No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2003-12-08 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD MONDAY, DECEMBER 8 , 2003 at 5 : 30 P . M . 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, NEW YORK AGENDA 1 . Call to Order 2 . Pledge of Allegiance 3 . Report of Tompkins County Board of Representatives 4 . Report of Fire Commissioners 5 . 6 : 00 p . m . - Persons to be Heard 6 . 6 : 30 p . m . — Public Hearing regarding the Proposed Revisions to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Map 7 . Consider Adoption of SEQR Statement of Findings Regarding Proposed Revisions to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Map 8 . Consider Resolution regarding County Planning Department Recommendation on Zoning Ordinance 9 . Consider Adoption of Proposed Revisions to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Map 10 . Consider Setting Special Town Board Meeting 11 , Consider Approval of Order for Public Hearing regarding Adoption of Intermunicipal Wastewater Agreement 12 , Consider Approval of Order for Public Hearing regarding Changes to the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant Agreement (Joint Sewer Agreement) 13 . 7 : 45 p . m . — Public Hearing regarding Acquiring an Interest in Several City of Ithaca Sewer Interceptors and Certain City of Ithaca Pump Stations for Transmission of Town Waste Water from the Town to the Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Plant 14 . Consider Adoption of SEQR regarding the Joint Interceptor Agreement 15 . Consider Approval of Agreement with City of Ithaca to Acquire an Interest in City of Ithaca Sewer Interceptors 16 . Consider Appointment of Carolyn Grigorov as Deputy Supervisor 17 . Consider Approval of Attendance at the Association of Towns 2004 Training School for Newly Elected Officials to be Held in Rochester 18 , Consider Approval of Attendance at Association of Towns 2004 Annual Meeting to be Held in New York City 19 . Consider Creation of Recreation and Youth Coordinator Position and approval of job description 20 . Consider Authorization to Close Capital Project — Public Works Facility Renovation and Construction 21 . Discuss Advertising for Town Historian 22 . Consider Setting Date for Town Board 2004 Organizational Meeting 23 . Consider Approval of Commercial Insurance for 2004 24 . Consider Approval Resolution in Support of An Act Relating to Collateral Sources 25 . Consider Acceptance of Eldridge Circle and Portion of Southwoods Drive 26 . Consider Acceptance of Remainder of Apple Blossom Lane and Portion of Amber Lane 27 . Consider Change Order for West Hill Water Tank 28 . Consider Change Order for Coy Glen Pump Station 29 . Consider Authorization to Pay Pyramid Management Brokerage Fee for Sale of Old Town Hall 30 . Consent Agenda a . Approval of Town Board Minutes b . Approval of Town of Ithaca Warrants c . Approval of Bolton Point Warrants d . Approval of Floating Holiday e . Approval of Holiday Tree Pick Up Date f . Appoint Crossing Guard g . Regular Appointment of Engineering Technician I 31 . Report of Town Committees a . Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Committee b . Capital Projects and Fiscal Planning Committee c . Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization d . Codes and Ordinances Committee e . Lake Source Data Sharing Committee f . Personnel Committee g . Public Works Committee h . Recreation Partnership i . Records Management Advisory Board j . Safety Committee k . Sewer Joint Subcommittee I . Sewer Contract Committee m . Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission n . Transportation Committee 32 . Report of Town Officials a . Town Clerk b . Highway Superintendent c . Director of Engineering d . Director of Planning e . Director of Building and Zoning f . Human Resources Manager g . Budget Officer h . Network/ Records Specialist i . Attorney for the Town 33 . Review of Correspondence a . Recommendations of the Water Resources Council Regarding the Use of Recreational Watercraft on Cayuga Lake b . 11 /5/03 Letter from Senator Schumer re unclaimed income tax refunds c . 11 /7/03 thank you letter from Eleanor May d . 11 /7/03 email from Bill Hawley re Senior Citizens ' Council funding e . 11 / 11 /03 letter from Mary Prosperi re Aris Development proposal f . 11 / 12/03 email from Joe Scaglione re Aris Development proposal g . 11 / 17/03 letter from Fred Wilcox seeking appointment as Planning Board Chair h . 11 /20/03 letter to Alan Cohen regarding the Phosphorus Removal Project at the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant 34 . Consider Adjournment AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION The Ithaca jot III IIII il 1111111lllll 1i IAL NOTICE OF State of New York, Tompkins County, ss. : PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN being duly sworn , deposes and that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will hold a s that she/ he resides in Ithaca, count and state aforesaid and that public hearing of ca, New North says y Tioga Street, Ithaca, York on December 8, 2003 she/ he is Clerk of The Ithaca at 6: 30 p.m . for the purpose of considering a local law amending and re-enacting J ournal a public newspaper printed and published in Ithaca aforesaid the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Map. At and that a notice of which the annexed is a true copy was published such time and place all per- sons interested in such local law will be given an oppor- ln Sal d paper tunity to be heard in favor of or in opposition to said lo- cal law. Copies of the pro- posed Zoning Ordinance are available for review at the Town Clerk's Office at the address above Monday through Friday from 8 :00 a .m . to 4:00 p.m . t FURTHER NOTICE IS GIV- and that the first publication of said notice was on the EN that individuals with vis- ual impairments, hearing day of impairments or other special needs will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desir- ing assistance must make a Subscribed and sworn to before me this da \' of request not less than 48 hours prior to the 'time of the � ..— public hearing . C�): -. O 3 Tee-Ann Hunter Town Clerk Dated: November 17, 2003 11 / 19/2003 Notary- Public JEAN FORD Notary Public , State of New Yark No. 4654410 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires May 31 , 20 6 TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN BOARD SIGN - IN SHEET DATE : Monday , December 08 , 2003 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS / AFFILIATION c 131 o A% KWdd I�) LAO ct ' c to ol-silA I.tom lrJ1�21s �� /a �drl�-�' / Or 1 TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN BOARD SIGWIN SHEET DATE : Monday , December 08 , 2003 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS / AFFILIATION Sol i 0,�2 r {rte u ! Q c � ct c�c` Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD MONDAY, DECEMBER 8 , 2003 AT 5 : 30 P . M . 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, NEW YORK PRESENT : Supervisor Valentino ; Councilwoman Russell ; Councilwoman Grigorov ; Councilman Klein ; Councilman Lesser; Councilman Burbank ; Councilman Niederkorn STAFF PRESENT : Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Clerk ; John Barney ; Attorney for the Town ; Dan Walker , Town Engineer; Fred Noteboom , Highway Superintendent ; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning ; Al Carvill , Budget Officer; Judy Drake , Human Resources Manager; Andy Frost , Director of Building and Zoning . OTHERS PRESENT : Ted Bussani , WHCH Radio ; John Rancich , West Hill landowner; Francis Benedict , 131 Oakwood Lane ; Herb Engman , 120 Warren Road ; Roger Dupuis , Ithaca Journal ; Bert Gildersleeve , West Hill landowner; Sandra Gittelman , 109 Tudor Road ; Douglas Pokorney , 282 Pokorney Road ; Joe Quigley , 601 Hanshaw Road ; Scott Steelman , 84 Lake Watch ; Claire Louge ; Kim Weelock ; Mari Speiser; Frank Proto , Tompkins County Representative ; Debbie Teeter, 71 Gray Road ; Alan Teeter, 71 Gray Road ; Kate Lunde 1407 Mecklenburg Road ; Jeff Hanavan , 1407 Mecklenburg Road ; Fred Hudson , 4059 West Road , Cortland , First Pioneer F . C . ; Lenore Durkee , 115 Woolf Lane , Larry Sallinger, 14 Peachtree Lane ; Louise Sallinger, 14 Peachtree Lane ; Wendi Dowit , 502 West Court ; Ed Hooks , 119 East Seneca ; Shirley Eagan , 300 CCC Building , Cornell University , Bruce Britan , 135 Warren Road ; Steven Daughhetee , 245 Hayts Road ; Monika Roth , Cornell Cooperative Extension ; Lin Davidson , 1812 Ridge Road , Lansing ; Noel Desch , 132 Updike Road ; Monty Berman , 120 Rachel Carson Way , Alfred Eddy , 544 Bostwick Road ; Alan Cohen , 226 Pleasant Street , City of Ithaca Agenda Item No . 4 — Report of Fire Commissioners (Attachment #1 — written report) Bob Romanowski read his monthly report to the Board . Agenda Item No . 16 — Consider Appointment of Carolyn Grigorov as Deputy Supervisor TB RESOLUTION NO . 2003- 180 : Appointment of Deputy Town Supervisor. BE IT RESOLVED , the Town Supervisor, with the approval of the governing Town Board , hereby appoints Councilwoman Carolyn Grigorov as Deputy Town Supervisor for the term January 1 , 2004 to December 31 , 2004 ; and be it further RESOLVED , as Deputy Supervisor , Councilwoman Grigorov is hereby afforded all duties and responsibilities of the said position as prescribed by Town Law , General Municipal Law , and the Public Officer' s Law of the State of New York . 1 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 MOVED : Councilwoman Russell SECONDED : Councilman Burbank VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Niederkorn , aye . Motion carried unanimously Agenda Item No 17 - Consider Approval of Attendance at the Association of Towns 2004 Training School for Newly Elected Officials to be Held in Rochester TB RESOLUTION NOw 2003- 181 • Authorizing Attendance at the 2004 Training School for Newly Elected Officials WHEREAS , the 2004 Training School for Newly Elected Town Officials „ sponsored by the NYS Comptroller and Association of Towns , is being held in Rochester, NY , January 12 - 14 , 2004 ; and WHEREAS , attendance at the said program will benefit the Town of Ithaca by providing additional training to newly elected Town Board members Sandra Gittelman . Peter Stein , and Herbert Engman ; Now , therefore , be it RESOLVED , that the governing Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby authorize Sandra Gittelman , Peter Stein , and Herbert Engman to attend the 2004 Training School for Newly Elected Town Officials , sponsored by the NYS Comptroller and Association of Towns , being held in Rochester , NY , January 12 - 14 , 2004 ; and be it further RESOLVED , the cost not to exceed $ 1500 . 00 is to be expended from A1010 , 410 , MOVED : Supervisor Valentino SECONDED : Councilwoman Grigorov VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilman Lesser , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Niederkorn , aye . Motion carried unanimously . 2 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 Agenda Item No 18 - Consider Approval of Attendance at Association of Towns 2004 Annual Meeting to be Held in New York City TB RESOLUTION NO 2003-182 : Authorizing Attendance at NYS Association of Towns 2004 Training School & Annual Meeting WHEREAS , the NYS Association of Towns will be holding their 2004 Training School and Annual Meeting February 15 - 18 , 2004 in New York City ; and WHEREAS , the attendance at said Training School and Annual Meeting by various Town Officials will benefit the Town of Ithaca by providing additional schooling for these said individuals ; now therefore be it RESOLVED , that the Town Board hereby approves the attendance of Catherine Valentino and Will Burbank , at the NYS Association of Towns 2004 Training School and Annual Meeting to be held in New York City on February 15- 18 , 2004 ; and be it further RESOLVED , the Town Board also approves the payment for overnight lodging ; the registration fees ; meals and travel on the cooperative municipal bus for each individual attending the said Training School and Annual Meeting ; and be it further RESOLVED , the cost not to exceed $2 , 000 . 00 is to be expended from A1010 . 410 , MOVED : Councilwoman Russell SECONDED : Councilman Lesser VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Niederkorn , aye . Motion carried unanimously . Agenda Item No 20 - Consider Authorization to Close Capital Project — Public Works Facility Renovation and Construction TB RESOLUTION NO . 2003-183 : NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND AUTHORIZATION TO CLOSE CAPITAL PROJECT — PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY RENOVATION AND CONSTRUCTION WHEREAS : at the August 12 , 2002 Town Board meeting , this governing Board established and funded the Public Works Facility Renovation and Construction Capital Project under Resolution No . 2002 - 126 . Monetary funds came from the General Townwide Fund , Water Fund and Sewer Fund . 3 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 WHEREAS : the Town Highway Superintendent is advising this goveming Board that all renovations and construction of the " Public Works Facility" is complete , and therefore be it RESOLVED : after discussion with the Highway Superintendent this governing Board declares this project complete , and be it further RESOLVED : that this Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and Town Budget Officer to close the accounting and financial records of this capital project by recording any and all necessary and appropriate transactions . MOVED : Supervisor Valentino SECONDED : Councilman Klein VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Niederkorn , aye . Motion carried unanimously . Agenda Item No . 21 - Discuss Advertising for Town Historian (Attachment #2 — Job Description) Supervisor Valentino. and Ms . Hunter told the Board that a $ 1 , 000 stipend and $500 for expenses were approved in the 2004 Budget to fund a Town Historian . The Board received a copy of the Town Historian job description in their board packet . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2003- 184 : Authorize Advertising for Town Historian RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca authorizes the Town Clerk to advertise for a Town Historian . MOVED : Supervisor Valentino SECONDED : Councilman Lesser VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Niederkorn , aye . Motion carried unanimously . Councilman Lesser told the Board he had occasion to sit next to Carol Sissler and mentioned the job to her. The Board felt it would be worth following up to see if she might be interested in the position . 4 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 Agenda Item No . 22 - Consider Setting Date for Town Board 2004 Organizational Meeting TB RESOLUTION NO . 2003-185 : Set Date for 2004 Organizational Meeting BE IT RESOLVED , that the governing Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby sets their 2004 Organizational Meeting for January 12 , 2004 at 5 : 30 p . m . MOVED : Councilman Niederkorn SECONDED : Councilwoman Grigorov VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Niederkorn , aye . Motion carried unanimously. Agenda Item No. 24 - Consider Approval Resolution in Support of An Act Relating to Collateral Sources Supervisor Valentino told the Board she has been asked to write a letter in support of State Senate Bill S . 622 regarding public employees' ability to collect workers ' compensation and turn around and sue for damages . This is something private sector employees are not able to do ; once they have signed accepting payment under workman ' s compensation they are not able to sue . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2003-186 : Support for Proposed Senate Bill S . 622 / Assembly Bill A. 3483 . WHEREAS , there has been introduced before the New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly a bill know as A . 622/A . 3483 entitled : "An act to amend the civil practice law and rules , in relation to equalizing the treatment of collateral sources in tort actions , to repeal subdivisions ( a) and ( b) of section 4545 of such law and rules relating to collateral sources in certain tort actions and to repeal subdivisions (d ) and (e ) of rule 4111 of such law and rules relating to itemized verdicts in certain tort actions" , and WHEREAS , this bill will equalize the treatment of collateral sources in tort actions against public defendants by applying the same standard used in cases against private defendants , the bill would allow collateral sources to offset damage awards for future costs or expenses in actions against public employers (to prevent double recoveries) , NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT 5 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby support the enactment of New York State Senate Bill S . 622 / New York State Assembly Bill A . 3483 ; and be it further RESOLVED , that certified copies of this resolution be delivered to Honorable Joseph Bruno , Majority Leader, New York State Senate ; Honorable Sheldon Silver, Speaker , New York State Assembly ; Honorable Richard Platkin , Counsel to the Governor; Honorable Barbara Lifton , Assemblyperson for the 125th District ; Honorable John Kuhl , Senator for the 53rd District , by the Town Clerk . MOVED : Councilwoman Russell SECONDED : Councilwoman Grigorov VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Niederkorn , aye . Motion carried unanimously . Organizational Meeting Herb Engman pointed out to the Board that the January 12 , 2004 Organizational Meeting conflicts with the newly elected officials attendance at the Rochester I- raining school . Supervisor Valentino suggested January 5 , 2004 as an alternate date . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2003- 187 : Rescind TB Resolution No . 2003 -185 and Reset Date for Organizational Meeting WHEREAS , three Town Board members will be at the Training School for Newly Elected Officials on January 12 , 2004 and will be unable to attend the organizational meeting ; BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby rescinds TB Resolution No . 2003 - 185 and sets January 5 , 2004 at 5 : 30 p . m . as the date and time for the organizational meeting . MOVED : Supervisor Valentino SECONDED : Councilman Lesser VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilman Lesser , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Niederkorn , aye . Motion carried unanimously . 6 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 Agenda Item No. 25 - Consider Acceptance of Eldridge Circle and Portion of Southwoods Drive TB RESOLUTION NO . 2003-188 : ACCEPTANCE OF A PORTION OF SOUTHWOODS DRIVE AND ALL OF ELDRIDGE CIRCLE IN THE SOUTHWOODS SUBDIVISION , FOR DEDICATION . WHEREAS , Southwoods Association is offering for dedication to the Town of Ithaca for highway and utility purposes approximately 1 , 165 lineal feet of property 60 feet wide shown as Southwoods Drive and approximately 1 , 240 lineal feet of property 60 feet wide shown as Eldridge Circle on the Subdivision Map entitled " Final Plat of Southwoods Subdivision , p/o Military Lot 99 , Town of Ithaca , County of Tompkins , State of New York , prepared by George Schlecht , L . S . , Sheet 1 of 2 dated 3-29 - 1989 " ; and WHEREAS , Southwoods Association has constructed the roads and storm water facilities to Town of Ithaca specifications with the exception of the final asphalt top which will be completed Prior to September 30 , 2004 , and WHEREAS , Southwoods Association has deposited with the Town of Ithaca a check in the amount of $35 , 000 to be held in escrow until completion of the pavement , such amount being sufficient for the Town of Ithaca to complete the top pavement in the event that Southwoods defaults , and WHEREAS , The first 150 lineal feet of Southwoods Drive from the intersection with King Road East was constructed during a wet period which is less than optimal conditions , the Town Highway Superintendent has asked the Contractor to Guarantee the work and provide a bond in the amount of $ 15 , 000 , which is sufficient to rebuild that section of road if needed , and WHEREAS , the Town Superintendent of Highways has advised the Town Board that said road has been constructed in accordance with the Town of Ithaca Highway specifications , and WHEREAS , the Town Superintendent of Highways has recommended the acceptance of said parcel for dedication for highway and utility purposes ; NOW , THEREFORE , be it RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby accepts as public roadway 1 , 165 lineal feet of property 60 feet wide of Southwoods Drive and approximately 1 , 240 lineal feet of property 60 feet wide of Eldridge Circle subject to the following conditions : (a ) Approval of title to said road by the Attorney for the Town . 7 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 ( b) receipt by the Town of the $ 15 , 000 bond for the possible repair of the first 150 lineal feet of Southwoods Drive . ( c) approval of an agreement on the handling of the $35 , 000 delivered in escrow to the satisfaction of the Town Supervisor , Town Engineer, and Town Highway Superintendent upon the advise of the Attorney for the Town . MOVED : Supervisor Valentino SECONDED : Councilman Lesser VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Niederkorn , aye . Motion carried unanimously . Agenda Item No. 3 — Report of Tompkins County Board of Representatives Representative Proto , in attendance at the meeting on another issue , agreed to address the Board on behalf of the County Legislature . Mr. Proto told the Board that the County had passed their 2004 budget with a 15 . 7% tax increase stating the levy is higher than that , it is over 20 % . Mr. Proto gave a quick update on work on the storm water regulations being done by the County' s Water Resources Council . He stated the regulations fall into two categories ; those involving development and those involving the municipalities . It is his understanding / hope that the municipalities are collaborating on a template that the County Planning Department can help promulgate . The regulations are quite expensive to implement . The County is in the process of looking at grants . If the County can develop a consortium and apply jointly it will make implementation less expensive for all the municipalities . The Water Resources Council ' s report on personal watercraft legislation was presented to the Planning Committee of the County Board . The biggest concern of the 5 municipalities that front on the lake is "how the heck to you enforce this ? " . Sheriff Meskill has agreed to contact the law enforcement agencies around Lake George regarding what they use for designated distances and how do they enforce their regulations . In response to questions from Councilman Lesser posed at an earlier meeting regarding restoring a deputy sheriff position in the 2004 County budget , Mr. Proto reported they had tried but failed to do so . They also tried to restore some money for public works and unfortunately all of that didn 't get back in . 8 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 In looking ahead to future budgeting , Mr. Proto told the board the County needs to look at "what really is the State mandating when it indicates it' s a State mandate because that ' s creating not just confusion , but it ' s getting darned expensive for any resident in the County to foot the bill' . They will be looking at the not-for-profit status of a lot of the organizations . Mr. Proto asked Supervisor Valentino if she was planning to continue bringing County and municipal officials together to discuss how they can cost effectively work together. She stated she has spoken with Tim Joseph and they intend to set up a meeting to start this process . Agenda Item No . 5 — Persons to be Heard (Attachment # 3) Fran Benedict, 131 Oakwood Lane , Mr. Benedict appeared before the Board to discuss costs he had incurred as a result of the new water tower that was put in the Lindermann Creek area and a subsequently clogged drainage pipe . Mr. Benedict read a letter from Pogo Paongoli describing the drainage work he performed for Mr. Benedict . The City has reimbursed him for 1 /3 of the cost of the work and he is asking that the Town pick up 1 /3 of the cost . Councilman Klein recommended the matter be forwarded to the Public Works Committee for discussion . The Board agreed with that recommendation Agenda Item No . 26 - Consider Acceptance of Remainder of Apple Blossom Lane and Portion of Amber Lane TB RESOLUTION NO . 2003-189 : ACCEPTANCE OF AMBER LANE AND A PORTION OF APPLE BLOSSOM LANE IN THE SAPONI MEADOWS SUBDIVISION , FOR DEDICATION . WHEREAS , Eddy Hill , Inc . is offering for dedication to the Town of Ithaca for highway and utility purposes approximately 500 lineal feet of property 60 feet wide shown as Amber Lane and approximately 650 lineal feet of property 60 feet wide shown as Apple Blossom Lane on the Subdivision Map entitled " Saponi Meadows Subdivision Seven Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York State prepared by Robert S . Russler , Jr. , Sheet 3 of 7 dated March 14 , 1994 " ; and WHEREAS , the Town Superintendent of Highways has advised the Town Board that said roadways have been constructed in accordance with the Town of Ithaca Highway specifications ; and WHEREAS , the Town Superintendent of Highways has recommended the acceptance of said parcel for dedication for highway purposes ; NOW , THEREFORE , be it 9 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby accepts as public roadway Amber Lane and the portion of apple Blossom Lane described by the attached boundary description with the following conditions : ( a) Approval of title to said road by the Attorney for the Town . MOVED : Supervisor Valentino SECONDED : Councilman Klein VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Niederkorn , aye . Motion carried unanimously . Agenda Item No. 27 - Consider Change Order for West Full Water Tank Deferred until the next meeting . Agenda Item No . 28 — Consider Change Order for the Cov Glen Pump Station Mr. Walker told the Board that there were 2 changes to the contract : one related to the location of the water, the other for some additional foundation work on 'the purnp station . TB RESOLUTION NO , 2003- 190 : Approval of Change Order 1 to Contract for Construction of the Coy Glen Pump Station and Water Main WHEREAS , The Town of Ithaca has entered into a contract with G . DeVincentis & Son Construction Company for construction of the Coy Glen Pump Station and Water Main , and WHEREAS , the location of and existing sewer main along Coy Glen Road has caused the water main to be relocated into the roadway requiring approximately 1500 linear feet of asphalt saw cutting not in the original contract , and WHEREAS , G . DeVincentis & Son Construction Company has provided a price of $2 . 00 per linear foot to saw cut the asphalt for an estimated total cost of $3 , 000 . 00 , which is a reasonable price , and WHEREAS , The final details for the partially buried pump station have required a change in the building foundation and Concrete floor, resulting in additional work for the Contractor, and WHEREAS , G . DeVincentis & Son Construction Company has provided a lump sum price of $ 6 , 655 . 00 for completing this additional work , and 10 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 WHEREAS , the Town Engineer has recommended these changes to the Contract , and WHEREAS , the total increase in the contract of $9 , 655 . 00 will not exceed the project budget . NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED , The Town of Ithaca Town Board approves the above contract change in the total amount of $9 , 655 . 00 and authorizes the Town Supervisor to sign the change order. MOVED : Supervisor Valentino SECONDED : Councilman Burbank VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Niederkorn , aye . Motion carried unanimously . Agenda Item No . 23 - Consider Approval of Commercial Insurance for 2004 TB RESOLUTION NO . 2003- 191 : Approval of Commercial Liability Insurance Agent for 2004 . WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca did a Request for Proposals for commercial liability insurance , which is to be done at least every five years to determine the Agency ; and WHEREAS , Ithaca Agency and The Wood Office were the only two agencies to responded to the RFP ; and WHEREAS , the Ithaca Agency is the recommended agent for submitting the most comprehensive package for the best cost and coverage and currently serves several municipalities including City of Ithaca , and Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission and has been the Town ' s agent since January 1 , 1999 , and WHEREAS , the Human Resources Manager recommends continuing with Selective Insurance as the insurance carrier for 2004 ; Now , therefore , be it RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves Ithaca Agency , a Division of Haylor, Freyor and Coon , Inc . , as the agent to provide Commercial Liability Insurance for the Town ; and be it further 11 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 RESOLVED , the Town Board hereby approves of Selective Insurance as the commercial liability insurance carrier for 2004 as quoted by Ithaca Agency . MOVED : Supervisor Valentino SECONDED : Councilman Klein VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Niederkorn , aye . Motion carried unanimously . Agenda Item No . 30 — Consent TB RESOLUTION NO , 2003- 192 : Consent Agenda Items . BE IT RESOLVED , that the governing Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the resolutions for Consent Agenda Items as presented . MOVED : Councilman Lesser SECONDED : Councilman Burbank VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Niederkorn , aye . Motion carried unanimously . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2003-a : Town Board Minutes WHEREAS , the Town Clerk has presented the minutes for the Special Town Board Meeting held on October 23 , 2003 and Regular Town Board Meeting held on November 6 , 2003 , to the governing Town Board for their review and approval of filing ; NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , the governing Town Board does hereby approve for filing the minutes for the meetings held on October 23 , 2003 and November 6 , 2003 as presented at the December 8 , 2003 board meeting . TB RESOLUTION NO , 2003- 192b : Town of Ithaca Warrants . WHEREAS , the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for approval of payment ; and 12 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 WHEREAS , the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board ; now therefore be it RESOLVED , that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in total for the amounts indicated . VOUCHER NOS . 7717- 7885 , Manual Checks 680- 682 Check No . 680 , Capital Project — Bostwick Rd Water Main and Transmission Line $ 157000 . 00 Check No . 682 , City of Ithaca Fire Protection $ 1769919 . 00 General Fund Townwide $ 68 , 520 . 21 General Fund Part Town $ 944 . 19 Highway Fund Part Town $ 113290 . 27 Water Fund $ 165539 . 84 Sewer Fund $ 2 , 399 . 11 2002 West Hill Water Tank Improvement $ 157 , 261 . 96 Bostwick Rd Water Main & Transmission Line $ 480 , 319 . 47 Risk Retention Fund $ 51670 . 31 Fire Protection Fund $ 171 , 797 . 67 Forest Home Lighting District $ 177 . 18 Glenside Lighting District $ 62 . 42 Renwick Heights Lighting District $ 87 . 22 Eastwood Commons Lighting District $ 179 . 86 Clover Lane Lighting District $ 20 . 72 Winner' s Circle Lighting District $ 60 . 85 Burleigh Drive Lighting District $ 59 . 18 West Haven Road Lighting District $ 238 . 28 Coddington Road Lighting District $ 140 . 75 TOTAL $ 1 , 107 , 688 . 49 MOVED : Councilman Lesser SECONDED : Councilman Burbank VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Niederkorn , aye . Motion carried unanimously . 13 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 TB RESOLUTION NO . 2003= 192c : Bolton Points Warrants . WHEREAS , the following numbered vouchers for the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission have been presented to the governing Town Board for approval of payment ; and WHEREAS , the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board ; now , therefore , be it RESOLVED , that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers . Voucher Numbers : 683-757 760-762 Check Numbers : 6912 -6991 Operating Fund $ 193 , 875 . 74 1998 SCADA Capital Project $ 49182 . 86 2002 Office Space Addition $ 31631 . 46 TOTAL $ 201 , 690 . 06 MOVED : Councilman Lesser SECONDED : Councilman Burbank VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Niederkorn , aye . Motion carried unanimously . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2003=192d : Approval of Floating Holiday for 2004. WHEREAS , there is an annual poll conducted of all town employees to determine their preference for the next year' s floating holiday ; and WHEREAS , the majority of the combined employees of Town Hall , Highway , and SCLIWC have indicated , Friday , July 2 , 2004 as their preference for the floating holiday ; now , therefore , be it 14 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the Floating Holiday for 2004 as Friday , July 2 , 2004 as requested by the majority of the employees . MOVED : Councilman Lesser SECONDED : Councilman Burbank VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Niederkorn , aye . Motion carried unanimously . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2003= 192e : Holiday Tree Pick Up WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Highway Department will be picking up holiday trees for the residents of the Town of Ithaca ; now therefore be it RESOLVED , that on January 20 , 2004 , the Highway Department will pick up holiday trees for the residents of the Town of Ithaca . MOVED : Councilman Lesser SECONDED : Councilman Burbank VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Niederkorn , aye . Motion carried unanimously . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2003-192f : Regular Appointment of Crossing Guard . WHEREAS , there is presently a vacancy in the part time position of Crossing Guard on Warren Road for the morning and afternoon crossings for Dewitt Middle School ; and WHEREAS , the Human Resources Manager interviewed candidates for the said position and has determined that Marjorie Shippey possess the necessary knowledge and skills to satisfactorily perform the duties of Crossing Guard and makes the recommendation for appointment ; Now , therefore , be it RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the regular appointment of Marjorie Shippey as part time Crossing Guard , retro-active to November 6 , 2003 ; and be it further 15 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 RESOLVED , this is an average of 10 hours a week , at the hourly wage of $9 . 50 , from account number A3120 . 100 , with no benefits ; and be it further RESOLVED , if the said successfully completes the mandatory 26 week probationary period , there will no further action required by the Town Board . MOVED : Councilman Lesser SECONDED : Councilman Burbank VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Niederkorn , aye . Motion carried unanimously . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2003- 1928 : Regular Appointment of Engineering Technician I . WHEREAS , Joseph Slater has worked for the Town of Ithaca as an Engineering Technician I provisionally since his appointment on August 20 , 2001 ; and WHEREAS , Joseph Slater has successfully completed the competitive exam for Engineering Technician I and is number 2 on the eligible list ; Now , therefore , be it RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the regular appointment of Joseph Slater as Engineering Technician I , effective date of civil service certification , November 6 , 2003 ; and be it further RESOLVED , a twenty six (26) week probationary period applies and shall end effective May 5 , 2004 , with no further Town Board action required if there is successful completion of the probationary period as determined by the Highway Superintendent ; and be it further RESOLVED , this appointment does not change Joseph Slater job classification , hourly wage , full time status or benefits . MOVED : Councilman Lesser SECONDED : Councilman Burbank VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilman Lesser , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Niederkorn , aye . Motion carried unanimously . 16 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 Agenda Item No 19 - Consider Creation of Recreation and Youth Coordinator Position and approval of iob description (Attachment #4 — job description ) Supervisor Valentino told the Board that the job description sent to them in their packets had been approved by County Civil Service . She has had discussion with the Park and Recreation staff to address concerns they had regarding the position ' s effects on their responsibilities . Supervisor Valentino stated she had told them this would not take away from their responsibilities ; the position is meant to help supplement looking at how the Town can provide programming . Supervisor Valentino and Ms . Drake met with recreation directors from the Towns of Lansing and Ulysses . The Town of Lansing ' s recreation budget is about $ 150 , 000 per year; $ 100 , 000 of that is from fees . Agenda Item No . 6 — Public Hearing regarding the Proposed Revisions to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Map Supervisor Valentino opened the public hearing at 6 : 30 p . m . Agenda Item No. 19 - Consider Creation of Recreation and Youth Coordinator Position and approval of job description (continued) TB RESOLUTION NO . 2003-193 : Creation of Civil Service Classification : Recreation and Youth Coordinator WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca established compliance under the New York State Civil Service Agency to qualify employment positions in the Town of Ithaca in accordance with Section 22 of Civil Service Laws , Rules and Regulations ; and WHEREAS , by regulation of Civil Service Law the Town must create a position and approve the job description before making an appointment ; Now , therefore , be it RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby establish the following position in accordance with the applicable New York Sate and Tompkins County Civil Service rules : 1 . The following position is established and is a position in the competitive class pursuant to Section 44 of the Civil Service Law : (a ) One Recreation and Youth Coordinator And be it further 17 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 RESOLVED , the Town Board does hereby approve the attached job description for the said position , with the said position being in the Job Classification " K" ; and be it further RESOLVED , the Human Resources Manager is requested and directed to coordinate any necessary filing with Tompkins County Personnel Department to obtain certification of the position . MOVED : Supervisor Valentino SECONDED : Councilman Niederkorn VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Niederkorn , aye . Motion carried unanimously . Councilman Lesser stated his desire that criteria are established to measure the success of the program . Supervisor Valentino stated she would like to see Sandy Gittleman , Will Burbank , and herself with Judy Drake and Al Carvill serve as the committee . Agenda Item No . 6 — Public Hearing regarding the Proposed Revisions to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Map (continued) (Attachment # 5 — letters) Lynn Davidson I live in the Town of Lansing . 1812 Ridge Road . I have another meeting to chair, one of those popular Planning Board meetings in Lansing . I probably won 't be the most articulate , but I ' d like to share a few ideas . First of all , did you all get a copy of the letter from Ag and Markets they sent to Jonathan ? And you all got my letter that I sent to Jonathan , I represent Farm Bureau ? I 'd just like to go over a few items , the letter does a much better job . I am a farmer in Lansing . I have to work at Cornell to make both things happen . But I ' m primarily concerned and Farm Bureau is concerned about the so-called up zoning to the 7 acres per dwelling unit in the ag areas or a cluster requirement that would have road and septic overhead that would greatly reduce farm equity , and people will talk about that later. The business has an extremely modest return as you 've seen . It ' s a high - risk business . Off farm job FSA payments kind of keep the stewards on the land . Please don 't mess with their equity . That ' s kind of the end of the road and I do believe that agriculture is still the business with the highest investment per worker , that includes operator as well . Reducing land equity by not keeping density requirements for ag areas close to residential areas that density is a real taking and that will reduce ag business and future interest in ag pursuits . Much more than kind of the artificial prop of keeping land open . Farm land is farmed because farmers can make a little money or are hoping for a land appreciation . The reduction in equity resource reduces flexibility to change and adapt to new business or practice . Refinancing , you just don 't have the basket of eqqs . The reduction of resource reduces the ability of 18 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 farmers to acquire more land . An active operator (turn tape) of course without money it kills the incentive to work for that amount of sum and it' s a taking of the future value that gets passed on because somewhere you 've got to come up with a loan to pay debt taxes , you have to have something to secure that , and what ' s to secure the dept of the next generation that takes that on . Many in this room , you know we have pensions , 403bs , 401k plans . Farmers kind of have this pile of land that has sustained their families for generations . New operators ought to go ahead and look for that kind of incentive to stay there . And I understand coming from the Town of Lansing that if you 've worked on these ordinances you ' re vested in them . I can well understand this is kind of an 11th hour thing , but , I 've actually , you know , understood that this came before the Farmland Protection Board last Wednesday or Thursday . They opposed it when it was first proposed for the up zoning when it wasn 't an actual ordinance or draft ordinance , but the idea came out there wasn 't any support at that particular time . I know the Towns are always trying to do the right thing , but please check twice before running the farm community out of town . If your comprehensive plan says you support agriculture I don 't think this zoning idea of up zoning really does support it . Farmland is not farmland without the farmers that operate it and I just want you all to think about it a little bit and maybe revisit that portion of the ordinance if possible . Frank Proto , Canonbrook Farms , 2585 Slaterville Road , Slaterville Springs I ' m here this evening in my capacity as the County Legislator who is the representative to the Tompkins County Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board . I believe you all received a copy of a letter that was sent to Cathy from Russ Deman the Chairman of the Farmland and Ag Protection Board . I just want to highlight a couple of the items in there . I know that the Town has spent a lot of time working on the revisions and has made a laudable effort in preserving farmland and open space in the County and certainly in the Town itself . In paraphrasing some of the items that came to us , we ' re charged with reviewing the impact on agriculture as the farm protection board for the county . In that capacity in reviewing the ag and markets letter that you received , or Jonathan received back in October, it was noted that there were 22 items in there that they had concerns about . To the best of our knowledge , about 5 of them have been addressed , but the concern is , and I won 't read that whole laundry list because it is quite extensive , but it covers all sorts of things from equine operations to buffer zones and on and on and on . Our concern is that perhaps you would consider as a Town Board not passing this ordinance this evening . That you allow us on the Farm and Ag Land Protection Board to work with the Town in trying to address , if they haven 't already , I don 't believe all 22 items have been addressed yet , at least our board doesn 't think they have , maybe they have . But we haven 't received anything that indicates that they have . In order to allay any of the concerns from ag and markets , we would be willing as a farm and ag land protection board to work with the Town and Jonathan , or whomever you designate , to try to get those concerns addressed and also appropriately dealt with because of the far reaching impacts that they have on agriculture . My plea this evening as a member of that board is simply to ask if you would consider delaying action on the proposed zoning ordinance . Thank you . 19 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 Bert Gildersleeve 1 live in Schuyler County . I have a property on Hayts Road and that brings me here tonight . Planning is a participatory process hence I hope that everyone here this evening has a chance to speak . During the previous meeting I presented the Board with a petition which was signed by the majority of farmers and large-tract land owners and was in opposition to the proposed rezoning of agriculture lands and requested a postponement of final approval of the rezoning given that the vast majority did not even know that rezoning was under foot . Initially I concentrated on farmers and large-tract landowners because they are the most effected by the proposed changes to zoning on West Hill . Today I have additional signatures . This time I spoke with homeowners and once again found a preponderance of them were not aware of the proposed changes and once again like the farmers and land owners , homeowners also took exception to the proposed rezoning . I was taken aback by the fact that most people I contacted on West Hill were totally unaware of the changes proposed by the Town Planning Department . They were unaware of the Planning Department' s intention to pass proposed changes by the end of this year . Virtually all of the people I surveyed on West Hill , even the few who on the surface support some aspects of the ideal , felt there was no need to rush the passage of new zoning . Many wanted more time to better understand the issues and what was at stake . Some problems that I can across with all but two residents out of the 40 who were at home when I canvassed a few streets on West Hill knew that this rezoning was taking place . Similarly , many of the farmers and large landowners were not aware of this rezoning process . The Agriculture Committee recommendations are a foundation upon which much of the agriculture rezoning should be based . From all that I have been told , this committee did not keep minutes , hence we cannot find out or question if this committee met simple procedures such as having a quorum during votes and whether the composition of this committee represented farmers at the time of vote . This is an example of a lack of transparency in the planning process . I ' m going to quote something from the Comprehensive Plan . Chapter 3 in the Comprehensive Plan , section 2e , and I quote , "Work with farmers to develop zoning regulations for agriculture areas that insure the continued viability of agriculture while allowing appropriate levels of development" . I do not believe you 've honored the framers with this current restrictive zoning and accompanying site plan controls . Also , from the July 1992 report Conservation Advisory Council Agriculture Committee , it appears that the ensuing Comprehensive Plan never included the concerns of the farmers when that plan was drafted . I quote from the July 1992 report , page 11 , paragraph 1 , "The majority of the Town farmers attending expressed great concern over the impact any reduction in allowed housing density would have on the value of their land and their ability to sell it . For most farmers , land represents their lifetime and often an multi -generation investment or work and capital and the primary source of income after retirement from farming as well as a major legacy for their heirs . " Also from paragraph three of the same page , "The Agriculture Committee does not 20 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 recommend any changes in the density of residential development in the revised agriculture zoning district from that allowed under current zoning ordinances . " Today , as in 1992 , the majority of farmers do not support changes in current zoning and from my survey they are in opposition to the wildly restrictive proposed rezoning and accompanying site plan controls on their agriculture lands . Much of these changes are built on false premises that changes to zoning will somehow save agriculture . The reality is that the proposed changes will only hurt directly the few remaining farmers in the Town . Look at the list of relevant board and the planning department and it is apparent that West Hill is not appropriately represented . This is of note because West Hill is the location chosen to provide open space for the Town . Reviewing the planning documents it is apparent to me that open space is being zoned on West Hill under the guise of preserving agriculture . However, viable farms are few . Just finding someone with acceptable practices to farm supposed agriculture land is difficult at best . The proposed zoning will condemn the use of property to agriculture whether it is farmed or not and the land owner will continue to be obliged to pay taxes on all the lands whether it is farmed or not . With the proposed rezoning , sale of these lands becomes unlikely because prospective farmers can avoid the capital outlay of purchasing lands and the continued burden of every increasing taxes by leasing lands for a nominal cost . Under the proposed rezoning there is allow one residential unit for every seven acres . Additional rezoning constraints stipulate even more restrictions on how many residents are allowed . Current default zoning allows up to one residential per every acre . Bottom line is that I am being asked to give up 85 % or 6/7 of the land ' s development potential to the Town while being required to pay taxes on 100% of that land . I am graciously allowed to keep the remaining one out of every seven not condemned as long as there are no violations of the unrealistic and inflexible proposed site plan restrictions . The proposed rezoning is a condemnation of lands without compensation . A very practical outcome of the proposed rezoning is to secure open lands for the Town without having to purchase development rights , rather oppressive and definitely cannot be described as being a democratic process . I am asking you to please make sure rezoning is a democratic process . What harm would come from allowing this document of proposed changes to represent more fully the needs of all parties effected ? I challenge you to find a solution where both public and private interests are met . Ed Hooks , Harris Beach It is my privileged it represent Dorothy and Bruce Babcock . I did not do this by prearrangement here , but I am going to echo in a sense what we my preceding spokesman just said . We have specific concerns . The Babcocks , as I indicated to you folks in a letter that I sent on October 14 , own three parcels of land in the vicinity of Hayts Road and Trumansburg Road , which is proposed to be zoned agricultural . One of those parcels , the middle parcel , is presently a special district , Special Land Use District #6 , which at one time had been granted permission to be used for a 140 unit senior living facility . Nothing , unfortunately , has come of that . We had a deal that fell through . The properties that you plan on continuing to have zoned agricultural simply , we contend , don 't make any sense in the present context as the preceding person said . If you look up and down Hayts Road you ' ll 21 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 see certain single -family residents , you ' ll see across the street , you ' ll see it ' s a low-density residential , you will see just going down Trumansburg Road that you have a medium density residential area . And in this particular parcel , these three parcels that we' re talking about , one of which has a stream right in the middle of it and I would submit to you that it doesn 't make any sense to encourage agricultural use of any of these three parcels particularly one in which there is an active stream that is smack dab in the middle of it . You don 't want that for horse boarding , you don 't want that for hog farming , you don 't want that for agricultural use even assuming for the moment that somebody might actually be interested in this day and age in developing those parcels or any of the three parcels for that use . And I would submit that if you went with , as we are suggesting , albeit and to borrow a phrase said by I guess it was Mr. Davidson the initial speaker, the 11th hour plus in my case , if you zone this for low density residential I think you would be able to preserve the character of the properties in the fashion in which you wish and yet , at the same time , make this property far more marketable than if we wanted to continue to pretend that it was in actuality agricultural . Thank you very much . Monty Berman , Eco Village I live up at Eco Village where we have 170 acres , the first neighborhood , where I live and am a member of the board , and I think even though I haven 't spoken to all the residents , I think I represent the majority of the 60 or so adults that live up in the first neighborhood and then there ' s another 60 or so in the second neighborhood that ' s just about complete . Our commitment and interest in preserving open space which we 've done by , for example the first neighborhood again 30 houses , 60 adults , 25 kids , all on 31 /2 acres , and the whole area is 177 acres . Not only are we looking to preserve that open space a lot of that land we 've filed for permanent conservation easements to make that in perpetuity . I don 't know what else to say other than a strong desire to maintain open space and at least be able to have more of a sense of what all the issues are around changing the zoning . Thank you . Fred Hudson , First Pioneer Farm Credit, 4059 West Road , Cortland , NY I ' m the regional appraiser for farm credit . I ' m also the review appraiser for many of our offices throughout New England . I am here speaking at the bequest of Farm Bureau . I have 25 years experience in appraisal and I ' m also a member of the Agricultural Advisory Committee to the Town of Camilius Land Use Committee . I 've seen this process and I ' m aware of the procedure . Does the proposed agricultural zoning subdivision requirements effect value ? Well , sure they do . There are two studies I am going the mention . First there ' s a study from New Jersey and the reason I talk about New Jersey is a lot of this has already occurred throughout New Jersey . In particular there ' s two townships in New Jersey , East Amwell and Delaware Townships . There we ' re going from a three -acre size limit on subdivision to six-acres . 22 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 Through this change in subdivision requirements it resulted in a 35% to 38% decrease per acre in the larger lot sales . Additionally , reviewing sales of individual lots in New Jersey there were four categories that the study was divided into : less than 1 1/2 acres , 1 1/2 to 2 . 9 acres , 3 to 5 . 9 acres , and 5 . 9 to 10 acres . These categories showed declines of 26% to 49% each time the size of the lots jumped to the next higher category . Did a sales study in Tompkins County . A three year sales study , which in fact I looked at the Town of Ithaca , but I excluded sales in the Cayuga Heights area as well as sales which could be identified as occurring already approved subdivisions . The lots under two acres averaged $ 18 , 702 per acre . The lots of two acres to 6 . 9 acres averaged $ 6 , 590 an acres . That ' s a 65% decrease from the present minimum density . Lots of 7 to 20 acres averaged $3 , 80 an acre and that ' s a 42% decrease from the previous higher density . As I understand it the present zoning will limit sales of new lots from 1 or 2 acre minimums to a minimum of 14 acres because in the subdivision you have to wind up with 7 acres for that subdivision or some combination . The density of allowable subdivisions who could be reached in a relatively short span for a relatively small number of sellers there are only 45 lots in the proposed agricultural zone large enough for subdivision . That leaves little flexibility for farmers . Housing is what drives most of the demand in agricultural land . Under the proposed zoning and subdivision regulations , the potential new housing units decreases 89% , from 3 , 767 units to 413 units . The largest decrease in potential housing units and largest impact on values is born primarily by one class of ownership with the greatest impact on their livelihood . It appears farmers swallow a larger fallout from the proposed changes . Through this the Town gets the bulk of the agricultural land preserved without having to compensate the owners for it . Why is discussing these effects on zoning important ? First , any developer presently negotiating the purchase of a tract for developing lots will likely not realize the density build-out necessary to construct the infrastructure and return a profit . Second the person planning on selling the tract may not realize a sale because the potential buyer cannot recognize their goals . What if the seller had to sell due to health , a death , financial distress? What about the mortgagee in all this ? How does that affect their collateral value ? Or what if this was the seller' s retirement . Many times , in fact the majority of cases , the real estate , the business is the retirement of the farmer. They don 't have a lot of 401 Ks . Let ' s explore this a little more . Property purchased for agricultural purposes in the town is in the neighborhood of $ 1 , 000 to $2 , 000 an acre or more . This is partially influenced by non -farm factors such as proximity to Town and non -agricultural demand . A review of similar crop land with similar agricultural uses but in the less densely populated areas with less non -agricultural demand indicates land values of $600 to $ 1 , 000 per acre , which is a decrease of roughly 50% . With the influence of the low-density requirements in the proposed agricultural and conservation zone , would this not mimic what is observed in northern New York and other areas of less demand ? Is this police power of the government without compensation fair? Some towns have purchased temporary or permanent development rights , which may be a more equitable solution . Such as in the case of the Town Perington near Rochester . Thank you . 23 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 Doug Brittian , 135 Warren Road I ' m not going to sit here and say that your new Proposed Zoning Ordinance is perfect , however, I think you have done really a tremendous amount . I think you know our concerns are not really about agriculture , but about Cornell . The biggest land use has somehow sort of gone missing . What you should do is not abdicate your responsibility for the largest employers in the Town and in the County and , what , three counties or something . I think it would be nice not to have it swept under the rug , but I think you can do that after you adopt the plan . I do not see this plan as an end and we check it off the list and we ' re done . I see it essentially as a new beginning . It is in so many ways so much better than what we have now . For everybody , for the applicant , for the Town , for the people who live here and I would hate to see the whole thing essentially put on hold for I don 't know how many more years in order to fill in the blanks that still needed to be filled in . So that what I would be tempted to do is go ahead and do it and then keep going , make improvements , make the changes , come up with on campus zoning , I don 't know what to do about agriculture , but I think the first step is to take what you have , what you 've been working on , I can 't tell you how much work you 've put in you know how much , but it ' s ridiculous . And I think the thing to do is to get that in and then we can keep going , and then we can keep making improvements and try to perfect it and make everybody happy . But I think the first thing to do is to go ahead and let ' s make this step and then keep going . Thank you . Bob Drake Hi , I ' m Bob Drake . Some of you people know me and some of you don 't . My people have been here farming since the 1930s . We 've paid a tremendous amount of tax on this property . When the zoning first come along it didn 't look like a bad idea , but ever since the zoning has been here we ' ve had restrictions , we 've paid high taxes , and more restriction , and this plan is a catastrophe . There are only a handful of us left and for God ' s sake protect what little we have left . We don 't need any more restriction ; we don 't need any more environmentalists or bureaucrats to tell us what to do . Thank you . Shirley Eagan Ms . Eagan read remarks from Harold Craft , Jr. , Vice President for Administration and Chief Financial Officer, Cornell University . (Attached) John Rancich , Town of Enfield I own 93 acres on West Hill just above the Linderman Creek development . On a general basis I agree with all the previous speakers except for the gentleman who has urged passing of this zoning ordinance . I think it' s oppressive and decreases the value of farmland . On a specific item , my own 93 acres , I have appeared before this Board a month ago and outlined 24 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 some of my basic plans . I have since then , on December 3rd , applied for a zoning variance on that with Mr. Jon Kanter, and paid my $ 175 . 00 fee and will be proceeding on that plan . I can only say that waiting and giving some of the folks on West Hill a little more time to see what it is that you 've got proposed . I would strongly urge that . Thank you . Alfred Eddy, 544 Bostwick Road I ' m a farmer. I 've worked almost every field on West Hill that you 've mentioned in this thing . The Town of Ithaca doesn 't want farming , it ' s very obvious . Two fields I worked for the last 20 or 30 years they just put a water tower into a field . I worked them for 20 or 30 years . So that tells you something right there , when you put two water towers in a field that you 've worked what does that mean is going to happen all the way around in all the other fields . Anything where there ' s any pressure , you know what ' s going to happen . It ' s going to get built up . I also run a produce stand in my family . We 've had a produce stand for maybe 20 / 25 years . We got the permit here . The Zoning Board has been against us , very , unfriendly people forever. Everything we wanted to do they didn 't want us to do it . They don 't want you to succeed . They don 't want us out there . They like Wegman ' s where they can have everything under huge buildings and have everything shining and everything . Out there we 've got the roadside stand and we got a lot of local business . We got 600 square feet and I read in your zoning ordinance that you ' re going to have 500 sq feet , like Walmart you ' re building a super Walmart . Now this is a mini stand . A farmer may have 150 acres and you want to squeeze him down like this . If you ' ve got a stand , somebody comes in jumping up and down can I use your bathroom , you better have a bathroom , you have to have a bathroom . The State makes you have a , you 've got to have washing facilities . You need a grading room bigger than this for your produce , you need storage room , your cooler alone should be 20x20 , that ' s 4 , 000 square feet . I can 't understand . You will never have another farm stand in this area anyway because it ' s got to be on a main road and the land alone will cost you , if you didn 't own it , will cost you $50 , 000 just for a small piece of land . I think farming is coming to an end , especially with all these new rules . If you ' ve got a farm and you sell , if you build a dwelling it ' s okay if the people are working on the farm , but when you sell a lot and you got this house here on this big field and then here I am out here coming as a farmer down through here with a sprayer I got a mask on and everything and here ' s this guy standing here with his dog , I mean it puts me in a real gray area . If you 've got any farms at all I wish if you ' d keep the whole farm , but if you sell one lot to somebody else , please develop the whole thing and don 't keep shoving a farmer in the back . The lot size , I ' m jumping around a lot but that ' s , the man right here has done the best job , he says what I think . West Hill you 've got streams coming down through . The farmers have done a beautiful job over the years . Each farmer owns to the center of the stream on this side , and to the center of that stream on that side . There ' s no use of a lot being 5 / 6 feet on this side of the stream . If the stream is there it ' s an easy marker, but they' re getting away from that . The gravel , I 've been into gravel some . This kills all the gravel . You ' re putting in here you can only mine gravel in ag districts . Well , I know where all the gravel is and there ' s no gravel 25 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 in the ag district so that quits that . The gravel business is over with . You got a beautiful pile of gravel out here . It ' s just a knoll . You people think of a big hole in the ground . It' s not . You ' re just taking off the knoll . Don 't put a house on top of the knoll , on a beautiful piece of gravel . Let the public have that gravel . You should pass a law like in Pennsylvania so when you have to mine , when you find that gravel you have to mine the gravel out before you can build the homes . Now like in Pennsylvania they have to mine out gravel or coal . When Wegman ' s bought their lot in Wilkesboro Pennsylvania to build their new store , they found coal there . So they had to mine out the gravel , which makes a lot of sense . That ' s what I call conservation . I don 't like your conservation idea . I ' d like to see you put it all into ag district because I think that the ag people , Cornell University and the ( inaudible) people will do a much better job of managing it . I don 't like to see the farmers loosing so much ground . You keep saying you ' re adding agriculture district , I can 't understand how you can say that because anything that ' s farmed now there ' s trees this big around in fields that I farmed already . Everything is growing up . There ' s 40 deer right out here , it ' s another big problem in Ithaca . I got 40 deer eating my turnips right now on Seven Mile Drive . If you had 40 cows out there they'd have a sheriff there . You can 't even raise a tree in your yard anymore because the deer eat it up . It helps one phase of my business because I sell a lot of them . You should talk to the farmers . Nobody ever comes near us , you know . I ' m not a public speaker but I can see some of the things , and this man put it right in perspective and your farm bureau man is really good too . I don 't have any copies . I can give you one later. Bruce Brittain , 135 Warren Road I support your conservation zone . I support the Board ' s interest in maintaining open space . I can 't speak to specific concerns that people have raised earlier about the agricultural zone , but my concern is the omissions . The largest one that I see being that of lack of a campus zone . I think this is something Doug mentioned earlier, the single largest employer really hasn 't been taken into account . Overall I think that the zoning is a major step forward . It is clear that a tremendous amount of work has gone into it . It is better than our current zoning so I would urge you to move forward with this while continuing to work on addressing and cleaning up and completing some of the aspects that still need work . Thank you . Jeff Hanavan , 320 University Avenue I own land out in the Town of Ithaca as of last summer. I wasn 't planning on speaking so 1 have no prepared notes but I wanted to bring up a couple of things that I thought of as I heard the other speakers . One of which is , I had to state the obvious , felt compelled to , that open space is not the same as agricultural use . I think that is just a critical issue . What are we supporting ? Are we supporting agricultural use or are we trying to have more open space . Another thing is that 1 , well actually my land is farmland right now and I plan to continue that . It is in the low density residential or the R30 currently and will remain as LDR in the new plan . I personally am effected in some ways by this new zoning but I felt compelled to come up and say let' s at least support our farmers . It ' s a community that I ' m getting to know now cause 26 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 I ' m out on West Hill and adjacent to many of these farmers and I think that while I appreciate open space as much as anyone I think that if we are going to support agricultural use we need to listen to the farmers and particularly ag and markets and the other feedback that we 've gotten . And while a lot of work obviously has gone into this current project I think that pausing is not going to throw away that work and that continuing to modify and hone this document should be done before it goes in place and not after. I think it' s somewhat naive to believe that it' s a good plan , simply pass something through that we know is wrong , and then plan on revising it afterward . So , anyway , I just want to support the farmers and for all those very well stated reasons previously said . Thank you very much . Debby Teeter, 71 Gray Road , Ithaca First I just want to say just how proud I am to be a member of the farming community in the Town of Ithaca . I think there are only about 7 farms receiving agricultural assessment in the Town and I think 5 of them , 6 , are represented here tonight , it looks like at least 5 are going to speak . I think that we ' ve been at it for almost an hour, does anyone need to stretch ? My husband Alan and I own the oldest continually operated family farm in the Town and my husband is a 5th generation farmer on this farm , which is over 150 years old . I work for the agriculture program at Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County although I ' m speaking tonight as a. farmland owner. And I frankly am all about farmland protection . I believe strongly that we must protect our best soil resources , in order to do that we must be able to recognize and support successful agricultural operation . My husband and I consider our farm successful in that we earn approximately half our income from it . The important question , I think , for this group is why is that the case ? And it' s not our soil types or our typography . We have very little class 1 or class 2 soils , it' s very hilly terrain , some land is only suitable for permanent pasture and that ' s what it ' s been for over 150 years . There ' s a fair amount of forest and others best suited for hay production . And I ' d like to say it' s our superior farm management , but that ' s not it either. It ' s due to a lack of debt . Primarily the result of us being fortunate enough to inherit a debt free farm and to a lesser extent my husband marrying a woman from a family that is not without resources . This is the little money pit . I don 't think we ' re unusual in that we have very unique circumstances that allow us to farm successfully . In assessing the current and future state of agriculture in the Town we need to ask what are the stories of other farms in the community . What unique or special circumstances exist that have enabled them to stay viable because I think you ' ll find that it is special unique circumstances that enable many of the existing farms to stay in operation . Farmland protection in Ithaca needs to be about recognizing that and figuring out how to support those circumstances . It is also unfortunately about recognizing that what we hope to do may not be practical or even possible . So the question is how do we protect farmland . First and foremost as others have said tonight , and I don 't think we can say often enough , it' s not farmland without a farmer and I feel that Jim Ainslie is behind me saying that . There are a number of tools in the farmland protection toolbox and the Town of Ithaca has a purchase 27 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 of development rights program that is a great example that if given time and the existence of the right conditions for farming could be successful Another tool that the Town appears to be considering is agricultural protective zoning . The American Farmland Trust has stated that there are two critical items that need to be present for this type of zoning to be successful . One , the area ' s farming industry must be profitable , and two , the farmers must be committed to keeping their land in production . Is this the case in the Town of Ithaca ? What are the trends ? What have you heard tonight ? What is happening ? Some farms are transitioning to the next generation . I can think of three , although there is a serious question about what the land - based requirements are going to be for those operations . Some clearly are not . There are no new farmers coming forward in interest in the size parcels that the Town is looking at to protect . Much of current and potential agricultural land base is rented or lying fallow . Those who rent their ag land are typically not in a position to farm it themselves , now or in the future . If new operations do develop what are they likely to look like ? They' re not likely to be dairies or large-scale commercial operations , which is what the current land base the Town seems to be intent on maintaining . They' re likely to be horticultural operations , equine operations , and operations that direct market to the consumer. So looking back at the American Farmland Trust criteria , is the areas industry profitable ? I would say , in my opinion that it is more accurately described as marginal or subsistence primarily due to the soil resources . There is not a lot of class 1 soils in this area . There are some class 2 and a lot of class 3 and it ' s a hilly topography . And the second criteria , the farmers must be committed to keeping their land in production . For our area it might more accurately be stated ag landowners are committed to keeping their land in production . What are we hearing tonight? To me it seems that based on the American Farmland Trust criteria , this tool is being improperly applied . I ' d also like to take a look at some of the implications of the ag protective zoning . Cluster subdivisions , according to the American Farmland Trust are not generally designed to support commercial agriculture because they foster tension between residential non -farms and agricultural land uses . We 've heard some examples of that tonight , of concerns of that . And I think the Eco Village is an excellent example of farmland , one of the old Marshall Farms , that is now a wonderful place to live and absolutely beautiful and there is some successful farming going on there , probably on less than 10% of the land , but it' s a successful operation , but that leaves over 150 acres that is now open space . It is not farmland . I just want to separate the issue of ag land and open space . Severe restrictions of development on lands zoned agricultural regardless of the soil types , the proximity of viable farm operations , current and most realistic future land results in the reduction of land values , it impacts the ability of farmers to borrow money and also to sell what they determine to be the most appropriate portions of their farm should they determine the sale of some property be needed or desired . This type of zoning also forces residential development to leap frog over ag zoned land . In the Town of Ithaca that means to other areas of the County , specifically the Town of Enfield where we also farm and the Town of Ulysses where production agriculture remain strong and continues to be a predominant land use . This exasperates those town ' s problems of rural sprawl . Again , without farmers , this land is not farmland . So to me this appears to be an open space tool presented under the guise of farmland protection . Farmers and ag landowners are being offered the opportunity to 28 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 severely reduce the development value of their land while continuing to pay taxes on it and maintain it for the enjoyment and financial enrichment of the rest of the community . The lovely view sheds that farmers provide to the rest of the community increase property values for others and promote the ever increasing tourism money that comes into our region due to those same lovely views . This seems like a good time to remind everyone that , according to a cost of services study conducted in 1995 , farmers already subsidize residential land owners in the Town of Ithaca receiving just 27 cents in services for every dollar paid in taxes and this is after the application of their agricultural assessment . Finally I ' d like to point out some of the concerns my husband and I have as farmers with the list of potential conflicts with New York State Agricultural District Law . We ' re concerned about size and setback restrictions for farm markets , we ' re concerned about required buffer zones , we ' re concerned that equine operations are not included in the definition of farming and require special permits , we are not pleased with site plan and permit processes for ag structures , we are concerned about the mining restrictions . Many of these concerns indicate a real lack of agricultural district law , which is designed to support and protect farm operations . The few changes made based on initial input from Agriculture and Markets does not seem to necessarily resolve the potential conflicts . Is it the Town ' s expectation that should this zoning be passed without addressing these areas of conflict with age district law , farmers will wait patiently for what could be protracted negotiation with the State , or are they more likely to immediately contact Ag and Markets and begin the challenge process . What will that process cost the Town and taxpayers in employee time and possible legal fees ? I understand that the Town has worked long and hard on these zoning ordinances and that is to be commended . But please let ' s work with Ag and Markets to resolve the concerns and with our area' s farmers to determine tools that can actually keep farming in the Town to whatever extent is possible . Thank You . Jan Suwinski Unfortunately we will be out of town for the 12/8 meeting , but I do have a concern based on the Ag and Markets letter you sent and would appreciate it if you would voice this if you ' re going to the meeting . We have a 430 acre horse farm built up over 30 years including a substantial investment in an indoor riding arena and stable , which is currently recognized by the Town at tax time . In years past we have boarded horses and although we are not doing so now would like to have that option in the future . Implied in the Ag and Markets letter is that an equestrian facility , specifically boarding horses , would be prohibited under the proposed plan or rules . Horses are as much a part of agriculture as anything else and so I am opposed to the proposed rules in this area . Thank you . Kate Bundy I own , with my husband , a parcel on Mecklenburg Road . I just wanted to bring up one issue just from the other perspective and that is the Ag and Markets right to farm legislation that is 29 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 not incorporated into the zoning currently . In particular for non -ag zoning parcels , pieces of land that are currently in the ag district , but are not in the agricultural zoning . But I want to look at it from the perspective of a homeowner who is not an agricultural land user , but has land in that same district abutting the ag district land . And the problem there is that those people will assume that they are protected from farming potentially because they are in let' s say low density residential and they look at the zoning and the look at what their protections are . When in actuality they are not protected because that farmer who has that land is protected under the State right to farm because they are in an agricultural district . I just think it is really confusing since we do have that mix and I really would recommend that we kind of work that out perhaps by having a simple statement indicating which wins in those combinations . I know that we in our parcel have run into such misunderstandings already with the people who have houses in front of in terms of where things divide up and that' s something we' re working with , but I think that we may not be the only people in that situation . Thank you . The point is , if you ' re in an ag district you have a right to farm in a lot of these you ' re your farming potentially affects someone living next to you , but low density residential indicates you don 't have those protections . Supervisor Valentino closed the public hearing and brought the issue back to the Board for consideration . Supervisor Valentino and Mr . Kanter stated , in response to Mr. Suwinki ' s comments , that boarding horses is not prohibited in agricultural districts in the proposed zoning . Councilman Lesser asked someone to review the ways that the Town has publicized the re- zoning process and the opportunities for public comment . Mr. Lesser also asked for a legal definition of the concept of taking . Mr . Barney responding to the "takings" question stating the constitution of the State and of the federal government both prohibit a governmental entity from taking property without compensating someone for it . It is generally in a situation where a municipality needing to build a sewer line , if someone will not voluntarily sell the municipal entity an easement , the municipality can go in and take it for a public purpose . It becomes the property of the municipality and you can then go to court and determine how much the municipality needs to pay for it . In zoning , the concept of taking has been raised from time to time , but it' s not in the situation that we see here , where you are upgrading a zone , going from one unit per acre up to one in every seven . That' s not a taking in the constitutional sense , that' s part of the police power. If we did it town wide we might have a little bit more of an issue . As long as you ' ve provided areas in the Town for a variety of uses and a variety of densities Mr . Barney stated he thought the Town was well within the police power of the municipality . 30 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 Supervisor Valentino responded to Mr. Lesser' s request regarding notice of the rezoning process stating this has been an ongoing process for over four years . There have been several , hearings ; reaching out to committees . The Town has gone the extra mile in trying to get the word out and communicate with the community on this issue . Councilman Klein stated the town Board held two information meetings , one of them on Saturday morning . The Town taped a show that was aired on public television a number of times . The Ithaca Journal published front- page color maps of the proposed zoning on more than one occasion . All the information has been on the town website . There have been articles in the Town ' s quarterly newsletter. All of the Town ' s Codes and Ordinances Committee meetings are published and their agendas are available . Councilwoman Russell read her prepared statement to the Board (Attachment #6 ) Agenda Item No. 13 — Public Hearing regarding Acquiring an Interest in Several City of Ithaca Sewer Interceptors and Certain City of Ithaca Pump Stations for Transmission of Town Waste Water from the Town to the Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Plant Supervisor Valentino opened the public hearing regarding acquiring an interest in several city of Ithaca sewer interceptors and certain City of Ithaca pump stations for the transmission of Town wastewater from the town to the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant at 7 : 45 p . m . Agenda Item No. 6 — Public Hearing regarding the Proposed Revisions to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Map (continued ) TB RESOLUTION NO . 2003- 194 : ADOPTION OF FINDINGS STATEMENT REGARDING THE PROPOSED REVISED TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP (Attachment #7 — Findings Statement) WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Town Board is proposing to enact a comprehensive revision of the current Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Map (Zoning Revisions) , in order to update the current Zoning Ordinance and Map , and to implement certain of the recommendations of the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (adopted by the Town Board on September 21 , 1993) ; and WHEREAS , said enactment is a Type I action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law) and 6 NYCRR Part 617 of its implementing regulations , as well as the Town of Ithaca Environmental Review Law , as enacted by Local Law No . 5 , 1988 ; and WHEREAS , 6 NYCRR Part 617 . 6 (a) (4) allows an agency to waive the requirement for an Environmental Assessment Form ( EAF) if a draft Environmental Impact Statement ( EIS) is prepared or submitted , and Part 617 . 10 suggests the use of a Generic EIS ( GEIS ) to assess the environmental impacts of an entire program or plan having wide application or restricting the range of future alternative policies or projects , such as significant changes to existing land use plans or zoning regulations ; and 31 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Town Board , in a resolution dated December 10 , 2001 , declared its intent to serve as Lead Agency to conduct the environmental review regarding the proposed Zoning Revisions , and no other involved agencies have been identified ; and WHEREAS , in its resolution dated December 10 , 2001 , the Town Board also declared its intent to prepare a Generic Environmental Impact Statement ( GEIS) , pursuant to the provisions of 6 NYCRR Part 617 . 10 , in order to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed revisions to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Map ; and WHEREAS , the Town Board determined that a formal scoping process for said GEIS would not be implemented ; and WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Planning Department has prepared a draft GEIS regarding the proposed Zoning Revisions , dated September 8 , 2003 , and submitted said draft GEIS to the Town Board for consideration of acceptance as complete ; and WHEREAS , the Town Board established itself as Lead Agency and accepted said draft GEIS as complete on September 8 , 2003 , and distributed said draft GEIS for public review and comment , and filed notice of completion of the draft GEIS pursuant to the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 . 12 , and WHEREAS , the Town Board held a public hearing on October 2 , 2003 to consider comments from the public regarding the draft GEIS , and accepted written comments on the draft GEIS until October 14 , 2003 , and WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Planning Department has prepared a Final GEIS regarding the proposed Zoning Revisions , dated November 6 , 2003 , which includes copies of all of the public comments received regarding the draft GEIS , responses to those comments received which are substantive , and incorporates the draft GEIS by reference and revisions and amendments thereto , and the Town Board has accepted said Final GEIS as complete at its meeting of November 6 , 2003 ; and WHEREAS , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , as Lead Agency , has filed a Notice of Completion of Final GEIS , issued the Final GEIS , and distributed the Final GEIS to involved and interested agencies and the public , as required by 6 NYCRR Parts 617 . 9 through 617 . 12 , and has requested further comments from the public regarding the Final GEIS until November 21 , 2003 ; and WHEREAS , at its regular meeting on December 8 , 2003 , the Town of Ithaca Town Board has reviewed and discussed their Findings Statement for the proposed revised Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Map ; NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , as Lead Agency , on December 8 , 2003 , does hereby adopt the Findings Statement , based on the Environmental Impact Statement , for the proposed revised Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Map ; and 32 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that having considered the Draft and Final GEIS and the relevant documents incorporated therein , and having considered the written facts and conclusions in the Findings Statement relied upon to meet the requirements of Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Parts 617 . 9 through 617 . 12 , the Town of Ithaca Town Board does hereby certify that : 1 . The requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 have been met ; and 2 . Consistent with the social , economic , and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives available , the adoption of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions is the action that avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable ; and 3 . Consistent with social , economic and other essential considerations , adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable , by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures that were identified as practicable in the GEIS . MOVED : Councilwoman Russell SECONDED : Councilman Klein VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilman Lesser , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Niederkorn , aye . Motion carried unanimously . Councilman Lesser asked Mr . Kanter about the responses to the letter from the State regarding the lack of coincidence between some of the attributes of the proposed new zoning ordinance and their state right to farm . Mr. Lesser knew Mr . Kanter had indicated a few small changes but it seemed to Mr. Lesser that there were a number of other aspects . Mr. Lesser asked how the Town intended to deal with a number of these issues . Jonathan Kanter indicated that the Town has responded to NYS Ag and Markets in a letter dated November 24 , 2003 to Kim Blot , Director of the Division of Agricultural Protection & Development Services , in which we indicated that the Town looks forward to working with Ag and Markets to discuss the points raised in the Ag and Markets letter of October 31 , 2003 . Based on an earlier meeting with Matthew Brower of Ag and Markets , the Town Board has already addressed some of the concerns raised by Ag and Markets by incorporating five revisions in the draft Zoning Ordinance that is before the Town Board — these items were discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Zoning Revisions . Jonathan added that we will be contacting Ag and Markets in the near future to set up a follow- up meeting to discuss the additional issues raised by Ag and Markets , and that it is likely that some of the additional items outlined by Ag and Markets could result in subsequent amendments to the new Zoning Ordinance — that would be up to the Town Board to decide . 33 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 Councilman Niederkorn read a prepared statement to the Board included as Attachment #8 Councilman Klein expressed his appreciation for Mr . Niederkorn ' s comments and his work on the codes and Ordinance Committee . He went on to state that no ordinance would ever be perfect and no ordinance is going to be static ; there are always going to be revisions . He stated he felt the Town is committed to making adjustment in the ordinance as the needs develop . Having worked on the Comprehensive Plan , which was the basis for the zoning revisions , they really tried to strike a balance . Without the type of mechanisms in the proposed ordinance , West Hill would be open to rampant development and there would be no chance for any farming . What is proposed may be imperfect , but Mr . Klein stated if the zoning regulations were left as is , there will be all sorts of pressure to extend water and sewer at great expense and once that happens taxes will go up , assessment will go up , and Mr. Klein felt all would be lost . Years ago there were developments put on the western boarder of the Town , there are terrible water problems in those developments . It ' s a real dilemma in terms of how to take care of Town residents who bought their properties in good faith and have a terrible quality of and inability for water. We can 't afford to put water and sewer throughout the whole Town and that means that you are going to have to live with lower density . Mr. Klein stated he thinks the strategy that was arrived at was not arrived at in a vacuum and he feels it is a reasonable proposal . The Town does have a purchase of development rights program and the town has completed one such purchase . There were at least one or two such purchases that did not go through because the appraised development rights did not suit the farmer . The town is budgeting for the purchase of development and hopefully the program will strengthen and allow people to maintain their farm operations . Mr. Klein stated he felt the Town should move forward . Councilman Burbank told the assemblage he had given this issue a lot of thought stating that , what many people may not be aware of , is that the rezoning process has been going on for a very long time . He commented that the document was perhaps overly complex . He stated he felt the Town was at a pivotal time with regard to protecting the essential character of the community and if the Town fails to pass this ordinance tonight he felt there would be serious ramifications . He stated the Town could go back and change the ordinance if they have made mistakes . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2003= 195 : LOCAL LAW AMENDING AND REENACTING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE (Attachment #9) WHEREAS , a resolution was duly adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca for a public hearing to be held by said Town Board on December 8 , 2003 , at 6 : 30 p . m . to hear all interested parties on a proposed local law entitled " A LOCAL LAW AMENDING AND REENACTING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE " ; and WHEREAS , notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal ; and 34 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 WHEREAS , said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law , or any part thereof ; and WHEREAS , pursuant to Part 617 of the Implementing Regulations pertaining to Article 8 ( State Environmental Quality Review Act or "SEQR") of the New York State Conservation Law the Town Board caused a draft generic environmental impact statement (the " DGEIS") to be prepared and circulated for comment ; and WHEREAS , a public hearing was held on the DGEIS at which time persons were heard on the contents of the DGEIS and on the contents of the proposed Zoning Ordinance that was the subject of the DGEIS ; and WHEREAS , further comments on the DGEIS were received for a period of time following the hearing ; and WHEREAS , responses to the comments were prepared by the Town of Ithaca Director of Planning and incorporated into the final environmental impact statement (the " FEIS " ) that was reviewed , accepted and adopted by the Town Board as the FEIS ; and WHEREAS , the Town Board has adopted findings based upon the FEIS considering in detail the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Zoning Ordinance ; and WHEREAS , the Town Planning Board , after due consideration has recommended adoption of the revised Zoning Ordinance ; and WHEREAS , the matter was submitted for review to the Tompkins County Department of Planning pursuant to New York State General Municipal Law Sections 239 - 1 and 239- m , and such Department issued its opinion that adoption of the proposed local law may have negative inter-community or county-wide impacts and recommended modification of the ordinance ; and WHEREAS , the Town Board had considered such opinion and related recommendations , and has chosen to act contrary to such opinion for the reasons set forth in the separate resolution relating to such opinion ; and WHEREAS , the Town Board finds it is in the best interests of the Town and its citizens to adopt the revised Zoning Ordinance by this local law ; NOW , THEREFORE , be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as follows : 35 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 Section 1 . Amendment and Re-Adoption . The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca , New York , as re-adopted , amended , and revised , effective February 26 , 1968 , and subsequently further amended , is hereby re-enacted , re- adopted and amended to read as set forth in the attached document entitled "Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance" dated December 812003 , Section 2 . Amendment of Zoning Map . The Zoning Map of the Town of Ithaca as adopted by the Town Board and as modified and approved by the Town Board on various occasions , is hereby re-adopted and amended to conform to the zones and the districts as set forth in the Zoning Map dated August 25 , 2003 , referred to in the attached Zoning Ordinance , Section 4 . Partial Invalidity . In the event that any portion of this law is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction , the validity of the remaining portions shall not be affected by such declaration of invalidity . Section 5 . Effective Date . This law shall take effect in the manner and on the date set forth in the attached Zoning Ordinance . Section 6 . Town Clerk Actions . The Town Clerk be and she hereby is directed to enter this local law and attached Zoning Ordinance in the minutes of this meeting and in the Local Law book of the Town of Ithaca , and to give due notice of the adoption of this local law and Zoning Ordinance by publication of this local law and Zoning Ordinance , or an abstract or summary thereof , in the Ithaca Journal and by filing a copy of said local law and attached Zoning Ordinance with the Secretary of State of the State of New York . Moved : Councilwoman Russell Seconded : Councilman Klein Vote : Catherine Valentino Voting AYE Mary Russell Voting AYE Carolyn Grigorov Voting AYE David L . Klein Voting AYE William Lesser Voting AYE Thomas Niederkorn Voting AYE Will Burbank Voting AYE The local law was duly adopted . 36 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 TB RESOLUTION NO . 2003-196 : STATING THE REASONS THE TOWN BOARD HAS DECLINED TO FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE TOMPKINS COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT RELATING TO THE ADOPTION OF A REVISED ZONING ORDINANCE (Attachment # 10 — Letter from Tompkins County Planning Department) WHEREAS , the Town Board has been involved in the process pertaining to the adoption of a revised Zoning Ordinance ; and WHEREAS , the revised ordinance was submitted for review to the Tompkins County Department of Planning pursuant to New York State General Municipal Law Sections 239- 1 and 239- m , and such Department , notwithstanding the submission of a Final Environmental Impact Statement addressing the issues previously raised by the Department of Planning , issued its opinion that adoption of the proposed local law may have negative inter-community or county-wide impacts and recommended modification of the ordinance ; and WHEREAS , the Town Board had considered such opinion and related recommendations , and has chosen , by a vote of at least a majority plus one , to act contrary to such opinion ; and WHEREAS , General Municipal Law Section 239- m requires the Town to file a report with the County Planning Department stating the reasons that the Town did not follow the recommendations of the County ; and WHEREAS , the Town desires to set forth the reasons why it chose to decline to follow the recommendations of the County Planning Department ; NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca declined to follow the recommendation of the Tompkins County Planning Department related to the proposed adoption by the Town of its revised Zoning Ordinance for, among others , the following reasons : A . The Town has recognized , provided for, and supported affordable housing within the Town limits in several areas and at appropriate locations , including the Maple Avenue Apartments on Maple Avenue , the Ellis Hollow Elderly Housing Project near East Hill Plaza , the EcoVillage Second Neighborhood , and the Linderman Creek Projects Phases I , 11 , and III , to name a few of the projects approved by the Town ; B . In addition to the affordable housing projects referred to above , the Town has numerous areas intended to be zoned for multiple families as shown on the Zoning Map accompanying the proposed new Zoning Ordinance ; 37 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 C . The Zoning Ordinance permits re-zoning upon application for multiple residence uses , including low- income uses , and planned development zones which may include multiple housing components , when the Town Board finds that such re- zoning is appropriate for the circumstances and is consistent with the Town ' s Comprehensive Plan , which Plan provides guidance for such rezonings , by referring to availability of appropriate infrastructures such as public water and sewer and public transportation , among other matters ; D . Because market conditions often dictate the type of housing proposals that developers present to the Town , it is difficult to zone areas for higher density , especially multi -family , ahead of time ; E . By rezoning on a project- by- project basis , provisions can be incorporated into the rezoning legislation that are tailored to the specific circumstances of the proposal to accommodate particular situations , reflect the concerns of adjoining neighbors , and deal with any environmental impacts that may arise because of the project , which tailoring is not readily available if an area has already been zoned for high density or multiple residences ; F . The Ordinance permits a second dwelling in all residential zones , which provision has been , and will continue to be , a significant contributor to affordable housing in the Town ; G . The Ordinance adopted pursuant to this local law provides for additional opportunities for affordable housing , including new provisions for mixed - use developments in some commercial districts which could provide affordable apartments over retail stores , and new provisions for farm worker housing on farms in Agricultural Districts ; and it is further RESOLVED , that the Town Clerk and the Director of Planning are requested to forward a copy of this resolution to the Tompkins County Planning Department , together with a copy of the local law adopting the revised Zoning Ordinance , as fulfillment of the requirement contained in General Municipal Law Section 239 - m of the Town to report to such agency the results of the Town ' s deliberations and the reasons the Town did not follow the recommendations of the County Planning Department regarding the adoption of the Ordinance . MOVED : Supervisor Valentino SECONDED : Councilwoman Russell 38 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Niederkorn , aye . Motion carried unanimous . Agenda Item No. 10 — Consider Setting Special Town Board Meeting (Attachment # 11 — copy of agreement ; emails between Noel Desch and Valentino / Russell )) Supervisor Valentino told the Board that she had been considering calling a special town board meeting to deal with the sewer contracts . There will be three agreements coming before the Board : Intermunicipal Wastewater Agreement , changes to The Joint Sewer Agreement , and an agreement regarding the Sewer Interceptors . Supervisor Valentino proposed that the board not adopt the interceptor agreement before them this evening because they were unable to reach an agreement with the City . They have reached agreement on the Intermunicipal Wastewater Agreement . The Joint Sewer Agreement and the Interceptor Agreement they have not reached agreement on . She proposed setting public hearings for the three agreements to be held at the December 31 , 2003 year-end meeting . She would tell the City that they need to meet and reach a resolution by December 18 , 2003 because the 18th is the last day for publication of the required public notices . Supervisor Valentino asked if there was anyone present to address the issue . Jean McFeeders , President of the Tompkins County of Commerce Ms . McFeeders thanked the Board for their diligence . She stressed the need for the wastewater agreements to be finalized before end of year. Three of the Towns involved are going to have large turn -overs on their boards and it will take considerable time to bring new members up to speed on this complex issue . The Chamber of Commerce and Tompkins County Area Development have put in a tremendous amount of time and work on this effort . They have invested over $20 , 000 to provide facilitation for the "group of six" meetings . Noel Desch has put in countless unrecompensed hours . Ms . McFeeders stated the efforts of these people is because the believe in protecting the lake and protecting the environment of the Ithaca area . She further stated that the Chamber did not specify a desired outcome they just asked that the municipalities come to an agreement , which they think is the boards' job as representatives . She realizes that there are things that are still unsettled and assured the board that the members of the Chamber, Mike Hall , and Noel Desch are prepared to work on this every day until the end of the year. She again thanked the Board citing the work of Mary Russell and Catherine Valentino . Supervisor Valentino drew the Board ' s attention to an email Ms . Russell sent to Noel Desch that outlines the three major disagreements on the interceptor agreement . Supervisor Valentino stated that the Town has not been willing to have included in the agreement the payment of interest charges for late payments . This is something that has come up and been put in the proposed agreement because of some misunderstandings and misperceptions of Common Council regarding late payments from the Town . The problem hasn 't been any late 39 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 payments , in this case they' re talking about the joint agreement , but they've carried it over into the interceptors because we don 't have an agreement on the interceptors yet . If you recall , we passed a resolution about paying on an as- needed basis because we needed to come into compliance with our agreement and use up the excessive fund balances we had in the joint sewer agreement and because we were also concerned about the financial stability of the City . It had nothing to do with being late in making payments . The problem has been that under the agreement when we reached that impass the Joint Agreement states that meetings of the Mayor, the two Town Supervisors , and the Superintendent of Public Works should meet until they can resolve that issue . What happened is we had two meetings and things got bogged down in changes in the agreement and so those meetings never happened . From the Town ' s perspective we ' re saying okay , you ' re putting in a penalty for something that never really happened . If we ' re going to have anything that is going to keep us from having things unresolved , we should be looking at some kind of a penalty clause for failure to participate in regular meetings . You need to show up at regular meetings to be able to resolve those issues . I think in a more perfect world where we ' re in a place of trust and understanding that to have anything like that in either of the agreements is not where we should be . Where we should be is abiding by the rules and regulations of the agreements and if not , then follow what ' s listed in those agreements as a way to resolve those disputes . That' s our problem with that one . Then there ' s a provision for a percentage charge for the City's collection system for overflow events and we have an impasse on that . It ' s hard for us to determine that the Town of Ithaca ' s infiltration causes any real costs in money to the City , that hasn 't been clearly identified to us and we ' re certainly willing to pay for the part of the collector system that we use on a regular basis , which Dan is working on identifying . We should be able to come to an agreement on this . The really difficult one to get a handle on is , first of all we question if we should be paying anything for the general collection system on an ongoing basis at all . And if there are some high -water events that cause some cost to the City that can be attributed to the Town how do we figure out what they are when those events happen and how do we pay for that . To just pay a percentage , an ongoing amount on their collection system , doesn 't seem like the way to resolve the infiltration problems that the Town and the City been working diligently trying to cleanup . That ' s number two . The third one is sharing the revenues from the outside users of the high school intereceptor which we also call the Pine Road . That's the interceptor that ' s going to connect to the Lansings and Cayuga Heights to the downtown plant . That ' s the one we ' re purchasing for over 41 % of the capacity . I guess our feeling is with buying that capacity we ' re buying the rights to that capacity and if there are any revenues from that the only revenues that we would actually be receiving would be to cover our cost or to cover some of our costs of buying that interceptor in the first place and that the City also owns capacity in those interceptors and also in the plant and they have the right to sell that capacity to recoup 40 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 money the same way that we want . Those are the three major things that are hang ups at this point . The interceptor is the big hang up . We ' re going to be meeting as much as possible . I think those are three very serious problems for us to cope with . Councilman Niederkorn remarked that these agreements are such an important step in the long range economy and development of this area and he hoped that everybody who is involved will meet in good will and work it out . To not do this would probably be the worst thing that could happen . Supervisor Valentino stated she felt if they could resolve the issues if they can get past some of the misunderstandings and misperceptions . She gave the City some background documentation on the costs to help them understand . . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2003-197 : ORDER FOR PUBLIC HEARING : IN THE MATTER OF AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT AMONG SEVERAL MUNICIPALITIES FOR COOPERATION IN THE PROVISION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY AND ENLARGING THE SERVICE AREA OF THE ITHACA AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, ALL PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 12=C OF THE TOWN LAW. At a Regular Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , held at 215 North Tioga Street , in Ithaca , New York , on the 8th day of December, 2003 , at 5 : 30 o ' clock P . M . Prevailing Time . PRESENT : Supervisor Catherine Valentino Councilperson Mary Russell Councilperson David Klein Councilperson Carolyn Grigorov Councilperson William Lesser Councilperson Thomas Niederkorn Councilperson Will Burbank ABSENT : None WHEREAS , on or about December 22 , 1981 the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca entered into an agreement with the City of Ithaca and the Town of Dryden relating to the joint expansion and operation of the City' s wastewater treatment plant (the " IAWTF" ) , which agreement has been amended from time to time thereafter (the original agreement and all amendments are collectively referred to herein as the "Joint Sewer Agreement") ; and 41 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 WHEREAS , it is now desired to expand the service area of the IAWTF to permit waste water from municipalities not party to the Joint Sewer Agreement to be treated at the facility ; and WHEREAS , it is also desired to set forth certain agreed parameters relating to the cooperation among several municipalities so as to better provide wastewater treatment services for the greater Tompkins County community ; and WHEREAS , a proposed agreement (the " Intermunicipal Wastewater Agreement") has been negotiated between the City of Ithaca , the Towns of Dryden , Ithaca , and Lansing , and the Villages of Cayuga Heights and Lansing relating to the expansion of the service area and other matters concerning the cooperative endeavors pertaining to wastewater disposal for consideration by all of the involved municipalities ; and HEREAS , a plan , report and map prepared by Stearns and Wheler, Professional Engineers , relating to the expansion of the service area and other matters contemplated by the Intermunicipal Wastewater Agreement , has been duly prepared in such manner and in such detail as heretofore has been determined by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , and has been filed in the office of the Town Clerk where it is available for public inspection ; and , WHEREAS , the area of said Town determined to be benefitted by said Intermunicipal Wastewater Agreement consists of the entire area of said Town excepting therefrom the area contained within the Village of Cayuga Heights , and WHEREAS , at this time there are no significant costs to the Town associated with the approval and execution of the Intermunicipal Wastewater Agreement ; and WHEREAS , it is now desired to call a public hearing for the purpose of considering the authorization of the execution of such Intermunicipal Wastewater Agreement and the expansion of the IAWTF service area authorized by such Agreement , and to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof , all in accordance with the provisions of Section 209-q of the Town Law ; NOW , THEREFORE , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED , by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , as follows : Section 1 . A public hearing will be held at 215 North Tioga Street , in said Town , on the 31 ST day of December, 2003 , at 10 : 05 o ' clock A . M . , to consider the proposed Intermunicipal Wastewater Agreement and the expansion of the service area of the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility , and to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof and concerning the same and to take such action thereon as is required by law . 42 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 Section 2 , The Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , is hereby authorized and directed to cause a copy of this order to be published once in The Ithaca Journal , and also to post a copy thereof on the Town signboard maintained by the Clerk , not less than ten nor more than twenty days before the day designated for the hearing as aforesaid , all in accordance with the provisions of Section 209 -q of the Town Law . Section 3 . This order shall take effect immediately . The question of the adoption of the foregoing order was upon motion of Supervisor Valentino , seconded by Councilperson Lesser, duly put to a vote on a roll call , which resulted as follows : Vote : Catherine Valentino Voting AYE Mary Russell Voting AYE Carolyn Grigorov Voting AYE David L . Klein Voting AYE William Lesser Voting AYE Thomas Niederkorn Voting AYE Will Burbank Voting AYE The order was thereupon declared duly adopted . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2003- 198 : ORDER FOR PUBLIC HEARING : IN THE MATTER OF AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF THE JOINT SEWER AGREEMENT AMONG THE CITY OF ITHACA AND THE TOWNS OF ITHACA AND DRYDEN CHANGING THE GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE , ENLARGING THE SERVICE AREA OF THE ITHACA AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT_ , AND MAKING OTHER MODIFICATIONS TO THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT, ALL PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 12-C OF THE TOWN LAW. At a Regular Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , held at 215 North Tioga Street , in Ithaca , New York , on the 8th day of December, 2003 , at 5 : 30 o 'clock P . M . Prevailing Time . PRESENT : Supervisor Catherine Valentino Councilperson Mary Russell Councilperson David Klein Councilperson Carolyn Grigorov Councilperson William Lesser Councilperson Thomas Niederkorn Councilperson Will Burbank 43 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 ABSENT : None WHEREAS , on or about December 22 , 1981 the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca entered into an agreement with the City of Ithaca and the Town of Dryden relating to the joint expansion and operation of the City' s wastewater treatment plant (the " IAWTF ) , which agreement has been amended from time to time thereafter (the original agreement and all amendments that occurred prior to the date of this order are collectively referred to herein as the "Original Joint Sewer Agreement") ; and WHEREAS , it is now desired to expand the service area of the IAWTF to permit waste water from municipalities not party to the Original Joint Sewer Agreement to be treated at the facility ; and WHEREAS , it is also desired to modify the structure by which the governance of the IAWTF occurs and to set forth a number of related provisions concerning budgeting , operation and maintenance and other administrative activities ; and WHEREAS , a proposed amendment and restatement of the Original Joint Sewer Agreement (the " Restated Joint Sewer Agreement") has been negotiated between the City of Ithaca , and the Towns of Dryden and Ithaca relating to the expansion of the service area , changes in governance structure , and other matters concerning the maintenance and operation of the IAWTF ; and WHEREAS , a plan , report and map prepared by Stearns and Wheler, Professional Engineers , relating to the expansion of the service area and other matters contemplated by the Restated Joint Sewer Agreement , has been duly prepared in such manner and in such detail as heretofore has been determined by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , and has been filed in the office of the Town Clerk where it is available for public inspection ; and , WHEREAS , the area of said Town determined to be benefitted by said Intermunicipal Wastewater Agreement consists of the entire area of said Town excepting therefrom the area contained within the Village of Cayuga Heights , and WHEREAS , at this time there are no significant costs to the Town associated with the approval and execution of the Restated Joint Sewer Agreement ; and WHEREAS , it is now desired to call a public hearing for the purpose of considering the authorization of the execution of such Restated Joint Sewer Agreement and the expansion of the IAWTF service area authorized by such Agreement , and to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof , all in accordance with the provisions of Section 209 -q of the Town Law ; 44 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 NOW , THEREFORE , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED , by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , as follows : Section 1 . A public hearing will be held at 215 North Tioga Street , in said Town , on the 31St day of December, 2003 , at 10 : 15 o 'clock A . M . , to consider the proposed Restated Joint Sewer Agreement and the expansion of the service area of the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility , and to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof and concerning the same and to take such action thereon as is required by law . Section 2 . The Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , is hereby authorized and directed to cause a copy of this order to be published once in The Ithaca Journal , and also to post a copy thereof on the Town signboard maintained by the Clerk , not less than ten nor more than twenty days before the day designated for the hearing as aforesaid , all in accordance with the provisions of Section 209-q of the Town Law . Section 3 . This order shall take effect immediately . The question of the adoption of the foregoing order was upon motion of Supervisor Valentino , seconded by Councilperson Russell , duly put to a vote on a roll call , which resulted as follows : Supervisor Valentino Voting Aye Councilperson Russell Voting Aye Councilperson Klein Voting Aye Councilperson Grigorov Voting Aye Councilperson Lesser Voting Aye Councilperson Niederkorn Voting Aye Councilperson Burbank Voting Aye The order was thereupon declared duly adopted . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2003- 199 : ORDER FOR PUBLIC HEARING : IN THE MATTER OF ACQUIRING AN INTEREST IN SEVERAL CITY OF ITHACA SEWER INTERCEPTORS AND CITY OF ITHACA PUMP STATIONS FOR TRANSMISSION OF TOWN WASTE WATER FROM THE TOWN TO THE ITHACA AREA WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT WHICH ACQUISITION IS TO BE KNOWN AS THE 2003 JOINT SEWER INTERCEPTOR ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR THE TOWN OF ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 12-C OF THE TOWN LAW. At a Regular Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , held at 215 North Tioga Street , in Ithaca , New York , on the 6th day of November , 2003 , at 5 : 30 o 'clock P . M . Prevailing Time . 45 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 PRESENT : Supervisor Catherine Valentino Councilperson Mary Russell Councilperson David Klein Councilperson Carolyn Grigorov Councilperson William Lesser Councilperson Thomas Niederkorn Councilperson Will Burbank ABSENT : None WHEREAS , a plan , report , map , and supplement have been duly prepared in such manner and in such detail as heretofore has been determined by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , relating to the acquisition of an interest in several City of Ithaca sewer interceptor lines and pump stations and related facilities pursuant to Article 12 -C of the Town Law to be known and identified as the 2003 Joint Sewer Interceptor Acquisition Project , and hereinafter also referred to as " improvement " or " Project" , to provide sewer capacity to for transmitting waste water from the Town of Ithaca town line through the City of Ithaca to the present Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Plant (the " IAWWTP") in the City of Ithaca managed jointly with the Town of Ithaca and the Town of Dryden , such sewer system capacity and interest to be purchased from the City and owned by the Town of Ithaca , and WHEREAS , said plan , report and map have been prepared by Sterns and Wheler as supplemented by Daniel Walker, the Town ' s Director of Engineering , all competent engineers duly licensed by the State of New York and which plan , report , map and supplements have been filed in the office of the Town Clerk where they are available for public inspection , and WHEREAS , the area of said Town determined to be benefitted by said 2003 Joint Sewer Interceptor Acquisition Project consists of the entire area of said Town excepting therefrom the area contained within the Village of Cayuga Heights , and WHEREAS , the proposed 2003 Joint Sewer Interceptor Acquisition Project consists of the sewer improvements set forth below , as more particularly shown and described in said map , plan , report , and supplement presently on file in the Office of the Town Clerk : Acquisition of a 41 . 57% ownership interest and related 41 . 57% of the capacity of a number of sewer interceptors located in the City of Ithaca through which waste water from the Town is carried to the IAWWTP , acquisition of a 17% ownership interest and related 17% of the capacity of several pump stations located in the City of Ithaca which provide pumping facilities for the transmission of waste water from the Town to the IAWWTP , together with comparable ownership interests in the associated controls , piping , and other structures ; and WHEREAS , the maximum proposed to be expended by the Town of Ithaca for the aforesaid improvement is $ 661 , 000 . The proposed method of financing to be employed by 46 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 said Town of Ithaca consists of paying the purchase price from current revenues and existing surplus funds from the Town of Ithaca Sewer System Benefitted Area Fund ; and WHEREAS , the implementation of this project will be through an agreement with the City of Ithaca for the purchase , maintenance , operation , repair , replacement , and addition to said interceptors and pump stations and related controls , piping , and other structures ; and WHEREAS , it is now desired to call a public hearing for the purpose of considering said plan , report , map , and supplement , the providing of said 2003 Joint Sewer Interceptor Acquisition Project , and the execution of any related agreement , and to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof , all in accordance with the provisions of Section 209-q of the Town Law ; NOW , THEREFORE , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED , by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , as follows : Section 1 . A public hearing will be held at 215 North Tioga Street , in said Town , on the 31 " -day of December, 2003 , at 10 : 25 o 'clock A . M . , to consider the aforesaid plan , report , map , and supplement , to consider the question of providing of said 2003 Joint Sewer Interceptor Acquisition Project , to consider the execution of the related agreement with the City of Ithaca , and to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof and concerning the same and to take such action thereon as is permitted or required by law . Section 2 . The Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , is hereby authorized and directed to cause a copy of this order to be published once in The Ithaca Journal , and also to post a copy thereof on the Town signboard maintained by the Clerk , not less than ten nor more than twenty days before the day designated for the hearing as aforesaid , all in accordance with the provisions of Section 209 -q of the Town Law . Section 3 . This order shall take effect immediately . The question of the adoption of the foregoing order was upon motion of Supervisor Valentino , seconded by Councilwoman Russell , duly put to a vote on a roll call , which resulted as follows : Supervisor Valentino Voting Aye Councilperson Russell Voting Aye Councilperson Klein Voting Aye Councilperson Grigorov Voting Aye Councilperson Lesser Voting Aye Councilperson Niederkorn Voting Aye Councilperson Burbank Voting Aye 47 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 The order was thereupon declared duly adopted . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2003-200 : Authorizing Supervisor to Cancel Public Hearings Regarding Sewer Agreements RESOLVED , that the Town Supervisor is authorized to cancel one or more of the public hearings just ordered , in the event that the Town of Ithaca has not reached tentative agreement on one or more of the agreements referenced in the just adopted orders by December 18 , 2003 in time to permit publication of such order at least ten days prior to December 31 , 2003 . MOVED : Councilwoman Russell SECONDED : Councilman Klein VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Klein , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Niederkorn , aye . Motion carried unanimously . OTHER (Attachment # 12 — City of Ithaca — Financial Summary) Alan Cohen appeared before the Board stating he wanted to come to speak about the City' s financial position , primarily the general fund budget and the condition of that fund . The City' s sewer and water budgets are actually in better shape than the General Fund Budget . Mayor Cohen briefly walked the Board through a copy of the City' s most recent 5-year budget . In speaking of the City' s debt load , Mr. Cohen stated that the City has about 33 % percent of their debt capacity available , 67% exhausted . Mayor Cohen stated the City could , technically , have bonded the Cayuga Green Project but that would have left the City with no debt limit . Common Council is cognizant of where the City is with their debt limit and is not authorizing any more large-scale projects . They want to bring down their debt limit , they are bonding less and they' re paying off . Mr. Cohen stated that the budget this year authorized about 3 million and the City is going to pay off about 4 million , or maybe it ' s two and three , Mr. Cohen was uncertain . Mr . Cohen told the Board that the City still enjoys one of the highest bond ratings for cities , AA3 . White Plains and Rye have higher ratings than Ithaca , which Mr. Cohen stated ranks number three . Mr. Cohen told the Board his reason for sharing this information stating that the City has several agreements with the Town and is a very important partner with the City of Ithaca . Mr. Cohen wanted to make sure that the City' s colleagues and partners have every confidence when dealing with them . Mr . Cohen told board members to take their time reviewing the information he distributed and to feel free to call either himself of Steve Thayer with questions . 48 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 Supervisor Valentino stated that she had reviewed the City' s 2002 , 2003 , and 2004 budgets . She stated the City' s appropriations in 2002 were a little bit over 41 million , in 2003 they went up to a little over 43 million , in 2004 the City' s budget is showing an increase to $44 , 746 , 085 and $2 , 309 , 000 is out of that budget because the SJS is a separate budget . The City' s total debt in 2002 was 42 , 737 , 652 , in 2003 it jumped to 49 , 674 , 512 , in 2004 it jumped to 55 , 447 , 712 . In the 2003 budget the 49 million included the 2 mill of the City' s Revenue Anticipation Note that comes due in January 31st . The budget in 2004 , the debt in your books shows 52 , 477712 but it does not include the 2 million revenue anticipation note that you have . On your debt service , payment on that debt , in 2002 was 5 , 306 , 241 , in 2003 it went up to 5 , 698 , 880 , and in 2004 your debt service alone is over 6 million dollars . The amount you take in in property tax is around 12 million , you spend half of your property tax money on debt service . Now , with two outstanding , with a revenue anticipation note that you had to borrow 2 million for last year and pay back at the end of January and a 2 million dollar revenue anticipation note that you have to pay back again this year, I think that substantially reduces the City' s ability to meet its obligations . Supervisor Valentino asked Mayor Cohen if the City was planning on taking out another revenue anticipation note or does the City have the money set aside to pay last year' s revenue anticipation note . Mayor Cohen explained to the Board why the City does revenue anticipation notes stating the City has started doing revenue anticipation notes the past couple years because the City' ; s fund balance has gone down to the point that they do not have enough cash flow to cover ongoing expenses . The City' s property tax revenue comes in in January and June , there are some big "blips" and then there are time in the year when you don 't have a lot of revenue coming in . Towards the end of the second quarter and the end of the year in particular the City experiences cash flow problems . Mr. Cohen stated this is why he had told the board the fund balance was probably the weakest part of the budget and needs to increase ; and it is specifically because the City does not have cash flow enough to not have to issue this revenue anticipation note . Mr. Cohen went on to state the City has more than enough revenue coming in to cover the note . The actual expense on the revenue anticipation note that Ms . Valentino is talking about is simply the interest on the revenue anticipation note . Paying off the revenue anticipation note itself is something that the City already has budgeted within its general fund budget ; they are part of the expenses that the City anticipates during the year, they are not to cover additional expenses . So , in fact , it is only the additional interest that is somewhere around 40 to 50 thousand dollars . That' s the amount of additional expense that the City has to worry about covering . Supervisor Valentino asked if the City was anticipating taking out another revenue anticipation note ? Mr . Cohen stated that until the City' s fund balance is increased , the City will have to continue to issue revenue anticipation notes every year. The weakness of the City' s system is not in it' s inability to cover their responsibilities it is simply in not having enough on hand in cash flow , which Mr. Cohen described as a very interesting subject stating 49 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 the City has wanted to maintain large fund balances in many different areas . They have 2 million in water. They have 2 million in sewer. They did have 2 million in joint activity , but both towns felt they needed to bring that down significantly and they have . The City does believe in carrying larger fund balances , they did bring down the fund balance in the general fund anticipating revenues coming in in the near future with the Southwest development in lieu of having to dramatically raise property taxes or to lay off a significant number of employees . To incur this additional 40 / 50 thousand dollars a year in expenditures in lieu of having to either raise taxes or lay off employees , we felt that was a prudent thing to do . It makes for a more stable City budget , they have every capability of paying off all of their obligations , and we have been paying off our obligations . Supervisor Valentino stated that in the City' s debt schedule there was new debt taken on in 2003 of 10 , 565 , 368 that the City has deferred any payments on in 2004 and which you will have to be adding to your debt level . Mr. Cohen referred Supervisor Valentino to the budget assumptions . The second page where it talks about debt service , in 2005 the City's payments will go up about 1 . 1 million over 2004 . The City is fully aware of that and those are already built into the budget projections before the board . Mr. Cohen assured Ms . Valentino that the City had given her every number that they have stating it is all public information . Mr. Cohen assured Supervisor Valentino that the City was financially sound . Supervisor Valentino thanked Mr. Cohen . Councilwoman Russell questioned Mr. Cohen stating that she was confused because he is telling the board that the City is paying off their debt and yet Ms . Valentino , in looking at the City budget , sees that the debt is increasing every year. Mayor Cohen replied stating the specific increases that they are seeing are specific to some large infrastructure projects that the Common Council authorized almost 4 years ago and they are only seeing them being issued now because the City does not issue the debt until they start the project . These projects are the Plain Street bridge , the widening of Spencer Road , both of which were deemed necessary to spread traffic out through out the grid in the southwest , and the widening of Route 13 . These are projects that the City planned for, they knew they were coming into the budget and aside from this when you look at what the City is issuing every year and what they are paying off , the City is paying off more than what they are issuing . What Supervisor Valentino is looking at is an anomaly and it is in the materials that were distributed to the Board and the City is being up front about it . Councilman Burbank thanked Mr . Cohen for coming and stated he looked forward to direct contact between the City and the Town Board . Mayor Cohen expressed his appreciation to the Board for their service . 50 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 Transportation Committee OCouncilman Lesser reported that they are investigating the possibility of having a constable for the Town . The committee is very pleased that Councilman Niederkorn is willing to continue to serve on the Transportation Committee , and hopes the board sees fit to reappoint him . Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization Councilwoman Grigorov reported that the Intermunicipal Organization had moved its offices from Dryden to Lansing because Deb Grantham was no longer on the Dryden Town Board . Reports of Town Officials (Attachment # 13 — monthly reports ) Will Burbank left the room . Supervisor Valentino thanked Mr. Kanter and his staff for all their work on the zoning ordinance and commended them for the quality of their work . Correspondence Supervisor Valentino drew the Board ' s attention to the letter she wrote to Alan Cohen regarding the Phosphorus Removal Project at the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility regarding the fact that the City awarded the bid for the phosphorus removal project in defiance of the Town Board resolution stating that the Town required a report from the State and signed contracts indicating that the project would be getting bond act money . The Supervisor' s letter was in response to the award of the contract . Bill Gray , the City Superintendent of Public Works , apologized to Councilwoman Russell . Supervisor Valentino stated her understanding that the City has now , somehow , undone the award of the bid and are waiting for the documentation from the State . Prior to the award of the bid , Supervisor Valentino stated she had told Larry Fabbroni that in light of the report by Mr. Novelli on the structural soundness of the sewer plant there are some possible problems with the integrity of the concrete at the sewer plant . Supervisor Valentino reported that at the last Sewer Joint Subcommittee meeting they had told Larry Fabbroni that his highest priority was to follow Mr . Novelli ' s recommendations : get test borings , find out exactly what the problem with the integrity is , and what needs to be done to correct it . The seriousness of the problem cannot be determined until tests are done . Supervisor Valentino stated she told Larry Fabbroni that she did not want to move forward on the Phosphorus Removal Project until they know where they stand with the strtuctural integrity of the sewer plant . The other thing that is going to be difficult is going ahead with 51 Regular Town Board Meeting December 8 , 2003 Approved February 9 , 2004 awards on the Phosphorus Removal if the other components of the agreement with theother municipalities fall through . Ms . Valentino felt it was extremely risking to try to award ary_, bids • at this point ; even if it does cost more money in the spring . Sale of 126 Seneca Street, Old Town Hall Al Carvill presented the Board with a copy of the $288 , 228 . 40 check for the sale of 1W, East Seneca Street . Supervisor Valentino stated the money had been put into the general farad . ADJOURNMENT Councilwoman Russell moved to adjourn at 9 : 30 p . m . Respectfully submitted , ewe Tee -Ann Hunter Town Clerk NEXT REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 31 , 2004 AT 10 : 00 A . M . 52 ATTACHMENT # 1 ` )ox,4 ac) y', a�rGC"s ' �C.�it'S;TG� ✓' /SS�1 � i7/xe,/ Ace, AZlkzje/2J sLi r is l'i�� `�. 0iir, ; ild�� lop Gi^i�//�U�/'a�� �/•Sc_ <<�rsi��� �'.C.� Td,�/ 5 Gi�� i/ c;<� � �r��"ic , ,2 A,5;5r� /`7,Pe �c?S/T ic�i ZZ iiu ic��i .E3e ���>J � v 7Z� ee &�/ 7 s� c i io ; .P� ✓����7�y�f1.4i�Jie,z Q,c�c, �i�i�i off' l c� E J / xy lf7 a( L pG r S y4 ig /n 7t /F el, G 65 A,4. /S .o , /IZ- 8 -56 6n a� 7 coje/z c /54c'.i° c� �� % �iT/� j % �' .t� , �c.�/fL Tv 4.41lG,4i 4 Y4�44MeA �,�? y'ic /�6 �%�jiiT:� �.�eJa?=C. T - !S Gam ,:` j srs 7�et� .(✓�'r= l� i %L. j"Y G'[?�'�l fJ. �� Tf/� '/�J� �i '� , Y �� �G F.�s�i 404 s iti<Sj.9s1 Ev i,e 5 0e rcz • %Wi s 14o4A ` s X /3 ',¢.or o ex )oo( , /�7:� / A. ' �41v ,;'y k-'✓/ Gif ?G?.81�//✓� CAS lcJ / / Lie.� 's.� / 5 ,sc� /� /�i� �' ✓� , ,L'J c � �iL4 lJ : 01, December 8 , 2003 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 2 HISTORIAN ( PT ) A •G E N D .A # 2 1 TOMPKINS COUNTY Department various Towns & villages Classification Non -competitive Labor Grade Approved Revised 2 / 23 / 75 By HH ; Commissioner of Personnel DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF THE CLASS : Collects data , writes and lectures on the history of the municipality . This position involves responsibility for the preparation of records of past events in the municipality and consultation for and with persons interested in municipal history . Supervision is general with wide leeway for the use of independent judgment . Does related tasks as required . TYPICAL WORK ACTIVITIES : Collects data concerning the history of the municipality and assembles them in logical order ; Writes and edits articles for publication concerning the municipality ' s past and present history ; Lectures to groups on request ; Offers advice and criticism to persons doing historical research ; Corresponds with other historians and answers inquires on municipal history ; Consults with teachers , students and other persons on matters concerning the history of the municipality . FULL PERFORMANCE KNOWLEDGE , SKILLS , ABILITIES AND PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS : Good knowledge of the methods and techniques of historical research and writing ; good knowledge of local history ; ability to write and lecture interestingly on historical documents and records ; ability to make independent decisions ; initiative ; reportorial honesty ; editorial skill ; good powers of observation ; good physical condition . MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS : ( a ) Graduation from a senior high school or possession of a high school equivalency diploma . 7 / 18 / 88 a : hl2 . doc December 8 , 2003 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 3 i September 25 , 2003 1 Fran Benedict PAOLANGELI 131 Oakwood Lane CONTRACTOR Ithaca, New York 14850 Fran : Our firm has completed drainage work at your property, 131 Oakwood Lane. We cleaned out the CW and made necessary repair in existing CW . When we opened up the culvert coming from across the street, we found it to be filled with gravel and dirt . The source of this material is from runoff or possibly from the blow off at the water tank . This has caused material to enter the culvert eventually plugging the pipe and causing flooding on your property. The only way to prevent this problem from happening again would be to have a proper storm water prevention plan in place; this should be the responsibilty of person or persons up stream from your property. The work done at your property will in no way cause runoff to the neighbors below your home . Thank You, UV F . J . Paolangeli Triangle Plaza, 226 Cecil A. Malone Drive , Suite One, Ithaca, New York 14850 Telephone (607) 273 - 8139 Fax (607) 277-6026 Y 1 , ATE 09 / 25 / 2003 PAOLANGELI CONTRACTOR PAGE : 1 IME 10 : 58 : 31 226 CECIL A MALONE DR . ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 ( 607 ) 273 - 8139 TIME & MATERIALS BILL REPORT FOR : CULVERT PIPE @ RESIDENT FRANCIS BENEDICT 131 OAKWOOD ITHACA NY 14850 DATE DESCRIPTION TIME or QUAN RATE EXTENDED TOTAL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ JOB : 3003 . 46 1 CULVERT PIPE RESIDENT 1 / 29 / 2003 TICKET # : 0 LABOR - FOREMAN 8 . 00 HRS - RG 46 . 00 368 . 00 $ 368 . 00 ) / 01 / 2003 TICKET # : 0 LABOR - FOREMAN 4 . 50 HRS - RG 46 . 00 207 . 00 LABOR - COMM 0 . 50 HRS - RG 45 . 00 22 . 50 MINI - EX / LABOR - COMM 4 . 00 HRS - RG 65 . 00 260 . 00 $ 489050 a / 22 03 TICKET # : 0 LABOR - COMM 8 . 00 HRS - RG 45 . 00 360 . 00 LABOR - COMM 8 . 00 HRS - RG 45 . 00 360 . 00 410 / 510 BACKHOE / OPERATOR 8 . 00 HRS - RG 85 . 00 680 . 00 COUPLER 76 80 BEDDING STONE 22 . 11 TONS 8 . 25 182 . 41 CONCRETE MIX 15 . 16 $ 1 , 674 . 37 / 23 / 2003 TICKET # : 0 LABOR - COM. 1 4 . 50 HRS - RG 45 . 00 202 . 50 LABOR - COMM 4 . 50 HRS - RG 45 . 00 202 , 5E 410 / 510 BACKHOE / OPERATOR 4 . 50 HRS - RG 85 . 00 382 . 50 STORM PIPE MATERIAL 969 . 37 $ 1 , 756 . 87 / 24 / 2003 TICKET # : 0 LABOR - COMM 7 . 00 HRS - RG 45 . 00 315 . 00 LABOR - COMM ' . '� 0 HRS - RG 45 . 00 45 . 00 PICKUP / 8 . 00 HRS - RG 45 . 00 360900 PICKUP / 1 . 00 DAY 15 . 00 15900 410 / 510 BACKHOE / OPERATOR 7 . 00 HRS - RG 85 . 00 595 . 00 TOPSOIL DELIVERED / YARD 32 . 00 YARD 20000 760 . 00 GRASS SEED & STRAW 102 . 50 CONCRETE MIX 15 . 16 $ 21207 . 66 tal : 1 CULVERT PIPE @ RESIDENT $ 61490 . 40 Previously Billed Amount : $ 0 , 00 Currei7 � Tctal to Pay : $ 6 , 496 . 40 Total to Date : PAOLANGELI CONTRACTOR 226 Cecil A . Malone Drive DATE Triangle Plaza , Suite One December 8 2003 ® Ithaca , New York 14850 NUMBER n o c� (607) 273-8139 4 ® 0 9 FAX (607) 277-6026 Town of Ithaca 215 N . Tioga Street Ithaca , New York 14850 TERMS: A SERVICE CHARGE OF 2% PER MONTH WILL BE CHARGED ON ALL PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. PLEASE DETACH AND RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE r �z I*- kcia $ DATE _ y T - - .., , {r ? T ;CFIARGES4A[ QrCRE[ 1i5� N. PC BALANCE FORWARD RE : Culvert Work 4 - 29 - 03 Work done @ 131 Oakwood Lane , thru Benedict Residence $ 2 ► 165 00 9 - 24 - 03 Sales Tax Total Amount Due $ 2 , 165 00 THANK YOU PAOLANGELI CONTRACTOR 9UYL/ZiC ( Q � V PAY LAST AMOUNT • IN THIS COLUMN December 8 , 2003 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 4 DRAFT DRAFT RFCREATTON and YOUTH COORDiNATOR TOMPKiNS COUNTY Department Town of Ithaca Classification CONIPRTTTTVR Labor Grade "K" Approved TB R esl # Revised sy DiSTiNGi1TSHiNG FF. ATi1RF,S OF THF, Ci , ASS : A Recreation and Youth Coordinator is responsible for planning, organizing, implementing and administering all aspects of a recreation program for all ages and development programs for youth in the Town. The coordinator may be required to spend some time in a leadership role for a particular program or activity. Supervision may be exercised over the work of program staff, officials, and volunteers . The work is performed under the direct supervision of the Town Supervisor with leeway allowed for the use of independent judgment in carrying out work activities . Attendance at various boards and committees may be required. The incumbent will perform all related duties as required. TYPiCAi , WORK ACTTViTiRS : Administers the recreation and youth program for specific municipality; Plan, design, organize, implement, promote and evaluate a comprehensive recreation program; Supervise, train and evaluate the work of all subordinate recreation staff, volunteers, coaches, officials , etc . ; Represents the recreation program at meetings with other departments, community organizations, municipalities, etc ; Coordinates with Joint Youth Commission to develop youth enrichment programs; Makes up schedule for sports and special events ; Prepare and distribute news releases, ads, event/game/program schedules, flyers and brochures ; Prepares and monitors budget for programs; Keeps records of and prepares reports for tracking and evaluating programs, participants, budget, inventory, etc. ; Prepares and presents special reports regarding the needs of the program and effectiveness of services provided; Plans and initiates goals for future programming and facility needs; Obtains appropriate building use and/or permits for programs ; Schedules inspections, maintenance, and repairs of sports equipment and uniforms ; May assist with the officiating at athletic events, chaperoning of trips, instruction of children in games, sports, or other activities ; Acts as a liaison between leagues, coaches, volunteers and participants ; Assures the safety of participants and others involved. CONTiNUED ON THE NEXT PAGF, Last edited 12 - 8 - 03 Rec - Youth Coordinator DRAFT DRAFT RECREATION and YOIJTH COORDINATOR (CC)NTINIJED) FULL PEREORMANCE KNOWI .EDGEo SKILLS, ABILITIES AND PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS ; Good knowledge of the principles and practices involved in administering a municipal recreation program ; Good knowledge of the recreation needs of the community; Good knowledge of the principles and practices of supervision; Working knowledge of rules/regulations regarding local athletic leagues and safety issues ; Working knowledge of the principles and practices of budgeting; Ability to plan, organize and promote a variety of recreation activities; Ability to assess program needs and accomplish goals within the confines of available resources ; Ability to communicate effectively, both orally and in writing, with groups and individuals ; Ability to deal courteously and effectively with the public, boards and other town employees ; Good problem solving skills, tact, courtesy and good judgment are required; Obtain and maintain first aid and CPR certification; Physical condition commensurate with the demands of the position. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS ; (a) Graduation from a regionally accredited or New York state registered college with an Bachelor ' s degree in Recreation, Physical Education or a related field AND two years of full-time paid (or the equivalent part-time and/or volunteer) experience in a recreation program, one year of which was in a supervisory capacity; OR (b) Graduation from a regionally accredited or New York state registered college with an Associates degree in a related field AND four years of full-time paid (or the equivalent part-time and/or volunteer) experience in a recreation program, one year of which was in a supervisory capacity; OR (c) Graduation from high school or possession of a high school equivalency diploma AND six years of full-time paid (or the equivalent part-time and/or volunteer) experience in a recreation program, one year of which was in a supervisory capacity; OR (d) Any combination of training and experience equal to or greater than that described in (a), (b) and (c) . Position notes : Full Time position of 37 . 5 hours . December 8 , 2003 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 5 � ly OF I T�99 TOWN OF ITHACA 18 21 215 N . Tioga Street, Ithaca, N . Y. 14850 Agenda 6 www.town . ithaca .ny .us TOWN CLERK 273- 1721 HIGHWAY (Roads, Parks, Trails, Water &Sewer) 273 - 1656 ENGINEERING 273- 1747 PLANNING 273- 1747 ZONING 273- 1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 November 24, 2003 Mr, Kim T. Blot, Director Division of Agricultural Protection & Development Services New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets 1 Winners Circle Albany, NY 12235 Re : Proposed Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Map Revisions Dear Mr. Blot: Thank you very much for your letter dated October 31 , 2003 regarding the Town of Ithaca ' s proposed Zoning Revisions . We have been working on these revisions for over six years in an attempt to meet the goals and objectives of the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 1993 . We appreciate your overall supportive comments regarding our efforts to protect and enhance agricultural activities within the Town. We also appreciate the efforts of Matt Brower of your department who came out to Ithaca to speak with us about some of your department ' s initial concerns regarding the Zoning Revisions . Based on our preliminary discussions with Mr. Brower, the Town Board has already proposed to incorporate further revisions that will address some of those concerns . Those revisions are included in the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS dated November 6, 2003 ) and are referenced in Section "M" on pages 35 — 36 of the Final GEIS , and have been incorporated into a revised draft of the Zoning Ordinance (dated December 8 , 2003 ) that will be considered by the Town Board for adoption at the December 8 , 2003 meeting (a copy of the Final GEIS is enclosed for your reference) . The Town Board looks forward to working with your department to discuss the additional concerns outlined in your October 31St letter, and is open to considering additional revisions in the Zoning Ordinance if they can be done in a way that will not conflict with the objectives of the Town. The Town Board has indicated its intent to move ahead with the adoption of the revised Zoning Ordinance (possibly at the December 8 , 2003 meeting) , including the revisions mentioned above that have already been incorporated into the December 8 , 2003 draft, and proposes to meet with your department to discuss the additional concerns outlined in your letter as soon as we are able to schedule a meeting. After adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance , the Town Board can consider additional amendments to further address issues raised in your letter. Kim T. Blot, NYS Dept. of Ag & Markets ` Page 2 We believe that the objectives of your department and the Town are the same — that is to encourage farming as a viable activity in the Town, to protect agricultural land and resources in the Town, and to preserve the potential for agriculture in the Town ' s future. We look forward to working with you to meet these objectives . Sincerely, Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning Encl . cc : Matt Brower, NYS Dept. of Ag & Markets Danielle Cordier, NYS Dept. of Ag & Markets Russ De Mond, Chair, Tompkins Co. Agriculture & Farmland Protection Board Edward C . Marx, Commissioner, Tompkins County Planning Department Catherine Valentino, Supervisor, Town of Ithaca Town of Ithaca Town Board John Barney, Attorney for the Town of Ithaca I k' NOV 19 2003 ` � � Norman L. Davidson I —J 1821 Ridge Road TCV-- `i 01- !T F,ACA � wG NEE RING1 Lansing, NY 14882 November 19, 2003 Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Mr. Kanter: As president of Tompkins County Farm Bureau and representing its 370 member families, I would like to express some concerns we have about the proposed Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Revisions . First, I would like to commend the Town for its consideration of agriculture and its concern for trying to preserve agriculture in the Town. As I ' m sure you are aware these proposed revisions will affect all the agricultural land in the Town. We are especially concerned about the land in Tompkins County Agricultural District Numbers 1 and 2 that is located in the Town of Ithaca and would be affected by the proposed changes . Several of the proposed changes seem to be more restrictive than the State standards. In cases where local standards are more restrictive than the State standards, the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets has found these laws to be unreasonably restrictive . Some of these in the Town' s proposals include requirements for setbacks, site plan reviews, size restrictions on roadside stands, equestrian facilities, as well as several others that Mr. Kim Blot discussed in his letter from the Department to you dated October 31 , 2003 . One other requirement is that a building lot be a minimum of 7 acres in some areas. This will have the effect of taking away a property owner' s rights if he wants to sell some of his land for building lots. We all agree that some planning needs to be done to preserve agriculture and open space in the Town, but this is taking away a landowners development rights without paying him for those rights . Mr. Blot offered to have Matt Brower from the Department meet with you and the Town to discuss these concerns before you adopt the revisions so we can have a zoning ordinance that is agreeable to all parties. I would urge you to do this before the Town adopts the new Ordinance . The County Farm Bureau would also like to be a part of that discussion. We need to have a zoning ordinance that will be workable and agreeable to all the residents of the Town. Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to your response. Sincerer, Norman L. Davidson President, Tompkins County Farm Bureau (607) 533 -7522 a Ir! i! ; NOV 52003 °' TOWN OF ITHACA STATE OF NEW YORK PLANNING , ZONING , ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS 1 Winners Circle Albany, New York 12235 Division of Agricultural Protection and Development Services 518 457- 7076 Fax. 518457-2716 October 31 , 2003 Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Mr. Kanter: As you requested the Department has reviewed the proposed Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance ("Ordinance") Revisions. The Ordinance was reviewed in the context of its potential effect on farm operations located within county adopted, State certified agricultural districts (hereinafter "agricultural districts") . Land in Tompkins County Agricultural District Numbers 1 and 2 is located in the Town of Ithaca and would be affected by the proposed zoning changes. The Department applauds the Towns efforts to protect and enhance agricultural activities within the Town of Ithaca. In particular, the Department recognizes the proposed increase in land in the Agricultural Zone, Right to Farm and farm worker housing provisions . This letter reiterates concerns expressed by Matt Brower, Department Agricultural Resources Specialist, at the meeting held with the Town on October 1 , 2003 . Pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law (AML) § 305 -a, subdivision 1 , local governments are prohibited from enacting and administering laws that would unreasonably restrict farm operations located within an agricultural district unless it can be shown that the public health or safety is threatened . The Department examines the specific facts of a situation in considering whether an unreasonable restriction exists and reviews are performed on a case-by-case basis . In examining whether a local law is unreasonably restrictive, the Department considers several factors, including, but not limited to : whether the requirements adversely affect a farm operator' s ability to manage the farm operation effectively and efficiently; whether the requirements restrict production options which could affect the economic viability of the farm; whether the requirements will cause a lengthy delay in the construction of a farm building or implementation of a practice; the cost of compliance for the farm operation affected; and the availability of less onerous means to achieve the locality ' s objective . The Department also considers any relevant standards established under State law Jonathan Kanter (cont.) Page 2 and regulations. Where local standards have exceeded the State standards, the Department has, in many instances, found the local laws to be unreasonably restrictive. Each law, however, is examined on its own merits. If a local government believes that local conditions warrant standards that differ from the State ' s, the Department considers those conditions in evaluating whether the local standards are unreasonably restrictive. In general, the construction of on-farm buildings and the use of land for agricultural purposes should not require site plan review or special use permits when located in a county adopted, State certified agricultural district. The purpose of such districts is to encourage the development and improvement of agricultural land. Thus, absent any showing of an overriding local concern, generally, an exemption from site plan and special use permit requirements should be provided for farm operations in a State certified agricultural district. Site plan and special permit review, depending upon the specific requirements in a local law, can be expensive due to the need to retain professional assistance to certify plans or simply to prepare the type of detailed plans required by the law. The lengthy approval process in some local laws can be burdensome, especially considering a farm' s need to undertake management and production practices in a timely and efficient manner. Site plan and special permit fees can be extensive and may be unreasonably restrictive, especially for some start-up farms. However, the Department recognizes that some local governments may wish to review agricultural development and projects within their borders; the Department developed a model streamlined site plan review process which provides for that while aimed at responding to the farmers' concerns. The Department' s Guidelines for Review of Local Zoning and Planning Laws provides additional information in that regard. Requirements for buffers or setbacks to graze animals, construct fences and otherwise use land for agricultural purposes are generally unreasonably restrictive. Buffers and associated setbacks may require farmers to remove land from production or otherwise remove land from use for the farm operation. Maintenance of the buffer also creates a hardship to the landowner. If a setback is required for fencing, the farmer may have to incur the expense of double fencing the perimeter of their property, or portion thereof, to prevent encroachment by neighboring property owners. Farmers should not be required to bear the extra costs to provide screening unless such requirements are otherwise warranted by special local conditions or necessary to address a threat to the public health or safety. While aesthetics are an appropriate and important consideration under zoning and planning laws, the purpose of the Agricultural Districts Law is to conserve and protect agricultural lands by promoting the retention of farmland in active agricultural use . The information submitted by the Town indicates that the Agricultural and the Conservation Zones would be expanded to include more land which is currently included in Tompkins County Agricultural Districts # 1 and 2 . However, land in the Town ' s Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential , Multiple Residence, and Planned Development Zones would also be included in portions of these two agricultural districts . The permitted land uses in these zones could result in conflict between farm operations and local land use controls. Consequently, we recommend that the Town provide an exemption in the proposed Ordinance to allow for agricultural operations as permitted uses within an agricultural district. The definition of Farm in the proposed Ordinance is inconsistent with the Agriculture and Markets Law (AML) . As drafted, the tern includes the "structures necessary to the production and storage of agricultural products and equipment. " To be consistent with the AML meaning of "farm operation" the definition should include on-farm buildings, equipment and practices used for preparation and marketing of crops, livestock and livestock products . (AML § 301 , subd. l l .) Jonathan Kanter (cont.) Page 3 Article V describes the Conservation Zone, permitted uses, uses allowed by special permit and by special approval in this zone . Garden, Nursery or Farm is included in the list of "Permitted Principal Uses . " However, Equestrian Facility is not listed as permitted, allowed by special permit or by special approval . Horse boarding operations as defined by AML § 301 , subd. 13 , should be a permitted use in the portions of the Conservation Zone located in an agricultural district. Section 501 of Article V includes "Roadside stand or other structure, not exceeding 500 square feet of enclosed space, for the display and sale of farm or nursery products incidental to farming and as a seasonal convenience to the owner or owners of the land" as a permitted principal use. The Department supports the Town ' s inclusion of provisions for roadside stands . The phrase "incidental to farming" is not, however, defined and many roadside stands and farm markets are a significant part of the farm operation . Further, produce stands and farm buildings, in general , should be a principal permitted use in all areas located in an agricultural district. Placing a 500 square feet limit on a farm stand may be unreasonably restrictive . Some farms cannot effectively market their produce from a smaller stand and may require larger structures. For further information, enclosed is a copy of the Department's Guidelines for Review of Local Laws Affecting Direct Farm Marketing Activities , Section 512 describes additional requirements and restrictions in the Conservation Zone. Section 512, subd. 4, states that: "The storage and land application of manure for agricultural purposes shall follow established U . S . Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service best management practices. Minimum conditions for storage of solid manure are a pad of concrete and a leachate collection system." The Farm Service Agency (formerly the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service) does not establish best management practices (BMPs) for manure storage and application. Further, the requirement that all farms follow BMPs could unreasonably restrict farm operations located within an agricultural district. Many recommended BMPs are voluntary and not mandated by law or regulation. The minimum conditions for storage of solid manure in the proposed Ordinance exceed the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) standards for this practice and as a result, could unreasonably restrict farm operations. The Department ' s Guidelines for Review of Local Laws Affecting Nutrient Management Practices (i. e. Land Application of Animal Waste, Recognizable and Non-recognizable Food Waste, Sewage, Sludge and Septage, Animal Waste Storage/Management) provide additional information. Article VI describes the Agricultural Zone, permitted uses, and uses allowed by special permit and special approval within the zone. Section 601 lists "Roadside stand or structure, not exceeding 500 square feet . . . " as a permitted principal use . This provision presents the same concerns described above relative to those in Article V, section 501 pertaining to size restrictions and other issues. Section 602 lists the "Principal Uses Authorized by Special Permit Only" in the Agricultural Zone. According to this section, a "commercial composting facility" would require a special permit and would have to meet several requirements. The proposed zoning law does not include a "commercial composting facility" definition . Section 602 , as drafted, could apply to on-farm composting facilities and would unreasonably restrict such operations located within an agricultural district. The Department ' s Guidelines for Review of Local Laws Affecting On-Farm Composting Facilities provides additional information on this issue . Section 602 requires a special permit in the Agricultural Zones for "Research facilities dedicated to research in agriculture or animal husbandry. " The proposed zoning law does not define these facilities. Further, a special permit should not be required for those uses and activities at a research facility located in an agricultural district which meet the AML definition of a "farm operation. " r Jonathan Kanter (cont.) rl Page 4 Section 603 describes "Principal Uses Authorized by Special Approval Only." This section includes mining as a principal use requiring special approval in an Agricultural Zone. Although the definition of mining excludes excavation in aid of agricultural activities, it does not indicate whether the sale of such excavated material is allowed. Since the sale of an incidental amount of excavated material can help offset the cost of agricultural activities, the Department recommends that the Town exempt the incidental excavation and sale of overburden and/or minerals when the excavation is in aid of agricultural activities by a "farm operation" in an agricultural district. Section 614 ("Right to Farm") provides private nuisance suit protection for land in the proposed Agricultural Zones. Pursuant to AML § 308 , protection against private nuisance claims is provided with respect to land in an agricultural district or land used in agricultural production that receives an agricultural assessment when the agricultural practices conducted on such land, in the opinion of the State Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets, are sound. The Department does not interpret AML § 308 as preempting the field of "Right-to-Farm" legislation and does not find . Section 614 of the proposed ordinance inconsistent with § 308 . While an issue might arise as to a Town ' s authority to limit a nuisance cause of action, that question is outside the purview of this Agency. The Town may wish to consider inclusion of dispute resolution provisions in its local law if they are consistent with the Town' s intent. Enclosed are copies of Right to Farm laws from the Towns of White Creek and Easton (Washington County) which include such provisions. Article VIII describes the "Low Density Residential ' Zones (LDR), identifies the permitted uses, and uses allowed by special permit and special approval . Section 801 includes a nursery or farm as a permitted principal use provided that any building housing farm animals is at least 100 feet from any lot line or street right of way, and manure is not stored within 100 feet of any lot line or street right of way. Some setback requirements may be impractical and may significantly increase the cost of doing business for a farm operation, including the cost of constructing new agricultural structures. The Department' s Guidelines for Review of Local Laws Affecting Nutrient Management Practices (i. e. Land Application of Animal Waste, Recognizable and Non-recognizable Food Waste, Sewage, Sludge and Septage, Animal Waste Storage/Management) provide additional information on this subject. Section 801 also appears to prohibit hog farms in the LDR Zones . Such a prohibition would in the Department ' s view unreasonably restrict farm operations within an agricultural district. Section 802 identifies "Equestrian Facilities" as a land use requiring a special permit. Such facilities would have to apply for a special permit and meet several requirements, including buffers and setbacks that appear to be unreasonably restrictive . Commercial horse boarding operations, as defined in the AML, should be a permitted principal use in those portions of the LDR Zone located within an agricultural district. Section 803 , which describes "Permitted Accessory Buildings and Uses" in LDR Zones to include roadside stands, raises the same size restriction concerns identified with respect to Articles V and VI concerning roadside stands and farm markets. Section 805 which lists an "Equestrian Facility" as an accessory building or use authorized by special permit presents the same concerns described above relative to the Article V discussion concerning restrictions on such facilities within agricultural districts. Sections 806 and 905 prescribe height limitations for structures in the LDR and MDR Zones . Agricultural buildings utilized by a farm operation located in an agricultural district should be exempt from such limitations : e Jonathan Kanter (cont.) V o Page 5 Article IX describes the Medium Density Residential Zones (MDR) and identifies the permitted uses, and uses allowed by special permit and special approval . Agriculture and farms are not listed as a permitted use, a use authorized by special permit, or a use authorized by special approval . Some parcels located within the proposed MDR Zone are within an agricultural district. The Department would view any prohibition against agricultural land use and farming on such parcels as unreasonably restrictive. Article XXI describes the Planned Development Zones (PD). It appears that the intent of PD zones is to bring diverse land uses together in a compatible and unified way. However, one of the PD zones is located within an agricultural district. Section 2106 provides that structures cannot be built or land uses changed in the PD zone without receiving site plan approval . Agricultural buildings and land uses in an agricultural district should be a permitted use and generally not be subject to site plan approval . Thus, this section as applied to a farm operation within an agricultural district could be unreasonably restrictive. Article XXVI describes "Special Regulations" for various activities . Section 2602 lists the requirements for "Extraction or Deposit of Fill and Related Products." Subsection 9(d) provides an exemption for "Removal, movement, or deposit of not more than 500 cubic yards of fill in an Agricultural Zone in any three year period in conjunction with one or more bona fide agricultural uses." It is the Department ' s position that farm operations within an agricultural district should be able to extract and deposit fill, in accordance with State and Federal laws and regulations, for agricultural purposes. Article XXVII outlines "General Provisions" for various activities and land uses. Section 2711 lists the provisions for mobile homes used for farm worker housing in an agricultural district. Paragraph 2 provides that site plan approval is required for more than one mobile home on a farm. Paragraph 8 requires that any site plan approval "shall be for a period determined by the Planning Board, but in no event longer than five years." While the Department recognizes the Town ' s efforts to include provisions for farm worker housing, the need for site plan approval could be unreasonably restrictive depending on the cost and time involved. Further, the need to undergo site plan approval at least once every five years, particularly when there has been no change in land use, may unreasonably restrict a farm operation located in an agricultural district. Enclosed is a copy of the Department ' s Guidelines for Review of Local Laws Affecting Farm Worker Housing for additional information. The Department would like to work with the Town to resolve potential conflicts between the proposed local law and the Agriculture and Markets Law. Our staff is willing to assist the Town in its drafting of amendments that meet the needs of the Town and are consistent with AML §305 -a. Before the proposed zoning revisions are adopted, I would appreciate receiving the Town ' s response to the concerns identified . If you have any questions concerning these comments, please contact Matt Brower at (518) 457-2713 . If the Town ' s attorney has any questions, he or she may contact Department Senior Attorney, Danielle Cordier at (518) 457-2449 . Sincerely, Kim"T . Blot Director { Jonathan Kanter (cont.) r Page 6 cc : Catherine Valentino, Supervisor, Town of Ithaca Edward C . Marx, Director, Tompkins Co . Planning Russ De Mond, Chair, Tompkins County AFPB Ruth A. Moore, First Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of A&M Rick Zimmerman, Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of A&M Joan Kehoe, Counsel, Dept. of A&M Matt Brower, Dept. of A&M Danielle Cordier, Dept. of A& M FILE ` '. DATE 1i b OPTED RESOLUTION : PB RESOLUTION NO . 2003-020 Recommendation to Town Board Regarding Adoption of January 15 , 2003 Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance and November 26 , 2002 Draft Revised Zoning Map Planning Board , April 1 , 2003 MOTION made by Eva Hoffmann , seconded by George Conneman . RESOLVED : That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town Board adopt a local law enacting the January 15 , 2003 Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance and November 26 , 2002 Draft Revised Zoning Map , with the following modifications : 1 . Addition of "bed and breakfast" as a principal use authorized by special permit ( Section 502) in Conservation Zones ; and 12 , Addition of "any institution of higher learning" as a principal use authorized by special permit ( Section 502 . 2) in Conservation Zones to clarify that university and college educational uses are intended to be permitted ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED : That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board supports the study of a new lower density transition zone by the Town Board and Codes and Ordinances Committee as a future consideration and possible future amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Map ; and as as PB RESOLUTION NO . 2003- PAG BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED : That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board would like the opportunity to review the Draft Generic Environrnental Impact Statement regarding the proposed Zoning revisions upon its acceptance as complete by the Town Board , and provide additional comments to the Town Board at that time . The vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Wilcox , Hoffmann , Conneman , Howe , Talty NAYS : NONE (Mitrano was not present for the vote) The motion was declared to be carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA : I , Lori Waring , Tev.fn Clerk Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York, do hereby certify that the attached resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 1St day of April 2003 . r der-k/Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca FILE DATE i � o ADOPTED RESOLUTION : PB RESOLUTION NO . 2003=098 Follow- up Recommendation to Town Board Regarding Adoption of the Proposed Zoning Revisions, as Incorporated in the January 15 , 2003 Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance , August 25 , 2003 Draft Revised Zoning Map , and Addendum With Additional Revisions [ Cumulative through October 20 , 2003] Town of Ithaca Planning Board November 18 , 2003 MOTION made by George Conneman , seconded by Larry Thayer WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommended in a resolution dates April 1 , 2003 , that the Town Board adopt a local law enacting the proposed Zoning Revisions included in the January 15 , 2003 Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance and November 26 , 2003 Draft Revised Zoning Map , and WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the Draft and Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement ( GEIS ) regarding the proposed Zoning Revisions , which include minor updates and revisions on the Proposed Zoning Map , dated August 25 , 2003 , and WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the "Addendum Containing Language Changes Suggested by the Codes and Ordinances Committee or the Planning Board Subsequent to January 15 , 2003 [Cumulative through October 20 , 2003] , " which is included in the Final GEIS , NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED : That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town Board adopt a local law enacting the proposed Zoning Revisions included in the January 15 , 2003 Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance and August 25 , 2003 Draft Revised Zoning Map , with the additional revisions suggested in the "Addendum Containing Language Changes Suggested by the Codes and Ordinances Committee or the Planning Board Subsequent to January 15 , 2003 [Cumulative through October 20 , 20031 ." The vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Wilcox, Conneman , Mitrano , Thayer, Howe , Talty . NAYS : None . The motion was declared to be carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Tevwa-Sler-I�/Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the attached resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the,; 181h day of November 2003 . L lit, U � "A Tewn Clerk Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca Ei Planning is a participatory Process hence I hope that everyone here this evening has a chance to speak. During the previous meeting I presented the Board with a petition which was signed by the majority of farmers and large tract landowners and was in opposition to the proposed rezoning of agricultural lands and requested a postponement of final approval of the rezoning given that the vast majority did not even know that rezoning was underfoot. Initially I concentrated on farmers and large tract landowners because they are most effected by the proposed changes to zoning on West Hill , Today I have additional signatures —this time I spoke with homeowners and once again found a preponderance of them were not aware of the proposed changes and once again like the farmers and landowners , homeowners also took exception to the proposed rezoning . I was taken aback by the fact that most people I contacted on West Hill were totally unaware of the changes proposed by the Town Planning Department, they were unaware of the Planning Departments intention to pass the proposed changes by the end of this year! Virtually all the people I surveyed on West Hill , even the few who on the surface support some aspects of the ideal felt there is no need to rush the passage of the new zoning . Many wanted more time to better understand the issues and what was at stake . Problems with the process : 1 . All but 2 residents , out of the forty who were at home when I canvassed a few streets on West Hill , knew that this rezoning was taking place. Similarly many of the farmers and large land owners were not aware of this rezoning process . 2 . The agricultural committee's recommendations are a foundation upon which much of the agricultural rezoning should be based . From all I have been told this committee did not keep minutes. Hence we can not find out or question if this committee met simple procedures such as having quorum during votes, and whether the composition of this committee represented farmers at the time of vote . This is an example of a lack of transparency in this planning process. 3 . Chapter III of the Town's comprehensive Plan , has an Agriculture section 2-E which states , and I quote "Work with farmers to develop zoning regulations for agricultural areas that ensure the continued viability of agriculture while allowing appropriate levels of development. " [end quote] I do not believe that you have honored the farmers with this current restrictive zoning and accompanying site plan controls. 4 . From the July 1992 Report of the Conservation Advisory Council Agricultural Committee , it clearly appears that the ensuing Comprehensive Plan never included the concerns of the farmers when the Plan was drafted . I quote from the July 1992 Report, page 11 , paragraph 1 : "The majority . . . of Town farmers attending expressed great concern over the impact any reduction in allowed housing density would have on the value of their land and their ability to sell it . For most farmers, land represents their lifetime (and often a multi-generation) investment or work and capital , and the primary source of income after retirement from farming as well as a major legacy for heirs . " [end quote] I also quote from paragraph 3 of the same page : "The Agriculture Committee does not recommend any changes in the 1 density of residential development in the revised agricultural zoning district from that allowed under the current zoning ordinance . " [end quote] Today , as in 1992 , the majority of farmers do not support changes in current zoning . And from my survey they are in opposition to the wildly restrictive proposed re-zoning and accompanying site plan controls on their agricultural lands. Much of these changes are built on a false premise —that changes to zoning will somehow save agriculture . The reality is that the proposed changes will only hurt directly the few remaining farmers in the Town . Looking at the list of relevant boards and the Planning Department it is apparent that West Hill is not appropriately represented . This is of note because West Hill is the location chosen to provide Open Space for the Town . Reviewing the planning documents it is apparent to me that Open Space is being zoned in on West Hill under the guise of preserving agricultural lands . However viable farms are few. Just finding someone with acceptable practices to farm proposed agricultural lands is difficult at best. The proposed zoning will condemned the use of property to agriculture whether it is farmed or not. And the landowner will continue to be obliged to pay taxes on all the lands whether it is farmed or not. With the proposed rezoning the sale of these lands becomes unlikely because prospective farmers can avoid the capital outlay of purchasing lands and the continued burden of ever increasing taxes by leasing lands for a nominal cost. Under the proposed re-zoning there is allowed one residential unit per every 7 acres . Additional re-zoning constraints stipulate even more restrictions on how many residences are allowed . Current default zoning allows one residential unit per every acre. Bottom line is that I am being asked to give up 85%, or 6/7ths , of the lands development potential to the town while being required to pay taxes on 100% the land . I am graciously allowed to keep the remaining 1 out of every 7 not condemned as long as there are no violations of the unrealistic and inflexible proposed site plan restrictions . The proposed re-zoning is a Condemnation of Lands without Compensation . A very practical outcome of the proposed rezoning is to secure Open Lands for the Town without having to Purchase Development Rights —rather oppressive and definitely can not be described as being a democratic process . I am asking you to please make sure this rezoning is a democratic process . What harm would come from allowing this document of proposed changes to represent more fully the needs of all parties affected . I challenge you to find a solution where both public and private interests are met. 2 TOWN OF ITHACA PROPOSED ZONING ISSUES December 8 , 2003 Introduction : - Speaking at the request of Tompkins County Farm Bureau -First Pioneer address -position and experience -Agricultural Advisory Committee to the T . of Camillus Land Use Committee Does the Proposed Agricultural Zoning and Subdivision Requirements Affect Value ? -2 studies — one from New Jersey where a lot rezoning and subdivision re-tooling has occurred with frequency, and a sales study from Ithaca -New Jersey a zoning change in Towns of East Amwell and Delaware from 3 acres to 6 acres resulted in 35 -38 % decrease in larger lot sales . -Additionally, reviewing sales of individual lot sales in 4 categories of: less than 1 . 5 acres, 1 . 5 to 2 . 9 , 3 . 0 to 5 . 9 and 5 . 9 to 10 acres, show declines of 26 to 49% each time the size of the lots jump to the next higher category. 144 A %,n a4i -Ithaca — a three-year study of sales kcluding sales in specific approved developments and all of Cayuga Height shows the following: - lots under 2 acres averaged $ 18 , 702/acre -lots of 2 acres to 6 . 9 acres averaged $ 6590/acre (a 65 % decrease from the present minimum density) - lots of 7 acres to 20 acres averaged $ 3806/acre (a 42% decrease from the next higher density) -As I understand it, the present zoning will limit sales of new lots from 2 acre minimums to a minimum of 14 acres required for subdivision unless there are special waivers granted. -The density of allowable subdivisions could be reached in a relatively short span and for a relatively small number of sellers . * There are only 45 lots in the proposed AZ large enough for subdivision. Little flexibility left for farmers . -Housing is what is driving most of the demand on agricultural land. Under the proposed zoning and subdivision regulations the potential new housing units decreases 89 % from 3767 units to 413 units . The largest decrease in potential housing units, and largest impact on value, is borne by one class of ownership with the greatest impact on livelihood . It appears the farmers swallow the larg : fall-out from the proposed changes . -The Town gets the bulk of Agricultural land "preserved" without having to compensate the owners for it . 1A fop 4 'Why is this-intpi rat ? -First any developer presently negotiating the purchase of a tract for developing lots will likely not realize the density build-out necessary to construct the infrastructure and return a profit -Second, the person planning on selling the tract may not realize the sale because P r7v n7 +h4 buyer cannot recognizeliig goal s -What if the seller had to sell due to health, a death, or financial distress (what about the mortgagee?) , or what if this was the sellers retirement? -To many farmers, the profit of the business has been plowed back into the property with the expectation this is their retirement account. While agricultural land in some parts of the Town is nominal in value, other parts can be quite valuable and farmers realize this . -Lets explore this a little more . -cropland purchased for agricultural purposes in the Town is in the neighborhood of $ 1000 to $2000 per acre r00% tT; moo my n k. -this is partially influenced by non- farm factors such as proximity to towns, and non-agricultural demand - a review of similar cropland with similar agricultural uses but in less densely populated areas with less non- agricultural demand indicates land values of $ 600 to $ 1000/acre a decrease of roughly 50% . el :,970VA .c.c. s -With the influence of the low density requirements in the Agricultural and Conservation Zones, would this not mimic what is observed in northern New York and other areas of less demand? -Is this police power of the government without compensatiori fair? Alternatives : / owk -Temporary or permanent easement purro a may be more equitable a e2 J' � a the T . of Perrington near Rochester �a- Thank You Fred Hudson Harold D. Craft, Jr. Telephone: 607 255-4618 is , Vice President for Administration Fax: 607 255-9579 and Chief Financial Officer E-mail: hdc3Qcornell.edu Cornell University 317 Day Hall Administration, Facilities, and Finance Ithaca, NY 14853-2801 December 8 , 2003 Honorable Catherine Valentino, Supervisor Town of Ithaca Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Re : Proposed Zoning Revisions, Town of Ithaca New York Dear Ms . Valentino : Thank you for the opportunity to present comments to you and the members of the Town Board in response to the Town of Ithaca ' s Proposed Zoning Revisions , particularly regarding the proposed change to a MR zone off Pine Tree Road . 1 . The proposed change to MR zoning for the parcel off Pine Tree prevents the University from developing its own land - land it has owned for many decades — located close to the main campus and surrounded by other university parcels that are also used for university purposes . Quoting from Page 36 of the DGEIS — "A possible impact of this rezoning is that institutions of higher learning/educational uses are not permitted in the MR zone. The parcel is owned by Cornell University, and the change to MR could limit future educational uses, unless zoning modifications are made. ' Cornell presently uses the parcel for educational purposes and future development of the land will likewise be for educational purposes . Therefore , we urge that the parcel remain in its original zoning, which permits educational uses . 2 . Rezoning this particular site as MR is not the best strategy for the Town ' s stated goal of increasing affordable housing options in the Town of Ithaca. Again, quoting from Page 85 of the DGEIS — " Currently the land is owned by Cornell, and it is unlikely that they will relinquish ownership of the land. So although the entire 26 acre parcel is zoned R-30 residential, it is unlikely that the property would ever be developed for single family housing. " I can confirm that Cornell is extremely unlikely to relinquish ownership of the land . I can also confirm that Cornell is unlikely to develop it for any housing, whether single family or multiple residence housing, for the reasons stated below. However, at least leaving it in R-30 zoning (low density residential) permits educational uses to be developed . Re- zoning a piece of Cornell ' s land will not achieve the goal of increasing the amount of affordable housing in the Town. 3 . The parcel is not well-suited to residential development. The parcel is roughly bisected diagonally by high-tension power lines . Regardless of who owns the parcel, the negative perception of the power lines running through the middle of a residential project would create an undesirable and far less marketable residential project. This factor was not studied in the Environmental Impact Statement, 4 . Even without the negative aesthetic impact of the high-tension power line, the parcel is legally encumbered by the high-tension power line easement . It would only accommodate a small residential complex that is inefficient. The impact of the legal development limitations on the parcel were not studied in the Environmental Impact Statement. Quoting from the DEIS on page 76 - "A new MR Multiple Residence Zone is proposed on approximately 11 acres of a parcel off Pine Tree Road north of East Hill Plaza, which would have the theoretical potential to accommodate over 100 new apartment units . " The high-tension power lines are in a 225 -foot wide no-build easement. In reality, the presence of the high-tension power lines would only allow a developable area of approximately 4 .4 acres on one side of this easement, due to the fact that the other side is bounded by the Cascadilla Creek Unique Natural Area. At a maximum density of 12 .4 units an acre (the limit set in the proposed zoning revisions), we get 136 units by dividing 11 acres by the density. However, with only 4 .4 buildable acres, the maximum would be 54 units, not 136 . Additionally, a quality site layout of the type the Town of Ithaca Planning Board typically approves, would yield far less than 12 . 4 units per acre . Most existing MR developments in the Town are in the range of 6- 8 units per acre . Thus, the developable portion of the proposed MR site would yield only 24 to 35 units . When Cornell raised its objections to the proposed change earlier, it was suggested by town officials that this site could accommodate apartment housing for Cornell graduate students . The total number of units that could be built, whether it were 54 units or 24 units, is far too small to be efficient -probably for any developer -but particularly for Cornell . Cornell would never build a student housing complex of so few units . Any Cornell student housing would require common areas, on-site staff, and space for other residential programming, further reducing the number of units . So few units could not support the program and amenities that Cornell would need to provide to student housing. In conclusion, this site is not a good site for any residential development . It is flanked by a commercial development on one side and high tension power lines on the other. The so-called adjacency to existing MR housing cited in the FEIS is minimal . Having a new -2- . � MR designation is one that normally enhances the value of the property owned by a non- institutional landowner. There are doubtless landowners in the Town of Ithaca who would welcome such a change in their zoning . We feel that other options for siting affordable housing in the Town were not adequately explored, while an unsuitable one was proposed instead . This land is important to the long-term strategic interests of the University. Regardless of any zoning change, it will remain in University use . In the long-term, Cornell will likely need the entire parcel for future office use . For all of the above reasons, I respectfully urge you to reconsider changing the zoning of this parcel to MR, and instead to leave it low density residential (R-30) since it permits university uses, so that Comell ' s use of its property is not taken. Thank you. Sincerely, /J ,J+ Harold D . Craft, Jr. -3- z Petition Opposing Proposed Rezoning in Town of Ithaca November 2003 We are the Farmers and Landowners of West Hill, in the Town of Ithaca. From the signatures below indicating opposition to the proposed rezoning it is clear that many of the farmers and land owners of consequence on West Hill do not support the extreme reduction of density outlined in the Proposed Comprehensive Plan. Given the limited number of active farms in the Town of Ithaca we are disturbed to find that many of the farmers and landowners directly effected by the extreme reduction of density and accompanying unrealistic site plan requirements were not privy to these proposed changes. We suggest that while the above noted changes are in the name of protecting the ideal upheld by farmers, these same changes have a blatant disregard for the people who actually farm land and are stewards to land in the Town of Ithaca. We require to be given a true voice in these planning decisions that most effect us as farmers and landowners. This requires additional time for us to further review the full implications of the proposed changes, as well as time for our majority opinion to be properly incorporated into the Proposed Comprehensive Plan. At present the proposed changes to zoning on our land is unacceptable. Name Signature Tax Map Number and/or Address Date " � y 1 . i r. It Jan 3i N X30 4. 1G i1 / P e4e°T— eiC /A 5. A�2 L -�F 11 I 1 5 � 7. r t� S /�� Aae'& . ( co J , 9. t i' C'C1 /al `._. ! `1 r et 7 �- _� �' . l� L�i r �c7: l �/ .. ) t' , - i .'1 10. cL r 14 1. ` 4 // Y df JAI � Petition Opposing Proposed Rezoning in Town of Ithaca November 2003 We are the Farmers and Landowners of West Hill, in the Town of Ithaca. From the signatures below indicating opposition to the proposed rezoning it is Gear that many of the farmers and land owners of consequence on West Hill do not support the extreme reduction of density outlined in the f;>saposed Comprehensive Plan. Given the limited number of active farms in the Town of Ithaca we are disturbed to find that many of the farmers and landowners directly effected by the extreme reduction of density and accompanying unrealistic site plan requirements were not privy to these proposed changes. We suggest that while the above noted changes are in the name of protecting the ideal upheld by farmers, these same changes have a blatant disregard for the people who actually farm land and are stewards to land in the Town of Ithaca. We require to be given a true voice in these planning decisions that most effect us as farmers and landowners. This requires additional time for us to further review the full implications of the proposed changes, as well as time for our majority opinion to be properly incorporated into the f4epesed Comprehensive Plan. At present the proposed changes to zoning on our land is unacceptable. Name Signature Tax Map Number and/or Address Date ft r O f6 -.4// / 1305 "r Wt c (C 2c1 , L[,C( , - 03 ` - a3 M I Ice � � �,� Fc) i � S` Fr HAY FS yrkcicet !.�ii<3fige:S z, Petition Opposing Proposed Rezoning in Town of Ithaca November 2003 We are the Farmers and Landowners of West Hill , in the Town of Ithaca. From the signatures below indicating opposition to the proposed rezoning it is clear that many of the farmers and land owners of consequence on West Hill do not support the extreme reduction of density outlined in the P4epesed Comprehensive Plan. Given the limited number of active farms in the Town of Ithaca we are disturbed to find that many of the farmers and landowners directly effected by the extreme reduction of density and accompanying unrealistic site plan requirements were not privy to these proposed changes. We suggest that while the above noted changes are in the name of protecting the ideal upheld by farmers, these same changes have a blatant disregard for the people who actually farm land and are stewards to land in the Town of Ithaca. We require to be given a true voice in these planning decisions that most effect us as farmers and landowners. This requires additional time for us to further review the full implications of the proposed changes, as well as time for our majority opinion to be properly incorporated into the4lwpas" Comprehensive Plan . At present the proposed changes to zoning on our land is unacceptable. Name Signature Tax Map Number and/or Address Date D7 Lo�� 4Ac) r�x Q 3 r � � E FALL i ` AJA 4ilciAb i 11 � tt f 1 t Ghgq, el 3joaorL 3 $3 << &A3 e, r� 3 -r / 1 [6 /0 3 Petition Opposing Proposed Rezoning in Town of Ithaca November 2003 We are the Farmers and Landowners of West Hill, in the Town of Ithaca. From the signatures below indicating opposition to the proposed rezoning it Js clear that many of the fanners and land owners of consequence on West Hill do not support the extreme reduction of density outlined in thud Comprehensive Plan. Given the limited number of active farms in the Town of Ithaca we are disturbed to find tha: many of the farmers and landowners directly effected by the extreme reduction of density and accompanying unrealistic site plan requirements were not privy to these proposed changes. We suggest that while the above noted changes are in the name of protecting the ideal upheld by farmers, these same changes have a blatant disregard for the people who actually farm land and are stewards to land in the Town of Ithaca. We require to be given a true voice in these planning decisions that most effect us as farmers and landowners. This requires additional time for us to further review the full implications of the proposed changes, as well as time for our majority opinion to be properly incorporated into the ftwagl Comprehensive Plan. At present the proposed changes to zoning on our land is unacceptable. Name Signature Tax Map Number and/or Address Date Y` e, 03 At/ VJ fit PCI kA l � AZ `l c3 .r es � 29 / 03 /w"au" zz'p)ls a J � kid , �F., L. i ..2 .� I ti( b �' l�'� �. x .M � fr ,� RAE„li 0, J: '•;' Ils ;'t 1 liS ,_r » (_ t✓ (]-h 3rolgas r !� [ N U r �J It, _': ' ,Ji"!I tVV : t � h' C `^ Petition Opposing Proposed Rezoning in Town of Ithaca November 2003 We are the Farmers, Landowners and Homeowners of West Hill, in the Town of Ithaca. From the signatures below indicating opposition to the proposed rezoning it is clear that many of the farmers and landowners of consequence on West Hill do not support the extreme reduction of density outlined in the Proposed Rezoning. Given the limited number of active farms in the Town of Ithaca we are disturbed to find that many of the farmers and landowners directly effected by the extreme reduction of density and accompanying unrealistic site plan requirements were not privy to these proposed changes. We suggest that while the above noted changes are in the name of protecting the ideal upheld by farmers, these same changes have a blatant disregard for the people who actually farm land and are stewards to land in the Town of Ithaca. We homeowners, farmers and landowners require to be given a true voice in these planning decisions that most effect us. This requires additional time for us to further review the full implications of the proposed changes, as well as time for our majority opinion to be properly incorporated into the Proposed Rezoning. At present the proposed changes to zoning are unacceptable. Name Signature Tax Map Number and/or Address Date VAILM L ki 'S 1114163 Vo 4AI2 bi I 14 � Q deg. aYo 4,4 P'/ 0.2, a \� ' C �i . / ' A)) 01. d2 i"? - 'X-0j LAI Lh 'evr /a a 6to l ;t 1 10 ff 46 Al 1J1J04==1aL, 13 IX441e4�Vomw /a4 ,r�u� Irl ,,1 44 l 400Ye Pei rjl�ppcx il l "' Pell Petition Opposing Proposed Rezoning in Town of Ithaca November 2003 We are the Farmers, Landowners and Homeowners of West Hill, in the Town of Ithaca. From the signatures below indicating opposition to the proposed rezoning it is clear that many of the farmers and landowners of consequence on West Hill do not support the extreme reduction of density outlined in the Proposed Rezoning. Given the limited number of active farms in the Town of Ithaca we are disturbed to find that many of the farmers and landowners directly effected by the extreme reduction of density and accompanying unrealistic site plan requirements were not privy to these proposed changes. We suggest that while the above noted changes are in the name of protecting the ideal upheld by farmers, these same changes have a blatant disregard for the people who actually farm land and are stewards to land in the Town of Ithaca. We homeowners, farmers and landowners require to be given a tare voice in these planning decisions that most effect us. This requires additional time for us to further' review the full implications of the proposed changes, as well as time for our majority opinion to be properly incorporated into the Proposed Rezoning. At present the proposed changes to zoning are unacceptable. Name Signature Tax Map Number and/or Address Date Je g. 2- n e -1e � ; � bj . . .-i; d ... L N ;i � .. .'Y. r,.. , To=npkins County ! I �, 1 , NOV 2 6 2003 DEPARTMENT=§OF PLANNING i i I TO 'N O != ITHACA E 121 East Court-Street `FI ArPJ ! NG , ,.P 0, G3 , ENGINEEP, IN Ithaca, New York, 14850 Edward C. Marx, AICP Telephone (607) 274-5560 Commissioner of Planning Fax (607) 274-5578 -November 25 , 2003 Mr, Jonathan Kanter, AICP, Director of Planning t 4# "1 Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re : Review Pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action : Final Review and comment on the Town of Ithaca Revised Zoning Ordinance Dear Jonathan: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law. The Department has reviewed the proposal, as submitted, and has determined that it may have negative inter-community, or county-wide impacts as described below. We recommend modification of the proposal . If the Board does not incorporate these recommendations into its approval, such approval will require a vote of a supermajority (meaning a majority plus one) of all members of the decision- making body. Recommended Modification Residential Density - The proposed zoning is relatively representative of the Town ' s Comprehensive Plan . However, we are concerned that no additional land area has been provided for higher density residential development. The Town ' s location adjacent to the City of Ithaca makes it ideal to provide affordable housing that is convenient to employment areas, which is of growing concern throughout the County. The absence of higher density development opportunities pushes affordable housing options further from the County ' s centralized urban areas and employment centers. We strongly encourage the Town to identify areas for higher density and mixed use development to address these growing needs . Other Comments We are pleased to see the inclusion of conservation zones that provide protection for Unique Natural Areas and establish interconnecting greenways and ecological corridors . These improvements are fully supported by the County ' s Interim Vital Communities Development Principles . Sincerely, r / r? How Edward C . Marx, AICP Commissioner of Planning cc : Richard Booth, Tompkins County Legislature District No. 3 Kathy Luz Herrera, Tompkins County Legislature District No.4 Frank Proto, Tompkins County Legislature District No . 7 Dooley Kiefer, Tompkins County Legislature District No. 10 Michael Koplinka-Loehr, Tompkins County Legislature District No. 11 Tim Joseph, Tompkins County Legislature District No. 12 TOMPKINS COUNTY AGRICULTURE & FARMLAND PROTECTION BOARD 615 Willow Avenue Ithaca, New York 14850 ----_— Telephone (607) 272-2292 Fax (607) 272 4088 i U ; December 4, 2003 -` DEC 8 2003 tmJ nrt nir ; � v I T I'tgi� �.fi Y +_i I � L Ms . Catherine Valentino, Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca NY 14850 Dear Ms . Valentino, This letter is written regarding the proposed Town of Ithaca zoning revisions and the potential impact on existing and future agricultural operations . The Tompkins County Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board commends and applauds the Town ' s efforts to protect farmland, but believes there are still major areas of concern that need to be addressed Specifically, the Board is concerned that of the 22 potential conflicts between New York State Agricultural District Law and the proposed zoning revisions identified by New York State Agriculture and Markets, only 5 have been addressed in the Final GEIS , and it is unclear if the changes made eliminate the potential conflicts . The areas of concern are not minor; they include buffer requirements , size restriction and set back requirements for roadside stands, manure management practices , mining operations, the exclusion of equine operations as a defined agricultural operation, and restrictive special use permit and site plan processes . The Board understands these potential conflicts may be addressed at a later time through an amendment process . However, it seems short sighted not to address what will likely present major problems for the Town, its farmers and New York State prior to the approval of these revisions. Agricultural District Law provides for the intervention of Agriculture and Markets on behalf of farmers when agricultural district land is involved. The AFPB recognizes that the Town of Ithaca has invested much time and energy in creating the current zoning document. However, due to the implications of not resolving the potential conflicts with Agricultural District Law, the Board urges that the Town not approve the proposed zoning changes at this time and instead work with Agriculture and Markets to resolve the areas of potential conflict. It further recommends that the Town work with its farming population to identify ways in which existing operations could be strengthened ; the AFPB would be happy to work with the Town and its farmers in this effort. Sincerely, Russell Demond, Chair Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board cc : �onathan Kanter, Town Planner Town of Ithaca Board members The mission of the Tompkins County Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board shall be to encourage farming in the County through local initiatives which create favorable conditions that allow farmers to operate economically viable enterprises. December 8 , 2003 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 6 Comments regarding the Zoning Ordinance Amendment December 8 , 2003 This comprehensive revision of the Zoning Ordinance began in 19967 in large part so that the goals contained in the Town ' s Comprehensive Plan of protecting open space , agricultural lands and sensitive environmental areas could be realized . Finally, with the passage of this ordinance tonight, we are much closer to attaining those goals . The reduction in the housing density allowed in the Agricultural Zone is absolutely key to realizing these goals . Without this reduction we will have done little to abandon the plan for full build out of the Town advocated by Town administrations in the 1980 ' s . The agricultural zone density reduction goes hand and hand with our purchase of development rights program. To have a PDR program without more restrictive zoning in place would put the monies the Town has invested in that program at risk. We could end up with checkerboard development of West Hill with no farming activities possible aside from nurseries and hobby farms because of the lack of large contiguous parcels of available farmland . This is exactly what is happening in areas of New Jersey that I toured during an American Farmland Trust conference . . As we all know , farmland more than pays for the public services it demands and new housing generally does not. Taxes skyrocket as school enrollments increase and developers demand infrastructure . This is very likely to happen in an area such as West Hill where the groundwater is of poor quality and poor quantity . New housing adds more tax burden for existing residents . Why should we protect agricultural land ? The rural character and open space of the Town are highly valued assets to Town residents . Agriculture is also a very important part of the Tompkins County economy and the New York state economy. Agriculture is a $90M industry for Tompkins County according to Tompkins County Area Development. The State of New York Department of Agriculture and Markets takes an active role in protecting agricultural lands statewide . It is clear as we look at the state protected agricultural districts in Tompkins County, that our agricultural zone is very much a part of a contiguous agricultural area. As to the issue that has been raised tonight regarding farm equity—farm equity is based on the appraised value of farmland . Appraised value is based on comparable sales of land not highest and best use where land is valued by how many housing lots fit on a parcel . It is by no means clear that the market value of land on West Hill will decrease . Land values in our Conservation District, which is also zoned 1 house per 7 acres , have not decreased. Indeed, members of this Board have worried aloud that land prices in that area will actually increase as this may be seen as a very desirable area of the Town to live. If we consider what we are proposing to put into place tonight on a national scale , what we are doing is extremely modest. A week ago I had a conversation with a California farmer whose farm is in an agricultural zone with a density of 1 house for every 160 acres . Madera, California has a zone of 1 house to 640 acres , Deschutes , Oregon 1 house to 320 acres , Baltimore , Maryland 1 house to 50 acres . Many communities in Pennsylvania have 20-25 acre zones . The Town of Ulysses is planning to rezone their agricultural zone 1 house to 10 acres . Communities also may put in place exclusive agricultural zones and exclude housing as a use. We specifically did not do that and allow housing to be built in our agricultural zone . I felt and still feel that the density allowed in the agricultural zone should have been more restrictive in order to accomplish our goals , but we reached a compromise at the 7 acre level and I will support that tonight. Mary Russell Town Board Meeting 12 / 8 / 03TH`MENT # 7 SEAR TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING REVISIONS (Comprehensive Revisions to Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Map) FINDINGS STATEMENT State Environmental Quality Review Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Town Board Project No . : N/A Address : 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law No . 5 — 1988 (Town of Ithaca Environmental Review Law) , the Town of Ithaca Town Board, as Lead Agency, makes the following Findings . Name of Action : Revised Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinan5ce�gnd Map (Zoning Revisions) Description of Action : ' R The proposed action, which is the subject of this envirorental review, is the enactment by the Town of Ithaca Town Board of a comprehens e° recision of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Map . This is an update and revision 3of the December 3 , 1997 enacted version of the Zoning Ordinance . Key changes ue pnoposed� areas such as Agricultural and Conservation zones, simplified procedures for Specia UTe =" it uses, a new Lakefront Residence zone, a new Office Park Commercial zone, claf cation of the purposes and uses in the various Business zones, updated definitions and parting requirements , and other updates and clarifications . Highlights of the significant proposed changes are described in more detail in the Draft GEIS . This has been classified as a Type I action pursuant to SEAR, and the Town Board prepared a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) in order to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Zoning Revisions . Location : The proposed Zoning Revisions are town-wide in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York. Map 1 in the Draft GEIS shows Existing Zoning . Map 2 in the Draft GEIS shows Proposed Zoning. Comparison maps are also included in the Draft GEIS . Date Final GEIS Accepted : November 6, 2003 Date Final GEIS Filed : November 7 , 2003 Date of Publication in Environmental Notice Bulletin : November 19 , 2003 SEQR Findings Statement Page 2 of 23 Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions I. Introduction : This is the Findings Statement for the proposed comprehensive revision of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Map (Zoning Revisions) . The Town of Ithaca Town Board is the Lead Agency, and the only Involved Agency, for this action. This Findings Statement sets forth the basis for the Town Board ' s decision on the proposed Zoning Revisions, based on the information and evaluations contained in the Draft and Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) that has been prepared regarding this action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Conservation Law, Article 8 , as implemented by its regulations (6 NYCRR Part 617) known as the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) , and the Town of Ithaca Environmental Review Law (Local Law No . 5 , 1988 ) . This Findings Statement includes a brief description of the proposed action, a description of the SEQRA process, a review of the need and benefits of the proposed action and the alternatives considered, and a review of the environmental impacts and possible mitigating measures or conditions of approval, along with other facts and conclusions in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) relied upon to support the decision to adopt the proposed Zoning Revisions . II . Description of the Proposed Action : & The proposed action, which is the subject of this en Iironrnentall view, is the enactment by the Town of Ithaca Town Board of a comprehensiveevision of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Map . Key changes are propose i gas uch as Agricultural and Conservation q .y zones, simplified procedures for Special „P rt , anew Lakefront Residence zone, a new � X Office Park Commercial zone, clarification of th&gpurposes and uses in the various Business zones, updated definitions and parking requireri'i°ents, and other updates and clarifications . The current draft of the proposed, revis ori g Q dinance is dated December 8 , 2003 , and is based on the January 15 , 2003 draft Zon%nng Ord ; ance in Appendix D (Volume II) of the Draft GEIS and the Addendum (Cumulative through, tober 20 , 2003 ) contained in the Final GEIS . Map 1 in the Draft GEIS shows Existing Zoning districts . Map 2 in the DGEIS shows Proposed Zoning, which is now proposed for adoption by the Town Board as the "Town of Ithaca Zoning Map," dated August 25 , 2003 . A detailed summary of the proposed Zoning Revisions is included in the Draft GEIS Introduction. The reader is referred to the Draft and Final GEIS document for a complete description of the proposed Zoning Revisions and their associated impacts, possible mitigation measures, and a discussion of possible alternatives that were considered by the Town Board. The Zoning Revisions are proposed for adoption through the enactment of a Local Law amending and restating the Zoning Ordinance . III . State Environmental Quality Review Act Process : For the proposed Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions, a Draft GEIS was prepared. Generic EIS ' s are often used to evaluate the potential impacts of town-wide rather than site-specific impacts. According to 6 NYCRR Part 617 . 10 (the regulations implementing the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, or SEQRA) , a Generic EIS may be used to assess the environmental impacts of "(4) an entire program or plan having wide application or restricting the range of future alternative policies or projects, including new or significant changes to SEQR Findings Statement Page 3 of 23 Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions existing land use plans, development plans, zoning regulations or agency comprehensive resource management plans . " The proposed revision of the Zoning Ordinance and Map has been classified as a Type I action, pursuant to SEQRA. At it ' s meeting of December 10 , 2001 , the Town of Ithaca Town Board declared its intent to prepare a Generic EIS to review the potential environmental impacts of the proposed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance and Map . Scoping for an EIS is optional , and the Town Board decided in lieu of a formal scoping process to confer with the Codes and Ordinance Committee to determine a preliminary outline for subjects to be included in the Generic EIS . The Generic EIS can be seen as a way to document the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance and Map, provide the rationale for some of the significant changes, and demonstrate how significant changes , such as the additional areas proposed for Conservation zoning and the new Agricultural zone regulations, may affect the environmental resources of the Town. It also provides a good format in which to demonstrate consistency with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Relevant sections can include possible mitigation strategies, if warranted, and alternatives to be considered, if appropriate. The Town of Ithaca Town Board accepted the Draft GEIS as complete on September 8 , 2003 and made the DGEIS available for public review and comment and circulated it to other involved and interested agencies for review and comment. A public416d wig on the DGEIS was held by the Town Board on October 2 , 2003 to hear comments 1 om the .public regarding the DGEIS and potential environmental impacts of the proposed reed 9oning Ordinance and Map . Comments were accepted until October 14, 2003 . The Final GEI�was accepted as complete on November 6, 2003 , and the Town Board requested furthe merits from the public regarding the Final GEIS until November 21 , 2003 . IV. Project Need and Benefits : The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1993 . Among its primary recommendations is a comprehensive' reulsion of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . The Zoning Ordinance has not had a major revision since 1968 , and much of the current text and format dates back to the original Zoning Ordinance . Many of the Comprehensive Plan recommendations relate to needed revisions in the Zoning Ordinance . The comprehensive planning effort was in large part a response to substantial changes that had occurred in the Town of Ithaca ' s physical environment in recent years, and especially to growth that occurred during the 1980 ' s . The Comprehensive Plan identifies a number of deficiencies in the current Zoning Ordinance, as well as a number of new zoning approaches that should be considered. The overriding philosophy of the Comprehensive Plan is to achieve a reasonable balance between growth and protection of the natural environment, while preserving the integrity of existing neighborhoods . Appendix A in the Draft GEIS includes a summary listing of Comprehensive Plan recommended implementation strategies pertaining to suggested Zoning Ordinance revisions . In conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan, other planning tools have been prepared which provide additional recommendations regarding Zoning Ordinance and Map revisions . Planning for Agriculture in the Town of Ithaca (August 1992) was prepared by the Agriculture Committee, and includes a number of recommendations regarding policies and implementation SEQR Findings Statement Page 4 of 23 Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions measures aimed at protecting agriculture and farmland in the Town of Ithaca. Many of these include specific suggestions for zoning revisions . In addition, the Town of Ithaca Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan, adopted by the Town Board in December of 1997 , includes specific recommendations regarding new areas for Conservation and Agricultural zoning districts as tools to preserve major areas of open space, especially significant natural areas and productive farmland. In 1995 , the Town Board asked the Codes and Ordinances Committee to begin the process of a comprehensive revision of the Zoning Ordinance . Beginning in earnest later that year, and suffering a number of interruptions in order to focus on other needed legislation, the Codes and Ordinances Committee has completely re-drafted the Zoning Ordinance and is also recommending a number of Zoning Map changes . The revision process has included internal review and feedback from other Town boards and committees , including the Town Board, Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals , Conservation Board and Agriculture Committee. Two public information meetings were held in May of 2002 to obtain preliminary feedback regarding the proposed zoning changes from the public . Discussions have also been held with other organizations, including the Tompkins County Planning Department, Tompkins County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board, Citizens Planning Alliance, Cornell University, and Ithaca College . a The benefits of enacting this comprehensive Zonin Pro rdmafibe revision will not be limited to implementing many of the Comprehensive Plan ecornend\aions. It also includes a re- formatting of the entire text of the ordinance with mo ;y logical and user-friendly organization. Many of the standards relating to parking, desi a din ustrial performance criteria have been brought up to date . The revision process has, alsi� 'Men an opportunity to fix provisions of the V, 3 ordinance that have been identified by users as beii unclear, difficult to monitor or enforce, or otherwise out-of-date . V, Alternatives Considered . The Town Board has considered alternatives to the proposed Zoning Revisions, including no action" and "minor updates and amendments" to the Zoning Ordinance . Under the "no action" alternative , the current Zoning Ordinance would remain unchanged. None of the reorganization and re-formatting of the proposed Zoning Ordinance would be implemented. None of the zoning approaches recommended in the Comprehensive Plan would be implemented, except by a piecemeal, case-by-case approach. Significant zoning changes proposed in the comprehensive zoning revisions, such as encouraging agricultural use and preserving agricultural land in the new Agricultural Zone , preserving significant natural areas in additional areas of Conservation Zone, preserving the natural and scenic character of the Cayuga Lake shoreline with new regulations in the Lakefront Residential Zone, encouraging economic development opportunities in the new Office Park Commercial Zone, and redefining the purpose and permitted uses in the other Commercial zones would not be implemented under the "no action" alternative . This alternative would be clearly counter to the recommendations of the 1993 Comprehensive Plan, and would not address the goals and objectives of the Town Board. An alternative dealing with "minor updates and amendments" could address the reorganization and re-formatting aspects of the Zoning Ordinance, and probably would also involve a re- SEQR Findings Statement Page 5 of 23 Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions printing of the Ordinance by incorporating all of the amendments adopted by the Town Board since December 1997 when an update and reprinting was last completed. This alternative also would not implement many of the key zoning changes recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, as described above under the "no action" alternative, and would not meet the goals and objectives of the Town Board. The Town Board also considered other "alternative zoning approaches" , including a previously proposed provision in the Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone that would differentiate between areas served by public sewer and those areas not served by public sewer, a new educational or institutional zone, new regulations regarding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO ' s), and other possible regulations . Former Section 809 . 1 in the April 24 , 2002 draft of the revised Zoning Ordinance (this sub- section has been deleted in the current draft of the revised Zoning) included the following provision relating to the LDR Zone : "Minimum lot area shall be at least thirty thousand (30 ,000) square feet if public sewer facilities are available , otherwise the minimum lot area shall be at least three acres . " After analysis, review and discussion, the Planning Board and Town Board concurred with the Codes and Ordinances Committee recommendation to delete the three-acre lot size provision from the current draft of the revised . Zoning Ordinance . The Codes and Ordinances Committee has set as a high priority the furtjierst dy of a lower density transitional zone as a follow-up to the adoption of the revised Zomng Ordinance, but not to hold up the process of the revised Ordinance . The Comprehensive Plan recommended considerafi g, oaf an institutional zoning district. The Codes and Ordinances Committee has discussed `hi"s approach, and while there has been some interest in this, the Committee has deferred an evaluation of this type of zone because of the ;,, ,< < eeee complexity and range of institutional useslh Ihe eel Town, ranging from Cornell University and Ithaca College as two very diffepent iristr tuli s of higher learning, hospitals , nursing homes, museums , etc . Most of the institutional a es in the Town are situated within residential zones, which require special approval and siteypl approval for expansion of existing uses or new uses . The Town Board finds that this special approval process has worked well in the past, and it is not clear that a new institutional or educational zone would provide the Town with more control or guidance over how these facilities develop . Several institutional uses have also been accommodated with Special Land Use District zoning (e . g. , the Longview Senior Living Center on Danby Road and the Alterra facilities on Trumansburg Road) . The current zoning approach, coupled with the State Environmental Review Act reviews , appears to adequately regulate this type of development. Within this context, the Codes and Ordinances Committee will further evaluate the possibility of an institutional or educational zone as a follow-up to adoption of the revised Zoning Ordinance, but has not set this as a high priority. The Codes and Ordinances Committee conducted research and discussed the possibility of adding new regulations regarding CAFO ' s . These include confined animal feeding operations or feedlots that usually involve hogs, but can also include poultry, cattle or other animals . These operations can be very large, and often have associated concerns of odors, air pollution, and water pollution. The Committee determined that such uses are not likely to locate in this area and that there are limitations as to what municipalities can do to regulate them beyond the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation regulations and permit requirements . SEQR Findings Statement Page 6 of 23 Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions The Committee may look further into possible regulations regarding CAFO ' s, but placed this very low on their list of work plan priorities . The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board and Codes and Ordinances Committee have been working on or discussing a number of other possible regulations that deal with issues such as stream buffers , storm water management, tree cutting/preservation, and outdoor lighting. The Codes and Ordinances Committee will also conduct a review and propose revisions to the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations at some point in the near future . These are all important regulatory areas that have been separated out of the Zoning revision process to enable the Zoning revisions to proceed expeditiously. The Town Board has also considered other Zoning Map changes, including a possible Agricultural Zone on East Hill, additional areas for Conservation zones, and additional areas for Commercial zones . Two areas on East Hill , consisting of land owned by Cornell University, were suggested for possible Agricultural zoning on the "Anticipated Land Use Map" in the Comprehensive Plan. Some of these areas include Cornell agricultural research operations . Although an early version of the proposed revised Zoning Map included these areas on East Hill in the proposed Agricultural Zone , the Codes and Ordinances Committee is instead recommending that these areas, currently zoned R- 30 Reel ence, be designated as LDR Low Density Residential . The primary reason is that the near agricultural Zone includes a right-to- farm provision, which indicates that sound agricultural practkes shall not constitute a private nuisance in regard to adjoining or nearby properties Imcthe case of these East Hill areas, there are higher density, established residential neig or eis nearby, and the Committee felt that including these lands in the Agricultural Zone wa d : benappropriate and could have adverse '�"A k impacts on the nearby neighborhoods The JLD ne permits and encourages agricultural use �s- without including the right-to-farm provision end a so allows educational uses by special permit. The Town Board finds that the LDR Zone et ON 16 the actual circumstances of these areas on East Hill . The Comprehensive Plan recommen 3 F y q ( ) that""the Co Glen Unique Natural Area UNA near Inlet Valley on West Hill and the Indian Creek/Lake Slopes UNA off of Taughannock Boulevard be designated in the Conservation Zone . The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board is currently evaluating both of these areas, and will be forwarding a recommendation regarding the natural resources and possible boundaries for proposed new Conservation Zones in these areas to the Codes and Ordinances Committee in the near future. In order to expedite the adoption of the proposed Zoning revisions, the Codes and Ordinances Committee recommends that these additional Conservation Zones be considered as possible amendments to the revised Zoning Map after its adoption. The Comprehensive Plan does not propose any new specific commercial areas, but recommends that new commercial areas be considered by the Town Board as new residential areas develop in the Town. In reviewing the current Zoning Map and recommending changes on the proposed Zoning Map , the Codes and Ordinances Committee examined the possibility of new commercial areas, particularly on West Hill , which has the highest remaining potential for future residential growth in the Town. The Committee decided to hold off on any specific recommendations regarding commercial zoning in this area, and suggested revisiting the Comprehensive Plan at SEQR Findings Statement Page 7 of 23 Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions some time in the near future to look further into the question of new commercial zones on West Hill and other areas in the Town. VI . Review of Potential Environmental Impacts and Possible Mitigating Measures or Conditions of Approval , The following discussion includes a brief review of the potential environmental impacts that were identified in the Draft and Final GEIS and recommended mitigating measures that will be implemented. Many of the potential impacts identified in the GEIS are beneficial impacts, and are based on recommendations in the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (September 1993 ) . This section includes the Town of Ithaca Town Board ' s findings , basis and rationale for adopting the proposed Zoning Revisions . A. Land Use and Zoning The Town Board finds that he proposed Zoning revisions will help to maintain the existing open space character of the Town of Ithaca, and to protect the existing residential neighborhoods . The revised Agricultural Zone will help to protect existing active farms and preserve the potential for agriculture as a viable use in the future . The ConservationZone will help to preserve significant natural areas in the Town. Permitted densities in the A cu Mural and Conservation Zones will be significantly reduced, generally from slightly higli'er thane house per acre under current zoning to one house per seven acres under the propos6d zone g for those areas . The new Lakefront Residential Zone includes measures to pre serrve the scenic character of the shoreline with new shoreline setback regulations and re ulations 9garding offshore structures, such as docks and piers . The new Office Park Qgin nei cial Zone would encourage new office uses in areas where such uses would be compatible with * acent uses, such as the Axiohm industrial site, the Cayuga Medical Center, and tli � istingooGenex Office Building and East Hill Plaza commercial center, and would have to a c generating characteristics . Commercial Zones will not be expanded to other area ' snf the q wn at this point. Business use regulations have been revised to more specifically controlhlghe impacting uses , such as drive-throughs and large- scale commercial uses . One new area of Multiple Residence Zone is proposed (adjacent to East Hill Plaza and an area already developed with apartments) , where such use will be compatible with the existing pattern of development. The proposed Zoning revisions will reinforce existing patterns of development, and will promote land uses consistent with those in adjacent municipalities . Because of the large number of non-conforming lots that will be created by the proposed Zoning Revisions, particularly in the revised Agricultural Zone, the GEIS recommends consideration of the addition of a grandfather provision that would allow a second dwelling unit to be provided on non-conforming lots as a possible mitigation measure . As a result, the Town Board is further revising Sections 2500 and 2505 in the proposed Zoning Ordinance to allow a two-family dwelling to be constructed on a lot that is non-conforming due to its size or area upon receipt of special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals . This will apply to all zones where one and two-family dwellings are permitted. SEQR Findings Statement Page 8 of 23 Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions The proposed Zoning Revisions will have no other direct impacts to land use or zoning. The Town Board finds that no mitigation measures other than the above are required. B . Natural Features The Town Board finds that no significant adverse impacts to the Town' s natural resources are anticipated as a result of the changes in the zoning ordinance . The proposed zoning modifications do not call for significant increases in residential or commercial development. With the exception of a new Multiple Residence Zone (MR) proposed for an I I -acre parcel off Pine Tree Road, no new increases in residential densities have been proposed in the zoning modifications. More notably is the zoning proposal ' s call for lower residential densities in the areas of West and South Hill . In these areas the new lowered density requirements stipulated in the Agricultural Zone, and the increases in acreage zoned for both Conservation and Agriculture, results in lower allowable residential densities. In addition, the new zoning calls for lower residential densities along the Stone Quarry Road corridor. Currently most of this area is zoned for high density residential (R-9), with much of the steeply sloping areas to be replaced with the low density residential zone . In terms of Commercial zones, the zoning ordinance does call for increases in the amount of land zoned for commercial, especially for the new Office Park Cciinmercial Zone (OPC) . However, the vast majority of this rezoning is for the purpose of reflectipg sting commercial uses at those sites. The proposed OPC zone on Pine Tree and Trurr ansburg Roads replaces the current R-30 Residential Zone, including some undeveloped landsdjac`ent to the existing commercial use. But while some additional development potential for commirc al uses exists at these locations, it is not anticipated to be significant, due to both size and f g'xation of the undeveloped land, or to physical constraints . The OPC Zone prop6sd far. Danby Road would replace a portion of the current Industrial Zone, so this rezoning wild"' not result in an overall increase in development potential of land and may otentiall result n�a Io i intensity use of the site . p Y p Y , No impacts to geologic resources areanticipated as a result of the changes in the zoning ordinance . Impacts to geologic resources would e related to the need to blast areas of shallow bedrock for development, or to mine surficial geology' deposits for sand and gravel . The new zoning ordinance modifications limit mining operations to the Agricultural Zones, subject to special approval by the ZBA. Whereas under the current zoning, mining is allowed anywhere in the Town as a fill/excavation permitted activity. The new requirement will therefore limit the potential for mining operations in the Town. Overall, as a result of the new zoning modifications, no adverse impacts to geology are anticipated. No impacts to soil resources are anticipated as a result of the changes in the zoning ordinance . Soil quality can be impacted by soil erosion, compaction, reduced infiltration, nutrient loss or imbalance, loss of organic matter, excessive wetness, and other factors . Much of this degradation is due to the impacts from development, such as construction activities or urban activities, but also from poor soil management practices associated with agriculture . The proposed zoning modifications do not call for significant increases in development, and are not likely to result in increased agricultural production over currently existing levels. The lower density requirements of the Agricultural Zone, and the increased areas zoned for Conservation and Agricultural, will decrease residential development potential in parts of the Town, while other areas will remain largely unchanged, or increase very slightly. SEQR Findings Statement Page 9 of 23 Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions The zoning ordinance revisions do call for increases in the amount of land zoned for agriculture, but these are targeted areas that are being rezoned to reflect current or recent agricultural usage of the land. Overall, as a result of the new zoning modifications, no adverse impacts to soil are anticipated. The major impact related to topography concerns the potential for soil erosion and sediment flow into area streams and lakes, due to development on slopes . This is especially a problem on hilly and steep sided slopes. The zoning ordinance modifications do not call for significant increases in residential or commercial development. In addition, the new zoning calls for lower residential densities along the Stone Quarry Road corridor, areas of steep slopes that are currently zoned for high density residential (R-9), which will be replaced with the Low Density Residential zone . In addition, areas proposed for Conservation Zoning will help to protect some of the more hilly and steep sided slopes in the Town. The new proposed Conservation Zones includes such areas as the Eldridge Wilderness, the South Hill Swamp area, the Cayuga Inlet and the Inlet Valley Slopes, as well as in and adjacent to Buttermilk Falls Creek and Enfield Glen. Most of these areas contain steep-sided ravines and gorges, and all have steep forested slopes . And although some of these lands are publicly owned, and are unlikely to be developed, much of this land is in private ownership, and the low density residential zoning will help*,minimize impacts and development on the steeply sloped hillsides. Also, the Town will continue to require that all construction activities have an erosion and sedimentation control plan prior to commencing work: These erosion control plans are currently an important component of the site plan and stub" 'vismn review process, and will be continued under ., the new zoning modifications . In addition th r YS .DEC now requires all construction sites that disturb one acre or more to obtain a State P600444 11 ion Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit. The application process for this it u s the applicant to submit a plan for stormwater management and erosion control measures . Surface and groundwater are vulnerable''to a host of pollution sources and from impacts caused by development and urbanization. Surface water resources are especially tied to land use activities and any activity that affects water quality, quantity, or rate of movement at one location can change the characteristics of the watershed at locations downstream . Sources of water contamination include failing septic systems , improper application of fertilizer and pesticides (both agricultural and residential) , construction sites, riparian development and other sources . The effects of urbanization on streams and water bodies are well documented and include extensive changes to stream flows, stream channel features, and water quality . The most obvious effect of development is an increase in impervious surfaces and the corresponding loss of natural vegetation. Impervious surfaces, created for paved roads , parking lots, and buildings is the major contributor to changes in the watershed. Increases of impervious surfaces reduce infiltration of water into the ground and subsequently aquifer recharge Decreased infiltration reduces base flow, or that portion of streamflow that is not due to storm surface runoff, which is supported by groundwater seepage into the channel . No significant impacts to surface or groundwater are anticipated as a result of the zoning ordinance modifications . In addition, new State regulations, commonly known as Stormwater Phase Il, will SEQR Findings Statement Page 10 of 23 Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions help reduce water pollution caused by stormwater runoff from developed areas. The new regulations require permits for stormwater discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) in urbanized areas and for construction activities disturbing one or more acres. As part of this requirement the Town will be adopting a stormwater management ordinance, providing public education related to water quality protection, as well as considering implementation of a stream buffer ordinance, and other activities. In addition, all areas proposed to be zoned from residential to commercial can be served by public sewer. The areas proposed for Conservation Zoning should help to protect the Town' s surface and groundwater resources . These areas contain important creeks, tributaries, and wetlands, which will be better protected by the much lower density requirements stipulated in the zoning. The Conservation Zoning further helps to protect water resources by requiring setbacks of 50 feet from the centerline of watercourses and 100 feet from wetlands. It also prohibits the importation for dumping or disposal of snow or ice collected from roadways or parking lots into or within 200 feet of a wetland or watercourse . In addition, all areas zoned for Commercial and Industrial have municipal sewer. Many of the areas identified as Unique Natural Areas are proposed for Conservation Zoning, which should help to protect other important natural resources . As mentioned above, the new proposed Conservation Zones includes such areas as the Eldridge Wilderness, the South Hill Swamp area, the Cayuga Inlet and the Inlet Valley Slopes , as well as in and adjacent to Buttermilk Falls Creek and Enfield Glen . g The first Unique Natural Area to be protecte by he Tbwn was the Six Mile Creek Valley. Prompted by the 1990 document "Six Miler %reek Valle : : A Heritage to Preserve" produced by the Conservation Advisory Council , aiedecesso Hof the Conservation Board, this document outlined a number of recommendations for protetYng the Six Mile Creek watershed, including Conservation Zoning. In 199 t11e Town `Board created the Six Mile Creek Conservation District which includes approxima llltlll 102 8 ,#cres . The South Hill Swamp Unique Natural ` rea has been known for over 100 years as one of the most important botanical sites in the county. The area contains numerous rare and scarce plant species, wetlands of ecological importance, and areas of old growth forest. The forest-clad ridge-line of the South Hill Swamp area is also prominently visible throughout the county, and serves as an important visual asset. In 1999 the Conservation Board prepared a document entitled "South Hill Swamp — Its Unique Natural Characteristics and Need for Protection". This report described the significance of the area, summarized the findings of the botanical consultants hired to conduct a survey of the plant species, and presented a proposal for a Conservation Zone on South Hill . The proposed Conservation Zone in the South Hill Swamp area is approximately 283 acres . Buttermilk Falls State Park, and a strip of private land along the Park ' s eastern boundary, between W. King Road and Comfort Road, as well as a portion off Stone Quarry Road are proposed for Conservation Zoning. This zoning seeks to protect the natural and aesthetic resources of the Park, by reducing development densities and encroachment of development on the park. The zoning is intended to protect water quality of Lake Treman, Buttermilk Creek, and Holly Creek, protect the creeks , meadows, and wooded uplands surrounding the park that serve SEQR Findings Statement Page 11 of 23 Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions as important wildlife habitat, and protect the park aesthetics from residential noise and visual impacts . No significant impacts on natural features are anticipated by the proposed revisions to the zoning ordinance, and therefore , the Town Board finds that no mitigation measures are necessary. C . Demographics — Population and Housing The revised Zoning Ordinance includes zoning changes that may affect population and housing distribution and concentration by limiting future residential development in some areas of the Town. These changes include additional areas and density limitations for Conservation Zoning and Agricultural Zoning and modifications to lot size and area requirements in some of the Residential Zones . The proposed Ordinance has outlined additional areas for Conservation Zoning, which will allow very low-density residential development in sensitive natural areas in the Town. There are several existing R-30 and R- 15 Residential Zones on South Hill being considered for modification to Conservation Zoning. The proposed change in zoning may slightly affect future population and housing growth on South Hill , as lower density requirements of the Conservation Zone may allow fewer housing units than is currentlyl1Eiwed in the R- 15 and R-30 Zones . However, the Conservation Zone will also allow for Ae clustering of residential units , thereby preserving natural areas while allowing limited den�ities ::of additional housing. All but one of R. w the areas being considered for Conservation Zoning are located on South Hill and Inlet Valley. Much of the lands are already permanently prot;&t�l, a1aare owned by New York State Parks, the Finger Lakes Land Trust, the Nature Ohm, a , amid Cornell ' s Lab of Ornithology, and are thus not available or suitable for reside teal eevvelcapment. There is also a large tract of land owned by Ithaca College that could iII b` vel`op`ed within the framework of the Conservation Zone requirements . There are approximately nine properties in the Inlet Valley/West Hill area currently zoned R- 30 that are being considered for modification to Agricultural Zoning . The majority of these properties are located between Sandbank and West King Roads , and have been working farms for quite some time . The proposed revised Agricultural Zone requirements and new density limitations are intended to preserve existing and potentially productive agricultural areas in the town by allowing lower density residential development than is currently allowed in the R- 30 zone . The proposed zoning changes may affect future population and housing growth in this specific Inlet Valley area of the Town, as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan and Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan. The affordability of housing has been a major issue in municipalities throughout the country. As quoted in the Comprehensive Plan, the 1991 Tompkins County Housing Market Study stated, "Tompkins County has the highest housing costs in the housing market region, which has been the case since 1970 ." As stated in the housing distribution analysis in the Draft GEIS (pp . 72 - 74) , the median cost of a home in the Town of Ithaca in 2000 was $ 140,000 , with the largest single percentage of the homes (existing) valuing between $ 100 ,000 and $ 149, 999 . SEQR Findings Statement Page 12 of 23 Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions The Tompkins County Department of Planning provided a comment regarding the Draft GEIS indicating that although the Town of Ithaca has made some minor provisions to allow for more affordable housing in the zoning ordinance , they feel that it would be preferable to designate appropriate additional land areas for higher density residential development, and that the absence of higher density development opportunities pushes affordable housing options further from the County ' s centralized urban areas and employment centers . The County Department of Planning further stated that although the Town is to be commended for considering and approving affordable housing projects on a case-by-case basis, providing appropriately zoned areas would reduce development costs and allow the Town to direct such development to the most suitable locations , and they encouraged the Town to identify areas for higher density and mixed use development on the revised zoning map to address the growing needs of affordable housing. The Town Board responded to the Tompkins County Department of Planning comment in the Final GEIS , by noting that the Town has and will continue to support affordable housing in appropriate locations and circumstances . The Town Board has supported affordable housing proposals , such as the Linderman Creek Apartments — Phase I and II off of Mecklenburg Road. The Town Board rezoned property from R- 15 Residence to MR Multiple Residence in conjunction with the Linderman Creek proposal , and supported the project sponsor ' s applications for Low Income Housing Tax Credit financing through th dgew York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal . The proposed zoning revisiofis'� no way preclude the Town Board from implementing additional zoning changes n the 1ture for appropriate housing 'Al developments that are consistent with the ComprehensiveA lan, t ough rezoning to MR Multiple Residence or Planned Development Zones . F The °Town is currently considering another affordable housing proposal on West Hill, whic would i elude 128 apartment units serving low to moderate-income families, financed thrQUgh the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal ' s Low Income Avous& ,. Credit program. (A second affordable housing proposal on West Hill was rcenfl ° 1ieb the Town Board, but was withdrawn while the applicant tries to secure a different sift e Town of Ithaca for that proposal . ) The Town Board finds that the Town aca Comprehensive Plan provides guidance regarding appropriate locations for higher density ousing in areas served by the necessary infrastructure and public transportation. Because the market often dictates the type of housing proposals that developers bring before the Town, it is more difficult to zone areas for higher density, especially multi-family, ahead of time . The Town Board has a long history of considering and rezoning properties to allow multiple residence housing in appropriate locations . The Town Board will continue this approach using the Comprehensive Plan as a guide . The Town Board finds that opportunities for affordable housing are also being addressed through other provisions in both the existing and revised Zoning Ordinance, including the following : • A mixed-use provision is being proposed to be added into the Commercial zones , which would allow residential use in Commercial zones (not currently allowed in the Business districts); • A new MR Multiple Residence Zone is proposed on approximately 11 acres of a parcel off of Pine Tree Road north of East Hill Plaza, which would have the theoretical potential to accommodate in the range of 100 new apartment units ; SEQR Findings Statement Page 13 of 23 Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions • The existing Zoning Ordinance allows a second dwelling unit in all single-family residential zones . This has been a significant contributor to affordable housing in the Town . Not only will this provision be continued, but it is proposed to be expanded in the revised Zoning to allow a second dwelling unit to be located in accessory buildings such as barns and garages (subject to special permit and stated criteria), whereas the second unit currently is only allowed in the principal building ; • New provisions are proposed to allow more flexibility for farm worker housing to be located on active farmland within County Agricultural Districts . The Town Board finds that the growth inducing impact analysis in the Draft GEIS demonstrates that although development potential in the Town will be reduced as a result of the proposed Zoning Revisions, the amount of reduction is not a significant negative impact, and will allow ample opportunities for growth to accommodate anticipated population well into the future. Based on the above and the analysis in the GEIS , the Town Board finds that the proposed Zoning Revisions will not have a significant adverse impact on population or housing, and that no mitigation measures are necessary or proposed. D . Transportation A Most of the Town should experience no significant increase iri locally generated traffic volumes or patterns as a result of the zoning changes . TraffiN&o umes and patterns are directly correlated to residential densities and business or commercial use and the new zoning proposal does not call for significant increases in either area hi1e market forces largely shape the pace and amount of development in the Town, the Mdilsing'41asit es or commercial uses permitted by the zoning ordinance can have a signifcanteffecton development patterns in the Town, and thus on the transportation network. The Town, lei ever, has little control over through traffic traveling E from outlying areas to the City ofJthacPbr other employment or commercial centers not in the Town. The Town Board finds that the changes proposed in the new zoning are not anticipated to have a significant effect on transportation . With the exception of a new Multiple Residence Zone (MR) proposed for an 11 -acre parcel off of Pine Tree Road, no new increases in residential densities have been proposed. More notably is the zoning proposal calling for lower residential densities in the areas of West and South Hill . In these areas the new lowered density requirements stipulated in the Agricultural Zone, and the increases in acreage zoned for both Conservation and Agriculture, results in lowered allowable densities . This would suggest potentially reduced traffic volumes in these areas of West and South Hill (locally generated traffic volumes) from what could occur under the current zoning . Other residentially zoned areas will remain mostly unchanged in terms of the density requirements . In terms of commercial uses, there are two areas where the zoning modifications could potentially lead to increases in traffic volumes . These areas are associated with the new Office Park Commercial Zones on Trumansburg Rd./Harris B . Dates Dr. and on Pine Tree Road, areas that already have established commercial/business uses, but are currently zoned as R-30 Residential . The only exception to this is the small existing Business Zone in the location of the Cayuga Professional Building at Trumansburg Rd./Harris B . Dates Drive, which is currently SF.QR Findings Statement Page 14 of 23 Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions zoned Business "A". Traffic impacts from these sites are analyzed in the Draft GEIS , pages 82 – 86 and Appendix C . The only other area proposed for OPC Zoning is on Danby Road, in the undeveloped portion of the site location currently occupied by the Axiohm Corporation, and an adjacent parcel to the south, currently zoned as Industrial . Because this entire area is currently zoned for Industrial uses, the intensity of allowable uses at the site is not being modified by the proposed OPC zoning. In terms of Commercial zones in the Town, the commercial areas currently existing on Elmira and Danby Roads are proposed for Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zones. These areas are currently zoned Business District, which allows for a wide variety of uses, and with Special Approval from the Board of Appeals allows floor areas in excess of 10,000 square feet. The new proposed NC zone is intended to provide for small-scale neighborhood oriented businesses, with building sizes limited to a maximum size of 7 , 500 square feet, or 10 ,000 square feet with a special permit issued by the Planning Board . This type of commercial use is intended to draw customers from the nearby neighborhoods, and is therefore expected to generate only low- volume traffic . Because the NC Zone is expected to generate less traffic than the existing Commercial zone, no significant impacts of the zoning char es are anticipated. The other remaining commercial zone is along the Pine ree Road area (East Hill Plaza and Judd Falls Plaza areas) . This area is currently zoned sing ss "C ' and is proposed to be zoned I Community Commercial . While this new zone is inteded for . businesses that draw clientele from throughout the Town as well as from outs deg, h own, this characterizes the existing proposed p zoning condition of this existing developed busine°°�s area f Therefore the p ro will not result in changes in the intensity of use or haracter to the Pine Tree Rd. area. In addition, should one of the plazas become redeveld— dh ew Community Commercial Zone limits the maximum interior floor area of air ndi idU % business to 25 ,000 square feet. As a result, no traffic related increases are antictpa ed in a y of the Town ' s Commercial zones as a result of the zoning modifications, with the except 6 o the new OPC zones . The Draft GEIS traffic impact analysis evaluates potential impacts associated with full build-out of the new OPC zones on Pine Tree and Trumansburg Road. In an effort to determine traffic impacts due to the new proposed zoning, this analysis compares potential traffic impacts for full build-out under the existing zoning, with that of the new zoning, along with current traffic volumes. The analysis shows that the rezoning of the Trumansburg Road/Harris B . Dates Drive area to Office Park Commercial could potentially result in an increase in weekday traffic volume from 10 ,499 to 16 , 388 , with peak AM traffic volumes increased from 859 to 2058 , and peak PM traffic volumes from 1045 to 1937 . This analysis is based on a full build out scenario of the parcels concerned in the rezoning. This theoretical increase in traffic would occur on State Route 96 , which is an urban minor arterial , which has an Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) of over 8 , 300 vehicle trips . This is meant to show a comparison of theoretical development and resulting traffic levels under existing and proposed zoning. Any actual development proposal would be subject to site plan review and approval and site specific environmental review, along with any necessary site specific mitigation measures. SEQR Findings Statement Page 15 of 23 Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions The analysis shows that the rezoning of the Pine Tree Road/Genex (formerly) Coop complex to Office Park Commercial and Multiple Residence could potentially result in a weekday traffic volume of 7239 , a Peak AM total of 1049 , and a Peak PM total of 925 . This is assuming that the entire parcel is redeveloped. Existing traffic volumes are estimated as being 312 for weekday volumes, 48 for Peak AM , and 46 for Peak PM . The impact analysis indicates that a range of scenarios is possible for the development of the parcel under existing zoning, given that the parcel is owned by Cornell University, and educational uses are allowed by special approval . The most unlikely scenario is that the parcel would be redeveloped for single family housing, as is allowed under the current zoning. For comparative purposes, the theoretical development potential under Scenarios 3 , 4 and 5 , all under the existing R- 30 zoning, could all result in larger traffic impacts then the buildout scenario under the proposed OPC and MR zoning (Scenario 3 : 18 , 397 vehicle trips per day; Scenario 4 : 11 ,443 vehicle trips per day; Scenario 5 : 8 , 126 vehicle trips per day — all with correspondingly higher peak AM and peak PM traffic as well) . As described in the NESTS Study, the roads in the Pine Tree Road area carry high volumes of traffic , especially during peak hours . The NYS DOT reports average annual daily (AADT) totals on Pine Tree Road, between Ellis Hollow Road and Route 366 , as 9795 AADT (as measured 10/2000) . The NESTS Study reports peak hour traffic rn tl" s area at 1050 . The addition of the theoretical maximum levels of traffic described in the Drat ,'GFiiIS analysis could have potentially large impacts under both the existing zoning scenarios; `'but to' a ,psser extent, under the proposed OPC and MR rezoning. Any actual development proposal woul be subject to site plan review and approval and site specific environmental irreview „ long with any necessary site specific mitigation measures . Based on the traffic impact analysis inhe Draft GEIS , potential increases in traffic have been identified, but no mitigation meas!r are proposed or necessary at this time . Site-specific evaluations of traffic and other ew.,vol onrr enfi impacts will be required in conjunction with any site-specific development proposal'goon the; above-described sites, and if site-specific negative impacts are identified , the approval 136dy ,ean require the necessary mitigation measures as part of the site-specific environmental review" The New York State Department of Transportation (DOT) suggested in their comments regarding the Draft GEIS that the Town consider adopting access management methods in high traffic corridors , such as minimum driveway spacing standards , driveway locations, parking location and landscaping, etc . The Town Board finds that access management methods may be appropriate in certain areas of the Town, and that such methods can best be considered as part of the town-wide Transportation Plan that is currently being prepared by the Town of Ithaca Transportation Committee . The possibility of incorporating access management methods into the Transportation Plan would allow the Transportation Committee to study alternative strategies and make recommendations to the Town Board, which could be considered for future zoning or other ordinance revisions . E. Agricultural Resources The Town Board finds that the new, revised Agricultural Zone will encourage farming and help to preserve existing and potential agricultural land. The proposed Agricultural Zone will allow a SEQR Findings Statement Page 16 of 23 Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions very low density of development (one lot per seven acres) , and clustering of smaller lots on the less valuable agricultural portions of sites is encouraged and can be required by the Planning Board. This lower density will have a beneficial impact on the long-term viability of farming in the area by reducing the pressures of development encroaching on farmland. The significant potential reduction in density for the new Agricultural Zone, along with additional lands being added to the zone, will help to reduce the demand and pressure in parts of the Town for various additional public services and facilities . The addition of the new permitted uses and the uses authorized by Special Permit should help to create a stronger Agricultural Zone . The new uses should be compatible with agricultural uses and help to promote agriculture . The proposed new Agricultural Zone is designed primarily for agricultural uses , unlike the existing Agricultural Zone, which is based on the Residential District R- 30 requirements, which allows agricultural activities , but does little to encourage or protect them . The new zone also includes the right-to-farm provision, which should allow farmers to conduct their operations as they have, with the understanding from non-farm neighbors that farming is the primary intended use for the area. Overall, the new uses and the right-to-farm provision should help to create a stronger Agricultural Zone and should have beneficial impacts on the Town ' s agricultural resources . The new density limitations and limitations on subdivI ion °:of parent tracts will require Town staff monitoring to insure the status of where subdivisions haVt taken place and what lots have subdivision potential remaining. It will be necessa I to tentify 1 properties with any potential for future subdivisions, the maximum potential pumb 1. of lots that can be divided from each 1 . parent tract, and then as subdivisions occur, mor�sto when additional lots are still available and W� which parent tracts have reached their limit ai�dI cannot be subdivided any further. The requirements of Sections 609 and 61Q `of tie proposed Zoning Ordinance are complex and x b include multiple ways to subdivide a arc ��sirigtle various options outlined, depending on the characteristics of the parcel and 0 e i ividual owner ' s preferences . The various options �. :.r. available add to the detail of momtr�ring and the various potential number of lots that could be created by subdividing and the arranerne t on the properties . The density and subdivision requirements will require monitoring and enforcement on an ongoing basis. The Town has developed excellent database systems for tracking development and permit status, which will prove useful for the above-described monitoring requirements . There will be some impact on staff time relating to this additional monitoring and enforcement. The detailed subdivision regulations and the various options available to landowners in the Agricultural Zone are complex and possibly difficult for the public to understand. This section will require detailed explanation from Town staff to both existing owners and those looking to purchase property, to insure that they have a good understanding of what they can and can 't do and requirements for subdividing their property. A new purchaser should be aware if a parcel has already been subdivided, limiting future subdivisions . The Town finds that an educational outreach effort to help prospective buyers become aware of the limitations to subdividing agricultural lands would be beneficial . While the intent of the new Agricultural Zone is to preserve and promote agricultural activity, there are many parcels within the zone that are small road frontage residential properties, parcels not being actively farmed, or lands that have not recently been farmed. These non-agricultural SEQR Findings Statement Page 17 of 23 Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions parcels will be under the same requirements . These parcels would still be allowed to be used for residential purposes under the parameters of the Agricultural Zone or be used for small-scale agricultural use, even though the lot might be too small for a traditional farm operation. Although these small parcels may have limitations to large-scale farming, the proposed Agricultural Zone does allow residential use and other related uses to continue or to be established. Beneficial environmental impacts have been identified above, which do not necessitate any mitigation measures . To address other impact issues identified above , the Town Board will consider additional implementation measures in conjunction with the adoption of the revised Zoning. Public education and outreach will be very important as the new Zoning Ordinance is adopted, and also once it is in effect for both potential purchasers and current owners . The Agricultural Zone includes complex language and provisions, and the Town will take steps to insure that existing owners , potential buyers, real estate offices , lawyers, surveyors, and others understand the requirements through specific educational material prepared relating to the Agricultural Zone, ongoing staff assistance, and by making information available on the Town ' s website . As discussed above, monitoring of the subdivision of reels within the Agricultural Zone will require the modification of the Town ' s database system to \incorporate this new aspect of the revised Zoning. Such modification should not be dfffi ult because of the amount of work that has already gone into the development of the Tow n ' s pographic Information System (GIS) and database in recent years . Parcel locations ands ahcari ; easily be highlighted using the GIS mapping resources of the Town. 4 W g ' One owner of land in the revised Agriculf iral Me' , raised an issue of how the new zoning would affect the value of his parcel as a vomm_ t` at was submitted regarding the Draft GEIS . The 4e Town Board indicated in the Final LEIS that the issue of impact of the revised Agricultural Zone on land values is a debatable issue, and ' beyond the scope of the EIS process. The proposed Agricultural Zone will allow a very low density of residential development (one lot per seven acres) and clustering of smaller lots on the less valuable agricultural portions of sites is encouraged and can be required by the Planning Board. This lower density will have a beneficial impact on the long-term viability of farming in the area by reducing the pressures of development encroaching on farmland. The minimum lot size required in the Agricultural Zone will be two acres, but for new non- farm lots , the Planning Board can require that lots be clustered on lots between one and two acres . Additional limitations are placed on the subdivision of non-farm lots and farm parcels from parent tracts (existing large parcels) . A right- to-farm provision is added to protect the primacy of farming, indicating to neighboring properties that sound agricultural practices shall not constitute a private nuisance in regard to adjoining or nearby properties . The new Agricultural Zone is intended to encourage farming and to preserve existing and potential agricultural land. The list of permitted uses in the Agricultural Zone will be expanded to include uses which would be compatible with and promote agriculture as a primary use, such as equestrian facilities, forest management, and forest resource uses . Additional uses would be allowed by special permit, including retail sales of farm machinery, composting facilities, bed and breakfast establishments, research facilities dedicated to research in agriculture or animal husbandry, and farm retreats. Mining has been added as a permitted use, SEQR Findings Statement Page 18 of 23 Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions subject to special approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals, whereas the existing zoning allows mining anywhere in the Town subject to a fill/excavation permit. This will limit mining activities to the less densely populated areas of the Town, where potential impacts of truck traffic and noise will be minimized. Therefore , while the density of residential development will be reduced under the proposed zoning, a wider range of uses will be allowed, some of which are not permitted in the current zoning . F . Public Facilities and Community Services The Town Board finds that since the proposed zoning text and map changes are not significantly increasing the residential or commercial development potential in the Town, no adverse impacts are anticipated related to public water or sewer service . The existing higher density residential areas (including most of the current R5 , R9 , R15 and some of the R30 zone) and all of the commercial zones are currently served by public water and sewer. The increase in areas proposed as Conservation and Agricultural zones and the lower density of the proposed revised Agricultural Zone will help to reduce the future demand for public water and sewer in certain areas and reduces the need to extend service beyond where it currently exists . Current schedules for maintaining and upgrading services within existing served areas will be continued and plans for the expansion of the existing systems are not anticipated "to be altered based on the proposed zoning changes . . The Town Board also finds that the proposed zonmg,.,�hagges will"'not create any adverse impacts for other existing community services such as f .e and fescue , police , or solid waste disposal . In general , the size of districts that create the m� demand for these services (residential and commercial) are not significantly increasing and t ostly allow the same uses as in the past. Based on the above and the analysis in.AhFQ",0 S -' % % Board finds that the proposed Zoning Revisions will not have a sigmfic ad'V '% aInpact on public facilities or community services, r and that no mitigation measures ar6 ecessa or proposed. G . Business , Commerce and Indust The Town Board finds that there are no proposed zoning changes that would significantly impact commercial or industrial growth. The proposed Neighborhood and Community Commercial Zones would reflect existing commercially-zoned areas, but would more specifically control commercial growth within those areas . As demonstrated in the Draft GEIS , there would actually be a slight reduction in areas currently zoned Business "C" along Elmira Road and across from Judd Falls Plaza. The new Office Park Commercial (OPC) Zone would allow office parks containing business offices and related uses in areas of transition between lower density residential areas and higher density residential or commercial areas . The main impact of the proposed OPC Zone along Trumansburg Road would be to allow office park development on one parcel zoned R-30 Residence that currently only could be developed with single or two- family houses, and includes a portion of the Cayuga Medical Center property, where additional institutional uses are anticipated, and the existing Business "A" District containing the Cayuga Professional Center. This impact is limited to the increase in development potential of this one parcel and is intended to allow a reasonable area for the proposed office park use . It is not anticipated to induce growth on other nearby properties, and is not considered to be a significant SEQR Findings Statement Page 19 of 23 Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions impact. The proposed OPC Zone along Danby Road replaces areas currently zoned Industrial and would not result in densities or uses of higher intensity than the current Industrial District. The proposed OPC Zone along Pine Tree Road just north of East Hill Plaza would allow office park uses on a parcel currently zoned R- 30 Residence . This Cornell owned parcel contains an existing 27 ,000 square foot office building formerly occupied by Genex Cooperative , Inc . The proposed rezoning of about 14 . 5 acres from R-30 to OPC would allow additional office development (and/or redevelopment) in an area already consisting of high intensity commercial uses (e . g. East Hill Plaza) . The impact of this rezoning would be limited to this parcel and is not expected to induce growth on other nearby properties . The transportation analysis in the Draft GEIS demonstrates that the Office Park rezoning proposals have the potential to increase traffic in their respective areas, but that any proposals within those new zones will be subject to site- specific environmental review and site reviews and approvals . The proposed Zoning Ordinance revisions include additional modifications that follow objectives outlined in the Comprehensive Plan regarding economic development in the Town, including to have "small-scale commercial areas (present and future) that are set back from public highways, have good circulation with vehicular and non-vehicular access and are well landscaped. While the Town is not proposing to expand any commercial zones or designate new locations in the town for additional zones, other than the proposed Office Park Commercial areas , it is anticipated that the existing commercial zones and proposed *revisions will meet the current and Sn�P near future needs of the residential communities m which hic are located. In some areas though, such as East Hill and Judd Falls Plazas and,.Rogan ' s Corner, there appears to be little room for further commercial growth if the cortamunity need arises in the future . One of the stated objectives of the Comprehensive Plan rega�i \ ecnomic development includes creating commercial areas that "anticipate futureeghboi od `needs" by "establishing guidelines for siting future commercial districts. " Th omprehe ive Plan does not propose any new specific commercial areas, but recommends that n commercial areas be considered by the Town Board as new residential areas develo . - n thT`own In reviewing the current Zoning Map and recommending changes on the pr , osedoning Map , the Codes and Ordinances Committee examined the possibility of new co e ;vial areas, particularly on West Hill , which has the highest remaining potential for future residential growth in the Town. The Committee and the Town Board decided to hold off on any specific recommendations regarding commercial zoning in this area, and recommend revisiting the Comprehensive Plan at some time in the near future to look further into the question of new commercial zones on West Hill and other areas in the Town. Adoption of the proposed Zoning revisions will in no way limit the Town ' s ability to enact such zoning changes in the future , or to target future commercial growth areas in developing areas of the Town. Zoning should not be viewed as a static document, but rather, as an evolving mechanism to achieve the stated policies and desired goals and objectives of the Town. Based on the analysis in the GEIS , no significant negative impacts on business, commerce or industry have been identified, and no mitigating measures are necessary or proposed in conjunction with the proposed Zoning Revisions . Site-specific evaluations of traffic and other environmental impacts will be required in conjunction with any site-specific development proposals on the above-described sites, and if site-specific negative impacts are identified, the approval body could require the necessary mitigation measures as part of the site-specific environmental review . SEQR Findings Statement Page 20 of 23 Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions H . Cultural Resources The Town Board finds that the proposed Zoning Ordinance revisions are not expected to negatively affect the Town ' s historic or cultural resources . Site-specific environmental review will be required where potentially significant historic, archeological or other cultural resources have been identified. The Town Board finds that no mitigation measures are necessary. 1 . Growth Inducing Aspects The Town Board finds that the proposed Zoning Revisions are not expected to induce growth, but rather, to accommodate a modest rate of growth by channeling growth into appropriate areas of the Town. Many of the proposed zoning changes will result in reductions in development potential on the remaining vacant land in the Town, with several exceptions, which are described above and in the GEIS . The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan rejects a "no-growth" scenario, and its underlying key principles are "to shape and improve the quality of the built environment by focusing growth so as to provide for the needs of the Townspeople, and ensure a healthy environment for future generations" (Goal B — Managing the Built Environment), "to improve the environment and to preserve and protect it from degradon," (Goal C — Conservation, Open Space, and Environmental Protection) , in particular, to proect "natural resources, selected open space, environmentally sensitive areas, and umquenaturaINareas" (Objective C . 1 . ), and "to promote the availability of diverse, high quality, affordbie, an attractive places for people to live (Goal A — Housing and Residential Land UPS e� n L A development potential analysis was co "ducted xn theDraft GEIS to compare the residential growth potential in the Town under the cunt (2003 ) Zoning Ordinance and Map with the proposed Zoning revisions in order eeezimhether there would be any significant growth impacts (either negative or posit ' osit v _ ) of e"'proposed Zoning (refer to pages 110 — 114 of the Draft GEIS for a complete descri of tIk development potential analysis) . The results of this analysis indicate that the theoretical fesid"ential development potential under current zoning is approximately 14 , 742 potential new hol ng units , while the potential under the proposed zoning is approximately 8 , 599 new housing units, which reflects a reduction of 6 , 143 potential housing units , or a reduction of about 41 . 7% . Population projections in the Comprehensive Plan demonstrate that anticipated population growth in the Town can be accommodated well into the future under the proposed zoning scenario, as demonstrated in the development potential analysis , even though there would be a significant reduction in development potential compared with current zoning. As indicated in the Comprehensive Plan, although there is no immediate threat of the Town being saturated by development, the Town ' s residents have stated a desire to limit sprawling development, and to avoid a scenario where all or even a substantial part of the Town ' s open space , environmentally sensitive areas, and farmland would be replaced by residential subdivisions and attendant development (Comprehensive Plan — pp . IV- 8 and IV-9) . The Town Board also finds that there are no proposed zoning changes that would significantly induce commercial or industrial growth. As discussed above and in the Draft GEIS, the proposed Neighborhood and Community Commercial Zones would reflect existing SEQR Findings Statement Page 21 of 23 Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions commercially-zoned areas, but would more specifically control commercial growth within those areas . There would actually be a slight reduction in areas currently zoned Business "C" along Elmira Road and across from Judd Falls Plaza. The new Office Park Commercial (OPC) Zone would allow office parks containing business offices and related uses in areas of transition between lower density residential areas and higher density residential or commercial areas . The section on Business, Commerce and Industry in the Draft GEIS describes the development potential of areas proposed for OPC . The impact of the OPC rezonings would be limited to the three parcels proposed for such zoning, and is not expected to induce growth on other nearby properties . Based on the above and the analysis in the GEIS , the Town Board finds that the proposed Zoning revisions will not have any significant growth inducing impacts, and that while development potential will be reduced by the revisions, the amount of reduction is not a significant negative impact, and will allow ample opportunities for growth to accommodate anticipated population well into the future . The Town Board finds, therefore, that no mitigating measures relating to growth inducing impacts are necessary or required. VII. Other Facts and Conclusions in the GEIS Relied Upon to Support the Decision . Ale A . Consistency With Comprehensive Plan and Otherl la ing Documents The proposed changes in zoning are consistent with he eco in dations in the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan ( 1993 ) , based on the evoltming e lopment policies of the Town Board at that time , and supplemented by other plannin um rats that include recommendations for possible zoning modifications, including 1111h nnin f %r A# iculture in the Town of Ithaca (August 1992) and the Town of Ithaca Park Red and and;, O en Space Plan (Dec . 1997) . The Town Board recognizes that it must deal withOR ra tiffs, which result in limiting growth and development in targeted areas of the of Op the other hand, the Town Board recognizes that there may be opportunities for encouraging growth in appropriate areas of the Town that are or could be served by public transportation nd utilities and that are close to the City of Ithaca. While zoning changes to higher densitie°s have been limited in the proposed Zoning Revisions, the Town Board acknowledges that such zoning changes may and most likely will be appropriate in the future as long as they are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Adoption of the currently proposed Zoning Revisions will in no way limit the Town ' s ability to enact such zoning changes in the future , through additional re-zonings to MR Multiple Residence, Planned Development Zones, or other zoning changes . The same can be said for targeting future commercial growth areas in developing areas of the Town, such as West Hill . Zoning should not be viewed as a static document, but rather, as an evolving mechanism to achieve the stated policies and desired goals and objectives of the Town. B . Generic vs . Site-specific Impacts The Draft and Final GEIS identify the generic impacts associated with the proposed Zoning Revisions . Site-specific evaluations are often not appropriate or possible in conjunction with a generic environmental review. The purpose of the GEIS is to provide a comparative analysis of the proposed changes in the zoning contrasted with the existing zoning. The Town Board finds that individual development proposals pursuant to the new zoning will still have to undergo the SEQR Findings Statement Page 22 of 23 Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions required site-specific approvals, including appropriate site- specific environmental review. The GEIS and this Findings Statement do not relieve an applicant from further compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), nor do they include stated conditions or thresholds that would imply that no further SEQR review would be required, as is allowed in Part 617 . 10(d)( 1 ) . x "nn3ry SEQR Findings Statement Page 23 of 23 Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions Certification of Findings to Approve Having considered the Draft and Final GEIS , and having considered the preceding written facts and conclusions relied upon to meet the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 . 11 , this Findings Statement certifies that : 1 . The requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 have been met; and 2 . Consistent with the social , economic , and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives available, the adoption of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions is the action that avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable ; and 3 . Consistent with social , economic and other essential considerations , adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable, by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures that were identified as practicable in the GEIS g,, Al F ,mow ti w :';• ay t :� v Catherine Valentino, Supervisor Date Town of Ithaca Town Board 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 December 8 , 2003 Town Board Meeting - Tom Niederkorn - Attachment # 8 Over the past four years, as some of you know, I have not always been pleased with some aspects of this proposed zoning revision. When I began my work with the Codes & Ordinances committee they had already been deeply involved for several years with the revision process and much had already been discussed and decided . I had hoped to moderate what appeared to me to be a strong mind set to regulate every conceivable land use activity and development variation. Above all, I wanted to simplify the language and the general structure of the ordinance . My success in this respect was very limited. What we have finally created is a 142 page document that is, in my judgement, ponderous, convoluted, difficult to read with reasonable understanding and definitely not user friendly. Fortunately, the vast majority of Ithaca residents will never have to become involved in our zoning labyrinth and can rest easy about this aspect of town law. Having said that let me also say that there is much about this amended ordinance that I find to be a substantial improvement over the current regulations : For example . . . . * . The attempt to identify large areas of the Town where future development will be restricted by land use and density provisions . This will help to preserve unique landscapes and control random growth in areas that the comprehensive plan suggests should not be extensively developed for the foreseeable future . * . The attempt to address "special" situations where the "one size fits all" regulations for many types of future development does not make sense . * . Revision of many zone boundaries to approximate some of the principles of the comprehensive plan. (The plan is now 10 years old, however, and also needs to be reevaluated . Presumably, changes in the long range objectives of the comprehensive plan could relatively quickly result in future zoning modifications . ) * . The introduction of a Planned Development Zone which will provide land use and design flexibility to the usual rigid zoning regulations . * . And finally, the inclusion of reasonable transition provisions which enable projects that are currently being seriously considered by land owners under the former zoning provisions, to move ahead toward review and approval . Disagreement with some of the specific regulations and requirements included in the amended ordinance is inevitable . This would be true, I believe, no matter what was proposed . But I also believe the amendment we are considering is better, in many respects , than the current ordinance . and so I am prepared to vote "yes" on the resolution and to commend the committee and staff for their persistent diligence and determination. It is my hope that the Town Board will quickly act to continue its review of the ordinance and make additional modifications that the C &O committee will be deliberating (including, hopefully, language and organizational simplification) . f 2 - CO - v3 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION The Ithaca JOURNAL State of New York, Tompkins County, ss. : TOWN OF ITHACA idence District; being duly sworn , deposes and (b) Established the maxi- NOTICE OF ADOPTION mum number of dwelling says that she/he resides in Ithaca , county and state aforesaid and that OF LOCAL LAW I . units in the rezoned area at AMENDING THE 128, of which all but one TOWN OF ITHACA' are to be made available to she/ he is Clerk of The Ithaca ZONING ORDINANCE ! persons with limited incomes AND MAP REZONING as defined in said local law; Journal a public newspaper rinted and published in Ithaca aforesaid A PORTION OF Tax Iii Included a number of P P P PARCEL N0. 24 04-1 ; provisions setting forth vari- 14.2 LOCATED ON ' ous conditions on the occu- and that a notice of which the annexed is a true copy was published N.Yt& ROUTE 96 FROM _ panty and construction of RESIDENCE DISTRICT I the dwellings in the rezoned R- 15 TO MULTIPLE. area; in said paper RESIDENCE DISTRICT. ! (d) Prohibited the develop- (Overlook at West Hill) i i er from subdividing the 3 iq 000 rezoned' area into more NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, " ! than two parcels; that at a regular meeting i (e) Provided that if the held on the 15th day 'b , work on the project for March, 2004, the Town ; ' which rezoning was sought Board of the Town of Ithaca ' did not commence within duly adopted a Local Law, certain periods the rezoning an abstract of which i would revert to Residence and that the first publication of said notice was on the \ c\ follows: District R 15 zoning or to ABSTRACT OF the zoning alongg the perim- day of LOCAL LAW I eter as then in effect it there rc O Q Said Local Law: I had " been a general (9) Amended the Zoning rezoning since the date of Ordinance to rezone par- , this rezoning; lions of tax parcels No. 24- ' (f) Set forth a description of Su scribed and Sworn to before nle this da \' OI 04-14.2 located on N .Y.S. i the area being rezoned; Route ate consisting nacres ov Included certain other proximately 24 575 acres ' i provisions regarding admin- �U and described by metes and • istration of the Local law. bounds in an exhibit to the , . resolution, from Residence 1 A complete copy of the Lo- District R-1,5 to Multiple Res- , , cal Law is available for _ reading and inspection of the Town .Clerk's office, 215 N. Tioga St., Ithaca, New Notary hUb11C York 14850, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8 :30 a. m. and 4:00 p.m. JEAN FORD Tee-Ann Hunter Town Clerk Notary Public, State of New York March 17, 2004 s.d—_LLtn n No. 4654410 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expir60ay 31t 20 �� — - - --- - - -� � ,�j/ _ ��p,�4-� , �� y.Q,�. 7"G� _ � rrl ►,.-�t/� c��P _�t _ec Elf, T�--- -Zl� ` / �E' - - Burl AVO_ �'A T1 , -mow d_ 3 - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - --- - --- - -- - - - - December 8 , 2003 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 9 BARNEY , GROSSMAN , DUBOW & MARCUS ATTORNEYS AT LAW SENECA BUILDING WEST C . BARNEY R G . GR05SMAN SUITE 400 FACSIMILE E E DAVID A . DUBOW 11 9 EAST SENECA STREET ( 45 0 7 ) 272 - 8808 RANDALL B . MARCUS ITHACA , NEW YORK 14850 ( NOT FOR SERVICE OF PAPERS ) WILLIAM J . TROY III JONATHAN A . ORKIN ( 607 ) 273 - 6841 December 4, 2003 Honorable Catherine Valentino, and Members of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Re : Zoning materials for December 8 Town Board Meeting Ladies & Gentlemen : Enclosed for each of you are the following documents which amend and/or supplement some of the materials you have been provided regarding the proposed new zoning ordinance : 1 . Revised pages vii and 17 or the Ordinance . The revisions are basically typographi- cal to pick up a couple of errors Jon Kanter discovered in reviewing the document . 2 . Copies of the prior versions of pages vii and 17 to show you the corrections being made . 3 . A revised local law . The County Planning Department rendered an opinion that the proposed ordinance might have negative inter-community or county-wide impacts. The original local law had assumed the County would issue its normal opinion that there were no negative impacts. Accordingly, the local law had to be revised . 4 . A proposed resolution . When the County issues the opinion noted above, it requires the Town to report to the County stating the reasons the Town chose not to follow the County' s recommendation . This resolution attempts to spell out those reasons. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns . Otherwise we can discuss the resolutions at the meeting Monday. Very truly yours, JCB : sls Enclosures xc : Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Clerk (w/enclosures) December 8 , 2003 Town Board Meeting - W Tompkins County U NOV 2 6 2003 DEFARTMENTW'OF PLANNING ? Tr F,,r.j OF ITHACA 121 East Couft,,Street : � F ; r, n,� r, -n � n � , x i _ A E vGINEERING 'Ithaca,�New. York .44850 F Edward C. Marx, AICP Telephone (607) 274-5560 Commissioner of Planning Fax (607) 274-5578 November 25 , 2003 Mr. Jonathan Kanter, AICP, Director of Planning Abu E N D A4 Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re : Review Pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action : Final Review and comment on the Town of Ithaca Revised Zoning Ordinance Dear Jonathan: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law. The Department has reviewed the proposal, as submitted, and has determined that it may have negative inter-community, or county-wide impacts as described below. We recommend modification of the proposal . If the Board does not incorporate these recommendations into its approval, such approval will require a vote of a supermajority (meaning a majority plus one) of all members of the decision- making body. Recommended Modification Residential Density - The proposed zoning is relatively representative of the Town ' s Comprehensive Plan. However, we are concerned that no additional land area has been provided for higher density residential development. The Town ' s location adjacent to the City of Ithaca makes it ideal to provide affordable housing that is convenient to employment areas, which is of growing concern throughout the County. The absence of higher density development opportunities pushes affordable housing options further from the County ' s centralized urban areas and employment centers . We strongly encourage the Town to identify areas for higher density and mixed use development to address these growing needs . Other Comments We are pleased to see the inclusion of conservation zones that provide protection for Unique Natural Areas and establish interconnecting greenways and ecological corridors . These improvements are fully supported by the County ' s Interim Vital Communities Development Principles . Sincerely, L r_1 C L� Edward C . Marx, AICP Commissioner of Planning cc : Richard Booth, Tompkins County Legislature District No. 3 Kathy Luz Herrera, Tompkins County Legislature District No.4 Frank Proto, Tompkins County Legislature District No .7 Dooley Kiefer, Tompkins County Legislature District No . 10 Michael Koplinka-Loehr, Tompkins County Legislature District No. 1 l Tim Joseph, Tompkins County Legislature District No. 12 December 8 , 2003 Town Board . Meeting ATTACHMENT # 11 Mary Russell m : Mary Russell t : Monday, December 08 , 2003 3 :24 PM ' Noel Desch ' mhall@pfaconsulting .com ' ; 'jean Ctompkinschamber. org ' ; Catherine Valentino; Dan Walker Subject: RE : Joint Interceptor Agreement- Public Hearing Noel , We are disappointed with your email message . It illustrates a clear lack of neutrality . The main problem here is the City representatives ' refusal to meet face - to - face with us so we can clear up all the misconceptions and rumors they have been operating under . While we appreciate the time you have spent as a lay person trying to resolve this issue neither Cathy nor I have ever seen professional mediators such as Mike Hall enabling and even sanctioning opposing sides NOT meeting to resolve their dispute . In the process that has taken place we have had no opportunity to tell the City when what they were asking for was unreasonable nor has there been any opportunity for the establishment of trust . Showing sympathy for and advocating for provisions the City is suggesting which are completely unreasonable in the Town ' s view and for other provisions which deal with problems that don ' t exist does nothing to move us forward . The solution to this problem should have been face - to - face meetings to clear up the misinformation . The regional solution will only become a reality if ALL parties believe they have been treated fairly . We believe what we have offered to the City is not only fair but in some parts ( pump stations ) generous . S typositions on what you see as the outstanding issues are the lowing : Whether to include interest charges for late payments . The Town of Ithaca has never been late with a payment to the and the Town is financially sound , so this is a non - issue . Nor do we have a late payment charge in any of the intermunicipal agreements where we are parties , including the Bolton Point agreement where the Town of Ithaca is fiscal agent for five municipalities . This is no way to establish trust . There is apparently some confusion in the minds of the City representatives about the Town of Ithaca and Town of Dryden ' s bilateral action in invoking the dispute resolution clause contained in the SJS agreement and our return to a SJS budgetary system which complies with the SJS agreement requirement of using any surplus funds in the next year ' s budget . At no time were City funds used to front expenditures at the sewer plant , only our joint surplus SJS funds were used . The real issue here is the failure of City representatives to meet with Town representatives to resolve the disputes about matters such as the failures to comply with the agreement , the hidden overhead charges and failure to comply with our requests for information . We would , therefore , be willing to recommend to our Board that we add a monetary penalty clause for failure to participate in dispute resolution meetings to our agreement . 2 . Provision for a percentage charge for City collection system for overflow events . Our position is that the percentage share of capacity we are purchasing in the interceptors is adequate to accomodate Town flows even in high water events . If the City inflow problem forces Town flow into JJj,e City collection system , we don ' t see why the Town should pay more . t additional costs would the Town be causing to the City system? Sharing of revenues from outside users of the High School erceptor . We are purchasing 41 % of the capacity of this interceptor ( and all of the others ) . The right to make revenue from the use of the 1 interceptors that we are purchasing is a basic ownership right . The City is free to sell their capacity in any of the interceptors or the sewer plant just as we are . Our position on this parallels the provision on sale of capacity in the revised SJS agreement ( Section 18 . 4 ) 4 . Payment for usage of small portions of the City collection system ( normal flows ) . A sentence addressing this issue inadvertently got left out of our draft . Where the Town uses small portions of the City collection system , those areas will be specifically identified in Exhibit C . We will determine our percentage flow in those lines by water meter readings and pay that percentage for both actual 0&M and capital projects . This will render the need for a system-wide percentage reimbursement unnecessary . Mary Mary Russell Deputy Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 N . Tioga St . Ithaca , New York 14850 ( 607 ) 273 - 1721 MRussell @town . ithaca . ny . us - - - - - Original Message - - - - - From : Noel Desch [ mailto : nd26 @cornell . edu ] Sent : Monday , December 08 , 2003 9 : 22 AM To : Catherine Valentino Cc : Mary Russell ; mmall @pfaconsulting . com ; jean @tompkinschamber . org Subject : Joint Interceptor Agreement - Public Hearing Hi Cathy , I look forward to the public hearing this evening and a good airing of the two draft agreements before us . I hope the Town Board will not approve the Dec . 5 Town draft , but rather will adjourn the hearing until your special meeting later this month . The basis for the adjournment is the following : 1 . The City only received the Town draft late Friday Dec . 5 . 2 . The engineers need to meet to reach agreement on the content of Exhibits A- 1 and B - 1 3 . The Town draft , among other things does not address payment by the Town for the maintenance of the portion of the collection system that the Town will continue to use under normal and high water conditions . 4 . The Town draft does not address at all the three issues we discussed in the joint meeting on Friday . In my judgment premature approval of an interceptor agreement on the sole basis of the Town Dec 5th draft will destroy the possibility of achieving the regional solution that everyone has worked so hard to achieve . It is also likely to seriously undermine all of the gains in intermunicipal cooperation made over the past 20 years and eliminate the possibility of building a trusting relationship with the City for many years . I trust you will share this with the Town Board this evening . I would rather not read 2 it into the record of the hearing , Thanks , Noel i 3 December 8 , 2003 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 11 JOINT INTERCEPTOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF ITHACA AND TOWN OF ITHACA This Agreement is made this day of , 2003 , by and between THE CITY OF ITHACA, Tompkins County, New York ("City"), and the TOWN OF ITHACA, Tompkins County, New York ("Town") . WHEREAS , the City and Town, together with the Town of Dryden, jointly own and operate the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility (IAWTF) ; and WHEREAS , the City and Town jointly utilize certain City interceptors and pump stations to convey wastewater flows from their respective jurisdictions to the IAWTF ; and WHEREAS , the Town utilizes portions of the City ' s collection system to convey wastewater to the joint interceptor system for small areas of the Town that are not connected directly to the interceptor system, and WHEREAS , in 1992 the City and Town entered into a Sewer Service Agreement for the Town ' s use of the City ' s sewage collection system; and WHEREAS , at the time of execution of the 1992 agreement, the parties intended to replace that agreement within two years with a long-term agreement; and WHEREAS , the parties have been negotiating a new agreement regarding joint interceptor and pump station projects that benefit the jointly used system , including many projects constructed since the 1992 agreement went into effect ; and WHEREAS , the City has provided the Town with record drawings showing the size and location of all pipes and the location and invert elevations for each manhole for each of the projects referenced in Exhibit A and B , and WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca has provided the City of Ithaca written notification of its intent to terminate the Sewer Service Agreement dated November 4 , 1992 , and NOW, THEREFORE , in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties agree as follows . 1 L:\TB prep\December\Regular Mtg\Reports\JOINT INTERCEPTOR AGREEMENT for TB approval at 12-8-03 meeting.doc Last saved by DWalker Last printed 12/5/2003 8 :52 AM Termination of Former Agreement 1 , The Sewer Service Agreement dated November 4 , 1992 , is terminated effective December 31 , 2004 . Purchase of Ownership 2 , The City agrees to sell, and the Town agrees to purchase, a 41 . 57% ownership interest in the interceptors listed and shown in attached Exhibit A. The Town also is acquiring a 41 . 57% interest in the jointly used interceptors listed in Exhibit A- 1 . By acquiring such interest, the Town is entitled to utilize 41 . 57% of the capacity of such interceptors . Such utilization may be by the Town or by other entities or municipalities authorized by the Town providing the utilization is within the service area shown in Exhibit F . 3 , The City agrees to sell , and the Town agrees to purchase , a 17% ownership interest in the pump stations listed in attached Exhibit B . The Town is also acquiring a 41 . 57% interest in the jointly used pump stations shown in Exhibit B- l . By acquiring such interest the Town is entitled to utilize 17% of the capacity of the pump stations shown in Exhibit B and 41 . 57% of the capacity of the pump stations shown in Exhibit B - 1 . Such utilization may be by the Town or any other entity or municipality authorized by the Town providing the utilization is within the service area shown in Exhibit F . 4 , The Town shall pay the City Six Hundred Sixty-One Thousand Dollars ($661 , 000) to purchase its ownership interests and related capacity in the interceptors and pump stations referenced in Exhibits A, A- 1 , B and B - 1 . ' This payment shall be made within thirty (30) days after the effective date of this Agreement. Upon receipt of this payment, the specified ownership interests shall be deemed transferred. 5 . The calculation of the Town ' s 41 . 57 % ownership interest in the joint interceptors referenced in paragraph 2 is based on their primary function as trunk sewers connected directly to the IAWWTF , and on the Town ' s ownership of plant capacity. The Town ' s 17% ownership interest in the pump stations referenced in paragraph 3 is based on an estimated percentage of Town of Ithaca usage . Capital Projects 6 . The parties shall jointly prepare within one year of the execution of this agreement a five-year capital improvement plan for joint interceptors . These capital improvement projects will include a determination of respective shares of ownership based on the capacity each party requires . The parties agree that they will not exceed the capacities owned in each interceptor or transmission sewer. 1 The Town of Ithaca Town Board approval of this agreement is subject to Permissive Referendum, therefore this agreement cannot be executed for at least 30 days after the Town Board approval of the expenditure to purchase this capacity. 2 L:\TB prep\December\Regular Mtg\Reports\JOINT INTERCEPTOR AGREEMENT for TB approval at 12-8-03 meeting.doc Last saved by DWalker Last printed 12/5/2003 8 : 52 AM 7 . All future capital improvement projects will require the acceptance of engineering reports and approval of capital project budgets by the parties ' respective governing bodies prior to construction . Construction documents shall include all plans, specifications and details required to construct the improvement, and a detailed construction cost estimate based on the plans . No commitments shall be made regarding any capital expenditures until at least thirty (30) days after the Town Board has approved the capital expenditure to allow the parties to conform to legal requirements . Project budgets shall include an estimate of all costs, including engineering, construction management, ROW acquisition, legal , construction, and a 10% construction contingency. The Engineering and Water and Sewer staff of both parties will complete planning for capital projects as a joint effort. The parties anticipate that engineering and construction management will be performed by the staff of one or both parties and costs for these services shall be determined on a time and material basis . A rate schedule for staff shall be developed which includes an hourly rate including the cost of salary and benefits , with 10% overhead on salary and benefits . The project manager shall provide the parties with monthly status reports on each project ' s construction progress and budget including full documentation of all expenditures. Payments requests for capital projects will be submitted monthly to each party, and budgeted expenditures will be paid within 30 days . Once a project is complete, the parties will be provided with record drawings showing the size and location of all pipes and appurtenances , and the location and invert elevations for each manhole . 8 . The parties agree to modify Exhibit A to show all new joint interceptors that are constructed after the effective date of this Agreement and showing each party ' s percentage of ownership in each joint interceptor. The parties agree that the First Street interceptor is the highest priority future project. O&M Costs—Joint Interceptors 9 . Starting in 2005 the parties will pay for the annual operation and maintenance costs (O&M) of jointly owned interceptors shown on Exhibits A and A- 1 based on actual use of the sewer lines . The permanent sewer flow meter readings and periodic flow monitoring will determine use of the sewer lines . O & M Costs—Budget and Billing 10 ., Starting with the 2005 O&M budget, the parties shall approve in advance and on an annual basis O&M budgets for joint interceptors and joint pump stations . Expenditures in excess of budgeted amounts shall not be incurred without the approval of both parties . 11 . The City will bill the Town monthly for O&M costs for joint interceptors and joint pump stations . Billing shall be based on actual costs incurred and supported by 3 L:\TB prep\December\Regular Mtg\Reports\JOINT INTERCEPTOR AGREEMENT for TB approval at 12-8-03 meeting.doc Last saved by DWalker Last printed 12/5/2003 8 :52 AM itemized work orders . The Town will pay these bills within 5 days of the next regular Town Board meeting at which the voucher has been approved. Bills must be submitted to the Town Engineer by the 201h of each month to be reviewed and approved for payment at the regularly scheduled board meeting the following month. Miscellaneous 12 . Flows from the Towns of Dryden and Lansing and the Villages of Cayuga Heights and Lansing may pass through Town of Ithaca sewers and into the joint interceptors, City collection system, and joint pump stations . The parties agree that the Town ' s payments under this Agreement compensate the City for these flows . Nothing in this agreement prevents the Town from entering into agreements with municipalities in the new sewer service area shown in Exhibit F for the transportation of wastewater through the joint interceptors providing the flows do not exceed the treatment capacity owned by the Town in IAWWTF . Not withstanding the terms of this agreement, nothing will prevent the parties to this agreement from utilizing their full allocation of permitted capacity at the plant. In no case will the flow through the joint interceptors and/or pump stations collectively exceed either party ' s allocation of permitted capacity at the plant. 13 . The parties agree that this Agreement resolves, and the parties hereby release each other from, all issues , claims, demands , causes of action, damages and costs that may have arisen before the effective date of this Agreement regarding payment for joint interceptors, joint pump stations, and use of the City ' s collection system . 14. Each party shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the other and its officers, employees , Board members, agents and elected officials from and against any and all claims, suits, actions, causes of action, losses, damages , costs , charges, or expenses (including reasonable attorney ' s fees) brought against or suffered by the other and/or its officers , employees , Board members , agents or elected officials for injury to or death of any person or persons or damage to or loss of property arising out of the negligence or willful wrongful act of one of the parties or its employees , subcontractors , agents or representatives . 15 . Whenever the consent of a party is required under this Agreement, a majority vote of the full possible voting strength of the party ' s governing body shall be necessary for that party to give its consent. 16 . Notifications required by this Agreement shall be hand-delivered or sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following addresses or such other address as a party may hereafter designate by notice : For the City : For the Town : Mayor Town Supervisor Cc : City Clerk Cc : Town Clerk 108 E . State Street 215 N . Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 4 L:\TB prep\December\Regular Mtg\Reports\.IOINT INTERCEPTOR AGREEMENT for TB approval at 12-8-03 meeting.doc Last saved by DWalker Last printed 12/5/2003 8 : 52 AM 17 . If required by law or if otherwise desirable to effectuate the purposes of this Agreement, the parties agree to designate one of the governing bodies of the parties to implement this Agreement by executing documents, formally letting bids, applying for grants or loans, arranging financing, and to perform any actions that by law must be conducted by a governing body of a municipality, or which may be more conveniently performed by one party on behalf of both parties . Only direct costs incurred by the designated party in rendering such services, including any payroll and fringe benefit expenses associated with such services, shall be eligible for reimbursement by the other party. The annual O&M budgets shall specify the costs eligible for reimbursement as O&M expenses. 18 . The parties agree to amend or supplement this Agreement in the future to provide any additional authority which the parties deem necessary to adequately and properly operate, maintain, and construct improvements to the joint interceptors or joint pump stations. 19 . In the event that there shall be a final adjudication that any provision or provisions of this Agreement is, are or shall be invalid, illegal or contrary to public policy, such adjudication shall not affect any of the other provisions of this Agreement, and such other provisions shall continue in full force and effect . 20 . This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties . It may be amended only by the written consent of both parties, with each party executing and acknowledging the document containing the amendment through its duly authorized representative . 21 . This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York. 22 . Each party represents and warrants that (a) this Agreement has been presented to its governing body; (b) its governing body has approved this Agreement by a majority vote of the full possible voting strength of that governing body; and (c) if required, all steps by way of public hearings and/or referendum or otherwise have been taken by the time of execution of this Agreement. Resolutions of both governing bodies approving this Agreement are attached to this Agreement as Exhibit G . 23 . The Town reserves the right to sell or lease excess capacity to other municipalities, including the Village of Cayuga Heights. 24 . The term of this Agreement shall be 5 years from its effective date . The transfer of capacity affected by this Agreement is permanent and shall survive any termination of this Agreement whether by expiration of time or otherwise , unless the parties otherwise agree in writing. A. This Agreement shall become effective on the date it is fully executed by both parties. 5 L:\TB prep\December\Regular Mtg\Reports\JOINT INTERCEPTOR AGREEMENT for TB approval at 12-8-03 meeting.doc Last saved by DWalker Last printed 12/5/2003 8: 52 AM IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers and sealed with their corporate seals on the day(s) and year set forth below . Attest : CITY OF ITHACA By: City Clerk Alan J. Cohen, Mayor City of Ithaca, New York City of Ithaca, New York Dated: Attest : TOWN OF ITHACA By : Town Clerk Catherine Valentino, Supervisor Town of Ithaca, New York Town of Ithaca, New York Dated : [ACKNOWLEDGMENTS TO BE ADDED.] 6 L:\TB prep\December\Regular Mtg\Reports\JOINT INTERCEPTOR AGREEMENT for TB approval at 12-8-03 meeting.doc Last saved by DWalker Last printed 12/5/2003 8 :52 AM EXHIBIT A LIST AND MAP OF JOINT INTERCEPTORS CONSTRUCTED AS OF DATE OF AGREEMENT ■ ■ aa0 0 a0aa0 0 0 0 a0 0 aaaao0 aaaa0amaa0 0 a0 0 0 0 0 ea0 aa0 aaaa0 0 0 a0 0 aaaa0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a0 a0 0 a EXHIBIT A- 1 LIST AND MAP OF PLANNED FUTURE JOINT INTERCEPTORS ■ ■ aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaeaaaaaaaaaaoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa0mI EXHIBIT B PUMP STATIONS LIST ■ ■ aaaaaasaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaoaaaaaoaaaaaa ■ EXHIBIT B4 PUP STATIONS LIST EXHIBIT C MAP OF CITY COLLECTION SYSTEM USED BY TOWN EXHIBIT D 2003-2004 O&M BUDGET FOR JOINT INTERCEPTORS EXHIBIT E GOVERNING BODY RESOLUTIONS [TO BE PROVIDED AFTER EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT] 7 L:\TB prep\December\Regular Mtg\Reports\JOINT INTERCEPTOR AGREEMENT for TB approval at 12-8-03 meeting.doc Last saved by DWalker Last printed 12/5/2003 8 : 52 AM December 8 , 2003 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # I2 In I LD co o � °o o °o o , e _ � m °p °0 °o °oI 1 � . vl °oloio m o o LO � °0 o ' ol ICI I � jtn o , r , ofm 0 IQi O lD 'IC O MImI � � O O O O O - m m N O (O jf-. j � I M : O ; 0 O : 0 O m In "I , m O10 ' O ' OI f� ! N . O I � O ' M O Wi F ' O m tD '1tD OIN O ' 0 O 0 O O Q) O N ID ; (D 0) 10 ; 0 , 010 m O . � m n 01001 IN IC) I1g101 IM tDlO 0 It- i W : 101000 : k l ' O O O O 0.; � Its C O tD .- 1Ni , N ! m 010 O C O O N M M O (n OI 101 M - M ; O m NiN , o iM IC.) IQ IC7I OJ lm NIC ! I� I 0 N N M � : 0) 0 m O m ' m ICI . NIC N10 lD Q1 r� , lI 0) In '� M Ci IN Lf O m Im O , N ILu IM M 0) N (Di (D .- 10) (0 l0 (D C ' rit Im '. rn CO ' m ml1 V" ' Ci M M : Fit IOiI ' � t0 1 ' IN ' Q ' ' NI U) : M NI l r MIf� iM � � M M jtDl � C 1 a' Im ' 101 .- ' N a , IIw ilrnie» lei eileile)I � e) '' esi ei ei eilei , e» ei «n .e» e» Ieilei � !e» es�lusje» Iei ei e) ' eie) le) ' ;vi evie» '' ea 165 ;e) iei eile+ lealeijei : ei ea Oiml0i N OIO CIO O O oIo � m O 0 , 0 01O INi0i0 0 O) OiNIm N m OIO � O + � m 1 I NO II - IC � o + O ; o COI Clr o IN C Ln o 0 0 0 OIM ' O N ' 0 01010 IR7 ' nl0 0 , I , . l0 ' m 6 m mI O O . O lD M : O ; m1Cim O Q ' ° ' 1 (6 � ' 1UI IN I'` 010 C C 01 (p1m M 0 � I � 010 '10 Ol616 O O N 0) Im O 0 , 0 0) . IR1IC ' 0 0 : 01In � ' 0 m m 0 Ll N tD t` O OHO C Clm ', N C o . MiO) O 01110 o 0 0 0 m tD _ n W II- ! 0) i CI � I OI 010 O mIC � O (p U) , Ill O OM m CIO O O N 'iN N O : O '. m O fpm OO O . (D ' 0 N C IN O tbl0 n H IW ICI MIM '.. O M NISI. 00 r Im N lD 1 � Im C N N MM f` 0) i (O O NIQIIC Im C6 NCO tD In � ' (`� C ` IM O IN i (M M110lO IC9 ; M1 IN . 1 I r. OI CI O101m N Q7 SIN Im ; W lD tD (D . M m ' � ! tDim .- m Im O) II� O m : N IC C INIciO Si N : . IpIM N •- M � hI IM j � � I 1 � IN . � Ill O lal Imi , III 1 � I � I' 1 1 1 I I __ _ Ie) I _ ' l eii eil eil leiileH leil leii ei 'eiei eileilei �l ei �e) en ' e» I <» <» ,s> ei � Ie) l eiiei ! ea 'e» 'j «» eil ei ',=eivi �l eil Bill Ie) eii ei ei � eil e)i e) I('A Ib9 : ei 7 i0l rololo : IN + o 0 0 ; 010 0 o ' (o 'Im -- ° ' o 0 : 010 ml � lol 0l O ' Olo � tnl 1 I I l l N1 011100i O O O . O O l7 Q) � O N , OIm ' O : 01 1 CIC O1 00 O O ' 0 O O . ' O O OjOIOI , , , Mimlo 01OIm ; 0 0) I MIM ' It` OIO10 O IN . ; O W10 � + O O . OIU') 101 lq O O p10 : 0 O O In O O r` • C 0 IC Flo O O ' m Olm ' 4)mill N ' 01010 m O ' m : 0 Mi0 N � Q m 1 m CtDl O N II') 010j0 O O im ', m O NIA M 1 ItD1, C O O O NO 0 : 1� m m O ' O O1 IMI 1 � NipO IWI IFIS NI .- v) O 0 . 0 0 0 0) iI� : 0 O ; ID tt, l r rn10 o o' r oit` ' f 1 mjN1 � I 1 I O O 'I In O ICI lOIn O tD N lU m 111im '�, m m ! ' m NIN LrIIN � N M Clf" C O . .- C M UJININ O In Il r IOII' ; m IM O INI iN N Vlml ml � � '. O IN IO U` IM O 10 � C mi, ml (D , tD m m lD O ' 1 U) 10) I � jm m ' ml (01 ' m1 C ImIN N N C . 0 '1NI� ip iN III M ' N OEM I� � M1 � . � � N NI � 1 IDI � ; O mI : 1 ! 1 It II 1 I � ' N Ie) �,�69ib9 ' tA ' 1e) I ei 'l ei Vi W) by e) e) eil ei ei . e) ei ;eileileil ei Ill tAIbN) 9 : t 'i e) le) : ( i ; V3 '� b9 ( ItAleil le)I e) eir» le) e) I eiie) «ti ei ! C Oiolo : I' Clolo to (1 NO o ' ololo . o o , olo o I� olo o of 1 ! i OI 1 O , O 01 1N � 010 O , O '-0 ' O OI � 10 - O O 010 OI + N , � O OI Oi0 O ! M ) + 0 . 010 O O m ' OI lo ' O ' I " � O I OIL O O10 ' O � lD O 0 N + O IQ ! 10 IO O ' O , ! (p . 00 O O '. O O O m10 . 0 O ' I� I � I (Di ! m O 010 0101C) OIN 10 Oj0 O 10 ,1 m C ! OI II� IOIf� . p IWI Im O mItD CIO ' O O ' O O O OIO) if� O O C ! O U) I 1M N O 0 01 (p10 M f;2 0) O 010 C1 MIm ' o INI .0 I O H O ' I, O r I� 10 0 O O CIO OItO M O O (D . mj cD ' 0 � 010 O , m10 N M 10 , p IL0 O N r C ' OI NIN IUIM W m iC N C; ( � 1 N ' N N = M � NIm N O NIc MI 1 iNINiO tbim Nl10 - NI - IM O N ILlCIm . I � I � � �. ' � . ' o IC9 ' M 10 M , OIMI C 0) I (0 U) m N : N M L 0) ' Ir aim m ' m ml d C INI � 1N (jQl I N IMIM Ii NI ° ' M ' m M ' O ICI N . f� N , tl') .C- ry T 0 I0 � IWI 1 Ioi N . � ' U dl 1 !I 1 11 : (l 1, Ie» I iei e) Ie) ' Ieil vi will Ieile) , e) ei eiei ; e) eiei eileilei : eil ei �l lejeil e) eil eil eie) l e) . e3l e) ' ! e) rA ieiieil eil lei eil, e) Ie) ie) !e) IeiiE»: ei aGi M I _• - j�- o ! IOIOO ' i (p ' p101 OIO � OO OOO O O ' O OI 01010I0 ' O : O ' 000IOI IO OIOIO 101 1ppi01 1plplpl p c I 1 ' O logo of (Dio � o l0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 CIO l ' oI i , o CIo10 OIC • O ' 1D010 Io . oIO10 of 1 ° ' ° 10 ' C 0 0 . ' ° 0 o o to oIo , ol6 010 0 ; 0 0 0 0 0 O 'l0l Io oio 0 0 oiolm o ' � I o . oI + C of I 010 ' o lo : ' Io T N O iml 10 O U-) N O10 CIO Oko No O 0Co' IO 1 N ', � IO O OIOIIo C O ml IO 010101 OI M , 1 r (`1 LI FI01 IO O ', 010 OjOIO O O M 'i0 O O O1 OI � O OIOIOjOIOIOIMI IO : OIID O ' O1 O 010 M N ! O1 O m_ d ; a W , ml io mi � iolo jtn l (v' N M olln o 0 0l tnl 1 0o' ._ rti CTIln l (L ! rl l y) r` 1 ri O O QI OI0 ; co1 10101 00) 10 N , m ' Q) ' tO lD m - OI ' N ' Oi O mlm m ! � I � O 6+ N � ! N M M Ni O � 1 C ' 0) I r mi t� r` 'I to WI N1I � 10 0 1 1 1 m ' lDl MI 1 ' � , : CI O � iN C ' ° m NI � i Imo' ! I � I ' I Z O II I � � I 1 ii1 I III a j d V e) �i eii Iei eil ei leileii ei ei eilei ! eil ei ei : ei : ei ei eilir» 'I leilr» ei ' viI U9. iF» 1«» i e) i (n i ( ! e len ei Ir» I ei /.s esla� iralwlw l«»: «n L iTi + IOI O 0 ! 0 ' 100 Oj IONIC 010 O b ' 10 0101 O 101010 O O O , O O OIOI O : OIOIOI IOi 10 010 O OHO ' . O io ICl01No 1olo 0l Ilo ; o 0 0 CIo o 0 0 , o , i+ , l Io1O , o o o o . o ° lolo1 to O ; olol ° ( I ° ° o to CIO o 0 o "I io oIo '1 rnIo o : 1010 0 0 0 . 0 0 001 o In oio 0 0 oIo ololvi ' oololo Io . . � , oio ' o Y 010 tD ' NIO O ' CIOIN '. O o1v 0 0 ' 01 O mI � O O O ! o ' O Ln1 O O M O O 10101Nil I O ! M o 0 , 01 0 ' tDI � OIO OIt!) M O 'I NI . 0 . 0 ' 0101 10 Ir` cD : 01 ILoiL 101 ' O y MlWlo� nlD vlolnl v1N o ', nlolol pl oI � N ' ol o , M ojnlol io o v of ImlNlo p V 10010.10 c.9 ! MI1 ID110 M MIm 1l 101 OI 1M (Dl m : IMI : M � I I '- - IN It\ � � , � N OI IN p m Mi � I � ' ' O { ! '001ooloI 1 N I Iml (O ; [Di ICi M � 1 � ' 1 1 � I OI p01N ml � . N Ll ml I � I 1 l 1 ! e> i blIII ei ei ss e», ea jvil ei ' t» ie» ! vi : ei u�i lr» le» ei eseri!eA ei e» ie»I r» iva e» dyleil ei ei '. e» w1 (n r» rs eilei ei ie» ien je» ie» ie» le) ie» ju�il vi -- 1001 , V III , i i 111111 iiI IIII ! II i + Z ! 1 l IH ' NIM I "ll' IrIO O ' N IU') ', O CIO Il OIC 1 O O � I .- IN M CIID U) I (D 01UI 01 O � `" N N OIO N OIO OIID m Nom ! Z , NIO O ID m10) O 0010 r M M N N U) m m1 (D INi CIIq , N ' Io . �- ' MINIM O r` 1 � I .- j � lm NI (DI (DI (DIOI .- NIr� I1l Nil 1 1 O O O O OIOIO ICI NININiN , tn U) tD ' tp lf` 1 � 1 It` jr rI O O O 01O ! O O O O O1 I � {' IN N N N : M ! M M ! M MIMi i � N N N N ; N NINININN ! IN NINIry NIN N N ! N ' NNiN1N NN I0 ; Q Q GI1Q Q QjQI IQ � QIQ QIQIQIQ C Q ; Q Q + Q ; QI IQIQIQI Q1QIQIQIZ< iQIQI 'Q ' Q Q . Q Q 'IQ QIQ Q QIQIQIQiQIQIQIQ 1Q 1 I - - _ -- _- I I I I I I 1 1 U . I I Z ' +� : : 1. 1 QI ' U) It- : I w F I I 1 1 Z : I W LL 012 ' C : iQi ! W 1 1 IWI OIW FIwIW ' (n , T 1 CiUr ISW CNN) NNN- 1 I � � � 1Z ' '' U) ' SSW , > I IUI � 10I � ' � Iw XX 1 X d IW � cnIU) 1 Icnl I 1Oi IW1 Iwl I � LLI 1 = 1 U) Z) ` wt o . Q ! U U IOIQI 1 1 IFI III (n 1W (q d (DIW jC71 � S ` � Ill W1 II IM 10 (q : Ur 1511- \ , 1 !n LL I F- I (D I ! W U' 11 (91 LL l w U ' C , w wI W O , Z) IWI IUIQ , WI Icn (n w > I01 U wiz , 1 W ( WILL � � IW1 10 ixILLIZI 1 � > : � I � 1LL 1 (91 W ' � Oid' IS1U' I IYI � , IIwi. I WIUIWIE U ; 1 � J O . � O w w w ¢ (n ; w U SC9 , (nom c91 > I � wl > : O L , Q : � �) � iS X (1) , ~ 1 121 I ~ ZI � I (n W � W (/� � iE 01 I � 'I ZISI Z OI � IQIUIQI � : O10 ' 1ZIW1ZI � 1XI I (nld' IUIO h- 1 � 1 ` ,� Z It- j I Q W ZIWIW � lQ iX ' (A - iJlXlw ' W LL LL : LL Q ' W l (W ; K71 iZ1ZIQ � OIS O � IdIU UIOiUIW LL ;a : CO OI � 1 � I2If41QI i, Lol O ' WIWI � ' m + Z 11 Z � ' Q ' 2 = 1Z 0 .' 01 IW I � I' cn ildim Q LL � � OiLL , N ' LL Y ' H �' � QIO � � II � IUiW i co U)U Q .! 01' d i 01QiOi0lu) LL �' ' WI � WjHiO : Oly ;l � lO Zlml � ' Q I : O F- ' (q (AIQ I (A , ZI � jF- I (lI V` W OI Q I� Y Ia � . � ' n' WIQIO , (`6 LLIQ . H1 IW Id' LL' dIO WIQLI2 i1- OiW _I � I } OIUIW O Uj2' 12' 2 ! WIWO . cb O : LL � ., ZO1 � OIZaI � '1 WiWjWSialQIJiw ! O O : Z ! = � (n1 � C91C91Q I' W IIwa IIZOIOI ~ '' �yiJiO= 'Iy 1007 l 1a11LL 1 � 1 (A d' j '4551 (�j� alDi5 C7 W . O id' IU : � O Lu ! j0 J (O ' w Wi � ! Ji � j(n ~ IViZIU I (Q IU U UIf" I v , Z U : Z + (� ! S W SiZ i (q UiUIU QIS QIUjZl � i ffI (91W : > W WIWI I ~ Id' i IO ICI IF ' T (A co It- I W J ; 7 ',' Q Zi � ' ZId' IJ JIQ O ' YI T ' J 0, IW Jiyl CI W ! OI /- ! QIY � LL LLI � IO XItLId' : f- 1UIZiQ 0 WI � JIJ Z . d J15 T10 ' W ; Z4QW XX dh- I � � Z :1 � W O . O I, mIZ QI �' iw : a : Q I•l IZI ~ IQ ! ~ 0 , 0 Z O, . !) QI (cIW !� SlOI � IQ WiOIOIH WIJ OIU ! ZOIWd, : Z ' ~ ID� ! � IO > [D ! Q Wa, IDI : � Oj � jZ IS W y Q U ' U ! m ! S 2 !. Z d ' ' (AIZ LL IU IF- : Uid Q (� IW , t_ Id , p, lU ! l ImIZI ILLI � (D (9 i (A IC11 Q ' U` _ IU ', ; ON I' !!i i (=A IIUI iUla i � LL ai �p ' � ? ; m ; o Z N 0 0 N h L LL Oj 00 0 QHUM -M I.I ♦- O '' - l010 OO ' Oi,I 00 . O O O O OO 0 . 01 10 O .' Q) O � I O O O ' 0 10 N . . 11 �o I 1' 0uO� !!I �O O OO 010101010 O 1 O an O 00 O , O 0 0 , rh101 Oi 1 ' I ' ' o „ Oj0 p 010 oo ' O 00 10o0 O 0 : 0 C 0 0 0 0lo o OIN 000 o o ' o o • 000 ' i r` oI � O oO ' , ' I , o O . r O to 1DIO � 1 � OIOIO N 0 Or O O . O O MI p 0 01 0101 O Ol0 n n � IOIC9 '- : N Ln LD O M O) O C 610 .61 ow M I 1 c . IN N o 0) ; 03 (0 m c to rn � IN Li OQ M1 o 1 . a ' ' 69ItH . tA •. tA M i69 ' tA to 69ifA1 M 69 ' Hi • Vi '1 . e9 :69 M t!9 ' E9 i69Vitry M !69b969 ! tA ! 69 tH '' b9 :e9 ' b9� 69 ' -_ -_ _..--___ - ' I __-_! -_ - -- I i I � 6q ltH � tA tf3 • tA I69IrH tH Ii V3ItA 6969 69 T--. ---.- -. O CIO O O10 cc 010 O : � f` O O , 010 0 O 10 ' OIO O ' I' r O C O • 0 001 (D OI 101 010 I , O ' 0 � 0 : OOIOIOIOiO CIO ' � O � O O O O 01 j0 O O O � � � � 0 OIp1 ' O I0 : 01O ! I � O CIO � Ii O O � QI OI o ' O CIO 0 0101016 C oIo 0 : 010 0 ' 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 oltn Lm o . IOIo ! Iw o 0 r, 1 01 (n w ' o CiO ' 0 0 010110 ' 0 oIo ' (D o , ' o : o . o o : o o . 0 o O , a) tn : o ' O 0 0 ' 101 ICI c ! Io F- O Olin , ' 0104 , 0 r 0 ' 0 0 • O , 01 / O 0 ; C) 0 O r O M r� IOiD) '. O 1 (D oIo ' IC ' O N 1 O to U rlw t` � I (V. Ir NI I (` IIN L0I ' C C: F - OIr) N, OIC u'i IOi 00 ISi10I o O OIC : 1 � 01 C Imo' O Di � M 1010 , C ' nl N O IN O � , C I (D ; r NIM 100 CI (p : iM MI 0Itn N wIOn : N r •- , MiCIr� IN ' IN , In (y a1 l � INID : ' m I II i i 1 ira u9-e� ' e» 1M ti vj bl II I eA v3 v » v) br ie to ' lenrjlen e91 1rH len e> i w . e9 iF» eA : e» ' M li es ! t» ;ea le» 'II VfI� ril �n lr» us a9iv+ e9 �n ' v� - - - - - - - - = -- --- o ! CO 1 IQFI I ',iIo 0 O O 0 1 0o 10o1, 0 o l-OoIlOoIlitrO lOo IIcon) , ' a)N "o' 110C1I �0 10 O oI. o IO 0 1 0 ' 0 1 r� NIO 10 OOo ' l0 O 0 o :1 IIo re C ' N lo o 10 'lIta oo ,10 . 1 O O , o C 0O clo 0 (D , o 0 I 0 0 1000 O 1 1 1O 1 , o 0 ! 01010010100 O � 0 ' 010 ; 0 010 ! O . O r O N ! OI t IO O 10 o 010 01010 00 M of OOlo CIO [ Io 00 O ) o (c) r ow I . : i to ` 0 " c0 . O U) ,O 1 U) O OI co O nIN O O O O1 N O Olr OO O I0O M v Nn4lM ; 0 W ' r� O M IN 0tt: co M M O : N 0O ; r ! N C) , 11 iN � 01 Kt Olp M , V IW � i (o WIC , IM 1n l!"JI Ni � Ni ? { i � 1 i Ti M Ct - N i � 041 ILL , m , 1 1 1 1, III 1 , 691691 A :tA M ''. b9 , b9 EA 'I A 69 A 69 ': o H ' A ' b9 : A b9 : H 69 691M 691 1 E 641tA, to 1, 60 o 69 ; 69 , b91 A1691V 169 itA lA ' A Hi 691f 1 69 M . Hf 0.' O O O ;OIO �.OIO1pIOiO -.. (D O , 010 0 0 ; 0 . © : OIO O 'I IMjQII OIOi O .. 10100 , � OOi O 10 ; 010 ' ..-- : O . 016 0 010 O . OIO : O 0 • C 0 � 0 ' 0 0 0 ! O O ; O O CI 10 ' miclo O ' ' 01010 X0101 M : Oj � Q S Olo Oi01o� o olololol r o ' CIO , 0 0 ! 0 , o oiolo IoD o ' ' o , o 0 0 cI ' Ir oltri . ' O O , O 0 : 010 01010 OTC : M O 010 O . O ', O ! O Ol0 , Oj to N In 01 O ' co 00 O O N . 141; 011� w 0 0 ; tn1 IUD N!lo Ir� loloio , v o Io ! 0 010 0 oio o c . o1ml n 0 ' m 0 0 rlo1, lol n IF- Lr) IW ! r` O ' N � 1n1 jr� Lf) ILr) ' O �I, 0 O ' M NIO C tn1 IOJ f� iM ' tr) I O m OIC N : O ! Ir itn Oi01 UIOIC9 . r r ! IN b NI, O SIC 1 " (Di0) : N � 7 ' IW C ' (D co � : MI Initn d N INlu, ip Q1 � , - Itni 1 N ,1 IMIMIMiN : N L7 NI 1 T N 1 F ! es '69 , e»'e/i ' Ib9itA 11, 69 to 169! 69169 b9 I69 69 160 : I69 t (7pr 1691 I a 691 N3 ' tA ,tA IfAtA itAi69 ; 69 • tA ; Ib9 Vi169 � , tAItAIlf3169IfA � tA 169 ib964fA :tA ,fA ' tAlb9 d 101 O '1 O . O OlO ' ol0 ' OlO O : . O O O ' Oi0 OHO ' 10 CIO O ' 01, 010 of O . O O ' 0 ' ' OIO OIr` !�pl IO ) O ' G1 M M . o O o 01ol0 o 01010 O , ' 0 . 0 101010 OZ 101010 01 OtO o 0 O 010 01 to o � o � r io ; 1010 °o 0 : o °o . °o °o 010011 °o1, °o °o l0°° , 01' ° o 616 , 6 ; 6 ! 6 , 01010 ml Maio c ', o o ! OloloD NI 0101 ' ' N v 011 oo 0 0 , 0 ' 0 , 010 D o M tnlo o , co 10 oIO O to Ic1 iolo s N vl 1, H O 0 , L0 tr , NICl i IOlo 0 '1, � Io of to o : o 0 0 , � to Ln 0) 0010 ; Dlolo ; ojolo10 o ' o m w 0Iwe IW ; r� olcv 0i �io1 ILn CO c, � o o r ; ' N DID MI M of Irn moll 01010 r) Itrii i0 ri, m O N 10 O. O L7 ' � C ; 1, r c to , '. N 0 , O ', C Mi NIO N ' L7 - o0l (DI (ol 100 .- ' h1, M ' to 0) N N , 010 � '. � IMI Ni N ! M ! Ni Li , N . 1, .- I, _ A UIN � : .- j C o a U (p 169 ,69 b9 169 i ts> , t» It» t» ItA to itA EAi : tA t!i ifA itA lb9tA , tA ; 6A : 69tR 1691 it9 ; tA 1; v.4 litA �tA 169 : 69 ! tA ' tA ItA . Ib9 , b9ifA lt9tA to 69 !fA ib9ltA itA 169tH 169 L E O 010 10Oi0 01010 ' 0 101 BOO 101010 OIpI 10 ! 01010 CIO0 ' 00010 ' O O O ' 1 OIOIOIh 1, p �- '101 . 0 ' 0 0 ' 010 010 , 010101 X10 or 1 010 O 0 ! 01 ' O , O OIO I (DIW O CIO O ' O ' O 010 IOIO 0101 O � O ; O ( 0 , 0 , 0 1010 ' 0 0 , 0101010 ' CIO IOI001O CIO :: OIO 0101 O : C O (�. ; CIO O 1, O O 010 17 OI 1i 01 '� OO IO0 OO ' O : Oi00 0 O IO ' � IOOI01 O ; O tnIO1 1, m IU71 (n - C � iO IN ' O ' O '. C , OO O IN 1, p • _ o oan rlNol � Iololo ; o ! � oMIO ! o ' o ; Io ! oiM o No m oo lm o n1 (01010 ololr CO 1 01 tD Iw10 ; OWN . 71, � ( rte j0 ' CI (p10 0 . � . 10104Itn ' 1 U I � � M i r SIN OJ1 � 00 N QI IN Ifni O) Iln V (nOlOM CI 0 , plO Q ' � ! C . 1M ' N � O I N ! N O I � � N IN N � � IN � � , ' Ni tnNpI � � � 1 � I � --! 169 69 'It» Ita It» , tfl jt» ItH i69i691t» ta! It» ,ta ' . 69 '1 69lbv •69jr» 1 It» It9le» , t» It» t»i691ti91t» Itn ItA1 I. t» It» Iltaj 1691tn 1(a It» j to t» I691t»It» itn 169; tfl 1. t» la9 If- IO Cltn 01 .- 10 N to OI (n O O ' O � 'I NIO 110 010 ! r• ' � I (D , O ! r N M ' C ltnl � co I ' Itn r ' O) I OiO O) • � 10) . � to Io ! v � o v to ltn m rnI II (n10UJ itD m 01oio : r , 010 tn ' 00j01Oi0 1 SIN N NIN ' : NINjN N N , NIN N ININi INiNINININI N ' N (r\Ij (nV N Nj WN 104104104 N CIO O OIO � � i IN M M M CICIC ' C ! C In iOiC C ' C !IC . C ; C ; CCIC ' ¢ ! ¢ ¢ I IC C - C ! CIC CIC � ' a ' CIC . ¢ 1 ' QIQ CCC ! Q ! CI IQIQ ; QIC ! QIC ; C ' C ¢ i ¢ ICjC ; CC CIC ! CC 1 1 1 IUI � I �I I I I ; i ''I I I I I, I I I, ; II I II I 12 -UiC9 , 1, w i � • S , I . � ' 1 < a i I I I 1 1 I I I z II 1W Z O . S W W '. ! 1, U. } : 1, W i01U 1 IIa : } I 1, a 1, W } 1, O • (r . V) ! 1 I � . 1 1 10 ~ Iwl IX ' } ICI ¢ > � I � : Ji � WI � IF- QI � i � 1 � I � I 1 1 ~ i 1, W : � I fLL X , Z W Oi Oz IzI >- iH O C � I ¢ IZlal � 1, ¢ Ia1 ¢ (nIWI �LJJ 1 ' o 0 : Z : �I' ! ( HILL' � I ILWL ' J . UJI IWILO 'I2EIw . '. � 1wi 01SILL IF- 1Q '' � ILv ! cn ' LIJ (DIC wIW1I 1, a Q a � � aIC � , Qi � la } ' n w ' - Iwo ¢ ' iw 010 011 LL JIUI ! w w ' ¢ w : U , C91 � n , LL , 1109 J ! i90 OIUOI n ' HILL � ' z J aiUl ni a ~ m ' ' a ' 1F- w1 J , U a 2 z alal ¢ ' CI � ; LLILf) D! IC9 , < 10 07 } I < i O wIOIC> LL U1UIU , U ' 2 J wi al ! � 1Q , z ; ' } zl ) . } _ (q , W WIwIF- 1, t- IQI ¢ �' w ''1 �- ' (¢7 il- la a1 - 1UI . cfla , `NIW :5 JIF-LLJ O a ' z10 ' wIU ; Q1 1, U > Iw - IOILJ � ; w ! wI � uI011' alOI � 10 a1, II ¢ IwIQIpiplw w w ! vl � lOia 010 J � a � jFll � lLOU j = iCi � 1dI0} w z (nlz LL ' w ' LL a w ' 1 - 11 1 131 (nIU � i (nIH Q ¢ , UIm1 . 1 - I a z QI � . a ' U ! p 0 ¢Ziw ' wIw11 ¢ � wI � I � ILL Ialcn ' pl � i' ainl � ia , ¢ Idi _° zI � j � 1 � ' � 1' � 1 � I � Ip1; w ; � IUOI (�n ; � jwilalUliniLulo d , UOIQ_ IOio oIo M 06 0 IO UI � • � !1, Z : :>: , 0 dlwlJi (< I (DIO � w ' w , L � wl ,61 < [ dIwwiUIo LLiQl1O 3 LL � QI � � � � � I � I � ! � � 10_ ; _Q � QIO Q QiQIO Q , _QIQ �10 O � °o : LL LL Q 01 I01WIJ ' C � C ! C ' C ' C J N J U W LLI � , Z IWILL LLiZ U O1 ILL LL LL ; LLILL iLL LL L' ! - - 1 - 1 - + - � - JIJIJ ; JiJ N LL ¢ 10 U , S ' OIWI J Z F' IaIZ 1021 - I nl OIOi ¢ Ial w ' Z 06IJl (n W ! I I : a ! CIC , C CI, ¢ CICIC ¢ I ¢ ICI ¢ I ¢ 1 LL , ] U1 - W CL ' ¢ 1U wiln (nl (n C ' CIC ' U HIF- LL : w , WIZ 101 U JIQIWIW LLl ' LU I ! aIWiJ 1, (n F- IJ (n IZ ' ZIZ Z ' ZIZ ZI � 'IF- IF- IH � IIW- ♦- H FIF- iF- ' rIH W WIW W (�J J UIW I ? I0 ; JJ1 � 12CLL F- IZUI - II (n Z Z J . Itn o ml a S O _ C ' C CiCICICIC ' Q aliWi � IH Slmjm � QlmlLLimI � IO J 'I Li1Q LL1 � i OIL ' ? iO � la1 1 � ! 2i � I � I � � I � 1 � � I � I � i nl nl nlU w j (n l (n (n : n ! � V�jIn W W LUIUJIO L c 0 0 N M m c. m a C o c r !l Ti � oI j � 101vi 'I o r IN C1 . ; o r� INI ' oi ' NI mI a. W 100 LL, ' ' in m . v ' IM . ° . Cn o CO 'IMiU (cow Z O . IN 'i0 Iri, > QIe» NiW 01 IN IT : , M IOIa) 1C' r 0 l N ' D iRJ '' IN N1 o ' C ) iM : a ',, Im N .ICI ' M IN , Z ' kfl b9 IfA � ItHi 'tfl i69 : @I rA , o rn ; ! Nll iii Ir m Elw LU l 0 rn o � M loll io aicn a M CO 0 ~ riW jto rl N ) 1' oi' olll c ! lQI iN ' WIo '. p , 'I � o ' Irl ; � IIV . a) ! U 'IIZ ICI Imp NI c iV , IN o1ZN , N ; OI Ic N i � , C i (fl I I i i ', tAlfH �litA to '. iVi bj I69 '. ! t MI M : Co ' r IO ri fD ' —NI Ire IMI Li j 1m , o D M � In la a) co 1 1 icn Ewor ' ICI j ~ � � � Iii I � I ' QI IIn 0; cn1, o : � I 1 w 1 Iol � IQI � � I NIUOIC� IN (D ' Mj Oj > 0 N ' Rio 1p , l .- I C) 0I �I, 01 a) 1 1 O ! N ! ZI j � r . ir') 1 ICI C'i "Ulo co i Im 'i cl- ! ! CO , '� IFn{ es 'Iea efl .e»- r» Iva . !'bsl @ � cl ear I o r 'IMI, IL7 IMI IM ', c 'I o lni log � (o . cn Imo : a> ! vi , C . °Io v � ', IMI Lni olElwl0 o , co D M ' :0i � LLI F- ' L i ° LO NI p i (D >: N I ml M ` IOIN � p : o 'I � j � rnl loll ° IIUio ie» a> i <s enl le» ! Ural Ie»i «sl m co ' a m a - e :I SIC N MCI IL7 I Cl) P O M : l0 (D ' ', M ', ; N ! (D1 0 '' jW ' O fq 0 O ! i � 0 ! IN : Ir 'I IC� i iOI i (7 C) N li 'O IH i0 Ln ' lwl i0 ! co I Colo NI jam ! 1 (01 Q O ' I m co a) tt LU; III i (D oil ' rn ! Ic) io ',i of �I � d N ofaolC9 ,, INM ' N � Lnl Irn 'I IC . A NIOIiOIQ . CL N ' � ., IMI Z ! r d N M — lai � m ; I ! jrn � , Ir � ! � � � a o °Q� Ien I I N I 691tA i, eA vi �, ' dd ',, lib9 '� (ni '� ,� I (D �'I Vii '' i � � A E --� --- - - - '- - - - -- - - --- L 1 � ! to ° — Ln ! _ N rr, IM ' jo � 0 `o 0 r jN iN , 01 CV LO 19 � ! IMI I O U IN M Lu j O to l01 O c , to i cOj M ! aio ! (9 ', r : ICI, ' rni a 10 j O ' p , ! Mi 'ICI aN C.ji Ipl Crji ilnl ' NIM ' 1 1 IQI m . NI IM ', ! M 1 1M f ; ' f9 �ien ira b9i :eH� Ir» i Iffll I » I � ' fA � I ' ; z I I Z ' 1 IZ : NLa jmII 0 'IQ Q , Q In IU . I — I I rn ' IQ ' I, w '�I 10 , Iw ! jz } 0 ' UIl) n ! IH Oj z ! ol iol ' > I z0 QIE : > < I ° o . 0' w I ! W ; Q ' (ni0 : ! 'I, aj iwiw l'l Ei ' a j O � I EIQ : ID , > I I z f of ' Z CQ � , ° 1 - z ! oi m Oj ° I LU 12 w . IF'- U OIco !, Q Q _ a� lI � i . wl ' � � ` Q � wI � Iop ',; w I w , U) I = a w ! m IWI, x II a) w . i ! ~ ' piOlm a) '' IZIa . .�Ib91iU , zl 'IQi . zi, ivI '' _' I Ei mi (rIZ ' , z plpip : cnll Ir . Iwj ICI I,Ij ° ice Wip . M IIw ' � j ; w° I ° Iclw ! � 0 i (n c � ! U I � 2 fiff WI IJ ', 1- I (DI mI � IQIW j m IU W . W W ' la ! Q V IW o K � , i (n 010 0 ; ! O '� F- , Ill IcnlUiH >>�� IOI m w W , W : W ! ': al Ol oI lV1i o ! W ' 41a ' > Ip LL ILLiLL ! a IF- ' , o � Qlo IZ trial c O O N a� c ry y O O r O o O IN o C f (D I I M1O1 I00 I O O o M r o M o O 0 0 � m M m n w N O I M o o I ' N m O C N U A r N I(D I O C lr 0 O M r (V ^ p 0 0 m n O ID 10 N O O C o o N m o W M N O M O N tD M o o C 0 0 tD N O O Q N C O I O o r N O 06 M O LO N m M M (O N Nw-)° M.N-- CO di to> tof to�f l t» tof 69 tof tof ltof i v9 69 I e» bc� l to> toil 69 69 tof to, I b9 to of rf 69 toi to. en d• i toi N l0 N O' O 0 1 I r N O l Nry i IrN M M (C D r N N C I I I to(NO lI 6o N I O r O rMI �O) O lo N O CO N o (D 0 C o 0 N Ir M m r: 0 mlo O fD N 0 W � 1 0 0 (DOOM M j I �lr C M(D M (^ O O M O O M r... (D U U (D (D (D M O M o O N. O o w 0 N N ` O O (D o-tf o m O V_: o (D m N O� N N 0 o M N (D (. to, 69 69 to� to, 69to> to' 0�- to? tof169tH to to� toto, (O O I I I (D r f` O (D O O O N O l l Nm) jo•r m O 00) lQ) I (o n M I fN� I I O O I O O I I m(D O O r O O Ir C I r N N�o(n r r N I i l N N o O O O w 00 M) oOOO) 0 NCCM 26 0 o o C O C O O CO O r 0 (° N O m- t (n 0 0, to 0 rn rnHv) m w pIM t' o o D IM i (D N m 16 C61 (6 06 M 0 r N (D M O M Cq o N M � to toi toT toi tof to! 69 tof to3 VD/ tol b9 69 tq toj 6'f 69 ` to e» N I toi I toi O O 0 0 U—T N 0` 0 O C l l o 0 l I M I O O l C O O O O O ( O I f I lO leo» I (D CO It l I(O p 0 C14 O O W O m N O O r 0 (D ; � M O O O o M r 0 M o o o o (O N O C ! C N o C m N N N m O m O O o (p m N O) M N N o o N O O) m w 0 (WD fO O b to t` C n 0 I O o o N r 4 N v r o U 69 6toj toi toi 69'» e9 toi » toi» i i f 69 tol too/ 'tofltoil 69 iti O O O O O Ol0 0 (n I m 'toi tof toi to> to; <n to� 1 Clio. toN f toM f 169 r r N I(r n IIN^O O O 0 O O O O O) 0 0 O 0 0 O O O E ' O 0 0 0� 0 0 1N 0 0 0 (D o M O O ( O o o C N O 00 »a) N O 0 o O oire ) 0 0 O (") M M M C L OIL m L (D M m N m 0 mC (O (D' (01 N M N N 0 O o O CD 00 (D M 1 o M (D r CO o N a O N C 69 to69 to> to s to to 69 tot tof w ru N M to t» 69 toil 69 0 l I 00 l io 1 1 o o 0 0 Co n l 1lI r r 0 oIry o r I 1 .fm N M 0 00 I oo 0 0 0 00 00 o O ] ( i 000 N'O r r . O O I N o o N m O O co T O O C O O N O O C N M O m o N I ( f O N 1 O M r 0 d O W o lm�m N f 00 M N O M N (O M N N f`O O 'a N M M N o o too/ tof 69 to) t9 969 `- b9 to 691691 t, tJ9 69169 try tot 0i 164Y Ib9 I I p I o r I l I o Z I I� a lIII W wUUa Il Cw a7 aT a�f < I ao l s 1Ia Q— 1 I I o �Ma �l 11 l 0 r I i 0 I I I 0 M I o N� ao V h i I Cm�Q°9 l I I I� lan' m o �- . . i to o iQ Z 0 m a 0 N o 1 I LO rN I Io_ V I N M 0 o 0 o m O O O O O O , V m m m m m m m m C C p (D (D (N D I aa a a ((a • l J M z aa a a a a a L) w � z O Lill LLJ o z U J W wI U Q W WJ W X Z O Z W O W ai a a a U to w Oh o CL a < o r LL 10 to w d I Q p U of z z . Iz U U U w Q Q J O W W W N F- O Iw Z l W IW 00. 0Z) W QQ Z (n Occ UUU .4) O 0 U Q (/) < W 0 U W -j w O � z � O � D V) (1) w > j > o OF U cz z0 p Z LL . zJ > cna aLLW } YYzixo z IL > a L) ° - LL [n a - O LL O ¢ f - O0U � - z0 W W W (nQW UN OZUJ J > W O � m O mJZU WZZZ oox OCU JUpU U U Z' 00 < oQ � U of J Q W ZO W w � tnrJ UU (n � wS a (n J Oa � w r (nQ n _ J ZQ' Z W ULLUU CO [DLL' Z K � Q Q � a � O � UJz_ 3U2U W S JU (L (n Q WQ E LLOC'JZ � YU LL QS 2' w (nz — U - - JW U' LLLL O � WU 2Q Q 2 O I w (nUU` WTI > WF- JJU' m p � ULLQ (`l � Q E � QQp W Jw Qw O } Z QZ LL OUZ (DmZD J — V— Q � J i2 OIS H 0 0 0 LL 4. UIW UI ~ S LL < I O w D I Z W ZQ � W � - O W LL (O (DU (D < F- UU C7 D2 � �-- ITIL as N a� r a ° I N O N N N I 1 D I O I i! a) M a a) O I n t O O M M m fT I r M N 7 1 N t(n r I I N (D 1 m O tO w m a) a) N - m 0 0 r r 0 7 O M o m r m O m O W (D r N m aI R IO a) a) U) m m (D M r Q) O O O) L V O O to (3) , m o m O N M W m r W m m O M o O m m N l a) a) m NI O C m ( M W N a) 0) co co 10 M (D MM co 0 0 Q O NM � m o IL to V) to 69 tAh V9 V9 to to to !b9 to (64 �69 b9�b4 69 6'9169 b9 b9�bAI Vf b4lto �tA �to�b9 �tA �fA to fo b9 Ib9 69 69 b4 �to� m 1 M O a) O N ql 0 t0 (D O O M 00 a) Q O r If` I �+ O (D N M N I a) M V m O N 10 0 N '7 O) M 0 I ^ O w N m 0 N ~U 0m N r q m co 7 O a) N r O O M O r O M fm` r r r D) I O �O M O O 6 r D) 0 co O O N OW U) m qt- O � m n O a M (D O) m co W o M m M (D to N (D N m m ll: m _ 7 tN a) (D m 0- M 'V O) m O m w 0 M M m m m t� m 7 N lD O M m O O 1 (I) -1 a 69 69169 69 69 b9 to it+'9 !fl fo to to tf9 691 to 64 b4 V9 69 to fA Vi 1 to 69169169 to 1 to b9 169 Fo //! 1 fo try I to b9 i 69 . C3) M N 00 (n N m h L)Q I1 I I I M O) M Ol O t` O7) . O 0 O O m co M O m O O N m O) V w M M O 0 0 M y M 0 0 N 00 C; 00 O) (f O f� t0 O Q) m M N Q) o U fD W 0 o O N O m 1. O M a) m M 0 (f V M V O) m a) t" r N m I m N O N4 O I L m 47 N f� I n � r IO I NIM m O O a N 0 0 V 7 m m N 7 O) N t� m V N to O V N O r O M 100 (�D � lr D m ^ (O I � 4 a to 69 69 b9 to 169 to 69 to to to 69 69 b9 It» 169 69 to b9 691 t» 69169 to 1691 to b9I to 169 69 69 b9 /o M to !A to to U U ° m M M fD IO O � IN , r I7I 01MI O F"t� o M 0 0 rniN (0n la) I O N I^ O 0� O O) I O O cy;Z cc m a W F- N (Nn O O am0 t�nm 7 O V K 10 M (MD O (Onl m7 (°)n (oDl N 7 co VI N r` � toI O co U (n W V) O 7 M n M r N 0 co N N to 1 . N O O N O N M n N � I O MIm V - ^ 1 m (n co o N N m N O N W O M 7 M n O m N M O) m m O M V O 0 m (D O N M m .- n O N m N ° N Q) M N M m N n m 7 N N er M t� r O) M r - � r r 0 M r co (O V lD N O. U w a , m I r r I ^ I o p to to b9 to 69 to b91691to to to 169 to b'9 69169 to to fo to to I69 to to b9 691 Ml M169 b9 Ito to V) to b9 b9 691 to 0 O 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! O 0 (D OI O O O o 0 E I oflf o0 000000 00 0 01000 0000 10 0010 0 0 0 01 0 00 E m ,� W (pl r M ' O O 7 NI - V 0IM C) , 0) IN O M , a) �N 7 N I ' Im � ! I O N (� n O t` a) I I0 N N O O O (D M O N m M N m M r m m m N m f` O) N t` 0 ^ I N I r` (n V) O dO Q1 nI N 7 0 0 R M n o W 7 N O) M N n 0 o N M 0 7 O (D m O O Q O N Q M n I O m N 7 m M n n T N M r r r a) M (n N O N 'a N N m 0 to to (+9 69 69 69169169 to 69 to 169 69169 Ito t/T 69 to b9 to 69169 b9 69 169169 b9169 to to to k (0 69 to b9 69 tfo O 00 00000 O O O 0 0 0 0 OIO 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O O 10 10 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O m f` t` 0 f` M f� (n 0 0 O m r M, m to r O O O 1 0 N O co) O) to 7 O -a 7 t� O r - (D N O O (D M I M M (D r m N I m O a) 11') N (n f\ V O .d. M W V m Q) O r V (D r W `7 n V to (D m (`-) m N a) C m f M t� V m N C to m d0 N M m O T' - r O) m � � V W N n 0 O � N I M W I m m I O (D m D o Q 0 O m f� O m to M M t` t� R a) I to "a¢ N m N r r r 691 1691 to 69 w 169 Vl1691 b9 M 691 to i b9 to 69 Nf W9 to tat to ff9 to 69 VT b9 i to l Ito to t9 b9 69 b9 V9 H! M9 I M to _ I _ _ I I O I N N ^ IO N N Olr NI O O r N M n r N M 7Ir NIM 00 N (O O O O O N m r ' m 7 n V' M M M N m (n m N M V '7 (D fD (D (O (D (D to r - m m m N lD m r M n n (JI (n (n loo min n n n n n u n n n r` n o r n Do w m 00 CO M m m m oa ala al ¢ a ¢ , ala ¢ a s as a a a a al a ¢ a ¢ ¢ a ¢ Ia ¢ la la ¢ ¢ ¢ a a s Ia C) I I lull r ' ;' I I 1 11 � ' Iii i C J I J LU m U O ? r r (n ¢ , z z_ I Y ~ o z W Z v ? C7 O a a r z rn a a > U � o I � L) O m J ° x F- z JIZ � , Z1Q a m I (� Z J ¢ ¢ U ¢ a zIw w ZIP O ¢ g ¢ U rn W Y Y -j O wI im O H o C9 O zr Or- w > �Qw I a F- � ¢ Ir w m 2 � Y � p — w � > :3 p z ¢ ¢ m z x p w F- cn Co U ai ¢ mil ¢ O a LLl� la (n (n Q IF- z a � ¢ c� gJ3 0 � ma u> >- F O m c � Oaaa pYYaQaOYZw m F- ° O I(naa w JwUUwi (n � z (}i� � ¢ Co (nF- � `m hWLLF- aF- alaaxOC� W w0W x a p W F 0000UwHXN wZ ¢ 0HCL a Wz0` 'y } bd Lu 06a ¢ o � z � Ug a W F- J ° ¢ Ow W Apo pzw m m � rn ¢ � ¢ xlaaUw � b6 J ° a (7 LL � Z4'SaQ W � W � a � W � <n0 � ? ° wW ° �) a rnY3g3U (n VJLL W U ° U ° W ¢ w w p Z Co aaaFw � � O � Oaf ° 2z (nmY � zW > > cYa walrnCO -J 00 O U ° (r ° I Wa2 (n (nm (n (1) to0 (DOu� L < mz < � U)it(-DovLL < a- 10 0m V U (Dww � aLLU � O �LLI IOI � O F- c-) a a a a LL U o LL U m U M m a (fII Q I n r 0 I I O I o to to o I o O o 00 o o 0 00 0 0 of 00 0 0 0 0 10 0 w Ol O to l n O O 7 OI Im O (V N r D n N O F M N W M O (7 o It O m O M O O co O O O O 00 N U i N M m V O O o 10 O tD to n M N O Q W N N r co V N co V m 00 n � IV N ^ (n N N co co 0 N m m 00 I v 00 v m (D ^ r,% '- n N N M It'9 t» 69f t» t» rs to t» es t» vi t» of b9 vi try t» t» ttf w r» Iv> w tr. bs N O V N O O O M n O r O O (n O O O O O O O O Q (D M (D e} O O O co V O n N O M O O O 0 0 O O O W f.., N n co 0] O (n O n M O r 6 O r O N O t0 O N O F w N O N O O M tb N n O a0 O N O O r N N N U O U M O M O 7 O n N O to O O m O M � O v N ton 1 W M O N m n (D O (n 7 00 N 00 O O tD to n 'R M N N O Q r In p 00 �' O 7 7 7 n n M N r W N N M co O N S 00 7 co 7 LI) (D 0) n r n N M M LL ts3 to ert l rfr yr l vs «» b s Itn I I t» vi t�f It" I tsf tM. jt»I tsf ,trf w t» t» w tfll vi U(Up p nm to O o o r 0 'r o l 0 i0(C) O O O O n O 0 0 O � �I_n n O or O j I O O o ~ M Ov o N O M O O O O (O O O N N n 0) O t O 00 O M co 0 1 N N o O w W 0 C) U) to O n N O m m co V M M M 00 n N N mlc O I 0 co (Hrt r' 69 b5 e» � ty tH w rAv> v M m N O (p 0 OM O O 0 0 N o I� l f 01 7 N O M aD O D¢ w O O O (D 00 O O n N O N 00 00 Ln O M O N w m M N O U NM 00 m O O a (D N O O 7 M O M 0 N O O UJ N a co N m C N n b9 rf ff ri tn ri b9 w n � LLJ O rf es rf t» tr, w r) rf w (49 r! N Z I o 0 0 0l 0 0 0 O I 0 0 o n o 0 0 o o 0 0o 0 0 0 l0 o E O O o 0 0 (r n P: (/ O r O f 6 O tri (D O D) N E M O M m O O O C O (D O N (D m O D � w (D m I tD V m co O O O (D O v m 0 N 0 0 C O O O lD Q n O O (n N lfl N (n O 7 O (!") n ^ M N O W 7 O N Q 00 (D to O � J I n n M N r V N N m p0 a m tD n MI O ^I � I( M In N N MI . trf t» I by ri w r! w r> t9 rf w sf b9 tf I rf vi ri Irt rf tr to tri to t9 rf tR j00 0 l n rt 1 ldo+Y' ' !Ai t0 o IV 0 I (0 D 0 o0 I n o I. 0 )1 I f I N_ I �r 0 N m 0 I N 0 I V o1CD 0 0 f t(00 0 o o 0 o 0 0 0 ooI so. 0 0 0 O l N O M 0 0 00 O O O m Om Oct O w O I M O O O SD 0M O) 00 O n m M n M O O O n W (n O M m N O (O Ln co m 0 0) (D O N co M df b9 b9 69 t b tH1w O O O O O O o I O j o 0 Q)O O O 0"n I I f N N M V Z M M N O m N O O O O O O O 0O 0 O W O W N O")co co m m m m m m' z I w O w I I w m ~ Q ' I w OI IW o a I i Q U. p t- . � w wI l LL < Z) jw LL �z � loo a x w a J mI _ j a fY O w W U c w W � I ¢ Z OI J J Iz z IW O TL � I Z ZI U U a (n W Z Z J J Z Z w d D F w U . OI W E w z z m O O ¢ a 00 w a = w w U) I w > U > w Z a a O Q Q H m U) � ~ LL U w U z Q Q ? 0 w fr x O H z U) Z Z ¢ ¢ F O IX O qy a J w z z z w LL F F Q a a s z H o O LL ir U } to (n a w z z � > r U U w z Co Q Q (7 Z O U � LL w m O z z w z m w O w O m = cn � z � w ar � J w E w m O O Z Z ¢ w U = m Z O (� W J W a = J a m H } J Z t- 1- ¢ ¢ Vr LL o a J z `° U a J U a Q O on ? z ¢ 3 w a J U w a z } a o a a ¢ z z r ¢ } o v a of w . co a 1 = � o to LO > . w cwn ? c~ni mim Ia a o l M ' 00 rn p O 7 7 D N W F N (D O M 1� ~ O W 0:D co In O (p D�C%j co M W O. 0 N O N p M O M N NO a. CO N N a v v to to vi of » O N of C p O of N (D W n O 01 W c v v N N W O N ' N p M (! 1 O 7 0J 00 am v v p o f ° vNi l m W Lr> M ~ l0 W 00 a�0 C N W O p M 7 00 (^D 0 O N M O N � a m v v co u ? O m ID p U U p N M m < LU H D) 7 N co N N W 0? Q7 ! N N O W O U' m o] (O N �_• a N O � • 0 ( MI O N a U x a Ln M v o a .9 tPi tr, ('S E O D N M E a F rn M M o ui qtr (n 01 C C U' Dt m rn N O M m N < (n tD D bm.tR tf9 b9 M 69 O 0 0M MO O d M W W co co a0 00 p m m < Nm e;, r to /ff too/ t9 to rM Z m rq Z < it Q W W i U U W W Z Z < < W W !D U. w U) of zl ¢a 3j � z al m L) > f- pj W LL O p W < Z) a' J U H ' w U U a W LL O O Z Z U a p U < W H w wl x w < � W H U) J En J < Z O W W a <a O O fr O O U O a [r 1- H f- F- < _ a. < a a City of Ithaca 5 Year Projection Notes 12/8/2003 5 Year Assumptions : Revenues : Southwest Development start 11 / 1 /04 , phase in 16% in 2005, 47% in 2006, 25% in 2007 and 12% in 2008 Sales Tax inflationary 2% increases and SW activity phased in 2004, 2005 Incorporated parking lot and meter increases per schedule developed by P&D Inflationary increases where appropriate Capital DPW force account work transfer: 2005 reduce by $ 100,000 2006 reduce by $ 100 , 000 2007 reduce by $567 ,000 2008 reduce by $ 165, 000 Property tax rate increase 5% in 2005 and 2006, 2% per year 2007-2008 Assessment increases based on SW Development: 2005 3 . 00% 2006 4.80% 2007 3 .40% Flat thereafter or slightly increased TCAT in until new entity formed . At that point revenue and associated expenses come out Cornell Contribution increases or decreases as per new MOU , in 2008 and thereafter adjusted by cpi currently at 2. 1 % No F/B Appropriation Expenditures : Community Service Agencies funding stays out until city financially secure Depts budgets in at 1 % increase in 2005 and 2006, 2% thereafter Prosecutor's Office continued Unfunded Contingency in at $90 ,000, with SSCC at $68 ,000 annually IT fully funded by operating sources Insurance increases : 2004 15% 2005 10% 2006 9% 2007 8% 2008 8% Eckstrom payment ending in 2006 Bridge Maintenance in 2004 at $30, 000 with annual inflationary adjustments Cayuga Garage in at $ 150, 000 2005 and $ 160, 000 thereafter Maintenance of Roads Phased in increases from capital funding to operating funding : 2004 $250, 000 2005 $ 100 ,000 2006 $ 100 , 000 2007 $ 1009000 City of Ithaca Page 1 City of Ithaca 5 Year Projection Notes 12/8/2003 Benefits : Retirement Regular Employees remaining flat at high % through the 5 year period , retirements to offset annual wage increase Retirement Police and Fire remaining flat at high % through the 5 year period Fica/Medicare 3% to 5% increases per year over the 5 year period Workers Comp 15% increase in 2004, 5% therafter Unemployment Ins . decrease to $45,000 in 2004, $45, 000 thereafter Health Insurance increases : 2004 15% 2005 15% 2006 15% 2007 8% 2008 5% Debt Service: Debt service payments: 2004 $ 57248 , 579 2003 $ 4, 936,035 2005 $ 61346,829 2006 $ 6,251 ,403 2007 $ 5, 566, 967 2008 $ 514842360 Interest rate of 2. 8% for 2005, 4 . 5% for 2006-2008 , historic % Issued amount: 2003 $ 91650, 368 2004 $ 7 ,200 , 000 includes portions of Spencer st and rt 13 projects 2005 $ 31000 ,000 2006 $ 3 , 000 , 000 2007 $ 31000 , 000 Debt Reimbursements : For Cayuga Green $ 11300 ,000 For Bridge Projects $ 1 , 800, 000 $ 29500 ,000 $ 5, 6001000 City of Ithaca Page 2 ! - i i cn U - I cl0j n n N 117 I N N :f I I • i ' I � ItAItAIEAl b9 � 1 � : I . 69 , I ' I , Lo . plc QICO 010 ; NIO O v10 I - 0 . I7 �T CO r, ,1 � 1 vf{ vallealvaj eal 62. !i69l ! j I NT En oIO ' ; oI 10 Oln CIO _ : I , � i 0 oo � Iu -t n N ! co N ,I c'ql i ill lO 1 I 1 i6ql DI j r I I j I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i 1 ICI q I r : b9 , CD n O O Oin tD . Oi N ; p ! CD cD CIO V ni, 0 ' F N N ' IW Niw CV) i n n ; cO � CV) Iv�lenenlv� ! E» i r» iv> ' Ie» ' er� i ! i i i i I I i I � co I Ci I r � � O E ' alvsF» errsie» j Ial � ! - OI . coy— ILL 0) CD 7 o C:) �I• `s� `fll toe) I `s>I rl ° p 0 UnIco MI n oI I ; i ! � EINI VO ! O 1 c I N ! u7 Nit") • cIJ ; O ! - may ! 1 :64 eft rf rn ; ra e» «» I I I - ON v� { OI a) , Icn ' c° ! OI . o . CD ! d N Oi � ' ill ¢ I Q o i01 _ i I j r� lt » Iwi ' Eaies - , i I ct5 ! 1 � o ° n ; D ', n 0i � ' o D D m ; o ' 0 0 0 ' o v v ; Of �l I c-) v ' o : u� a' IN � `'' j .2 : 01 ; ono o - p : o co cD n UD1Oin LO mj n cD <D v - N — • A � O ! V V . N : co Lo coi N U . O , tD - N17i tnl N Ui NN •' tD O O 010 ; OIn ; cD , (D 0 , vv O ; cD • 0 ' Q , '71 0 o ' DS o . co' P- uo ri 1 I N urn Nn N v n ! iN IO O : O O ' O C U C\, `7 ; W I � . O N U 0 0 I EIE °� N 7 U7 T O OI: O o ° O O _ cr JxIL L LL u ' C9 ' � U ' F a ¢ f m Z U I al ~I'i City of Ithaca Fund Balance Activity G/F As of 1017/2003 File: Budgetreserves __._ Appropriated F/BI Appropriated General Fund Total Fund Unappropriated ; Per Fund Balance Year Ending Balance! J � I j Fund Balances ; Budge Used G/F Fund Balance 12/31/1997 j $ 4. 714, 769. 00 $ 2, 102. 130.00 $ 355,978. 00 $ 104, 171 .00 i I I i I I G/F Fund Balance 12/31 /1998 $ 5,402,809.00 $ 20580,631 .00 1 $ 536.623.00 $ I I � G/F Fund Balance 12/31 /1999 $ 5,234, 990.00 $ 2, 1081722.00 $ 503,593.00 $ 471 ,909. 00 � I j G/F Fund Balance 12/31 /2000 $ 4,286,718. 00 $ 1 .270,059.00 $ 704.892.00 $ 704,892. 00 I i G/F Fund Balance 12/31 /2001 i $ 3 ,475,268.00 $ 1 ,021 ,640.00 $ 698,453.00 $ 698,453.00 I G/F Fund Balance 12/31 /2002 $ 2,997,817.00 $ 11274,898.00 $ 441 ,650.00 $ 441 ,650. 00 i ' I G/F Fund Balance 12/31 /2003 $ $ $ $ j I To date 2003 revs $ 21 ,294,264.00 _ exp 1 $ 24,807, 733.00 $ (3,513,469.00) City of Ithaca Page 1 ! aDl iWl a . ' wi INI ! WI . W , IWI' � A ! , O • iWl ; N , im A • m1 101 • O ! ' O INI tDI mi i0i ml > . �J w1 1N ' O VII OI • OI Oi CO : apI N OI W ' Im D ' W1 ! m • V : J • ' N 0 , , V V J1 ' Ji . m • W � iNl m : W ' m ' , ml of 10 , O o o m I I I I boll I °oi : ooi , al ' ool m imp ! m ; Im 'I iml ml D WD Wi ' NI 10 ' ' m Vi : mi NI ' OI � I IAI : oI ' � : m m Iml ' IJI IJI 1J JI ivl ' N ,' m ' a . • W : NI . OI ; IDI ; m m N D 0 ! m io !I " i ia , 1m ' wI imI m ! Im C NI O Im , IVI IWI O ) iN ' N ' O Oi m OI ImI , N ' A IN IWI m ' ' ml 0 10 O ' O 0 Oi _ m ; IJI o_ IoI 'I O . IoI io ' , o ; oI : oi o to o ; I i t I i l l C l l l ! D X l l l i 1 (n = 1 1 1 1 C/) O li ml ' ml Im ' ml mi , ml IMl m ! m Iml Im Im Iml > < ml is W I i 1 -� j _ ImI ! vl 10 ' ! ml ml Im '. Iml N la A ! IVI c0 ' N ' tD ' W Im NI ' cO m lw (DI AI IJ ! (T a ' IA imI a i (T ! ImI N , a , ' WI Lp O : al IAi ' m IIOI INI N IA ; A Imi O m I'moll ; m ; lot Im > I ! W imi lay of �m :ol : w lia bll Imi � 1 m ' UII N mI ,v ImI �1m m ; ; mi Im wj ' m ; o ' IoI ! o Io o ' 10 ' o • Iol Io of IoI ' ol o io ' I, oj d IoI IoI ; o � , ol 'lo ! oi . o ; loi o ; ol, 'IoI of Io OI ' 6q tnl Ifni Wi fAi '.EH � iyf:. i6al fpl 6ni 4 Wl I(A 'Eq- f — — I I i Imo , ' ol I CID l IVI V m ml V . (P A Wl iip O . NI IN 1' N IAj N dig INI N m ImI fT . O ! m , N DD • OI I , iwl IA , Ni W 10 INI ml i i IlNV m I l : mVl I IA a I ,, AmI l I,' ma ,I jNV I i, m I ' N I I1IANm I I Im Im A +N V 1 : 0 Im IWI VI I iNi ml o v ' mI ol O N ,' cm V D m lm1 � 1 1Ni ml Im VI , W , ' 01 ml O p: : O + I Imo ; IAI , WI . Ni JI IN NI �..� 11 m O 1 _ 00 W W i Ifni it �Eni Enl IfA' IEnI iEn 'fnI �Enl ;fAI Ifni IM IEn IIi Z p G 1 hI jI hI h !^ to m ' VII V1 J ',i V1 m a , m WI IV m I 01 , N . m W I m ' AI V '• O o ! m ImI W 01 I N m (A IVtI IO m ImI Ni , tp ' 1 .� , , <pl IVI IaI . W ' Im W j 01 tw < O ' m ; IO oV I I O o J oO O '' f ! o IoI IoW ; 'IA o om :; IW o I tO o m !Oi mi o of 1 I C r N o ' of O m m o Ipp l 0 Imo , IoI I ' � ' i I ii., ; m IAI m . -• � ' w ro i � ImI � I Irn �� � ; N o • IM ! Ull a , IAI j � I a e ' I I m wl' sv`': n'' n' nl . n. : nl fn—Iw nl n• nl fn, z — — z 1 j l -4 n 1 1 ml > I la1 ' a : IJ 1 1 IAI � 'i Ni N N .. m O i cnl !Ini Im ' Imo ' Ia ' 1N m WI lai ! m w i � . 0 � � , m ImI ImI N , iN of m ; IJI w D m 0 • ' NI I10 , ' J1 ImI mi vl m ! V , NI , � ; Vf m . cn C) 10 , Iwl 101 ivi v ' w iib iv , � I o m X � Wi Oi ' VI ' : m 01 iN 101 OI ImI . m vl N IW : l 0 `- I I 1 II ' il I1 I i I I i t i I I I j I , I I I l I I I I I ; , f I , 1 M m ! w ' , oia : �+ ' N1 a m z IcD ' w ' m . A1 la ' mi im ' im ' m : Imo ; m D -i (n D City of Ithaca Debt Limit Schedule December 31 , 2003 All Issued Projects and Expected debt Reimbursements Assessed Value ! Full Value For Year ! Line ! _ Of Taxablel State Equalization Of Taxable Ended o. , Real state _ Rate Real Estate - ---- — - - -- 12/31 /2000 11 - - $816, 149,5451 99.68 $818,769,608 12/31 /200111 21 _$835,258, 185 100.00 $835,258, 185 12/31 /20021 3 ; $840,974 , 0151 100.00 ! $840,974 ,015 12/31 /2003 4 ! $865,744,8421 100.00 ! $865 ,744,842 _ 12/31 /2004.1 51 $918,490,8091 100.00 ; $9187490,809 _ I I Total of Lines 1 thru 51 61 $41279,237,459 Average Full Tax1 _ Valuation 71 $855,847,492 I i I Debt Limit 7% of Line 7 j 59. 909. 324 i _ _ NET INDEBTEDNESS SUBJECT TO DEBT LIMIT INCLUSIONS - _I _ I _ _ _Bonds Outstanding ! $181128 ,668 Bond Anticpation Notes Outstanding $41 ,705 . 550_ - Total ! _— — $591834,218 i EXCLUSIONS 1 Sewer Bonds _ ! $4 ,874 ,005 Revenue Anticipation Notes $2 ,0009000 Cash on Hand $29500,000 Reimbursement for Debt $41114,500 _ Housing and Urban Renewal debt $550 ,000 _ — Appropriations — _ j $2,524 ,631 Water Bonds 1 $2 . 908 171 ! _ Total $ 19,471 , 307 Net Indebtedness Subject to Debt Limit 0 . 362.E! 4 11 --- -- $ _ i I i Debt limit $599909,324 Less: Indebtedness Subject to Debt Limit _$40.362.911 Debt Contracting Power Available ! $ 119.546 .413 -- __-_ Percentage of Debt Contracting Power Available 33% Percentage of Debt Contracting Power Exhausted 67% 12 / 8 / 2003 TOWN BOARD MEETING ATTACHMENT # 13 TOWN CLERK ' S MONTHLY REPORT TOWN OF ITHACA , NEW YORK NOVEMBER , 2003 HE SUPERVISOR : PAGE ] cant to Section 27 , Subd I of the Town Law , I hereby make the following statement of all fees and moneys received b le in connection with my office during the month stated above , excepting only such fees and moneys the application and payment of which are otherwise provided for by Law : A 1255 3 MARRIAGE LICENSES NO . 01118 TO 03120 37 .50 2 MISC . COPIES 3 . 90 3 ZONING ORDINANCE 25 .50 I SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS 3 .00 2 TAX SEARCH 10.00 3 MARRIAGE TRANSCRIPT 30.00 I DRAFT ZONING MAP ( EACH ) 1 . 50 TOTAL TOWN CLERK FEES 111 .40 A1557 I SPCA IMPOUND FEES 10 .00 TOTAL A1557 10.00 A2544 DOG LICENSES 506. 05 TOTAL A2544 506.05 16 BUILDING PERMIT 1 ,285 . 00 1 BUILDING PERMIT EXTENSIN 25 . 00 I OPERATING PERMITS 100.00 3 FIRE SAFETY INSPECTIONS 87 .50 I ZBA AREA & USE VARIANCES 80. 00 I ZBA SPECIAL APPROVALS 100.00 TOTAL B2110 1 ,677 .511 B2115 1 SUBDV. REV . FINAL PLAT 100. 00 TOTAL B2115 100.00 TOWN CLERK ' S MONTHLY REPORT NOVEMBER, 2003 page 2 DISBURSEMENTS PAID TO SUPERVISOR FOR GENERAL FUND 627 . 45 PAID TO SUPERVISOR FOR PART TOWN FUND 1 , 777 . 50 PAID TO COUNTY TREASURER FOR DOG LICENSES 86. 95 PAID TO AG & MARKETS FOR DOG LICENSES 9 .00 PAID TO NYS HEALTH DEPT FOR MARRIAGE LICENSES 67 .50 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS 2,568.40 DECEMBER I , 2003 SUPERVISOR STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF TOMPKINS , TOWN OF ITHACA 1. TEE-ANN HUNTER, being duly sworn , says that I am the Clerk of the TOWN OF ITHACA that the fore(Toing is a full and true statement of all Fees and moneys received by me during the month above stated , excepting only such Fees the application and payment of which are otherwise provided for by law . Subscribed and sworn to before me this Town Clerk day of 20 Notary Public TOWN OF ITHACA Highway Department November Town Board Report for December 8, 2003 Meeting Administration November was elections . We put out the voting machines at the polling places without any problems . The Public Works Facility had its maiden experience as a polling place . The poll watchers were please with our facility and were very comfortable, or as comfortable as one can be, for the extended hours they spent here . Roads Leaves were the call sign for November . The leaves were perverse this year—they would not fall . We had to extend the leaf vacuum pick up this year . We, again this year, picked up bagged leaves every Monday through the month of November . This practice seems to help people who were not able to get their leaves out in time for the leaf vacuum . The highway crews put up many signs, and ground out stumps in throughout the Town. There were some unusually high winds with the subsequent clean up of trees and branches that came down . The crews also completed repairs to the salt mixer, in between making sure that the plows were ready to go for the snow season . We had leaf boxes on some trucks so long; we were worried how we would cover all the roads if it snowed . Parks and Trails We finished installing the drainage pipe along the Texas Lane Walkway to help a problem at the end of the road and along the Ruoff' s property . Final mowing of all our sites and leaf blowing was done on the lawns and trails . Water and Sewer Again, the sewer lines below Easthill Plaza had a blockage . We have billed Cornell University in the past for this work, and Dan Walker is working with Cornell on a solution to this problem. The Highway crews started tree removal around the Ridgecrest water tank . We installed a water service at 126 Park Lane; a section of water main had to be dug up and re-chlorinated . The Town's Engineering Technicians and Water and Sewer Maintenance Supervisor managed and inspected the Stone Quarry Road, West Hill, and Bostwick Road tank and T-main projects . Testing and disinfections of water mains and tanks is ongoing. The Coy Glen water main and pump station project also began this month. The Engineering Technicians continue to perform Dig Safely New York mark outs for the Town' s sewer lines, and are working with the highway crews on various projects . Intermunicpal Work We continued, as long as the weather and machinery permitted, to put down shoulders with other municipalities . ghk r o � OFIT�9� 9 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N . Y . 14850 �4�' W j 04 Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P . (607) 273-1747 Director of Planning FAX (607) 273-1704 Planning Director ' s Report for December 8 , 2003 Town Board Meeting DEVELOPMENT REVIEW November 4, 2003 Meeting : The Remington — Follow-up Sketch Plan, 1000 East Shore Drive : The Planning Board considered a follow-up sketch plan for The Remington located at 1000 East Shore Drive between East Shore Drive and Cayuga Lake , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . ' s 19-2-29 and 19- 1 - 5 . 2 , Business "E" District. The proposal includes demolishing the two existing buildings to construct a two-story lodge including a 258-seat restaurant, 25 guest rooms , and a new boathouse. The proposal also includes 163 parking spaces ( 107 spaces on site and 56 spaces located to the east of East Shore Drive) and the continued use of the existing marina (boat launch and docking facilities) . Cornell University, Owner; Paramount Realty Group , Applicant; David A . Schlosser, Agent. Briarwood II Subdivision — Follow-up Sketch Plan , Between Birchwood Drive and Sapsucker Woods Road : The Planning Board considered a follow-up sketch plan for a Master Plan development involving a proposed 50-lot subdivision located off Birchwood Drive North, Birchwood Drive, Salem Drive , and Sanctuary Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . ' s 70- 10- 3 . 5 and 73 - 1 -8 . 22 , Residence District R- 15 . The three phased proposal includes 48 residential lots and 2 park land / open space lots on approximately 48-acres with road connections created between Birchwood Drive and Sapsucker Woods Road and between Salem Drive and Sanctuary Drive . Phase 1 proposes to extend Birchwood Drive North to the East for 12 residential lots with additional lands added to Salem Park. Rocco Lucente, Owner; Lawrence P . Fabbroni , P . E . , L . S . , Agent. Overlook at West Hill — Sketch Plan , 1290 Trumansburg Road : The Planning Board considered a follow-up Sketch Plan for the proposed residential development, Overlook at West Hill , located at 1290 Trumansburg Road (NYS Route 96) , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24-4- 14 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . The proposal includes subdivision of the 48 +/- acre parcel into 27 lots, including a 5 +/- acre parcel for the existing medical practice, one 24 +/- acre parcel for a 128 -unit multiple family community in 16 buildings and a community center, and 25 parcels for single family residences . The proposal also includes rezoning of the 24 +/- acre parcel from Residence District R- 15 to Multiple Residence District. Song Ja Kyong, Owner; Aris Investments, Applicant ; Grace Chiang, AIA, HOLT Architects , P . C . and Peter Trowbridge , Trowbridge & Wolf, Agents . The Planning Board declared its intent to be Lead Agency to conduct the environmental review . November 18 , 2003 Meeting : Wireless Telecommunication Facility, 756 Dryden Road : The Planning Board granted Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and issued an affirmative recommendation to the Zoning i di . Az 3, ass r l �vtivn of lth�Fl����ng� z��etct� R�pvr� k Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed wireless telecommunication facility on the existing water tank at the McConville Barn of Cornell University, 756 Dryden Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 65 - 1 - 5 . 2 , Residence District R- 30 . The project involves installing 9 panel antennas on the walkway handrail of the existing water tank and 3 base transmitter stations on a concrete pad near the base of the tank. Cornell University, Owner; T-Mobile, Applicant; Curt Kolakowski, Agent. Follow-up Recommendation to Town Board Regarding Additional Changes to the Proposed Zoning Revisions : The Planning Board issued an affirmative recommendation to the Town Board regarding additional changes to the proposed Town wide comprehensive revisions to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Map , including text changes in the "Addendum Containing Language Changes Suggested by the Codes and Ordinances Committee or the Planning Board Subsequent to January 15 , 2003 [Cumulative through October 20 , 2003 ] ," and a minor update on the Proposed Zoning Map (August 25 , 2003 ) . CURRENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROJECTS/FUNCTIONS The following are accomplishments or issues that have been dealt with over the past month. SEAR Reviews for Zoning Board : No SEQR reviews for the Zoning Board were done since the November report (the November 17th ZBA meeting was cancelled) . Codes and Ordinances Committee : The Committee met on November 19 , 2003 to continue consideration of revisions to the local law establishing fees, including Clerk ' s fees , development review fees , and Building and Zoning fees . The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for December 17th , 2003 , where discussion will continue on the revised fee law and suggested revisions to the Town Environmental Review Law . Transportation Committee : The Committee met on October 30th and November 20th , 2003 . Agenda items included an update on fall Sheriff' s patrolling and speed monitoring, discussion regarding preliminary results of the residents ' survey, review of additional volume and speed data analysis, and continued discussion regarding the transportation plan process . To date, over 600 transportation surveys have been completed and returned to the Town. These are being processed by the Planning Intern. Information regarding town constables was collected by staff and reported to the Committee . The Committee discussed possible resources for preparing the Transportation Plan, including the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council, Town staff, and the possibility of hiring a transportation consultant to assist with portions of the Plan. The next meeting is scheduled for December 18 , 2003 . Conservation Board : The Board met on November 6 , 2003 . Agenda items included a discussion regarding Six Mile Creek issues with guest Dan Karig, Chair of the Town of Dryden Conservation Advisory Council , reports from the Environmental Management Council, Natural Areas Commission, Viewshed Committee , and Stream Buffer/Wetlands Ordinance Committee, and further discussion regarding the Richard B . Fischer Awards program . The next meeting of the Conservation Board is scheduled for Thursday, December 4, 2003 . 2 ��"©�n�of�Ith��tckP�Iann,�t�g �tr�e�vr�Xs�IZeport ©eoenber�8, 2�10���'vBoa cl Meetin � . Zoning Revisions : No additional comments were received regarding the Final GEIS by the November 21 " deadline . Staff is preparing the Findings Statement to complete the environmental review process . The Findings Statement will be available for the Town Board ' s consideration of adoption at the December 8th meeting. A public hearing regarding the proposed Zoning Revisions is scheduled for the December 8th meeting . Following the hearing, the Town Board can consider adoption of the Zoning Revisions . MOA Planning Coalition : The Planning Coalition met on October 29 , 2003 . Agenda items included an update on the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan open space element and a presentation of the Town of Dryden Draft Comprehensive Plan . The next meeting is scheduled for December 10 , 2003 , ITCTC Planning Committee : The Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC) Planning Committee met on November 18 , 2003 . Agenda items included a discussion regarding the update of the functional road classification system, a report on the work on the Long Range Plan update , a report on the draft work plan for the 2004-05 program year, and a discussion regarding a pedestrian facilities report prepared by a Cornell student as a masters thesis . The next meeting will be a joint Planning/Policy Committee meeting scheduled for December 16 , 2003 at 2 : 00 p . m . Inter-municipal Sewer Agreement : The Planning Department provided assistance to Susan Brock in reviewing the draft Findings Statement for this project . 3 TOWN OF ITHACA REPORT OF BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2003 MONTH YEAR TO DATE JEC PERMIT YEAR # OF PERMITS AMOUNT AMOUNT AMILY 003 3071 1 Coe) 5 ES 2002 2 78g , 000 2003 /SD , 00 0 Cj70, OOo TWO FAMILY RESIDENCES 2002 / 23 ° 0 b 000 003 c O?qz iTy OZ99 RENOVATIONS 2002 0 /3 1,4 aF 003 O O Y %%gI Soo CONVERSIONS OF USE 2002 9/ 77 2003 .S �27z ,804p d/ 740, S6S ADDITIONS TO FOOTPRINT 2002 / 6divOd / 9 dp962 791V 2003 MULTIPLE RESIDENCES 2002 O O 36 / 79, 500 /S 9. y2g, too 003 'S BUSINESS 2002 G 0 003 Q O AG TURAL 2002 e o O O 003 G O O U 1 N41 IA 2002 o O d 2003 Z 3s, 00 o i7 1, o93,ovo EDUCATIONAL 2002 181 ago %y 2 270 0 ez MISCELLANEOUS 2003 3 .2y. ifgj ys y/tg�� 2o 790 CONSTRUCTION 2002 6O 1/ 40 $ 7 2i� E'vi6d 9 TOTAL NUMBER OF 2003 / 9 bo31, ;zoo / PERMITS ISSUED 2002 /v 6 a liel TOTAL FEES 2003 / q /l70,5 27/ C90 8S " RECEIVED 2002 /0 210 November 2003 , Page 2 t OTAL CERTIFICATES OFOCCUPANCY ISSUED THIS MONTH - 5 1 2 .5 / Coy Cy leNN IGd� � /UGLU .2 2 ;Z,;ZwaL 1' 74A /e A1/d CO� JjU la oe 3 ! at 5 )M56a0.y Aa . - ovtrfde coon dlec�k y / 0y Aor1r. s1'ec&d CA - Sv"Aoolri S goy Cada/;�v5-Yo,� ko0. - s'fozn.ye ,fx„' Id%,v � AL CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY YEAR TO DATE, 2003 - AL CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY )'EAR TO DATE, 2002 - 6 UIRIE.YCONIPLAINTS INVESTIGATED THIS MONTH - .2w .z SvMMerehlU 6v, '1./:,may code - ,c. o �•-ol«� ;a ,�, F�v a' From October 2003 : 1 . 358 Warren Road - property maintenance - pending. 2. 635 Elmira Road - zoning - pending. From May 2003: 1 . 203 Bostwick Road - fill - pending. From December 2000: 1 . 172 Calkins Road - property maintenance - (partially abated) - limited timeframe agreed to for complete abatement. From Mav 1495 : 1 . 1152 Danby Road - zoning and building code - legal action pending - Building Permit applied for corrections. Al 41: L COMPLAINTS IN%"ESTIGATED YEAR TO DATE, 2003 - 114Z COMPLAINTS IN%"ESTIGATED 1"EAR TO DATE. 21)02 - November 2003, Page 3 i OT_%L FIELD VISITS THIS MONTH orm Building Code - // 7 1 Law and Zoning Inspections - f 0 Safety - (0 36 05 0„'}`•,C I G!tUMeck ! Sc110�` Fire Safety Reinspections - J NUr2T i ti►5 t)p/K C, Fire/Emergency Occurrences - 0 Fire Occurrence Reinspections - 0 TOTAL FIELD VISITS NEAR TO DATE, 2003 - 5 y TOTAL FIELD VISITS NEAR TO DATE. 2002 - Ff 7 8 TOTAL SIGN PERMITS THIS iNIONTH - 10 TOTAL SIGN PERMITS 1-EAR TO DATE. 2003 - 5 TOTAL SIGN PERMITS N"EAR TO DATE. 2002 - & "ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Meeting Cancelled 41 41 Regular Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, December 8 , 2003 Human Resources Report for November 2003 Personnel Committee : There wasn 't a meeting held in November. Safety Committee : Attached is a copy of the minutes from the November 7 t meeting . As an update new first aid kits have been purchased , numbered and placed in the proper vehicle or equipment. Wellness Program : The annual health fair was held in November. There was a good turnout again this year. 30 flu shots were given and 24 checks were done for blood pressure , cholesterol , glucose and body fat . Personnel — Civil Service : Joseph Slater has been a provisional appointment since the summer of 2002 . Joe took and passed the civil service exam for Engineering Technician I . Joe was our only outstanding provisional full time appointment. I interviewed and hired a person to take over the crossing guard duties on Warren Road for Dewitt Middle school . Marge Shippey has been filling this position since the beginning of November. By filling this position it has release Stanley for doing any crossing guard work except as a substitute . Stanley has been moved from Town Hall to Public Works Facility working more directly as a helper for Joe Hulbert , Maintenance Worker. Stan comes to Town Hall every morning to do the trash and recycling run . He will be spending most of his time between the two facilities doing cleaning , painting or whatever maintenance duty Joe lines up for him . At times he will be filling in as a highway laborer to add some variety to his duties . Commercial Insurance : The 126 East Seneca Street building has been removed from our insurance coverage since we no longer are responsible for this building . The Request for Proposals was not very successful this year. There are fewer insurance companies that are writing for municipalities , especially ones that can compete with Selective Insurance . NYMIR is a consortium of other New York State-municipalities-that_has_always_been-of_interest-to-us ,—However, they have had their rating decreased and have the disadvantage of assessing more cost to the member if there is a loss for the group . I will continue to work with the agent to increase the deductibles to levels that we can handle the expense if there is a claim and is an affective premium savings . Workers ' Compensation : Currently there are no employees out on a claim . The Town undergoes an audit every year to adjust for actual pay versus estimated pay, which we are billed for. As to date we have not received the audit to evaluate and pay. The estimate that was verbally given to me was quite high mostly due to the large amount of snow removal overtime this past winter. More information regarding this will be in next months report. Disability Insurance : Currently there is one employee out on disability with no return date scheduled . Fellow employees are helping fill in for this person at this time . As we get more information regarding a return date there may be a need to authorize additional hours for our current staff or hire a temporary employee . Open Enrollment: During open enrollment is the time when employees: are afforded the opportunity to make changes to their health , dental and life; insurance coverage . For January 1 St there were 4 employees who cancelled their dental coverage and 3 that enrolled in dental coverage (not including any changes from elected officials . ) We have only 25 employees out of a potential of 66 enrolling in the dental plan , which is a 37 % participation level . This is low for this type of plan and is what causes the annual increase in the premiums . Two employees bought up more life insurance coverage for themselves and their spouse . Employees were given the option to purchase other insurance coverage through AFLAC with the Town offering payroll deduction . I do not have the results from that open enrollment yet . OTHERS : The location has been set for the annual End of Year Luncheon . This year we will be at the Ramada Inn on North Triphammer Road for a lovely hot buffet lunch . The preliminary work has begun for the "Reception of Thanks" for David Klein , Mary Russell and Tom Niederkorn for their many years of dedication to the Town of Ithaca . The event will be held at La Tourelle on Friday, January 23rd from 5 : 30 pm to 7 : 30 pm . Submitted By : Judith C . Drake , PHR Human Resources Manager TOWN OF ITHACA Safety Committee Minutes November 7, 2003 Public Works Facility Present: Tim Eighmey, Dave Boyes, Creig Hebdon, Fred Noteboom, and Judy Drake . The meeting started at 7:40 a .m. The October 6, 2003, meeting minutes were approved . PESH Inspection Fred Noteboom informed the Committee that the PESH inspectors had been back to re- inspect the violations we had . We have abated all the original violations. The inspector was not really happy with the way we fixed the hoses to the welding area, but they were still passable . Fred said that we will be changing them, but the amount of time we had to fix before the re-inspection was not sufficient. We will be putting the storage tanks outside (under a canopy) and piping in to the building. We bought a new ladder and the storage tanks were moved . Incident / Accident Reports There was one accident to report this time . One of the temporary employees was hit with a branch on the underside of his chin. This required stitches . The worker had all the necessary safety helmet, etc. on . This is a reportable claim (to PERMA) although there was no loss of time . Dangerous Intersections There is very little to report on this topic, although Fred said that he would meet with - ---the resident on-the corner of Coy Glen Road and West Haven-Road-to-see-if-we can come up with a solution (for the bushes in the way) . He will invite Rich Schoch to attend this meeting. We will continue to work on these a few at a time . We still need to prioritize them . Creig Hebdon brought the Public Works Facility's evacuation plagues in for the Committee to see . We will have the Maintenance Worker put them up for us . Fred asked Creig to make a map that shows where the materials are stored for the Fire Department . First Aid Kits Tim Eighmey and Dave Boyes inventoried the vehicles to see if they had first aid kits and other safety equipment in them. Most of them either need a new one or do not have a kit in them . We will order new ones and take them from the Risk Management line item . (NOTE : First Aid Kits have been ordered and are in.) Dave and Tim will look for flashlights in the vehicles . Dave said that it would be nice to have larger flashlights in the bigger vehicles . We will continue to work on a checklist for when a vehicle is serviced . Each vehicle is serviced every 3,000 so the checklist would include making sure the vehicle has items like first aid kits and flashlight in them. Drug and Alcohol Test Policy Judy Drake had given all the members a copy of the current drug and alcohol policy for non-CDL drivers and a copy of a revised copy. The Committee reviewed :this policy and made comments on it. Judy will make the changes and bring it back to this Committee for their review. This policy will also have to go to the Personnel Committee and Bolton Point before being presented to the Town Board for their approval. One of the discussion items is that post-accident needs to be defined more clearly. 2004 Meeting Dates We will keep the meeting dates and time the same for 2004 . ghk plo File Edit View Favorites Tools Help ' Town of Ithaca, NY Network/Record Specialist Report to Town Board December 8, 2003 Oct & Nov Web Site Visits �©Oct ■Nov 1200 1000 800 > 600 0 400 200 AMM , Home Godt Services Information Community Pages We • Home page has been revamped with new menu items, scroll and a 360 degree view from South Hill. Network Windows 2000 Conversion Project • Sherpa Technologies has installed the new Windows 2000 server at Town Hall. The Network/Record Specialist will have finished the client conversion portion of the project by the end of this month. This project, once completed, will give the Town Hall and the Public Works Facility networks seamless integration and will have increased our file server capacity by 50%. Additional Items SDG Database Project • SDG is working on tweaking the interface based on the beta testing done by Town Hall staff. Once these changes are made, the interface will be available to Town Hall and Highway staff. A technician from SDG will conduct the on-site training for staff. Records ManaEement Half Day • The Town Hall RM Half Day was successful in clearing 3.42 Gigabits of space from our file server. so - - Downloading picture http1/www.townJthaca.ny.us/ derivedlcontactus.htm cmp two-ithaca010 hbtn.gif... Internet Start Ci Cacheman Inbox-Microsoft Outlook rtr Town of Ithaca-Micr... P (�,�� '�V) 9,54,