Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTB Minutes 2007-07-09 Final Regular Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, July 9 , 2007 at 5 : 30 p . m . 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca , NY 14850 1 . Call to Order 2 . Pledge of Allegiance 3 . Report of Tompkins County Legislature — Dooley Kiefer 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 . Report from consultant regarding Northeast Drainage 8 . SEQR — Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan 9 . Consider adoption of Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan 10 . Consider resolution of support for Housing ' Strategy for Tompkins County 11 . Acknowledge filing of Independent Auditor' s Report 12 . Consider setting public hearing regarding yard definitions local law 13 . Consider setting public hearing regarding amateur radio local law 14 . Discuss Emergency Radio Communications Protection Law 15 . Consider adoption of record storage policy and agreement 16 . Consider approval of inactive storage agreement with Town of Caroline 17 . Consider adoption of Recreation Partnership Agreement and urge Tompkins County to continue its financial support 18 . Consider approval of revised job description for Town Clerk 19 . Consider calling for a comprehensive investigation of evidence that may warrant impeachment of the President and Vice President of the United States 20 . Consider consent agenda Final a . Town Board Minutes b . Town of Ithaca Abstract C . Bolton Point Abstract d . Sale of surplus items e . Brush and leaf pickup dates f. Cornell Federal Work Study Agreement g . Permanent appointment of Distribution Operator 21 . Report of Town Committees a . Agricultural Committee b . Agricultural Land Preservation Committee C . Capital Projects and Fiscal Planning Committee d . Carrowmoor Committee e . Codes and Ordinances Committee f. Comprehensive Plan Review Committee g . Ethics Board h . Personnel Committee i . Public Works Committee j . Recreation and Human Services Committee k . Safety Committee I . Transportation Committee 22 . Intermunicipal Organizations a . Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization b . City/Town Shared Services Committee C . City/Town Trail Committee d . Joint Youth Commission e . Lake Source Data Sharing f. Pegasys Oversight Committee g . Recreation Partnership h . Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission i . Special Joint Committee ( Sewer) j . Tompkins County Council of Governments 23 . Report of Town Officials a . Town Clerk b . Highway Superintendent C . Director of Engineering d . Director of Planning e . Budget Officer f. Manager of Human Resources g . Network/Records Specialist h . Recreation and Youth Coordinator i . Attorney for the Town j . Receiver of Taxes Final 24 . Review of Correspondence a . 6/25/07 letter from J . Seward re trucks on interstate highways b . 6/26/07 memo from K. Hackett re Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Funding Available C . Joint Youth Commission Report , June 2007 d . Spring 2007 History Center Newsletter 25 . Consider Adjournment July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 Regular Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday , July 9 , 2007 at 5 : 30 p . m . 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca , New York THOSE PRESENT Supervisor Valentino ; Councilman Burbank ; Councilwoman Gittelman ; Councilman Engman ; Councilman Stein ; Councilman Cowie ; Councilwoman Leary STAFF PRESENT Tee-Ann Hunter , Town Clerk ; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering ; Fred Noteboom , Highway Superintendent ; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning ; Judy Drake , Human Resources Manager; Susan Brock , Attorney for the Town . EXCUSED Al Carvill , Budget Officer OTHERS Dooley Kiefer , Tompkins County Legislature ; Bob Romanowski , Fire Commissioner ; Salvatore and Rosalind Grippi , 9 Orchard Hill Road ; Stephen Wagner , 112 Sapsucker Woods Road ; Adrian Williams , 108 Sapsucker Woods Road Call to Order Supervisor Valentino called the meeting to order at 5 : 35 p . m . and led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance . Agenda Item No . 3 - Report of Tompkins County Legislature — Dooley Kiefer Dooley Kiefer , County Legislator , appeared before the Board and reported the following : The County' s foreclosure auction sold the eleven parcels for sale with a profit of $26 , 000 after back taxes were paid . Road swap agreements have been completed with the Town of Ithaca and the Town of Ulysses . The Tompkins Cortland Community College budget was approved with a 5 % increase from sponsoring municipalities . The Legislature set a 2 % target for a tax levy increase in the budget . The Housing Strategy document was approved with a few changes . One change made to the document mentions that energy efficiency has to be part of housing development for it to be sustainable and affordable in the future . At the July 3 , 2007 meeting , the Legislature designated the Convention and Visitor' s Bureau as the County' s tourism promotion agency . The policy of, supplementing military pay for soldiers beyond what the military law calls for was extended . The County will pay the difference in salary for employees called up to serve ; the difference between their county salary and military pay . 1 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 Ms . Kiefer commented that she was interested in a few of the items before the Board . She is concerned with the drainage study because it is in her area of the County . Ms . Kiefer was pleased to see that the Board was going to discuss a possible law to protect the emergency radio communications system . Ms . Kiefer noted the Recreation Partnership agreement was also on the agenda . Legislators recognize that they have been through a period in recent years when the considered whether the partnership could stand on its own without the County being part of it and decreased funding . The County has reconsidered and Ms . Kiefer remembers the County deciding to continue being a member at 25 % of the budget . She felt that there was good sentiment among legislators to continue the funding . Supervisor Valentino commented that the Partnership was told by staff to spend time pushing for it because some of those who voted for it before may not do so again . On a personal note , Ms . Kiefer hoped that the Board would pass the resolution supporting an investigation into the impeachment of the President and Vice President of the United States . She stated that it is not just about ending the war, but the US reputation internationally and freedom nationally. Supervisor Valentino thanked Ms . Kiefer for her report . Agenda Item No . 5 - Report of Fire Commission (Attachment #1 — monthly report) Bob Romanowski appeared before the Board and read his report . A copy was given to the Town Clerk for the record . Agenda Item No . 11 = Acknowledge filing of Independent Auditor' s Report Supervisor Valentino reported the Auditor' s report had been filed and copies could be made for those interested in reviewing it . Agenda Item No . 12 - Consider setting public hearing regarding yard definitions local law (Attachment #2 — draft local law) Councilman Stein and Mr. Kanter discussed the current and proposed definitions . The public hearing was set for August 13 , 2007 at 7 : 00 p . m . Supervisor Valentino moved the resolution and Councilman Engman seconded . Carried unanimously . TB RESOLUTION NO. 2007- 117: Consider Settin_g Public Hearing Re_gardin_g Proposed Local Law Amendin_g the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code Regardin_g Definitions of Front, Rear and Side Yards BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hold a public hearing at the Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York on the 13th day of August 2007, at 7: 00 pm for the purpose of considering a proposed local law amending the Zoning chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding definitions of front, rear and side yards, and it is further 2 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 RESOLVED , that at such time and place all persons interested in the proposed local law may be heard concerning the same ; and it is further RESOLVED , that the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca is hereby authorized and directed to publish a notice of such public hearing in the Ithaca Journal published in the City of Ithaca , Ithaca , New York , and to post a copy of same on the signboard of the Town of Ithaca , said publication and posting to occur not less than ten days before the day designated above for the public hearing . MOVED : Supervisor Valentino SECONDED : Councilman Engman VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilwoman Gittelman , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Cowie , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye . Carried unanimously . Agenda Item No . 13 - Consider setting public hearing regarding amateur radio local law (Attachment #3 — draft local law) The public hearing was set for August 13 , 2007 at 7 : 05 p . m . The Town received good input from individuals that do amateur radio . Councilman Engman moved the resolution and Councilman Cowie seconded . Carried unanimously . TB RESOLUTION NO. 2007- 118: Consider Settinq Public Hearing Regarding Proposed Local Law Amending Chapter 270, Titled "Zoning, " of the Town of Ithaca Code Re_gardin_g Amateur Radio Facilities BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hold a public hearing at the Town Hall , 215 North Tioga Street , Ithaca , New York on the 13th day of August 2007 , at 7 : 05 pm for the purpose of considering a proposed local law amending chapter 270 , titled "Zoning , " of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding amateur radio facilities , and it is further RESOLVED , that at such time and place all persons interested in the proposed local law may be heard concerning the same ; and it is further RESOLVED , that the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca is hereby authorized and directed to publish a notice of such public hearing in the Ithaca Journal published in the City of Ithaca , Ithaca , New York , and to post a copy of same on the signboard of the Town of Ithaca , said publication and posting to occur not less than ten days before the day designated above for the public hearing . MOVED : Councilman Engman SECONDED : Councilman Cowie 3 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilwoman Gittelman , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Cowie , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye . Carried unanimously . Agenda Item No . 15 = Consider adoption of record storage policy and agreement (Attachment #4 — policy statement and agreement) Supervisor Valentino reported staff has been working on the agreement for quite some time . She explained the Town has rented out space to the History Center in the past . Ms . Hunter added that the Fire Department stores their records at Town Hall at no charge . Ms . Brock asked that the language , " subject to the approval of the Attorney for the Town " be added to the end of the resolved in the resolution . She added that there are Attorney General and Comptroller Opinions that state a Town must store town records within their town . Supervisor Valentino thought it would be temporary while the Town of Caroline was doing renovations . She would give them a heads up to look into it before signing the agreement . Councilman Burbank wondered why the Town would not store vital records . He thought that it would actually be providing good service . Ms . Hunter explained that vital records , as defined by the State Archives , are records that a town needs to have for the town to function in the event of an emergency . It was a responsibility that staff did not want to take on . She added that if something were to happen to Town Hall , she is supposed to grab the Town ' s vital records . Councilman Burbank was also puzzled by the highness of the insurance requirement . Ms . Drake explained that it is general coverage for any kind of business . It is asking that the Town be listed as an additional insured on their policy . Councilman Stein moved the resolution , seconded by Councilman Burbank . Carried unanimously . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2007 =119 : Acceptance of policy statement and template agreement regarding rental of inactive storage space at town hall Whereas , the Town of Ithaca has available space in its inactive records storage room , and Whereas , there has been interest from other municipalities in such space , and Whereas , a Policy Statement and a Rental Agreement template have been developed , Therefore be it resolved , that this Board does approves the Policy Statement and Rental Agreement template as presented subject to the approval of the Attorney for the Town . MOVED : Councilman Stein SECONDED : Councilman Burbank 4 July 9 , 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilwoman Gittelman , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Cowie , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye . Carried unanimously . Agenda Item No . 16 - Consider approval of inactive storage agreement with Town of Caroline (Attachment #5 — partially executed contract with Town of Caroline ) Ms . Brock had reviewed the proposed agreement and it appeared that the Town of Caroline had signed the template agreement . She suggested that the resolution authorize Supervisor Valentino sign the rental agreement subject to the approval of the Attorney for the Town . Supervisor Valentino moved the resolution , Councilman Stein seconded . Carried unanimously . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2007 -120 : Authorization for the Town Supervisor to Sign a Rental Agreement with the Town of Caroline WHEREAS the Town Board has approved the rental agreement submitted by the Town of Caroline for rental of inactive storage space . THEREFORE , be it resolved that the Town Board authorizes the Town Supervisor to sign the rental agreement with the Town of Caroline subject to the approval of the Attorney for the Town . MOVED : Supervisor Valentino SECONDED : Councilman Stein VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilwoman Gittelman , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Cowie , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye . Carried unanimously . Agenda Item No . 20 - Consider consent agenda Councilman Stein moved the resolution , Councilman Cowie seconded . Carried Unanimously. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 421 : Consent Agenda Items. BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the resolutions for Consent Agenda Items as presented : a . Town Board Minutes b . Town of Ithaca Abstract C . Bolton Point Abstract d . Brush and leaf pickup dates e . Cornell Federal Work Study Agreement f. Permanent appointment of Distribution Operator 5 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 MOVED : Councilman Stein SECONDED : Councilman Cowie VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilwoman Gittelman , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Cowie , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye . Carried unanimously . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2007 - 121a : Town Board Minutes of June 11 , 2007 WHEREAS , the Town Clerk has presented the minutes for a Regular Town Board meeting held on June 11 , 2007 to the governing Town Board for their review and approval of filing ; now, therefore , be it RESOLVED , the Town Board does hereby approve for filing the minutes for the meetings held June 11 , 2007 , as presented at the July 9 , 2007 board meeting . MOVED : Councilman Stein SECONDED : Councilman Cowie VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilwoman Gittelman , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Cowie , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye . Carried unanimously . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2007-121 be 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 Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in total for the amounts indicated . VOUCHER NOS . 3853-3995 General Fund Townwide $ 143 , 207 . 63 General Fund Part Town $ 81484 . 36 Highway Fund Part Town $ 115 , 811 . 05 Water Fund $ 283 , 667 . 17 Sewer Fund $ 284 , 038 . 46 William & Hannah Pew Bikeway $ 87177 . 59 Fire Protection Fund $ 299, 448. 13 Forest Home Lighting District $ 38 . 89 Glenside Lighting District $ 15 . 13 6 July 9 , 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 Renwick Heights Lighting District $ 20 . 15 Eastwood Commons Lighting District $ 27 . 56 Clover Lane Lighting District $ 3 . 47 Winner' s Circle Lighting District $ 5 . 21 Burleigh Drive Lighting District $ 12 . 19 Westhaven Rd Lighting District $ 48 . 38 Coddington Rd Lighting District $ 28 . 14 Trust & Agency $ 100 . 00 Debt Service $ 292 . 60 TOTAL : $ 1 . 143 .426 . 11 MOVED : Councilman Stein SECONDED : Councilman Cowie VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilwoman Gittelman , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Cowie , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye . Carried unanimously. TB RESOLUTION NO . 2007 -121c : 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 Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers . Voucher Numbers : 340-412 Check Numbers : 10122- 10126 , 10129- 10195 Operating Fund $ 2597680 . 49 1998 SCADA Capital Project $ 13 , 011 . 22 2002 Office Space Addition $ 71001 . 51 2003 East Hill Tank Project $ 51802 . 41 TOTAL $ 285 . 495 . 63 MOVED : Councilman Stein SECONDED : Councilman Cowie 7 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilwoman Gittelman , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Cowie , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye . Carried unanimously . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2007-121d@ Set Fall Yard Waste Collection Dates WHEREAS , the Highway Department provides yard refuse disposal services for the Town of Ithaca residents ; WHEREAS , twice annually the Highway Department collects yard waste from roadsides ; WHEREAS , this year the Highway crews will use the leaf vacuums the first week and go around the Town once , thereafter, residents will be allowed to put biodegradable paper bags at curbside on the each Monday in November, now therefore be it ; RESOLVED , that fall brush collection will start on October 15 , 2007 , until finished ; and RESOLVED , that the fall leaf and yard waste collection will commence on November 51 2007 , until finished . MOVED : Councilman Stein SECONDED : Councilman Cowie VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilwoman Gittelman , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Cowie , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye . Carried unanimously . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2007 -121e : Approval of Cornell University Federal Work Study Agreement WHEREAS , the Town has budgeted the necessary funds to cover the cost of participating in the Cornell University Federal Work Study Program to provide student interns with a valuable work experience while providing the Town of Ithaca with valuable technical support ; and WHEREAS , Cornell University covers 75 % of the hourly wages and 100 % of the employment expenses of this program and the Town would be responsible for the other 25 % of the hourly wages plus 10 . 25 % for non- registered students employed for the summer; and WHEREAS , the Town Board has reviewed and discussed the proposed Cornell University Federal Work Study Agreement ; now, therefore , be it RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the participation in the Cornell University Federal Work Study Program for the school year of July 11 2007 through June 30 , 2008 ; and be it further 8 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby authorize and direct the Town Supervisor to sign the Cornell University Federal Work Study Agreement; and be it further RESOLVED , the cost of participating in the said program for the year 2008 shall be reviewed and approved during the budget process . MOVED : Councilman Stein SECONDED : Councilman Cowie VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilwoman Gittelman , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Cowie , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye . Carried unanimously. TB RESOLUTION NO . 2007 =121f: Permanent Appointment Distribution Operator- SCLIWC , Glenn Pryor WHEREAS , Glenn Pryor was appointed as a provisional Distribution Operator Trainee on January 30 , 2006 , and WHERAS , Mr. Pryor received a passing score on the Civil Service examination for Distribution Operator Trainee and was appointed to permanent to that position effective October 12 , 2006 ; and WHEREAS , Mr. Pryor has completed the training and testing and was awarded a certification as a Grade D- Distribution System Water System Operator by the NYS Health Department effective April 10 , 2007 ; and WHEREAS , under the job description certified through Civil Service once a Distribution Operator Trainee becomes certified with a Grade D license they are then reclassified to a Distribution Operator; now therefore be it RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby ratify Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission ' s appointment of Glenn Pryor as Distribution Operator retro-active to July 5, 2007, with no change in wages or benefits; and be if further RESOLVED , Mr. Pryor will be required to complete an eight week probationary period , with no further action required if successful completion . MOVED : Councilman Stein SECONDED : Councilman Cowie VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilwoman Gittelman , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Cowie , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye . Carried unanimously. 9 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 Agenda Item No . 6 — Persons to be Heard Rosalind and Salvator Grippi (Attachment #6 — letter from Salvatore and Rosalind Grippi) Mr. Grippi — My name is Salvator Grippi and I own the Hayts property on Hayts Road and Trumansburg Road with my wife. I wanted to address the Board about the urgency of the request for prompt action on the matter of septic failure at the schoolhouse. The potential for failure of the septic system had been pointed out in 2002 by the Town Engineer and this potential problem has been put to the Board on many occasions for many years. And as you know, the prediction for failure materialized on June 30, 2007. The paper you each have is a brief outline of the development concerning the sewer project, which was then abandoned without proper notification. We were not allowed to make a proper request for the urgent need for sewer connection. This condition strikes a dire need for action since the school house is residential and the shop of my workspace. Thank you. Mrs. Grippi — My name is Rosalind Grippi from 9 Orchard Hill Road and co-owner with my husband of the two buildings on Hayts Road and Trumansburg Road. I hope it won 't be tedious if 1, but I do think it is important to tell the Board why we applied to the National Register for recognition of the significance of these buildings. We bought them in 1971 . They were abandoned by the school system in 1964 and as close as they are to two main roads had been vandalized. We restored them and we gave purpose function to their use, for their use. Then came development and we felt that they were viewed by the Town as disharmonious with progress. For example, the Kyong project plans and maps deny that there were any neighbors on their north border except the cemetery. Then came Overlook, whose may elighted our property with the cemetery labeling the whole strip from Hopkins to Trumansburg Road as cemetery, only cemetery. In a subsequent map only topography indicated this land. No labeling, just identifying the neighbor abutting their property to the north. Then came GEIS to change zoning along Trumansburg Road to an Office Park and Commercial Zone, except for the half-acre corning Trumansburg and Hayts Road. We were ignored. This remains residential. This is spot zoning by neglect. I want to say that when we read a statement to the Board at the GEIS saying, "my husband and I are concerned that the chapel and school house on Trumansburg Road have been overlooked in the revamping of plans for zoning. " In fact, we were surprised that some members of Town committees were unaware of the existence of the buildings or their historic significance. Then came sewer possibilities and there was further difficulties. We received maps of the sewer plans that said, "other owners that would be covered by sewer extension from -the fire house to Hayts Road. " At a July 8t" meeting we formally thanked the Board for bringing sewer line to Hayts Road, The Board appeared strangely withdrawn. As the meeting progressed, we learned the sewer line would stop at the Kyong property, but we could, with more expense, tap into the sewer at Kyong 's border. And we had never received this important notice until 2 weeks after this meeting. In the meantime, we engaged a contractor for plans and costs to bring sewer from Kyong 's property to both buildings. We received the estimate on August 20, 2002 before which the Trumansburg Road 2002 sewer project had been cancelled with no notice to us. We determined after all this that the Town regarded the buildings as a kind of humble embarrassment. That they were not suited to the energetic development of West Hill and so we apply to the National. Registry for recognition of 10 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 the significance of these remarkable treasure. Remarkable that they still stand. When the recognition was granted and we were subsequently granted an award by Historic Ithaca because Ithacans became aware of this little treasure, these treasures. As we wrote in the Ithaca Times newspaper, the award honors the abolitionists and the fleeing slaves they embedded because both risked all for man 's right to freedom, justice, equality and personal dignity. We hope the Board will work to preserve the viability of these buildings as a National Registry . . . the material we got from the National Registry remarks that these are old buildings, have to have a current function if they are to survive into the future. That viability for these buildings depends on possibilities for a sewer connection. And we urge you to make this happen . There is no alternative. Thank you. Supervisor Valentino thanked Mr. and Mrs . Grippi for their comments . She reported that Mr. Walker and herself have talked to Mr. and Mrs . Grippi about it and asked them to check with the Health Department about their septic system to make sure its workable for the time being . Supervisor Valentino felt that the issue should go before the Public Works Committee . There are minutes from previous Public Works ' meeting and other information the Board should look at . She did not think it was an easy fix to just add sewer to this particular location . Councilman Stein did not remember discussing this issue at a Public Works meeting . Supervisor Valentino said that it happened before Councilman Stein was a Town Board member. She recalled that one of the reasons the sewer wasn 't extended was because the Board at that time felt it would encourage subdivision growth along Hayts Road . The Board did offer to have the sewer up to Mr. and Mrs . Grippi ' s house at one point . Councilman Stein asked Mr. Walker and Mr. Noteboom how quickly the issue could be brought before the Public Works Committee . Mr . Walker felt they should be able to bring it to the next Public Works Committee meeting . Councilman Stein invited Mr. and Mrs . Grippi to attend the meeting . With no other persons to be heard , Supervisor Valentino closed Persons to be Heard . Agenda Item No . 7 - Report from consultant regarding Northeast Drainage ( ; letter from William Sonnenstuhl #7 — Drainage Study and Evaluation ; letter from N . Ostman and F . R. Wesley ; memo from Ed Marx ; copy of PowerPoint presentation ) Nicole Burnham , Milone and MacBroom Ms . Burnham introduced herself and David Murphy to the Board . Ms. Burnham - Just to give you some background, we are going to go through the project scope, what we were asked to do, what I think we were asked to do, what we did. Hopefully they are the same thing. David is going to talk about existing conditions of the area and then I 'm going to into some discussion about the Briarwood II Development and what we found in reviewing the plans and looking at the drainage of the area and then also some of the conclusions and recommendations. There are copies of this presentation floating around somewhere, handouts. There were 20 of them when 1 walked in here. So what were we asked to do ? We were asked to evaluate the existing site conditions, the existing area, which David will define for you a little bit better. The existing 11 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 drainage patterns within the area that is already developed, the areas where flooding complaints have been submitted to the Town repeatedly, to meet with residents of the area, with the developer's engineers and with Town staff, which we did in May. I went out walked the site, walked the neighborhood, walked the area, actually a portion of it with Town Engineer Creig Hebdon, also did a portion of it on our own. Met with Town staff, met with the developer's staff and also met with Doctor Todd Walters from Cornell to talk about some of his research and again, David is going to touch on a lot of that when we go through existing conditions. Then we were asked to evaluate the proposed drainage system of Briarwood ll, evaluate what the potential impacts of that system might be, of what that development might be, evaluate the previously completed study. Some of those were from Cornell and other consultants. Some of them are from the developer's consultants. So I basically left here in May with a car full of data that we took home and took back to Connecticut and reviewed. Then the ultimate goal of what we were to do was to comment on potential impacts of that development. So that is what we set out to do back in May and David is going to take you through the existing conditions and then I will come back. David Murphy , Milone and MacBroom Mr. Murphy introduced himself to the Board . Mr. Murphy — I am going to talk about existing conditions, talk about surface water, groundwater, and that sort of thing. I am going to leave most of the time for Nicole to really talk about the proposed development and get into the details of that. So I 'll talk about the site location, watershed hydrologies, service water hydrology, talk a little bit about the hydrogeology ground water of the area and then a little bit about precipitation patterns and trends that we have noticed. Site location, as you all know, is the northeast portion of the Town of Ithaca, generally bounded by the Town of Dryden to the east and Lansing to the north. More specifically, though, what we are looking at is the area that is just south of Sapsucker Woods area, bounded by Hanshaw Road and Sapsucker Woods Road. (Referring to PowerPoint presentation) there you can see the same figure as in the report. The yellow parcels are the proposed development and then the parcels to the left are existing development, of course. A little bit about existing conditions. As many of you know, all of this area is tributary to Cayuga Lake and a lot of the water that falls in this area is generated from groundwater discharge to streams ends up in the lake through Renwick Brook. That which does not go through that brook is going through parallel streams, but it all goes generally from east to west. You can see a couple of watersheds that are delineated in red. The southerly one is for a tributary of Renwick and then the upper red bounded watershed is for Renwick Brook itself. Hard to see on this figure, but perhaps easier in the report, the thin blue lines are the brooks themselves. Maybe it would be better to call them watercourses because in some places right now they are flowing in swales and culverts. In some places they are only remnants of previous brooks that were there before development. In many places the brooks have been channelized, modified, partially relocated. You can see some 90 degree bends, of course that is not how the brook started out with, but that is how some of them are flowing right now. Drainage is from our right to our left, or east to west. Residents have complained in recent years, especially very recently, of different types of nuisance flooding problems. What is mean by "nuisance flooding "? Typically people think 12 July 9 , 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 of flooding as what is going on in Texas and Oklahoma right now, a river is out of banks. But nuisance flooding is more backyards, drainage ways, basements that are wet or perhaps flooded with a couple feet of water. So certainly things are not floating away, but flooding means too much water in this case. There are not any FEMA delineated flood planes in this area. Flood planes are mapped further down stream, most likely, but not in this area . You can see some of the complaints on this image right here . The green is complaints of soil saturation, really wet soil that you can 't do anything on it. It generates maybe a little bit of runoff. Blue is basement flooding and then the orange color is surface flooding, such as ponding in the yard, that sort of things. Now, why is some of this flooding occurring ? We weren 't asked to really get into that too much, but we did need to get into it, of course, as the background for our analysis. Some of the things that could be contributing to the nuisance flooding are: groundwater perched above the fragipan layer in the till, we 'll talk about that a little bit later what that means; the bends, certainly and the channelization in some of the brooks could have led to some flooding. When water is flowing along and it must make a right angle turn that is a condition that could cause some nuisance flooding. If you drive around int eh area you can see a lot of the swales are not very low below ground surface, but at the same time, the streets are higher than a lot of the yards so there is maybe some diking going on. Some of the culverts, perhaps, have outlived their life expectancy. They are failing, they might be blocked. So there are a lot reasons why nuisance flooding could be occurring. In addition to all that, increases in impervious surfaces can lead to nuisance flooding as well. And on that note, it is important to mention the Town has, in response to the complaints, evaluated ways to deal with some of the nuisance flooding. It has looked at putting in a traditional stormwater sewer collection system, which would be designed for the 10-year storm event. And that has been conceptually designed, so final designs haven 't been prepared for this. It's a conceptual design that has been floating around for not too long. I want to talk about the hydrogeology a little bit, groundwater. This is just an image of surficial geology. There are no surprises here . The whole are is glacial till. Its pretty pre- glacial till and glacial till is material that was just deposited directly by the glacier as opposed to outwash, which comes from glacial meltwater streams. So it is compact. Its got a lot of clay in it and what you can find in this area specifically is a fragipan layer, sort of like the equivalent of the West Coast . . .[tape flipped]. . . the fragipan layer is very hard, impervious. Groundwater perches above fragipan, has a hard time getting through it. Beneath that layer, you will find another 20 feet of glacial till down to the top of bedrock. Bedrock in this area is shale, shale material, which you can see in many of the gorges if you hike through the gorges. You 'll see outcrops of that. Surficial geology in the area, there is some wicustrian(?), which is lake deposited clays, other types of till, but in this area generally it is glacial till, about 20 feet thick above bedrock. So groundwater is above the fragipan, it is a very shallow groundwater and then its also in the bedrock, but the clay in between appears to be pretty dry. As 1 get into precipitation patterns, I do want to talk about a study that Doctor Todd Walter conducted while he was at Cornell. Its been a recent study. I think he completed it in 2005. He installed about 19 observation wells in the Sapsucker Woods area, to the north of the area that we are looking at here, closer to the Town line. And the goal of the study was to look at how changes in impervious surfaces affect hydrology, surface and groundwater 13 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 hydrology. Some of the important findings that we took to this study, to use for our study, were that above the fragipan there is fairly consistently a pushed groundwater table. Even when it is very dry, so even . . . he monitored groundwater levels from, I think, from a February through an August. Of course, over that period of time the groundwater level decreased because trees are evaporating more water into the atmosphere and that is when you expect to see groundwaters decline, but even at the end of August, there was still groundwater in 18 of his 19 observation wells sitting on top of the fragipan . So it really does hold groundwater and that is important to understand because a lot of the swales in this area about 1 to 2 feet deep, resting on or perhaps intersecting the top of the fragipan. So its really not a surprise that some of them are flowing when its dry because the nearest surface groundwater is always trying to get out and when it can intersect a swale it will get out and the swale will flow. So its important to understand some of the dynamics that is going on and the study that Cornell conducted does verify some of that. With respect to precipitation patterns and trends, what we looked at was precipitation records from 1930 to 1960 and then 1977 to 2006. This is a firm engaged in Ithaca, so its not something far away. And the data does show that over time precipitation, total annual precipitation is increasing. So I 'm not saying there are more rainy days or anything like that because there are many ways to look at. What / am just saying is that over a course of a year now, there is more precipitation than there was perhaps 100 years ago. That actually can be seen in this graph. There are three lines. The black dashed line is from (referring to name of Atlas — not audible), which is an Atlas, a resource that is used to do stormwater design. Then the blue line is . . . represents data from 1977 through the present. The red line is data from 1930 to 1960 and you can see the blue line has a steeper slope and gets higher towards the right than the red line. There are two ways to really interpret this and let me take a stab at it and then 1 'll back up and try to clarify if I need to. If you read from left to right across the graph, lets take a 4-inch storm. So you would go up the left margin to 4-inches. It hits the blue line before it hits the red line. So the given return period is lesser for the blue line than it is for the red line. So it is more likely to occur, this 4-inch storm, now than it would have in 1930 to 1960. Another way to read the graph, another way that I prefer is to go from the bottom up and so if you go up the 10-year storm, up the middle of the graph, it hits the red line first, you read across, that is about 3. 5-inch event, but you hit the blue line for the more recent data that is a 4-inch event. So a 10 year storm now is giving you 4 inches water whereas a 10 year storm previously was about 3. 5 inches of water falling at the gauge. So there are two ways to read the graph and either way is showing that precipitation is generally increasing and that is an important point to understand as we look at stormwater design and Briarwood ll development. Councilman Stein — May I ask you a question about that? Because just looking at that graph and reading your report I came to the opposite conclusions, so I am missing something. Okay? Because if you look at the intercept to the left, then you find for a 1 -year storm, which is what happens every years, it doesn 't really happen, the rainfall is twice is much in TP40 as it is in the more recent data . Mr. Murphy — Well, that is a good point. Councilman Stein — And if you . . . but when you go to these other things, it is a little bit more rainfall, but on the other hand, it happens very rarely. So somehow it would seem to me that 14 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 if you integrated this thing you would find out that it is drier now than it was in TP40. So that confused me . Mr. Murphy — No, I 'm glad you brought that up. The TP40 is, and Nicole, jump in if you need to, but that is based on, as I said, it is Technical Paper 40. That's the reference. It is the standard practice for designing stormwater and other types of systems that can handle runoff precipitation events. And the TP40 resource does provide or have or call for you to use the higher precipitation at the more frequent storm events, which I guess causes more of an overdesign for. . . Ms. Burnham — Technical Paper 40, in theory, is based on rainfall data from 1930 to 1960. And essentially what it did was statistical analysis of rainfall patterns and data from the period of 1930 to 1960 and then analyzed that data and basically generated a series of atlases with mapping that shows rainfall amounts and you sort to have to interpolate to find . . .you know . . . where you are on the map. They are not particularly specific. So the TP40 data, first of all, is an interpolation of a very broad scale map. So that is the . . .you know . . . it's sort of a number you are picking off of an atlas. But what we saw and what we see in this is that when the TP40 numbers were generated, compared to the actual rainfall data during that same return period, the 1930- 1960, for whatever reason the numbers generated in this area are conservative. Certainly, at the . . . and particularly at the low end. TP40 has us designing for those very frequent storms using higher rainfall amount, which is actually a good thing because it makes the design much more conservative than it probably would be. I thought it was really interesting that under these frequent 1 -year return storms, those storms that happen every year, there really hasn 't been a big change in the precipitation. And this is precipitation over a 24-hour period. That is how rainfall is measured. So you may see storms where you have 7 inches of rain, but that 7 inches may be falling over a 3 day period. So you wouldn 't call it over a 100-year storm. Just to give you a little more background on that. But, TP40, I mean that black line, all across the board was higher than the actual rainfall. So its actually giving a bit of a conservative analysis, but what we find is that at the higher end the less frequent storms that tend to carry more rainfall and contribute to more significant flooding, we are probably under designing a bit. Does that help ? Councilman Stein — Yes. It does. Thank you. Mr. Murphy — And just to add to that so you can see where the blue and the red lines, which are actual data, below a 2-year storm they are on top of one another. The low intensity storms when you compare a 30 to 60 and 77 to 2006 are similar, but when you get above the 2-year storm, that is where the blue and the red lines really diverge. Ms. Burnham — Okay. So having data and all that background data, we came and started looking at the development, and again, just for orientation purposes, David pretty much oriented you, but north is straight up on all of these figures. (Referring to map) Sapsucker Woods Road is here to the right, to the east. Hanshaw is just at the bottom and gets cut off. As you can see, the existing roadways in here, you can see Sanctuary Drive in its existing cul-de-sac. The yellow outlines are proposed lots. We essentially took the mapping we were given and scanned it in and sketched it and traced the lot layouts. So that is what we have and at the north end area to be conveyed into the Sapsucker Woods sanctuary. A small parcel here to be conveyed into the Salem Drive Park. Another large wetland area existing 15 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 here through this central corridor between Sapsucker Woods and Birchwood. So the proposed development itself is 47 lots. The area being deeded to Cornell is 25, based on the stormwater reports and the mapping we had. In terms of roadways, the roadway network through the development, Sanctuary Drive will be extended from its cul-de-sac down and around into what is called Birchwood Drive North and then Birchwood Drive here at the south also gets extended up into Sapsucker Woods Road. One of the things I wanted to talk about, I actually as I walked this area, so in terms of wetlands, we didn 't sketch all the wetland areas on here, but just for a little more orientation, there is some wetland pockets through this southern open space area and as David said, Renwick Creek originates in this northern parcel that is to be deeded to the University. And there are some wetland pockets through there, but just for orientation purposes. This channel, the southern channel, which to the best of my knowledge is an unnamed stream, originates actually off of drainage on Sapsucker Woods Road and is conveyed through a yard and a pipe and basically that discharge generates that channel. And that is going to be an important. . . we 're going to talk about that a little bit more later. One of the things I observed . . . the reason we are going to talk about it a little bit more is that when I was out there and we walked that channel, particularly at the eastern end of its inlet, as you are walking along the corridor you can see that the sides of the channel are higher than the floodplain, than the land on either side of the channel. So you are in the channel and you 're low, then the earth comes up high and its vegetated and then you drop back down to the floodplain . So in the report, it is referred to as a berm. There is an earth and berm on each side of that channel and that was something that struck me and we are going to talk about that a little bit more later because effectively when flow starts moving through that channel, it takes a lot more water for it to overflow into the wetland area, into its floodplain. If you think about how water rises so that's something that we are going to talk about more. In terms of stormwater and stormwater management for the development, the proposed system, the proposed ponds are pretty traditional. Pretty typical. Follow the development and analysis protocol from the NYS stormwater manual. There are 4 ponds that are proposed and they are labeled here as design points and they are referenced in the report as well. So the first one, design point 1 , this yellow area discharges to that pond. Design point 2 is this eastern leg, discharges into a second pond, pond 2 here. What was referenced as design point 3 comes off this Sanctuary Drive cul-de-sac and discharges again. So three ponds discharging into that central wetland area with a fourth leg of the development discharging to what was labeled as pond 4 near Salem Drive Park. So the ponds were designed for both waterfall as well as flood attenuation . We were provided with copies of the stormwater report for the development and their design calculations, which we reviewed and we 've reviewed the design plans as well. So I am going to briefly touch on the results of those. In looking at development and then looking at drainage, you are looking at a number of different factors. Precipitation trends certainly are one of them. Soil types. Vegetation types. Soil cover. Soil moisture conditions, which is something that David sort of touched on a little bit with the fragipan which is not traditionally what we think about when we think about soil moisture but in this instances that fragipan layer probably is impacting the starting soil moisture condition and when you think about what happens when it rains that is a pretty important thing to think about when you are thinking about flood management and 16 July 9 , 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 stormwater design. Certainly the tributary watershed area impacts the amount of runoff that you get. Also retention and structures, you know, wetland areas certainly provide storage capacity. They can attenuate a peak flow. Water will pond in the wetland and not move downstream as quickly as it would if the wetland wasn 't there . Cross culverts at driveways is another thing and 1 suspect that's part of what is happening in the existing drainage swales. That water is backing up behind those culverts and that provides some detention in the existing swales, which may be an important thing when we start thinking about downstream impacts. But all the factors, all those factors were taken into account. Certainly soil moisture, soils, soil type, vegetation, were taken into account in the design and each pond was analyzed individually and just as a quick table of results. So what you are looking at here is a lot of numbers, but there are three basic design storms. The one-year, which you often look at for water quality. The 10-year, which is often what pipe drainage systems are designed for, conveyance. And the 100-year, which is typical flood management storms. So this is peak runoff, the maximum flow rate that you are going to see discharged out of the system and its pond by pond, pulled this out of the calculations. So and what you can see is there are three columns, well, there are five columns. The pond number. The storm event for each pond. Predevelopment flow. So what is predicted to be discharging from that watershed area under existing conditions. Postdevelopment flow. What is predicted following the development if no detention were provided. And then the last column is postdevelopment with those detention ponds in place and as a design standard you generally design for zero increase. So when you talk about zero increase, you are talking about the predevelopment flow versus the postdevelopment with detention . So you can see, you know, this chart is pretty clear. That zero increase has been provided and then some . There is actually a predicted reduction in peak flows from each of the ponds at each of the design storms. So in terms of a design standard and how you normally would look at a development project, this is it and I think the development and the analysis that was presented here certainly meets the standard of engineering practice . I didn 't think there was anything missing. I didn 't think there was anything grossly wrong by any means. I think that . . . and then, but to take it a step further given a history of the area, we looked at not just the peak flow, but the total volume. So under an existing storm right now there is some, if you think about from the start of the rainfall event to the end of the rainfall event there is a sum a volume of water that falls on any given drop of land. This area of table; there is some volume of water that falls during a rainfall event. Some volume that is converted to runoff. So that total volume over that storm event is what we are looking at here and volume is something that does get looked at often times. Its not. . . its . . . and the reason we consider it is because while we can control the peak flow and you can reduce the peak flow, which presumably is protective of the downstream channels, when you increase the volume of flow, the downstream channels will have a higher flow over a longer period of time. As opposed to under existing conditions you may see . . .you 'll see a very spiky bell shaped curve in the runoff. Under proposed conditions with detention, you 'll see . . .you know that peak may not be as high, but it extends for a longer duration . So you start to see more things like erosion on stream banks as higher flow rates are sustained for longer periods of time. So in looking at volumetric changes here, they are significant in some instances, but mostly for the smaller storms, generally. That one-year storm we can see increases of up to 100 percent in some instances, not quite in many others and during the 100-year event, you know, these larger rain events the increase aren 't quite as significant. So having looked at all of that lead us to and all the existing conditions data that David talked about led us to a couple of conclusions and some recommendations. 17 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 One is that. . .you know there is discussion and David touched on the issue of pipe drainage system. You know, there has been some call for that. I saw preliminary design plans. I saw preliminary calculations the Town engineering staff has done for that. . . for pipe drainage systems, not in Briarwood 11, but in the downstream channels in the downstream developments. And that may alleviate some surface flooding. Its definitely feasible. Its possible . . . its probably not going to affect basement flooding and the soil saturation issues because I'm not sure that is being caused by anything other than groundwater sitting on top of the fragipan layer David talked about and piping is not going to help that. The other thing to think about in a piping system is that right now, really, as much as people probably, maybe, don 't want to hear and don 't like it, but driveway cross culverts are holding back some water. If that whole system were piped, all of that water is going to moved downstream faster. So the problem may just get transferred from the neighborhood its in now to the next neighborhood to the west. The other thing is that, you know, while we . . . while it seems like and maybe feels like ground water is changing, it probably isn 't. There really is no evidence that it has been. However we did talk about the fact that we are probably getting more rain now. The precipitation patterns are changing and there have been increases in imperviousness in the watershed, which may be contributing to some . . . what appears to be changes, certainly, in the soil saturation as runoff patterns are changing. That is groundwater increasing, we don 't believe that that is likely based on what we 've seen. Specific to the Briarwood 11 development, just based on the review, there were a couple of things that jumped out to us. One is that three of the lots are actually really bisected by sanitary sewer. So 58, 67, and 70. Not exactly a stormwater issue, although the more lots there are, certainly the more impervious area you have, the more runoff you have. It is not clear that those lots are actually feasible to be developed because of how much they are impacted by the sanitary sewers. So that was just one suggestion. Lot 66, and I 'm actually going to back up and show you where that is. That lot is here at the end of the existing Sanctuary Drive cul-de-sac. If you were to go out there today, what you would see when you get to the cul-de-sac at the end of Sanctuary Drive and look left, there is an existing sort of roadway path that cuts over to Birchwood Drive North and adjacent to that you would see wetland vegetation growing in that area . That is lot 66 . . . appears to be wetland vegetation. I am not a soil scientist, but certainly appears to be. It is a low lying area . Its accepting runoff from there is a swale system behind the homes on Sanctuary Drive. Water is ponding there now. Its ponding naturally so one of our recommendations was to give some consideration to possibly eliminating that lot in favor of perhaps providing some stormwater management there since it seems to want to be there. The watershed area to that area is limited. Its not going to solve all the problems, certainly, but it was something to think about. Minimizing impervious surfaces, you know, this hadn 't jumped out at me, it may, but David and I took a ride out there this afternoon again and noticed that in the neighborhood, the existing neighborhoods a number of the driveways aren 't paved, which actually is a good thing. That might be something that is going to happen in the proposed development. Its not clear what the proposal is, but anything to minimize those impervious surfaces. Providing rain gardens for roof leaders; some houses out there don 't even have roof leaders, which actually, again is a good thing. So looking at things like that in the development, 18 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 incorporating those kind of elements into the development is something that will help reduce the potential impacts of the development downstream. Maintaining a soil thickness over the fragipan layer, and David is going to help me out here on this one if 1 get stuck. So, but one of the things we talked about is the only sort of infiltration and stormwater management layer have in this soil strata is from existing grade to the top of that fragipan layer and the more we can maintain that, the better off we are going to be . One thing that occurs to me or that I think about when 1 think about this is if we are creating drainage swales, constructing drainage swales can we over excavate and then provide a layer of soil material that is actually going to absorb more water within the bottom of the swale . That could potentially help manage some of the stormwater. One of the things . . . Supervisor Valentino — Could it just ask . . . ? Ms. Burnham — Sure . Supervisor Valentino — I don 't understand fragipans too well. I read the definition, but is almost impossible for water to generate through those or does it just percolate extremely slow ? What kind of affect does that have if its not too far down on say the root structures of trees and things like that? Mr. Murphy — It is fairly impervious. Water can . . . it is possible for water to infiltrate through the fragipan, but in the time scale that we are talking about for storm events its not going to happen. It can 't get through that fast. So it is over a greater time scale that water can slowly get down through . So when you are trying to do some stormwater management, you can 't rely on the fragipan accepting any water. Its too extreme of an event over a too short of a duration for anything to get through it. Roots can get through it. In some cases, not every root system can get through the fragipan, but there are some trees that can get through it and that can create pathways through it that water can filtrate. But its in limited areas generally. Supervisor Valentino — Thank you. Councilman Stein — Nicole, now that we 've stopped your thoughts there was something that occurred to me a couple of thoughts . . . five minutes ago or so that you said that confused me. The question of if you pipe, do you just transfer your troubles elsewhere and my . . . and 1 thought that, 1 mean we have three areas, okay. We have Briarwood II, we have Briarwood 1, and then we have pre-Briarwood I. And the people who are complaining are, a large part of them are the pre-Briarwood I people. Now, they don 't have pipes there, but if in fact . . . my understanding was if in fact we pipe that water, there is nothing downstream of that except the lake. That there are pipes that go all the way down to the lake from there for stormwater. So if we . . . I thought that if we piped that we couldn 't be making any trouble for downstream people and also that the argument about the way pipes make trouble for downstream people might be applied to Briarwood I where there were pipes put in making trouble for the pre- , Briarwood I folks. Was that clear? Ms. Burnham — Yes. It was clear and a couple things come to mind on that. The first is that I can 't exactly comment on the downstream condition. 1 'll be honest with you. We really didn 't look all the way downstream, didn 't chase that all the way downstream so I have to defer to your Town staff. 19 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 Councilman Stein - Isn 't that right? What I said? That there is no open water? Mr. Walker - If you are looking at the Briarwood below Birchwood, all that water goes into the County drainage system on Hanshaw Road, which is inadequate today. And that's when we designed a pipe system for all the little . . . the Birchwoods and Briar. . . Pinewoods, and so on. We could not. . . the County could not put a big enough system in to handle the water if we piped everything today. And . . . but once we get beyond where downstream by the St. Catherine 's, Blackstone Avenue, once we get the water into that channel, that is a pretty well defined channel and it has a lot of capacity. Then the slopes get quite a bit steeper and most of the channels are bedrock, in bedrock so there isn 't a lot of flooding in Cayuga Heights that happens because of this. Councilman Stein - I understand about the problem for the County, but there aren 't individual homeowners who are going to be impacted by the greater flow? Mr. Walker - Not from the main stream channel. No. Councilman Stein - Okay. Ms. Burnham - And I think the point of our comment is just that it means there may need to be some downstream analysis. They wouldn 't just recommend a blanket piping. There needs to be some thought about, and I'm not sure it has been fully thought out yet, not only because it hasn 't progressed that far, not because of anything the Town staff has or hasn 't done. Your other comment regarding Briarwood 1, what I think I observed out there actually was drainage swales, roadside swales and driveway cross culverts. I don 't recall seeing a lot of hard pipe drainage out there. I think it is a similar system to what was in the existing, and correct me if I 'm wrong, but. . . Mr. Noteboom They have put in quite a few underground drains in front of the property. Ms. Burnham - I think some homeowners have piped in front of their property, but I don 't believe it was the majority of them. I didn 't think it was the majority of them, but I guess . . . Councilman Stein - That is what I would heard. We can find that out. Ms. Burnham - One of the other things, we 're are down to the second to the last bullet. Incorporating the full tributary watershed. This was, if you recall from when David was discussing the limited tributary watershed and this delineation is admittedly rough. We had 5 foot topo based on available GIS that we delineated off of So, but the stormwater report developed by the developer talks about a hundred acre watershed contributing to the site, to some portion of the site. It wasn 't exactly clear where the hundred acres was measured from, but there is some watershed upstream of the site and then if we go back to this slide that shows us the areas that were assumed tributary to these ponds, its not 100 acres. It is only the portions of the development and the developed area . It would be appropriate to incorporate the remaining watershed area that offsite watershed area . Certainly we talked about this channel being fed by cross culvert under Sapsucker Woods Road and one of our comments was this analysis and we talked about three ponds discharging into that central 20 July 9 , 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 wetland area and the analysis takes each of those three ponds individually. One of our suggestions would be that in order to really fully evaluate the impacts, it would be appropriate to select a common design point in this stream channel. It might be at the cross culvert on Briarwood. I 'm not sure what the right design point is. It is something we would have to talk about, but where this . . . all of its tributary watershed and these three ponds . . . the discharge from these three ponds would all be aggregated to evaluate the potential impacts of the development. The reason for that is, 1 mean I think its easy to say well I 'm not affecting the upstream watershed so I 'm not going to affect anything downstream. 1 mean I think the reason you look at the whole watershed as opposed to only the developed portion of it or the portion that is on the development site is that . . . one of the issues related to runoff that is really important is the timing of it. When is the peak is occurring and where is the water coming from that is contributing to that peak and when you ignore water coming in from off site you can 't fully evaluate how you are impacting the peak of the flow of the full system. Yes, there is zero increase provided at the four ponds and the design point, but that doesn 't necessarily fully translate to zero increase at the downstream analysis point. The volume increases. We talked about those and to the extent possible it would be . . . mitigating those would be great. The problem is how do you mitigate them. Well, you have to keep the water on site . We talked about how difficult it is going to be to do that in the fragipan . At the very least one suggestion might be figuring out how to hold it on site over a longer period of time . When we talk about, you know, when we do storm analysis it is all in a 24-hour period so those volumetric increase are all in a 24-hour period. There may be some manipulation that can be done with the design to extend that volume, which would over a longer period of time, which would further decrease the peak flows. It probably isn 't possible to fully mitigate the changes in volume here. I want to be clear on that, but it might be something to investigate, more particularly in that 1 -year storm event that is going to happen pretty frequently. One of the things that can be done, you know the standard analysis, there 's different ways of doing drainage analysis that can take into account the condition of the soil at the start of the storm. There is one of way doing it where you assume the soil is completely dry. There is another way of doing it where you can assume it is fully saturated. The normal way of doing it is you assume sort of an average soil condition, which is what was done here. That is the standard of practice. If we really wanted to see if the Town is really, you know, wants to see what is happening if saturated soil conditions are existing before a rainfall event occurs, that can be done. There is some manipulation of the drainage analysis and that might be something to think about asking to be done. The other thing is that and again, you know the standard of design and the standard of engineering practice is to use that rainfall data from TP40, Technical Paper 40, that we talked about, but what we have seen is that based being based on the precipitation trends that some of the larger storm events, the 10- year, the 25-year, the 50-year events, may actually contribute more rainfall. So what would happen to the pond design. What would happen to the system design if those larger rainfall amounts were used is something that certainly could be looked at Again, what was done is the standard of design. It wasn 't unusual. It wasn 't inappropriate, but given the concerns and the problems of the area, going a step further may not be inappropriate either. Then eliminating that berm in the existing wetland area, which is going to generate a wetland impact, I realize, but maybe something that might actually help downstream flooding in the long run if we can get that channeled to overbank faster and water to flow into the wetland 21 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 sooner. You 'll get some flood storage there naturally, which is what should be happening, but has been affected over time. And with that, I am happy. . . we 're happy to answer any questions. We are here for as long as it needs to be. So . . . Supervisor Valentino - I think for the Board, there are a couple of Planning Board members here, too, that I would invite to maybe be in this first round of questions if you have and then we 'll open it up and let the public have either their statements or their questions. Board members ? Peter, do you have some questions ? Councilman Stein - Yeah. You have . . . Nicole, you have clearly delineated the difference between peak flows and total volumetric flows and that is something that has plagued us for some time, is trying to understand the difference between those two numbers. And I think that we are all clear on what peak flow does. It is what we laymen call a flood that you find water all over the place and after a while it goes away, a day or two, a week or something then the water flows away and that is the end of the flood. How should we look at increase in total volume ? What kinds of phenomenon would that generate and. . . let me just start with that question. Phenomenon that might be adverse affects on people who live downstream of that generation of flow. Ms. Burnham - The volume . . . the increase in volume ends up contributing to flow in the channel over a longer period of time. So it is what we refer to as bankfull flow, which is the elevation of water at which a channel is just about to overtop its banks. When you have increases in volumetric increases in flow, you 'll see that bankfull flow happening more frequently and for longer periods of time, which ends up contributing to things like bank erosion and I guess the way to look at it, the way its often looked at and it varies from region to region, but bankfull is usually equivalent to about the 1 . 2 to 2 year storm event, under normal conditions. But you start seeing that flow. . . happen more frequently. Does that answer your question ? Councilman Stein - Well, yes. That certainly is one answer, but I 'm trying to, from a laymen 's point of view, to understand a number of complaints that people have made to us about what they see and in particular people who say we used to be able to mow our lawns, but we no longer can mow our lawns because it has become marshy and our trees our dead. I mean neither the total volume nor the peak flows will explain that phenomenon. So how should I look at that? Are those . . . is it some other cause that we don 't understand? This kind of increase in the general surface layer of water or moisture on the surface that people have experienced. Do you have some comments on that? Mr. Murphy - I was just going to add to this that I think the total volume increase is something that has manifested partly in the more saturated conditions in the channels because the volume is just taking longer to get through the system. So you are seeing more water more often. So the peak isn 't increasing, as Nicole explained. The peak flow, which is the rushing volume, that is not increasing, but because the total volume is increasing as there are more impervious surfaces, it is taking longer for that water to get through the fragipan system, the nearest surface system that we have talked about. 22 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 Ms. Burnham - The other thing, Peter, I did not review, none of us reviewed anything having to do with Briarwood I. I don 't know what that drainage system design was. So that sort of limits the ability to comment on that. Councilman Stein - Of course . Right. Supervisor Valentino - Any other questions from Board members ? Councilman Burbank - Could you point out on the map the lots, 58, 70 and 67? Ms. Burnham (pointing to map) - They are . . . we didn 't label all the lot numbers, but in here, that is one of them, that is one of them and that is the third one. I mean you can sort of see the existing sewer through there and you can probably see it better. . . but the sewer main runs through there . Those are the three that we recommended by eliminated. Councilman Burbank - Secondly, I was curious about the proposed ownership of the wetland area between the two ? Ms. Burnham - I don 't remember and I was thinking about that on the way up here and I didn 't have the project plans. Councilman Burbank - So that is not part of the land that is proposed to be conveyed to Cornell? Ms. Burnham - This middle lot area ? Mr. Kanter - Yes. It is. Councilman Burbank - It is part of it. Okay. I 'm sorry. Thank you. Supervisor Valentino - Both of those are going to be conveyed to Cornell? Mr. Kanter - Yes. If Cornell decides to accept them. We still haven 't heard. Supervisor Valentino - We still haven 't heard definitely from them yet. Councilman Cowie - I have a quick question. These additional . . .you said that the calculations were done according to standard practice but we could go the extra distance on taking into account the wet soil and the increased drain flows. Is this something we can do if we wanted to go that extra ? Mr. Walker - Yes. Councilman Cowie - How complicated is this to do ? Mr. Walker - Its not very complicated to do because we are using the (not audible) now. We are using the curb number method, which there are adjustments you make for the different added . . . (not audible) . . . moisture conditions. When it is very dry you can in . . . decrease your 23 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 curb number so it absorbs more water and under the highest you increase the curb numbers so more water runs off. Just to add one thing, we in the Town, the Town staff has been evaluating the entire watershed and we actually, going back to one point that Nicole brought up, we actually have used the intersection of Salem Drive and Hanshaw Road as our design point because we provided the design figures to the County consultant for the Hanshaw Road drainage systems. We told them what the discharge would be from our system at that point. So we looked at the whole watershed and when the project came in we thought we could reduce some of the flows and we found that it didn 't change the overall peak flows because the peak flows are actually higher from the already developed area, including all of Salem Drive, the Birchwoods, the Pinewoods, the Maplewood area. So it was kind of an interesting analysis that we did there. Supervisor Valentino - Any other questions ? Any of the Planning Board people ? Dooley, do you have a question ? Ms. Kiefer - This may be an incorrect correction to ask, but looking at the scope of work that they were given and the product that has been presented tonight, it strikes me that they did a very good job of looking at what is proposed and how it might be further analyzed in order to mitigate things and allow the development to go forward. I don 't think they were asked to recommend whether the development should not go forward. Is that correct ? Supervisor Valentino - I guess you would have to ask Peter and Herb. They were the committee people. Councilman Stein - No. They certainly weren 't asked that question because that is not something that the Town Board can decide. Ms. Kiefer - No. I understand that, but their professional opinion might have been interesting. That's fine. Councilman Stein - I mean what they were asked to comment on is both what the impact of this development is on downstream residents and also to some degree what the impact. . . what the likely impact, not a detailed analysis, but what . . . have there been impacts of previous developments on downstream people. That question . . .you know there are two sides to this. One side of it is that do we learn anything by the past. The past is that there has been development in that area and groundwater problems have become worse and then question is does that raise the possibility that future development may have future groundwater problems. And so we have heard discussion of that where there is no proven answers to it, but there are certain indications about it. I mean it is a subtle problem. Its not easy. Its obvious. One thing I have learned from this whole experience is that predictions of what, where water is apt to go [tape flipped] Responding to Ms . Keiffer, Mr. Engman told her the committee that drew up the consultant' s charges assumed that the Planning Board has to do what it has to do and the Town Board has to investigate those things , which the Town Board can do . What the committee wanted was data and information . He thought they had gotten it . It is not that any consultant can tell the Town Board what to do . The Board has to look at the information and decide for themselves what they want to do . It seemed to Mr. Engman , as stated in the presentation 24 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the fthaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 and also on page 37 of the report , the crucial issue is given the geology of the area it will not likely be possible to fully mitigate the volumetric increases . For Mr. Engman this was a crucial observation and he thought they could interpret for themselves that there are going to be more problems because of the project . Given that there are going to be more problems then what should be done about it is what the Town Board and the Planning Board have to take into consideration . Ms . Valentino invited members of the public to address the Board . Gerald Davis , 309 Salem Drive One of the houses that was marked on the map as having basement flooding problems was mine. I live adjacent to the portion of Renwick Brook that leads across Salem Drive where there 's a corrugated pipe going from the front left of my yard. 1 have three comments based on points that I took note of during this report. Firstly, I was very pleased to hear discussion of whether calculations would be based on average soil conditions or saturated soil conditions. I think this is a crucial point. One of our two flooding events over the 20 years that we 've lived in that house was, in fact, I think the year was 1993 / 1994 when there was a spring January melt off that produced saturated conditions and then immediately that was followed by major rains. It seemed pretty clear to us at the time that we were looking at a situation of hyper saturated soils upon which there was just no more room for absorbsion. If the calculations are going to be made on the basis of what's happening much of the time, it's not going to be able to deal with conditions like that. The second point I wanted to make is that, at the meeting held a couple of months ago, at Northeast Elementary School a number of people spoke about the downstream consequences. There was one presentation in particular that addressed the fact that the stream that ran through the residents ' yard on Muriel Street was getting faster and deeper and that this was in increasing trend, that what used to be a little babbling brook going through the yard was becoming a torrent. I exaggerate a little, but the point being that this seems to be very closely related to the problem of total flow as opposed to peak flow. The third point that 1 would like to address is that during the past year or more that we have been talking about this pending and possible development, there have been at least two matters of water management that have come up time and again . One of them is stormwater. You may recall that 1 mentioned this to you (Supervisor Valentino) at the meeting at northeast and I would say almost everything I heard tonight was about stormwater management. The second matter, we 've talked about downstream consequences, the second matter is upstream consequences and various people have mentioned the possibility from time to time that the wetlands of Sapsucker Woods and the adjacent areas may disappear as various sorts of streams changes in the hydrology are made in accordance or consistent with the development because streams are widened as they begin to move faster. Water that originally was retained in the soils is going to be drained from them and that, in fact, we are looking at the possibility which I have no expertise to address, we 'll all find out afterwards perhaps, that the ponds that we see in Sapsucker Woods and it adjacent areas may not be here 10 years from now if the channelization and the drainage and the ditches and the piping increase to the point that more and more water is being removed during the median and dry periods. I hope that question will be addressed explicitly and in some detail. Thank you very much . Susan Rhia , 109 Maplewood Drive 25 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 I want to start by saying I really appreciate this report. I found it very interesting to read through and I think it offers a lot of material that we can use to maybe improve what is going on in the northeast. I guess I would really urge people to think about utilizing some of the methodologies that are mentioned in the report that are maybe not part of the standard engineering approach but might end up giving us a better estimate of the size of retention ponds we need to put in that new development in order to mitigate downstream surface runoff effects. What I picked up were three using the antecedent condition number three which would be more conservative and, I think, much more representative of that area than antecedent condition two to analyze peak flow and volume from the entire system as they mentioned. And also to use the more recent rainfall distribution data, which Todd wrote me and said in addition that's available at the northeast climate center website. That's easily available, the most recent rainfall conditions. A couple other things 1 wanted to mention. I urge the whole SWPPP be done with those kind of inputs into the model, into the methods. The second thing I think, it's clear that Briarwood 1 substantially increased peak flow rates in water running through and volume running through the drainage swales and driveway culverts of the older section of the northeast because it seems like there wasn 't really a stormwater management plan put into effect for Briarwood 1. And apparently that wasn 't required at the time. Since then as discussed there has been piping of a lot of the swales that were installed in Briarwood I which would only increase our peak flow rates downstream. And there 's been a berm installed in that stream. l don 't know when that happened, but that also would increase the peak flow. Those are the kinds of things we can think about. Briarwood 1, the berms, those have all increased peak flow and I guess what I would like to see is the assessment of peak flows not be looked at relative to what's happening now, but relative to what the swales in the older section in the northeast and the culverts, the driveway culverts, were actually designed to handle; what they were handling prior to the development of Briarwood 1. Because 1 would really like to see if, at least from the peak flow point of view, we 're getting peak flows down to what they were prior to Briarwood I so that this new development addresses some of the problems in peak flow, at least, that were caused by Briarwood 1 which 1 think clearly increased our peak flow rate . And I guess the last issue is the one on the groundwater and I think the geo-hydrologist discussed that. 1 do think that the total volume can increase the amount of water that is moving into our system down slope from Briarwood 1 and Briarwood ll. I have a slightly different conception of how the groundwater is working out there because 1 think there 's ledges and I think that water can move off from the upper slopes and move into our area and be retained there. Water that would have been retained in the upper slopes and evaporated, transpired by the trees, that water is now running subsurface either naturally or through some of the culverts and then empties into our ditches and because we have this impermeable layer, the fragipan, it just kind of moves out there and now it's being retained in our area and eventually it gets transpired by trees or evaporated from the surface. But in the meantime or when there is a lot of rain coming it can then lead to more saturated conditions. So 1 think reducing the total volume flows would help alleviate that problem. Mr. Stein — 1 want to ask a follow up question to Susan Rhia 's last question to either our lawyer or our engineer. This question of standard engineering practice to use the middle number of the soil wetness, absorption capability, and the suggestion that maybe in this soil we ought to ask for the calculations based on the least absorptive type of soil. Are we allowed to do that or is the standard practice that we use the middle one, a thing that we have to do in making these analyses of stormwater management. 26 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 Mr. Walker - What we try to do is duplicate conditions on the ground at the time that the events are going to occur. Statistically the antecedent moisture condition 2 is usually typical in the northeast for peak storms because they are usually thunderstorms that dump a lot of rain in a short period of time during the summer when it's a little bit drier. The other time we get flooding is with snow melt conditions and really the evaluation that we are doing doesn 't even touch the snow melt specifically. Historically what we have done, we have done the analysis using antecedent moisture conditions throughout the area and using the capacity of the culverts and pipes that are already in place and a lot of times anecdotal history of flooding like when 1 ask Fred how often do we have a problem with flooding culverts in Salem Drive and since we repaired a lot of culverts in the last 5 years we haven 't had a big problem. So what we try to do is match the results we get with what we see in the field at the time and definitely running the evaluation using antecedent moisture condition 3 is a very good idea and we will do that. Especially if you have a wetland that is saturated all the time then you should. Mr. Stein - So we can do that? Mr. Walker - We can do that. What we have to do is look at the potential conditions out there. Basically, when we do an environmental review we look at the conditions that exist in the environment. When we do an analysis, it's a simulation, we 're doing a computer model of what could happen . When you 're dealing with rainfall, it's a statistical event. You might get the 100 year storm three years in a row, or might get the 100 year storm three days in a row. Mr. Stein - You can make what you think is a realistic evaluation even if it differs from the standard engineering practice is what 1 am asking ? Mr. Walker - Right, we can. Ms. Valentino - Wouldn 't we be prudent to lean more towards the conservative side of those evaluations. Mr. Walker - Definitely. Ms. Valentino - Especially because of what we are hearing. Mr. Walker - Right. Ms. Brock - Peter, what I heard the consultant say to is that based on Professor Walter's study showing that 18 of 19 of the monitoring wells still showed water even during the driest part of the year. That their conclusion was that the soil conditions were saturated and so it would be appropriate to use that more saturated condition analysis. 1 sthat correct? Mr. Murphy - l don 't know if I would call it fully saturated, but in August during his monitoring period there was groundwater that was 2 feet down. That's probably close enough to be conservative. 27 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 Mr. Cowie — Are you prepared to comment at all on this idea of this having an impact on the upstream ponds in Sapsucker Woods draining because of the more efficient flows out of the area raised by one of the community residents. Mr. Murphy — You mean holding less water and the wetlands not being as viable ? Mr. Cowie — Yes, and draining over time. Mr. Murphy — We didn 't look at that specifically in the report. I think it is our feeling, Nicole and I were just talking about this a little bit earlier today, that because of the glacial till soils in the fragipan being in that area, the wetlands are there because of that, that near surface fragipan. 1 don 't think that there is going to be a way to easily drain upstream areas. I think that the wetlands will still be fairly viable. I think what would concern me more would be if there are areas upstream of those that were not issuing water to the wetlands. Downstream development I think is not as big a concern with regard to that. Also, I think Nicole pointed out, it is not in the same watershed exactly. Nicole — Yes. I think one of the things, at least it looked to us that, my understanding of it is that the wetlands in question are to the north of the project site. Surface drainage from the project site is to the south and west, not to the north . The development doesn 't cut watershed area, I mean, wetlands are fed by a combination of groundwater as well as surface flow into them. It doesn 't appear that this site contributes surface flow to the wetlands of Sapsucker Woods Sanctuary, as far as we could tell and so by virtue of that, it's not intuitive to me how this development would impact the wetlands to the north that aren 't in their watershed. Mr. Stein — but in any case you didn 't study that, right? Ms. Murphy - Well, we certainly didn 't study those wetlands in detail, but I think the topographic mapping is pretty clear about where the surface water drains. Mr. Stein — Okay. Candace Cornell , 1456 Hanshaw Road I guess the concept of the watershed really needs to be defined when you 're describing this project. The term watershed is being loosely tossed around and you have a map that is showing three watersheds in the area where really you have to define what the watershed is because a watershed can be, you have a watershed that feeds the whole Finger Lakes area and that can be dissected down to watersheds that feed the Finger Lakes and then Cayuga Lake and so 1 don 't think you can say by the way these maps are drawn and the study has been conducted that there ware three watersheds in the area. It's one watershed and it's practically a flat area so the water that mainly feeds that area is from the rain. So that's the primary source. And also I found fault in the report where it said that the beginning of the one creek, which in my studies I think they called it Hanshaw Creek, the one creek that you didn 't know the name of, and it said in the report that it starts at a culvert. But it doesn 't start at a culvert, that's just the project, you know, study site. But that culvert is being fed by runoff from the wetland that's to the east of that and you can see the water running from there. So I think you really need to define the term watershed, because you also use the term 28 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 subwatershed so you need to define it better for this report. And that it's pretty hard to decide and determine from this if the Briarwood wetlands were drained if it would have an impact on the wetlands to the north of that. We don 't know this, but as Mr. Davis brought that's something that will just have to wait and see and I hope it doesn 't happen. So, that's my criticism . Trish Page , 212 Muriel Street I 've been up here before talking about my lot. We 've had not only surface flooding, significant surface flooding causing a big impact on our lot, but also 6 inches of water in our basement, and a wet basement many times. I would like to say I do really appreciate the fact that this study was done. I think a lot of really good concerns were brought up that should be taken very seriously. I would like to voice the similar concern to what I have heard here is the impact on the wetlands as a result of this project. The study really didn 't address that and I would really encourage that that be looked at more closely. The wetlands do have a huge impact on modulating drainage in that area . And also, having been involved myself, I 'm a landscape architect, I put together stormwater calculations like we saw here . I 've worked in areas of wetlands. I've been involved in projects where wetlands have been destroyed due to poor construction practices. So 1 think it is very important to think about impact on wetlands where you 're building retention ponds directly next to those wetlands and how both construction and post construction is going to impact. In terms of the stormwater calculations, what concerns me about that is that they're based on presumptions. The question came up, gee, how do we decide how permeable these are. Well, soil tests can be done, in fact, I can 't image putting together some of these stormwater calculation tables with any credibility without having some real firm data on percolation tests and geo-technical borings showing the subsurface conditions below these ponds. Some of these ponds look like, I didn 't get a good look at them, maybe they're 7 feet deep, it would be very important to know what's happening 7 feet down and really what's going to be the capacity of these ponds and what kind of infiltration we 're going to get and really what kind of impact they will have on the adjacent wetlands. I guess one other thing that wasn 't brought up in the report that I think is extremely important to be considered is how are these stormwater management facilities in general going to be maintained. They're right next to a wetland, they're right adjacent to properties lines, how is equipment going to get in there. These ponds do collect silt. They do need maintenance . That has to be considered and the impact on the adjacent properties and on the wetlands really needs to be looked at very carefully. Supervisor Valentino thanked the public for coming and for their comments . Mr. Engman and Mr. Stein expressed their satisfaction that the report fulfilled the scope outlined by the committee . Supervisor Valentino asked Attorney Brock if, from her legal perspective , it looked like the Planning Board will need to reconsider the SEQR . Ms . Brock told you , her, the Planning Board will need to reassess the appropriateness of the negative declaration for a couple of reasons . One is the project , based on things the developer has been telling Town staff, will change substantially from what was approved by the Planning Board when they gave preliminary approval . The method of handling the stormwater will be changing . When the Planning Board gave preliminary approval , the developer proposed to use the wetlands to store the stormwater. After the preliminary approval was given DEC indicated to the developer that would not be looked on favorably by DEC . There were then more discussions 29 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 with Town staff and they came up with the idea of the retention ponds and that type of thing . That is a substantial enough change that that particular aspect will- need to be looked at . In addition , under SEQR you are required to reassess the determination where you have new information . The stormwater consultant' s report definitely constitutes new information . In addition , the Town has received a report from Todd Walters and information on the unique natural area and some of the birds . Ms . Brock reported that what she and staff will be doing is going back through the materials that the Planning Board had when it considered the Briarwood preliminary approval before and see what the Board had in front of it then and what is new information . Any of the information they identify as new will have to be looked at and they will reassess the adequacy of the negative declaration . Mr . Engman asked if the developer has held off on coming back after the DEC said the wetlands solution was not viable . Mr . Walker told him they had been holding off because of the consultant' s study . The developer provided staff with the new stormwater _management plan several months ago . That is what the consultant has reviewed . The consultant has not really reviewed what was given the first time ; they've been given the new information with the ponds outside the wetland areas . So the consultant' s evaluation is on the proposed changes to the stormwater management system after the discussions with DEC . The developer wanted to make sure they had all the input they could get from the consultant' s report and from any public information so they could prepare their final documents . Mr. Engman asked if the Town had any idea of the timeline on all of this . Mr. Walker told him from an engineering standpoint they could probably prepare any additional information the Town would ask them for in 30 days . They still have to submit 30 days before . Mr. Kanter added that there were numerous other conditions required by the Planning Board , not the least of which is the sign off from Cornell that they will accept the 2 wetland areas . Ms . Brock thought a lot of the delay may be due to illness . Mr. Engman commented that now that the Town has the report , the Town Board has to decide what , if anything , it wants to do . He asked how , procedurally , they should go about that? He asked if the Board should have an executive session to learn about their legal options ? Mr. Stein stated they had talked at various times about some sort of coordination with the Planning Board and this sounds like a time for that. This is an issue that both the Town and Planning Boards have spent a lot of time thinking about . I thought they should have some kind of joint meeting or committee . Mr. Kanter thought , if they were to have a joint meeting , it would be once the developer submits the final details . Ms . Valentino did not feel it was worth it to meet before the submittal . Mr. Burbank wanted to reinforce Mr. Engman ' s point stating the Town Board needed to get clear what their options were based on the new information . He state he would be supportive of a closed session to get legal advice . The Board agreed to enter closed session later in the meeting . Agenda Item No . 10 - Consider resolution of support for Housing Strategy for Tompkins County (Attachment #8 - Housing Strategy for Tompkins County) The Board received a draft resolution in their packet of materials . Mr. Stein moved adoption , Mr. Engman seconded the motion . 30 July 9 , 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 TB RESOLUTION NO . 2007 - 122 : Endorsement of Housing Strategy for Tompkins County WHEREAS , the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan , adopted by the Tompkins County Legislature in December 2004 , established the principle that " Housing in Tompkins County should be affordable and appealing to all residents , regardless of their incomes or whether they rent or own their homes , " and WHEREAS , according to the 2000 Census 40 percent of households in Tompkins County were financially stressed by paying more than 30 percent of income for housing , and WHEREAS , the Affordable Housing Needs Assessment for Tompkins County completed in August 2006 identifies the need for almost 4000 new non -student housing units over the next ten years , over half of which need to be affordable to households making 80 percent or less of median household income , and WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (adopted September 1993) includes the following housing and residential land use goal : "To promote the availability of diverse, high quality, affordable, and attractive places for people to live " (Goal A — page 111 -2) , and WHEREAS , the 2006 Tompkins County Economic Development Strategy , adopted by the Tompkins County Legislature in October , 2006 , and supported by the Town of Ithaca Town Board on September 11 , 2006 , identifies the need to " Increase and diversify housing supply" as one of three top economic development goals , and WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Town Board at its June 11 , 2007 meeting heard a presentation and reviewed a draft strategy to meet this housing need which has been amended ( Revised 6/ 19/07) to reflect further input from municipalities and community organizations , and WHEREAS , it is understood that the Housing Strategy for Tompkins County is a starting point for addressing this critical community need and will evolve and be refined over time , and WHEREAS , pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617 , it has been determined by the Town Board that adoption of a resolution of endorsement and support for said Housing Strategy is not an "action " as defined in 6 NYCRR Part 617 , Section 2 (b ) because this resolution of endorsement does not commit the Town Board to a definite course of future decisions , and thus approval of this resolution is not subject to review under SEQRA , now therefore be it RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby endorses and supports the Housing Strategy for Tompkins County , as revised June 19 , 2007 . MOVED : Councilman Stein SECONDED : Councilman Engman 31 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilwoman Gittelman , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Cowie , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye . Carried unanimously . Agenda Item No . 8 — SEAR — Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan Attachment #9 — Additional Corrections to Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan ; memo from J . Kanter) Mr. Kanter invited Nicole Tedesco to address the Board with an update on what has been done on the plan since the last Board meeting . There were additional comments from the Brittains on the table for the Board and some additional changes that the Board would be asked to consider. Ms . Tedesco reported that staff had incorporated 2/3 to 3/4 of the changes requested by Bruce and Doug Brittain . The ones that were not incorporated were discussed at .3 Transportation Committee Meetings . At an additional 4th meeting between Mr. Kanter, Ms . Tedesco , and Bruce Brittain went over why some of the requested changes had not been incorporated . Regarding the corrections on the table for Board members , Ms . Tedesco stated she could incorporate them tonight , after the meeting . Mr. Kanter had suggested wording for their incorporation into the proposed plan . Mr. Kanter told the Board the Transportation Plan is a type one action requiring the long environmental assessment form . The Plan does not commit the Town to any specific projects . Any specific projects that do come out of the Plan will be subject to their own individual SEQR reviews . Ms . Valentino moved adoption of the SEQR . Mr. Stein seconded the motion . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2007 -123 : SEQR , Adoption of Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan and amendment of Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan to incorporate Transportation Plan (Attachment #10 — SEQR) WHEREAS , these actions include the adoption of the draft Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan , consisting of Volume I (The Plan ) , Volume II (The Appendices) , and Volume III (The Design Guidelines) , all labeled Version June 25 , 2007 , as the Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan , and the amendment of the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (adopted September 21 , 1993) to incorporate the Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan ; and WHEREAS , it has been determined that the above-described actions are Type I , pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act , 6 NYCRR Part 617 , and Town of Ithaca Code , Chapter 148 — Environmental Quality Review , for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board is acting as Lead Agency , and the only Involved Agency , in this environmental review; and WHEREAS , the Town Board , at its regular meeting held on July 9 , 2007 , has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form ( EAF) , Parts I and II , prepared by Town Planning staff for this action ; 32 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts I and II in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law , also known as the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act , and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code for the above referenced actions as proposed and , therefore , an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared . MOVED : Supervisor Valentino SECONDED : Councilman Stein VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilwoman Gittelman , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Cowie , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye . Carried unanimously . Mr . Kanter suggested wording to include in the proposed resolution regarding the additional recommended changes : " . . . subject to the additional corrections to Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan dated June 25 , 2007 as outlined by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department on July 9 , 2007 " . The Board and Attorney agreed to the language . TB RESOLUTION NO , 2007 - 124 : Adoption of Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan and amendment of Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan to incorporate Transportation Plan WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan , adopted on September 21 , 1993 , recommends the preparation of a Transportation Plan , and WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Transportation Committee was charged by the Town Board to prepare a Transportation Plan to provide a long-term vision and framework for how the Town ' s transportation system should develop , and WHEREAS , the Transportation Committee has worked diligently on the preparation of a Transportation Plan , and has held three public information meetings during the process of preparing a draft Transportation Plan , and WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Planning Board held a public hearing on November 21 , 2006 to hear public comments regarding the draft Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan , and the Planning Board issued a recommendation to the Town Board to adopt the Transportation Plan , subject to consideration of comments received from the public , and to amend the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Transportation Plan as an element of it , and WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Town Board held a public hearing on January 8 , 2007 to hear public comments regarding the draft Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan , and WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Town Board referred the draft Transportation Plan back to the Transportation Committee to consider revisions to the Plan based on consideration of comments received from the public , and 33 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Transportation Committee met on February 23rd and March 26th , 2007 to discuss revisions to the Plan , and prepared a revised draft of the Transportation Plan and Executive Summary , and submitted a revised draft of the Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan to the Town Board , consisting of Volume I (The Plan ) , Volume II (The Appendices) , Volume III (The Design Guidelines) , and Executive Summary , all dated April 25 , 2007 , and WHEREAS , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca held a second public hearing on May 7 , 2007 to consider further public comment on the draft Transportation Plan , and WHEREAS , the Town Board again referred the April 25 , 2007 draft Plan back to the Transportation Committee to address the further public comments received and to make final corrections to the Plan , and WHEREAS , the Transportation Committee met on May 16th , June 4th , and June 25th , 2007 , with members of the public who had commented on the earlier drafts of the Plan in attendance at all of these meetings , and the Committee incorporated additional revisions and corrections in the Plan , and WHEREAS , the Transportation Committee has submitted a further revised draft of the Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan to the Town Board for consideration of adoption , consisting of Volume I (The Plan ) , Volume II (The Appendices) , Volume III (The Design Guidelines) , and Executive Summary , all dated June 25 , 2007 , and WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Transportation Committee recommends that the Town Board adopt the above-described documents as the Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan , and amend the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Transportation Plan as an element of it , and WHEREAS , after reviewing and accepting as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form ( EAF ) , Parts I and II for the above-described actions , prepared by Town Planning staff, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca made a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts I and II in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, also known as the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act , and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code for the above referenced actions as proposed , and determined that an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared , now, therefore , be it . RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts the draft of the Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan , consisting of Volume I (The Plan ) , Volume II (The Appendices) , Volume III (The Design Guidelines) , and Executive Summary , all dated June 25 , 2007 , as the Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan subject to the "Additional corrections to Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan " (June 25 , 2007 version ) , as outlined by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department , July 9 , 2007 ; and it is further RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby amends the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan , adopted September 21 , 1993 , to incorporate the Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan as an element of it . 34 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 MOVED : Councilman Burbank SECONDED : Supervisor Valentino VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilwoman Gittelman , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Cowie , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye . Carried unanimously . Mr . Kanter thanked Nicole Tedesco for her work on the Plan . Agenda Item No . 14 - Discuss Emergency Radio Communications Protection Law (Attachment # 11 — sample resolution and draft local law) Supervisor Valentino told the Board that she would like to defer action on this item . When this was discussed at the Council of Governments there was concern expressed about the restrictions that the Town would have to follow . What is in front of the Board is a law the Town of Caroline passed . Ms . Valentino thought the Board should review the proposed law and reminded the Board that Caroline does not have a zoning law and the Town does . Ms . Valentino wants to make sure whatever the Town passes is not going to be in conflict with our zoning . She asked if the Board would be agreeable to deferring the item until the August agenda . Mr. Engman thought it was appropriate to deal consideration . The other factor he thought should be looked at is what kind of liability does the Town assume if we make decisions regarding the building / towers rather than the County making them and whether the Town can be sued . It seemed to him to be a transfer of responsibility to the Town . The Board was agreeable to having Town staff and Ms . Brock look at the proposed local law and defer the item until August . Mr. Burbank wondered if it would not be appropriate to route the issue through Codes and Ordinances . There was agreement that they should take a look at it after review by staff and the attorney . Agenda Item No . 17 - Consider adoption of Recreation Partnership Agreement and urge Tompkins County to continue its financial support Ms . Valentino asked if there were questions regarding the proposed agreement . Mr. Engman asked that a copy of the agreement be sent to the County Legislators . Ms . Brock , referring to a letter accompanying the draft agreement sent to the Board as part of their June packet , had questions regarding the chronology of adoption and whether a final draft was forthcoming for adoption in August . Ms . Valentino felt the sooner they know which Towns are adopting the agreement the better. If other municipalities come back with different versions , it will have to come back before the Town Board . Councilman Stein expressed his opinion that given that people from all over the County use recreational facilities without particular regard for municipality boundaries , recreation is something the County should 35 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 participate in . It' s an expression of understanding of that aspect of recreational facilities that makes it appropriate for the County to continue its support of the Partnership . Susan Brock read proposed changes to the resolution before the Board as follows : " Now , therefore , be it resolved that the version presented at the June 11 , 2007 Town Board Meeting is acceptable to the Town Board subject to wording clarifications by the attorney for the Town and the Town Board urges the other municipalities to adopt this version " ; get rid of the second resolved and the third resolved would say : "the Town of Ithaca strongly urges Tompkins County to maintain its keystone financial and planning support for the Recreation Partnership " ; add the a copy will be sent to Recreation Partnership Board and the Tompkins County Legislature . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2007-125 : Adoption of the 2008-2012 Intermunicipal Recreation Partnership Agreement WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca is currently a member of the Intermunicipal Recreation Partnership , and WHEREAS , the Recreation Partnership has been an excellent model of intermunicipal collaboration which enables the Towns of Caroline , Danby , Dryden , Enfield , Groton , Ithaca , Newfield , and Ulysses , the Village of Lansing and the City of Ithaca and Tompkins County to jointly plan , finance and share a more diverse set of high quality recreation programs than any single municipality could offer on its own to nearly 3 , 000 youth/year , and WHEREAS., the current Intermunicipal Recreation Partnership Agreement will end December 31 , 2007 , and WHEREAS , the Recreation Partnership Board , comprised of representatives from participating municipalities wishing to continue this innovative partnership , has reviewed the current agreement and voted on June 7 , 2007 to adopt the attached , updated Agreement for the period January 1 , 2008 through December 31 , 2012, and WHEREAS , municipalities in the Recreation Partnership value Tompkins County's commitment to building collaborative intermunicipal solutions to meeting needs of youth , and Tompkins County's contribution is essential in enabling smaller municipalities to participate affordably , and WHEREAS , the Agreement must be approved by the elected Board of each participating municipality to take effect , NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED , the version as presented at the June 11 , 2007 Town Board meeting is acceptable to the Town Board , subject to wording clarifications by Attorney for the Town , and the Town Board urges other municipalities to adopt this version , and RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca strongly urges Tompkins County to maintain its keystone financial and planning support for the Recreation Partnership and further 36 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 RESOLVED , that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Recreation Partnership Board care of Tompkins County Youth Services Department at 320 W . State Street, Ithaca , NY 14850 , at to Tompkins County Legislators . MOVED : Councilman Stein SECONDED : Councilwoman Gittelman VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilwoman Gittelman , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Cowie , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye . Carried unanimously . Agenda Item No . 18 — Consider approval of revised job description for Town Clerk (Attachment # 12 — job description ) Councilman Engman questioned the use of the term " Full Performance" . Ms . Drake told him it was language preferred by Tompkins County Civil Service . Mr. Engman asked what the term means . Ms . Drake told him that when someone is actually in the position and has been working in the position the criteria under that heading is what working knowledge they should have . Mr. Engman felt they wanted someone to come into the job with the qualifications described . Mr. Burbank suggested striking the phrase and after some discussion agreed to striking the word "full " . TB RESOLUTION NO , 2007= 126 : Approval of Revised Job Description — Town Clerk WHEREAS , the Town Clerk Interview Committee recommends revisions to the Town Clerk job description to improve the information prior to the hiring of a new Town Clerk ; Now, therefore , be it RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the attached revised job description for the Town Clerk position ; And , be it further RESOLVED , the Human Resources Manager is directed to file the approved revised job descriptions with Tompkins County Personnel . MOVED : Councilman Engman SECONDED : Supervisor Valentino VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilwoman Gittelman , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Cowie , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye . Carried unanimously. 37 July 9 , 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 Agenda Item No . 19 — Consider calling for a comprehensive investigation of evidence that may warrant impeachment of the President and Vice President of the United States Ms . Leary brought the Board 's attention to the differences between the resolution in front of them and what the County and City passed . She felt the most important difference was the justification that makes consideration of the resolution relevant to the Town Board . That is the fact that members of the Board have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2007 -127 : Calling for a comprehensive investigation of evidence that may warrant impeachment of the President and Vice President of the United States WHEREAS , substantial evidence has been gathered that indicates that President George W . Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney have committed high crimes and misdemeanors , and WHEREAS , said high crimes and misdemeanors include , but may not be limited to : • Conspiracy to defraud the United States , in knowingly misleading Congress and the American people regarding Iraq ' s alleged weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda , as a pretext for leading our nation into war • Violating international treaties to which the United States is a signatory and legally bound , in particular the Geneva Conventions , in the use of torture/extreme interrogation and extraordinary rendition O Violating the constitutional amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures , in engaging in wiretapping without a warrant on American citizens and otherwise violating citizens' right to privacy ® Willfully and maliciously revealing the identify of a U . S . covert operative in violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act • Conducting or suborning other federal employees to conduct political activities on government property, in violation of the Hatch Act a Specifically in the case of the president , refusing to produce information requested as part of Congress ' oversight authority , in violation of the Presidential Records Act and in defiance of the constitutional separation of powers ® Specifically in the case of the president, declaring in his signing statements of legislation passed by Congress his intention to disregard his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws of the United States , and WHEREAS , the result of some of the above- listed actions has undermined the Constitution of the United States and its protections that are the foundation of our democracy and civil liberties , has compromised our security by damaging our international reputation as a defender of human rights and the rule of law , and has ballooned the national debt , with concomitant loss to local governments of federal financial support for local infrastructure and other programs , shifting costs to local property tax payers , and WHEREAS , Congress has begun the process of holding hearings to examine several of these charges , and 38 July 9 , 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 WHEREAS , the Rules of the House of Representatives call for the referral of possible articles of impeachment to the Judiciary Committee for investigation , and WHEREAS , the members of this Town Board have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and to discharge their duties of office , which include providing for the general welfare of the town , now therefore be it RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca strongly urges the leaders of the New York State legislature and the members who represent the Town of Ithaca to work to have the New York State Assembly and/or New York State Senate similarly request on our behalf that Congress appropriately and formally investigate such charges as to whether they warrant impeachment , RESOLVED , further , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca strongly urges members of Congress who represent the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County to support the investigation and review of said charges and that such support be evidenced by a written request to that effect addressed to the Speaker of the House , RESOLVED , further, that copies of this resolution be delivered to U . S . Senators Charles E . Schumer and Hillary Clinton ; Representatives Maurice Hinchey and Michael Arcuri ; New York State Senators Joseph Bruno , Malcolm Smith , and George Winner; Assembly members Sheldon Silver, James Tedisco , and Barbara Lifton ; and the media . MOVED : Councilwoman Leary SECONDED : Supervisor Valentino VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilwoman Gittelman , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Cowie , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye . Carried unanimously . Agenda Item No . 21 - Report of Town Committees Carrowmoor Committee Mr . Engman reported that the committee has had three meetings . The committee has come to the point where there seem to be a couple of different possibilities of talking with the developer about provisions for the development should it go forward . One is the potential for housing within the development that would be affordable by a lower level than what has been proposed . The developer has said he would be willing to consider 12 % of the development at 100 % to 120 % of median income . Ms . Leary has been arguing that 120 % median income is not median income . The other issue is having it be that affordable for only the first inhabits and when they leave it is market value again . Mr. Engman and Ms . Leary did not think that was a solution . Ms . Leary has suggested and they wanted to clear with the Board the idea that it be 90 % to 110 % . The second need , if the project moves forward , is for additional ways for people to get downtown . Mr. Engman reported that Mr. Burbank has contacted the City to look a possible collaborative effort . A legal constraint that the Town will have to concern themselves about is to make sure that anything the developer agrees with would be legally transferable to the condominium association which will take over ownership of the project 39 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 once it is built . The fourth major issue concerns the staging of the development ; some sort of staging so that if the project falters along the way . Mr. Burbank clarified that the committee itself was not in agreement regarding the four issues and how they might be ranked . This will need to come before the full Board for their consideration . The committee will need to speak with the developer to explore these ideas . Mr. Kanter reported that the developer had drafted a proposed local law, which has been distributed to Planning Board and committee members . The committee has not yet talked about it . The committee was given local laws done for EcoVillage and one for Overlook at West Hill as examples of what has been drawn up for other communities . One of the charges to the committee was to put together a local law. Mr. Engman asked the Board if they had guidance for the committee . Mr. Cowie asked what the median income was for the Town . Mr. Kanter told him it was mid -fifties for a family of four, excluding students . Mr. Engman remarked that the developer could do a traditional development on the property and put 300 units . Mr. Engman thought one of the considerations is whether this is a better plan . He thinks the committee is thinking that this is generally a better plan and the question is , how much better can it be made . Mr. Burbank stated that one of the things that came out of the committee ' s discussions was trying to integrate affordable housing in developments of a particular scale . Mr. Burbank has been resistant to the idea of affordable housing in this particular development . He is , however, supportive of the concept as a generality and looking to our zoning for a requirement for affordable housing in projects of a certain scale . Then every developer know the field in which they are playing ; they know the requirement going and it' s not something the Town has to negotiate . Mr. Engman reminded the Board that the reason they are involved is that his current plan requires a zoning change . If he went with his old plan he does not need a zoning change . Mr. Kanter brought to the Board attention that the water supply and pressure is something the developer will need to think about and plan for. Mr. Walker stated that 90 % of the development is above the water service area . Everything that is in the agricultural zone is outside the water service area . Mr. Burbank asked how the Town typically deals with this . Mr. Walker stated his recommendation is that the developer would have to build a new water tank to provide static pressure to all his properties . Booster pumps are not a good solution for this size of development. Mr. Burbank asked whether the developer or the Town would own the tank . Mr. Walker stated the Town would probably own it . Mr. Burbank asked if that would then be encouraging further development above the project . Mr. Kanter remarked that the possibility would be an important thing to look at . There was discussion of providing sufficient water pressure to sustain fire prevention sprinkler systems . Mr. Walker talked of the need , if they are proposing to build 400 units , to get the road through to Bundy Road . Mr . Rancich owns a portion of that parcel , but the Town needs to look at the infrastructure costs , safety and access . Mr. Burbank commented that this was a whole new thing that they did not address within the context of their committee . They are not yet drafting a law , just trying to get some concepts . He asked how best to do this . Mr. Walker stated it was possible to put a 40 July 9, 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 small water system up there that would serve the property but would not be feasible to extend it beyond the property . Ms . Valentino felt they needed to look at the maps , where it is and what it looks like , the agricultural zone . Mr. Engman felt they could still talk to the developer about some of the other things they have talked about and , in the meantime , try to get information together to see what it might look like with no expansion of the water area . Mr. Stein asked if the developer was aware of this problem . Mr. Walker told him he was aware of where the service area is . He did not know if he understood the costs to him . Mr . Burbank ask for the cost . Mr. Walker thought , for the size of the project he is talking about , it would not be a huge percent of the project , maybe 10 % of the project . Agenda Item No . 22 — Intermunicipal Organizations Lake Source Data Sharing Ms . Valentino reported that the Water Resource Council now has a Lake Source Cooling Committee . She asked if that council was coordinating their work with the Environmental Management Commission . Mr . Engman stated they Council has made reports to the Environmental Management Commission concerning the new joint Cornell monitoring proposal . He stated he' d gone on the Lake Source Cooling website the preceding week and there wasn 't a whole lot there . He did not feel Cornell was following through on sharing information that was supposed to be done . He did not know why . Ms . Valentino told the Board there was a Water Resources Council meeting on Friday and she would try to find out what is going on . Mr. Engman reported that there was still some debate about whether the County wanted to " do this deal with Cornell " because it might entail changing the number of monitoring sites . Agenda Item No . 23 — Report of Town Officials (Attachment #13 — monthly reports ) Manager of Human Resources Ms Drake discussed the advertising for the Town Clerk position . Mr. Engman asked Ms . Drake about the Timothy Law mentioned in her monthly report . Ms . Drake told him it was passed earlier this year and made plan designs do mental health coverage the same as medical coverage . Closed Session to Seek Advice of Counsel On motion by Councilman Engman , seconded by Supervisor Valentino , the Board entered closed session at 9 : 00 p . m . to seek advice of counsel . On motion by Councilman Burbank , seconded by Supervisor Valentino , the Board returned to regular session at 9 : 10 p . m . 41 July 9 , 2007 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Approved August 13, 2007 Adjournment On motion by Councilman Burbank , seconded by Supervisor Valentino , the meeting was adjourned at 9 : 11 p . m . Respectfully submitted Tee-Ann Hunter Town Clerk Next meeting August 13, 2007 42 Attachment # 1 /',&,yor/0AA5 4-ou'C> per )Qft%JG L10 4r rl44CtR Jvk)C6j ZZ07 AfX,01 , A. H�,�?�I✓�y �tJ%/ / i �J C� � fs�sU .� l� ifl�N.4G O0; y /%246 Z CXVIjo= '40DO51 <doA) ®�UivA ,(1-y la4*44140 7774'. /jUn/�e�fo.�� i <.uistt� <0051V ®ter%oars ill s 1014E /34 19L , l A/720 4450 X,�Z;trL XA) ©!sue ,t1I�w1�E vim' 1z)rZ V 4L p&'oN/oa.US AAjb �1OV 5 , ey 7AeAC 9 �i 1! [ L ��2 �'iG� C�.y�< ssfO �v v� Ti,�� W /�oS/��tJS ,1>�J!<CS ✓f�%E�1B.C� T `c�� / �Ae:.9 1- r rle 77,1C Cog"- rlCN .41J1> 04,04-55 5 1 �! �!l� .tJ ,��/ Ct o G Std VI C',� f ro wit_ A3j1 .4d ffCJ4 Lt�tGG M660& 7 AC , 4W la,,J4L r�joAVs C)�- s-toJ� S s AIT G��s s A�j � rJ By fAj� ti rj),c3 � F ZT 4CA �� 2 � O6,, T 4z' 5sex) !� C-®s "7- ox 7�i5 /4s«0it) .4r TW aA) �DU ,c! yy A1040 TI s � ` P, ► M ` riIMOA) Cuael1 .9CQeCIZZ .4 A&W C .%, 000 C,44101r c , 4 t I0zvir�T AW. We G A�ldO -4Qj 0PI10 g� Mvt Ng4l `0&01106 Foxe� .Csi,46'.C1sR ro � 7s, o&vrir -vvz ow. C05l SAW4G 6 T *rX6 ,(es Ca cvrrAJVC 0 , /AICAVO(AliG >>� sc., VSPfJW& Te4C Is o A41�rAJG s)IsT�i .4AoO l l ss "oACT 6 Am) s:5�ii2FL /t/S , ,e-47�5 EHarzuxy 121,N,ge1� July 9 , 2007 Regular Town Board Mtg Attachment # 2 TOWN OF ITHACA LOCAL LAW NO. OF THE YEAR 2007 A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE ZONING CHAPTER OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE REGARDING DEFINITIONS OF FRONT, REAR AND SIDE YARDS Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as follows : Section 1 . Chapter 270 (Zoning) , Article III (Terminology) of the Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270-5 , entitled "Definitions," is amended by deleting the definition for "YARD, FRONT" and replacing it with the following definition : "YARD, FRONT -- The yard between the street right-of-way line and the front fagade of the principal building, extended from each rearmost exterior corner of the front fagade to the adjacent side lot line. " Section 2 . Chapter 270 (Zoning), Article III (Terminology) of the Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270- 5 , entitled "Definitions," is amended by Ade . ng the definition for "YARD, REAR" and replacing it with the following definition: "YARD, REAR -- The yard between the rear lot ine and the rear fagade of the principal building, extended from each most forwardly ext �'©tv"torner of the rear fagade to the adjacent side lot line. " Section 3 . Chapter 270 (Zonings, icl` °II (Terminology) of the Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270- 5 , entitled "Definitions`" is me> lied by deleting the definition for "YARD SIDE" and replacing it with the followingi" efri�ho F� "YARD, SIDE — The yard etween the p Nl% j -> nci al building and a side lot line, but p g excluding a front yard or re -%yard ."k Section 4 . In the event that any portion of this law is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the validity of the remaining portions shall not be affected by such declaration of invalidity. Section 5 . 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. Apri19, 2007 July 9 , 2007 Town Board Mtg ATTACHMENT # 3 TOWN OF ITHACA LOCAL LAW NO. OF THE YEAR 2007 A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 270, TITLED "ZONING," OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE REGARDING AMATEUR RADIO FACILITIES Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as follows : Section 1 . Chapter 270 (Zoning) , Article III (Terminology) of the Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270- 5 , titled "Definitions," is amended by adding this definition for AMATEUR RADIO FACILITIES : "AMATEUR RADIO FACILITIES — Structures and equipment used by amateur radio operators who are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, including antennas, towers, rotors, mounts, guy wires and anchors, but this term shall not include mobile equipment that is contained in a car or other motor vehicle or is completely portable and not affixed in any manner to realty [the exception for mobile equipment does not extend to any antenna(s) attached, directly or irectly, such as on a tower or other structure, to realty or to other facilities use connection with such mobile equipment] ." Section 2 . Chapter 270 (Zoning), Article XXVI e Town of Ithaca Code, titled "Special Regulations," is amended by adding Sectit 701 ,3 as follows : "§ 270-219.3 Amateur radio facia es A. Amateur radio facilities 1'ocat within a building are permitted in all zoning districts in the Town B . Amateur radio face ides located outside of a building are permitted as specified in Articles V-XX of this -„ ter and shall meet all of the following requirements : ( 1 ) The height of each amateur radio facility shall not exceed 65 feet from the ground elevation . (2) Where the amateur radio facilities are an accessory use, they shall be located on the roof of a building, or in a side or rear yard only, except feed lines connecting the radio to the antenna and rotor control wires may also be located in a front yard . ( 3 ) The location of the amateur radio facilities shall meet all applicable setback and buffer requirements of the zone in which they are located . (4) A fall zone must exist around any tower constructed as part of an amateur radio facility and must have a radius at least equal to the height of the May 1 , 2007 1 tower and any attached antennas . The fall zone may not include public roads and must be entirely located on the property on which the amateur radio facilities are located and/or on property which the tower user owns or for which the tower user has obtained an easement. (5) Any towers shall not be artificially lighted or marked beyond the requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration or any successor . agency. (6) Co-location of equipment or facilities that are not used for amateur radio purposes on an amateur radio tower is prohibited. (7) The placement of more than two amateur radio towers on one lot is permitted only upon receipt of a special permit for same from the Planning Board in accordance with the procedures set forth in this chapter. ( 8) When required by Chapter 125 of the Town of Ithaca Code (Building Construction and Fire Prevention), a buildin permit must be obtained for the amateur radio facilities . C . An accessory building that . is part of an ameur radi cility is subject to all requirements applicable to accessory buildings t they th garages in the zone in which it is located, except such accessory buildings may be located in side yards as well as rear yards. D . Where site plan approval is r = . ' .ed elsewhere in this chapter for a development or activity, thesite lan riew shall include review of the adequacy, location, arrangement, size, �desxgn�and- general site compatibility of proposed amateur radio facilit es" WheF6,,a site plan exists, an approved modified. site plan shall be required if of t eat esholds specified in § 270- 191 of this chapter are met, including but not imited� to proposed changes to or additions of amateur radio facilities where , ch,:;changes or additions meet a § 270- 191 threshold . E . If a tower that is part of an amateur radio facility ceases to perform its originally intended function for more than 12 consecutive months, the property owner shall remove the tower, antennas, mounts and associated equipment and facilities by no later than 90 days after the end of the 12 month period , " Section 3 . Chapter 270 (Zoning), Article V (Conservation Zones) of the Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270- 14, titled "Permitted accessory buildings or uses," is amended by adding subparagraph G reading as follows : "G . Amateur radio facilities, subject to the limitations on amateur, radio facilities set forth in § 270-219 . 3 . " May 1 , 2007 2 Section 4. Chapter 270 (Zoning), Article VI (Agricultural Zones) of the Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270-27 , titled "Principal uses authorized by special permit only," is amended by deleting the word "Radio" in subparagraph G, so that subparagraph G reads as follows : "G . Television, commercial radio, telecommunication, microwave, satellite or other electronic transmission facility operated pursuant to a license from the Federal Communications Commission or any successor federal or state agency." Section 5 . Chapter 270 (Zoning) , Article VI (Agricultural Zones) of the Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270-26, titled "Permitted principal uses," is amended by adding a new subparagraph M to the end of this section reading as follows: "M . Amateur radio facilities, subject to the limitations on amateur radio facilities set forth in § 270-219 . 3 ." Section 6. Chapter 270 (Zoning), Article VI (Agricultural Zones) of the Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270-29 , titled "Permitted accessory buildings and uses," is amended by adding a new subparagraph J to the end of this section reading as follows : "J . Amateur radio facilities, subject to the limita ohs on amateur radio facilities set forth in § 270-219 . 31 " eoe Section 7 . Chapter 270 (Zoning), Article VII (Lda 'efir6nt Residential Zones) of the Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270-43 , titled "Permitted a� so 'tructures and uses," is amended by adding a new subparagraph I to the end of this sect ��n re p s follows : "I . Amateur radio facilities, spbjecttfl the4imitations on amateur radio facilities set forth in § 270-219 . 31 " lee _�. Section 8. Chapter 270 °L�onmg), rtzcle VIII (Low Density Residential Zones) of the Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270756, "fled "Permitted accessory buildings and uses," is amended by adding a new subparagraph., o the end of this section reading as follows: "K. Amateur radio facilities, subject to the limitations on amateur radio facilities set forth in § 270-219 . 3 ." Section 9. Chapter 270 (Zoning), Article IX (Medium Density Residential Zones) of the Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270-68 , titled "Permitted accessory buildings and uses," is amended by adding a new subparagraph I to the end of this section reading as follows : °`l . Amateur radio facilities , subject to the limitations on amateur radio facilities set forth in § 270-219 . 3 . " Section 10 . Chapter 270 (Zoning), Article X (High Density Residential Zones) of the Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270-79 , titled "Permitted accessory buildings and uses," is amended by adding a new subparagraph H to the end of this section reading as follows : May 1 , 2007 3 "H . Amateur radio facilities, subject to the limitations on amateur radio facilities set forth in § 270-219 . 3 ." Section 11 . Chapter 270 (Zoning), Article XI (Mobile Home Park Zones) of the Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270-91 , titled "Permitted accessory uses," is amended by adding a new 1 . subparagraph I to the end of this section reading as follows : "I. . Amateur radio facilities, subject to the limitations on amateur radio facilities set forth in § 270-219 . 31" Section 12 . Chapter 270 (Zoning), Article XII (Multiple Residence Zones) of the Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270- 101 , titled "Permitted accessory buildings and uses," is amended by adding a new subparagraph I to the end of this section reading as follows : "I. Amateur radio facilities, subject to the limitations on amateur radio facilities set forth in § 270-219 . 3 ." Section 13 . Chapter 270 (Zoning), Article XIII (Co ercial Zones Generally) of the Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270- 114, titled "Permitted acc . o . uses," is amended by adding a new subparagraph G to the end of this section reading as 611ows : r "G . Amateur radio facilities, subject to the li tations on amateur radio facilities set forth in § 270-219 . 31" Section 14. Chapter 270 _ . �(Zoning), cle XIX (Light Industrial Zones) of the Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270- 144, titled "Permitted pn kipal uses," is amended by adding a new subparagraph F to the end of this section lows : "F . Amateur radio fac ies, subject o the limitations on amateur radio facilities set forth . in § 270-.2194 3:" Section 15. Chapter 270 (Zoning) , Article XIX (Light Industrial Zones) of the Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270- 146, titled "Permitted accessory buildings and uses," is amended by adding a new subparagraph K to the end of this section reading as follows: "K. Amateur radio facilities, subject to the limitations on amateur radio facilities set forth in § 270-219 . 31 " Section 16. Chapter 270. (Zoning), Article XX (Industrial Zones) of the Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270- 160, titled "Permitted accessory buildings and uses," is amended by adding a new subparagraph K to the end of this section reading as follows : "K: Amateur radio facilities, subject to the limitations on amateur radio facilities set forth, in § 270-219 . 313 1 , 2007 4 Section 17 . In the event that any portion of this law is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the validity of the remaining portions shall not be affected by such declaration of invalidity. Section 18 . 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. K a � F May 1 , 2007 5 July 9 , 2007 Town Board Mtg ATTACHMENT # 4 TOWN OF ITHACA RENTAL OF INACTIVE STORAGE SPACE POLICY STATEMENT The Town of Ithaca will offer for rent a portion of their inactive records storage space ; that portion to be determined by the Town on an annual basis . Space will be offered to Tompkins County municipalities and governmental agencies , and community service organizations . The Lessee will be required to sign an annual rental agreement which contains the terms and conditions . All rental agreements will be approved by the Town Board . The Town of Ithaca follows the New York State Archives and Records Administration SARA ) guidelines . The terms and conditions in Attachment "A" promote those uidelines . 1 TOWN . OF ITHACA RENTAL OF INACTIVE STORAGE SPACE AGREEMENT is leasing municipality ( lessee ) address cubic feet of record storage space , in the inactive records storage room , from the Town of Ithaca ( lessor) at 215 North Tioga Street , Ithaca , New York 14850 . For a period of time commencing and ending The lessee agrees to the following terms and conditions : A . Condition & Storage of Records 1 . All records must be stored in 1 cubic foot boxes . 2 . All boxes must be labeled and their contents indexed . 3 . All records must be free of dust , mold and vermin . 4 . The Records Storage Room ( Premises ) shall be used solely as a storage f documents , papers , books , pictures , and other paper and/or magnetic med ' materials and for no other purposes . 5 . NO hazardous or toxic materials , including without limitation . petroleum or chemical prod ucts , . asbestos , and lead , will be stored on the Premises at any time . 6 . NO Vital Records , defined as those records that are essential to the continued functioning of an organization during and after an emergency. 7 . The Town reserves the right to lease additional space to other parties . 8 . Lessee agrees that it will not touch , look at , open , or move any documents or other materials stored in the basement area by persons or entities other than the Lessee . 9 . Lessee agrees not to move documents beyond designated area leased . 10 . Lessee shall be granted access to the storage area only during usual business hours of the Town Hall . 11 . Access shall be obtained upon prior notice to the Town Clerk or his or her designee and , if the Town so requires , shall only occur in the company of a representative the Town . 2 12 . Lessee will not make any alterations , renovations , improvements or other installations in , on , or to the premises , or any part thereof. 13 . Lessee will repair promptly at its expense , any damage to the Premises , the plumbing system , electrical system , exterior Premises or any other damages , and upon demand , shall reimburse Town , as additional rental for the cost of the repairs of any such damage not promptly repaired by Lessee . 14 . Lessee will not assign or sublet this agreement , in whole or in part . B . Number of Records & Length of Rental 1 . Each Lessee may rent up to 100 cubic feet @ the cost of $ 1 . 00 per cubic foot per month . The Lessee will be billed for storage on a quarterly basis . 2 . Storage space is available for up to a one year lease . 3 . Option to renew shall be exercised by the Lessee giving written notice to the Town , no later than 30 days before the expiration of the then existing term , of Lessee ' s election to so renew. 4 . Either party may terminate lease at any time , with or without cause , by giving written notice of such termination to other party at least 30 days prior to the date of termination . 5 . Termination shall not relieve any party from any obligation or duty imposed hereunder which relates to an event that arose prior to termination . 6 . Termination shall not relieve lessee from indemnifying Town from any loss that is asserted by reason of an event that occurred prior to termination . C . Insurance 1 . Lessee will obtain and maintain at Lessee ' s expense casualty, fire , and extended coverage insurance on any items stored in the premises . 2 . Lessee shall also obtain and maintain at Lessee ' s expense general liability insurance covering lessee and Town for any losses arising out of any activity related to such storage . 3 . Lessee will obtain , maintain and pay all premiums due for workmen ' s compensation , New York State disability, employer' s liability insurance , and any other employment- related insurance covering all of Lessee ' s employees , workers , contractors , and any insurance that will protect Town from any claims for unsafe working conditions under the Labor Law of the State of New York , and any other similar worker' s protective legislation . 3 4 . At minimum , such insurance shall provide general liability , employer' s liability, and other general liability insurance protecting Lessee and Town in a minimum amount of at least $ 1 , 000 , 000 from personal injury or property damage claims . 5 . The casualty , fire , and other property insurance shall be payable to lessee insured . 6 . Liability Insurance policies shall name both Town and Lessee as insureds . 7 . Nothing is intended to reduce the . obligation of Lessee hereinafter set forth for the maintaining of liab.ility insurance . 8 . Lessee shall provide copies of policies or certificates of such insurance . D . Defaults 1 . Failure of Lessee to pay any installment of rental within three ( 3 ) days of its due date ; or any other charges or amounts due hereunder, within five ( 5 ) days after the same is due hereunder. 2 . Default by Lessee in the performance or observance of any other covenant or agreement of this agreement (other than a default involving the payment of money) , which default is not cured within ten ( 10 ) days after the giving of notice thereof by Town . 3 . Upon occurrence and continuance of an event of default , Town , without notice lessee in any instance may do any one or more of the following : a . Town may elect to terminate this agreement and the storage privileges granted herein by giving notice of such election to Lessee , and may remove lessee' s possessions and property from the premises , and may store such property in a public warehouse or elsewhere at the cost of and for the account of Lessee without Town being deemed guilty of trespass or becoming liable for any loss or damage occasioned thereby . b . Town may exercise any other legal or equitable right or remedy which it may have . 4 . All notices required hereunder shall be in writing addressed to the party receiving such notice at the address set forth at the beginning of lease agreement unless such address has been changed by written notice to the other party . Notices may also be personally delivered to the other party . I agree to abide by the above- mentioned terms of this agreement . 4 r ( lessee ) TATE OF NEW YORK ) OUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of , 2003 . Notary Public Town Supervisor ( lessor) STATE OF NEW YORK ) . COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of , 2003 . Notary Public 5 July 9 , 2007 Town Board Mtg ATTACHMENT # 6 To : 2007 Town Board Members : Supervisor Catherine Valentino; Will Burbank, Jeff Cowie, Herbert Engman,Gandra Gittelman, Pat Leary, Peter Stein From: Rosalind and Salvatore Grippi 9 Orchard Hill Rd ,Ithaca We plan to address the Board at the Public hearing 7/9/07 re : Sewer for Hayts Chapel and Schoolhouse (now on the National Registry of Historic Places Worthy of Preservation) . As of Friday 6/30/07 the septic system failed. The Town has been aware for at least 30 years that the septic system for these two buildings on a 1/2 acre lot could not endure. The Trumansburg Road 2002 Sewer Project, duly passed (Public Hearing Ithaca Journal . 7/ 11 /02 ; Published Bid, same, 8/15/2002) included this property and thereby would provide a solution to this property' s sewer problem. The Town abandoned the above sewer project without notice to us or without scheduling a public hearing, thereby denying us the opportunity to appeal the reversal on the grounds that their action put this property in continuing jeopardy for septic failure.To here cite from the minutes of the Town Board meeting 7/8/02, p.3 , the Town Engineer reported that "there' s a failing septic system on the Grippi property . . . you can not do onsight sewer disposal on lots this size". Friday, June 30, 2007 we notified the Health Department that the septic system failed . We were advised by Rick Ewald to contact Town Engineer, Dan Walker for the possibility of sewer connection. We met with Dan Walker and Catherine Valentino Monday July 2, 07 who will look into the possibility of sewer linkage ( sewer line is already in place on east side of Trumansburg Rd.) . The Chapel provides a studio forSalvatore Grippi, professional artist and retired Professor or Art at I.C. ; the Schoolhouse is an occupied residence. Since June 30th we have had the Schoolhouse tank pumped out twice ; the leach field will be explored this week for the possibility of getting the system going pending action by the Town to provide a sewer connection for the property. Because of the dire emergency and the fact that this matter is not yet placed on the Board' s agenda, we appeal to the Board to see that the matter of sewer connection is expeditiously moved forward. We remind the Board that this property holds extant treasures of Ithaca' s heritage and possibly the most significant monument of the struggle of the Abolitionists in Ithaca. Since these have been recognized by the National Registry of Historic Places Worthy of Preservation (our application 2005), they have attracted much interest in Ithaca. It would be disappointing, indeed , if the Town of Ithaca failed to provide a sewer connection to keep these buildings viable. T 206 Winston Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 - -;- -- Jonathan Kanter 1 '? Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street ` '' JUN 2 5 2007 ' Ithaca, NY 14850 June 22, 2007 Dear Mr. Kanter: Per your request from the Town Planning Board, please find enclosed two documents related to the Briarwood II development proposal . They contain information that the Board apparently did not consider before. We believe the information in these documents would have affected the development proposal's SEQR determination. The first document is a report from Professor Todd Walter, a hydrologist in Biological and Environmental Engineering at Cornell University. He has been conducting research on land adjacent to Sapsucker Woods. This land shares hydrologic properties with the area under consideration for development. It has been claimed by the developer that Briarwood H as designed and engineered would not damage existing wetlands. Professor Walter's study raises serious questions about that claim. He states, "Aggressive mage may facilitate engineered solutions to the runoff problems but will likely alter the area' s drology in the process, which may have detrimental impacts on the natural wetlands." e second document reaffirms the boundaries of Unique Natural Area 106 and catalogues its significant ra and fauna. The statement is written by Nancy Ostman, F. Robert . Wesley, and Mark Whitmore, ormer and current members of the Environmental Management Council. Despite requests by the developer' s agent to change the boundaries of UNA- 106, those boundaries were never modified. . This document confirms the value of the whole area, despite the efforts to question its status . The authors state, "[T]he boundaries of UNA- 106 have not been changed by the Tompkins County Planning Department or the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council. All of the area encompassed by the UNA406 boundary is considered to be of ecological importance." Although this matter was discussed at length during Planning Board meetings last summer, we feel that the misrepresentations about this Unique Natural Area need to be corrected and clarified for the public record. The Planning Board apparently did not consult the UNA inventory or other objective information, but rather relied on flawed testimony by the developer' s agents. My neighbors and I would welcome an opportunity to formally present this information and its significance for Briarwood H to the Planning Board. We believe this new information warrants a reconsideration of how this development would impact the environment. Please let us know when we might be able to make a brief presentation of 15 to 20 minutes to the Board. Sincerely, illiam Sonnenstuhl ' ` I L � I - U •' I I� ' 11 1 I i J JUN 2 5 2007 April 27 , 2007 1PLAr To the Town of Ithaca Board and Planning Board: Sapsucker Woods (UNA- 106) is an extremely important, highly rated Unique Natural Area in Tompkins County and one of the most significant UNAs in the Town of Ithaca. The Town is fortunate to have several truly remarkable UNAs , including Coy Glen, South Hill, and Sapsucker Woods . The Coy Glen and South Hill UNAs are also designated as Critical Environmental Areas by the Town of Ithaca and are afforded additional protection by Conservation Zoning. Sapsucker Woods (UNA- 106) is equally worthy of these designations and their concomitant protections. Characteristics such as the quality of the ecological communities, presence of rare and scarce plants and animals, and the diversity of plant and animal life all contribute to the high value of UNA- 106 . The large t of UNA- 106 is also of value in helping to maintain its ecological integrity and diversity and making ore resistant to ecological disturbances along its edges . Being large has other benefits for UNA- 106— an support scarce forest-interior songbirds and woodland hawks that are very sensitive to habitat t fragmentation and require large intact woodlands , Contrary to reports made by agents of Mr. Rocco Lucente, owner and proposed developer of land within UNA- 1061 the boundaries of UNA- 106 have not been changed by the Tompkins County Planning Department or the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council. All of the area encompassed by the UNA- 106 boundary is considered to be of significant ecological importance. (See the attached map , letter from Ostman and Wesley to the Tompkins County EMC, and memo from Ed Marx, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning to the EMC .) Mr. LucenteIs agent stated in public meetings that the area is not an important biological corridor; we strongly disagree. UNA- 106 connects Cornell University ' s Sapsucker Woods with the Monkey Run Natural Area and the long biological corridor extending along Fall Creek from the County borders to downtown Ithaca. Although the intrusion of Sanctuary Drive into UNA- 106 is not ideal , neither does it Iirrupt the movement by deer, foxes and countless other animals . Birds nesting in Sapsucker Woods also isit neighboring yards and bird feeders . Salamanders will remain as true to their traditional route to and -orn mating grounds as possible , deviating to go around a building, and then returning to their course . 1 Since culverts have proven to be effective man -made biological corridors , certainly the remaining natural vegetation is adequate to connect the southern section of the UNA to the larger. portion . The Hemlock-hardwood and Red Maple-hardwood Swamps found throughout the Sapsucker Woods UNA-106 are of very high quality and particularly worthy of the legal protection afforded by their existing designation as federal . and state wetlands. These valuable wetlands protect the water quality by filtering sediments and pollutants and detoxifying groundwater . They soak up storm water, runoff, store floodwaters , and maintain surface water flow during dry periods . These swamps also provide essential water, food, and habitat to hundreds of species of flora and fauna. The Hemlock-hardwood and Red "Maple-hardwood Swamps communities found here are not represented elsewhere in the Town of Ithaca, either in protected lands or other IINAs . Plant species characteristic of these communities are abundant here, and include hemlock, y ellow birch, red maple, silver maple, b lack hi hbush el ash, American m, and white pine. Tall shrubs of wetlands such as winterberry, spicebush, g blueberry, black chokeberry, swamp rose, red-osier dogwood, and nannyberry are abundant. In the herb layer, skunk cabbage9r cinnamon fern, and sedges are common . Rare and scarce plant species (listed below , Table 1 .) are. found in UNA- 106 . These serve as indicators of the very high site quality . j Table 1 . i Rare and scarce plants species found at UNA- 106 Global i Common Name rank ; Local rank Name i - very rare f. (not seen utt root, Adam and Eve i GS S 1 ; recently) A lectrum hyemale i Aronia melanoca a black chokeberry scarce cuckoo flower scarce Cardamine pratensis Corallorrhiza trifida early coralroot 1 scarce Canada lily scarce Lilium canadense _ _ „___ ----�'---- - - -- - -+-- ----- - —. _ ..: cardinal flower j scarce _ Lobelia cardinalis scarce I Phegopteris hexagono teris broad beech fern � I to seed scarce Phryma leptostachya i The two-leaved toothwort (Dentaria diphylla) and cut-leaved toothwort (Dentaria laciniata) are also present on the site. These are important larval food for the West Virginia white butterfly (Pieris virginiensis) . This butterfly is listed as a species of significant concern for the region . 2 , apsucker Woods Sanctuary is an internationally important birding site . Over 230 species of birds t been seen and recorded at the sanctuary and UNA- 106 (Sapsucker Woods Sanctuary Checklist of Birds 2003) . Many are considered endangered, threatened, or of special concern by New York State, Since 2002, the Cornell Lab of Ornithology e-Bird program has been building -a database of bird observations , . locally and from across the continent. Contrary to the Terrestrial Environmental Services ' bird survey , numerous e-Bird reports ( attached) verify that the three disputed hawk species of special concern—red-shouldered hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, and Cooper' s hawk—are regularly reported in and nearby UNA-1061 If development in or near UNA- 106 continues , buffer zones around the wetlands will be needed as additional protection against lawn, roadway, and driveway chemical runoff. Like amphibians worldwide, Sapsucker. Wood ' s many frogs , peepers , and salamanders are highly susceptible to environmental pollutants . The wood turtle ( Clemys insculpta) , a NYS species of special concern found in UNA- 106, is very sensitive to toxins in its aquatic and wetland habitats . Environmental studies recommend using the widest vegetated buffer zone possible around wetland margins, with 100-300 feet as the minimum width. tings in buffer zones should be regulated and include a mix of native trees , shrubs, and groundcovers 1p protect these sensitive plant and animal communities , rich wetlands and upland forest comprising UNA- 1.06 is but a small remnant of the expansive open space of decades ago. This area is nearly flat, and small changes in topography and drainage .patterns caused by development could deteriorate the quality of this vulnerable site . Changes in the drainage or water level, either an increase or a decrease, could devastate the wetland-dependent plant and animal communities and destroy associated habitats used by rare plants , birds , and other animal life. We urge you to carefully plan and maintain existing roads in the vicinity of UNA- 106 ; roadside ditches may serve to drain the wetlands and maintenance equipment may spread propagules of invasive species to the natural area. The Town of Ithaca is fortunate to have Sapsucker Woods (UNA- 106) within its borders . Since the 1950s , suburban development has gradually encroached around Sapsucker Woods from all sides . Every new house constructed has impacts on this natural area, and further decreases the qualities of the neighborhood. Further, there is an ongoing cumulative effect of development that goes beyond the ,jKdscape design proposed by a developer; homeowners add paving, build additions and outbuildings , the soil becomes compacted with human use . We strongly recommend no further development within UNA- 106 boundary . 3 Sincerely , v� Nanc Ostma - F. obert Wesley Mark Whitmore Chair, Environmental Review Committee and Chair, Unique Natural Areas Committee of the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council 4 July 9 , 2007 Town Board Mtg ATTACHMENT # 8 Housing Strategy for Tompkins County There is a severe and growing housing shortage in Tompkins County, as documented in the Tompkins County Affordable Housing Needs Assessment completed in August 2006 . While more housing is needed at all cost levels, the gap between supply and demand is most critical for housing that is affordable to families with median income (about $ 50,000) or less . "Affordable" has a specific meaning according to HUD : a household should have to spend no more than 30 % of income on housing expenses (for owners, mortgage, taxes, utilities and insurance; for renters, rent and utilities) . If a family spends more than 30 % they are considered " cost-burdened. " That is, they may be holding on to their home or apartment, but they probably run out of money every month for other expenses such as health care, clothing, transportation and even food . With housing prices among the highest in upstate New York, Tompkins County has a significant percentage of residents who are cost-burdened. In 1999 : • 40 % of non-student renter households paid more than 30% of their income on housing; 20 % of households paid more than half of their income on housing. By 2005 , the median home price had escalated 74 % while the median household income had grown only 19 %, exacerbating the affordability gap for Tompkins County families. The costs of this housing shortage are felt not just by those who struggle to keep a roof over their heads . We all bear the costs of heavy in-commuter traffic; high assessments ; poor school performance by children in unstable housing; economic and social stress on families related to housing insecurity (contributing to mental health and substance abuse problems) ; and the large need for emergency shelter for the homeless. The consequences can be lifelong for our neighbors, co-workers and family members who can't find and keep safe, stable homes . It is safe to say that people who are cost-burdened include carpenters, farmworkers, bank tellers, retail workers, home health aides, office support staff and teachers ' aides . They live in every community in Tompkins County. Young families and seniors living on fixed incomes are often among the most affected households but the housing affordability issue impacts a broad segment of the population. There are solutions to this. problem but they will necessitate countywide participation. Revised 6/ 19/07 Page 1 of 5 What is the need? The county' s Affordable Housing Needs Assessment identifies a need for at least 3 , 894 new non-student housing units between 2005 and 2014 . This includes both rental and owner-occupied units across all income levels . Of these units : • 38 % need to be affordable to households with up to 50% of median income; 16 % for households making between 50% and 80% of median income; and 21 % for households making between 80% , and 120% of median income. During the 1990s, on average 328 units per year were added to the supply. For the next decade the total number of needed units is not substantially higher than that level of construction. However the market is currently not meeting any substantial portion of the demand for low to moderate income households. This need will only be met in the future by a concerted community-wide effort to build appropriate housing. The projected needs do not include any additional capture of current or future in- commuters, so the demand could be substantially greater if local affordability and availability issues were addressed. Moreover, the 2006 Tompkins County Economic Development Strategy identified an increased and diverse housing supply as one of three major goals critical to the cultivation of a prosperous and sustainable regional economy. Therefore, a housing strategy for the county should plan for adding at least 4,000 units to . the local housing stock over ten years, with at least half of these units affordable to households making less than 80 % of median income. It needs to be emphasized that this demand does not include students so any addition to the undergraduate or graduate student population in the county will require additional initiatives by the educational institutions to address those housing needs . Locating New Housing Addressing the housing needs of the community should — and can - .be done in a way that contributes to the area ' s long-term sustainability. The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan recommends a nodal pattern of development focusing on infill development and development in existing population centers where public water and sewer infrastructure is in place or can be provided in a fiscally sound manner. Traffic concerns in the county have historically created opposition to new housing development. . These concerns can be mitigated through land use management policies that strongly encourage the location of new housing developments near job centers and require a nodal development pattern along major highway corridors, in conjunction with improvements to the transportation infrastructure system._ If housing can be built close to major employment centers, and if a nodal pattern is emphasized in new construction, the increased population densities would have the potential to support increased TCAT . service. The planned siting of new housing could thus improve transit service and make it more cost-effective, reduce auto dependence, and enhance community vitality. The location of new housing near major employment centers also offers more opportunities Revised 6/ 19/07 Page 2 of 5 for persons to reside where they may commute as pedestrians or bicyclists. Improvements to the transportation system should encourage such alternative modes of travel, and, whenever possible, priority should be given to funding multi-modal improvements on projects that support new housing proximate to employment centers and in nodal development patterns in accordance with the County Comprehensive Plan. Finally, measures should be implemented to protect the quality-of-life in existing neighborhoods from projected new traffic generated from the build-out of development nodes . The type of housing development also needs to include higher density, mixed use and multi-family development. Of course, housing should be constructed to be as energy efficient as possible to assure long-term affordability and sustainability. The locations for new housing units that would support such a nodal development pattern suggest that the following communities may provide appropriate locations to meet the identified need for a total of up to 4,000 housing units, 54 % of which need to be affordable to those making less than 80 % of median income, over ten years : City of Ithaca - 500 to 1 , 000 units, including development of the Southwest neighborhood and downtown housing development. Town of Ithaca - 500 to 1 ,000 units, including balanced growth on East, West and South hills concentrated in a nodal pattern to be determined by the Town. Town of Lansing — 500 to 1 ,000 units largely concentrated in a nodal pattern in and around the planned town center in South Lansing. Other Villages and Hamlets — 500 units Other Infill and Rural — 500 units Total Units : 2,500 to 4,000 These numbers can serve to guide development of local goals .and priorities . As can be seen, all geographic areas would have to achieve the high end of the estimate to meet the total demand of 4,000 housing units., Affordable units should be distributed among communities, with no single municipality expected to accommodate a disproportionate percentage of such units . However, developing housing in proximity to major employment centers is key to a successful nodal development approach that will reduce auto dependence, improve the cost-effectiveness of transit service; and enhance community vitality. Promoting Affordable Housing As mentioned above, current market forces will not assure that new housing is developed that meets the affordability needs of the community. It is believed that in the current market climate, and considering the relative lack of sufficient Federal or State government assistance, the best chance for meeting local affordability goals is through four principal strategies. These have proven successful in other communities and were among the recommendations of the Tompkins County needs assessment. Revised 6/ 19/07 Page 3 of 5 Strategy One: Inclusionary and Incentive Zoning Use Inclusionary and Incentive Zoning to achieve goals that at least 20 % of units in new market rate projects are affordable to those making 80 % of median income and that at least 40 % of units are affordable to those making up to 120 % of median income. Among the incentives that municipalities may offer are density bonuses and streamlined approval processes. Local municipalities have the authority to amend their local zoning ordinances to incorporate these strategies . Zoning changes will be most effective — in producing affordable housing while combating rural sprawl — if there is coordination among municipalities . The Tompkins County Council of Governments could be an appropriate forum for this coordination. Strategy Two: Community Housing Trust Establish a Community Housing Trust with support from major employers, financial institutions, educational institutions, government and private donors to acquire and own land on which housing for those making less than 80% of median income can be built. These housing units would be kept affordable through deed restriction on resale and/or provisions to keep rents affordable. Work with private developers to use all available sources of funding and financing tools to make a portion of the units on these Housing Trust properties affordable to those making 50% of median income. Strategy Three: , Employer Assistance Encourage major employers to provide assistance, such as low-interest financing, down- payment subsidies, or closing-cost assistance, to employees who purchase homes in targeted infill and nodal development projects . This would support efficient provision of public services and provide an added incentive for developers to build new units in these target areas . Additionally, where employers are major land owners in a nodal location, they could make land available for housing development. Strategy Four: Community Housing Affordability Fund Establish a Community Housing Affordability Fund, with contributions from public and private sources, to fill funding gaps needed to keep units affordable and assist not-for- profit housing developers with pre-development expenses. Even if strategies one through three are fully implemented it will still be difficult to meet all of the housing needs of those with household incomes below 80% of median. Federal and State housing funds have not kept pace with need . leaving a gap in funding for affordable housing development . Not-for-profit developers are often deterred from pursuing projects because of an uncertain development review process and the risk of losing the considerable up- front expenses inherent in such development. Availability of this local funding source could allow the Tompkins County community to maximize the use of Federal and State funds that are available . These strategies could be used in creative combinations to achieve income diversity in neighborhoods . Revised 6/ 19/07 Page 4 of 5 Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation The County Planning Department will monitor both supply and demand to determine how successful these efforts are at meeting the community' s housing needs . It is important that new housing units reach the market at a relatively even rate over the ten- year period. Even with a market that is deficient in housing supply, new units should be gradually absorbed if developments are to be successful and not have unintended adverse consequences for the existing housing market. For that reason it is important that projects that are now in the planning stages move to construction during the first half of the ten-year period while other conceptual projects are progressed for development in the latter half. Monitoring efforts will include a renter survey to provide current and trend information. The survey will be repeated on a regular basis if support can be obtained from community partners . In the near future a survey of senior housing needs should also be conducted to make information available regarding the types of housing that will be needed ten years from now to serve our aging population. Conclusion It should be recognized that even if this strategy is successful it will be difficult to meet all of the housing affordability needs of the community . over the next ten years . However, we believe that a concerted, coordinated effort will yield results : we can cut the number of households spending more than 30 % of income for their homes and reduce the amount by which they overspend . Absent such a strategy the affordability and availability gap will only get worse, with far-reaching consequences for the local economy and the social cohesion of the community. Revised 6/ 19/07 Page 5 of 5 July 9 , 2007 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 9 ADDITIONAL CORRECTIONS TO TOWN OF ITHACA TRANSPORTATION PLAN (JUNE 255 2007 VERSION) : Executive Summary — Page 12 : Add bullet regarding airport Vol . I — Page 40 : Delete wording in middle of 3 `d paragraph (it duplicates wording later in same Paragraph) and add underline to "Table 8" reference in text Vol . I — Page 62 : Complete description of area served by Iradell Road Vol . IL — Page 30 : Correct numbers in #22 of Residents Survey Vol . II — Page 32 : Change Route 13 reference in E . to Inlet Valley Based on email from Bruce Brittain dated 7/8/07 Town of Ithaca Planning Department July 9, 2007 .�Xecr C ' This section of the Plan realistically concludes that there is • Regional development patterns that keep truck traffic Tr; An lattractive, ,efficient,ttle the Town can do to affect the air travel options in the away from residential areas. will continue to support regional efforts to 8E rea. The Town PP an ake the Ithaca-Tompkins Regional Airport a safe, OTHER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ISSUES the and useful mode of travel for residents fui and.visitors. . This section explores other :transportation system Beyond the movement of people, the regional components or issues that transcend the various modes En movement of freight examined in previous sections, including the relationships transportation system supports the m� between ,, transportation and the natural environment, Tr via rail, air, and trucks. The Norfolk Southern Railroad transport ation and land uses, and transportation and to provides rail freight transport in Tompkins County. Rail public health , co freight can carry. much larger quantities of freight than a hp. truck. For example, one freight car can carry 100 tons, The Natural Environment while a .truck. can ; only carry 20-25; thus one train of 20 Ve g Transportation, in particular motor vehicle transportation , ' In cars carries the freight of 80-100 trucks. Besides being , capable of carrying more freight, rail uses less fuel than affects air, water, energy, re( gy, and scenic. resources, as well as trucks to carry any given amount. Specifically, one gallon creates noise, light, and heat. of fuel will carry one: ton of freight 59 miles via truck and err 202 miles via rail (and 514 miles by barge!).' Even though Some of the most beautiful landscapes are _ inaccessible.. ' naccessible me rail freight is more efficient than shipping by truck, rail except by road , but the presence of,an obtrusive roadway ' .--. lt transport is prohibitively expensive for most shipping, can degrade the beauty of a landscape. : Yet in other cases, : err except for things shipped in extremely large quantities of the development of a transportation network in a scenic ...I. , del bulk. Thus, the rail freight in Tompkins County primarily area can attract , tourists and . : generate ,: revenue for fro transports coal to the Milliken Point Power Plant in Lansing protecting the environment. Since many residents of the the or salt from the Cargill Corporation . Town of Ithaca choose to live in the Town . because of they brc natural beauty of the region , it . is important that the Airfreight comes into and out of the county via the Ithaca development of the transportation system minimizes its No Tompkins Regional Airport. In 2001, the airport handled impact on the splendor of the area. Cot over 45,000 pounds of freight and mail. the The transportation system affects . water, resources in a rail Trucks carry the majority of freight in the County, often to variety of ways, including increased run-off and increased on . or from destinations within the City of Ithaca. Thus, much contamination. Vegetated , uncovered areas produce less dl of the truck freight traffic is merely passing through the runoff than paved , covered areas. Widening a lane two am Town, and most of it is limited to State highways. Yet there feet (from 12' to 14') increases the : impervious cover by Ad1 are many trucks that travel on non-truck routes and local 15%; just one mile of a 32' wide road (5' shoulders, 11`. Per roads to take shortcuts, avoid traffic, or make local travel lanes) is the equivalent of four acres of pavement 8, deliveries. In o addition, many State highways pass through Roads alone .. cntribute 54% to the total amount of runoff: Llgl residential areas. This negatively affects livability and in residential areas; in commercial areas, roads aid: re safety in residential neighborhoods. parking combined account for 80% of runoff.9 In ad . ion; uns streets generate the highest levels: of pollutants in runoff; Tov This section of the Plan identifies the following needs: nearly all of which drains directly into the nearest water; r wor • Cooperation with other municipalities, agencies, and body. In the Santa Clara Valley in California , vehicles are glal organizations (including shipping firms and companies ' " estimated to produce 67% of zinc, 50% of copper, and 50% Urb that send and receive shipments) to address the of cadmium found in runoff. 10 abs impacts that truck traffic has on residential areas; • Streetscape design principles that protect neighborhoods from truck traffic; El ,7(�V�Pst/ 13 Fl �+nV E c�^ !— 7` 1 eerr , A �� a (a (s� a�9Y B Center for GIS. " Natural Resources..." x .i ie p �� p � �s� h�,��,�`�F � 9 Milwaukee River Basin Partnership, 2003 7 Rock r aInd District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004 10 U .S. EPA, 1996 'S Fl 12 -7)Vif S ` ? incompatible with higher speeds (e .g. , school zones) , but in practice, speed limits are often set at the 85th percentile speed (the operating speed ). Mid.The FHWA has advocated that the design speed be higher than-either the posted speed or the operating speed of a: facility, regardless of the posted speed35 .a . situation that. is difficult to maintain over the long ;; term . When a road is rebuilt with an increased ,design speed without . other limitations, motorists will feel " comfortable driving faster, and the operating speed ofAhe road may therefore increase to match or exceed the new design speed . Eventually, the speed of traffic ,on such a road may become more of a : safety problem . To avoid this escalating speed situation , roads undergoing . reconstruction could be to encourage compliance with posted speed limits, as,-speeding is often an indication that the Rr ' kk design speed. of the road is too high . Rather than responding by further increasing the road's design ; speed , the design speed could be reduced or traffic calming measures could be introduced to influence sue• ` ! drivers' behavior. As discussed in the " Roadway Function and Right-of-Way Design " section , d,esign .speed is tied to functional classification . us func al clan ations. ese rec endatio would re It in all Town . roads, in din w traffic r dential r ds , havi a desi peed highe . an 30 h . This * stra jar the icu s that can se from f owing oad-brus esign stan ds wit t unders ndin e e ects t tthe wo d have on d ver b avior or o he land us surrou ing the ro way Tam ble 8, below, shows NYSDOT's target design speeds for roads of various functiona classifications. These recommendations would result in all Town roads, including low. traffic residential roads, having a H L design speed higher than 30 mph . This illustrates the difficulties that can arise from following .broad brush design standards without understanding the effects that they would have on driver behavior or on Yti the land uses surrounding the roadways. Table 8: NYSDOT Target Design Speeds Minimum Design Speeds for Urban and Rural Arterials and Collectors and Urban Local Roads ( in mph) Functional Class. Terrain Design Speed Range it I Arterial Urban , Suburban/ Developing Areas 37-62 Central Business District 31=62 ' Rural Level 37-68 Rolling 37-62 Mountainous 37-56 Collector Urban N/A 31-62 ADT= 0-400 400-2000 2000+ , Rural Level 37 -62 50-62 62 Rolling 31-62 37-62 50-62 Mountainous 19-62 31-62 1 37-62 Local Urban N/A 31 35 FHWA, 1997 v 40 .gT C x U) m p b c . — Z ,p c0 O' LLI LLI z; � IC 3 ° c ° y C c a y m 3 Y; ° s m p Z ia� o ; 3 sn 1p Or U L _Co rW 0" •` t y''a to N ° �;> N :a V C ° ►. fa 3. _ , •• om v � � cof- � my v � ° c'o` w n Lo . ++ E yo � Nba4� d ` yO = ; i' NZ � ^a M re F ill ; , �` Ile, r le - . > ° O C. 0 4D ` r E cu >, a r. r:E f : .;o a , � c . �n � o o a o o Q C C a � N , C .� O Q CL � :.0 y' ` 7 d00 O :ed 7 d � aIn d 7 N t . Q . z 0) Z a U Q N . tgfM '� U . Q Z .N .Lo U _ (All rr `. y OC ;.m ° co a� +- y m d v . 'b A . p ' L C N `. !yA r Me r 1116 _ C U ° o C7 . F- E C (Orr Ile m ` 3 0 ; oo co c b 01y � , , p =- dY b jC LL! y 03a + a fQ o; Ire C . N v- L O ° N N app; IV Ire 0 co cn to :m C >; 'O a> cc e o4.;0 .;a: p 7 CD -'W N N4- p • N`' O 7 o E iU o_ o :! C 7 - s `:: ca :ca0. C C ` C a ° }F ✓ O o co (n . Q, .r . . LLP co co y N 3 O b . b y: `r ,� ` y p L :Ire 4) o o a� a a� _ . > y x Ile Co 1W I l aaara> > � mwa °� E °> v a� a -Cnl 5a I - vO � ot . a v � p � o � + � ° ca �° Y "p Z cn c R;V) Y< V' U a v .ir s Z° . v n. m Q:cJkm =LL=,•ri CSI. h0 Q'' O m LL.=r jcN :v , el m1C':d. N ' Im rrr •v — t / r E Number of Times :< Area or Intersection Cited Community Corners, including Warren and Hanshaw 99 . .:;' Area of intersections between Honness4Pine Tree4Rt. 79 52 Area of Coddington —) Burns; Coddington4Troy; Troy4E, King 43 � Route 13 in general , plus intersections with Seven Mile/ Five Mile Dr. & Kmart 29 Area of Burleigh , Winthrop, Simsbury, Christopher 19 z . Area of Forest Home 17 ` Route .96 in general ; including near Ithaca College 14 3 Intersection of Sheffield and Mecklenburg 14 Area of Winston , Salem , Muriel 9 Rt 79 (Slaterville Road) in general 9 r 22. Are you satisfied with the speed limits .in your neighborhood? Response Number of Responses Percentage of Respondents Yes m409 69 .4% No 180 30 .6% Surveys left blank: 22 Surveys with responses ( population for question) : 589 - If not, please describe why. .. Response Number of Responses Percentage of Respondents Speed too low 5 • ° OF Speed too. high 128 9 ° Surveys left blank: \� Surveys with respo s ( population for question) : 180 . . :and how the speed limits should be changed . Desired Change in Residential Speed Limit 450 409 400 350 m 300 O 250 a - 200 G 150 100 56 37 47 50 1 6 . 2 3 0 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 Safisfled 5 10 Notsatisfed; did not quantify M . � desired change :, - Desired Change in Speed Limit Relationship to Residential Location : Speed limit too high by location The table below presents the locations of respondents who think their residential speed limit is too high compared to the Town-wide average. The first column lists the total number of responses from each neighborhood . The second column shows the number of respondents from each neighborhood who thought the speed limit in their neighborhood was too high , and the third column shows the percentage of M 511! 30 � A VC r Number of Number of Percentage of , Location Responses Total Responses Ratio L Responses . A. Northeast 42 . 103 4008% 1.27: B. Forest Home 22 33 . 66.7% 2108 C. Southeast 33 99 333% 1.04 / D. South Hill 37 123 30 .1% 0.94 J c� E. -Rvafe 4� ti � g-�f�r� 6 22 27 .3% 0 .85 s F. West Hill 14 56 25 .0% 0. 78 G. Northwest 5 37 13 .5% 0 .42 y H Cayuga Heights 30 122 24.6% 10 , 77 I . City of Ithaca 4 6 66.7% - Unknown 3 10 30.0% - TOTAL 196 . 611 32.1% 1.00 3 i i ate+ . E� 1. t� i , �t 1 f� Y 32 >. 1: ��Y " A DA � 9 MEMORANDUM To : Town of Ithaca Town Board From : Jonathan Kanter, AICP, Director of Planning Date : July 2 , 2007 RE : Adoption of Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan — June 25 , 2007 Version The purpose of this memo is to assist the Board with consideration of adoption of the Transportation Plan, which is scheduled for the July 9, 2007 Town Board meeting. The revised draft of the Transportation Plan, including Volume I (The Plan), Volume II (The Appendices), Volume III (The Design Guidelines), and Executive Summary, all dated June 25 , 2007 , have been distributed to Town Board members in advance of the mail-out . Please refer to the June 25 , 2007 draft, and please bring those documents to the July 9th Town Board meeting. Nicole Tedesco has prepared the enclosed memo, dated July 3 , 2007, describing the follow-up revisions to the Transportation Plan by the Transportation Committee and staff. In addition, I have enclosed excerpts from the draft minutes of the May 16th and June 4th, 2007 Transportation Committee meetings (a draft of the June. 25th meeting has not yet been prepared) for those Town Board members interested in seeing a more detailed account of the Committee' s discussions with the Brittains regarding additional revisions and corrections that have been incorporated into the Transportation Plan. Also enclosed for the Board ' s consideration are a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), Parts I and II, prepared by Planning staff, along with a draft SEQR resolution. The adoption of the Transportation Plan and amendment of the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Transportation Plan are classified as Type I actions, pursuant to SEQR. The Town Board is the Lead Agency, and the only Involved Agency, in regard to these actions . Staff recommends that the Board issue a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance based on the information and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts I and I1 . Also enclosed is a draft resolution regarding adoption of the Transportation Plan and amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Transportation Plan. There is no further public hearing scheduled regarding adoption of the Plan, since no substantive changes have been incorporated into the June 25 , 2007 draft of the Plan. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 273 - 1747 , or you may . email me at jkanier@town.ithaca.ny.us . . J MEMORANDUM TO : Town of Ithaca Town Board FROM : Nicole Tedesco RE: Final Revisions to the Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan DATE: July 3 , 2007 As you remember, at the May 7 Town Board meeting and Public Hearing on the Transportation Plan , Bruce Brittain and Doug Brittain expressed their concerns that a portion of their comments submitted earlier had not been considered or incorporated into the Transportation Plan , After. the Public Hearing, the Town Board decided to send the Transportation Plan back to staff to determine whether there was an oversight and , if so , to correct it. In addition , the Town Board suggested that staff meet with Bruce and Doug to ensure that their concerns were addressed . Bruce and Doug attended the May 16 , June 4 , and June 25 Transportation Committee meetings , as well as a separate meeting with Planning Staff on June 25 . In order to determine whether there were additional comments that had been overlooked , compared the comments submitted by Bruce and Doug on every fourth page of the October 25 , 2006 versions of Volume I : The Plan and Volume III : The Design Guidelines to the most recent versions of the Plan . From sampling 25% of the pages , I found that, with the exception of the sections pointed out by Bruce and Doug in their May 7 public comment, there were very few to no intentionally overlooked comments . The remainder of this memorandum outlines the final revisions to the Transportation Plan that have been made in order to address comments raised during and after the Public Hearing. 1 Executive Summary According to Bruce's written submission dated May 7 (attached to this memorandum ) , several problems that had been identified in the past were not corrected in the May 7 draft of the Executive Summary. I determined that there were at least two versions the Executive Summary, neither of which had all of the corrections . I reviewed and incorporated Bruce 's comments submitted on the September 29 , 2006 version of the Executive Summary, the May 7 comments, and also a set of comments submitted on June 4. In addition , I realized that the April 25 , 2007 version of the Executive Summary gives a good overview of Volume I : The Plan , but it says nothing about Volume II : The Appendices or Volume Ili : The Design Guidelines. Since there is a significant amount of very useful information in those volumes, I added a brief summary of each to the end of the Executive Summary. The Transportation Committee reviewed and revised the Executive Summary at the June 25th meeting; and made .a few additional minor corrections and revisions. The June 25 , 2007 draft reflects all of the revisions as approved by the Committee . Volume I : The Plan Bruce 's May 7 submission notes that none of the corrections offered for the table on pp. 56-69 Volume I : The Plan ( "Summary of Roads in the Town of Ithaca ") were incorporated . After reviewing my notes , I determined that this oversight resulted when I asked Fred . Noteboom to review this section before incorporating Bruce 's comments , and I consequently failed to return to the section to incorporate Bruce 's comments . I then made most of the changes requested by the Brittains in the October 25 , 2006 version of The Plan as well as their comments submitted on May 7 . At the May 7 Public Hearing, Doug pointed out that several inserts were included with Volume I , and that none of them had been incorporated . The inserts were substitutions or rewrites of entire paragraphs of the sections related to functional classification and geometrics , volume and capacity, and speed . I had asked Jon Kanter, Dan Walker, and Fred Noteboom to review the inserts, and at that time , the consensus seemed to be that the inserts substantially changed the meaning of the paragraphs in question . 2 In order to address Doug' s concerns , the Transportation Committee , staff, and Bruce and Doug spent the majority of the June 4 Transportation Committee meeting discussing the inserts. As a result of. the discussion , five of the seven suggested inserts were modified and included in the Plan to the satisfaction of the Committee and the Brittains . Finally, at the May 7 Public Hearing, Doug provided a handout of p . 100 in the Alternatives Chapter. The handout recommended replacing " Reconstruct roads so that design speed matches speed limit" with_ " Reduce design speed to encourage compliance with speed limit. " This is exactly the intended meaning of that sentence , so the clarification was incorporated . Volume II : The Appendices Appendix I: Maps Bruce pointed out that many of the previously submitted comments about Map 8 : Speed Limits in the Town of Ithaca had not been incorporated . Questions about the accuracy of this map have been raised numerous times, so at the May 16 Transportation Committee meeting, the Committee recommended removing the map and all references to it. In addition , I removed Map 11 (TCAT Routes and Stops in the Town of Ithaca ) . As TCAT plans to undertake a system-wide route analysis in the near future , this map will quickly become out of date . I renumbered the maps and changed references to the maps in Volumes I , II , and III . Appendix II: Supplementary Tables The majority of the comments submitted by Bruce were minor, including "Vertical scale on graph is still blacked out" and " Labels in upper graph are reversed . " A quirk of Microsoft Office products is that Word does not handle imbedded Excel charts and graphs very well . Thus , formatting may be made to an Excel chart within a Word document, and further changes to the Word document may cause the Excel formatting to be lost. This was the root of many of the minor comments submitted about this section . To work around this limitation , all of the Excel graphs and charts were converted to image files, which stay the same regardless of the changes to the text surrounding them . Bruce offered three substantive comments on this section . Two of the comments had been overlooked in Bruce ' s original comment submission , and they were consequently incorporated . At the May 16 Transportation Committee meeting, I explained why the third was not. 3 Appendix III: Transportation Survey Bruce gave two comments about this section at the May 7 Public Hearing: At first glance, the comment regarding Question 4 ( length of residence in the Town ) seemed impractical , as it could have required retabulating a large amount of data . It was possible to more accurately depict the data using a modified graph , and this addressed Bruce 's concern . The second comment about this section pointed out a typographical error that had been overlooked . Appendix V. Sidewalk Ordinances and Policies Bruce 's comment regarding this section was that "the Sidewalk Policy appears twice." In order to handle a document the size of The Appendices , it was necessary to split it into two parts. The Sidewalk Policy appeared at the end of the first part and the beginning of the second part. This has been corrected . Volume III : The Design Guidelines The suggestion for improving this Volume was the insertion of the following sentence into the middle of the first paragraph on page 18, per the handout provided by Bruce at the May 7 Public Hearing: " In many cases , it should be possible to compensate for this effect, for instance, by accentuating. a road 's vertical and horizontal curvature , or by introducing visual narrowing (contrasting shoulder material , street trees, etc . ) , in order to keep vehicle speeds from increasing. " This sentence did not change the meaning of the paragraph , and it might clarify the intent for careful readers, so the change was incorporated . If you have any questions about the work that has been done on the Transportation Plan over the past two months , please don 't hesitate to contact me via email at ntedesco @gmail .com or Jon Kanter at 273-1747 or ikanter @town . ithaca . ny. us. Nicole Tedesco . 4 Bruce Brittain, 135 Warren Road May 7, 2007 I would like to thank the Board for this additional opportunity for input relative to the Town Transportation Plan. There seems to have been a good faith effort to address many of the concerns that Doug and I raised at the last Public Hearing, and at other junctures throughout the process. The Plan has improved dramatically, and we thank you for that. Unfortunately, others of our comments seem to have fallen through the cracks. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Many people will only read the Executive Summary, so it has to be well worded, and adequately summarize the Plan itself. Most of the errors that I identified and reported at the last Public hearing have not been corrected. For example : Typos: "Date" instead of "data;" "climactic" instead of "climatic." Factual Errors : States that there are 9 . 33 miles of walkways within the Town, whereas the main text (p 77) states that there are 11 miles; states that there are no bicycle-only facilities within the Town, ignoring the bike lanes on Tower and Campus Roads on the Cornell campus within the Town of Ithaca. Does not adequately summarize the "Needs" section of the text: The identified needs in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities section (p 12) do not adequately summarize the needs identified in the text (p 79 = 80) . In particular, the second bullet is a poor summary, and the last bullet is missing. Does not adequately summarize the Plan' s "Recommendations" section: Omits Recommendations LA and LC, and presents Recommendation 1 .13 as LA; omits Section 2 .17 ; omits Section 3 .13 . 5 ; summarizes Recommendation 7 by saying that the Town "should consider altering" regulations, whereas the main tent (p 118) says that the Town "should alter," which is a considerably stronger statement. All of these problems were reported before, but they still remain. I would like to hereby, by reference, resubmit all of my previous comments from the previous public hearing that pertain to the Executive Summary , MAIN TEXT Overall, much better. Many of our comments and suggestions have been incorporated into the text. And I thank you. However, there are still some outstanding issues: pp 56 — 69 : Table listing roads, adjacent land uses, purpose, traffic volumes, etc None of our comments seem to have been incorporated. We had identified and reported many factual errors including (but not limited to) : Adjacent land uses: Omits Agricultural for . Ellis Hollow Road (the Southside Farm) and Hanshaw Road (the Warren Farm) ; omits Open Space for Forest Home Dri ve, Judd Falls Road and Caldwell Road (the Plantations). Bike/Pedestrian Destinations and Facilities : Omits church and community center for Forest Home Drive; omits church and Community Comers for Hanshaw Road omits schools on Warren Road; omits mention of pedestrian facilities on Judd Falls Road. Geometrics : Omits stop signs at Judd Falls/Tower Road intersection, Judd Falls/Campus Road intersection, Judd Falls/Forest Home Drive intersection; omits turn lanes at Judd Falls/Rte 366 and Caldwell/Rte 366 intersections, omits traffic signal at Warren/Uptown intersection. Other: Mentions congestion in Cayuga Heights when discussing Elmira Road; discusses the intersection of Pine Tree Road with Pine Tree Road. So once again, I would like to hereby, by reference, resubmit all of my previous comments from the previous public hearing that pertain to this table. VOLUME Has THE APPENDICES Appendix I: Maps I found six factual errors on Map 8 : Speed Limits in the Town of Ithaca, and reported on them at the last Public Hearing. They. have not been changed. These errors include an indicated 30 mph speed limit on Hanshaw Rd east of Warren,. where the actual posted limit is 40 mph; an indicated speed limit of 30 mph on Plantations Rd within the Arboretum, where the actual posted speed limit is 20 mph; an indicated speed limit of 30 mph on a private driveway connecting McIntyre. Place to Judd. Falls Road; etc. By reference, I would like to hereby resubmit all of my comments from the previous public hearing that pertain to this map. Appendix II: Supplementary Tables Overall, the labeling of the Tables and Figures is much clearer. However, some issues remain: p 16 : Vertical scale on graph is still blacked out. p 20 : Labels in upper graph are reversed. "Trip Purpose" should be the horizontal axis. p 21 : Missing page number. p 21 : Upper graph: Vertical scale ("Trip Length") has no units. Is this miles? Minutes? p 21 : Figure A-9 is (mis)labeled as Figure A- 1 . p 22 : These two Figures seem to contradict each other. How can the total miles traveled be less than the sum of the individual trips? For. example, the average length of a daily trip by bicycle is around 3 miles, but the total number of miles traveled per day is only about 0 . 1 miles. How can this be? Am I missing something? - I pointed this out at the last Public Hearing, but it has still not been corrected. t 28 : Snyder Hill is two words. 28 : The intersection of Slaterville Rd and Pine Tree. Rd: Lists LOSS for turning ovements that can not be made at this intersection: BR (east-bound right turn) and NB (north-bound) . I pointed this out at the last Public Hearing, but it has still not been corrected. p 29 : Missing page number. p 30 : Forest Home Drive east of the 25 mph zone (about 1 /3 of the way down the page) : . Lists speed limit as 30 mph. It' s actually 45 mph. This will throw off values in all subsequent columns. I pointed this out at the last Public Hearing, but it has still not been corrected. p 31 : Figure A- 15 : Scale, legend and footnote are all written on top of each other. Appendix III: Transportation Survey p 37 : The Figure for Question 4 is highly misleading. You can't change the width of the x-axis interval part way through a graph. Either have all intervals be 5 years wide (as in the first half of the graph) or 10 years wide (as in the second half) . I pointed this out at the last Public Hearing, but it has still not been corrected. p 44 : The information in the Tables disagrees with the information in the Graph. I pointed this out at the last Public Hearing, but it has still not been corrected. Appendix V: Sidewalk Ordinances and Policies The Sidewalk Policy appears twice, once on pp 82 - 83 , and again on pp 84 - 85 . VOLUME III: THE DESIGN GUIDELINES This is generally good, presenting a nice vision and attitude. However, there is one technical issue that I would like to address: (Handout) The Town' s desire to promote walking and biking and general neighborhood livability comes across very clearly . The text of the Design Guidelines indicates that total curbAo- curb roadway width should be minimized, with lanes no wider than required. Which I strongly support. Unfortunately , the guidelines also call for 10 - 11 ft wide lanes with 4 - 5 ft wide paved shoulders on roads with moderate to high volumes of traffic. This results in 30 ft of unbroken pavement, which is quite wide, and matches the County' s proposals for Hanshaw and Coddington Roads . We know how popular those proposals have been with the residents who live along those streets. And for good reason: the increased width Will result in loss of front yard vegetation, and will likely lead to an increase in vehicle speeds. If you plan on paving a road this wide, you will have to take other measures in order to ensure that vehicle speeds do not increase . These include coloring the shoulder, decreasing roadway design speed, introducing or accentuating horizontal and vertical curves, etc. Doug and I have drafted a sentence that could be inserted on p 18 of Volume III : The Design Guidelines : r In many cases it should be possible to compensate for this effect, for instance by accentuating a road 's vertical and horizontal curvature, or by introducing visual narrowing (contrasting shoulder material, street trees, etc), in order to keep vehicle speeds from increasing. This should help to address neighborhood concerns. I was also struck by the photo of the shoulder on Pine Tree_ Road that was used in the Executive Summary (p 12). The caption reads : "Pedestrians attempt to navigateTine Tree Road in the Town of Ithaca." The accompanying text reads: "Many roadways with significant pedestrian traffic . do not even have sufficient shoulder space for a single pedestrian (see picture at right). " I looked at the site yesterday . It' s adjacent to East Lawn Cemetery, by the "Dean" tombstone. Pavement there is 40 ft wide. As I recall, it was originally striped as two 4 ft shoulders, two 11 ft travel lanes, and one 10 ft center turn lane. The location .of the edge lines has drifted over the years, and the western shoulder is now only 21/2 ft wide. In addition, there is a 3 ft wide informal pedestrian path beyond the curb . It is a hostile pedestrian environment, I will grant you that, with too much traffic traveling by too quickly. The shoulder is not a comfortable place to walk, but there is sufficient width. The informal pedestrian path is also not pleasant, with rocks strewn on its surface. But again, it is wide enough: In Forest Home, one of the roads with the worst level of general pedestrian hostility is Pleasant Grove Road, which has 30 ft of unbroken black top, striped as two 11 ft lanes with two 4 ft shoulders. What struck me about the photo of Pine Tree Road is that it is being used both a bad and a good example. The Executive Summary presents this as an example of poor design. Yet the Plan calls for replicating this throughout the Town: 4 - 5 ft shoulders and 10 - 11 ft lanes on roads with moderate to high volumes of traffic. I hope we can do better. Thank you. O U C T o o c ►°- �'. ° c N c v v4) N aEi E y ►- m > Oo > � 'U)i o E ° o � as r too X09 c a U L 01 w a� . N a� c '- o f E u) �o r 3 m E p m a"i T m t0 � c O 1° o y O o f ac�i E o >' O 4) ., C N tr0 4) �' C * ' t' p •m+ . 4l U. 4) ._ C O 4) O \ � m N �- m N m U O tell w yi�pp V m p co C -0 N U O CO 0 V C m U L Q CO v- N O C m N L E p O m C >, T Q ++ d 4� to C C y > >. O m d p d L m al 4) vi O O O m > `+ '' >• mace OL 49 > m > m ao ° ss m cu) cEac +' n y _ C E 'tA m y +_+ a t5 �+' m m N E N m N O C 3 s N uD s E O U — N O U C C •� •� N v C E «+ a; m 1 C t},0 4J m N C U "a N a >, v >, mmN EOL mNo o p . o o 0 0 > v cA al U 0 Q a Z U F- uo C �1^1�Q,j J'� 'v C L d�N N7 C O L`i v= • D:O% � �>_ > � C � y N _ m c N C %� w *C L w E O C C O N m N O. ap U d� C m O uo O >. E O O O G ' p p U > L O ) L a U _T L>O L 4 - a > _ E d C F C ( l an d O m O p co v= 4) O U O O m C L'O O in U a L CL t -.2 N N O a @ C Co no O C 00 O N d cn ]N '5 N p O m N L 2 d N � w E D o � o y o c N a > OL CD w oc � c O�uaZ � Ua > E mm vac • • . • O 3 � O rn =' c M 04- m on 0 E Nm m C m E m m 4) p y v N Ntnm3 0 4) v m � 3 C O tU N O U N T U m 3 0 N C N 7 N t6 U . >� C w > ° f0 .O C N N > .0 �+ C o a >0 a> N C E C G c w ? v C O 4 p '0 N y L �( v y ,ero 0 CO CO 1' CL 2 ~ c E i Ir � � o � o s J Q . Y -0 v c � ¢ � O 3 N 0 U cr 0 c �- o c° N (D V 0 3 C7 v al v N c c t N m o m o m o + ommaocgUO � �, c`gUwU. . O o • . per 3 o • • • • • • V1 j J • • • • • •' • � U O J TT L U T N N V v N O N' O ~ '� > LL m al L V V� m 4 . < H N m C � m m O N ,L., p N • . U. H Z a t0 e a �} . "'" . e`+ CO 00 U b0 L m L 0 a: _ in d d S ¢ Z 0 mac.' ` n y N 4I L E O N Q C C U. w — > a+ ._ C _ ._ N re2CF o � r� t~`< t5 pr\t v� - ► 77A' ^� 5 -707 Sample Streetscapes The topics covered in this section of The Design Guidelines outline the various aspects of streetscape design, including the relationship between the transportation network and adjacent land uses, the road edge, the roadway and shoulder, and other design issues, such as drainage and storm water treatment needs and emergency access. Sometimes, the " best practice" .associated with one aspect will conflict with the " best practice" associated with another aspect. For example, on high volume, high speed roadways, it is important to provide adequate space for bicyclists. Yet overly wide roads can encourage excessive speeding, which has negative impacts on livability. h gh� g� g .{- i f> t4 eposs; ble- +o c4C)jOr, PeWP7sq + e TO +1, .'s effec: ' r. in +qhC y acted O-uci-t 'hi CL roq,dL S and h O r 20 ; 14zk 1 C4 rwva 4-N re e> r y ,-n + 'mod u v h � � isua � ncrf- ovkjln � Ccoh + e'as + ih shc�ctlrl er' yyla � eriq �� s+ �'ce + + reel, e +- c • in keep ye h �cte sperms f Vr% CP1 j NcreqtpI k7 Ci When designing a streetscape, therefore, it is important to balance the trade-offs associated with assigning relative priorities to the various aspects, as well as to remain flexible to alternatives (such as an off-road bike path, in the previously cited example). In addition to being flexible and balanced, streetscape design should always be site-speck and context sensitive. The Town, including the Town Board , Town Planning Board, and Town professional staff, should consider factors such as topography, drainage issues and stormwater treatments, other infrastructure, neighborhood character, and livability needs when selecting the width of a road right-of-way, the width of the lanes and shoulders, the type, design, the location of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and other aspects of right-of-way design . The following streetscapes exemplify how design can be tailored to specific situations, and how the various aspects of streetscape design interact with each other. They are intended to be guidelines, not standards. The measurements shown in the diagrams are for illustrative purposes only; -as previously noted , the design of the roadway and the width of the right-of-way should be tailored to its intended purpose and its context. The samples are based on two variations: urban/ suburban or rural land use intensity and intense traffic (high vehicular volume and/ or speed) or non-intense traffic (low vehicular volume and/or speed). In reality, as previously noted , there are many more considerations that factor into the design of a roadway. Urban/ Suburban Land Use Intensity Rural Land Use Intensity Intense. Traffic Diagram A Diagram C Non-Intense Traffic Diagram B Diagram D - 18 TOWN OF ITHACA TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MAY 169 20079 4PM Present: Will Burbank; Pat Leary; Cathy Valentino ; Herb Engman; Jonathan Kanter; Fred Noteboom; Esther Blodau-Konick; Nicole Tedesco ; Darcy Binns ; Doug Brittain; Bruce Brittain Absent: Bill Wendt; Sue Ritter; Tom Niederkorn; Fernando de Aragon; George Conneman; John Gutenberger Corrections to the April 251h Meeting Minutes On the second to last paragraph on page two Darcy Binns corrected that Mina Amundsen and Bill Wendt were waiting from their consultant' s opinion before they determined whether the entrance features would be problematic for Cornell . Further, Darcy changed "Donald Wright (CU Grounds Department)" to Don Rakow, and added that Don Rakow had indicated that the entrance features did not pose a probl o Cornell . In the fourth paragraph on the top on page three Darcy ged uggested" to "asked about." In the last line of the same paragraph Pat Le Fe ove he words "wears off quickly" from the end of the last sentence. In the seventh line of the last paragra on ge e, Darcy changed "Darcy wondered if energy should be redirected to . . . " t `.Dar anted to know if energy should be redirected to . . . . " On the ninth li the acme paragraph, Darcy Binns changed "Judd Falls Road" to "Plantations ad ." On the fourth line from the bottom o same paragraph Pat changed "Forest Home" to "Forest Home Drive." In the second paragraph on page four, the seventh line from the bottom originally read "Fred wondered if adding speed tables in reality might be too difficult . . . . " Darcy pointed out, with Fred ' s approval ; that Fred had indicated that it would be easier to add speed tables as the road was being constructed/improved instead of adding them at a later point. No further corrections were made to the April 25a' meeting minutes . Forest H e Traffic ming Plan The ittee re ed their Fore ome Traffic C ing Plan (F Ian) dis Sion w' "Pedestri acilities" on ge 18 of the F an. Will ask Jon to le the iscussion. n indicated th e would prefe o make a few omments out the Plan, and have thers add thei bservations . Jo observed tha icyclists ere given less 1 the Co ee sho consider how the Fore ome traffic calming im veme woul it in wit:2e Town ' s apital Pla arcy asked the Capita an ha fixed ount of hey associ d with it ; ed responde at it was plicat , but in sh , yes : D g said th e next few . ections in th Ian, could use the r der' s eye glaze . , ver, and ' it did so, the ommittee s uld be sure read the valuation ction on : page 4 . It as decided at the next re lar Transpo tion Co ittee mee 'ng would be cheduled fo onday, June 51 2007 at 3 Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan Nicole began by explaining to the Committee why some of the comments made by the Brittain Brothers on the Executive Summary had not been incorporated in the Transportation Plan presented to the Town Board for final adoption on May 7th. Nicole explained that there had seemed to be a digital mix-up with some documents in the . Executive Summary resulting in some of the desired changes not appearing in the final copy. Nicole estimated that it would take her 1 '/2 hours to . co =t this error. z Next Nicole addressed concerns the Brittain Brothers haft with ` ume 1 : The Plan." Referring to the comments made by the Bruce Britt t the May , 2007 Town Board Meeting, and as listed on page two of the memo frolhli ` le Tedesco for the Transportation Committee, dated May 13 , 200 , Nicole lained that there had been an oversight. As Nicole outlined in her memo; `she explined hat she had not included the comments regarding the section "A Suy ofe°Road Network in the Town of Ithaca" because she was waiting on comme is fro , Fred Noteboom. Since that time she has received comments from Fred an wiII ' cor=porate these comments. Nicole estimated that it would take approximatel45mn tes to one hour to complete this task. F, Next Nicole addressed inserts Orittain Brothers had prepared for the Transportation Plan. These "inserts" included suggesho s for replacement of entire paragraphs or lengthy comments provided by the Brittain Brothers and had not been incorporated into the Plan. Nicole reiterated that the proposed changes outlined in the inserts would have changed the meaning of the Plan substantially. For this reason, Nicole said, the comments contained in the inserts were not incorporated into the Plan. Nicole attached these comments to the May 13`h memo so that the Transportation Committee could review them again . Since these comments consisted of numerous pages, Jon suggested discussing the potential inclusion of these comments into the Town' s Transportation Plan at the next meeting. Nicole explained that she had done some spot-checking and had compared every fourth page of Volume 1 of the Transportation Plan that had been proposed for adoption with the copy on which the Brittain Brothers had made comments . In the "Summary of Road Networks in the Town of Ithaca" section, part of the "Inventory," Nicole found that only two of the comments made by the Brothers were overlooked, while the other comments 5 had. intentionally not been incorporated, some because they changed the meaning of the Plan significantly. In the "Recommendations" section of the Plan, Nicole noted that two recommendations did not have their "goals" listed . Nicole indicated that she was not sure if she should look over the whole "Inventory" section for errors, since she found few errors while doing the spot-checking. With the Committee expressing no preference, Nicole decided not to review all pages of the Inventory. Nicole further indicated that she would review the entire "Recommendations" section of the Plan since that ' s were she found the highest concentration of errors . Nicole also suggested including the wording substitution . suggested by the Brittains on page 100 in the Strategy column ("reduce design speed to encourage compliance with speed limit") because it more accurately reflects the intent., Next Nicole discussed issues that had been raised concerning "Volume II : The Appendices ." Referring to Map 8 , the speed limit map , Nicole said that she had previously corrected the speeds on this map . Throughout the preparation of the Transportation Plan, problems with this file have been persistent. Perhaps information was overlooked at the Public Works Department or files got mi ed up on the Town's server. In order to rectify the situation, Nicole presented a nurser of options, as also outlined in her memo . These options included, driving arondFthe Town and checking all the speed limits, accepting the speed limits as Bruce Brittain ha ' dicated as correct, or removing the map and all its references from the plan. e latter o hich was Nicole' s recommendation. Jon supported Nicole ' s recommeridatio and. it was decided to remove Map 8 and its references from the Plan. r Referring to the graph on the top of page 2 of oiu e II, Nicole explained the technical . details behind the question Bruce had�;�_ osed elating to this graph, as described on page three of Nicole ' s May 13th Memo . Nieole � atedthat the data in the table is correct, but that the labeling of categorwas, unle�ar. Nicole concluded that she would change the graph ' s labeling mflectingmtechnical terms associated with the data, in order to avoid confusion in the future. Next Nicole addressed errors identified by Bruce on page 28 of the Plan. Again, as described in N e memo, the errors in the table area result of copy-paste mistakes . The speed-limit error pointed out by Bruce on page 30 will be checked in the field by staff and corrected if necessary. Regarding the errors noted on page 37 , Nicole indicated that it would take too much work and time to re-tabulate all 611 surveys to revise this table. Instead she would recommend combining five year intervals on the first portion of the graph into 10 year intervals to be consistent with the latter part of the graph . Regarding errors noted on page 44, Nicole corrected the information in the second table. Between pages 82 and 85 the sidewalk policy appears twice . Again this was a copy-paste error which can be rectified easily. Since there were some formatting differences between the sidewalk policies , the most recent policy will be included . Next Nicole addressed errors or changes in Volume I11 , the Design Guidelines . She accepted the insertion Doug and Bruce Brittain had made on the first paragraph on page 18 . The next comment concerned a photo showing pedestrians walking the grassy banks 6 of Pine Tree Road and the widths of the shoulders and travels lanes on that road. Bruce pointed out that Pine Tree Road actually has shoulders, but that on one side of Pine Tree Road the shoulder is 2 . 5 feet wide, while on the other side it ' s six feet wide . Jon indicated that the main purpose of the photo was to show unsafe conditions for pedestrians . Jon and Nicole suggested to the Committee that this comment would be "duly noted" but that no changes would appear in the Transportation Plan. The Committee agreed. Bruce indicated that he was satisfied. Nicole said that she had spot-checked Vol . III, and did not find anything in the remainder of Volume .III that had been overlooked. Nicole repeated that it would be beneficial to go through the "Recommendations" section in Volume I once more as there had been two overlooked comments and five errors . With regard to the Executive Summary, Nicole explained that as the other three volumes. changed, some changes may not have been made in the Executive Summary. Fred re- iterated that the Executive Summary is an important element of the Plan, since many people don' t bother to read the entire contents of the Plan. Will asked Bruce and Doug if they had any further comments they wished to make. Bruce responded by saying that the idea behind the longer inserts he had written was not to defy the AASHTO standards, but to have a more complete and accurate discussion about desired road standards. The remaining group agreed to meet on Monday June 007 special meeting to discuss the outstanding Town of Ithaca Transportati f Pl ssues, "ncluding the inserts suggested by the Brittains, from 5 : 30pm to 6 : 30pm. a Prepared by: Esther Blodau-Konick, Planner 7 b ` TOWN OF ITHACA TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARY JUNE 49 2007 Present: Will Burbank;. Pat Leary; Tom Niederkorn; George Conneman ; Jonathan Kanter; Fred Noteboom ; Nicole Tedesco . Absent: Cathy Valentino ; Bill Wendt; Sue Ritter; Fernando de Aragon; John Gutenberger; Dan Walker. Guests : Doug Brittain; Bruce Brittain. Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan — Report/Update on Revisions : Nicole referred to her memo, dated May 27 , 2007 , describing revisions that had been made to the Plan draft subsequent to comments by Doug and Bruce Brittain at the May 7th Town Board meeting. Nicole indicated that the Executiveummary has been revised, and it appears that some of the problems with not includi!d public comments may have resulted from several drafts being in use, none of whj&h inclu ' ed all of the revisions. Nicole added that summaries of Volumes II an , -YI o the P�a'n were added to the. Executive Summary. Nicole said that the photon he Executive Summary were creating problems both in terms of technical is,sues in the text, as well as kg: misunderstandings by the public of their intentsyfornow, she removed many of the photos from the Executive Summary text. 'hhe sense of the Committee was that many of the photos were helpful both in illustr ting pomts rn the text and in visually breaking up the text, so requested that at least somre ,,ofheh'®tos be reinstated in the text if possible. Jonathan mentioned that the posepee limit on Forest Home Drive east of the 25 mph zone was checked by staff, and confine ' to be 45 mph, as had been stated by Bruce Brittain in his memo of May 2007 . Will thought that it might be a good idea to have a map .of speed limits on roads thro. out the Town, and asked if there is such a map . Fred said no, but that one could be put together. Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan — Review of Suggested Revisions . The Committee then reviewed the inserts that had been suggested by Doug and Bruce Brittain that had been distributed to the Committee. Jonathan indicated that he had reviewed all of the inserts and had come up with some suggested modifications that would make many of them acceptable to include in the Plan. The Committee discussed each insert, and made the following decisions regarding the proposed inserts : Insert for Page 33 : Jonathan suggested leaving the Plan wording as is, and indicated that, although some roads do not fit neatly into the Federal Aid classification system, they have to be classified if they are Federal Aid roads . Doug distributed an illustration showing the desired range from local to collector to arterial roads, based . on traffic 1 volumes and sensitive frontage development. Jonathan indicated that the ITCTC makes recommendations to the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) regarding classifications, but the FHA ultimately decides on those classifications . Bruce stated that it, would be good for the Plan to. recognize problems or issues with the Federal requirements so that if the Town wants to do something different from what the FHA requires, at least it will be stated up front. Will suggested leaving the Plan language as is unless the Committee decides to revisit this insert. The Committee agreed. Replacement Paragraph for Page 42 : Jonathan indicated that there are some very good points in this suggested replacement regarding AASHTO. standards and design speed, and read some proposed wording modifications that he had made . to clarify the insert. Both the Committee and Brittains liked the wording as modified by Jonathan and agreed to include the modified replacement paragraph. Nicole indicated that she was concerned with the legal and liability aspects of using this replacement wording. The Committee felt that Jonathan ' s modifications would address these concerns. Replacement Paragraphs for Page 40 :. Jonathan read some possible modifications to clarify the proposed replacement paragraphs, but indicated that he still was not sure whether the replacement wording was appropriate to includePin the Plan. Nicole stated . that she liked Jonathan ' s modifications because it tonesAile language down. Jonathan added that his modifications .emphasize the usefulness, of traffiNcc'�calming measures as a . way to influence driver behavior, which is the inte of this section of the Plan. Doug referred to his graph on the sheet he had previouslyanded out, which shows the relationship between design speed, average speed, and= SScn percentile speed; and how these are influenced by the number of vehicles travel" on a road. Will mentioned that I Mg design speed is not the only factor that causes people to speed . The Committee liked the wording as modified by Jonathan and weed to use the replacement language as modified . Comment for Top of Page 9 `f Jonat an indicated that this is only a comment by the Brittains , and added that the some points in this comment that he does not agree with or are not clear what is intended Bruce handed out a copy of page 39 with some suggested changes, including reversing the order of the first and second paragraphs to shift the focus of the paragraphs, deleting the first sentence of the existing first paragraph ("Adding capacity to the existing road network via additional travel lanes or new roads may . offer only temporary relief from high volumes of traffic on local roads and congestion on through roads") , and adding wording regarding "congestion-mitigation measures" in the existing third sentence. The Committee thought that the Brittains ' suggested modifications made sense and agreed to incorporate them . Insert for Page 35 : Jonathan stated that this proposed insert was in effect creating a new goal that was not previously stated in the Plan, that the new . goal was not obtainable, and that based on those two issues, he did not recommend including this insert. The Committee agreed not to include this insert, and to leave the wording on page 35 as is . 2 . n Insert for Page 34 : Jonathan indicated that this proposed insert by the Brittains included some very good language that would help to clarify the intent of the text, and read some suggested modifications to the insert to further clarify the intent. The Committee and the Brittains liked the modified wording, and the Committee agreed to include the insert in the text as modified . Replacement Paragraph for Page 43 : Jonathan indicated that he had concerns with this proposed insert because it challenges the long accepted AASHTO standards . Jonathan added that he likes the final sentence in the insert ("The best way to avoid liability is to design a good road which achieves the desired safe driver behavior"), and suggested adding just that one sentence. Bruce handed out a possible new replacement paragraph to consider. After further discussion, the Committee decided to leave the existing Plan text on page 43 as is, but agreed to add the last sentence in the original replacement paragraph (highlighted above) . Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan — Executive Summary : The Committee decided to hold off on review of the revised Executive Summary (May 27 , 2007) until the next meeting because of time limitations "Bruce gave Nicole a copy of the Executive Summary with some further revisions su'gg`ested, adding that they were all straightforward corrections .. The Committee agreed to pufte Executive Summary review on the next meeting agenda, and Will askedmembers to ° get any comments to Jonathan before the next meeting. Other Business : Tom Niederkorn stated that he woulde resigning from the Committee now that the Transportation Plan seems to be in godshape° The Committee thanked Tom for his many years as a member of the Comrnitte� and for his assistance in the preparation of the Plan. g Next Meeting: The next Committee meeting was scheduled for Monday, June 25 , 2007 at 3 : 00 p .m. Agenda. items will include review of the revised Executive Summary (May. 27 , 2007) of the Transportation Plan and continuation of review of the Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan. Prepared by: Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 3 July 9 , 2007 Town Board Mtg . ATTACHMENT # 10 617. 20 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM lurpose : The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine , in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer . Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable . It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis . In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance . The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature , yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action . Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts : Part 1 : Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site . By 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: ®✓ Part 1 ® Part 2 Part 3 Jpon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate) , and any other supporting information , and lonsidering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: M■ 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. ® 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 environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared . * A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Town oflthaca Transportation Plan Name of Action Town oflthaca Town Board Name of Lead Agency Cathy Valentino Town Supervisor Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer 0�4 %� -4 JL. /tee ignature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signathre of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) Date Page 1 of 21 PART 1 --PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor OTICE : This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the nvironment . Please complete the entire form , Parts A through E . Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the pplication 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 Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan Location of Action (include Street Address , Municipality and County) Town oflthaca, Tompkins County, New York State Name of Applicant/Sponsor Town oflthaca Address 215 N. Tioga St. City / PO Ithaca State NY Zip Code 14850 Business Telephone (607) 273- 1747 AgWame of Owner ( if different) N/A ddress ity / PO State Zip Code Business Telephone Description of Action : This proposed action is adoption by the Town of Ithaca Town Board of the Transportation Plan as an element of the Town 's Comprehensive Plan. The main goal of the Transportation Plan is to improve access and mobility for all users of the transportation system while protecting neighborhood integrity and the natural environment. The transportation system includes all of the physical infrastructure related to transportation, such as roadways and sidewalks, as well as characteristics such as programs and policies related to transportation, funding, safety, and so on. To achieve this aim the Transportation Plan lays out a detailed inventory of the transportation system, including roadways (including volume, speed, and accident data, design features, functional classifications, and so on), public transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and other mode options. The Plan also considers factors such as the interaction between the transportation system, the environment, land use planning, and public health. After identifying the strengths and weaknesses ' of the current system, the Plan lists alternatives to build on the strengths and mitigate the weaknesses. The Recommendations, the most important section of the Plan, list specific actions that would improve the transportation system. The Recommendations identify relatively few specific physical alterations to the transportation system; most of the Recommendations deal with policies and programs. Therefore, this environmental review will focus on the potential environmental impacts at a macro level. Specific physical project proposals will be subject to further environmental review. Page 2 of 21 Please Complete Each Question== Indicate N . A . if not applicable I SITE DESCRIPTION ysical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas . . Present Land Use : � Urban Industrial Commercial Residential (suburban) Rural (non-farm) ElForest M Agriculture M Other This action affects the entire Town, and it will likely affect areas beyond the Town. 2 . Total acreage of project area : 18, 429 acres . APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) 2, 267 acres N/A acres Forested 6, 334 acres N/A acres Agricultural (Includes orchards , cropland , pasture, etc .) 41064 acres NIA acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24 , 25 of ECL) 263 acres NSA acres Water Surface Area 835 acres N/A acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) unknown acres N/A acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces unknown acres N/A acres Other (Indicate type) N/A N/A acres NIA acres *Data from the Zoning Code GEIS of 2003, the 1999 Tompkins County Land Use/ Land Cover Mapping Project, and the Tompkins County Land Use Data from 2001 . 3 . What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? a . Soil drainage : Well drained % of site Moderately well drained % of site . Poorly drained . % of site N/A 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? 468 acres (see 1 NYCRR 370) . 4 . Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? Yes No F±1 N/A a . What is depth to bedrock N/A (in feet) 5 . Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes : M0- 10% % M10- 15% % 0 15 % or greater % F1 N/A 6 . Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building , site, or district, listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places? M0 Yes No The Forest Home Historic District is located within the Town. 7 . Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? Yes EINo What is the depth of the water table? N/A (in feet) Is site located over a primary, principal , or sole source aquifer? Yes No 0 N/A 0 . Do hunting , fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? ❑ Yes No ME N/A Page 3 of 21 11 . Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? °® Yes RNo Accordin to : See explanation below. Identify each species : There has not been a conclusive survey of plants and animals in the Town of Ithaca. There are many UNAs (Unique Natural Areas) and one CEA (Critical Environmental Area) in the Town, so it is likely that there are rare plants and animal communities. Still, there is no conclusive evidence of threatened or endangered species in the Town. If any specific physical projects are implemented as a result of recommendations of the Plan, those will undergo the appropriate environmental review. 12 . Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i . e . , cliffs, dunes, other geological formations?) RE Yes 17 No Describe : There are examples ofglacial landforms, such as moraines and hanging deltas, at various locations throughout the Town. Gorges with waterfalls are another distinctive land form common in the area. 13 . Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? no Yes No If yes, explain : There are open spaces and recreation areas throughout the Town. The Transportation Plan 's Recommendations will not affect negatively the quantity or quality of recreational opportunities or open spaces in the Town. Instead, the multi-use trails and sidewalks recommended in the Plan will enhance recreational opportunities for residents. 14 . Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? 1:1 Yes ® No N/A There is no catalog or listing ofscenic views throughout the Town. Still, the Transportation Plan recommends Context Sensitive Design (CSD) for transportation facilities. CSD considers factors such as scenic views and community values as intrinsic to the design of any transportation infrastructure. 15 . Streams within or contiguous to project area : ffmain creeks within the Town, and innumerable smaller, unnamed streams. a . Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary: Major streams in the Town include Six Mile Creek, Fall Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Coy Glen Creek, Buttermilk Creek, and Cayuga Lake Inlet. 16 . Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area : There are many lakes, ponds, and wetlands within the Town. Lakes include Cayuga Lake; Bebe Lake, and the reservoir on Six Mile Creek. There are NYSDEC recognized wetlands in the northeast, northwest, and Inlet Valley areas of the Town. b . Size (in acres) : According to information provided in the 2003 Environmental Impact Statement on the Town of Ithaca Zoning Code revisions, there are approximately 836 acres of surface water (including Cayuga Lake) and 263 acres of wetlands in the Town. The actual acreage or wetlands is probably higher than 263 acres, because many small or seasonal wetlands do not appear on NYSDEC or Army Corps of Engineer survey maps. Page 4 of 21 17 . Is the site served by existing public utilities? Yes F No FS N/A a . If YES , does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? Yes F No OF N/A b . If YES , will improvements be necessary to allow connection? Yes No ®■ N/A 18 . Is the site located in fgYges ricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law , Article 25-AA , Section 303 and 304 ? ® No There are several Agricultural Districts in the Town, but not all of the Town is in an Agricultural District. 19 . Is the site located in or substantial[ contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617 ? n Yes EWW. 1 No The County 's only CEA (in Coy Glen) is located in the Town of Ithaca. 20 . Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? Yes ® No ME N/A 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 : NIA acres . b . Project acreage to be developed : Oacres initially; 0 acres ultimately . The Plan notes the potential development of a road on West Hill, and it calls for the expansion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Since the Plan is not an c . Project acreage to remain undeveloped : NIA acres. engineering study, it is impossible to know exactly how much acreage will be affected. d . Length of project, in miles : N/A (if appropriate) e . If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed . N/A % f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing : Unknown ; proposed : 0 The Plan recommends Park & Ride expansion. This may eventually lead to the creation of new parking spaces. g . Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour: Unknown (upon completion of project)? One q/'the goals of the Plan is to reduce the number and length of vehicular trips, h . If residential : Number and type of housing units : NIA especially those in single-occupant vehicles. One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially N/A N/A N/A N/A Ultimately NIA N/A N/A N/A i . Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure : NIA height; N/A width ; N/A 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 RE N/A a . If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? N/A b . Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Yes No Fm N/A c . Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Yes 0 No F1 N/A How many acres of vegetation (trees , shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 0 acres . Page 5 of 21 5 . Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? Yes ❑M No If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction : NIA months , (including demolition) If multi-phased : a . Total number of phases anticipated NIA (number) b . Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 : N/A month N/A year, (including demolition) c . Approximate completion date of final phase : NIA month NIA y ear . d . Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? ® Yes ❑ No ME N/A 8 . Will blasting occur during construction? ® Yes ® No MM N /A The construction of the proposed new road on West Hill and the installation of walkways and trails will 9 . Number of jobs generated : during construction Unknown ; after project is complete generate some construction jobs. These jobs will not extend east construction. 10 . Number of jobs eliminated by this project : Unknown, but it is unlikely that any jobs will be eliminated. 11 . Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? FM1 Yes 0 No If yes, explain : N/A 12 . Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? ❑ Yes � No a . If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial , etc) and amount N/A b . Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged N/A 13 . Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? El Yes El No Type N/A 14 . Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Eml Yes M No If yes, explain : N/A 15 . Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? There are 100 year flood plains in Yes No the Town, but it is unlikely that 16 . Will the project generate solid waste? F Yes Recommendations from this Plan No would affect them. a . If yes, what is the amount per month? NIA tons b . If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? M Yes F1 No ME N/A c . If yes, give name NIA ; location N/A d . Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? F1 Yes 0 No Page 6 of 21 e. If yes, explain : N/A 17 . Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? MYes no No a . If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? N/A tons/month . b . If yes, what is the anticipated site life? N/A years . 18 . Will project use herbicides or pesticides? nYes nNo no N /A 19 . Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? El Yes n No FIN/A See #17 in the 20 . Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? Yes El No N/A attachment to this LEAF. 21 . Will project result in an increase in energy use? Yes no No If yes, indicate type(s) One 7nofossilfuels.oals of the Plan is to reduce low-occupancy motor vehicle use. Walking and biking increase human energy use, but cost A switch to transit uses less energy overall, because one full bus uses less fossil fuel than thirty individual One Please see #16 in the attachment for more information, 22 . If 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? no Yes No If yes, explain : While the Transportation Plan does not directly call for funding, funding will be necessary to implement the Recommendations. The Town will need to apply to various programs, such as the Transportation Enhancement Program (TEP), the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), and the Consolidated Local Street and Highway Improvement Program (CHIP), to and the construction of new roads, walkways, and trails. Funding for other programs, such as additional police enforcement, could be paid for via a grant or the Town 's budget. The Town Board has the discretion to decide how the Recommendations will be funded. Page 7 of 21 25 . Approvals Required : Type Submittal Date City, Town , Village Board Yes M No Official adoption by the Town oflthaca Town Board City, Town , Village Planning Board Yes MM No For recommendation, not approval: Town of Ithaca Planning Board City, Town Zoning Board M Yes MM No None. City, County Health Department M Yes ME No None. For comments, not approval: Other Local Agencies ' Yes • No City oflthaca & County Planning Depts, Citv Board of Public Works, County Public Works Dept, ITCTC Other Regional Agencies M, Yes MM No None. State Agencies ' Yes • No For comments, not approval: NYSDOT Federal Agencies Yes MENo None. C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 . Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? Yes M No If Yes, indicate decision required : Zoning amendment M Zoning variance New/revision of master plan Subdivision Site plan El Special use permit Resource management plan Other Transportation Plan Page 8 of 21 2 . What is the zoning classifications) of the site? Please see the attached zoning map for zoning classifications in the Town. 13 . What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? N/A 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? l Yes No The Transportation Plan does not make any specific recommendations that conflict with the recommended uses in the Comprehensive Plan or the Zoning Code. The Plan does, however, emphasize the connection between land uses and transportation, and notes that mixed use, dense development is more walkable than diffuse development with segregated land uses. The existing Subdivision Regulations allow clustered developments, and the existing Zoning Code permits the development of Neighborhood Commercial Zones (both facilitate mixed use and/ or dense development patterns) . Therefore, the information in the Transportation Plan should influence development within existing land use regulations. 7 . What are the predominant land use (s) and zoning classifications within a '/4 mile radius of proposed action ? There are many land uses throughout the Town. The Route 96 corridor in the Northwest is a mix of medium and low density residential, agricultural, multiple residence (including the Overlook development), and office park commercial (including Cayuga Medical Center). West Hill in general is mostly agricultural and low density residential, although the land bounded by the loop formed by Mecklenburg Road, Westhaven Road, and Coy Glen Road is medium density residential. West Hill is also home to Eco Village, a Planned Development Zone (P8). Inlet Valley, in the southwest corner of the Town, is low density residential, conservation and park land, and light industrial. South Hill has a diversity of land uses, including industrial (Emerson Power Transmission and South Hill Business Campus are two business sites located on South Hill), educational (Ithaca College), low, medium, and high density residential, as well as multiple residence (and student housing), and a Conservation Zone consisting of the South Hill Swamp. The Six Mile Creek watershed in the southeast corner of the Town is zoned for Conservation. East Hill, between Route 366 (Dryden Road) and Route 79 (Slaterville Road), is predominantly medium and low density residential with a few sites of high density residential and multiple residence. East Hill Plaza, a Community Commercial Zone, and the area surrounding Cornell 's Orchards (P9 Zone) are also in this section of Town. North of Route 366 and south of Hanshaw Road are the historic hamlet of Forest Home (mostly zoned Medium Density Residential), a multiple residence development (Hasbrouck Heights), a golf course, and sections of the Cornell campus. North of Hanshaw Road is predominantly zoned Medium Density Residential, although there is also a Conservation Zone in Sapsucker Woods and two sites zoned as Multiple Residence. Finally, the lakshores in the Town are mostly zoned for Lakefront Residential or Lakefront Commercial development. *Note: Under the Town 's current Zoning Code, Low-Density Residential Zones require a minimum lot size of 30, 000 square feet; Medium-Density Residential Zones require 15, 000 square feet; High-Density Residential Zones require 9, 000 square feet; Conservation Zones require seven acres (the Planning Board has the authority to require clustering of development in this Zone); and Agricultural Zones require a maximum density of 1 house per 7 acres (subject to some conditions and exceptions). g . Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a '/4 mile? Fo Yes El No If the proposed action is the subdivision of land , how many lots are proposed? N/A a . What is the minimum lot size proposed? N/A Page 9 of 21 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? Yes ®■ No a . If yes , is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand ? Yes No N/A The Transportation Plan itself will not create new demand. The Transportation Plan is a proactive response to anticipated increased demandfor things such as new multi-use trails, expanded transit, creative responses to congestion (i. e. non-road building responses), and so on, as development in the Town continues. 12 . Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present level? Yes Fol No a . If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic . Yes No IE N /A The Plan may generate more bus traffic, but one of the Plan 's goals is to hold steady or reduce the total amount of motor vehicle traffic, even as the Town and region continue to develop. D . Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts ssociated with your proposal , please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them . Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge . Applicant/Sponsor Name Town oflthaca Date 74;Z 07 Signature Title If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. Page 10 of 21 PART 2 = PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency eneral 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 3 . Adillk 1 2 3 Small to Potential 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 r7m YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, ( 15 foot Yes ❑ No rise per 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 Yes M No is less than 3 feet . • Construction of paved parking area for 1 , 000 or more M Yes QNo vehicles . • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or M Yes MNo generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface . • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or Yes MNo involve more than one phase or stage . • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove Yes [] No more than 1 , 000 tons of natural material (i . e. , rock or soil ) per year. Page 11 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change • Construction or expansion of a santary landfill . M 17 Yes No • Construction in a designated floodway . Yes r7No • Other impacts : OYes No ENonecipated. 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 YES • Specific land forms : ED ❑ Yes DNo None anticipated. 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 NO YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Developable area of site contains a protected water body . Yes No • Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of Yes No a protected stream . • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water MYes nNo body. • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland . D 17 Yes F1 No • Other impacts : Yes No None anticipated. 4 . Will Proposed Action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? NO MYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of 0 Yes No water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease . • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface M El M Yes M No area . • Other impacts : 0 Yes ONo None anticipated. Page 12 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? 1 7E NO 17 YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit . 11 0 Yes El No • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not 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 ® Yes No supply system . • Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. Yes RNo • Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which M El M Yes rNo presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity . • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20 , 000 gallons F M Yes MNo per day. • Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into M M El Yes RNo an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions . • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or El M F Yes MNo chemical products greater than 1 , 100 gallons . • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without M Yes MNo water and/or sewer services . • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses F F Yes MNo which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities . • Other impacts : El Yes No Please see attached. Page 13 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns , or surface water runoff? ME 17 YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water flows El Yes No • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion . Yes FiNo • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns . 17 r7Yes No • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated M MYes No floodway. • Other impacts : 0 Yes No None anticipated. IMPACT ON AIR 7 . Will Proposed Action affect air quality? NO ® YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1 , 000 or more vehicle trips in any FYes MNo given hour. • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton M M MYes MNo of refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs . per hour M M Yes MNo or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU 's per hour. • Proposed Action will allow an increase in the amount of land M El Yes MNo committed to industrial use . • Proposed Action will allow an increase in the density of El Yes No industrial development within existing industrial areas . • Other impacts : Yes No Please see attached. IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8 . Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? ®. NO MYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or ❑ Yes MNo Federal list, using the site , over or near the site , or found on the site . Page 14 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. DYes r7No • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, MYes 0No other than for agricultural purposes . • Other impacts : Q 0 DYes 171No None anticipated. g . Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species ? r 07 NO ri YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident M 0 E] Yes MNo or migratory fish , shellfish or wildlife species . • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of 171 M MYes No mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation . • Other impacts : 0 DYes ENo None anticipated. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 0 . Will Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? ®. NO M YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The Proposed Action would sever, cross or limit access to ❑ M Yes M No agricultural land ( includes cropland , hayfields , pasture , vineyard , orchard , etc. ) • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of M Yes 17No agricultural land . • The Proposed Action would irreversibly convert more than 10 El MYes 17No acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2 . 5 acres of agricultural land . Page 15 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change • The Proposed Action would disrupt or prevent installation of Yes No agricultural land management systems ( e . g . , subsurface drain lines , outlet ditches , strip cropping) ; or create a need for such measures (e .g . cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) . • Other impacts : 11 Yes El No Please see attached. IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 . Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources? ( If necessary , use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617 . 20 , Appendix B . ) olNO EYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses , or project components obviously different Yes 1:1 No from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns , whether man-made or natural . • Proposed land uses , or project components visible to users of Yes No aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. • Project components that will result in the elimination or E] Yes No significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area . • Other impacts : 11 Yes 11 No EPleasee attached. IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12 . Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? NO M YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or 0 Yes ❑ No substantially 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 Q Yes No the project site . • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive ri Yes No for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory . Page 16 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change • Other impacts : El Yes ONo None anticipated. 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 NO n YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity . DYes MNo • A major reduction of an open space important to the community . M r Yes r7 No • Other impacts : Yes ONo Please see attached. 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(8 )? .® NO YES List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA. There is one Critical Environmental Area (CEA) in Tompkins County: Coy Glen. Coy Glen is on West Hill in the Town of Ithaca. Characteristics cited by the Town of Ithaca Town Board in Resolution No. 2, 1979 that designated Coy Glen as a "Critical Area " include: the natural setting (vegetation, including rare botanical species) and open space and aesthetic values; social, recreational, and educational purposes; inherent ecological, geological, and hydrological sensitivity to change which could be adversely affected by any change. Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action to locate within the CEA? M F 17Yes No • Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quantity of the 17 M El Yes 17 No resource? • Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the El F Yes nNo resource? • Proposed Action will impact the use , function or enjoyment of the M M Yes No resource? • Other impacts : ❑Yes MNo None anticipated. Page 17 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 15 . Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? NO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or Q Yes 17 No goods . • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems . El n Yes 11 No • Other impacts : 11 Yes No Please see attached. IMPACT ON ENERGY 16 . Will Proposed Action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? E] NO r7 YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the Yes El No use of any form of energy in the municipality. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an Yes No energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use . • Other impacts : El 11 Yes E] No Please see attached. NOISE AND ODOR IMPACT 17 . Will there be objectionable odors , noise , or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action ? E] NO MYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Blasting within 1 , 500 feet of a hospital , school or other sensitive El 1:1 MYes No facility. • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day) . ri El FiYes No • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the El Yes r7 No local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures . • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a Yes ❑ No noise screen . • Other impacts : ❑ Yes No FPleasee attached. Page 18 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 18 . Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? on NO EYES • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of F El Dyes E] No hazardous substances ( i . e . oil , pesticides , chemicals , radiation , etc. ) in the event of accident or upset conditions , or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission . • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" 11 El Dyes 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 F Yes No natural gas or other flammable liquids . • Proposed Action may result in the excavation or other Yes rNo disturbance within 2 , 000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste . • Other impacts : RE 1:1 Yes No EPlease attached. IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 19. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community? n NO RYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent population of the city , town or village in which the El El Dyes ONo project is located is likely to grow by more than 5% . • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating [Dyes nNo services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project . • Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or Dyes No goals . • Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use . Yes E] No • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities , El El Dyes r7No structures or areas of historic importance to the community . • Development will create a demand for additional community 17 Dyes r7No services (e .g . schools , police and fire , etc. ) Page 19 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future M Yes ID No projects . • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. F Yes MNo • Other impacts : © ❑ Yes 171 No Please see attached. 20 . Is there, or is there likely to be , public controversy related to potential adverse environment impacts ? Mm NO ® YES f Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If you Cannot Determine the Magnitude of mpact, Proceed to Part 3 Page 20 of 21 Part 3 = EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large , even if the impact(s) may be mitigated . 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. ��+Fl�EuytY Page 21 of 21 _._ Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan SEQR: Long Environmental Assessment Form , Attached April 30, 2007 PART 2 ATTACHMENT: PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? The Transportation Plan ' s impacts on water resources are expected to be neutral or positive for two main reasons . First, by holding steady or reducing the number of motor vehicles on the road , there will be less pollution in run-off. Also , by limiting large expanses of new impervious cover ( in the form of new roads or large new parking lots) , the Plan will result in less run-off. Transportation has a huge effect on water resources. Impervious cover, such as asphalt of roads and parking areas , increases the amount and rate of run-off, because stormwater cannot percolate slowly through the earth . Roads alone ( not including parking lots) contribute 54% to the total amount of runoff in residential areas; in commercial areas, roads and parking combined account for 80% of runoff. ' The Plan notes that widening a lane two feet (from 12 ' to 14' ) increases the impervious cover by 15% ; just one mile of a 32 ' road (3 ' shoulders , 13 ' travel lanes) is the equivalent of an additional four acres of pavement.2 Some of the highest levels of non-point source pollution come from roadways. In the Santa Clara Valley in California , vehicles are estimated to produce 67% of zinc, 50% of copper, and 50% of cadmium found in runoff.3 One of the main goals of the Transportation Plan is to restore the balance between the privately-owned motor vehicle and other modes within the transportation system . Reducing the prominence of the privately-owned , low-occupancy motor vehicle means holding steady or even reducing the number of cars on the road , while expanding options such as biking, walking, taking transit, and so on . Even though one bus creates more pollution than one low- occupancy automobile , removing thirty cars from the road when their former occupants switch to riding the bus creates a net reduction in the creation of pollutants . The Plan recommends against widespread new road building ( in fact, the Plan recommends only one new road that has not yet been formally approved ) and the creation of vast new parking areas. The Plan also suggests that the Planning Board encourage developers to explore pervious pavements for parking areas and driveways . These pervious pavements are suitable for use by motor vehicles, but they do not impede the natural flow of stormwater into the ground . 1 Milwaukee River Basin Partnership. " Protecting Our Waters: Streets and Roads. " September 11, 2003. < http://clean- water. uwex.edu/plan/streetsroads. htm > . September 15, 2005. See page 86 of the Transportation Plan (Vol. 1 ). 2 Center for GIS. " Natural Resources: Comprehensive Water Resources Planning. " Towson University. Undated . < htti3://chesai)eake.towson .edu/landscai)e/imi)ervious/all compwater asp > . September 15, 2005. See page 86 of the Transportation Plan (Vol . 1 ). 3 United States Environmental Protection Agency. " Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation: Highway, Rail, Aviation , and Maritime Transport. " Washington , D. C: Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (2126), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Publication 230-R-96-009, Government Printing Office, October 1996. See page 86 of the Transportation Plan (Vol. 1 ). Part 2 Attachment - Page 1 The Town is working on new stormwater regulations pursuant to EPA's new Phase II Stormwater Management Program . These regulations are expected to be adopted by 2008 . They will help to reduce impacts on water quality associated with the Town 's transportation system . 78 Will Proposed Action affect air quality? Over-reliance on low-occupancy motor vehicles has very negative impacts on air quality. In Tompkins County, emissions from internal fuel combustion are a major contributor to the degradation of air quality. In fact, fifty-three percent of emissions come from transportation- related sources . In some cities, up to 95% of carbon monoxide comes from vehicle emissions .4 Vehicle emissions are also a major source of hydrocarbon , nitrogen oxides, and fine particulate matter. The Transportation Plan is intended to have a positive impact on air quality. By reducing the prominence of low-occupancy motor vehicles within the transportation system , the Transportation Plan will promote the reduction of pollution entering the air. 10. Will Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? The only new road planned by the Town is on West Hill , connecting Mecklenburg Road to Bundy Road . It will cross land zoned Medium-Density Residential . Currently, the land is a mixture of open fields and trees . Although one site adjacent to the planned road is an active farm , it is in the Town ' s planned growth area , and infrastructure is already in place . 11. Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources? The Plan places a great emphasis on protecting neighborhood character and scenic resources . It advocates for Context Sensitive Design (CSD) . CSD refers to flexible design patterns that are sensitive to safety, mobility, access, community, and environmental goals. Context sensitive design addresses all modes of travel—not only vehicular traffic—and asserts that aesthetics are an integral part of good design . CSD incorporates local experience into the design of new roads by using designs and dimensions that are consistent with area roads that are safe and "fit" their surroundings . 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? The Plan will not negatively affect the quantity or quality of open spaces or recreational resources for three main reasons. First, the Plan recommends against widespread new road construction . The Plan notes the probable creation of one new road , but it is highly unlikely that major road building beyond this will occur. Also , the Plan recommends the continuation of expansion of multi-use trails, which play an important role in the recreational and transportation opportunities in the Town . Finally, the Plan notes that dense , multi-use development promotes walkability, as well as conserves open space . ( Note : walkability is a somewhat subjective term that signifies the appropriateness of an environment for walking.) 4 Office of Transportation and Air Quality. " Mobile Source Emissions - Past, Present, and Future. " Washington , D.C: United States Environmental Protection Agency, March 11, 2005. < http://www.epa .gov/otao/invntory/overview/pollutants/index. htm > . September 15, 2005. See page 87 of the Transportation Plan (Vol. 1). Part 2 Attachment - Page 2 15 . Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? The Plan will have a positive impact on the existing transportation system . In the Inventory and Analysis Chapter in Volume I , the Plan analyzes the existing transportation system to identify strengths and weaknesses . The Alternatives Chapter discusses the advantages and disadvantages of various ways to build on the strengths and mitigate the weaknesses identified in the Inventory and Analysis . The Recommendations are based on the alternatives with the greatest benefits and the least cost. The main problems identified in the Plan are : a lack of bicycle and pedestrian opportunities , congestion , clusters of crashes in certain locations , and speeding (especially in residential area ) , as well as pavement maintenance needs and poor sight distances in certain locations . The Plan also identifies needs for design guidelines to guide the development of the physical roadway and walkway networks , greater traffic law enforcement in some instances , improved safety education and encouragement to walk or bike , expanded transit, and other needs . The Recommendations address all of the problems and needs raised in earlier sections of the Plan . One theme throughout the Recommendations is the need to balance trade-offs. For example , improved transit access can help to take cars off the road , improving air quality and reducing congestion . On the other hand , routing buses through residential areas can have negative impacts on neighborhood livability. Therefore , implementation of the Recommendations will require attention to balance the advantages and disadvantages , as outlined in the Alternatives Chapter (Vol . 1 ) . 16. Will Proposed Action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? Uncertainties in energy supply are another reason it is important to restore the balance between motor vehicles and other modes within the transportation system . Transportation uses account for 65% of the total energy used in America ; of this, road transportation uses approximately 85% .5 Over-reliance on fossil fuel powered vehicles is a domestic security issue , because a severe interruption to the fuel supply chain would effectively paralyze the country. Decreasing the prominence of the low-occupancy motor vehicle as recommended in the Plan conserves energy. Furthermore , providing a real choice for residents diversifies the transportation system , making it less likely that an interruption in the fuel supply chain would have disastrous consequences . 17 . Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? The Transportation Plan will have a positive impact the effect of ambient transportation noise on neighborhoods by holding steady or reducing the number of vehicles on the road and by keeping trucks out of neighborhoods . Motor vehicle traffic is the greatest contributor to transportation-related noise pollution in Tompkins County. Vehicle weight and speed affect noise production . One truck moving at ~ 55 mph makes as much noise as 28 cars . Furthermore , a car traveling at - 12 mph emits AIM 5 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), United States Department of Energy. "Transportation Topics. " September 13 , 2005 . < htto://www.eere.eneray.pov/EE/transportation html > . Washington , D.C: U.S. Department of Energy, September 15, 2005. See page 86 of the Transportation Plan (Vol . 1 ) . Part 2 Attachment - Page 3 55 db of rolling noise , at ~ 25 mph 65 db , at ~ 50 mph 75 db , and at ~ 62 mph 80 db .6 For comparison , normal conversation is around 60 db . By keeping trucks out of residential areas and keeping speed limits low , the plan will have a positive impact on noise generation . Some residents have expressed concerns about the noise created by TCAT buses . The Transportation Plan does not foresee a monumental shift to transit at the expense of other alternate modes. Furthermore , TCAT plans to phase in buses that run on low-sulfur diesel , electricity, or both , which will help to mitigate noise and odor impacts. Finally, any impacts from increased noise will occur over a long period of time as TCAT increases coverage . It is anticipated that, over the same period of time , a steady or reduced rate of motor vehicle use will help to balance effects from increased transit use (as opposed to a trend-based scenario, where the number of cars on the road would continue to climb , eventually necessitating construction of new or enlargement of existing roads , creating a greater overall noise impact than a few extra TCAT buses) . Therefore , the environmental impacts from a modest increase in transit are unlikely to be significant. 18. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? The Plan will have a positive effect on public health and safety. By increasing opportunities for walking and biking, area residents will be able to incorporate healthy physical activity more easily into their daily lives . By monitoring crash locations and systematically addressing safety problems , especially design flaws that threaten pedestrians and bicyclists , the Town will improve roadway safety. 198 Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community? The Transportation Plan is anticipated to have a positive effect on the character of the existing community. As previously noted , the Plan emphasizes the importance of Context Sensitive Design ( CSD ) , which guides the design of new or reconstructed facilities based on existing community character and the community's vision for itself, instead of the specifications required by an engineering manual . The Transportation Plan works well with established Plans . It fulfills a recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan of 1993 , and it complements ideas set forth in the Comprehensive Plan , the Park , Recreation , and Open Space Plan , and the Town 's Zoning Code . 6Rodriguez, Dr. Jean-Paul. "Chapter 8: Transport and Environment. " The Geography of Transportation Systems. Hempstead , New York: Hofstra University, Department of Economics & Geography, 2005. See page 88 of the Transportation Plan (Vol. 1 ). Part 2 Attachment - Page 4 July 9 , 2007 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 11 Agenda Item No. 19 RESOLUTION NO. xx - CALLING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION OF EVIDENCE THAT MAY WARRANT IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WHEREAS , substantial evidence has been gathered that indicates that President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney have committed high crimes and misdemeanors, and WHEREAS, said high crimes and misdemeanors include, but may not be limited to : • Conspiracy to defraud the United States, in knowingly misleading Congress and the American people regarding Iraq ' s alleged weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda, as a . pretext for leading our nation into war • Violating international treaties to which the United States is a signatory and legally bound, in particular the Geneva Conventions, in the use of torture/extreme interrogation and extraordinary rendition • Violating the constitutional amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures, in engaging in wiretapping without a warrant on American citizens and otherwise violating citizens ' right to privacy • Willfully and maliciously revealing the identify of a U. S . covert operative in violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act • Conducting or suborning other federal employees to conduct political activities on government property, in violation of the Hatch Act • Specifically in the case of the president, refusing to produce information requested as part of Congress '. oversight authority, in violation of the Presidential Records Act and in . defiance of the constitutional separation of powers • Specifically in the case of the president, declaring in his signing statements of legislation passed by Congress his intention to disregard his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, and WHEREAS , the result of some of the above-listed actions has undermined the Constitution of the United States and its protections that are the foundation of our democracy and civil liberties, has compromised our security by damaging our international reputation as a defender of human rights and the rule of law, and has ballooned the national debt, with concomitant loss to local governments of federal financial support for local infrastructure and other programs, shifting costs to local property tax payers, and WHEREAS , Congress has begun the process. of holding hearings to examine several of these charges, and WHEREAS , the Rules of the House of Representatives call for the referral of possible articles of impeachment to the Judiciary Committee for investigation, and WHEREAS , the members of this Town Board have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and to discharge their duties of office, which include providing for the general welfare of the town, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca strongly urges the leaders of the New York State legislature and the members who represent the Town of Ithaca to work to have the New York State Assembly and/or New York State Senate similarly request on our behalf that Congress appropriately and formally investigate such charges as to whether they warrant impeachment, RESOLVED, further, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca strongly urges members of Congress who represent the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County to support the investigation and review of said charges and that such support be evidenced by a written request to that effect addressed to the Speaker of the House, RESOLVED, further, that copies of this resolution be delivered to U. S . Senators Charles E Schumer and Hillary Clinton; Representatives Maurice Hinchey and Michael Arcuri; New York Sta Senators Joseph Bruno, Malcolm Smith, and George Winner; Assembly members Sheldon Silver, Jam Tedisco, and Barbara Lifton; and the media. . y f &"NbAfIC Proposed Local Law Emergency Radio Communications Protection Law Section 1 : PURPOSE : The purpose of this Local Law is to prevent interference. with the countywide public safety radio communications system that is used by emergency service providers in the Town of Caroline and throughout Tompkins County . Section 2 : FINDINGS : 1 . Any structure exceeding fifty feet in height and above the ground i.s a potential cause of interference, interruption or severe degradation of the countywide public safety radio communications system; 2 . The public safety communications system was constructed at considerable cost to taxpayers; 3 . The Town of Caroline has supported the countywide public safety radio communications system; 4 . The countywide communications system is crucial to the provision of police, fire, medical , ambulance and other public services for those who work, reside or own property in the Town of Caroline ; and 5 . It is imperative that the emergency communications system be protected from interference, interruption or degradation by the construction, alteration or modification of any buildings or structures within the Town of Caroline . Section 3 : REQUIREMENTS : A . No person or entity may construct, alter or modify any structure, including, but not limited to, any building, tower, silo or windmill, exceeding fifty feet in height above the ground without following the provisions and meeting the requirements of this Local Law; B . No person or entity shall construct, alter or modify any structure unless such person or entity submits detailed design plans for the structure to the Town of Caroline. Such design plans must meet the requirements of any other law or ordinance of the Town of Caroline, and must comply with the New York State building and energy codes. In addition to any other permit or application fees, a fee of $ 100 must be submitted to the Town of Caroline to cover the cost of hiring a radio communications expert to determine whether the proposed construction is likely to interfere with the countywide radio communications system ; C . In the event of potential interference the applicant shall be notified . If the applicant wishes to proceed with the application the applicant shall be required to pay any additional costs for the radio communications expert to analyze the potential interference and to propose appropriate remediation; D. In the event that the retained radio communications expert determines that the construction or modification may result in interference, interruption or degradation of the countywide communication system , any approval of any building permit or site plan application shall be conditioned upon the applicant making any and all remedial measures that the expert determines are needed in order to avoid such interference, interruption or degradation ; and E. No permit shall be given and no construction, alteration or modification may occur upon or in connection with any building or structure until the radio communications expert notifies the Town of Caroline that the proposed construction , alteration or modification will not interfere with the countywide radio communication system . Section 4 : ENFORCEMENT : A . In addition to any other right or remedy allowed by law or in equity, the Town Board of the Town of Caroline may maintain actions or proceedings in the name of the Town in a court of competent jurisdiction to compel compliance with or restrain by injunction the violation of any provision or requirement of this Local Law . In the event the Town of Caroline seeks any equitable relief in the form of a restraining order or injunction, temporary or otherwise , the Town of Caroline shall not have to (i) post any bond or other undertaking, or (ii) prove the lack of any adequate legal remedy. Any violation or non- compliance with this Local Law may be restrained or otherwise abated in any manner provided by law . f B . Any person or entity that violates any of the provisions of this Local Law shall be ( 1 ) guilty of a criminal offense and subject to a fine of not more than $250 .00, or (2) subject to a civil penalty of not more than $750.00 to be recovered by the Town of Caroline in a civil action. C. Any person or entity in violation of this Local Law shall be responsible for all costs and disbursements, and all attorneys' and experts ' fees incurred by the Town of Caroline in enforcing the provisions of this Local Law, D. The Town of Caroline hereby appoints the Town of Caroline Code Enforcement Officer as its principal enforcement agency under this Local Law, who shall issue or deny building permits, and other permits and/or certificates, based upon compliance with this Local Law, and who may enforce this Local Law in any other manner permitted by or under this Local Law. The Town Board of the Town of Caroline reserves the right to appoint by Resolution any other enforcement officers it deems necessary or desirable. Section 5 : EXCULPATION : The Town of Caroline shall not be responsible for any loss of or damage to property or rights in property arising from the existence or enforcement of this Local Law . In no event shall the Town ' s liability exceed the sum of $500 .00. Section 6 : AMENDMENTS : The terms, requirements, benefits, and provisions of this Local Law may be amended from time to time, in the discretion of the Town Board. Publication of a notice of public hearing pertaining to the amendment of this Local Law shall be and be deemed sufficient notice to any affected person or entity of any amendment(s) hereto. Section 7 : Severability : If the provisions of any section, subsection, paragraph, subdivision, or clause of this Local Law shall be adjudged invalid by a court or other tribunal of competent jurisdiction, such order or judgment shall not affect or invalidate the remainder of this Local Law, nor any other section, subsection, paragraph, subdivision or clause hereof. Any such invalidity shall be . confned in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, or section thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered. If any of the requirements of this Local Law, or the application thereof to any person, entity, or circumstances, is held invalid, . the said requirements. shall remain valid and enforceable as to any other person or entity, or as to any other circumstances. EFFECTIVE DATE : This local law shall become effective upon filing with the Secretary of State . Local law No . of the year EMERGENCY RADIO COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION LAW Section 1 : PURPOSE : The purpose of this Local Law is to prevent interference with the countywide public safety radio communications system that is used by emergency service providers in the Town of Caroline and throughout Tompkins County. Section 2 : FINDINGS : A. Any structure exceeding fifty feet in height and above the ground is a potential cause of interference, interruption or severe degradation of the countywide public safety radio communications system ; B . The public safety communications system was constructed at considerable cost to taxpayers ; C . The Town of Caroline has supported the countywide public safety radio communications system; D . The countywide communications system is crucial to the provision of police, fire, medical, ambulance and other public services for those who work, reside or own property in the Town of Caroline; and E . It is imperative that the emergency communications system be protected from interference, interruption or degradation by the construction, alteration or modification of any buildings or structures within the Town of Caroline . Section 3 : REQUIREMENTS : A. No person or entity may construct, alter or modify any structure, including, but not limited to, any building, tower, silo or windmill, exceeding fifty feet in height above the ground without following the provisions and meeting the requirements of this Local Law ; B . No person or entity shall construct, alter or modify any structure unless such person or entity submits detailed design plans for the structure to the Town of Caroline Code Enforcement Officer. Such design plans must meet the requirements of any other law or ordinance of the Town of Caroline, and must comply with the New York State building and energy codes . The structure must not interfere with the operation of existing emergency communications systems . An initial determination as to whether the proposed structure has the potential to interfere with the County-wide Communications System will be made by the County Office of Emergency 1 6/21 /07 Management based on maps and knowledge of elevations and a plot of the location of the proposed structure. There is no cost to the applicant for this initial determination; C . In the event of potential interference the applicant shall be notified by the Town of Caroline Code Enforcement Officer. If the applicant wishes to proceed with the application the applicant shall be required to pay any additional costs for the radio communications expert to analyze the potential interference and to propose appropriate remediation. The cost of such analysis shall be estimated and the applicant shall be required to pay such estimated cost prior to the performance of any work by such radio communications expert . Additionally, if any additional amounts are or become due to such radio communications expert, whether due to unique circumstances, any change in scope of the work requested by applicant, or otherwise, the applicant shall be required to pay for the same, or reimburse the Town of Caroline for any payments so made by the Town of Caroline, prior to the time that any building or other permit, permission or approval is issued; D . In the event that the retained radio communications expert determines that the construction or modification may result in interference, interruption or degradation of the countywide communication system, any approval of any building permit or site plan application shall be conditioned upon the applicant making any and all remedial measures that the expert determines are needed in order to avoid such interference, interruption or degradation ; and E . No permit shall be given and no construction, alteration or modification may occur upon or in connection with any building or structure until the radio communications expert notifies the Town of Caroline that the proposed construction, alteration or modification will not interfere with the countywide radio communication system, or that, as applicable, potential interference has been adequately mitigated. Section 4 : ENFORCEMENT : A. In addition to any other right or remedy allowed by law or in equity, the Town Board of the Town of Caroline may maintain actions or proceedings in the name of the Town of Caroline in a court of competent jurisdiction to compel compliance with or restrain by injunction the violation of any provision or requirement of this Local Law. In the event the Town of Caroline seeks any equitable relief in the form of a restraining order or injunction, temporary or otherwise, the Town of Caroline shall not have to (i) post any bond or other undertaking, or (ii) prove the lack of any adequate legal remedy. Any violation or non-compliance with this Local Law may be restrained or otherwise abated in any manner provided by law. B . Any person or entity that violates any of the provisions of this Local Law shall be ( 1 ) guilty of a criminal offense and subject to a fine of not more than $250 . 00 , or (2) subject to a civil penalty of not more than $ 750 . 00 to be recovered by the Town of 2 6/21 /07 Caroline in a civil action. Each day that such person or entity is in violation of this Local Law shall be and be deemed a separate offense. C . Any person or entity in violation of this Local Law shall be responsible for all costs and disbursements, and all attorneys ' and experts ' fees incurred by the Town of Caroline in enforcing the provisions of this Local Law. D . The Town of Caroline hereby appoints the Town of Caroline Code Enforcement Officer as its principal enforcement agency under this Local Law, who shall issue or deny building permits , and other permits and/or certificates, based upon compliance with this Local Law, and who may enforce this Local Law in any other manner permitted by or under this Local Law. The Town Board of the Town of Caroline reserves the right to appoint by Resolution any other enforcement officers it deems necessary or desirable . E . Should, for any reason, any person or entity fail to pay any amounts due to the Town of Caroline under or pursuant to this Local Law within 30 days of demand for payment by or from the Town of Caroline, the Town of Caroline shall mail a notice by certified mail to the last known address of the applicant stating (i) all amounts due, and (ii) that upon a failure to pay, the amounts due may or will be assessed against applicant ' s interest in real property in the Town of Caroline. Upon applicant ' s failure to pay within 15 days of the date of mailing of such notice, the Code Enforcement Officer, or his or her designee, shall certify the amount due to the Town of Caroline to the Town Clerk of the Town of Caroline, and such amount(s) due shall thereafter (i) be and become a lien against the property of the applicant and such amount shall be added to and become and form a part of the taxes next to be assessed and levied upon such lot or land, and (ii) bear interest at the same rate as taxes, and (iii) be collected and enforced by the same local, county and/or state officer(s) as, and in the same manner as, taxes levied and assessed against such property. Section 5 : EXCULPATION : The Town of Caroline shall not be responsible for any loss of or damage to property or rights in property arising from the existence or enforcement of this Local Law. In no event shall the Town ' s liability exceed the sum of $ 500 . 00 . Section 6 : AMENDMENTS : The terms, requirements, benefits, and provisions of this Local Law may be amended from time to time , in the discretion of the Town Board . Publication of a notice of public hearing pertaining to the amendment of this Local Law shall be and be deemed sufficient notice to any affected person or entity of any amendment(s) hereto . Section 7 : SEVERABILITY : If the provisions of any section, subsection, paragraph, subdivision, or clause of this Local Law shall be adjudged invalid by a court or other tribunal of competent jurisdiction, such order or judgment shall not affect or invalidate the remainder of this Local Law, nor any other section, 3 6/21 /07 d subsection, paragraph, subdivision or clause hereof. Any such invalidity shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, or section thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered. If any of the requirements of this Local Law, or the application thereof to any person, entity, or circumstances, is held invalid, the said requirements shall remain valid and enforceable as to any other person or entity, or as to any other circumstances . EFFECTIVE DATE : This local law shall become effective upon filing with the Secretary of State. 4 6/21 /07 A=GEIIA # 18 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD MONDAY, JULY 912007 TB RESOLUTION NO . 2007=xxx : Approval of Revised Job Description — Town Clerk WHEREAS , the Town Clerk Interview Committee recommends revisions to the Town Clerk job description to improve the information prior to the hiring of a new Town Clerk; Now, therefore , be it RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the attached revised job description for the Town Clerk position ; And , be it further RESOLVED , the Human Resources Manager is directed to file the approved revised job descriptions with Tompkins County Personnel , MOVED : SECONDED : VOTE : TOWN CLERK TOWN OF ITHACA DEPARTMENT TOWN OF ITHACA CLASSIFICATION UNCLASSIFIED LABOR GRADE 'Q' APPROVED TB 6/95 REVISED TB 7/01 TB 5/06 TB 7/07 DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF THE CLASS : This is a major administrative position responsible for planning , supervising and directing the operation of the Town Clerk Department. Work is performed in accordance with the policies of the Town Board and requires considerable exercise of independent judgment especially as it relates to the administration of Town Law, General Municipal Law, Public Officers Law, Real Property Tax Law, and Town of Ithaca local laws and ordinances . Town Clerk shall also have such powers and perform such additional duties as are or may be conferred or imposed upon him/her by law, including Town Law Section 30 , and such further duties as the Town Board may determine , not inconsistent with the law. The Town Clerk is a Town Officer and is appointed by the Town Board for a two (2) year term commencing the first day of January next succeeding the next biennial Town election (effective 2- 10- 1966 ; TB Resl . 1 - 10- 1966) . Attendance at a number of meetings , including evenings , is required . The Town Clerk is authorized to appoint and terminate staff of the department, and prepares and monitors the department budget and Town Clerk checking account. Does related work as required . TYPICAL WORK ACTIVITIES : ( Including , but not limited to. ) Is the custodian of all Town records as the Records Management Officer, and is the Freedom of Information Officer; Attends all Town Board Meetings and some other meetings when there is a quorum of the Town Board ; versees the transcription of accurate minutes of the Town Board , Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals; repares meeting information and documentation for board members ; Maintains a bulletin board of notices relating to resolutions , ordinances , local laws , public hearing and referenda ; Provides professional assistance to citizens and community organizations on matters pertaining to duties and policies of the Town ; Provides assistance to any and all Town of Ithaca boards , committees and officials ; Provides leadership in maintaining good and effective public relations ; Provides leadership of the records management program ; Oversees the advertisements of legal notices for the Town ; Issues licenses or permits under Town Ordinances or Local Laws ; Maintains a record of all ordinances and local laws passed by the Town Board ; Issues Licenses and Permits under State Laws ; Issues Environmental Conservation Law Licenses ; Issues Marriage and Dog Licenses ; Issues Handicap Parking Permits ; Provides notification of Vacancies of Office ; Assigns , reviews and evaluates the work of department staff, including appointing and terminating staff; Performs statutory duties related to fiscal functions ; Collects permit fees and other miscellaneous fees payable to the town ; Aids the Receiver of Taxes in the collection of town and county taxes , water rates , and sewer rentals ; Compiles reports and statistical information ; Makes tax searches for attorneys and property owners ; omposes routine correspondences and answers information requests ; erforms a variety of clerical tasks including coordinating conference room scheduling ; Performs fiscal accounting in coordination with the Budget Officer; CONTINUED NEXT PAGE Jul 9 2007 Town Board Mtg ATTACHMENT # 12 iOVON CLERK (CONT) V FORMANCE KNOWLEDGE SKILLS ABILITIES AND PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS : dministrative and supervisory skills ; therefore , the ability to plan and supervise the work of rs ; owledge of personal computers and applicable software ; owledge of electronic records management and indexing ; Ability to establish and maintain productive working relationships with others including residents , other Town staff and board members ; Ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing ; Ability to follow and understand complex oral and written instructions ; Initiative ; integrity ; resourcefulness ; good judgment; team player; Ability to apply Governmental budgetary principles and practices in preparing the departments ' operating budget; Ability to compose correspondences and reports and maintain records ; Ability to maintain confidentiality; Knowledge of town municipal government highly desirable ; Shows a commitment to continued professional development; Physical condition commensurate with the demands of the position ; SUGGESTED MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS : EITHER : (a) Graduation from a regionally accredited or New York State registered four year college with a Bachelors degree in public or business administration or related field and at least two (2 ) years of full time paid (or the equivalent part-time and or volunteer) experience in public administration or business ministration , two years of which must have been in a supervisory capacity; OR ( b) Graduation from a regionally accredited or New York State registered two year college with an sociates degree in public administration or business administration or related field and at least four (4) lars of full time paid (or the equivalent part-time and or volunteer) experience in public or business administration , two years of which must have been in a supervisory capacity ; OR (c) Graduation from High School or a High-.School equivalency diploma with at least some additional college level business courses , specialized seminars or workshops , and at least six (6 ) years of full time paid (or the equivalent part time and or volunteer) experience in public or business administration , two years of which must have been in a supervisory capacity; OR (d) Any equivalent combination of training and experience as described in (a ) , (b ) , or (c) above . SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS : 1 . Must be an elector of the Town of Ithaca at the time of election and throughout the term of office . (Town Law section 23 . ) Must be a resident of the Town of Ithaca within 6 months of appointment. 2 . Take and subscribe to the constitutional oath of office , and file such in the Town or County Clerk 's office before assuming any duties . (Town Law section 25 . ) 3 . Yearly subscribe to and file Ethics Disclosure Statement related to Town of Ithaca Code of Ethics . 4 . Execute and file in the County Clerk's office an official undertaking - a bond guaranteeing the faithful performance of the office - or approval of the Town Board of the procurement of a blanket undertaking . The Town Board must approve the form , amount and the sureties on the undertaking . Notary Public license required within 6 months of appointment . T10 .doc 6/96 :7/01 :4/05 : 5/8/06 : 7/9/07 Correspondence/jobdesc/Townclerk . doc ATTACHMENT # 13 TOWN CLERK' S MONTHLY REPORT T OF ITHACA, NEW YORK JUNE, 2007 T HE SUPERVISOR: PAGE 1 PL nt to Section 27, Subd 1 of the Town Law, I hereby make the following statement of all fees and moneys received b in connection with my office during the month stated above, excepting only such fees and moneys the application .n ayment of which are otherwise provided for by Law : A1255 27 MARRIAGE LICENSES NO. 07045 TO 07071 472 .50 5 MISC. COPIES 18 .20 3 TAX SEARCH 15 .00 2 MARRIAGE TRANSCRIPT 20.00 TOTAL TOWN CLERK FEES 525.70 A2191 l PARK USE FEE 5 .00 TOTAL A2191 5.00 A2544 DOG LICENSES 596 .60 TOTAL A2544 596.60 B2110 38 BUILDING PERMIT 5 ,980.00 8 BUILDING PERMIT EXTENSIN 21625 .00 I CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 200.00 1 FIRE SAFETY INSPECTIONS 50.00 1 ZONING BOARD MTG 100 .00 3 TEMP CERTIFICATE OCCUP 13950 .00 5 OPERATING PERMIT 2, 100.00 TOTAL B2110 139005.00 B2115 3 SUBDV . REV . FINAL PLAT 420 .00 1 SITE PLAN INIT. APL . FEE 100. 00 3 SITE PLAN FINAL PLAN 900 .00 l ASS . MTG . FEE P . H . PROCE 50 .00 1 SPECIAL PERMITS 100.00 TOTAL B2115 19570.00 TA61 1 PARK SECURITY DEPOSIT 50 .00 TOTAL TA61 50.00 TA62 1 COMFORT STATION DEPOSIT 100 .00 TOTAL TA62 100000 A TOWN CLERK' S MONTHLY REPORT JUNE, 2007 Page 2 DISBURSEMENTS PAID TO SUPERVISOR FOR GENERAL FUND 12127 .30 PAID TO SUPERVISOR FOR PART TOWN FUND 145575 .00 PAID TO COUNTY TREASURER FOR DOG LICENSES 103 .40 . PAID TO AG & MARKETS FOR DOG LICENSES 12 .00 PAID TO NYS HEALTH DEPT FOR MARRIAGE LICENSES 607 . 50 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS 16942520 JULY 3 , 2007 SUPERVISOR CATHERINE VALENTINO STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF TOMPKINS, TOWN OF ITHACA I , 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 above stated, excepting only such Fees the application and payment of which are otherwise provided for by law. Subscribed .and sworn to before me this Town Clerk day of 20 Notary Public TOWN OF ITHACA Public Works Department' s Monthly Board Report June for July 9, 2007 Meeting ROADS ♦ Work continued on rebuilding Forest Home Drive . The 130 feet of concrete box culvert was installed, riprap splash pad and headwalls were placed, and backfilling was begun to bring the road back up to grade . ♦ Schickle Road, Fidler Road, Tareyton Drive (by the Park), and St. Catherine' s Circle were paved with cold mix material . ♦ Improved drainage on Tayerton Drive (north end) prior to paving. ♦ We replaced the road-crossing pipe at Rosehill Road and Winston Drive in time to pave the trench while we were paving Tareyton Drive . ♦ Stone Quarry Road was paved with hot mix asphalt including a paved gutter for our new storm water pipes and catch basins . ♦ Roadside mowing was completed for the first pass around the Town. Brush and overhanging tree limbs were cut around road signs and intersections to improve visibility . Our tub grinding contractor ground up the brush and woodpile . The Village of Cayuga Heights paid for the service as the greater majority of the material came from the Village . We are currently on a 6-month schedule for grinding. ♦ Creek gravel was cleaned out of creeks at road crossings on Seven Mile Drive and Hackberry Lane to help prevent flooding. ♦ A new road-crossing pipe was installed and ditches cleaned on Northview Road West. ♦ We assisted the Town of Lansing with paving by providing several trucks and drivers and our Bobcat (skid steer loader) with blacktop grinder . ♦ Future Town roads, Larisa Lane and Holley Creek have had on-going inspection efforts to assure road quality . PARKS AND TRAILS ❑ We began construction of the bus stop and walkway along Pine Tree Road for the Pew Trail section of the East Ithaca Recreation Way . ❑ We installed topsoil, rock hounded, and hydro-seeded the Pew Trail where it comes through Tudor Park . We also spot seeded areas along the rest of the trail that needed it. The meadow and nature trail were mowed below our gazebo . ❑ Baseball games continued six days a week at Tutelo Park . Cal Ripkiri s last game was June 23, 2007, with an awards ceremony being held at the Pavilion following the game . Our grounds crew watered and groomed the field every day to try and keep the grass growing through the dry period we experienced . Regular grounds maintenance at all sites continued . ❑ We removed many of the over-grown and drying shrubs at Grandview Park and re-seeded areas to lawn. Better replacement plantings will be considered this fall . ❑ Plantings of flowering annuals continued at Town Hall, East Shore Park, and the welcome signs using our beautification grant. Perennials and flowering shrubs will be purchased and planted at those sites by our Youth Corp, which starts July 2, 2007. ❑ We watered, fertilized, and weeded the planting beds several times a week. ❑ We paved the Northeast Ithaca Walkway from Winston Court to Warren Road with hot mix asphalt for the full ten-foot width. ❑ We made some improvements to the ball field at Coddington Road Community Center and delivered sand and gravel for the Center before their summer camp began June 25, 2007. WATER ® Inspections at the new transmission main by Winner' s Circle and the Larisa Lane and Confier Drive projects were done on a daily basis. ® The pump station at Troy Road was re-paved . - ® Repairs to the water valves by the Seed Lab on Route 366 and at the Forest Home Drive and Pleasant Grove Road intersection were completed . ® Water main repair on Northview West and a water service repair at 1010 East Shore Drive were completed . SEWER � Weekly pump station checks were performed . a The sewer pump station driveway for Southwoods was paved on E . King Road 4 A sewer line on Northview Road was repaired . ¢ A total of 99 mark-outs were done for Dig Safely New York. July Projects 1 . Summer Youth begin July 2, 2007. 2. Continue work on Pew Trail bus stop and walkway . 3 . Second round of roadside mowing and begin mowing easements . 4 . Road striping 5 . Continue Forest Home Drive re-construction and begin re-vegetation. 6 . Continue park and trail grounds maintenance 7. Seal leaking manholes . 8 . Beautification ground plantings and maintenance . 9 . Prepare for surface treating roads . ghk Town Engineer' s Report for 7/9/2007 Aft Town Board Meeting EARTH FILL PERMITS No earth fill permits were issued in June. Enforcement activity is continuing on tax parcels 26 . 4-2, 26. 43 and 26. 4 . 9 . WATER PROJECTS Trumansburg Road Water Main Replacement The Contract drawings and bid specifications have been completed to replace the 80-year-old, 6-inch cast iron water main, which serves Trumansburg Road from the city line to Harris Dates drive . Authorization to bid the project was given at a special Town Board meeting on June 26`h . The advertisement of the bid has been issued and bids will be received prior to the August Town Board Meeting for consideration of a contract award. Hanshaw Road Water Main Replacement The Hanshaw Road water main replacement design and contract documents have been completed . Authorization to bid the project was given at a special Town Board meeting on June 261h . The advertisement of the bid has been issued and bids will be received prior to the August Town Board Meeting for consideration of a contract award . SCLIWC Transmission Main Repair The contract for the replacement of a portion of the 16-inch transmission main that supplies water to the South Hill and West Hill was approved by the SCLIWC at the May 3 Commission meeting. Construction of the repair between Slaterville Road and Giles Street started in June and is expected to be completed in July. Town Staff is doing construction inspection and provide project management services to the Commission. East Shore Drive Water Main Replacement The engineering department is undertaking survey and design activities on this main with the goal of replacing the main in 2008 . SEWER PROJECTS Joint Interceptor Sewer Projects Work continues on the remainder of the Aurora Street Interceptor Project along with the rehabilitation of the Aurora Street bridge. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT The Town Engineers office is continuing to work on the watershed plan for the Northeast area. The consultant report on the review of the stormwater management in the Northeast area including the Briarwood Subdivision will be reviewed at the July 9th Town Board meeting. TOWN ENGINEERS REPORT 7/11 /2007 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WESTVIEW SUBDIVISION The Engineering staff is monitoring the sediment and erosion control program for the site . The Phase II additional erosion control measures have been installed and are functioning. The Developer has been working on completion of the water and sewer improvements along with the permanent stormwater facilities . Placement of the road base is expected in June with paving being completed in July. OVERLOOK ON THE WEST HILL Most of the site restoration and Landscaping work has been completed . The Engineering staff is monitoring the site sediment and erosion control measures . BIGGS BUILDING DEMOLITION Demolition of the old Biggs A building has been completed . The modification of the site plan approval to place approximately 1000- 1500 cubic yards in excess of the capacity of the primary fill site, in an area that has been filled in the past north of the existing heating plant, was granted by the Planning Board and the fill has been placed. Final site restoration including seeding is pending will be completed in July. CONIFER VILLAGE (Linderman Creek Phase 4) Site work for the senior housing project on Conifer Drive north of Mecklenburg Road has started. Initial work will consist of installation of the Storm Water Management system, Conifer Drive and utility installation along with the mass grading for the site . Building Construction will start after access to the site is developed . Town Engineer's Report July 9, 2007 Daniel R. Walker Page 2 7/3/2007 e �y0FITfY TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N . Y . 14850 04 Jonathan Kanter, A. LC.P• (607) 273-1747 Director of Planning FAX (607) 273-1704 Planning Director ' s Report for July 9 , 2007 Town Board Meeting DEVELOPMENT REVIEW June 5 , 2007 Planning Board Meeting: Trinity Lutheran Church Playground, 149 Honness Lane : The Planning Board granted Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed playground at the Trinity Lutheran Church located at 149 Honness Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 58 -2-4, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the construction of a new +/- 4,000 square foot playground area located to the south of the church building and existing play area. Trinity Lutheran Church, Owner/Applicant ; Donald A . Rottmann, Agent. Biggs Building Demolition Fill Site, 301 Harris B. Dates Drive : The Planning Board granted Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modification to the Biggs Building demolition project located at 301 Harris B . Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . ' s 24- 3 - 2 .24, 24-3 -2 . 21 , and 24-3 -2 . 3 , Planned Development Zone No . 3 and Low Density Residential Zone. The modification includes disposing of +/- 2 , 000 cubic yards of hard fill materials on site in a new location near the facility power plant. The fill material will be covered and seeded. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner/Applicant ; Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP , Agent. Cornell University T-GEIS : The Planning Board heard a presentation and update from Cornell representatives regarding the Cornell Transportation-focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (T-GEIS) . Intersection, corridor and neighborhood analyses have been completed . Follow-up neighborhood meetings were held . Preliminary mitigation measures are being outlined . Draft sections of the T-GEIS are being written . Cornell anticipates that the draft T-GEIS will be completed and ready for submission to the Planning Board by mid to late summer. Cayuga Cliffs Sketch Plan, located between Trumansburg Road and Taughannock Boulevard : The Planning Board reviewed and discussed a sketch plan for the proposed Cayuga Cliffs Development located between Trumansburg Road (NYS Route 96) and Taughannock Boulevard (NYS Route 89), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . ' s 24-3 -3 . 2 , 25 - 1 - 5 . 1 , 25 -2 -41 . 2 , 26-4- 39, 26-4-37 , and 26-4-38 , Low Density Residential , Medium Density Residential , and Conservation Zones . The proposal involves the construction of 106 town home type units in a clustered neighborhood development with two entrances proposed from Trumansburg Road . The development would be concentrated on the west side of the property closer to Trumansburg Road with the eastern portion of the property remaining undeveloped . Holochuck Homes, LLC, Owner/Applicant ; David M . Parks, Esq . , Agent . Town afltlzaea l'lannang IJtrectorsReport , .July �? 2Q1h7 Town oardlVieetcng E � �, �� June 26 2007 Planning Board Meeting (Re-scheduled from June 19 , 2007) : Cornell University Utilities Department Service Yard Improvements, between Maple Avenue and Dryden Road/Route 366 : The Planning Board granted Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed improvements to the Cornell University Utilities Department Service Yard . located between Maple Avenue and Dryden Road (NYS Route 366), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel . No . ' s 63 . - 1 -5 , 63 . - 1 -8 . 1 , and 63 . - 1 -8 . 2 , Low Density Residential Zone and Light Industrial Zone. The proposal includes modifying an existing oil tank, installation of a new fuel off-loading station and fuel oil piping, expansion and reconfiguration of the existing Cornell Maple Avenue substation, replacement of the existing open coal conveyor with a new covered coal conveyor, and reconfiguration and improvement of the existing roadways within the site. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; James R. Adams, Agent. Cornell Plantations Deer Fences, Forest Home Drive and Caldwell Road : The Planning Board granted Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed deer fences at three locations at the Cornell Plantations, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the installation of 8-foot tall deer fences at the Mundy Wildflower Garden located off Caldwell Road (Tax Parcel No . 67- 1 - 8), at the Plant Production Facility on Forest Home Drive (Tax Parcel No . 65 - 1 - 5 . 2), and at the Fall Creek Research Plots on Forest Home Drive (Tax Parcel No . ' s 65 - 1 -5 .2 and 65 - 1 - 1 ) . Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Hal Martin, Cornell Plantations Project Manager, Agent. Lot Line Modification, 357 and 359 King Road East : The Planning Board granted Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed lot line modification at 357 and 359 King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . ' s 46- 1 - 5 and 46- 1 -4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing off a +/- 0. 010 acre strip from the eastern edge of Tax Parcel 46- 1 -4,. to be consolidated with Tax Parcel No . .46- 1 - 5 . Peter Capalongo & Sandra Capalongo and The Estates of Leland G . Wilkinson & Jane W. Holland, Owners/Applicants . Recommendation to Town Board Regarding Local Law for Amateur Radio Facilities : The Planning Board issued an affirmative recommendation to the Town Board regarding the adoption of a proposed local law amending provisions in Chapter 270, Zoning, of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding amateur radio facilities . Recommendation to Town Board Regarding Local Law Regarding Yard Definitions : The Planning Board issued an affirmative recommendation regarding the adoption of a proposed local law amending provisions in Chapter 270, Zoning, of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding the definition of yards. Montessori School Sketch Plan for Proposed Campus Development Plan, 117, 120, and 122 King Road East : The Planning Board reviewed a sketch plan for the proposed campus master plan for the Elizabeth Anne Clune Montessori School of Ithaca located at 117, 120, and 122 King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . ' s 43 - 1 - 3 . 5 , 43 -2-75 43 - 1 -3 . 6, and 43 - 1 -3 .2 (portion of), Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential Zones . The proposal includes a multi-phase campus development plan for new outdoor play and curriculum areas along with updating the parking and circulation around the campus . The first phase would include clearing and grading, creation of a play field, a sledding slope, earthen mounds , new access to King Road East, stone dust 2 �T�o�wn o,f�IthacaPlannzngDzrector Report, ' ,I�zzly�9, 2007�T�awn Board�Meetzng ; ��a�� € E 'u'� paths, a wetland area and other stormwater facilities, and improving the path between the Middle School and the Lower Elementary School . Elizabeth Anne Clune Montessori School of Ithaca, Owner/Applicant; Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP , Agent. Reviews for Zoning Board (ZBA) : Three applications for the Zoning Board were process sed since the June report as follows, resulting in three variances granted : June 18 , 2007 ZBA Meeting: ( 1 ) an area variance was granted to allow the installation of an 8 -foot high deer fence in the front yard of Cornell Plantations property (maximum six foot height permitted in required yards) , located at 3.97 Forest Home Drive, Low Density Residential Zone, Cornell University, Owner/Appellant, Hal Martin, Agent ; (2) area variances were granted to permit the maintenance of a residence with insufficient side yard setbacks, located at 359 King Road East, Low Density Residential Zone, George Holland and Janet Wilkinson, Owners/Appellants ; and (3 ) an area variance was granted to permit the entranceway of a home under construction to encroach on the southern side yard, Lakefront Residential Zone, Michael Moore, Owner/Appellant, CURRENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROJECTS/FUNCTIONS The following have been accomplished over the past month. Comprehensive Plan Review Committee : The Comprehensive Plan Review Committee met on June 181 2007 to continue review of Chapter III "Goals, Objectives and Recommended Actions" of the Plan. The Committee is making progress on reviewing the Plan, and hopes to have recommendations to the Town Board regarding an update of the Plan by September or October. The next Committee meeting is scheduled for Monday, July 16 , 2007 at 4 : 00 p .m. to continue . review of Chapter III of the Plan, and to review additional sections if time permits . The Committee will need to discuss 2008/2009 Budget implications of a Comprehensive Plan update, such as staffing needs and the possibility of hiring a consultant to perform certain. tasks .in the Plan update. Codes and Ordinances Committee (COQ : The Committee met on June 20, 2007 to review a preliminary draft law regarding wind energy facilities, and to continue discussion regarding comments received on the draft stream setback law . The next COC meeting is scheduled for July 185 2007 . Tentative agenda items include continuation of review of draft law regarding wind energy facilities, and continuation of review of preliminary comments received regarding draft stream setback law. Transportation Committee/Transportation Plan : The Transportation Committee met on June 25 , 2007 to review final revisions to the Transportation Plan Executive Summary. The Brittains again participated in this review . Final revisions to the Plan volumes and Executive Summary have been completed, and documents have been forwarded to the Town Board for consideration of final approval at the July 9, 2007 meeting. The Committee also completed preliminary review of the draft of the Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan (Feb . 1 , 2007) , and will be sending a letter with preliminary observations regarding the Traffic Calming Plan to the Forest Home Improvement Association in the near future. ITCTC Joint Policy/Planning Committee Meeting : The Policy and Planning Committees of the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC) met on June 26, 2007, and approved the 3 awiaf�lthaca l'IannirlMar irectorks Repnrtz �uE ,Tul 9`n�2011�T�' own`Boar ��eetan 2006-2007 Self-Certification review and amendments to the Long Range Transportation Plan relating to SAFETEA-LU compliance. Conservation Board : The Conservation Board met on June 7, 2007 to discuss the status of committee work, update on the draft stream setback law, and candidates for the open Board position. The Scenic Resources Committee is preparing a draft report summarizing their work on the scenic view inventory and analysis. The next Conservation Board meeting is scheduled for July 5 , 2007 . Cornell T-GEIS : The Cornell T-LEIS Resource Committee met on June 27, 2007 to discuss possible mitigation strategies that will be included in the T-GEIS . The consultant team continues to prepare draft sections of the T-GEIS , which are being reviewed by the Project Team, Carrowmoor Committee: The Committee established by the Town Board to provide recommendations and a draft local law for a Planned Development Zone regarding the proposed Carrowmoor development met on June 13th and June 25th, 2007 . Discussion continued on issues associated with the proposal, including traffic and transportation, affordable housing, number of housing units in the development, and other aspects, such as impacts of the development on the School District, guarantees for completion of project phases and infrastructure, and whether more open space could be preserved on the site. The Committee will give an update to the Town Board at the July 91h meeting under Committee Reports, West Hill Trail Connections : As an off--shoot of the. Carrowmoor Committee discussions and recommendations in the Transportation Plan, a group of Town and City officials and the ITCTC Executive Director met on June 20, 2007 to discuss potential bicycle and pedestri an trail connections from West Hill in the Town into the City of Ithaca. Several possible corridors were identified, including one at the Town' s West Hill Park into the Oakwood Lane neighborhood and one from the EcoVillage/West Haven Road area through undeveloped land in the Town to Hook Place in the City. The goal would be to connect developing areas in the Town with existing or potential sidewalks and trails in the City to provide alternative ways for people to travel other than in cars and ultimately to provide links to the Cayuga Waterfront Trail and future Black Diamond Trail . Maps and parcel ownership information are being assembled and will be available for the Committee to review at its next meeting, which is scheduled for Tuesday, July 17th at 8 : 30ain at Town Hall in the Tioga Room. Northeast Walkability Study: The County Planning Department has circulated a draft report regarding the Walkability Assessment Methodology and Case Studies (June 14, 2007) , which includes the case study in the Northeast Ithaca area. The draft report has been distributed to Town Board and Planning Board members and other officials in the case study areas . The County will present the results and recommendations of the study on Monday, July 9, 2007 from 4 : 00 to 5 : 00 p.m. at the Town of Ithaca Town Hall (preceding the Town Board meeting) . 2008 Budget Worksheets : The Planning Department has prepared its preliminary worksheets for the proposed 2008 Budget. Although there are still many unknowns at this point, such as proposed salary increases for staff, board members and interns, the Department proposal includes two noticeable changes, both related to the pending Comprehensive Plan update. One is a proposal to add a full-time, term-limited Planner position for approximately two years (the estimated duration of a Comprehensive Plan update) . The other involves a limited amount to hire a consultant to assist with a resident survey as an early part of, the Comprehensive Plan update process. Both of these 4 Town oflrhac �'larirring Dig ectoY 'sReporte v ' duly,"9, X007 Town�73vard Meeting v.� Ql proposals will be discussed by the Comprehensive Plan Review Committee in the next couple of months, and the Committee. recommendations will address these among other issues related to the Comprehensive Plan update process . Draft Stormwater Management Law : Sue Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning, has been coordinating efforts among the Engineering, Planning and Code Enforcement staff in drafting a proposed Stormwater Management Law, as required by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation ' s Phase II Stormwater Regulations . Staff has met a number of times to review a preliminary draft, and will meet with the Attorney for the Town to address legal and format issues . A revised draft law will be available soon to send to appropriate Town Board committees to begin the formal review, revision and adoption process . 5 Y Regular Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board , July 9 , 2007 Human Resources Report for June 2007 Save the Date : Town Picnic Friday, August 3 , 2007 Noon to 3 pm Tutelo Park Personnel Committee : Did not meet in June . I have spent a great deal of time in June working on the salary survey . The findings will be discussed with the committee in July . Safety Committee : The committee has drafted a questionnaire to be completed by the staff regarding safety and security and new laws on violence in the workplace . The questionnaire should be going out to staff in July, to be reviewed by the committee at the August meeting . Training and Development : I have been working with Audrey Cooper, Multicultural Resource Center on developing an educational program on Diversity for the staff. The program is scheduled to be held in December. Personnel — Civil Service : Tee Ann Hunter, Town Clerk submitted her application for retirement to the NYS and Local Retirement System , The Town Clerk Interview committee has met to go over the job description and discuss the hiring process . The committee is meeting with Tee Ann to get a prospective of what are the future needs of the department . Advertisement for the position will begin in July. Health Insurance : The Town received a notice from Excellus BCBS that our monthly rates are being increased by 1 % due to the Timothy Law that went into effect on January 1St. This increase has been approved by the NYS Department of Insurance to go into effect for the August 1St billing . The actual increase covers the prior 7 months that premiums have already been paid out . The increase in rates are : Individual : $ 385 . 62 4 $ 396 . 25 increase of $ 10 . 63 per month Double : $ 791 . 29 4 $ 813 . 09 increase of $21 . 80 per month Family: $ 1 , 136 . 79 4 $ 17168 . 12 increase of $31 . 33 per month The total increase in expense for the Town is just under $ 5 , 500 . Commercial Insurance ( Ithaca Agency — NYMIR Insurance Company) ' There was one claim in June to report. Truck 69 , 2004 Ford F250 suffered damage to the left side door, rear cab and front of the box when a County truck backed into it . The claim has been settled with the County and they will be paying the repair bill of roughly $ 3 , 300 . 00 . Workers ' Compensation ( Public Employers Risk Management Assoc — PERMA ) : There were two claims filed in June . The first one was a laceration caused by a hedge trimmer. No stitches were needed , and the employee returned to duty. The second claim was a back strain that resulted no lost days away from work , but some time on restricted duty . Disability Insurance : Deborah Kelley went out in late April for an operation and returned May 1 , 2007 to half days . The following week Debby was taken back out of work until late June or early July . Debby returned to work on July 2 , 2007 . Submitted By : Judith C . Drake , PHR , Human Resources Manager Regular Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board , July 9 , 2007 Human Resources Report for June 2007 Save the Date : Town Picnic Friday, August 3 , 2007 Noon to 3 pm Tutelo Park Personnel Committee : Did not meet in June . I have spent a great deal of time in June working on the salary survey. The findings will be discussed with the committee in July . Safety Committee : The committee has drafted a questionnaire to be completed by the staff regarding safety and security and new laws on violence in the workplace . The questionnaire should be going out to staff in July, to be reviewed by the committee at the August meeting . Training and Development : I have been working with Audrey Cooper, Multicultural Resource Center on developing an educational program on Diversity for the staff. The program is scheduled to be held in December. Personnel — Civil Service : Tee Ann Hunter, Town Clerk submitted her application for retirement to the NYS and Local Retirement System . The Town Clerk Interview committee has met to go over the job description and discuss the hiring process . The committee is meeting with Tee Ann to get a prospective of what are the future needs of the department . Advertisement for the position will begin in July. Health Insurance : The Town received a notice from Excellus BCBS that our monthly rates are being increased by 1 % due to the Timothy Law that went into effect on January 1St . This increase has been approved by the NYS Department of Insurance to go into effect for the August 1St billing . The actual increase covers the prior 7 months that premiums have already been paid out . The increase in rates are : Individual : $ 385 . 62 4 $ 396 . 25 increase of $ 10 . 63 per month Double : $ 791 . 29 -)� $ 813 . 09 increase of $21 . 80 per month Family: $ 17136 . 79 4 $ 1 , 168 . 12 increase of $ 31 . 33 per month The total increase in expense for the Town is just under $ 5 , 500 . Commercial Insurance ( Ithaca Agency — NYMIR Insurance Company) : There was one claim in June to report . Truck 69 , 2004 Ford F250 suffered damage to the left side door, rear cab and front of the box when a County truck backed into it . The claim has been settled with the County and they will be paying the repair bill of roughly $ 3 , 300 . 00 . Workers ' Compensation (Public Employers Risk Management Assoc — PERMA ) : There were two claims filed in June . The first one was a laceration caused by a hedge trimmer. No stitches were needed , and the employee returned to duty. The second claim was a back strain that resulted no lost days away from work , but some time on restricted duty . Disability Insurance : Deborah Kelley went out in late April for an operation and returned May 1 , 2007 to half days . The following week Debby was taken back out of work until late June or early July . Debby returned to work on July 2 , 2007 . Submitted By: Judith C . Drake , PHR , Human Resources Manager Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Monthly Report 6/1 /07 Until 6/30/07 uilding Permits P # Date Value Description fee category 6864 6/5/2007 $ 1 ,850.00 Reshingle over existing layer of roofing $25. 00 renovations to residential 6863 6/5/2007 $ 107000 .00 66 square foot addition $45. 00 additions to residential 6869 6/7/2007 $ 10 ,000 . 00 Alterations to four unit building & $45. 00 renovations to improve fire separation residential 6865 6/7/2007 $50,000 .00 Replace fire pump $200 .00 business 6866 6/7/2007 $23 ,000 . 00 36' x 36' single-story garage $70 .00 miscellaneous 6867 6/7/2007 $3 ,450 .00 Reroofing $35.00 renovations to residential 6868 6/7/2007 $3 ,450. 00 Reroofing $35 .00 renovations to residential 6878 6/8/2007 $2 ,535.00 Re-roofing $25.00 renovations to residential 6877 6/8/2007 $2 ,535 .00 Re-roofing $25 .00 renovations to residential 116876 6/8/2007 $2 ,535 . 00 Re-roofing $25.00 renovations to residential 6874 6/812007 $2 , 535.00 Re-roofing $25.00 renovations to residential 6879 6/8/2007 $2 ,535 . 00 Re-roofing $25.00 renovations to residential 6871 6/8/2007 $27535.00 Re-roofing $25 .00 renovations to residential 6875 6/8/2007 $2 , 535.00 Re-roofing $25 .06 renovations to residential 6870 6/8/2007 $3 ,255. 00 Emergency egress window to create $35 . 00 conversions of. use basement apartment 6872 6/8/2007 $2 ,535 . 00 Re-roofing $25.00 renovations to residential 6881 6/8/2007 $2 , 535.00 Re-roofing $25 . 00 renovations to residential 6882 6/8/2007 $2 ,535 . 00 Re-roofing $25 .00 renovations to residential 6879 6/8/2007 $2 , 551 . 00 Re-roofing $25.00 renovations to residential Tuesday, July 03 , 2007 Page 1 Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Monthly Report 6/1 /07 Until 6/30/07 6880 6/8/2007 $2 ,551 . 00 Re-roofing $25. 00 renovations to residential 6881 6/8/2007 $2 ,551 .00 Re-roofing $25.00 renovations to residential 6882 6/8/2007 $2 ,551 .00 Re-roofing $25.00 renovations to residential . 6873 6/8/2007 $2 ,535. 00 Re-roofing $25. 00 renovations to residential 6880 6/8/2007 $2 , 535. 00 Re-roofing $25 . 00 renovations to residential 6883 6/13/2007 $3 ,000 .00 Construct deck and bath addition $35. 00 additions to residential 6884 6/14/2007 $249,000 .00 Single-family home with attached garage $550 . 00 new single-family homes 6886 6/15/2007 $35 ,000 . 00 New play structure $ 100 .00 miscellaneous 6887 6/15/2007 $50,000 . 00 Phase I - tear off sheetrock to repair fire $ 100 .00 renovations to damage residential 6885 6/15/2007 $8 , 107. 00 Re-roof house $45 . 00 renovations to residential 6889 6/18/2007 $247 ,000 . 00 Roof replacement/tear off existing roof & $550 . 00 business replace with EPDM _ roof . 6888 6/18/2007 $242 ,000 .00 2 story, 1 ,280 square foot residential $550 . 00 additions to addition , 196 sq ft sunroom addition , residential finish existing attic 6890 6120/2007 $92 ,000 . 00 New lath house $200 .00 business 6891 6/20/2007 $ 17 ,900 . 00 528 square foot detached garage $60 .00 miscellaneous 6892 6/20/2007 $2 , 100 . 00 Install commercial cooking automatic fire $25 . 00 business suppression system 1 1 6893 6/22/2007 $77 ,215 . 00 Construct approximately 210 square foot $200 .00 additions to kitchen addition residential 6897 6/26/2007 $ 14 ,000 . 00 308 square foot covered porch $60 . 00 additions to residential 6895 6/26/2007 $ 150 ,000 .00 Reroof and replace canopies in kind $350 . 00 business I 6896 6/26/2007 $4 ,800 .00 Re-roof house $35.00 renovations to residential 16894 6/26/2007 $ 100 ,000 .00 Addition to single-family home $200 . 00 additions to residential Tuesday, July 03, 2007 Page 2 Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Monthly Report AOkk 6/1 /07 Until 6/30/07 899 6/28/2007 $ 1 ,000 . 00 Construct wall partitions to create Suite $25. 00 business 204 (current occupant Primet) ;6900 6/28/2007 $ 150 ,001 .00 New three-bedroom , single-family home $550 . 00 new single-family homes 6898 6/28/2007 $2 ,000 . 00 Construct wall partitions to create Suite $25. 00 business 26 (current occupant Ithaca Piano Rebuilders) 6901 6/29/2007 $ 13,000 .00 Remodel kitchen $60. 00 renovations to residential 6903 6129/2007 $3 ,310 .00 Cover existing roof shingles $35. 00 renovations to residential 6902 6/29/2007 $3 ,310 .00 Cover existing roof shingles $35. 00 renovations to residential Totals $1 ,6101372 .00 $4 ,680 .00 Certificates of Occu ancy BP # Address Description CO Temp 6826 1460 Trumansburg Rd Rear deck and interior remodeling 6/4/2007 ❑ 6624 201 Rosehill Rd Tear off and reroof existing structure 615/2007 ❑ 6798 201 Bostwick Rd New 3 bedroom single-family home with 6/6/2007 ❑ attached 2-car garage 6773 92 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6760 61 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6761 63 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6762 65 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6764 70 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6765 72 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6766 74 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6767 76 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6768 81 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ I 6759 54 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ Tuesday, July 03 , 2007 Page 3 Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Monthly Report 6/1107 Until 6/30107 6771 87 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6756 49 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6774 94 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6731 101 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6732 103 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6733 105 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6734 107 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6769 83 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ . 6750 32 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6730 10 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 617/2007 ❑ 6738 12 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ J 6743 14 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6744 16 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ f 6745 21 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6746 23 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6747 25 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ �I 6758 52 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6749 30 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ i 16735 110 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 116751 34 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ i i 6752 41 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ I 116753 43 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ I I Tuesday, July 03 , 2007 Page 4 Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Monthly Report 611 /07 Until 6/30/07 754 45 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6755 47 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6772 90 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6757 50 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6748 27 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6723 382 Teton Ct Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6715 360 Saranac Way Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6716 362 Saranac Way Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6717 364 Saranac Way Re-roofing 617/2007 ❑ 6718 366 Saranac Way Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6719 371 Teton Ct Re-roofing 617/2007 ❑ 6720 373 Teton Ct Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6714 357 Saranac Way Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6722 380 Teton Ct Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6724 384 Teton Ct Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6736 112 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6725 386 Teton Ct Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6770 85 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 61712007 ❑ 6727 393 Teton Ct Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6728 395 Teton Ct Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6729 397 Teton Ct Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ t I 6763 67 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ � I Tuesday, July 03, 2007 Page 5 Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Monthly Report 6/1 /07 Until 6/30/07 6721 375 Teton Ct Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6739 121 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6726 391 Teton Ct Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6713 355 Saranac Way Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6737 114 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6740 123 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6741 125 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6742 127 Whitetail Dr Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6704 330 Saranac Way Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6705 332 . . Saranac Way Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6711 351 Saranac Way Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6712 353 Saranac Way Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6710 344 Saranac Way Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6709 342 Saranac Way Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6707 336 Saranac Way Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 16706 334 Saranac Way Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6708 340 Saranac Way Re-roofing 6/7/2007 ❑ 6812 117 Alumni St Reroof Dillingham Center 6/8/2007 ❑ 6582 46 Dove Dr New 3 bedroom single-family home 6/8/2007 ❑ j 6566 380 Bostwick Rd Build roof over existing barnyard 6/8/2007 ❑ i 6533 380 Bostwick Rd 98' x 225' freestall barn 6/8/2007 ❑ I I 6648 730 Elm St Ext Two bedroom single-family residence 6/8/2007 ❑ I `Tuesday, July 03, 2007 Page 6 Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Monthly Report 6/1107 Until 6/30107 Date Address Complaint Type Disposition 6/22/2007 172 Calkins Rd property maintenance Pending 6/22/2007 250-4 Strawberry Hill Cir building code Abated 6/22/2007 635 Elmira Rd zoning use Pending 6/26/2007 630 Elmira Rd zoning use Pending Existing Building CO Field Visits Building Code 76 Complaint/Investigation 5 Fire Safety 4 Fire Emergency 0 Total 85 Tuesday, July 03 , 2007 Page 8 Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Monthly Report 6/1 /07 Until 6/30/07 6610 1 College Cir Replace portion of roof covering 6/8/2007 ❑ 6611 4 College Cir Replace portion of roof covering 6/8/2007 ❑ 6621 331 West Hill Cir 8 unit multiple dwelling 6/8/2007 6614 9 College Cir Replace portion of roof covering 6/8/2007 ❑ 6595 311 West Hill Cir 8 unit multiple dwelling 6/8/2007 ❑� 6620 321 West Hill Cir 8 unit multiple dwelling 6/8/2007 0 6590 218 Snyder Hill Rd Convert utility building into single-family 6/8/2007 ❑ home 6613 13 College Cir Replace portion of roof covering 6/8/2007 ❑ 6617 142 Pine Tree Rd New deck 6/12/2007 ❑ 6854 950 Danby Rd Construct wall partitions to create Suite 6/14/2007 ❑ 131 6269 03 Peachtree Ln Add attached 2-car garage to single- 6/18/2007 ❑ family home 6850 110 Tudor Rd Re-roof house 6/18/2007 ❑ 6642 104 Southwoods Dr New 4 bedroom , single-family home with 6/18/2007 ❑ attached 3 car garage 6640 1590 Slaterville Rd Install wood stove 6/19/2007 ❑ 6646 950 Danby Rd Replace all windows in building 6/19/2007 ❑ 6639 221 -3 Strawberry Hill Cir Covered porch addition 6/22/2007 ❑ 6892 1251 Trumansburg Rd Install commercial cooking automatic fire 6/26/2007 ❑ suppression system 6839 13.3 Westivew Ln Convert two-family home into 2 single- 6/26/2007 ❑ family structures 6896 1440 Trumansburg Rd Re-roof house 6/27/2007 ❑ 6378 175 King Rd E New 4 bedroom home with attached 2 6/28/2007 ❑ car garage Complaints Tuesday, July 03 , 2007 Page 7 0710512007 TOWN OF ITHACA 4pe:09 B2110 - B2110 Transaction Report For the period 06/01 /2007 through 06/30/2007 Date Comment Name Quantity Fee B2110 1 . BP 06/01 /2007 72 .- 1 - 1 . 126 CARROLL, WILLIAM l 60.00 2 . BP 06/05/2007 33 .4 - 10 KELLY, EILEEN 1 200 .00 3 . BP 06/05/2007 72.- 1 -3 . 17 WHITEHEAD, BARUCH 1 60.00 4 . 13P 06/05/2007 37.- 1 -20. 13 GREGG, DONALD T. 1 60 .00 5 . BP 06/06/2007 58.-2-39.312 LEE, KYUSOON 1 35 .00 6 . 13P 06/06/2007 58.-2-39.311 MOLNAR, ANDREW 1 35 .00 7 . 13P 06/06/2007 39.4- 1 , .2n .3 CORDANO, JILL 1 60.00 8. 13P 06/06/2007 39.-3 - 1 , .2 , -3 , -4 CORDANO, JILL 1 60. 00 9. 13P 06/06/2007 39.-2,41 .29 .31 .4 CORDANO, JILL 1 60 .00 10. 13P 06/06/2007 67.- 1 -6 CORNELL PLANTATIONS 1 350.00 11 . BP 06/07/2007 65 .4 -5 .2 CORNELL l 200.00 12 . BP 06/07/2007 27.- 1 - 13 .2 LARDIN, CLIFFORD 1 35 .00 13 . BP 06/08/2007 39.4- 1 MILLER, CELESTE 1 120.00 14 . 13P 06/ 11 /2007 71 .4 -55 KIDDER,JENNIFER 1 45 .00 15 . BP 06/ 11 /2007 36.-2-3 .25 WESTVIEW PARTNERS 1 200.00 16 : BP 06/ 11 /2007 41 .- 1 -30.2 ITHACA COLLEGE 1 60 .00 17 . 13P 06/ 13/2007 39.4 - 1 . 1 SOUTH HILL BUSINESS 1 25 .00 CAMPUS 1 06/ 13/2007 39.- 1 - 1 .2 SOUTH HILL BUSINESS 1 25 .00 CAMPUS 06/ 14/2007 41 .4 -30.2 ITHACA COLLEGE 1 200 .00 06/ 14/2007 24.-3 -3 .4 CIASCHI , JOE 1 25 .00 21 . 13P 06/ 15/2007 33 .-2-2 JACOBS, PAUL 1 70 .00 22 . 13P 06/ 15/2007 58 .-2-4 TRINITY LUTHERAN 1 100 .00 23 . 13P 06/ 15/2007 58.4 -28 PARKER, CHERYL A. 1 100 .00 24. BP 06/ 15/2007 61 . 4 - 10 HART, JUDITH 1 70 .00 25 . BP 06/ 18/2007 47 .4 - 1 GERHART, TOM AND 1 25 .00 PENELOPE 26. 13P 06/20/2007 41 .- 1 -30.2 ITHACA COLLEGE 1 550 .00 27 . 13P 06/21 /2007 54. -5-23 IACOVELLI , LARRY 1 35 .00 28. BP 06/21 /2007 57.- 1 -8. 21 COLDREN, SCOTT 1 35 .00 29 . 13P 06/22/2007 58 .-2-39.321 ROSENTHAL, SUSAN 1 35 .00 30. 13P 06/22/2007 58 .-2-39.322 BENNETT, LINDA 1 35 .00 31 . BP 06/25/2007 24 .- 1 -22 DUVERNOY, AUSTIN 1 35 . 00 32 . 13P 06/25/2007 26.-3 - 18 GRADY, JOHN 1 60 .00 33 . 13P 06/26/2007 60. 1 - 1 - 11 .3 SPEAR, MARGARET 1 60.00 34 . 13P 06/26/2007 48 .- 1 - 10 BRYNER, DALE 1 60 .00 35 . 13P 06/27/2007 36.-2-3 .22 WESTVIEW PARTNERS, 1 550 .00 LLC 36. BP 06/28/2007 67. - 1 -6 CORNELL PLANTATIONS 1 200 .00 37 . 13P 06/29/2007 61 . - 1 -8.49 REAL WOOD l 45 .00 38 . 13P 06/29/2007 61 - 1 -5, 63 .- 1 -8 . 1 . 63 .- 1 -8 .2 CORNELL SERVICE YARD 1 25000 .00 38 51980900 E 06/01 /2007 35 .- 1 - 11 ROGER BECK l 50.00 E 06/06/2007 54 .-5-5 DARROW, DON l 50.00 IE 06/ 13/2007 43 . -2- 10 NAMGYAL MONASTERY 1 175 .00 INSTITUTE 42 . BPE 06/ 14/2007 73 . - 1 - 1 . 31 BOCES 1 50 .00 43 . BPE 06/ 15/2007 62 .-2- 13 .2. 63 .- 1 -3 . 4 INTEGRATED 1 1 ,500 . 00 Page: 1 f Type Date Comment Name Quantity Fee ACQUISITION 44 . BPE 06/21 /2007 37 .4 - 17 . 1 COUNTRY INN & SUITES 1 500. 45 . BPE 06/27/2007 36.-2-3 .45 WESTVIEW PARTNERS, 1 87 . LLC 46. BPE 06/28/2007 45 .- 1 -56 GREENTREE BUILDERS 1 212 1 8 2,625.00 47 . CO 06/28/2007 24.-3-3 .4 / 3 . 5 CIASCHI , JOSEPH 1 200.00 1 200.00 48 . FSI 06/06/2007 27.- 1 - 11 .4 CLARE BRIDGE COTTAGE 1 50 .00 1 50.00 49 . OP 06/05/2007 27.- 1 - 13 . 17 27 .4 - 13 . 18 LINDERMANN CREEK 11 & 1 900.00 III M . OP 06/06/2007 54.-5-5 DARROW, DON 1 50 .00 51 . 0P 06/08/2007 24.4- 14.24 OVERLOOK AT WEST HILL 1 800 .00 I I 52 . OP 06/08/2007 27 .- 1 - 13 . 18 LINDERMANN CREEK 1 300 .00 PHASE III 53 . OP 06/27/2007 24.-3-3 .4 CIASCHI , JOSEPH 1 50 .00 5 2, 100.00 54 . TCO 06/01 /2007 38 .-2-3 .24 WESTVIEW PARTNERS 1 175 .00 55 . TCO 06/07/2007 24.-4- 14-24 OVERLOOK AT WEST HILL l 1 , 500 .00 II 56 . TCO 06/26/2007 41-2-8 SPRINGWOOD 1 275 TOWNHOMES a 3 1995 - 57 . ZBM 06/ 15/2007 61- 1 -3 .4 INTEGRATED 1 100. ACQUISITION 1 100.00 Total Sales 57 139005.00 Pa Pe: 2