No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2008-03-10Regular Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board , ^ Monday, March 10,2008 at 5:30 p.m. , ' 215 North Tloga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 I \ 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Report of Tompkins County Legislature - Mike Koplinka-Loehr 4. Report of City of Ithaca Common Council - Robin Holtham Korherr 5. 5:55 p.m. Persons to be Heard and Board Comments 6. 6:00 p.m. Public Hearing regarding LOCAL LAW amending Ch 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code, entitled, "Zoning, special land use districts" adding bed and breakfast as a permitted principal use in EcoVillage's Special Land Use District number 8 7. Consider and approve SEQR regarding LOCAL LAW amending Ch 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code, entitled, "Zoning, special land use districts" adding bed and breakfast as a permitted principal use in EcoVillage's Special Land Use ^ District number 8 / \ f \ 8. Adopt LOCAL LAW amending Ch 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code, entitled, "Zoning, special land use districts" adding bed and breakfast as a permitted principal use in EcoVillage's Special Land Use District number 8 9. Consider Zoning Board altemate, Andrew Dixon 10. Consider annual Rabies Clinic at the Public Works Facility during the month of May 11. Consider Local Advisory Board of Assessment Review members, Councilwoman Leary and Councilman 12. Presentation and discussion on the proposed Lakefront Residential Zone amendments 13. Consider DRAFT Local Law and set Public Hearing to extend the development moratorium in the Northeast through December 20, 2008 14. Consider amendment to the Consultant's agreement regarding Northeast Biological and Ecological Study 15. Consider authorizing submission of Safe Routes to School grant application Final- 03-05-2008 ^ 16. Consider Resolution In Support of a Federal Carbon Tax 17. Consider authorizing annual submission by Supervisor to Town Clerk of ^ Financial Reports for the Town and SCLIWC pursuant to New York Town Law, §29 (10-a) 18. Consider a setting a Public Hearing for April 7, 2008 at 6:25 p.m. to consider adoption of a "LOCAL LAW AMENDING LOCAL LAW NO. 3 OF THE YEAR 2003 REVISING THE FEES FOR DOG LICENSES" 19. Consider authorization to conduct dog enumeration (census) 20. Consider and approve appointment of Planner (per Judy 2/15/08) 21. Consider and approve a Town of Ithaca Domestic Partnership Registry to be maintained by and administered by the Town of Ithaca Town Clerk 22. Consider change order for Trumansburg Road Water Main Project 23. Consider change order for Hanshaw Road Water Main Project 24. Consider and approve Agreement for the use of Tutelo Park Ball Field by Cal RIpkIn 25. Consider accepting the bids submitted for the purchase of the medium duty ^ dump truck 26. Consent Agenda a. Town of Ithaca Minutes b. Town of Ithaca Abstract c. Bolton Point Abstract d. Approval of Records Disposition List - Public Works e. Spring brush pick up 27. Report of Town Committees 28. Report of Intermunlclpal Organizations 29. Report of Town Officials 30. Review of Correspondence 31. Consider Adjournment Final- 03-05-2008 t \ Town of Ithaca Town Board Sign-In Sheet Meeting Date; 1^0? Please Print your information to ensure accuracy in the meeting minutes Print Name Print Address e-mail Q-f^Us S^i'Th C/;, Jpifc t \)\Y\ (bi\!H^ Noc( AJJ {jVUJr III Wt/ Co44iAifrsi0 Br^ V<, k y-|a(UM0cJ;;^4^tHU(|m 'Td'j k)yc|LJ](ac^ jPOl ' lO^ t/S-d-tyy^ ^V- P/^K lad 7,77 )4n<.hl€j et-e^ Aot'f^^ Ic .. r I ^h^j /l/^ Qp iAj^ L? (P^l. Coi^ yYlSmTTh ^ S(BTi^CAJ% fr,cot^ (p ^<\KciS:r d]k yyyct i I.Qyy\.ctt fxCoty^ Id^dc)^-jcifo. cctn fyir>i<X<s\U cm. i\rj Cf*\. < \ /' \ i \ APPROVED - 4/7/2008 Regular Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, March 10, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Councilman Cowie arrived at 6:20 p.m. Call to Order Supervisor Engman called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3 - Report of Tomoklns Countv Legislature - Mike Koplinka- Loehr Cty. Legislator Koplinka-Loehr came before the Board and reported on the following: • Cty. Legislator Koplinka-Loehr provided Supervisor Engman with a copy of new committee assignments for members of the Tompkins County Legislature; • The legislature passed 12 resolutions at its March 4"^ meeting regarding the proposed State budget and the impact that the changes would have on Tompkins County residents; • The search for a County Administrator continues and the County Legislators are in the process of interviewing final candidates; • The County Board of Elections will be meeting with Ithaca Town staff regarding storage of the new voting machines at the Ithaca Town Hall; • The Health Department is in the process of moving from the Biggs B building on Trumansburg Road to its new offices on Brown Road, which will take approximately 18 months. The County is looking into the disposal of the Biggs B site once the Health Department is completely moved out. Cty. Legislator Koplinka-Loehr asked if there were questions. There being none, Supervisor Engman thanked him for his report. Agenda Item No. 4 - Report of Citv of Ithaca Common Council - Robin Holtham Korherr Councilor Korherr appeared before the Board and reported on the following: • The City developed an e-blotter, which is a web-based incident database that provides real-time reporting of incidents the Ithaca City Police Department responds to. The database will be used for public inquiries as well as tracking trends for public awareness and operations use; APPROVED - 4/7/2008 f \ f \ • Common Council supported an application for the use of County Room Tax money through the County Tourism Bureau. The City will apply for a feasibility study for the Stewart Park rehabilitation and action plan; • A new handicap accessible dock will be constructed at Stewart Park this summer; • The City will be working on its Comprehensive Plan 2010. It would be great if the Town and City could identify ways to indirectly merge the Town and City Comprehensive Plans; • Changes to the Exterior Property Maintenance Ordinance were passed during a year when there was not a lot of snow. This year there has been a lot of snow and the City will be reviewing the citations and fines issued to see where changes need to be made. The Ordinance has been successful and City residents and businesses are doing a great job; • Selection committees have been established for the positions of Chief Police and Director of Planning and Development. Supervisor Engman asked if there were any questions or comments. Councilman Burbank noted that there have been informal discussions between the Town and Maria Coles, 1®* Ward, regarding bike trails. The Town would like to work with the City to < \ expand trail networks. He was thrilled that work would be done on Stewart Park. ^ \ Supervisor Engman reported he went on the Dredging Tour held by the City. He noted that an option for disposal of the dredge material was to use it to extend the shoreline at Stewart Park; he wondered if that was still an option under consideration. Ms. Korherr confirmed it was still an option under consideration. Supervisor Engman thanked Ms. Korherr for her report. Other Business Supervisor Engman introduced Darby Kiley, Planner, to the Board. She will be working for the Town while the Comprehensive Plan is under review. Supervisor Engman suggested changes to the order of the agenda. He asked that items 10,11, and 15 be moved to follow item number 16. The Board agreed. Persons to be heard Jean Fudala introduced herself to the Board. She works with the Climate Change Action Group of Central New York based in Ithaca. Ms. Fudala quoted from "Carbon Taxes" regarding the benefits of a carbon tax versus the cap and trade system. Ms. Fudala provided a copy to the Town Clerk. f \ t \ APPROVED-4/7/2008 , \ Sylvester Johnson introduced himself to the Board and stated he is a member of the , , Climate Change Action Group as well. Mr. Johnson made a brief statement regarding the benefits of a carbon tax over carbon trading. He provided a copy of his notes to the Town Clerk and noted that the website www.FederalCarbontax.ora provides a lot of useful information. Margaret McCasland introduced herself to the Board and stated she was a Town resident and a member of the Climate Change Action Group. She explained that her daughter was a former attorney dealing in carbon trading and offsets in Australia. One of her jobs was to research offsets that companies could purchase to balance their polluting. Her daughter found offsets to be unverlfiable and often not ecological. She referenced an article from Consumer's Union regarding the verifiability (or lack thereof) of carbon offsets. Ms. McCasland made the point that cap and trade is more trading than capping. Caps are hard to enforce and the current schemes have stop loss measures, meaning as soon as caps become too expensive the caps would not apply. She stated that the lEER has a book published about a carbon free and nuclear free future that shows a transition to a post-carbon energy production that is completely doable with current technology. The carbon tax could be used as a tax rebate to help ^ taxpayers pay for higher carbon costs during the transition period and to help capitalize / ^ efficiency programs in homes, communities, and on industrial levels. Councilman Stein asked why a carbon tax was different from what is currently going on with raising the price of oil. Mr. Johnson responded that the response of demand to an increase in price differs for different fossil fuels. Economists have followed the response of demand to changes in price for decades. Price demand modeling has been done and provides a gauge on the elasticity's of various fossil fuels. Gasoline usage is one of the more inelastic. He noted it was advisable to have a supplemental tax, such as the current gas tax. The gas tax brings the price up and economists are able to determine the historic elasticity of gasoline. Bottom line, raising the cost does cause a decrease in demand. Supervisor Engman thanked everyone for their comments and asked if anyone else would like to address the Board. There being none, he announced that there was an addition to the agenda; the public hearing on the amendments to the Vehicles and Traffic Chapter of the Town Code. Discussion of the amendments would then follow as item 25a. Supervisor Engman asked if there were any Board comments. Councilman Burbank thanked the individuals who addressed the Board regarding the Carbon Tax. He stated that he was approached by a constituent who had noted that there were piles of abandoned yellow book phone books in the ditches outside his house. The constituent wondered what the Town could do about it. Councilman Burbank looked into the issue and contacted Yellow Book. The company apologized and was sending someone out APPROVED-4/7/2008 to pick up the phone books. He noted that the Town's Code does not address ^ ^ commercial littering and thought it might be something the Board should look into. ^ Councilman Stein wondered if such a law would be enforceable. There were no further comments. Agenda Item No. 6 - 6:00 p.m. Public Hearing regarding LOCAL LAW amending Oh 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code, entitled. "Zoning, special land use districts" adding bed and breakfast as a permitted principal use in EcoVillage's Special Land Use District number 8 Supervisor Engman opened the public hearing and invited the public to address the Board. Gail Carson appeared before the Board and introduced herself as the owner of the Wild Goose Bed and Breakfast. She stated that the bed and breakfast is an outreach into the community to individuals who want to stay at EcoVillage and not downtown. Ms. Carson felt that the bed and breakfasts at EcoVillage are important and was in support of them being a permitted use. Supervisor Engman asked if anyone else was interested in addressing the Board. There being none he closed the public hearing. ^ ( \ i \ Agenda item No. 7 - Consider and approve SEQR regarding LOCAL LAW amending Oh 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code, entitled. "Zoning, special land use districts" adding bed and breakfast as a permitted principal use in EcoVillage's Special Land Use District number 8 (Attachment #1) Moved by Councilman Stein, seconded Councilman Burbank. Councilman Goodman announced he is on the Board of Directors for EcoVillage Village Association and would recuse himself from the vote. TB 2008-064 RESOLUTION - Goodman abstain NOTE: This item was not advertised in the Ithaca Journai prior to the Public Hearing; therefore it will be placed on the April Agenda for advertisement, public hearing and reaffirmation. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-064 - SEQR: Proposed Local Law Amending Chapter 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code. Entitled "Zoning: Soeciai land Use Districts". Adding Bed-and-Breakfast as a Permitted Principal Use in EcoViUaae's Special Land Use District No. 8 WHEREAS, this action is the enactment of a local law amending Chapter 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code, entitled "Zoning: Special Land Use Districts", adding bed-and- ^ ^ APPROVED - 4/7/2008 > > breakfast as a permitted principal use in EcoViiiage's Special Land Use District No. 8 , , (now known as Planned Development Zone No. 8); and WHEREAS, said proposed local law would add a new sub-section 271-9.D.IH(13) adding bed-and-breakfast (as defined in Section 270-5 of the Town of Ithaca Code) as a permitted principal use in Special Land Use District No. 8; and WHEREAS, this is a Type I action for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board is acting as Lead Agency, and is the only involved agency, in environmental review with respect to the enactment of this local law; and WHEREAS, the Town Board, at a public hearing held on March 10, 2008, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form, Parts I and 11 for this action, prepared by Town Planning staff; RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code for the above referenced action as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part II, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. I \ , MOVED: Councilman Stein SECONDED: Councilman Burbank VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilman Levine, aye. Motion approved Councilman Goodman - recused himself ABSENT: Councilman Cowie Agenda Item No. 8 n Adopt LOCAL LAW amending Ch 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code, entitled. "Zoning, special land use districts" adding bed and breakfast as a permitted principal use in EcoViiiage's Special Land Use District number 8 Councilman Burbank moved, seconded Councilman Stein. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-065: Resolution Adopting "A LOCAL LAWAMENDiNG CHAPTER 271 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE. ENTITLED 'ZONING: SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICTS'. ADDING BED-AND-BREAKFAST AS A PERMITTED ^ PRINCIPAL USE IN ECOVILLAGE'S SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT NO. 8" APPROVED - 4/7/2008 WHEREAS, the property known as "EcoVlllage" is located within Special Land ^ ^ Use District No. 8 (now referred to as a Planned Development Zone), and \ ^ WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca received an application from the three entities that own the EcoVillage property (EcoViliage at Ithaca, Inc., EcoVlllage at Ithaca Village Association, Inc., and EcoVlllage CoHousIng Cooperative, Inc.) to rezone Planned Development Zone No. 8 to allow bed-and-breakfasts as a permitted principal use In the Residential Area of EcoVlllage, and WHEREAS, on-slte bed-and-breakfasts further EcoVlllage's principle of encouraging of residents to make a living where they live, so that they do not use fossil fuels to commute to their Jobs, and so that they are present In the village on a more constant basis, thereby fostering more frequent Interactions with their neighbors and strengthening community bonds, and WHEREAS, on-slte bed-and breakfasts further EcoVlllage's mission to educate the public about sustainable living, by allowing visitors to experience sustainable living practices during their on-slte stays, and WHEREAS, the Town Board reviewed and discussed the attached proposed local law adding bed-and-breakfasts as a permitted principal use In EcoVlllage's Planned Development Zone No. 8 at Its meeting on January 7, 2008, and referred this ^ matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation, and , ^ f \ WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board held a public hearing on this matter and reviewed, discussed and recommended adoption of the proposed local law at Its meeting on February 5, 2008, and 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 on March 10, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. to hear all Interested parties on the proposed local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 271 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE, ENTITLED 'ZONING: SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICTS', ADDING BED-AND-BREAKFAST AS A PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USE IN ECOVILLAGE'S SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT NO. 8"; and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was duly advertised In the Ithaca Journal; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties In attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or In opposition to said proposed local law, or any part thereof; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQIRA") and Its Implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, adoption of said , ^ local law Is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board, acting as lead ' ' APPROVED - 4/7/2008 f \ agency in environmental review with respect to the above-referenced local law, on March 10, 2008 made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and II, prepared by Town Planning staff, NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts said local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 271 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE, ENTITLED 'ZONING: SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICTS', ADDING BED-AND- BREAKFAST AS A PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USE IN ECOVILLAGE'S SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT NO. 8", a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this resolution; and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file said local law with the Secretary of State as required by law. MOVED: Councilman Burbank SECONDED: Councilman Stein ^ Roll Call Vote: Supervisor Engman aye i ^ Councilman Burbank aye , Councilman Cowie absent Councilman Goodman recused himself Councilwoman Leary aye Councilman Levlne aye Councilman Stein aye Public Hearing to update Vehicle and Traffic section of Town Code for Stop and Yield signs Supervisor Engman opened the public hearing and invited the public to address the Board. There being none, he closed the public hearing and noted the Board would vote on the issue later during the meeting. Agenda item No. 9 - Consider Zoning Board alternate. Andrew Dixon Councilman Goodman moved, Councilman Levine seconded. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-066 APPOINTMENT OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ALTERNATE /^ WHEREAS, there are two vacant Zoning Board of Appeals - Alternate member , . positions; and APPROVED-4/7/2008 WHEREAS, Andrew Dixon was a Zoning Board of Appeals member from July 9, , ^ 2002 through May 10, 2004 and is interested in serving again as the alternate member; ^ ^ and WHEREAS, Kirk Sigel, Chair, Zoning Board of Appeals recommends the appointment of Andrew Dixon, Now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby appoints Andrew Dixon of 319 Highland Road, Ithaca, New York, as the Alternate Member to the Zoning Board of Appeals to fill a term beginning March 10, 2008 and ending December 31, 2008. MOVED: Councilman Goodman SECONDED: Councilman Levine VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councllwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levine, aye Absent: Councilman Cowie ^ Motion Approved , ^ ' \ Agenda Item No. 12 - Presentation and discussion on the proposed Lakefront Residential Zone amendments - (See Attachment 2 - Packet of Handouts on the Topic) (Refer to "Introduction" of West Shore Homeowners Association comments) John Able, Executive Committee of West Shore Homeowners Association, introduced himself to the Board. He briefly explained that the WSHA recently became active again and its members are interested in a number of issues. Mr. Able asked Ms. Mary Shelly to address the Board regarding the survey they conducted. Ms. Shelly introduced herself and briefly explained the survey results. She walked the Board through the West Shore Homeowners Association comments regarding the proposed lakefront zoning. Dave Kemess introduced himself to the Board (he is treasurer of WSHA and Ulysses Town Board member) and stated the WSHA supports the intent of the regulations. He believes it is important to have common laws across the region. Ken Zeserson, Chair of Ulysses Planning Board, would like to attend some of the Town's Planning Board meetings to develop relationships between the towns. Mr. Kerness thought that Ulysses would like to learn from the Town of Ithaca and make legislation in the region consistent. He asked if there were any questions from the Board. ^ \ / > APPROVED-4/7/2008 , V Councilman Stein asked what people would do if their dock length was not sufficient for , their boat? Mr. Kerness replied that there is probably a grandfather clause', thus applying the restrictions to new construction. Mr. Kanter confirmed that existing docks would be grandfathered in and the new regulation would apply to new docks or substantial reconstruction of existing docks. Councilman Stein thought then that people would not buy a boat that they were unable to dock. Mr. Kerness responded that it was either that or they would not buy the house. Mr. Kerness reiterated that the WSHA supports dock regulations. Supervisor Engman mentioned that the Town has an existing law and the Board is discussing amendments to the existing law. He also explained that people moor their boat if it is too large to dock. Councilman Stein understood that the proposed amendments would be more permissive than the existing legislation and that Mr. Kerness thought the law should be even more permissive. Mr. Kerness confirmed and stated that in certain portions of the lake there is demand for longer docks. Mr. Kanter suggested that Ms. Balestra make her presentation, which will answer some of the Board's questions. Ms. Brock clarified the current law limits dock length to 30 feet, but that longer dock lengths may be approved by the Planning Board when / ^ necessary to reach adequate water depth for proposed boat docking. \ Supervisor Engman asked if there were other members of the public who wished to address the Board. Jonathan Culler introduced himself to the Board and stated that he owns a seasonal cottage on the west shore. He seconded the comments of his fellow WSHA members regarding the concern for water quality and beauty of the lake. He commented that where his cottage is located there are steep cliffs and there is not 25 feet between the waterline and the cliffs. A small storage shed is needed by the waterline to store items such as oars, beach equipment or water equipment. His property would not meet the proposed 25 foot setback requirement. The small storage sheds he has seen along the shoreline are very attractive and fit in nicely with the houses. They are much nicer than the properties without storage sheds that have the equipment littered around the beach. Terry Cool introduced himself to the Board and stated he has lived on the lake for 35 years. The existing ordinance limits all structures to a 25 foot setback and pointed out that many properties need stairs to reach the shoreline. He thinks it is not practical to have a set a stairs and he did not see how there could be stairs with the 25 foot setback. With no other members of the public wishing to speak. Supervisor Engman asked Ms. , ^ Balestra to make her presentation to the Board. Ms. Balestra made a PowerPoint t > I \ APPROVED-4/7/2008 presentation to the Board. She also included detailed information regarding the dock legislation to the Board in their packets. Supervisor Engman commented that he was chair of the Codes and Ordinances Committee for two years and they discussed the dock regulations over those two years. He added that it took CDC a lot of time to collect the data and there was a lot of discussion over all the issues. The decisions were arrived upon after long consideration. COC also tried to keep in mind that lakeshore occupants are not only boaters; non-boaters occupy the lake as well and may not find boat structures attractive. They also tried to remember that the lake is a resource for everyone. The committee heard from canoeists and kayakers and they stated that it is difficult for them when there are docks of varying lengths. Supervisor Engman stated that the Board has many options before them. They can make no decision; pass the current recommended law to the Zoning Board, Planning Board, and Conservation Board for a recommendation; pass an amended version on to other boards for a recommendation; or the Board could defer the item until the next meeting. Councilman Burbank thanked Ms. Balestra and the West Shore Home Owners Association for their presentations. He noted that there was a reference in the Board's packet of materials that floating docks did not work in this environment and he wondered why. ^ ^ Ms. Balestra responded that they discovered when talking with boaters and dock contractors that Cayuga Lake has choppy waters in the fall and winter. The water can be rough for floating docks making them impractical. Councilman Burbank stated that a contentious issue has been the question of roofs on boatlifts. He asked what lead to the decision that roofs not be permitted. Ms. Balestra replied that the biggest concern is the visual impact on neighboring properties. Mr. Kanter added that a COC member would be in a better position to answer the question because the recommendation for no roof on boatlifts did not come from Town staff. Councilman Burbank wondered if there was any evidence whether or not people were bothered by adjacent boatlifts with roofs. Ms. Balestra responded that it really depends; some parcels on the lake are so narrow that no matter what is put in the lake the views of the neighbor would be impeded. Councilman Stein asked if there was a solution that could be am'ved at regarding what building materials to use for dock construction. He thought that there should be a specific list of materials and if new information were to arise about materials being used, then they could be added to a list of prohibited materials. Ms. Balestra responded that there were no suggested changes to that section of regulation that Councilman Stein was referring to, thus staff did not review that part of the regulation. Councilman Stein suggested staff work with the WSHA to develop a list of items that are permitted or ^ ^ excluded. He was confused as to why roofs were ugly. He thought the boatlifts were ^ ^ 10 APPROVED-4/7/2008 f ^ ugly and was unsure if the roofs made them uglier. Councilman Stein could understand , , limiting the roofs in some way to make them aesthetically pleasing. In regard to the length of docks, Councilman Stein thought that there could be a compromise. He suggested that the language permit docks up to 40 feet, but not exceed 60 feet (or a given number) under any circumstance. Then between 40 and 60 feet, the applicant would need to demonstrate the need for the additional length. Councilwoman Leary liked the original staff recommendation of 50 feet for permitted dock length. She explained that the dock regulations came back to COC for review because the Planning Board was getting so many requests. Councilwoman Leary further explained that there was one person on COC who objected to allowing roofs because of their visual impacts. She felt that the 25 foot setback was unfair for properties with steep cliffs because of their inability to store anything at the shoreline. Ms. Balestra responded that staff was a little concerned about potential environmental impacts (sedimentation, erosion, loss of vegetation) on the shoreline if anything was going to be built near the cliffs. Councilwoman Leary suggested that there not be an absolute setback, but rather allow small sheds. Mr. Kanter suggested that this is a policy question. Councilman Cowie concurred with Councilwoman Leary in that the 25 foot setback seemed unreasonable. Councilman Stein thought it should be clear that stairs were allowed down to the shoreline. I \Councilman Goodman stated that he tended to favor some of the recommendations made by the WSHA. He spends a lot of time on the different lakes within the Finger Lakes and did not think that what the WSHA was asking for was unreasonable given what he has seen in his experiences on other lakes. Supervisor Engman clarified that the objection to the roofs on boathouses and boatlifts was that they prevented the lake from being seen from neighboring properties. He shared Ms. Balestra's concern about building occurring on properties that did not meet setback requirements because of the potential environmental impacts. He thought the Board should carefully review the potential environmental impacts. Councilwoman Leary suggested that different requirements could be established for that. She did not think that roofs on boatlifts would impact the views from a distance or when passing by. She believes that regulating to that degree is imposing one's own taste on what people can do. The photos provided in the packet looked very nice and unobtrusive. Councilman Stein moved that the Board refer the dock regulation amendments to COC for further discussion to see if they could accommodate some of the recommendations and complaints made by the WSHA. Councilwoman Leary seconded. Supervisor Engman asked if there were items the Board wanted to vote upon to give guidance to staff and COC. He stated the Board would need to vote on Councilman , X Stein's motion first. 11 f \ I \ APPROVED-4/7/2008 Mr. Kerness asked to speak. He stated that in the survey, 80% of the homeowners wanted roofs and 70% did not want sides on boatlifts. He offered to work with COC on the regulations. Bob Tiery introduced himself to the Board and stated that he has a 47^^ century in board, which is a mahogany boat that he stores in his boathouse. He also has a 25 foot Colbalt boat worth at least $100,000 that he stores in his boathouse and a 16 foot Hoogie Cat that he dismantles each fall and puts it in the overhead of his boathouse. Mr. Tiery stated he is not sure how people care for these things without a boathouse. It's a pivotal part of their existence on the lake. He asked the Board where someone would store such items in the winter. Supervisor Engman thanked Mr. Tiery for his comments and called for a vote on Councilman Stein's motion. TB RESOLUTION NO, 2008^67 Town Board to refer the dock regulation amendments to Codes and Ordinances Committee for further discussion to see if thev could accommodate some of the recommendations and complaints made by the West Shore Homeowners Association RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca refers further dock regulation amendments to the Codes and Ordinances Committee for further discussion and to see if the members of the COC can accommodate some of the recommendations and complaints made by the West Shore Homeowners Association (WSHA) during the public comment portion of the regularly scheduled meeting of the Ithaca Town Board held on March 10, 2008. MOTION: Councilman Stein SECONDED: Counciiwoman Leary VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Counciiwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levine, aye. Motion Approved - unanimous Supervisor Engman asked if anyone wanted to propose a specific change for COC to discuss. Councilman Goodman, as COC chair, offered to talk to individual board members about the dock regulations to get a sense of everyone's opinion. Mr. Kanter reminded everyone that applications can be made to the Zoning Board for a variance from the dock regulations. He wanted to know if anyone had any major objections to roofs on boatlifts; if they do, please advise him as this is something the COC will be discussing in depth. Councilman Burbank did not object to roofs on boatlifts or hoists. He stated that there is a general problem of protecting the views of individual properties and wondered if there were any protections being built in. ^ ^ Supervisor Engman added that the photos included in the packets were not from a ^ r \ ( \ 12 APPROVED - 4/7/2008 homeowner's perspective (per se) because they were taken from the Lake. Councilman Cowie commented that the picture on the back page of the packet material shows a boatlift with a roof that is quite obtrusive, in his opinion. He wondered if the height could be regulated. Mr. Kanter stated that the WSHA did have a recommendation of limiting the height and pitch of the roof as well as square footage. Councilwoman Leary reminded the Board about reasonable standards. Ms. Brock asked if the attachment referred to in the WSHA's comments should be distributed to the Board. Ms. Balestra stated that staff has the attachment (see attachment #). Supervisor Engman wrapped up discussion by saying the Board would receive the attachment. He then moved on to the next agenda item. Agenda Item No. 13 - Consider DRAFT Local Law and set Public Hearing to extend the development moratorium in the Northeast through December 20. 2008 Supervisor Engman noted that there was a new resolution provided to the Board that evening. The new resolution included a word change regarding the date of the public hearing. The date for the public hearing - April 7, 2008 at 6:15 p.m. r > Councilman Stein moved, Councilman Cowie seconded. I \ TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-068: Resolution Setting a Pubtic Hearing to Consider a Local Law Extending the Moratorium on Development in the Northeast Comer of the Town Through December 20. 2008 WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca at its meeting on February 11, 2008 set a public hearing to take place on Monday, April 7, 2008 at 6:15 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment regarding extending the development moratorium in the Northeast part of the Town for several additional months; and WHEREAS, a draft local law has been prepared that would extend the moratorium on development in the Northeast corner of the Town through December 20, 2008; RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby sets a public hearing at the Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on the 7th day of April 2008, at 6:15 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment regarding the proposed local law extending the moratorium on development in the Northeast corner of the Town through December 20, 2008; and it is further RESOLVED, that at such time and place all persons interested in the proposed f ^ local law may be heard concerning the same; and it is further 13 ( \ t \ APPROVED-4/7/2008 RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca is hereby authorized and directed to publish a notice of such public hearing in the Ithaca Journal published in the City of Ithaca, Ithaca, New York, and to post a copy of same on the signboard of the Town of Ithaca, said publication and posting to occur not less than ten days before the day designated above for the public hearing. MOVED: Councilman Stein SECONDED: Councilman Cowie VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levine, aye. faction approved: unanimous Agenda Item No. 14 n Consider amendment to the Consultant's agreement regarding Northeast Biological and Ecological Study Supervisor Engman directed the Board's attention to the new resolution on the table with a new Whereas regarding LES would discuss its final written report at the Board's October 20, 2008 meeting. The date was changed In the Resolved from September to October 31, 2008. He noted that the other primary change was the addition of $3,875 to pay for the extended study with LeCain Environmental Services. ^ ^ f \ Councilman Stein moved. Councilman Burbank seconded. TB RESOLUTION NO, 2008-069: Authorization to amend contract with LeCain Environmental Services, inc. for the purpose of extending the biological field surveys of the NE area into the summer growing season. WHEREAS, the Town Board agreed at a meeting held on October 15, 2007 to enter into a contract with LeCain Environmental Services, Inc (LES) for the purpose of having LES evaiuate the biological and ecological qualities of lands in the northeast part of the Town of Ithaca and formulate recommendations regarding possible protection of these lands; and WHEREAS, the contract entered into between LES and the Town, signed on November 15, 2007, calls for the scope of work to be completed no later than July 31, 2008, at a cost not to exceed $18,817, and WHEREAS, LES stated in their "Interim Report on an Environmentai Assessment of Lands Adjacent to Sapsucker Woods" dated November 30, 2007, and in their presentation to the Town Board on December 10, 2007, that additional field surveys during the summer growing season were needed in order to obtain a more accurate and definitive assessment of the ecological value of the study site, and ^ ^ / \ 14 APPROVED-4/7/2008 , y WHEREAS, LES has submitted a proposed revised scope of work, dated February 29, y 2008, that calls for a work completion date of no later than September 31, 2008, at an additional cost not to exceed $3,875, and WHEREAS, the Town Board anticipates that LES would discuss its written report and findings at the Town Board's October 20, 2008 meeting. Now, therefore be it RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute an amended contract with LeCain Environmental Services, extending the scope of work to no later than October 31, 2008, at an additional cost not to exceed $3,875, said contract being subject to the approval of the Attorney for the Town, and be it further RESOLVED, the funds for this additional project cost will be provided for in the General Part-Town Fund appropriated from budget lines B8020.405. MOVED: Councilman Stein SECONDED: Councilman Burbank f ^ VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levine, aye; Approved - Unanimous Agenda Item No. 16 - Consider Resolution in Support of a Federal Carbon Tax Councilwoman Leary introduced the resolution before the Board. She noted that it is a shorter version than the resolution passed by the City, but contains the same facts. She requested that certified copies of the adopted resolution be given to the villages in Tompkins county in addition to the towns and representatives already included in the resolution. Councilwoman Leary moved, Councilman Burbank seconded. Councilman Goodman brought the Board's attention to the second resolved on page 2 of the resolution. The last line discusses tax rebates to citizens. He was uncomfortable just saying tax rebates to citizens and wondered if the intent was to have tax rebates geared for a specific purpose. Councilwoman Leary responded that the language was kept as broad as possible because the original suggestion was to say the Eamed Income Tax credit, but one might not earn enough income to file a tax return. She thought it should be along the lines of the stimulus packages taxpayers are receiving in ^ ^ May. She explained that the point was that the proceeds from the tax would go towards 15 APPROVED-4/7/2008 environmental conservation, anti-deforestation programs, or tax relief. Councilman ^ ^ Goodman understood the explanation and was willing to vote for the resolution. ^ , Councilman Burbank asked if there are working models for the carbon tax. Councilwoman Leary explained that two provinces in Canada have enacted a carbon tax. Supervisor Engman called for a vote. Councilman Stein abstained because he felt he did not understand the carbon tax well enough to vote on it. TB Resolution No. 2008- 070: Resolution in Support of the Enactment of a Federal Carbon Tax WHEREAS, global warming, characterized by extremes of climate change, has been identified by an overwhelming consensus of scientists as caused primarily by carbon dioxide emissions from manmade industrial sources and by widespread deforestation, and WHEREAS, giobai warming threatens the well-being of economies and ecosystems throughout the world, and WHEREAS, legislation at the federal level Is being considered for reductions in heat- trapping emissions of carbon dioxide, through either a federal carbon tax or emissions trading, and f \ f \ WHEREAS, the cost of trading in emissions of carbon dioxide spreads throughout the economy like a tax, amplified by the involvement of Intermediaries such as traders, brokers, attorneys, and an extensive new regulatory and oversight bureaucracy, so that emissions trading costs society substantially more than an actual tax, and WHEREAS, uncertainties associated with the volatility of trading in permits to pollute will likely prove a deterrent to investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy, and WHEREAS, effective action requires reducing emissions at the source, not trading off the pressure to reduce emissions, and WHEREAS, a federal carbon tax levied at the sources close to extraction or import of fossil fuels will minimize the number of entities directly taxed and the expense of monitoring compiiance, and WHEREAS, a direct tax achieves goals for reduction of emissions by refiecting the real cost of an environmentally damaging activity, allowing the market to determine the amount of the activity that will occur at that price, simultaneously incentivizing a reduction in emissions while providing revenue to offset that damage, and f \ 16 APPROVED - 4/7/2008 ^ > WHEREAS, a carbon tax could be accepted more widely for a worldwide protocol than emissions trading since each country's proceeds from a tax would remain in that country with minimal impact from foreign countries on national sovereignty, and WHEREAS, local expressions of support for a federal carbon tax will increase the political feasibility of enactment of such a measure in Congress, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca declares Its support for enactment of a federal carbon tax on importers and domestic extractors and refiners of fossil fuels, as a more efficient and effective alternative to cap-and-trade schemes for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from those sources; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca urges national policymakers to direct revenues derived from such a tax to the development of renewable energy technologies, conservation and adaptation measures, programs to combat global deforestation, and to the provision of tax rebates to citizens, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk notify and send copies of this resolution to the following: United States Senator Hillary Clinton, Washington, DC f , United States Senator Charles E. Schumer, Washington, DC United States Representative Maurice Hinchey, Washington, DC New York State Assembly Member Barbara Lifton, Albany, NY New York State Senator George H. Winner, Jr., Albany, NY Governor of the State of New York Eliot Spitzer, Albany, NY Deputy Secretary for the Environment Judith Enck, Office of the Secretary to the Governor, Albany, NY Tompklns County Legislature City of Ithaca Towns within Tompklns County Villages within Tompklns County Media MOVED: Counciiwoman Leary SECONDED Councilman Burbank VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Counciiwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levine, aye; Councilman Stein, abstain Approved f \ 17 WHEREAS, the Tompkins County Health Department will provide FREE Inoculations in conjunction with the Town of Ithaca's Rabies Clinic on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 at the Department of Public Works Facility, 106 Seven Mile Drive, Ithaca, NY; and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca is currently the only town in Tompkins County where an annual rabies clinic is not held; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Ithaca will hold annual rabies clinics during the month of May at the Department of Public Works Facility, 106 Seven Mile Drive, Ithaca, NY. MOVED: Councilman Cowie SECONDED: Supervisor Engman VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; CouncHwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levine, aye; Approved - Unanimous t \ < \ APPROVED-4/7/2008 Agenda Item No, 10 n Consider annual Rabies Clinic at the Public Works Facility during the month of May Ms. Billings stated that the rabies clinic would coincide with the dog enumeration (census). Increased licensing fees would already be in place. She praised Carrie Coates Whitmore for having researched the possibility of the Town conducting a dog enumeration and hosting a rabies clinic; further, Carrie worked with Mr. Noteboom (Highway Superintendent) and the Tompkins County Health Department to host and assist with an annual rabies clinic. Mr. Noteboom was an enthusiastic supporter of holding an annual clinic and was happy to provide the Public Works Facility for this purpose. The County Health Department will provide free rabies shots during this one- day event. The Town Clerk's staff will license dogs and provide instruction during this event. Councilman Cowie moved, Supervisor Engman seconded. TB RESOLUTiON NO. 2008- 071: Annual Rabies Clinic at Public Works Facility WHEREAS, NYS Law requires that aii dogs be inoculated with the Rabies Virus in order to prevent the spread of rabies; WHEREAS, according to the Centers for Disease Control to date only six documented cases of human survival from clinical rabies have been reported; and / \ f > t \ 18 t \ APPROVED-4/7/2008 Agenda Item No. 11 - Consider Local Advisory Board of Assessment Review members. Councilwoman Learv and Councilman Goodman, and Alternate, Councilman Levine Supervisor Engman briefly explalned what the Local Advisory Board of Assessment Review is and how it functions. Councilwoman Leary and Councilman Goodman volunteered to serve on the Board. Supervisor Engman solicited volunteers to be an alternate on the review board. Councilman Levine volunteered to be the alternate. Councilman Stein moved, Councilman Burbank seconded. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 - 072: Aopointments to Local Advisory Board of Assessment Review WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Local Advisory Board of Assessment Review will hold their review proceedings on the 13th day of May 2008, at Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York; and WHEREAS, It is necessary that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca appoint two representatives to attend the said proceedings; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby appoints Councilwoman Patricia Leary and Counciiman Wiliiam Goodman to serve on the Local Advisory Board of Assessment Review; and, be it further RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca appoints Councilman Eric Levine to serve as alternate representative; and, be it further RESOLVED, the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward a certified copy of this resolution to the Tompkins County Assessment Department MOVED: Councilman Stein SECONDED: Councilman Burbank VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levine, aye; Approved - Unanimous 19 APPROVED-4/7/2008 Agenda Item No. 15 - Consider authorizing submission of Safe Routes to School grant application Supervisor Engman explained the grant application is for building a sidewalk on Warren Road from Hanshaw Road to Upland Road. The sidewalk would be built if the Town receives the grant. Councilman Burbank moved, Councilwoman Leary seconded. TB Resolution No. 2008-073: Authorization to Submit Safe Routes to Schools Proposal WHEREAS the New York State Department of Transportation has made available funds for the Safe Routes to School Program and WHEREAS the Town of Ithaca wishes to apply for support to construct a sidewalk along Warren Road from Hanshaw to Upland to provide safer walking and biking to school for students at Northeast Elementary and DeWItt Middle School and WHEREAS the proposed sidewalk Is consistent with Town plans to construct a sidewalk on Hanshaw Road and with the recent neighborhood Walkablllty Study, therefore RESOLVED the Town Supervisor Is authorized to sign the application and submit the proposal to the New York State Department of Transportation. MOVED: Councilman Burbank SECONDED: Councilwoman Leary VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levlne, aye. Motion approved: unanimous Agenda Item No. 17 - Consider authorizing annual submission bv Supervisor to Town Clerk of Financial Reports for the Town and SCLIWC pursuant to New York Town Law. S29 (10-a) Supervisor Engman explained that Town Law requires that the Town Board authorize the submission of the annual financial reports to the Town Clerk. Ms. Brock clarified that the Board could authorize the filing of the financial reports with the Town Clerk for the current year and for all future years, which was how the proposed resolution was worded. Councilman Stein moved. Councilman Levine seconded. 20 f \ \ r \ APPROVED - 4/7/2008 ( \ TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008' 074 : Resolution authorizing annual submissions bv , , Supervisor to Town Clerk of financial reports pursuant to New York Town Law Section 29(10-a) WHEREAS, New York Town Law Section 29(10) requires the Town Supervisor to submit annual financial reports to the Town Clerk containing specified information and to publish a certified copy of such reports in the Town's official newspaper, and WHEREAS, New York Town Law Section 29(10-a) states that in lieu of preparing such reports, the Town Board may determine by resolution that the Town Supervisor shall submit to the Town Clerk a copy of the report to the New York State Comptroller required by New York General Municipal Law Section 30, and that either a summary of such report or a notice that a copy is on file and available for public inspection and copying shall be published in the Town's official newspaper, and WHEREAS, the Town Supervisor is the chief fiscal officer of the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission (SCLIWC), and pursuant to New York General Municipal Law Section 30, the chief fiscal officer is also responsible for preparing and filing financial reports for the SCLIWC, and WHEREAS, for efTiciency reasons the Town Board wishes to have the Town Supervisor file with the Town Clerk the reports that the Town and the SCLIWC prepare annually for f ^ the New York State Comptroller, so that the Town does not have to prepare the additional reports otherwise required by New York Town Law Section 29(10), and WHEREAS, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQfRA") and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, it has been determined by the Town Board that its authorization of submission of the State Comptroller reports to the Town Clerk Is a Type II action because it constitutes "routine or continuing agency administration and management, not including new programs or major reordering of priorities that may affect the environment," and thus this action is not subject to review under SEQRA, now therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to submit to the Town Clerk, within the time period prescribed in New York General Municipal Law Section 30, copies of the Town and SCLIWC reports to the New York State Comptroller that are required by said Section 30, providing, however, that if the time for the filing of the annual reports has been extended by the State Comptroller, then the time for submitting copies of the reports to the Town Clerk similarly shall be extended, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk shall cause either a summary of each such report to be published within ten days after its receipt, or a notice that a copy of each such report is on file in the Town Clerk's office and Is available for public inspection and copying, in / ^ the Town's official newspaper and in such other newspapers as the Town Board may direct. 21 ( \ I \ APPROVED - 4/7/2008 MOVED: Councilman Stein SECONDED: Councilman Levins VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levins, aye. Motion approved - unanimous. Agenda Item No. 18 - Consider setting a Public Hearing for April 7. 2008 at 6:25 p.m. to consider adoption of a "LOCAL LAW AMENDING LOCAL LAW NO. 3 OF THE YEAR 2003 REVISING THE FEES FOR DOG LICENSES" Supervisor Engman brought the Board's attention to the new version of the resolution on the desks before them. It adds the language, "revising the fees for dog licenses." Ms. Brock added that It also removes reference to Local Law 3 of the Year 2003 because the Code is being revised, not a prior local law. Supervisor Engman moved. Councilman Cowie seconded. Supervisor Engman explained the increase would help the Town pay for dog control services and the enumeration. Ms. Brock stated that the wrong law was attached to the resolution. Supervisor Engman decided to move to the next agenda item while staff discussed which proposed local law should be before the Board. / \ Agenda Item No. 19 - Consider authorization to conduct dog enumeration (census) Supervisor Engman stated the Town has not conducted a dog enumeration in at least 15 years. The Idea of a dog enumeration is to give the Town an Idea of how many dogs are in the Town and at the same time get the dogs licensed and to make sure they have their rabies vaccinations. It may also come into play because the Council of Governments is working on a Request for Proposals for dog control services. An accurate dog count may help the Town in terms of a formula that might be developed to establish charges. Councilman Burbank moved. Councilman Goodman seconded. Councilman Stein asked about the costs associated with an enumeration. Supervisor Engman indicated that the Town should generate enough revenue from the enumeration for it to pay for itself, if not generate additional revenue for the Town. Councilman Burbank added that the real return was hopefully a much higher degree of dog licensing and public health because unlicensed dogs frequently also have not , received their rabies vaccinations. ^ ^ 22 / N I \ ' \ t \ APPROVED - 4/7/2008 Ms. Billings further explained that the return from additional dog licenses still does not come up to the level of what the Town is spending annually for dog control services. Councilwoman Leary asked if an undocumented immigrant could receive a dog license. Mr. Noteboom responded that he's never been asked for identification when he's obtained a dog license. Ms. Brock suggested an amendment to the first resolved of the proposed resolution. It should read, "Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute a contract, subject to the approval of the Attorney for the Town, with a dog enumerator..." The rest of the language in the resolved would remain the same. Language amendment was acceptable to Councilman Burbank and Councilman Goodman. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008- 075: Authorization to Conduct Doa Enumeration WHEREAS, the New York State Agriculture and Markets Law, Section 109 requires owners of dogs reaching four (4) months of age to make Application with the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca for a Dog License, and WHEREAS, the New York State Agricuiture and Markets Law, Section 114(7) allows an authorized agent to ascertain and list the names of all persons in the Town of Ithaca owning or harboring dogs through a dog enumeration process, and WHEREAS, the New York State Agriculture and Markets Law, Section 110(4d) authorizes the Town of Ithaca to impose a five dollar ($5.00) fee for every dog identified as being unlicensed during the Dog Enumeration process. Now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute a contract, subject to the approval of the Attorney for the Town, with a part-time Dog Enumerator to conduct a Dog Enumeration in the Town of Ithaca, beginning May 1, 2008 and ending September 30, 2008, under the direction and supervision of the Town Clerk, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca is hereby authorized to collect five dollars ($5.00) for every dog identified as being unlicensed during the Dog Enumeration, upon issuance of the New York State Dog License. MOVED: Councilman Burbank SECONDED: Councilman Goodman 23 APPROVED-4/7/2008 f > f ^ f \ t \ VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; CouncHman Cowie, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levine, aye. Motion approved - unanimous Agenda Item No. 18 Cont'd Ms. Billings read the revised proposed local law amending dog license fees. Ms. Brock reminded the Board that they were voting to set the public hearing for April 7, 2008 at 6:25 p.m. Councilman Stein moved, Councilman Levine seconded. Ms. Billings and Councilwoman Leary discussed the proposed increase in dog license fees. Ms. Billings explained that the Town will be setting the fees almost to the maximum of what is permitted to be charged by the State, but even with the increase the license fees do not come close to covering the costs of the Town's dog control contract. Councilman Cowie commented that the law is not clear that dogs must be licensed annually. Ms. Brock explained that the Code does not need to state that fee for a dog license is an annual fee. The Code is set up as a fee structure. Councilman Burbank wondered if there was any capacity under Town Law to build in a provision for people for whom the dog license fee poses a hardship. Is the Town limited to a strict flat fee for everyone? Ms. Brock did not know, but it sounded as if part of the fee is a mandatory State fee. Ms. Billings added another portion of the fee is given to the County and part of the State fee is given to Cornell for research. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-076: Set Public Hearing to consider adoption of Local Law increasing doa license fees BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby sets a public hearing to take place on Monday, April 7, 2008 at 6:25 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment regarding a proposed LOCAL LAW Revising the Fees for Dog Licenses in Chapter 153 of the Town of Ithaca Code, and further requests that the Town Clerk advertise and make available for public inspection a copy of the proposed Local Law. MOVED: Councilman Stein SECONDED: Councilman Levine VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levine, aye. Motion approved, unanimous. ^ ' \ 24 APPROVED-4/7/2008 Agenda Item No. 20 - Consider and approve appointment of Planner Councilman Burbank moved, Supervisor Engman seconded. TB RESOLUTION NO. 200S-077 Provisional Appointment of Planner, WHEREAS, there is presently a vacancy In the full time position of Planner In the Planning Department; and WHEREAS, the Human Resources Manager, Director of Planning and Assistant Director of Planning Interviewed 2 candidates through the solicitation process as there was not a certified eligible listing available from Tompklns County Civil Service for the position; and WHEREAS, the said Individuals have determined that Darby KIley possess the necessary knowledge, skill and ability to satisfactorily perform the duties of the Planner position; and WHEREAS, this would be a provisional appointment that requires the appointee to be one of the top three reachable candidates from the next civil service exam for the said position; and WHEREAS, the appointment Is a temporary two year appointment for 2008 - 2009 as It relates to an Increase In the workload because of the Comprehensive Plan revisions; Now, therefore, be It RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the provisional appointment of Darby KIley as Planner for the Planning Department, retro active to March 3, 2008; and be It further RESOLVED, this Is a 37.5 hours a week position, at the hourly wage of $22.74, which Is an estimated annual salary of $44,343, from account number 38020.100, In Job Classification "N", with full time benefits; and be It further RESOLVED, the said appointment Is a provisional appointment pending the results from the next civil service exam for this position; and be It further RESOLVED, the appointment Is temporary through December 2009, unless extended by the Town Board. MOVED: Councilman Burbank SECONDED: Supervisor Engman 25 APPROVED-4/7/2008 VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councllwoman Leary, aye; ^ ^ Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; ^ Councilman Levine, aye; Approved - Unanimous Agenda Item No. 21 - Consider and approve a Town of Ithaca Domestic Partnership Registry to be maintained by and administered bv the Town of Ithaca Town Clerk (See Attachment #3) Supervisor Engman noted that as the Board can see, the Town Clerk's Office has been very busy. He directed the Board's attention to the overview provided in the packet. Ms. Billings explained that the Domestic Partnership Registry was researched by Paulette Nielsen and the issue was brought before the Operations Committee for review and approval. Ms. Nielsen pulled together the resolution and all the supporting documents. Ms. Billings further explained the rationale for a Domestic Partnership Registry and the service it provide to registrants. Councilman Stein asked if anyone would request to see proof of a Domestic Partnership. Ms. Billings responded that hospitals, health insurance companies, etc. often ask for documentation. Ms. Drake added that the Town's health insurance allows for domestic coverage, but there needs to be an affidavit of domestic partnership. ! \ Councilman Goodman moved. Councilman Cowie seconded. Councllwoman Leary stated that she has some minor editing to some of the documents provided to the Board. Supervisor Engman suggested Councllwoman Leary provide her comments to Ms. Billings. Councilman Goodman commended the Clerk's Office for taking the initiative and bringing the Domestic Partnership Registry before the Board. Councllwoman Leary asked if the fee and requirements were the same for a marriage license. Ms. Billings responded that the requirements are the same, but the fee for a marriage license is $40 (inclusive of a State fee). TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-078: Adoption of the Town of Ithaca Domestic Partnership Registry WHEREAS, the Town Board is interested in strengthening and supporting all caring, committed and responsible family forms, and WHEREAS, the Town Board believes it is appropriate and fair that certain of the societal privileges and benefits now accorded to members of a marriage be extended to those who meet the qualifications of a "domestic partnership". The mechanism ^ ^ < \ 26 APPROVED - 4/7/2008 ( > established by this resolution will facilitate the definition of those entitled to such f , privileges, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to establish a mechanism for the public expression and documentation of the commitment reflected by the "domestic partnership" whose members cannot or choose not to marry, and WHEREAS, this interest has led the Town Board to define and recognize a "domestic partnership" as a relationship and family unit that is deserving of official recognition. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes the Town Clerk's Office to implement and establish a Domestic Partner Registry for those persons wishing to declare themselves in a domestic partnership when the following is true: A. The two persons are not related by blood closer than would bar marriage in the State of New York; B. Neither person is married; 0. Both persons are 18 years of age or older; D. Both persons are competent to enter into a contract; E. Both persons declare that they are each other's sole domestic partner; , ^ F. The persons currently share and have shared a primary residence for a minimum , ^ of 12 months prior to filing a "domestic partnership" and declare they intend to continue to do so for the indefinite future; G. Both persons declare that they are in a relationship of mutual financial and emotional support, are caring and committed to each other, and responsible for each other's welfare; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board approves and adopts the attached Policy and Procedure for said Domestic Partnership Registry. MOVED: Councilman Goodman SECONDED: Councilman Cowie VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Counciiwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levine, aye. Motion approved - unanimous Agenda Item No. 22 - Consider change order for Trumansburq Road Water Main Project Mr. Walker explained that the Board authorized change orders up to $10,000. Change / y orders 3 and 4 exceeded the authorized amount. He gave a brief description of each of 27 APPROVED-4/7/2008 f \ the change orders. The contract contingency would cover the costs of the change orders. Councilman Burbank moved, Councilman Goodman seconded. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-079 Approval of Change Orders #3 and #4 for Trumansbura Road Water Improvements WHEREAS, On August 18, 2007 the Town of Ithaca Awarded a contract for the Trumansburg Road Tank Water Improvements to LRS Excavating, Inc., and WHEREAS, during Installation of the water main and a boring under Trumansburg Road at 1251 Trumansburg road a large flow of groundwater was intercepted causing water to flow across the lawn and driveway for the property. The Town Engineer has determined that the most effective way to control this excessive groundwater is to install approximately 200 lineal feet of 6" CPE under drain in the lawn outleted into the existing storm drain, and WHEREAS, the Contractor is being asked to complete this work under Change Order # 3 with a negotiated cost of $5,066.01, and WHEREAS, during the abandonment of the existing connection of the old 6" water main to the 10" water main from the Trumansburg Road Water Tank, additional work outside the specification of the contract was required to complete the abandonment. The work required to safely abandon the old connection required removing several fittings and a length of pipe and replacing the length removed with a new length of pipe and two repair sleeves, and WHEREAS, the Contractor has completed this work and is requesting compensation for the additional work under Change Order # 4 with a negotiated cost of $3,400.19, and WHEREAS, the Town Engineer has previously approved change order if 1 with a cost of $4,500.00, and Change Order # 2 with a cost of $2,107.08 for an aggregate cost of $6,607.08, and WHEREAS, the additional cost of Change Orders #3 and #4 is $8,466.20, for a total cost of change orders to the Contract of $15,073.28, which exceeds the approval authority given to the Town Engineer by the Town Board, and WHEREAS, The additional cost of all change orders does not exceed the contract contingency of $57,817, now therefore be it RESOLVED: that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes the Town Engineer to approve Change order #3 and #4 to the contract for the Trumansburg Road Water Improvements. ^ t \ 28 APPROVED-4/7/2008 / \ i \ MOVED: Councilman Burbank SECONDED: Councilman Goodman VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levine, aye. Motion approved: unanimous Agenda item No. 23 - Consider change order for Hanshaw Road Water Main Project Mr. Walker explained that the water main location needed to be shifted to accommodate other underground utilities. This was an additional cost of $18,325. The contract contingency would cover the costs of the change orders. Councilman Stein moved, Councilman Cowie seconded. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-080 - Approval of Change Order # 1 for Hanshaw Road Water Main Improvement Project WHEREAS, On August 18, 2007 the Town of ithaca Awarded a contract for the Hanshaw Road Water Improvements to LRS Excavating, Inc., and / > ^ WHEREAS, during construction of the Hanshaw Road Water Improvement the centerline location of the 1033 lineal feet of the water main was shifted from an unpaved shouider area into the edge of pavement requiring pavement restoration beyond the limits of the originai contract. The Contractor has provided documentation regarding the actual cost of the additional work including appropriate overhead and profit costs for the extra work, and WHEREAS, the cost of the extra work is to be compensated for by Change Order if 1 to the Contract for the sum of $18,325.42 which exceeds the approval authority given to the Town Engineer by the Town Board, and WHEREAS, change order #1 with a cost of $18,325.42 does not exceed the Contract contingency of $45,925.00, now therefore be it RESOLVED: that the Town Board of the Town of ithaca hereby authorizes the Town Engineer to approve Change order #1 to the contract for the Hanshaw Road Water Improvement f^roject to LRS Excavating, inc. MOVED: Counciiman Stein SECONDED: Councilman Cowie 29 Councilman Stein moved, Councilman Cowie seconded. t \ i \ APPROVED-4/7/2008 VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councllwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman CowIe, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levlne, aye. Motion approved: unanimous Agenda Item No. 24 - Consider and approve Agreement for the use of Tutelo Park Ball Field bv Gal Ripkin Supervisor Engman directed the Board's attention to the proposed agreement in their packets. Councilman Stein moved, Councilman Levlne seconded. Ms. Brock suggested additional language be added to the end of the resolved clause, "subject to the approval of the Attorney for the Town." IB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 - 081: AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH BABE RUTH LEAGUE FOR USE OF TUTELO PARK BALL FIELD WHEREAS the Babe Ruth League has requested the use of Tutelo Park Ball Field for Its Cal Ripken Division play and; WHEREAS the Town of Ithaca entered Into a similar agreement for the 2007 season that was determined mutually beneficial and; ^ ^ / \ WHEREAS the ball field was built for community use and the League provides an Important recreational resource for the public; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Supervisor Is authorized to sign the memorandum of understanding and enter Into agreement with the Ithaca Babe Ruth League for use of Tutelo Park Ball field for 2008 use. MOVED: Councilman Stein SECONDED: Councilman Levlne VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councllwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman CowIe, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levlne, aye; Approved - Unanimous Agenda Item No. 25 - Consider accepting the bids submitted for the purchase of the medium duty dump truck /^ / N / \ 30 APPROVED - 4/7/2008 , ^ Councilman Burbank asked if energy efficiency was factored into the bidding process. Mr. Noteboom responded that they are thinking about it and it is moving in that direction. He looked on the State Bid for an alternative energy vehicle, but it was not on the list. TB RESOLUTION NO. 200S-082: Acceptance of Bid for a New Medium Duty Dump Truck WHEREAS, two bids were received for a new medium duty dump truck; and, WHEREAS, the Highway Superintendent has reviewed the bid specifications, and Basil Ford, inc. is the bidder who is closest to meeting the bid specifications and the lowest bid; and, WHEREAS, upon the Highway Superintendent's findings, he recommends that the Town Boarid of the Town of Ithaca accept the bid of a 2009 Ford F750 Truck from Basil Ford, Inc.; now therefore be it, RESOLVED that the Town of Ithaca Town Board accepts the respective bid from Basil Ford, Inc.; and be it further, RESOLVED, that the Highway Superintendent is hereby authorized and directed to f s purchase a 2009 medium duty dump truck with the $ 73,161 to be taken from the , , DB5130.200 (60 percent), A7110.201 (20 percent), F8340.200 (10 percent), and G8120.200 (10 percent) accounts. MOVED: Counciiman Stein SECONDED: Counciiman Cowie VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Counciiwoman Leary, aye; Counciiman Stein, aye; Counciiman Cowie, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Counciiman Levine, aye. Motion approved - unanimous Agenda Item No. 25 a - Consider Local Law amending Chapter 250 of the Town of Ithaca code, titled "Vehicles and Traffic." bv adding stop signs and removing a vield sign at certain intersections Councilman Stein moved, Supervisor Engman seconded. 31 APPROVED-4/7/2008 f \ t \ TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 n 083: Consider and approve a LOCAL LAW Amending Chapter 250 of the Town of Ithaca Code. Titled "Vehicles and Traffic/' Bv Adding Stop Signs and Removing a Yield Sign at Certain intersections RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts said LOCAL LAW, entitled VEHICLES and TRAFFIC, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this Resoiution; and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward a certified copy of this LOCAL LAW with the NYS Secretary of State as required by law. MOVED: Councilman Stein SECONDED: Supervisor Engman VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Counciiman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levine, aye. Motion approved: unanimous Agenda Item No. 26 - Consent Agenda Councilman Burbank moved, Councilman Cowie seconded. TB RESOLUTiON NO. 2008- 084: Consent Agenda items BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the resolutions for Consent Agenda Items: a. Town of Ithaca Minutes b. Town of Ithaca Abstract c. Bolton Point Abstract d. Approvai of Records Disposition List - Pubiic Works e. Spring brush pick up MOVED: Counciiman Burbank SECONDED: Councilman Cowie VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Counciiman Levine, aye. Motion approved: unanimous ( \ t \ 32 f > f \ APPROVED-4/7/2008 , V TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008'084a: Town Board Minutes of February 11. 2008 WHEREAS, the Town Clerk has presented the minutes for the Regular Town Board meeting held on February 11, 2008 to the Town Board for its review and approval of filing; now therefore be it RESOLVED, the Town Board does hereby approve for filing the minutes for the meeting heid February 11, 2008 as presented at the March 10, 2008 town board meeting. MOVED: Councilman Burbank SECONDED: Councilman Cowie VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Counciiman Cowie, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levine, aye. Motion approved: unanimous TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008'084b: Town of Ithaca Abstract WHEREAS, the foilowing numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for approval of payment; and WHEREAS, the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in total for the amounts indicated. f \ ! \ 33 APPROVED - 4/7/2008 VOUCHER NOS. 4926 to 5046 General Fund Townwide $75,892.05 General Fund Part Town 11,888.70 Highway Fund Part Town 28,435.03 Water Fund 16,592.21 Sewer Fund 5,371.22 First Street Interceptor 495.00 Risk Retention Fund 20.00 Trumansburg Rd. Water Main Improvements 22,660.25 Hanshaw Road Water Main Improvements 40,275.25 Forest Home Lighting District 208.40 Glenside Lighting District 81.21 Renwick Heights Lighting District 112.13 Eastwood Commons Lighting District 213.60 Clover Lane Lighting District 25.98 Winner's Circle Lighting District 69.32 Burleigh Drive Lighting District 88.55 Westhaven Road Lighting District 297.80 Coddington Road Lighting District 175.80 TOTAL $202,902.50 MOVED: SECONDED: Councilman Burbank Councilman Cowie ( \ t \ f \ ' \ VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Counciiwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levine, aye. Motion approved - unanimous TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008-084c: Bolton Point Abstract WHEREAS, the following numbered vouchers for the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission have been presented to the governing Town Board for approval of payment; and WHEREAS, the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers. ( \ I \ 34 APPROVED-4/7/2008 Voucher Numbers: Check Numbers: 75 -135 10698 - 10758 Operating Fund $ 62,499.57 1998 SCADA Capital Project $ 544.36 2003 East Hill Tank Project $ 275.40 TOTAL $ $63,319.33 MOVED:Councilman Burbank f \ > \ /^ f \ \ SECONDED: Councilman Cowie VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Counciiman Burbank, aye; Counciiwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Counciiman Cowie, aye; Counciiman Goodman, aye; Counciiman Levine, aye. Motion approved - unanimous TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008'84d: Records Management Disposition Listing WHEREAS, the Records Management Officer has determined that the Pubiic Works records listed below are eligible for disposition according to the State Archives and Records Administration (SARA) Records Retention and Disposition Schedule MU-1; and WHEREAS, the Records Management Officer (Town Cierk) has reviewed and approved the disposition of the said records; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, the governing Town Board does hereby authorize and direct the Records Management Officer to dispose of the records as described beiow according to the procedure deveioped by SARA. Date of Records: 2002 Traffic counts Copies of time sheets Vehicie reports Misc. correspondence Copy of Town budget Copy of Pubiic Works Committee and Safety Committee Minutes Copies of vouchers Copies of invoices Confined space entry records MOVED: SECONDED: Counciiman Burbank Councilman Cowie 35 APPROVED-4/7/2008 Agenda Item No. 27 - Report of Town Committees Mr. Kanter provided the WSHA comments regarding the dock legislation to the Board. Councilman Burbank reported that the Planning Committee will be meeting with the Planning Board on March 11, 2008 and invited other board members to attend. Agenda Item No. 28 - Report of Intermunicipal Organizations Supervisor Engman reported that Bolton Point won the law suit regarding County Health Department fees. The judge determined that the fees for 2004 and 2005, which equaled $14,000. The bill for 2006 was approximately $146. It has yet to be seen what the County will restructure their fees to do. He mentioned that fire contract with the City is still being worked on. The City wants to increase its administrative fees but the Town is having a hard time understanding why it should pay more in administrative fees. Mr. Carvill and Supervisor Engman have been analyzing the budget and have met with the Fire Commissioners. They have found several items that the Town probably should not have been paying all along. The Town spends over $3 million a year on fire protection. Supervisor Engman reported that union negotiations will begin March 25^^. The Town is also in the process of negotiating the Cass Park agreement with the City for 2008. 36 / N VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councllwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levlne, aye. Motion approved - unanimous TB RESOLUTION NO, 2008-084e: Soring Brush and Leaf Collection Whereas, the Highway Department provides yard refuse disposal services for the Town of Ithaca residents, and Whereas, twice annually the Highway Department collects brush and leaves from roadsides, now, therefore be It Resolved, that the spring brush and leaf collection by the Highway Department will commence on Monday, April 14, 2008 until finished. MOVED: Councilman Burbank SECONDED: Councilman CowIe VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councllwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman CowIe, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levlne, aye. Motion approved - unanimous o f \ ' \ APPROVED-4/7/2008 f ^ Councilman Stein volunteered to join Supervisor Engman in Cass Park agreement , , negotiations since he previously served on that committee. Ms. Brock asked what happens when the fire contract expires at the end of March. She stated that the Board may need to have a special meeting to authorize another extension. Supervisor Engman had thought about suggesting an agreement through the end of 2008 at a 3% increase. Councilman Burbank asked if the Board members are comfortable with the level of information they are receiving regarding the Fire Department, particularly because Mr. Romanowski is coming before the board on a quarterly basis. They are also gathering a lot more information than the Board ever had before on the Fire Department. Councilman Cowie asked who would be present from the Town during union negotiations. Supervisor Engman responded that it will be Ms. Drake, Mr. Noteboom, the consultant and himself. As far as he knew, there would also be a Teamsters representative and two union representatives. Agenda Item No. 29 n Report of Town Officials Councilwoman Leary commented that the Employee Newsletter was very nice. Supervisor Engman agreed. He also discussed the Ithaca Festival Parade and the ^ ^ theme "I am Ithaca". He solicited ideas and participation from the Board. The board members also praised the work of the Town Clerk's staff in submitting new ideas and their enthusiasm. (Attachment #4 - Grouped) Agenda Item No. 30 - Review of Correspondence (Attachment #5 - Grouped) No comments. Agenda Item No. 31 - Adjournment Supervisor Engman adjourned the meeting at 8:43 p.m. 37 Attachment 617.20 n ^ Appendix A S \ tate Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identi^ing basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact In Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. THIS AREA FOR LEAD AGENCY USE ONLY DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE - Type 1 and Unlisted Actions \ 'dentify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: txJ Part 1 LkI Part 2 [^Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. I IB. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. *A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions r.rrAtoption of a ^1 law fimending Chapter 271 of the ^ of Ithaca ^ and-Breakfast as a Permitted Principal OSe in EooVillage s Soecial land Use Distr ct Name of Action nw.T^ /->f T4-V.aA-ia mn,T.7n Pnai-H Name of Lead Agency Hprhprf: J. Encgnan Town Supervisor Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer // j Signature of Responsible Sig^lature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) I'fardh 10, 2008 website Page 1 of 21 ^ PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION ' \ Prepared by Project Sponsor ' s NOTICE: This document Is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. Name of Action Location of Action (include Street Address, Municipality and County) loo ^ ^ A/^Y Name of Applicant/Sponsor Ttftvh fi'F /trW Address _ Sfhad- City / PO lfZyae/». Slate /W Zip Code /VP g<J Business Telephone {^se-j) a.12- na-/ f ,^Name of Owner (if different) /V^jA Address City I PO State Zip Code Business Telephone Description of Action: — (tFa^ ? ^j9AeAA.( (AcO. j ksJj" ^ ir^ ^ ^5 P/akmJ itr-ealcQs^ 'Vv ^7d-t5" 'tUS' t <>trf ^at a *wofQ-( iV VK. a C Iv> kA«r^(cCft>K T lA(f ^A^rVTViS- aY^ \s cCt ^t/^l ^rxTK • /I f tto f^S (f-Y vd ^/\ 9^0C{ (jkn/Klfc^ SUtKltfUt UvJ Usa ^ ^ A^r^^cn/fuM I / ^vJft IflAPw tiu^'l^irw'tksL I - 'Tu/tf pA'Vnw - "A. T^4_ I ^ jT t<fcO Page 2 of 21 / y /^Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. SITE DESCRIPTION Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. Present Land Use: n Urban Industrial Commercial ^^Residential (suburban) ^.Rural (non-farm) P^jporest ^^Agriculture n Other 2.Total acreage of project area: acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24,25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate type) 4 W Q/f C-4P \ What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Ion ii,v a. Soil drainage: ^3well drained 9^ % of site ^[Moderately well drained ^ % of site. l^4poorlv drained ^ % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? _2_ acres (see 1 NYCRR 370). PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION ^0 »0 acres 9^*0 acres l9/^acres acres acres acres arrp«; ^ rO acres "'/C—acres ^ acres ^ acres acres acres '9 acres acres 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? □ Yes ^ No a. What is depth to bedrock i-lx (in feet) 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: no-10% 3I2_% QiO- 15% 3 % I 115% or greater ^ % 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, oi^ontain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places? j j Yes No 7. Is prcyect substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? Yes ^^No 3. What is the depth of the water table? (in feet) '9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? nYes 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Yes □ No Page 3 of 21 1. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? Qves \ According to: Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations? Oves jS^No Describe: 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? No If yes, explain: 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area ' N b. Size (in acres): Page 4 of 21 Is the site served by existing public utilities? I^^Yes □ No ry(' a. If YES, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? Yes I—1 No b. If YES, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? Yes fS^fNo 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Ardcle 25-AA, Section 303 and304? px^Yes rn 1^0 ^ 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL,and 6 NYCRR 617? Q Yes p^No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? □ Yes ^No B. Projea Description 1 Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate). a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor: \ ! 0 '— acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: O acres initiallv:'^ ^ acres ultimately. A c. oP^ "tUjCx cicProject acreage to remain undeveloped: I ^ P acres. Cm y- u/'fujo d. Length of project, in miles: A/j/^ (if appropriate) ^ e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed. kjl. % f ^ f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing proposed Ma. g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour: 3^/- (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium 3o4 length. nitially —UltimatelyO^^|^i|^j-i^ — i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: a//4 height; _ width; j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 2. How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? Ml- _tons/cubic yards. 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed □ Yes I |no /A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? | | Yes □ No Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? □ Yes □ No How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? O acres. (/V9 c "/tWs- Page 5 of 21 Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? n Yes I^Jno 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction: months, (including demolition) /Ky/x 7. If multi-phased: /v//} a. Total number of phases anticipated (number) b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1: month year, (including demolition) c. Approximate completion date of final phase: month year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? I 1 Yes I \ No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? I 1 Yes □ No 9. Number of Jobs generated: during construction ; after project is complete 10. Number of Jobs eliminated by this project _ 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? □ Yes □ No MA If yes, explain: / '^2. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? □ Yes □ I a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface U^id waste disposal involved? I I Yes □ No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? I lYes|X|No If yes, explain: 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? I 1 Yes P^No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? I 1 Yes I I No h(A a. If yes, what is the amount per month? tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? □ Yes I 1 No c. If yes, give name location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? Yes No -■ N Page 6 of 21 If yes, explain: 17. Will the project Involve the disposal of solid waste? 1 I Yes □ No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? □ Yes □ No n\a 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? □ Yes □ No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? □ Yes □ No 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? □ Yes □ No If yes, indicate type(s) 22 If xA/atPr ciipply i«: frnm \A/plk indiratp pumping capacity oallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? □ Yes No If yes, explain: Page 7 of 21 /^^5. Approvals Required: Type Submittal Date I \ City, Town, Village Board ^Yes □No t!3 Yes I ICity, Town, Village Planning Board LJ Yes City, Town Zoning Board □ Yes □ No No City, County Health Department □ Yes □No / \ Other Local Agencies I I Yes □ Other Regional Agencies State Agencies Federal Agencies No □ Yes n Yes CD No No CD Yes n No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision?□lYes I ] No If Yes, indicate decision required: ^^llzoninc amendment ' CD Site plan □ Zoning variance □ Special use permit □ New/revision of master plan □ Resource management plan □ Subdivision CD Other Page 8 of 21 What is the zoning classlficatlon(s) of the site? 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 6. Is the proposed action consistent \A/ith the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? . What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a Va mile radius of proposed action? f > (--I ° Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses with a Va mile? P^Yes PI No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? a//4 Page 9 of 21 Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? Yes No ' \ 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection? I Yes 0JMo a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? □ Yes □ No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? I i Yes a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic. nYes n No associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them ' Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name To\Hh. <if Date 3, Signature If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. ( \ Page 10 of 21 ^ Part 2 - PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency s 3eneral Information (Read Carefully) ! In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been reasonabie? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. ! The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. ! The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. ! The number of examples per question does not indicate the Importance of each question. I In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumulative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) Answer each of the 20 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box(column 1 or 2)to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. Identifying that an Impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. o a dt o If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. a. b. c. e. f. 1 Small to Moderate 2 Potential Large Can Impact Be Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change Impact on Land 1. Will the Proposed Action result In a physical change to the project site? ^NO^ YESQ Examples that would apply to column 2 Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. □D □ no • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. □o □ Yes □ no • Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. □□n Yes □ no Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. □n □ ves □ no • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. □□□ Yes □ no \ • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove □□□ Yes □ z o more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Page 11 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change Construction or expansion of a santary landfill.□n nYes n No Construction in a designated floodway.□□dves Dno Other impacts:□□n^es Qno No j^rn^cod fV^ TKiV c^'^Vk . T^ ^ ^ V^ytVfc^bi( t*i^s % ^38. UW AV mJ-iM" w vu^.k k tin __tf>iivs 4a aA\f I lAiAi lA Ar I im lei i^l lonri fr^rme fm inH r^nV9VtWlA>\rA.\ S fV •vin»-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.) D^® Specific land forms:□□ Dves Dno Impact on Water 3. Will Proposed Action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) ' \Examples that would apply to column 2 • Developable area of site contains a protected water body.□□fives □ no Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. □□□ ves Ono Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. □□□ ves □ no Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland.□□l~lves □ no Other impacts:□□fives □ no 4.Will Proposed Action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? ^0.NO Qyes Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. □□fives □ no •Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface □□fives □Z o area. •Other impacts:□□IZlves o □ Page 12 of 21 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity^ Dyes Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. Proposed Action would use water In excess of 20,000 gallons per day. Proposed Action will likely cause slltatlon or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Proposed Action wlli require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. Proposed Action will allow residential uses In areas without water and/or sewer services. Proposed Action locates commercial and/or Industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. I~l □ □ □ □ □ Other Impacts □□ ves □ □□ ves □ □r~|Yes □ □riYes □ □1 1 Yes □ □Dyss □ □1 1 Yes □ □□ Yes □ □□ yss □ □□ yss □ □1 Iyss □ □□yss □ No No No No No Page 13 of 21 f \ 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change 6. Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff?^NO Qyes Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water flows □□□ves Dno Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion.□□Dves Dno Proposed Action Is Incompatible with existing drainage patterns.□□[HYes Qno Proposed Action will allow development In a designated floodway. Other Impacts: □ n □ n Dves Dno Dves Dno IMPACT ON AIR Will Proposed Action affect air quality?^NO QYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips In any given hour. Proposed Action will result In the Incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. Proposed Action will allow an Increase In the amount of land committed to Industrial use. Proposed Action will allow an Increase In the density of industrial development within existing Industrial areas. Other Impacts: □ □ □ IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species?^NO nVES Examples that would apply to column 2 Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near the site, or found on the site. □ IZlYes Dno □ DYes □ Dyss LJNo No □ Dyos Dno □ Qyos Dno F1 ^^Yes 1 Ino [~1 Dyos Ono Page 14 of 21 Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. Other impacts 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change □n dlYes C^No □1""^dlYes IHno □□nYes EI3no 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species?Tno QYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. □ n other impacts ^ IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources?gNO □yes Examples that would apply to column 2 The Proposed Action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. • The Proposed Action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. o rn Yes No □ Yes QNo [U Cves [j □ Dves Dno □ Dves Qno □ |I]Yes nNo f N Page 15 of 21 I \ 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact Other Impacts:□ Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change □ Dves Ono IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities?ra No []]YES Examples that would apply to column 2 The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. A major reduction of an open space Important to the community. Other Impacts: □riYes □ no □Oves □ no □□ ves 1 Ino IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 14. Will Proposed Action Impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6NYCRR 617.14(g)?riYES List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA. Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action to locate within the CEA? Proposed Action will result In a reduction in the quantity of the resource? Proposed Action will result In a reduction In the quality of the resource? Proposed Action will Impact the use, function or enjoyment of the resource? Other Impacts: □□□ ves □ no □□□ ves □ no □□□ yos o □ □□1 iYes □ z o □□rives Dno f V Page 17 of 21 IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 15 Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?]^N0 Qyes Examples that would apply to column 2 Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. Other impacts: 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change □□nYes Dno □□□ Yes Dno □□□ ybs ^Dno of — xaWu 0 loAck fravv It ay- hr-^lK.iS' /jk IMPACT ON ENERGY 16. Will Proposed Action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? □yes Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the municipality. Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. Other impacts □ □ NOISE AND ODOR IMPACT 17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? ^NO □yes ^^Yes No n Dyos fino D Oyos n Examples that would apply to column 2 • Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive □□Dycs oz □ facility. Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day).□□riYes □ no Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the □□□ Yes □ no local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a □□□ ycs □ z o noise screen. / \ Other impacts:□□□ ybs □ Z o Page 18 of 21 f \ 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 18. Will Prgposed Action affect public health and safety? I NO riYES Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquefied natural gas or other flammable liquids. Proposed Action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. Other impacts: □ □ □ Oves □ □ D No [^Yes FIno □Yes Dno □ycs ^3 No □ Dves □No IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 19. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community?[no Qyes Examples that would apply to column 2 The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use. Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) □□□ves □ no □□[UYes □ no □n Dves Ono □n Dves ^jNo □□□ves □ no □□□ves □ no Page 19 of 21 t \ 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change Proposed Action will set an Important precedent for future projects. □□□ ves Dno Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment.□□□ ves nNo Other Impacts:D □rn Yes CD No Tl^ t\ C&y^^*Yfia^"ffySLU^ UtA 20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential advers&envlronment Impacts?jgNO \JYES Any Action In Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If you Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Page 20 of 21 m m m m Location Map: EcoVillage Site Poute 79 at Rachel Carson Way Town of Ithaca, NY [Based on NYSDOT Ithaca West Quadrangle 7.5 Minute Series, 1996] West Shore Homeowners Association comments on Town of Ithaca proposed lakefront zoning wvsi sii I "jc inif .'SM'.f'r.s son ■s Introduction 1. West Shore Homeowners Association. 250 homes from Cass Park to Taughannock Falls. 2. Conducted survey of WSHA homeowners. 3. Studied lakefront legislation on other NY lakes. 4. Have worked with Chris Balestra, Town of Ithaca Planner. We support lakefront legislation including a very high share of the proposed changes. The following are four areas that are very concerning. Specify acceptable dock building materials 270-43. J3. "Piers, docks, wharves, sea walls, boat ramps, boatlifts, boat hoists and similar water front structures...shall only be constructed of materials that are stable, chemically Inert and insoluble and which will have no adverse effects on water quality." WSHA comments 1. WSHA 100% in support of intent. As law is stated, excludes aM docks. Specify allowed and acceptable dock building materials. 2. Revise so it parallels appropriate laws. Options may be requirements developed by the NYS Parks, DEC or others. 3. WSHA's high concern to protect water quality. We also recommend septic system regulations. WSHA survey: 78% are supportive of dock regulation. Other lake legislation: No known restriction of materials on any NY lake including Cazenovia Lake, Canandaigua, Chateauguay Lake, Lake George, Keuka, Oneida Lake. Onondaga Lake, Sacandaga Lake, Seneca Lake, Skaneateles Lake. No roofs or covers on boat lifts 270-43. J5. "Such structures [boat hoists] shall not have roofs, covers or sides." WSHA comments 1. WSHA supports "no sides" but not "no roofs or covers." Attachment includes suggested revsion. 2. WSHA favors regulation passed on Canandaigua and Keuka Lakes, maximum roof height 15' above Mean High Water, roof pitch no less than 3/12, no side enclosures 3. WSHA does not want second floor dock "boat houses" that permit people to live on the lake. Roof protects boat against rain and sun. ' \ Page 1 5. Sun UV light very harmful to boats. UV especially harmful to varnished wood. Some boats are antiques that have been lovingly restored. 6. A canvas snap-on boat cover Is a poor substitute for a roof. ^ 7. Many boats have expensive electronic equipment and accessories. Canvas covers may not ^ s adequately protect. 8. Some owners keep boats on lift year-round. 9. A professional, low profile roof is more aesthetically attractive than vertical boat lift posts with a steel structure, gears & electric motor. 10. Significantly increases the enjoyment of the boat. Boaters take high pride in keeping their boats attractive. Who does not enjoy a garage for their special car? WSHA survey: 71% approved no walls. 79% approved roofs. Other lake legislation: No known restriction on boat lift roofs on any NY lake including Gazenovia Lake, Canandaigua, Chautauqua Lake, Lake George, Keuka, Oneida Lake, Onondaga Lake, Sacandaga Lake, Seneca Lake, Skaneateles Lake. Docks no longer than 40 ft 270-43. J9. Docks may not be longer than 40 ft. WSHA comments 1. The WSHA suggests an exception when the water is shallow to permit a dock of 60 ft when ^ required to reach a water depth of 5 ft. Attachment includes suggested revision. ^ 2. DEC and Corps of Engineers permit 100 ft. 3. In some areas of Cayuga Lake, the lake is very shallow close to shore. 4. Many sailboats have keels that are 4+ feet below the water. A typical keel sailboat on Cayuga Lake is 25 ft; such boats commonly have a 4+ ft keel. Larger boats have 5+ ft keels. It is important to be able to take your boat to your dock for maintenance and to pick up passengers. Moorings are not always an option. 5. Wave action can easily change a 5 feet deep area to 4 feet deep. The boat keel hitting the bottom will cause major damage. 6. The lake level changes during the year. In a typical year, the difference between the winter low and the spring high is 4 to 6 ft. New York State begins to lower the lake level in October. WSHA survey: 64% felt dock length should relate to water depth. Other lake legislation: 1. Canandaigua Lake. 60 ft MHWL. Longer allowed if 3 ft. water depth not reached at 60 feet. 2. Cazenovia Lake. No regulations. 3. Cayuga Lake. Aurora: No regulations. Cayuga: 40 ft to depth of 4 ft or more, MLWL. Lansing: h ^ regulations. Seneca Falls: No regulations. Ulysses: No regulations. Page 2 rtup! 4. Chautauqua Lake. No regulations. . 5. Conescus Lake. 60 ft, MLWL. Up to 150 ft, if required to reach 5 ft. 6. Honeoye Lake. No regulations. 7. Keuka Lake. 65 ft, MHWL Longer allowed if 3 ft. water depth not reached at 65 feet. 8. Lake George. Town of Lake George; 50 ft, MLWL. Town of Hauge: 50 ft MLWL or 100 ft from MHWL. 9. Oneida Lake. Town of Webb: 50 ft or to depth of 6 ft. lO.Onondaga Lake. No regulations. ll.Owasco Lake. No regulations. 12.Sacandaga Lake. No regulations. 13. Seneca Lake. No regulations. 14.Skaneateles Lake. 40 ft for permanent docks. Temporary docks to 100 ft. 25 ft setback from shore major problem for properties with cliffs 270.46. F. Excluding docks & boat lifts, no structures within 25 ft of the shore. WSHA comments This impacts boat storage facilities, garden sheds, cabanas and stairs from the house to the lake. Many properties have a 30+ ft steep slopes or cliff between the home and the lake. The distance between the cliff and the water is often less than 25 ft. We suggest a 10 ft setback in such circumstances. Attachment includes suggested revision. Picture: House sits on top of 40 ft cliff. This picture was taken in winter, when water is low and beaches are wide. In summer, higher water level covers pebbled area of beach leaving a 20 ft strip of land between the lake and the cliff. The arrow points to a small shed that holds beach and boat supplies. WSHA survey: Survey addressed dock issues, this question was not addressed. Other lake legislation: 1. Canandalgua Lake. Where there are steep cliffs, permits larger docks and storage facilities. 2. Cayuga Lake. Village of Cayuga: Structure setback of 10 ft to MHWL. ^ 3. Other lakes. Unknown. /^^arch 10, 2008 Page 3 Page 1 of 1 N Chris Balestra From: Don Smith [dsmith@marketing-consultant.cx)m] Sent; Thursday, August 02, 2007 11:23 AM To: Christine Balestra Cc: John Neuman; Ken Zeserson; Dave Kerness; Mary Shelley Subject: WSHA suggestions to change the Town of Ithaca's proposed lake front regulations Attachments: WSHA proposed changes to Town of Ithaca lakefront zoning.doc^ Dear Christine: As discussed, attached are our suggested changes to the Town of Ithaca's proposed amendments to the Lakefront Residential Zone, particularly the areas regarding dock and mooring regulations. The basis for these suggestions includes: 1. A survey that we conducted of west shore lake shore residents. This survey includes 14 Town of Ithaca residents and 32 Town of Ulysses residents. In summary, the residents clearly favor regulations if they represent the appropriate balance. 2. A study and comparison of the regulations on adjoining lakes. 3. Numerous discussions with individual homeowners. May we meet with you and the other appropriate people to personally explain our suggested changes? Don Smith and Mary Shelley West Shore Homeowners Association 8/15/2007 Town of Ithaca May 14, 2007 DRAFT West Shore Homeowners Association suggestions 8/1/07 ARTICLE VII Lakefront Residential Zones Suggested changes are highlighted in yellow. Edits are crossed out. § 270-40. Purpose. The purposes of the Lakefront Residential Zone are to minimize excessive and undesirable development in fragile lakefront areas, to protect the natural beauty and ambiance of the iakeshore in the Town of Ithaca for all of the citizens of-the community to enjoy, and to enhance the experience provided to those living near, and those who use, the resource provided by Cayuga Lake. The "grandfather" clause defined in 270-211 is applicable. § 270-41. Permitted principal uses. Only the following buildings or uses are permitted as a matter of right in a Lakefront Residential Zone: A. A one-family dwelling to be occupied by no more than: (1) One family, or (2) One family plus no more than one boarder, roomer, lodger, or other occupant. ^ > B. A two-family dwelling provided that: (1) Each dwelling unit is occupied by no more than one family; and (2) The floor area of the second dwelling unit is not more than 50% of the floor area excluding the basement of the primary dwelling unit except where the second dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement area, it may exceed 50%. C. Publicly owned park or playground including accessory buildings and improvements. D. Any municipal or public utility purpose necessary to the maintenance of utility services except that substations and similar structures shall be subject to the same setback requirements as apply to residences in the district In which the substations or similar structures are constructed. E. Day-care homes, family day-care homes and group family day-care homes. F. Community residence. ¨ -i Town of Ithaca May 14, 2007 DRAFT West Shore Homeowners Association suggestions 8/1/07 § 270-42. Principal uses authorized by special permit only. The following uses are permitted in a Lakefront Residential Zone, but only upon receipt of a special permit for same from the Planning Board in accordance with the procedures set forth in this chapter: A. Church or other places of worship, convent and parish house. B. Public library, public museum, and public schools. C. Fire station or other public building necessary to the protection of or the servicing of a neighborhood. D. Bed-and-breakfast. § 270-43. Permitted accessory structures and uses. The following accessory structures or uses are permitted as of right in a Lakefront Residential Zone: A. Off-street garage or parking space for the occupants, users and employees in connection with uses permitted in this article, but subject to provisions of § 270-227 and further subject to the requirement that no vehicle parking, with the exception of that which existed before the establishment of the Lakefront Residential Zone, shall occur within 100 feet of the Ordinary High Water line of any shoreline. B. Where the principal use is as a one- or two-family dwelling, private swimming pool, tennis courts, and other similar recreational facilities for the principal private use of the occupants of the dwelling. C. Up to two accessory buildings other than a garage, all such accessory buildings in the aggregate not to exceed a total of 600 square feet in size. D. A temporary building for commerce or industry, where such building is necessary or incidental to the development of a residential area. Such buildings may not be continued for more than one year except upon receipt of a special approval from the Board of Appeals. E. Signs, as regulated by Chapter 221, Signs, of the Code of the Town of Ithaca. F. Adult day-care facilities serving no more than four clients at any one time. G. The keeping of household pets in a dwelling unit or other location adjacent to or accessory to a dwelling unit (e.g., outside doghouse, etc.) provided that no more than three household pets shall be kept outside of dwelling units unless a greater number is authorized by special approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. O H. Home occupations, subject to the limitations on home occupations set forth in § ik -4 270-219.2. f 4 * Town of Ithaca May 14,2007 DRAFT West Shore Homeowners Association suggestions 8/1/07 ^ I. Amateur radio facilities, subject to the limitations on amateur radio facilities set forth in §270-219.3, J. Piers, docks, wharves, sea walls, boat ramps, boatlifts, boat hoists, cabanas and similar uncovered waterfront structures, when such uses are clearly accessory or incidental to the primary, principal use on the property. Such structures are subject to all applicable state and federal regulations and approvals and are further subject to the following requirements; (1) All such structures shall be designed in accordance with good engineering practice and shall require a building permit. The applicant for a building permit shall submit, at a minimum: (a) A short written narrative describing the proposed structure, equipment that will be used, and the construction schedule. (b) A general location map showing the waterway shoreline, the exact location of the proposed project, the nearest street or road and north arrow. (c) An accurately scaled plan view map showing the existing shoreline (water's edge), property lines and length of property between lines, north arrow, Ordinary High Water line, location and dimensions of ^ y existing structures, location and dimensions of proposed structures ' and fills, and length of waterward encroachment. (d) An accurately scaled profile showing the existing shoreline, Ordinary High Water line, height of proposed structures above the Ordinary High Water level, depth of water at waterward end of proposed structures when lake is at the Ordinary High Water level, and distance of waterward encroachment. (e) A copy of the Army Corps of Engineers Permit for the proposed structures, If required. (f) At the discretion of the Code Enforcement Officer, plans approved by a licensed engineer or architect. (g) All other information required by this chapter or other laws, rules or regulations for issuance of a building permit. (2) We support the intent but it must be reworded. An activist could use this section to stop a high share of structures. The "not to impact" clause for any of these provisions are too loose and open to interpretation. Please reference national standards to define requirements. At this time, we do not f ] have a rewording suggestion. Tho construction of such structures shall bo ^ * undortakon in such a way so as not to impact wator quality, causo harm to fish spawning grounds, destroy tho natural boauty of tho shorelino, roduoo (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Town of Ithaca May 14,2007 DRAFT West Shore Homeowners Association suggestions 8/1/07 the stability of stoop slopo aroas, cauoo orocion or sodimontation problomi ivji i idvi^duuiij Wlln IIIU }JuUll ci oiiuiCriiiio^ II 1111( lyu I II I© iipai i, or othorwiso threaten tho public hoalth and safety. We support the intent but it must be reworded. An activist could use this section to stop a high share of structures. For example, as stated, pressure treated wood is probably not acceptable. Can we reference a national regulatory standard that defines materials that are stable and not harmful to water quality? Such structuros shall only bo constructod of matorials that arc The amount of grading, dredging, earthmoving and disturbance of land above and below water during the construction of such structures shall be minimized as much as possible and shall be consistent with the permit requirements of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and United States Army Corps of Engineers regulating such activities. Except as described in this subparagraph 5, such structures shall not have roofs, covoro or sides. Such structuros may havo uncovorod side supports that Qxtond above the horizontal surface of tho structure. Sling stylo and cradio boatlifts with open framework may have overhead supports or framing that covors no moro than twonty-fivo porcent of tho lift's footprint. Boat hoists may not exceed a 22 ft x 14 ft footprint {including any roof overhang, and the roof peak will not exceed 14 feet from Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of 384 feet. Construction of a second floor level under the boat hoist roof is not allowed. No boat hoist may be used as a dwelling, sleeping, lodging or boarding place. (Comment; 22 x 14 assumes a 22 ft boat, practical for a boat lift). The maximum surface area of all boatlifts or boat hoists on a waterfront lot shall not, in the aggregate, exceed 200 308 square feet. (Comment: 22 x 14 = 308). To permit the free circulation of water, reduce the effects of fluctuating water levels, and prevent adverse modifications of the shoreline, piers, docks, and wharves shall not be constructed with rock-filled cribbing, sheet piling, closely spaced piling, or such other construction technique or materials that would significantly impair water circulation. Except as specified in subparagraph 11 below, the width of any pier, dock or wharf (excluding boatlifts and boat hoists) shall be a minimum of three feet and shall not exceed eight feet. Any extension, such as an "L", "T" or "U" extension, shall not exceed eight ft in at least one dimension (length or width). I s f < Town of Ithaca May 14,2007 DRAFT West Shore Homeowners Association suggestions 8/1/07 ' I 40 ft Example of "L" Not to scale. Max dimensions ' s (9) The length of any pier, dock or wharf, Including all extensions but excluding boatlifts and boat hoists, shall extend offshore from the Ordinary High Water line to a distance no greater than 40 feet (or such lesser distance as may be stipulated in any permit obtained for such construction from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation or the United States Army Corps of Engineers). Exception to dock length can be made where the water is shallow. In this case the dock can extend until the water depth is 5 feet (from Ordinary High Water Level) or the dock length reaches 60 feet, whichever comes first. (Comment: Some boats, sail & power, require 5+ ft. Late in the summer, the lake levels are lower. In addition, wave action significantly impacts water depth.) Each property shall be allowed one dock for every 100 feet of shoreline. The maximum surface area of all piers, docks, and wharves on a waterfront lot shall not, in the aggregate, exceed 300 384 square feet, including all extensions but excluding any boatlifts and boat hoists. Comment: 40 ft x 8 ft = 320 ft^ + L. T or U extension of 8 ft x 8 ft for total of 384 ft^. (11) Every pier, dock, wharf, boat ramp, boat lift or boat hoist that is constructed shall have a minimum clearance or setback of 20 feet from adjacent property lines, as extended from the shoreline, to allow adequate vessel access to neighboring waterfront parcels. In the case of parcels that are too narrow for such waterfront structures to meet this setback requirement, such structures shall be centered between the adjacent property lines, and the maximum width of any pier, dock or wharf on such parcel shall not exceed three four feet, including all extensions. (12) For concave or convex properties, piers, docks, and wharves shall be placed to have a minimum clearance or setback of 20 feet from the water rights lines of the parcel so as not to interfere with the lakeshore usage of adjacent parcels. In the case of parcels that are too narrow for such waterfront structures to meet this setback requirement, such structures shall be centered between the water rights lines, and the maximum width of any pier, dock or wharf on such parcel shall not exceed three four feet, including all extensions. Water rights lines are determined using the following method (see Figure 1 below): Town of Ithaca May 14, 2007 DRAFT West Shore Homeowners Association suggestions 8/1/07 (a) Determine the four points where the mean high water line intersects the property lines of the parcel and the two adjoining lakeshore parcels (Indicated by square points in Figure 1 below). (b) Connect the points of intersection with straight lines. These lines are called mean high water tie lines (dotted lines in Figure 1). (c) Where two mean high water tie lines meet, measure the angle on the waterside (i.e. 152° between Parcels E and F). (d) Bisect (or divide by two) that waterside angle measurement. The newly formed line projected out over the waterside is the water rights line (i.e. half of 152° is 76°). • g Intersection of mean higher water line and shore line Property Line Shore Line • Mean Higher Water Tie Line ' Line bisection ar^le formed by adjacent water tie lineswater nghts line • / i ^ «-water rights line L a k Parcel G Parcel B /Farce H t \ Parcel F \; Parcel CParcel A Parcel D Parcel E n (13) If lighting is provided, lighting of the surface of any pier, dock, wharf or similar uncovered waterfront structure shall be provided In such a manner so as not to produce any offensive glare (Comment: Too loose?. Can we specify type of lighting? Other options?) when viewed from the water or the land and shall comply with the requirements of the Outdoor Lighting Law, Chapter 173 of the Town of Ithaca Code.\ Town of Ithaca May 14,2007 DRAFT West Shore Homeowners Association suggestions 8/1707 (14) Commercial (for profit) renting, leasing or operation of piers, docks, wharves, boat launching ramps or similar uncovered waterfront structures shall be expressly prohibited in Lakefront Residential Districts. (Comment: Add wording that prevents "tunneling". Add tunneling to the list of Lakefront definitions. For example, we want to eliminate several parties with non-lake shore property buying takeshore property and sharing the use of the lake- shore property.) K. Moorings, subject to the following restrictions: (1) Moorings shall only be placed in connection with littoral parcels. Such structures shall be placed only within an area parallel to and 30 feet inward of the parcel lines extended lakeward at right angles from the shoreline, and to a depth necessary for safe mooring of a boat. (2) Moorings shall be placed so that objects moored to them, at full swing of their mooring or anchor line, will be no closer than 10 feet to the projection of the adjacent property lines from, the shoreline. (3) The number of private moorings permitted per each waterfront lot shall not exceed the following: ' ^ (a) 100 feet or less of water frontage: A total of one such mooring. (b) More than 100 feet up to 250 feet of water frontage: A total of two such moorings. (c) More than 250 feet up to 500 feet of water frontage: A total of three such moorings. (d) One additional mooring is allowed per each 150 feet of water frontage in excess of 500 feet. L. Nothing in this section is intended to require or permit activities which contravene any laws, rules, or regulations or permits of the United States or New York State, or any agency thereof, nor are any of the foregoing provisions intended to supersede any requirements for the obtaining of any permits or approvals required by the United States or New York State, or any agency thereof. § 270-44. Accessory buildings and uses authorized by special approval only. The following accessory buildings or uses are permitted in a Lakefront Residential Zone, but only upon receipt of a special approval for same from the Board of Appeals in ^ accordance with the procedures set forth In this chapter: A. Elder cottages pursuant to, and subject to, the provisions of § 270-216 of this chapter. Town of Ithaca May 14, 2007 DRAFT West Shore Homeowners Association suggestions 8/1/07 B. The keeping of domestic animals in accessory buildings, provided that no such ^ building shall be nearer than 30 feet to any lot line of any adjoining owner or to the Ordinary High Water line of the shoreline, and further provided that there shall be no raising of fur-bearing animals, or kennels for more than three dogs over six months old. § 270-45. Height limitations. In Lakefront Residential Zones, no building shall be erected, altered, or extended to exceed 38 feet in height from the lowest interior grade or 36 feet in height from the lowest exterior grade, whichever Is lower. No structure other than a building shall be erected, altered, or extended to exceed 30 feet in height. Notwithstanding the foregoing, piers, docks, wharves, sea walls, boat ramps, boat lifts, boat hoists, moorings and similar uncovered waterfront structures shall not exceed 8 feet in height. Accessory buildings shall in no case exceed 20 feet in height. Boat hoist roofs shall not exceed 14 feet in height. § 270-46. Yard regulations. In Lakefront Residential Zones yards of at least the following dimensions are required: A. Front yard: Not less than the average depth of the front yards of buildings on lots immediately adjacent. However, the front yard depth shall not be less than 30 feet nor need it be greater than 60 feet. ^ o B. Rear yard: Not less than 50 feet in depth unless the rear yard is adjacent to the f % shoreline, in which event the rear yard shall be not less than 25 feet in depth from ' the Ordinary High Water line. C. Side yards: Each not less than 20 feet in width, except that in one of the side yards a one-story garage, either attached to the principal building or separate therefrom, may be 15 feet from a side line which is not a street line. Exception will be made for already grandfathered properties that are less than 50 feet in width, in which case side yard needs to be not less that 10 feet in width. D. Greater yards: Notwithstanding the foregoing, any special yard requirements for specific uses or buildings set forth elsewhere in this chapter shall, if more restrictive, supersede the above yard provisions, E. Accessory buildings: In Lakofront Rosidontial Zones accossoiy buildings other than garagos may not occupy any open Gpaco othor than a roar yard. Accessory buildings, in the aggregate, may occupy not more than 15% of any roquirod roar the yard and, if other than a garage, shall be not less than three feet from any side or rear lot line. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a private garage that serves dwellings on two separate lots may be built across a common lot line with a party wall by mutual agreement between adjoining property owners provided that there is at least one garage bay on each lot. Any accessory building on a corner lot shall not be less than five feet from the rear lot line. Where the average natural slope of a lot V exceeds 8% rise or fall directly from the street line, either a private garage not over one story in height and housing not in excess of two cars or a small accessory Town of Ithaca May 14,2007 DRAFT West Shore Homeowners Association suggestions 8/1/07 building not exceeding 20 square feet in floor area and not exceeding 12 feet in height, may be located in the front or side yard not less than five feet from said street line upon receiving a special approval from the Board of Appeals. F. Minimum setback from shoreline: Notwithstanding the foregoing, any principal building, parking area, cabana, gazebo, boathouse or other accessory structure, excluding such uncovered facilities as docks, piers, wharves, sea walls, boat ramps, boatlifts, boat hoiotc and moorings, and covered or uncovered boatlifts or boat hoists, shall be located at least 25 feet inland from the Ordinary High Water line of the shoreline. Exception shall be made for cabanas on properties where steep slopes or cliffs prevent the location of a cabana 25 feet inland from the Ordinary High Water line. In this case the rear wall of the cabana shall be located four feet from said steep slope or cliff, and the lakeward wall of the cabana shall be located no closer than 10 feet from Ordinary High Water Line. G. Where site plan approval is required elsewhere in this chapter for a development or activity, the site plan review shall include review of the adequacy, location, arrangement, size, design, and general site compatibility of proposed structures, including piers, docks, wharves, sea walls, boat lifts, boat hoists, boat ramps, and moorings. The Planning Board, during site plan review, may establish a minimum setback of greater than 25 feet from the Ordinary High Water line based on due consideration by the Board of the preservation and protection of sensitive environmental features, and the maintenance of the wooded character of the shoreline area (if applicable), as well as scenic views and vistas. Where a site plan exists, an approved modified site plan shall be required if any of the thresholds specified in § 270-191 of this chapter are met, including but not limited to proposed changes to or additions of piers, docks, wharves and similar structures where such changes or additions meet a § 270-191 threshold. § 270-47, Building area. The maximum building area shall not exceed 10% 20% of the lot area. Projections described in § 270-224 are not to be included in computing the percentage. § 270-48. Size and area of lot. Lots in Lakefront Residential Zones shall meet the following minimum requirements: A. Minimum lot area shall be at least 15,000 square feet; and B. Minimum width at the street line shall be 60 feet; and C. Minimum width at the maximum required front yard setback line (60 feet from the street line) shall be 100 feet; and D. Minimum width at the shoreline, as measured in a straight line that Is 90° from a sideline at its point of intersection with the Ordinary High Water line of the lake to the other side line, shall be 100 feet; and Town of Ithaca May 14,2007 DRAFT West Shore Homeowners Association suggestions 8/1/07 E. Minimum depth from the highway right-of-way shall be 150 feet. F. Any lakeside lots subdivided prior to January 1, 2007 that do not meet criteria A-D above shall be grandfathered to their pre-Jan 1, 2007 dimensions. § 270-49. Special properties. In the case of publicly owned properties located in Lakefront Residential Zones, which comprise at least six acres in area and are traversed by interior roads or driveways, the front and side yard requirements set forth above shall apply only along the exterior public street frontages and there shall be no rear yard requirements. The shoreline setback requirements shall remain. § 270-50. Parking. Parking requirements shall be as set forth in Article XXVII. § 270-51. Special requirements. The following additional special requirements shall apply to Lakefront Residential Zones: A. Filling, grading, lagooning, dredging, earlhmoving activities, and other land use activities shall be conducted in such manner as to prevent to the maximum extent possible, erosion and sedimentation of surface waters. On slopes greater than 25%, there shall be no grading or filling within 100 feet of the Ordinary High Water line of _ the shoreline unless: (1) A permit for same is obtained pursuant to the fill permit provisions of this chapter or is issued by the Town of Ithaca Director of Engineering upon his determination that such grading or filling is necessary to protect the shoreline and to prevent erosion, or (2) Such grading and filling is in conjunction with construction pursuant to a building permit legally issued by a Code Enforcement Officer after the Town of Ithaca Director of Engineering has reviewed the proposed construction and any required or necessary erosion control measures and has determined that the conduct of such work will not adversely affect the shoreline. B. In addition to the requirements of this article, any construction, grading, or other activities shall be conducted only in accordance with any federal, state, or other local law or requirement pertaining to such activity, including any requirements of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. n 10 I nnr.K ST IR VF.Y RESUT TS. West Shore Homeowners' Association \ \ (Note, not all respondents answered all questions. Also, This summary does not reflect useful comments made by many respondents on the survey form). TOWN OF ITHACA RESULTS 1) Number of respondents: 14 2) Is there a need to regulate docks and waterside development? Yes-10 No-4 3) What should maximum dock length be? 30'- three respondents 40' - five respondents 60'- two respondents 65'- one respondent 4) Should dock length depend on water depth? Yes-9 No-4 (4 respondents said their depth of water needed was - 4', 5', .7' and 10') 5) Is 300 square feet for a dock enough? Yes-7 No- 6 6) Should a property be permitted more than one dock or a larger dock if they own more shoreline? Yes-11 No-3 7) Is an eight foot maximum width sufficient? Yes-8 No-6 8) Does 200 square feet for a boat hoist meet your needs? Yes-11 No-2 9) Regarding boat hoists: a) Do you like a "no roofs" regulation? Yes-4 No-10 b) Do you like a "no walls" regulation? Yes-10 No-3 ' 10) Do you have navigation issues getting into and out of your property? Yes-5 No-9 ' 11) Do neighbors waterside structures obstruct your view? Yes-6 No-6 12) a)Should non-conforming structures be grandfathered? Yes-12 No-2 b) If destroyed by flood, should an owner be allowed to rebuild? Yes-9 No-5 13) Do you want more regulation of duck hunting on Cayuga Lake? Yes-11 No-2 TOWN OF ULYSSES RESULTS 1) Number of respondents: 32 2) Is there a need to regulate docks and waterside development? Yes-29 No-3 3) What should maximum dock length be? 30'- seven respondents 35'- one respondent 40' - nine respondents 45'- one respondent 45' to 50'- one respondent 50'- four respondents 65'- three respondents 4) Should dock length depend on water depth? Yes-22 No-8 5) Is 300 square feet for a dock enou^? Yes-16 No-14 6) Should a propaty be permitted more than one dock or a larger dock if they own more shoreline? Yes-20 No-12 7) Is an eight foot maximum width sufficient? Yes-18 No-12 n -11- 8) Does 200 square feet for a boat hoist meet your needs? Yes-23 No-6 9) Regarding boat hoists: / ^ a) Do you like a "no roofs" regulation? Yes-8 No-23 b) Do you like a "no walls" regulation? Yes-22 No-1 10) Do you have navigation issues getting into and out of your property? Yes-4 No-28 11) Do neighbors waterside structures obstruct your view? Yes-11 No-22 12) a)Should non-conforming structures be grandfathered? Yes-29 No-3 b) If destroyed by flood, should an owner be allowed to rebuild? Yes-13 No-13 13) Do you want more regulation ofduck hunting on Cayuga Lake? Yes-14 No-7 V AGENDj1#i2 TOWN OF ITHACA 215 N. Tioga Street, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 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 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: Town Board Members From: Christine Balestra, Planner Date: March 4, 2008 RE: Lakefront Residential Zone Regulation (dock law) Presentation Materials As requested by Town Board members, enclosed please find background information related to the Lakefront Residential Zone (LRZ) regulations and proposed changes. Staff will give a brief PowerPoint presentation at the March 10* Town Board meeting that will include a discussion on the problems with the existing LRZ regulations, how these problems were discovered, what research was done to look into correcting the problems, staff recommendations on changes to the regulations, comments received, and the resultant Codes and Ordinances Committee (COC) decisions and recently recommended proposed changes. Staff recognizes that this is a great deal of information, but we hope you will be able to review the enclosed data prior to the March 10*** presentation. Also, please bring the attached materials with you to the March 10*'* Town Board meeting. Staff will be referring to some of , these materials in the PowerPoint presentation. The enclosed documents provide important background information that cannot be thoroughly discussed in the short period of time at the meeting. Please note that actual COC meeting minutes are not included in this packet, but are available in Town Hall to review. Below is a short list and description of the enclosed items: 1. A memo from staff to the COC that describes the contents of the physical inventory of existing docks and waterfront structures completed by staff at the request of the COC, 2. The completed physical inventory of docks and waterfront structures for the East Shore of the lake within the Town of Ithaca (East Shore Drive) - see notes on last page of inventory for additional explanations, 3. The completed physical inventory of docks and waterfront structures for the West Shore of the lake within the Town of Ithaca (Taughannock Boulevard) - see notes on last page of inventory for additional explanations, 4. A memo outlining statistical information from the physical inventory, 5. The "Municipal Dock Research: Existing Lakefront Regulations in Lakefront Communities in New York State," list compiled by staff and provided to the COC, 6. A packet including the compilation of COC member comments on the LRZ regulations, with staff cover memo dated August 8, 2006, 7. The "Compiled Comments on the Town of Ithaca Draft Revised Lakefront Residential Zone Regulations" list created by staff. This list includes a compilation of any and all comments received from organizations and residents when staff solicited comments on the proposed LRZ revisions. Please refer to the (also enclosed) redlined LRZ regulation if "f with current proposed modifications - the same regulation that was passed out to you at f , the February Town Board meeting, 8. Information sheet illustrating types of boat hulls and their typical under draft needs (water depths necessary to dock different types of boats), 9. Photos from a boat tour that runs every weekend in the summer from the Ithaca Farmer's Market. Staff went on the tour one weekend to collect photos of the Cayuga Lake waterfront in the Town of Ithaca (note: boat tour came closer to the west side if the lake than the east side). Staff also provided this information to the COC, however due to conflicting COC member schedules, staff could not arrange for a group trip. This tour is highly recommended to COC, Town Board, Planning Board, and Zoning Board members, as members can physically see the existing lakefront structures at the south end of the lake in the Town of Ithaca. Again, we hope you will have an opportunity to review this information prior to the meeting and will bring the materials with you. Please feel free to contact me at 273-1747 or email me at cbalestra@tQwn.ithaca.nv.us if you have any questions. I 1 TOWN OF ITHACA 215 N. Tioga Street, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 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 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: COG Members From: Christine Balestra, Planner Date: June 8, 2006 RE: Dock Inventory and Research Update Planning staff has completed the physical inventory of existing docks and structures located along Cayuga Lake within the Town of Ithaca, This inventory is attached for your review and analysis. There are two spreadsheets: one for the east side of the lake (East Shore Drive) and one for the west side of the lake (Taughannock Boulevard). Additionally enclosed is a spreadsheet containing information on other municipal dock regulations in New York State. Staff researched municipalities surrounding every mid-sized lake in New York State and obtained information from several areas (excluding small Adirondack lakes and lakes Erie and Ontario). General information applicable to both inventories: Both dock inventories contain the same headings/columns and similar endnotes. The first column is the "Address and Tax Parcel Number" for each property, as obtained from the Tompkins County / Assessment Department database. The second column, 'Type of Dock," categorized docks as either straight, straight with "L," "U," or "T," extensions (or combinations of those), unusual geometric docks with "triangle" extensions, seawalls, no docks, etc. Staff also included additional individual information where observed. For example, a "crib" dock is a type of dock with wood or concrete platforms underneath to support the dock (rather than wood poles or support pilings every several feet). This type of dock is the most environmentally damaging for sensitive lakeshore plant and animal habitats. The Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) now prohibits the construction of these types of docks, although the ones staff observed appeared to be quite old, possibly pre-dating the ACOE regulations. The next column, "Temporary or Permanent" refers to whether the dock appeared to be permanently placed, as in the wood pilings or concrete cribs, or temporary, as with plastic surfaces or lightly constructed docks with aluminum or plastic poles, and designed for removal in the winter. "Length" refers to the length of the dock, measured at the mean 'normal' water line between the high water line and low water line, as observed on the properties. For most properties, this was easy to spot, as was the high water line. However, there were at least five instances where there was no water for 15 or so feet past the end of an already 30-foot dock (or longer). It would provide inaccurate length information to measure these docks from the low water line as defined by the existing Town dock regulations (Section 270-45(A)[l](b)[7]). A 40-foot long dock would only measure 10-feet long at the low water line, when the dock was clearly 40-feet long from the shore. For this reason and due to atypically low water levels at the time of the inventory, staff measured dock lengths at the mean 'normal' water line, rather than the mean 'low' water line. For many r properties, there appeared to be approximately a two-foot difference between the low and normal water lines. "Width" refers to the width of the straight dock or main dock section, if there were additional extensions. There were some properties with "decks" more than docks - it was hard to categorize them, as the docks were part of the deck, but in those cases (865, 987, 1013, and 1085 Taughannock Boulevard) staff calculated and included the surface area of the decks. For the most part, however, ^ "Surface Area," the next column, included only those structures defined by the Town of Ithaca Lakefront Residential Zone, Section 270-45(A)[l](b)[8], "maximum surface area of all docks, piers, and wharves." The dimensions of boathouses, boatlifts, and decks, were noted under their columns, but not included in the overall surface area calculations. There were two properties, 975 and 979 Taughannock Boulevard, which contained so many combinations of lakeshore structures that they were impossible to place on the West Shore inventory sheet in an organized fashion. The information for these properties is included as an attachment at the end of the West Shore spreadsheet. The next column on the spreadsheets, "Extension Area/Sq. Footage" illustrates the dimensional characteristics - length and width - of any extensions ("L", "U", "T", triangular, irregular). The "Boatlift" and "Mooring" columns contain dimensional and other characteristics observed for any boatlifts, boathouses, and moorings. Again, these dimensions were not added to the overall surface area calculations in the suiface area column. "Depth of Water" refers to the depth of the water at the 30-foot length and at the end of the dock, if it was longer than 30-feet. As noted in the endnote section, depth of water fluctuates seasonally. All of the measurements were taken at a time that is typically the high water lime, given normal spring thaw. However, a mild winter with little precipitation resulted in water levels more typical of the low water time. Finally, the "Deck" column notes any decks attached to docks or those that extend from the shoreline out to the lake. Some properties (i.e. 869, 871, 987, 1013, or 1069 Taughannock Blvd.) contained \ homes or boathouses at the shore with decks attached and/or surrounding the home or boathouse, or as noted above, had combinations of dock and deck. Other properties contained decks on top of boatlifts or boathouses, but the decks were not immediately at the shore level (i.e. 829, 857, 927, or 935 Taughannock Blvd). Information specific to the East Shore inventorv: All data was collected on March 30, 2006, for the East Shore inventory. The blue section indicated on the spreadsheet shows locations where staff could not gain access to properties and therefore needed to rely on ArcView GIS and aerial photos for the calculations. These dimension are accurate within two to three feet. Information specific to the West Shore inventorv: The color-coded sections refer to the dates of data collection and lake levels on those dates. If you look at the endnotes, youTl see five different colored boxes with dates and lake level data. This information corresponds to the various colors in the spreadsheet (i.e. staff obtained data for the green section, 819 to 901 Taughannock Boulevard, on May 31, 2006. The lake water level was 382.91 feet on that day.) Staff will begin a more specific statistical analysis of the data and will report findings at the COC meeting in July, unless there is additional priority research requested. Hopefully this data will assist the COC in their analysis and update of the existing Town of Ithaca dock regulations. Please feel free to contact me at 273-1747 or email me at cbaIestra@town.ithaca.nv.us if you have any questions at all regarding the enclosed dock information or other elements of the project. Alt. TOWN OF ITHACA CAYUGA LAKE DOCK INVENTORYEAST SHORE:Address(and Tax Parcel No.)Type of DockTemporary orPermanentLength(feet)"Width(feet)Surface Area(sq ft)"*ExtensionArea/Sq.FootageBoatliftY/N/UNK(area)MooringY/N/UNKDepth ofWater* (feet)DeckY/N/UNK(area)918 East Shore DriveTP#18-5-14StraightTemp-pipe dock453135N/A10LX8WNmud/no waterProperty onpilings930 East Shore DriveTP#18-5-12SeawallPermN/AN/AN/AN/ANNmud/no waterN934 East Shore DriveTP#18-5-10SeawallPermN/AN/AN/AN/A6'L X 6'WmetalY- buoy6 inches15Lx 13W934B East Shore DriveTP#18-5-9NoneN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A936A East Shore DriveTP# 18-5-8NoneN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A938 East Shore DriveTP#18-5-7NoneN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A940 East Shore DriveTP#18-5-5NoneN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A940A East Shore DriveTP#18-5-3StraightPerm427294N/ANNmud/no waterN940B East Shore DriveTP#18-5-2StraightPerm507350N/ANNMud @ 306" @ 50NEast Shore MarinaTP#19-2-29VariousBothVarious(20-40)VariousVariousVariousNNVariousVarious1002 East Shore DriveTP#19-2-27StraightPerm298232N/ANN3 @ 2913L X 26W1004 East Shore DriveTP#19-2-26StraightPerm2610260N/ANN1 @ 26N1006 East Shore DriveTP#19-2-25StraightPerm348272N/A19LX 11WY - buoy1.7 @ 302 @ 34N1010 East Shore DriveTP#19-2-23"L" extensionPerm356.5257.5(w/ "L")10Lx3W =30NNUNKN1012 East Shore DriveTP#19-2-22"L'7triangleextension'^Perm508655(w/'L" andtriangle)15Lx13W=195-t-10Bx12H = 60^NNUNKN1014 East Shore DriveTP#19-2-21"L" ExtensionPerm556505(w/"L")12.5Lx14W =175NN2.5 @ 304.4 @ 55N1016 East Shore DriveTP#19-2-20StraightPerm2510250N/ANN2.8 @ 25N(Completed by Town of Hhfrg Planning Department. 6/1/06C. C'^(TOWN OF ITHACA CAi..ake dock inventoryCAddress(and Tax Parcel No.)Type of DockTemporary orPermanentLength(feet)**Width(feet)Surface Area(sqft)***ExtensionArea/Sq.FootageBoatllftY/N/UNK(area)MooringY/N/UNKDepth ofWater* (feet)DeckY/N/UNK(area)1018 East Shore DriveTP#19-2-19Straight (offdeck)Perm28 (15'beyonddeck)384N/ANN1.8 @ 2815LX22W +12LX14.5W= 5041020 East Shore DriveTP#19-2-18"L" extensionPerm32.54250(w/"L")20Lx6W = 12014Lx8WN2 @ 302 @ 32N1022 East Shore DriveTP#19-2-17StraightPerm2312276N/ANN2 @ 23N1028 East Shore DriveTP#19-2-16"L" extensionPerm306300(w/ "L")8Lx 15W = 12014LX24WY-buoy2 @ 30N1030 East Shore DriveTP#19-2-15"L" extensionPerm428432(w/ "L")8Lx12W =96NN4.5 @ 42N1032 East Shore DriveTP#19-2-14"L7 triangleextension'^Perm286269(w/"L" andtriangle)8.5Lx10W = 85-t-4Bx4H = 16ANN2.8 @ 28N1036 East Shore DriveTP#19-2-13"L7 triangleextension/^Perm304300(w/"L" andtrianqie)12Lx 12W =144-t-6Bx6H =36^^6'L X 6'WmetalN2 @ 30N1038 East Shore DriveTP#19-2-12triangie^^extensionPerm406315 (w/ triangle)15Bx10H =75^NN1.5 @ 302.8 @ 40N1040 East Shore DriveTP#19-2-10"L" extensionPerm374.5210.5(wri")11L X 4W = 44partial, metalN2.8 @ 304 @ 37N1050 East Shore DriveTP#1 9-2-9.1"L" extensionTemp - plastic314148(w/"L")4L x 6W = 24NN1 @ 301.5 @ 33N1052 East Shore DriveTP#19-2-9.2"L" extensionPerm444272(w/ "L")12Lx8W =96NN1.2 @ 301.8 @ 32N1102 East Shore DriveTP#1 9-2-8"L" extensionPerm314142(w/ "L")6L X 3W =18NNUNKN1106 East Shore DriveTP#1 9-2-7"T" extensionPerm488432(w/ "T")(8L X 3W) x 2 =48lOLx 10WN1.2 @ 304 @ 48N1114 East Shore DriveTP#19-2-6"T" extensionPerm354.5583.5(w/'T")20.5LX10W+16LX 13W =413 + 6.5x2 =1310Lx lowY- buoy3 @ 304.5 @ 35N1120 East Shore DriveTP#19-2-5.1"L" extensionPerm426372(w/ "L")lOLx 12W =120NN2.6 @ 303.1 @ 42NCk)mpleted by Town of Ithaca Planning Department. 6/1/06 TOWN OF ITHACA CAYUGA LAKE DOCK INVENTORYAddress(and Tax Parcel No.)Type of DockTemporary orPermanentLength(feet)"Width(feet)Surface Area(sq ft)"'ExtensionArea/Sq.FootageBoatliftY/N/UNK(area)MooringY/N/UNKDepth ofWater* (feet)DeckY/N/UNK(area)1126 East Shore DriveTP#19-2-5.2"L" extensionPerm60852812Lx4W = 48NNN/A (dock notbuilt yet)N1128 East Shore DriveNoneN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A1132 East Shore DriveTP#19-2-3SeaWall/DeckPermN/AN/AN/AN/A12Lx8WNN/A12Lx26W =3121134 East Shore DriveTP#19-2-2"L" extensionPerm425.5423(w/ "L")16Lx12W =19223Lx 15WN3 @ 305.2 @ 42N1138 East Shore DriveTP#19-2-1 (last parcel InTown of Ithaca)NoneN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/ANOTES:All data collected 3/30/06. Lake water level (ft), as per USGS Real-Tlme Water Data for Cayuga Inlet (Cayuga Lake): 380.39Y = Yes, N = No, N/A = Not ApplicableUNK = Unknown - In most cases, this means staff was not able or allowed access to property owner's dock. If so, data viewed and calculatedusing ArcView GIS and 2002 aerial photos.'Depth of Water as measured at 30 feet and at end of the dock (If longer than 30 feet). Depth of water changes regularly, depending on season.These measurements were taken at the end of Inarch when the water level should be at It's highest, due to spring thaw. However, the levelsreflected are actually more typical of the lowest water level measurements due to a very mild winter with minimal precipitation."Dock length measured at mean 'normal' water line (between low and high), as observed for each property. For most properties, there is approximately a two footdifference between the low and normal water lines. The fluctuating shoreline makes It difficult to create a standard length measurement point for all properties.'"Surface area (s.a.) calculated per Town of Ithaca Lakefront Residential Zone: "maximum surface area of all docks, piers, and wharves." Does not Include s.a.of decks, boatllfts, or boathouses.Area of a trlanqle equals one-half the base times the heiqht (I.e. 1038 E. Shore Dr; 1/2 of 10 = 5 and 5 x 15 = 75 feet)C:Completed by Town of llheca Planning Department. 6/1/06(C WEST SHORE:1 "■ ^ ((^jdhT^^j^lpjaMtTenyjpiatyAQij1:" ■:jElgfhlWjjj- - 'V--;-';-. - 1VASIuEM^i^Acea'i'i- i-- -\- i^p^irftWN/UNIC((afila)) i-■-ililt&brfngi 1i Y/i^NIC jj, isiaiifisf; ij- ^Deck- ■819 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-39Straight-newconstructionPerm567.9442.4N/ANN2.2 @ 303.5 @ 56N825 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-39Inaccessible -most of dock inwaterdock fallingapartUNKUNKUNKN/ANUNKUNKUNK829 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-38Straightpartiallydestroyed /inaccessible34 feet ok,rest unstable/demolished8272 (partial)N/Apartial boatliftunder water,double lift atshore (see deck)NUNK34LX22Wboathouseabove doubleboatlift831 Taughannock BlvdTP#25-2-372 straight w/"L", 2triangles & deckPermA. 32 B.26A. 4B.2302 (both docksw/ "L"&triangles)/-». 1 1 1 1/ T(10LX3.5WT")= 90B. (4Bx8H) =r\r\NY-polesbetweendocksA. 5 @ 32B. 4.5 @ 2616Lx40W =640835 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-36"L" extensionPerm213183(w/"L'')10Lx12W =120NN3 @ 21N839 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-342-"L" extensionsw/deckPerm618600.75(w/ "L")(4Lx16W) +19.5Lx2.5W) =112.7520L X 9W2 wood poles5.1 @ 305.5 @ 6113Lx30W =390841 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-33"L" extension w/deckPerm30.54218(w/ "L")8Lx12W = 96NN5.4 @ 3018LX40W =720845 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-32.2StraightPerm8310830N/ANY-buoy3.7 @ 306 @ 83N847 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-32.1"L" extension w/trianglePerm498771 (w/"L"&triangle)(19LX17W) +(7Bx8H) = 379N2 wood polesand buoy3.8 @ 305.8 @ 49N853 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-312 StraightSections w/boatlift betweenPerm (both)A. 28 B.25A. 5 B.5265 (both docks)N/A16LX20Wwood poleA. 4.1 @ 28B. 3.9 @ 25N855 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-30A. "L" Ext.B. StraightPerm (both)A. 31 B.31A. 6 B.6504 (both docksand "L")A. 12lJc11W =132NNA. 4.3 @31B. 4.1 @ 31N857 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-29Straight -concrete cribPerm3513455N/A20LX10WNOOl 00OC MCotOCCOdeterioratingconcrete deck16LX60W865 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-27StraightPerm22.920458N/ANwood pole3.6 @ 20N869 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-25A. "L" Ext.B. StraightPerm (both)A. 31 B.62A. 6 B.8T78 (both docksand "L")A. 6Lx16W =96NY-buoyA. 3.3 @ 303.5 @ 31B. 2.6 @ 305.6 @626Lx42W-connectsdocks at shore871 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-24Straight- partialcribPerm519f459N/A20LX10WY-buoy3 @306.2 @ 51fhome on shore- crib deckattachedX 35W cTOWN OF ITHACA * \KE DOCK INVENTORYX(1 (andjfax0afGei^N^i' jn !11 Jh, :|_ ((alii))--; -11 sY/N/UNi^L. .Deck< 1f Y/N/UNf? 1{(aiPa)) i873-875 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-23Straight-cribPerm128.7104.4N/ANN3.6 @ 12N877 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-22Straight -attached toboatliftPerm20480N/A19.5Lx8WN5.8 @ end ofdeck16LX16W +16LX4Wstor.blg.879 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-21Straight- concretecribPerm168128N/A32LX12WboathouseN3.6 @ 16N881 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-20.2"L" extensionPerm398376(w/"L")4Lx16W =64NN3.5 @ 306.2 @ 39N881.5 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-19Irregular "L"(approx. msrmts)Perm4710886.5 (w/"L")17Lx24.5W =416.5NN2.4 @ 306 @ 47N883 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-18"L" extension withtrianglePerm727.8974 (w/ "L" andtriangle)^(18.6Lx19.9W)+ (6.5B X 6.5H) =412.39NN5 @ 307 @ 72N885 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-17Straightpartiallydestroyed /InaccessibleUNKUNKUNKN/A6L X 6W metalNUNKN887 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-16Straightdestroyed/inaccessibleUNKUNKUNKN/ANNUNKN891 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-15A. StraightB. "L"Perm (both)A. 12 B.40A. 8B.5674 (both docksand "L")B. 18Lx21W =378NNA. 3 @ 12B. 3 @ 30;4.5 @ 40N895 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-13Straight- cribPerm255.3132.5N/ANinflatable raft3.1 @ 25N901 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-41.1"L" extension withtrellis on "L"Perm789.31,085.4 (w/"L")12L X 30W=36027Lx16Ww/attached dockN5.1 @ 307.2 @ 78N905 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-11Straight - cribPerm189162N/ANN4.5 @ 1811LX25Wgravel907 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-10"L" extension (6LX 4.5W stor. big.on dockPerm648720(w/"L")26Lx8W =2086L X 6W metalwood polesnear dock(mooringapprox. 31'sailboat)3.5 @ 307 @ 64N909 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-9"L" extension (14LX 4.5W stor. big.on dock)Perm398444(w/"L")12Lx11W =1326Lx6W metalN6.5 @ 307 @ 3919Lx35Wgravel911 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-8"L" extension w/gravei deckPerm39.56367 (w/"L")10LX13W =130NN6.6 @ 307 @ 39.516Lx18W=288Completed by Town of Ithaca Planning Department, 6/1/06 TOWN OF ITHACA CAYUGA LAKE DOCK INVENTORYAddress(and Tax Parcel No.)Type of DockTemporary orPermanentLength(feet)"Width (feet)Surface Area(sq.ft)"*ExtensionArea/Sq.FootageBoatlift Y/N/UNK(area)MooringY/N/UNKDepth ofWater* (feet)DeckY/N/UNK(area)913 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-7"L" extensionPerm328382 (w/"L")12LX10.5W =12632Lx21WboathouseY-buoy6.5 @ 306.5 @ 32N921 Taughnnock Blvd.TP#25-2-6.2Straight -partialgravelPerm597.5442.5N/ANN2.8 @ 305 @ 59N925 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-6.1Straight (2)A. PermB. PermA. 37 B.20A. 8 B.10496 (both docks)N/A36L X 29WboathouseN5 @ 306.5 @ 37N927 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-5"L" extensionPerm199347 (w/"L")22Lx8W = 17619Lx 16WN4.5 @ 19Y- on top ofboatlift931 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-4Straight-partialPerm - partialwashed away14 (partial)456N/ANNNo access:demolished atshoreN935 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-3StraightPerm675335N/AA. 22Lx21WB. 12LX10WN3.7 @ 307.2 @ 67Y- on top ofone boatlift941 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-2"L" extensionPerm406495(w/ "L")17Lx15W =25525U15WN4.8 @ 306 @ 40N955 Taughannock Blvd.TP#25-2-1Zig Zag-irregularPerm608overall =1,136see recentPB file24LX14WN5.1 @ 307.2 @ 60N961 Taughannock Blvd.TP#21-2-36"T" extensionPerm324306.5(w/"T")(7Lx11.5W) +(7Lx14W) =178.5NN4.6 @ 304.7 @ 32N967 Taughannock Blvd.TP#21-2-35StraightPerm21363N/A18Lx12WN3 @ 21N969 Taughannock Blvd.TP#21-2-34NoneN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A20Lx14WNN/AN971 Taughannock Blvd.TP#21-2-33NoneN/AN/AN/AN/AN/ANY-buoyN/Aapprox.8Lx8W975 Taughannock Blvd.TP#21-2-32SEE ATTACHED979 Taughannock Blvd.TP#21-2-31SEE ATTACHED981 Taughannock Blvd.TP#21-2-302- "L" extensionsPerm538720.5(w/ "L"extensions)(22L x 7W) +(19Lx7.5W) += 296.510.5LX 12WN4.8 @ 307.4 @ 53Y15LX36Wlike seawallplus deck ontop of boatlift983 Taughannock Blvd.TP#21-2-29"L" extensionPerm4210624(w/V)8Lx25.5W =204NY-twowoodenpoles2.8 @ 305 @ 42NCompleted by Town o.cing Department. 6/1/06( TOWN OF ITHACAC^^'^ * * \KE DOCK INVENTORYAddress(and Tax Parcel No.)Type of DockTemporary orPermanentLength(feet)"Width (feet)Surface Area(sq. ft)"*ExtensionArea/Sq.FootageBoatlift Y/N/UNK(area)MooringY/N/UNKDepth ofWater* (feet)DeckY/N/UNK(area)985 Taughannock Blvd.TP#21-2-28NoneN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A20L X 10W metalNN/Adeck from 985on thisproperty987 Taughannock Blvd.TP#21-2-272 "decks" alongwidth of propertyPermA. 10.5 B.15A.80 B.211,155 (bothdocks)N/A20Lx 13WN4Y (runs thewidth of theshoreline)997 Taughannock Blvd.TP#21-2-26straight, plus oldboat launchPerm, in poorcondition56.5 (launch= 24)7(launch = 14)731.5(inci launch)N/A30L x 20W oldN2.8 @ 307.8 @ 56.5N1001 Taughannock Blvd.TP#21-2-25"L" extensionPerm51.512990 (w/"L")15.5LX24W =3726L x 6W metalY-buoy5 @ 307.8 @ 51.5N1007 Taughannock Blvd. #212-24StraightPerm578456N/Adouble lift, wood39L x 30WN3.3 @ 307.2 @ 57N1009 Taughannock Blvd.TP#21-2-23(2) StraightPerm (one isgravel crib)A. 55 B.36A. 9.5 B.8810.5 (bothdocks)N/ANNA: 1 @ 304.5 @ 55B: 4.7 @ 306.3 @ 36N1011 Taughannock Blvd.TP#21-2-21"L" Extension andboathousePerm649828 (w/"L")12Lx21W =25242L X 20WboathouseN2.6 @ 308.1 @ 64N1013 Taughannock Blvd.TP#21-2-22A. Straight - plusa boatlift with "L"dock (B) and aboathouse withattacheddock/deck (C)All PermA. 34 B.21 C.43A. 3.5 B.4 C.26A. 119B. 228.5 (incl. "L")C. 1,118 incl.boathouse anddock/deck)B. 8.5Lx17W =144.5B. 30Lx14WNA: 3.5 @ 304 @ 34B: 4' @ 21C: 3.6 @ 307.2 @ 43Y -withboathouse:deck surroundsboathouse- seesurface area"C"1031 Taughannock Blvd.TP#21-2-19Straight(w/gazebo onend)andboathousePerm736438N/A30Lx 13Wboathouse with36L X 8W dockattachedY -twowoodenpilings2.5 @ 307.6 @ 73N1035 Taughannock Blvd.TP#21-2-18"L" ExtensionPenm636621.75 (w/"L")12.5Lx19.5W=243.756L X 6W metalN3 @ 308.5 @ 63N1039 Taughannock Blvd.TP#21-2-17"L" ExtensionPerm77.56657 (w/"L")12Lx16W =192301X 20WN2.3 @ 307.6 @ 77.5N1045 Taughannock Blvd.TP#21-2-16StraightPerm358280N/A19LX5WN4 @ 305.6 @ 35N1051 TaughannockTP#21-2-15 (5-acre parcel)A. "U"B. StraightC. Straight-pipedockA. PermB. PermC. Temp/permA. 40B.29C. 44A. 2.5/2.5/5B. 11C.4793.75 (threedocks and "U")A, (40L X 5W) +(15.5Lx2.5W) +(24L X 2.5 W) =298.75s.f.A. 16LX14WB. 11Lx8WNA. 4 @ 246 @ 40B. 6.3 @ 29C. 1 @ 30N1057 TaughannockTP#21-2-14Straight-partialgravel, partial cribPerm558440N/ANN1.3 @ 306 @ 55NCompleted by Town of Ithaca Planning Department, 6/1/06 In general, we are concerned that, in the recent trend to develop Cayuga Lake shore properties, docks have gotten larger and have begun to extend further into the lake. All navigable waterways, including Cayuga Lake, are public resources with recreational and aesthetic value. Overdevelopment of the shoreline of Cayuga Lake affects the public's use of that resource and destroys the natural beauty of the shoreline. Rights of landowners along the shore to develop their properties should not supersede the rights of the public or of their neighbors to use or enjoy that waterway. Finally, we feel it would be helpful to add clarifying language to educate residents about the fact that once a dock has been built, even thought it is privately owned, it is legal for any member of the boating public to use it. [his true? r Compiled Comments on the Town of Ithaca Draft Revised Lakefront Residential Zone Regulations [Note: staff added brief descriptions of regulation sections that correspond to the comments below. Please refer to the actual draft regulation for the complete section descriptions] Comments Specifically Related to Sections Currently Considered For Revision: -WSHA (West Shore Homeowner's Association) suggests adding and allowing: 'cabanas', and deleting: 'uncovered"'(thereby allowing covered boatlifts) From draft law, Section 270- 43. Permitted Accessory Structures and Uses. Item J. -Alcyone Charters: "Seems a little overkill for small structures" From draft law, Section 270-43, Item J.l. -WRC (Tompkins County Water Resources Council): "Would be nice to specifically mention not creating hazards for non-motorized craft, although they are implicitly included as written." From draft law, Section 270-43, Item 3.2. -Alcyone Charters: "What about boat houses where people want to protect their boats from the elements? If I have a classic wooden boat, I would not want it to be out in the open all the time. Some boat houses are used to store their boats during the winter. What about restoring a boat house that is destroyed by fire/ice/or other calamities. Would the property owner be allowed to rebuild on the oldfootprint?" -WSHA suggests deleting most of this section and replacing it with the following: "boat hoists mat not exceed 22ft X 14ft footprint including any roof overhang and the roof peak will not exceed 14 feet from the OHW level of 384 feet. Construction of a second floor level under the boat hoist roof is not allowed. No boat hoist may be used as a dwelling, sleeping, lodging, or boarding place. (22 x 14ft assumes a 22ft boat, practical for a boat lift)." From draft law. Item J.5. [Law describes boat lifts are not to have roofs, covers, or sides, except sling/cradle lifts, etc.] -Alcyone Charters: "This would limit the size of a boatfor a property owner to under 20 feet?" -WSHA suggests changing the max. area to 308s.f. (22xl4ft). From draft law, Item J.6. [Law states 200s.f. max. surface area in aggregate for all boat lifts/hoists] -WRC: "The last clause is confusing, "shall no exceed eight feet in at least one dimension"- can [they] just say 'any dimension'?" From draft law. Item J.8. [Law states 8ft max. width dock extension in at least one dimension] -Alcyone Charters: "Length of dock should be determined by the needs of the property owner's boat. We need 6ft of water to float our sailboat. This is not possible until we are out almost 70ft. There ore areas of the southern part of this lake that are shallow." -WSHA added a graphic and suggests adding: "Exception to dock length can be made where the water is shallow. In this case the dock can extend until the water depth is 5ft from OHW or the dock length reaches 60ft, whichever comes first." -WSHA suggests adding a "9a" that states, "each property shall be allowed one dock for every 100ft of shoreline." 1 -Gersh: "Dock length - the '40ft' measured from the high water line revision must take into account the disparities in the shoreline. There are areas where 'points' of land extend into the lake. A dock beginning at the terminus of such a point, and then extending out 40ft could create a navigational hazard. I don't know if the measurement f'rom the high water line' ameliorates this concern." From draft law. Item J.9. [Law limits dock length to 40ft from OHW line] -Alcyone Charters: "Some properties are only 30ft wide at the shore and the proposed setbacks are not possible. What happens if the dock is destroyed? Can we rebuild on the existing footprint?" -WSHA suggests a 4ft wide dock for parcels too narrow to meet the setback requirements. Law states 3ft wide. -WRC: "The three foot restriction for narrow lots is pretty restrictive. A waiver/special permit should be available for reasonable alternatives (this provision may already be in there and I didn't catch it.}" From draft law. Item J. 11. ILaw requires 20ft side yard setback with exceptions for narrow lots] -Alcyone Charters: "Too confusing." -WSHA suggests a 4ft width for parcels with convex/concave situations and too narrow to meet setbacks. Law states 3ft. -WRC: "How were the water rights lines developed? Are they fair? Parcel C in the figure would have a very small area compared to his/her neighbors." From draft law, Item J.12. [Convex and concave properties section] -WSHA: "Too loose? Can we specify type of lighting? Other options?" -Gersh: "Lighting ~ I would like to see .some provisions regulating maximum and minimum lighting on docks, boatlifts, boathouses, etc. First, rules should restrict bright, glaring lights that interfere with neighbors' enjoyment. But secondly, any structure projecting out in the lake which might cause a boating accident should have mandatory warning lights in operation after dusk, perhaps blinking." -WRC: "There are no size restrictions on moorings. Are large floating docks/swimming platforms covered by the regulations?" From draft law, Item J.13. [Law states lighting requirements need to meet Town's Outdoor Lighting Lawl -WSHA suggests adding wording that prevents f'unneling' and adding funneling to the definition list. "For example, we want to eliminate several parties with non-lakeshore property buying lakeshore property and sharing the use of the lakeshore property." From draft law, Item J.I4. [Section prohibiting commercial renting, leasing, etc. of docks, piers, wharves, etc.] Comments SpedHcally Related to Sections Currently NOT Considered For Revision: -WSHA: "Add: 'The grandfather clause defined in 270-211 is applicable'" From existing law, Section 270-40. Purpose {no change currently proposed). -WRC: "There are restrictions in 270-43F on the number of clients at adult day-care facilities, but < ^ restrictions are not established for the other "homes" listed in 270-41E. [You] might want to address what n applies to these facilities- and define these facilities. I'm not sure what they are or how big they might get." "What is a communit}^ residence? Is it defined elsewhere?" From existing law, Sections 270-41, Permitted Principle Uses and 270-43, Permitted Accessory Structures and Uses (no change currently proposed). -Alcyone Charters: "There was no mention of weekly/monthly rentals, vacation rentals, What is 'community residence?', no definition of a family, no mention of number of cars/parking. This has caused problems due to the closeness of homes and/or terrain and lot sizes." From existing law, Section 270-41. Permitted Principle Uses (no change currently proposed). -Alcyone Charters: "Permitted as of right? Something missing here? No parking within 100ft of high water may not defeasible due to terrain which may dictate where you can park. We assume that existing parking areas a grandfathered. Some areas have been usedfor 50 years or more. Consideration must be made on an individual lot basis based on terrain." -WSHA suggests adding: 'with the exception of that which existed before the establishment of the Lakefront Residential Zone.'" From existing law, Section 270- 43. Permitted Accessory Structures and Uses, Item A. [Law states no vehicle parking shall occur within 100 feet of the Ordinary High Water line of any shoreline](no change currently proposed) -Alcyone Charters: "We feel this is very arbitrary. Who decided that 2 accessory buildings and 600s.f would be allowed?" y From existing law, Section 270- 43, Item C. [Law states up to two accessory buildings, other than a garage, all such accessory buildings in the aggregate not to exceed a total of 600 square feet in size] (no change currently proposed) -Alcyone Charters: "Riparian rights and Littoral parcels confusing." — WSHA: "We support the intent but it (the section) must be reworded. An activist could use this section to stop a high share of structures. The 'not to impact' clause for any of these provisions are too loose and open to interpretation. Please reference national standards to define requirements. At this time, we do not have a rewording suggestion." From existing law. Section 270-43, Item J.2. [Law states the construction of docks, piers, wharves, etc., shall be undertaken in such a way so as not to...infringe on the riparian rights of other littoral parcels..."] -Alcyone Charters: "Pressure treated wood ok? Not clear." -WSHA: "We support the intent but it (the section) must be reworded. An activist could use this section to stop a high share of structures. For example, as stated, pressure treated wood is probably not acceptable. Can we reference a national regulatory standard that defines materials that are stable and not harmful to water quality?" From existing law. Section 270-43, Item J.3. [Law states such structures shall be constructed of stable, chemically inert materials...] -Mary Shelley: "Minimum 3' width for walkways out to the end of a dock is too narrow, instead it should be 4(feet). I see this as a safety issue in the winter." From existing law. Section 270-43, Item J.8. [3-foot minimum and 8-foot maximum dock width] -Alcyone Charters: "Depends on the amount of dock needed to reach adequate depth." -WSHA suggests a 384s.f. max. area -Mary Shelley: "Because much of the west side has steep slopes with narrow beachfronts, many people use their docks to sit on. Since the last draft law, dock length has been increased from 30 to 40 feet. 1 would proportionally increase maximum allowed square footage from 300 to 400 square feet." From existing law. Section 270-43, Item J. 10. [Law states 300s.f. max surface area of docks] -Alcyone Charters: "There could be a problem with a 36ft boat on a 60ft property." From existing law, Section 270-43, Item K.2. [Moorings - placed so that moored objects swing no closer than 10 feet from adjacent property lines] -WSHA suggests deleting "boat lifts" and adding "boat hoists" and also adding: "Boat hoist roofs shall not exceed 14ft in height." From existing law, Section 270-45. Height Limitations. -Alcyone Charters: "Front yard/back yard definitions do not apply to most properties on Taughannock Boulevard. Most residents consider the lake side their "front" yard, and the boulevard side their "back" yard." From existing law, Section 270-46. Yard Regulations, Item A[Front yard setback] -Alcyone Charters: "Depends on terrain. Does this apply to lots where a house is torn down and a new is planned?" From existing law. Section 270-46, Item B [Rear yard setback] -Alcyone Charters: "Depends on lot width. Not practicable where properties are 30-40ft wide." _ -WSHA suggests adding "exception will be made for already grandfathered properties that are less than 50ft f in width, in which case side yard needs to be not less than I Oft in width." -Mary Shelley: "270-46-C states that side yards need to be 'each not less than 20ft in width.' Some 'grandfathered' lots may be less than 50ft wide. Allow these grandfathered properties a ten foot side yard with restricted height of the building." From existing law, Section 270-46, Item C [Side yard setback] -Alcyone Charters: "Confusing." From existing law, Section 270-46, Item D [Greater yards] -Alcyone Charters: "Again, definitions of front yard/back yardfor lake properties." -WSHA suggests deleting the first line, "In Lakefront Residential Zones, accessory buildings other than garages may not occupy any open space other than a rear yard." -Mary Shelley: "270-46-E says 'accessory buildings other than garages may not occupy any open space other than a rear yard.' On the lake, houses tend to be in the 'rear yard' close to the lake and accessory structures (with the exception of cabanas) tend to be placed in the f'ront yard', i.e. away from the lake." From existing law. Section 270-46, Item E [Accessory Buildings] -Alcyone Charters: "Earlier it was stated that structures could not have a roof or side walls? Depends on terrain " -WSHA suggests deleting "cabana", "boathouse", "boatlifts", and "boat hoists" and adding "covered or uncovered boatlifts or boat hoists." Also to add: "Exception shall be made for cabanas on properties where ^ steep slopes or cliffs prevent the location of a cabana 25ft inland from the OHW line. In this case, the rear ' wall of the cabana shall be located 4ft from said steep slope or cliff' and the lakeward wall of the cabana shall be located no closer than 10ft from the OHW line." -Mary Shelley: "Again, because many properties on the west side of the lake have steep slopes and narrow beachfronts, requiring a minimum 25' setback from the water for accessory structures simply means accessory structure cannot be at beach level. This creates a hardship, particularly when there are many steps down to the beach. It's one thing to say a house or principle structure needs a minimum 25' setback from the lake, but quite another to say a shed or cabana (where people keep their life jackets, paddles, etc.) needs such a setback from the water. Allow accessory buildings on the beach as long as they are inland more than 10 feet from the ordinary high water line." From existing law, Section 270-46, Item F [Min. setback from shorelinej -Alcyone Charters: "270-191 not provided. All structures that impede adjacent property owners' views must be considered when adding new structures or additions to both docks and/or homes." From existing law, Seclion270-46, Item G [Site plan approval requirements, when applicable] -Alcyone Charters: "Depends on terrain and lot size/adjoining lots." -WSHA suggests a 20% max. building area. From existing law, Section 270-47. Building Area. [Law states a 10% maximum building area] - Alcyone Charters: "A-E. Not too many lots on south end of lake comply. Is more land being made?" -WSHA suggests adding "F" to say: "Any lakeside lots subdivided prior to January 1, 2007, that do not meet criteria A-D above shall be grandfathered to their pre-Jan. 1, 2007 dimensions." " From existing law, Section 270-48. Size and Area of Lot. ILaw states minimum lot dimensions] Other Comments and Suggestions: Water Resources Council: "You might define Waterfront Residential Zone." Water Resources Council: "What is the extent of public use of the shoreline, since in 270-43, J.2., structures are not allowed to 'interfere with the public use and enjoyment of the water surface of the shoreline"? Water Resources Council: "In general, the legislation is much more inclusive than we in the REC committee ever discussed or even contemplated. I would also assume that this legislation is commensurate with that existing in other waterfront municipalities - a good defense." Mary Shelley: "The grandfathering issue" - I support selective grandfathering of structures that have been destroyed by flood or fire. 'Destruction' needs to be defined. 100% destroyed?, 80% destroyed? Don't grandfather what 1 would consider problem waterfront structures - second floor dock platforms, solid boathouses (exception being made for historic boathouses), excessively long docks (longer than 60ft), or any structure that obstructs the water rights lines of an adjoining parcel." Mary Shelley: "Funneling - Have provisions in the law that prevent f'unneling,' in which multiple parties pool together and buy one property on the lake, thus creating a quasi marina or commercial type property that will be offensive to neighbors and other users of the lake." Larry Salinger of the Tompkins County EMC: "I presented the proposed changes in the LRZ to the Tompkins County EMC at its 7/11/07 meeting and received no comments or suggestions." j \ David Gersh: Please see pages 2,3, and 4 of the enclosed letter by David Gersh (1052 East Shore Drive), ' dated July 6, 2007, for his comments regarding "funnel" development, (comments were too extensive to re type here) f Boat Hulls - Types and Designs - a - u:)(cI-Un biioJI- ol" oadl? ''Jr poT^J", Types of Boat Hulls ~ci bo<x:|^c k^ocxj'^ Types Of Hulls Flat bottom boat - These boats are generally less expensive to build and have a shallow draft (the part of the boat thafs under the water). They can get up on plane easily but unless the water is very calm they tend to give a rough ride because of the flat bottom pounding on each wave. They also tend to be less stable and require careful balancing of cargo and crew. Examples of flat bottom boats might be Jon boats, small utility boats, and some high speed runabouts. 3' Vee bottom boat - The vee bottom tends to have a sharper entry Into the water which provides for a smoother ride In rough water. They do, however, require more power to achieve the same speed. Many runabouts use the vee-bottom design. Round bottom boat - These move easily through the water, especially at slow speeds. They do, however, tend to roll unless they are outfitted with a deep keel or stabilizers. Many trawlers, canoes and sailboats have round bottoms.I n 1 •. 5 |,c/r ^-^,1- Multi-hull boat - Catamarans, trimarans, pontoon boats and some house boats"use a muliR-hUirdesi^rTh^ldO stance provides greaterstability. Each of the hulls may carry any of the above bottom designs. hftn'//\xAx/^v rnm/HHc/n999Q8hiillQ Vitm 7/lQ/9nn^^ , .'-i Town of Ithaca Dock Research, Tiohero Boat Tour, September 3, 2006 INLET AREA, CITY OF ITHACA ry , * An example of one of the larger boats found on Cayuga Lake. This picture was taken from the inlet, near the Farmers Market in the City of Ithaca. Sailboats along the inlet, near the Fanners Market and golf course, City of Ithaca. Town of Ithaca Dock Research, Tiohero Boat Tour, September 3, 2006 % * 1 % Large vessels docked at Alan Treman Marina, City of Ithaca n -i-. n East Shore Marina and Park, Town of Ithaca (closest zoom w/camera from boat)C . ' ; r Town of Ithaca Dock Research, Tiohero Boat Tour, September 3, 2006 EAST SHORE monreH sailhnat Homes and docks along East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca (closest zoom) Approved dock and rip rap wall, 1028 East Shore Drive (home recently built but dock not built yet) More homes and docks along East Shore Drive 3 Town of Ithaca Dock Research, Tiohero Boat Tour, September 3, 2006 60ft long, 528s.f. Approved/constructed dock at 1126 East Shore Drive Same property, dock in middle of photo /» .. A Town of Ithaca Dock Research, Tiohero Boat Tour, September 3, 2006 WEST SHORE r Moored tube Taughannock Boulevard homes. Note blue and yellow tube moored out from property. 1077-1079 Taughannock Blvd. Boat house with deck on top, dock on right Town of Ithaca Dock Research, Tiohero Boat Tour, September 3, 2006 • ^ ... Part of 1075 (right) and 1071 Taughannock Blvd, Town oflthaca. Decks, docks, uncovered boatlifls, additional covered boatlift, two level boathouse that does not appear to house a boat, instead may contain storage and living space. BNniin 1051 Taughannock Blvd. Town oflthaca. Three docks, three boats, two boatlifls. Two covered lifts to the right are "sling" style, requiring covers for functionality. r\ Town of Ithaca Dock Research, Tiohero Boat Tour, September 3, 2006 981 Taughannock Blvd (gray dock, deck, boatlift with deck) 1 979 and 975 Taughannock. Series of decks and docks on left, attached to a two story boathouse with deck and storage/living space on top, attached to a two bay boathouse and small grassy area. Town of Ithaca Dock Research, Tiohero Boat Tour, September 3, 2006 r 955 Taughannock Blvd. Approved 60-foot long dock and covered boatlift (first applicant since regulation update). Same property as above (boat tour came closer to west shore than east shore). • ' *■Town of Ithaca Dock Research, Tiohero Boat Tour, September 3, 2006 a Town of Ithaca, double boathouse with dock and slide attached at end. Additional waterfront structures in Town of Ithaca (boat tour heading back toward inlet). Town of Ithaca Dock Research, Tiohero Boat Tour, September 3, 2006 ADDITIONAL HOMES AND STRUCTURES 1 - n II — -T* "* -it Largest home on the lake, in the Town of Ithaca. 901 Taughannock Boulevard. Covered boathft, one long dock with trellis gazebo at the end. n 10 t Town of Ithaca Dock Research, Tiohero Boat Tour, September 3, 2006 r Y Property in the Town of Ithaca with the most wooden retaining walls along the slope. Property also has a boathouse, dock, and covered boatlift ("sling style") 11 Town of Ithaca Dock Research, Tiohero Boat Tour, September 3, 2006 WATERFRONT STRUCTURES OUTSIDE THE TOWN OF ITHACA i This property (in Lansing) has an uncovered boatlift, a "deck" extended from two docks at the shore, and a covered gazebo. n Example of a boathouse (in Ulysses), two stories, with two docks and what could be additional storage or living space on the second floor of the boathouse. 12 Town of Ithaca Dock Research, Tiohero Boat Tour, September 3, 2006 ysses, near Town of Ithaca line. Homes on the lake, several docks, large moored sailboat, boathouse, etc. Adjacent property. Large deck, playhouse, covered boatlift with deck on top. 13 Town of Ithaca Dock Research, Tiohero Boat Tour, September 3, 2006 Two covered boatlifts, both appear to be "sling" style, with attached dock/deck 1 ■' I I -- • r I ( 14 ^ wT3 CD' ,IViQ mQi-3Q.U)^09Lc ??bVCOpfi;}-n0qT9LZ3 'j qT!- 1TTfD. Qln 0sCOzrn□□0TTCO.'**110cufD'■9.CL"DCDQ)^ cn{/) r-ir^ TD^ -DCUZ5tnQJ/ ioN O o#i'J> S g S!^ -QJfB" fDft)3 ^^4t K maximum area,s ,maximum length ^ PB can authorizenecessary*foot maximum^'~ ~r^jao foot setback from adiacent propertiesstructures restricted to 25 foot setback* f .zees'from shoreVi. -tj- - -WmIlJ"' kfv 1 •rj.PjnfWhat are theIf/itsDiscovered with review. *•*„'*•' *'* 'of first dock proposal:liM . .f--•'•■•IIExisting docks longerand larger than LRZWhalis-appropriate' length toreaqh "adequate depthfor boat docking?" f • ;>f.; v;'-:■ 'tSMNo definitions' 'rfV.' Vo^Kts to size or height of boatlifts, boathouses,clbanas.•-.■'■'■ml•'.ArifSf■. ■«?: r-' 0) O g u CO (D U) (U <4 fo rji i^ •■ /tVw I 'i mmwmfm3m ■" llif .'f•£ *- . %«.Wyi i n -VStaff recommendations:.A. V..';jv p.,;,;..,,Increase max dock length to ''no more than 50 feet longor to a 5-foot water depth, whichever comes fjn3t"-^Increase max. dock surface area to 500 square feet :Measure docks from OHWAdd DefinitionsSet maximum boatlift dimensionsExempt small metal uncovered boatlifts from regulation -'■r./'t-1,.- Proposed Law:Increase max. dock length to 40 feetIncrease max, dock surface area to 300 square feeijiLimit max. boatlift surface area to 308 square feetLimit boatlift heights to 8 feet from OHWt ;Restrict roofs on boatlifts, unless "sling" style- framingcovers no more than 25% sling lift footprintMeasure docks fromAdd DefinitionsEliminate Planning Board Site Plan/Special Permit reviewrequirement 1-.l-' I..-.-. ,•• • r, Address(and Tax Parcel No.)Type of DockTemporary orPermanentLength(feet)"Width (feet)Surface Area(sq.ft)*"ExtensionArea/Sq.FootageBoatlift Y/N/UNK(area)Mooringy/N/UNKDepth ofWater* (feet)DeckY/N/UNK(area)1061 TaughannockTP#21-2-13NoneN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A1067 TaughannockTP#21-2-11T"ExtensionPerm446408 (w/"T")(18Lx4W)x2 =14413Lx6WY-little deckwith slide2.3 @ 305.5 @ 44N1069 TaughannockTP#21-2-10"L"ExtensionPerm-partialconcrete3410414.75(w/ "L")6.5Lx11.5W =74.75NN1.6 @ 302.4 @ 346.5LX15.5Wattached tohome1071 TaughannockTP#21-2-9"L"ExtensionPerm (withnewconstruction)668672(W/-L-)12Lx12W =14420Lx lowY - woodpilings closeto dock1.2 @ 308 @ 66N1075 TaughannockTP#21-2-8A. StraightB. "T"PermA. 19 B.53.5A. 2 B.81,242 (bothdocks and "T"){26Lx11W) +(35Lx14W)=7769LX7WY - buoy5.5 @ 308 @ 53.5N1077-1079 TaughannockTP#21-2-7A. StraightB. "L'^/trianglePermA. 32 B.60A. 6B.81067 (both docksand "L")15Lx19W = 285+ lOBx11H = 110^40L X 23WboathouseN4 @ 305.6 @ 60property hasboathouse withdeck1081 TaughannockTP# 21-2-6"L"ExtensionPerm488529(w/ "L")14.5Lx10W =1456L X 6W metalN3 @ 306.5 @ 4816LX24W1083 TaughannockTP#21-2-5StraightPerm466276N/ANN2 @ 304.2 @ 46N1085 TaughannockTP#21-2-4StraightPerm3421.5731N/A30LX15WN5.8 @ 306.2 @ 34N1089 TaughannockTP#21-2-3StraightPerm2412288N/A12Lx 10WN6.2 @ 24N1095-1099 TaughannockTP#21-2-22 Straight docksPermA. 40 B.35A. 7 B.7.5542.5 (bothdocks)N/A8Lx10WNA. 2.9 @ 304.7 @ 40B. 3.2 @ 303.8 @35UNKNOTES:Data collection dates and lake water level (ft), as per USGSReat-Time Water Data for Cayuga Inlet (Cayuga Lake):5/31/2006382.915/24/06382.925/11/06382.274/12/06381.044/11/06381.01Y = Yes, N = No, N/A = Not ApplicableLINK = Unknown - In most cases, means staff was not able to access dock (dock was unstable/unsafe or staff could not gain access to property)* Depth of Water as measured at 30 feet and at the end of the dock (if longer than 30 feet). Depth of water changes regularly, depending on the season.Many of these measurements were taken in April/May of 2006, when the water level should be at it's highest, due to spring thaw. However, the levels reflected areactually more typical of the lowest water level measurements due to a very mild winter with minimal precipitation."Dock length measured at mean 'normal' water line (between low and high), as observed for each property. For most properties, there is approximately a two footdifference between the low and normal water lines. The fluctuating shoreline makes it difficult to create a standard length measurement point for all properties.""Surface area (s.a.) calculated per Town of Ithaca Lakefront Residential Zone: "maximum surface area of all docks, piers, and wharves." Does not include s.a. ofor boathouses.^ Area<jquals one-half the base times the heightCompleted by■ing Department, 6^1/06decks, boatlifts,( TOWN OF ITHACA 215 N. Tioga Street, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY (Roads, Parks, Trails, Waler&Sewer) 273-1656 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607)273-1704 To: From: Date: RE: PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Town Board Members Christine Balestra, Planner March 4, 2008 Dock Inventory: Statistical information Below is a statistical analysis from the dock inventory. Using the data from the enclosed dock inventory charts, staff generated the maximum, minimum, and average dock lengths, widths, surface areas and water depths along the East and West Shores. Staff also generated the ranges of dock lengths for both shores. Please note that this analysis is slightly revised from the original statistical analysis provided to the COG. Staff recently noted an error in the "average surface area" calculations for docks. When this error was corrected, it resulted in larger overall dock surface areas for the existing docks on both East and West Shores (shown in red below). All other calculations remain accurate. West Shore docks: Minimum length (shortest) = 12 feet Maximum length (longest) = 83 feet Minimum surface area (dock & ext. only) = 38sq.ft. Maximum surface area (dock & ext. only) = 1,204 sq.ft. Minimum water depth at 30ft length = 1 foot Maximum water depth at 30ft length = 6.6 feet Average dock length = 45.1 feet Average dock width = 8.1 feet Average surface area = 440 sq.ft. Average water depth at 30ft length = 3.87 feet Dock length ranges: 6 docks at 10ft to 19ft length 7 docks at 20ft to 29ft length 14 docks at 30ft to 39ft length 11 docks at 40ft to 49ft length 10 docks at 50ft to 59ft length 9 docks at 60ft to 69ft length 4 docks at 70ft to 79ft length 1 dock at 80ft to 89ft length East Shore docks: Minimum length (shortest) = 23 feet Maximum length (longest) = 60 feet Minimum surface area (dock) = 84 sq.ft. Maximum surface area = 655 sq.ft. Min. water depth at 30ft length = 0 feet Max. water depth at 30ft length = 3 feet Average dock length = 37.6 feet Average dock width = 6.3 feet Average surface area = 316.5 sq.ft. Avg. water depth at 30ft length = 1.7 feet Dock length ranges: 0 docks at 10ft to 19ft length 6 docks at 20ft to 29ft length 9 docks at 30ft to 39ft length 8 docks at 40ft to 49ft length 3 docks at 50ft to 59ft length 1 dock at 60ft to 69ft length 0 docks at 70ft to 79ft length 0 docks at 80ft to 89ft length Please feel free to contact me at 273-1747 or email me at cbalestra@town.ithaca.nv.us if you have any questions. Municipal Dock Research: Existing Lakefront Regulations in Lakefront Communities in New York StateLake Georae AreaTown Of Bolton:Cutting and buffer standards for shoreline vegetationShore line setbacks: 50 to 100ft for principle buildingsSideyard setbacks for ail structures: 20 ftBoathouses- Boathouse widths regulated depending on lot widthsBoathouse heights: maximum 16ftNo dock or mooring regulations in placeTown of Lake Georae:Gutting and buffer standards for shoreline vegetationSideyard setbacks for all structures: 20 ftBoathouses- Boathouse and covered dock heights: maximum 16ft, measured from mean high water lineDocks- Length limit: 40ft from mean low water lineWidth limit: 8ftSurface Area limit: TOOs.f.Moorings- Same regulations as Town of IthacaViiiaoe of Lake Georae:Docks-Town of Hauoe:Boathouses-Docks-Can only increase square footage if an equal amount of sq ft is eliminated from another existing dock under sameownership in VillageNo other dock, boathouse, or mooring regulations in placeCutting and buffer standards for shoreline vegetationShore line setbacks: 50 to 100ft for principle buildingsBoathouse and covered dock heights: maximum 16ftRegulated per Lake George Park Commission Regs (next)Lake George Park Commission Regulations (Regional):Sideyard setbacks for all structures: 20 ftDocks- Length Limit: 40ft from mean low water mark and 100ft from mean high water markWidth Limit: 8ftSurface Area limit: 700s.f.Moorings- Similar regulations as the Town of IthacacData compiled by the/Tov^anning Department 6/7/06c cMunicipal Dock Research: Existing Lakefrontuns in Lakefront Communities in New York State^Skaneateles LakeVillage of Skaneateles: Shoreline setbacks: 50ftBoathouses- Boathouse heights: 12ft for a boathouse or simiiar accesory buildingBoathouse designs must meet historical architectural guidelinesDocks- Length iimit: No permanent docks ionger than 40ft, but temporary docks can extend from a permanent dock to nomore than 100ft from iakeiine or 40ft from water edge, whichever is lessSurface Area limit: OOOs.f.No moorinp regulations in placeCazenovia LakeViliace of Cazenovia:Town of Cazenoiva:No dock, boathouse, or mooring regulations in placeNo dock, boathouse, or mooring regulations in placeTown of Neison:Docks- Each iot aiiowed one temporary dockLength limit: 40ft as measured from the high water markNo boathouse or mooring regulations in placeChatauaua LakeCity of Jamestown:Viliaoe of Mawiiie:Town of Chatauaua:No dock, boathouse, or mooring regulations in placeNo dock, boathouse, or mooring regulations in placeRescinded due to lawsuits; now foliows only Army Corps/NYSDEC permitting processAdirondack Park AreaAdirondack Park Agency Regionai shoreiine restrictions = staff has not yet obtained dataSacandaaa LakeVillage of Northviile:Town of Northamoton:No dock, boathouse, or mooring regulations in placeNo dock, boathouse, or mooring regulations in placeMunicip's follow Hudson River Regulating District Regulations (Regionai) - staff has not yet obtained dataData compiled by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department 6/7/06 Municipal Dock Research: Existing Lakefront Regulations in Lakefront Communities in New York StateOnondaaa LakeCity of Syracuse:Village of Liyeroool:Town of Geddes:No dock, boathouse, or mooring regulations in place (most lakefront is city-owned)No dock, boathouse, or mooring regulations in place (lakefront is village-owned)No dock, boathouse, or mooring regulations in placeCavuaa LakeVillaae of Aurora: Sideyard setbacks for all structures: 10ftBoathouses- Boathouse heights: 16ft for 'accessory' structuresDocks- Width limit: 8ftNo other dock, boathouse, or mooring regulations in placeTown of Seneca Fails:Viiiaoe of Seneca Fails:City of Ithaca:No dock, boathouse, or mooring regulations in placeNo dock, boathouse, or mooring regulations in placeNo dock, boathouse, or mooring regulations in placeVillaae of Cayuoa: Shoreline setbacks: no building closer than 10ft to high water lineDocks- Permits needed for docks 40ft or longer and to depth of 4ft or more, measured at low water lineNo other dock, boathouse, or mooring regulations in placeSeneca LakeTown of Geneya:City of Geneya:Villaae of Watkins Glen:No dock, boathouse, or mooring regulations in placeNo dock, boathouse, or mooring regulations in placeNo dock, boathouse, or moorinp regulations In placeOneida LakeTown of Webb:Boathouses/ Docks-Cutting and buffer standards for shoreline yegetationLength limit: Boathouses and docks shall not extend more than 40ft into water or to a 6ft depth of water whicheyercomes first, as measured from the shorelineWidth limit: 8ftSurface Area limit: 300s.f.Moorings- Similar to Town of Ithaca regulationsTown of Silyan Beach:Town of Vienna:No dock, boathouse, or mooring regulations in placeNo dock, boathouse, or moorinp regulations in placecData compiled by the Toanning Department 6/7/06( ^ " Municipal Dock Research: Existing Lakefront " ans in Lakefront Communities in New York StateQOwasco LakeCity of Auburn: No dock, boathouse, or mooring repulations in placeKeuka LakeVillage of Penn Yann: Follows Keuka Lake Uniform Docking and Mooring Law (below)Town of Urbana: Follows Keuka Lake Uniform Docking and Mooring Law (below)Keuka Lake Uniform Docking and Mooring Law:Boathouses- Boat hoists and boat house permited with roofs but no sides and 15ft H max above mean high water levelNo two stories, and roof pitch max 3/12Docks- Length limit: 65ft., measured from mean high water line, with extension possible to achieve water depth greaterthan 3ftSurface area limit: 720s.f.Moorings- Similar to Town of Ithaca regulationsCanandaiaua LakeCitv of Canandaioua: Follows Canandaigua Lake Uniform Docking and Mooring Law (below)Boathouses- Boathouse heights: 15ftNo two stories, balconies or decksBoathouse designs must meet historical architectural guidelinesTown of Canadaioua: Follows Canandaigua Lake Uniform Docking and Mooring Law (below)Canandaigua Lake Uniform Docking and Mooring Law:Boathouses- Boat hoists and boathouses permited with roofs but no sides and 15ft height, measured above mean high waterlevelDocks- Length limit: 60ft from mean high water line, with extension possible to achieve water depth greater than 3ftWidth limit: 8ftSurface area limit: 720s.f., plus "L", "T" appendages shall not exceed 256 square feet total areaMoorings- Similar to Town of Ithaca regulationsData compiled by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department 6/7/06 Municipal Dock Research: Existing Lakefront Regulations in Lakefront Communities in New York StateHoneove LakeTown of Canadice:Town of Richmond:Follows "proposed" 2002 Honeoye Lake Uniform Docking and Mooring Law (below)Follows "proposed" 2002 Honeoye Lake Uniform Docking and Mooring Law (below)Honeoye Lake Uniform Docking and Mooring Law:Boathouses- Boathouse heights: 12ft and 25ft maximum widthTown of Richmond cont:Docks- Width limit: 8ft (no length limit mentioned)Surface area limit: 700s.f.Moorings- Similar to Town of Ithaca regulationsConesus LakeTown of Conesus:Sideyard setbacks for all structures: 15ftDocks- Length limit: 60ft, as measured from mean high water line, or length as necessary to obtain 5ft of water depth,measured from mean low water line. Those docks that extend to obtain 5ft of water depth may not exceed alength that Is a hazard to safe navigation or 150ft, whichever Is shorter.Width limit: 6ftSurface area limit: 400s.f.No boathouse or moorinp regulations in placecData compiled by the To\<lanning Department 6/7/06 ' ; TOWN OF ITHACA 215 N. Tioga Street, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY (Roads, Paries, Trails. Water&Sewer) 273-1656 ENGINEERINO 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607)273-1704 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: COG Members From: Christine Balestra, Planner Date: August 8, 2006 RE: Dock Regulations: Compilation of COG comments Attached for your review are a list of COC comments I received regarding the dock regulations and a modified list that contains staff comments and suggestions (in red). I received five responses from COC members and included the comments fi-om the Water Resources Council distributed at the last COC meeting in the compiled list. Also attached is a copy of the Lakeffont Residential zone portion of the Town Code, including the existing dock regulations, which COC members can refer to during the meeting. Most COC member comments dealt with length, width, and square footage elements of the dock regulations (although, thank you. Kirk for taking each element apart for easy review!). Members offered four different suggestions regarding maximum dock square footage: 300s.f. (current regulation), 340s.f., 400s.f., and SOOs.f. Most COC member comments also included recommendations for changing the allowable dock length from the existing 30-foot length limit. Here is the summary: 30ft (keep it as is), 30ft or shorter if the water depth reaches 5 ft before 30ft length, 50ft, 50ft, and 50ft. Planning staff recommends adopting a similar length requirement as the Town of Webb, which is also suggested in the Water Resources Council memo. That is, allow docks to be a specific maximum length or shorter if a certain water depth is achieved before reaching that length. For example, "no more than 50 feet long or to a 5 foot depth of water, whichever comes fi rst." Staff also suggests that dock length measurements begin at the ordinary high water mark (OHW) as required by both the Army Corps of Engineers and the NYSDEC, and that this mark be clearly outlined in applicant submissions (along with other specific site plan elements that are not currently required in the regulations). There were three comments fi:om COC members regarding dock widths: 3ft minimum and 8ft maximum, 6ft maximum, and 8ft maximum. There were also three suggestions for maximum boatlift heights (boatlift dimensions are currently unregulated): 15ft, 15ft, and 5ft with no roofs. Opinions seemed to vary on whether to allow covered or non-covered boatlifts and whether or not boatlifts should have sides. However, staff suggests the COC require Planning Board review of large boatlifts, include height and size limitations, decide between sides or no sides, covered or not covered, and exempt small metal uncovered boatlifts (staff can research most typical ^ sizes). The COC should also look into the issue of either regulating or excluding boathouses in the law, as the ciirrent regulation barely mentions them. Please see planning staff comments in red, under Kirk Comments, on the attached sheets for staff opinion of boathouses. As mentioned in the last COC memo, there are no definitions listed in the main Zoning Code for docks, moorings, boathouses, and boatlifls^oat hoists. The code is also ambiguous as to whether boathouses and boatlifts/boat hoists should be included in the 20-foot minimum setback from the side property line (as docks are). Finally, should they be included in the overall surface area calculations along with the docks and extensions? COC members did not comment on these issues at the last meeting. Please feel free to contact me at 273-1747 or email me at cbalestra@town.ithaca.nv.us if you have any questions. f O COC MEMBER COMMENTS REGARDING DOCK REGULATIONS I n nn ' (PUuining staff siiggestions/coniiiienis in red) Kirk Comments: 270-45 A. (1) Remove "boat houses" and "cabanas" and add "boat lifts"; prohibit "boat launching ramps" or similar facilities ^'^BoathoLises and cabanas create larger visual impacts than docks - and they are different .structures than ht)atlifts {1 erroneously lumped iheiti in together in that last COC memo). Boathouses can also contain living quarters for residents and may have more than one story for a deck. Currently, the LR Zone does not allow second dwelling units on lakefront properties. If the COC wishes to keep boathouses as an allowed structure/use, then planning staff suggests not removing, but clearly defining boathoiiscs/cabanas, distinguishing them from boatlifts. restricting the size and usage of them (no living quarters or second story decks, setting a maximum height and/or .square footage, etc), and requiring Planning Board site plan review and special permit. (Please see WRC comments, fifth bullet, near the end of this document), *AIso, COC may wish to specify types of boatlifts that require review, with potential size and height restrictions in mind (as well as whether or not they should have sides and be covered). A 6 x 6 uncovered metal boat hoist that does not come out of the water may present less aesthetic and setback issues than a 10 x 20 covered boatlifl with a deck on top. Perhaps small metal lifts can be exempt from the regulation? (a) add "and facilities"; change "be subject of to "be subject to" [2] change "Piers, docks, and wharves" to "All such structures and facilities" [3] add "All" [5] remove "floating construction" suggestion; keep other prohibitions "^Staff agrees. Research has disco\ered that tloaiing docks are impractical on Cayuga Lake, as they are very unstable and will mo\e and break easily with the \ aiying water currents. [7] change "mean low water" to "mean high water (384 feet?)"; change"30 feet" to "50 feet"; add "or two-family or vacant" '^Staff is imt sure why "vacant, single or two-family" needs to he stated at all in this section. [8] change "all piers, docks, and wharves" to "all such structures and facilities"; change "300" to "500" "^FYl: Changing to "all such structures,,.*' means including decks, boatlifts, boathouses, cabanas, and an>ihing else undefined and vague, i.e.: would allow 300 or 5(X) square foot boatlifts in and of themselves. Is the intent to include boatlifts/hoists and boathouses in the overall surface area calculation for the docks? If so, staff/l\)wn Attorney can make this provision more clear. [9] why a nonresidential clause in a residential zone? *good question. This might be more appropriately placed in the Lakefront Commercial Zone section. [10] change "Every pier, dock or wharf that is constructed" to "All such structures and facilities" [11] change "Piers, docks, or wharves" to "All such structures and facilities" Would this mean that moorinus should be lit as well? Boatlifts? [13] change "fishing piers ... and facilities" to "all such structures and facilities" (2) (a) change to 30 foot setback from lines described in (l)(b)[10] rs (b) change to 10 foot setback from lines described in (l)(b)[10] Herb Comments: 1. There should be a set length. Based on the Town data collected on the wildly varying and inconsistent lengths - which seem to have little relation to depth of water - I recommend that the current length of 30 feet be maintained. Any boat owner who wants a boat with a draft deeper than available at 30 feet would have to use a mooring beyond the dock. ^-^COC/statT may wish to re-visit the mooring provisions in the evisting law. Many parcels are loo narrow to legally place moorings and will require area variances to do so. 2. The current maximum width of 8 feet should be maintained and "L" or "T" extensions at the end of the dock should be limited to 100 square feet (for a "T" this would allow 5 feet on either side of the 8 ft. dock or a 10 ft. addition for a "L"). 3. The total square footage should be increased to 340 square feet (30L X 8 = 240 + 100 "L" or "T" extension = 340). ^^Again. will the overall surface area include boailifis/hoists and boathouses. decks (things that are ni)rrnally attached to docks)? 4. Any boat lift should be limited to 15 feet in height and may have a roof but no sides. This is consistent with regulations from other municipalities. ^^SIaff agrees and would suggest a limit on ihe number ol stories allowed as well - see WRC comments. fHih bullet, near the end of this documeni. 5. There should be a statement that docks are intended to facilitate boating and for that reason other structures for other purposes are not permitted. This prohibition is to provide for the enjoyment of the lake by neighbors and the general public. Prohibited structures include, but are not limited to; water slides, picnic tables, cooking facilities, gazebos, and sleeping quarters. ^Staff obser\ ed many tables, chairs, lounge chairs along (he docks - some had fire pits/cooking facilities. How may this be enforced? 6. The setback issue is an important one, but I have no strong beliefs about it. 7. The last sentence in the WRC memo should be ignored; I received a call saying the statement that anyone can use a private dock once constructed is in error. 8. A person contacted me to express concern about lakefront property owners who have built bulwarks. Should they be considered part of the length of a dock? Diane Comments: Eliminate all new covered structures i.e. boathouses, gazebos, covered boatlifts. Limit heights of boatlifts to 15 feet, "hnay wuni to add where measured from (mean high water line) Change maximum length to 50 feet or whatever number is consistent with the Army Corp of Engineers. Consider shortening that number if a dock reaches 5 feet depth of water. Width should be a maximum of 6 feet and a total of 300 square feet of surface area. Eliminate the planning board from the approval process. If the regulations are clearly written, their review should not be necessary. ^Eliminating PB review for length of docks makes sense, since Ihe ZBA auihorizes width and surlace area calculalions and can authorize length as well. Given the stated purpose of the LR zone (section 270-40). however, staff advises again,st eliminating Planning ^ ^ Board review for boathouses and cabanas, and covered boatlifts (in fact, staff suggests these items ^ ^ be considered more specifically under the law). The Planning Board site plan review process appears to more thoroughly address aesthetic, environmental, and visual impacts than the Zoning Board of Appeals variance process. ^1^ Some exceptions may be allowed for a dock shared by adjoining property owners. Include a clear statement of purpose of the regulations such as: These regulations are to protect the lake and the shoreline from improper encroachment by people owning property along the lake. They are intended to preserve the natural features of the lake and minimize negative visual impact. ^'There is a similar statement at the beginning of the regulation for the LaketVoiU Residential Zone (.Seciion 270-40). COC may wish to revise to incorporate the above comments. Fred Comments: As requested, here is what I'm thinking are reasonable limits for docks in the Town: Maximum square footage: 400 sq. ft. Maximum length: 50 feet Width: 3 ft min., 8 ft. max. Maximum height: 5 feet (to eliminate gazebos but not boat lifts) Eva Comments: I agree with several other COC members that we need to regulate structures like boatlifts, gazebos and other structures on docks, or otherwise located over water, as well as when they might be located within a strip of land along the water's edge (a set-back area?). Since conditions are quite different along the east shore of the lake, from those along the west shore, it should be possible to set up two different lake-front zones to suit those conditions. We do have different density zones for regular residential development, depending on the specific conditions in those areas, or what we want to accomplish or protect in different areas. We want to protect the lake and its shoreline from improper encroachments by people who own property along the lakeshore. Water Resources Council (WRC) Comments: • The Town of Ithaca ordinance directs that docks and waterfront structures not "impact water quality, cause harm to fish spawning grounds, destroy the natural beauty of the shoreline, reduce the stability of steep slope areas, cause erosion or sedimentation problems along the shoreline, create hazards for navigation, interfere with the public use and enjoyment of the water surface or shoreline, infringe on the riparian rights of other littoral parcels, or otherwise threaten the public health and safety." (§270-45.A(l)(b)[l]). We strongly support such clear language addressing intent. • The ordinance requires Town of Ithaca building permits for the construction of "[fjishing piers, docks, wharves, boat houses, cabanas, sea walls, and similar waterfront structures and facilities" (§270-45.A(l)(b)[l]). The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and Army Corps of Engineers are currently the only other permitting agencies for docks on the lake. Widths, lengths, and square footages of docks allowed by those agencies are much less stringent than what is allowed by the Town of Ithaca ordinance. Municipalities are allowed to establish their own regulation as long as it is more ^ stringent than that of the DEC or Army Corps of Engineers. CuiTently the Town restricts the length of any pier, dock, or wharf to thirty feet and requires a setback of twenty feet from adjacent property lines. We urge continuation of clear size limitations for structures and protection of adjacent properties via setbacks. We suggest consideration of adding square footage limits for the surface portions of docks/piers. *The exjsiin^ regLilalion already has a 300 square foot surface area liuiit for docks and extensions. We note that current wording in §270-45.A (l)(b)[7] says "Longer dock lengths [than 30 feet] may be approved by the Planning Board in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, when necessary to reach adequate water depths for proposed boat docking". Solutions found by other municipalities to the water depth problem include that of the Town of Webb on Oneida lake, which limits docks to no more that 40 feet of length or to a 6 ft depth of water, whichever comes first. n Siatf agrees and ihinks Ihis is ihe most reasonable and consistent regulation mellKxl, gi\en the variaiions at Ihe shmeline and the changing water depths in Cayuga Lake. We also have some concerns about §270~45.A (l)(b)[10] of the ordinance, which requires "a minimum clearance or setback of 20 feet from adjacent property lines, as extended from the shoreline, to allow adequate vessel access to neighboring waterfront parcels." Twenty feet of setback between a dock and a neighbor's adjacent property line may not be enough especially if a variance is granted to extend the length of a neighbor's dock beyond 30 feet from shore. Canoes, kayaks, and non-motorized sailboats from adjacent properties with narrow lake frontages might have trouble navigating out from shore in order to get around a neighbors dock, especially in a strong wind. In addition, this is consistent with the approach of many local regulations regarding the use of motorized watercraft on Cayuga Lake in that the creation of a "slow zone" near the lakeshore provides an appropriate area for muscle- powered craft to recreate while accommodating the use of motorized watercraft in the central areas of the Lake. ^^Nearly all of the parcels on the lake in the i'own of Ithaca contain docks {there are very few vacant parcels) and nearly all of the existing docks exceed 30 feet in length. Additionally, many of these properties have moorings that extend 65-100 feet from the shore (and 20-30 fool long sailboats moored to the mooring). These are the existing conditions in which kayakers and catioers area faced with. They are not what the Town of Ithaca is proposing for the future. Another existing difficulty are the narrow lots along the lake. Many lots have less than 60 feel of frontage, which makes it difficult to create a minimum setback/clearance that is reasonable ft)r all parties involved. What to do? Protecting ease of access to the lake for non-motorized craft is consistent with the intent of the Watercraft Law enacted by the town in 1994. This law's intent was to create a "slow zone" close to shore where swimmers and non-motorized craft were safe to recreate, and encouraged faster craft towards central areas of the lake. Allowing docks to obstruct this slow zone, or making it difficult for non-motorized craft to access the lake due to short setbacks and long docks goes counter to the intent of the Watercraft Law. We would like to see the Town of Ithaca Ordinance address the issue of minimizing dock height to preserve views and a sense of openness along the lakeshore. Other communities have had to struggle with the issue of living quarters (with plumbing, etc.) and second stories being built onto docks. Keuka and Canandaigua Lakes restrict boat hoists and boat houses to a 15 foot height (as measured above mean high water level) and allows roofs but no sides; adding this clause to the ordinance might be a possible solution. In addition, the Keuka Lake ordinance does not allow two stories (thus preventing second floor entertaining platforms on docks), and establishes a roof pitch maximum of 3/12. Staff agrees with WRC and suggests the regulalion/restrictions noted. Planning staff research has noted several existing large boatlifls with decks on lop and boathouses with second stories in the ^ Town of Ithaca. These stntctures are currently hardly mentioned and not fully regulated in ^ our law. OVERVIEW Domestic Partnership Many Cities and Towns in New York State and the Country offer a Domestic Partnership Registry. The Town Clerk's Office would like to offer the same service at Town Hall which will initiate additional revenue while providing an important service to our residents. What is it? Sampie Guidelines; A Domestic Partnership is established between two persons when the following is true: 1. The persons are not related by blood closer than would bar marriage in the State of New York, and 2. Neither person is married, and 3. Both persons are 18 years of age or older, and 4. Both persons are competent to enter into a contract, and 5. The persons declare that they are each other's sole domestic partner, and 6. The persons currently share and have shared a primary residence for a minimum of 12 months and declare that they intend to for the indefinite future, and 7. The persons declare that they are in a relationship of mutual financial and emotional support, are caring and committed to each other, and are responsible for each other's welfare, and 8. The persons declare they are financially co-dependent. Sampie Proofs of Co-dependency: 1. Utility Bills in each name at the same address 2. Lease or mortgage in both names 3. Proof of designation of the partner as designated beneficiary on insurance What it Offers The Domestic Registry confers no legal benefits. It is a mechanism for you to declare yourselves to be in a committed, loving, and supportive relationship. In return, you will receive a Certificate of Domestic Partnership which some entities may accept as proof of a domestic partnership for such things as health insurance coverage, banking needs, and medical situations. Use An unmarried couple in New York can be insured on one persons insurance as a ^ ^ domestic partner. To do this, the insurance holder has to fill out a form very similar to what i have presented today, but it was not registered anywhere. Therefore, if you needed that documentation again, you would have to fill out another form and present the proof of being in a committed relationship again. Having the registry and being able to submit a certified copy of Domestic Partnership would allow couples to avoid those steps. Many same-sex couples also use the registry as their only "official" means to declare their commitment to each other. Drafts Domestic Partnership examples submitted were compiled from cities in New York including; the City of Ithaca, the City of Rochester, the City of South Hampton and others. New York State passed the New York State Domestic Partnership Law to codify the existing State Executive Order to include the intent and guidelines of the Executive Order(s) in all New York State laws, rules and regulations dealing with benefits for State and Federal employees, New York City Housing regulations, and final burial rights for domestic partners. Budget The Town Attorney may want to review the forms, budgeted $400.00. The City of Ithaca accepts approximately 20 applications a year at $20.00 each. Assuming these totals, the Town would not generate any net revenue from this service for approximately 2 years and thereafter would realize revenue of approximately $400. / \ ( > POLICY & PROCEDURE TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP REGISTRY PURPOSE To establish a Domestic Partnership Registry POLICY It is the policy of the Town of Ithaca to support all caring, committed and responsible family forms for all persons who can not or do not wish to marry. To that end, the Town of Ithaca will establish a Domestic Partnership Registry as outlined below. PROCEDURE FORMS - Town Clerk's Office 1) The Town Clerk's Office shall develop and supply: a. Domestic Partnership Instruction sheet for applicants V b. Domestic Partnership Statement c. Domestic Partnership Certificate d. Domestic Partnership Termination Form e. Domestic Partnership Registry Record and Retention File located in the Town Hall The Town Clerk shall accept the application, verify the applicant's identification using the approved forms of identification, sign and notarize the Domestic Partnership Certificate and file the application and a copy of the certificate in Town Hall. Applicants 1) Both applicants must come to Town Hall in person to submit and sign the Domestic Partnership forms in the presence of the Town Clerk or his/her Deputies. 2) Applicants shall provide proof of identity using one of the following identifications: a) State issued driver's license b) Passport c) State issued non-driver's identification card d) Employee photo identification card ^ ^ 3) Appiicants shall supply two (2) examples of proof of Domestic Partnership from the approved list of evidence of domestic partnership. (Attached) 4) Applicants shall swear, upon penalty of perjury, that they meet the requirements set forth for proof of a domestic partnership. ^ 5) Town Clerk shall notarize the Certificate of Domestic Partnership. 6) Applicants shall pay $20.00 for the processing of the Domestic Partnership certification and shall receive for same two (2) notarized Certificates of Domestic Partnership. Town Clerk 1) Town Clerk will enter the partners' names on the Domestic Registry database and file the paper copy in the Clerk's Office for permanent retention. Termination 1) Both partners agree to inform the Town Clerk's Office within 30 days, using the Termination of Domestic Partnership Form, if the domestic partnership terminates. 2) Town Clerk will file the Termination of Domestic Partnership Form with the Domestic Partnership Form on file in the Clerk's Office and make a notation on the database that the Partnership has been terminated and the effective date of termination. f \ DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP Instructions for Applicants What It means: The Domestic Registry confers no legal benefits. It Is a mechanism for you to declare yourselves to be In a committed, loving, and supportive relationship. In return, you will receive a Certificate of Domestic Partnership which some entitles may accept as proof of a domestic partnership for such things as health insurance coverage, banking needs, and medical situations. What you need to do: Both applicants must come to the Town Clerks' Office and declare, under penalty of perjury that: v You are not related by blood closer than would bar marriage In the State of New York, and v Neither of you Is married, and v You are 18 years of age or older, and v You are competent to enter Into a contract, and v You are each other's sole domestic partner, and ^ v You currently share and have shared a primary residence for a minimum of 12 months and we Intend to for the Indefinite future, and v You are In a relationship of mutual financial and emotional support, we are caring and committed to each other, and we are responsible for each other's welfare, and v You are financially co-dependent. v You have submitted at least 2 Items of proof as listed in Local Law xx-2008. Applicants must submit for review at least two forms of proof indicating that they are in a domestic partnership. (See the back of this form for list) Applicants must sign the Statement of Domestic Partnership in front of a Notary. Applicants shall pay $20.00 for a Certificate of Domestic Partnership. Any Questions, please contact the Town Clerks' Office at (607) 273-1721. For Office Use Only Please check 2 categories of proof reviewed as evidence of a Domestic Partnership by the applicants. JOINT BANK ACCOUNT n Statement with both names n Check with both names n Passbook with both names JOINT CREDIT CARD n Statement with both names JOINT OBLIGORS ON LOAN n Note or other loan origination document with both names JOINT OWNERSHIP OF RESIDENCE n Deed or other sale/transfer document with both names n Property of water tax document with both names n Mortgage agreement with both names JOINT INVESTMENTS n Investment securities with both names n Mutual fund statement with both names HEALTH CARE PROXY n Copy of health care proxies/living wills, designating the other party with the power to make health care decisions upon incapacitation. LIFE INSURANCE n Copy of policy with one party naming the other as beneficiary RETIREMENT BENEFITS n Copy of beneficiary designation form with one party designating the other as beneficiary TAX RETURNS n Showing one partner as a dependent JOINT VEHICLE OWNERSHIP n Title showing both names JOINT CUSTODY OF A CHILD n Court documentation JOINT MEMBERSHIP n Church n Family organization \ COMMON HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES n Utility/telephone bill with both names n Public assistance document with both names JOINT WILLS n Copy of will(s) showing the other as beneficiary and/or executor JOINT TENANTS ON LEASE n Lease with both names STATEMENT OF DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP WE DO HEREBY CERTIFY ourselves to be Domestic Partners as defined by beiow. WE DECLARE: v v v We are not related by blood closer than would bar marriage in the State of New York, and Neither of us is married, and We are 18 years of age or older, and We are competent to enter into a contract, and We are each other's sole domestic partner, and We currently share and have shared a primary residence for a minimum of 12 months and we intend to for the indefinite future, and We are in a relationship of mutual financial and emotional support, we are caring and committed to each other, and we are responsible for each other's welfare, and We are financially co-dependent. We have submitted at least 2 items of proof as listed in Local Law xx-2008. / \ We certify that the above information is true and correct under penalty of law. Applicant's Name Applicant's Name Signature Date Signature Date Address: State of New York County of Tompkins ss:} Sworn before me this ^day of , 20 SEAL Town Clerk/Deputy Town Clerk ) :yCTJlltJlCME Of 'RXQIS'I%A'It03^VOMXSUC TJASifaNT'RS^OTandC haveswam ancCcCecQirecCourselves to Be in a committed. Coving antCsupportive Vomestic Tartnersfiip onInsert DateSignature SignatureSXJAL Sworn Before me tfiis day of!Nbtary )TOWN Of ITHACADOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP REGISTRY)Last Name, First Name, Middle initialLast Name, First Name, Middle InitialDate of RegistryDate of Termination STATEMENT of TERMINATION DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP Office of the Town Clerk, Town of Ithaca I declare that: ^and I are no longer domestic partners; and (Last Name, First Name) I notified my former domestic partner of my declaration by certified mail on . Date I declare that to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing statements are true and accurate under the penalty of perjury. Name (Printed) Signature Date State of New York County of Tompkins ss:} Sworn before me this ^day SEAL of , 20 Town Clerk/Deputy Town Clerk TOWN CLERK'S MONTHLY REPORT Attachment ^4 TOWN OF ITHACA, NEW YORK TO THE SUPERVISOR: FEBRUARY, 2008 PAGEl ^ Pursuant to Section 27, Subd 1 of the Town Law, I hereby make the following statement of all fees and moneys received by me in connection with my office during the month stat^ above, excepting only such fees and moneys the application and payment of which are otherwise provided for by Law: A1255 2 MARRIAGE LICENSES NO. 08005 TO 08008 35.00 3 MISC. COPIES 7.10 2 TAX SEARCH 10.00 7 MARRIAGE TRANSCRIPT 70.00 TOTAL TOWN CLERK FEES 122.10 A1557 1 SPCA IMPOUND FEES 50.00 TOTAL A1557 50.00 A2188 1 FACILITY USE FEE 20.00 TOTAL A2188 20.00 A2544 DOG LICENSES 550.59 TOTAL A2544 550.59 B2110 2 ZONING BOARD MTG 200.00 TOTAL B2110 200.00 B2111 10 BUILDING PERMIT 4,160.00 2 BUILDING PERMIT EXTENSIN 550.00 2 FIRE SAFETY INSPECTIONS 100.00 1 SIGN PERMITS 52.00 2 TEMP CERTIFICATE OCCUP 525.00 5 OPERATING PERMIT 4,000.00 TOTAL B2111 9,387.00 B2115 1 SUBDV. REV. PRELIM. PLAT 160.00 1 SITE PLAN PRELIM. PLAN 3,000.00 2 SITE PLAN FINAL PLAN 600.00 TOTAL B2115 3,760.00 TOWN CLERK'S MONTHLY REPORT FEBRUARY, 2008 page 2 ' DISBURSEMENTS PAID TO SUPERVISOR FOR GENERAL FUND 742.69 PAID TO SUPERVISOR FOR PART TOWN FUND 13,347.00 PAID TO COUNTY TREASURER FOR DOG LICENSES 112.76 PAID TO AG & MARKETS FOR DOG LICENSES 41.65 PAID TO NYS HEALTH DEPT FOR MARRIAGE LICENSES 45.00 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS 14,289.10 MARCH 3,2008 ^ SUPERVISOR HERBERT J. ENGMAN STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF TOMPKINS, TOWN OF ITHACA I, KAREN BILLINGS, being duly sworn, says that I am the Clerk of the TOWN OF ITHACA that the foregoing is a foil 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 OK /V'7^ \ }s >5 TOWN OF ITHACA 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 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 March 13, 2008 To: Herb Engman, Supervisor Town Of Ithaca Will Burbank, Councilperson Peter Stein, Councilperson Pat Leary, Councilperson Jeff Cowie, Councilperson Bill Goodman, Councilperson Eric Levine, Councilperson From: Mamie Kirchgessner, Recreation and Youth Coordinator January/February Activity Report It came to my attention today that my monthly report was not included in your board packet. I apologize for the error and am making it available to you. As always should you have questions call me. The email system has not forwarded internally generated email outside the system so without your direct addresses this seemed the easiest method to get it to you. i LLMJii—IB:TOWN OF ITHACA ^ \ 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 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 To: Herb Engman, Supervisor Town Of Ithaca Will Burbank, Councilperson Peter Stein, Councilperson Pat Leary, Councilperson Jeff Cowie, Councilperson Bill Goodman, Councilperson Eric Levine, Councilperson From: Mamie Kirchgessner, Recreation and Youth Coordinator January/February Activity Report 1. Supervision of college student Greg Calucci. Greg provided vital support to me with the transition from Supervisor Valentino to Supervisor Engman. I used the change as an opportunity to clean out over 3 years accumulation of information to enable me to find what I actually need. 2. Completion of lobby window displays regarding the work of the Joint Youth A Commission and the work of this unit in pictures. 3. Made contact with other organizations for future displays. 4. To date 17 youth or their advocates have made contact with the office seeking employment assistance. Two are employed one at Alterra and one here at Town Hall working for PEZ and the Town Clerk providing essential support services. 5. Attended a training workshop in Auburn on completion of a Safe Routes to School Grant. This proposal required support from Public Works, Planning and Engineering to complete. The request was submitted to The Ithaca- Tompkins County Transportation Council on 2/28/08 for preliminary review. The request is for 100% federal money to build a walkway on Warren Road. The grant has some unique requirements in that although the Town had to make a specific monetary request The project is supposed to be engineered by the state should their engineering be significantly different than the request the actual cost could be higher/lower. As a result I have been assured even if an award is granted the Town is not obligated to take it. Should an award be made there is significant public benefit to be realized which merited the time invested in this competitive process. A preliminary request went to the Ithaca- Tompkins County Transportation Council on 2/28/08 for review and recommendations. The Town's Transportation Study and the County's Walkability Study of the Northeast strongly supported this application. ^ , 6. Participation at Joint Youth Commission Meetings. Member Dale Bryner (Town) has resigned creating a vacancy. February's meeting was a monitoring/review of Cooperative Extension Rural Youth Services Programs. Numbers of participants are up across all program areas. 7. Participation at the Recreation Partnership includes activity promoting advertising for sale in the Partnership brochure as a measure to create an income stream that would limit an increasing burden on municipal tax payers. If you know of a business that would support these activities please contact me. 8. Ongoing participation in the Whole Community Project that promotes healthy lifestyles in youth. 9. Investigation and follow-up with the possibility of creating a community garden on Town owned park land adjacent to Conifer/Linderman Creek development. Issues of legal access and future use are outstanding concerns that need to be addressed. 10. Attendance at Recreation Coordinators meetings where topics of mutual interest are discussed and networking occurs. 11. Planning with Cal Ripken representatives on memo of understanding, field use issues, opening day and field dedication. (Save the date. April 26 at 9:30 Am, 151 Bostwick Rd.) 12. Consideration of possible role of Town in Ithaca Festival themed I am Ithaca" on June 19-22.2008. Herb suggests "we have you surrounded" 13. Assistance to organizers of Town of Ithaca West Hill Civic Association. 14. Participation at informational meeting on Web re-design project. My input Is the current website may not be stylish yet it serves an essential function in my ability to provide customer service and I don't want that mission lost in "fluff." I am a one person operation of countless diverse functions that all involve responding to the public in a timely, efficient, pleasant, effective way. I can't do that if our site is turned into a marketing tool at the expense of substance. And that's just the high points! I \ Town Engineer's Renort for 3/10/2008 yj Town Board Meeting EARTH FILL PERMITS Enforcement activity is continuing on tax parcels 26.-4-2,26.-4.3 and 26.-4.9. Enforcement Activity is continuing for excavation and fill in excess of 50 cy for Tax parcel 56.-4-1.22. The landowner has completed temporary remediation work to stabilize the site for the winter. The Owner has prepared revised subdivision plans and the Planning Board has approved the proposed restoration plan. The Plan has been reviewed by the Zoning Board and a fill permit has been approved. WATER PROJECTS Trumansburg Road Water Main Replacement The water main is now in service and the contractor has completed all water services to the new main. The only significant item to be completed is the abandonment of a section of the old water main south of the Bundy Road intersection which has been held up by weather conditions. The Town Engineer has approved two change orders, one for additional work to connect the line to the low pressure water main at the Candlewick Apartments property and the second to cover additional work resulting fi^om a field change in a hydrant and valves. Two additional change orders, which exceed the approval authority of the Town Engineer are being brought to the Town Board for approval. Hanshaw Road Water Main Replacement LRS Excavation has completed installation and testing of the new water main. The Contractor is planning to start changing service connections in March. A change order to cover the cost of additional work due to a field change in the location of the water main to avoid existing gas telephone cables is being brought to the Town Board approval. East Shore Drive Water Main Replacement Preliminary design is underway. The Town of Lansing has asked us to include a section of water main on East Shore Drive in Lansing in the project. The engineering department will develop an agreement to be reviewed by the Public Works Committee before bringing it to the Town Board for approval to do this work for Lansing at their cost. SEWER PROJECTS Joint Interceptor Sewer Projects The Town Engineer is reviewing the 5 year capital plan for interceptor sewers with the City of Ithaca Staff. The City of Ithaca has issued a construction contract for renovation and upgrades to the sewer flow monitoring stations located at the city/town line. This is a joint capital improvement project for the sewer system that is being coordinated by the SJC. The sewer flow monitors measure the flow of sewage coming into the city fi-om the Town. TOWN ENGINEERS REPORT 3/10/2008 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT i \ The Town Engineers office has been processing the drainage surveys that were sent to all residents and properties in the northeast area of the Town of Ithaca. Response to the survey was very high with over 400 surveys returned of the 620 survey letters sent out. The engineering staff is preparing a map and report that will be reviewed by the public works committee in March. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WESTVIEW SUBDIVISION The Engineering staff is monitoring the sediment and erosion control program for the site. The Phase II additional erosion control measures have been installed and are functioning. CONIFER VILLAGE (Linderman Creek Phase 4) Building Construction is underway and Sediment and erosion controls are being monitored. HOLLY CREEK Engineering staff is continuing to monitor the Storm Water Management system. Town staff is waiting for record drawings and deeds prior to acceptance of the road and utilities. COUNTRY INN & SUITES Sediment and erosion controls are being monitored for the site. Final restoration of the site needs to be ^ completed. Town Engineer's Report March 10,2008 Daniel R. Walker 3/10/2008 TOWN OF ITHACA Public Works Department Monthly Board Report February for March 10,2008 Meeting Roads: The majority of our time was spent on snow and ice removal related tasks, including: salting, plowing, removing ice flows on roadways, mixing salt, washing trucks and equipment, servicing trucks and equipment, and mailbox repairs. Several heavy rains early in the month required us to check and clear off catch basins, culverts, and storm water structures to prevent flooding. Some minor washouts occurred despite these efforts on Haller Boulevard, Elm Street Ext, Stone Quarry Road, and Woolf Lane. One crew spent a day trimming brush and cutting tree limbs on several plow routes to improve visibility and remove obstacles in the rights-of-way. Other jobs included: sign replacement; annual safety training; servicing of small equipment and power tools; repairs to our shoulder machine; cold patching roads; putting out letters to resident in Southwoods regarding street lights and on Warren Road regarding our walkway proposal; took recycling to Solid Waste; and turning the compost pile. Parks and Trails: Snow and ice removal on trails, walkways, and at Town Hall required considerable time. Site checks were done as time allowed. Some dead trees were cut and removed at several sites and clean up of wind damage was required. Water: Pump station and water tank driveways were plowed several times. Batteries had to be charged at the solar collector for West Hill water tank due to lack of sunlight. Repairs to a spare water valve were made to return it to our inventory. ' ^ Materials were stockpiled for water breaks. Water break trailer was re-stocked with parts. There were two water main breaks in February; one at 128 Christopher Circle and one at 1456 Hanshaw Road. The tie-in at Trumansburg Road water main was inspected. Sexver: Weekly sewer pump station checks were done. A sewer blockage was cleared at 1524 Slaterville Road after running the video camera down the sewer main to diagnose the problem. March Projects 1. Snow and ice removal 2. Pump station checks 3. Park and trail site checks f \ 4. Surveys for upcoming projects 5. Training on Arcview program and continue safety training 6. Repairing and servicing vehicles and equipment O/-- zocs ^ /?0H^/0CXJ0^ WQ> Bo'O^^ ^71)6 - ZC>o8 SoP(^^ S/^6 A^oTy£7^ 4\/ah^asAI Q/ry (as of 2.00^) As £p^^!fAp//UAA} j/Ja / (y£AjT' c osT ^u/y/^A^y. CfUA/fy f^^AC/CiASy. y//^gifuiCAM - IOaTJl CAtLSUAjCfES A/J /aJS^MTPoo^s , (^aSB i- L>ASfp£fA)S - £t>AJS/l>£^7£ ^Acyyos g>A) A/C SO^A/T7i0 /^UOaTTqOS - M UJi^ AS /£/ l^isz ' 4^/y(pL>/Ay lOAs /^APc syASiyup ZAi>s /AAS£a7A£^S f /^T7c.(JAMU.y joy^^^^CA. a£ AaT Scfff/C/^Z ^£AASjOn7?ctO OAS /aJ Pm<A7, 7a 4^0 y€i>i^c//Jc» UUAJi.ccsSAA.y fAAgjs 4M£^s: lOMr4c/Aou)s /s G^/£fM^^'s Tke^ fMpAoTOF fTuSCfiTAms GA)77fC ^AEj^efT'-^TffLQ^/ifU/u/ry /SA/^£<^!L>eiLJ7~'7cy7C0fPesc^^ / ^ ^r/MPAiuxs 'LdtAL e>/lOlUAi0CZ6 ^lAioSj ^KfSZTTMTAOP4ESS /^Of^ fA^. OjLA4}oTH£yL^tfft.7A/jSeiAiAAA * Us/Ai&£Ffs77AfG coOfS^ ^6i?j^4AcAi^ &ifoAr 1$ AfMtp ZrfA^S(;AJAf^ ^f tST/UG^AAiD^ysTT/y^ AAg^^/CA^Oj /a/STAj^BO A£>J> ^a/a/Ta/kJ^O T&yvAjy^ Tkc/i rUt t/se of f/srif^s /sAAp4B6$£^i>4lOM£ii IfAB Acas ooajai A- '* SifSThA^ CfHflMf/iffs A&C iOAiUfA^ /4a/C> TAb ArijS /ye.)fBAjr7£>AJ B(/€£40 Fou.0iO& Uf> ux/ru A- ane.-ai'OK>L7&e4f^£4jr To Ptscfsn, TTiB^/^iA/Kyr, f-hT7>F4BA,^ The CAAL fcJB AWfTTp/OAL. A-ij&fsAAT/ttO To ASSess frASlS oTHba, AeA/AAT/es Fob'*S.A(1BSS]AB'^ FaKSL HAS //S ZAACA MPMBAcU^ f/^BS 9i^BA7ffB ytm. ©f>B OA THB CC/JC£Ma/s 4J7cPsP AS ^ AfSOST/S r^AT^OffC fBoyTi. /^Ay 8C /fi/cXrf^Li> TbsFoi ^OP. o7?-^£ASjoISC PbTFATT^ ^c^)Uc77ojJ OF 77^C Ps7i:<J?o^ ao^S To A\7at\> a Pg^AKFy PoA_ f4ASB /AMAH , Z>C7A^ yOoSf77nO ///9 ^ 4-AMJAyS S£S.aj TtifT CO£ COoV^b hmtesL. jpeAL co/m- rk£ aacsb, aaaah />ao&4m tt/aa^ obc a f/fic OBTi^fe/j/fUMH sysr^A^ Ps.f9t>\jt!> FAom X}F4vic4^ //ti TUt. Hcf^i THnTA fATSi^ AfAA^j C<^/Ak 0£ A7Oft>Bb0 ^wodfiP piAjsTitiA^iy 40P THaT aa/acioos Fa^b a-^aa$ a-ajl to 7T?£. C4i(MiAAL Ao^fCg. Foil //OviFiTi<iA7Foib f /OAoSfCoT/oiO» e Edft View Favaites Tools i Town of Ithaca, NY ^ Govemmenl p Services^ Services k [► Communiy Contact iVebsite r> Network/Record Specialist Report March 10, 2007 New Pages: o "Items of Interest". ■ This page contains information of on-going projects or programs. For example, the Town's Agricultural Land Preservation Program, Richard Fischer Environmental Conservation Award, Stormwater, etcetera. Links to this page are found off the homepage and under the Information tab. o Town Board member page This page has been updated with new photos and the new format as suggested by Deputy Tow Supervisor Burbank. Like the County's site, the main page lists the Town Board member's nam which are hyperiinked to their individual pages. At this point, the individual pages consists of a photo, contact information and committee assignments. Links to the TB member page can be found in four places on our web site: on the Home page under the Quick Links section and und« Government, Board/Committee, Contact tabs, o Site of the Month page: NYS Travel Advisory web page. A/etwork I ' Web Site Redesign Presentation. o On February 22nd and March 4th, the Town Clerk and Network/Record Specialist gave a presentation ( the basics of a web site redesign. Included in this PowerPoint presentation was substantive ideas, suggestions and input from staff and board members. More presentations will be given as this process moves forward. MS Office 2003 and Window XP upgrades continue. Installation of new 256MB video cards to Town Hail and Public Works client machines. Reconfigured the Town Hall Wireless Access Points (WAP) so that they are now working properly throughout Town Hall. Public Works Facility is scheduled for reconfiguration next month. As a note for new Town Board members: The wireless in the Town's facilities ARE NOT public access Hot Spots as one might find at a cafe. Visitors to Town Hall or Public Works must first receive a temporary password which will grant them limited access. Town staff has full access to network resources. Town Board members who need wireless access at ol facilities should see Lisa in order to enable your device. iA Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Monthly Report 1/1/08 Until 1/31/08 Building Permits BP#Date Value Description fee category 7041 1/2/2008 $17,000.00 Remodel kitchen In attached single family $60.00 renovations to residential 7042 1/4/2008 $19,920.51 Convert existing garage Into bedroom and study $60.00 renovations to residential 7043 1/4/2008 $300,000.00 New 4-bedroom, single-femlly home with attached 2-car garage $700.00 new single-family homes 7045 1/9/2008 $425,000.00 New 5 bedroom, single-family with attached 2.5-car garage $850.00 new single-family homes 7044 1/9/2008 $240,000.00 New 4-bedroom modular single-family home with attached 2-car garage $550.00 new single-family homes 7046 1/16/2008 $148,000.00 990 square foot addition onto existing two-family residence $350.00 additions to residential 7047 1/17/2008 $25,195.00 Repair and reinforce existing foundation walls $70.00 renovations to residential 7048 1/18/2008 $25,000.00 20 X 29 one story addition $70.00 7049 1/25/2008 $5,000.00 Construct wall between Suites 205 & 208 In office tower $35.00 business 7050 1/25/2008 $60,000.00 Replace exterior windows In cafeteria $200.00 business 7051 1/25/2008 $200,000.00 Alterations to duct work and Installation of new controls In HVAC system $550.00 business Totals 1 $1,465,115.51 1 1 $3,495.00 BP#Address Description CO Temp 6888 103 Crest Ln 2 story, 1,280 square foot residential 1/9/2008 □ addition, 196 sq ft sunroom addition. evS^fSnn □7035 175 Seven Mile Dr Extend existing deck four feet 1/11/2008 7011 603 Five Mile Dr Remove existing roof cover and Install 1/11/2008 □ new metal roof panels 6966 902 Coddlngton Rd Convert non-habitable area into habitable 1/11/2008 □ area 6904 5 Sandra PI 192 square foot room addition 1/14/2008 □ 6847 Dryden Rd Cut structural support column and Install 1/22/2008 □ steel corbel Friday, February 01,2008 Page 1 Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Monthly Report 1/1/08 Until 1/31/08 6969 119 Simsbury Dr Install solar system roof of house 1/23/2008 □ 6953 11 College Clr Replace roof coverings on flat roofs 1/23/2008 □ 6952 7 College Cir Replace roof coverings on flat roofs 1/23/2008 □ 6895 1 Plantations Rd Reroof and replace canopies in kind 1/23/2008 □ 6811 1485 Mecklenburg Rd 1,440 sq ft Ag building less than 30 feet in height 1/23/2008 □ 6157 205 Roat St Addition to single-family home 1/25/2008 □ 6848 304 Old Gorge Rd New single-family home with attached garage 1/28/2008 □ Complaints Date Address Complaint Type Disposition 1/11/2008 681 Coddlngton Rd water/sewer/septic Other 1/21/2008 915 Coddlngton Rd correspondence Other 1/30/2008 137 RIdgecrestRd building code Pending Existing Building CO Field Visits Building Code Complaint/Investigation Fire Safety Fire Emergency Total 59 4 6 2 71 Friday, Febmary 01,2008 Page 2 02/01/2008 11:26:28 TOWN OF ITHACA B2111 - B2111 Transaction Report For the period 01/01/2008 through 01/31/2008 Type Date Comment Name Quantity Fee B2111 l.BP 01/18/2008 67.-1-6 CORNELL 1 45.00 2.BP 01/18/2008 62.-2-1.121 CORNELL UNIVERSITY 1 700.00 3.BP 01/22/2008 60.-1-25.3 RUDAN, JOHNW 1 70.00 4.BP 01/28/2008 41.-1-30.2 ITHACA COLEGE GARAGE 1 60.00 5.BP 01/30/2008 19.-1-6 LOWERY, JOHN 1 350.00 6. BP 01/30/2008 63.-1-3.4 HOVANEC 1 45.00 7. BP 01/31/2008 45.-2-22 SHUHAM, ALEX 1 70.00 7 M40.00 8.BPE 01/16/2008 58.-2-10 GERRARD, BETH 1 50.00 1 50.00 9.FP 01/30/2008 19.-2-29 STREETER 1 500.00 1 500.00 lO.SP 01/15/2008 73.-1-1.4 ITHACA COMMUNITY 1 50.00 CHILDCARE 1 50.00 Il.TCO 01/29/2008 33.-1-4.14 MCAFEE, KEVIN AND 1 67.50 MARYBETH ' A 1 67.50 Total Sales 11 2,007.50 Page: I 02/01/2008 11:25:55 Type B2110 1.BP 2.BP 3.BP TOWN OF ITHACA B2110-B2110 Transaction Report For the period 01/01/2008 through 01/31/2008 Date Comment Name Quantity 01/14/2008 41.-1-30.2 01/14/2008 41.-1-30.2 01/15/2008 39.-1-1.2 ITHACA COLLEGE ITHACA COLLEGE SOUTH HILL BUSINESS CAMPUS j ) Fee 100.00 100.00 35.00 4.BPE 01/07/2008 33.-2-3.1 KNEWSTUB, RONALD 235.00 50.00 5.FSI 01/22/2008 43.-2-7,43.-1-3.5,43.-1-3.6 6.FSI 01/31/2008 24.-3-4 EAC MONTESSORI SCHOOL PROFESSIONAL BLDG ASSOCIATES 50.00 110.00 50.00 7.ZBM 01/03/2008 38.-3-11.1 8.ZBM 01/07/2008 46.-1-15.29 9.ZBM 01/15/2008 73.-1-1.4 10.ZBM 01/23/2008 24.-1-19.12 11.ZBM 01/25/2008 63.-1-5 INGRAHAM, ANTHONY CLARK, JAMES A ITHACA COMMUNITY CHILDCARE TROWBRIDGE CORNELL UNIVERSITY 160.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.01^^ Total Sales 11 500.0; 945.00 Page: I Regular Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board, March 10, 2008 Human Resources Report for January and February 2008 Personnel and Employee Relations Committees. The Personnel Committee continues to work on evaluating the request for a Code Enforcement Officer and the salary survey among many other topics. See attached minutes and 2008 work priorities. There has been one meeting of the Employee Relations Committee since the New Year. They have established reoccurring meetings for the 2 Friday of the month. The group discussed concerns that the employees have raised and the idea of paid volunteer time. Safetv Committee: At the January meeting there were no accidents to discuss. The committee talked in length about the intersections that have been studied by the Engineering staff as to be meeting or not meeting the ASHTO recommendations. February's meeting was cancelled due to a snow storm along with February s Safety Training day on February 15"^. Training and Development: Brainteasers Series flyers were sent out to staff and other towns and villages. The first program was on group decision making. The program regarding creating marketing a program was cancelled due to presenter sickness. I attended a session in Rochester on Dysfunctional teams and leadership that was based on the book "The Five Dysfunctions of a Team" by Patrick Lencioni. Pavroll: . . . New payroll figures were input for the employee pay cost of living adjustments. W-2's and other required correspondences were sent in timely fashion. Uniform allowance payments were processed for the Public Works employees. Payroll certification report to Tompkins County Civil Service was completed and sent. This report is one of the major requirements for remaining compliant with Civil Service. It is the process that is used to ensure that all staff being paid properly (the Town Board approved amount) and those showing on the payroll have been authorized through civil service. Personnel - Civil Service: The Planner position that was approved of during the 2008 budget process was ^ advertised. There were over 50 applications received from the recruit. The position was advertised across central NY from Utica to Binghamton. We also posted the position on the NYS Planners website along with the national American Planning Association website. Most of the resume's received came from the internet sites where the position was posted. Jon Kanter, Susan Ritter and I sorted through the applications and chose the top 5. Of those some were from out of state so we started with the in state applicants. One had already accepted another position, so we only ended up interviewing 2 people. From those interviews we chose Darby Kiley, who started on Monday, March 3^*^. Commercial Insurance (Ithaca Acencv - Selective Insurance Companv): Renewals for the 2008 coverage have been billed and broken out for payment. Doesn't sound like much except that the bill gets broken down right to each vehicle and the cost for to ensure that vehicle or piece of equipment. I also worked with Ithaca Agency on a quote to add additional coverage to Bolton Point's policy that would enhance the crime policy as recommended by the Comptroller's office. Workers' Compensation (Public Emolovers Risk Management Assoc — PERMA). No new claims to report. Worked on past claims for preparation for closing. Disabilitv Insurance: I received notification that our Statutory Disability Insurance provider has sold ^ that line of their business, so I will be working with another new company for that ^ coverage. The change over for the Long Term Disability has taken some time but seems to be coming together. They have a better online service for administration, which will be wonderful. Unemplovment Insurance: No new claims to report. There is currently one seasonal employee claiming on the Town. Health and/or Dental Insurance: I continue to attend the committee meeting of TCCOG on the Health Benefit Consortium. We are in the process of working with Steve Locey from Locey and Cahill on the document municipalities interested in the consortium would agree to and sign if they join. The next phase is comparing the current plans and union agreements. Meetings with each of the stakeholder groups began in the beginning of February. The consultant has had meetings with the union and employee representatives. There was also a meeting regarding the agreement for have questions answered by the municipal leaders. Future meetings will include the retirees and large group of municipal boards/ trustees. Submitted By: Judith C. Drake, PHR, Human Resources Manager ^ TOWN OF ITHACA PERSONNEL COMMITTEE Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:00 to 5:00 pm Tioga Conference Room DRAFT NOTES Committee members present: Jeff Cowie, Peter Stein, Pat Leary. Others: Herb Engman, Judy Drake, Dan Walker 1. Discuss salaried management positions and whether they should be classified at 37.5 hours or changed to 40 hours. Follow up from December meeting. Judy passed out summary requested by Jeff that showed a summary of the salaried positions, including the cost to move ail salaried positions to 40 hour week minimum. Questioned as to why it matters the number hours working if a salaried position. Discussion continued in executive session. 2. Discuss what Is needed for a final report on the salary survey. it was decided not to re-do the salary survey, but to work from the data already collected, it would have been preferred to have more suburban towns that have water, sewer, planning and engineering. Peter has discussed the R classification, and has concluded that the salary ranges are comparable and should not be increased. Peter will follow up with a write up concluding the findings. Judy passed out summary of the P-O-N classifications summary using the municipalities that had 5 out of the 6 salaried positions. This was to give a comparison for the middle management positions using the same data source as was done for the salaried positions. This shows that only the P classification falls below the average. Peter will review further and report out at next meeting. 3. Update on request for an additional Code Enforcement Officer. Peter and Herb are working on this task. Will report out at next meeting. 4. Discuss prioritized list from Employee Relations Committee (ERC). ( Judy presented a prioritized listing of the concerns discussed with the ERC in December. The committee would like to address each of them. Judy to discuss with Sue Ritter to see if any need to be addressed sooner rather than later. 5. Set 2008 meeting dates and times for Personnel Committee (PC) and Employee Relations Committee (ERC)./ \ Personnel Committee meetings wiii be held the first Wednesday of the month from 4:30 to 6:00 pm at Town Haii. The Employee Relations Committee meetings (includes staff representatives and town Board members) tentatively wiii meet the second Friday of the month from 1:45 - 2:45 pm. 'Update: ERC meetings have been changed to 1:30 - 2:30 pm. Location to move between the locations. February 8'" meeting cancelled. 6. Create goals for 2008: tasks or issues to be addressed. Discussed ideas members had for tasks to compiete for 2008. 2008 TASK LIST FOR PERSONNEL COMMITTEE: (no set order) 1. Review Blood Donation Leave Law to establish policy. 2. Discuss paid leave policy for community service -voluntary work at a school 3. Travel and Training: requires Board approval if over $300 - why is Board approval needed if Department Head stays within budget constraints. 4. Complete salary survey analysis 5. Review safety security survey 6. Holidays 7. Evaluate Elected Official Salary 8. Create a Diversity Statement for the town 9. Discuss point factor rating of certain positions. \ ' \ DRAFT ^ TOWN OF ITHACA PERSONNEL COMMITTEE Wednesday, February 6, 2008 4:30 - 6:00 pm Tioga Conference Room DRAFT NOTES Members present: Peter Stein and Pat Leary. Absent: Jeff Cowle.Chair Others: Herb Engman, Judy Drake, Dan Walker 1. Review Peter's final report on the salary survey. Deferred to March meeting. 2. Report out from Peter/Herb on request for an additional Code Enforcement Officer. Deferred to March meeting. 3. Review Evaluation from Diversity Training and process to develop a ^ Diversity Statement. ^ Members received copy of evaluation summary from Diversity session and entire day's training. Diversity portion had higher ratings than the Conflict portion. Suggestions are to split up training for days versus whole day. Staff liked the large group staff interaction. A suggestion for additional training would be on communication styles and skills. . u -i Need to keep working on across department-building communications through email access and internal newsletter. Judy updated that the Town Clerks staff has volunteered to take on the newsletter. PEZ will be discussing more about topic ideas, how often, etc. Herb would like to see the committee work on a Diversity Statement but also a Diversity plan. What are the action items that are going to occur or need to occur? This topic will be added to future agendas. 4. Create mission statement for committee. Committee worked on wording for the purpose. Committee will review and finalize at the March meeting. Personnel Committee's purpose: Make recommendations to the Town Board regarding Human Resources issues including: staffing, compensation, benefits, and related policies. Review personnel recommendations made by Department Heads. Review grievances that proceed to Step 3. Foster good employee relations through joint meetings with the Employee Relations Committee. DRAFT 5. Discuss training limit requirement of $300 The SAC group requested review of the Travel and Training Policy. Currently per resolution the Town Board is required to approve any training that is over $300 per person. During the budget process departments request a certain dollar amount for travel and training. The request was to drop the Town Board approval and leave the approval up to the Department Head unless the dollar amount would exceed the department's budget line. The committee agreed this would be a good idea and to recommend the change to the Town Board. (Draft resolution to be presented and discussed at February 11^^ meeting.) There further discussion regarding the per diem meal allowance, especially regarding travel to NYC. Currently the per diem is $65 per day or for specific meals it is $15 for breakfast, $20 for lunch and $30 for dinner. It was suggested to set a separate per diem, specifically for NYC travel, such as $75 or $80 per day. Committee did not come to recommendation for the draft resolution, but agreed that Board members can raise their thoughts or concerns at the Board meeting. 6. Review assessment report from Best Companies Group Deferred to March meeting. 7. Update on TCCOG Health Benefit Sub-committee regarding a Health Benefit Consortium. Judy updated on the status of the sub-committee. Meetings are being set for the consultant, Steve Locey, to discuss the consortium and agreement with the municipalities (2/21/08.) Also Steve Locey is meeting with union and employee representatives on February 14^^ at City Mali. Judy has informed the representatives and forwarded the invitation to Biii Arnault, Teamsters and the representatives for Bolton Point's union. Others: Pat wanted to know if the Personnel Committee would be working on the Volunteer policies discussed at Employee Relations Committee. Judy felt that those should be worked on at those meetings. Next meeting: First Wednesday of the Month: March 5, 2008,4:30 - 6:00 pm I \