Whitccamb voting
Aye. Nays - none).
Town Board Minutes 30 ;^ril 10, 1989
n
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was duly adjourned.
n
Tcfwn Board Minutes 29 Pipril 10, 1989
BOLTC^ POINT WARRANTS
RESOLUTION NO. 99
Motion by Councilman Bartholf; seconded by Councilman McPeak,
RESOLVED, that the Bolton Point Warrants dated April 10, 1989, in
the Operating Account are hereby approved in the amount of
$85,278.22 after review and upon the reccamiendation of the Southern
Cayuga Lake Intennunicipal Water Commission, they are in order for
payment.
(McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Klein and Whitccnib voting
Aye. Nays - none).
PERSONS TO BE HEARD
Bill Hilker stated that back in 1977, he believed, the Town of
Ithaca commissioned Mr. Miller to do a survey of Kendall and
Pennsylvania Avenue vMch is not a road yet, that portion of the
water and sewer runs. In so doing, it turned out that the lots did
not reach the road by the properties. Mr. Hilker showed a map with
the lot lines and the road line. There is a little bit of offset
of the boundary lines from the original plat. This vAiole thing
developed because in 1986 vdien they plated this subdivision
evidently they had a little land left over and they just didn't do
anything. In the pie shaped lots they become just under 50'.The
landowners of the nine lots have reached an agreement to accept
this new survey but there is a problem in that if we accept it then
the Town can come back to us and say that now that you have a new
survey it's a new subdivision and no grandfathering of the lots.
We don't want to do that without the Town's approval that the
grandfathering will carry through.
Town Attorney Barney replied that this should go to the Planning
Board for their decision as to whether this should be modified.
The Board agreed this should go to the Planning Board.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
RESOLUTION NO. 100
Motion by Councilwoman Raffensperger; seconded by Councilman
McPeak,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby moves
into Executive Session to discuss potential litigation.
(McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Klein and Whitccmb voting
Aye. Nays - none).
OPEN SESSION
RESOLUTION NO. 101
Motion by Councilwoman Raffensperger; seconded by Councilman Klein,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby moves
back into Open Session.
(McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Klein and Whitccmb voting
Aye. Nays - none).