No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2004-12-13 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD MONDAY, DECEMBER 13 , 2004 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, NY 1 . Call to Order 2 . Pledge of Allegiance 3 . Report of Tompkins County Legislature 4 . Report of City of Ithaca Common Council 5 . Report of Fire Commission 6 . 6 : 00 p . m . — Persons to be Heard and Board Comments 7 . 6 : 15 p . m . — Public Hearing to Consider a Local Law to Amend Chapter 221 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca Regulating Signs Changing the Classification of Exempt Political Signs from Temporary Signs to Permanent Signs 8 . SEQR — regarding a Local Law to Amend Chapter 221 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca Regulating Signs Changing the Classification of Exempt Political Signs from Temporary Signs to Permanent Signs 9 . Consider Adoption of Local Law to Amend Chapter 221 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca Regulating Signs Changing the Classification of Exempt Political Signs from Temporary Signs to Permanent Signs 10 . 6 : 30 p . m . — Public Hearing to Consider a Local Law to Amend Chapter 271 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca Entitled "Zoning : Special Land Use Districts" to Allow a Spa Facility at La Tourelle 11 . SEQR — regarding a Local Law to Amend Chapter 271 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca Entitled "Zoning : Special Land Use Districts" to Allow a Spa Facility at La Tourelle 12 . Consider Adoption of a Local Law to Amend Chapter 271 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca Entitled "Zoning : Special Land Use Districts" to Allow a Spa Facility at La Tourelle 13 . Consider Acceptance of Location of Town Road and Park Land in conjunction with Mountin Subdivision , West Haven Road and Elm Street Extension 14 . Consider Setting a Public Hearing to Amend the Code of the Town of Ithaca , Chapter 250 Vehicles and Traffic i 15 . Consider referral to Planning Board for recommendation regarding proposed Amendment to SLUD #5 (Chamber of Commerce) increasing the number of employees permitted in building at any one time from 10 1 to 20 (in conjunction with proposed building expansion/renovation ) 16 . Consider acceptance of roads , and water and sewer improvements for ! the Southwoods Subdivision Phase II 17 . Consider resolution supporting the adoption of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan by the Tompkins County Legislature i 18 . Discussion of Report from Conservation Board Regarding Deer Population (no action required ) 19 . Discussion of Association of Towns 2005 Resolutions ,I 20 . Consider Setting Date for Town Board 2005 Organizational Meeting j 21 . Consider Approval of Commercial Insurance for 2005 22 . Consider Approval to Amend and Restate the Model Deferred Compensation Plan 23 . Consider Approval of Reclassification of Court Clerks I 24 . Consider Approval of Interim Justice Position 25 . Acknowledge Delivery of Adopted 2005 Budget 1 26 . Consider request of a four month extension for the Country Inn & Suites Hotel site plan review application to be governed by the provisions of the Town zoning ordinance in effect prior to April 1 , 2004 27 . Consent Agenda a . Town of Ithaca Minutes b . Town of Ithaca Abstract c. Bolton Point Abstract d . Holiday Tree Pick Up Date e . Network Design Class 28 . Report of Town Committees a . Agricultural Committee b . Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Committee c . Capital Projects and Fiscal Planning Committee d . Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization e . City / Town Trail Committee f. Codes and Ordinances Committee i) Committee Purpose Statement g . Lake Source Data Sharing Committee i h . Pegasys Oversight Committee i . Personnel Committee j . Public Works Committee k . Recreation and Human Services Committee I . Recreation Partnership m . Records Management Advisory Board n . Safety Committee o . Sewer Joint Committee p . Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission q . Supervisor' s Advisory Committee r. Transportation Committee i) Committee Purpose Statement 29 . Report of Town Officials a . Town Clerk b . Highway Superintendent c . Director of Engineering d . Director of Planning e . Director of Building and Zoning f. Budget Officer g . Manager of Human Resources h . Network/Records Specialist i . Recreation and Youth Coordinator j . Attorney for the Town 30 . Review of Correspondence a . 11 /29/2004 letter from Raymond Terepka re : vacancy on Conservation Board b . 11 /12/2004 Summary of Meeting with Ithaca College c. 11 / 19/2004 letter from Association of Towns regarding restoring fine money to local courts d . 11 /23 letter from Time Warner Cable regarding price changes on some services e . 12/6/2004 Letter to Department of Environmental Conservation regarding lake source cooling f. 11 /02/2004 Notice from DOT re Troy Rd speed limit reduction request 31 . Town Board To Do List 32 . Executive Session for discussion of personnel issues and to obtain legal opinion from Attorney for the Town 33 . Consider Adjournment ADDITIONAL AGENDA 1 . Discussion of Benchmark Invoice for Lake Source Cooling Work i i i 245 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 Regular Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, December 13 , 2004 at 5 : 30 p . m . 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca , New York PRESENT : Catherine Valentino , Supervisor; Carolyn Grigorov , Councilwoman ; Bill Lesser, Councilman ; Will Burbank , Councilman ; Herb Engman , Councilman ; Sandra Gittelman , Councilwoman ; Peter Stein STAFF PRESENT : Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Clerk ; Dan Walker, Town Engineer; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning ; Al Carvill , Budget Officer; Judy Drake , Human Resources Manager; John Barney , Attorney for the Town EXCUSED : Fred Noteboom , Highway Superintendent OTHERS PRESENT : Fay Gougakis , 406 Utica Street; Phillip Albrecht , 115 Troy Road ; Mavid Mountin , 274 Gray Road ; Bill Goodman , 231 Rachel Carson Way ; John Makinsten , 57 Yellow Rock Lane , Horseheads ; Joe Quigley , Southwoods Subdivision ; Tony Ingraffea , Southwoods Subdivision ; Jim Atsedes , 104 Crest Lane ; Jean McPheeters , Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce ; Kyle Tuttle , Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce ; Heather Weber, Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce ; Annette Marchesseault , Trowbridge and Wolf Landscape Architects CALL TO ORDER : The meeting was called to order at 5 : 30 p . m . and Supervisor Valentino led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance . Agenda Item No. 3 - Report of Tompkins County Legislature Tim Joseph appeared before the Board on behalf of the Tompkins County Legislature . 2005 Budget Mr. Joseph reported that the Legislature had passed the 2005 County Budget . He thought one of the most significant things in the budget was a substantial increase in both staffing and funding at the Highway Department , which the Legislature hopes will have a big impact on the condition of roads . Mr. Joseph told the Board that the 2005 budget was relatively easy because there weren 't a lot of new State mandates . Local conditions are relatively good . Mr. Joseph thought because it was an election year, the State " laid -off' and he expects that they will get hit hard next year. Tompkins County Airport Mr. Joseph told the Board the County has been having a lot of meetings concerning the airport . The Air Service Task Force has been meeting to work on bringing in new air service and generally making the airport a more successful operation . One of the things that the Air Service Task Force has said very clearly is that there needs to be a real community commitment to the airport . Mr. Joseph has been asked to work on getting other local governments involved . That involvement would include letting constituents know that the airport is a vital part of the community and we need to take the actions that are required to 1 246 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 make it a success . This could include public statements ; expressions of concern , letting the County know that it' s important , letting the business community know that the various local governments all consider the airport important . It also means looking at policies and practices when you travel . Include the Ithaca Airport when cliving directions and consider it when making your own travel plans . Councilwoman Gittelman remarked that in booking a flight to Seattle , she saved $200 per ticket by flying out of Syracuse instead of Ithaca . Councilman Lesser commented that one of the non-cost factors in flying in and out of Ithaca , particularly during bad weather, is the complication that if there' s a slow down in the system and the lines have to reduce the flights , unfortunately the Ithaca flights seem to be the first ones that are scratched . He hoped that when the County discusses issues with airlines that reliability of service is one of the dimensions that is included . Mr. Joseph said he would make sure this got included in the discussion . Mr. Joseph felt that dealing with more than one airline would help with a lot of the issues . Part of getting another airline into the Ithaca Airport is a sense that the community wants it. Councilman Stein commented that the national trend is to larder airports . It may just be that 51 101 15 years from now it will not longer be possible for a market the size of Ithaca to support it' s own reliable air service . The thing to do may be to think of a regional airport serving Ithaca , Elmira , and Binghamton . He conceded that nobody wants that , particularly when there are three existing airports , but it seems unlikely that the three individual airports are going to be able to forever supply the kind of service that we think that we ought to have . Mr. Joseph told him that kind of argument has gone on in the Air Service Task Force at great length . When you talk about a regional airport the response of people in the federal government or the airline industry is , you have one , it' s callE!d Syracuse . If that' s what the community wants , then shut them all down and go to Syracuse: . The other response is that in the industry there are two different models that are happening . One is the low cost carriers that fly out of major centers , point to point service , and there is no question that is the cheapest way to fly to major destinations and you are never going to be able to fly from Ithaca to Los Angeles at the price that you could fly from Syracuse to Los Angeles . But , there are also the hub and spoke systems and they are not going to disappear because they provide something that people want and that is the ability to fly from close to where you are to close to where you ' re going . The point is not to get airlines in here that compete with the low cost point to point ones , but to have decent service with the hub and spoke model that you will often find your total cost is comparable and the difference is worth it . We' re not really looking to get the same price from Ithaca to Orlando that you get from Syracuse to Orlando , but we ' re looking to get it to the point where you at least consider it worth the difference for the convenience . Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan Councilwoman Gittelman stated her disappointment in finding little mention of health care in the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan . The Tompkins County Health Department is suffering from lack of staff and lack of money to hire staff. The home care part of the department has to turn away cases every month because they do not have enough staff. The County has an aging population and that means people will be needing more care ; it' s cheaper to care for people outside a hospital than in . She hopes that the County Board would look at the issue in a serious way . Mr. Joseph replied stating it' s true the 2 ? 47 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 Comprehensive Plan tended to focus on traditional planning issues , but he did not see any reason the issue couldn 't be included . He recommended that the Board send this message to the County when considering their resolution of support for the Plan . County Sheriff Councilman Lesser told Mr. Joseph he appreciated the County restoring some funding for the Sheriff's Office . Mr. Joseph then spoke of discussions in the context of the Intermunicipal Cooperation Meetings regarding the towns contracting with the County for Sheriff' s Office personnel Agenda Item No . 4 — Report from Common Council Ms . Koherr appeared before the Board on behalf of Common Council . She thanked the Board for signing the Memorandum of Understanding for the Recreation Facilities for 2004 . Mayor Peterson , herself, and Common Council member Whitmore met to determine who should meet with the Town on behalf of the City to discuss the Memorandum of Understanding for 2005 . At the December Common Council Meeting , the council approved a bond resolution to fund a multitude of different projects . One is a recreation software package at a cost of approximately $40 , 000 . It will automate a multitude of tasks that the Youth Bureau performs . One of which is to determine the residence of the users for the different facilities . The program will allow the City to register pavilion usage . The City will issue swipe cards . Some of the other projects funded were reconstruction of various streets , sewer, and other infrastructure projects . At the December meeting Council also approved a resolution authorizing the Planning Department to develop a City trails master plan . The City will be holding a special meeting on December 15 , 2004 to discuss the Cayuga Green project and what needs to be done with the downtown garage ; whether to entice additional development , remove the helix . Parking rates and the increases are pretty contentious at this point . To maintain the City as a retail hub , it' s going to be difficult to impose some of the parking increases that are needed to balance the budgets . Merchants are especially vocal about this . Regarding the Tcat restructuring , Ms . Koherr told the Board that the City wants to maintain public involvement and input into what will become a corporate structure . There was much discussion at the Community Services Committee meeting about the process of electing City officials to the three seats on the Tcat corporate board . They City' s intent is to keep public input in the forefront and residents' needs in the forefront as far as operations are affected . Councilman Lesser hoped that, as the City completes the improvements of the roads in the City , they continue with upgrading the traffic signal system . He felt the fact that the lights are not well coordinated holds up traffic considerably and encourages people to run the yellow. Ms . Koherr acknowledged this problem and said the City would be studying this . Councilman Burbank thanked Ms . Korherr for appearing and . hoped she would continue attending meetings . 3 248", December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 Agenda Item No . 5 - Report from the Fire Commission (Attachment #1 — written report) Bob Romanowski appeared before the board and read his Fire Commissioners report (see attachment) Mr. Romanowski wished everyone a happy holiday and looked forward to working with everyone in 2005 . The Board thanked the Bob for his report . Agenda Item No . 6 — Persons to be Heard Faye Gougakis , 406 Utica Street Supervisor Valentino explained to Fay Gougakis that she had called the Ithaca Journal regarding the press release from the EMC . Supervisor Valentino talked with Joe Swartz , the editor, and asked why the press release was not published . Mr. Swartz said that he did not know it wasn 't published and with the turnover in staff that they have lost it . Supervisor Valentino would provide another copy to the Journal for publication . She thought it would be a good idea to send the Town ' s letter to DEC with it. Supervisor Valentino suggested to Mr. Swartz that he question Cornell on the items that are not being done . She agrees with Faye that the Journal has not given a lot of time to this important issue on Cayuga Lake . Ms . Gougakis felt the appropriate person to speak with would be John Carberry because he is the Metro Editor. The EMC sent the press release to the press and WHCU did a story on it . She obtained a copy of the press release and took it to the Ithaca Journal , the Ithaca Times , and the Daily Sun , The Times is in the process of interviewing people for an article . Ms . Gougakis went on to say that Gary Stewart is applying to be a member of the EMC and that Mr. Stewart is the PR person for Cornell . She finds it very suspicious because he is an individual that she feels does not really bridge the gap betweE! n the real issues facing the city and Cornell . Agenda Item No . 7 - 6 : 15 p . m . — Public Hearing to Consider a Local Law to Amend Chapter 221 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca Regulating Signs Changing the gm Classification of Exempt Political Signs 'from Temporary Signs to Permanent Signs Supervisor Valentino opened the public hearing at 6 : 15 p . m . The Town Clerk had proof of posting and publication . Persons to be Heard Cont' d Lake Source Cooling is a passionate issue for Ms . Gougakis and she is very upset about it because if the community does not know that this happening then they are not going to write to the DEC . 4 249, December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 Agenda Item No . 7 Cont' d Supervisor Valentino asked if there was anyone present to address exempting the political signs . With no one present to address the issue , Supervisor Valentino closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to the board . Agenda Item No . 8 - SEQR — regarding a Local Law to Amend Chapter 221 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca Regulating Signs Changing the Classification of Exempt Political Signs from Temporary Signs to Permanent Signs (Attachment #2 — SEQR) TB RESOLUTION NO, 2004- 184: SEQR: ENACTMENT OF A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 221 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA REGULATING SIGNS TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF EXEMPT POLITICAL SIGNS FROM TEMPORARY SIGNS TO PERMANENT SIGNS WHEREAS, this action is the enactment of a local law amending Chapter 221 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca regulating signs to change the classification of exempt political signs from temporary signs to permanent signs; and WHEREAS, said proposed local law would also add a definition of "political poster" to include a sign which: (a) advertises a candidate or candidates for public elective offices, or a political party, or (b) expresses an opinion on, or urges a particular vote or action on, a public issue, or (c) conveys one 's views on worship, ethics, philosophy of life or similar beliefs; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is not anticipated to significantly change the way in which individuals post such signs, and is intended to address the constitutional rights of individuals regarding freedom of speech by allowing such signs without time restriction; and WHEREAS, this is an unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board is acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to the enactment of the above- described local law; and WHEREAS, the Town Board, at a public hearing held on December 13, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form, Parts 1 and ll for this action; RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. MOVED: Councilman Lesser SECONDED: Councilman Burbank 5 i 250 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. Agenda Item No . 9 - Consider Adoption of Local Law to Amend Chapter 221 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca Regulating Signs Changing the Classification of Exempt Political Signs from Temporary Signs to Permanent Signs (Attachment #3 — Local Law) TB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 185: RESOLUTION ADOPTING A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 221 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA REGULATING SIGNS TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF EXEMPT POLITICAL_ SIGNS FROM TEMPORARY SIGNS TO PERMANENT SIGNS WHEREAS, a resolution was duly adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca for a public hearing to be held by said Town Board on December 13, 2004, at 6: 15 p. m. to hear all interested parties on a proposed local law entitled 'A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 221 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA REGULATING SIGNS TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF EXEMPT POLITICAL SIGNS FROM TEMPORARY SIGNS TO PERMANENT SIGNS '; and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law, or any part thereof, and WHEREAS, the adoption of this local law is, pursuant to Part 617 of the Implementing Regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the New York State Conservation Law (which law and regulations thereunder, including the Town 's local regulation:), are collectively referred to as "SEAR') an Unlisted Action, and it has been determined by the Town Board that adoption of said proposed local law would not have a significant effect upon the environment and could be processed without further regard to SEQR, and WHEREAS, the Town Board finds it is in the best interests of the Town and its citizens to adopt the local law; NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts said local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 221 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA REGULATING SIGNS TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF EXEMPT POLITICAL SIGNS FROM TEMPORARY SIGNS TO PERMANENT SIGNS ", a copy of which was duly submitted to this Board and is annexed hereto; and it is further 6 251 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk be and she hereby is directed to enter said local law in the minutes of this meeting and in the Local Law book of the Town of Ithaca, and to file a copy of said local law with the Secretary of State of the State of New York. MOVED: Councilman Burbank SECONDED: Councilwoman Gittelman Vote: Roll Call: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. Wal -Mart Letter Councilman Lesser asked Supervisor Valentino about the Wal- Mart letter that she and others had written and wondered if they had considered looking into it any further. Supervisor Valentino responded that she does not know if the labor coalition has or not. She knows that they came forward and drafted the letter basically asking if community leaders could meet with Wal-Mart to discuss their wages and their wage scale here . She thought the letter was in the newspaper. It was a friendly gesture to Wal- Mart saying that they have concerns and that they would like to meet with them as a group and discuss their plans to make sure people have adequate wages and benefits . Supervisor Valentino would give a copy of the letter to anyone who was interested . Board Comments Councilman Engman appreciated Faye' s efforts in bringing the Lake Source Cooling to the attention of the City. He does not think the City has thought much about it and she was able to get their attention . Her efforts should be congratulated . Supervisor Valentino agreed with Councilman Engman and she had valid concerns . A tentative agreement has been reached with union contact for Bolton Point and the union will be voting on it December 15th . Once it receives union approval , it will come before each municipality in the Commission . Approval of the contract would occur at the Year End Meeting . Supervisor Valentino alerted the board that when they received the breakdown of costs from the City Fire Department, it was approximately $200 , 000 more than their usual monthly bills . It was attributed to their union contract being signed and the retroactive pay was paid to employees for 2003 and 2004 . There are some funds available in the fire contract money that will be used , but it is going to cause more concern for the Town in the 2005 budget . Councilman Stein wondered if the money was coming from the fund balance . Supervisor Valentino and Mr. Carvill explained that it would be coming from the fund balance of a dedicated account just for fire protection . Agenda Item No . 10 - 6 : 30 p . m . — Public Hearing to Consider a Local Law to Amend Chapter 271 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca Entitled "Zoning : Special Land Use Districts" to Allow a Spa Facility at La Tourelle 7 25 :2 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 Supervisor Valentino opened the public hearing at 6 : 30 p . m . The Town Clerk had proof of posting and publication . With no persons present to be heard , Supervisor Valentino closed the public hearing . Agenda Item No . 11 - SEQR — regarding a Local Law to Amend Chapter 271 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca Entitled "Zoning : Special Land Use Districts " to Allow a Spa Facility at La Tourelle (Attachment #4 — SEQR) After reading he Planning Board minutes of this project , Councilman Lesser noticed the 9 9 p J traffic generation was pretty peripheral . He asked Mr. Kanter to give him a little more detail on the traffic and how it was evaluated . Mr. Kanter responded that the Planning Board looked at more than just the spa . They looked at the inn and the hotel rooms . In terms of the spa itself when numbers are broken out , Mr. Kanter estimated the numbers were in the range of 25 new vehicle trips . The number is conservative because it assumes all trips will be coming from outside the property . Most of the customers would be hotel guests . Danby Road carries about 8800 vehicles for any one- day in both directions . The addition of 25 vehicles is quite significant when looking at the road characteristics . The parking discussion talked about the same kind of issues . The Planning Board was more concerned with parking on the site and making sure there were an adequate number of parking spaces . Councilman Engman asked if the Planning Board looked at the exercise room and how may vehicle trips it would generate . Mr . Kanter stated that the Planning Board did not get into a lot of detail about the exercise room . Councilman Burbank asked if there was any response from the neighbors regarding the proposed facility. Mr. Kanter responded that they did not receive comments from neighbors , but there were supportive comments from the Chamber of Commerce . TB RESOLUTION NO, 2004- 186: SEQR: Proposed Local L.aw Amending Chapter 271 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca Entitled "Zoning: Special t_and Use Districts " to Allow a Spa Facility at La Tourelle WHEREAS, this action is the enactment of a local law amending Chapter 271 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca entitled 'Zoning: Special Land Use Districts " to allow a spa facility at La Tourelle; and WHEREAS, said ro osed local law would add "a spa facility, attached to a hotel or P P P Y motel" as a use permitted in Special Land Use District (now referred to as Planned Development Zone, or PDZ) No. 1 ; and WHEREAS, said proposed local law would allow a spa facility to be not more than 5, 000 square feet of interior floor area, open to hotel guests and the general public, and include spaces for massages, facials, manicures, pedicures, hair care, and tanning, related lounges, locker rooms, showers, saunas, steam baths, and wading pool, a shop (not more than 100 square feet in size) for the sale of spa therapeutic and aesthetic products, and other facilities related to the spa activities as authorized in the local law; and I 8 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 WHEREAS, this is an unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to the enactment of local laws; and WHEREAS, the Town Board, at a public hearing held on December 13, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form, Parts I and 11 for this action, along with other application materials describing the proposed spa facility, RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. MOVED: Councilwoman Grigorov SECONDED: Councilman Engman VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. Agenda Item No . 12 - Consider Adoption of a Local Law to Amend Chapter 271 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca Entitled "Zoning : Special Land Use Districts " to Allow a Spa Facility at La Tourelle (Attachment #5 — Local Law) Councilman Lesser asked if Mr. Wiggins had indicated what the scope of the overall development would be over time . Mr. Kanter responded not specifically , only what was outlined in the Special Land Use District. Councilman Engman noted that there were three different figures for the size of the property . The 20-acre figure seemed to house the hotel and restaurant . He asked if there were any plans for the remaining acreage . Wally Wiggins , Danby Road Mr. Wiggins explained that the size of the total property is 70 acres . Twenty acres is the commercial portion and the remaining acreage is partly residential . TB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 187: RESOLUTION ADOPTING A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 271 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ENTITLED "ZONING: SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICTS " TO ALLOW A SPA FACILITY AT LA TOURELLE WHEREAS, a resolution was duly adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca for a public hearing to be held by said Town Board on December 13, 2004, at 6:30 p. m. to hear all interested parties on a proposed local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 271 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ENTITLED "ZONING: SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICTS " TO ALLOW A SPA FACILITYAT LA TOURELLE", and 9 254 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 WHEREAS notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal - , , P g Y , and WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law, or any part thereof,- and WHEREAS, the adoption of this local law is, pursuant to Part 617 of the Implementing Regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the New York State Conservation Law (which law and regulations thereunder, including the Town 's local regulations, are collectively referred to as "SEQR') an Unlisted Action, and it has been determined by the Town Board that adoption of said proposed local law would not have a significant effect upon the environment and could be processed without further regard to SEQR, and WHEREAS, the Town Board finds it is in the best interests of the Town and its citizens to adopt the local law; NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts said local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 271 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ENTITLED "ZONING: SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICTS " TO ALLOW A SPA FACILITY AT LA TOURELLE", a copy of which was duly submitted to this Board and is annexed hereto; and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk be and she hereby is directed to enter said local law in the minutes of this meeting and in the Local Law book of the Town of Ithaca, and to give due notice of the adoption of said local law by publication of such local law or an abstract or summary thereof in the Ithaca Journal and by filing a copy of said local law with the Secretary of State of the State of New York. MOVED: Councilwoman Grigorov SECONDED: Supervisor Valentino VOTE: ROLL CALL : Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman j Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye, Councilwoman Gittelrnan, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. Mr. Kanter gave a quick tutorial on SEQR . Agenda Item No . 13 - Consider Acceptance of Location of Town Road and Park Land in conjunction with Mountin Subdivision , West Haven Road and Elm Street Extension (Attachment #6 — Memo from Sue Ritter, Memo from Conservation Board , and Mountin Subdivision map) Supervisor Valentino felt the Town has reached a good agreement on how the trail and parkland , and easements would be worked out . The details were outlined in a memo to the 10 255 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 Town Board and the current proposal is not much different from the last proposal . The Town will not own the piece giving access to Elm Street Extension , but a proper access easement is needed . The access to West Haven Road will be under Town ownership for maintenance and upkeep . Supervisor Valentino talked about the road with the Highway Department and they thought it was a good idea . Councilman Lesser asked if any cost estimates of improving and maintaining the property had been done . Mr. Walker indicated that they did not anticipate any initial costs on the trail . There would be cost impacts on the right-of-way because it' s currently a gravel road with limited use , but the reconstruction will not occur until next year. There will be snowplowing of it and Mr. Walker estimated the plowing of the driveway to be about $ 1000 for the year. It might cost $ 15 , 000 to $20 , 000 to build the base up in a few years if the right-of-way sees increased traffic from the park . The Public Works Committee had discussed the park and the park is currently a passive park with projects to remain as a passive park . They were not anticipating any real additional costs . Councilman Burbank concurred that there were costs associated with all land the Town acquires , but this was a perfect example of a neighborhood and community summoning the resources to protect their environment and in the process make a generous contribution to the Town . He felt they should be commended and acknowledged for the sacrifices they made . Councilman Burbank hoped the environment would remain as it is . He thought that the secondary access to EcoVillage not be paved and remain as it is . Attorney Barney said it should be looked at a minimal maintenance road , which the Town presently doesn 't have . Councilman Stein wondered about separating vehicular traffic from pedestrian traffic on the road . Mr. Walker explained that lot h would have a walkway on it . Lot g has enough room for a path on the side of the road . He does not anticipate the property to be heavily traveled . EcoVillage is limited to using it for emergency purposes only. Attorney Barney added the Town would only be responsible for the walkway portion of lot h . Supervisor Valentino thought that they needed to start keeping track of the associated costs as the Town acquires more parks and trail lands . TB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 488: Acceptance of Concept and Location of Proposed Dedication of Town Park and Park Access Right of Way (Helen 's Way) in Conjunction with the Mountin 8-Lot Subdivision, Elm Street Extension and West Haven Road. WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has granted Subdivision Approval for the proposed 8-Lot Mountin Subdivision located along Elm Street Extension and West Haven Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28- 1 -28. 22, Medium Density Residential Zone. The plan involves subdividing the 33. 3 +A acre parcel into four residential building lots (between 3. 7 +/- and 5. 8 +/- acres in size) along Elm Street Extension, two narrow parcels of 2. 7 +/- and 0. 98 +/- acres in size to be consolidated with existing adjacent parcels, a narrow 0. 98 +/- acre parcel with access off W. Haven Road to be conveyed to the Town for municipal purposes, and a 10. 7 +/- acre parcel to be donated to the Town for open space/park purposes, and 11 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 WHEREAS, the applicant for the above-referenced subdivision has proposed to dedicate to the Town a 10. 7 acre parcel for park and recreational purposes and a 0. 975 acre parcel for park access road right-of- way purposes, identified respectively as Lot F and Lot G on the survey map entitled "Mountin Subdivision " prepared by Scott E. Edsall and dated 1013012003, and I WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan (adopted in December 1997) recommends the establishment of a future bike/pedestrian path and "neighborhood park" in an area directly east of this subdivision, and the area proposed to be dedicated as park land would be appropriate for passive amenities, such as trails, picnicking, and scenic viewing, and that this proposed park/trail area could serve as a link or a spur connection to the planned "Upper West Hill Path Network" shown in the Town 's Plan, and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Highway Superintendent, Director of Engineering, and Director of Planning have reviewed the plans for the above improvements proposed for dedication to the Town, and have found them acceptable; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby accepts the location of the park and park access road right-of-way for the Mountin 8-Lot Subdivision subject to the following conditions: 11 That the specific surveyed location, deed, and abstract showing good and marketable title for the proposed park parcel be submitted in a form acceptable to the Attorney for the Town of Ithaca and the Director of Planning for the Town of Ithaca, prior to acceptance of the park parcel by the Town Board; and 2. That an easement be secured from the owners of Lot H, granting the Town a 20 foot wide easement for construction, maintenance, and public access of a pedestrian trail on Lot H, subject to approval by the Attorney for the Town, prior to the Town Board accepting parcels F and G. and prior to the Chairman of the Planning Board signing of the plat; and 3. That the two parcels shall be conveyed to the Town of Ithaca prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the parcels designated as Lot A, Lot B, Lot C, and Lot D. MOVED: Councilman Lesser SECONDED: Councilman Burbank VOTED: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye, Councilman Engman, aye, Councilman Stein, aye. Agenda Item No . 14 - Consider Setting a Public Hearing to Amend the Code of the Town of Ithaca , Chapter 250 Vehicles and Traffic i 12 II 257 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 Attorney Barney noted that the proposed amendment deleted stop signs the Town does not own and updates road names . There was brief discussion regarding when the County owns a stop sign versus when the Town owns a stop sign . The proposed amendment also includes eliminating parking on both sides on Clover Lane for the entire length of the road , which is a reaction to a petition brought before the board . Councilman Burbank wondered if there was any objection to the parking prohibition . It was Attorney Barney' s understanding that all residents on Clover Lane signed the petition . The board decided to set the date for the January Organizational meeting prior to setting the public hearing . Agenda Item No . 20 - Consider Setting Date for Town Board 2005 Organizational Meeting TB RESOLUTION NO. 2004489: Set Date for 2005 Organizational Meetin_g BE IT RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby sets their 2005 Organizational Meeting for January 10, 2004 at 5:30 p. m. MOVED: Supervisor Valentino SECONDED: Councilman Burbank VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. Agenda Item No . 14 Cont' d TB RESOLUTION NO. 2004490: Resolution Setting a Public Hearin to Consider a Local Law Amendinq Chapter 250 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca Reguiatin_g Vehicle and Traffic in the Town of Ithaca to Prohibit Parking on Clover Lane, to Add Stop Signs at Certain Intersection, to Remove Stop Signs and a Yield Sign from Certain Intersection, and to Change Certain Intersection Street Name References 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 10th day of January 2005, at 6:30 p. m. for the purpose of considering a proposed local law amending Chapter 250 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca regulating vehicle and traffic in the Town of Ithaca to prohibit parking on Clover Lane, to add stop signs at certain intersection, to remove references to intersections governed by Tompkins County of the State of New York, to remove a yield sign from an intersection, and to correct certain street name references to reflect street name changes; 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 13 258 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 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 I above for the public hearing. MOVED: Supervisor Valentino SECONDED: Councilwoman Grigorov VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. Agenda Item No. 15 - Consider referral to Planning Board for recommendation regarding proposed Amendment to SLUD #5 (Chamber of Commerce ) increasing the number of employees permitted in building at any one time from 10 to 20 ( in conjunction with proposed building expansion/renovation ) (Attachment #7 — Letter from J . McPheeters , Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce Presentation Jean McPheeters , President of Chamber of Commerce Ms . McPheeters introduced members of the Chamber' s Board and staff to the board . She explained that the Tompkins County Legislature contracts with the Chamber of Commerce to manage tourism for the County and they run the Convention and Visitor' s Bureau . The proposed amendment would increase the allowed number of employees from 10 to 20 persons . The Chamber moved into its current location in 1989 and they had 5 fulltime and 1 part-time staff member. Since then , there are 9 fulltime and :3 part-time staff members . The change in the SLUD is for two reasons ; the increase staff is necessary because of the growth of the Chamber of Commerce and they would like to build a small addition and renovate their existing facility . Ms . McPheeters explained more storage space was needed and that the growth in the area meant more brochures for the bed and breakfasts , restaurants , hotels and attractions . Additional restrooms were also needed . The Chamber of Commerce has hired Edner Architectural Associates and they have started the design of the addition . The addition is proposed to be 2 , 000 square feet , 1000 square feet for the first floor and 1000 square feet on the second floor. The first floor would house restrooms , offices and storage . The second floor would house a larger meeting room and the current meeting room would be divided into three offices , additional storage space and a small meeting room . Their goal is to enhance the experience of the more than 20 , 000 who come to the Visitor' s Center annually . They want to showcase the community and encourage visitors spend additional time in the community . Ithaca is the number one emerging city in the nation according to the Cities Ranked and Rated and is likely to attract additional visitors and people considering relocation . Space will be provided for looking at maps or drinking a cup of coffee . I , 14 259 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 The Visitors Center is looking forward to seeing more people come to their offices , but do not feel there is a need for additional paved parking as they will make their current parking area more efficient. Councilman Lesser stated with more employees and the anticipation of more visitors . He asked if parking would be discussed at the Planning Board level and if the proposed parking was sufficient. Ms . McPheeters explained the current parking lot was striped for 27 parking spaces , but there is room for 35 . A parking study was done and they did a parking count over a 5-week period and the information would be presented to the Planning Board . Supervisor Valentino explained the Board was considering a referral to the Planning Board to amend the SLUD to allow additional staff persons . Councilman Engman wondered why there was a restriction on 10 employees . Attorney Barney thought that at the time , there were only 5 or 6 employees . There was a sense that they were building next to a residential cluster and that they didn 't want to have an overwhelming amount of traffic . Mr. Kanter added it was zoned residential before it was a Special Land Use District, Mr. Frost also added that it involved a land swap with the City of Ithaca for the Youth Bureau land . Mr. Kanter pointed out staff was recommending in the resolution that the Town Board and Planning Board do separate SEQR reviews for the project . Supervisor Valentino thanked him for bringing it to their attention . TB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 491 : Refer Request to Amend Special Land Use District No. 5 (Chamber of Commerce) to Plannin_g Board for a Recommendation WHEREAS, the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce has submitted a proposal for the expansion and renovation of their building located at 904 East Shore Drive, which would include a two-story, 2, 000 +/- square foot addition to the existing building, and WHEREAS, in conjunction with their proposal, the Chamber of Commerce is requesting that Special Land Use District (SLUD) No. 5 (now referred to as Planned Development Zone - PDZ No. 5), which governs the use of their property, be amended by the Town Board, and WHEREAS, the requested amendment would modify Section 271 - 7(F) (2) of the Code of the Town of Ithaca to increase the number of persons permitted to be employed in the Chamber of Commerce building at any one time from 10 to 20, and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment of PDZ No. 5 by the Town Board and the related site plan approval by the Planning Board for the building expansion and renovation project are Unlisted actions pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 (SEAR) and the Town of Ithaca Environmental Review Law (Local Law No. 5, 1988), now therefore be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby refers the above-described requested amendment of PDZ (SLUD) No. 5 to the Planning Board for their recommendation, and be it further RESOLVED that the Town Board hereby recommends that the Planning Board and Town Board each act as lead agency for their respective actions for purposes of conducting the 15 260 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 environmental reviews of the project pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 (SEAR) and the Town of Ithaca Environmental Review Law. �I MOVED: Councilwoman Grigorov SECONDED: Councilwoman Gittelman VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. Agenda Item No . 16 - Consider acceptance of roads , and water and sewer improvements for the Southwoods Subdivision Phase II i Mr. Walker explained that only the roads were ready for approval and the water and sewer were close , but not quite ready . Supervisor Valentino noted that it was Old Gorge Road and not Gorge Road . Supervisor Valentino understood that both Mr. Walker and Mr. Noteboom were comfortable with the Town accepting the road . Mr . Walker explained that the road is complete accept for the top , which is the reason for the escrow. It is preferred not to put the top on until after the construction traffic slows . The base , road drainage and shoulders have all been completed to the satisfaction of the Highway Superintendent . He is recommending that the remainder of Southwoods Drive and Old Gorge Road be accepted as Town roads . Supervisor Valentino said there are many issues for the Town to think about on stormwater going forward . The Public Works Committee has discussed the easements and the responsibilities a little bit of the ponds . It might be something for the Codes and Ordinances Committee or the Public Works Committee to be working on . Supervisor Valentino felt it was clear that they needed to make decisions about how they need to deal with the stormwater. Mr. Walker added that the stormwater management plan and facilities operation are a town function . As more subdivisions require stormwater management facilities , which most of them will , they try to minimize construction of structures that require a lot of management . Many drainage structures have not been maintained and there is not mechanism for the Town to maintain them . Supervisor Valentino thought it was important to have easements available regardless of what is done in the future . Attorney Barney stated it was done as a matter of course where the Town has an easement to go in . Councilman Burbank asked what are the expected costs of maintaining the road and if there was a Town policy regarding acquiring new roads . He realized that they that needed to be built to Town standards , but is it a given that a newly developed road would be accepted by the Town . Mr. Walker responded that is where the Planning Board and Town Board review processes come into play before final subdivision approval . A previous Town Board approved the Southwoods subdivision . When the Planning Board looks at subdivisions and road locations they generally see if they comply with the master transportation plan . The 16 I I 761 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 residential roads are usually just to serve the lots and homes on the road . The road is not designated as a collector road or anything like that ; it' s just a residential road . There is a need for a connector road on West Hill in the area of Linderman Creek and the Perry Farm subdivisions . Councilman Burbank asked what the associated costs were of accepting a road . Mr. Walker explained generally the developers build the road . He was unsure of the per mile maintenance costs . The Town has to anticipate for every mile of road , $4000 to $ 5000 should be budgeted for maintenance . A road costs about $200 per foot to build and probably about $ 100 per foot for reconstruction after 20 years . The size of the road depends on the costs . Supervisor Valentino stated that the Town has not experienced a lot of tax revenue because of new home buildings . TB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 192: ACCEPTANCE OF A PORTION OF SOUTHWOODS DRIVE AND ALL OF OLD GORGE ROAD IN THE SOUTHWOODS SUBDIVISION, FOR DEDICATION AS TOWN OF ITHACA ROADWAYS. WHEREAS, Southwoods Association is offering for dedication to the Town of Ithaca for highway and utility purposes approximately 600 lineal feet of property 60 feet wide shown as the section of Southwoods Drive running south from the intersection with Old Gorge Road and approximately 1300 lineal feet of property 60 feet wide shown as Old Gorge Road on the Subdivision Map entitled "Final Plat of Southwoods Subdivision, p/o Military Lot 99, Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York, prepared by George Schlecht, L . S. , Sheet 1 of 2 dated 3-29- 1989 '; and WHEREAS, Southwoods Association has constructed the roads and storm water facilities to Town of Ithaca specifications with the exception of the final asphalt top which will be completed at a future date approved by the Highway Superintendent after major heavy construction traffic for the subdivision has ended, and WHEREAS, Southwoods Association has deposited with the Town of Ithaca $45, 000 to be held in escrow until completion of the pavement, such amount being sufficient for the Town of Ithaca to complete the top pavement in the event that Southwoods defaults, and WHEREAS, the Town Superintendent of Highways has advised the Town Board that said road has been constructed in accordance with the Town of Ithaca Highway specifications, and WHEREAS, the Town Superintendent of Highways has recommended the acceptance of said parcel for dedication for highway and utility purposes, NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby accepts as public roadway 600 lineal feet of property 60 feet wide of Southwoods Drive and approximately 17 26 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 l 1300 lineal feet of property 60 feet wide of Old Gorge Road subject to the following conditions: (a) Approval of title to said road by the Attorney for the Town. I, (b) Approval of an agreement on the handling of the $45, 000 delivered in escrow to the satisfaction of the Town Supervisor, Town Engineer, and Town Highway Superintendent upon the advice of the Attorney for the Town . i MOVED: Councilwoman Gittelman SECONDED: Councilman Lesser VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. Supervisor Valentino felt that the board needed to add dealing with stormwater management to their to do list . Mr. Walker stated that it was on the agenda for the Public Works Committee . Mr. Kanter added it was on the agenda for Codes and Ordinances Committee as well . Agenda Item No . 17 - Consider resolution supporting the adoption of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan by the Tompkins County Legislature (Attachment #8 — Letter from Bill Lesser, letter from Ed Marx, Comprehensive Plan , Memo from J . Kanter Supervisor Valentino — Okay . We 've all had it for our reading pleasure and I thought Bill ' s memo on some of the little bit of shortfalls in the Comprehensive Plan were excellent. And you went over and read this to the . . . ? Councilman Lesser — I did . Supervisor Valentino — He went over and read that to the County . I thought that the Y g Y were very well thought out, important . . . Councilwoman Grigorov — Did you get a reaction ? Councilman Lesser — Well , they had a number of other. . . ( not audible) . Councilwoman Gittelman — Is this an appropriate place for me to repeat my concern ? Supervisor Valentino — Yeah . I was going to say two things , Sandy . I know your concern came up that we might want to add to the resolution and I was thinking also to give more emphasis to Bill ' s memo that we reference that in our resolution and have it as an attachment . i 18 b December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 Councilwoman Grigorov — I think there could be a lot more examples of what he says in there . I kind of hesitate to endorse it when it has . . . I mean sometimes it postulates something , which I would really have doubts about . Councilman Engman — Well , I noticed that Ed Marx is here if people have questions . Councilwoman Grigorov — It's not exactly a question . Councilman Engman - . . . he could perhaps respond to concerns . Supervisor Valentino — Do you want to come up , Ed ? Everybody knows Ed Marx , I think , from our Board and okay , did you want to . . . Councilwoman Grigorov — I wasn 't really ready to enumerate them all . It' s just that . . . Councilman Stein — Did you read the letter . . . ? Ed Marx, Tompkins County Planning Yes . I listened to the comments made at the . . . Councilman Lesser — Indeed it was nice for you to call me this afternoon . Mr. Marx — I think I would just like to . . . I can respond to any specific questions anyone would like to raise , obviously , but in a general sense , I think Bill picked up on something that was definitely true that this plan does not attempt to go into the great detail and that was an intentional decision from the very beginning of the plan development process . We started out from the very beginning that we would try to develop a plan that was broad in scope , demotic in the way it was presented , and hopefully very accessible to the average reader in the public. We started out hoping the plan would be 50 pages . We ended up with 68 pages of text. We wanted to be fairly concise and not to restate what exists in many other planning documents , which we reference here . So we were not able to clearly elaborate upon all of the relationships and interrelationships , but I think we did a very good job of laying out the broad themes and issues facing the community that came up in our public participation process and also included in here the important things , which is , are the principles and policies that county government would use to make its decision and be a guiding document for them . The other point is that we were very sensitive to the fact that the details in many of these instances are up to the communities . Many people have reminded us repeatedly that the role in land use regulation is a town , village and city role and we obviously acknowledge that throughout the plan and I think we would be criticized and rightly so if we tried to lay out in too much detail or specificity what should be happening in the future . Instead , we try to develop a plan that provides a framework for working together and lays out broad themes , principles and policies and specific actions we have identified through our discussions with municipalities and with the public that we can start on , but they are not the only ones . They are the ones that are ready to go so to speak right now in the next few years . So we appreciate the comments that Bill made and they are really on target in the sense of what is lacking , but some of it is lacking because we didn 't feel it was appropriate to the type of plan 19 i 264 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 we were trying to develop . We do feel very strongly in terms of the issues the plan is trying to address , it does look at interrelationships . It does accurately describe the main issues facing the community over the next period of years and that is what we tried to do . Supervisor Valentino — Herb and then Sandy . Councilman Engman — I wanted to mention that I thought Bill was also right on target when he said in some respects the report reads a little bit like it was written by a committee . And think that is true and I think the Planning Advisory Board , on which I sit , will have to take some of the blame for that because we asked for a lot of changes as the plan was written and rewritten and indeed I think it did come out sounding like a committee because it was basically a committee along with the staff that helped development . So I think its not the planning department that constructed it in that way . It was a committee , the Planning Advisory Board , did a lot of that. So I think that should be acknowledged . Supervisor Valentino — Sandy? Councilwoman Gittelman — I ' m on the Public Health Care Commission for Quality and also the Advisory Committee and I was very disappointed when I read this because I had just come from a meeting on both of those committees in which it is clear that monies for the public health department have decreased in the last few years . It held steady this year, but over the years it has decreased during which time the responsibilities have increased for things like bioterrorism response , etc . And although it says here that we want to create and implement policies that safeguard the health , safety and rights of our residents and employees and residents of all ages are to be valued and included and the vulnerable and cared for that is has become very clear to me over the years that I have been on these two committees that the number of people that are not that the organization has not been able to respond to I think they call it not- NTUC , they were not able to go out and give the care that was requested because they do not have enough staff and they don 't have money to hire more staff. All the staff positions that they currently have are filled , but that is because there are less staff positions now then there were when I became a member of this commission . So I am hoping that next year the county will give a little more attention to the health needs of the community . We have an increasingly aging population and as the people age more and more care is needed . I am not talking about medical care , physicians , but home care to help people to stay out of hospitals , allow them to be discharged in a safe way where nurses . . . county nurses can attend to wounds etc and health aides can go and care for the things they can 't do themselves can be taken care of in a way that safeguards the health and values the residents . So I would really like to request that and I am perfectly happy at some point to write an addendum or a letter separately to go with whatever we say about how we feel here , if other people are in agreement with what I am saying . Otherwise I will just do it as an individual . Mr. Marx — I think it is important to note that this county comprehensive plan is focused on looking at the long range and physical development of the community . It explicitly does not try to be a plan for the delivery of health and human services by the county . There are other planning processes that deal with that . There are a number of issues that we don 't try to deal with . It' s not a plan for county government even though the vision statement and the mission statement that are in the back do include those things . This plan is a plan looking at the 20 265 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 development of the community and it does not try to address the health , the human services , the public safety and the public justice areas of county government because we believe those are appropriately planned through other planning processes that those entities deal with . Councilwoman Gittelman — It is the county that gives money to the county health . Mr. Marx — Absolutely. It is , but this plan does not deal with how the county allocates resources across all of county government. It doesn 't attempt to do that. Councilman Stein — I didn 't read this carefully , I skimmed through it to be honest, but I read Bill ' s letter carefully and I can see that there ' s a limitation . . . that you are limited from the point of view of the county where there is a limitation on resources , which . . . it seems to become less and less all the time the amount of disposable resources you have to attack problems that you are not mandated to do . Effectively you are also hemmed in from the other side by the fact that the county government doesn 't have the responsibility for all the decisions that are made in the county and I appreciate that and I understand that, but in the area that you have chosen namely the strong community , Bill has a . . . feels that it has failed in some sense in that you haven 't really defined what you mean by building a strong community . To me that seemed to be the most cogent rejection that he made . In the area that you have defined for yourself, according to his critique of it, that you don 't really have a complete vision of what it is that would make a strong community . Is that correct, Bill ? Did I interpret your . . . ? Councilman Lesser — Yes . Absolutely . Mr. Marx — This is probably one of those areas where we were most sensitive about not going into the area that is really a town , village and city responsibility. We tried to focus on a few broad things and one of them is the focus on the pedestrian , not just because its . . . YOU know, walking is a positive thing to encourage in a community , but because when you focus at the pedestrian scale , you accomplish many other things in the built environment that make for strong communities . If you read on page 47 of the plan , the section Return to Aesthetics and Community Identity , that talks about many other issues besides walking and sidewalks and how these things kind of relate to one another, but it is also true or at least it is widely believed by many planners across the country that the over emphasis on the automobile has probably been the detriment to communities over the last half century and that their focus on automobile facilities to the exclusion on many cases of facilities for other modes of transportation has really undermined our quality of community life . And that is what this section of the plan really tries to deal with is that whole concept and the fact that even though you accommodate the automobile and you need to do that , no one is saying we shouldn 't and provide adequate facilities , when you keep in mind the pedestrian individual as you design buildings , street scapes , communities , public spaces , you do build what we consider stronger communities by doing that, by taking that perspective and that is what this section really tries to get at . It may or may not succeed totally , and I agree , I mean we talked about it at staff level today and we said , yeah , maybe this could have been organized or written a little bit more clearly to state that, but I think if you read it and you read the principles and the policies that go with this section which are really the important, meat of the plan are the policies that would guide decisions and guide our work with other entities that it is much broader than just 21 i 26 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 looking at walkability and pedestrian access throughout the community . So we are going to try to make some tweaks to this to try to make . . . to bring greater clarity to it where we can , but I think if as you review this you think of what do the principles say , what do the policies say . Then that' s the really most important thing . Again , we have received a number of comments , but over this entire process or over two years of public input we received many, many , many more comments saying they like the way this plan was written . That it is accessible to average people . That it does paint broad themes in ways people can understand them and it is a document around which people can agree to work together to advance many issues of concern to the community in general . So I appreciate the comments and concerns , but I also think that there ' s many positives to the way this document is put together. Councilwoman Grigorov — I think it is a very good thing to be doing and its approach is very good . The problem is it is a big pain to have people going through and nitpicking about words and such and I noticed from our comprehensive plan it attains some kind of holy writ status once its passed and people will go back to it and say but, and they use it to bolster their arguments and it maybe just something that was in there because of compromise , but I think it is important to be pretty exact and not put in little remarks that somebody happened to , which maybe a majority agreed with at the time , but its not exactly of a level of importance or accuracy. Mr. Marx — Again , I think the principles and policies are what is in the plan that will guide decision making so and that' s going to be clear in the resolution that the county legislature considers . The actions are going to be things we undertake to work with others on , but those are short-term in nature and they don 't include everything by any means that is possible in the future and they may not all be successful . I think we acknowledge that, but they do reflect again much discussion throughout this community over really like four years starting with the vital communities initiative right through the two-year county comprehensive planning process and these have been policies and have been fairly consistent through that time . They have changed somewhat , but we have had over 500 comments just in this comprehensive planning process and before that a large amount of community input as well and we believe the policy statement is fairly reflect the opinion and wishes of most people that participated in this process . i Councilwoman Grigorov — Is that in the appendix that is mentioned here? An appendix of comments from citizens ? Mr. Marx — The comments , if you ' ll notice on the table of contents we do have a summary in an appendix. i i Councilwoman Grigorov — Probably separately that summarizes most of the . . . Mr. Marx — Right. Yes . We do have a written summary of all of the public comments received . i Supervisor Valentino — I think Herb was next and then Sandy . I 22 267 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 Councilman Engman — I wanted to mention that I have been involved with quite a number of the county level of initiatives over the past 25 years including working on them when I was in other towns . I think this document captures a lot of those plans and that work very nicely and there has been a huge emphasis in this county trying to find out what people want in their communities . It mentions in here . . . ( not audible) development and the potentials for development scenarios and so forth and that has been a long time coming . In fact , it goes back a decade or two decades . But overall , I think this is a magnificent plan . I was very , very pleased with it and have had a chance to review it on the Environmental Management Council as well as the Planning Development Board . So I want to be enthusiastic in my saying that I think yes there were some things that other people put in . Some people thought the cultural aspects should have been much stronger. Some wanted an energy policy section . Some wanted more emphasis on air quality . So there are sorts of other possibilities , but I think what was chosen was well chosen and I think it is a very workable and manageable document and I would certainly urge our acceptance and recommendation to the county board that they accept it. Supervisor Valentino — Sandy , I think you were next and then Bill . Councilwoman Gittelman — I just want to go back to what I said since you are telling me that is not the purpose of this statement . I would like to know where in the county I can address my issue . Mr. Marx — The most appropriate place would be at the Human Services Committee of the Legislature that has oversight of all the health department programs . Councilman Lesser — I just wanted to say that I think Cali picked up on this that what I was attempting to do in the details of my statement was really providing samples for the major point and my major concern about document and not the intent and not the role it can play. Its just that for many people , picking up a plan that says Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan , they are going to presume that it is comprehensive in everyday use of the term comprehensive and if something is stated in a comprehensive plan , there is going to be a group of people who are going to be dead set to see that indeed we do that . Its telling us and indeed the situation is such that the document is not that and indeed it cannot be that and that it is really a set of principles , a limited set of principles that indeed as it says in its introduction a set of principles that provides pretty much exclusively regards to the built environment. And so my major point was that I would feel much more comfortable about it if it was not presented as a comprehensive plan like rather a provision for the future or perhaps a statement of principles for the built environment or something or other that indicated to the people that it had a role , but the scope of it is much lesser than this other title implies . Given that, I think that there are just a couple of other small changes that I think could help people interpret it . So for example , the policies as its telling us this evening are really the way these principles to be implemented , but most people reading this at least on a fairly casual level , its not immediately clear. Its not immediately clear what the connection is between the principles of the plan , the policies and the action items . You tell us that the policies are the most significant function here . When I read through it, I wouldn 't know it . So if you can think of someway to highlight that and downplay the action items , even by adding things like in the short term and hence are not intended to be comprehensive . If I read that 23 268 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting j 'Approved January 10, 2005 before each one I would have a better idea then at least the relationship between the policies and the actions . I Mr. Marx — And we are looking at language for something to that affect . But I would have to say that this plan exactly meets the definition of a county comprehensive plan state law. It' s as close as anything I have ever seen done by any county as to what the state defines as a county comprehensive plan . So I must say I firmly believe . . . it also fits with the American Institute of Certified Planners defined as a comprehensive plan . It can be a policy document. It doesn 't have to address every issue a community . . . and the state law is very clear on that. That a community should select from the issues listed in the state law those they think are most important to their community and include whatever materials they feel are appropriate to address those issues and everything that we have in here is among the issues listed in the state law for a county comprehensive plan that it may include . Councilman Lesser — And I guess I don 't see this as a legal matter. I see it as a matter of helping people in the community enhance our quality of life here and if indeed the title of it signifies more clearly to people what the role of it is , I think it would be better accepted and used more appropriately than if we . . . an attempt to imply that it is something that which it really isn 't to most people . Mr. Marx — Well , state law and our county charter provides that we shall a comprehensive plan . This is the one the county legislature agreed to the approach of doing this type of plan and so I don 't know that we can change that particular term . Councilwoman Grigorov — You legally have to have one eventually . Mr. Marx — By charter. Supervisor Valentino — Peter? Councilman Stein — Certainly this would not be the first time that New York State has made various governmental units use words that are interpreted wrongly by a lot of people . I think that Bill ' s objection that many people might think of a comprehensive plan as different than New York State defines a comprehensive plan and perhaps you can get around that by not changing the title , but introducing language when you release it afterwards saying exactly what it is and how it is to be used , what its goals are and so forth . It might help some of that . j Mr. Marx — And I think the resolution of the county legislature will do that to a large extent, but it' s a good point . i Supervisor Valentino — I ' ll recognize Will next . Councilman Burbank — Under town law, the town ' s plan is basically the reference point for zoning decisions . What is the function of a county plan ? Mr. Marx — It is basically , state law states that the county comprehensive plans are valuable as documents that can help coordinate regionally issues that extend beyond any single municipals jurisdiction . It lists a number of issues including housing , transportation , the 24 i 269 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 economy , things that we have addressed in here as the types of issues that might be , can be included but you can include any or all of those as appropriate . Some plans in some communities would include a lot on other infrastructure if you had a county level of involvement like in Onondaga County , their plan is almost exclusively a water and sewer infrastructure plan because it is done at the county level there . That would not be appropriate in Tompkins County where those issues are not really handled on a county level or really necessarily in the purview of county government as much as the pattern that has developed here where it has been done intermunicipally even though we reference those things . So I think each county plan needs to reflect the realities of the issues in the community and the state law is very permissive in that regard , just as it is with town plans quite frankly . Many town plans deal with nothing but land use even though comprehensive plans at the town level may also deal with all of these things and they are called comprehensive plans . So I think maybe it is an anomaly of state law in New York as to what the terms are and what the meanings should be , but I think we do want to be clear that we are trying to develop a plan as defined in state law and as required in our county charter. Those are the terms used . So think we have tried to explain what the plan is as best we can in the introduction of the document and we will also do that in the resolution of the county legislature as to its intent. Councilman Burbank — Just a comment. I want to thank Bill for his careful read of that and you certainly got me thinking . Certainly community includes many elements that are beyond the transportation and the way people get about. That being said , I want to support . . . I think you have undertaken a very big task . You have tried to make it approachable and I certainly support your attempt to begin to think of alternatives to the automobile and seeing the destructive impact it has had on our communities and our county and get us thinking about a way that we work to begin to push that in a different direction . So for that part of it I hope it becomes a reality . Supervisor Valentino — Sandy is next . Councilwoman Gittelman — I fear I am a lone voice here , but I ' m going to say it again . I think that the work of the Tompkins County Public Health Unit does coordinate regional issues beyond municipal jurisdiction . . . (tape turned ) . . . of county planning . That is where the money comes from for those issues and if it is not going to be treated in this particular kind of a plan for the future , then I think it needs to also stated what this is not for so that there is a place beyond just one small committee , which obviously does not have a lot of clout , for the people who are interested in these issues to address . . . a place where we can address those issues . Mr. Marx — Well , , . Councilwoman Gittelman — And I ' m not saying what you have done here is not good . What you have done here is good . I feel that this is a lack . Mr. Marx — And in the scheme of county government , planning is a fairly . . . I mean planning for development and the physical element of the community budgetary wise is miniscule . So there is so much else to county government and its budget and its role and most of those things are quite frankly strongly dictated by New York State as to what we have to do . Most of what we provide are mandates , are things mandated by the state . County governments are different . In many cases it is simply an arm of state government basically that has a 25 7 i 21 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 mandate to provide services , to raise the revenues necessary to do it and we are told exactly what we have to do . We have certainly some discretion in many of those areas , but the plan is no way an attempt to be a plan for everything the county government does . I just cannot state that strongly or clearly enough . It is trying to look at those issues that affect the regional development of the community that relate to those issues that are commonly part of the comprehensive planning efforts . The ones that we focus on largely are the ones that most plans do ; transportation , housing , the economy, the environment , rural land uses , such as agriculture and forestry . Those are the things the plan uses as broad themes . We also based on a lot of the information that we got on the vital communities initiative brought in the issues of strong communities and centers of development . Those are the things that were brought up time and time again by the community, as something they thought should be included in any regional look at development in Tompkins County . So we did it, but I think we did it in a way that was very clearly sensitive to the roles of county government versus local municipal government . I know Jon knows that at every step of the way we went the to Municipal Planning Coalition and reviewed what we were doing and what issues we would address , how we were going to address them , brought drafts and got comment back and we tried very hard to build a collaborative approach to developing this plan and more importantly to set the groundwork for a collaborative approach to working together to bring the issues this community thinks are important to . . . (inaudible) . . . in the direction we want them to go . I am sure we are not 100 % successful , no document is . My main pitch to any municipality on this would be it' s a statement by county government that we wish to work collaboratively with the city, town and village government with state and federal 1 agencies to do what we can on the county level to help advance a wide range of issues that affect everybody in this community and that we can play some role in , although not always the dominant role or the major role , but we can play some role in helping to achieve that . Supervisor Valentino — More questions ? Councilman Engman — Not a question , but I had forgotten to mention that I attended the Town of Ithaca Planning Board ' s discussion of this and recommendation and they were unanimous in recommending that indeed we should endorse the plan , but I got the impression of this considerable enthusiasm and they liked it a great deal . I don 't know if i Jonathan had a different impression . Mr. Kanter — Absolutely . I think you are exactly right . It was a pretty good lively discussion and got into some of these issues , although not to the extent on and some of the detail that Bill ' s memo did , but I think the general sense there was that this is a very difficult kind of a document to please everybody with so there are obviously a lot of compromises in these things and you could probably go on if you could spend two or three more years and change it entirely and still not have the document that everybody is going to be happy with . So you really have to stop somewhere , but I think the Planning Board was very pleased with this particular document that ended up . it Supervisor Valentino — Any other questions? Councilwoman Grigorov — I just wanted to ask . . . you said something that there was going to be some more work done on it. I 26 I I ? 71 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 Mr. Marx — We are looking to take all the public comments we have gotten at the public hearing and up to the public hearing and seeing where we can bring greater clarity. I think a lot of the comments were good , and most of Bill ' s were along those lines as well , especially the ones you made here tonight . How can we make something that we thought . . . you know, we have been working on this two , three years and things that seem obvious to us aren 't going to be obvious to everybody . So where we can bring greater clarity , correct omissions , clear what we think are accurately described as clear omission or inaccuracies if there is something that has been brought to our attention , we will be making some specific recommendations , they will be limited , but they will be specific . That the plan that is adopted by the legislature includes some changes to address as many of those things as we can to bring greater clarity to what the intent of the plan is and to the accuracy of what' s the information in the plan . So we will be doing that and there will probably be a dozen or so specific changes that will go with this when the legislature proposes adoption . Of course , the legislators may make their own suggestions or changes . Councilwoman Grigorov — So we are endorsing something that will be changed . Mr. Marx — None of the policies are being proposed to be changed . None of the principles are proposing to be changed and none of the actions . Its really more the description of what those things mean in a few places in the text where people have brought out things that are unclear or perhaps could be read as being inaccurate . We are going to try to make changes to improve those things , but they will not change the policies , principles or actions , which are the main meat of the plan . Supervisor Valentino — What do you see as your next step once this gets . , . let me just say a little more . If I look at the Town of Ithaca ' s comprehensive plan , for example , when I go to its like okay , we have an issue where somebody's raised something , lets go back and see what guidance our comprehensive plan gave us to deal with that particular issue . And when I look through this , so much of what is dealt with here is really not a primary role that the county has . The county doesn 't involve itself in recreation . You talk about the lakeshore and like that . It doesn 't have any parks . It doesn 't have , as you said , all the land use issues and planning issues and affordable housing issues and a great deal of the things that are outlined in here are really and even the impact of automobiles has much more to do with the towns , the villages and the city than it does for the county. The county' s role is , as you said , to help implement , help them find ways to do things and like that . But I can 't say that if I ' m looking at the impact of automobiles , for example , just exactly what guidance the county gives about that. Your action items are very , very extensive . There is going to have to be an awful lot of groups of people involved to in trying to get any of those to come together. Mr. Marx — There absolutely are and we have for every action , if you look on pages 57-60 or so , every action item has an agency that has agreed , in many cases the county , but not in every case by any means , that has agreed to take primary responsibility for trying to move this action forward . It doesn 't mean that any of them will be done in isolation . I think in every case , I think almost every single action will take multiple parties working together, which is the whole purpose of this plan to bring together multiple parties to address issues that face the community . But we are committed over the next three to five years to initiating those actions where the county is listed as a principle agency and other departments at the county 27 27 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Mecting Approved January 10, 2005 j in addition to the planning department have agreed to take that role on . In many cases , the work is work that has to be done by other entities such as the Ithaca Tompkins County j Transportation Council , Tompkins County Area Development in the areas of transportation and economic development . We have other partners , the Chamber of Commerce on some things , Cooperative Extension on some things , Better Housing for Tompkins County , so there is going to be certainly a cooperative and collaborative effort is the only way this is going to work . And we clearly hope to continue right straight through with our work with the municipal planning coalition . I think it is evolving that way already in some of our discussions that we are having there where there 's issues brought up by the coalition , well how can we work together to help address some of these things . But we are clearly committed to using this as a guide for the work that the county does in these areas and keep our focus on these items that are of more regional import and work closely with municipalities . That is our intent . That this would be a framework. The way I totally think of this plan is as a framework for collaborative efforts between county , municipal , state and federal agency and the private sector. That is the only way it' s going to work . Supervisor Valentino — So if I look at page 57 through there , these agencies have already committed to take on these . . . Mr. Marx — Every single one has written a letter signed by thE.1 chief authorized official of that agency to play that role . Yes . i Mr. Kanter — In the transportation section , one thing to note is that the county comprehensive plan was done parallel to the transportation council ' s lone- range plan update , which is actually coming to the joint meeting of the planning and policy committees tomorrow afternoon . So in that particular section , almost all of these local agency actions are the ITCTC , the park and ride subcommittee report and other things like that are on -going through that. So in particular in the transportation options , those are things that the transportation council will be working on over the upcoming years . One thing I mentioned at the Planning Board meeting in regards to affordable housing , this might be an example of something you were bringing up , Cathy, was that I kind of relayed the message that affordable housing is a very important issue here in the Town of Ithaca and we would be hopeful that the county plan would actually result in some actions in the area of affordable housing and the top of their priority list at the top of page 57 is basically to conduct a 3 to 5 year housing affordability needs assessment for the county , which I think would be critical for us to have that information to do some of the things that we started talking about . Although it is not a mandated county function , it is something that we can look to the county for providing that kind of technical assistance to us . So it works that way also , I think . Supervisor Valentino — Wouldn 't Tompkins County Area Development be included in some . . . �I don 't see them listed anywhere here , but I would think they would be . . . Mr. Marx — Yeah . They are on page . . . now again , we only list usually one sometimes two agencies as principle local agency . It doesn 't mean that they are the only agencies to be involved . We tried to focus on the one that would take the lead responsibility , but that is a good example , Jonathan . Some of these things where the actions seem less than 28 273 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 comprehensive we tried not to go out in any way and try to speak for any other entity in terms of what their role might be . And so the actions sometimes seem somewhat limited given the broad nature of the issue , but they are ones that we think the county can play a role in . So that also may explain some of the areas where there may not seem to be as much emphasis on actions as others might think as appropriate . Well , it is because local municipalities are doing it and it is their responsibility to do it in those cases . Supervisor Valentino — We better soon think about moving on unless people have some more things . I mean it is a big . . . well , you know, this is something that the county has needed to do for a long time and I think we need to commend the people that spent so much time on it . think you have heard us say some of the things that we think are some of the weaknesses with it and we hope that you are going to take them back and take them seriously and we see some of the results of that . Mr. Marx — We will definitely do that and we will look forward , I hope , to working closely with the Town of Ithaca and other municipalities on issues of mutual concern . Councilwoman Grigorov — You start out by talking about these marvelous ideal communities that we have all experienced . I can 't even think of one . Are there such places or is this kind of an ideal ? I can imagine that there is an ideal to strive for, but I haven 't ever seen a community that answers the description . Mr. Marx — I think people think of places they have visited that have characteristics . Now if you live there you would know maybe about the things that don 't work , but it is , I think , again looking at . . . its probably more of an issue of picking from some good examples . We do talk throughout here of looking for good models and I think we will be able to find those from some other communities , but we are not doing so bad ourselves . Councilwoman Grigorov — Yeah , that' s what I think . Supervisor Valentino — Okay . So are we ready now to look at this resolution and see if we are willing to take a vote on this? Do we have any changes or amendments that we would like to make to this? Councilman Stein — We should move it first. Can I move it? Supervisor Valentino — Yes . Councilman Burbank — I ' ll second . Councilwoman Grigorov — I wonder if you really need to say amply represented . Does that word belong there , really? Mr. Kanter — You don 't have to say that . Councilwoman Grigorov — I think represented is enough . Supervisor Valentino — Yeah . Why don 't we just say represented ? 29 274 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 Mr. Kanter — I was going to suggest in the second whereas , the Planning Board actually made this change at Mr. Barney's suggestion , should say , "whereas this board understands that" the draft comprehensive plan was presented at 17 community groups . Because we are not the ones that held the meetings , but we have been told by the county that that was the case . j Supervisor Valentino — Okay . Any other suggestions? Councilwoman Gittelman — Well . . . ( not audible) . . . support the adoption with the addition of Bill ' s letter because I agree with the things that he has says and one of the things that I am i concerned with would fall under that if this were a plan for a future , but not a comprehensive plan . It wouldn 't feel so terrible to me that one of the most important parts of what a county can do is , given such . . . ( not audible) . . . so I would like to have Bill ' s letter as an addendum to the resolution . j Supervisor Valentino — So how would be the best way to do that? I think what you are saying I s that . . . well , he has presented it over there . I think there are two ways , if we just add it as an addendum , I guess , John Barney, help me with this . If we acid this as an addendum to this , this means that when we pass this resolution that we are also supporting that addendum ? i Attorney Barney — You could do it with an additional whereas that Councilperson Lesser has presented a memorandum to the board regarding the plan and this board concurs with much of what was said in that recommendation and that therefore be it resolved the Town of Ithaca supports the adoption of the draft subject to the comments made in the attached addendum . Councilman Engman — I ' m a little concerned about that because we didn 't debate Bill ' s letter. We debated the plan . I don 't agree with everything Bill said and it sounds like we would then agree . I would rather have it , perhaps , communicated to the county along with our resolution rather than as a part to the resolution . Supervisor Valentino — You wanted to say something ? Councilman Stein — Well , I was going to say much the same thing . I think that there is a strong recommendation that the name be changed and I heard why it shouldn 't be so I j cannot support that recommendation now. So . . . you heard the discussion around the room and I think if you simply sent that letter in that might do the . . . Supervisor Valentino — The letter is already part of the record , right? Councilwoman Grigorov — It is . Supervisor Valentino — Because he went over and read it. So his memo is already part of their official record and something for you to consider. Am I correct on that? Mr. Marx — Yes . It is part of the public hearing record . 30 I 275 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 Supervisor Valentino — And you have heard that there are parts of it that people support so that they don 't . . . and maybe what we can also do is . . : the copies of the minutes of this discussion part just forward on for your review, too , when you talk to the county . Mr. Marx — That would be fine . Supervisor Valentino — Would that be helpful ? Mr. Marx — Sure . Absolutely. Supervisor Valentino — Because I think people brought up a lot of good . . . Mr. Marx — Yes , it would be helpful . Supervisor Valentino — . . . a lot of very good things to take into consideration as you move forward . Like we said , this is like your first step . The next step is how to begin implementing some of these things . Mr. Marx — It would be wonderful to have your discussion in the record . Supervisor Valentino — Does that sound okay to people that we go forward with the resolution ? That' s part of the record already and we will send over for Ed ' s review and work as part of their record the minutes of our discussion . Does that sound good ? Okay . Attorney Barney — Do you want to add that as an additional resolved ? Supervisor Valentino — That we are sending over the minutes? We just will . So and he' s here . Mr. Kanter — Its in the minutes that we will do it . Its on our to do list . Supervisor Valentino — So with the changes that have been on that whereas about the 17 communities and taking out the word amply because I think represented is just fine are we now ready to move this resolution . Councilman Stein — Its been moved and seconded . Supervisor Valentino — Its been moved and seconded . It's not time to move the question ? Councilwoman Gittelman — Would there be any place in it where we say we are sending over the discussion for their consideration ? Supervisor Valentino — We' ll just send over the minutes with a letter. Right? Attorney Barney — Whatever you want to do . It' s your resolution . Supervisor Valentino — I think if we send the minutes with a cover letter that says this is our discussion . 31 i 27 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 I Councilman Burbank — We could send a cover letter transmitting the resolution and the minutes together saying this is the discussion that preceded the resolution and we would like it considered at the whole . Supervisor Valentino — That would work , I think . Okay . So are we ready to vote ? Board voted on motion . Councilman Lesser — I am going to abstain . Just to make a statement , I support the concept . understand this evening from Ed 's statements better the contexts of which this is being done , but it still seems to me that there is lot of nuance and language in the presentation , which is yet to be available to review and hence I am not really quite sure what I would be voting on in terms of the final document . So I am abstaining . Councilwoman Gittelman — And I am abstaining . Supervisor Valentino — And that will be included in the minutes that go over for them to consider because I think we do have some concerns even though we are voting . I TB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 193 : Support for Adoption of Tompkins Countv Comprehensive Plan by Tompkins County Legislature WHEREAS, the Tompkins County Planning Department, with the guidance, advice, and recommendation from the Tompkins County Planning Advisory Board, has developed a Draft Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan that addresses regional and inter-municipal issues that affect the daily lives of Tompkins County residents, such as housing, transportation, jobs, the environment, and neighborhoods and communities, and WHEREAS, this Board understands that the Draft Comprehensive Plan was presented at 17 community groups and advisory board meetings, and 14 open houses and public meetings in all municipalities in the county, for feedback and comments, and li WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca has been represented at the meetings of the Tompkins County Municipal Officials Association Planning Coalition, where there have been numerous discussions between county and municipal representatives regarding the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, including opportunities for feedback and comments on the Comprehensive Plan, and I j WHEREAS, the Tompkins County Legislature is scheduled to consider adoption of the County Comprehensive Plan on December 21 , 2004, and the Tompkins County Planning Department has requested that the Town of Ithaca Town Board consider passing a resolution supporting the adoption of the County Comprehensive Plan by the Tompkins County Legislature, and I WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the December 2004 Draft of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan at their meeting on December 7, 2004, and I 32 27 ? December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 recommends that the Town Board support the adoption of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan by the Tompkins County Legislature, now therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby supports the adoption of the December 2004 Draft of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan by the Tompkins County Legislature. MOVED: Councilman Stein SECONDED: Councilman Burbank VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, abstain; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, abstain; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. Agenda Item No . 18 - Discussion of Report from Conservation Board Regarding Deer Population (Attachment #9 —Deer Report) Supervisor Valentino thought the report was very interesting , but was not sure what should be done with it. She would like to spend time tracking down some of the reports and explained that Canada puts birth control in salt licks . Dye is used in the salt licks for tracking of the population . Councilman Stein was not clear if it could be done on a town level . They would have to convince someone on a broader scale to do it. Supervisor Valentino thanked the Conservation Board for their efforts in putting the report together. The Town Board really appreciated their efforts . Supervisor Valentino suggested that they put investigating population control methods of deer on the Board ' s to do list. Agenda Item No . 19 = Discussion of Association of Towns 2005 Resolutions (Attachment #10 — Association Resolutions) Supervisor Valentino informed the board she had decided to attend the meeting and pay her own way to go . She wondered if the Board would like to have a delegate attend to speak to some of the issues if they were willing to pay for her registration and the bus trip . Councilman Lesser thought that it would be great if Supervisor Valentino were willing to do that . Councilwoman Gittelman asked if they could talk about what Supervisor Valentino would be saying . Supervisor Valentino responded that the board would discuss the issues and she would be the Town delegate to speak on the issues at the meeting . With working with Don Barber, she wanted to have some impact on the committees and bring the resolutions forward . Councilman Engman thought it would be great to have Supervisor Valentino to attend the meeting and voice support or concern . He could not support resolution number six because it has protected a lot workers in the state and doing away with it would be going with the Wal- 33 i 21 .8 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 Mart model of taking advantage of people to build public facilities . It protects union workers and other workers by increasing the standards by which things are built . Councilwoman Grigorov was unsure why they linked WICKS and the prevailing wage . Supervisor Valentino agreed with Councilman Engman on the prevailing wage and did not see any reason why each community should not be paying on the contracted prevailing wages that need to done . Councilwoman Gittelman thought that they should go through all the resolutions and discuss how to vote . Councilwoman Grigorov asked if they could go through the resolutions in January. The Board agreed to review the resolutions and discuss them at their January meeting . Agenda Item No . 21 - Consider Approval of Commercial Insurance for 2005 (Attachment #11 — quotes) Mrs . Drake explained the annual quote is brought before the board annually for approval . She recommended the Town stay with Selective Insurance and reported that there were no changes in the policy coverage . The employee bonding resolution would be passed at the January Organizational meeting . TB RESOLUTION NO, 2004- 194: Approval of Commercial Insurance for 2005 WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca has had Ithaca Agency for their commercial liability insurance company since January 1 , 1999; and WHEREAS, the Human Resources Manager has reviewed the quotes submitted by Ithaca Agency for the Town 's insurance coverage for 2005; and WHEREAS, the Human Resources Manager recommends continuing with Selective Insurance as the insurance carrier for the Town 's Commercial Liability coverage and National Grange Mutual Insurance for the Crime coverage; i Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves Selective Insurance as the commercial insurance carrier for 2005 as quoted by Ithaca Agency at the quoted $ 110, 788. 50 plus an additional $2, 780 through National Grange Mutual Insurance for Crime (Bond) policy. MOVED: Councilwoman Grigorov SECONDED: Councilwoman Gittelman VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. i Agenda Item No . 22 - Consider Approval to Amend and Restate the Model Deferred Compensation Plan (Attachment #12 — Summary of Amendments 34 279 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 Mrs . Drake explained the Town ' s Deferred Comp Plan is based on the Model Plan so if changes are made on the state level , the Town needs to adopt the same plans . TB RESOLUTION NO. 2004= 195: Approval to Amend and Restate the Model Deferred Compensation Plan WHEREAS, the New York State Deferred Compensation Board (the "Board'), pursuant to Section 5 of the New York State Finance Law ("Section 5 ") and the Regulations of the New York State Deferred Compensation Board (the "Regulations "), has promulgated the Plan Document of the Deferred Compensation Plan for Employees of Town of Ithaca (the "Model Plan ") and offers the Model Plan for adoption by local employers; WHEREAS, Town of Ithaca, pursuant to Section 5 and the Regulations, has adopted and currently administers the Model Plan known as the Deferred Compensation Plan for Employees of Town of Ithaca; WHEREAS, effective May 21 , 2004, the Board amended the Model Plan to adopt provisions relating to • Authorization to reject a participant investment request if the request is contrary to the rules, regulations or prospectus of the affected investment fund. • Authorization to distribute assets that have been rolled into the plan from another qualified retirement plan in accordance with the distribution rules of the plan that previously held the assets. • Limitations on a participant's eligibility to obtain a loan in the event that the participant has previously defaulted on a loan. • Modifications related to comments provided by the Internal Revenue Service in response to the Board's request for a private letter ruling stating that the Model Plan document constitutes an "eligible deferred compensation plan. " • Technical amendments pertaining to plan loan rules and the status of plan loans and other withdrawals upon the death of a participant. WHEREAS, the Board has offered for adoption the amended and restated Model Plan to each Model Plan sponsored by a local employer in accordance with the Regulations; and WHEREAS, upon due deliberation, Town of Ithaca has concluded that it is prudent and appropriate to amend the Deferred Compensation Plan for Employees of Town of Ithaca by adopting the amended and restated Model Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Town of Ithaca hereby amends the Deferred Compensation Plan for Employees of Town of Ithaca effective December 13, 2004 by adopting the amended and restated Model Plan effective May 21 , 2004, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A . 35 i 28 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 MOVED: Councilman Lesser SECONDED: Councilman Engman VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. Agenda Item No . 23 - Consider Approval of Reclassification of Court Clerks Mrs . Drake explained Justice Klein requested that the Court Clerk position be reclassified . Councilman Stein noticed the court clerks received different pay before the classification , but would be receiving the same pay after the reclassification . He asked why that was . Mrs . Drake explained when the Town came into the classification system people already had established salaries and one of the court clerks' salaries was already higher than the classification she was in and they did not want to reduce her salary . She remained above the job rate . By moving them up one classification , it removes thE% situation . Supervisor Valentino added that it was clear when they went through the point system that they were under classified and were correct to bring it to her attention and thought it was good to have them at the same salary. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 196: Classification Change for Court Clerks I WHEREAS, the Town Board approved the remodeling of the Job Classification system in 2001 that by using several criteria allowed positions to be placed in a classification listing; and WHEREAS, Justice Klein during the budgeting process requested that the Town Supervisor and Human Resources Manager review the Court Clerk classification to determine if any changes in the classification is warranted, and WHEREAS, the Town Supervisor and Human Resources Manager have evaluated that the Court Clerk job description was given a lower score on the Internal Contacts and External Contacts criteria than it should currently have, which caused the position to be classified in the "L " classification rather than the "M" classification; and WHEREAS, the Town Supervisor and Human Resources Manager are recommending the said position to be reclassified to the "M" classification effective January 1 , 2005; and WHEREAS, the reclassification would result in changing the 2005 salary for Betty Poole, Court Clerk and Cindy Vicedomini, Court Clerk to $40, 774. 50; i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT i j RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the recommendation of the Town Supervisor and Human Resources Manager to change the classification for Court Clerks from "L " to "M" effective January 1 , 2005; and be it further 36 ? 81 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 RESOLVED, the Town Board approves increasing the 2005 salary for Betty Poole, Court Clerk and Cindy Vicedomini, Court Clerk to $40, 774. 50, and be it further RESOLVED, the Human Resources Manager is instructed to make the necessary changes to the Town 's Job Classification and Wage Scale to reflect the said reclassification. MOVED: Supervisor Valentino SECONDED: Councilman Stein VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, absent, Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. Agenda Item No . 24 - Consider Approval of Interim Justice Position Mrs . Drake explained the proposed resolution allows the Town to continue Justice Burin ' s appointment for the year 2005 . It needs to be done at this point because the Town is unsure what is going to happen with Justice Larkin . Justice Burin is acceptable to it , but has asked that he be paid $250 per week . Previously he was being paid $200 per week . Justice Burin agreed to a one-week notice termination . Councilman Burbank asked if there was a rationale for the $ 50 increase . Mrs . Drake responded that the Town was asking Justice Burin to take on more work and the caseload is more than what was anticipated for it to be . She thought it was honorable to give him a raise since he had been filling in for 13 months to date . Councilman Engman asked what Justice Larkin ' s term of office was . Mrs . Drake stated his term was up at the end of 2005 . Councilman Engman asked if someone was elected then the termination of the temporary justice would occur. Mrs . Drake explained that the person would not take office until January. Supervisor Valentino said she was grateful to have someone who was willing to fill in . TB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 197: Approval Appointment of Interim Justice. WHEREAS, Town Justice, Clarence Larkin has requested a medical leave of absence effective October 28, 2003 until further notice; and WHEREAS, A request has been made of the Town of Lansing to have William Burin, Justice of the Town of Lansing to serve as a temporary Justice for the Town of Ithaca from January 1 , 2005 through December 31, 2005, and WHEREAS, The Town of Ithaca agrees to pay William Burin the sum of $250. 00 per week during this interim basis; and WHEREAS, The Town has the ability to terminate the appointment with a one week notice; 37 li 282 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 I THEREFORE BE IT j RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the appointment of William Burin as Interim Justice for the Town of Ithaca from January 1 , 2005 through December 31 , 2005, conditional on the approval from the Town of Lansing Town Board; and be it further RESOLVED, the Town Board approves compensating Mr. Burin $250. 00 per week during this interim basis, with the ability to terminate the interim appointment with a one week notice to Justice Burin. MOVED: Supervisor Valentino SECONDED: Councilwoman Gittelman VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; j Councilman Stein, aye. i Agenda Item No . 25 - Acknowledge Delivery of Adopted 2005 Budget Supervisor Valentino stated that everyone has received the 2005 Town Budget . She offered to meet with anyone who wanted to discuss the budget further. Councilman Engman added that Mr. Carvill helped him a lot to understand the budget and he was very patient with him . Councilman Engman wanted to know how to read the quarterly report because he doesn 't r really know what they say . He would like to have a training session where interested board member could get a tutorial on how to do these things and what to look for. Supervisor Valentino said she and Al would be more than happy to put a session together for everyone j who was interested . Councilwoman Gittelman mentioned that it could be on the to do list . I Agenda Item No . 26 = Consider request of a four month extension for the Country Inn & Suites Hotel site plan review application to be governed by the provisions of the Town zoning ordinance in effect prior to April 1 , 2004 (Attachment #13 — Letter from Peter Trowbridge) Supervisor Valentino thought it would be a good idea for the Town Board to enter into executive session to receive legal advice before they discuss the issue in open session . I Supervisor Valentino moved that the board enter into executive session to ask for legal advice on the Country Inn and Hotel Suites application . Councilman Lesser seconded the motion . Mr. Kanter interjected that the applicant' s representatives were here and might want to give a presentation . Supervisor Valentino offered the applicants an opportunity to talk about their request . I 38 I 283 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 Annette Marsha-Sow, Trowbridge and Wolf Landscape Architects We are consultants working with Jagat Sharma and Jay Bramhandkar. Jagat is the architect and Jay is the developer for this project . We sent a letter; it came to our attention that this project . . . the consideration under the old zoning expires in December and we have worked through the process . This project actually started a well over a year ago when Jay and Jagat and the property owner began discussing development of the property. Our firm was contacted in October of last year and we were contacted to begin the site plan process and have been working on it since then . We submitted the project for sketch plan review in March , I believe it was March 2 of 2004 and then began working through the process with the . . . we had met with Town planning staff prior to that and then submitted the sketch proposal on March 2nd and then have been working through the process and during that time the zoning changed from the old zoning to the new zoning . The new zoning took effect in April , I believe , of 2004 . So we have been working since it was submitted and the project began earlier. We 've been working under the old zoning . We submitted the project working with the Planning Board . Each time that we met with them took back recommendations from them and incorporated them into our planning and site development proposal . We have reduced , in that process , we 've reduced the size of the hotel from , I believe that the original submission was a 69 room hotel with approximately 81 parking spaces and it has become now a 58 room hotel . It is not a two-story structure rather than a three-story structure . It's a 58-room hotel . We have been able to topographically grade the site so that it is lower on the site than by about 5 feet than it was previously . So the current proposal is for a 58-room hotel with about 61 parking spaces . It meets all of the requirements of the site planning process and the SEQR process was approved at the Planning Board . So I guess I should back up for a moment . We went through three sketch plan submissions working back and forth with the Planning Board . Incorporated all of their recommendations , submitted the project for preliminary site plan review and preliminary site plan approval was granted at the November 2nd meeting , I believe . The SEQR was approved at that time as well . The only thing that is remaining for this project before we go on to final site plan review is to get a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals . Under the old zoning , a hotel is approved for that site , but special approval is required for a hotel over 30 rooms and this is obviously over 30 rooms . We are on the agenda at the Zoning Board ' s meeting next week . I think it is next Monday or Tuesday . So we are asking for a four-month extension under the old zoning in order to be able to complete the final site plan process . Councilman Stein — What would happen . . . I ' m trying to understand the significance of this decision ? What is different for you if we vote yes or vote no? Ms . Marsha-Sow — My understanding is that under the new zoning a hotel would be allowed , however, my understanding is one of the biggest changes at least for our project under the new zoning would be the size of the building . The, new zoning would allow only a 7500 square foot building or a 10 , 000 square foot building with special approval . With our market study and all of the economic analysis that we have done . . . I believe that the first floor level is 39 284 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 around 20 , 000 square feet . I ' m not sure if that is inclusive of all of the rooms or if that' s just a footprint of the first floor plan . Mr. Kanter — I think from the documents we have been oreviewing the total square footage of the building is 39 , 996 in floor area . There is 20 , 652 square feet on the first floor and 19 , 314 on the second floor. Councilman Stein — So under the new zoning the project is completely not feasible , is that right? j Mr. Kanter — In this current form . Attorney Barney — What is feasible . . . that is marketing . You could apply for a variance and if a variance were granted they would be able to do the project under the new ordinance , a variance allowing construction of a larger than permitted . Councilman Stein — So it doesn 't matter then , right? If the Board of Zoning Appeals wants to give the variance , in both cases they have to get a variance . Attorney Barney — In one case they have to get a special approval under the old ordinance . Under the new ordinance they have to give a variance . The criteria of which in both instances is roughly substantially similar. The variation , though , is a little bit different. You are going from 30 rooms to 58 rooms in one situation . The other you are going from 10 , 000 square feet to roughly 40 , 000 square feet . Councilman Stein — No . I can hear the differences , but it sounds to me like it doesn 't matter whether we pass it or we don 't pass it . That it is all up to the Board of Zoning Appeals . Mr. Kanter — I think the Zoning Board has to act using certain criteria and among those , John can correct me if I ' m wrong , is granting the minimal variance necessary under area variances , I believe , is one of the things they look at . So they may approve something , but it may not be a 40 , 000 square foot building . It might be a 20 , 000 square foot building . Councilman Engman — I was just trying to understand , this extension if granted would be until when ? Four months from when ? It never says . Ms . Marsha-Sow — My understanding was that it would be four months from this meeting . Attorney Barney — It would be . . . March 2 , 2004 1 think is the initial application submission . So it would be four months plus nine months , so until April 2 , 2005 . Supervisor Valentino — Are there other questions before we get legal advice ? Okay . Thank you . On motion by Supervisor Valentino , seconded by Councilman Stein , the Board moved into executive session at 8 : 58 p . m . for legal consult . 40 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 On motion by Supervisor Valentino , seconded by Councilman Lesser, the Board returned to regular session at 9 : 18 p . m . Councilwoman Grigorov noted that the Planning Board studied the project over many meetings and listened to many neighbors . The Planning Board passed the site plan and recommended the variance . Councilman Engman stated that the Planning Board wasn 't being asked to make the decision . Councilwoman Grigorov responded the board was being asked to extend the period of the old zoning . They weren 't being asked to make a decision on the merits of the project . Councilwoman Gittelman sensed that the Planning Board had given approval under the conditions under which the project was initiated . She felt the applicant have been responding in good faith and have made changes to the building to make it conform . The process has taken longer because of that and it is a legitimate reason to grandfather them in . Councilman Engman reiterated that the project could have been made more acceptable much quicker had there been willingness to make it a smaller project and the project would have gone through the process much faster and the extension would not be needed . He perceived there was plenty of time to do the project in the proper way and that was not done by the applicant. Councilwoman Grigorov added that the project might not have been economically viable and it is a consideration to look at. Supervisor Valentino had great faith in the Planning Board and Zoning Board in the way they conduct their business . They look thoroughly at all components of a project. She has not always agreed with their decisions , but she is impressed with their process and how thoroughly they research a project . She hasn 't seen anything to support changing their recommendation . Councilman Stein thought the Town changed the zoning on that site because the proposed building is not what the Town wanted in that area . There are exceptions made for transitional projects . The interest as a board was not to have this kind of construction on the site . He thought that it was known by the people who submitted the project . Considerable time could have been saved by meeting the objections of the Town and reducing the size of the project and that was not done . Supervisor Valentino countered that the Planning Board saw it as an acceptable project . Councilman Stein agreed that they did find it acceptable under the old zoning , but the time period of the old zoning had passed and he is not sure why one should make a greater exception . Councilwoman Gittelman felt that when there is a great change in zoning that there is almost always a transition period . She did not think four months was not too much transition time to ask for. Councilman Engman mentioned there was considerable debate within the Planning Board on the project. Mr. Kanter responded that the vote was 5 in favor, 1 against , and 1 absent . 41 i December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 Supervisor Valentino asked if the board was ready to move a resolution . Councilwoman Grigorov moved the resolution to extend the time and Councilwoman Gittelman seconded the motion . TB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 198: EXTENDING THE TIME FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE COUNTRY INN AND SUITES APPLICATIONS FOR SITE PLAN AND SUBDIVISION APPROVALS AND SPECIAL APPROVAL WHEREAS, the Town revised its Zoning Ordinance effective April 1 , 2004; and WHEREAS, the transition provisions of the Ordinance permitted applicants to proceed under the Ordinance as in effect prior to the revision provided the application was filed before the effective date and was diligently prosecuted to completion; and WHEREAS, the period for completion of such applications was limited to nine months from the date of the submission of the application unless the period were extended by the Town Board; and WHEREAS, an application for site plan approval, subdivision approval, and special approval for a Country Inn and Suites project to be constructed at the corner of West King Road and Danby Road on property owned by David Auble was submitted prior to the effective date of the Zoning Ordinance Revision but final decisions on the application have not yet been made; and I I WHEREAS, the applicant, Jay Bramhandkar (hereinafter the 'Applicant'), through his agent, Peter Trowbridge, has requested that, pursuant to Code of the Town of Ithaca §270- ; 245 C, the Town Board extend for up to an additional four months the time for the applicant to complete the approval processes, NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby finds as follows 1 . The Applicant filed his application for sketch plan review of a proposed subdivision and site plan for the Country Inn and Suites project on Danby Road prior to the effective date of the change in the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The Applicant submitted materials for sketch plan reviews on March 2, 2004, April 16, 2004, and June 21 , 2004. 3. During the sketch plan process, in response to comments from the Planning Board members and the public, the project was revised several times, principally to reduce the size of the project and to lower its apparent height. 4. The formal application for preliminary site plan approval and preliminary subdivision approval was submitted to the Town on September 17, 2004, and a public hearing was held by the Planning Board on October 19, 2004 . At that meeting there was not a full complement of Planning Board members present, 42 I i December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 and as a result the Applicant requested the vote on the application be deferred until a meeting when all board members would be present. 5. On November 2, 2004, the Planning Board granted preliminary site plan and preliminary subdivision approval and recommended to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the project be granted the requested special approval. The favorable recommendation of the Planning Board was required before the Zoning Board of Appeals could hear the matter. 6. The application for a special approval is scheduled for consideration by the Zoning Board of Appeals at its meeting on December 20, 2004. 7. In addition to the formal meetings with the Planning Board, during the approximately nine month period following submission of the initial application the Applicant and his consultants have met on numerous occasions with the Town Planning Staff, have revised the plans on multiple occasions, and have been steadily and diligently pursuing the application for the requisite approvals. 8. Prior to and during the nine months since the initial application was filed, the Applicant has retained and utilized, at considerable cost, the services of Jagat Sharma, Architect, Trowbridge and Wolf, LLP, Planners and Landscape Architects, and SRF & Associates, Traffic Engineering Consultants, among others. In addition, the Applicant himself and the owner of the property, David Auble, have invested considerable amounts of their own time and expertise to prosecuting the applications. 9. There would be a severe, adverse economic impact to the Applicant if he were not permitted to complete the application process, justifying the extension of up to four months of the time for the application process to be completed. THEREFORE, IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that, based upon the above findings and the circumstances here pertaining, the Applicant is granted an additional four months, up to and including April 1 , 2005, to complete the process for receiving final subdivision and site plan approval and special approval. MOVED: Councilwoman Grigorov SECONDED: Councilwoman Gittelman VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, nay, Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, nay; Councilman Stein, nay. Carried. Agenda Item No. 27 — Consent Agenda Minor corrections were made to the minutes . TB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 199: Consent Agenda Items. 43 i 288 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 BE IT RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the resolutions for Consent Agenda Items as presented. MOVED: Councilman Lesser SECONDED: Councilman Burbank VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 199a: Town Board Minutes of October 18th , November 4th, and November 15th, 2004 WHEREAS, the Town Clerk has presented the minutes for Town Board Meetings held on October 18th, November 4th, and November 15th, 2004 to the governing Town Board for their review and approval of filing; now therefore be it RESOLVED, the governing Town Board does hereby approve for filing the minutes for the meetings held on October 18th, November 4th, and November 15th, 2004 as presented with corrections at the December 13, 2004 board meeting. MOVED: Councilman Lesser SECONDED: Councilman Burbank VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. I TB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 199b : Town of Ithaca Abstract WHEREAS, the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for approval of payment; and WHEREAS, the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in total for the amounts indicated. VOUCHER NOS. 9514-9682 General Fund Townwide $ 135, 990. 33 General Fund Part Town $ 3, 3'94. 97 44 289 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 Highway Fund Part Town $ 19, 915. 97 Water Fund $ 58, 772. 09 Sewer Fund $ 17737, 03 Bostwick Rd Water Tank & Transmission Line $ 31370. 80 Coy Glen Pumpstation / Pipeline $ 2Y883. 41 Phase 11 South Hill Water Transmission $ 147, 530. 91 Risk Retention Fund $ 250. 00 Fire Protection Fund $ 324, 943. 17 Forest Home Lighting District $ 179. 08 Glenside Lighting District $ 62. 25 Renwick Heights Lighting District $ 86. 98 Eastwood Commons Lighting District $ 179. 20 Clover Lane Lighting District $ 20. 64 Winner's Circle Lighting District $ 60. 65 Burleigh Drive Lighting District $ 56. 38 West Haven Road Lighting District $ 237. 49 Coddington Road Lighting District $ 140. 26 Trust & Agency $ 2500. 00 TOTAL. $ 702, 311 . 61 MOVED: Councilman Lesser SECONDED: Councilman Burbank VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2004499c: Bolton Points Abstract. WHEREAS, the following numbered vouchers for the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission have been presented to the governing Town Board for approval of payment, and WHEREAS, the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers. Voucher Numbers: 644-646, 717- 723, 725- 783 Check Numbers: 7733- 7735, 7806- 7812, 7814- 7872 Operating Fund $ 265, 527. 57 1998 SCADA Capital Project $ 3, 127. 70 45 290 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 200 Bolton Road Project $ 6, 883. 67 2002 Office Space Addition $ 23, 556. 33 TOTAL $ 299. 095. 27 MOVED: Councilman Lesser SECONDED: Councilman Burbank VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 199d: Holiday Tree Pick Up WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Highway Department will be picking up holiday trees for the residents of the Town of Ithaca; now therefore be it RESOLVED, that on January 18, 2004, the Highway Department will pick up holiday trees for the residents of the Town of Ithaca . MOVED: Councilman Lesser SECONDED: Councilman Burbank VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 199e: Authorization for Attendin_g Credit Course — Network Design WHEREAS, the three credit hour class of Network Design, is being held at Tompkins Cortland Community College in Dryden, NY, from January 20 through May 13, 2005; and WHEREAS, attendance at the said program will benefit the Town of Ithaca by providing additional training to Lisa Carrier- Titti, Network/Records Specialist; Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby authorize Lisa Carrier- Titti, Network/Records Specialist, to attend the Network Design, is being held at Tompkins Cortland Community College in Dryden, NY, from January 20 through May 13, 2005; and be it further RESOLVED, the cost for tuition, books and travel are not to exceed $600. 00 and is to be expended from A 1680. 421 . 46 291 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 MOVED: Councilman Lesser SECONDED: Councilman Burbank VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. Agenda Item No . 28 — Report of Town Committees Transportation Committee Councilman Lesser noted that the County Highway Department is still waiting for approval from the State for the release of planning monies before they can hold the initial public hearing on the reconstruction of Coddington and Hanshaw Roads . It is unsure when that will occur. Mr. Kanter added that the project is part of Transportation Improvement (TIP) program , but it follows the federal funding and that is still in limbo . Gateway Trail Committee Councilman Burbank explained a subcommittee of the Gateway Trail Committee has been looking into the feasibility of constructing part of the Gateway Trail on both sides of the turquoise bridge entering the City of Ithaca from the south . They would like it done as a youth conservation project . Details need to be put together and the Youth Bureau is interested in making it work . Lake Source Cooling Supervisor Valentino explained the Town received the final bill from Benchmark and the bill exceeds what Cornell gave to the Town by $2 , 000 . She wanted to make sure that everyone wanted to move forward and pay the bill considering the Town was contemplating extending services with Benchmark . The Town has money available in the Planning Study account that can be used . Councilman Lesser thought the invoice should be paid because the work has been done and done well . The additional services should be looked at separately . Supervisor Valentino mentioned that people have suggested the Town approach Cornell about additional money because it has been good PR for them . Agenda Item No . 29 — Report of Town Officials (Attachment #14 — monthly reports) Director of Engineering Mr. Walker mentioned to the Board that they had a little trouble with the connection of new pipes and a pipe was blown . As a result, the Danby Road tank was down to about 7 feet of water and the Ithaca College tank had only about 8 feet of water in it . The Ridgecrest tank was in good shape . Ithaca College was being back fed by Ridgecrest , so the tank went from 38 feet to 26 feet. The Ithaca Fire Department provided a lot of support and kept things stabilized . The good news is that the capacity of the new transmission main is just over 1 , 000 gallons per minute compared to 500 gallons per minute and pressure was down 15 pounds . 47 292 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 Supervisor Valentino thanked the City Fire Department and Public Works Department for their help . She also thanked the Town crews that stepped in and took control to fix the problem . Director of Building and Zoning Councilman Burbank stated that there is a big , muddy mess on the west shore of Taughannock Boulevard . He wondered if adequate controls were being implemented . Mr. Frost responded a house is being put on the site and Dan was involved with it initially . Mr. Walker added the landowner thought he had permission to tear the hillside up without a building permit. He was informed that he was violating the earth/fill requirements . Silt control fence has been put up so it is not as bad as it was . Mr. Frost explained the project went before the Zoning Board and received approval . Many people have raised questions about the site , but he wasn 't in major violation of anything other than his techniques . Director of Planning Mr. Kanter pointed out that they do have a copy of the Town letter that went to DEC on the Lake Source Cooling Monitoring and Paul ' s report . In his report , Mr. Kanter mentioned that the historic resources inventory update is included in his report . They will be working with the Ms . Ebert to wrap up the project . The board discussed funding and moving forward with the project. Human Resources Mrs . Drake updated the board on the flexible spending program . Twenty-four employees have enrolled in the program . The Year End Luncheon will be Thursday , December 30 , 2004 at 1 : 00 p . m . at the Country Club of Ithaca . Agenda Item No . 30 — Review of Correspondence Councilman Lesser mentioned that Ray Terepka is a neighbor of his . Mr. Terepka and his wife make exceptional use of a significant amount of private land they own in the watershed . Mr. Terepka is also a physician involved in human and other health issues . Councilman Lesser endorses his application to the Conservation Board . Councilwoman Grigorov added that he has preserved his house in a historic manner and thought he would be a great Conservation Board member. To Do List Supervisor Valentino put down the deer population . She asked the board to let her know if they would like others added . EXECUTIVE SESSION Councilwoman Grigorov made a motion to entered into executive session to discuss personnel issues , seconded by Councilman Lesser. The board entered executive session at 9 : 55 p . m . On motion by Supervisor Valentino , seconded by Councilman Stein , the Board returned to regular session at 10 : 25 p . m . 48 2 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved January 10, 2005 Adiournment On motion by Councilman Stein the meeting was adjourned at 10 : 27 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Carrie Coat Whit ore Deputy Town Clerk 49 294 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I , Tee-Ann Hunter, being duly sworn , . say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County, New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, Ithaca Journal: ADVERTISEMENT : NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING : PROPOSED LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 271 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA AMENDING SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT #1 ALLOWING A SPA FACILITY AT LA TOURELLE Location of Sign Board Used for Posting : Town Clerk's Office 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Date of Posting : THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18 , 2004 Date of Publication : MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22 , 2004 Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Clerk, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 22nd day ,of November 2004 , i Notary Public CARRIE WHITMORE Notary Public, State of New York No , 01 WH6052877 Tioga County Commission Expires December 26, . l TOWN OF ITHACA NOTICE OF 1 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public Kearing'will be held before the Town Board' 6f -the •Town of Ithaca at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca; . New York, on the 13th , day of December,_ 2004; at 6:30 p.m . local I time'concerning a proposed local law amending Chapter I 271 -of the Code of the . Town - of Ithaca . Amendingg Special Land Use District- 1 . Allowing a Spa Facility at l Lo Tourelle. At that time the Town 1 Board will hear any person interested in such local law.. Copies of said local law are .1 available' for review at the I Town Clerk's Office at the above address during , nor- I mal business hours Monday I through Friday, 8:00 a .m. I to 4:00 P.M . . . Individuals with visual or I hearing impairments or oth- I er special needs will be pro- vided; with assistance as necessary; upon ' request. Persons desiring assistance must 'make a request to the Town Clerk not leis than 46 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Clerk November 18, 2004 l 11 /22/04 1 T =H. ;.: TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I , Tee-Ann Hunter, being duly sworn , say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County, New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, Ithaca Journal: ADVERTISEMENT : NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING : PROPOSED LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 221 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA REGULATING SIGNS CHANGING THE CLASSIFICATION OF EXEMPT POLITICAL SIGNS FROM TEMPORARY SIGNS TO PERMANENT SIGNS AND DEFINING POLITICAL POSTERS Location of Sign Board Used for Posting : Town Clerk' s Office 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Date of Posting : THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18 , 2004 Date of Publication : MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22 , 2004 ` ruts Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Clerk, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 22nd day .gff� November 2004 , _. w Lf i Notary Public CARRIE WHITMORE Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 WH6052877 Tioga County it Commission Expires December 26, U TOWN OF ITHACA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY, GIV- EN that a public hearing' will be held before the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on the 13th day of ' December, 2004, of 6: 15 p. m .: local time concerning a proposed local law to amend Chapter ' 221 of the ' Code of the Town of Ithaca regulatingg signs changing .the classiPF cation of exempt political signs from temporary signs to permanent signs and de- fining political posters., At that time the Town Board will hear any person interested in such local law. Copies of said local law are available for review at the Town ClerVs Office .at the above address during nor- mal business hours Monday through Friday, 8:00 'a.m. ro 4:00 p.m. Individuals with visual or hearing• impairments or oth- er special needs will be pro- vided .with assistance as .necessary; upon request. Persons ;'desiring assistance must make a request to the Town Clerk not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing . Tee-Ano Hunter, Towri:Clerk November 18, 2004 11 /22/O4 . `3k . i . TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN BOARD SIGWIN SHEET DATE : Monday , December 13 , 2004 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS / AFFILIATION vi 7 VIC 1'1�; �D e4 l---sue . ti E W- an 1 G s5e 14 t "' � S December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 1 Jar (�a•yi`-ly c Tioa�s ! .�',eo �r T *4[L e::: iEo . Awv .��eczes �IW6fl 114V46 T r7Ve Jo- #x ' 4 - I9/j�*4e.e k)IW6 o T/vZ 7 iA�o-141S 9,Of1eW-d%6X1C y 1&,,, ®W574 e4C,)r4X X7T Yo2 , ;&" IfD, ��a , ,cl�� •/zA L AA4 A40V V / !`%r1P /' / L'7/.v�'rr"i 6r "/ W I*41 Cv1Oa A47 A1o#.L /ms's A AdAlc - L!� 5 1 r K. 17' =v44 ,era« ,4,ub 724 e C,t,�AAei,41)74s A �OoeTodJ D�c A avytitver le47Z ) AA7 C y ; 1Z4C SL#41A C ,C �r,2�cia2 �ol6 %a 771e� 7�;fAC AA�ZT' /°� c44s5 A4) 16 L 11A1161W6 Xa-*O4 V_51R141r1k5 X 414. CW4A4 i7/6e,.s7 ,4oc,6Vc 7`Z /9;t e� pT fflo W Tf 49Z 7W G''DROeecT' rIH4C TO ,4 °644 ZZ /'111 Ao c e5 f t T T7f/S A/0 168o1151954014 eo ci�095 A.S /�4ex L A5 779i:� &o19oWs 7;V1A1A-11K6 XAJP- 70.E jo d 514 4 S . S aAC<n/� 4aAChW s9P OA,) irT 161110 43 y ZdaV r40 o, (9 AgAA r 41" 1 V& 13y TA(Z J'TT G'HAeG4rA1cy fY�,r,�ac ��arr— C3i�.eic� , ,s 7- Avr41�, %I .vz tis r#e Tow y4ay e4c f 2 r#e l7•441&4ledge 72Ut46e AeF�CC r JZv 1Q0ww vsovsX Akt velLy /s �CxPecrXP ors hD, )r7� . /4 M ir1l It ��gS D drW497AZOL) .890&.,5 4AJb 77 �6f . 2� G aT, S ,9 , SU /t �l7iTic�vvg► � !�®�< oga�re'41S /0/4/y 440 A4CPUA-Jr*4e11-rrr "t ekC4WY ,9sf4*aXl5•6v A Age* ct Q 8 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 2 1111 El ❑ 11 El 11 Town Assigned Project ID Number Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County; PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION ( To be comp leted by Applicant or Project Spor 1 . Applicant/Sponsor 2. Project Name Enactment of a Local Law Amending or the Town of Ithaca Town Board Code of the Town of Ithaca Regulating otgns to Change the Classification of Exempt Political Signs From Temporary Signs to Permanent Signs. 3. Precise location (street address, road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map:) Townwide . Tax Parcel Number: N/A 4. Is proposed action . NEW? EXPANSION? MODIFICATION/ALTERATION? X S. Describe project briefly : (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other relevant items) : Enactment of a local law amending Chapter 221 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca regulating signs to change the classification of exempt political signs from temporary signs to permanent signs . The amendment would also add a definition of "political poster" to include a sign which: (a) advertises a candidate or candidates for public elective offices, or a political party, or (b) expresses an opinion on, or urges a particular vote or action on, a public issue, or (c) conveys one ' s views on worship, ethics, philosophy of life or similar beliefs . (Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.) Amount of land affected : N/A (Townwide) itially (0-Syrs) Acres (6- 10yrs) (>10 yrs) Acres How is land zoned presently? N/A 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? Yes X NO If no, describe conflict briefly , 9. Will proposed action lead to a request for new : Public Road? YES NO X Public Water? YES NO X Public Sewer? YES NO X 10. What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Park/Forest/Open Space Other. Please Describe: (N/A) 11 . Does proposed action involve a permit, approval, or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal, State, Local?) YES NO X If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding: 12. Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval? YES NO If yes, list agency name and permit/approval. Also, state whether it will require modification. N/A I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/Sponsor Name (Print or Type) : Catherine Valentino Supervisor, Town of Ithaca Signature and Date : PART II = ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town ; Use attachments as necessar ) Does proposed action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.4 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES NO X If yes, coordinate the review process and use the full EAF. Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6 YES NO X If no, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency, if any. C. Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following. ( Answers may be handwritten, if legible) C1 . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production and disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly : None anticipated. C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources? Community or Neighborhood character? Explain briefly . None anticipated. The current law restricts the placement of political signs as temporary signs, limited for use to a period not exceeding 30 days . This has raised issues regarding individuals' constitutional rights of freedom of speech. The amendment would eliminate the temporary nature of political signs and allow them without time restriction. It is not anticipated that this change will significantly impact the way in which individuals post such signs . C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish, or wildlife species, significant habitats, unique natural area, wetlands, or Threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly : None anticipated. C4. The Town 's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly , None anticipated . C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly : None anticipated. C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-059 Explain briefly : None anticipated. C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy) Explain briefly : None anticipated. D. Is there, or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? YES NO X If yes, explain briefly : See Attached. E. Comments of staff X CB., other attached. (Check as applicable.) PART III = DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca) Instructions: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important, or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting(i.e. urban or rural) ; (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope, and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting material . Ensure that the explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately address. Check here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. X Check here if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on Attachments as necessary the reasons supporting this determination. Town of Ithaca Town Board / Name of Lead Agency Prep rer' s Signature(If different from Responsible Officer) Catherine Valentino Su ervisor tgmnature e & title of Responsible Officer In Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer V December 13 , 2004 DATE: of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Local Law Filing NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 41 STATE STREET, ALBANY, NY 12231 (Use this form to file a local law with the Secretary of State.) ATTACHMENT # 3 Text of law should be given as amended. Do not include matter being eliminated and do not use italics or underlining to indicate new matter. _• — of - - - - ITHACA � - - - - - - - CA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Town Local Law No. . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _l� _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ of the year 20. 04 Alocal law _ _ _ AMENDING _ CHAPTER QQjZ� qF �H TOWSTDF_ _ 1THACA Owerl ride) REGULATING - - SIGNS TO CHANGE THE _ CLASS IFICATIQN _ QT'_ _EXEMPT - POLITICAL SIGNS _ _FROM _ TEMPORA$Y __SICI-IS _ _T_9 _ _P.F,RMANENT _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - SIGNS - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - --- - - - ---- - -- - - - -- - -- - --- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - --- - - - - - - - - - Be it enacted by the . . . . .TOWN . BOARD_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . . _____ of the (Nmae oJLe6ulaeiue Body) Town of - - - -- - - - - - - - - -.THACA - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - as follows : See attached , 1 page (If additional space is needed , attach pages the same size as this sheet, and number each.) DOS -239 (Rev. 11/99) li � TOWN OF ITHACA LOCAL LAW NO , 10 OF THE YEAR 2004 A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 221 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA REGULATING SIGNS TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF EXEMPT POLITICAL SIGNS FROM TEMPORARY SIGNS TO PERMANENT SIGNS, Be it enacted by the Town Board of die Town of Idiaca as follows: Section 1 . Chapter 221 of the Town of Ithaca Code is amended as follows : § 221 -5 of said Chapter, entitled "Exempt Signs" , Subparagraph A, subdivision ( 1 ) dealingwidi permanent signs is amended by adding a new sub-subdivision (1) reading as follows : ( 12) Political posters not exceeding six square feet in size . In business and industrial zones, such signs may be up to 24 square feet in size . § 221 -5 of said Chapter, entitled "Exempt Signs" , Subparagraph A, subdivision (2) dealing wide temporary signs, is amended by deleting from sub-subdivision (e) die reference to "Political posters " so that said sub-subdivision reads as follows : (e) Not-for-profit promotional, private sales, or similar signs not exceeding six square feet in size . In business and industrial zones, such signs may be up to 24 square feet in size . § 221 47 of said Chapter, entitled "Definitions", is amended by adding die following definition after the definition of "PERSON " : POLITICAL POSTER - A sign which ( 1 ) advertises a candidate or candidates for public elective offices, or a political party, or (2) expresses an opinion on, or urges a particular vote or action on, a public issue , or (3) conveys one 's views on worship, etlhics, philosophy of life or similar beliefs. Political posters do not include signs Much promote for commercial purposes die purchase of specific products or services . Section 2. If any provision of dhis 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 upon its filing with die New York Secretary of State . 1 (Complete the certification in the paragraph that applies to the filing of this local law and strike out that which is not applicable.) 1 . (Final adoption by local legislative body only.) I hereby certify that the local law .annexed hereto, designated as local law No. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l0_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ of 20. 04_ of th ��• (Town) (#r�ge)-of - _ - - - - - _ _ — was duly passed by the �6wwnn 116' rd Dec . 13 -- - - - - on 20 -_Q4i n accordance with the applicable provisions of law. (Name of Legislative Body) 2. (Passage by local legislative body with approval, no disapproval or repassage after disapproval by the Elective Chief Executive Officer*.) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ .. . . . . of 20_ _ _ __ _ of the (County)(City)(Town)(Village) of _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ was duty passed by the - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , and was (approved)(not approved)(repassed after (Name of Legislative Body) disapproval) by the _ _ . . . . . . .... . . _ . . . . . . .. . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ - - - - - - - - _ and was deemed duly adopted on - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - 20_ _ _ _ (Elective Chief Executive Officer') in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. 3. (Final adoption by referendum .) 1 hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . .. . . . . . . . . . . __ of 20- _ _ _ _ _ of the (Cou nty)(Ci ty)(Town)(Vi 11 age) of - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - -- - - - - _ . . . . . . . . . . . .. . _ . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ __ _ . . . was duly passed by the - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - on - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 20- - - - , and was (approved)(not approved)(repassed after (Name of Legislative Body) disapproval) by the - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - on- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - 20_ - - _ , Such local law was submitted (Elective Chief Executive Officer*) to the people by reason of a (mandatory)(permissive) referendum, and received the affirmative vote of a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon at the (general)(special)(annual) election held on _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ 20 _ _ _ , in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. 4 . (Subject to permissive referendum and final adoption because no valid petition was filed requesting referendum .) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20_ _ _ _ _ _ of the (County)(City)(Town)(Village) of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - -- _ - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - was duly passed by the -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - on - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20_ _ _ _ , and was (approved)(not approved)(repassed after (Name of Legislative Body) disapproval) by the _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ on - - - - - - - - - - 20 _ _ _ Such local law was subject to (Elective Chief Executive Officer *) 1 permissive referendum and no valid petition requesting such referendum was tiled as of _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 20. _ _ _ in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. ' Elective Chief Executive Officer means or includes the chief executive officer of a county elected on a county . wide basis or, if there be none, the chairperson of the county legislative body, the mayor of a city or village, or the supervisor of a town where such officer is vested with the power to approve or veto local laws or ordinances. (2) 5. (City local law concerning Charter revision proposed by petition .) k) hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No . _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ of 20-. . . . . f the City of - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - having been submitted to referendum pursuant to the provisions of /section (36)(37) of the Municipal Home Rule Law, and having received the affirmative vote of a majority of the qualified electors of such city voting thereon at the (special)(general) election held on _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 20 - - - - , became operative . 6. (County local law concerning adoption of Charter.) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No- - - - - - -- - - - - - - _- _ __ _ . . . . . . . . . . . of 20. . . . . . of the County of _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State of New York, having been submitted to the electors at the General Election of November _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 20- - -- , pursuant to subdivisions 5 and 7 of section 33 of the Municipal Home Rule Law, and having received the affirmative vote of a majority of the qualified electors of the cit- ies of said county as a unit and a majority of the qualified electors of the towns of said county considered as a unit voting at said general election, became operative. (If any other authorized form of final adoption has been followed , please provide an appropriate certification.) I further certify that I have compared the preceding local law with the original on file in this office and that the same is a correct transcript therefrom and of the whole of such original local law, and was finally adopted in the manner in- dicated in paragraph- - _ _ _ _1_ _ _ _ , above. Town G&WIfto Clerk or officer designated by local legislative body (seal) Date : 4 - Zti ` W 0A (Certification to be executed by County Attorney, Corporation Counsel, Town Attorney, Village Attorney or other authorized attorney of locality.) STATE OF NEW YOE' Tf PKINS COUNTY OF I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing local la on fins the co ect text and that all proper proceedings have been had or taken for the enactment of the local law n e ereto. Signature Attorney for the Town Title -Gr of Ithaca Town Date : 1/21/05 (3) December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 4 Town Assigned Project ID Number Town of Ithaca Environmental Review f � 1 SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY ONLY RT 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) . Applicant/Sponsor 2. Project Name Local Law — Amending Chapter 271 of the Code of the Town of Town of Ithaca Town Board Ithaca to Allow a Spa Facility at La Tourelle 3. Precise location (street address, road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map: ) 1152 Danby Road, Ithaca, NY Tax Parcel Number: 36- 1 -4.2 4. Is proposed action: NEW? EXPANSION? MODIFICATION/ALTERATION? X (Amendment of Town Code) 5. Describe project briefly : (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other relevant items) : Enactment of a local law to amend Chapter 271 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca entitled "Zoning: Special Land Use Districts" to allow a spa facility at La Tourelle. The proposed amendment would allow the construction of an addition to the La Tourelle Country Inn, which would include 19 new rooms, a spa (as described further in the attachments), an elevator, and an exercise room. In particular, the spa facility is not currently allowed in Special Land Use District No. 1 , and would require the amendment of the Town Code. (See attached for details). (Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.) initially mount of land affected: The La Tourelle site is approximately 20 acres. (0-5yrs) +/- 20 Acres (6-10yrs) +/- 20 (>10 yrs) +/- 20 Acres ow is land zoned presently? Special Land Use District No. 1 (Now referred to as PDZ No . 1 ) lillill proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? NO X If no, describe conflict briefly : Addition of a spa requires amendment of PDZ No. 1 in the Code of the Town of a by the Town Board, proposed action lead to a request for new: Public Road? YES NO X Public Water? YES NO X Public Sewer? YES NO X 10. What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? Residential X Commercial X Industrial Agriculture Park/Forest/Open Space X Other Please Describe: 11. Does proposed action involve a permit, approval, or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal, State, Local?) YES X NO If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding: Site Plan Approval by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board (preliminary site plan approval and a recommendation to the Town Board on the amendment of the Town Code were approved by the Planning Board on November 2, 2004 — PB Resolution No . 2004- 109 is attached) . 12. Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval? YES X NO If yes, list agency name and permit/approval. Also, state whether it will require modification. (See # 11 above — Town of Ithaca Planning Board granted preliminary site plan approval on Nov. 2, 2004. If Town Board approves the requested amendment of the Town of Ithaca Code, then the application will go back to the Planning Board for final site plan approval . I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/Sponsor Name (Print or Type) : Catherine Valentino, Supervisor, Town of Ithaca Signature and Date. � " PART II = ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town ; Use attachments as necessary) t oes proposed action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.4 or Town Environmental Local Law? ES NO X If yes, coordinate the review rocess and use the full EAF. ill proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6 ES NO X If no, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency, if any. C. Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: ( Answers may be handwritten, if legible) C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production and disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: See attached. C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources? Community or Neighborhood character? Explain briefly: See attached. C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish, or wildlife species, significant habitats, unique natural area, wetlands, or Threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly , See attached. C4. The Town's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other Natural resources? Explain briefly: See attached. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly : See attached. C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in Cl-05? Explain briefly . See attached. C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy) Explain briefly: See attached. D. Is there, or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? YES NO. X If yes, explain briefly: See Attached. E. Comments of staff X CB other attached. (Check as applicable.) PART III = DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca) Instructions: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important, or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting(i.e. urban or rural) ; (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope, and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting material . Ensure that the explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately address . Check here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. X Check here if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on Attachments as necessary the reasons supporting this determination. Town of Ithaca Town Board Name of Lead Agency Prep er' s Signature(If different from Responsible Officer) Catherine Valentino, Supervisor Name & title of Responsible Officer II Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer V DATE: December 13 , 2004 Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency a ' S E P 2 1 2004 Attachment to Town of Ithaca Environmental Review/Site Plan App 9va�� T &'tM E> iFfjJ%%QAft I FA' Nrw(3izobtiTfe ,a 50 Describe project briefly. The LaTourelle hotel project consisting of 8o-84 hotel rooms was approved by the Planning Board in 1984. The first phase of construction consisting of 35 rooms with a banquet facility was completed in that year. During the past 20 years LaTourelle has positioned itself in the Ithaca community as an upscale boutique hotel located on a 20-acre tract of land. The applicant proposes to construct a two story building with basement within the footprint approved by the Town Board in 1984• Recently the Tompkins County Tourism Council identified a need for an esthetic/therapeutic spa facility in the greater Ithaca area. In response to that need, the applicant is proposing to include such a facility as part of the proposed expansion of the inn. The spa will be located in the partially below ground level at the same elevation as the existing hotel facility. There will be two floors above the spa which will contain a total of 19 hotel rooms. The building will be connected to the existing hotel facility by a connector lobby which will provide such handicapped access as may be required. The roof line of the new addition will be maintained at the same level as the existing west wing of the hotel to which the new addition will be attached as above described. Except for the window configuration which will take advantage of the view to the north, the new south elevation will be almost identical to the existing east elevation which faces Route 96B. A new landscaping plan will enhance the attractiveness of the parking area which will be expanded to accommodate the need for an additional i9 rooms and spa facility. The applicant is dedicated to maintaining LaTourelle as one of the premier small hotels in Upstate New York which will serve the community to a greater extent by providing the spa facility. SEP 2 1 2W4 Short Environmental Assessment Form r T OWN O IT HACA Paragraph 5 Supplement PLANNING , ZCNIN' G , E 'NGIINE G The spa facility will be available to both the guests at LaTourelle and those members of the community who choose to use the facility. It will have access directly from the hotel as well as from the hotel parking lot. The facility will contain five massage rooms, a facial room, and a manicure/pedicure room. It will also have a small retail shop to sell the spa therapeutic and aesthetic products and a resting lounge to accommodate guests before and after the spa experience . There will be mens and women locker rooms which will each provide a sauna and steam bath facility. The proposed hours are 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. The staff will consist of a manager, assistant manager, 2 receptionists and 7- 10 licensed professionals for the massage rooms, facial room and manicure/pedicure room. An exercise room will be available on the second floor (floor above spa) for hotel guests and spa guests. PART II — Environmental Assessment: La Tourelle Country Inn — Room Expansion & Spa 1152 Danby Road Local Law to Amend Special Land Use District (PDZ) No. 1 Town of Ithaca Town Board A. Action is Unlisted. B . Action will not receive coordinated review. C. Could action result in any adverse effects on, to or arising from the followin&. C1 . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing_traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding_problems? No significant adverse effects are anticipated relating to air quality, water quality or quantity, noise levels, traffic, solid waste, or potential for erosion, drainage, or flooding as a result of the proposed action. This proposed action is the adoption of a local law to amend Chapter 271 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca entitled "Zoning: Special Land Use Districts" to allow a spa facility at La Tourelle. The proposed amendment would allow the construction of an addition to the La Tourelle Country Inn located at 1152 Danby Road. The proposed addition would be located on the west side of the existing Inn which would include 19 new rooms, a spa, an elevator, and an exercise room. The proposal also includes additional parking, new landscaping, and new stormwater facilities . The proposed addition is located within the footprint shown on the original 1984 plans for future expansion of the inn. Additional parking was also shown on these original plans behind the Inn, but in slightly different locations . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board reviewed the site plan for the proposed addition and granted preliminary site plan approval and issued an affirmative recommendation to the Town Board regarding the proposed local law at their meeting of November 2, 2004. It is not anticipated that the minor increase in traffic resulting from the 19 additional rooms and the new spa facility will create any adverse impacts on Danby Road. The site distance at the driveway onto Danby Road appears to be adequate in both directions and the single driveway has been sufficient to service the Inn, restaurant, and the apartments. The circulation on the site is anticipated to improve with the better defined driving lanes and more parking spaces provided. The current site has approximately 84 existing parking spaces available to accommodate the existing Inn (35 rooms), the Inn' s banquet facility (seats up to 135), the restaurant ( 107 maximum occupancy), and the barn apartments (4 units). The 84 existing spaces do not appear to meet the current zoning requirements (approximately 108 required) for all the uses , and has experienced a lack of enough spaces on certain occasions . Most of the parking spaces are not defined with lines and have a gravel surface, making it difficult to estimate the number of existing spaces and to determine the total number of vehicles possible. The circle in front of La Tourelle frequently experiences vehicles permanently parking there overnight and approximately 30 of the parking spaces which are located around the tennis courts are difficult to find and lack signage to direct someone to the additional parking. The applicant has proposed approximately 80 new parking spaces to accommodate the 19 new rooms and the spa facility, and to also provide additional spaces to address the current inadequacy of parking spaces. These new parking spaces are located to the south of the existing parking lot behind the apartments , on one set of the existing tennis courts in the middle of the development, and on the west end of the development north of the existing tennis courts. The Town' s Zoning Ordinance; would require a total of approximately 125 spaces for all the existing and new uses on the property, but the applicant is proposing approximately 164 spaces to meet the actual experienced demand and the anticipated new demand of the site. The Town' s Zoning Ordinance only specifies minimum parking requirements and the banquet and spa facilities are not specifically listed to help determine a number of spaces . The general restaurant and commercial category requirements were used to determine the ordinance minimum requirements for these two uses. It appears that between the restaurant and the banquet . . facility the Town' s Zoning Ordinance would only require approximately 49 parking spaces to accommodate up to a maximum of 242 people. Parking requirements outlined in "Parking Standards by the American Planning Association specifically address the banquet and spa uses , and would add several more spaces for the spa facility and a minimum of 30 more spaces for the restaurant and banquet facilities . It appears that with the multiple activities on the property, the proposed 164 spaces would be necessary on certain occasions and is closer to the requirements outlined in the "Parking Standards" document. The new and existing parking areas on the west side of the development around the tennis courts should also be easier to find and use, as the access drive down to these lots is being improved and widened with less vegetation hiding them. The site generally slopes in a westerly direction away from Danby Road. There are two ponds along the southern side of the property with a small un-named stream flowing toward the west from the ponds . The 55 +/- acre property currently contains several buildings, driveways , parking lots, and tennis courts . The proposal will increase the impervious surface on the site with the addition and new parking areas . The proposal to deal with the stormwater includes installing a series of catch basins and pipes along with open swales to carry the water to a new stormwater management pond located northwest of the developed area. Some runoff will also sheet flow into the existing pond on the south side of the property, primarily from the new gravel parking lot. The applicants have provided a topographic survey (dated Oct. 8 , 2004), a site plan (dated Oct. 13 , 2004) showing the proposed contours and stormwater elements , and a conceptual site plan descri ption. Because the proposed project will disturb more than one acre of land, the project must comply with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 2 Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPEDES) General Permit for Stormwater . Discharge from Construction Activities (GP-02-01 ). The final Notice of Intent (NOI) and the Full Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan must be prepared for the project and copies submitted to the Town. The Town' s Engineering Department staff has reviewed the conceptual stormwater plans and feel the proposed method and features to handle stormwater on the site appears to be appropriate. Final stormwater calculations and details will be required before Final Site Plan Approval, along with erosion and sedimentation control plans, but the site is large enough and has the ability to handle the existing and proposed new runoff. The one concern of the Engineering Department is the filling in of a portion of the existing pond on the south side of the property for additional parking. The Planning Board recommended that the plans be modified to eliminate the filling in that area by removing several parking spaces (8- 10 spaces) on the west end of this lot. C2 . Aesthetic, agriculture, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources, or community or neighborhood character? None Anticipated. The proposal is for a three level building addition, which will match the existing three levels of the Inn. The addition will match the existing roofline and will incorporate many of the architectural features (windows, roof peaks, building materials) of the existing Inn. The addition will be located on the west side of the existing Inn, and it is not anticipated that the addition would be visible from Danby Road. The addition will be less than the 55-foot maximum height requirement (+/- 52 4eet proposed) in this Planned Development Zone PDZ - formerly referred to as Special Land Use District). C3 . Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endan eg red species? None Anticipated. The northwestern portion of the property is located within the Buttermilk Creek Gorge and Inlet Valley Slopes Unique Natural Area (UNA- 150) . The UNA is located approximately 250 west of the proposed gravel parking area that is adjacent to the existing tennis courts. The proposed areas to be disturbed for this project currently consist primarily of open lawn / brush and existing parking areas or other impervious surfaces . C4. The Town ' s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of land or other natural resources? None Anticipated. The property is zoned Planned Development Zone No . 1 (PDZ) . This PDZ permits any uses permitted in a Residential District R- 15 (Medium Density Residential Zone) and a hotel or inn containing no more than 80 units for guests along with the following facilities : tennis courts, swimming pools, cabanas or similar structures related to tennis courts or swimming, ponds or other body of water, and restaurant or other food service establishment. 3 1 1 The proposal will require an amendment to the PDZ by the Town of Ithaca Town Board to allow the spa use for the guests of the Inn and for the general public. The proposal appears to meet all other requirements of the original PDZ. C5 . Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? None Anticipated. C6 . Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in Cl -05? None Anticipated. . C7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either guantity or We of energy)? None Anticipated. D . Is there or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? No controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts is anticipated. PART III. — Staff Recommendation, Determination of Significance Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action, the proposed scale of it, and the information above, a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the action as proposed. Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Town Board Reviewer: Jonathan Kanter, AICP, Director of Planning Review Date: November 18, 2004 4 o a -r � m 1' � W 8 O O •y NO O O O w J t • 1 ? f i i a — PI q _ t >n f r _ �:- 1 . . . r UU 3 � v v J J . i / i i, I I it i I i i I e a I 1141 ! O 00 00 0 ' o 0 , ! 0 O . 00 1 ��a 0 0 • • ' • w , • DO I wmbm 08 re e•so O0 O0 i - - - - 0 ! w 1 ' 0 O 0O1 � rp C� ! O , t 001 00 �9D O .O , a o I � . a, o o ' ! ! o o a o I o , I 1 � o 1 o , I. . � 8 o - _ -o 0 68 8 G7 0 0 GOP• • � P� D .. � . ' • " � Gill �Z � ' � ' m. Gv—1 • z �WULDOwNN0A890p111EBARgI1C18 rb►ioRrnGWMsrnffr, mMrAxr ,leso l i p n Cau Cl) t La Tourelle Country Inn Addition x 0 r i i i I i i I I i I 4s-tO' aI Mechanical I J o . 10 >1 La , p MINE o oO [Dial of Of Do 0 � I I o E " o Machin W1"IchdrAcmu 10 Cmfsrorm and Cmr"rd we i I � Z I WIC DOWNING ASSOCIATES ARCHRECTS 215 NORTH CAYUOA STREET, MiACA, W 14850 O 0 La Tourelle Country Inn Addition � � � E � C 1150 Denby Road, nb•aa NY 14350 ) t ' i• : i it I 1 it I i I 1 l Ii l 1 December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Local Law Filing NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 41 STATE STREET, ALBANY, NY 12231 1 (Use this form to file a local law with the Secretary of State.) ATTACHMENT # 5 } Text of law should be given as amended. Do not include matter being eliminated and do not use italics or underlining to indicate new matter. 3`- of . . . . . . . . . . . . . - ZTHAQA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- Town - - - - - - - - - - - - Local Law No. . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ of the year 20 -04 A local law _ . _ _ AMENDING_ _CHAPTE}t- _ _ 27. . _ _Q�' _ _THE _ _QQPH _ _Q�'_ _THE. _ _TQ�N�V_ _ QF _ _ITBACA (Invert ride) _ _ _ _ ENTITLED_ _ ' ! ZONING ;_ _ _ S ..—. . .L _ _LAND . . ED � STRPQT '_' TQ .. . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ AEEQ.Y- - A_ _ jSPA_ _ EACILITX _ _AT _ .LA _ _TQUREI. LE ; - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - --- - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- -- - -- - - - - Be it enacted by the . . . .. . . . . . . TOWN- .BOARD - - . _ _ __ _ of the - - - - - - - - - --- -- - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Na to of Legislative Body) rl° = of - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ITH . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . - - - -- - - - - - as follows : Town - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - See attached , 2 pages (if additional space is needed , attach pages the same size as this sheet, and number each.) DOS -239 (Rev. 11/99) ( 1 '�, i LOCAL LAW NO , 11 OF THE YEAR 2004 A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 271 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ENTITLED "ZONING : SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICTS " TO ALLOW A SPA FACILITY AT LA TOURELLE Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as follows : Section 1 . Section 271 -3 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca , entitled "§ 271 -3 . Special Land Use District No . 1 (Wiggins ) , " is hereby amended as follows : ( 1 ) § 271 -3 . B ( 3) (a) , and § 271 -3 . B (4) are amended by deleting the phrase " Residential District R- 15" and inserting instead the phrase " Medium Density Residential Zone . " (2 ) § 271 -3 . ( B) ( 3) is amended by adding a new subparagraph (d ) reading as follows : " (d ) A spa facility, attached to a hotel or motel , as defined and limited in subparagraph § 270-3 . ( 13 ) (5) (a) [6] below. " (3) § 271 -3 . ( B) (5) (a) is amended by adding a new subparagraph [6] reading as follows : " [6] Spa facility of not more than 5 , 000 square feet of total interior floor area , open to hotel guests and the general public , consisting of (A) Spaces for one or more of the following activities : massages , facials , manicures , pedicures , hair care , and tanning ; ( B) Related lounges , locker rooms , showers , saunas , steam baths , and wading pool ; (C) Shop ( not more than 100 square feet in size) for the sale of spa therapeutic and aesthetic products ; and ( D) Other facilities related to the spa activities authorized above . " (4) § 271 -3 . ( B) (5) (f) is deleted and a new § 271 -3 . ( B) (5) (f) is added reading as follows : " (f) No noise originating on the property contained in this Special Land Use District (referred to in the Town of Ithaca Code now as a Planned Development Zone) shall exceed the limits set forth in Town of Ithaca Code § 270- 155 or in Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 184 , whichever is more restrictive . " 1 i i I i it i Section 2 . If any provision of this 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 upon publication of the local law or an abstract of same in the official newspaper of the Town , or upon its filing with the New York Secretary of State , whichever is the last to occur. 2 i I� I� i �I (Complete the certification In the paragraph that applies to the tiling of this local law and strike out that which is not applicable.) 1 . (Final adoption by local legislative body only.) I hereby certify that the local law .annexed hereto, des i nated as local law No . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 11_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ of 2004 of the own) (Wi}}age} of - - - - - - haca - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - was duly passed by the Town oar on - Dec-. - - -13- . - 20 04� in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. -- - - - - - - - - - -own of Legislative Body) 2. (Passage by local legislative body with approval, no disapproval or repassage after disapproval by the Elective Chief Executive Officer*.) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . . _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . of 20- _ _ __ _ of the (Cou nty)(City)(Town)(Vi I ]age) of - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - . . . . . . . . . _ was duly passed by the - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - on - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20 - - - , and was (approved)(not approved)(repassed after (Name of Legislative Body) disapproval) by the _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ and was deemed duly adopted on _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ 20_ _ _ _ , (Elective Chief Executive Officer') in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. 3. (Final adoption by referendum .) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. _ . . . . .. . . . . . . ._ _ _ _ _ _ . . . ... .. . . . . . . . of 20- - - -- - fOf the (County)(City)(Town) (Village) of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ was duly passed by the - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - on - - - - - - - 20- - - and was (approved)(not approved)(repassed after (Name of Legislative Body) disapproval) by the _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 20- Such local law was submitted (Elective Chief Executive Officer*) to the people by reason of a (mandatory)(permissive) referendum, and received the affirmative vote of a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon at the (genera l)(special)(annual) election held on _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 20L _ _ _ in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. ' 4. (Subject to permissive referendum and final adoption because no valid petition was filed requesting referendum .) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ of 20_ _ __ _ _ of the (County)(City)(Town)(Village) of - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - _ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . . was duly passed by the - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - on - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20_ _ _ _ and was (approved)(not approved)(repassed after (Name ofLegidative Body) disapproval) by the _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ on _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20 _ _ _ , Such local law was subject to (Elective Chief Executive Officer*) permissive referendum and no valid petition requesting such referendum was filed as of _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ 24 _ _ _ in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. ' Elective Chief Executive Officer means or includes the chief executive officer of a county elected on a county- wide basis or, if there be none, the chairperson of the county legislative body, the mayor of a city or. village, or the supervisor of a town where such officer is vested with the power to approve or veto local laws or ordinances . (2) ' I I� i i 5. (City local law concerning Charter revision proposed by petition .) hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ of the City of _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - having been submitted to referendum pursuant to the provisions of )ection (36)(37) of the Municipal Home Rule Law, and having received the affirmative vote of a majority of the qualified electors of such city voting thereon at the (specia ])(gene ral) election held on - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20 _ _ _ _ , became operative . 6, (County local law concerning adoption of Charter.) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . of 20_ _ _ _ _ _ of the County of _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State of New York, having been submitted to the electors at the General Election of November __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 20. -. . , pursuant to subdivisions 5 and 7 of section 33 of the Municipal Home Rule Law, and having received the affirmative vote of a majority of the qualified electors of the cit- ies of said county as a unit and a majority of the qualified electors of the towns of said county considered as a unit voting at said general election, became operative. (If any other authorized form of final adoption has been followed , please provide an appropriate certification.) I further certify that I have compared the preceding local law with the original on file in this office and that the same is a correct transcript there >fom and of the whole of such original local law, and was finally adopted in the manner in- dicated in paragraph_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ above. hodv �`-�• —�-----�--$ --� , , Town wAfi3lage.Clerk or officer designated by local legislative body I (Seal) Date : - o 4 i (Certification to be executed by County Attorney, Corporation Counsel, Town Attorney, Village Attorney or other authorized attorney of locality.) STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF TONE INS 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing local la co ains the correct text and that all proper proceedings have been had. or taken for the enactment of the local law n ex hereto Signature Attorney for the Town Title Q4y� of Ithaca Town Date : 1/21/05 (3) i1 i I. I II II December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting � y ATTACHMENT # 6 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO : TOWN BOARD MEMBERS FROM: SUSAN RITTER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING 5 - Z DATE: DECEMBER 6 , 2004 RE: DONATIONS OF LAND FOR PARK AND ACCESS RIGHT OF WAY MOUNTIN 8-LOT SUBDIVISION = WEST HAVEN .& ELM ST. EXT. Enclosed for your consideration is a proposed Town Board resolution accepting the concept and location of a park and a park access road right-of-way, as related to the proposed Mountin 8-Lot Subdivision located on Elm Street Extension and West Haven Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28- 1 -28 . 22 . As you may recall , the Board discussed this proposal at the October 18`h Town Board meeting. At that meeting, Board members indicated initial support for the concept, and suggested that the outstanding issue concerning the question of ownership of the access drives adjoining the proposed park (from West Haven Road and Elm Street Extension), be worked out by staff and the Planning Board. On November 16`h, the Planning Board granted Preliminary and Final Subdivision for the proposal, including a plan for accessing the park, subject to the Town Board ' s acceptance of the land donations . As shown on the enclosed subdivision map the 33 .3 +/- acre parcel will be subdivided as follows : • Lots A — D are proposed to be used as single-family residential building lots ; • Lot E is a 2 . 7 acre parcel that will be consolidated with land owned by Eco Village of Ithaca; • Lot F is a 10.7 +/- acre parcel proposed to be donated to the Town of Ithaca for use as a park/trail; • Lot H is a 0.975 +/- acre parcel that is currently used as a driveway with access off Elm Street Extension, and is proposed to be consolidated with the Terwilliger parcel ; • Lot G is a 0.975 +/- acre parcel that is currently used as a driveway (named Helen' s Way) with access off West Haven Road, and is proposed to be conveyed to the Town for municipal purposes . As you may recall, the land proposed to be donated includes an existing walking trail that has been used by area residents for many years . According to the applicant, approximately 30 neighbors who reside along West Haven Road, Elm Street Ext. , Valley View Road, and in Eco Village have contributed money towards the purchase of this 10.7 acre parcel. These residents wish to donate the land to the Town for the purpose of protecting it from development and to insure continued access to the walking trail . In addition to its use as a trail, portions of the property also afford significant views towards south hill and east hill, thus providing opportunities for public enjoyment of scenic resources as well. i As shown on the enclosed subdivision map, the proposed park/trail is currently accessed by gravel drives off West Haven Road (Lot G) and Elm Street Extension (Lot H) . The gravel driveway off W. Haven Road serves as an alternative emergency access drive for Eco Village (named Helen' s Way), and includes access easements with two land locked residences identified on the subdivision plat as Henry and Villafane. Eco Village is currently responsible for year- round maintenance of this portion of the driveway/emergency access , as well as the entire extent linking to Rachel Carson Drive. The other driveway off Elm Street Extension is mostly gravel, with a short paved segment at the south end. Landowners with access easements to this driveway are identified on the subdivision map as Cowie & White, Terwilliger, and Luft. As approved by the Planning Board, and recommended by staff and legal counsel , in cooperation with the applicants , the Town would take ownership of Lot G (Helen' s Way), and obtain an easement to insure access on Lot H. Unlike Lot F, which is proposed to be conveyed to the Town for park purposes , Lot G is proposed to be conveyed for municipal purposes , which would allow the town greater flexibility for maintaining both the driveway and a separate (to be constructed) pedestrian path leading to the park. The Town would maintain this portion of the driveway (approximately 745 ft.) as a public road, and a 60-foot wide section at the end of the parcel would be utilized as a vehicle (snowplow) turn around. Lot H is proposed to stay in private ownership, and the Town would obtain an easement to construct and maintain a pedestrian trail , separate from the existing driveway. Staff, along with legal counsel , discussed the liability and associated costs of obtaining ownership for this second driveway, and determined that it would be in the best interest: of the Town to instead obtain an easement for use/construction/maintenance of the trail rather than the long-term responsibility associated with ownership . Lot H will be consolidated with the Terwilliger residence. The enclosed Town Board resolution includes several conditions including the requirement that the Town secure an easement from the owners of Lot H for construction and maintenance of the trail, and that the actual conveyance of the parcels to the Town be completed prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for residential parcels A through D . Let me know if you have any questions concerning this proposal . You can reach me by phone at 273 - 1747 or by email at sritter @town. ithaca.ny.us . 2 � s g � � P � , 6 it' ll � C : � �� ,��✓ CO VA N k , ! p r l 4 ti4y S r INN it Barra• '' V�� __` .- _� LN tti 'y : r Ski 4. IZI j1pyl LN W L I °t z 330 a o, � o v ov q �v v r r r v a � � ax sin 'Qy � `D � `;• i. J)�� �CA i� �sq� ��� y� �� � � � i �••8yi. LN S" 403F�+ 3.718• � . 10 0 a� g d r p a or oe•.A, w a � •� g 9 k4 1 a ti�y ■ jg� , I w g I a3` %i All, y r _'• ct_p $ �A ; a a � Y � i I I I 1 ` A oil CUP 46 fit fit T , �r rIr - T�j �7C4 � A S �t6 E a$aj at At I 0 s JJpI• w J�� :; _ yz 79364 48. *014 _4' ' at" VAM w or wt'` �.•�� _ ► • sol it of w fit .� � y Y , ,P,;• �. N r11r •��• + yj 7 , ' 1 V i' O � O � �. • i7 8 � � N v R v I pC I a i IIi{ ro if a a jp •� � y � �' I«M�p� q�0� _� � I I Vi Street ra ¢ °°• \�� ' i ' ' I < .' ri C•i., 4 q N 1 fit a ■ g � j7o � o Y y qI * p {11 ml N , 8 % 57 D 0 � 8 � � 4frig M _ _. ___....._ _ __. __.._..., y i � i { rn. I I i i i I i i I i I i I I � _ _ 11p MEMORANDUM TO : The Town of Ithaca Town Board FROM : The Conservation Board DATE : October 15 , 2004 RE : Park Donation At its October 7th meeting , the Conservation Board discussed the proposal , included in the Mountin Subdivision development application , to donate a parcel of land of approximately 10 . 3 acres to the Town of Ithaca for use as open space . Members of the Board 's Environmental Review Committee had previously walked through the area and were impressed by the beauty of the surroundings . Mature trees and shrubs abound and the ERC were envisioning the possibility of developing walking trails that would offer the public some remarkable scenic views , particularly to the north and east. The developers obviously recognize the desirability of large (and thus very valuable) lots to some potential buyers. Such lots provide considerable privacy (visual buffers) for adjacent properties . And Eco-village would like to see some sort of "visual buffer" between their property and this subdivision . But, it appears that there is also a community spirit among the near-by landowners that motivates their desire to protect this acreage and they have chosen to offer the parcel to the Town for public use . The Conservation Board feels that, as open space continues to be swallowed up by development, the Town should seize every opportunity to protect what remains . We feel that this parcel should be accepted by the Town , with thanks to the donors , and used to create hiking trails , overlooks , and opportunities for other low impact activities . Lenore Durkee , Chair On behalf of the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board 'I I I December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 7 Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce Presentation to the Town of Ithaca Board December 13, 2004 Good evening. Thank you, Supervisor Valentino, for putting this issue on tonight' s agenda. My name is Jean McPheeters. I serve as president of the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce, located at 904 East Shore Drive, in the Town of Ithaca. I reside at 276 Bailor Road in Brooktondale. I ' d like to introduce some members of the Chamber' s board and staff, who are here tonight: Heather Weber, PR & Communications Manager for the Convention & Visitors Bureau. I should explain that the County Legislature contracts with the Chamber to manage tourism for the county and so the Chamber also runs the convention and Visitors Bureau jf Kyle Tuttle, Vice Chair Internal for the Chamber and Senior Vice President with Ciminelli Construction, ! ir- ec o e ree es i en gT� Medi Phillip Albrecht, Architect, with Egner Architectural Associates, Kepi v. oar erg - er— -iee- resi -ern FFirsrNia ara- ` ink 1 i i I �, i I i i it I I i i We are here tonight to ask that the Town Board consider a change to the Town' s Special Land Use District #5 , which restricts the number of employees allowed to work at any one time in our building, and increasing that number from 10 to 20 employees. When the SLUD was enacted in 1988 and the Chamber first moved into our current location in 1989, we had 5 full-time and 1 part-time staff members. In the intervening 15 years, the size of the staff has grown to nine full-time and 3 part-time staff members. 85% of this growth has been for the Convention and Visitors Bureau. We 're asking for this change in the SLUD for two reasons . First, we need the increased number for staff just to deal with growth that we have experienced, and project into the future. Second, it' s the first step in asking the Town to allow us to build a small addition and to renovate our current building. Tourism has grown enormously in the last 15 years. By the end of 2005 , we anticipate that there will be approximately 1400 hotel/motel rooms in the County—a 15 % increase-- and the number of Bed & Breakfast rooms has tripled from 96 to 299 . Taxable room sales have more than doubled, from $ 10. 6 million to almost $24 million in 2003 . We estimate that about 35 % of this growth has occurred in the Town of Ithaca. In the last few years the community has added or enhanced some major attractions including PRI ' s Museum of the Earth, the new Cornell Lab of Ornithology and the Sciencenter. In addition to the need for more room for increased staff, we also need more storage space. All of this growth, means a lot more brochures for all the new B&Bs, restaurants, hotels, and attractions. And we ' ve seen more regional growth as well . Since we receive monies 2 i i I'� i I i from the I Love New York Tourism program, we stock brochures for counties and attractions throughout New York State. We have hired an architectural firm, Egner Architectural Associates, and have begun the design of an addition. We need: • More space for current and future staff. • Much more storage space • More toilets—we currently have single men' s and women' s rooms on the ground floor and one shared toilet on the second floor. These are completely inadequate for our visitors—particularly when we get several cars or vans arriving at once. When a tour bus arrives, it' s simply a real mess for about 20 minutes. The current building is 4300 sq. ft. We would like to build an addition on the north side of our current building. The addition would be about 2000 square feet—approximately 1000 on each floor. It would house new bathrooms, offices and storage on the first floor. The second floor would be a new larger meeting space . Our current meeting space would be divided into 3 offices and we would also gain some needed storage space and a smaller meeting room on the second floor. Our primary reason for considering the addition is to enhance the experience of the more than 20,000 visitors who come to the Visitors Center annually. We want to showcase our 3 i � • I � I i I i I I i I 11 I community and encourage them to spend additional time here. We ' ll provide space for perusing maps and materials, enjoying a cup of coffee and relaxing. To truly enhance the visitor' s experience, we also need additional space for staff offices and storage. Also, the new Scenic Byway, encircling Cayuga Lake, should attract more visitors. And, when the Cayuga Waterfront Trail is completed, it will run to our front door. So we ' re looking forward to seeing many more people pass through our front door. By making our current parking lot more efficient, we do not anticipate the need for additional paved parking. We currently pay about $4200 in county and town taxes and $6650 in school district taxes. If we receive approval from the Town Board and the Planning Board, and if the bids come in at an affordable price, we anticipate that our property taxes paid to the Town, County and school districts, will increase by about 50%. Thank you for your attention. I' d be happy to answer any questions you may have. 4 II 1 i i 'I, I i i i i i I I li I I I I i i I� i TOW10 S C0UN1 Y .. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE www.tompkinschamber.org November 30, 2004 The Honorable Catherine Valentino Supervisor, Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Cathy: The Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce is considering building an addition to our property at 904 East Shore Drive, Ithaca, which houses the Chamber and the Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB). I am writing to ask that you include in the agenda for the Town' s December 13'b board meeting the consideration of our site plan and application to change the wording of Special Land Use District (SLUR) #5 . The Chamber' s present building was erected in 1989 and the size of our staff and our needs have grown since then. In 1989 we had 5 full-time and 1 part-time staff members; now there are 9 full- time and 3 part-time employees. As the tourism industry has grown, so has the need for staff members, display and storage of collateral materials, and more bathrooms. The SLUD #5 , Local Law #2 — 1988, limits use of our building to no more than 10 persons being employed at any one time. If you approve a new Planned Development Zone (PDZ), we would like to increase the potential number of staff persons employed at any one time to 20. We don 't anticipate having more than 15 employees, probably 12, at any one time for a long while, but we would like to accommodate future growth. I am including the development review application and site plan and elevation drawings. We have also conducted a parking study, which I would be happy to bring to the Town Board or the Planning Board. Would you please let me know if you would like any other documents and if we may appear before the board on December 13d'? Our decision on whether to proceed with this project and to put it to bid is contingent upon approval by the Town of Ithaca, the support of the County Legislature, with which we contract to run the CVB, and, of course, the members and the board of the Chamber. Thank you for your attention to my request. Sincerely, �C Jean McPheeters President Attachments : (3 ) ! 904 East Shore Drive • Ithaca , NY 14850 Phone : ( 607 ) 273 - 7080 Fax : ( 607 ) 272 - 7617 i i December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting kGE R1 D A V ATTACHMENT # 8 MEMO RE: Comments on the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, Dec. ' 04 version FROM : Bill Lesser, Town of Ithaca DATE: Dec. 7 , 2004 I wanted to provide written as well as oral input into the draft Plan as it approaches completion. These comments are made from my perspective as a 27-year resident of the Town of Ithaca. In addition, I am also a member of the Ithaca Town Board which has certainly made me more aware of planning issues and the apportioning of responsibilities across the several levels of government in the County than would be true for many residents . However I emphasize again that my comments refer to my situation as a County resident, not an officeholder. Overall , the preparation of a county comprehensive plan for Tompkins County is very welcome. The County has been changing rapidly over the past decade and decisions made now will affect life in and around the County for decades to come. Additionally, under NY governmental law, major decisions are made at the level of government closest to residents . While that is appealing from the perspective of local voices , it does mean many decisions are made on a piecemeal basis . In that environment, a County Comprehensive Plan can provide a conceptual basis for coordinated action, even if the decisions remain with the local municipalities . That said, I find the current document falls short of the goal of serving as a conceptual basis largely because it in many parts is not really ` comprehensive ' . Perhaps referring to two sections will be sufficient to document my conclusion. Water Resources (pp. 33 -35) The reader is given little perspective on how to evaluate the several bits of information provided. For example, note is made (p. 34) that impervious surfaces have expanded by 1 ,000 acres over the past 35 years . That sounds like a lot — but is actually only 1/3 of 1 % of County land area. Providing that simple figure helps readers get a fuller perspective. It would also be helpful to add where that transformation has occurred and what the effects have been. Finally, the DEC Phase 2 storm water regulations are beginning to address such matters , but are not mentioned in the Plan ; a brief discussion would be helpful . More significantly, the next two pages go on to describe quite alarming decreases in water quality, especially in Cayuga Lake, and throughout the State, as highlighted in the box on p. 34. Yet one sentence (also p. 34) notes, "An assessment of the Six Mile Creek watershed revealed that much erosion and sedimentation in that watershed could be directly attributed to natural processes. " Nothing further is made of that important statement, leaving the novice reader to attempt to determine the significance. Does the existence of `natural processes ' mean we should accept the inevitable? Or does it suggest i we should control human-based effects all the more as much lies beyond our control? Some guidance here from trained planners would be very welcome. One would like also to have seen a reference to the inter-municipality investment in phosphate removal as an example of how government is attempting to improve conditions in meaningful ways . Then, proceeding to Action Items , the reader might reasonably expect some correspondence between the identified problems and actions . In practice, there is little. One item (# 7) identifies `road ditching' techniques , but that is not identified as a source problem (which improper ditching certainly can be) . Others (# 8 and 10) refer to building marinas and dredging in the Inlet area. Neither is mentioned in the preceding text, and there is no discussion of impacts . The section reads as if the text and Action Items were prepared by entirely separate groups . If the Action Items are to be modified, under #2 some reference should be made to the assistance in the aquifer studies presently being provided by the County, emphasizing the coordination role being provided. For # 6 regarding stream buffers, many readers will lack background on why such buffers are beneficial and hence cannot appreciate the inclusion as an Action Item. What Makes a Strong Community? (pp. 45 -47) Few local issues are more significant than those often referred to as ` community' . In the case of the Plan, the section begins with a three-sentence statement about the diversity of what might be construed a ` community' . But then paragraph two begins with the assertion, "An indicator of a strong community is how frequently people walk in their community. " A reader might reasonably ask, where did that idea come from? It is very easy to think of communities (particularly in rural areas) around the County where there are perceived communities without much foot traffic, while others (say Collegetown) where there are multiple pedestrians but not necessarily a shared concept of community. So what is one to make of such a statement? More troubling, almost the entire section is focused on walking/sidewalks . Now certainly much positive can be said on the subject, but is that the only relevant issues regarding communities? The answer seemingly is yes . Yet the Policies section refers to other dimensions of enhancing communities , such as preserving ` district identities and historic character' . Why are not those significant issues identified in the text? Then the concluding Action Items say virtually nothing about actually implementing many of the Policies , and indeed, two of the three items refer to trails , which receive scant attention. Overall , this section reads as if composed by three distinct groups, one for the text, one for Policies , and a final responsible for the Action Items . If indeed the County is committed to enhancing walkability, then an Action Item addressing when sidewalks might be appropriate for County road projects, and how the County can cooperate with communities to ensure their construction and maintenance. Suggestion I hope in the preceding I have made the case the current version is really quite an incomplete treatment of the kind of comprehensive plan residents might reasonably expect. As such, it is vulnerable to being set aside, a shame for sure. More perniciously though, advocates for the specific items which are included can use the Plan in its current form to press for (or against) specific outcomes . Yet that would be a misuse for a comprehensive plan should indeed be comprehensive, a balancing of multiple objectives . One obvious remedy would be to expand the text to identify more components of what might reasonably be expected to be included under a subject, and connect the Policies and Action Items in correspondence to the identified needs . Alternatively, the statements could be made that the emphasis on certain issues at the exclusion of others is not intended to imply the included items are the only, or only important, ones . Finally — and this option appeals particularly to me — the document could simply be re- titled from `Comprehensive Plan' (which it presently isn' t) to `A Vision for the Future" (which it is) . Thank you for your consideration. I I i i i . 1 � 1 �I �I i i \ \ Tompkins Coti'nty DEPARTMENT-'OF PL- ANNIN � � I121 East�' � CourtA+Street � ;� Ithaca,<NewtYork `14850 Edward C. Marx, AICP *07) 274-5%0 Commissioner of Planning � ti\ ',' f6` ,x ; 307) 274-5578 November 19, 2004 r :-- Ms . Tee-Ann Hunter, Clerk C J it Town of Ithaca ` � E . � f � , 215 North Tioga Street i ®v Ithaca, NY 14850 E Dear Ms. Hunter: 4i 7C EST I am pleased to provide you with the enclosed documents : ( 1 ) a copy of the final draft of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, (2) a document that highlights the major changes to the draft Comprehensive Plan, and (3) the Environmental Assessment Form for the draft Comprehensive Plan. Please make these documents available to the general public immediately. For those who may be interested, the following documents are also available on the website of the Tompkins County Planning Department (www.tompkins-co .org/planning/compplan) : ( 1 ) a copy of the final draft of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, (2) a document that highlights the major changes to the draft Comprehensive Plan, and (3) a complete list of all changes to the draft Comprehensive Plan, At 5 : 30pm on December 7th, the- Tompkins County Legislature will hold a public hearing to solicit public comments on the final draft of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan. The Legislature is expected to vote on the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan at their regularly scheduled meeting on December 21St. These meetings are open to the public and all are welcome to attend the meetings and share comments about the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan with Tompkins County legislators . If you or others have questions about the Comprehensive Plan, please contact the Tompkins County Planning Department by phone (274-5560) or email (planning(a�,tompkins-co . org) . Thank you. Sincerely, c 10�4 j-n 0 I Edward C . Marx, AICP Commissioner of Planning Encl. i I i .. . . � � � � i � ¢¢�� �s i . .... ..b.�.-., n....... .. . �I i � I Summary of Sigm.ficant Changes WOV 2 2 Draft County Comprehensive Plan October 2004 ATTEST irAeA TOWn� CI_ FaK In April 2004, the Draft Comprehensive Plan was printed, distributed, and posted on the County Planning Department 's website in order to elicit public input. Staff presented the key elements and findings of the plan at 17 community group and advisory board meetings, and 14 open houses and public meetings in all municipalities in the county. Informational displays were set-up at 19 locations, including libraries, banks, senior centers, and community halls. All comments were gathered and reviewed, and during the summer and fall of 2004, staff worked with the Tompkins County Planning Advisory Board to revise the text, tables, and maps in the Plan based on public comments and feedback: Below is a summary of significant changes made to the County Comprehensive Plan as a result of the public input process. Introduction and Overview To clarify why the Plan focuses on the issues included, information was added describing how the elements of the plan were selected and identifying noteworthy issues that were not included in the 2004 County Comprehensive Plan To address the need to better highlight the importance of local institutions of higher education and Cayuga Lake in our community, large text boxes were added entitled The Quintessential College Town and Cayuga Lake: Shaping Our Community, Housing, Transportation, and Jobs To better explain the state of housing in our community, a new section was added describing the age and condition of the existing housing stock in Tompkins County. More detailed census data related to non- student housing and income was also added. To reduce the use of planning jargon and clarify the meaning, wording changes were made to the principle, and several policies and action items, in the transportation section. A new action item was added to develop a countywide comprehensive park and ride plan. To better, acknowledge the important role of tourism in the county' s economy, a new paragraph discussing tourism was added. A new policy was added to encourage the procurement of goods and services from local farms, businesses, and service providers. A corresponding new action item was added to develop a strategy to promote local use and consumption of locally produced goods . A new action item was added to encourage the formation, retention, and expansion of manufacturing and high tech businesses. To better reflect the broad nature of the topic, the title of the Rural Economy section was changed to Rural Resources, and the policy was expanded to focus on a diversified rural economy centered around the working rural landscapes of farms and forests, and the livelihoods of those who depend upon them. Also, an introductory paragraph was added to clarify why rural resources had its own section, beyond the general issues identified for both rural and urban areas in the Jobs and Business section. The discussion of agricultural resources was consolidated by moving information and policies on farming and agricultural soils from the Finite Resources section to the Rural Resources section. Additionally, the discussion on farming, loss of farmland, and the agricultural economy was strengthened, and the Page 1 of 2 agricuirtural fesources focus areas and future agriculture protection efforts were more clearly described. Also, information was added to the map of agricultural resources focus areas to include locally identified important agricialtiiral�areas;as identified in plans produced by the Towns of Danby and Ithaca. Environment To better focus on the frequently identified key natural resource of water, the Finite Resources section was reorganized and the title was changed to Water Resources. The principle was revised, to highlight the importance of water resources in providing drinking water, recreationa I opportunities, and environmental benefits . I A new action item was added to prepare a Cayuga Lake water quality and quantity monitoring plan. The natural features principle was expanded to clarify that the natural features that define our community form the foundation of our local and regional ecological systems. To address the key role played by the four state parks in the county, a new paragraph was added identifying issues and concerns associated with those parks . Neighborhoods and Communities A paragraph was added discussing the impact of the built environment on residents ' sense of community identity and personal well-being. Based on work done by Planning staff over the summer of 2004 to identify future development scenarios, an action item was added to work with municipalities to develop land use scenarios consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and with local land use plans and policies. Added a paragraph discussing one way in which the County is currently working to promote efficient use of funds through reducing energy costs for County facilities. Added new information on how comprehensive planning can help ensure that infrastructure investments are made in an efficient and thoughtful manner. Correspondingly, action items were added to explore the feasibility of developing an official county map, and to conduct regular meetings with officials from adjacent counties to focus on ways to reduce overall costs to taxpayers . i I Page 2 of 2 II 617 .20 : Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review Nov 2 2 M0 FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM pose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, w el T be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. F ,= e€ a--- project that are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components : The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1 : Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. THIS AREA FOR LEAD AGENCY USE ONLY DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: �X Part 1 ❑X Part 2 ❑X Part 3 n review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting rmation , and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead ncy that: F A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and , therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared . F] B , Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required , therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared .* C . The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the F1 environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared . *A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Adoption of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan Name of Action Tompkins County Name of Lead Agency Timothy Joseph Chair of the Tompkins County Legislature Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Vature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If differentfrom responsible officer) Katherine Borgella , Tompkins County Planning Dept, Date Page 1 of 26 I PART 1 --PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor . ..-per .... .. was.. .w:a....- ... " *NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effec the environment. Please complete the entire form , Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3 . It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies , research or investigation . If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance . Name of Action Adoption of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan Location of Action (include Street Address, Municipality and County) Tompkins County, New York Name of Applicant/Sponsor Tompkins County Planning Department Address 121 East Court Street City / PO Ithaca State NY Zip Code 14850 Business Telephone (607) 274-5560 Name of Owner (if different) Address City / PO State Zip Code i Business Telephone Description of Action : The adoption of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan which includes detailed Principles, Policies and Action Items to be used to guide County program development and decision-making , and to evaluate the impacts of various actions taken by the County. Please Complete Each Question--Indicate N .A. if not applicable A. SITE DESCRIPTION Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas . 1 . Present Land Use : x Urban x Industrial x Commercial x Residential (suburban ) x Rural (non-farm) x Forest x Agriculture x Other. Land use varies throughout the County- 21 Total acreage of project area : Approximately 315,00 including Cayuga Lake acres . Page 2 of 26 PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION ji(esdow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) 290354* acres 29.354 acres ted 141 , 281 acres 141 ,281 acres ultural (Includes orchards , cropland , pasture, etc. ) 95318 acres 95,318 acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24 ,25 of ECL) 99601 acres 9,601 acres Water Surface Area 109846 acres 10.846 acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) 1 ,036 acres 1 ,036 acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces 272332 acres 27 .332 acres Other (Indicate type) n/a acres n/a acres *All figures based on the 1999 Land Use Land Cover GIS Data, 3 . What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Varies throughout the County a . Soil drainage: X Well drained 6 % of site X Moderately well drained 79 % of site X Poorly drained 15 % of site b . If any agricultural land is involved , how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? 268,557* acres (see 1 NYCRR 370). * Acreage based on the Soil Series GIS Data . 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? XYes No a. What is depth to bedrock? variable (in feet) 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes : variable X 0- 10% 67 % X 10- 15% 13 % X 15% or greater 20 % Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building , site, or district, listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places? X Yes No Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? X Yes_ No 8 . What is the depth of the water table? variable ( in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal , or sole source aquifer? _Yes X No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? X Yes No 11 . Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? X Yes No According to: New York State Natural Heritage Program Identify each species : Many species identified and located throughout the County. 12 . Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i . e. , cliffs , dunes, other geological formations? X Yes No Describe: Cliffs , caves, gorges , waterfalls , moraines eskers and other geological formations are found in the County 13 . Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? X Yes No If yes , explain : Many important open space and recreation areas are found throughout the County. 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? X Yes No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area : lmportant streams in the County include Taughannock Creek Cayuga t Six Mile Creek Cascadilla Creek Fall Creek Enfield Creek and Salmon Creek a . Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary: Cayuga Lake and Susquehana River Lakes, ponds , wetland areas within or contiguous to project area : There are many throughout the County. a. Name: b. Size (in acres): Page 3 of 26 17 . Is the site served by existing public utilities? X Yes No Some areas served by utilities, others not, i a . If YES, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? n/a Yes No b . If YES, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? n/a Yes No 18 . Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Sectio 303 and 304? X Yes No 19 . Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? X` Yes No *The Coy Glenn CEA is located in Tompkins County. 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes ? X Yes No B. Project Description 1 . Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate). a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor: 1 ,627* acres . *As of Oct 2004 , this is the number of acres owned by Tompkins County. Not all of these acres are contiguous . b. Project acreage to be developed : n/a acres initially; acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped : n/a acres . d . Length of project, in miles : n/a (if appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion , indicate percent of expansion proposed . _ n/a % i f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing n/a ; proposed _ g . Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour: n/a (upon completion of project)? h . If residential : Number and type of housing units : n/a One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially Ultimately i . Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: n/a height; _width ; length . j . Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? n/a ft. 2 . How much natural material (i .e, rock, earth , etc. ) will be removed from the site? n/a tons/cubic yards . 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? _Yes No X . n/a a . If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation ? _Yes No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? _Yes No 4 . How many acres of vegetation (trees , shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? n/a acres . 5 . Will any mature forest (over 100 years old ) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? Yes X No 61. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction : n/a months , (including demolition ) 71. If multi-phased : a . Total number of phases anticipated n/a (number) b . Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 : month year, (including demolition ) c. Approximate completion date of final phase : month year. i d . Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? _Yes No 8 . Will blasting occur during construction? _Yes No n/a Page 4 of 26 Number of jobs generated : during construction n/a ; after project is complete Number of jobs eliminated by this project n/a Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? _Yes No n/a If yes, explain : Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? _Yes X No a. If yes , indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial , etc) and amount b . Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? _Yes X No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? _Yes X No If yes , explain : 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? X Yes No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? _Yes X No a . If yes, what is the amount per month ? tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? _Yes No c. If yes, give name ; location d . Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? _Yes No e. If yes , explain : 17 . Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? _Yes X No a. If yes , what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month . l b . If yes , what is the anticipated site life? years . Will project use herbicides or pesticides? _Yes X No Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? _Yes X No Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? _Yes X No 21 . Will project result in an increase in energy use? X Yes No If yes, indicate type(s) While one of the maior goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to increase use of alternative modes of transportation requiring less energy use, it is possible that implementation of the Plan could result in an increase in energy use , especially since energy, as an individual issue, was not the focus of the Plan . 22 . L. water supply is from wells , indicate pumping capacity n/a gallons/minute. 23 . Total anticipated water usage per day n/a gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local , State or Federal funding? X Yes No If yes , explain : Some action items identified in the Implementation of Priority Actions section of the Plan may require local , state or federal funding . 25. Approvals Required : Type Submittal Date City, Town , Village Board _Yes X No City, Town , Village Planning Board _Yes X No City, Town Zoning Board _Yes X No l, County Health Department _Yes X No er Local Agencies X Yes No County Legislature Adoption Dec. , 2004 er Regional Agencies _Yes X No e Agencies _Yes X No Federal Agencies _Yes X No Page 5 of 26 I C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 . Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? _Yes X No If Yes, indicate decision required : _Zoning amendment _Zoning variance _Special use permit _Subdivision Site plan I _New/revision of master plan _Resource management plan Other 2 . What is the zoning classification(s) of the site? Variable throughout the county 3 . What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? n/a I 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? n/a 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? n/a 6 . Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? _Yes No n/a 7 . What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a % mile radius of proposed action? n/a i 8 . Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses with a % mile? _Yes No n/a 9 . If the proposed action is the subdivision of land , how many lots are proposed? n/a a . What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10 . Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? _Yes No n/a 11 . Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation , education , police, fire protection ? X Yes No I a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? _ Yes X* No *While one of the major goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to focus new development in existing population cen that would be more likely to have , or be able to provide, community services , it is possible that implementation of Plan could result in a demand for community provided services . It is assumed that over time , service capacity will need to expand with population growth , regardless of what pattern of development occurs . I 12 . Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? _Yes X* No *While population is expected to increase over time, if the principles , policies and action items outlined in the comprehensive plan are followed , traffic should not increase significantly above present levels . a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? _Yes No D. Informational Details I Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal ; please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them . E . Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name Tompkins County Department of Planning Date O i Signature C � Title Edward C . Marx Commissioner of Plannin If the action is in the Coastal Area , and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form be proceeding with this assessment. i Page 6 of 26 i PART 2 - PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency In e I ral Information (Read Carefully) In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question : Have my responses and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2 . The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations . But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3 . • The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question . • The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question . • In identifying impacts, consider long term , short term and cumulative effects . Instructions ( Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 20 questions in PART 2 . Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers . c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided , check column 2 . If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1 . d . Identifying that an Impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. e. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3 . f. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3 . A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 31 1 . Small to 2 . Potential 3 , Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change? IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the project site NO❑ YESFx] Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, ( 15 foot rise per ❑ ❑ Yes No 100 foot of length ), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10% . • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 11 FX1 M Yes ❑ No 3 feet. (Action Items: Dredging , NYSDOT) • Construction of paved parking area for 1 ,000 or more vehicles . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑ No feet of existing ground surface. Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more ❑ a Yes ❑ No than one phase or stage. (Action Items: Dredging , NYSDOT, Pub, Safety) Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1 ,000 F1 F1 F1 Yes ❑ No tons of natural material (i . e. , rock or soil) per year. Page 7 of 26 i i I 1 . Small to 2 . Potential 3 . Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change . � r C� • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill . Yes I Construction in a designated floodway. (Action Item : Dredging) [] Yes No Other impacts: [� ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No I 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i. e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.) NO[E YES [ i, *I Specific land forms : 11 11 Yes 0 No i I i IMPACT ON WATER 3. Will Proposed Action affect any water body designated as protected'? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) NO[ YESM I Examples that would apply to column 2 •' Developable area of site contains a protected water body. El [ [ Yes [ No Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a C� Yes ❑ No protected stream . (Action Item : Dredging) L •; Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water Yes No body. •i Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland . 1:1 Yes 1:1 No • Other impacts : [] [ Yes [ No 4, Will Proposed Action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? NOE YES [�] Examples that would apply to column 2 .i A 10 % increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of [] [ El Yes 1:1 water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. I •� Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area . [� F] F] Yes ❑ I Page 8 of 26 1 . Small to 2 . Potential 3. Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change? Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 11 No 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? NOa YESM Examples that would apply to column 2 ❑ ❑ El F]• Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. Yes No • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not ❑ ❑ F Yes ❑ No have approval to serve proposed (project) action . • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water ❑ F1 F1 Yes No supply system . F] • Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. El F] F Yes F1 No Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20, 000 gallons per day. El ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into a Yes ❑ No an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. (Action Item : Dredging) • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or 1:1 El El Yes ❑ No chemical products greater than 1 , 100 gallons . • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without 1:1 El El Yes ❑ No water and/or sewer services . • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities . • Other impacts : 11 0 0 Yes 11 No Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow orpatterns, or surface water runoff? NO M YES Page 9 of 26 1 . Small to 2 . Potential 3 . Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change . Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action would change flood water flows . Yes Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion . Cl 1:1 F1 Yes E] No � ElProposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns . F1 F1 Yes ❑ No 91 Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. C� ❑ F1 Yes ❑ No il L Other impacts : �� a ❑X Yes ❑ No I There will be additional runoff and possibly changes in drainage patterns on the site chosen for the dredge spoil material . I IMPACT ON AIR 70 Will Proposed Action affect air quality? NO[�] YESM I Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action will induce 1 ,000 or more vehicle trips in any Cl El 1:1 Yes F given hour. •' Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton [ l Yes of refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs . per hour [] F] ❑ Yes ❑ No or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. Proposed Action will allow an increase in the amount of land [] F] Yes ❑ No F1 j committed to industrial use. •: Proposed Action will allow an increase in the density of [] F1 F1 Yes ❑ No industrial development within existing industrial areas . X Other impacts: Yes No While one of the major goals of the Plan is to increase use of alternative modes of transportation , which could result in improvements in air quality from less vehicle emissions , it is possible that implementation of the Plan could negatively affect air quality, especially since air quality, as an individual issue, was not the focus of the Plan . i IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8, Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species ? NOIE YES i Examples that would apply to column 2 Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal Cl F] 1:1 Yes F1 list, using the site, over or near the site , or found on the site . Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. [ l Yes No El 1:1 Page 10 of 26 1 . Small to 2 . Potential 3 . Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change? Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, El El F] Yes F] No other than for agricultural purposes. • Other impacts : Yes No 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or nonendangered species? NO❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 F1• Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident Fx] X❑ ❑Yes No or migratory fish , shellfish or wildlife species . (Action Item: Dredging) • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature El El Yes No forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation . F] • Other impacts: 0 Yes 11 No lr:: IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? NO[ X] YES [�] Examples that would apply to column 2 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • The Proposed Action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural Yes No land (includes cropland , hayfields , pasture, vineyard , orchard , etc. ) • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No agricultural land . • The Proposed Action would irreversibly convert more than 10 ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2 . 5 acres of agricultural land . • The Proposed Action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural F] n Yes No land management systems (e.g . , subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches , strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g , cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff). Other impacts : 11 0 D Yes [] No Page 91 of 26 i 1 . Small to 2 . Potential 3 . Can Impact Be j Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change . IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources? (if necessary, use the Visual EAFAddendum in Section 617. 20, Appendix B.) i i NO❑ YES i Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from 1:1 ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns , whether man-made or natural . Proposed land uses , or project components visible to users of [l FX I E Yes F] No aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. (Action Items: Dredging , NYSDOT) F] Project components that will result in the elimination or significant Yes No I screening of scenic views known to be important to the area . (Action Item : NYSDOT) El ❑ ❑ ❑ Other impacts : Yes No i I IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric i or paleontological importance? NOE YES ❑ I 1 Examples that would apply to column 2 •'; Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially [] E] Yes No contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places . Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within C:1 El El Yes No � the project site. El ❑ ❑ • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive Yes No 11 for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. •� Other impacts : C] El El Yes 11 No I I Page 12 of 26 i 1 . Small to 2. Potential 3 . Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change? IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities ? NO� YESF Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. Yes No • A major reduction of an open space important to the community. F] F1 ❑ Yes ❑ No Other impacts : (Action item: Dredging) � ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No The placing of spoils resulting from the dredging of Cayuga Inlet is likely to result in temporary reduction in land area currently used for recreation . Once the project is completed and depending on the placement of dredged materials, the project may result in a change in the recreational opportunities available at the site , but not a permanent foreclosure of recreational opportunities at the site. IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6NYCRR 617. 14(g) ? NOIE YES F] the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA. Examples that would apply to column 2 ❑ ❑ F1 Yes Proposed Action to locate within the CEA? Yes No • Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the resource? ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the resource? ❑ 1-1 ❑ Yes ❑ No • Other impacts : ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems ? NO❑ YESM Page 13 of 26 i Examples that would apply to column 2 • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods . D a E Yes El (Action Item : Freight Study) C� Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems . Yes F] i Other impacts : � 1:1 El Yes No I i it 1 . Small to 2 . Potential 3 . Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change? IMPACT ON ENERGY i 16. Will Proposed Action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? i NO❑ YESM i Examples that would apply to column 2 D F1 El ❑Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the Yes No i use of any form of energy in the municipality. •i Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy [] 1:1 F1 Yes ❑ No transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. r • Other impacts : C� Yes While one of the major goals of the Plan is to increase use of alternative modes of transportation requiring less energy use, it is possible that implementation of the Plan could result in an increase in energy use, especially since energy, as an individual issue, was not the focus of the Plan . i j NOISE AND ODOR IMPACT I 117. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the: Proposed Action ? I i i NO❑ YES X Examples that would apply to column 2 0 • i Blasting within 1 , 500 feet of a hospital , school or other sensitive facility. 11 Yes No Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). D El El Yes El No • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local X Yes No ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures . (Action Items: Dredging , NYSDOT, Public Safety) Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a [] Yes No • i noise screen . • i Other impacts : [� 0 Yes I I Page 14 of 26 1 . Small to 2. Potential 3. Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change? IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 080 Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? NOE] YESF1 • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous 1:1 F] ❑ Yes ❑ No substances (i. e . oil, pesticides , chemicals, radiation , etc. ) in the event of accident or upset conditions , or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission . • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" El F] F1 Yes F1 No in any form (i .e, toxic, poisonous , highly reactive, radioactive, irritating , infectious, etc. ) • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquefied ❑ ❑ F] Yes ❑ No natural gas or other flammable liquids. • Proposed Action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within❑ F1 F] Yes F�] No 2 ,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. • Other impacts : 11 0 [] Yes [] No IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 19. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community? NO❑ YESF] Examples that would apply to column 2 The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the 1:1 FX I M Yes ❑ No project is located is likely to grow by more than 5% . (Action Items: Open Space and Ag/Forest Protection Programs) • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. F1 • Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals . El F] El Yes 1:1 No • Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use. ❑ Fx] F] Yes ❑ No (Action Items: NYSDOT, Open Space and Ag/Forest Protection Programs) • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, ❑ El Yes ❑ No structures or areas of historic importance to the community. Development will create a demand for additional community El Yes 1:1 No services (e.g, schools, police and fire, etc. ) Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects . M F] El Yes 1:1 No • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. F I F] ❑ Yes F] No Page 15 of 26 • Other impacts : ❑ Yes No 20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? NOD YESM (Action Items: Dredging , NYSDOT) If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact, or If you Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Page 16 of 26 Part 3 - EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may ImItigated. Instructions (If you need more space, attach additional sheets) Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2 : 1 . Briefly describe the impact. 2 . Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider: • The probability of the impact occurring • The duration of the impact • Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value • Whether the impact can or will be controlled • The regional consequence of the impact • Its potential divergence from local needs and goals • Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. Part 3 Full Environmental Assessment Form Adoption of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan Overall Positive Impacts of the Comprehensive Plan's Principles and Policies The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) is organized around ten basic principles. These principles incorporate elements of the Vital Communities Initiative, adhere to the values expressed in the County' s mission and vision statements, and reflect the wisdom gathered from many community opinions . Corresponding to the principles are various working policies of Tompkins County government that can be applied to meet many of the community goals expressed in this Plan. The Plan envisions that the county would work toward creating walkable, healthy, and prosperous communities with beautiful rural working landscapes and clean streams and lakes. The natural ecosystems would flourish and the county ' s groundwater would be potable and sufficient to serve the needs of the county' s residents. Transportation options in the county would be expanded to include more opportunities to take public transit, walk and bike to work, shopping and recreation, and housing would include more choice of styles and prices to meet peoples varied tastes and incomes. If all of the principles and policies were implemented to their full potential, the county could see many of these visions realized . These impacts would be positive and beneficial to the community. Strategy for Environmental Review of the Comprehensive Plan The implementation of the principles and policies discussed above will be achieved through 61 priority action items. Each priority action item was reviewed to determine if the action was Type R or not considered an action under SEQR. The actions were also reviewed to determine which of the actions had already undergone individual SEQR reviews or were far enough along in project development that it was anticipated that the SEQR review would be done in the near future. led on these groupings, three lists were developed: A) priority actions that were included for environmental review in Environmental Assessment Form, B) priority actions that have already undergone, are currently undergoing, or will ergo in the near future, their own environmental review and therefore did not receive environmental review at this e, and C) priority actions that are considered Type H actions or are not considered an action under SEQR and therefore were not included in this environmental review. All of the lists are located at the end of Part 3 . Page 17 of 26 Project Descriptions Six priority actions were identified from "List A" as having potentially large negative environmental impacts. It is important to note that while this Full EAF addresses the general impacts anticipated as a result of implementing the priority actions contained in the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, most of the actions recommended therein are conceptual in nature. Thus, detailed site-specific environmental assessments are not possible at this time. It is anticipated these six actions, when they are more fully developed, will require additional environmental reviews. Below is a , description of each of the six actions. 1 . Dredge Cayuga Inlet and find an appropriate method for disposal of dredge spoil material, for example, using dredged material to create new, functioning wetlands at the south end of Cayuga Lake. Cayuga Lake's inlet is a waterway, over 500 feet wide in some locations, immediately south of the lake . From the northern tip of Inlet Island to the white lighthouse is a distance of approximately 6,300 feet. This channel is used by many recreational boaters and provides access to three marinas including the large Allan H. Treman State Marine Park. At Inlet Island, the Inlet splits into the much narrower natural channel on the east and the wider flood control channel on the west. The natural eastern channel is considered navigable water as far south as the West Buffalo Street bridge. Because of continuous siltation, it is necessary to dredge the Inlet from time to time to accommodate boating activity and to more effectively convey floodwaters to the lake. The channels have gotten significantly shallower since the last dredging operation in 1982 and will have to be dredged again in the near future. The NYS Canal Corporation would like to dredge at least the wider sections of the Inlet as soon as a satisfactory spoil-disposal plan can be established. For the most part, the navigable portion of the Inlet flows between parkland and open space or low-density development. The City's Cass Park and the State's Treman Marine Park are adjacent on the west; Cornell's Biological Study Field Station, the Newman Municipal Golf Course, a private marina, the Ithaca Farmers' Market, the NYSDOT storage and service facility, and the Cornell and Ithaca College boathouses are located along the eastern shoreline. Restaurants and other commercial development are located on both sides of the narrower, natural Inlet channel stretching to and beyond West Buffalo Street and connecting to Six Mile Creek. This entire area has the overriding character of an intensively u multi-activity recreational/commercial complex. This part of the City is essentially flat and affected by water-level fluctuations of the lake and inlet. Parts of the area are in the 100-year flood zone . However, because the flood channel is straight and wide as it flows through this area it is generally subject only to moderate-velocity floodwater runoff. However and wherever dredged spoil is disposed of, a dike and a plateau of dried soil pumped from the bottom of the Inlet will remain after the water has drained away or evaporated, a process that could take two to three years. The remaining earth plateau would have to be shaped and landscaped, an action that could be expected to alter the physical and visual character of the receiving site . It was this process, now generally considered to be beneficial, that produced much of the parkland north of Allan H. Treman State Marina. There has been concern that the dredged material may contain contaminants, particularly heavy metals. If true, dredged spoil material would need to be transported to a certified hazardous waste disposal site. Samples of the sediment were taken and tested and found not to contain contaminants that require this special handling. Among the samples taken are those from the areas considered to be most likely to be contaminated: at the confluence of the Inlet with Six Mile Creek and with Cascadilla Creek. 2. Redevelop the NYSDOT Maintenance Facility site with water-dependent and/or water-enhanced projects to provide economic benefits to the City and the County and provide public access to the water's edge. The NYS Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) currently uses a site located on Cayuga Inlet adjacent to the Ithaca Farmers' Market as the regional location of its highway maintenance and repair facility. For several years, NYSDOT, Tompkins County, City of Ithaca, and Town and Village of Dryden officials have been discussing the feasibility of developing a new regional highway facility to serve both Tompkins and Cortland Counties . The intent of this project would be for NYSDOT to move into a new maintenance facility and transfer ownership of its 5 .7 acre property in the City Page 18 of 26 thaca to the County for redevelopment that would enhance the waterfront. Redevelopment of this shoreline location is important due to its high visibility from the heavily used Cass Park on the west side of the inlet. The NYSDOT parcel parated from the Inlet by a strip of City-owned land wide enough to permit access but currently unimproved and sed. A section of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail is planned for this strip of land. The NYSDOT operation has been located at this site for many years. Garages, administrative offices, and materials and equipment storage areas are the primary site activities. There is always the potential for some degree of site pollution related to these uses. The County has prepared a Phase I Environmental Assessment of the NYSDOT site and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation has recently reviewed sampling/lab data from the site and determined that the cleanup and removal actions performed are completed and no further remedial activities are necessary. This part of the City is flat and subject to water-level fluctuations of the Lake and Inlet. It is in the 100-year flood plain but, because the inlet is wide, is subject only to moderate-velocity floodwater runoff. Vehicular access to the site, and all the activities located there, is limited to the Third Street Extension, which connects directly to State Route 13 . 3. Evaluate the need to renovate or expand the County Public Safety building to meet projected needs. As of November, 2004, the Tompkins County Legislature is in the process of deciding whether to proceed with design of an estimated $ 19.9 million project to renovate and expand the Public Safety building on Warren Road. If built, the project would include needed renovations to the Sheriffs office and road patrol headquarters at the building and would also add cell space to increase inmate capacity. The New York State Commission on Correction, which oversees all county jails in the state, has told Tompkins County that it will approve nothing less than a 136-bed facility. Without a commitment from the County for the project, the Commission has said that variances that have allowed the jail to house up to 103 inmates will be cancelled. Without the tarren ces, the inmate capacity would drop to 73 and the County would need to board out additional prisoners to other es ' jails at a typical cost of $75 per day. ansion of the public safety facility were to occur, it is anticipated to take place on or adjacent to the current facility Road, near the Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport. This site is flat and well drained. There are no wetlands, unique natural areas, or floodplains located on this site. 4. Implement recommendations in the Freight Transportation Study to minimize negative aspects of freight transportation, while increasing safety. The general goal of the June 2002 Freight Transportation Study was to obtain new data on freight movements in and through the County, from which a freight transportation plan could be developed. The focus of the plan was to provide recommendations for efficient movement of goods into, out of, and through Tompkins County, while minimizing impacts on truckers, local businesses, shippers, and residents. The study area for the project included all of Tompkins County. After examining all of the data and input received, specific and general areas of concern with truck traffic were identified. The study primarily focused on countywide truck issues, and those on major roads, and the main recommendations revolve around the development of a system of preferred truck routes. Alternative truck travel routes and/or alternative strategies that could help to alleviate some of the concerns voiced about truck traffic were developed. Potential alternatives were identified based on the information gathered through public meetings, meetings with the Highway Superintendents, interviews, and surveys. Recommendations for each geographical area identified during the study as having issues with truck traffic include : determining whether or not to designate roads as truck routes; encouraging coordination among major shippers, receivers and trucking firms; improving signage of preferred truck routes; conducting more detailed studies to find long-term ltions; and reclassifying roads in order to be eligible for federal funding. ther set of recommendations center around policies, strategies, and enforcement initiatives designed to develop a more ctive truck route system. These recommendations include : developing a countywide truck route system that provides ei connectedness within and outside the county and supports the truck initiatives of adjacent counties; each municipality developing ordinances that define the various routes and restrictions, penalties for violations, and possibly the transport of Page 19 of 26 hazardous materials; implementing an effective, consistent truck route signing system throughout the county; implementing methods for route, speed, weight, and noise enforcement; and educating truckers, shippers, and receiver about the location of truck routes and other restrictions and penalties. 5. Establish an open-space program to protect or preserve natural resources and recreational amenities in the focus areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan using tools appropriate to the functions of those resources. The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan identifies 14 Natural Features Focus Areas, based on the location and function of natural resources within the County. Multiple factors were considered in the designation of the Natural Features Focus Areas and their boundaries, including the location of greenways, important bird areas, water resources (such as wetlands, public drinking water sources, and stream corridors) Unique Natural Areas, and recreational areas; primary function and attributes of the lands within the Focus Areas (scenic views, biological diversity, recreational opportunities, etc.); locally designated areas of importance; and local zoning laws. Land area within the Natural Features Focus Area varies from about 400 acres to about 4,000 acres per Focus Area and varies from municipality to municipality. Approximately 108 ,000 acres (or one-third) of the land area within the county falls with the designated Natural Features Focus Areas. An open space program to protect and manage lands within these Focus Areas will be tailored to address the distinct functions of each Focus Areas, the specific natural features located within a Focus Area, the financial needs of property owners within a Focus Area, and the amount and status of taxable property within each Focus Area. Measures to protect land within the Focus Areas will include both regulatory (such as zoning) and non-regulatory tools (such as conservation easements and fee-simple acquisition) . Implementation of the program will include collaborative partnerships with Federal and State agencies (such as the New York State Departments of Environmental Conservation and Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation), local and regional agencies and organizations (such as the Finger Lakes Land Trust and The Nature Conservancy), Cornell University and other academic institutions, the county, and local municipalities. 6. Establish a program to protect and manage land for agricultural and :forestry use in the focus areas identifie in the Comprehensive Plan using tools appropriate to the functions of those resources. The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the need to protect and manage active agricultural and forestry lands and their contributions to the rural economy, quality of life in Tompkins County, and the scenic countryside that attracts tourists and business to the area. To this end, the Plan identifies six County Agricultural Resources Focus Areas for the protection and sustainable management of agriculture and preservation of agricultural areas within the county. The determination of these Focus Areas was based on current land use (land being actively farmed), proximity to actively farmed lands, presence of prime agricultural soils, and agricultural areas of local importance. Land area within the Agricultural Resources Focus Areas varies from about 1 ,900 acres to about 25 ,200 acres per Focus Area and varies from municipality to municipality. Approximately 77,300 acres of land within the county falls within the designated Agricultural Resources Focus Areas. In addition, there are twelve locally-designated important agricultural focus areas, ranging in size from 26 acres to 2,647 acres. These are located in the Town of Ithaca and the Town of Danby. Forestry resources are located in both the Agricultural Resources Focus Areas and the Natural Features Focus Areas, addressed above. A protection program to help protect and manage agricultural and forest lands will be tailored to the distinct characteristics of the land, use of sustainable practices, and the financial needs of the landowners . Protection and management tools for this program are likely to be both regulatory (such as agricultural protection zoning) and non. regulatory in nature (such as purchase of development rights, conservation easements, and farm viability programs) . Implementation of the program will include collaborative partnerships with Federal and State agencies (such as the New York State Departments of Agriculture and Markets and Environmental Conservation); local, regional , and national organizations (such as American Farmland Trust and the Finger Lakes Land Trust); Cornell University and other academic institutions; the county, and local municipalities . Page 20 of 26 IMPACT ON LAND : PHYSICAL CHANGE dge Cayuga Inlet and find an appropriate method for disposal of dredge spoil material, for example, using dged material to create new, functioning wetlands at the south end of Cayuga Lake. There may be negative impacts associated with the dredging of Cayuga Inlet and disposing of the dredge spoils. This action would result in physical changes to the land in the form of fill being placed in the selected spoil area and the Inlet channel being deepened. Dredging would occur on land where the depth to water table is less than 3 feet, along a designated floodway, and would take up to three years to complete. These impacts could be mitigated by: 1 ) identifying a spoil disposal site that would either benefit from, or not be negatively impacted by, the addition of fill, and 2) implementing dewatering and excavation techniques that minimize stream bottom disturbance and downstream impacts . These impacts would be short-term (during construction), as well as long-term, and may be cumulative in nature . The full scope of the possible environmental impacts would need to be evaluated when detailed plans are developed. Redevelop the NYSDOT Maintenance Facility site with water-dependent and/or water-enhanced projects to provide economic benefits to the City and the County and provide public access to the water's edge. Potential negative impacts associated with redeveloping the NYSDOT land on the waterfront may result from construction on land with shallow depth to water table, and construction that lasts longer than a year. Impacts from such changes to the land could be mitigated by reducing the areas where the land would be physically changed and planning the scope and timing of the project so as to reduce the impact on the lake and shoreline plant and animal communities. These impacts would be short-term (during construction), as well as long-term. The full scope of the possible environmental impacts would need to be evaluated when detailed plans for the site are developed. . Evaluate the need to renovate or expand the County Public Safety building to meet projected needs. It is anticipated that expansion of the public safety facility would take more than a year to complete, which could result in a potentially large negative impact on the land. Since the site identified for the construction is flat and well drained, and there are no wetlands, unique natural areas, or floodplains located on this site, negative impacts on the land should be able to be mitigated through implementation of a well-designed erosion and sediment control plan. This impact would be short-term only, during construction. The full scope of the possible environmental impacts would need to be evaluated when detailed plans are developed. IMPACT ON WATER: PROTECTED WATER BODIES and IMPACT ON WATER: SURFACE OR GROUNDWATER Dredge Cayuga Inlet and find an appropriate method for disposal of dredge spoil material, for example, using dredged material to create new, functioning wetlands at the south end of Cayuga Lake. Dredging approximately 300,000 cubic yards of solids from Cayuga Inlet, which is a protected body of water, could potentially have large impacts on the Inlet and Cayuga Lake. Assuming an acceptable spoil site can be negotiated or, alternatively, that the slurry is simply dried and trucked away, the process of dewatering the disposal site could also have a short-term impact on adjacent drainage ways and receiving waters . Finally, since the Inlet was last dredged in 1982, there has been a gradual but continuous build up of sediment as runoff from the watershed reaches lake level . Dredging can be expected to stir up the sediment. That, in turn,. could produce sediment plumes that result in an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions and have an adverse impact on water quality in the Inlet. These impacts could be partially mitigated by implementing: 1 ) erosion and sedimentation procedures, and 2) dewatering and excavation techniques that minimize stream bottom disturbance and downstream impacts. These impacts would be short-term only, during construction. The full scope of the possible environmental impacts would need to be evaluated when detailed plans are developed. Page 21 of 26 IMPACT ON WATER: DRAINAGE :FLOWS Dredge Cayuga Inlet and find an appropriate method for disposal of dredge spoil material, for example, using dredged material to create new, functioning wetlands at the south end of Cayuga Lake. The site selected for the spreading of the dredge spoil material may have its drainage patterns altered and will most likely be subject to additional runoff from the de-watering of the spoils. Although the dredge spoil site has not yet been chosen, in order to keep trucking costs reasonable, the site is likely to be adjacent to the Inlet or Cayuga Lake. If so, the impacts on the drainage system should be negligible, given the proximity to the waterways . However, if a site is chosen that is located away from the water' s edge, impacts on drainage will need to be carefully evaluated prior to proceeding with the project. These impacts would be short-term (during construction), as well as long-term, and may be cumulative in nature. The full scope of the possible environmental impacts would need to be evaluated when detailed plans are developed. IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS : NON-THREATENED OR NONENDANGERED Dredge Cayuga Inlet and find an appropriate method for disposal of dredge spoil material, for example, using dredged material to create new, functioning wetlands at the south end of Cayuga Lake. Impacts on plants and animals will come from two sources. First, the dredging operation itself will disturb aquatic life within and along the channel being dredged. Although this impact may be large, it will be temporary (during actual dredging operations), and could be mitigated by timing the dredging so that species are less vulnerable to channel disturbance and installing silt curtains to help contain the area of disturbance. Second, the dredge spoil material will require placement of the spoil material on a site. This would completely blanket biota on the selected site. This impact is likely to be large, however it could be mitigated to some extent by properly grading the site, reseeding with native plants appropriate for the location, and reseeding it during the optimal season for speedy revegetation. Once the sit revegetated, animal life is expected to return. These impacts would be short-term, during construction and for sev months afterwards. The full scope of the possible environmental impacts would need to be evaluated when detaile plans are developed. IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES Dredge Cayuga Inlet and find an appropriate method for disposal of dredge spoil material, for example, using dredged material to create new, functioning wetlands at the south end of Cayuga Lake. During dredging and until the site is finally shaped and landscaped, a negative impact on the aesthetics of and around the spoil site can be expected. This impact could be mitigated by completing the dredging work as quickly as possible, and seeding the stockpiled materials if they will be exposed for any prolonged length of time. This impact should be a short-term impact and the effect of a new, landscaped site could ultimately be strongly positive for the surrounding area. The full scope of the possible environmental impacts would need to be evaluated when detailed plans are developed. Redevelop the NYSDOT Maintenance Facility site with water-dependent and/or water-enhanced projects to provide economic benefits to the City and the County and provide public access to the water's edge. Located between the Ithaca Farmer' s Market and Cornell University ' s soon to be renovated Collyer Boathouse and Doris Robinson Shell House, and directly across the Cayuga Inlet from the City of Ithaca ' s Cass Park and the newly constructed Cayuga Waterfront Trail, the existing NYSDOT facility is strategically sited to play a key role in the community. Future enhancement of the NYSDOT site could vary from cosmetic (modifying some of the existing structures and adding landscaping) to highly significant, depending on future use. Given the current use of the site for NYSDOT offices and material/vehicular storage, it is quite likely that the aesthetic appeal of the site would be grea enhanced by redevelopment. Landscaping and similar improvements of the city-owned strip adjacent to the water would, in itself, greatly improve the physical appearance of this piece of waterfront. However, it is possible that th site redevelopment could have large impacts on the aesthetics of the surrounding parcels. Impacts on aesthetic resources could be partially mitigated through the provision of public access to the waterfront. Such improvements Page 22 of 26 would be cumulative and long-term. The full scope of the possible environmental impacts would need to be evaluated when detailed plans are developed. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Implement recommendations in the Freight Transportation Study to minimize negative aspects of freight transportation, while increasing safety. The recommendations in the Freight Transportation Study have the potential to alter present patterns of movement of goods in the County. The recommendations identify solutions to help reduce truck impacts on certain roads, including education, enforcement, and intermunicipal cooperation. While it is hoped that determining preferred truck routes, along with an assortment of mitigation strategies, will ultimately improve the way trucks move freight through the county, the alteration of present patterns could be a large impact to the community. The mitigation measures identified in the Study should help to minimize impacts for residential areas by directing trucks along designated truck routes and monitoring their use, and providing law enforcement with improved tools to catch violators of traffic and shipping regulations. Mitigation strategies proposed to reduce and manage truck travel through impacted areas include : coordinating with trucking firms to use preferred routes, enticing firms to relocate distribution centers to locations that are more convenient to proper truck routes, posting truck restriction signs on specific streets, providing incentives for truckers to use alternate routes, installing traffic calming measures, and implementing strong enforcement tools. This impact should be long-term and the effect of identifying preferred truck routes and implementing the mitigation measures could ultimately be strongly positive for the community. The full scope of the possible environmental impacts would need to be evaluated when detailed plans are developed. IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY evelop the NYSDOT Maintenance Facility site with water-dependent and/or water-enhanced projects to vide economic benefits to the City and the County and provide public access to the water's edge. Redeveloping the NYSDOT land on the waterfront could result in a change in the density of land use which could impact the growth and character of the community. Although the future proposed use of the site is not known at this time, it is possible that the density would be greater than it is now. This impact could be mitigated when designing the site by addressing site limitations, visual impacts, and community character. This impacts would be long-term. The full scope of the possible environmental impacts would need to be evaluated when detailed plans for the site are developed. Establish an open-space program to protect or preserve natural resources and recreational amenities in the focus areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan using tools appropriate to the functions of those resources. AND Establish a program to protect and manage land for agricultural and forestry use in the focus areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan using tools appropriate to the functions of those resources. Establishing open space and agricultural protection programs, along with implementing the corresponding policies and principles in the Comprehensive Plan that encourage building density in and around the existing population centers in the County, could result in changing the density of land use and increasing the permanent population of the city, villages and hamlets in the County by more than 5 % . Increasing density and development patterns would most likely impact the growth and character of the community. This impact could be mitigated by implementing the full range of priority actions, principles and policies outlined in the Plan so that the increased density is well designed and not a burden on public service providers and is a positive benefit to the community. The future development scenarios prepared for the Plan outline how increases in density may occur. Under the Comprehensive Plan, future development would shift away from suburban and rural areas, and into the city, villages and hamlets . The scenario described in the Plan anticipates both a physical expansion of and additional development within the urban and rural centers. Several existing rural settlements would grow larger and become rural centers. This scenario also includes a new center located near the hospital . Page 23 of 26 There would still be growth in the suburban and rural areas of the county, accounting for roughly one-third of new residential development. However, there would be very little creation of new suburban areas. Instead, developmen vacant lands within the already established suburban areas, particularly where water and sewer services would be available, would account for most of the suburban development in the county. Rural areas would also see development, but areas identified as Natural Features Focus Areas and Agricultural Resource Focus Areas would grow at a slower rate than other rural areas. These impacts would be cumulative and long-term. The full scope of the possible environmental impacts would need to be evaluated as detailed open space and agricultural protection plans are developed. List A The following priority actions were included in this environmental review for the adoption of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan. Each identified action item will also receive its own environmental review when the action is implemented and more fully developed 1 . Dredge Cayuga Inlet and find an appropriate method for disposal of dredge spoil material, for example, using dredged material to create new, functioning wetlands at the south end of Cayuga Lake. 2. Redevelop the NYSDOT Maintenance Facility site with water-dependent and/or water-enhanced projects to provide economic benefits to the City and the County and provide public access to the water' s edge. 3 . Evaluate the need to renovate or expand the County Public Safety Building to meet projected needs. 4. Implement recommendations in the Freight Transportation Study to minimize negative aspects of freight transportation, while increasing safety. 5 . Establish an open-space program to protect or preserve natural resources and recreational amenities in the focu areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan using tools appropriate to the functions of those resources. 6. Establish a program to protect and manage land for agricultural and forestry use in the focus areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan using tools appropriate to the functions of those resources . 7 . Initiate inspection and maintenance requirements for individual on-site wastewater treatment systems. 8 . Update the county flood hazard mitigation program to incorporate watershed-based approaches to reducing the risk of flood damages. 9 . Develop a system to provide for regular maintenance of existing drainage systems and use of appropriate road ditching techniques on County-maintained roads, and encourage the use of such techniques on other roads in the county. 10 . Advance implementation of a countywide multiuse trail network. 11 . Provide pedestrian connections between the waterfront and downtown through urban creek corridors. List B The following priority actions have already, are currently undergoing, or will undergo in the near future., their own environmental review and therefore did not receive environmental review for the adoption of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan. 1 . Build a new Community Residence — Single Room Occupancy mental health facility. Page 24 of 26 2. Continue to lobby for State Empire Zone status and explore regional partnerships to share underutilized economic development resources. 3 . Implement the countywide Public Safety Communications System project. 4. Develop boat docking, boat service areas, and waterfront commercial district on, and in the vicinity of, Inlet Island in the City of Ithaca. 5 . Complete the Cayuga Waterfront Trail and the Black Diamond Trail. List C The followingpriority actions are considered Type II actions under SEQR (or do not fall underpurview of SEAR) and therefore did not receive environmental review for the adoption of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan. Type II-16 — definition in SEAR "Installation of traffic control devices on existing streets, roads and highways. " 1 . Complete a traffic signal upgrade and intersection evaluation program. (portion is also Type II-21 ) Type H47 - definition in SEQR "Mapping of existing roads, streets, highways, natural resources, land uses and ownership patterns. " _ 1 . Develop a bicycle suitability map for Tompkins County, 2. Update floodplain maps. lI II-18 - definition in SEQR "Information collection including basic data collection and research, water quality and ution studies, traffic counts, engineering studies, surveys, subsurface investigations and soils studies that do not mit the agency to undertake, fund or approve any Type I or Unlisted action. " i . Conduct a survey of in-commuters to determine the reasons they live outside of Tompkins County. 2 . Identify subsidized affordable housing units and determine when subsidies expire and if the units are likely to remain affordable. Establish a program to monitor the status of those units to anticipate impending deficiencies. 3 . Continue to conduct aquifer studies. 4 . Prepare a Cayuga Lake water quality and quantity monitoring plan. Type H-20 - definition in SEQR "Routine or continuing agency administration and management, not including new programs or major reordering of priorities that may affect the environment, " 1 . Develop or obtain a system to track land use changes and preservation efforts. 2. Evaluate and modify the following programs for consistency with and furtherance of the nodal development patterns : review of development proposals under General Municipal Law 239, Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund, Agricultural Districts, and advisory boards ' work programs. 3 . Review responsibility for highway management and maintenance based on the function of the highways. Type H-21 - definition in SEQR "Conducting concurrent environmental, engineering, economic, feasibility and other studies and preliminary planning and budgetary processes necessary to the formulation of a proposal for action, provided those activities do not commit the agency to commence, engage in or approve such action. " 1 . Produce a three- to five-year affordable housing needs assessment to use as a basis to guide development of appropriate subsidized rental- and ownership housing to meet local needs. 2 . Develop or identify model provisions for land development regulations that encourage affordable housing. 3 . Develop plans to meet the housing needs of segments of the population that require supportive services, including seniors, independent (or at-risk) youth, and the homeless. 4. Identify infill opportunities at nodes along transit lines . 5 . Develop a countywide State Route 13 Corridor Management Plan. 6 . Complete a traffic signal upgrade and intersection evaluation program. (portion is also Type 11- 16) 7 . Work with municipalities to assess transportation infrastructure needs, including roadways, transit, bicycles, and pedestrians, to support local planning efforts. Page 25 of 26 8 . Develop a .countywide comprehensive park and ride plan. 9. Utilize Cornell University' s resources to greater advantage, including : work with Cornell to improve technolo transfer, and study feasibility of a business attraction initiative using specific Cornell research and developmen programs as the key element. 10 . Develop a strategy to promote local use and consumption of locally produced goods. 11 . Determine the feasibility of a rural micro-enterprise program, including adding a component to the County' s Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund. 12. Update the Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan with a particular focus on promoting the viability and profitability of agriculture within the county. 13 . Develop or identify model performance standards to preserve agriculture and forest land. 14. Complete watershed assessments for the Fall Creek and Six Mile Creek drinking water sources. 15 . Develop or identify model stream buffer ordinances . 16. Define stream corridor buffers for the major tributaries to Cayuga Lake and encourage use of appropriate measures to preserve the designated stream corridors. 17 . Conduct a Scenic Resources Inventory and prepare a Scenic Resources Preservation Plan. 18 . Develop or identify model performance standards to preserve natural resources . 19. Conduct pedestrian level-of-service and walkability studies in neighborhoods, villages, and hamlets throughout the county. 20 . Work with municipalities to identify and map areas appropriate for infill development. 21 . Develop or identify model development design standards that address how to maintain a distinct edge between the urban/village areas and the rural countryside. 22 . Work with municipalities to develop land use scenarios consistent with the Plan and with local land use plans and policies . 23 . Develop or identify model land development regulations and design standards that support denser development in areas with water and sewer services (including residential, infill, and mixed-use) and limited development in areas without such services. 24. Evaluate a downtown office plan for future County facility needs. 25 . Determine the location of future County Health Department facility and the future use of Biggs B building. 26. Explore the feasibility of developing an Official County Map . Actions Not Subject to SEQR 1 . Provide education and training programs for elected officials, board members, community leaders, developers and builders, and the general public on the need for and benefits of affordable-housing development. 2 . Develop a centralized, uniform accident reporting system. 3 . Facilitate municipal review of local development regulations to address future performance of the transportation system. 4. Complete and implement the workforce development plan, striving to meet the needs of unemployed and underemployed through job creation activities, and the needs of employers through employment and training programs. 5 . Enhance the ability to analyze costs and benefits of projects as well as improve post-project job data collection to determine whether the public purpose of projects is realized. 6. Continue to explore ways to improve the cost and convenience of air service for county employers, visitors and local residents . 7 . Promote and assist in the development of the county ' s tourism attractions, including cultural, natural, and commercial attractions . 8 . Encourage the formation, retention, and expansion of manufacturing and high tech businesses. 9 . Develop and disseminate educational information tailored to each Natural Features Focus Area and each Agricultural Resources Focus Area. 10 . Conduct regular meetings with officials from adjacent counties to focus on ways to reduce overall costs to taxpayers . Page 26 of 26 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO : TOWN BOARD FROM: JONATHAN KANTER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING �. RE: TOMPKINS COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 2004 This is a reminder that copies of the Draft Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan (December 2004) have been provided in Town Board member boxes in Town Hall . Please review the draft Plan and remember to bring it to the December 13th Town Board meeting. Additional copies are available in Town Hall . We will ask a representative from the County Planning Department to be at the meeting in case there are any additional questions regarding the Plan. The Planning Board will be considering a recommendation to the Town Board regarding support of the Comprehensive Plan at their meeting on December 7th (probably already will have happened by the time you receive this memo) . The Planning Board' s resolution with their recommendation will hopefully be in the Town Board mail-out packet (if not, we will provide it at the Dec. 13`h meeting). The packets do include a draft resolution of support for the Board' s consideration. Meanwhile, please let me know if there are any questions on the above. Att. c s December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 9 Report for the Town Board November 4, 2004 DEER IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA: Benefits, Negative Effects, Amelioration. 1,genul 14 Report Prepared by the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board "The US whitetail population is out of control . Not only are deer starving by the thousands, they' re laying waste to entire ecosystems . There is only one solution. No species in North America has been more grotesquely mismanaged than deer. The management — ongoing — began with early settlers against cougars and wolves, the main predators of deer. This behavior flabbergasted the Indians . After much arguing and theorizing, they concluded it was a symptom of insanity. " T. Williams : "WANTED : MORE HUNTERS" This report will indicate that the situation is not so simple . Benefits The negative effects of deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in residential and agricultural settings almost certainly exceed several benefits . However, real benefits are important to many people. The beauty of deer moving quietly through the soft light of dawn or at misty dusk, the surprise and pleasure of spotted fawns in spring, a gentle creature grazing in a sun-dappled forest glade — the deepened sense of wonder and oneness with nature such experiences can evoke. It might be argued that with fewer deer this experience would be less frequent, but all the more meaningful . Dense deer populations increase a hunter' s success, and perhaps with the meat obtained comes also the thrill of a primal experience — an experience that humans have repeated for over two million years . These reasons, as well as pride in the hunting skills required, sometimes cause hunters and hunting organizations to oppose reduction of deer populations. Further, there is the question of whether monies gained from hunting licenses should be used to control deer populations . Balancing such benefits against the negative effects of dense deer populations is not an easy one. Ways of ameliorating the negative effects are the focus of this report. Negative Effects Deer at the densities that occur in the Town do extensive damage to gardens, trees, ornamental plantings, natural vegetation, and agricultural crops. (Also there are messy droppings deposited on lawns and gardens.) Deer cause an increase in the frequency of automobile and truck accidents, either when a driver hits a deer or has an accident when swerving to avoid one. r ' Deer in the Town of Ithaca : November 4, 2004 Benefits.. Negative Effects , Amelioration Deer are part of a cycle of biological connections that leads to Lyme disease 'dn humans : bacteria (Borelia burgdorferi) field and woodland mice and birds --+ deer ticks --+ deer (or humans) --), deer ticks - > mice and birds, etc . It is likely that humans are a dead end in this cycle. This serious disease can lead to paralysis, arthritis, and death. New York has by far the highest incidence of Lyme disease in the United States . Twenty-eight cases were reported in Tompkins County between 1997 and 2001 . The Centers for Disease Control suspects the incidence in New York may be ten times higher than reported. With high densities during severe winters damage to vegetation increases, and if food is insufficient, starving and dying deer may be observed (winter kill) . Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) is a terrible disease of deer and elk. It produces a spong6rm encephalopathy of the brain and behavioral changes similar to Bovine Spongiform Encephalopthy (BSE) known as mad cow disease . The causative agent is thought to be a transmissible prion (aberrant brain polypeptide) like that of BSE and other transmissable spongiform encephalopthies . Some wild deer populations in eight states and two Canadian provinces have shown up with the disease, as have some captive deer populations . Wisconsin is the only state east of the Mississippi River known to have infected deer. Obviously, there is concern about whether the disease will spread eastward, and whether cattle or humans (possibly while dressing out deer) might become infected, just as transmission from BSE is the likely cause of the spongiform variant Cruetzfeldt-Jakob in humans. CWD will be transmitted, and spread, more readily in dense populations of deer. Amelioration - 1 : reducing the food supply for deer Consistently reducing the food supply for deer in residential and agricultural settings will reduce a deer herd. There are several ways to do this . Selective planting of trees, shrubs, and various ornamental plants that deer won't eat is the most effective way in yards and gardens . For example, deer will not seriously attack pines, spruce, European wild ginger, Vinca, or daffodils, and other plants . They may or may not eat firs, but certainly eat some kinds of arborvitae, yews, hostas, and much more . For some potential forage plants that grow tall, the lower foliage can be regularly pruned away and disposed of, thus creating an artificial browse line. When apples, apricots, pears, or other fruit, fall to the ground they should be raked up and composted or buried before deer can eat them. Bird feeders should be installed so deer cannot eat the birdseed. In yards and gardens, fences will deny deer food they would otherwise eat. Small fenced areas only five feet high encircling individual trees will protect them until they attain a height too high for deer to reach. Similar fences can exclude deer from small vegetable or flower gardens, but for larger areas fences at least six feet high and quite possibly eight or ten feet may be required. The Olympic record for deer is a jump that cleared a twelve-foot fence . Areas from very small up to several acres may be effectively protected with a three-foot high electric fence using polytape wire powered by a solar charger to deliver approximately 9000 volts. Aluminum foil strips baited with peanut 2 Deer- in the Town of Ithaca.: November 4, 2004 Benefits, Negative Effects, Amelioration butter hung on the polytape "instruct" the deer not to enter. One reservation about this sort of fence, as well as repellents (below), is that the degree of protection is likely to depend on what other food is available nearby, and thus how desperate the deer are for food. Fencing for large fields and orchards will require eight- or ten-foot fences, gates must be kept closed, and gates must come right to the ground to prevent deer from squirming under. Fencing with posts and square wire mesh costs hundreds of dollars for small areas and thousands for large areas. In orchards, trained dogs inside invisible (underground electric) fencing have proven successful. The dogs are provided with central watchtowers, where they are also fed. They need to be hardy dogs because they will be out a great deal in winter. A variety of repellents are available at garden stores. These act either by taste or smell . Some have received both EPA and DEC approval; others have not. It costs about a million dollars for a company to gain approval for one repellent. Some are approved only for non-food crops. Many can be sprayed directly on plants. Some such as "Deer Away" (approved) and "Liquid Fence" (not yet approved) use decomposing eggs as the main odor-causing ingredient, however the nasty odor quickly disappears for human noses after spraying. "Deer Off' (approved) containing egg solids, capsaicin, and garlic can be used on food crops . See Curtis and Sullivan (2001 ) for a longer list. Agricultural extension offices also provide lists . Amelioration - 2 : hunting, sterilization, contraception There are several ways hunting methods can be used to reduce deer populations. These reductions may be temporary or more persistent depending on the relation between hunting success, natural birth and death (non-hunting) rates of the deer, and their migration rates. Data for local hunting regions illustrate the current situation. Wildlife Management Unit WMU 7H includes southern Cayuga County and northern Tompkins County, an area of 357 sq. mi . with little public land. Indicators for 2003 suggest the deer population is slowly growing. In 2004, the management goal is to lower the deer population in this area by increasing the number of hunting permits available. Region WMU 7R includes southern Tompkins County and northern Tioga County, as well as portions of Broome, Chemung, Cortland, and Schuyler Counties . This unit' s area is 739 sq. mi . , with a fair amount of public land . The number of bucks killed in 2003 fell, and this may be a sign that efforts to reduce the herd are succeeding. Last winter a Citizens Committee recommended a 35 % reduction in the size of this herd. Consequently, the number of permits available for 2004 will remain high. On the broader scale of upstate New York, hunting is not keeping pace with an increasing deer population, falling short by perhaps 100-200 thousand deer not killed per year. Landowners with persistent problems with nuisance deer can seek special licenses allowing them to shoot such deer outside of regular hunting seasons . Trapping followed by killing of the deer with a gunshot to the head has been tried occasionally. It is not likely to be a popular or effective procedure . 3 r Deer in the Town of Ithaca : November 4 , 2004 Benefits, Negative Effects, Amelioration Beginning in 1998 the Village of Cayuga Heights embarked on a deer study and control program involving capturing, tagging, monitoring, and later surgical sterilization of captured female deer. Surgical sterilization is probably financially prohibitive, but it lasts the life of the doe. The research portion of this study cost $ 500,000 . Subsequently, the program is exploring use of contraceptives that confer two-year sterility. It is too early to be sure how effective contraceptives will be. Contraceptives can be administered to deer in several ways : ( 1 ) by trapping followed by subcutaneous implantation of synthetic hormones that block ovulation for two years, but the same deer has to be trapped again every two years prior to the breeding season when food is plentiful and trapping most difficult. Implants done in winter are ineffective; or (2) by injecting (trapped animals), or darting (free ranging animals) in the rump with an immunocontraception drug that makes a doe ' s eggs impervious to sperm; so the doe is essentially allergic to sperm. Currently, the most promising drug is Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP) . Two doses of PZP are required in the first year, with additional booster shots/darts annually. One estimate puts the cost of using PZP at $ 359 per antlerless deer for a single darting, assuming every dart is a "good hit", i . e . , the dart does not malfunction, that it goes deep enough, or does not miss altogether. Another method might involve darting deer with very strong immobilizing drugs currently being developed, followed by killing with a gunshot to the head — also not likely to be popular in residential settings . An oral contraceptive taken by deer in baited food is another possibility, but such a method is not currently available, and deer may avoid baits when food is plentiful prior to the breeding season, just when the contraceptive would be effective . Paul Curtis, Cornell wildlife biologist, reports that a four-year study using contraceptives at the Seneca Army Depot ' s captive herd resulted in about an 85 % reduction in fawns . He also reports that a three-year trial in suburban Rochester, NY, demonstrated that deer can be effectively "vaccinated" with a contraceptive by darting. One of the marked deer in the Cayuga Heights program was killed by a car near Geneva, NY, indicating how far they will wander away from Cayuga Heights, and of course, deer will also migrate into the Village if the local population is reduced while the food supply or mates remain attractive . Hence, there is the larger issue of exchange between deer herds in the Village or Town with other herds in Tompkins County and adjacent counties, as well as deer populations in the still wider sweep of the Finger Lakes landscape . Deer and Automobiles Another reason to lower deer populations is to decrease the frequency of encounters between deer and vehicles . Data for dead deer removed from Tompkins County roads provides an idea of the magnitude and distribution of this problem. During 2003 an average of 42 dead deer per month were collected. The toll was high in March and April , and then fell to lower levels until October through December when the average rose to about 70 per month. 4 N C Deer in the `mown of Ithaca : November 4 , 2004 Benefits, Negative Effects, Amelioration The following table lists the dead deer removed ep r mile for the "top ten" County roads in 2003 . Road Number of deer North Triphammer Road 11 . 8 East King Road 7 . 9 Ellis Hollow Road 63 Gunderman Road 6 .2 Hanshaw Road 5 . 6 Turkey Hill Road 5 . 3 Hayts Road 5 .2 West Dryden Road 5 . 1 Brooktondale Road 4 . 5 Coddington Road 43 The average cost /accident in deer-car collisions in our area is about $ 1800 . 00 . , according to a local insurance agent. Urban Archery or Shotgun hunting versus contraception for Deer Population Control Virginia, West Virginia, Missouri, and possibly other states have initiated deer control by urban archers. Special seasons have been established for hunting by archers within incorporated limits of urban areas . Another example is the decision in 1999 to remove deer by archery and shotguns near homes in the community of Mumford Cove, Connecticut. The first hunt took place in 2000, and was expanded in 2001 to include the adjacent community of Groton Long Point. These communities chose hunting after a previous program using contraception proved insufficient. In 2000, the deer population of Mumford Cove was reduced by 92 percent after six days of hunting. In support of the effort at Mumford Cove in 2000, the State launched a program of deer reduction by hunting in Bluff Point State Park that surrounds Mumford Cove. Another goal at Bluff Point was to stop severe degradation of vegetation caused by deer. The health of the remaining deer improved after the herd reduction. Another possibility would be to establish special seasons for safe deer removal by gun or bow hunting in designated areas at more rural sites . Sites of unusually high deer concentration would be most effective. In 2003 , Missouri set up special seasons for bow and firearm hunting on private lands with owner permission, specifically for deer removal . The case of the inhabited end of Fire Island, New York, admittedly a somewhat confined population, provides a contrast to Mumford Cove. Here, a previously unsuccessful archery hunt had "left deer wandering the boardwalks with arrows sticking out of their rumps . " In 1993 , the Humane Society of the United States jumped in and started a vaccination program using PZP, and has pursued it every year since . The reduction in fawns is dramatic, 30 in 2002 compared with 300 a decade ago . The cost has been about $ 1000 per doe. 5 Deer in tine .3__o« n of Ithaca : November 4 , 2004 Benefits, Negative Effects, Amelioration Conclusions If the Town wishes to take steps to decrease the local deer herd, the method likely to lead to longer term stabilization of the deer herd at a lower, more desirable level , would involve a dramatic decrease in the food supply for deer. While the Town might explore the possibility of reducing the quantity of deer forage available on lands it controls, a really effective reduction in the number of deer requires a concerted effort by many residents . To this end the Town might start an educational or outreach program providing information to residents about ways to reduce forage for deer. The natural advantages of reduced forage are that it lowers the birth rate, increases outward migration, and retards inward migration. Cornell and the surrounding community have experts who can help with development of such an educational approach — including creation of extensive lists of plants resistant or susceptible to deer foraging, information about repellents, as well as the materials, design, and costs of fencing . In the short run a resort to residential archery, or rural sites for targeted herd reduction in and out of hunting seasons, would probably be effective. However, the sight of dead or wounded deer close to home could certainly bring protests (see protest letters at link under "Wildlife Populations" in the references) . Eventually, highly effective contraceptive methods may be useful, less expensive than at present, and worth considering . A small pilot program with current contraceptive methods using PZP and darting might be undertaken in the next few years . Gaining some experience with this method now could prove valuable in the future . Still, without also achieving a decrease. in forage, fewer fawns growing up in the Town would mean more food for deer, and increased inward migration from surrounding areas . More information sources are listed below. Two particularly useful guides for any future deer control programs are DeNicola, et al . , 2000 , and Decker, et al . , 2004 . References Cayuga Heights Deer Project. 2000 . Feasibility study. http//wildlifecontrol . info/chdp/fs .htm Cornell News . 2003 Surgical sterilization snips away at deer overpopulation. www.news .cornell . edu/releases/March03 /deer-TNR.hrs .html Curtis, P . D . , and M . E . Richmond. 1994 . Reducing deer darnage to home gardens and landscape planting . Cornell Cooperative Extension and Department of Natural Resources . Ithaca, NY. Curtis, P . D . , and K. L . Sullivan. 2001 . White-tailed Deer. Wildlife Damage Management Fact Sheet Series . Cornell Cooperative Extension, Ithaca, NY Curtis, P . D . , and D . 1 . M . Riggs . (pers . com. ) . Chapter 9, Wildlife Management. (available from Paul Curtis, Cornell University) 6 Deer in the Town of Ithaca : Novetrnber 4. 2004 Benefits, Negative Effects, Amelioration Craven, S . , and S . Hygnstrom. 1994 . Deer. In" Prevention and control of wildlife damage". S . Hyggstrom and G. Larson, eds. University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension, Lincoln. Chronic Wasting Disease . www. aphis.usda.gov Decker, D . J . , D. B . Raik, and W. F . Seimer. 2004 . Community-Based Deer Management A Practitioner' s Guide. Northeast Wildlife Damage Management Research and Outreach Cooperative . (with 28 references) . Deer Kills on Tompkins County Roads : www.co .tompkins .ny.us/highway/deerl .html www. co .tompkins .ny. us/highway/deer2 .html DeNicola, A. J. , K. C . VerCzuteren, P.D . Curtis, ands . E. Hygnstrom. 2000 . Managing White-tailed Deer in Suburban Environments : A Technical Guide. Cornell Cooperative Extension, .Ithaca, NY (with extensive references) . Drzewuki, Jr. , Vincent et al. ( 1998) . Gardening in Deer Country. Gardening Guides Series, NY. Brick Tower Press Fargione, M. J. , P . D. Curtis, and M . E. Richmond. 1991 . Resistance of woody ornamental plants to deer damage . Home-grounds-garden fact sheet 800 . 00 . Cornell Cooperative Extension, College of Agriculture, Ithaca, NY. Henderson, F. R. , and C . Lee . 1992 . Controlling deer damage. Kansas State University Cooperative Extension, Manhattan, KS . Ithaca Journal. 2001 . It takes bucks to stop does . www.theithacajoumal. com/news/stories/20010108/opinion/ I 67223 .html Lyme Disease in Tompkins County. www.health. state . ny. us/nysdoh/ptompk.htm Lyme Disease in New York, Stop Ticks on People, United Way of Duchess County. www. stopticks. org/epidemiology/lymeny. asp New York Deer Management Program Options . 2000 . A landowner' s guide for managing deer populations . New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. www. dec. state .ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/deer/dmgtopt.htm Schuerman, M. , 2002 . Birth control for deer? (Fire Island case) http//magazine.Audubon. org/webstories/deer birth control .html Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries. 2004 . Urban archery season. www. dgif. state* va.us/hunting/special—urban—archery.html 7 Deer in the Towri of-Ithaca : November 4 , 2004 r Benefits. Negative Effects , Amelioration Wildlife Populations : population control . (two protest letters) www. linkny.com/�eivitas/page236 .html Williams, T. , 2003 . WANTED : MORE HUNTERS . httpHmagazine. audubon. org/incite/incite0203 .html Winand, C . J . , 2003 . Deer contraceptives (Part 2) www.bowsite .com/bowsite/features/armchair_biologist/immunocontraception/pill2 .htm 8 December 13 , 2004 Town Baord Meeting ATTACHMENT x,10 QTS r17aa k�c � 1 Resolutions Committee Novem ber 15 2004 ssociation of Towns 2005 Proposed Resolutions f, $o,�, :: '' of the State of New York Tort Reform Resolutions ❑ Collateral Source Legislation ❑ General Tort Reform Labor/Personnel ❑ Compulsory Binding Arbitration ❑ Health Insurance Benefits Unfunded Mandates ❑ More Medicaid Reform ❑ Wicks & Prevailing Wage Reform al ❑ Volunteer Fire and Emergency Reform ❑ Highway Aid — CHIPS Real Property Taxes ❑ Exemption Reform ❑ Condo Assessments Government Operation ❑ Help America Vote Act (HAVA) ❑ Police Accident Report Fees ❑ ATV Use and Classification o Speed Limits 146 State Street Albany New York 12207- 1671 Phone : (518) 465 -7933 ~ Fax: (518) 465 -0724 Website : www.nytowns.org 1 , Proposed Resolution Collateral Sourcelel4islation WHEREAS, Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) §4545 , subjects public employers, and only public employers, to a double recovery of lost future earnings in tort actions brought by their employees ; and WHEREAS, this present inequity exists because the CPLR as interpreted by New York' s Court of Appeals in Iazzetti v. City of New York, 94 N.Y.2d 183 ( 1999) requires that future lost earnings awards for public employees are not offset by collateral sources such as a disability pension that the employee will also receive to replace his or her lost earnings; and WHEREAS, amendments to the collateral source rule will eliminate this inequality and these windfall recoveries and lead to significantly lower costs to municipalities and taxpayers throughout the State; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Association of Towns calls for an amendment to CPLR, §4545 such as provided for in S.622/A.3483 (2003 44) or S. 1406-A/A.2106-A (2003-04) to prevent "double dipping" in lawsuits against public employers and ensure that plaintiffs do not profit at the expense of taxpayers . 2 . Proposed Resolution Tort Reform WHEREAS, the costs of defending and paying liability claims in the U .S . have hit over $205 billion; and WHEREAS, recent studies report that at these levels, Tort costs amount to a 5 % tax on wages and $721 per each U .S . citizen, with annual increases in tort costs expected to be in the 7- 11 % range for the next several years; and can serve as a WHEREAS, it is essential that New York State maintain a balanced civil equally imports tldemocratic values guarantor and protector of individual rights and freedoms w hile preserving the of fairness and personal responsibility; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Association of Townthorize towns and and the Legislature to reform the State's oca11 governments to defend themselves civil justice system and, in particular, to au in the non-jury forum of the State Court of Claims where the State has been privileged to defend itself since the end of sovereign immunity more than 70 years ago. 39 Proposed Resolution Compulsory Binding Arbitration WHEREAS, the State ' s compulsory arbitration statute, Civil Service Law, §209 was once again extended for two more years in 2003 by the State Legislature; and, WHEREAS, the Governor' s Task Force on Local Government Reform has :recommended greater consideration of a government' s financial constraints by binding arbitration panels; and WHEREAS, the Governor has continually proposed reasonable reforms orms su an as requiring co nincr pulsory arbitration existing panels to give priority to the financial ability of a municipality pay for levels of local taxation, and further indicated that he would issue an executive order to establish 'a task force on binding arbitration; NOW THEREFORE BE IT ory binding arbitration RESOLVED, that the Association of Towns oppose another iew the issues surrounding binding arbitration and calls for the establishment of a task force to process and we further support amendments to the Civil Service Law which would require giving the ability to pay a priority in the binding arbitration process. ' , t 4 . Proposed Resolution to Preserve Local Control over Health Insurance Benefits serve Local Control over Active and Retiree Health Insurance Benefits EREAS, GASB 34 compliant municipalities now have to account for future employee liabilities such as retiree th care costs in financial reporting requirements; and WHEREAS, many towns choose to provide health insurance benefits although provision of health insurance benefits to town officers and employees (active and/or retired) is permissive (General Municipal Law, § 92-a), and WHEREAS, towns currently have the authority to adjust health insurance benefits upon reasonable notice and subject to any collective bargaining agreements where applicable; and WHEREAS, many towns are facing double-digit increases in health care costs while their budgets are overburdened with fixed mandated costs such as for pensions payments, workers' compensation and the like, and WHEREAS, real property taxes in New York are among the highest in the nation, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Association of Town is opposed to any State mandated restriction (such as A07175/S 2501-13 or A 4962a/S973a) which would affect a local government's control over the provision of health care benefits to its active or retired officers and employees. 59 Proposed Resolution Medicaid Reform WHEREAS, the continuing rapid and uncontrolled increases in Medicaid costs continue to overwhelm county budgets across New York State; and, t aREAS, New York' s highest in the nation Medicaid costs continue to drain both state and local budgets and major factor in New York' s having the highest local taxes in the nation; and, WHEREAS, paying for state and federal mandated programs with local taxes shifts the fiscal burden of these programs from the income tax to rising local property and sales taxes which adds disproportionate costs to farmers, seniors, local businesses and those least able to pay, with New Yorkers paying 72% more than the national average in local taxes; and WHEREAS, the Governor and the New York State Legislature introduced various reform measures while enacting few; and WHEREAS, a graduated takeover of the Counties ' share of Family Health Plus program is a good beginning it will not solve the looming fiscal crisis; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Association of Towns calls upon the Governor and the Legislature to reform Medicaid by capping and/or eliminating the county's required contribution as well as instituting reasonable cost saving reforms. 6. Proposed Resolution reforming WICKS Law and Prevailing Wage WHEREAS, the complexity of bidding and retaining multiple contractors for ongoing capital building and infrastructure projects in the towns of our State results in substantially .inflated costs for managing these necessary tblic works projects; and EREAS, current provisions of New York State Labor Law define prevailing wage as the wages paid under llective bargaining agreements which are a far cry from the true cost of labor in many areas of our State; and WHEREAS, the Governor' s Task Force on Local Government Reform has recommended repeal of the WICKS law and reform of the Prevailing Wage Methodology; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED , that the Association of Towns again calls upon the New York State Legislature and the Governor to honor prior commitments to take up the WICKS and Prevailing Wage issues and to finally act to reform these twin burdens which afflict local government public works projects, a burden New York' s taxpayers simply can no longer afford . 70 Proposed Resolution to Retain and Bolster Volunteer Firefighter and EMS Recruitment WHEREAS, approximately half of New York' s population resides in its towns, and in most of those towns emergency services such as fire and ambulance are provided through efforts of volunteers. Over the past several years the personnel resources for the volunteer services has been dwindling severely for a variety of reasons . In increasing numbers volunteer companies in our towns have been forced to turn to paid personnel in order to meet the demands of local residents . The cost of paying for emergency services in towns falls directly on the already . overburdened real property tax base; and WHEREAS, the Association of Towns agrees with those who think that high property taxes are an impediment to the economic well being of New York State. A study done by FASNY has determined that the conversion of volunteer to paid emergency services in New York State would add approximately $7 billion dollars to the real property tax bill of those currently served by volunteers . This would increase the property tax burden threefold. Were this to happen, New York State' s attractiveness to both residents and business would be greatly diminished; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Association of Towns requests the Governor and the Legislature to expand the purpose of the task force established by Chapter 451 of the laws of 2004 to address incentives other than health insurance to encourage and support volunteer participation in our emergency services. 8. Proposed Resolution to increase Highway Funding WHEREAS, the Consolidated Highway Improvement Program (CHIPS) was established pursuant to Chapter 314 of the Laws of 1981 for the purpose of making State Aid payments to New York towns and other general purpose local governments for the construction, operation and maintenance of local highways and bridges that make up 85 % of our State' s highway system; and, WHEREAS, recent studies of New York' s extensive local road system continue to identify a multi-billion dollar shortfall in funding of local highways and bridges; and WHEREAS, a continuing and predictable stream of revenue for our local road system is essential for towns and other local governments to be able to properly plan their highway and bridge programs; and WHEREAS, the trend in recent years has been to reduce or eliminate State highway aid programs such as Multi- Modal Transportation and Operation and Maintenance component of the Consolidated Highway Improvement Programs ; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Association of Towns calls upon the Governor and eXegtevery way possible to support of the Consolidated Highway Improvement Program (CHIPS) P ore first protect and then increase the levels of CHIPS highway aid which will allow towns to more ably address the critical needs which exist on the 85% of our State' s road and bridge system which are a local responsibility. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we call upon New York's CongrConnressadoats a n ew six-year transportationrfund funding share of Federal Transportation (TEA 3) monies as g P program. I 9. Proposed Resolution to Address Property Tax Exemptions 4 emREAS, nearly one-third of the real property value across New York State is exempt from taxation; and REAS, tax exemptions need to be more closely scrutinized so that homeowners and small businesses do not ue to shoulder the costs of higher property taxes while groups and organizations receive tax exemptions due ption laws which are among the most generous in the Nation; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Association of Towns supports legislative initiatives which would NOT eliminate exemptions but rather place the burden of qualifying for tax exemption on the organization claiming tax exempt status and by requiring such organizations to prove by clear and convincing evidence to local assessors that the property is used exclusively for exempt purposes. 10. Resolution to Reform Condominium Assessments WHEREAS, section 339-y of the Real Property Law has been interpreted by courts to limit an assessor' s method of establishing a condominium assessment to the income approach, resulting in the assessment for each unit significantly under market value, sometimes by as much as 50% or more; and WHEREAS, further abuse of section 339-y now includes attempts by developers to take large tracts of land, construct large single-family houses on one or two acres and instead of simply subdividing the property, establish a condominium with two classes of common areas, a limited common area (consisting of all the parcels surrounding each residence) which is for the exclusive use of the owner and occupant of the "condominium unit", and one general common area consisting only of the roadways within the development; and WHEREAS, by structuring ownership of the property in the manner just described, section 339-y limits the 4 csing unit to setting assessments on all the units as if the property were a single parcel, resulting in a steep tion in what the assessment would otherwise be; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT OLVED, that the Association of Towns again calls upon the Legislature and the Governor to repeal section 339-y so as to provide equal treatment for all types of residential housing and to prevent the continuing abuses of section 339-y as described above . 11 . Proposed Resolution Help America Vote Act (HAVA) Centralized Equipment Purchase and Maintenance WHEREAS, the Federal Government has mandated pursuant to the Help America Vote Act the purchase and implementation of voting machines with approved technology by January 1 , 2006; and WHEREAS, without the action of the State of New York to consolidate the administration of these machines under the County Board of Elections, individual Towns must accept the responsibility of purchasing, programming, training, and administration of the new machines; a cost of which could run as high as $ 10,000 per machine for full implementation and voter education to be borne solely by the Town; and WHEREAS, the State and Federal Government will likely only provide partial reimbursement for new equipment; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Association of Towns supports the central purchase and administration of the new voting machines. Proposed Resolution Help America Vote Act (HAVA) loter-Verffication WHEREAS, the Federal Government has mandated pursuant to the Help America Vote Act the purchase and implementation of voting machines with approved technology by January 1 , 2006 ; and WHEREAS, electronic voting equipment that does not allow voters to inspect their ballots, fails to provide a means by which a meaningful recount may be conducted, or that uses software that is not open to public scrutiny, is not in keeping with the spirit of the Help America Vote Act; and WHEREAS, a recount requires that there be a reliable record to check; and WHEREAS, without an actual paper record that each voter can confidentially inspect, faulty or compromised computer systems will produce faulty or compromised data; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Association of Towns supports legislation which requires all voting systems to produce a voter-verified paper record for use in manual audits and recounts and which bans the use of undisclosed software and wireless communications devices in voting systems. 13 . Proposed Resolution requesting Police Accident Report Fee Reform WHEREAS, Public Officers Law § 66-a authorizes the New York State Police to charge Fifteen Dollars ($ 15) for a copy of a police accident report; and WHEREAS, municipal police personnel expend a similar amount of search time and effort in issuing copies of such reports, are only allowed to charge Twenty-five Cents ($.25) per page pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , that the Association of Towns supports an amendment to ]Public Officers Law, §66-a, enabling municipalities to charge Fifteen Dollars ($ 15) for each copy of police accident report issued. 14. Proposed Resolution ATV access to town land and roads Proposing an amendment to the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law, Article 48 7C, "Rules for operation of all terrain vehicles", Section 2405 , "Designation of Highways and Public Lands for Travel by ATVs," Which Permit a municipality, either by local law or ordinance, to: " . . . designate and post any such public highway or portion thereof as open for travel by ATVs when in the determination of the governmental agency concerned, it is otherwise impossible for ATVs to gain access to areas or trails adjacent to the highway. * * * " WHEREAS, Section 1660 of Article 41 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, "Regulation of traffic by Towns," Number 24, gives Towns the right to "Prohibit, restrict or regulate the operation of limited use vehicles on any street or highway"; and WHEREAS, townships need to provide safe and legal transit for ATV users;, and WHEREAS, the exponential growth of ATVing as a sport is making a major economic impact on local municipalities; and WHEREAS, in rural townships ATV users need to access varying, non-contiguous, and newly developing trails, and to find services on route; and WHEREAS, townships need to support local businesses that depend on recreational related spending; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the wording ". . .by ATVs when in the determination of the governmental agency concerned , it is otherwise impossible. . ." be removed from Article 48-C9 Section 2405 by amendment of Vehicle and Traffic Law. designate and post any such public highway or portion thereof as open for travel by ATVs when in the rmination of the overnmental a enc concerned it is otherwise im ossible for ATVs to gain access to ils adjacent to the highway."' oposed Resolution to Reclassify ATVs to Recreational Vehicles PROPOSING THAT ALL TERRAIN VEHICLES BE REMOVED FROM CLASSIFICATION AS UNDER THE MOTOR VEHICLES AND BE YORK ATE OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION JURISDICTION OF THE NEW Y AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION. WHEREAS, in a ten-year period, the number of registered ATVs in New York State more than tripled, from 27,963 registrations in 1992 to 98 ,655 resignations in 2001 , and those numbers continue to rise; and WHEREAS, ATV registrations generated nearly one million dollars for the general fund in 2001 and that figure also increases exponentially; and WHEREAS, by their very nature, ATVs are a recreational vehicle in the same manner that snowmobiles, boats and other watercraft are, and should be administered by similar programs under the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation; and WHEREAS, New York State needs to develop safe and legal use for ATVs; and WHEREAS, Statistics prove a major improvement in accident rates on maintained trails systems, (i . e. a five-year dy by the stat of Maine shows only 27 accidents on maintained trails, vs . 1176 accidents on unmarked trails, ce: Maine Governor' s ATV Task Force Report, 2002); and REAS, without a properly - administered program there is a lack of control by any governmental agency, by legislation and by any enforcement agency; and WHEREAS, without a properly administered program there is a lack of funding for program, development and regulations of ATVing; and WHEREAS, without a properly administered program, illegal use of ATVs risk the safety of riders, sets a poor example for youth, and poses a risk to private property and environmentally sensitive natural resources; and WHEREAS, a properly administered system would provide the additional benefits of multi-use by others such as equestrians, cross-country skiers, hikers, etc. handicapped access for recreation and essential access for search, rescue and fire-fighting; and WHEREAS, ATVing is related spending and tourist potential is of major economic benefit in rural, economically depressed regions, helps create jobs and is having a positive effect on local businesses and municipalities; and WHEREAS, year-round multiple-use trail systems including ATVing are proving profitable for other states and operate successfully within state and national parks throughout the United States, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the ATVs be reclassified as recreational vehicles and placed under the administration of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation ; BE IT FURTHER I rSOLVED that New York State mandate by law that insurance companies offer policies similar to those snowmobiling to ATV associations; BE IT FURTHER SOLVED that dedicated ATV funding be established through registration fee increase, enforcement fines, or any other means related to ATVing, in the same manner as the snowmobile fund currently administered by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. 16. Proposed Resolution Speed Limits on All Town Roads Allow all towns to set Speed Limits on town roads WHEREAS, current provisions of the Vehicle & Traffic Law, § 1662-a authorize only certain towns (i.e., suburban towns and those with over 50,000 in population — approximately 8.6% of towns) to set speed limits on all highways within a town other than State highways maintained by the State, while all cities and villages regardless of classification or population set their own limits; and WHEREAS, the NYS Department of Transportation can take as much as two years to process requests for speed limit reductions and has , in most instances, declined to reduce speed limits on town highways when requested to do so by local officials; and WHEREAS, town governments are better positioned to work with their citizens to set speed limits on town roads and more likely to be responsive to their residents ' concerns for health and safety; and WHEREAS, town officials are legally required to set speed limits based upon the same engineering standards and traffic investigation techniques as the State DOT, cities and villages are required to employ; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Association of Towns urges the Legislature and Governor to extend to all towns the option — through adoption of a local law — to assume responsibility and authority to set speed limits on town roads within their respective jurisdictions, within the limits as defined in § 1662-a of the Vehicle & Traffic Law, and so long as those roads have been functionally classified by the Department of Transportation as local roads. December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 11 11 / 19 / 2004 13 : 44 FAX 518 750 9443 WRIGHT RISK MANAGEMENT X1001 / 015 WIUGHT RISK. MANAGEMENT Phone i 516.22742300 333 Earle Ovington Blvd. ® Uniondale, New York 11553 Fax . 51.64227.2352 Fax Cover Sheet TO: Ms. Karen Keenan The Ithaca Agency, Div. of HF&C FROM Diane Kramer, Ext. 1481 Client.Services DATE: November 19, 2©04 RE: Town -of Ithaca TO FAX #: 315-352-5734 NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SBEET): 15 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Enclosed please find NYMIR. quote for the Town of Ithaca. Please review and contact me with any questions you may have. Please let me know in writing if you would like to bind coverage. effective January 1, 20050 I£ the Town of Ithaca wishes to pay their full capitalization upon joining NYMIR, they will receive a 10% discount on their total capitalization. Total Capitalization: $51,393.60 Capitalization with Discount: $46,25424 Thank you for your time and consideration. CC: Karen Buckley, Albany 518437 4182 UNIONDALE . MANHATTAN . ALBANY . ROCHESTER * CONNECTICUT www.wnght mk.corn - J i '1 111 ' 1 — eTe -� Ir I 1 � t 5 Y :: S S p r I � S 5 . I Li o , _Y? ti = (•�. s d 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 In # MOM m mor i t . 1 f 1 I I s . Inland I . tl 1 4 1 1 11 ! 1 11 • ' # 1 1 Automobile il WIMINOXIM 1 11 1 IMID mg 31 1 1 # ! 1 Healthcare I Liability HIM muffirp-4"I MOM ! ! I r t 1 1 + e I 1 11 11 a r r + l 1 1 I I 1 ( 1 K=f I I I I 51 . I r I I I MV ( I if / li Enforcement ROMr A 1 • • . . • r 1 : ✓. 11 / 03 / 2004 12 : 19 FAX 973 948 0377 NORTHEAST OPERATIONS 0001 I I Michelle Chattaway CIC AIS AU S ELECrTWE Northeast Region/ Public Entity Team P . O. Box 480, Branchville, New Jersey 07826-0480 Insurance 800 .777 .9656 x1404 /fax: 973 .948 . 0377 rnichelle. chattaway@selective. com Date : 11/3/04 i Agent: #11557 Ithaca Agency Attention : Karen Keenan Fax Number: -7662 Account: Q2 of Ithaca JS1672429/S 1672533/S 1323350 — effective 1 / 1 /05 -06 Coverage Expiring Renewal Quote x Renewal Quote Annualized #19946100 #19946101 Premium W/O Terrorism ".:: W/ Terrorism W/O Terrorism Automobile 25 ,076.00 23 ,917.00 ='' :243749.00 Crime 751 .00 237600 237 .00 General Liability 279534.00 341675 .00 353889 . 00 Inland Marine 73174 .00 7,698 .00 71967 . 00 Property 9,906.64 10, 132 . 50 109270950 I Umbrella 16,456.00 18, 938 . 00 1 19, 601 . 00 Total Packa e 863897 .64 953597 . 50 983713 . 50 OCP 250 .00 ? <;f, - ,;250 00 _<.: ; ', ; > 255 .00 POL 13,280 .00 ' 14;94100 ' - i 14 , 941 .00 Total Account 100,427 .64 110,7.88., 50. . ,;:- 113 ,909 .50—� CommentslAdditionral information needed. • As required by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, our quotation includes terrorism coverage for the additional premium outlined on form IN0132 attached. (Offer of Terrorism Coverage/Disclosure of Premium) If the named insured should elect to reject the offer of coverage for Terrorist Acts from the Commercial Package policy within the first thirty (30) days of the policy period, the Terrorism Coverage Rejection Form #IN0133 must be completed and signed . • If the named insured elects to reject the terrorism coverage from the Commercial Package Policy, a terrorism premium is still charged. This happens because New York State has a "standard fire policy" law, which limits the exclusions, which may apply to los, caused by fire. The premium for the terrorism (Fire Only) is also shown on form IN0132 (attached) • Please advise as soon as possible when we can release this renewal. PLEASE NOTE, ANY INCREASE IN LIMITS OR EXPOSURES IS SUBJECT TO COMPANY APPROVAL, i Sincerely, / Michelle Chattaway CIC AIS AU CISR I December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 12 Summary of Amendments to the Model Plan Document ( Effective May 21 , 2004) The New York State Deferred Compensation Board voted to amend the Plan Document for the Deferred Compensation Plan of [Name of Local Employer] , commonly referred to as the Model Plan Document, on September 27, 2004. The following is a summary of those amendments . • Retirement Catch- Up Limitation - The determination of the maximum Retirement Catch- Up deferral amount is limited to the plan years during which the participant was eligible to participate in the Model Plan sponsored by his or her current employer. (Section 3. 2(b) (ii)) • Individual Transaction Restrictions - The Administrative Service Agency of a Model Plan may reject an investment direction from a participant if the requested transaction would be contrary to the rules , regulations or prospectus of the investment fund . (Section 4. 5) • Mandatory Distribution of Plan Accounts - Model Plans are permitted to require a participant to withdraw all assets from his or her plan account if the account holds less than $5 , 000 . This amendment will require the Model Plan to comply with requirements of the Internal Revenue Code (§401 (a) (31 )) with regard to such mandatory distributions and to comply with any future rules relating to that section . (Section 6.4) • Plan Loan Rules - A Model Plan that permits loans must, at a minimum , comply with the provisions set forth in the Model Plan document in the event the Model Plan sponsor adopts additional requirements . (Section 6 . 5) • Limitations on Loans Subseauent to a Default — Any loan that is in default is deemed to be an outstanding loan until paid in full . A Model Plan may permit a loan to a participant who has previously defaulted on a loan , but only after the maximum time period for which the original loan could have been repaid has expired . The amount of the original loan and accrued interest is deducted from the maximum permissible amount for any loan subsequent to a default. (Section 6 . 5) • Withdrawal of Rollover Assets - A Model Plan may permit participants who have rolled assets into the plan from another qualified retirement plan to receive a distribution of those assets at any time in accordance with the rules of the plan that originally held the assets provided that the assets are separately accounted for. Assets rolled in from another governmental deferred compensation plan may not be distributed until the participant is eligible for a distribution under the rules for a governmental deferred compensation plan . (Sections 6. 6 and 7. 5(b)(ii) (C)) • Status of Plan Loans and In-service Withdrawal Requests Upon Death of Participant - If a participant should become deceased prior to the payment of proceeds of any withdrawal or loan requested under Section 6, the loan or benefit payment request is deemed void as of the date of his or her death . (Section 6. 7) • Rollovers by Alternate Payees - A direct rollover of assets into a Model Plan by an alternate payee may only be made by an alternate payee who is the spouse or former spouse of the participant in the plan . (Section 7.5(b)) • Purchase of Retirement Service Credit - Participants may use plan assets to purchase retirement service credit in any governmental defined benefit plan . This provision is no longer restricted to such plans within the State of New York. (Section 7.5(c)) • Liability Limitation of Committee Members - As requested by the IRS , provides clarification that Deferred Compensation Committee members are not protected from liability in the event that the member has failed to act in good faith or has engaged in gross negligence or willful misconduct. (Section 9. 3) Deferral Limits for 2005 Reg lar Deferral Li it Additional Deferral fo Age 50 Maximum Retirerne t and,0� artici n s� Catch-U Deferra ' $ 149000 / $4 ,000 $ 14 ,000 Participants who b come Age 50 at any time-during calendar year 2005 are eligible to make Age 50 and Over Catch- Up Contributions . Participants who are eligible to retire in 2008 or sooner without a reduction in benefits are eligible to participate in the Retirement Catch- Up provision in 2005 . The additional amount that a participant may contribute under the Retirement Catch- Up provision is based on the difference between the amount contributed to the Plan in past years and the maximum amount that could have been contributed to the Plan in those years ("underutilized deferrals") . A participant may not make Age 50 and Over contributions and Retirement Catch- Up contributions during the same time . However , if a participant is participating in the Retirement Catch- Up provision and is , also , eligible to make Age 50 and Over contributions , the higher contribution maximum may be used . December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 13 TROWBRIDGE & WOLF , LLP L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t s P l a n n e r s F, NOV 2 3 2004 1 November 22, 2004 E 1.0 ' + T , Supervisor Cathy Valentino L_ ! n : , ; . ti ER NG Town of Ithaca 215 No. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Supervisor Valentino: I am writing to request a four (4) month extension for the Country Inn & Suites Hotel site plan review application to be governed by the provisions of the Town zoning ordinance in effect prior to April 1 , 2004, as referenced in Section 270-245 , Section C of the Town of Ithaca Code. The proposed project is a 58-room, two-story hotel with parking for 61t cars, to be sited on a 2 .74 f acre lot at the southwest corner of the West King Road/Route 96B intersection. The site is located in a Business District D zone, as defined by the zoning ordinance in effect prior to April 1 , 2004 . A sketch plan review application for the Country Inn & Suites project was first submitted to the Town Planning Board on March 2, 2004 . Since that time the applicant team has been working diligently with the Town Planning Board and staff to provide further information and to modify the proposed project in response to comments from the Board. Following the initial sketch plan application, the project was submitted twice more for sketch plan review: on April 16, 2004, and on June 21 , 2004. During the sketch plan process the size of the building was reduced twice, the number of proposed parking spaces was reduced, and the building was topographically lowered on the site by 5 'f to reduce its apparent height and grading impacts on the site. A preliminary site plan review application was submitted for the project on September 17, 2004, and it was considered at the Planning Board ' s October 19, 2004, meeting. The applicant withdrew the project from voting consideration at that meeting, because not all Board members were present. The project was considered again, and preliminary site plan approval was granted, at the Board ' s November 2, 2004, meeting. Because the proposed project exceeds the 30-room limit for a hotel in a Business District D zone, the applicant will be submitting a request for a special approval to be considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals at its December 20, 2004, meeting. The Planning Board, in its preliminary site plan review resolution, recommended that the ZBA grant this special approval . As you can see, the applicant team for the Country Inn & Suites project has been diligently pursuing the application for this project with the Town Planning Board and staff since March of this year, meeting with the Planning Board on five occasions . Since the project has been granted preliminary site plan approval and will be submitted for consideration at the December 20 ZBA meeting, we request that the Town Board be asked to consider a four month extension for this project to be finalized under the zoning in effect prior to April 1 , 2004, at its December 13 , 2004 meeting. The applicant has expended significant economic investment in this project, has worked in good faith with the Planning Board and Town staff, and will experience significant adverse economic hardship if the four-month extension is not granted. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Annette Marchesseault if you should need further information. Sincerely, ryvvp* - Peter J. Trowbridge, FASLA Principal-in-Charge Cc : M. Smith, J. Sharma, J. Brahmandkar, A. Dixon 131 McckIenburg Road Ithaca , New York 14850 60 ;" • 2 7 ? • 1400 FAX 60 ? * ' " ? * 6092 TOWN CLERK' S MONTHLY REPORT A$ TACHMENTP # 14 TOWN OF ITHACA, NEW YORK NOVEMBER, 2004 THE SUPERVISOR: PAGE 1 ant to Section 27, Subd 1 of the Town Law, I hereby make the following statement of all fees and moneys received e in connection with my office during the month stated above, excepting only such fees and moneys the application ayment of which are otherwise provided for by Law : A1255 6 MARRIAGE LICENSES NO. 04135 TO 04140 105 .00 19 MISC . COPIES 27.62 3 ZONING ORDINANCE 40. 14 4 TAX SEARCH 20.00 2 USE OF PARKS & BLDG 300 . 00 2 MARRIAGE TRANSCRIPT 20.00 TOTAL TOWN CLERK FEES 51176 A1557 2 SPCA IMPOUND FEES 60 .00 TOTAL A1557 60.00 A2540 I BINGO PROCEEDS 34 . 15 TOTAL A2540 34. 15 A2 44 DOG LICENSES 607.20 TOTAL A2544 607.20 9 BUILDING PERMIT 11455 .00 3 BUILDING PERMIT EXTENSIN 150 .00 2 FOUNDATION PERMITS 137. 50 1 CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 100 .00 2 TEMP. CERT. OF OCCUPANCY 575 .00 1 OPERATING PERMITS 50 .00 4 FIRE SAFETY INSPECTIONS 480 .00 2 ZBA AREA & USE VARIANCES 200 .00 TOTAL B2110 39147.50 B2115 1 SITE PLAN PRELIM. PLAN 1 ,000 .00 1 SITE PLAN FINAL PLAN 500 .00 1 ASS. MTG. FEE P.H. PROCE 50.00 1 REZONING/ZONING AMEND 175 .00 TOTAL B2115 19725.00 r TOWN CLERK' S MONTHLY REPORT NOVEMBER, 2004 page 2 Y DISBURSEMENTS PAID TO SUPERVISOR FOR GENERAL FUND 1 ,214 . 11 PAID TO SUPERVISOR FOR PART TOWN FUND �' ° � 4, 872 . 50 PAID TO COUNTY TREASURER FOR DOG LICENSES 115 . 80 ✓ PAID TO AG & MARKETS FOR DOG LICENSES 24 .00✓ PAID TO NYS HEALTH DEPT FOR MARRIAGE LICENSES 135 .00 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS 69361 .41 DECEMBER 1 , 2004 SUPERVISOR STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF TOMPKINS, TOWN OF ITHACA 1, TEE-ANN HUNTER, being duly sworn, says that I am the Clerk of the TOWN OF ITHACA that the foregoing is a full and true statement of all Fees and moneys received by me during the month a _stated-ex ting only such Fees the application and payment of which are otherwise provided by-law Subscribed and sworn to before me this Town Clerk day of Q � VIti h2✓ 20 Notary Public CARRIE WHITMORE Notary Public, State of New York No . 01 WH6052877 Tioga County Commission Expires December 26,L �,.,� TOWN OF ITHACA Highway Department's Monthly Board Report November 2004 for the December 13, 2004 Meeting Road Work November is the month of leaves, deer, and voting, along with all the other task work to be done . We had an extremely large volume of leaves this year . Our crews worked diligently day after day until we were able to get around the whole Town. We continued to pick up bagged leaves on Mondays for the rest of the month of November. The presidential election was in the beginning of November. We had only one problem that I am aware of: one voting machine broke down and we replaced it with another within one hour after we were notified. The snowplow runs were all checked for the winter season and the plows and salt mixing equipment inspected to make sure we are prepared for the winter season, A guide rail was installed on W. King Road with the assistance of NYS DOT. Some ditching was done around the Town to keep ditches cleaned out . Patching (with cold patch) was done on various the roads to keep them in shape for the coming months. We continue to keep a watchful eye on the bdivisions that are being built to make sure that they are built right and don't need to be rebuilt at taxpayers' expense. rks Work Tutelo Park ball field dugouts were installed . Mowing equipment was cleaned, serviced, and put away for the winter. The snow blower was put on our small tractor for winter . Town Hall grounds were cleaned up, leaves picked up, and graffiti removed from the wheelchair ramp . The repair project on the walkway at the downstream Forest Home Drive bridge was begun. Weekly site checks and litter removal at all sites were done . Water and Sewer Work We continue to mark out the sewer lines in conjunction with the Dig Safely New York regulations . We performed inspections and prepared as-built drawings on the South Hill T-Main project, as it t hes to a completion. We conducted our quarterly PRV tour with Bolton Point—providing them a confined space entry team, There were three water breaks in November . Two were on Hanshaw Road and one on Winthrop Drive. Sewer pump stations were checked every Friday to keep them operational. December Projects 1 . Finish repairs to Forest Home Drive bridge walkway. 2 . Continue inspection of utility installation at Southwoods. 3. Continue working on William and Hannah Pew Trail , 4. Inspections for South Hill Water Transmission Main. 5 . Cleaning ditches . 6 . Snow Removal as necessary . 7. Tree and brush trimming. 8 . Sign work . ghk Town Engineer's Report for 12/13/2004 Town Board Meeting GENERAL Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan The Plan has been submitted to FEMA for final comments . Comments are anticipated in December. EARTH FILL PERMITS No fill permits were issued in November. WATER PROJECTS SCLIWC Office Addition Construction is moving ahead on the office addition at the Bolton Point Water Plant. Painting and finish work is proceeding in the new addition and renovation work on the control room has started. Water SCADA System The Town Engineering staff has been working with Bolton Point staff to complete the first phase of the wireless Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to improve operation of the SCLIWC water system, which includes the Town of Ithaca water system. Bolton Point staff is continuing work on programming the system. East Hill Transmission Main and Storage Tank Construction Documents will be prepared for bidding after the first of the year and final details for the site easement are proceeding with Cornell University. South Hill Transmission Main Construction of the Transmission main is substantial complete and should be operational by mid December after completion of the final connections at the Pearsall Place Pump station. Emergency Power Supply The staff is in the process of installing the appropriate transfer switchgear and generator connections at the Pearsall Place, Coddington Road, Troy Road, Coy Glen Road, Oakwood Lane and Christopher Lane pump stations. Kings Way Water Improvement Plans and specifications have been completed and an agreement has been reached with the developer of the Westview Subdivision to install the water main with the Town providing the materials . This project has been approved by the Town Board and construction will start in December. . SEWER PROJECTS South woods Subdivision Force Main The Developer has completed the installation of the sewer system for phase I of the development and the pump station and force main are operational . Final transfer of the property to the Town is pending. TOWN ENGINEERS REPORT 12/ 13/2004 IAWWTF Phosphorus Removal Project Foundation construction and concrete work is proceeding. Joint Interceptor Sewer Projects The Town Engineering staff is continuing to work on a capital improvement plan with the City Water and Sewer Division for improving the interceptor sewers that are jointly used by the Town and City. No major construction is planned before 2005 . STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Northeast The engineering staff and engineering interns have been surveying drainage systems in the northeast area of the Town to prepare a watershed evaluation and Stormwater management plan for the area. Development of the drainage plan is scheduled for this winter. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW LINDERMAN CREEK PHASE THREE Linderman Creek Phase Three is substantially completion. CAYUGA MEDICAL CENTER Site work for the Emergency Room addition has begun with construction of storm water management facilities, utility relocation and new parking lot construction. Engineering staff is inspecting the water and sewer relocation work and are monitoring the sediment and erosion control practices . WEIDERMEIR SUBDIVISION Construction of the driveway improvements and water and sewer facilities is substantially complete on this five-lot subdivision at the intersection of Slaterville Road and Burns Road . Sediment and erosion controls are being monitored. SOUTHWOODS Construction of phase II improvements is underway with Town staff inspecting water main, sewer main and road construction and also monitoring storm water management practices . Town Engineer's Report December 13, 2004 Daniel R. Walker Page 2 12/8/2004 i � OF 177 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING DEPARTMENT is zi 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y . 14850 Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P. (607) 273-1747 Director of Planning FAX (607) 273-1704 Planniniz Director' s Report for December 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting DEVELOPMENT REVIEW November 16, 2004 Meeting: Hartshorne 2-Lot Subdivision (Lot line change), 106 & 108 Kay Street: The Planning Board granted Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision located at 106 and 108 Kay Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. ' s 71 - 1 -54 and 71 - 1 -55 , Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal is to subdivide off a +/- 0. 12-acre parcel from 106 Kay Street to be consolidated with 108 Kay Street. Thomas H. Hartshorne, Owner/Applicant. Mountin 8-Lot Subdivision, Elm Street Extension and West Haven Road : The Planning Board granted Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 8-lot subdivision located on Elm Street Extension and West Haven Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28- 1 -28 . 22 , Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 33 . 3 +/- acre parcel into four residential building lots (between 3 . 7 +/- and 5 . 8 +/- acres in size) along Elm Street Extension, two narrow parcels of 2 .7 +/- and 0 .98 +/- acres in size to be consolidated with existing adjacent parcels , a narrow 0. 98 +/- acre parcel with access off W. Haven Road to be conveyed to the Town for municipal purposes, and a 10. 7 +/- acre parcel to be donated to the Town for open space/park purposes. Helen DeGraff Family Real Estate, Owner; David Mountin, Applicant. Cornell University East Campus Research Facility, Corner of Tower and Campus Roads: The Planning Board granted Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Cornell University East Campus Research Facility (Phase I) located on the corner of Tower and Campus Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . ' s 63 - 1 -2 . 2, 67- 1 - 10. 2 and 67- 1 - 10. 3 , Low Density Residential Zone. Phase I of the proposal involves the construction of an approximately 80,000 square foot four- story building, with a possible Phase II four-story addition consisting of 24,000 square feet. The facility will house animals used for research and teaching and will be directly connected to the Veterinary Research Tower. The project will require the demolition of the existing one-story Laboratory Animal Services wing of the Veterinary Research Tower that currently occupies the site. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant ; John M. Keefe, Agent. CURRENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROJECTS/FUNCTIONS The following have been accomplished over the past month. r, Taw of ihac'c�Plarcrzeng�Direat�,r s Ite91 i D Mc mbcr 1 , 2tlt�f4 i w ar e�qv ' SEQR Reviews for Zonin Board:oard: Three SEQR reviews for the Zoning Board were done since the November report : ( 1 ) request for a variance to construct a Town park comfort station and pavilion without a sprinkler system, located at 151 Bostwick Road (Tutelo Park), Low Density Residential Zone, Town of Ithaca, Appellant; (2) request for a variance to operate a bed and breakfast facility with 5 bedrooms (maximum 4 bedrooms permitted by definition), located at 1319 Mecklenburg Road, Low Density Residential Zone, Colleen Shuler, Appellant ; and (3 ) request for a variance to add a roofed porch entryway onto a non-conforming house that. does not meet the required front yard setback, located at 386 Stone Quarry Road, Low Density Residential Zone, Tomasz Pracel , Appellant. Codes and Ordinances Committee (COC) : The Committee met on November 17 , 2004, and continued discussions regarding a proposed draft stream buffer ordinance, and considered recommendations from the Agriculture Committee regarding proposed zoning amendments regarding agricultural and related uses , and recommendations from the Conservation Board regarding proposed revisions in the Environmental Review Law . The next COC meeting is scheduled for December 15 , 2004, which will tentatively include continuation of discussions regarding the proposed zoning amendments regarding agricultural activities in certain zones, draft revised Environmental Review Law , draft amendments in the telecommunications regulations , and proposed 2005 work plan priorities . Transportation Committee: The Committee met on November 18 , 2004. The agenda included an update on the Forest Home Traffic Calming Study, discussion regarding an updated Official Highway Map, and review of draft goals and objectives for the Transportation Plan . The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, December 16 , 2004 at 2 : 00 p .m. and will include further discussions regarding revised goals and objectives in the Transportation Plan, discussion regarding potential problem intersections that may need additional analysis in the Transportation Plan, and status of the Transportation Plan development, including possible needs for hiring a consultant. ITCTC Planning Committee: The ITCTC (Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council) Planning Committee met on November 16 , 2004 . Agenda items included an update on the Long Range Transportation Plan, which is scheduled to be approved by the Planning and Policy Committees at the joint meeting in December, and a presentation and discussion regarding the City of Ithaca Transportation Demand Management Study. The Planning Committee also passed a resolution recommending that the Policy Committee support the adoption of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan by the Tompkins County Legislature . The Planning Committee and Policy Committee are scheduled to meet at a joint meeting on December 14, 2004 . Conservation Board: The Board met on November 4, 2004 . Discussion items included reports of the various committees , a report on the proposed Chimney Swift tower project, discussion regarding the Six Mile Creek stream bank stabilization project, and final discussion regarding the study of the deer population (which was completed and is being transmitted to the Town Board) . The next meeting is scheduled for December 2, 2004 . MOA Planning Coalition : The Coalition met on December 1 , 2004 to continue discussion of the City of Ithaca Transportation Demand Management Study, discussion regarding agricultural land preservation techniques being used or considered by municipalities , nomination and election of 2 .y r i Towrz�r� 1Zuxccz� ulairic� cretR�� rte ` y ecember�13, 2t?P4�T�wn hoar 1Vle�tc � �; officers for 2005 , and approval of the 2005 meeting schedule. The next meeting of the Coalition is tentatively scheduled for January 26 , 2005 at 4: 30 p .m. Inter-municipal Trail Committee: The Committee met on Monday, November 8 , 2004 and conducted a site visit at the Gateway Bridge and possible trail approaches . The site visit focused on existing gaps in the trail on both sides of the bridge and ways of making connections to the State Park on one side and the Home Depot site on the other. The December meeting has not been scheduled yet. Lake Source Cooling Monitoring: As a follow-up to the November 15 , 2004 Town Board meeting, a letter has been prepared and sent with Benchmark' s report and recommendations to the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (refer to correspondence for December 13`" meeting). Historic Resources Inventory: Barbara Ebert, adjunct professor at Cornell ' s Historic Preservation Program, has provided the Town with additional completed historic resources inventory forms . This is part of the cooperative effort to survey all of the Town' s potentially significant historic buildings and sites that has been underway for a number of years . This is being done by Cornell students under the supervision of Barbara Ebert, at nominal cost to the Town. The portion just completed has been outstanding for several years , but we are happy to receive them. Cornell is requesting reimbursement for the portion recently completed (approximately $ 1 ,500) . Ms . Ebert has indicated the possibility of completing survey forms for the remaining areas of the Town during 2005 . This would require additional commitment of funding by the Town (not currently budgeted, but could possibly come from the Planning Study (Account #B8020.406) . This will require further discussions with Ms . Ebert regarding timeframe, cost, etc. 3 TOWN OF ITHACA REPORT OF BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2004 MONTH YEAR TO DATE ]RECES PERMIT YEAR # OF PERMITS AMOUNT # AMOUNT AMILY 2004 1 200,000 34 615543536 2003 2 3042000 25 4,502,818 Mw 2004 0 0 1 149,700 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCES 2003 1 1505000 5 9705000 2004 0 0 16 4032792 RENOVATIONS 2003 0 0 22 454,299 2004 1 30,000 7 237,300 CONVERSIONS OF USE 2003 0 0 4 1192500 2004 2 38,900 22 12492,050 ADDITIONS TO FOOTPRINT 2003 5 2725808 21 760,565 2004 0 0 0 0 MULTIPLE RESIDENCES 2003 1 75,000 6 179292760 F20O4 0 0 9 3,078,500 BUSINESS 5 1793500 15 9,429,500 0 0 2 39,000 AG RICUI;TURA.L 0 0 1 2,500 2004 0 0 0 0 INDUSTRIAL 2003 0 0 0 0 I CU Verizon Wireless cell site and building 855000 1 CU East Hill Plaza office renovation 123000 1 CU addition to library annex 67890,000 1 CU replace section of fire floor in Central Heating Plant 25,000 2004 4 75012,000 27 12, 1545462 EDUCATIONAL 2003 12 353000 17 1 ,0935000 1 20' x 20' carport 41000 1 2 story detached garage 252000 1 Garage 205000 1 Remove and replace roof 21 ,000 1 Reroof house 6,375 MISCELLANEOUS 2004 5 76,375 33 369,261 CONSTRUCTION 2003 13 245893 42 4197279 TOTAL. NUMBER OF 2004 13 7,3577275 151 241478,601 PERMITS ISSUED 2003 19 150415201 158 19,681 ,221 TOTAL FEES 2004 13 73345 151 37,855 RECEIVED 2003 19 15705 158 27,690 Date Prepared: December 1 , 2004 Dani L. Holford e� November 2004, Page 2 TOTAL CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY ISSUED THIS MONTH - 12 1 . 357 Pine Tree Road (CU) - office space renovation. 2. 402 Salem Drive - upgrade basement apartment. 3 . 133 King Road East - new two-family residence - final. 4. 699 Coddington Road - convert garage to den for apartment. 5 . 1016 Trumansburg Road - install basement bathroom. 6. 108 Homestead Circle - sunroom addition. 7. 201 Maple Avenue ("C" Complex Maplewood Park) - roof repairs. 8 . 201 Maple Avenue ("A" Complex Maplewood Park) - roof repairs. 9. 1466 Trumansburg Road - room addition. 10. 501 Elm Street Extension - roof replacement. 11 . 200 West Haven Drive - new single-family home with attached garage - temporary. 12. 111 Tudor Road - existing two-family home. TOTAL CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY YEAR TO DATE, 2004 - 188 TOTAL CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY YEAR TO DATE, 2003 - 203 INQUIRIES/COMPLAINTS INVESTIGATED THIS MONTH - 1 1 . 208, 210 Cypress Court - building code - pending. From October 2004: 1 . 118 Pine Tree Road - occupancy - pending 7/1/05 abatement date. From August 2004: 1 . 203 Muriel Street- property maintenance - abated. 2 . 891 Taughannock Boulevard - building code - abated. 3 . 312 Salem Drive - building code - pending From June 2004: 1 . 1519 Slaterville Road - property maintenance - pending. 2. Rachel Carson Way - E-911 addresses - pending. From May 1995 : 1 . 1152 Danby Road - zoning and building code - Building Permit applied for corrections - issuance of anew permit pending plan revisions. TOTAL COMPLAINTS INVESTIGATED PEAR TO DATE, 2004 - 33 TOTAL COMPLAINTS INVESTIGATED YEAR TO DATE, 2003 - 46 TOTAL FIELD VISITS THIS MONTH - 74 Uniform Building Code -58 Local Law and Zoning Inspections - 8 Fire Safety - 6 (3 businesses, 2 apartment complexes [6 buildings with 41 units], 1 school) Fire Safety Reinspections - 2 (businesses) Fire/Emergency Occurrences - 0 Fire Occurrence Reinspections - 0 TOTAL FIELD VISITS YEAR TO DATE, 2004 - 929 TOTAL FIELD VISITS PEAR TO DATE, 2003 - 894 TOTAL. SIGN PERMIT'S THIS MONTH - 0 TOTAL SIGN PERMIT'S YEAR TO DATE, 2004 - 4 TOTAL SIGN PERMITS YEAR TO DATE, 2003 - 5 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IMEETING, 5 CASES, AGENDA ATTACHED TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2004 7.00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Monday, November 22, 2004, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street Entrance, Ithaca, NY, COMMENCING AT 7 :00 P.M. , on the following matters: APPEAL of Town of Ithaca, Appellant, Creig Hebdon, Agent, requesting a variance from the Code of the Town of Brant ed Ithaca Chapter 225 , Sprinkler Systems to be permitted to construct a Town park comfort station and pavilion without said system, at 151 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -4-6. 1 , Low Density Residential Zone. APPEAL of Helen DeGraff, Owner, David Mountin, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Article IX, Granted Section 270-73 to create, by subdivision, building lots with lot widths being less than the required 100 foot width, on lands fronting on Ehn St Extension and West Haven Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28- 1 -28.22, Medium Density Residential Zone. Lots designated as parcels A, B, C, D, and F require the variances. APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant, John Keefe, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article Gra d VIII, Section 270-59 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct an academic building with a height of 76 + feet (36 foot limit) on the University' s campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 63 - 1 -2 .2 and 67- 1 - 10. 3 , Low Density Residential Zone. APPEAL of Colleen Shuler, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VIII, Section 270-55 of Gra e d the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to operate a bed and breakfast facility with 5 total bedrooms, at 1319 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28- 1 -26.6, Low Density Residential Zone. Said Ordinance defines a bed and breakfast as providing accommodations of no more than 4 bedrooms (Article III, Section 270-5). APPEAL of Tomasz Pracel, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article XXV, Section 270-205 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to add a roofed porch entryway onto a non-conforming house Granted resulting in a new front yard building setback of 10 + feet (25 foot setback required), located at 386 Stone Quarry Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 38-3 - 12, Low Density Residential Zone. The existing house is 15 + feet from the road right-of-way. Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7 :00 p.m., and said place, hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs, as appropriate, will be provided with assistance, as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Andrew S. Frost Director of Building and Zoning 273 - 1783 Dated: November 10, 2004 Published : November 15, 2004 I Regular Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board , December 13 , 2004 Human Resources Report for November, 2004 Personnel Committee : The committee did not meet in November. Safety Committee : The committee did not meet in November. Training and Development : The last session of the Fall Series was offered in November with the session having good enrollment . Employees from the Town of Ithaca , Groton and Dryden attended the session along with employees from the City of Ithaca and Tompkins County . Work has begun on the 2005 series of training . Personnel — Civil Service : At Town Hall a second high school student started working in the afternoon . This student is a direct hirer and will be working about 4 hours per week. November is always dedicated to working on the open enrollment period , wellness fair and producing employment letters that each employee receives with their second paycheck in November. During the open enrollment period is when employees have the option to add or discontinue coverage for benefits . This year we had meetings at all three locations focused on the Flexible Spending Program . As of this point we have 10 employees enrolled in the program . Commercial Insurance ( Ithaca Agencv — Selective Insurance Company) : The quotes from Selective Insurance and NYMIR have come in . NYMIR 's quote was +-$50 , 000 more than Selective 's quote . Ithaca Agency did contact NYMIR to double check their quote and it was correct. The Town Board will be asked to approve remaining with Selective Insurance for 2005 . Submitted By: Judith C . Drake , PHR Human Resources Manager File Edit View Favorites Tools Help AM a Ak TUR Ut iffictV NY Network/RNLec ®rd Speclallst 1"Rep®rt iJecember 139 2004 Oct & Nov Web Site Visits ❑ ® ct ❑ Nov 1400 1200 _ 1000 800 600 ° 400 ' 1111111 111 el Z 200 Ml $ 0 M a Dome Gov't Services Information Community Pages Website o New pages : ° 2005 Town Budget "Site of the Month" . . . This month: The Learning Web "Did You Know" . . . section on Homepage that highlights a different page each month. This month: Contact Directory Network Refurbished old PC for use by Judge Klein' s court clerk. This saved the Town from having to buy a new PC . Add ►nak Completed fall semester course at TO on PC Maintenance and Repair . Next semester course is Network Admin. .� f k. o 8,54 g Start Cacheman inbox , Microsoft Outlook town of Ithaca - Micr.:. 230 December 30 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Adopted February 7, 2005 i MOVED : Supervisor Valentino t_ SECONDED : Councilwoman Grigorov VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye . Carried unanimously . Agenda Item No . 7 — Consider Appointment of Zoning Board of Appeals Chair TB RESOLUTION NO . 2004-202 : Appointment of Zoning Board of Appeals Chair for the Year 2005 BE IT RESOLVED that the governing Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby appoints Kirk Sigel to serve as Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the term January 1 , 2005 to December 31 , 2005 . MOVED : Supervisor Valentino SECONDED : Councilman Engman VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye . Carried unanimously . Agenda Item No . 8 — Consider Appointment of the Conservation Board Chair TB RESOLUTION NO . 2004-203 : Appointment of Conservation Board Chair for the Year 2005 BE IT RESOLVED that the governing Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby appoints Lenore Durkee to serve as Chair of the Conservation Board for the term January 1 , 2005 to December 31 , 2005 . MOVED : Supervisor Valentino SECONDED : Councilman Burbank VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye . Carried unanimously Agenda Item No . 9 — Appointment of Planning Board Member TB RESOLUTION NO . 2004-204 : Appointment of Planning Board Member BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca appoints Rod Howe to serve on the Planning Board for the term of office beginning January 1 , 2005 through J December 31 , 2011 . 2 ? 31 December 30, 2004 Town Board Meeting Adopted February 7, 2005 MOVED : Supervisor Valentino SECONDED : Councilman Engman VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye . Carried unanimously. Agenda Item No . 10 — Appointment of Zoning Board Member TB RESOLUTION NO . 2004-205 : Appointment of Zoning Board of Appeals Member BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby appoints Ronald Krantz to serve on the Zoning Board of Appeals for a term of office beginning January 1 , 2005 and ending December 31 , 2009 . MOVED : Supervisor Valentino SECONDED : Councilwoman Grigorov VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Burbank, aye ; Councilman Engman , aye . Carried unanimously . Councilman Lesser arrives at 10: 10 a. m. Agenda Item No . 11 = Consider Appointment of Conservation Board Members TB RESOLUTION NO . 2004=206 : Appointment of Conservation Board Members BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby appoints the following individuals to the Conservation Board for terms beginning January 1 , 2005 and ending December 31 , 2006 : Brent Katzmann Lenore Durkee Eva Hoffmann MOVED : Supervisor Valentino SECONDED : Councilman Lesser VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye . Carried unanimously. Agenda Item No . 12 — Consider Recommendation for Appointment to Tompkins Countv Youth Board 3 232 December 30, 2004 Town Board Meeting Adopted February 7, 2005 TB RESOLUTION NO . 2004-207 : Recommendation for Appointment to Tompkins County Youth Board BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby recommends to the Tompkins County Legislature that M . Gale Smith be appointed to the Tompkins County Youth Board as a Town of Ithaca representative . MOVED : Supervisor Valentino SECONDED : Councilman Engman VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Lesser; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye . Carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS County Boards and Committees Supervisor Valentino commented that Mr . Smith has diligently served the Town as representative to this board for many years . She is concerned that the County Youth Board has 50 % vacancy of people who are supposed to be attending . She finds that troublesome . It is a big board and Supervisor Valentino thought the County might want to think how they can have enough in attendance to have a quorum for making recommendations . Another thing that has bothered Supervisor Valentino is the fact the Town Board does not have the authority to appoint their own representative . Under the County's charter, the Town only gets to recommend a representative that the County can choose not to accept . The County can , instead of taking the Town ' s recommendation , appoint someone else on the Town ' s behalf. Supervisor Valentino felt the County could impose qualifications for the representative , but should not have the authority to appoint a representative . She wants to ask the County to reconsider this practice and asked if the Board had any objections to her making such a recommendation . Councilman Engman added that the County had this same authority over the Town 's Environmental Management Council appointment . Councilman Burbank reported an analogous situation with the Pegasys Oversight Committee in which the Town recommends a representative , but that reprehensive has to be accepted by the City . Supervisor Valentino thought that had been taken out of the contract . Regarding the vacancies on the County Youth Board , Councilman Engman asked if the vacancies were from the Town . Supervisor Valentino told him , no , they have a lot of different seats . She thought the County had run into a lot of trouble with a lot of their committees having very high vacancy rates . At one point the County talked about appointing people from outside the County . Instead of that , Supervisor Valentino felt they should re-think their committees so they could get people to attend . Councilman Engman reported his experience with County boards and committees has been that when the organization is doing significant work you have no trouble filling the slots . It' s when the committees start just receiving and listening to reports that they start having trouble . It would seem to Councilman Engman that they ought to be looking at what the boards do 4 2JO December 30, 2004 Town Board Meeting Adopted February 7, 2005 and what significance it has and make their work important because once it's important the people appointed to it will come and municipalities will make appointments . Supervisor Valentino commented on the recent statement by County Legislators in support of their pay increase that they devote 30 hours per week to their jobs as legislator. Supervisor Valentino thought they should be working harder to get their time down . She felt they were micromanaging , doing too many committee or too many things if, as an elected official , they are putting in 30 hours per week . They need to take a close look at themselves . Councilman Lesser commented that while they have a rather large budget, most of it is entirely beyond their control . Supervisor Valentino asked the Board if it was okay for her to pass on their concerns to the County. There were no objections . Agenda Item No . 4 — Approval of Year End Abstract TB RESOLUTION NO . 2004-208 : Town of Ithaca Year End Abstract WHEREAS , the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for approval of payment; and WHEREAS , the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board ; now therefore be it RESOLVED , that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in the total for the amounts indicated . VOUCHER NOS . 9683 -9772 General Fund Townwide $ 94 , 820 . 04 General Fund Part Town $ 51021 . 38 Highway Fund $ 11 , 050 . 60 Water Fund $ 257 , 741 . 90 Sewer Fund $ 41811 . 36 Phase II South Hill Water Transmission $ 21 , 254 . 00 Risk Retention Fund $ 278 . 47 Fire Protection Fund $ 136 , 671 . 38 Forest Home Lighting District $ 181 . 66 Glenside Lighting District $ 62 . 19 Renwick Heights Lighting District $ 86 . 89 Eastwood Commons Lighting District $ 179 . 08 Clover Lane Lighting District $ 20 . 63 Winner' s Circle Lighting District $ 60 . 62 Burleigh Drive Lighting District $ 53 . 75 West Haven Road Lighting District $ 237 . 27 5 234 December 30, 2004 Town Board Meeting Adopted February 7, 2005 Coddington Road Lighting District $ 140. 14 Trust and Agency $ 51208. 8 TOTAL . $ 537988014 MOVED : Councilwoman Grigorov SECONDED : Councilman Engman VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye . Carried unanimously . CORRESPONDENCE Councilman Burbank acknowledged the letter regarding the completion of the Glenside parkland donation and was very happy to see it had moved forward . He stated he was a little puzzled by the Town ' s request that the donor pay the coming year' s taxes on the property . He asked for the rationale of that request . Attorney Barney told him it is the Town ' s standard operating procedure . Parks are normally presented as part of the development process , as a condition of development . The Town absorbs the cost of the attorney' s fees for the title search and so forth , which is the largest share of it . But the Town , because we are a tax exempt entity , feels that , basically, any taxes that are to be paid on there should be paid by the developer up until the time the property converts to tax exempt property. In this situation , this is the only tax bill that will be involved because it will be converted as of March 1St to tax exempt . It is to minimize the cost to the Town of acquiring these properties . Mr. Barney reported that he had raised the issue whether the Town should deviate from this practice for this property and the Mountin subdivision . The feeling was that , because the Town does require this of anybody that is giving a park as part of a subdivision process , the Town should adhere to the policy in these instances . Councilman Burbank commented that he understood the rationale but added that it somehow seems like a not very generous way of saying thank you to frequently what is potentially a generous act . He realizes that for somebody developing property this has basically been negotiated , but there are other situations when people are actually giving something they don 't have to and he wished that the Town could be a little more supportive . Supervisor Valentino remarked that many times the donation of land is also very financially beneficial for the people that are turning it over to the Town because of the tax breaks . Mr. Barney stated there was no objection expressed in regard to the Glenside Park donation and that they had collected the taxes in relation to the Mountin subdivision at yesterday' s closing . OTHER BUSINESS Meeting with Ithaca Journal Supervisor confirmed with the Board a meeting with the Ithaca Journal editorial board around 4 : 15 or 4 : 30 p . m . January 10 , 2005 before the Town Board Meeting . Peter Stein arrives. 6 H December 30, 2004 Town Board Meeting Adopted February 7, 2005 Agenda Item No . 13 — Swearing in of Town Officials Justice Klein signed the Oath of Office Book and was sworn in by Ms . Hunter. OTHER BUSINESS Cornell Supervisor Valentino reported that John Guttenberger came in to speak with her and Jonathan Kanter about setting up meetings between Cornell and the Town to look at Cornell's future development. As an example , Supervisor Valentino cited something that had just gotten approved by the City that will have traffic impacts on the Town . As more of this development begins to happen , the more impact it is going to have on the Town . Mr. Guttenberger, Gary Stewart, and Bill Wynn feel there should be some dialogue with Town and a look at transportation . Maybe at some time they would hire a consultant . Supervisor Valentino thought what was generating this is a fear that, at some point , the Town might say , "stop" . They would rather work with us than have us end up at loggerheads at some point . They have proposed a January 6 , 2005 meeting between 10 : 30 and 12 : 00 noon at Town Hall . Councilman Lesser would need to check his availability. He suggested another possibility would be to have a preliminary report made to the Transportation Committee who could discuss and pass on information to the full board . The discussion comes at an appropriate time because the Transportation Committee is going to pass on a new Town Highway Map for Town Board approval . The map includes a reserve of right-of-ways for anticipated future roads . Joint Youth Commission Supervisor Valentino told the Board that she would be sending out funding recommendations from the Joint Youth Commission in the packet of January Town Board materials . Bolton Point Union Contract Supervisor Valentino told the Board this item would be before them at their January meeting . The contract has already been approved by the union and by the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission . Pretreatment Sewer Agreements Supervisor Valentino told the Board there will be Pretreatment Sewer Agreements before them at the January meeting . These are agreement between the Town of Ithaca , the City of Ithaca , Cayuga Heights , and the Town of Dryden . Mr. Walker explained that the sewage treatment plants are design to treat residential sewage . Pretreatment means that if an industry comes in and they have a stronger sewage , they have to pre-treat it to meet our residential standards . There is currently very little industry within the Town 's service area . Most of it is in the City . These agreements are something the Environmental Protection Agency requires to make sure there are no pass-through violations of chemicals from the plant. It protects the plant and makes sure we can provide the treatment required under our permit with the Department of Environmental Protection . It sets up provisions for fines and regulation . 7 236 December 30, 2004 Town Board Meeting Adopted February 7, 2005 First Street Interceptor Supervisor Valentino told the Board that the First Street Interceptor is long overdue to be rebuilt . Its location is in the City but the Town owns 40 % of the flow capacity through this interceptor. The Town has received an engineering report and cost outline from Larry Fabbroni . Mr. Walker has not yet had a chance to closely analyze it . The City is hopeful they can start construction in February . Supervisor Valentino asked Mr. Barney if the Town needed to go through the whole public hearing and approval process . Mr. Barney told her it is any kind of an expansion then , yes , the Town will need to go through the above-mentioned process . Mr. Walker stated it was an expansion of capacity at the sewer lines . Mr. Barney recommended that the Town go through the public hearing and approval process . Cass Park Proposal Supervisor Valentino reported the City of Ithaca has selected Mayor Peterson , Liz Vance , Robin Korherr, and Steve Thayer to serve on the shared recreational facilities committee . Supervisor Valentino , Peter Stein , and Al Carvill will be serving as Town representatives . Supervisor Valentino asked Councilwoman Grigorov asked she would be willing to sit in on the meetings . Councilwoman Grigorov stated she would and they discussed possible meeting dates . 2005 To-Do List Supervisor Valentino shared her 2005 To Do List with the Board and invited them to give her their suggestions of things they think should be on the Board ' s agenda for 2005 . Items on Supervisor Valentino' s list were as follows : - Affordable Housing — have the Codes and Ordinance Committee look at how we could enhance affordable housing in the Town . One of the suggestions is that , perhaps , any subdivision proposal that comes in would have to have at least 10 % of its building stock in the affordable range . - Public Health and Safety- keep these issues in the forefront - Noise Control - continue work with Ithaca College regarding student parties and noise - Wind Power — gain an understanding of this as an electricity provider option - Roadwork — be in the loop of road repairs and improvements the County is planning . - Deer Control - follow- up on report prepared by the Conservation Board - County and Town relations — work to strengthen this relationship . - City and Town relations — work to strengthen this relationship . Department heads will be bringing their 2005 goals and priorities to the January 10 , 2005 meeting . 8 December 30 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Adopted February 7, 2005 Jon Kanter asked that Lake Source Cooling monitoring by added to the list and reported he had received a draft proposal from Benchmark Engineering . Mr. Kanter anticipates a formal proposal will come before the Board at their January 10 h meeting . Supervisor Valentino reported that she had informally mentioned a cost sharing arrangement to Cornell 's John Guttenberg . Councilman Burbank felt entering into a community-wide discussion about the creation of a dog park should be a 2005 priority . Councilman Engman reported that he had been deeply involved in previous negotiations regarding a dog park and had a file of information he would be willing to share . Supervisor Valentino reported hearing that Pat Pryor was intending to set up a meeting to discuss the issue and planned to include the Town . She will let Mr. Engman and Mr. Burbank know if and when that will occur. Councilman Lesser wondered if there was anyway working through the Association of Towns or governments in New York State , or municipalities that may have sister cities in Southeast Asia , the Town could try to do something for the people impacted by the tsunami . The effects of the tragedy are going to go on for a long time ; perhaps this community could provide some planning assistance or continuing support . March Town Board Meeting Councilman Stein announced that he would not be present for the March Town Board Meeting and asked that consideration of the Supervisor' s "short-list" and subsequent budget modifications be discussed at the April meeting or that the Board schedule a meeting later in February . The Board agreed to hold this discussion at the April meeting . Agenda Item No . 14 - Executive Session , On motion by Supervisor Valentino , seconded by Councilman Lesser, the Board entered into executive session at 11 : 15 a . m . for discussion of a personnel matter. On motion by Supervisor Valentino , seconded by Councilman Lesser, the Board returned to regular session at 11 : 35 a . m . Adjournment On motion by Councilman Burbank the meeting was adjourned at 11 : 36 a . m . Respectfully submitted , Tee-Ann Hunter Town Clerk Next Meeting January 10, 2005 9