Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2006-01-26Special Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Thursday, January 26, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Presentation from Tompkins County regarding the proposed Hanshaw Road Reconstruction Project and the costs associated with the project 4. Comments from the Public 5. Consideration of the Hanshaw Road Reconstruction Project and possible inclusion of walkway 6. Consider Setting a Public Hearing regarding Property Tax Exemptions for Historic Barns and Certain Home Improvements for Persons with Disabilities 7. Consider Setting a Public Hearing regarding Approval of Temporary Certificate of Occupancy time extension for Cayuga Medical Center southwest addition and building renovations 8. Consider Approving Records Management Day 9. Consider Adjournment January 26,2006 Special Town Board Meeting Approved March 13, 2006 Special Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Thursday, January 26, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York THOSE PRESENT: Supervisor Valentino; Councilman Burbank; Councilman Engman; Councilman Stein; Councilman Cowie; Councilwoman Leary STAFF PRESENT: Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Clerk; Dan Walker, Town Engineer; Fred Noteboom, Highway Superintendent; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Judy Drake, Human Resources Manager OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Bernard Hutchins, 1016 Hanshaw Road; Jinyong Hutchins, 1016 Hanshaw Rd; Christa-Maria Beyenback, 1024 Hanshaw Road, Klaus W. Beyenback, 1024 Hanshaw Road; Richard Allmendinger, 1414 Hanshaw Road; Barbara Apt, 1436 Hanshaw Road, Chris Ptak, 1018 Hanshaw Road; Celeste Ptak, 1018 Hanshaw Road; John Yaley, 1021 Hanshaw Road, Peter Romani, 1466 Hanshaw Road; J. Van De Poel, 1106 Hanshaw Road; Diane Feldman, 1404 Hanshaw Road; Niels Otani, 217 Tareyton Drive; Zetta Sprole, 1031 Hanshaw Road; Deborah Cowan, 1022, Hanshaw Road; Erica Jessup, 1442 Hanshaw Road; Ed Marx, Tompkins County; John Lampman, Tompkins County; Dooley Kiefer, Tompkins County Legislature; David Collum, Hanshaw Road; Sherene Baugher, 111 Blackstone Avenue; Bob Venables, 111 Blackstone Avenue; llene Lambiase; 406 East Upland Road CALL TO ORDER: Supervisor Valentino called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3 - Presentation from Tompkins Countv regarding the proposed Hanshaw Road Reconstruction Project and the costs associated with the project Ed Marx appeared before the Board on behalf of Tompkins County. Mr. Marx told the Board that the County has had many public meetings and one on one meetings with landowners regarding the reconstruction project. His attendance at the evening's meeting is to assist, if they can, in the Board's decision of whether or not to include a walkway in the Hanshaw Road reconstruction project and, if so, what the scope of the walkway should be. Mr. Marx told the Board they need a decision from the Board fairly soon because they have to proceed with the design under the federal aid project schedule and submit a design to the Department of Transportation in February. Mr. Marx read his January 19, 2006 letter to the Board (attachment #1 - 1/19/2006 letter from E. Marx). John Lampman (attachment #2 - 1/20/06 email and attachment from J. Lampman) -1 briefly reviewed the proposed project and distributed copies of "Roadway Sections" prepared by Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP (attachment #3 - Roadway Sections). Referring to the drawing, Mr. Lampman stated it shows two sections they are proposing. Both contain the sidewalk. One where the existing landscaping features restrict the width to point where they need to narrow things down somewhat. In those cases they are putting the sidewalk close to the road as depicted in 3B. 3A is the option they would prefer to use everywhere but they cannot fit it in 1 January 26,2006 Special Town Board Meeting Approved March 13, 2006 everywhere and in an effort to try to retain trees and other landscaping features they would utilize 3B. H The section width is 30 feet. In option SB the 30 feet is from the edge of the shoulder on the south side of the road (right side of the drawing) to the bottom of the gutter. In that option they will be cutting back on the width of the asphalt shoulder by 2 feet. Mr. Lampman indicated on a large-scale drawing where they would be utilizing the different options, 3A and SB. Supervisor Valentino asked Mr. Lampman to explain how a lack of a walkway would change the configuration of the travel lanes. Mr. Lampman responded that with no sidewalk they would be extending the shoulder an additional foot on each side of the road. He was not sure exactly what that would mean for drainage. Probably what they would do is got to an open ditch section on the east side of Salem Drive at least. They would still have to have drop inlets of some nature to get the water from the surface down into the closed drainage system elsewhere in the road. Mr. Stein asked what the reduction of right-of-way into the properties on the north side of the road would be if there were no walkway. Mr. Lampman told him they really hadn't considered in detail what the right of way needs are. The only point he can think of where they will need additional right of way are way the sidewalk would deviate from the road itself. Other than that it should be pretty much within what the three-rod right of way is. p-i Mr. Stein reported complaints from property owners on the north side that additional property is going to be taken by putting in a sidewalk. He asked for confirmation that it really wouldn't change whether there was a sidewalk or not. Mr. Lampman told him there would be some landscaping that exists in the right of way now that would need to be replaced. What they would be doing is replace it outside the right of way. There are other features also that they would want to replace. Mr. Lampman thought the actual acquisition of right of way for the walkway would be limited. Mr. Cowie asked what the difference in "bite" would be with and without the walkway. Mr. Lampman expected the right of way would change somewhat with the walkway plan, but not significantly accept in areas where the walkway would deviate from the road. If we did not do the walkway then the plan should be able to be done fairly well within the existing right of way, but there won't be a major difference either way. Both option 3A and 3B are shown to be within the existing right of way. Supervisor Valentino expressed the following concerns from correspondence she had received: Concern about a 150 year old tree. Ms. Supervisor asked if that would be able to be preserved if they built the walkway. Mr. Lampman told her they would be able to work around that tree. Concern regarding a fence that would have to be moved back. Supervisor Valentino asked if that was something that would be done as part of the project. Mr. Lampman January 26,2006 Special Town Board Meeting Approved March 13, 2006 told her, yes, that would be part of the project if they decided to that. With or without the walkway there is the possibility of shifting things somewhat to get around things if they were problematic. Supervisor Valentino asked if landscaping would be replaced. Mr. Lampman stated they had talked with Trowbridge and Wolf about what species would be good and spoken to several of the landowners about their preferences and the idea of trying to put native species. Supervisor Valentino asked if they were going to be able to work within current easements that the County has or are there going to be some places where they would have to get easement approvals. Mr. Lampman stated they feel that there is justification to believe that the County's right of way would be upheld as a 3-rod right of way; that they do have what is shown on the drawing. As far as getting additional easements, Mr. Lampman stated that is something the project would be able to cover. Councilman Cowie stated he was very concerned about traffic calming measures and wondered what might be done. Mr. Lampman stated they have been thinking about traffic calming. They have talked about trying to make visibility better at the Warren Road intersection. One of the reasons they have gone to option 3B in the vicinity of the Warren Road intersection is to try to maintain as narrow an approach to that intersection as they safely can, both increasing the visibility but maintaining it in a narrower form should help. Another thing they have talked about is doing something with the shoulder asphalt itself; perhaps going with a colored treatment to give the perception of a narrower driving area. They have talked about crosswalks. They also see just having the sidewalk there in itself as a traffic calming measure. Mr. Noteboom asked if the driving lane at the intersection is going to be narrower than Is currently there. Mr. Lampman stated that currently the driving lane width is up to about 11 feet; the proposed section shows striping that at 10-feet instead. Mr. Cowie asked if the shoulder widths were federal standards of some sort. Mr. Lampman told him there is a federal standard for shoulder width and the proposal is actually below what they recommend. The recommended width on a roadway of this functional classification is 12-foot lanes and 8-foot wide shoulders. They realized with the public input that going to the standard widths would really not be possible in this area. Going to a 10-foot land and a 5-foot shoulder is about the minimum that the DOT would allow. Mr. Burbank asked what the width of the shoulder would be if they were not to build the walkway beyond Salem Drive. Mr. Lampman told him they would take the shoulder out to 6 feet at Salem Drive. Supervisor Valentino read into the record a letter of support for the walkway from Walter Lynn, Mayor of Cayuga Heights. (Attachment #3) Persons from the public were invited to submit written questions to the Board. The Board received and Supervisor Valentino read the following questions from the public: 1. At our last Hanshaw Road meeting I asked about what steps if any were taken to secure additional funding so that the bike lane would be built over the swale, this way homeowners would lose less frontage. January 26,2006 Special Town Board Meeting Approved March 13, 2006 Ms. Valentino stated the involved municipalities were going to work together to seek additional funding from the State. Mr. Lampman stated that the idea of having the bike lane or the shoulder over the swale would mean eliminating the swale and it would mean the need to have a curb, which would make the section a little more expensive. One of the things they like about the swale is that it gives some offset from the road for the pedestrians. It also provides some snow storage area right at the edge of the shoulder. Some places where they show option 3B they have to live without that, but where they can provide the separation and snow storage area they thought it would be a wise thing to do. Regarding the idea of getting more funding, Mr. Lampman reported that they have approached DOT about that and have gotten mixed messages in return. Mr. Lampman felt that there would be some money available; the regional planning and program manager has expressed some optimism that they would be able to get some amount of money. 2. How has the issue of right of way been resolved? Mr. Lampman reported that initially they went through the deeds for the landowners on the corridor .and found some amount, approximately 75%, contained written references to the width of the public right-of-way within the deed. Another substantial amount, bringing the total to close to 90%, included a map that would show that. They have a gain gone through the deeds in a bit more detail and so have revised those numbers somewhat downward and now are at a point of saying that about half of them do include the written textual references and then of the 50% that do not, probably 70% of those do reference the map. What they are thinking is that, again based on the preponderance of the evidence based on the deeds, that the County would have the right of way they are showing on the cross-sections of the proposed project. In most of the area they are also occupying the right of way they are showing. In some places they are not, but think that the evidence shows that is what the road was open to at one point. 3. If my fence needs to be moved, who will pay Whitmore Fence who built it, and will pay Cayuga Landscape to move plants out in front of the fence? Who will move my sign and light and rewire them? Telephone poles? Regarding the telephone poles, Mr. Lampman responded stating with that being a private utility, that being NYSEG, phone, television, private utilities would be responsible for moving their own systems if they exist within the right of way today. If they are outside of the right of way today and they're forcing them to be moved then the project would bear the cost. Mr. Lampman believed that throughout the project the private utilities exist within the right of way. Public utilities such as water and sewer would be handled by the project. Mr. Lampman knew that the Town does have some plans for doing some major water work anyway and that would be a separate feature from the project. The idea of the fence or the wiring of light poles could be handled two ways. Either the project can include relocation of those features or new plantings or, as part of the right of way acquisition process; they could include the value of those features in with the right of way that is taken. Then they would be paying the landowners for those and they could then use that n January 26,2006 Special Town Board Meeting Approved March 13, 2006 money if they wish to replace those features. Where the fences, lights, whatever are within the right of way then they would probably be including relocation as part of the project. That is something they would probably want to deal with landowners directly to see what they want to have done. 4. What is the expected cost to the Town to build the walkway? Mr. Lampman replied stating if they are able to get full federal and state funding for the entire project including the walkway then, with the estimates that they have, the cost to the Town depending upon which scenario they choose would be: over $17,000 for a walkway to Sapsucker Woods which is approximately $350,000 project; if they stop at Salem Drive the Town's share would be approximately $8,000. 5. What would be the annual cost for the maintenance? Mr. Noteboom stated he did not have that number on the top of his head. Ms. Valentino stated that the Town does have the equipment to do it and does clear other walkways in that area. 6. Can the Town of Ithaca, in the future, force maintenance and replacement back on to the property owners? Supervisor Valentino reported that the Town will have to have an agreement with the County that the Town is going to continue to maintain and take on the liability of the walkway. The agreement will be binding. 7. Could a 4-way stop be placed at Hanshaw Road and Blackstone to slow down traffic because now people speed from Warren to Community Comers? Mr. Lampman stated that was something they could look in to. As part of the project's safety analysis, they have to look at each intersection on the road. He did not want to comment too much about that until the analysis was done. Typically they would not just try to Introduce stop signs as a traffic calming measure. 8. Why insist on a walkway? Ms. Valentino replied that decision hasn't been made yet. 9. Give name and address and contact person for the Federal Office administrative offering 80% of construction funds. Mr. Lampman was not sure who the contacts would be there. He believed there is an office in Albany. The DOT administers the federal share as part of their responsibilities. There is a Syracuse Regional office of DOT and there is also a Federal Highway Administration Office in Albany. If someone would call Mr. Lampman's office he could get them the information. 10. Can we have a discussion about drainage between Warren Road and the Village Line? January 26,2006 Special Town Board Meeting Approved March 13, 2006 Mr. Lampman stated that right there is a creek, Renwick Creek or Renwick Brook that you don't see much of. The headwaters are in the Salem Drive area on the northeast end of the I project. The creek bed used to be on the shoulder of Hanshaw and it is now contained in the subsurface drainage system. Mr. Lampman stated he'd been told that there are some capacity issues with the current drainage system and the Town is in the process of making some alterations, improvements to the drainage before the water gets to Hanshaw Road. But between Warren Road and the Village line the main drainage feature would be that Creek which outlets between Kay Street and Blackstone. They have talked about the idea of bypassing the current outlet of the drainage system and extending it further towards the Village down to Blackstone and having a portion of the water that now empties in the Orchard Street, Kay Street area on the west side of Blackstone. So they are looking a making some improvement there to try to alleviate some of the flooding concerns that residents have expressed to them through the public information process. If people are also concerned about water that needs to be drained between Blackstone and the Village line that is something they need to work out more fully in detailed design. Right now what they know is that typically for the highway section they need to provide surface water drainage and there are some areas that are holding water now that should be drained. Mr. Lampman thought they were showing the swale option, or the gutter option, whichever the case may be, to be realistic from an engineering perspective with the need to drain surface water that is there they'll be looking at specific locations where they might be able to alter that and maybe decrease the level of impact that the roadway sections call for. There may be, due to the nature of the soils, they may be able to not have as big a drainage system in that area. rn [ 1 Mr. Walker stated he knew there was more water than fits in the capacity now. The Town has provided some information as far as the Salem Drive area where the water already comes out to the system and a couple different alternatives. One would be the ultimate protection forever and one is maybe more realistic to deal with the existing condition water. Mr. Walker knows there are problems between Warren and Blackstone. This is an ongoing problem that he has mentioned to the project's designers. Mr. Lampman added that they did look at the information that Mr. Walker provided and it looks like they probably they won't have as high a drainage cost to contend with, as high as flow and therefore as high a cost to contend with. And so, if the Town wanted to look back on the budget figures that were distributed earlier, they are probably looking at slightly greater than a $100,000 savings on the base project due to the reductions in the flow that they are now thinking they have to deal with. They will be able to go with more of an open drainage system on a significant portion of the south side of the road east of Warren as a result of dealing with less capacity needs. 11. The most dangerous walking area is the hill curve down to Community Comers, but this proposal seems to squeeze access at this point? Is that correct? Mr. Lampman replied stating that the base project, which defines the limits of work at the Village line, would squeeze that access. It comes back to drainage again. The need to outlet drainage from the area just outside the Village into the Village, to extend that drainage I system into the Village they have some minimal amount of work that they need to do in the Village. There could be some additional widening of the shoulder that resulted from that in Januaiy 26,2006 Special Town Board Meeting Approved March 13, 2006 the base project, but they do have estimates as well to either continue the walkway into the Village and tie into the walks at Community Corners, or to widen the shoulder to a full shoulder that would match what they are proposing outside the Village. These are things they are considering outside the base project, but they are definitely something they would like to see funded if they could raise money to do it. There were no more written questions for the Board and Mr. Lampman and Supervisor Valentino asked if there were questions from the public that had not been answered. There were no further questions and Supervisor Valentino invited members of the public to address the Board, limiting their comments to 3 minutes. Barbara Apt, 1436 Hanshaw Road I want to say that this whole process has built a lot of confidence for me In these gentlemen. They did a great Job. They clearly listened and accommodated, worked with our areas of concem, especially the traffic calming, the less Impact, and also making It safer for all the people who are using this road as a non-car use. I believe as a community we felt that the safety Issue was huge. Including the traffic calming. So I want to thank you. You really listened. They worked with and around everything we brought up. I love the walkway. I think when It comes to a decision between altruism and self-interest, especially where a question of safety Is concemed, I'm happy to give up, I will be one of the people most likely giving up a little bit of my front yard and I'm happy to do that to Increase the safety of pedestrians and bikers on our roadway. Also, I'd like to propose that people look at Cayuga Heights and their little walkways. Doesn't that Improve their neighborhood? Don't people slow down? I know the Cayuga Height polices are also...which we would love to have on our section as well. The stop signs, also If we could look at the stop signs along the way. We would like to encourage corridor use of Route 13, but I'm very happy with what they've done. And for the little bit of extra space and from the work that they've done, they're willing to work around our old tree and everybody's stuff. I've Just been very happy with the whole process. I'm going to encourage you and everybody to say In the Interest of pedestrian safety, everybody, the high school cross country team runs up the road. It's worth It to give up a little bit of property. I'm happy to do It. Thank you. Klaus Beyenbauch, 1024 Hanshaw Road I'm not In the habit of expressing displeasure. I don't do It very often, but I'm going to try to be nice about It. I've been very much troubled about the process. We've had many community meetings about It. The concerns of the community are well known. A petition has been submitted. We haven't heard a response to that petition. The petition Is against the sidewalk. I have difficulty finding the responsible party. I have talked to you, I have talked to Mr. Lampman, and Indeed my meetings with all of you have been very cordial but I'm not getting real answers. And I've written letters to officials' associates and I've gotten no reply. I really don't know who make this decision, but I get the Impression that there's some money out there that the Town and the County can get and In order to get this money we must have separate gutters and sidewalk and a shoulder In addition to a driving surface. Now my wife and I we walk and I bicycle whenever I have a chance weather permitting. So for my purposes of walking up and down Hanshaw Road and bicycling that's plenty. It's adequate. And the present surfaces that are available are adequate to accommodate a gutter and a January 26,2006 Special Town Board Meeting Approved March 13, 2006 shoulder and a walkway, you don't have to extend into our properties and take frontage away from us. The issue of right of way has not been settled in our case, but I don't want to concern my particular case. The point is that other roads, in particular the roads leading to Comell, Warren Road and Pleasant Grove, they need much more of a shoulder and much more of a bicycle lane than Hanshaw Road does. And I'm reminded here of a Russian saying "you're building bridges along the river and not across the river". Questions I have also is about property devaluation. About equity. Why are some residents asked to give up property and others are not? Why does the walkway have to meander in and out? In closing I'll say lights are needed on Hanshaw Road, even for the present circumstances. Bernard Hutchins, 1016 Hanshaw Road The first point I want to make is that there is a resolution of June 13, 2005 by this Board unanimously approved that said, made it very simple, the sidewalk issue is very simple; sidewalks would be included when wanted by the majority of adjoining residences. That means to me, adjoining means touching. People who are losing land, who are losing vegetation, and who are losing their privacy. There i/i/as an original petition that went around. There's about 50 of us that are in that position of being adjoining. We talked to about 34 of them and 32 of them said, "no". There was a Town Board meeting of October 17, you folks were here, 20 out of 20 people who spoke said, "no". You've received emails this week of people who said, "no". At this meeting for the first time I've heard one person who said, "yes". That's the first person I know of. The point is in protecting our property rights we have relied upon the Town of Ithaca to honor it's resolution. The resolution is still in effect. If you want to ask us our opinion, if you want to give a poll, which you said you would do, which you r-i haven't. We've tried our best to do that. We've done it by the petition and we've done it by \ i coming to these meetings and we're going to do it again tonight. We've said, "no". So that's the answer to that question so I'm no sure why we are here. In regard to the right of way, they don't have the right of way they said. I have received no response from Mr. Wood at the County. This was true on December 12 it is true today. As Mr. Lampman says they have this evidence. Bring it forth. Show where their right of way is. They have not done that. So those are the two main issues. One with the County. Or with the Town, why are we talking to them when we haven't dealt with the issue of whether you're getting rid of that resolution or not. I understand that resolution is still in effect. Why are we ignoring it? We're not ignoring it. We read it. We relied upon it. We expect the Town to do that. With respect to the right of way, I Just want to pass around, I made some copies of this, it's an article by Joel Yegna, Town of Danby Board. He quotes the former chief council of the Department of Transportation, Mr. Darrell Harple, on this very issue of the right of way what it is on these roads where it is only a use right of way. I sent it to Supervisor Valentino. I sent it to Jon Kanter, but I'm not sure the rest of you have seen it so I made a whole bunch. Mr. Van de Peel, 1106 Hanshaw Road I want to commend the people from the Town of Ithaca for their excellent drawings and also for the work that they are doing on this project, which for the people that live in that immediate area is a very important project. However, I had looked at this drawing now for the third time and I cannot escape the notion that something is missing in that drawing. If I had a felt pen and would have draw in an additional feature of this project, the first thing I would do n is with a blue felt pen I would draw the river that runs along Hanshaw Road. I call it a river, | ' the actual name I think is Renwick Brook. It does not show on this map here and therefore I think that not enough attention is being paid to the existence of this river, I will call it a river 8 January 26,2006 Special Town Board Meeting Approved March 13, 2006 because if you look at it at the right time it looks like a river. Now let me give you a little historical example. When the Nazis marched up to the British Channel after having invaded Holland, I happen to be from Holland and Holland is a Country that has a lot of business with water as most of you know. It's very difTicult to win a battle with water. When the Nazis reached the coast of the British Channel, this is part of the Atlantic, although what they sought was the way to England, they arrived past the latest city of the Hague at the coastline where we had at that time, and today still have, called a million dollar pier like you have in Atlantic City. It sticks out into [inaudible] after they built... Supervisor Valentino notes that Mr. Van der Poel's time is up and asks him to summarize. Mr. Van de Poel Just a final statement, which is that the Germans, the Nazi's I emphasize, made one observation, "by golly we are too late, they blew the bridge to England". Rick Almandlnger, 1414 Hanshaw Road I'm strongly in favor of the walkway. I think it's a matter of safety. Many people walk up that road after dark at night, in snowy weather and it's very poor visibility. Very dangerous. There are also school children who walk along the road and they need the extra safety that a walkway would provide. So I'm strongly in favor of it. I would like to see the plan as it appears to have guarded the large trees and so on, but I think the walkway is a wonderful idea. One final thing I would like to say is we've talked some about traffic calming during this meeting. One obvious traffic calming measure, which I realize, is not totally the bailiwick of this group is to reduce the speed limit along that section of Hanshaw. The speed limit between Warren, well east of Warren Road if 20 miles per hour. The speed limit from Warren to the Village is 30 miles per hour. I personally would like to see that reduced to 30 miles an hour at least as far east as Salem, preferably as far east as Sapsucker Woods. Several years ago a petition was circulated among people who lived along the road to lower the speed limit to 30 miles per hour. 100% of the residents signed that petition. It i/i/as tumed over, I believe to the Town, although I don't remember exactly who it was. As far as I know nothing every happened to that. So, in addition to the walkway and additional traffic calming measure I would like to see would be to lower the speed limit. Supervisor Valentino explained the process for lowering a speed limit within the Town. Diane Feldman, 1404 Hanshaw Road First I would Just like to say I didn't see the map that was handed out today until everybody else did today and I was surprised to see that both scenarios actually did have a sidewalk in and I thought one of them was supposed to not have a sidewalk in. So I was a little bit surprised at that. I think we do need sidewalks. I Just am not sure they should be done the way they are being presented. I think widening the roadway; the perception is that people will drive slower. The reality is that people don't drive slower on a wider roadway. People see open spaces, less trees; they tend to drive more quickly. And if you stand there on Hanshaw Road from where Hanshaw Road starts all the way down, you will se cars doing 40 and 50 and 60 miles an hours through the Village, which is a 30-mile an hour speed limit. On my stretch, which is between Warren and Salem, it's 40 and they're doing 50 to 60 miles an hours. The other thing is I heard tonight for the first time we were going to stop now the sidewalk on Salem, which surprised me because the original conversations where words like January 26,2006 Special Town Board Meeting Approved March IS, 2006 community and neighborhood were discussed as well as safety, now you're making the sidewalk even smaller and to call it, to say you're using it for community and neighborhood, I think that sort of takes away from that I was surprised that we went from all the way down to | Sapsucker to now Salem. Not hearing that before I was Just a little bit surprised this evening. Again my house is set way back off the road. I'll lose frontage, but there are a lot of people who are going to lose a lot more than I would lose where buses will be very close to their houses. Even if you planted trees they're not going to grow enough to ease the noise, ease the pollution from the buses now that the exhaust is on the top of the buses. I think a lot of people who live much closer to the road than I will be are way more impacted by this. I think there are ways to put the sidewalk in and put the drainage underneath the bike lane. I think that will be less invasive to people, and I think it will be Just as safe as the way it's being presented now. I Just think we toss words around very easily, neighborhood, community, safety, but I don't think we really look at all of those things when we do that. Thank you very much. Erica Jessup, 1442 Hanshaw Road I would also like to say that I've been really unexpectedly pleased by the representative from Tompkins County and by this Board for hearing the concerns that I have as well as my neighbors. I share my property with the old oak tree. I initially had concerns about the walkway. I am, at this point, satisfied because of the revisions that the County was willing to make to the size of the driving lanes and the shoulders and the fact that the Town of Ithaca may be willing to take it as a walkway rather than inflicting a sidewalk upon me as a private property owner. I'm very much in favor of it and I wanted to Just make that clear. Thank you. i-n i ! John Yaley, 1021 Hanshaw Road I live on the south side of the road and there is almost little or no impact to our property. Part of those concerns I still had was that basically I'm opposed to the sidewalks only because of the complexity it adds to the project. I keep looking at it and saying there are a number of questions that I don't believe have been answered as far as actually the property rights of the individuals involved. The right of those who are directly adjoining this property and how much say they are having in this. There does seem to be, whether it's still a $100,000 variance, Where's that money actually coming from. Under the best conditions we pay $17,000 or the Town does. I don't know what the worst conditions are. I Just believe without the sidewalks, although it would be a nice thing to have, I agree with that and I appreciate the concerns of those people who have said that they are for sidewalks. I Just look at it and say to myself there are too many concerns that we have. I believe there are too many disruptions, possible deviations, variances, and things like that are actually going to cause problems down the road in actually implementing this project. I believe we have a greater need for the speed abatement in the safety issues. I would like to see the time, money and effort put into those that we put into talking about sidewalks. Sidewalks are important. I believe the bigger issues have been raised and I believe at this point it's time to divert the money, planning, and time from sidewalks into the actually speed abatement and things we could do to improve it. Actually things like lighting have come up. The other thing is, the speed limits, I think we all know is a matter of enforcement. I believe there are technical ways of probably reducing that as well a non-separated walkway if you will. I believe there are technical ways of doing n things like that. I would Just like to see the time, money, and effort put into those things and \ make the decision on the sidewalks now either we do or we don't. 10 January 26,2006 Special Town Board Meeting Approved March 13, 2006 Bob Venables, 111Blackstone Avenue I would just like to say that although I think safety is an issue, i think Warren Road is more important and i also think you're building a bridge to nowhere, it's going to be very safe for people in short term, short distance walks. I'm the person that wrote the question about the hill. If you cannot solve a wider space where snow isn't going to go up and go over that road you are not going to be able to walk down that path. Until you resolve that end of this walkway you are building a bridge to nowhere. You will be wasting the money. Thank you very much. Celeste Petak, 1018 Hanshaw Road I'd Just like to say I wasn't available to meet with Mr. Lampman or anybody else when they came to the site and talked about the property, but I know my neighbor and my husband had vocalized concem about our fence and that they wanted to move our fence back about a foot. On the other side of that fence we have a beautiful crab apple tree and a couple other plantings and I'm concemed about moving the fence. And I'm also concemed about when they plow the walkway what it will do to our nice wooden picket fence. I have not heard an^hing back regarding any changes to the plan in front of our property regarding those items. Deborah Cowen, 1022 Hanshaw Road A couple points I wanted to make. I do agree with the gentleman about the sidewalk to nowhere. It has been a big concem for us. As Diane said, if you're talking about community and safety and you're chopping off an area perhaps from Salem on, and you definitely have always not had that ability to extend the sidewalk into Community Comers. It's a big concem that it Just ends. We don't have the assurances. One other thing, I think people over time have become more comforted with the idea that the sidewalk will be extended at some day into Community Comers and that there has been word from the Town that you will take care of, maintain, and repair the sidewalks. But we don't have, we've had some verbal assurance, but I, we need to be sure and I haven't yet heard any way, and perhaps that's coming, that there is going to be some kind of real guarantee that the maintenance, repair, and liability will be assumed and that will be assumed not only now or this year but in the future and that it won't be impacted when the Board changes or a tax situation changes or revenue situations change. I'm also not terribly assured, it might be nice to say that we will be getting money from the federal govemment or the state but given the economic climate who can really say that that is going to happen. And who can say that Cayuga Heights is, with their problems and difficulties now in taking care of their own roadways and repair, that that's going to be a priority for them. In what year and ion what time and how long might we wait or might it be a situation where it is Just going to be weedy and abandoned because no one has that pn'ority or that ability to do it. Part of my concem is that it's nice to hear the rosy picture, but we really need something concrete and I think that a lot of the change, and there have been some changes in people's positions here who have spoken favorably tonight because I think they have been reassured but maybe I'm slightly more cynical, or slightly more pessimistic. So I would like to hear something more firm before we proceed and commit to the sidewalk or walkway. There was no one from the public to address the Board and Supervisor Valentino brought the discussion back to the Board. 11 January 26,2006 Special Town Board Meeting Approved March 13, 2006 Following up on concerns expressed by Ms. Petak, Mr. Burbank asked to what extent the placement of snow would negatively impact adjacent properties? Mr. Lampman told him the design of the walkway shows drainage at least away from the property and towards the road. Regarding the Petak's property, there is the swale at that point; there is also the possibility of making changes in the design and that is something they can look at. There's the possibility of setting the fence back a little more. All the pieces can still be worked with. In response to questions from Mr. Cowie, Mr. Lampman stated that they had looked at alternatives including drainage under the shoulder. It was considered and was actually seen as a desirable thing to do but because of the budgetary constraints involved they had to go away from that. I would have required a curb section, which then would have required lowering the grade of the road, and what they are planning on doing now is not rebuilding the road so much as milling the pavement and placing an overlay. It's more of a rehabilitation of the pavement. Mr. Lampman told the assemblage that if people have other ideas they are still willing to consider them. Regarding lighting, Mr. Lampman stated it had come up at a previous meeting and by far the stated preference was for no additional lighting. Mr. Stein asked if the County had considered traffic calming measure in the road, which they rejected because of budgetary constraints, and were they making a trade off between the walkway and traffic calming. Mr. Lampman told him there are many different traffic-calming measures that can be applied to different sections of roadway. The speed is often a determining factor in which traffic calming measures are appropriate. In areas east of Warren where the speed limit is higher they have a different set of possibilities then they might have where the speed limit is lower. Also it is hard to introduce vertical traffic calming, where you | change the elevation of the pavement, apart from intersections. That, in a more open area, tends to create something of a safety concern. They have looked at traffic calming measure and to Mr. Lampman's knowledge have not eliminated any because of budget. Mr. Marx added that the plan does traffic calm the road from a design standard of having 20 feet of pavement on each side of the road to having 15. That's a huge traffic calming. To bring the plan down to 10-foot travel lanes is absolutely pushing the limits and he felt on this kind of a road that's the most effective traffic calming along with creating a pedestrian environment. Mr. Burbank asked if the walkway were to end at Salem would there be markings like those on Warren going east to indicate that the area was being used by pedestrians and cyclists. Mr. Lampman stated that there have been concerns expressed about the markings on Warren Road, whether or not they tend to create some confusion for pedestrians and bicyclists. Some people have told them that they see the markings of a bicycle and think that only bicycles are allowed. Before the County could commit to anything extending that they would need to review that in more detail. If it is found to be a good idea it will be a possibility. Mr. Cowie asked what sort of guarantee the residents have that the walkway would be maintained by the Town. Supervisor Valentino told him the Board passed a resolution (turn tape). The Town has a long track record going back many years of taking on that PH responsibility and doing it. The Town will also be required to have an agreement with the ' County. 12 January 26,2006 Special Town Board Meeting Approved March 13, 2006 Councilman Stein stated he sympathized to some degree with the view that has been expressed that a Town Board resolution does not have as much force as other things. It was clear to him that there is nothing the Town Board could do to make a decision that never, in the future, under any circumstances could any other future Town Board decide to something different. He thought there was an intermediate step the Town could take. Regarding the agreement with the County he was something that would assuage the concerns that Mr. Hutchins expressed because it is not an agreement with the people of the Town. My Stein felt a stronger thing than a resolution is a Town law. He stated the Board could, in fact, pass a town. While that could be repealed by a future Town Board it would require a public notice and a public hearing. He thought that would give things more solidity than the resolution the Board passed some time ago. Mr. Stein asked Attorney Brock if she could draft a Town law for the next meeting. Ms. Brock stated she could do that if it was what the Board wanted her to do. Ms. Leary felt the contract with the County would have more force of law than a local law. Asked to comment, Ms. Brock stated while legally the contract will bind the Town there wouldn't be any adverse impact and there might be positive effects from also doing a local law. Ms. Leary stated she was not against doing both but was simply saying that in terms of reassurance a contract seems more airtight than anything. Mr. Engman asked if the local law would apply to all of the currently maintained Town walkways. Mr. Stein stated that was not what he was asking for. Mr. Engman was not clear why it should apply to Hanshaw Road walkway and not the others. Supervisor Valentino asked if they could be this specific. Ms. Brock thought they could if they wanted to be. After further discussion the Board agreed to have Ms. Brock draft a local law regarding only the Hanshaw Road walkway for their review at the February meeting. Agenda Item No. 5 - Consideration of the Hanshaw Road Reconstruction Project and possible inclusion of walkwav (Attachment #4 - letters and email from: Walter Lvnn of Cavuaa Heights. Deb Cowan. Christopher Ptak. Bernard Hutchins, Jinvona Hutchins. Alison Lurle) Councilman Engman moved the resolution of support for the inclusion of a town-owned and maintained walkway in conjunction with Tompkins County's reconstruction of Hanshaw Road with the inclusion of the option of extending the walkway all the way to Sapsucker Woods Road. Councilman Burbank seconded the motion as amended by Mr. Engman. Supervisor Valentino asked for discussion from the Board. Mr. Engman made the following comment: I use one of the Town's walkways everyday. I walk to work on one. It's magnificently maintained, it's very steep, and the snow accumulates there and the Town has done an absolutely remarkable job of keeping that clear so I have no worries whatsoever about the Town's commitment to maintaining a walkway. This one will certainly be a lot easier if it is put in. I also wanted to mention that I too want to commend the County for how they've handled this particular project. It's been absolutely remarkable the extent to which they and their consultants have talked with people and gone through the process. Joel Ganyon was 13 January 26,2006 Special Town Board Meeting Approved March 13, 2006 mentioned and I've known Joel for 25 years and when I lived In Danby with him, In the same town, I was so furious at the County when they came down the road and cut down trees beyond the 3-rod right of way that I sued the County. I maintained that they were going beyond the use right of way and they were extending beyond even the 3-rod right of way. I lost that suit. I still can't believe It. So I have some empathy for some of these concems because I know how furious how one can get. But I do want to commend the County for how It operates now. It's just been really great. The other thing I want to say specific to this project Is I think we've seen that there are differences of opinion on this and so finally falls upon somebody to make a decision and that somebody happens to be those of us who make the big bucks on the Town Board. I'm going to support the walkway all the way to Sapsucker Woods Road. I think It Is a matter of safety. I run that road virtually every week. I have almost been hit by drivers because they don't respect those white lines that are supposedly marking their travel lanes. They come very close to me. Sometimes I think It's deliberate. Sometimes It may be just that they aren't paying attention. I'm very aware of that. I've sat In a home on Hanshaw during a community meeting and watched a lot of runners and walkers go by and I think they need the safety of a walk way. I have also looked a little bit Into some of the research that's been done on walkways. In the December edition of The College of Human Ecology Newsletter there's some research that says there Is a direct association between lack of access to outdoor recreational facilities and overweight status among adults. It says the closer that people live to a bikeway or walkway the more likely they are to use It. 43% of Individuals who live within 10 minutes of a safe place to walk met the federal guidelines of 30 minutes of physical activity dally compared to 27% who did not have safe places to walk nearby. That's 43% to 27%. Those In low walkablHty communities are less likely to walk In their leisure time. They are more likely to have high blood pressure and to be obese. Individuals In high walkablHty neighborhoods meet the federal activity guidelines two days a week more than those In low walkablHty neighborhoods. And 60% of the people In low walkablHty neighborhoods are overweight versus 35% In high walkablHty ones. This Is a public health Issue as well as a safety Issue. It's a recreational Issue and I have great enthusiasm for the walkway and will support the resolution. Ms. Leary had an editorial correction to the resolution: move quotation mark from "that sidewalks or walkways being included" to "when wanted by..." Ms. Leary made the following comment: A comment was made that sidewalks are needed elsewhere In the Town as well, and I agree. We're looking at that, but In the meantime this Is an opportunity. The County Is redoing Hanshaw Road and the opportunity to have the Federal govemment pay for 80% of anything nowadays Is something we should take. I think we should seize the moment and go ahead. If the Federal money dried up then the project wouldn't go forward anyway. Mr. Kanter indicated that the cost information was missing from the seventh "whereas". Mr. Kanter asked for clarification from the County as to the range of costs of the walkway could be. Mr. Lampman and Mr. Marx estimated a cost of $350,000 for a walkway going all the way to Sapsucker Wood Road. n I f Mr. Stein commented as follows: 14 n January 26,2006 Special Town Board Meeting Approved March 13, 2006 I guess I wanted to explain my position on the walkway and it's a little bit complicated and may take a while longer than it should, but I'll do my best (A) I'm a supporter of the walkway. I believe in walking. Like Herb I walk to work twice as far as Herb does every day and as a person whose been on a diet every since he was 25 I can tell you that when I moved to where I moved about 4 years ago and started walking to Comell I have in fact stopped being on a diet and lost about 15 pounds merely by the fact that I walk everyday to Comell. I'm a living example of what Herb was saying. It's really true. It's also true that when I walk to work I walk on a very busy road and I walk on roads that aren't very busy. I start off on Brandywine and then I walk down Simsbury and then I walk through Texas Lane. None of which have sidewalks. Then I get to North Triphammer and walk to Comell. The places where I feel worried are not North Triphammer, which is full of traffic, but when I'm on Bandywine and when I'm on Texas Lane because there are no sidewalks and I walk in the streets and you never really know. You really don't know and I worry a lot about cars. In those walks I cross people walking on Triphammer Road, lots and lots of different people. Old people, young people, people doing different things and I often think that if that sidewalk was not there that (a) I'd weigh 15 pounds more than I do today and a lot of those mnner wouldn't be doing what they did. That's a strong personal belief that sidewalks are good, that we all know that obesity is one of our major public health problems today and this is something that we can actually do about that. That being said, I've read my emails and there are lots of comments that have been made. I've tried to evaluate them in my own mind. The things that impressed the most in the letters that I read were the "bridge to nowhere", the question of the maintenance and the question of the agreement that we made with people and I want to comment on all of those. The "bridge to nowhere" it is a concem of mine. It sounds crazy to me. If I were the head of all of the govemments I certainly would not build a walkway of this length then not finish it all of the way into Cayuga Heights, that makes no sense whatsoever and may even cause more accidents if we in fact create a stream of people who have to walk down that miserable hill. But, on the other hand, if we don't do this now we're never going to do. Towns tend not to have money for capital projects like this and this is a time when we could build this sidewalk. It clearly does mean taking a chance. It's conceivable that the rest of it won't be built and that will have been a mistake. It's clear to me that Cayuga Heights recognizes that, that Cayuga Heights wants to do that, and that the existence of this sidewalk will create enormous political pressure, even more political pressure than you're creating at the moment against the sidewalk, towards continuing it if in fact that bridge to nowhere ends up being built. I see there is a certain possibility that that won't work, but I think that's going to resolve itself. The issue that's left is the issue of the agreement that we made when we passed a resolution some months ago and what force that should have and I want to start by saying that I don't believe that you ought to do govemment by polls. I don't believe that all we are people who in fact count the noses and decide what the people want and then we put that into action. I think that govemment has to take responsibility for doing more than that because we have the time to spend looking at particular issues. But, on the other hand, I don't think that the opposite is true also. Namely that we ought to be making decisions without having any concem for what in fact the people who are going to be most affected by that are. Somewhere there's a line between that. I don't think that the right way to make this decision is simply take a vote and decide what the people on Hanshaw Road want and then sign that into law. But, I believe we ought to know what the people on Hanshaw Road want. I feel that 15 January 26,2006 Special Town Board Meeting Approved March 13, 2006 given the fact that we made that statement that we should in fact take a poll. It's hard to judge what people want. Here I could say, well people are three to one against the sidewalk ^ because there were 12 people that spoke and 9 people were against It, 3 people were for It, I therefore there 3 to 1 against the sidewalk. I think the only way that one can make that decision Is to take a poll, a poll which Is done by somebody that doesn't have a stake In the outcome and see what happens and then If that poll came out that there was 51% against the sidewalk and 49% for the sidewalk, I'd vote for the sidewalk because I'd say that's enough that It gives me a margin of error. If It came out 90% against the sidewalk and 10% for the sidewalk then I'd have a lot of thinking to do. So I feel that this Board should have done that. We didn't do that. I can't make It happen. I tried. We took a vote. I lost the vote. It a very close vote. There were two people voting, there was one person voting for making a poll one person voting against making a poll, and tie votes lose so we're not taking a poll. I feel strongly enough about that, about that philosophy of what government should be like that I'll vote against It even though I really thing that sidewalk Is going to be a big advantage to the people that live In the area and I think It's the right thing to do. Councilman Burbank made the following comment: This one has been a tough one for me. I know that It Is probably the perception of some folks that are here tonight that this was sort of all figured out In advance, we all knew what we were doing from the get-go and It was just going through the motions. I can tell you that was not the case for myself. I had endless debates with everybody on the Board, Cathy, my wife, my kids. What should we do? My problem was that though I am an ardent believer In cycling and the benefits of sidewalks, I also believe In community and neighborhoods. I think ! neighborhoods are the bedrock of community. I would like whenever possible to respect neighborhood sentiments and support those. I think that's part of what we need to do. And I was on the Board when we passed that resolution last June that basically seemed to be doing everything. We seemed to be honoring local sentiments In terms of where the sidewalks (Inaudible) but at the same time encouraging the County to do a narrower road, narrower shoulders and Incorporate sidewalks where they seemed to be wanted. Everybody seemed to be winning. If you ever have the opportunity to sit on the Board you will discover during In the course of a night you will be hit with about 20 or 30 packets of Information on very very complex things and you'll be trying to make sense of all of them. Every once In a while you don't do as careful a job as you might and I think In that particular case I was not fully comprehending what I was voting on. My mind set was that of sidewalks being what we have traditionally done for sidewalks, which Is when a neighborhood wants a sidewalk traditionally we've asked them to pay for It. It's what we call a benefit district and we only do It If a majority of the Immediate residents want It. If they don't want It, It doesn't happen, because they are paying for It. This Is a different situation. It Is being largely paid for by State and Federal funds. It Is benefiting not just the Immediate neighborhood but the larger community and I think we should have thought about It differently. And I think It's appropriate, though admittedly somewhat embarrassing for us to say, "no we thought about It wrong that night. We need to pull back and think about It In a different way." I'm prepared to do that, but I have to tell you that I do that with great hesitation because I know It's not what folks would like and It doesn't reflect well on the thinking abilities of this Board. I apologize ^ but I think It's what we need to do. Public good Is something you deal with all the time In a | ! town and. If you'll Indulge me, I'd like to step back to a time before I was on this Board, before I knew anything about town govemment I was a homeowner In the Town of Ithaca and the 16 January 26,2006 Special Town Board Meeting Approved March 13, 2006 Town felt It necessary to install a new water line adjacent to my yard. This was not something I saw any need for. I didn't want it, but it involved huge land moving equipment coming in and massive amounts of mud and total disruption of my life for, but interesting. It was interesting seeing all this stuff come in. But who needed this? Well, who needed it was the Town's larger community having access to water. I was being as an individual asked to deal with the immediate problems. Fortunately they were pretty efficient. They got it in. They hydro seeded the area. The grass grew up and now my main beef, and Dan will laugh, the grass seed the Town put in is like ten times higher and stronger than any grass seed known to man. So it immediately clogs my lawn mower. It had to be done to stabilize the bank. That was a case where, as a citizen, I came to understand that sometime you have to put up with stuff for the larger good. I hope that folks that are being impacted by that will eventually accept it in that larger sense. I know it's not what you're wanting. I also know that there are others that are quite receptive and I have to believe that over time most people will come to value this and use this. I think before long it will be something that will be much appreciated, but there will be a loss of your immediate environment and I can't say not. Councilman Cowie commented as follows: Just to echo a couple of comments and we can move on. As a citizen and a new Board member I continue to be struck by the quality of deliberative democracy and discussion that goes on around here, both from the residents and within the Town Board. It's truly remarkable. Nothing is being railroaded or predetermined. It's truly impressive and I think it's a model for what's not happening in a larger civic arena. I'm a big fan of sidewalks as well and I would like to push to have them put in my neighborhood on West Hill, but that's another meeting. I think the fundamental issue that we come down to on this is private versus a broader good in some ways. Although, and by my tally, nearly half of the people spoke today in favor of the sidewalks which I was happy to see those voices as well. But I think we have a situation, and this is my problem with the polling idea as much as I respect it, is what is the unit? What is the neighborhood? What is the community? I don't know where you draw that line bSecause I think this is the type of thing that serves the entire Town and even the City. Supervisor Valentino commented as follows: I agree with Just about everything my colleagues have said. This has not been an easy decision for us. I think we tried to look at all the information, study it, and debate it. We knew the burden was on us to make a very important decision that not everyone was going to agree with, but again it's sometimes the greater good of the whole community, as some of the rest of you have said so eloquently. It has been a very difficult decision. I also support sidewalks and walkways and am very supportive of the work that our staff has done and the meetings that we've done trying to make interconnects on paths and walkways that in my dream, in my vision, will eventually connect our whole community, not only the Town of Ithaca but the City of Ithaca and other places. This is one component of that dream and that is why I'll be voting yes for this. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-31: Support for the Inclusion of a Town-Owned and Maintained Walkway in Coniunction with Tompkins Countv's Reconstruction of Hanshaw Road 17 January 26,2006 Special Town Board Meeting Approved March 13, 2006 WHEREAS, the County of Tompkins is proposing to rebuild a section of Hanshaw Road from the Cayuga Heights Village line easterly to the Town of Ithaca-Town of Dryden line; and | I WHEREAS, the preliminary design for the roadway presently contemplates a walkway on the north side of Hanshaw Road from the Cayuga Heights Village line extending at least as far east as Salem Drive; and WHEREAS, alternate designs for the road project include options to extend a walkway or sidewalk into the Village of Cayuga Heights to connect with the existing sidewalk in the Community Corners area; and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Town Board, at its meeting on September 12, 2005, determined in TB Resolution No. 2005-122 that the area along Hanshaw Road from the Cayuga Heights Village line easterly to the Town of Ithaca-Town of Dryden line meets the criteria in the Town of Ithaca Sidewalk Policy (adopted by the Town Board on 10/23/03) to justify the need for a walkway that would be owned and maintained by the Town of Ithaca; and WHEREAS, the Town Board, at its meeting on November 14, 2005, further determined in TB Resolution No. 2005-181 that if the reconstruction of Hanshaw Road incorporates a walkway for part or all of its length, that the Town of Ithaca will assume ownership, liability and maintenance responsibilities for the sections of the walkway within the Town of Ithaca outside of the Village of Cayuga Heights; and j WHEREAS, Tompkins County and the Town Board have provided numerous opportunities for public comment regarding the benefits and impacts of including a walkway in this road improvement project; and WHEREAS, the County has estimated that the cost of the walkway within the Town of Ithaca will be approximately $350,000, and the Town would need to come up with a local share between 5% to 20 % of that amount to pay for the walkway portion of the project; and WHEREAS, in the months after the Town Board adopted its position statement on June 13, 2005 regarding the project (TB Resolution No. 2005-091), Town Board members have heard concerns voiced by a number of residents regarding the possible loss of trees and other impacts of the Hanshaw Road project on their properties and on the character of the neighborhood; and WHEREAS, County officials and their consultants thereafter met with property owners along Hanshaw Road and changed many of the project elements to mitigate many of the initially identified potential impacts; and WHEREAS, members of the Town Board, Planning Board and staff participated in a site visit with County officials and their consultants to see first-hand the site conditions and mitigating measures that will minimize impacts of the project on adjacent properties and on i the character of the area; and 18 January 26,2006 Special Town Board Meeting Approved March 13, 2006 WHEREAS, Tompkins County officials presented preliminary project designs and cost estimates to the Town Board at the special meeting on January 26, 2006; and WHEREAS, The Town Board provided an additional opportunity for public comment at the meeting on January 26, 2006; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby supports the inclusion of the walkway along Hanshaw Road from the Cayuga Heights Village line extending easterly at least to Salem Drive, as shown on the preliminary designs presented to the Town Board at the January 26, 2006 Special Meeting, and if sufficient funds are available, would support the extension of the walkway all the way to the Town of Ithaca- Town of Dryden line at Sapsucker Woods Road; and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Board also supports the inclusion of either of the alternate options presented by County officials at the January 26, 2006 meeting that would extend the walkway or sidewalk into the Village of Cayuga Heights to connect with the existing sidewalk in the Community Corners area, subject to the approval of the Village of Cayuga Heights Board of Trustees, and also subject to the availability of sufficient funding; and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby agrees to cooperate with Village of Cayuga Heights, Tompkins County, New York State and Federal officials in the shared efforts to ensure that there are sufficient funds available to adequately incorporate the walkway and sidewalk elements referenced above into the Hanshaw Road project; and it is further RESOLVED, that in light of the strong community need for a walkway along Hanshaw Road and the significant mitigation of initially identified potential impacts that occurred after the Town Board adopted its position statement on June 13, 2005 (TB Resolution No. 2005- 091), the Town Board hereby rescinds in part TB Resolution No. 2005-091, by rescinding the provision, as it relates to the Hanshaw Road project, requesting and advising the Tompkins County Legislature ... that sidewalks or walkways be included "when wanted by a majority of the adjoining residents". MOVED: Councilman Engman SECONDED: Councilman Burbank VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, nay; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye. Agenda Item No. 6 - Consider Setting a Public Hearing regarding Propertv Tax Exemptions for Historic Barns and Certain Home Improvements for Persons with Disabilities (attachment #5 - Draft Local Law) TB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-32: Setting a Public Hearing regarding a Local Law Amending Chapter 239 of the Town of Ithaca Code Entitled "Taxation", regarding Historic Barn Exemption 19 January 26,2006 Special Town Board Meeting Approved March 13, 2006 RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hold a public hearing at the Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on the 13th day of February 2006, at ^ 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of considering a proposed local law to amend Chapter 239 of the I j Town of Ithaca Code Entitled "Taxation", regarding Historic Barn Exemption; and it is further RESOLVED, that at such time and place all persons interested in the proposed amendment may be heard concerning the same; and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca is hereby authorized and directed to publish a notice of such 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: Supervisor Valentino SECONDED: Councilman Engman VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, absent; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-33: Setting a Public Hearing regarding a Local Law Amending Chapter 239 of the Town of Ithaca Code Entitled "Taxation", regarding Exemptions for Certain Improvements to Property Made Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (Attachment #6 ~ Draft Local Lawl RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hold a public hearing at the Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on the 13th day of February 2006, at 7:15 p.m. for the purpose of considering a proposed local law to amend Chapter 239 of the Town of Ithaca Code Entitled "Taxation", regarding Exemptions for Certain Improvements to Property Made Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act; and it is further RESOLVED, that at such time and place all persons interested in the proposed amendment may be heard concerning the same; and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca is hereby authorized and directed to publish a notice of such 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 Burbank SECONDED: Councilman Cowie VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, absent; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye. 20 n n January 26,2006 Special Town Board Meeting Approved March 13, 2006 Agenda Item No. 7 - Consider Setting a Public Hearing regarding Approval of Temporary Certificate of Occupancy time extension for Cavuga Medical Center southwest addition and building renoyations (Attachment #7 - Letter from J. Fitzgerald of Cayuga Medical Center: Memo from D. Walker IB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-34: Setting a Public Hearing regarding approyal of a temporary certificate of occupancy time extension for Cayuga Medical Center southwest addition and building renoyations RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hold a public hearing at the Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on the day of February 2006, at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of considering approval of a temporary certificate of occupancy time extension for Cayuga Medical Center southwest addition and building renovations, and it is further RESOLVED, that at such time and place all persons interested in the proposed amendment may be heard concerning the same; and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca is hereby authorized and directed to publish a notice of such 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 five days before the day designated above for the public hearing. MOVED: Councilwoman Leary SECONDED: Supervisor Valentino VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye. Agenda Item No. 8 - Consider Approving Records Management Day TB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-35: Records Management Day WHEREAS, the Records Management Officer & the Records Management Advisory Board have found it beneficial to hold an annual Records Management Day in order to cycle records into storage and prepare records for year-end disposition; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby approves closing Town Hall on Friday, February 10, 2006 for Records Management Day. MOVED: Supervisor Valentino SECONDED: Councilman Engman VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye. 21 January 26,2006 Special Town Board Meeting Approved March 13, 2006 Adjournment ^ ]On motion by Councilman Burbank the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Tee-Ann Hunter Town Clerk Next Meeting February 6, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. n 22 » * TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN BOARD SISN-IN SHEET DATE: Thursday, January 26, 2006 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE /'/?rA/r ADDRESS/AFFILIATION v^yC' l-huxsLpyt^ -A iM < l-Utt 1 ^ Cl\f]3iQ'n(ifia [\eL/pijl4(^cO loz.^ 4iau^i<oty , tfiXu, 4/'' ^i,t A ^(J y '/ V—w ^ ' ^cd.6I\ o/ y. ^ c/<c^T 'i3 r rt A-fl F /'Ln^ ?-UIC 10 IS n C\ /T^I^tUyuj / / r'V ^Yy\ <Y^ ^ i / W 6 A H ^ f l-f }f l/n A Ay Y ///)". p//\fitA)j/\ ny J l^iot^e. fcMhmA / ^(9V flc{ li/luo ltdcK.<i/ ' J If t ^-yfl O^y . 1 1 1 l)xJ:^oyr%J^ douuci/)/0 9~^ ffcirisha^ , Brx ca_ SSUP p:s} ''{ c-'—C■J ^ ' / V t _ r > f > TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN BOARD SISN-IN SHEET DATE: Thursday, January 26, 2006 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE ARJA/TADDRESS/AFFILIATION T C, Up] Ha yrT^^^l if! PftClLcA'^YTAS) . V k Vfe- 1e^jll A^'^. lAob ^ [x^uy^y> (^jo Jan. 26, 2006 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT n .!•-XV' g\ ->^....> /if DEPARffiAl^r iDr 1^146 iVORKS 17Q;Bost55iifcl^^ %. itfaacai^|w/^0 14850vy i 5^^*'- -;•- siir 'S, Edward C. Marx, AICP Telephone (607) 274-SS60 Commissioner of Planning and Public Works Fax (607) 274-5S78 January 19,2006 Cathy Valentino, Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Cathy: I am writing regarding the Ithaca Town Board's pending consideration of the walkway component of the Hanshaw Road reconstruction project. As you know, we have undertaken a lengthy design process for this project so that we can fully consider all of the comments and concems expressed by adjoining landowners and neighbors. I believe that liie alternative that includes a walkway from the Village of Cayuga Heights line to at least Salem Drive represents the best option, all things considered. Ideally the walkway would be continued / into the village to Community Comers. We will work with the Village of Cayuga Heights and the New York ; , State Department of Transportation to determine whether flmding can be identified to complete that phase as part of this project or whefiier further funding will need to be sought in the future to complete that leg of the pedestrian route. The Hanshaw Road project is a Federal Aid project. The 80% Federal funding and hoped for 15% State aid requires that we undertake a comprehensive design process to meet Federal and State highway standards. The aim of those standards is a safe transportation facility serving all legal users including all modes of vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. In ^s case those standards would mandate a wider roadway than the neighborhood feels is desirable. However, by recognizing the legitimate neighborhood concems in the design process and including a separate walkway (along with some extensive and costly drainage improvements), we have arrived at a road design that safely accommodates all users while being extremely sensitive to the neighborhood environment. The ten foot travel lanes and five foot paved shoulders are absolute minimums given the vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic in this area. Without the walkway, shoulders on both sides of the road would need to be widened to six feet which offers less flexibility in avoiding impacts on yards and landscaping, and does not provide as much of a traffic calming effect. As you also know, this project is pushing the limits of the budget and there is no guarantee at this point that Federal and State funding will be available for the pedestrian component of the project. However, we are willing to work to tiy to obtain that funding if the Town decides to support inclusion of the walkway component by taking responsibility for maintenance and providing the local share of the funding. / \ Page 2 - Cathy Valentino, January 19,2006 ^ ^ i We look forward to continued work with the Town of Ithaca to complete a reconstruction project for Hanshaw Road that enhances the neighborhood, accommodates the transportation needs of the area, and improves safety for everyone. Sincerely, Edward C. Marx, AICP Commissioner of Planning and Public Works Cc: Tompkins County Facilities and Infrastructure Committee Michael Koplinka-Loehr, County Legislator, District 11 / N 0 ' i 1 \ Phone: Fax: Copy: Town Board; J. Kanter ATTACHMENT #2 January 26, 2006 Town Board ^ T(ymphOn^ Cou^^ty HCghMoy J 70 Bostwick Road Ithaca, NY 148SO (607) 274-0300. fax (607) 272-8489 FAK /-^D-OODate: To: ~7Ze^-Ahn Hulcler- ^73-y 7^-/ ^7.3 - 6^6-4 Number of pages including cover sheet: From: Zjoi^iA Phone: Zl</^0301 Fax: (607) 272-84S9 I I Urgent Pl^For your review Q Reply ASAP Q Please comment o? of ex^4iXcknAjS^iZii:<L - ^T~LsL. /(isj' ccf4-f- f \ ! 1 TOMPKINS 170 B<L' Y DIVISION 14650 January 19,2006 Cathy Valentino, Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 RE: Hanshaw Road Reconstruction, PIN 3753.25 - Walkway Support Dear Ms. Valentino: I am writing In response to the Town Public Works Committee's request for a summary of public comments regarding inclusion of a walkway in the Hanshaw Road reconstruction project. Since before the first public meeting in February 2005, there has been significant community support for inclusion of a walkway. In fact the County received a petition signed by 86 residents, 28 living on Hanshaw Road, requesting that the County "install a bicycle/pedestrian path" between Warren Road and Freese Road. At the first public meeting, as reported by The Ithaca Journal on March 8, "many residents from the Hanshaw area said they would like to see better pedestrian and bicycle accommodations along that road, including sidewalks." Only when the issue of walk maintenance and liability was raised did the support among meeting attendees wane to perhaps half in favor and half opposed to a walk. Between February and the second public meeting in September some residents circulated a petition opposing a walkway which was signed by a majohty of the property owners within the project limits. This position appeared primarily due to concerns with the perceived magnitude of individual andlcoi^or landscaping Impacts as well as the issue of maintenance. However, a pro-sidewalk rnajority-^ntiment started to return following the September meeting when the Town appeared willing to^sume walk ownership responsibilities. This was bolstered through individual site visits with rep(^esentatives of 41 Hanshaw Road households in October. While an opinion poll was not the object of the visits, County willingness to preserve or replace the vast majoii^ of existing trees and other landscaping seemed to allay most people's concems. Of the 41 homes contacted, only 9 expressed opposition.to a walkway, two of which are on the south side of the road that^aid they were supporting their north-side neighbors. One of these residents, a signer of both petitions cited above, has since changed to supporting the walkway because the design was able to mitigate impact to the character of the community. Another said that if other change^could be made at his property, he would not oppose it. At least four other Hanshaw housenolds that had not requested site visits were heard from at an open house in November at the Cayuga Heights Fire Hall. All supported the presented walkway plan. Following the open house the Town also passed a resolution stating that it would assume walkway ownership, liability and maintenance. BecycteV paper Ms. Cathy Valentino January 19,2006 Page 2 of 2 t s ! \ An interesting geographical pattern of support/opposition has emerged through the Count/s public input process. As we currently understand residents' opinions, all north side residents from Blackstone Avenue to the Sapsucker Woods Road, with the exception of perhaps two (one between Muriel and Salem and one at the extreme east end of the project,) either support or are indifferent to the idea of a walk. This of course overlaps the area for which a walkway was requested by the earliest petition. On the other hand, of the 11 properties between Blackstone and the Village line, at least 4 have been opposed, primarily because of loss of hedges and yard. I have asked Fisher Associates to compile and provide e-mails and comment sheets they have received from and since November's open house regarding the walkway. This information will be sent to you as soon as it is available, likely early next week prior to the Town Board's January 26 meeting. I have enclosed copies of communications the County has received, many of which you are no doubt already aware. Also enclosed Is a spreadsheet summarizing written comments we have received. As shown, 70% of the comments have been overall in favor of the walk while 13% have opposed it. The rest of the spreadsheet lists people's comments and the numbers of people that mentioned them, both concerning the walk and other aspects of the project. Also enclosed is a second spreadsheet that clarifies the walkway options and costs that were discussed at the Town's January 13 committee meeting. The design process has now reached a critical point. Because of the controversy that has surrounded the project, the County plans to hold a public hearing prior to finalizing a project design report that gives details of the preferred design alternative. That hearing should be held in February and those design details should be available for comment at that time. Once the report is approved by the FHWA, NYSDOT and the County, documents and drawings will be created that should allow construction to begin late this year. I hope this Information is useful as the Town board considers funding of a walkway. If you would like to discuss any of this information, please feel free to contact me at 274-0307 or at <jIampman@tompkins-co,org>. Sincerely, John R. Lampm^, P.E. Associate Civil Engineer enclosures cc(w/o enclosures): Brent Cross, Village of Cayuga Heights, (w/ cost spreadsheet) Duane Randall, Board of Representatives, District 9 Dooiey Kiefer, Board of Representatives, District 10 Michael Kopilnka-Loehr, Board of Representatives, District 11 Richard Brauer, Fisher Associates Ed Marx, P&PW Commissioner William Sczesny, Highway Manager Hanshaw Walkway Pros and Cons Tracking as identified by Public north-reside south-reside other/unkn total % overall pro (w/ town responsibility)8 8 16 70% overall con 1 2 3 13% no comment 1 1 2 4 17% 23 100% Pro-sidewalk Comments Anti-sidewalk Comments walking benefits personal health 2 homeowner land sacrificed 5 provides alternative to car culture 2 Impact on trees & shrubs 8 walking benefits environment 1 does not equally effect both sides 3 walk to bus 2 Increased trash 1 walk dogs 1 more open sense to driv^2 walk to lab of Omithology 1 neighborhood character 2 walk to work 2 walk to Community Comers 3 sense of community 4 trafTic calming •1 dangerous to walk without 2 greater community good 2 speed of drivers a problem 3 improve convenience 2 Improve safety 5 beautification 1 accommodate joggers 1 Comments concerning: other Altematives take equally from both sides 1 curt>ed section is safer 1 5' grass between rd & walk 1 use cl grade to promte drainage 1 walk on south; already cross for mall 2 creative walk zig-zags around trees 3 6' swale better if it fits 1 street lights 1 i \ Road/ Shoulder Widening 1 "original plan of a residential road" many bike commuters 2 wider road (11'+) provides altemative to car culture 1 increases speeds 3 accommodate 2 peds side by side 1 hi speed is ped/bike hazard vehicle use facilitated by 11-12' lanes 1 damages property values reduces tax base f 1 Questions / issues walk ways on side streets connection to Cayuga Hts walk with <5* accessibility issues additional funding for options 1 or 2 3 buses speeding! reduce speed limit 2 truck noise signage needed 1 )Hanshaw Ro? ^tlon ProjectProjecv oj^trui i^ostsTompkins County Highway DivisionitemDescriptionHem Cost^'TOTALCOSTOverrunCommentsCasel ®Towrt Share Village ShareCase 2Town Share Village Share0Construction BUDGET$2,411,000$2.629M including inspection$0$0$0 •$0.1Base ProjMt without sidewalks52.686,470$2,666,470($255,470)NO side walk, minimal work in Village32 feet Wide pavement, (FDR East,Mlll&OvrJy West of Warren)$0$0$0$02widen shoulders in Cayuga Hts(Total Cost= item Costs 1+2)$170,780$2,837,250($426,250)Shift oenlerline south approx. 4 feet,vertical aPignmenl improvements, no curb,no walkway, -1/2 of drainage in VillageSO$34,166$0$8,5393build sldewaik In Cayuga Hts(Total Cost = Item Costs 1+ 3)$233,000$2,900,370($489,370)Shift road south approx. 4 feet$0$46,780$0$11,6954tolld sidev/alk from Vlilage line toSaiem Drive(Tola! Cost = Item Costs 1 ••• 4)$165,580$2,632,050($421,050)Minimal v/ork In Village; narrov/s.pavementto 30 feel west of Saiem,includes gutter sections & landscaping$33,116$0$8,279$05build sidev/alk from Saiem Drive toSapsucker Woods Rd(Total Cost = Item Costs 1+4+ 5)$166,000$3,018,050($607,050)Minimal work in Village; Total Indudes walkfo Village Line; 30 feel pavementthroughout, incfudes gutter sections &landscaping$70,316$0$17,579$06wide shoulder In Village, sidewalkfrom Village fine fo Saiem Dr.(Total Cost»Item Costs 1+ 2+ 4)$336,360$3,002,830($591,830)Shift road south in Village but no walkway;30-ft pavement (o Saiem Or, 32-f( Saiemfo Sapsucker; Includes.gutter &landscaping$33,116$34,158$8,279$8,5397build sidewalk from CommunityComers to Saiem Drive(Total Cost = (tern Costs 1+ 3+ 4)$399,480$3,055,950($654,950)Complete work In Village; narrov/spavement to 30 feet west of Saiem,rndudes gutter sections & landscaping$33,116$46,780$8,279$11,6958build sldewaik from CommunityComers to Sapsucker Woods Rd(Total Cost=Item Costs 1 +3+4+51$585,480$3,251,950($840,950)Compieteworkin Village; narrowspavement to 30 feet throughout, Includesautter sections & landscaoina$70,316$48,780$17,579$11,695Notes:'"costs incltide 20% contingencyC2)assumes no added tov/n sliare for increased drainage, federal share Is 80%, state sliare is 0%, and local share is 20%"Best Case" assumes no added town share for increased drainage, federal share is 80%, stale share is 15%, and local share is 5%1/2012006 ZZlROADWAY SECTIONSAPPROXIMATE RIGHT OF WAYEXISTING. RaOCATED ORREPLACEMENT LANDSCAPE FEATURESEXISTING 4 PROPOSED.ROADCENTERLINEWALKWAYGUTTERSHOULDER SWALEOPTION 3B - ADJACENT WALKWAY WITH CONCRETE GUTTERNote: Area Between Lane Stripe and Concrete Gutterto be 3' WideHanshaw Road ReconstructionPIN 3753.25Tompkins County, New YorkDecember 1, 2005FIBHEnAaaOCIATESTROW BRIDGE & WOLF,LLPLaniltcep« Architects Plannersloot WSenea Sr.. Soiie 101. Iihacn. Nc«. Vml. 607-277-1-1CO FROM :UIL FAX NO. : 6072574910 Jan. 23 2006 12:15FM P 1 January 26, 2006 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT #4 January 2.^, 2006 ^tflage of Seiglifa marcmamhau. 836KAN3HAWROAO rrHACA. N.Y. (4»8Q T«t«phon* 6072S7>123e Office Houfs SAM..4PM. [jTi i ® if];",}. Ill JAN 2 3 2006 -ilj j ATTEST ^ !~H!AC"'-A TOWN CLFPf: I Town of Ithaca Catherine Vjiientiiio, T own Supervisor 215 M. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Cathy, I want to convey my support for the proposed walkway being discussed for Hanshaw Road. The Village of Cayuga Heights recognizes the importance to the residents of compleoiig die walkway from the Village line west conneccmg to Community Comers I believe the Village of Cayuga Heights Trustees will understand and accept that there will be some cost to us associated with the completion of this project. Wc arc committed to working wirh the Town, County and State on finding appropriate funding to help complete this project. Thank you for your inclusion and communication on this project. Sincerely, Vmter R. Lynn Mayor Page 1 of2 f * Tee Ann Hunter From: Deb Cowan [cowan2222@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 2:01 PM To: townclerk@town.ithaca.ny.us Co: Cathy; WBurbank@town.ithaca.ny.us; JCowie@town.Ithaca.ny.us; HEngman@town.ithaca.ny.us; SGittelman@town.ny.us; PLeary@town.ithaca.ny.us: PSteln@ithaca.ny.us Subject: Hanshaw Road reconstruction project and walkway To the Town Supervisor and Town Board members: I have some comments regarding the proposed walkway on Hanshaw Road. I am against construction of a walkway, along with many of my neighbors. We were present during the October Town Board meeting discussion of this topic during which every speaker opposed the inclusion of the walkway during the Hanshaw Road reconstruction. I do not know the particulars of tonight's Special Meeting but I hope that you are not planning on a vote tonight. I would like to remind you once again of the June 13, 2005 resolution, passed unanimously by the Town Board, which stated "that sidewalks or walkways be included when wanted by a majority of the adjoining residents". As citizens of a representative democracy I would urge that you poll the affected property owners of Hanshaw Road to determine where the majority stand on this issue. It is too important an issue to be decided on a "sense" of what residents want. The only poll of residents so far was conducted by the neighborhood and found that 70% of those asked were against construction of sidewalks. (66% of Hanshaw Road households responded to the poll). We feel that the project will alter the nature of our street for many years to come, and we feel strongly that those who actually live on the road, and not those who use it to pass through, should have the greatest voice in decisions affecting our homes, property and neighborhood. There is virtually unanimous concern in the neighborhood about speeding traffic and it is the feeling of many of us that the increase in visual perception of width which will be afforded by the roadway, shoulders, swales and sidewalk, and the destruction of landscape features which provide a sense of enclosure, will result in more speeding and a less safe environment. We feel that a narrower footprint of roadway and paved bikeway/walkway shoulders, as at Warren Road, makes much more sense. There is additional concern that the proposed walkway, ending at the Village of Cayuga Heights line, results In a "sidewalk to nowhere" dumping people at the most dangerous portion of the roadway, the top of the hill leading into the Heights. We fear that pedestrians will then attempt a dangerous crossing to get to the slightly more safe southern side of the road so as not to be on a blind curve. Although Fisher Associates presented two options for an extension of the walkway into Cayuga Heights, at a price tag of $225,000 or $350,000, Cayuga Heights officials have stated that they cannot commit to such a project. We do not feel comfortable assuming, given the economic realities of local government, that funding the walkway extension project will be either a possibility or a priority in the future. Other factors of importance to Hanshaw Road homeowners are a change in the character of the neighborhood, privacy and quality of life issues, and, to quote the September 12 Town Board resolution, that the project "would substantially change the ambience and visual 1/26/2006 f rs t 1 f \ r\ f 1 f 1 Page 2 of 2 character of the roadway" and change "its current configuration as a rural road". ^ s We do not want this to happen, and ask that you not support the construction of a walkway on Hanshaw Road, Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Deborah Cowan 1022 Hanshaw Road 1/26/2006 ee Ann Hunter ' Tom: Christopher Ptak [cpp6@corneil.edu] ! «nt: Thursday, January 26, 2006 11:34 AM ): townclerk@town.ithaca.ny.us oubject: Regarding the Hanshaw Rd. rennovation plans Town Board, Regarding the Hanshaw Rd. rennovation plans, I live at 1018 Hanshaw Rd. and my property adjoins the proposed sidewalks. I am aware of the Town Board Resolution 2005-091 of June 13, 2005 that asks "that sidewalks or walkways be included when wanted by a majority of the adjoining residents," and of the Town Board Resolution 2005-181 of Nov. 14, 2005 by which the Town agrees to accept maintenance and liability for any walkways. I do NOT want sidewalks or walkways, as proposed by Tompkins County in the Dec. 1, 2005 firehouse meeting (or on the County Highway webpage) to be included in the rennovation. The plan offers two options regarding the sidewalk on my property. The effect of either plan on our fence remains unclear to me after both viewing the plans and discussions with project planners at the firehouse meeting. Moving the fence farther onto our property would require the destruction of bushes and trees neither of which is indicated on the plan. It seems to me that looking more than one step ahead is beyond the project plans and secondary impacts caused by inital disruptions will be /^^alt with after the plans have been started. I am not happy about any .[ipact on our fence. I do NOT want sidewalks or walkways. If the \dewalks are approved, I am NOT in favor of any plans that would impact ur fence. The proposed curb could easily be extented from our aighbor's property into our property as to prevent the sidewalk from being placed in a position that would impact our fence. (Water drinage should not be a concern as no water accumulates along the road frontage.) The costs associated with moving the fence as well as the subsequent replacement of bushes and trees needs to be assessed (again secondary impacts of moving the fence were not considered before the firehouse meeting plans were presented). After the firehouse meeting, I wrote my concerns on a comment sheet and asked one of the planners to write down my concerns as well. The planners have now had sufficient time to consider this problem. Thank you for considering my opinions. Christopher Ptak I \ f \ 'ee Ann Hunter 'om: Peter Carruthers [peterc@lightlink.com] }nt: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 9:53 PM >: townclerk@town.ithaca.ny.us dubject: Hanshaw Road Sidewalks Regarding the Hanshaw Rd. rennovation plans, I live at 1008 Hanshaw Road and my property adjoins the proposed sidewalks. I am aware of the Town Board Resolution 2005-091 of June 13, 2005 that asks "that sidewalks or walkways be included when wanted by a majority of the adjoining residents," and of the Town Board Resolution 2005-181 of Nov. 14, 2005 by which the Town agrees to accept maintenance and liability for any walkways. I do NOT want sidewalks or walkways, as proposed by Tompkins County in the Dec. 1, 2005 firehouse meeting (or on the County Highway webpage) to be included. Peter and Janet Carruthers I \ ee Ann Hunter ' fom: Klaus Werner Beyenbach [kwb1@cornell.edu] jnt: Monday, January 23, 2006 1:19 PM >: towncierk@town. Ithaca, ny. us Cc: hutchins@ece.cornell.edu Subject: Hanshaw Road Project Dear Town Board, In case we are unable to come to this meeting I am expressing here -once again- my strong oppostion against the present construction proposal for Hanshaw Road. The project is excessive and wasteful of tax dollars. In view of the poverty in our town and county I find the spending on this road project insensitive if not unethical. A need for widening Hanshaw Road has not been established. Present surfaces are adequate for accomodating pedestrian and bicycle traffic. And we are alarmed about process. So far the voice of affected residents has been ignored. A petition filed by the neighborhood has gone unanswered. In our case, as elsewhere, the issue of right of way remains unresolved. Sincerely, Dr. Klaus W. Beyenbach rofessor of Physiology Irector, Undergraduate Physiology 3partment of Biomedical Sciences RT 8004 Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 Voice: (607) 253-3482 Fax: (607) 253-3851 Email: kwbl0cornell.edu Homepage: http://www.people.Cornell.edu/pages/kwbl/ ee Ann Hunter fom: Bernard Arthur Hutchins Jr. [hutchins@ece.cornell.edu] , ant: Monday, January 23, 2006 1:57 PM ): Cathy Co: townclerk@town. Ithaca, ny. us Subject: Upcoming Hanshaw Rd Meeting Suggestion Dear Supervisor Valentino, In regard to the special T.B. Meeting this Thursday, Jan. 26, 2006, we are of the opinion that the County and/or Fisher Associates will be presenting their plans to you. In as much as none of the residents have seen anything of the plans after the Dec. 1, 2005 "firehouse" meeting (and not much then!), I would suggest that they present first, before public comment is invited. This would save our fussing about things they may have changed. [ Incidentally, I still have no response at all to my letter of Oct. 19, 2005 to Jon Woods, regarding the ROW. However, it appears that following a meeting between John Lampman and Klaus Beyanbach, John found that Fisher Associates, who supposedly did a deed search, did not do a good job, and he has asked them to do it more carefully. They will likely find that /*^ere is nothing more than a use ROW. ] Incerely, ernie Hutchins !ee Ann Hunter ^om: Bernie Hutchins [berniehutchins@yahoo.com] ( ent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 1:52 PM y. Cathy: WBurbank@town.ithaca.ny.us; JCowie@town.ithaca.ny.us; HEngman@town.ithaca.ny.us; SGitteiman@town.ithaca.ny.us; PLeary@town.ithaca.ny.us; PStein@town.ithaca. ny. us Co: towncierk@town.ithaca.ny.us Subject: Meeting of Jan 26, 2006 Regarding Hanshaw Rd 1016 Hanshaw Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Jan 25, 2006 To the Ithaca Town Board: With regard to the renovation of Hanshaw Rd and the upcoming special Town Board meeting concerning the same, scheduled for Jan 26, 2006, I want to make the following comments. ./^HE VOICE OF THE ADJOINING RESIDENTS ^ ' On June 13, 2005, the Town Board passed a ' asolution concerning the renovation of Hanshaw Road aying that sidewalks would be included in the project when "wanted by the majority of adjoining residents." We believe that the Town of Ithaca is legally and ethically bound by this resolution as long as it remains in effect. At the Sept. 29, 2005 meeting between the Tompkins County Highway Department and the residents, held in the cafeteria of Dewitt School, Supervisor Valentino expressed support for the inclusion of sidewalks, and Town Engineer Dan Walker spoke to the effect that the Town of Ithaca would assume maintenance and liability responsibilities for any sidewalks built by the county. At the same meeting, the residents stated that a petition had been circulated up and down Hanshaw Road, which was overwhelmingly opposed to sidewalks (only two residents favored sidewalks). Perhaps the town assumed that opposition was only as deep as the maintenance issue. (That opposition was much deeper was demonstrated at the Oct. 17 Town Board meeting where approximately 20 residents spoke against sidewalks, and none for them.) At that Sept. 29 meeting, when asked about the June 13 resolution and the implied "vote" by adjoining residents. Supervisor ^/«tt^lentino spoke to the effect that "There is not going j be any vote" and "We will rescind the resolution - i rescind resolutions all the time." f \ Supervisor Valentino's remarks were unfortunate rirst for the disregard they showed in bypassing the resident's views which seemed to have been invited by 1 the resolution. Moreover, any view that resolutions were routinely rescinded seriously downgraded any /*^omise of the Town to maintain sidewalks (including an Walker's statement, and the actual resolution to lat effect passed Nov. 14, 2005). Further, if ' asolutions are in fact routinely rescinded, I could ind not even one incidence of the word "rescind" (or similar pseudonyms) by searching the available on-line resolutions.) The resoultion of June 13 should not be rescinded because some town officials feel that: "Yes we wanted you to vote, but you didn't vote the way we WANTED you to!" At the Dec. 17, 2005, there was some discussion of the Hanshaw Rd. issue in the "Persons to be Heard" session (and by the board members prior to it). Among the comments regarding the issue of assessing neighborhood opinion, there was a suggestion by Supervisor Valentino that perhaps a wider group of area residents might be included. Presumably these would be residents on the sidestreets who might be inclined to vote for sidewalks for their own convenience, since there would be of no hardship to them, but only to the Hanshaw Rd. residents. It is however, not obvious that this strategy would result in sidewalk approval, given that the Hanshaw Rd. residents would educate and lobby the sidestreets, and presumably, many of the sidestreet residents would have enough regard for the property rights of their neighbors to say no anyway. Moreover, there is that June 13 resolution. It f ays "adjoining" (connected with) and you are not "djoining unless your property touches the proposed Idewalks. Adding more "voters" is just pure and rdinary "Gerrymandering" and all such efforts would be worthy of all our contempt. Either the Town restricts its "vote" to adjoining residents (in which case, the proverbial handwriting is on the wall) or they must rescind the June 13 resolution, realizing that the residents have directed the protection of their property rights by relying on the town respecting its own resolutions. WHAT HAPPENED TO "TRAFFIC CALMING" I also point out that the June 30 resolution calls for "traffic calming measures to be included in the plans." At best, "traffic calming" is a category that seems to have very few included items, and in regard to Hanshaw Rd., there may not be any significant possibilitues (stop signs and speed bumps have been rejected). As I understand it (and you have to bring this up to the county - it is the last thing on their minds) the only traffic calming measure is the psychological effect of seeing sidewalks by drivers (gee - this is a urban area - I had better slow down). On the other hand, the plans include "traffic speeding" meausres such as a greatly widened ^/•dfiving vista (wider shoulders, swales, and sidewalks) id presumably, a smooth surface, as well as removal n overhead and side vegetation. So we take a road t "^ere virtually all drivers are already speeding, and 1 make the vista wider and smoother. Further, if it xs a nicer road, there will be more vehicles on it. The issue of traffic calming should be first, and it 2 is not even on the County's radar screen. They don't have a clue how to address the issue. This sounds /'**^.ke a recipe for disaster which is contrary to the ane 13 resolution. .EASE NOTE - IT'S OUR PROPERTY At the Oct. 17, 2005 and the Dec. 14, 2005 Town Board meetings I commented on the situation with regard to the Right-of-Way (ROW) issue. My letter of Oct. 19, 2005 to the county's attorney remains, as it was on Dec. 14, 2005, unanswered. In the mean time, we have amassed considerable additional evidence that there is no deeded ROW on Hanshaw Rd. (Indeed, Fisher Associates, who did the deed search for Mr. Lampman of the county, clearly did a very careless job, and mistook some side easements for the highway! I understand from Mr. Lampman that he has asked Fisher to try again.) In consequence, the county relies on a use ROW. In many places, this means that in order to have a sidewalk, the county needs to "acquire" additional ROW. There is not the slightest reason to suppose that this would be easy everywhere. But, it should begins with the county saying "we do not have as much ROW as we feel we need, and can you help us out with out problem?" THE CAYUGA HEIGHTS PORTION Nearly everyone who has looked at this recognizes /^\iat there is a proverbial "weakest link" in the plans , a that the segment from the Cayuga Heights line into ie "corners" is not fully involved, or involved at 11, since it is up to the Village of Cayuga Heights o construct this. (We are aware that two plans for this segment were sketched out in the County's latest plans of Dec. 1, but there is no mention of financing.) Further, this is the most dangerous segment, and the most constricted with respect to how it could be improved, and by far the most expensive. If it is going to be renovated by Cayuga Heights, where is the money coming from? Surely Cayuga Heights is not going to pay for it themselves. If it is not going to be renovated, what is the purpose of building the sidewalk out in the more rural sections? Bernie Hutchins Do You Yahoo I? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ee Ann Hunter om: Bernie Hutchins [berniehutchins@yahoo.com] ?nt: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 5;39 PM »: Cathy: townclerk@town.ithaca.ny.us Co: hutchins@ece.cornell.edu Subject: Copies of Messages that Bounced Ladies- There were three messages that bounced yesterday. I have pasted them all into the text below. Just below is the sort of error meassage that I have been receiving, due to the test message I sent Tee-Ann this morning. I will try Yahoo since it may be the heavy traffic up here on campus these first days of class that is causing the problem. Bernie Hutchins > ** THISISA WARNING MESSAGE ONLY ** > ** YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE ** >The original message was received at Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:27:27 -0500 (EST) >from hermes21.mail.cornell.edu [132.236.56.20] > Transcript of session follows ><townclerk0town.ithaca.ny.us>... Deferred: Connection /'^^^med out with ^ jarracuda.clarityconnect.com. Varning: message still undelivered after 4 hours 7ill keep trying until message is 5 days old HERE ARE THE THREE MESSAGES MESSAGE ONE, Jan 23, 2006, 1:57 PM copied to townclerk 'k'k'k'k'k'k'kieie'k'k'k'k'ic Dear Supervisor Valentino, In regard to the special T.B. Meeting this Thursday, Jan. 26, 2006, we are of the opinion that the County and/or Fisher Associates will be presenting their plans to you. In as much as none of the residents have seen anything of the plans after the Dec. 1, 2005 "firehouse" meeting (and not much then!), 1 would suggest that they present first, before public comment is invited. This would save our fussing about things they may have changed. [ Incidentally, 1 still have no response at all to my ^a«tetter of Oct. 19, ^05 to Jon Woods, regarding the ROW. However, it •pears that following , ^meeting between John Lampman and Klaus Beyanbach, >hn found that Fisher ^^ssociates, who supposedly did a deed search, did not do a good job, and 1 he has asked them to do it more carefully. They will likely find that -''^^ere is nothing more than a use ROW. ] 'ncerely, •rnie Hutchins *"* St********************************************************************* MESSAGE TWO Jan 23, 2006, 2:06 PM ************************************************************************ ********** Regarding the Hanshaw Rd. rennovation plans, I live at 1016 Hanshaw Rd and my property adjoins the proposed sidewalks. I am aware of the Town Board Resolution 2005-091 of June 13, 2005 that asks "that sidewalks or walkways be included when wanted by a majority of the adjoining residents," and of the Town Board Resolution 2005-181 of Nov. 14, 2005 by which the Town agrees to accept maintenance and liability for any walkways. I do NOT want sidewalks or walkways, as proposed by Tompkins County in the Dec. 1, 2005 firehouse meeting (or on the County Highway webpage) to be included. Bernard Hutchins ' V********************************************************************** MESSAGE THREE Jan 23, 2006, 2:04PM ************************************************************************ ieie-k-kieieic'k-kic-k-k'kie'k Regarding the Hanshaw Rd. rennovation plans, I live at 1016 Hanshaw Rd and my property adjoins the proposed sidewalks. I am aware of the Town Board Resolution 2005-091 of June 13, 2005 that asks "that sidewalks or walkways be included when wanted by a majority of the adjoining residents," and of the Town Board Resolution 2005-181 of Nov. 14, 2005 by which the Town agrees to accept maintenance and liability for any walkways. I do NOT want sidewalks or walkways, as proposed by Tompkins County in the Dec. 1, 2005 firehouse meeting (or on the County Highway webpage) to be included. Jinyong Hutchins ************************************************************************ uo You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 2 'ee Ann Hunter om: Bernard Arthur Hutchins Jr. [hutchins@ece.cornell.edu] ?nt: Monday, January 23, 2006 2:06 PM i: townclerk@town. Ithaca, ny. us object: VOTE AGAINST SIDEWALKS ON HANSHAW Regarding the Hanshaw Rd. rennovation plans, I live at 1016 Hanshaw Rd and my property adjoins the proposed sidewalks. I am aware of the Town Board Resolution 2005-091 of June 13, 2005 that asks "that sidewalks or walkways be included when wanted by a majority of the adjoining residents," and of the Town Board Resolution 2005-181 of Nov. 14, 2005 by which the Town agrees to accept maintenance and liability for any walkways. I do NOT want sidewalks or walkways, as proposed by Tompkins County in the Dec. 1, 2005 firehouse meeting (or on the County Highway webpage) to be included. Jinyong Hutchins / \ ee Ann Hunter 'om: Bernard Arthur Hutchins Jr. [hutchins@ece.cornell.edu] ent: Monday, January 23, 2006 2:04 PM >: townclerk@town.ithaca.ny.us oiibject: VOTE AGAINST SIDEWALKS ON HANSHAW Regarding the Hanshaw Rd. rennovation plans, I live at 1016 Hanshaw Rd and my property adjoins the proposed sidewalks. I am aware of the Town Board Resolution 2005-091 of June 13, 2005 that asks "that sidewalks or walkways be included when wanted by a majority of the adjoining residents," and of the Town Board Resolution 2005-181 of Nov. 14, 2005 by which the Town agrees to accept maintenance and liability for any walkways. I do NOT want sidewalks or walkways, as proposed by Tompkins County in the Dec. 1, 2005 firehouse meeting (or on the County Highway webpage) to be included. Bernard Hutchins Page 1 of 1 Tee Ann Hunter From: alison lurie [alisonlurie@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 3:18 PM To: townclerk@town.ithaca.ny.us Subject: hanshaw road changes Regarding the Hanshaw Rd. rennovation plans, I live at 409 Hanshaw Road and my property adjoins the proposed sidewalks. I am aware of the Town Board Resolution 2005-091 of June 13, 2005 that asks "that sidewalks or walkways be included when wanted by a majority of the adjoining residents," and of the Town Board Resolution 2005-181 of Nov. 14, 2005 by which the Town agrees to accept maintenance and liability for any walkways. I do NOT want sidewalks or walkways, as proposed by Tompkins County In the Dec. 1, 2005 firehouse meeting (or on the County Highway webpage) to be included. Alison Lurie / \ 1/26/2006 Janaury 26, 2006 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT #5 Agenda Item No. 6 TOWN OF ITHACA LOCAL LAW NO. OF THE YEAR 2006 A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 239 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE, TITLED "TAXATION." Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as follows: Section 1. Chapter 239 of the Town of Ithaca Code, titled "Taxation," is hereby amended by adding Article VI, titled "Historic Bam Exemption", as follows: "Article VI Historic Barn Exemption § 239-20. Statutory authority. This article is enacted pursuant to § 483-b of the Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York, as amended through Chapter 759 of the Laws of 2005. § 239-21. Grant of exemption; conditions. A. Pursuant to the provisions of § 483-b of the Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York, historic bams located in the Town of Ithaca which are reconstructed or rehabilitated shall be partially exempt from general municipal taxes to the extent provided hereinafter. For the purposes of this article, an historic bam shall mean a stmcture that was at least partially constmcted before nineteen hundred thirty-six and that was originally designed and used for storing farm equipment or agricultural products, or for housing livestock. B. Historic bams shall be exempt for a period of one year to the extent of one hundred per centum of the increase in assessed value thereof attributable to such reconstmction or rehabilitation and for an additional period of nine years subject to the following: (1) The extent of such exemption shall be decreased by ten per centum of the "exemption base" each year during such additional period. The "exemption base" shall be the increase in assessed value as determined in the initial year of the term of the exemption, except _ as provided below. , I ^ N (2) In any year in which a change in level of assessment of fifteen percent or more is certified for a final assessment roll pursuant to ^ ^ the rules of the State Board of Real Property Services of the State t of New York (or any successor agency), the exemption base shall be recalculated and the exemption shall be recomputed as described in § 483-b of the Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York. C. No such exemption shall be granted for reconstruction or rehabilitation unless such reconstruction or rehabilitation was commenced subsequent to the effective date of this article. D. No such exemption shall be granted to an historic bam which is receiving an exemption pursuant to §483 of the Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York or which has received an exemption pursuant to that section within ten years of the date of the application for exemption filed pursuant to this article. E. No such exemption shall be granted to an historic bam which is used for residential purposes. F. No such exemption shall be granted for reconstmction and rehabilitation expenses that materially alter the historic appearance of the bam. G. The partial exemption provided by this article shall, however, be limited to such property and persons as meet the conditions, qualifications, exclusions and limitations set forth in § 483-b of the Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York. This article shall be administered in accordance with said section of the Real Property Tax Law as now adopted and as it may be amended from time to time, and the provisions of said section shall be applicable to the effectuation of the exemption provided for in this article. § 239-22. Application for exemption. Such exemption shall be granted only upon successful application by the owner or all the ovmers of such bam on forms prescribed by the State Board of Real Property Services of the State of New York (or any successor agency). The owner or owners shall furnish the information and execute the forms in the manner required or prescribed in such forms and shall file such forms in the Tompkins County Assessment office on or before the appropriate taxable status date. Such exemption shall be granted only if the appropriate assessing authority approves the application. §239-23. Applicability. I \ f \ \ t \ This article shall apply to assessment rolls prepared after the effective date of this article on the basis of taxable status dates occurring on or after March 1,2006." V Section 2. If any provision of this local law is found invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect any other provisions of this local law, which shall remain in full force and effect. Section 3» This local law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State of the State of New York. January 26, 2006 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT #6 Agenda Item No. 6 TOWN OF ITHACA LOCAL LAW NO. OF THE YEAR 2006 A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 239 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE, TITLED "TAXATION." Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as follows: Section 1. Chapter 239 of the Town of Ithaca Code, titled "Taxation," is hereby amended by adding Article V, titled "Exemption for Certain Improvements to Property Made Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act", as follows: "Article V Exemption for Certain Improvements to Property Made Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act § 239-16. Statutory authority. This article is enacted pursuant to § 459-a of the Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York, as amended through Chapter 759 of the Laws of 2005. § 239-17. Grant of exemption; conditions. A. Pursuant to the provisions of § 459-a of the Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York, real property located in the Town of Ithaca that is altered, installed or improved pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 for the purposes of removal of architectural barriers for persons with disabilities in existing property shall be partially exempt from general mimicipal taxes as hereinafter provided. Such alterations, installations or improvements to such real property shall be exempt pursuant to the following exemption schedule: YEAR OF EXEMPTION PERCENTAGE OF EXEMPTION 1 50 2 45 3 40 4 35 5 30 6 25 7 20 8 15 9 10 10 5 B. No exemption shall be granted for alterations, installations or improvements unless such alterations, installations or improvements were commenced subsequent to the effective date of this article. C. Notwithstanding the foregoing provision, if such alterations, installations or improvements were commenced prior to the effective date of this article, such alterations, installations or improvements may receive an exemption pursuant to the exemption schedule of this section for the remainder of the authorized period of exemption as if such alterations, installations or improvements had been commenced on or after such effective date; provided, however, the property shall not be eligible for refunds of property taxes paid prior to the effective date of this article. D. The partial exemption provided by this article shall, however, be limited to such property and persons as meet the conditions, qualifications, exclusions and limitations set forth in § 459-a of the Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York. This article shall be administered in accordance with said section of the Real Property Tax Law as now adopted and as it may be amended from time to time, and the provisions of ' 1 said section shall be applicable to the effectuation of the exemption ' \ provided for in this article.( \ \ § 239-18. Application for exemption. Such exemption shall be granted only upon successful application by the owner or all the owners of such building on forms prescribed by the State Board of Real Property Services of the State of New York (or any successor agency). The owner or owners shall furnish the information and execute the forms in the manner required or prescribed in such forms and shall file such forms in the Tompkins County Assessment office on or before the appropriate taxable status date. Such exemption shall be granted only if the appropriate assessing authority approves the application. §239-19. Applicability. This article shall apply to assessment rolls prepared after the effective date of this article on the basis of taxable status dates occurring on or after March 1,2006." Section 2. If any provision of this local law is found invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect any other provisions of this local law, which shall remain in full force and effect. > \ ! \ I s I ^ ( ) Section 3. This local law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State of the State of New York. January 26, 2006 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT #7 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) 273-1666 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 ENGINEERING MEMORANDUM FROM: Dan Walker, Director of Engineering^ TO: Town Board DATE: January 25,2006 RE: Cayuga Medical Center request for extended Certificate of Occupancy Cayuga medical center started construction of the Southwest Addition and Building Renovation project at the hospital in June of2005. This is a major, multi-phased construction project with a minimum duration of three years. Phasing of the renovation is necessary to keep all of the hospital departments in full operation during construction, and occupation of the renovated spaces will be required as soon as the phase is complete, which will occur as construction continues on the other phases. To allow this, the Building Inspector may issue a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TOO). Normally a TCO is issued for a maximum period of 6 months. Under Section 125-6 of the Town Code the Town Board is allowed to authorize Ae Building Inspector to authorize a TCO that covers a longer period of time as noted below: (9) Discretionaiy actions. [Added 10-17-2005 by L.L. No. 9-2005EN] (a) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of Subsection B(8) above, however, the Town Board may, after public hearing on at least five days' notice upon the application of the property owner, authorize the Building Inspector: [1 ] To issue a temporaiy certificate of occupancy for a period greater than six months if the Board finds: [a] It is likely the conditions which require the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy will extend for a period in excess of six months; and [b] Denial of an extended period for the certificate would create a significant hardship to the applicant; and [c] It is reasonably anticipated that the applicant can complete the project and obtain a permanent certificate no later than the expiration date of the extended period; and [d] The life of the temporary certificate, including any extended period, is not greater than three years; arid [e] All other conditions for the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy set forth in this § 125-6, Subsection B, have been met. The Building Inspector is recommending that the request for an extended TCO made in the August 2,2005 letter from Joe Fitzgerald be granted by authorizing the Building Inspector to issue a TCO for a three year period for a $5,250 fee, which is one half of the cost of the building permit. The building permit fee for this project was $10,500 based on a construction cost of $21 million. Because the project is expected to have a construction duration of Three years, two Building Permit extensions would be required which are issued for a fee of 25 % of the original fee, ie the cost for two extensions $2,265 each would equal the cost of the TCO at $5,250. The Town Board may approve this request after a public hearing. I suggest that the Board set a public Hearing at the January 26* special TB meeting to address the extended TCO at the February 13 regular Town Board meeting. B:\BLDPERMT\temporary COs\CMC TCO extension request memo.doc DWalkerAD Page 1 1/25/2006 Cayuga Medical Center at ithoco agenda# August 2, 2005 Town of Ithaca Town Supervisor 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Attention: Cathy Valentino Reference: Cayuga Medical Center Southwest Addition and Building Renovations Dear Cathy, We have recently begun construction of the subject project under a building permit, I am writing to discuss what we see as a unique situation creating a degree of hardship for the Cayuga Medical Center, and to start a discussion to see if we can find an equitable solution for both the town of Ithaca and the Center. This is a major, multi-phased construction project, with a minimum duration of three years. A large portion of the project will take place in the existing Center and the phasing will be required to keep all departments in full operation throughout construction. We will need to occupy the renovated spaces as soon as they are complete; therefore a large number of temporary certificates of occupancy are required before the conclusion of the construction and the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. The Town's Building Department currently issues temporary certificates of occupancy for a maximum of six months. This project will require, at a minimum, six temporary certificates of occupancy at a cost of $5,250 each. The original building permit was based on a $21 million project and cost $10,500, for a projected total of $42,000 in building permit fees. I would propose that, in addition to the original building permit, Cayuga Medical Center apply for a single temporary certificate of occupancy for the duration of the construction project. We have done, and will continue doing, all of the things in our power to minimize the impact of our construction projects on the building department. We believe that this is an equitable solution in a unique situation. 101 Dafes Drive Ithaca, New York 14850-1383 607.274.4011 607.274.4527fax www.cayuqamed.org Affiliated witfi Weill Medical Colleoe of Cornel! Universitv / i i Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please call me at your convenience so we can discuss this further. inceraiy, Fitzgerald Vice President, Cc: Lou LoVecchio Paul Levesque Andy Frost Kristie Rice ness Development f ^