The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTB Minutes 2008-06-09 Regular Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, June 9 , 2008 at 5 : 30 p . m . 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 1 . Call to Order I 2 . Pledge of Allegiance 3 . Report of Tompkins County Legislature — Carol Chock 4 . Consider appointment of Town Board Member( s ) 5 . Report of City of Ithaca Common Council 6 . 5 : 45 p . m . - Persons to be Heard and Board Comments 7 . 6 : 05 p . m . - Public Hearing regarding adoption of a LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 270 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE , ENTITLED ZONING , REGARDING SMALL WIND ENERGY FACILITIES 8 . Consider SEQR regarding adoption of a LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 270 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE , ENTITLED ZONING , REGARDING SMALL WIND ENERGY FACILITIES 9 . Consider resolution to adopt a LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 270 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE , ENTITLED ZONING , REGARDING SMALL WIND ENERGY FACILITIES 10 . 6 : 15 p . m . - Public Hearing regarding A LOCAL LAW DELETING EAST HILL SHOPPING PLAZA PROVISIONS FROM CHAPTER 250 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE , TITLED "VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC' 11 . Consider Resolution to adopt A LOCAL LAW DELETING EAST HILL SHOPPING PLAZA PROVISIONS FROM CHAPTER 250 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE , TITLED "VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC' 12 . 6 : 20 p . m . - (approx . 15 min . ) presentation regarding , Wetland Protections in Tompkins County: Existing Status, Gaps & Future Needs by Nick Shipanski , on Behalf of Tompkins County Water Resources Council — PowerPoint Presentation 13 . Consider Resolution of Support for a NYS Transportation Enhancement Program Grant Application for the Pine Tree Road Bridge Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Project 14 . Consider setting a public hearing regarding a Local Law adding a Chapter to the Town of Ithaca code , titled "Storm Sewer System and Surface Waters Protection" 15 . Consider Approval of Budget for Pegasys Oversight Access Committee Final — June 4, 2008 16 . Consider referring Lakefront Residential Zone changes to the Planning Board , Zoning Board of Appeals and Conservation Board for recommendations 17 . Consider Appointment of Zoning Board of Appeals Alternate 18 . Consider setting a Public Hearing to update the Vehicle and Traffic section of the Town Code for stop and Yield signs on Sharlene Drive 19 . Consider a Resolution of Support for the Town of Ithaca ' s Inclusion in the New York State Navigation Law 20 . Consider Acceptance of Holly Creek Road and Utilities 21 . Consider Resolution closing Town Hall on August 1 , 2008 for Employee Training and Appreciation Picnic 22 , Consent Agenda a . Town of Ithaca Minutes b . Town of Ithaca Abstract C , Bolton Point Abstract d . Appointment of Project Assistant — Town Hall 23 . Report of Town Committees 24 . Intermunicipal Organizations 25 . Report of Town Officials 26 . Review of Correspondence 27 , Consider Entering Executive Session 28 , Consider Adjournment Final — June 4, 2008 Town of Ithaca Town Board Sign-In Sheet Meeting Date: LA, &A. 4-(3 047 Please Print your information to ensure accuracy in the meeting minutes Print Name Print Address e-mail -�AR..v �3 G 2A Y r� Pre fnic S `� I � �' Ol/1 S� .�v cCO ko crff/ i o �iP �r%1Rc 00D , 0/ ' 1)r, wvl7t S -e u e vdot 13o oil �f Cel v 3y Fr(bs � d C�cUr„ . C,7 Sldl� is z� S �� G °t J t4 �C 1 � � � r� ��Q► tip . C StZ(�c.,dgc ,l't-,C, -Q' �d� — W i'1C� i '15 � N�ns �,,✓ i�( _ �n1�SSe � @ � ra.c� � �� :KP . <.or� Final $ °F, �}' , Regular Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, June 9 , 2008 at 5 : 30 p . m . qn 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Present Herb Engman , Supervisor; Pat Leary, Councilwoman ; Peter Stein , Councilman ; Jeff Cowie , Councilman ( resigned at meeting ) ; Eric Levine , Councilman ; Bill Goodman , Councilman ; Rich DePaolo , Councilman ; Tee-Ann Hunter, Councilwoman . Staff Karen Billings , Town Clerk ; Fred Noteboom , Highway Superintendent; Dan Walker, Town Engineer; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning ; Judy Drake , Human Resources Specialist ; Susan Brock , Attorney for the Town . Others Robert Harvey; Carol Chock ; Larry Fabbroni ; Rocco Lucente ; Fran Benedict; Steve Gaarder; Doug Brittain ; Fred Schests ; Melinda Staniszewska ; Richard Gibbons ; Dan Auble ; Bill Sonnenustuhl ; Nick Schpanski ; Maria Maynard ; Trish Page ; Todd Messer; two names are unintelligible on the sign in sheet . Call to Order Supervisor Engman called the meeting to order at 5 : 30 p . m . and led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance . Agenda Item No . 3 — Report of Tompkins County Legislature — Carol Chock Legislator Chock came before the board to give her report of the Tompkins County Legislature . She reported on the following : • There is a lot of intergroup cooperation on many fronts , such as : o Health insurance consortium . o Study between Tompkins County Office of the Aging and Lifelong regarding shared facilities . o City/County/Cornell are moving forward with transportation and housing initiatives . o Pine Tree Road pedestrian and bicycle access . o Joint monitoring of the southern portion of Cayuga Lake for pollution . It will attempt to join resources of the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant, Community Science Institute , Cornell , City of Ithaca , Finger Lakes Institute , and the Floating Classroom . • The County is retuning to annual assessments . • The County is assisting the Finger Lakes Land Trust in purchasing the last piece of the Lick Brooke corridor. • Approved Airport improvements funded by the FAA . • Upcoming public hearing on June 17th regarding the TC3 budget proposal . Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 1 of 41 Final Legislator Chock solicited questions from the board . Councilman Stein asked which Pine Tree Road intersection Legislator Chock was referring to ; Mr. Noteboom clarified that it was the Pine Tree Road/ Route 366 intersection ; the bridge before the intersection . Supervisor Engman commented about the Airport improvement projects . He said that the Environmental Management Council looked at the project a few years ago and he noticed in the most recent materials that some of the old growth forest in Sapsucker Woods that was targeted for cutting is now going to have lighting . He asked Legislator Chock if she was familiar with it and how it would work . Legislator Chock answered that she was not familiar enough with the project to comment. She offered to find out for Supervisor Engman and get back to him with the information . Supervisor Engman wondered if SEQR addressed the impact of the lights on wildlife . Legislator Chock explained that the Airport currently does not meet FAA standards for the separation between the taxiway and the runway, which the FAA mandates . The FAA will pay for the County to meet the standards . Agenda Item No . 5 — Report of City of Ithaca Common Council Representative not present . Additional agenda item Supervisor Engman announced that he would like to add the Noise Permit for the Ithaca College Fireworks to the Agenda . He noted the public hearing on the issue would be held at 6 : 00 p . m . , but asked the Ithaca College representative to explain the application . Community Fireworks representative stated that the noise permit is for the Annual 4t" of July fireworks , which has been ongoing since its inception in 1947 . The representative explained that last year ( 2007 ) was the first year they needed to apply for a noise permit from the Town . It was his understanding that the permit was automatically granted each year because the Town has all the information and the event doesn 't change from year to year. He believes that the Town just needs to be notified annually of the dates involved . He noted that a little bit has changed since then ( staffing at the college as well ) and Ithaca College has filled out the application . Supervisor Engman thanked him for his comments and noted that the public hearing has been posted and will take place at 6 : 00 p . m . Agenda Item No . 4 — Consider appointment of Town Board Member(s ) Supervisor Engman moved that Tee-Ann Hunter be appointed to the Town Board . Councilwoman Leary seconded . Supervisor Engman gave the board a brief overview of Ms . Hunter' s background stating that she was the Ithaca Town Clerk from 2001 -2007 and most recently has been working with the Town of Caroline' s Town Clerk . Ms . Hunter was an elected Town Clerk from 1996-2001 in the Town of Ledyard and a Deputy Village Clerk in the Village of Union Springs from 1998-2001 . She has worked as a community outreach coordinator with the Central New York Regional Planning and Development Board out of Syracuse . Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 2 of 41 Final Councilman Stein asked if there was an opportunity to nominate someone else . Supervisor Engman noted that there would be other opportunities , but this motion is currently on the table . Supervisor Engman said the board would be talking about two open positions , and said that at any point another person could be nominated . Councilman Stein nominated Rich DePaolo for the position . Councilman Stein qualified that he did not want anyone to think it was anything about Ms . Hunter. Supervisor Engman interrupted that there should be a second to Councilman Stein ' s motion . There was not a second and the motion died . With no further discussion regarding the appointment of Ms . Hunter, Supervisor Engman called for a roll call vote . Carried unanimously. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008- 120: APPOINTMENT OF TOWN BOARD MEMBER WHEREAS, the resignation of Town Board Member Will Burbank left a vacancy on the Town Board, and WHEREAS, the Town Board Members wish to fill this open seat with a viable candidate who meets all of the criteria and qualifications needed for a Town Board Member in the Town of Ithaca; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby appoints Tee-Ann Hunter to serve as Town Board Member through December 31 , 2008; and BE I T FURTHER RESOLVED, that Tee-Ann Hunter will immediately assume the duties of a Town Board Member. MOVED: Supervisor Engman SECONDED: Councilwoman Leary VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levine, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye. Motion approved - unanimous Resignation of Town Board member Councilman Cowie submitted his resignation to the Town Clerk . He stated that he does so regretfully, but he is moving out of the Town to fulfill new responsibilities at Cornell . He expressed that it has been an honor to work with the board and Town staff, crediting the Town Staff with doing all of the hard work . See attachment # 1 Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 3 of 41 Final Supervisor Engman stated that Councilman Cowie' s resignation is accepted with great reluctance . He went on to say that the Board has loved having Councilman Cowie as a member of the Town Board ; he has been a superb and entertaining member of the board and speaking for the Board , Supervisor Engman said the board appreciates his willingness to serve . Oath of Office Supervisor Engman asked Ms . Hunter to come forward and be sworn in as Town Board member. Ms . Billings swore Tee-Ann Hunter in as Ithaca Town Board member. Supervisor Engman welcomed Councilwoman Hunter to the Board . Ms . Brock brought to the board ' s attention that Councilman 'Cowie should state for the record the time of day for the resignation . Councilman Cowie stated his resignation is effective immediately , Monday, June 9 , 2008 at 5 : 50 p . m . Appointment of Town Board member Supervisor Engman moved that Rich DePaolo be appointed as Town Board member. Councilwoman Leary seconded . Supervisor Engman asked if there was any discussion . Councilman Stein moved that the appointment be delayed for one week and hold a special meeting . Supervisor Engman asked if there was a second . There being none , the motion died . With no further discussion regarding the appointment of Mr. DePaolo , Supervisor Engman called for a roll call vote . Carried unanimously. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008= 121 : APPOINTMENT OF TOWN BOARD MEMBER WHEREAS, the resignation of Town Board Member Jefferson Cowie leaves a vacancy on the Town Board; and WHEREAS, the Town Board Members wish to fill this open seat with a viable candidate who meets all of the criteria and qualifications needed for a Town Board Member in the Town of Ithaca; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby appoints Richard DePaolo to serve as Town Board Member through December 31 , 2008; and BE I T FURTHER RESOLVED, that Richard DePaolo will immediately assume the duties of a Town Board Member. Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 4 of 41 Final MOVED: Supervisor Engman SECONDED: Councilwoman Leary VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Levine, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilwoman Hunter, aye . Motion approved - Unanimous Oath of Office Supervisor Engman asked Mr. DePaolo to come forward and be sworn in as Town Board member. Ms . Billings swore Rich DePaolo in as Ithaca Town Board member. Supervisor Engman welcomed Councilman DePaolo to the Board . Supervisor Engman explained that Councilman DePaolo is a record producer and audio engineer; he also has a great deal of experience in citizen organizing and public participation , especially in the areas of water quality, toxics investigation , mitigation , and remediation , and land use planning . Councilman DePaolo has also been a member of the South Hill School PTA and a certified coach for the National Youth Sports Coaches Association . Agenda Item No . 6 — Persons to be Heard and Board Comments Supervisor Engman asked if anyone wished to address the board on any subject that was not before the board under a public hearing . Melinda Staniszewska , 220 Coddington Road Ms . Staniszewska came before the board stating that she came late into the process regarding the proposed Ithaca College trail . She said the trail is proposed to be located behind the homes on Coddington Road in the block between Hudson Street and the east entrance to Ithaca College ; she understood that the proposed trail was originally meant for the final completion phase . The original premise for the paths behind homes was to give students from South Hill access to the Athletics and Events Center itself; it is now part of Phase 1 A . Ms . Staniszewska reiterated that it was initially a trail to connect students to South Hill Recreation Way as well ; it has grown from a "trail " to a 10 -foot wide paved , lighted , 12-foot high poles every 55 feet from dusk 'til dawn . She said that she approached Mr. Couture about the reason for putting the trail in now and Mr. Couture said that Coddington Road is unsafe for students . Ms . Staniszewska stated it is true that when she bought her home in November 2006 the first thing she did was call the County Highway Engineer regarding the safety of people walking on Coddington Road . He told her that the County had a plan that would address all of Coddington Road and that the plan had been sidetracked by neighbors on the east side of the east entrance to the College who objected to the design plan . She then went to Ed Marx, County Planning Supervisor, and asked him if they could possibly take out of the major plan for Coddington (the one block) . This block has the prospect of the trail the college wants to build coming down a steep hill and switchbacking down to the Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 5 of 41 Final intersection of Hudson and Coddington , which has not been addressed for safety. She said there are no crosswalks marked and the proposed trail is more than a recreation trail . The recreation way has no lights and is closed at dusk . This is an access point for the college that is duplicating what should be done along Coddington Road . The distance of the trail is not much shorter from students using Coddington and Garden Way. Ms . Staniszewska said that there is a 15 foot County right-of-way easement and she has addressed the issue with all the municipalities involved . She went on to say that she has written to the Mayor and has spoken before the (TOI ) Planning Board on several occasions to point out duplication and sandwiching of property owners . She is concerned that the path will be as close as 10 feet behind one of the properties and squeezed in between a detention pond and the property owner. Ms . Staniszewska said that in her conversations with "everyone" , "everyone" says it comes back to the Town and the Town Board and the Town Supervisor to initiate dialog between the College , the County and the City. She said that Mr. Logue has delayed permitting for the City section because he felt the slope was too steep as designed and has asked them to go back . She had a letter from Mr. Lampman , who is also concerned about the trail ending at Coddington without having further traffic studies because the Athletics and Events Center construction is going to generate more traffic and the eventual facility itself. Ms . Staniszewska stated that she has looked at the Town Comprehensive Plan and it says the Town should be soliciting cooperation from the college as a participant just the way Cornell has made a plan to assist the City and the Town with the expenses for shared responsibilities . She has written to Mr. Sgrecci and President Williams , who happens to be staying on to raise funds for the Athletics and Events Center. President Williams' letter indicated that the College is moving forward with its trail because there are no plans in the foreseeable future for a trail on Coddington Road . Ms . Staniszewska submitted the letter she referred to and pictures of the conditions on Coddington Road . She thanked the board for their time . (refer to attachment # 2) Councilman Stein asked Ms . Staniszewska if the lights were the basic problem . Ms . Staniszewska replied that the lights are a good part of the problem , but , she said , it has turned out to no longer be a trail ; it' s turned out to be 10 feet wide to accommodate bikes and pedestrians according to certain safety guidelines . She suggested use of 4 foot high stanchion poles , but Mr. Herrick said that because of vandalism they needed 12 foot high lights . Ms . Staniszewska explained that the college plans to install a berm and evergreen trees , but she believes that by the time the plants mature , the residents will have been inundated with the problem for several years . She said that it' s possible that if the trail is put on the backburner until the Athletics Center is complete , then the plantings could be started now and would have the growth needed to mitigate light intrusion . Councilman Stein wondered if motion sensitive lights would reduce the problem . Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 6 of 41 Final Additional Agenda Item —.Public Hearing = Ithaca College Noise Permit Application Supervisor Engman explained that the application is for a permit for the sound amplification and other noise associated with the festivities of the fireworks , but not for the fireworks themselves . A proposed resolution was placed before the board that evening ; Supervisor Engman apologized for the short notice , but reiterated that the public hearing notice was published in the Ithaca Journal . He asked if someone would like to move the resolution . Councilman Stein moved and Councilwoman Leary seconded . Councilwoman Leary asked if it was true that for a few years there was no music . Community Fireworks representative stated that ever since they moved the event to Ithaca College and developed a VIP area . Councilwoman Leary recalled that a few years ago there was a DJ and it was more widely open . The Rep explained she was correct; they did have a party that was not part of the VIP area , but that no longer occurs . Councilman Stein said that the 4th of July celebration has been a successful community event for more than 50 years . Ms . Brock reminded Supervisor Engman that he needed to hold the public hearing before the board voted and stated that he . needs to open the public hearing and have anybody else who wishes to speak to the matter do so . He asked if anyone wanted to speak regarding the noise permit. Councilman DePaolo verified that the noise would violate the Town ' s noise ordinance . He has been in the VIP area and it was his recollection that the PA system that is used is barely adequate to cover the seating area . He was not sure if the applicant was operating under the assumption that it is going to violate the Town ' s noise ordinance . He wondered if anyone actually measured the sound ; stating it may be a formality the board is going through for no reason at all . The Rep responded that the sound has increased over the past few years because more people are in the VIP area . Councilwoman Leary added that the music is always a good part of the event. With no further comments , Supervisor Engman closed the public hearing . Supervisor Engman called for a vote on the motion . Carried unanimously. Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 7 of 41 Final TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2008- 122 — NOISE PERMIT APPROVAL FOR ITHACA COLLEGE'S ANNUAL FIREWORKS CELEBRATION BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the members of the Ithaca Town Board hereby approve the granting of a Noise Permit to Ithaca College for its Annual Community Fireworks Celebration to be held on July 2, 2008 at 953 Danby Road (Ithaca College) — rain date of July 3, 2008, MOVED: Councilman Stein SECONDED: Councilwoman Leary VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levine, aye; Councilwoman Hunter, aye; Councilman DePaolo, aye . Motion Approved — unanimous. Persons to be heard continued Larry Fabbroni , 1 Settlement Way Mr. Fabbroni came before the board and noted that there are 4 new board members since the Briarwood II project first came before the board . He renewed his invitation to tour the land of the Briarwood II project site and to discuss the project . Mr. Fabbroni stated that the board was going to hear later in the meeting about wetlands ; the proposed project does not disturb any wetlands . There are 8 acres of wetlands being preserved and another 17 acres are being donated to the Lab of Ornithology . The project has a state-of-the-art design ; it has been through State review and is meant to go above and beyond anything that is minimally required to further protect the neighborhood below the project. He thought that a lot of the Town ' s northeast study is starting to identify 40 or 50 year old problems that come up with any house that it bought . He hopes that the board can start to look at some of those needs that are being identified in that light . He noted that there is room for discussion and education . He thanked the board for its time . Supervisor Engman thanked Mr. Fabbroni for his comments . Agenda Item No . 7 - 6 : 05 p . m . - Public Hearing regarding adoption of a LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 270 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE , ENTITLED ZONING , REGARDING SMALL WIND ENERGY FACILITIES Supervisor Engman opened the public hearing and read the title of the proposed local law. He asked if there was anyone who would like to speak to the issue . Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 8 of 41 Final Doug and Bruce Brittain , 135 Warren Road Mr. B . Brittain stated that he and his brother support wind energy in the Town and thank the board . They looked through the proposed legislation and made comments and suggestions . See attachment #3 The Brittains then demonstrated what a 3 dB increase and a 5 dB increase would sound like . Councilman Stein found the background of the demonstration to be something he intolerable , saying if the noise were doubled or tripled he would not be able to stand it. Noise that is imperceptible he can stand . Mr. B . Brittain said importance lies in the difference between the two . The Brittains continued their demonstration with a 6 dB increase and a 10 dB increase . Mr. B . Brittain explained the incremental increases in sound effect by citing an example . Councilman DePaolo noted that Mr. Brittain was talking about accumulative effects and asked how much noise the average size residential windmill would produce . Mr. B . Brittain gave an example of a wind facility being 35 dBa . Councilman DePaolo pointed out that there are not a lot of places in the Town where there could be the density of windmills that would result in an accumulative issue within the ear-shot of the average resident . Mr. D . Brittain stated that from his perspective , the 10 dB is a big loophole the Town may not want to leave open . Supervisor Engman added that COC discussed the issue at length and one of the things they were concerned about was the effect of making the noise level so low that it would in fact prohibit anyone from having a windmill . He recalled that the typical windmill generates between 3 and 8 dBa . Mr. Kanter explained that staff looked at some of the manufacturer testing . Burview Windpower tested normal and unloaded operation . Unloaded is a term that means where the turbine is allowed to spin freely. Under normal operations the measured increase in noise was between 3 and 4 decibels at a distance of 42 feet from the base of the tower. In the unloaded operation , which happens sometimes , the test measured at approximately 6 to 7 decibels above ambient noise levels at the 42 foot distance . Based on actual research and measurements , the Codes and Ordinances Committee wanted to make sure that whatever upper limit the Town came up with that the typical operation would be within that threshold . In fact, noise as an issue , is really not something the committee felt was a significant issue in the first place , but they wanted to make sure the Town had an upper range that was not going to put a homeowner in a situation to make a major investment (facilities typically cost $25 , 000 to $45 , 000 ) only to have complaints from neighbors . Councilman Stein liked the presentation given by the Brittains , but believes that eventually, if wind facilities are repeated at the highest density possible , it gets to a point , after a while , where the noise level is not being increased at all because the additional facilities being added are farther away from existing facilities . Mr. B . Brittain explained that the International Standards Organization has said an increase of 10 dB will generate community complaint . He added that he wants windpower in the Town , but is afraid that if somebody puts up a tower and it' s a 10 dB increase the neighbors will complain leading to the end of windpower. Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 9 of 41 Final Supervisor Engman thanked the Brittains and solicited comments from other members of the public. Male This gentleman asked the board what the sole purpose was behind adopting the proposed law. Supervisor Engman explained that the Town worked on a solar power law making it easier for Town residents to use alternate energy. It was suggested that there may be some residents in the Town who might be willing and interested in developing wind energy. With the rising cost of energy, it is an opportunity for people to eventually feed back into the grid to benefit everyone . The gentleman asked if someone could put up a wind facility now without the law and wondered why not . Supervisor Engman explained that within zoning unless something is specifically permitted it is prohibited . The gentleman asked if commercial wind facilities would be permitted . . Supervisor Engman explained that a law addressing commercial facilities will be worked on in the future . With no other members of the public interested in speaking , Supervisor Engman closed the public hearing . Agenda Item No . 8 = Consider SEAR regarding adoption of a LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 270 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE , ENTITLED ZONING , REGARDING SMALL WIND ENERGY FACILITIES Supervisor Engman asked the board if they would like to continue with SEAR and voting on the law, or whether based on received information they would like to postpone the decision until they' ve had a chance to investigate some of the information that has been presented . Councilman Stein wondered if staff could respond to the point raised by the Brittains . Mr. Kanter directed the board ' s attention to the letter the Town received from the Tompkins County Department of Planning ( see attached document # 4 ) . The letter reminded him of the NYSERDA Wind Energy Development Guide for Local Authorities in New York which outlines that typical exceedance noise levels range from 5 to 8 decibels above ambient noise levels . He thought that 10 decibels would make sure the noise level would be covered . Mr. Kanter did not think noise was a significant issue from the committee perspective . The committee did a lot of research and visited several facilities in the area . Councilman Levine agreed with Mr. Kanter and thought that there needed to be a margin for noise because enforcing it is quite drastic ; it is basically telling someone to turn off and not use their wind turbine . He did think the committee or staff should review the comments ; he would not mind passing it or holding off if no one was waiting to put up a wind turbine . Mr. Walker commented that high winds in a wooded area will create noise in the decibel range of 30 to 35 . He did not think that 10 decibels above the ambient noise in an area that was going to be open enough and have other things around it will be a real noise . Councilman DePaolo thought that if the Town was going to try to portion out the actual Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 10 of 41 Final decibel number for the law because the difference between 5-8 and 10 is significant . In his opinion , it might not limit people' s ability to put up a windmill , but may dictate the size of the facility that could be put up . Putting a cap on the overall noise generated by a facility would mean that the law would have to be written to start with the cap and work down from there . He does not know if the board could pass what is before them without readdressing the paragraph . Councilman Stein thought the issue should be looked at if there was no one waiting for the law to be passed . Supervisor Engman asked if there are any pending requests for wind energy facilities . Mr. Kanter responded that there is one gentleman waiting for the law to be adopted . Mr. Walker added that the Town and Bolton Point are considering a wind generator for the West Hill Water Tank . Mr. Kanter suggested that if the board feels it is necessary to change , he does not know if they want to just send it back somewhere because the perimeters are there ; it' s mainly a policy decision . Supervisor Engman suggested that if the board wanted to deal with the law that evening , they should start a series of amendments using the proposed changes from the Brittains as a guide or the board could vote to send it back to committee . Councilwoman Leary thought the changes were simple enough that the board could get through them that evening . Ms . Brock reminded the board that any substantive changes were subject to another public hearing . She did not think adding the word "exposed " would not be a substantive change because that was the intent, but she did think that any other of the changes that are proposed would be considered substantive . Councilman Stein was uncomfortable with making legislation from the floor. He is moved by having something in general municipal law and that the board has a tolerance that is higher than what is recommended . He is sure there is no right or wrong answer but seeing the 5-8 decibel range , he is not comfortable with having something more than that . Councilman Stein thought that the board would need to have another formal hearing if that was changed . He moved that the law be sent back to the committee with the instruction that they look at the letter the Planning Board sent around and the materials submitted by the Brittain brothers . Supervisor Engman stated that if the changes were made in time , the board would be able to post the hearing in time for the next Town Board meeting . Ms . Brock added that the Town Board would need to be comfortable with the changes made . Councilman Goodman asked if Mr. Kanter was expecting the comments made in the County' s letter to the Town . Mr. Kanter responded the County asked how the Town had made the determination of the 10 decibels . He was not surprised by the letter, but was not sure what kind of comment was going to be made . Councilman Goodman wondered if the board could find out more from the County about their suggestion and whether the board wants to decrease the limit from 10 to 8 or whether the Town even needs to go back to the County to figure out what their reasoning is . Mr. Kanter expressed that the County' s letter stands on its own . Supervisor Engman asked for a second on Councilman Stein ' s motion . Councilman Goodman seconded . Councilwoman Leary thought the changes the board was talking Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 11 of 41 Final about were substantive , but if it is the sense of the board to support the suggested changes then they could anticipate setting a public hearing for July. Councilwoman Hunter asked if the board was proposing to send the local law back to committee with the proposed changes inserted . Councilwoman Leary explained that they do not have to do it that way because the board cannot pass the law that evening because the change is to substantive . She was anticipating that the board would be able to advertise the law with changes in time for the next board meeting . Supervisor Engman thought Councilwoman Hunter was trying to anticipate was whether there is agreement on the other proposed changes ( besides the decibel level ) . Councilman DePaolo asked if the board was only considering the changes proposed by the Brittains or if they were considering all aspects of the proposed law. Supervisor Engman clarified that the board was considering all aspects of the law, but were currently discussing the proposed changes . Councilman Stein stated he understands that there are always tradeoffs between advantages and disadvantages and if one of the changes means the Town could not use wind energy then he is against it ; on the other hand if the Town could do something that conforms with other standards about protecting the environment he is for it . Councilman Levine asked if the motion on the floor indicated what committee the law was being sent to . He supported the law going back to Codes and Ordinances . Supervisor Engman called for a vote on the motion . Carried unanimously. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008- 123: Resolution to refer "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 270 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE, ENTITLED ZONING, REGARDING SMALL WIND ENERGY FACILITIES " to the Codes and Ordinances Committee for further review RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby refers a proposed local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 270 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE, ENTITLED ZONING, REGARDING SMALL WIND ENERGY FACILITIES " to the Codes and Ordinances Committee of the Town of Ithaca for further review and recommendation. MOVED: Councilman Stein SECONDED: Councilman Goodman VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levine, aye; Councilwoman Hunter, aye; Councilman DePaolo, aye. Motion Approved — unanimous. Supervisor Engman asked if there were other concerns or comments about the law itself. Councilman DePaolo directed the board ' s attention to the section of the law that gave the definition of a qualified energy wind installer. He asked how the determination is made by Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 12 of 41 J Final Ile Town and wondered if it was part of the building permit process . Councilman DePaolo wondered how the Town determined if someone did not have official NYSERDA certification . Mr. Kanter explained that the Code Enforcement Officers would be making the determination and it is based largely on their familiarity with the installation process . Certain basic mechanical and electrical skills would be required . He clarified that qualifications need to be submitted during the application process . Ms . Brock added that the provision is modeled after the solar energy law. It tracks it very closely in terms of the qualifications needed . Councilman DePaolo was concerned about the construction of the tower. Councilman DePaolo then directed the board ' s attention to Section 2 , paragraph c, sub 8— setback and buffer requirements . He asked if building mounted facilities were included in the required setback and buffer requirements. Mr. Kanter noted that normally when one is talking about a setback provision it deals with the closest point of a structure or building from the lot line . He did not think the committee intended for the provision to apply to roof structures . Councilman DePaolo thought that there should be a delineation between freestanding and building mounted facilities . Councilman DePaolo directed the board ' s attention to lighting--Section D , number 7 . He looked at Chapter 173 of the Town Code and noted that there was a contradiction because Chapter 173 noted that wind energy facilities should be artificially lighted , but the proposed wind energy law requires lighting of the facility. Mr. Kanter explained that lighting normally would not be allowed unless the FAA requires it, which would typically be for very high structures . If the FAA requires lighting , the lighting would have to conform to the Town ' s lighting law . Councilman DePaolo was confused by the language in the section . It sounded like the provision was asking people to reduce the possibility of bird collisions , but then telling them that the facility could not be lighted . He wondered if it only applied to facilities with FAA approved lighting . Ms . Brock explained that all site lighting is included . She gave an example of someone putting up a pole light next to their tower; the pole light would need to be shielded . The language was included to reiterate that Chapter 173 also applies so that people are aware of those requirements as well . Councilman DePaolo asked if there was an effort in the paragraph to suggest that people should reduce the possibility of nighttime bird collisions . Is the section saying that some facilities are tall enough that nighttime bird collisions may be a consideration ? Ms . Brock explained that the intent of the language was to reiterate that Chapter 173 standards for outdoor lighting apply to the facilities . She suggested striking the bird collision language if the board thought it was a problem . Supervisor Engman suggested that all . ideas be sent to committee along with the previous suggestions and hopefully have a revised version for the July board meeting . Board members agreed . Mr. Kanter asked if it would be appropriate for the board to set a new public hearing date assuming the COC forwards the law back to the Town Board in time . Councilman Stein moved and Councilwoman Leary seconded setting a public hearing for July 7 , 2008 at 6 : 05 p . m . Carried unanimously. Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 13 of 41 Final TB Resolution No. 2008- 124: Consider Setting Public Hearin_o Regarding Proposed Local Law Amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Entitled Zoning, Regarding Small Wind Energy 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 14th day of July 2008, at 6:05 p. m. for the purpose of considering a proposed local law amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code, entitled Zoning, regarding small wind energy 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 Stein SECONDED: Councilwoman Leary VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye, Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levine, aye; Councilwoman Hunter, aye; Councilman DePaolo, aye. Motion Approved — unanimous. Agenda Item No . 10 - 6 : 15 p . m . - Public Hearing regarding A LOCAL LAW DELETING EAST HILL SHOPPING PLAZA PROVISIONS FROM CHAPTER 250 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE , TITLED "VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC " Supervisor Engman opened the public hearing listed above . Maria Maynard , S . B . Ashley Management Ms . Maynard explained it was suggested to them at the Planning Board that the East Hill Shopping Plaza provisions be deleted from Chapter 250 . The provisions were adopted in 1983 and addressed general safety and traffic congestions that may impede passage of fire fighting and safety equipment for the back to the Plaza . The Town Planning Board , Town Code Enforcement Office , and Tom Parson with the City of Ithaca Fire Department are supportive of the deletion . Ms . Maynard also suggested that Sections 252 and 253 also be deleted from the law. They would like to proceed with the landscape improvements knowing it does not impede with the law. With no one else interested in speaking at the public hearing , Supervisor Engman closed the public hearing . Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 14 of 41 Final Agenda Item No . 11 - Consider Resolution to adopt A LOCAL LAW DELETING EAST HILL SHOPPING PLAZA PROVISIONS FROM CHAPTER 250 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE , TITLED "VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC " Attachment #5 Councilman Stein moved and Councilwoman Leary seconded the proposed resolution . Supervisor Engman asked if there was any discussion . Mr. Walker commented that the fire safety zone remains in place even once the provisions are deleted . Supervisor Engman called for a vote . Carried unanimously. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008425: Resolution Adopting "A LOCAL LAW DELETING EAST HILL SHOPPING PLAZA PROVISIONS FROM CHAPTER 250 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE, TITLED `VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC "' WHEREAS, on April 1 , 2008, the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca granted preliminary and final site plan approval to Cornell University Real Estate Department for the East Hill Plaza—North Fagade Landscape Improvements project; and WHEREAS, because the approved project will encroach into the East Hill Shopping Plaza safety zone, designated in Article I of Chapter 250 of the Town of Ithaca Code, the Planning Board conditioned its approval on "Town Board amendment to Town Code Chapter 250 to modify the East Hill Shopping Plaza Safety Zone so that the north fagade landscape improvements comply with the revised requirements of Chapter 250, or Town Board repeal the provisions of Chapter 250 pertaining to the Safety Zone '; and WHEREAS, the East Hill Shopping Plaza safety zone is the only safety zone codified in the Town Code, and every change to the location or dimensions of the safety zones requires a local law, and WHEREAS, for all other properties in the Town, adequate fire access is mandated through the site plan review process, and the Town 's Code Enforcement Officers have the ability to establish formal fire lanes through the building permit process; and WHEREAS, after consultation with Cornell University's Legal Counsel's Office, the Town Board is proposing to delete Article I of Chapter 250 of the Town of Ithaca Code; and WHEREAS, a resolution was duly adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca for a public hearing to be held by said Town on June 9, 2008 at 6: 15 p. m. to hear all interested parties on the proposed local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW DELETING EAST HILL SHOPPING PLAZA PROVISIONS FROM CHAPTER 250 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE, TITLED `VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC '; and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law, or any part thereof, and Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 15 of 41 Final 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 this action is a Type II action because it constitutes "routine or continuing agency administration and management, not including new programs or major reordering of priorities that may affect the environment, " and thus this action is not subject to review under SEQRA NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts said local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW DELETING EAST HILL SHOPPING PLAZA PROVISIONS FROM CHAPTER 250 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE, TITLED `VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC "; a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this resolution; and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file said local law with the Secretary of State as required by law. MOVED: Councilman Stein SECONDED: Councilwoman Leary Roll Call Vote : Supervisor Engman - aye Councilman DePaolo - aye Councilman Goodman - aye Councilwoman Leary - aye Councilman Levine - aye Councilman Stein - aye Councilwoman Hunter - aye Motion Approved: Unanimous Agenda Item No . 12 - 6 : 20 p . m . - Presentation regarding , Wetiand Protections in Tompkins County: Existing Status, Gaps & Future Needs by Nick Schipanski , on Behalf of Tompkins County Water Resources Council - PowerPoint Presentation see attachment # 6 Nick Schipanski , Tompkins County Water Resources Council Mr. Schipanski introduced himself to the board and explained the reasons behind the study were changes in the wetland laws and they were interested in how the changes affect wetland protections in Tompkins County . There was also interest in the accuracy of the wetland database . Mr. Schipanski made a PowerPoint Presentation to the board regarding wetland protection in Tompkins County. See attachment # Supervisor Engman thanked Mr. Schipanski for his presentation and solicited questions from the board . Councilman Stein asked what fraction of wetlands are taken out of the County as a result of recent Federal court decisions . Mr. Schipanski explained between 8 Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 16 of 41 Final and 18 % of wetlands would not be covered by Federal regulation . Councilman Stein understood a local municipality could not have some kind of a broad uniform law that picked up the slack that had been reduced by the Federal court rulings . He thought Mr. Schipanski had said a law would need to be passed about each little wetland and a demonstration that those things were unique and important. Mr. Schipanski clarified that is for the State law. Local laws can be as restrictive or not restrictive , but cannot circumvent the base Federal law. The New York State wetland law has a stipulation that wetlands regulated under the law are mapped . Councilman Stein thought he heard Mr. Schipanski say that there was only one local community in New York that had passed such a local law. Mr. Schipanski responded that several municipalities in New York State have adopted local laws . Councilwoman Hunter remembered that State or Federal law regulate wetlands over 12 . 4 acres and asked if the Town could adopt regulations that were more stringent. Mr. Schipanski confirmed it was State law and that the Town could adopt more stringent regulations . Councilwoman Hunter noted she did not see a connection between wetlands and groundwater in the definitions . Mr. Schipanski explained that the Federal courts are not considering groundwater in their decisions . She asked if a municipality could make that connection in their own legislation and Mr. Schipanski said that they could . Councilwoman Hunter also wondered if a municipality could assume jurisdiction of roadside ditches in a State right-of-way. Mr. Schipanski was not sure and added that there are ditches that go through fields , farmland , etc. Councilwoman Hunter wanted to know what happens with a wetland that straddles municipal boundaries and who has jurisdiction . Mr. Schipanski answered that the municipalities would have to try to cooperate on their regulations of the wetlands . He added that if a wetland crosses state boundaries it is automatically a federally regulated wetland . Councilman DePaolo wanted to know what criteria is used with regard to court decisions . Mr. Schipanski responded that the courts have not had a chance to make that determination . The Army Corps of Engineers has set up rules for things to consider such as the amount of flow, but have not specified how much flow. It is a professional judgment based on flow, setting , and other criteria that in their professional opinion constitute having some kind of an impact on the downstream waterway. Supervisor Engman reminded the board that they were not taking any action on the item that evening ; the Conservation Board has discussed considering a local law regarding wetlands . He asked if there were any other questions or comments . Mr. Schipanski mentioned that the Water Resources . Council is working on a draft Wetland Ordinance . and hope to have it ready by the fall . Councilwoman Hunter asked if wetlands could be placed on the Wetlands Register as the Town designates them . Mr. Schipanski explained that the Town could go through the State process of identifying the wetlands and then the State will adopt it. It is a laborious process and it requires a lot of public hearings . Councilwoman Hunter then asked if there would be Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 17 of 41 Final a reason for the Town to do so , or if the Town would be able to adopt sufficiently rigorous legislation . Mr. Schipanski explained that local governments can adopt almost any kind of regulation without DEC approval . Supervisor Engman thanked Mr. Schipanski for his presentation . Agenda Item No . 13 - Consider Resolution of Support for a NYS Transportation Enhancement Program Grant Application for the Pine Tree Road Bridge Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Proiect Supervisor Engman directed the board to the materials in their packet . He explained that it is a joint project with Cornell , the County, the Town , and the Federal government dependent upon receipt of the Federal grant. Councilman Stein moved and Councilwoman Leary seconded the proposed resolution . Supervisor Engman asked if there were any questions or comments . Councilman Goodman asked if the funding is included in the budget or will it need to be allocated in the future . Supervisor Engman thought that it would need to be allocated in the future . He was not sure when the Federal funding would be available . Mr. Kanter thought the grants would be announced late in 2008 and added that the funding would need to be included in 2009 budget discussions . Councilman DePaolo asked how the overall footprint of the road in the proposed area compares to the road to the southwest of the project area . Mr. Noteboom was not able to provide the detail at the time . Councilman Stein wondered what would happen if the Town voted the project down . Supervisor Engman responded that the project partners would need to decide on whether or not to move forward with the project. The project fits in with the Town ' s plans for pedestrian and bicycle transportation and is an important indication that the Town is willing to participate on joint projects . Supervisor Engman called for a vote — carried unanimously. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008= 126: SUPPORT FOR A NYS TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE PINE TREE ROAD BRIDGE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the Tompkins County Highway Department, the Town of Ithaca and Cornell University have been developing a proposal to improve Bicycle and pedestrian facilities for the portion of Pine Tree Road between SR 366 and Maple Avenue, and WHEREAS, the County is preparing a Transportation Enhancement Project application. for federal funding for the project, and WHEREAS, the preferred alternate for the project includes replacement of the old railroad bridge, owned by Cornell, over Pine Tree Road, construction of bikeable shoulders on Pine Tree Road, Construction of a 10 foot Bicycle/Pedestrian trail from the existing recreation Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 18 of 41 Final way to Rte. 366, and construction of an ADA compliant pedestrian trail from the existing recreation way along Pine Tree Road to Maple Avenue, and WHEREAS, the estimated project cost is $953, 220. 00 and the proposal requires a local share of cost to qualify for the Federal Funding, and WHEREAS, the proposed project funding share plan is: Federal Funding 72% $683, 505. 00 Cornell Funding 21 % $ 199, 717. 50 County Funding 4% $ 34, 998. 75 Town Funding 4% $ 34, 998. 75 Total 100% $953, 220. 00 , 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 Transportation Enhancement Project application for federal funding for the project 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 Transportation Enhancement Project application for federal funding for the proposal to improve Bicycle and pedestrian facilities for the portion of Pine Tree Road between SR 366 and Maple Avenue. MOVED: Councilman Stein SECONDED: Councilwoman Leary VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levine, aye; Councilwoman Hunter, aye; Councilman DePaolo, aye . Motion approved - unanimous. Agenda Item No . 14 = Consider setting a public hearing regarding a Local Law adding a Chapter to the Town of Ithaca code, titled " Storm Sewer System and Surface Waters Protection " Supervisor Engman explained the law is a partner to the Stormwater Runoff Law previously passed by the board . Councilman Goodman moved and Councilman Stein seconded . The public hearing was scheduled for July 7 , 2008 at 6 : 15 p . m . Supervisor Engman called for a vote - carried unanimously. Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 19 of 41 Final TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2008- 127 SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MONDAY, JULY 71 2008 AT 6: 15 P. M. REGARDING A PROPOSED LOCAL LAW ADDING CHAPTER 227 TO THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE, TITLED "STORM SEWER SYSTEM AND SURFACE WATERS PROTECTION' AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CONSERVATION BOARD 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 7th day of July 2008, at 6: 15 p. m. for the purpose of considering a proposed local law adding Chapter 227 to the Town of Ithaca Code Titled "Storm Sewer System and Surface Waters Protection " 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 Goodman SECONDED: Councilman Stein VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levine, aye; Councilwoman Hunter, aye; Councilman DePaolo, aye . Motion approved — unanimous. Agenda Item No . 15 - Consider Approval of Budget for Pegasus Oversight Access Committee Supervisor Engman explained the board is being asked to approve a $ 19 , 800 capital budget for the Pegasys program . Councilwoman Hunter moved and Supervisor Engman seconded the proposed resolution . Supervisor Engman called for a vote — carried unanimously. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008= 128: RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2009 PEG ACCESS STUDIO CAPITAL BUDGET WHEREAS, the Franchise Agreement between Time Warner Entertainment and the Town of Ithaca, effective November 19, 2002, authorizes Time Warner Entertainment to collect $0. 15 per subscriber per month to be used for the purchase of equipment for the PEG Access Studio; and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca is a member of the Pegasys Access Oversight Committee, which was created by the City of Ithaca to deal with a variety of matters related to public access, including making recommendations regarding the timing, use and amount of PEG Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 20 of 41 Final access equipment to be acquired each year over the term of the City's franchise agreement with Time Warner Entertainment, and WHEREAS, the Pegasys Access Oversight Committee has been charged with the duty of making a recommendation regarding the annual budget and facilities for the coming year, to be approved by participating municipalities by June 30 of the current year; and WHEREAS, the total capital budget for the life of the ten-year agreement was estimated to be $200, 000; and Whereas, the Access Oversight Committee has approved a 2009 capital budget in the amount of $ 19, 800, as shown on the attached document titled "2009 PEGASYS Capital Budget '; 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 this capital budget is a Type II action because it constitutes "routine or continuing agency administration and management, not including new programs or major reordering of priorities that may affect the environment, " and thus adoption of this capital budget is not subject to review under SEQRA, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board adopts the attached 2009 PEG Access Studio Capital Budget as approved by the Access Oversight Committee. MOVED: Councilwoman Hunter SECONDED: Supervisor Engman VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levine, aye; Councilwoman Hunter, aye; Councilman DePaolo, aye. Motion approved — unanimous. AA enda Item No . 16 = Consider referring Lakefront Residential Zone changes to the Planning Board , Zoning Board of Appeals and Conservation Board for recommendations Supervisor Engman directed the board ' s attention to their packet materials and noted that a memo from Christine Balestra outlines the changes made to the law at the Codes and Ordinances Committee . Councilman Goodman moved and Councilman DePaolo seconded the proposed resolution . Supervisor Engman called for any discussion . Councilman Stein wanted clarification whether the law was thoroughly vetted ; Supervisor Engman responded that this is a referral . Jonathan Kanter mentioned that he received a message from the Westside Homeowners Association indicating that the Committee has Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 21 of 41 Final accommodated all of its suggestions and they look forward to coming and commenting further on the Local Law, Councilman Stein asked for clarification regarding tops on lifts and tops on boats ; Councilman Goodman answered that the change made was to allow roofs over boats , which was not allowed in the previous draft . Supervisor Engman said that he is still concerned about two issues in this law; one concerns the dock length . Supervisor Engman said that he went back and looked at the survey the West Shore Homeowner' s Assn . did and regarding docks , 73 % of the Town of Ithaca residents favored 30 ' to 40 ' docks ; in the Town of Ulysses , 71 % favored 30 ' to 40 ' docks . Supervisor Engman concluded that the discrepancy does not make sense , saying that perhaps those who are representing the West Shore Homeowner' s Association are reflecting their own interests , because they might have bigger boats or better ability to extend their docks . Supervisor Engman went on to say that clearly the overwhelming majority of their membership favored up to 40 . Supervisor Engman said that he would move to amend the recommendation to shorten the dock length from 50 ' back to the 40 ' that had been originally recommended , and asked for a second. Councilwoman Hunter seconded and asked for clarification about property owners and lake ownership , stating that the lake belongs to the people of the state of New York and we have the balancing act between the rights of the property owners and the rights of the rest of the residents of the State of New York to passively enjoy the lake , be it a small sailboat, kayak , visual enjoyment ; she added , if there isn 't a real reason to have it 50 ' then I would support reducing it to 40 . Councilwoman Hunter then asked why 50 ' was used . Councilman Goodman asked if Councilwoman Hunter had officially seconded Supervisor Engman ' s motion , and Supervisor Engman answered in the affirmative . Discussion : Councilman Goodman said that at the last COC meeting , a majority of the COC members thought that the 40 ' length was too restrictive ; he believes the original recommendation was 50 ' and asked Jonathan Kanter if this was correct. Mr. Kanter responded that the recommendation was based on [staff] research on what other communities had done . Susan Brock added that it is also based on existing guides . Councilman DePaolo asked for some background on the issue and Councilman Goodman responded that the original recommendation from staff, after they did the survey of the existing docks that are in the lake , and surveys of other municipalities , was that they allowed 50 ' and the Codes and Ordinances Committee had put it down to 40 ' , which was in the prior draft Councilman Goodman added that from his own personal experience being on the lake , etc . , 50 ' seemed to make a lot more sense and the Codes and Ordinances Committee agreed , which is why we changed it back to 50 ' . Councilwoman Hunter asked if the rationale for 50 ' is the draft ; is it deep enough ? Councilwoman Leary said that was part of it, and the West Shore Homeowners Association was arguing that they needed the extension because 40 ' wasn 't long enough . Councilwoman Hunter asked if we know the difference in depth between 40 ' and 50 ' ; Councilwoman Leary said that it varies and that they were actually asking for 60 ' and we Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 22 of 41 Final compromised . Councilwoman Leary went on to say that one of the reasons we went to 50 ' was because of the survey of similar local laws from other municipalities on the Finger Lakes , including Cayuga , resulted in finding they were either not restricting the dock length at all or most of them were 60 ' and maybe 50 ' — essentially, they were at least 50 ' . Thus , we thought 50 ' was reasonable , and in the previous Town Board , the majority also felt that 40 ' was probably too short. Councilwoman Leary went on to say that the original impetus for this change [ I think] was that ZBA was getting requests for variances , and when we went back to find out the reason for 40 ' we found no good reason that the previous board chose 40 ' ; for that reason , and because we were getting lots of variance requests , most of us felt that 40 ' was not quite enough . Councilman DePaolo thanked Councilwoman Leary for the clarification and asked Supervisor Engman if he was referring to the West Shore Homeowners Association membership? Supervisor Engman said yes . Supervisor Engman said that the West Shore Homeowners Assn . did a survey of its membership and 37 responses came in on dock length . Councilman DePaolo asked how many members are in the Assn . , and no one knew that answer. Supervisor Engman wanted to know the answer to the question , if the homeowners think 40 ' is good enough, why would we overrule that? Supervisor Engman said that he has received complaints , including complaints from the Association members , that when people try to use the lake for a small sailboat or kayak the length of the docks impeded their use/enjoyment of the lake . Supervisor Engman went on to say that since the lake belongs to everybody, a reasonable length would be 40 ' . Also , since the survey indicated that between 71 % - 73 % favored 30 ' — 40 ' and some of them put 30 ' ; the 40 ' , which we had originally agreed upon , seemed a fine length , which is why he said he is suggesting this . Councilman Goodman added that as someone who kayaks , and he has a friend at 891 Taughannock , the length for kayaking [50 '] is not a problem , adding that a lot of the docks [already] are 50 ' . Councilman Goodman said that one already has to stay out 50 ' to get beyond most of the docks that are built there already, and he doesn 't think allowing people to build up to 50 ' should cause a problem . Councilman Levine added that his concern is sailboats , because he understands they require more depth , and he did not want a dock length that would discourage sail boating — a green way to have a boat. Councilwoman Hunter asked if someone who wants a 50 ' dock length could get a variance? Susan Brock said that they could apply for it . Councilman Goodman said that one of the reasons for going to 50 ' was to cut down on the requests for variances . Supervisor Engman added that there are docks that go out to 75 ' and if we attempt to make it as long as the longest one , it does not make any sense , either. He added that having a mid -point between the 70 ' , which is already there and the 30 ' , which is in our current law, it seems to me that 40 ' is still reasonable . Councilman Stein added that lacking any knowledge or experience regarding docks , he would go to "what' s the prevailing standard ? " , [questioning] which is what COC did ? Councilman Goodman , confirmed . Based on that , Councilman Stein was not inclined to change this . Councilman DePaolo asked how many variance requests have come in and how many of those variance requests are approved . He wondered if the requests provide a substantial Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 23 of 41 Final workload on the town ? Jonathan Kanter answered that this year there have not been very many, but this may be because people are waiting to see what happens with this law. Susan Brock stated that they actually are not variances , because the way the law is written the Planning Board is given the discretion to increase the length from 30 ' , provided the applicant can show they need it . She went on to say that when the law was written , the standards were very vague , and the Planning Board found it difficult to make a determination as to what criteria to apply, and right after these regulations went into effect they did get a series of applications and had a very hard time with them . Ms . Brock said that she would guess 5 or 6 applications and some of those applicants came back several times . She added , this spurred the request that' s mentioned in your resolution by the Planning Board asking the Town Board to take another look , and perhaps increase the length . Ms . Brock said her memory is that they did increase the , length to 60 ' at the longest . Councilman DePaolo asked if anyone requesting a change was refused and Jonathan said that part of an application was denied — his memory was not clear on this . Supervisor Engman asked for a vote on his amendment to the motion . Roll Call : Councilwoman Hunter — yes ; Councilman DePaolo — yes ; Councilman Levine — no ; Supervisor Engman — yes ; Councilwoman Leary - no ; Councilman Stein — no ; Councilman Goodman — no . 3 yes votes 4 no votes Amendment Motion Failed , TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008= 130: AMEND SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2008- 129: REFERRAL OF PROPOSED LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 270, ARTICLE Vll OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE, ENTITLED "LAKEFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE. " TO THE PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, AND CONSERVATION BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATIONS. WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee has drafted a proposed local law amending Chapter 270, Article Vll of the Town of Ithaca Code, entitled - "Lakefront Residential Zone, " for the Town Board 's consideration; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this local law is to clarify and modify some of the elements of the Lakefront Residential (LR) Zone regulation, due to the November 25, 2005 recommendation to the Codes and Ordinances Committee by the Planning Board to reconsider the dimensions and sizes of docks specified in the LR Zone and due to the results of staff research on existing waterfront structures and lakefront conditions in the Town of Ithaca; and WHEREAS, among other revisions, the proposed amendments would include definitions for the main terms expressed in the LR Zone regulation, extend maximum allowable dock lengths from 30 feet to a0 40 feet, begin dock length measurements from the Ordinary High Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 24 of 41 Final Water line, limit the size of boatlifts, permit roofs on boatlifts with certain restrictions, permit accessory storage structures within 10 feet of the shoreline, and clarify some sections of the existing regulation; and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee and the Town Board have considered comments and recommendations made by the West Shore Homeowners Association (WSHA) and other members of the public in the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed the above-described proposed local law at its regular meeting on June 9, 2008; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that the proposed local law described above is hereby referred to the Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, and the Conservation Board for its recommendations. MOVED: Supervisor Engman SECONDED: Councilwoman Hunter ROLL CALL VOTE: Councilwoman Hunter, yea Councilman DePaolo, yea Councilman Levine, no Supervisor Engman, yea Councilwoman Leary, no Councilman Stein, no Councilman Goodman, no Motion failed: 3 votes yea; 4 votes no Supervisor Engman next brought before the board another motion . Supervisor Engman said that he is very worried about a provision that says an owner can have an accessory building of 100 sq . ft. or smaller within 10 feet of the shoreline . Such a building could contain gas or oil or cooking fuel , and if it gets flooded it will go out into the lake . Supervisor Engman said the normal setback is 25 ' , which he said is just fine . Supervisor Engman moved that the 10 ' provision be removed and make it all 25 ' setback . Councilman DePaolo seconded . Discussion : Councilman Goodman mentioned that there is nothing that stops them from keeping their can of gasoline for their motorboat down at the waterfront, anyway. He believes that it is probably safer to keep it in their storage shed . He said this was an item that was of great concern to the members on the board , the fact that there is a big slope (west side of the lake ) , and the number of steps from the residence to the waterfront , and there are a number of people who do have storage sheds . Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 25 of 41 Final Councilman DePaolo asked a question about the average shoreline wondering if it does not already accommodate the 25 ' setback . Councilman Goodman said that in many areas , along the west side , the distance from the water line to the bottom of the cliff is less than 25 . Ms . Brock explained that this is written to apply only where they cannot meet the 25 ' setback because of the steep slopes . Councilman Stein clarified that they have to put it at 25 ' if they can ; and Ms. Brock said yes . Councilman Stein said that if they couldn 't put it at 25 ' they would have to climb up the steep hill to which Councilman DePaolo responded that they should have thought of that before they bought the house . Councilman Stein responded that this is sort of after they bought the house and Supervisor Engman said that there are still some empty lots and this would apply in those situations . Supervisor Engman said that his point is that when somebody is closing up for the season , or will not be around the house , it' s highly unlikely they will leave empty gas cans sitting around at the docks , but it' s not unlikely that they are going to put them in the storage shed ; when flooding occurs that storage floats out to where our water supply is . Supervisor Engman cautioned the board members to remember that Bolton Point water, our drinking water, comes from the lake . Councilwoman Leary said that most of the concerns expressed were for things that are not potentially hazardous . Under the 25 ' setback they could not have normal ' types of accessories they have on their boats ; they could not store them there . The cliffs are very sheer and some of the older people have difficulty climbing up and down a near vertical ladder, just to bring ordinary accessories that they would like to store right on the shore . In most cases this would not include gas and oil . Councilman Levine asked , prefacing that it would be difficult to enforce , if it could be stated that for any shed that is less than 25 ' from the shore , it should not contain a defined hazardous material . Ms . Brock responded that this could be stated , and agreed that it would be difficult to enforce . Councilman Stein mentioned/questioned that we would not be allowed to go in and check , asking if a warrant would be necessary. Ms . Brock responded yes or the consent of the property owner. Mr. Walker, added that if people do not keep the gas cans in their sheds , they probably keep them in their boat . Councilwoman Leary reminded the board that this is a referral and said that she would be interested to hear what Planning , Zoning and Conservation Boards have to say about these issues . Supervisor Engman called for a vote on the amendment . Councilwoman Hunter, yes Councilman DePaolo , yes Councilman Levine , no Supervisor Engman , yes Councilwoman Leary, no Councilman Stein , no Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 26 of 41 Final Councilman Goodman , no Motion failed : 3 yes ; 4 no TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008431 : AMEND SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2008- 129: REFERRAL OF PROPOSED LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 270, ARTICLE Vll OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE, ENTITLED "LAKEFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE, " TO THE PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, AND CONSERVATION BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATIONS. WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee has drafted a proposed local law amending Chapter 270, Article V11 of the Town of Ithaca Code, entitled "Lakefront Residential Zone, " for the Town Board's consideration; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this local law is to clarify and modify some of the elements of the Lakefront Residential (LR) Zone regulation, due to the November 25, 2005 recommendation to the Codes and Ordinances Committee by the Planning Board to reconsider the dimensions and sizes of docks specified in the LR Zone and due to the results of staff research on existing waterfront structures and lakefront conditions in the Town of Ithaca; and WHEREAS, among other revisions, the proposed amendments would include definitions for the main terms expressed in the LR Zone regulation, extend maximum allowable dock lengths from 30 feet to 50 feet, begin dock length measurements from the Ordinary High Water line, limit the size of boatlifts, permit roofs on boatlifts with certain restrictions, permit accessory storage structures within 4-0 25 feet of the shoreline, and clarify some sections of the existing regulation; and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee and the Town Board have considered comments and recommendations made by the West Shore Homeowners Association (WSHA) and other members of the public in the proposed amendments, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed the above-described proposed local law at its regular meeting on June 9, 2008; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that the proposed local law described above is hereby referred to the Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, and the Conservation Board for its recommendations. MOVED: Supervisor Engman SECONDED: Councilman DePaolo ROLL CALL VOTE., Councilwoman Hunter, yea Councilman DePaolo, yea Councilman Levine, no Supervisor Engman, yea Councilwoman Leary, no Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 27 of 41 Final Councilman Stein, no Councilman Goodman, no Motion failed: 3 votes yea; 4 votes no Supervisor Engman stated the motion fails and the board is back to the main motion . There being no further discussion on the main motion , Supervisor Engman called for a vote on the main motion . Councilman Goodman , aye Councilman Stein , aye Councilwoman Leary, aye Supervisor Engman , aye Councilman Levine , aye Councilman DePaolo , aye Councilwoman Hunter, aye Motion carried unanimously. TB RESOLUTION NO, 2008- 129: REFERRAL OF PROPOSED LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 270, ARTICLE Vll OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE, ENTITLED "LAKEFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE, " TO THE PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, AND CONSERVATION BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATIONS. WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee has drafted a proposed local law amending Chapter 270, Article Vll of the Town of Ithaca Code, entitled "Lakefront Residential Zone, " for the Town Board's consideration; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this local law is to clarify and modify some of the elements of the Lakefront Residential (LR) Zone regulation, due to the November 25, 2005 recommendation to the Codes and Ordinances Committee by the Planning Board to reconsider the dimensions and sizes of docks specified in the LR Zone and due to the results of staff research on existing waterfront structures and lakefront conditions in the Town of Ithaca; and WHEREAS, among other revisions, the proposed amendments would include definitions for the main terms expressed in the LR Zone regulation, extend maximum allowable dock lengths from 30 feet to 50 feet, begin dock length measurements from the Ordinary High Water line, limit the size of boatlifts, permit roofs on boatlifts with certain restrictions, permit accessory storage structures within 10 feet of the shoreline, and clarify some sections of the existing regulation; and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee and the Town Board have considered comments and recommendations made by the West Shore Homeowners Association (WSHA) and other members of the public in the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed the above-described proposed local law at its regular meeting on June 9, 2008; Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 28 of 41 Final NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that the proposed local law described above is hereby referred to the Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, and the Conservation Board for its recommendations. MOVED: Councilman Goodman SECONDED: Councilman DePaolo VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levine, aye; Councilwoman Hunter, aye; Councilman DePaolo, aye . Motion approved — unanimous. Agenda Item No . 17 = Consider Appointment of Zoning Board of Appeals Alternate Ms . Drake explained three candidates were interviewed and the Interview Committee unanimously recommends Susan Mann for the appointment . Councilman Levine moved and Councilman Stein seconded the proposed resolution . TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2008-132: APPOINTMENT OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ALTERNATE WHEREAS, there is a vacant Zoning Board of Appeals — Alternate member position; and WHEREAS, an interview committee interviewed the individuals interested in the vacant position; Now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the governing Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby appoints Susan Mann of 232 Haller Boulevard, Ithaca, New York, as the Alternate Member to the Zoning Board of Appeals to fill a term beginning June 9, 2008 and ending December 31 , 2008, as this position is a one year term appointment. MOVED: Councilman Levine SECONDED: Councilman Stein VOTE, Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levine, aye; Councilwoman Hunter, aye; Councilman DePaolo, aye. Motion approved - unanimous Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 29 of 41 Final Agenda Item No . 18 - Consider setting a Public Hearing to update the Vehicle and Traffic section of the Town Code for stop and Yield signs on Sharlene Drive Supervisor Engman explained that the proposed law changes a couple of yield signs to stop signs . Councilman Stein added that the requested change comes from the Public Works Committee , Councilman Stein added that there is a concern that people are using the street as a through street but it is designed as a residential street , not a through street. Councilman Stein moved the resolution and proposed the public hearing be held at 6 : 20 p . m . on July 7 , 2008 . Councilman Levine seconded . Councilman DePaolo asked if a municipality could use a stop sign as a traffic control device . Mr. Noteboom responded yes ; there are currently yield signs at the intersections . He explained that drivers are not slowing down for the yield signs . Supervisor Engman called for a vote . Carried unanimously. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008- 133: Settin_g a Public Hearin_g re_gardin_g a Local Law Amending Chapter 250 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled "Vehicles and Traffic, " by Addin_g Stop Signs and Removin_ Yield Signs at Certain Intersections 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 7rh day of July, 2008, at 6:20 p. m. for the purpose of considering a proposed Local Law Amending Chapter 250 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled "Vehicles and Traffic, " by Adding Stop Signs and Removing Yield Signs at Certain Intersections, and it is further RESOLVED, that at such time and place all persons interested in the proposed amendment may be heard concerning the same; and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca is hereby authorized and directed to publish a notice of such public hearing in the Ithaca Journal published in the City of Ithaca, Ithaca, New York, and to post a copy of same on the signboard of the Town of Ithaca, said publication and posting to occur not less than ten days before the day designated above for the public hearing. MOVED: Councilman Stein SECONDED : Councilman Levine VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levine, aye; Councilwoman Hunter, aye; Councilman DePaolo, aye. Motion approved — unanimous Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 30 of 41 Final Agenda Item No . 19 - Consider a Resolution of Support for the Town of Ithaca' s Inclusion in the New York State Navigation Law Supervisor Engman explained that the Town has been working on a lakefront residential amendment. In the process of doing so , it was discovered that there are some municipalities in the State that are specifically listed in the New York State navigation law , but the Town is not . The Town is asking State Legislators to include the Town of Ithaca in the navigation law. Supervisor Engman moved and Councilwoman Leary seconded the proposed local law. Councilwoman Hunter asked Mr. Kanter if he thought that there was any reason why the Town might not want to be included in the State navigation law. Mr. Kanter did not think so ; he thought it was a safety net to make sure everything is legal . Supervisor Engman called for a vote — carried unanimously. TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2008- 134 : SUPPORT FOR TOWN OF ITHACA INCLUSION IN THE NEW YORK STATE NAVIGATION LAW WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca has utilized its zoning powers to regulate boathouses, moorings and docks within its Lakefront Residential and Lakefront Commercial zones, and WHEREAS, the Town is in the process of amending its existing law, and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca wishes to be included in the list of municipalities authorized to regulate boathouses, moorings and docks pursuant to Section 46-a of the New York State Navigation Law; and WHEREAS, a resolution of support for state legislation to include the Town of Ithaca in Section 46-a of the NYS Navigation Law will be helpful to our state representatives; Now therefore be it RESOLVED the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca requests inclusion of "the Town of Ithaca in the county of Tompkins" in Section 46-a of the NYS Navigation Law to authorize Town of Ithaca regulation of boathouses, moorings and docks pursuant to that section; and Be it Further RESOLVED that this resolution of support be sent to New York State Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton and New York State Senator George Winner for their consideration . MOVED: Supervisor Engman SECONDED: Councilwoman Leary Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 31 of 41 Final VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levine, aye; Councilwoman Hunter, aye; Councilman DePaolo, aye . Motion approved — unanimous. Agenda Item No . 20 - Consider acceptance of Holly Creek Road Dan Walker stated that the Town received the deed from Mr. Auble last week and Guy Krogh is reviewing it . He understands that the town is not accepting any major liabilities , but he did put two conditions on it, which Ms . Brock suggested changing condition "a . " to : Receipt of a warranty deed for the parcel from the owner subject to the approval of the attorney for the town. Ms . Brock explained her rationale in adding this statement by saying , this way the developer cannot say that he has , literally, complied by "a" by giving us a warranty deed , even if our attorney deems it to be deficient. Councilman Stein did not recall this going through PWC and Mr. Walker said that it went through in 2003 . Construction was started several years ago . . . Councilman Stein asked if we are happy with the snowplow turnaround , and Mr. Noteboom and Mr. Walker answered affirmatively, even though the town has not had to snowplow the road yet . Supervisor Engman called for more discussion ; hearing none he called for a vote . TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008- 135: ACCEPTANCE OF HOLLY CREEK LANE AS A TOWN OF ITHACA ROADWAY AND ACCEPTANCE OF ASSOCIATED WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AS TOWN OF ITHACA FACILITIES WHEREAS, David Aube, the owner and the developer, of the Holly Creek Subdivision located on King Road West is offering for dedication to the Town of Ithaca for highway and utility purposes approximately 800 lineal feet of property 60 feet wide shown as Holly Creek Lane as shown on the Subdivision Map entitled "Holly Creek Subdivision, Site Plan, Located West King Road and Danby Road, Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York, prepared by Gary L. Wood, P. E. , and Reagan Land Surveying, dated 12/31/2003 '; and WHEREAS, the Developer has constructed the road, storm water facilities, water main, and sewer facilities to Town of Ithaca specifications, and WHEREAS, the Town Superintendent of Highways has advised the Town Board that said road has been constructed in accordance with the Town of Ithaca Highway specifications, and WHEREAS, the Town Engineer has advised the Town Board that the water, sewer and stormwater facilities have been constructed in accordance with the Town of Ithaca specifications, and WHEREAS, the Town Superintendent of Highways and the Town Engineer have recommended the acceptance of said parcel for dedication for highway and utility purposes; Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 32 of 41 Final NOW THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby accepts as public roadway 800 lineal feet of property 60 feet wide of Holly Creek Lane subject to the following conditions: Receipt of a warranty deed for the parcel from the Owner, subject to the approval of the Attorney for the Town. Approval of title to said road by the Attorney for the Town. MOVED: Councilman Stein SECONDED: Councilwoman Leary VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman _ Goodman, aye; Councilman Levine, aye; Councilwoman Hunter, aye; Councilman DePaolo, aye. Motion approved — unanimous. Agenda Item No . 21 - Consider Resolution closing Town Hall on August 1 , 2008 for Employee Training and appreciation picnic. Ms . Drake explained that the training will be " personal development training . " She said that Town Board members are invited . Supervisor Engman called for a vote . TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008- 136 : APPROVAL TO CLOSE FACILITIES FOR STAFF TRAINING AND EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION PICNIC WHEREAS, the Human Resources Manager requested to close the Town Hall and Public Works Facilities (except for emergencies) on Friday, August 1 , 2008 for an all staff training session between the hours of 8:00 a. m. until 11 :00 a. m. , and then for the Town 's Employee Appreciation Picnic that begins at 11 :00 am and runs through out the day; and WHEREAS, the Personnel Committee has discussed the request and recommends the closing of the facilities for the day, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby approves closing Town Hall and Public Works Facility on Friday, August 1 , 2008 for the entire day for staff training and the Town 's Employee Appreciation Picnic. MOVED: Councilman Levine SECONDED: Councilman Goodman Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 33 of 41 Final VOTE. Supervisor Engman, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Goodman, aye; Councilman Levine, aye; Councilwoman Hunter, aye; Councilman DePaolo, aye . Motion approved - unanimous. Agenda Item No . 22 = Consent Agenda Supervisor Engman asked if any Board members want to remove anything from the consent agenda for further discussion ; hearing none he called for a vote . Councilman Stein was out of the room and Councilwoman Hunter abstained . TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008= 137 : ConsentA_genda Items BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the resolutions for Consent Agenda Items: a. Town of Ithaca Minutes b. Town of Ithaca Abstract c. Bolton Point Abstract d. Consider Appointment of Project Assistant - Town Hall MOVED: Councilwoman Leary SECONDED: Councilman Levine VOTE., Supervisor Engman, aye Councilwoman Leary, aye Councilman Stein, absent Councilman Goodman, aye Councilman Levine, aye Councilwoman Hunter, abstain Councilman DePaolo, aye Motion approved. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008= 137a: APPROVE TOWN BOARD MINUTES OF MAY 12, MAY 19 AND MAY 21 , 2008 WHEREAS, the Town Clerk has presented the minutes for the Regular Town Board meeting held on May 12, 2008 and the Special Town Board Meetings held on May 19 and May 21 , 2008 to the Town Board for its review and approval of filing; NOW THEREFORE BE IT Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 34 of 41 Final RESOLVED, the Town Board does hereby approve for filing the minutes for the meetings held May 12, May 19 and May 21 , 2008 as presented at the June 9, 2008 Town Board Meeting. MOVED: Councilwoman Leary SECONDED: Councilman Levine VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye Councilwoman Leary, aye Councilman Stein, absent Councilman Goodman, aye Councilman Levine, aye Councilwoman Hunter, abstain Councilman DePaolo, aye Motion approved. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008- 137b: Town of Ithaca Abstract WHEREAS, the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for approval of payment; and WHEREAS, the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in total for the amounts indicated. VOUCHER NOS. 5307 - 5442 General Fund Town wide 146, 344. 58 General Fund Part Town 12, 063. 00 Highway Fund Part Town 94, 917. 44 Water Fund 607977. 63 Sewer Fund 9, 701 . 44 Debt Service Trust & Agency 500. 00 Trumansburg Rd. Water Main Improvements Hanshaw Road Water Main Improvements Risk Retention Fund 1 , 615. 23 Fire Protection Fund 328, 662. 39 Forest Home Lighting District 226. 95 Glenside Lighting District 88. 45 Renwick Heights Lighting District 121 . 68 Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 35 of 41 Final Eastwood Commons Lighting District 226. 81 Clover Lane Lighting District 27. 57 Winner's Circle Lighting District 71 . 79 Burleigh Drive Lighting District 94. 42 Westhaven Road Lighting District 320. 92 Coddin ton Road Lighting District 189. 25 TOTAL 656, 149. 51 MOVED: Councilwoman Leary SECONDED: Councilman Levine VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye Councilwoman Leary, aye Councilman Stein, absent Councilman Goodman, aye Councilman Levine, aye Councilwoman Hunter, abstain Councilman DePaolo, aye Motion approved. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008- 137c: BOLTON POINT ABSTRACT WHEREAS, the following numbered vouchers for the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission have been presented to the governing Town Board for approval of payment, and WHEREAS, the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers. Voucher Numbers: 254 - 304 Check Numbers: 10878 - 10928 Operating Fund $ 61 , 421 . 05 1998 SCADA Capital Project $ 998. 70 2003 East Hill Tank Project $ 51105. 00 TOTAL $67, 524, 75 MOVED: Councilwoman Leary SECONDED: Councilman Levine Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 36 of 41 Final VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye Councilwoman Leary, aye Councilman Stein, absent Councilman Goodman, aye Councilman Levine, aye Councilwoman Hunter, abstain Councilman DePaolo, aye Motion approved. TB RESOLUTION NO. 137d - APPOINTMENT OF PART TIME PROJECT ASSISTANT - TOWN HALL. WHEREAS, there is presently a vacancy in the part time position of Project Assistant, which affords high school students the opportunity to gain work experience through working with the Town Clerks office and other offices at the Town Hall; and WHEREAS, Moorea Wiggins graduated from the Town 's youth employment program by completing 100 hours of work by working at Town Hall; and WHEREAS, Moorea Wiggins possess the necessary knowledge and skills to satisfactorily perform the duties of the position, and the Town Clerk recommends appointment to the position; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the appointment of Moorea Wiggins as a part time Project Assistant working at Town Hall, retroactive to May 12, 2008; and be it further RESOLVED, this position is a part time position not to exceed 20 hours per week, at the hourly wage of minimum wage, from account number A1410. 100. There are no benefits included with this appointment. MOVED: Councilwoman Leary SECONDED: Councilman Levine VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye Councilwoman Leary, aye Councilman Stein, absent Councilman Goodman, aye Councilman Levine, aye Councilwoman Hunter, abstain Councilman DePaolo, aye Motion approved. Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 37 of 41 Final Agenda Item No . 23 - Report of Town Committees (Attachment #7 ) Councilman Goodman announced that Codes and Ordinances will be talking about streams at the next meeting . They had a field trip the other day to look at streams , and how the setback requirements would affect them — development along streams , etc . The meeting will take place next Wednesday, June 18th . COC always meets the third Wednesday of the month at 7 : 30 p . m . Councilman Stein said that they are working on a document to provide guidance on when the town will agree to provide a sewer extension for the convenience of certain residents and how to evaluate a request to do that . He said that a meeting was. held with Councilwoman Leary, Councilman Levine and himself where they looked at the current existing set of criteria from the Capital Projects Committee ; finding that did not seem to work ; now they are trying to write a new one . Councilwoman Leary said that is not what she understood from the meeting held . She thought it may need a little revising , but that it has been a document that has existed for years . Councilman Stein explained that the approach used was to look at two sewer projects , where we had very strong feelings that on one of them it should not be done and on the other that should be done . Then they rated those two projects on the criteria that by using that set of criteria from the Capital Projects Committee and it came out the other way around . The project that we felt strongly should not be done came out with a higher score than the project that we felt should be done . He said that it just seemed to us that it was not catching the essential features of what caused us to do it . Supervisor Engman asked if any other committees wanted to report . Hearing none , he moved on to Intermunicipal Organizations . Councilman Stein also said that they had a very successful public meeting regarding flooding in the Northeast . (400 completed surveys submitted out of 600 blank surveys sent out) . More information gathering is taking place through the summer, and a follow up meeting will be held in the fall . Agenda Item No . 23 - Intermunicipal Organizations Ms . Billings reported about the Human Services Coalition and 2- 1 - 1 . She said the state funding has seriously dropped off; the state only allocated $ 500 , 000 for this program ( state wide ) . HSC is looking forward into the 2010 budget year and factoring in that the state will drop it back even further. She went on to say that this has been a highly successful program in this area , and asked if the Town Board would be willing to do a letter of support to state elected officials ; she would be willing to craft such a letter. Supervisor Engman asked if this is something that could be brought up at SAC and have something prepared for the next meeting , and Ms . Billings agreed . Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 38 of 41 Final Agenda Item No . 24 - Report of Town Officials Supervisor Engman asked if any town official had anything to add . Mr. Kanter added two things : 1 . The Comprehensive Plan Committee is planning an orientation tour all around the town and other board members are invited . Tuesday, July 8th ( afternoon ) tour — 1 -5 p . m . They are looking for a vehicle that will carry up to 25 people . The tour will look at nodel development, affordable housing , neighborhoods , natural areas , parks , etc . ; - 2 . Next Tuesday, June 18th Planning Board , meeting at 8 p . m . there will be a presentation/discussion regarding Cornell ' s Transportation focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement or the T-GEIS . The transportation consultants will be there to talk about some of the things they did in that document . Mr. Kanter encouraged town board members to attend . Agenda Item No . 25 - Review of Correspondence Supervisor Engman asked board members to take a look at correspondence and note which items they would like a copy of. Agenda Item No . 26 - Consider entering Executive Session Supervisor Engman announced that he had a number of things to go over in Executive Session , namely collective bargaining ; potential land acquisition ; contract negotiations . Supervisor Engman called for a motion to go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing collective bargaining and potential land acquisitions and contract negotiations . Ms . Brock asked for clarification regarding contract negotiations . Supervisor Engman said that this item could be discussed in open meeting . Supervisor Engman began the open discussion about contract negotiations by saying that Fire negotiations with the city of Ithaca have been very difficult because there are confusing and costly elements in existence , for example the contribution from Cornell for public services in the city of Ithaca , 60 % of which has to go to fire protection , was understated last year — the city owes the town about $20 , 000 for that ; it was also understated in the 2008 budget ; leaving another $20 , 000 that should be coming back to the town . Supervisor Engman continued by citing a second concern being that the fire inspection fees were backed out in the 2008 budget ; which in previous years has been about $55 , 000 and the town ' s part of that is 30 % (or so ) . He said that an inquiry about it put it back in at about $ 35 , 000 , making that an element of concern during discussions . Also , there was an announcement from the Fire Chief last week that they had ordered two fire trucks and the prices had been exceeded . by about $ 150 , 000 ; leaving the total cost at over $ 1 million . Supervisor Engman said the problem is that our contract says that this Town Board must approve any capital expenditures of over $200 , 000 ; we were never asked about this nor were we asked to give our approval . Supervisor Engman said that he wrote to the Fire Chief expressing that the Town cannot add two new firefighters in one year and agree to buy two new fire trucks ( actually one was from 2007 and one was for 2008 ) . The Fire Chief wrote back that his understanding was that by the town ' s acceptance of the budget from the city of Ithaca we automatically accepted those elements . Supervisor Engman said that in Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 39 of 41 Final his mind , that is not what the contract says ; he said the contract seems very clear that we are to give approval for the acquisition of capital equipment over $200 , 000 . Supervisor Engman said that he will continue to keep the board members informed . Cass Park: The Town of Ithaca provides a little over $ 100 , 000 in support to the city of Ithaca for the operation of Cass Park because the users of Cass Park ( incl . Hockey rink and swimming pool ) are : 25 % TOI ; 50 % city of Ithaca ; 25 % by the other residents of Tompkins County. Supervisor Engman said that we are negotiating our contribution and the sticking point is over capital projects . The city of Ithaca wants the town to share in capital projects , including those that have already been made . The town is saying that in the absence of ownership , and any say in what happens , the town does not want to be obligated to pay for them . Bolton Point and the potential entry of the city of Ithaca to join as a customer or partner. No negotiation has been entered into yet . He said we anticipate that the city will make a decision on whether to build its own facility or move to Bolton Point , either as a customer, which is the offer from Bolton Point , or as a member, which would give them votes on the commission , like the other five municipalities . Supervisor Engman asked for a motion to enter into Executive Session for the other items . Councilman Stein commented about the Cass Park issue , stating that making a sensible way to share ownership can get around a lot of these problems ; when it is ambiguous or people don 't understand and there are differing opinions on it , there is always the potential for conflict because nobody wants to pay more or less than their dues . Councilman Stein acknowledged that the Wastewater Treatment Plant seemed to be a tremendous success in terms of Intermunicipal Cooperation , and he has the feeling that a lot of that success was built on the fact that it was a structure from the onset — a solid foundation . Supervisor Engman said that he has spoken with Mayor Peterson and County Legislative Chairman Mike Koplinka- Loehr about a potential mechanism for that , suggesting a study of the potential for a parks district or parks authority or parks commission or some version of that , but that we need to know the advantages and disadvantages of all those models . Supervisor Engman said that Mr. Carvill and he spoke with a Professor from Ithaca College about the potential for doing such a study and he said that it was beyond the capability of him and his students because they are mainly undergraduates . Another source of money could be in one of the Intermunicipal Consolidation and Shared Services Grants that the state is now offering so that we could do a study that would tell us what the advantages and disadvantages are ; it also might provide a mechanism to spread the costs of the major park facilities beyond just the town , because other people are using them and not paying . Supervisor Engman again called for a motion to go into Executive Session . Councilman Stein moved and Councilwoman Leary seconded . Unanimous approval . Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 40 of 41 Final TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008438 : CONSIDER ENTERING EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND POTENTIAL LAND ACQUISITIONS BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves entering into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing collective bargaining and potential land acquisitions. MOVED: Councilman Stein SECONDED: Councilwoman Leary VOTE: Supervisor Engman, aye Councilwoman Leary, aye Councilman Stein, aye Councilman Goodman, aye Councilman Levine, aye Councilwoman Hunter, aye Councilman DePaolo, aye Motion approved. Entered into Executive Session at 8 : 55 p . m . Motion to move out of Executive Session : Moved : Councilman Stein Seconded : Councilman DePaolo Unanimous Motion to adjourn : Moved : Councilman Stein Seconded : Councilman Goodman Unanimous Meeting adjourned at 9 : 20 p . m . Approved July7, 2008 Pg. 41 of 41 Attachment # 1 TB 6 / 9 / 2008 - 4 Sugarbush Lane C (n Py Ithaca, NY 14850 May 21 , 2008 Herb Engman, Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Herb, I am writing to confirm what I told you during our telephone conversation earlier today: I am resigning from my position as member of the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca, effective immediately. For the time being, I expect to continue to serve on the Town' s Conservation Board and Codes and Ordinances Committee. Sincerely yours, 4VJ4� Eva B. Hoffmann Attachment # 2 TB 619 / 20�b YTT � M J Stanis ewska 220 Coddington Rd 38(x478-8828 Ithaca NY 14850 June 9, 2008 Town of Ithaca Board Members Ithaca College has a plan for their Athletics and Events Center (AEC) project which has several components over time. The Phase 1 A section has been approved by the Town Planning Board. The portion that I need to speak about today is the proposed foot/bike path to go behind private homes along Coddington Rd. in the block from Hudson St. to the college east entrance. In the initial design plan, this "trail" was to be built when the EAC was operational and intended to connect South Hill students to the new AEC . That would be a few years from now. I gather that because the County Improvement Plan for Coddington Rd. plan has been . stalled due to design objections by Coddington neighbors living East of the college entrance, the college has decided that for the safety of their students walking along Coddington Rd. , they needed to advance construction of this portion of "trail" . The premise for this "trail" was twofold : to connect students to the South Hill Recreation Way and provide a safe route to the dorms. (It was clear in board discussion that inebriated students were the primary consideration. ) The area behind our homes is not very wide and narrows considerably close to a property at #210 Coddington, where it starts a switch back down an incline to end at Coddington Rd. across from Hudson St. . The project has escalated from the concept of a "trail', a narrow, gravel surface, to a full blown, 10 foot wide paved and lighted dusk to dawn access "road" with 12 foot tall pole lights every 55 feet. The length of this walk/bike "path" has been expanded from approximately 1 , 500 feet to 1 , 700 feet. Quite recently they added a spur to the original path now ascending the hill to connect with Z Lot above. In the overall design of this area, the college is moving the roadway, Garden Drive, further over to curve around Emerson Hall . This change alone adds roadway lighting to the crest of the hill behind our homes. NOW with a path there will be a string of lights along the bottom of the Z Lot hill to be illuminated all night every night. I have appealed to many members of the County, City and Town to engaged Ithaca College in a dialogue that will result in a cooperative effort to focus on improving this one block along Coddington Rd. and address the unsafe condition that already exist there and at the three-way intersection. What is needed is a sidewalk and bike lane plan as soon as possible. For Ithaca College to be permitted to duplicate what already exists for the benefit of a few rather than address the needs of the many, I refer to the criteria 1 quoted in the Town Comprehensive Master Plan, support projects related to the greater good. The college path is a lesser good and does not address the need to focus on improving bike and pedestrian access for Town and City residents as well as the students who will still use Coddington Rd. which is already paved and lighted . There is an energy as well as cost consideration. The college will be spending a considerable amount to construct this duplicate pathway. The Town Board considers sidewalks ani.bike lanes a priority. I have approached Mr. Marx, and he is supportive of any action the Town might take to solve this situation now, before the college begins THIS PATH. I HAVE WRITTEN TO SEVERAL COLLEGE ADMINISTRATORS . Here is the response by President Williams, who plans to be on sabbatical to continue fund raising efforts for the AEC . While she was not inclined to join a joint effort by Town and County, she did refer to the fact that no proposal to improve Coddington was imminent . I say, we can make it an imminent priority. We can initiate immediate dialogue with the college, we can have our planning department design a sidewalk-bike lane concept that could be presented. The college owns 65% of the properties in this block, and should be drawn into a cooperative effort to solve the problem of safety along Coddington Rd . The "trail" concept could wait for completion of the AEC and in the meantime, the plantings they proposed as a visual buffer for residents could have time to grow and fill in successfully . ThanknYou Very (Much, R , & f Melinda Staniszewska 2 Vr thCA OF'F'II:F: OF"I'HE PItF:5111F.\'I' June 3, 2008 Ms. M .J . Staniszewska 220 Coddington Rd . Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Ms . Staniszewska . I have received your recent letter asking me to intervene and delay the construction of a pedestrian path that would connect r concerns*gl1t� Athletics and Events Center project understand and appreciate you However as I am sure you are aware, there are varying opinions regarding a sidewalk along the road , and there are no approved plans that will assure one in the foreseeable future . I hope you can also appreciate our perspective at the College, which is the safety and security of the members of our campus community. We believe our objectives can be met in a timely way by the construction of this path . The latest design moves it further away from the houses and provides landscaping and an earthen berm to further shelter the houses from the path . Likewise, the lighting has been designed to minimize spill onto neighboring properties. Finally, the path will provide access to our blue light phone system for the safety of everyone who uses it. In the end, we feel the path as designed is the best solution for our students, and the Town of Ithaca has granted us preliminary approval for its construction . Therefore I do not plan to ask for any further changes or intervene with or delay its construction . Sincerely, Peggy R. Williams President PRW c. Carl Sgrecci 11haca College / Job Hall-300 / 953 Danby Road / Ithaca. NY 14850 C TOMPKINS ~T� %* a .* Y DIVISION 170 Bo ` ic a ac N . 14850 6 . 1 0 ** � m May 20 , 2008 Mr. Jeff Paddock, PD&C Director Ithaca College - Office of Facilities Facilities Building 953 Danby Road Ithaca , NY 14850 RE : Proposed Intersection and Drainage Improvements at Coddington Road and Hudson Street Dear Jeff: Thank you for meeting with Bill Sczesny and me last week to discuss Ithaca College 's proposed improvements for the north end of Coddington Road . County sensitivity concerning this area is quite high considering the Highway Division 's own improvement proposals and the pending construction surrounding the College's Athletics and Events Center. Standing alone the proposals we reviewed would be eligible for County Highway Work Permits . Constructed in the sequence you outlined , initial drainage improvements could be undertaken with the revisions we discussed , namely that storm manhole structures are kept at least 16 feet from the centerline of Coddington Road . However, the Highway Division is not willing to commit at this time to granting a second permit for the crosswalk, tough technically permit-eligible under today's circumstances . The County cannot segment this construction from the larger Athletics and Events Center project and its potential traffic impacts . We believe that the broader traffic impact study requested in letters to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department from Edward Marx dated March 4 and May 14 , 2008 should be developed and provided for County review. Such review would allow assessment of any additional pedestrian safety measures that should be included at this location under the developed condition and consider coordinated solutions to the area's multi-modal traffic issues . One of these concerns continues to be the lack of pedestrian facilities between the east end of the proposed crosswalk and city sidewalk that terminates about 150 feet away north of Pennsylvania Avenue . Again , thank you for the opportunity to review your proposals . We look forward to working with Ithaca College to beneficially complete this project for the College and the entire community. Mr. Jeff Paddock May 20, 2008 Page 2 of 2 Sincerely, John R. Lampman , P. E . Associate Civil Engineer xc: David Herrick, TG Miller Engineers & Surveyors Edward Marx, County Comm . of Planning & Public Works Bill Sczesny, County Highway Manager Jerry Stern , County Highway Permit Agent Jonathan Kanter, Town of Ithaca Planning Director JoAnn Cornish , City of Ithaca Planning Director / v r as Nw � ;,\,fir /► r` ,, f��. 1 � - I 1 , t i r ♦ , IF !� • ,;�•� J% r.; rVic 41 _ '. + • Ito 1 \ i11 I a d � � F I I to is It All it , I i , 11 ` ; srt' •' , ! If <itli !! t{, l 1 . ; ! ! I ' l! I : � ! I {�I it � iii i HI Il; I i !, ,� , ► I ! II. 1110 I ! ( ; it lit it j ' I � + ; I , .4 is 11 it it I! 1 �I ► ! it il= r it I I 1 i 1111 I 4 it ' !{IIII : . lit III ►! Ii!I :� I M. J . Staniszervska 220 Coddington Rd . 607-319- 4966 386- 478 - 8828 Ithaca , NY 14850 June 5 , 2008 Mr . Carl Sgrecci Vice President - Finance and Administration Ithaca College Dear Mr . Sgrecci : Yesterday ' s Ithaca Times has an article about the funds Cornell University is making available to the City and Town . Cornell is participating in a Community Initiative Subcommittee in which concerns for the Town and City infra structure needs are addressed . I felt obligated to appeal to you again regarding the foot / bike path being proposed for Phase lA of the A& E Center project . This expensive By- Pass to Coddington Rd . will provide some students with some measure of safety in accessing the dorms . But it still leaves other students and residents to walk and bike under unsafe conditions along Coddington Rd . It would be a magnanimous gesture to the community the Town and City of Ithaca , if Ithaca College would recognize the importance of this issue at this time . By insisting that this path go forward as part of Phase lA and refusing to consider a collaborative venture to improve Coddington , the college is engendering a negative image in the community . When I suggested to Mr . Couture that the college focus on Coddington , I believe he said that the college shouldn ' t have to pay for a public roadway improvement . I pointed out that the college already owns 650 of the properties in this block . The 15 foot County Right of Way offers room for both a sidewalk and bicycle lane and is usually " kept up " by the individual property owner . In addition , the East Entrance to the college will become a more important access route as the A& E Center begins to develop . Enhancement of this west side of Coddington would be a visual plus to everyone entering campus as well as a safety improvement for all users . I have presented my concerns to many officials from the County , City and Town . As recently as last Friday , I spoke to County Commissioner of Planning Mr . Ed Marx , and was glad to hear him say that he has been reviewing the situation of this one block along 1 with the intersection of Hudson St . at Coddington . He will be happy to support a plan by the Town and City that addresses the safety issues . My appeal to you at this eleventh hour is to reconsider the college plan to go forward with the foot / bike path at this time . It is very critical that the college recognize it ' s obligations to the community to which it belongs , the community whose infrastructure it depends upon . Initiation of a dialogue by the college would demonstrate a willingness to reconsider it ' s position on the foot / bike path , now a 10 foot wide paved , lighted dusk to dawn , Coddington Rd By- Pass . This effort could be a first step in enhancing it ' s image with the community . The purpose , after all , of grouping all the facilities encompassed by the A& E Center project is TO BUILD COMMUNITY for the students . I have asked Ms . Williams for her leadership in this matter . I have referred to the expense of the path project . I have spoken to Town of Ithaca Supervisor , Mr . Herb Engman . He is looking into the opportunity to activate the Town Right of Way across from the East Entrance to the college , which would give students direct access to the South Hill Recreation Way from Garden Dr . He is in favor of a cooperative relationship with the Town and Ithaca College . Here is an opportunity for Ithaca College to show the students that it cares not only about the campus community but the larger community in which they live providing other amenities , which they all enjoy off campus . In the Spirit of Cooperation , I remain , Very Truly Yours , Melinda Staniszewska Enclosures : Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan P . III - 14 Ithaca Times article Letter to Editor Cc : H . Engman , J . Kanter , E . Marx , Mayor Peterson 2 nom . 6 \ Y 4 • q C� \ 4. 1 y i it f Lf{, is 13 ` rA: Yn''!'y-• ` - r11w• 0 1z a 44 p to t 41 Ap Le J . �. ✓ ,� y. e 9 +9 C n ` yr, f } .a "kip n 4 *j' to } • r At r ` f • �- 11 �_• ;.$ ,S . mow. • t7 V , a rieit li�efQ� f S R0 IF * , r t ( f `v S I - f d r . -. a V.rtti. . I c III sI qiII , . UP �j It VJ 1r � a t 0 r t $ . A r I [ Y ' � � 1T• ell Attachment # 3 TB 6 / 9 /,2.�0'� PROPOSED CHANGES TO DRAFT "SMALL WIND ENERGY FACILITIES" LEGISLATION Bruce and Doug 'Brittain June 9, 2008 (3) The fall zone around any ground-mounted tower constructed as part of a small wind energy facility shall be a circular area around the tower, the center point of which is marked by the center of the base of the tower, with a radius at least equal to the facility ' s height plus ten feet. The entire fall zone may not include public roads, overhead transmission lines, above-ground fuel storage or pumping facilities, or human-occupied buildings, and must be located on property owned by the tower owner or for which the owner has obtained an easement or deed restriction. The minimum setback between the center of the base of the tower and any unoccupied buildings or other structures is 15 feet. (4) No exposed moving part of any small wind energy facility shall, at the lowest point of its extension, be less than 30 feet above the ground. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the lowest extension of any blade or other exposed moving component of a building-mounted small wind energy facility shall be at least 15 feet above the ground (at grade level) and in addition at least 15 feet above any outdoor surfaces intended for human occupancy, such as balconies or roof gardens, that are located directly below the facility. (5) The noise from a small wind energy facility shall not exceed a reading of 44 5 dB (A) above the ambient sound level, with sound measurements taken nearly concurrently and measured at any property line abutting a property owned by an entity other than the owner of the property on which the small wind energy facility is located. In addition, the operation of the small wind energy facility shall conform to the Performance Standards for noise as set forth in Article XIX, Section 270455.A of this document, regardless of the zone in which the wind energy facility is located. (6) The number of wind energy towers per lot shall be limited to 1 for lots of less than 2 acres in size. For lots of 2 acres or more, 1 wind energy tower shall be permitted as a matter of right, and 1 additional tower shall be permitted upon receipt of a special permit for same by the Planning Board in accordance with the procedures set forth in this chapter. Notwithstanding the foregoing, there is no limit on the number of building-mounted small wind energy facilities. May 23, zoos 4 ARTICLE XIX Light Industrial Zones § 270455. Performance standards. Any use in a Light Industrial Zone shall be so operated as to be in conformity with the following additional standards : A. Noise. ( 1 ) No use shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound in such a manner as to create a sound level which exceeds the limits set forth for the land use category stated below when measured at the boundary of the property nearest the receiving land use. Receiving Land Time Sound Level Use Category Limit (dBa) Residential use 7:00 a.m . to 7: 00 65 p. m . 7: 00 p. m. to 7: 00 55 a. m. Natural areas 7:00 a. m. to 7:00 60 p. m . 7:00 p. m . to 7:00 50 a. m. All other 7:00 a. m. to 7:00 68 p. m- 7:00 p. m . to 7:00 58 a. m. (2) For any source of sound which emits a pure tone, a discrete tone or impulsive sound, the maximum sound limits set forth above shall be reduced by five dBa. B . Vibration. No activity shall cause or create a discernible steady state or impact vibration at or beyond the boundary of the property . C. Atmospheric emissions . There shall be no emission of dust, dirt, smoke, fly ash, or noxious gases or other noxious substances which could cause damage to the health of persons , animals, or plant life. D. Odor. There shall be no emission of any offensive odor discernible at the boundary of the property . E . Glare and heat. No glare or heat shall be produced that is perceptible beyond the boundaries of the property . Exterior illumination shall be shaded and directed to prevent glare or traffic hazard on surrounding properties and streets . F _ Radioactivity and electromagnetic interference. No activities shall be permitted which emit dangerous radioactivity. No activities shall be permitted which produce any electromagnetic disturbance adversely affecting the operation of any equipment outside the boundary of the property . G . Fire and explosion hazards . All activities involving, and all storage of flammable and explosive materials , shall be provided with adequate safety devices against the hazard of fire and explosion and with adequate fire-fighting and fire suppression equipment and devices standard in the industry and as may be required by any applicable codes , %laws . or regulations . All burning of such waste materials in open fires is prohibited . H. Vermin. There shall be no storage of material , either indoors or out, in such a manner that it attracts or facilitates the breeding of vermin or endangers public health or the environment in any way. EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN SOUND ENERGY Demonstration 1 : 3 dB Increase Doubling the sound energy (adding one buzzer for a total of two buzzers) results in a 3 dB difference. This is generally considered to be a "just perceptible difference. " Demonstration 2 : 5 dB Increase Tripling the sound energy (adding two buzzers for a total of three buzzers) results in a 5 dB difference. This is generally considered to be a "clearly noticeable difference. " The International Standards Organization ("Noise Assessment with Respect to Community Responses," ISO/TC 43) has indicated that a 5 dB increase in sound will likely lead to "sporadic" community complaints. Demonstration 3 : 6 dB Increase Quadrupling the sound energy (adding three buzzers for a total of four buzzers) results in a 6 dB difference. According to NYSDEC guidelines ("Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts"), the change in sound pressure level due to a new facility in a non-industrial setting should not exceed 6 dB . With each 6 dB increase in background noise, two people having a normal conversation would have to move closer to each other, so as to be only half as far apart. A 6 dB increase therefore requires changes in people ' s behavior. Demonstration 4: 10 dB Increase Ten times the sound energy (adding nine buzzers for a total of ten buzzers) results in a 10 dB difference. A 10 dB increase is well above the upper limit recommended by NYSDEC guidelines, yet is what would be allowed by the draft Small Wind Energy Facilities legislation. The International Standards Organization ("Noise Assessment with Respect to Community Responses," ISO/TC 43) has indicated that a 10 dB increase will likely lead to "widespread" community complaints. Incidentally, if a wind energy facility were to be installed which resulted in a 10 dB increase in sound level, and a second wind facility were to be subsequently installed which raised sound levels by an additional 10 dB, this would result in a total increase of 20 dB over pre-existing ambient sound levels. The ISO has indicated that a 20 dB increase would likely lead to "vigorous community action." Thus, there could be a negative public reaction to wind power in the Town. Conclusion We therefore recommend that a wind energy facility ' s allowable increase in ambient sound level be considerably less than 10 dB. (An upper limit of 3 to 6 dB seems more reasonable.) In addition, an overall upper limit on noise should be set, perhaps 55 to 65 dB . Reference The Table below is reproduced from: Yerges, L. F. Sound, Noise and Vibration Control, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1978 , TABLE 2 Subjectira Effect of Chats in Sound Characteristics Change in Change in Change in ;Energy Level Found Level Apparent Loudness 26% 1 dB Insignificant Doubling 3 dB Just perceptible T SB 5 dB Clearly noticeable Tan Times 10 dB Twine as loud (or 1 ) 100 Times 20 dB Much louder for quaeter) Attachment # 4 TB 6 / 9 / 200 $ ' r p x �P'a�T "y' 1N JUN 92008 f DES hP INGr TOVVN OF ITHACA Str.I. PLANNING , ZONING , ENGINEERING �I - k� 4 Edward Co. Marx, AICP � +�,.�..•- Commissioner of Planning it Telephone (607) 274-5560 and Public Works Fax (607) 274-5578 June 9, 2008 Mr. Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planing Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re. Review Pursuant to §239 4 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: Proposed zoning amendment to permit small wind energy facilitties ]dear Mr. Kanter. This letter acknowledgm your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompluns County planning Department pursuant to §239 4 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law. The Depart =t has reviewed the proposal, as submitted, and has determined that it bas no negative inter- community, or county-wide impacts. The Department offers the following comments regarding the proposed project, which are not formal reconuxendations under General Municipal Law §239 =1 and —m. • The proposed zoning amendment outlines in its special regulations that "the noise from a small wind energy facility shall not exceed a reading of l0dB(A) above the ambient sound level." It is expected that an increase in sound level will result from the installation of a small wind energy facility, though a tolerance of l OdB(A) appears too high. If a sound is intensified by 10dB, it seems to the ears as if the sound intensity has approxi=taly doubled. The New York State Bnergy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) Wind Energy Development: A Guide for Local Authorities in New York (October 2002) outlines that typical exceedance levels range from 540, Additionally, the guide highlights ordinances that set an absolute sound level that facilities should not exceed between 50= 55dB(A) "as measured at the boundaries of all the closest parcels that are owned by non-site owners and abut the site parcels." Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. Sincerely, Edward C. Mane, AICP Commissioner of Plarming and Public Works rtrchuion through Ownity Attachment # 5 TB 6 / 9 / 2008 TOWN OF ITHACA LOCAL LAW NO . 10 OF THE YEAR 2008 A LOCAL LAW DELETING EAST HILL SHOPPING PLAZA PROVISIONS FROM CHAPTER 250 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE , TITLED "VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC " Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as follows : Section 1 . Chapter 250 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Town of Ithaca Code is amended by deleting Article I , titled " East Hills Shopping Plaza , " in its entirety ( §§ 250- 1 through 250-5 ) . Section 2 . 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 3 . This local law shall take effect upon its filing with the New York Secretary of State . 04/28/08 ,S� AM., -°�,• � --��- en �y�� r.Y�tt T°z' ~� P� ! �t � F� " y{� �Y.�1• •M.;� ��4 ,` al c a r � + I ' qa Tli 1�j1 . . ^1Y n � �r rot t Ir /_34rf W .?,•�� t � ",,tt� . „ r^f � ' �'•,k'4',,,. § '`T *r s v ek3 yb a� �R� r z t i tiff �f. c� a ra t ➢ Y 4 f` 4 a ` 1 a�rn oz "f��je it j♦ QlIg � 1 l Uy 1 1 Wetland Protections in Tompkins County, New York : Existing Status , Gaps and Future Needs April 2008 Prepared by : Nick Schipanski GBH Environmental 415 Hudson Street Ithaca , NY 14850 nschipanski @gbhenvironmental . com Prepared for: Tompkins County Water Resources Council c/o Tompkins County Planning Department 121 E . Court Street Ithaca , NY 14850 r i Funding for this work was provided by the U . S . Environmental Protection Agency through a Wetland Program Development Grant With additional assistance from Tompkins County Soil and Water Conservation District and Wetland Committee of the Tompkins County Water Resources Council Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Section 1 : Wetland Overview 3 Section 2 : Wetland Regulations 9 Section 3 : Extent of Vulnerable Wetlands in Tompkins County 22 Section 4 : Improving Wetland Protections in Tompkins County 27 References 36 Appendix A: Gap Analysis Field Survey 41 Appendix B : Existing Local Wetland Regulations in Tompkins County 48 Appendix C : Outline for a Watershed Planning Process 53 Appendix D : Review of Wetland Science and Management 57 List of Tables Table 1 . Summary of impacts from human-caused disturbances 7 to wetlands Table 2 . Checklist for Clean Water Act coverage 13 Table 3 . Tompkins County Wetland Survey results 23 List of Figures Figure 1 . Determinants of wetland functions 5 Figure 2 . Waters jurisdictional under the CWA 14- 15 Figure 3 . Waters requiring a significant nexus determination 15- 16 Figure 4 . Waters assumed to have no significant nexus to 16 "waters of the U . S . " Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- i Table of Contents Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 1 1 I I Executive Summary Wetlands are widely recognized today as being important components of our land- scape . Wetlands can reduce flooding and erosion , improve water quality , and provide wildlife habitat. These are just a few of the services wetlands provide . The loss of wet- lands that once acted as both sediment traps and as sites of chemical transformations contributes to local water quality impairments . Increasing rates of land development within rural and semi-rural areas containing Tompkins County' s remaining wetlands has the potential to lead to further adverse impacts to water quality . The importance that people in Tompkins County view these services can be seen in various conserva- tion efforts . Over eighty designated Unique Natural Areas in Tompkins County are wet- lands or wetland complexes . Three wetland-associated ecotypes are identified as Natural Features Focus Areas : the Fens , the Airport Ponds and Wetlands , and the Wetland/Upland Forest . The Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization ' s Cayuga Lake Watershed Restoration and Protection Plan and the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan also recommend preserving existing wetlands and restoring de- graded wetlands . Prior to 2001 , most waters ( including wetlands ) in the United States were regulated by the U . S . Army Corps of Engineers through provisions in the Clean Water Act , Recent decisions by the U . S . Supreme Court have reduced the reach of the Clean Water Act over certain types of waters . In general , geographically isolated wetlands are no longer regulated by the Corps while low-flow streams , and their associated wetlands , may only be regulated when the Corps determines that they have a significant influence on navigable waterways . Neither New York State law or local regulations cover these types of waters to any appreciable extent. New York State wetland law is generally limited to large wetlands over 12 .4 acres in size . Although many local land use regula- tions address potential wetland impacts , no local municipalities possess wetland - specific regulations . More often , local municipalities rely on federal or New York State agencies to protect wetlands . Changing federal regulations , combined with limitations in State and local law„ have created regulatory gaps with classes of wetlands vulner- able to unregulated development . A survey of wetlands in Tompkins County found that between 8 and 19 % of the wet- land acreage surveyed may no longer be regulated under the Clean Water Act be- Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 1 Executive Summary Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 cause they are geographically isolated or lack a significant influence on a navigable water. In general , these wetlands are not listed on New York State wetland maps for regulation under State law . These findings indicate that a significant amount of wetland acreage in Tompkins County currently lack federal or State oversight . Municipalities face a challenge in adopting consistent , comprehensive , watershed - based wetland policies that provide protections of wetland functions as well as wetland acreage . Tompkins County contains more than 15 separate governmental units re- sponsible for local regulations protecting natural resources . These communities vary dramatically in their level of environmental regulation . Uniformity i'n wetland manage- ment programs is critical for the comprehensive protection of wetlands by providing consistency across municipal boundaries and for ensuring that the complexity of a wet- land and watershed management program — or the lack of a program— does not shift economic development disproportionately to or away from a particular municipality . In the short-term , municipalities can adopt site-specific regulations and practices to fill the regulatory gaps and improve the consistency in the application of existing regulations . In the longer-term , developing landscape- based wetland conservation strategies , and incorporation of these strategies into municipal comprehensive plans , is needed . Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 2 Executive Summary Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 Section 1 : Wetland Overview What Are Wetlands and Why are They Important ? Wetlands are diverse . They include ponds , bogs , fens , marshes , river and stream edges , wet meadows , forested swamps , and seep areas . Wetlands vary greatly in na- ture and appearance due to physical features such as geographic location , water source and permanence , and chemical properties . This section contains a brief over- view of wetlands . A more extensive review is presented in Appendix D . Wetlands are complex and they are often defined somewhat differently among ecolo- gists , managers and government regulators . The U . S . Army Corps of Engineers , the agency most responsible for implementing federal wetland regulations , uses the pres- ence of three environmental characteristics to identify wetlands : 1 . Vegetation - a prevalence of water- loving plants adapted to growing in inundated or saturated soil . 2 . Hydric soils - soils that developed under inundated or ,saturated conditions that limit oxygen . 3 . Hydrology - inundation or saturation by water at some time during the growing sea- son (the time when plants are actively growing ) . The combination 'of water with distinctive Wetlands are not always wet soils and plants forms unique communities within the landscape ;. River channels or flood Temporary and seasonally flooded plains , topographic depressions , seeps wetlands do not contain water year- (where groundwater flows onto the surface round . Vernal pools are an example of slopes ) , and lake fringes are areas in of these types of wetlands in Tomp- Tompkins County where wetlands are com- kins County . The productivity of these monly found , wetlands is maintained by the wet/dry cycle and many of the plants and ani- Wetland functions are the things that wet- mals (such as Spotted Salamanders ) lands do . Specifically, these functions are found in these wetlands are specifi- the physical , biological , chemical , and geo- cally adapted to the cycle . These wet- logic interactions that occur within a wetland lands also provide water storage and and between the wetland and its surrounding groundwater recharge . landscape . Wetlands can perform a number Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 3 Section 1 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 of critical environmental functions , many of Wetlands Functions which are defined by their value to people , 1 . Improve water quality such as stormwater storage and retention , 2 . Reduce flooding groundwater discharge/recharge , and main - 3 . Reduce soil erosion taining and protecting water quality. Wetlands 4 . Supply water also provide habitat for a wide diversity of im - 5 . Provide habitat for wildlife and plants portant invertebrates , amphibians , birds , and 6 . Provide recreation for people mammals . More recently , the term "ecosystem services" has been introduced to stress the value of these functions to society . Wetlands can remove many common water pollutants to improve water quality . They act as filters , slowing water down and allowing many pollutants , like sediments , to set- tle out . As the water moves slowly through the wetland , chemical transformations take place that alter or trap other pollutants (for example , nitrates in the water are con - verted into harmless nitrogen gas ) . As a result of these processes , the water that leaves a wetland is cleaner than Function versus Values. the water that entered . Other water It is important to maintain a distinction be- quality functions include removing tween wetland functions and values. Value phosphorous , metals , and toxic com - is usually associated with goods and ser- pounds . vices that a community recognizes as bene- ficial and not all environmental processes Wetlands help regulate the quantity of are recognized or valued . In addition , since water flowing through a watershed . value is a societal perception it can change Many wetlands act as a sponge by over time or from person to person even as storing water temporarily and allowing wetland functions remain constant . For ex- it to percolate into the ground , evapo- ample , a wetland 's ability to hold water and rate , or slowly release back into reduce downstream flooding may have little streams and rivers . This storage and value to a person living outside of the water- slow release reduces flooding and shed but great value to a downstream land - erosion downstream after a storm . owner . The slow percolation of water from wetlands can help recharge ground - water aquifers and the slow release of water to streams can help maintain stream flows through dry periods , helping to maintain water supplies for municipal and agri- cultural users as well as fish and wildlife . Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 4 Section 1 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 Wetlands are very productive habitats . They produce more plant and animal life per acre than cropland , prairies , or forests . This productivity makes wetlands important habitat for many different kinds of wildlife . Wetlands provide migration , breeding , and feeding habitat for waterfowl , songbirds , and other wildlife . Amphibians , reptiles , and invertebrates may, depend on wetlands for parts of their lifecycles . Wetlands also pro- vide important winter shelter for deer and other wildlife . Wetland functions depend on factors that operate across spatial and temporal scales . Climate, geology, and the hydrologic characteristics in a watershed control how water, sediment , and nutrients move through the landscape and these characteristics of the landscape then interact with factors within the wetland itself to control the functions performed . The conditions of functions can directly or indirectly dictate conditions of other functions . Wetlands may perform functions at different levels at different times of the year in response to seasonal variations in factors such as precipitation or plant growth . Finally, wetlands and the functions they perform can naturally change over the Figure 1 . Determinants of wetland functions, Factors that Control Wetland Functions Physical structure of the wetland Vegetation structure of the wetland Basic Conditions Input and timing of water Climate Fluctuations of water levels Wetland Geology ~ Sediment inputs Functions Position in the Landscape Nutrient inputs Toxic contaminants inputs From Sheldon et al. 2005 Salts concentrations Distance and connections to other habitats course of years . Because the capacity of a particular wetland for performing specific functions is deperident on multiple interacting factors , not all wetlands provide every possible function or necessarily provide functions at the same level over time . How People Impact Wetlands Approximately 110 million acres of wetland have been lost in the contiguous U . S . since European settlement '( Mitsch and Gosselink 2000 ) . Most of this loss occurred through the physical removal of wetlands (for agriculture prior to the 1950 ' s and for urban de- velopment more recently) . In addition to physical removal , activities associated with urbanization , agriculture , and deforestation can cause disturbances that change the Wetland Protections in ' Tompkins County- 5 Section 1 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 environmental factors that control wetland functions . For example , if nutrients from ag- ricultural fields flow into a wetland that naturally would have low nutrients (a bog , for example ) , the excess nutrients can change the type of plants growing in the bog and result in a change to the bogs ' habitat structure . In this example , human-caused ex- cess nutrients would lead to a change in the wetlands ' . habitat function . Table 1 on page 7 summarizes these impacts . Urban impacts cause a variety of changes that include filling wetlands , clearing vegeta- tion , soil compaction , alteration of hydrodynamics , and introduction of chemicals and nutrients . The most direct impact to wetlands from urbanization is physical loss, of wet- land area , with one study finding that urban areas have lost 85 % of their wetlands with the remaining 15 % having impaired functions ( Kusler and Niering 1998 ) . Even if wet- lands are not directly filled they can be filled by increased sediment runoff from sur- rounding development . Urbanization can change the volume and timing of water that reaches wetlands that in turn can lead to changes in wetland : vegetation , downcutting of natural channels that may result in the removal of wetlands from floodplains , and changes in seasonal saturation or inundation . Nutrients like phosphorous and nitrogen are introduced into runoff from construction site sediments , lawn fertilizer, and septic systems . Finally , urbanization affects habitat as new. developments encroach on natu - ral areas , fragment habitat into patches , and isolate remaining habitat patches from each other. Farming practices and forestry can impact the physical structure of wetlands through filling , tilling , and removing wetland vegetation . Lower water levels in a wetland result from direct ditching and draining . Tillage and grazing can disrupt soil and create a source of sediment for stormwater or wind transport into wetlands or other receiving waters . Fertilizers , herbicides ; pesticides and fungicides applied to fields can enter wet- lands and other waters in surface runoff, subsurface infiltration , or through adsorption to sediment particles . Agriculture also results in habitat fragmentation by removing= patches of wetland in the landscape . As with agriculture and urbanization , forestry practices cause several types of disturbances that can affect wetland functions . These include increased peak flows , increased water level fluctuations , increased nutrients , increased sedimentation , and introduction of exotic species . Wetland protection means maintaining the integrity of wetlands , wetland functions , and the landscape over time . This interplay of spatial and temporal scales means that wet- lands are subject to degradation from the accumulation of impacts that occur through - Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 6 Section 1 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 Table 1 . Summary of impacts from human -caused disturbances to wetlands Impacts from Physically Disturbing Wetlands • Filling or draining a wetland can create an area that can no longer support wetland vege- tation or maintain hydric soils , leading to loss of most or all functions . • Removing vegetation reduces habitat functions for invertebrates , fish , amphibians , birds , and mammals . • Grazing in wetlands has been documented to reduce habitat functions for invertebrates and birds . • Both vegetation removal and grazing tend to favor invasive species that can tolerate dis- turbance . • Soil compaction from construction activity affects absorption and infiltration of water. Impacts from Changing Wetland Hydrology • Lower water levels and decreasing the area of seasonal inundation in wetlands lead to de- creased nitrogen removal . • Both increasing and decreasing water levels impact habitat values for plants and wildlife . Water level increases may be beneficial to some species over the long run but water level decreases are generally detrimental to wetland species richness and abundance . • Changes in water' level fluctuations in wetlands have been associated with reductions in species richness and abundance of invertebrates and amphibians , with reductions . in spe- cies richness for plants . Impacts from Increasing Sediment • Increased sedimentation in wetlands reduce the amount of water they can store , with a resulting decreased ability to reduce flood effects downstream , store water for recharge of downstream waterbodies or groundwater, and perform water quality functions . • Increased sedimentation decreases plant richness and tends to favor invasive species . • Invertebrates , amphibians , and fish all generally have reduced species richness and abundance in response to increased sedimentation . Impacts from Increasing Nutrients • Increased nutrients lead to changes in plant species composition and abundance both positively through stimulating plant growth and negatively through eutrophication . • Nutrient-stimulated increases in plant densities may improve flood control functions by pro- viding more resistance to flood flows . • Excessive nutrients may reduce the ability of wetland microbes to detoxify particular pesti- cides and remove nitrogen . • For wildlife , increased nutrients can both improve habitat through the production of plant food and reduce habitat through eutrophication . Impacts from Habitat Fragmentation • Increased isolation of wetlands from other wetlands is a major factor in reducing richness and abundance of wetland -associated species . • Evidence points to the increasing isolation of wetlands due to wetland loss as a significant factor in declining amphibian populations . • Bird species richness tends to decline with increased fragmentation of wetland com - plexes . Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 7 Section 1 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 out the watershed ( Council of Environmental Quality 1997 , U . S . EPA 1999 , Granger et al . 2005 ) . The wide range of spatial and time scales over which wetland functions op- erate present an obvious challenge for local management . Measures that act at the scale of an individual wetland will be much easier to implement then measures that act across the scale of an entire watershed , and across multiple governmental jurisdic- tions . Section Summary Maintaining good water quality, reducing flooding from storms , recharging groundwa- ter, maintaining stream flows , and providing habitat for plants and animals , are but a few of the services that wetlands supply . Wetlands are impacted by land uses, chiefly urban development but also agriculture , forestry , and other activities . Wetland func- tions are determined in part by processes in the landscape around them. and human land use impacts these processes to affect wetland functions . Land disturbances also impact wetlands directly through physical removal , introducing excess sediments , changing hydrology , and adding nutrients . Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 8 Section 1 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 Section 2 : Wetland Regulations During the latter part of the 20th Century, a growing understanding of the beneficial functions provided by wetlands led the introduction of regulations to reduce the loss of wetlands to human Land use ( Mitsch and Gosselink 2000 ) . At the federal level , wet- lands are regulated primarily under. the Clean Water Act . In New York State , the Fresh- water Wetlands Act provides the Department of Environmental Conservation with the authority to regulate wetlands . The nationwide rate of wetland loss has been reduced from 458 , 000 acres per year between the mid 1950 's and mid 1970 's to 58 , 500 acres between 1986 and 1997 ( Dahl 2000 , Frayer et al . 1983 ) . The most recent report by the U . S . Fish and Wildlife Service documenting the status and trends for wetlands in the lower 48 states estimates an an - nual net gain of 32 , 000 acres of wetland between 1998 and 2004 ( Dahl 2005 ) . The re- duction in the rate of wetland loss is largely credited to wetland regulations ( Mitsch and Gosselink 2000 , NRC 2001 ) . Recent rulings by the United States Supreme Court regarding the .Clean Water Act have removed federal regulatory authority over some types of wetlands . These changes , along with pressure from increased urbanization , have increased the threat to wetlands from land development and other land disturbances . This section will dis- cuss changes to federal wetland regulations and the regulatory gap created by these changes . The ability 'of existing New York State law and existing local land use regula- tions to fill the regulatory gap is also discussed . Federal Regulation of Wetlands The primary federal authority used for wetland (and stream ) protection is the Clean Water Act . The Department of Agriculture also has wetland regulatory authority through provisions in ' the Food Security Act enacted in 1985 . Provisions in the Food Security Act provides incentives for wetland conservation and restoration on agricul- tural lands . Recent evidence indicates that these programs are leading to an nation- wide increase in wetland area in agricultural lands ( Dahl 2005 ) . Since these programs have not been subject to recent court-mandated changes , they will not be discussed in further detail . However, increases in farm commodity prices could lead farmers to opt- Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 9 Section 2 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 out of conservation programs . When Congress passed the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1972 , its stated goal was to re- store and maintain the chemical , physical , and biological integrity of our nation 's waters and eliminate water pollution (33 U . S . C . § 1344 ) . To accomplish these goals , the CWA sought to regulate " navigable waters" and defined navigable waters as "waters of the United States . " Unlike the term navigable waters , which had been used to define fed - eral regulation of waterways since the 1800s , the term "waters of the United States" was a new and apparently much broader term ( Craig 2004 ) , By the late- 1970 ' s the Corps and EPA were regulating virtually all surface waters in the U :'S . , even small streams and their surrounding wetlands , geographically isolated waters like prairie pot- holes , and constructed ditches , canals , and similar structures that replaced or acted like natural tributaries ( ELI 2007 ) . The specific authority to regulate wetlands resides in Section 404' of the CWA and this authority is administered by the U : S . Army Corps of Engineers (Corps ) and U . S Envi - ronmental Protection Agency ( EPA) . Impacts to wetlands are not banned outright un - der the Section 404 program . Rather, impacts are regulated under a permit system . Activities that result in discharges into wetlands requires a permit from the Corps (certain activities are exempt from regulation : for example , existing agriculture and some landscaping practices ) . This permit system does allow wetland impacts to occur but ah applicant for a 404 permit must demonstrate that steps have been taken to : ( 1 ) avoid impacts to regulated waters , (2 ) minimize any potential impacts and/or, (3 ) per- form mitigation to compensate for any unavoidable impacts . " Mitigation " in this context is the creation of new wetlands in areas they would not otherwise exist , the restoration of previously filled or drained wetlands , or the enhancement of degraded wetlands (sometimes , the protection of existing wetland is counted as mitigation ) . Since the early 1990' s , the federal government has had a " no net loss" goal for wetlands and wetland functions . Recent court rulings have changed the definition of the wetlands and streams that are considered jurisdictional under the CWA. In 2001 , a U . S . Supreme Court ruling , Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v . United States Army Corps of Engineers (531 U . S . 159 , 2001 ) , commonly referred to as SWANCC , determined that isolated , non-navigable and intrastate waters were no longer protected under CWA Section 404 based solely on their use by migratory birds . SWANCC involved an appeal of the Corp 's denial of a Section 404 permit to fill an abandoned sand and gravel pit in Illinois Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 10 Section 2 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 that had become a wetland used by migratory birds . The U . S . Supreme Court ruled that the Corps could not deny a Section 404 permit to alter isolated wetlands and other waters based on use by migratory waterfowl alone . This ruling potentially reduced the acreage of wetlands subject to Section 404 permits because prior to SWANCC the Corps often justified having jurisdiction over isolated wetlands based largely or solely on migratory bird use'! (Tiner et al . 2002 ) . The Supreme Court itself did not clearly de- fine " isolated " waters "and left open the possibility for the Corps could use other justifi- cations to extend CWA jurisdiction over these wetlands (such as use by irrigation or other uses that influence interstate commerce ) . However, the Corps published guid - ance in 2003 that largely excluded from federal jurisdiction geographically isolated wet- lands , and defined these wetlands as wetlands that do not have a surface water con- nection to streams or channels that flowed ultimately to navigable waterways ( U . S . EPA and USACE 2003 ) . A study by the U . S . Government Accountability Office (GAO 2005 ) found that the 'Corps rarely attempted to extend jurisdiction over isolated wet- ., lands under its . remaining authority. In June 2006 , another U . S . Supreme Court ruling resulted in additional confusion and potential o vulnerability for wetlands , and streams , nationwide . In the consolidated cases of Rapanos v . United States and Carabell v . United States Army Corps of Engineers ( 126 S . Ct . 2208 , •2006 ) , referred to as Rapanos , the Court vacated judgments against two Michigan property owners who were denied permits to fill ( in fact, had already filled without permits) wetlands on their respective properties . The wetlands in question drained to navigable waters or their tributaries through ditches that generally flowed intermittently ( Le , seasonally) or ephemerally ( i . e . only after a storm or snow melt) . The Justices issued five separate decisions , with a majority agreeing only that the Corps did not perform a rigorous enough test to determine whether the wetlands in question were subject to CWA jurisdiction . Justice Scalia concluded that "the waters of the U . S . " included only relatively permanent bodies of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters , and for wetlands to be jurisdictional they must have a continuously flowing surface connection with these waters . However, Justice Kennedy , in what has been referred to as the controlling opinion , concluded that waters are subject to regular tion under the CWA if they have a "significant nexus" to navigable waters . Kennedy fur- ther stated that this nexus must be assessed in terms of the goals of the CWA which are "to restore and maintain the chemical , physical , and biological integrity of the Na- tion ' s waters" . i In June 2007 , EPA and the Corps released guidance in identifying waters subject to Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 77 Section 2 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs Apri12008 CWA jurisdiction based on the issues raised in Rapanos ( U . S . EPA and USACE 2007 ) . The guidance states that CWA jurisdiction extends over " relatively permanent" tributar- ies of navigable waters and wetlands with a continuous surface connection with such tributaries . " Relatively permanent" means the tributary flows continuously at least sea- sonally ( i . e . 90 days ) . The agencies will generally not assert jurisdiction Some Important Terminology over ditches in or draining upland ar- eas , and swales or erosional features . Geographically isolated wetland - wetlands that are completely surrounded by upland . While geographically isolated wetlands may have no Kennedy' s significant nexus test ap- apparent surface water connection to rivers and plies for non -navigable tributaries that streams , lakes , estuaries or the ocean , these wetlands are rarely hydrologically isolated in a are not relatively permanent and their scientific sense because most wetlands also adjacent wetlands . Determination of a have important groundwater connections. significant nexus will be based on an Relatively Permanent Water- Corps term for rivers and streams that have no flow during dry evaluation of whether astream s wa- months but flow continuously at least seasonally ter flow characteristics and functions , ( i .e . 3 months ) in combination with the functions of Intermittent stream — streams that flow in re- associated wetlands , is likely to have sponse to seasonal rainfall or snow melt pat- an effect that is "more than specula- terns . For example , these streams may be wet primarily in the spring when groundwater tables tive or insubstantial on the chemical , rise in response to snowmelt. Many of these may physical , and biological integrity of a be identified as Relatively Permanent Waters by traditional navigable water. " Factors the Corps . to consider when determining the ex- Ephemeral stream — streams that only flow pe- riodically , generally in response to storm events . istence of a significant nexus are : . vol- These are sometimes referred to as dry washes ume , frequency , and duration of water or swales in grid regions . Groundwater is gener- flow; proximity to a navigable water; ally not a water source for ephemeral streams . size of the watershed ; climate ; and Stream order— A numerical system that classi- fies stream segments according to size and rela- the ability of the stream and associ- tive position in a drainage basin network: 1st- ated wetlands to impact ecological order streams are small , unbranched segments ; factors of navigable waters, such as 2nd-order streams are formed by the junction of two 1 st=order streams ; etc. removing pollutants or supporting bi- ota . The Environmental Law Institute ( ELI 2007 ) recently developed a set of checklists for determining whether a particular stream or wetland is covered under the CWA . These checklists reflect the recent EPA/Corps guidance and an adapted list is presented in Table 2 on page 13 . Figures 1 through 3 on pages 14- 16 contain examples of wet- Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 12 Section 2 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 Table 2 . Checklist for Clean Water Act coverage (Adapted from ELI . 2007 ) A "yes " response to any question indicates Clean Water Act coverage. Question Legal Rule or Test 1 . Does the wetland; or stream cross state lines? Interstate Waters 2 . Is the wetland or stream a navigable water? Traditional Navigable Waters 3 . Is the wetland adjacent to traditional navigable waters Adjacency Rule ( adjacent - means bordering ; contiguous , or neighboring . Wetlands separated from navigable waters by man-made dikes or barriers , or natural features such as river berms and '.beach dunes ''arep adjacent. ) OR Is the stream a continuously flowing or a relatively perma- nent body of water that flows into traditional interstate navi- gable waters (flow through the tributary is year-round or continuous at least seasonally)? 4 . Is the . wetland adjacent to , `and does it have a continuous" Adjacency + Continuous surface connection with a relatively permanent; standing or Surface Connection Test p . continuously flowing?body of water that` is connected to tra- ditional interstate navigable waters? 5 . Could othe degradation or destruction of the wetland or Affecting Interstate or stream affect interstate or foreign'commerce? Includes any Foreign Commerce Test wetland or stream .;; (A) that is or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or (B) from .which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce ; or (C ) that is or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate com - merce ? 6 . Does the wetland or stream , either alone or in combination Significant Nexus Test with similarly situated waters in the region , significantly af- fect the .(A) chemical integrity; or ( B) physical integrity, or (C ) biological integrity, of any traditional . navigable waters? lands , streams , and other water bodies to demonstrate the existing jurisdiction, under the Clean Water Act . Both the SWANCC and Rapanos rulings left in place federal jurisdiction over navigable waters, their continuously flowing or relatively permanent tributaries , and any wetlands adjacent to them . These types of waters . are clearly recognizable in most cases . Unfor- tunately , there remains a great deal of uncertainty in just how to determine a significant nexus for low-flow streams and their associated wetlands . For example , although vol- ume of water flow must be considered , just how much volume constitutes a nexus is Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 13 Section 2 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 z � t�!p. �'+ �A^r`✓',�� v' '� Yry+ r rc � ;.kJ. � 3' "` �+-r ; �c r ri t `d ,� � . A mv r 1 I i � 1 • • � / I / • i vN F IK 01 ��. .rppa'+ U 3- ` , ja�•{�� t f ^ n 'N :+i timx 1 _ C�CJ Q 4IF�A/17�1' ., a r i� +ti crl�q.3 v�W P� r i �y,,{' Jf 5 T`1 T A <'�^a :ors d� >a� Mro" f W t ak j trti' t .r1.+-+ +r "' •. a4��„I. . y, �, ! _ s x. , TV > '�-snE ° ! `F � ;¢} � �.+„!s `f' .�1' f r� +l a• 'i.;, " '��ti�x ` •s �,�s� _ —� ia { a � e _ F �'xla L ur �` �� •'r�' '•' •N 1 •$i + rxn .J ♦ 5 �e t95 ri 31��-�w:-`� -,. .�' 4 `�: q"_ •.'fn'4� _ '.+. �`,., HP ffQ3 ,�I�' :J 4 v��-�$ wT 21 .`fir cw�,a`". �[•� tt.�.p �l�`�y,5:f "-. 4, '�` ...- r` 't�� • `r f k� + � � y+ + _. f `d?,w :i.. � �..v-�� afw.a.�='�'��*s'^.tqs., •: �' - r�d� a ' `f� � '� utf�X.4'�`f � .._.�,. ` -�z. - ' Mm t�� v �Jl; daA t)w➢ S x ''i _ iY yf� �; ` � � }. 'r 5 'A� F •• 4K r .r�'9; ,ri .�g'?,v " 44 7 � '±- �f s_ L"r A ➢. � ,y,....� . . . '� qy � 'a r .s{++r� .Yr. YS �"`" r _i v. a "1 �`"'u"....`...._._ � x, tv l � .:., r�{ ' ,yi '"`iy �� t�'-3 �. �, ��*• . C4 't`r n i � >7SL ➢:. `� , ^ , rtes `ayr s ^' h �* Y�/ i ,: yam. f1t r• ,-�•I//A� � r� / , y .. , `�\ . �t,W--.� �`kY d'� t� '4' :� .{{Y 4� w? i`Kim�cr'4`L'ci . ml, y l r .* Y a ➢XYj 7 r If It • • / 1 1 / 1 - � 1 / 1 • E3 s d Vt ' V 'rrY:� # ^may r� `' VQq 1 �(�:/ �y^. FQl JL } T G'i Y.L.�74 Al '4 J➢F � T .Y y„ Y l. J� / t .T ! �.':i r ..-rxra.�e v 4` b.e I. . i r .y� .ea �i • (! y. y � o- `�"`- 1 �-.s _ ''" Ya ,r, � ?'/ 1 �•• n14+ h�, W l ?{ -'x,3 'l@'F?SF, 0 k{ i..a�S ra/.�i ffi``��4 S �'.B i•A i.r," rt yi ".A , x,f it X L cNl nw kp Su r., . J{, - t..C> .�-� k ,. -,5 �? J ♦ . '-' ,,,, 7� c� $etc 5rcl rz a �+.•* t + b c`1N rr te�'e v tlarbT*i d. G �3t➢'�P➢f`9�•" p�feR�a f�s e7!yx+'_ ve^r`✓... . ',-;�'-..,,�t., VIA 1\7 a tiyW#,*+ a� Will Wetla JV, e r`at F tl r-•e�t- '" i b F t r 6r x VI �. MAI 2d a / a^ y5txwt • x+8 ., r F� a ,M^a,Y ,'�3�``r 'ar " ;� ' rii"' -•<epy °'➢ R�j� b .1 x t . ♦ nf [r 7P$ti' 1 Kv�i. f,n .��...' ➢ :� if • � 1 � 1 I / I 1 . 1 • 1 AS Ah � • � I � � • <, g ' � , Y*R,- n mo C�i��i R°�,`��'� y - S _.: ._ � •y-;y. ^i"� '. {r- ��.�l• - �"2� ',�� 5.�,.+-��. r_`}+7 � > �. � t��, �.�pyS. 5; �!4c .�t�EFr �� r$ � •'r - t��n�q� j�,... �y _� r c6 � ✓i3Y � i 'r wr y [;`? `�` y°�51.. ..i� � Q ^� �`�.. S v f• � ! 1 - 6, r G' ,� � y • �". : :fir +r 'S,. r. (�,� r. 5 .4� /• Vn)�- � s 1 � /7� e ' 'ry 3•s` ' " r• * > �� 9� ��4�M°+°� ~ � .�� .. t �i.r. V ��'� y� ° 'A" 3ef'`��Y < A ��; c7 i C � s r . . � - . '` £�".- ey s-- v- w�1�-' xh�.�.-Y.��' f's +,� a k 1 "9'i.. A.y-�a► r i _ ..1�:� i - --'� , f:}' , t fi mss..lyl +ir � � ZF R� 3is3C'1�^�+"�A,s �...✓� f � . T - �I�.�r WWII. r TnF Y�- � �~ � s ��>, fry t a .,•`• t -- � s at,tir� � 7ta. � . p• t;:� +4.4y V^y# X .�y, � 'kb'..E sY^+ t Y« . � ��5�-, S� • EV � J `>t.-'[ . ? '_.: `_. j' a.�i`F :ELeR� s ?sy�:- w ''�'+ ..: .' • : � �!. �F."+ �at".�' S '�S.i � :3'7r. - i of ted wetland , ' mrnond -Hill t tate Forest m I� min iglr' Ie. n,+ t ¢ ,r "� s �'�' ^" •- ri t' yn(L s VF,t \� },�¢ r �j�y5 Fs i - f34� r' s F y�' a 'sE }�`. F'+al.y: � ,$' .....�i , 6 �T,d °✓yi', q'`I�.� .� �l � 1 rs s"riS -d'4 i ... �}" t ♦ x d J 2 tx ,�/� I�f y, '�;'s "�< S ' ' tIMA Isolatetd ' etiand , k'whof � x',� a .��yF" . Lansing. ,Geo af�� r t SF� rk&s4r ;t'M S✓ t' s K r t t� � y '9' +` ��' �fi r ,C —e ♦ 1'� graphically iso�tedw�ters are; generaily no ` j ' ,ci- uri sdictional ,uniess; a suff ctenttlink�to'inter��` F xtA ukry+v 'a`y'1 a `c :. , state*comnerceexistsk z • • 1 4 .jn` M w h ! , 1 :� (urN1 ,F. fr'i e,'S"�? w� ''• ' � �^ a�.;i,RT"'s'*' , ',u,{ '�'r �" ----°" ;" j ', xc ;' - • - r �k E � ' � ��,ryjsF - " �% �y�n4��ti P�� n,'�'t k y r U :V`^. ° "d � �. • • •• • • • F ''� -cY 'V ' 'r . . ,F( .. 'N wF f > ,�,�p..�.�t'C`� "'r�ss. r � � � _ � +1 i*'s u t Y ',+ N v Y .�. - , l • L 3 ♦ 1 i 1fq i{Y ' w gl • • • • • g - g1 s `� ; �„'" t (°q +! rd !� y �'St a Y ( xt .rc,� • • • • - ��.. � �-rr�Rk t ! i isFµx�." �'A t y'�'F "ti_�`�zy,.,�}`3' j� �'�^-,. .<-�`ii s��t`1�y`f� • • • � t ��i1� 't P �YT ?�' .� �1� T'^�„y.'k'pV�"K:'$ +'r.� 'R'1��tv:4"3 �� "z'fi�t° 3}a r s„,'.' -a�i'. v y r ✓x t > � .x �' itk� • • �141.a, ifl:d`i..' � f'Txr o-�".��€�4.>£.�a3''�'/a' -�� '. OyP.ir not clearly stated in the current guidance . Functions of both streams and wetlands are to be considered , but how to measure those functions or what level of function consti- tutes a nexus is also not clear. It is uncertain whether the significant nexus test allows for the consideration of impacts to a stream in combination with similarly situated streams in the region- as may be done with wetlands . For ditched waterways , those excavated entirely ' in and draining only upland will generally not be regulated by the Corps . However, the guidance states that these features may contribute a surface wa- ter connection to a° water of the U . S . but what this means for Corps regulation (or non- regulation ) of these features is not stated . It is currently unknown how Corps staff will apply the Rapanos guidance in regard to these questions . The larger the volumes of water and the higher the level of functions required to establish a significant nexus , the Summary of Vulnerable Wetlands 1 . Geographically isolated wetlands- those wetlands completely surrounded by uplands and without any surface water connection to streams or other water bodies . 2 . Ephemeral and intermittent streams and wetlands drained by these streams that the : Corps and EPA determine lack a significant nexus to "waters of the U . S . " higher the number of low-flow, 1 st-order streams and associated wetlands that will lose federal oversight. In the absence of state or local protections that fill this regulatory gap , these wetlands and streams are vulnerable . The impact of the Rapanos ruling is not limited to wetlands but extends to first-order streams , ditches and other low-flow watercourses . The determination of exactly what streams and wetlands are considered "waters of the U . S . " is critical because it affects many programs that are administered by the Corps and EPA and operate under the same definition of "waters of the U . S . " This includes Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits , Section 401 water quality certification , Section 301 water quality standards , and others ( Nadeau and Rains , 2007 ) . Regulation of Wetlands by New York State Wetlands in New York State are subject to State regulation but this regulation has sig- nificant limitations. The New York State Legislature passed the Freshwater Wetlands Act in 1975 with the intent to " preserve , protect and conserve freshwater wetlands and Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 17 Section 2 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 their benefits" ( ECL § 24 ) . However, a wetland must be 12 .4 acres or larger to be sub- ject to regulation . Smaller wetlands may be protected if they are considered of unusual local importance . In addition , the DEC is required to map all wetlands protected by the Act, with the intent that affected landowners and other interested parties will know where state-regulated wetlands exist . Although wetlands smaller than 12 . 4 acres can be regulated , in Tomkins County only seven wetlands smaller than 12 . 4 acres are mapped (Tompkins County Natural - Resource Inventory , January 2008 ) . These wet- lands total 71 acres out of over 5000 acres of State-regulated wetlands in the County . Certain activities , such as normal agriculture and recreation , are exempt from regula- tion . To conduct any regulated activity in a protected , wetland or an adjacent 100 foot buffer, a permit is required . The permit standards require that impacts to wetlands be avoided and minimized . Impacts to wetlands often , but not always , require mitigation such as creating a wetland or restoring a degraded wetland . In addition , the DEC ranks wetlands in one of four classes ranging from Class 1 , which represents the greatest wetland benefits , to Class IV . The permit requirements are more stringent for a Class I wetland than for a Class IV wetland . In New York State , the U . S . Army Corps and the DEC coordinate wetland permitting .through a joint permit application process . An applicant submits duplicates of a Joint Application For Permit form to the Corps and to the DEC ( in other, areas of the state , such as the Adirondacks , the Joint Application must be submitted to additional state agencies with wetland regulatory authority) . However, the DEC, can only fill the regula- tory gap created by the changes in federal rules if those wetlands meet the standards for state jurisdiction set forth in the Freshwater Wetlands Act , i . e over 12 . 4 acres in size or considered of unusual local importance . Wetlands over 12 . 4 acres generally have a significant nexus to navigable waters . Wetlands that lack a significant nexus as defined by the Corp tend to be relatively small and , therefore , must individually demon - strate unusual local importance to earn DEC oversight. In practice , this is a time- consuming , wetland -by-wetland process and does not offer an efficient way to fill the regulatory gap . Recent attempts in the Legislature to reduce the acreage threshold of the Freshwater Wetlands Act have been unsuccessful . Local Wetland Protections and Regulation A review of wetland regulation in the land use codes of municipalities in Tompkins County is included in Appendix B . There currently exist no specific laws or mecha- Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 18 Section 2 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 nisms that allow local governments to fill the regulatory gap created by the recent changes in federal regulations , although identification of potential impacts is often re- quired and a few recently enacted stormwater laws provide incentives for wetland pro- tection . Identification of potential wetland impacts is an important component of the State Envi- ronmental Quality Review (SEAR ) Act process . The SEQR process itself does not regulate impacts to wetlands but allows for a process whereby municipalities can en - sure that agenciesi with regulatory authority for wetlands are notified of possible im- pacts , However, the SEQR process does not protect wetlands that are not regulated by existing federal , state , or local law . Zoning and subdivision regulation of several municipalities contain requirements for identifying wetlands on site plans and subdivision plats . Stormwater Laws in the Towns of Caroline , Dryden and Ithaca and the City of Ithaca contain provisions to reduce wet- land and wetland buffer impacts and , in some cases , incentives to promote wetland conservation . For example , the Town of Dryden 's Stormwater Law allows developers to choose wetland conservation measures from a menu of actions required to limit the impacts of stormwater runoff from certain development activities . Municipalities also designate some wetlands as Unique Natural Areas ( UNA) as a tool to identify impor- tant wetland areas for landowners and land managers . Although no municipalities ex- plicitly restrict land use or impose conditions on development in UNA-designated ar- eas , the designation is often considered " during the land use review process . Effectiveness of Wetland Regulation As noted at the beginning of this section , the rate of wetland loss is dramatically lower today than it was just 30 years ago . However, impacts to wetlands have not been elimi- nated . Regulatory programs allow wetland impacts but , in theory, require that the wet- land area and functions lost must be mitigated either by creating new wetlands or re- storing degraded wetlands so that total wetland area either remains the same or even increases . However, mitigation is difficult and often unsuccessful , resulting in an overall loss of both wetland ,area and wetland function . A National Research Council study in 2001 estimated that 85 percent of wetland creation and restorations nationwide are un - successful ( NRC 2001 ) and more recent studies have found that success rates have not improved significantly ( Kettlewell et al . 2008 , Brody et al . 2008 ) . The NRC deter- Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 19 Section 2 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 I mined that the federal goal of no net loss" of wetlands and functions could not be con- .. firmed . Poor administration or outright failure of mitigation projects was a major prob- lem , but the NRC also found that case-by-case permitting as conducted under the structure of current regulatory programs reduced the opportunity to consider the land- scape factors that control wetland functions , or consequences of the cumulative and synergistic impacts of wetland loss across the landscape . Vari- ous studies have documented the Major findings from " Compensating for Wet- land Losses Under the Clean Water Act' - by failure of case- by-case permitting the National Research Council ( NRC 2001 ) to account for landscape scale processes that create and main - The goal of ` no net loss ' of wetlands and tain wetland functions , allowing functions could not be confirmed due to poor cumulative impacts due to proc- data management and inadequate considera- esses that operate across juris- tion of wetland functions . dictional boundaries and through Mitigation projects often out of permit compli- time ( Bedford and Preston 1988 , ance : unclear performance standards , inade- Bedford 1999 , Brody et al . 2008 , quate or failure to perform compensation ac- Council of .Environmental Quality tions and lack of long-term, management 1997 , Dale et .al . 2000 , Kettlewell were major factors . et al . 2008 , U . S . EPA 1999 , Wiss- EPA and Corps of Engineers had inadequate mar and Bechta 1998 ) , staff and support for staff. • Permit decision -making would be improved The most recent report by the by using a watershed approach rather that U . S . Fish and Wildlife Service the existing case-by-case-approach . documenting the status and Findings supported in reviews of New York trends for wetlands in the lower State wetland mitigation projects (Taylor 48 states estimates an annual net 2004 , Chin 2006 ) . gain .of 32 , 000 acres of wetland between 1998 and 2004 ( Dahl 2005 ) . Dahl identified a difference in the types of landscapes where wetland gains and losses occurred . In aggregate , wetlands were lost in urbanizing areas while wetland acreage was gained in agricul - tural lands and non -developed lands (conservation lands and unmanaged forests , prai- rie , and scrub lands ) . The impact of this transfer of wetlands and their functions across landscapes is unknown . Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 20 Section 2 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 Finally , several studies have found that inconsistent regulations , or implementation of regulations , between jurisdictions can lead to the loss of wetlands and their functions ( Brown and Veneman 2001 , Cole and Shafer 2002 , National Research Council 2001 , New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 2002 , Sheldon et al . 2005 ) . In - consistencies across jurisdictions promotes an inability to consider landscape factors and increases the likelihood for cumulative impacts . Section Summary Prior to 2001 , mostwaters ( including wetlands ) in the United States were regulated by the U . S . Army Corps of Engineers through provisions in the Clean Water Act . Federal regulation did not necessarily prohibit impacts to regulated waters , but incentives to avoid and requirements to mitigate impacts have dramatically reduced overall wetland losses in recent years . Recent decisions by the U . S . Supreme Court have reduced the reach of the CWA over certain types of waters . In general , geographically isolated wet- lands and some types of ditches are no longer regulated by the Corps . Low-flow streams , and their associated "wetlands , may only be regulated by the Corps when a "significant nexus" exists to a navigable water. Neither New York State law or local regulations cover these types of waters to any appreciable extent. Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 21 Section 2 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 1 Section I Extent of Vulnerable Wetlands in Tompkins County Geographically isolated wetlands are often small and individual headwater or first-order (low-flow) streams are by definition small . However, studies indicate that these wet- lands and streams may be a significant proportion of water resources in many water- sheds . Estimates made by EPA , the Natural Resources Defense Council and National Wildlife Federation indicate that approximately 20 % . to 30 % of the wetland acreage in the contiguous U . S . , approximately 20 million acres , could be considered geographi- cally isolated ( Meyer et al . 2003 , Kusler 2004 ) . A study by Comer et al . (2005 ) esti - mated that 29% of the wetland and riparian systems described in a national database of natural heritage data met their definition of " isolated " . EPA estimates that the per- centage of stream miles in the contiguous U . S that can be considered headwater, in - termittent and/or ephemeral ranges from 53 % to 59 % ( Nadeau and Rains 2007 ) . These national estimates may significantly underestimate the extent of these small , headwater streams and wetland systems because they are often are not included in mapping databases due to the limitations of scale ( Nadeau and Rains 2007 ) . It is difficult to determine how many miles of stream and acres of wetlands are at risk nationally because there are currently no formal scientific definitions for terms such as " isolated " and "significant nexus" that can be used to make definitive measurements . Federal guidance exists that attempts to assist regulators in making jurisdictional deter- minations but in practice these determinations are legal determinations and not strictly based on science . Vulnerable Wetlands in Tompkins County The study by Comer et al . (2005 ) estimated that 44 % of the New York State wetland and riparian systems described in a natural heritage database met their definition of isolated . There is little additional data on the prevalence , in either New York State or Tompkins County , of wetlands now vulnerable due to the U . S . Supreme Court's SWANCC and Rapanos rulings . Local wetland inventories are mostly dependent on the National Wetland Inventory ( NWI ) and DEC wetland maps . These databases very rarely include adequate information on surface water connectivity to make determina- tions of a significant nexus or geographic isolation . Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 22 Section 3 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 In an effort to estimate the extent of vulnerable wetlands in the County , a field survey was conducted during the summer of 2007 ( more complete details about the survey are included in Appendix A) . During this study , surveyors' walked several transects run - ning north to south through the Towns of Lansing and Dryden . As wetlands were en - countered along the transect line , the surveyors attempted to answer three main ques- tions : ( 1 ) are the wetlands completely enclosed by uplands and therefore geographically iso- lated ? (2 ) does a "significant nexus' exist to a water of the U . S . as defined by the Army Corps of Engineers? (3 ) are the wetlands included in NWI and/or DEC databases? This last question was important to provide some information about the accuracy and inclusiveness of the existing wetland databases . Results are shown in Table 3 . Table 3 . Tompkins County Wetland Survey results Total number of wetlands on transects = 42 Total wetland area in transects = 89 . 6 acres Percent of Average Individual . Percent of Wetland of Wet- Transect Size lands Wetland Area (acres) Geographically Isolated 39 6 0 . 4 Fail Significant Nexus Test 19 2 0 . 3 Significant Nexus Test Indeterminate 15 11 1 . 9 Not in NWI Database 68 20 0 . 5 Not in DEC Wetland Database 77 39 0 . 9 Results of the survey indicate that up to 19% of the wetland acreage included in the survey may fall outside of CWA regulation : 6 % were geographically isolated , 2 % were judged to definitely fail the significant nexus test, and 11 % might or might not fail the significant nexus test (the significant nexus test guidance was released in June 2007 Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 23 Section 3 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 and how to apply this guidance in the field was not entirely clear at the time of the sur- vey) . Assuming 20 , 000 acres of wetlands in the County (as listed in the NWI database ) these results , if applicable across the entire County, would translate to approximately 1 , 600 acres of wetland lacking federal regulation under the Clean Water Act because they are geographically isolated or fail the significant nexus test . An additional 2 , 200 acres may or may not fail a significant nexus test . With the exception of one 0 . 5 acre wetland , none of the wetlands that lacked or may lack federal regulation were listed on the New York State wetland maps for coverage under the Freshwater Wetland Act . The average size of the isolated wetlands and wetlands that failed the significant nexus test was small , averaging less than 0 .4 acres in size . These small wetlands , par- ticularly when located within forest canopies , can be difficult to detect with the photo- interpretation techniques used develop the NWI database . In fact, twenty percent of the total wetland area encountered during the survey was not present in the NWI data- base . Managers should be aware of this . underreporting of wetlands when reviewing land use permitting documents that rely solely on the NWI database to demonstrate that wetlands are not present on -site . Additionally, the majority of all individual wet- lands encountered during the survey were non- NWI listed wetlands (68 % of all individ- ual wetlands ) . These small wetlands may constitute ' an important mosaic ecosystem within the landscape that is not currently well documented . Revisiting Wetland Functions : Why Vulnerable Wetlands and Streams are Important Section 1 provided an overview of the functions that wetlands provide . Since these vul- nerable wetlands , in general , are small and may lack or have an intermittent surface water connection to other water bodies , do they perform similar functions as other wet- lands? Although these systems have not been as well -studied as larger systems , a summary of the ecological , hydrologic , water quality and biological benefits of these streams and wetlands is provided below. Many of the studies focused on ephemeral and intermittent streams but these first-order systems are ' often composed of closely associated wetlands . These studies show that organic matter processing , plant and animal habitat, and maintenance of groundwater through infiltration are just a few of the functions provided by these small , vulnerable systems ., Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 24 Section 3 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 Water Quality Functions Isolated wetlands can act as nutrient sinks , and several studies have found that wet- lands associated with the smallest streams provide the most nutrient removal , possibly due to the high land/water interspersion in these systems that provides a great oppor- tunity for nutrient removal ( Meyer et al . 2003 ) . A study by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (2006 ) found that wetlands associated with headwater streams signifi- cantly reduce the levels of sediment and other pollutants that flow into first-order streams due to topography and natural obstructions , such as rocks and downed log's, retain sediment . Peterson et al . (2001 ) found that despite their small dimensions , headwater streams play a disproportionately large role in nitrogen transformations on the landscape and typically retain and transform more than 50 % of their nitrogen in - puts . Water Quantity Functions Isolated wetlands do not have an obvious surface water connection but they store and slowly release water into groundwater, aquifers and surface' waters . The surface water storage capacity of isolated wetlands can be enormous . For example , South Carolina ' s geographically isolated wetlands are estimated to store 4 . 58 billion gallons of water (SELC 2004 ) . Isolated wetlands have a high perimeter to volume ratio , which gives them a large capacity to recharge groundwater, and are important for receiving waters that are connected to the wetlands through groundwater (Weller 1981 ) . First-order streams play a critical role in the hydrology of downstream 'receiving waters by moderating downstream flooding during periods of high flow , and by maintaining flow during dry weather. These functions are possibly due to the significant storage and recharge capacity of these systems . Headwater systems recharge groundwater because of the large surface area of the channel bed in contact with available. water, allowing infiltration and reducing the volume that travels downstream ( Meyer et al . 2003 ) . During dry periods , the opposite occurs , with groundwater replenishing flow in the stream . Habitat Functions Isolated wetlands are used by a wide variety of species during different portions of their life cycle , and their unique characteristics make them critical for certain species ( NRDC 2002 ) . Many amphibian populations have evolved in areas with abundant small , isolated wetlands that are used as "stepping stones" to aid in dispersal and recolonization of suitable habitats (Tiner et al . 2002 ) . One South Carolina study esti- Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 25 Section 3 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 mated that 20 species of amphibians would become extinct if all of the state ' s isolated wetlands were lost ( SELL 2004 ) . A single isolated wetland can support more than 100 species of aquatic insects , and species richness in small isolated wetlands has been shown to be comparable or possibly higher than estimates for much larger wetlands (SELC 2004 , Semlitsch 2000 ) . Isolated wetlands provide refuge from predators and sources of drinking water ( Leibowitz 2003 , Moler 2003 ) . Headwater wetlands and associated streams are unique and diverse habitats that sup- port species abundance and diversity . These areas are important as spawning and nursery habitats , seasonal feeding areas , refuge from predators and competitors , ther- mal refuge , and travel corridors ( Meyer et al . 2007 ) . Other species , such as birds , do not actually live in headwater areas but depend on them for food , water, habitat, or movement corridors . Some of these species are headwater specialists , restricted to headwaters . Perhaps the most important function of headwater aquatic systems is to process or- ganic matter. before it is transported downstream . These systems are largely based on detritus : leaves , woody debris , and detritus enter and microorganisms transform this organic matter into a form other organisms can use for food ( Mitch and Gosselink 2000) . This process is the basis, of the food web in freshwater ecosystems . Headwater systems are significantly more efficient at retaining and transforming organic matter than larger streams because debris dams and lower or infrequent flows prevent the downstream movement of larger materials . The .storage and transformation of organic matter in headwaters prevents downstream water quality degradation due to excess organic matter and affects the survival and condition of organisms that depend on this food source . Section Summary A limited survey of wetlands conducted within the Towns of Dryden and Lansing found that between 8 and 19 % of the wetland acreage surveyed may no longer be regulated under the Clean Water Act because they are geographically isolated or lack a signifi- cant nexus to a navigable water. In addition , 16% of the wetland acreage ( 66 % of the individual wetlands ) was not listed on the National Wetland Inventory database , a pri - mary tool used to identify the presence of wetlands . Although these wetlands are small , the scientific literature indicates that similar wetlands provide significant wetland function within a landscape . Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 26 Section 3 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 Section 4 : Improving Wetland Protections in Tompkins County As indicated in the proceeding discussion on wetland regulations , wetlands are , subject to various federal , state and local laws . However, statutory language , court rulings , or regulatory program deficiencies have resulted in regulatory gaps through which certain wetlands may fall , with the result that those wetlands and their functions lack protec- tions from land use impacts . These vulnerable wetlands are generally small . However, the scientific literature indicates that these wetlands provide significant water quality , water quantity and habitat functions . This study of existing wetland regulations identified three major factors that lead to wet- land vulnerability and the continued loss of wetlands and their functions identified by the National Research Council and other investigators : Factor 1 : Regulatory Gap . Many wetlands are vulnerable due to regulatory gaps that exist in current federal and state regulations . New York State laws generally excludes regulation of wetlands smaller than 12 .4 acres in size . Recent U . S . Su - preme Court cases have removed from federal jurisdiction geographically isolated wetlands and other wetlands deemed not to have a "significant nexus" to navigable . waterways , Local,, governments do not have their own wetland regulations to any significant extent , ;resulting in many wetlands that are vulnerable to loss to develop- ment due to these regulatory "gaps'. Local governments can reduce these regula- tory gaps by implementing local wetland regulatory programs . Factor 2 : Inconsistent Implementation of Wetland Regulations . Existing wet- land laws are often unevenly implemented . Most municipalities , and this includes all municipalities in Tompkins .County, rely heavily on federal and New York State wet- land programs to protect wetlands or to mitigate for wetland losses that result from land development .'! Studies have found that a significant amount of development of wetlands under federal jurisdiction has occurred without the necessary permits ( NRC 2001 , Sheldon et al 2005 ) . Most failures of federal program implementation are beyond the scope of local governments . However, as managers with primary responsibility for local land use decisions , local officials can assist in the implemen - Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 27 Section 4 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 tation of federal and state programs through improved education about wetland regulations and requirements and improved communication between local officials and regulatory staff, especially with regards to monitoring permit compliance . Factor 3 : Need for Landscape -scale Management. Site-specific , case-by-case permitting as conducted under current regulatory programs reduce the opportunity to consider the broader landscape , the environmental factors that control wetland functions , or consequences of the cumulative impacts of wetland loss across the landscape . Wetland policy should be based not solely on the wetland and its imme- diate buffer but additionally on landscape-scale management linked to specific eco- system functions . Protection and management at a larger geographic scale would improve permit decision -making . Factor 1 and Factor 2 are perhaps the easiest issues to deal with at the local level . Most local governments that choose to regulate wetlands usually do so through local land use laws, ' the arena where they have the greatest control and flexibility . Munici - palities in Tompkins County vary in size , technical and financial resources , and plan - ning and land use review processes . A variety of wetland protection options designed to meet issues identified in Factors 1 and 2 are provided below . Managers can then determine the most appropriate strategies for their community, depending on the wet- land protection needs and the capacity to implement the options . Local municipalities face obvious challenges to developing and implementing land - scape- and watershed -based approaches to wetland management . Foremost of these challenges is inconsistent priorities among multiple municipalities and agencies within a single watershed . Large costs are associated with implementing a landscape-scale program (costs of landscape analysis , wetland inventories , and assessments ) . Officials and the public may lack awareness of the ecological consequences of existing regula- tory programs . Finally , there are few examples of successful intermunicipal collabora- tion to emulate . Although implementing a landscape- based framework in Tompkins County may be difficult , the existence of comprehensive plans and watershed strate- gies at the County level as well as on the part of several individual municipalities pro- vide a base for the development of landscape-scale wetland conservation . Many frameworks for landscape-based wetland management have been developed ( Kusler 2004b , Cappiella et al . 2005 , Cappiella et al . 2006 , Granger et al . 2005 ) . 1 8 Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 28 Section 4 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 Landscape approaches are a strategy that will require patience and commitment on the part of the various municipalities in the County to develop . Municipalities should adopt both site-specific tools to address the federal and state regulatory gaps and shortcomings in the near-term while working to develop a landscape approach for long-term wetland protection . Options for Factor 1 : Regulatory Gap These options focus on protecting wetlands made vulnerable by the regulatory gaps in federal and state programs . Option : Wetland Protection Ordinance In New York State , local governments have the primary responsibility in making land use decisions . Special protection ordinances provide a local government with the au - thority to directly regulate activities in and around wetlands . To protect all vulnerable wetlands , the definition of wetland in the ordinance should include all wetland types regardless- of size or isolation . An alternative is to only regulate at the local level those wetlands that are outside of federal or state jurisdiction . Wetland ordinances require significant administration on the part of the local government and it is important that the municipality have the necessary enforcement authority , resources , and training to en- Y g sure effective implementation of the regulation . Many municipalities in New York State have adopted wetlands protection laws . Some examples are : Town of Wappinger (viewed online at http :// www . e-codes .generalcode . com/codebook frameset .asp?t=tc&p= 0691 % 2D137 % 2Ehtm &cn = 338&n = [ 1 ] [ 115] ) , Town of Langrange (viewed online at http ://www . e- codes . generalcode . com/codebook_frameset. asp ?t=tcfuII ) , Town of Brookhaven (viewed online at http ://www . e-codes. generalcode . com/codebook_frameset . asp? t=ws&cb=0012 A ) , and Town of Clifton Park (viewed online at http : //www . e- codes . generalcode . com/codebook_frameset . asp?t=ws&cb= 1051 _A ) . The wetland committee of the Tompkins County Water Resources County is currently developing a Model Wetland Ordinance based on wetland laws from New York State municipalities and other guidance . Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 29 Section 4 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 Option : Encourage Better Site Design in Existing Zoning and Site Plan Regula - tions One way to mitigate the impacts of storm water runoff on downstream waters and wet- lands is to control the way that development sites are designed . Better Site Design re- fers to a collection of site design techniques that reduce storm water runoff by minimiz- ing impervious cover, conserving wetlands and other natural areas , and providing more distributed storm water management . Better Site Design has also been promoted as being economically advantageous because these developments can be cheaper to build , bring higher premiums , and sell faster than conventional developments , depend- ing on the site design and local costs and market conditions ( CWP 1998 ) . Three Better Site Design strategies that are particularly applicable to wetland protection are designs that ( 1 ) minimize the number of wetland crossings , (2 ) encourage or require the use of open space design to protect wetlands , and (3 ) encourage designs that utilize the natural drainage system . Option : Promote Wetland Conservation Practices in Stormwater Laws Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System ( MS4 ) municipalities in Tompkins County can utilize their stormwater regulations to help protect wetlands . In addition to requirements to identify wetlands and other watercourses , New York State stormwater regulations allow applicants to receive credits for preserving :wetlands and wetland buffers located on site through the use of Better Site Design practices . The stormwater laws for the Town of Dryden and the Town of Ithaca specifically promote the use of these wetland conservation practices . Municipalities can modify existing stormwater laws to strengthen wetland conservation incentives . Option : Include Wetland Protections in Existing Land Use Regulations Municipalities can choose to include specific wetland protection measures similar to those in stand -alone wetlands ordinances to allow wetland regulation at the local level that fill gaps in federal and state regulations . Elements of Better, Site Design can also be promoted through site plan review regulations . Options for Factor 2: Uneven Implementation of Laws These options focus on increasing compliance with federal and state regulatory pro- grams . Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 30 Section 4 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 Option : Require Field Surveys for Wetlands When Land Use Decisions Involve Flood Plains , Stream Corridors , and Hydric Soils Land use permit applications and SEQRA documentation often relies on NWI wetland maps to determine' the absence of wetlands on site . A wetland survey (Appendix A) found that 16 % of all wetland area surveyed was not identified in the NWI database . Reference to outdated or inaccurate NWI wetland maps means managers may not re- alize that wetlands subject to federal , state , or local regulation are present . Wetlands are often associated with other natural features such as floodplains , stream corridors , and hydric soil . Municipalities that 'require field surveys for wetlands when floodplains , stream corridors , and hydric soils are present can improve the likelihood that wetlands are subjected to federal , state , and local wetland programs Option : Improve Accuracy of Local Wetland Maps and Databases In addition to the under-reporting of wetlands in the NWI database detailed above , an - other inaccuracy is the over-reporting of wetlands through the listing of those wetlands that no longer exist due to land development. The combination of ,these inaccuracies will impact the efficacy of landscape-scale planning processes . A countywide effort, perhaps coordinated by the Water Resources Council , is needed to improve the accu - racy of this database both for its use as tool used by developers and municipal officials for site scale land use decisions and as a tool used in comprehensive planning . Option : Quantify the Extent and Value of Vulnerable Wetlands L-oval-govern ments-Gan--quantify-the-extent-and-value-of-wetlands-that fall-into-federal and state regulatory gaps and are therefore vulnerable to development. Quantifying the acres of wetlands that can potentially be lost because of inadequate protection can be a very powerful tool to leverage support for expanded local protection . The wetland field survey detailed in Appendix A was limited in scope but indicated that a significant proportion of wetland" area within Tompkins County are vulnerable due to gaps in fed- eral and state wetland regulations . Inc leasing the extent of the survey across the County will provide abetter picture of the extent of these wetlands . In addition to mapping the extent of vulnerable wetlands , assessments that quantify the functional benefits provided by thesIe wetlands should also be undertaken to give scientific weight for their protection . The development or adoption of a wetland assess- 11 1 1 ment tool for use in consistently measuring functions would assist in this process . Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 31 Section 4 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 IL tl Option : Link Permit Approval to State and Federal Permits One basic approach to local government wetland protection is to tie local permit ap- provals for proposed development to the acquisition of the necessary state and federal wetland permits : This regulatory networking approach facilitates communication be- tween local governments and federal and state regulatory agencies and provides wet- land -related information to the local government. Permit applicants should be informed in the early stages of site planning that project approval is conditional on the project receiving the proper federal and state permits . Applicants should be encouraged to conduct wetland delineations as early in the proc- ess as possible since avoiding impacts to wetlands and wetland buffers is an important way to avoid the added costs of obtaining and complying with the conditions of federal and state permits . Option : Develop/Adopt Wetland Functional Assessment Tool and Include As - sessments in Existing Land Use Regulations Studies suggest that the use of wetland functional assessments can enhance planning and the enforcement and monitoring of existing regulations . Wetland assessment tools can be required in existing land use , regulations to provide information on wetland type , wetland functions and connections to other water bodies . Functional assessments can also be incorporated into mitigation performance standards to ensure that wetland functions as well as wetland area are replaced or restored . This. information can then be used by local land use managers to help ensure that federal , state and any existing local wetland laws are applied consistently . Option : Monitor Development In and Near Wetlands Local governments have a vital role in monitoring activities near or in wetlands within their municipal boundaries and should have access to all related project plans and per- mit requirements to facilitate monitoring . Monitoring project development periodically will increase compliance and provide additional influence over local wetland manage- ment. Option : County-level Wetland Resource Create a County-level position , paid for and shared by all municipalities , to aid land - owners in identifying wetlands on their properties , assist landowners and municipal offi - cials with regulatory questions , monitor mitigation activities in the county, and perform other activities that will ensure an even application of wetland regulation across the Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 32 Section 4 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 County. Factor 3 : Need for Landscape-scale Management One way of conceptualizing a landscape approach to wetland management is that wet- lands and their respective functions are determined at three landscape scales and pro- tecting ecological integrity of functions must occur at the appropriate scales : ( 1 ) the wetland ; (2 ) the' adjacent environment; and (3 ) the greater watershed . At the site scale , dredging , filling , channelization and other actions directly alter a wet- lands morphology, ,, soils , hydrology and vegetation to affect water quality , water quan - tity , and habitat functions . Wetlands have buffer areas immediately adjacent that pro- tect and add to (or harm if disturbed ) wetland functions . Undisturbed , these areas pro- vide pollutant and nutrient removal functions and provide refuge for plant and animal species from natural and human -caused disturbances . Finally , landscape-scale proc- esses control factors that influence wetland functions , such as the movement of water, sediments and nutrients into and out of wetlands . The challenge is to manage the impact of land use change on relevant scales . For hy- drology , the relevant landscape scale may include the basin , sub-basin or larger water- shed . For groundwater interactions , the appropriate area of influence may include re- charge areas beyond the watershed or other drainage systems . The appropriate man = agement scale for wildlife may encompass' 'the habitat used by a species , together with the other organisms; with which it coexists , and the landscape units that affect them . This challenge of managing water resources at multiple scales has been the focus of many recent publications and a variety of frameworks have been proposed (Cappiella et al . 2005 , Cappiella et al . 2006 , Granger et al . 2005 , Kusler 2004b ) . A framework that synthesizes the various approaches and provides opportunities for using information from different scales", might include five steps : 1 . Define goals and objectives of a watershed plan . This includes assessing needs in the watershed , prioritizing functions , and identifying stakeholders . 2 . Analyzing the landscape . This includes reviewing existing data , conducting re- source inventories , and analyzing functions at multiple scales . 3 . Identify solutions . These would include regulatory and non -regulatory mecha- nisms . Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 33 Section 4 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 4 . Implement solutions . 5 . Monitor the results and adaptively manage solutions . A framework more specific to wetland conservation on the scale of the watershed has been developed by the Center for Watershed Protection (CWP ) for the .U . S . EPA ( Cappiella et al . 2005 , Cappiella et al . 2006 ) and is outlined in Appendix D . Since wa- tersheds are complex , it, should not be surprising ,to find that planning on the scale of a watershed is also complex . In brief, the CWP process involves first developing goals , priorities , planning opportunities , and assessments for the watershed as a whole . Then , specific planning for each component of the watershed would follow; for exam - ple wetlands , streams , groundwater would each be a separate component. However, planning for each of the components would help meet the needs and priorities of the entire watershed . The primary watershed scale planning in Tompkins County is the Cayuga Lake Water- shed Intermunicipal Organizations ' Cayuga Lake Watershed Restoration and Protec- tion Plan , or RPP (CLWIO 2001 ) . The RPP calls for a watershed - based approach that . considers Cayuga Lake and its contributing basins as an interconnected system and to establish watershed priorities . The related Cayuga Lake Watershed Preliminary Wa- tershed Characterization has identified priority . areas (.CLWI0 . 1999 ) . Excess sediment and excess nutrients such as phosphorous and nitrogen are identified priority areas where wetland functions are important . The Fall Creek and Gulf Creek watersheds in Tompkins County were specifically identified in the RPP for wetland restoration and protection efforts . Additional wetland , conservation strategies identified in the RPP in - cludes : requirements for the review of disturbances within 100 ft of all natural wetlands in municipalities that have land use control ordinances ; inventory all wetlands in water- shed to establish priorities ; restore degraded wetlands ; and incorporate wetlands as an important component . of regional stormwater management . Comprehensive planning by governments in Tompkins County will be necessary to im - plement or improve these recommendations . The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan (TCP. D 2004 ) recognizes that water resources " . . . should be considered and man - aged as a system . . . " An analysis of the landscape to identify wetland-associated Natu - ral Features Focus Areas is an important step . Specific tools listed in Appendix D such as incorporating wetland management into land use decisions or developing assess- ment-based performance standards need to be adopted . Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 34 Section 4 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 Section Summary Three major factors contribute to the vulnerability of wetlands in Tompkins County to losses due to land disturbance activities : ( 1 ) the regulatory gap resulting from changes in federal regulations , (2 ) inconsistent application of existing regulations , and (3 ) gen- eral absence of management on a landscape-scale . In the short-term , municipalities can adopt regulations and practices fill the regulatory gaps and improve the consis- tency in the application of existing regulations . In the longer-term , developing wetland specifics for the watershed-based approach envisioned by the RPP , and incorporation of this approach into municipal comprehensive plans , is needed . u Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 35 Section 4 Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 i i i I References i Bedford , B . L. and E . M . Preston . 1988 . Developing the scientific basis for assessing cumulative effects of wetland loss and degradation on landscape functions : Status , perspectives and prospects . Environ- mental Management 12 (5): 751 -771 . i i Bedford , B . L. 1999 . Cumulative effects on wetland landscapes : Links to wetland restoration in the United States and southern Canada . Wetlands 19(4 ) : 775-788 . Brody, S . D . , S . E . Davis , W . E . Highfield , and S . P . Bernhardt. 2008 . A spatial-temporal analysis of Sec- tion 404 wetland permitting in Texas and Florida : thirteen years of impact along the coast. Wetlands 28 ( 1 ) : 107- 116 . I Brown S . C . , and P . L . M Veneman . 2001 . Effectiveness of Compensatory Wetland Mitigation in Massa- chusetts , USA . Wetlands 21 (4 ) : 508-518 . i Cappiella , K. , T . Schueler, J . Tasillo , and T. Wright. 2005 . Adapting watershed tools to protect wetlands : Wetlands and watersheds article #3 . Center for Watershed Protection , Ellicott City MD . j I Cappiella , K. , A . Kitchell , and T. Schueler. 2006 . Using local watershed plans to protect wetlands : Wet- lands and watersheds article #2 . Center for Watershed Protection , Ellicott City MD . i Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization ( CLWIO ) . 2001 . Cayuga Lake Watershed restora- tion and protection plan . Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization , Lansing NY. i Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization (CLWIO ) . 1999 . Cayuga Lake Watershed prelimi- nary watershed characterization (draft) . Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization , Lansing NY . I Center for Watershed Protection (CWP ) . 1998 . Better Site Design : A handbook for changing develop- ment rules in your community. Center for Watershed Protection , Ellicott City MD . I i I Chin , S . 2006 . An evaluation of wetland compensatory mitigation in the New York Great Lakes basin . Masters project, Duke University. Durham NC . i Cole , C .A. , and D . Shafer. 2002 . Section 404 wetland mitigation and permit success criteria in Pennsyl- vania , USA, 1986- 1999 . Environmental Management 30 (4 ) : 508-515 . I Comer, P . , Goodin , K. , Tomaino , A. , Hammerson , G . , Kittel , G . , Menard , S . , Nordman , C . , Pyne , M . , Reid , Sneddon , L . , and K . Snow. 2005 . Biodiversity values of geographically isolated wetlands in the United States . NatureServe. Arlington VA. I Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 36 References Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 I i i I Council of Environmental Quality. 1997 . Considering the cumulative effects under the National Environ- mental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President. Washington D . C . Craig , R . K . 2004 . The Clean Water Act and the Constitution : Legal structure and the public's right to a clean and healthy environment. Environmental Law Institute , Washington D . C . Dahl , T. E . 2000 . Status and trends of wetlands in conterminous United States 1986 to 1997 . U . S . Fish and Wildlife Service , Washington ; D . C . Dahl , T. E . 2005. Status and trends of wetlands in conterminous United States 1998 to 2004 . U . S . Fish and Wildlife Service , Washington , D . C . Dale , V. H . , S . Brown , R:A. Haeuber, N .T . Hobbs , N . Huntley, R.J . Naimen , W . E . Riebsame, M . G . Turner, and T.J . Valone . 2000 . Ecological principles and guidelines for managing the use of land . Eco- logical Applications 10 : 639-670 . Environmental Law Institute ( ELI ). 2007 . The Clean Water Act Jurisdictional Handbook 2007 . Environ- mental Law Institute , Washington D . C . Environmental Conservation Law ( ECL) of New York State , online at http://public. leginfo . state . ny. us/ menugetf. cgi?COMMONQUERY= LAWS , Albany NY. Frayer, W . E . , T. J . Monahan , D . C . Bowden , and F .A. Graybill . 1983 . Status and trends of wetlands and deepwater habitats in the conterminous United States , 1950's to 1970's . Colorado State University, Fort Collins , CO . Granger, T . , T . Hruby, A. McMillan , D . Peters , J . Ruby, D . Sheldon , S . Stanley, and E . Stockdale . 2005. Wetlands in Washington State- Volume 2 : Guidance for protecting and managing wetlands . Publication #05-06-008 . Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia WA. Johnson , P . , D . L. Mock, E . J . Teachout, and A. McMillan . 2000 . Washington State Wetland Mitigation Evaluation Study Phase 1 : Compliance. Publication No . 00-06-016 . Washington State Department of Ecology; Olympia WA. Johnson , P . , D . L. Mock, A. McMillan , L . Driscoll , and T. Hruby. 2002 . Washington State Wetland Mitiga- tion Evaluation Study Phase 2 : Evaluating Success . Publication No . 02-06-009 . Washington State De- partment of Ecology, Olympia WA. Kettlewell , C . I . , V. Bouchard , D . Porej , M . Micacchion , J .J . Mack , D . White , and L . Fay. 2008 . An as- sessment of wetland impacts and compensatory mitigation in the Cuyahoga River watershed , Ohio, USA. Wetlands 28( 1 ): 57-67 . Kusler, J . 2004 . The SWANCC Decision ; State regulation of wetlands to fill the gap. Association of State Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 37 References Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 Wetland Managers Inc . , Windham ME . Kusler, J . 2004b . A guide for local governments : Wetlands and watershed management. Association of State Wetland Managers Inc . , Windham ME . Kusler, J . and W . Niering . 1998 . Wetland Assessment: Have we lost our way? National Wetland News- letter 20 : 8- 14 . Leibowitz, S . 2003 . Isolated wetlands and their functions : an ecological perspective . Wetlands 23 : 517- 531 . Meyer, J . L. , Kaplan , L .A. , Newbold , D . , Strayer, D . L . , Woltemade , C . J . , Zedler, J . B . , Beilfuss , R. , Car- penter, Q . , Semlitsch , R . , Watzin , M . C . , and P . H . Zedler. 2003 . Where rivers are born : The scientific imperative for defending small streams and wetlands : American Rivers and the Sierra Club , Washington D . C . Meyer, J . L . , Strayer, D . L . , Wallace , J . B . , Eggert, S . L . , Helfman , G . S . , and N . E . Leonard . 2007 . The contribution of headwater streams to biodiversity in river networks . Journal of the American Water Re- sources Association 43( 1 ) : 86- 103 . Mitsch , W . J . and J . G . Gosselink . 2000 . Wetlands : Third Edition . John Wiley and Sons , New York NY . Mockler, A. , L . Casey, M . Bowles , N . Gillen , and J . Hansen . 1998 . Results of monitoring King County wetland and stream mitigations . King County Department of Development and Environmental Services , Seattle WA. Moler, P . 2003 . Wildlife values of ephemeral wetlands in the Southeastern Coastal Plain . Presentation at the Society of Wetland Scientists South Atlantic Chapter Fall 2003 . Savannah , GA. Nadeau , T. , and M . C . Rains . 2007 . Hydrological connectivity between headwater streams and down- stream waters : How science can inform policy. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43 ( 1 ) : 118 133 . National Research Council : ( NRC ) 2001 . Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. National Academy Press , Washington D . C . National Resources Defense Council (NRDC ) . 2002 . Wetlands at risk '— imperiled treasures . National Resources Defense Council . New York NY. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection . 2002 . Creating indicators of wetland status (quantity and quality) : .freshwater wetland mitigation in New Jersey. Trenton , NJ . North Carolina Division of Water Quality ( NCDWQ ). 2006 . The ecological and water quality value of headwater wetlands in North Carolina . North Carolina Division of Water Quality. Raleigh NC . Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 38 References Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 Peterson , B . , Wollheim , W . , Mulholland , P . , Webster, J . , Meyer, J . , Tank , J . , Marti , E . , Bowden , W . , Valett, M . , Hershey, A. , McDowell , W . , Dodds , W . , Hamilton , S . , Gregory, S . , and D . Morrall . 2001 . Con- trol of nitrogen export from watersheds by headwater streams . Science . 292 : 86-89 . Semlitsch , R. D . 2000. Size does matter: The value of small isolated wetlands. National Wetlands News- letter 5- 13 . Sheldon , D . , T . Hruby, P . Johnson , K . Harper, A. McMillan , T . Granger, S . Stanley, and E . Stockdale . 2005 . Wetlands in Washington State- Volume 1 : A synthesis of the science . Washington State Depart- ment of Ecology . Publication #05-06-006 . Olympia WA. Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) . 2004 . At risk : South Carolina's "isolated" wetlands 2003- 2004 . Southern Environmental Law Center. Chapel Hill NC . Tiner, R.W . , H . C . Bergquist , G . P. DeAlession , and M .J . Starr. 2002 . Geographically isolated wetlands : A preliminary Assessment of their characteristics and status in selected areas of the United States . U . S . Fish and Wildlife Service , Northeast Region . Hadley , MA. Tompkins County Natural Resource Inventory. Viewed online January 2008 at http ://gisweb .tompkins co . org/nri/MAIN .ASP. Tompkins County Planning Department, Ithaca NY. Tompkins County Planning Department (TCPD ) . 2004 . Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan : Plan- ning For Our Future . Online at http ://www.tompkins-co . org/planning/compplan/index. htm . Tompkins County Planning Department, Ithaca NY. Town of Wappinger. 2005 . Freshwater wetland , waterbody, and watercourse protection . Online at http :// www . e-codes . generalcode . com/codebook_frameset. asp?t=tc&p=0691 %2D137%2Ehtm&cn =338 &n =[l ] [115] U . S . Army Corps of Engineers . 1987 . Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual . U . S . Department of Defense , Washington D . C . U . S . Army Corps of Engineers . 2007. U . S . Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook . U . S . Department of Defense , Washington D . C . U . S . Environmental Protection Agency. 1999 . Consideration of cumulative impacts in EPA review of NEPA documents . EPA 315-R-99-002/May 1999 . U . S . Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC . U . S . Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and U . S . Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE ). 2003 . Clean Water Act jurisdiction following the U .S . Supreme Court's decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers . U . S . Environmental Protection Agency and U . S . Department of Defense . Washington DC . Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 39 References Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs April 2008 U . S . Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U . S . Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE ). 2007 . Clean Water Act jurisdiction following the U . S . Supreme Court's decision in Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States . U . S . Environmental Protection Agency and U . S . Department of Defense . Washington DC . U . S . Government Accountability Office . 2005 . Wetlands and waters : Corps of Engineers needs to better. support its decisions for not asserting jurisdiction . GAO-05-870 . U . S . Government Accountability Office, Washington DC . Weller, M .W . 1981 . Freshwater Marshes . University of Minnesota Press , Minneapolis MN . Wissmar, R .C . and R. L. Beschta . 1998 . Restoration and management of riparian ecostystems : A catch- ment perspective . Freshwater Biology 40 (3 ) : 571 -585 . Wetland Protections in Tompkins County- 40 References Current Status, Gaps, and Future Needs Apri12008 lyoFIp Attachment # 7 TB 6 / 9 / 2608 s O 9CI T j a TOWN OF ITHACA ti , l 4A 215 N . Tioga Street , Ithaca , N .Y . 14850 www .town .ithaca .ny. us TOWN CLERK 273- 1721 ENGINEERING 273- 1747 PLANNING 273- 1747 ZONING 273- 1783 HIGHWAY ( Roads , Parks , Trails , Water & Sewer) 273- 1656 FAX (607 ) 273- 1704 or (607) 273-5854 MEMO TO : Town Board Members FROM : Karen Billings , Town Clerk DATE : Monday, June 9 , 2008 RE : Town Clerk' s Monthly Report to the Board The May 21st Rabies Clinic , held in the Public Works Facility, was very successful . Carrie organized this event with Fred and his staff in conjunction with the Tompkins County Health Department . . By Resolution the Town Board approved holding an annual Rabies Clinic in the Public Works Facility, The SPCA was also in attendance . Carrie and Paulette were on hand to license dogs from throughout the county in a pre- arranged sharing event , also organized by Carrie . Many area residents were able to avail themselves of this service ( 17 dogs were licensed and several took licensing application ) ; the event provided an effective way to inoculate pets and license dogs under one roof. All in all , this provided a nice way of bringing needed services to a busy population and we ' re looking forward to doing this again next May. On May 22nd , Al Carvill and I attended a Tompkins County Town Clerk' s Association meeting where discussion about the dog control contract took place . The discussion centered on the SPCA and the services it provides . SPCA representative Abigail Smith was an invited guest and she answered questions and provided information . Ric Dietrich announced that he continues to gather information towards the goal of putting together an RFP . Information gathered to date consists of budgetary information from the SPCA ( see attached ) . As a group , we asked Abigail and Ric for more detailed information . While at this meeting Al and I talked with the other Town Clerks about Municipal software programs they use for tax collection along with on-line programs that allow residents and their agents to lookup payments , et al , and print out that information . We compared notes with some of the other town clerks about the number of calls received s for tax lookup information from banks , Real Estate Agents and lawyers . Here in the town we receive approximately 10 calls per day from these service providers asking for paid and unpaid tax information . If we could provide the ability to look up this information independently it would provide a cost savings to the town . The other Town Clerks were equally interested in a larger discussion about this issue resulting in the scheduling of another meeting for June 10t" , where a representative from Business Automation Services ( BAS ) will provide more information about BAS . Al and I will be in attendance at that meeting . On June 1St, our Dog Census reached its halfway point . My office sent out a press release ( see attached ) . The Ithaca Journal ran a nice article ( see attached ) and WHCU Radio ' s Dave Vieser interviewed me during his morning talk show on Monday, June 2 "d To date , our dog census is doing very well . We are running eight times ahead of last year in new dog licensing and two times ahead of last year in dog license renewals . While I will hold off announcing actual numbers until our contest is over, I would like to say that our contest entries and , ifts continue to come in and a lucky winner will be announced on Tuesday, July 15t at 2 : 00 p . m . in Town Hall . Tompkinst*SPCA 2007 Animal Activity Caroline City anby Dryden Enfield Groton Ithaca Lansin Newfield UI sses --- - 9 Stray Dogs Impounded business hours) 23 ___34 100 30 35 34 71 49 17 454 Stray Dogs Impounded emergency hours) -- --- - -- —0 - -- - - - ---- -- - . . -- - - - - -- - - 0 I 2 1 1 2 8 Dog p/u by SPCA -- -- _ .. . ---- -- _ - ---- ___ ----, .._--- -------- - --- - - - - -- ------- 12 30 9 36 26 15 10 20 31 4 _ 193 Trips to pick up dogs 13 30 8 36 20 16 9 19 25 4 180 _ Stray dogs redeemed -- 8 34 - 11 49 10 16 21 29 26 6 210 _ -- -- tray dogs adopted _---_- - -_ 15 . ___-- 18 ____12 -- __-42 -_ _ _- _- 15 -_ ---11 12 30 13 _ 7 175 Stray dogs- eut_hanized _ _ 2 3 _ 0 _ 5 _ _ 1 6 2 4 _ 4 _ 3 30 Stray dogs-transferred 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 8 - - -- ---- - -------- ------- --- Stray dogs- DOA 0 0 0 --1 0 0 0 0 __ 1 0 2 Stray dogs-Died @SPCA 0 0 0 - -- - -- 1 0 0 1 0 __ 0 __ Impoundment Fees 200 595 120 1350 250 360 295 4601 300 , 1501 4080 -- ----- ------ - ----- - -- --- - - -- ---- o s rou ht in b owner 18 26 8 83 31 21 11 ' 29� 20 22I 269 9 9 --�- - - -- -- - -- --- ---- _ _ _ .. _ _.. l - Dogs seized/surrendered for j - -- Cruelty Cases- 0 2 0 4 0 4 1 0 - --- - 6 ..----- --- 17 Dogs seized for Dangerous 0 1 0 1 8 0 0 --- -- 0 1 0 11 Cats PU ---- --- - -- - ---- -- 11- 2 12 0 65 13 32 13 5 6 2 150 -- -------- ------- -------- --------------- ----------- ------------- ---------- nps to U Cats 2 19 0 31 9 9 7 3 _ 3 _2 85 ---------- ----- ----- ----- Cats brought in by owners - 101 - - 79 38 261 89 96 45 76 61 49 895 - — -- -------- ---- Cats seized/surrendered for ------- - --- -- - --------- ------ ---- ---- Cruelty 0 Cases 2 7 0 15 0 0 Oi 24 -- 0 Other animals seized 0 1 4I 0 0 0 1 Health Dept Dog/Cat pick up -- - - 00 - - 0 -- 0 - O - 0 --- - 0 1 --- 7 -- -- - - -- -- -- _. ._ - 0 1 1 : TTO Completed 11 14 __. - _ __ 8 _ -- _ 9 36 12I 27 � 131 i Trips for TTO - - - - - -- 11 15 10 37 . �..__ 28 - - 15� 131 - �� -. 9i - 174 -- Special Patrols 18 2 - 1 2 33 6 � 8 0 4 r ---- - 3 -- 7 83 Tix Delivered 30 44 11 93 131 70 43 _ 93 _ 73 _ 43 513 37 420 Trips to Deliver TIX 19 36 2 74 12 61 41 84 54 _ Trips for complainant to sign - - --- -- -- - -- - _ TIX 0 8 1 3 26 Trips for Voluntary Statement 0 0 0 0 0 -- - - Humane Investigations - - - 27 - - 48 - -9 -- -93 - 2s 40 __ 8 _ . 20� __ 0 �--- -�1 0 Trips for Humane Inv. 30 49 g - - 45 13 ' 330 94 - 32 41 _ _ 8 - . 20 - . . - - Bat Calls ---- 0 - --- - -- 0 - - - - � - - Q - - - _ _I _ 1 - 49 ! -131 345 -- Livestock Calls --q 0 ---- 3 - - - -12 _ .__ . _ _ 3 _ . _ _ . 1 _ � � ..._ _0 . - 0 �- 0 0 - - - -- ...... 1 01 Trips to Set Traps- 7 20 - - 1 2 - _ ---- -- 3 , - 1 4 34 Health Dept Wildlife 1 7 - -- 0 0 _ 0 __- 0 35 Humane Wildlife -- -- - -- -0 - -- 1 . - 0 - - ._0 6 0 - 0 0 0 � 15 ---- --5 - -- - -- --0 0 8 Cornell Transport _ p � 2 - -- --- - ----- ----- - - ----- 0 p p 1 ----0 ----8 Humane/Public Assistance 1 ---- -- --------- _ 0 0 2 1 - -- 14 - ------ 1 -- 2 - -- 1 0 22 Tompkins County SPCA 2006 Activity Sheet Animal Control Officers Lynne Merchant, Jackie Brashear, Lauren Petronchak -_ --- _- Caroline City- Danby _ Dryden - - Enfield - Groton - Ithaca Lansing Newfield Ulysses Stray Dogs Impounded ---- - - _Cbusiness hours -- - - - --220 - -53 - 13 - - - - --- _ 88 _- _ 27 37 43 48 39 13 381 - .....-.. .-- - - - - .. I-- .. .--- . . - - - - - Stray Dogs Impounded - (emergen>ytours _ - Dog_p/u by SPCA -- -- - 18 20 5 31 72 24 . 151 24 _. .._ 211 10 . ._. 240 r - - -- nps to pick up dogs - 14 23 5 --28 22 25 19I 26 17 j 10 189 Stray_ ogs redeemed 7 37 6 39 - - - - - - --- _ 15 17 31 22 9 7 190 Stray dogs adopted 11 11 4 - - - - - - -- -- - -- -- - - _ -- _ _ _ 8 15 7 17 25 2 126 Stra -do euthanized - - -- - - .- -- . Stray s- 9 -- - - - -- - - 2 4 _2 _ _ - - - -- -- 4 ' 3 2 2 0 30 Stray dogs-transferred 0 0 0 - - - StraYs DOA -- 0 - 0 ----- 1 - - --- 3 -- 0 -- 0 --- 1 1 -- 2 - 1 f 8 _ _ ____ 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Stray dogs-Died @SPCA 0 0 _ -- Impoundment Fees - 0 _-_0 Do s brou ht in b owner 25 25 13 b_9N-- y - ---- -- _-__-- __—_-__ 61 78 27 16 23 11 14 293 Dogs seized/surrendered for _.. - - — - -. I .. - - --f - I -- --- - - - - ; --- - Cruelty Cases I - -- -- ---- - ----- -- --- --- - -i - -- --- - - - - - - - - -- -- - l 0 Dogs seized for Dangerous - - Cats PU - -0 --- 15 - -- 0 ..._ _ _. _. -- -- 0 -- --- -- --- - 62 12 19 6 29 131 _ 1 I 157 ---- --- - ------ - --- nps o_ _ Cats 0 15 0 17 2 12 61 16 g Cats brou ht in b owners 26 96 30 - -- - ---- ----- ---- --�- 78 ---- 9 ----�-- - - ------ -_---.- __—__ 238 67 87 47 84 93 51 � - -819 Cats seized/surrendered for -------- ---- ---- Cruelty Cases - - - Other animals seized -- - - --- -_ -- Health Dept Dog/Cat pick up 1 - - - --- _- _ - - 1 0 TTO Completed 16 — - 12 -- 8 - - _-. -? 3 ._ 1 8 - — -- --- - 15 14 7 155 Trips for TTO ._ 17 14 9 _ . 41 20 _ . ... . 22 __ __ 7I ..._ . _.. - - -Special Patrols Patrols 3 - 5 - - -o - - 39 7 L . . _ 191 - . . _ .. . . . .15 . - . 71 172 _ - . ._ 14I _ 6 10i 2 51. . . Tix Delivered 59 41 9 98 43 � 911 621 721 77 -, _. _ 56 , _ Trips to Deliver TIX _ 36 _ _ 33 � 4 I - - - -- 608 - — ---- - 75 33 - 73 --54 62 48 - 371 455 Trips for complainant to sign --- - - - --- - - - -- -_ , --- _ 2 --- 1 -- TIX 4 1 Tri s for Volunta Statement -- — -? - - 1 _Humane Investigations - 32 28 10 _____ -- - - --------- --- ---- -- 84 31 51 10 29 _- 311 6 � 312 Trips for Humane Inv. 33 32 12 - - ------------ ------ - -- ---------- --- - ------- ------- ------ ------ - -- --- - -- - -- - - - ---- - - .. _..- - - ---- -- - 4 - - -- -38 --- ---6 - ----- 11 --- 29 _ 34 351 Bat Calls _ -- — - -- _ Livestock Calls - - -� - - - -- -- - - - --- 1 3 0 Trips to Set Traps —_ --- - - -g --- - - -- 1 _ - 1 - - 1. - _.._ - - Health Dept Wildlife -- --- - 13 4 _ --- - -- -.._. .--- - — -- I -- 1 Humane Wildlife _-- --- __. ornell Transport — - - I - - - _ I( I- Humane/Public Assistance - - - _ L_ 60 , � - 2 Donation PU - L 11 - -- - - - --- -- _ _- - - _ 19 court ordered seized animals 1 CO_SA 1 COSA 1 COSA _ 1 COSA 3 COSA 28 tri s to ick u licenses - -----�-- -- TompkinSPCA 2005 Animal Moctivity Caroline Cit -_ Danby __ Dryden Enfield Groton Ithaca LansingL Newfield Ulysses Stray Dogs Impounded --- - --- - - -- - - - (business hours) ---_- -- 27 55 26 110 28 47 54 35 47 20 449 Stray Dogs Impounded -- - --- .. --- - -- --- -- (emergency hours) - ----- - - ----- -- - - - -- - -... - ----- - - - 0 _ - Dog p/u by SPCA - - 17 - 25 -- 18 53 23 31 24 15 � 32 10i 248 Trips to pick up dogs 16 24 17 47 16 28 22 14 � 26j 8 218 _ _ __. _. Stray dogs redeemed 10 4 17 71 8 16 - 39 17 � 14 12 208 -- - - -- -- - - - _ _ _ ._ - tray dogs adopted - 11 4 8 30 17 19 10 13 18 4 134 - -- - -- - --- --- - ----- -- Stray dogs- euthanized - 4 1 1 6 3 4 3 5 __ 4 ___ 31 -- --- - -- -- --- - ----- - - --- -- - ---- - - - -- _ -- - -- - ----. -. - Stray dogs-transferred — _ - 2 1 3 Stray dogs- DOA - 1 Stray dogs-Died @SPCA 0 - --- - -- Impoundment Fees 290 745 95 2175 80 500 440 270 140 315 5050 - ------ -- - --- - ------- - - -- --- -----.. -- Dogs roug t in by owner 19 -- 24 __- 10 - - 35 - 16 20 13 28 - I 26 26 217 - -- --I ------- - ------ - ------ -- ---- - - -- - -- - --- - --- -- - --- -- 1-_...._ .. - --- ... - -- -- - .. Dogs - seized/surrendered for Cruelty Cases Dogs seized for Dangerous Dog ------ ----- --- - -- - - --- --- � 0 - Cats PU -- ---- --- ? -- ---$ . ---- 2 -- 45 6 13 � 8 --2 4 1 - - - -- - - - -- - - l- . 91 Trips to PU Cats - - - 2 9 1 17 2 8 8 1 _. -- __ - --- - - 4- 2 Cats brought in by owners 58 74 46 237 32 64 75 75 - 97 , 50 808 Cats seized/surrendered for - - ---- --.---- Crue�t Cases Other animals seized 0 Health Dept —Dog/Cat—Pick up 3 3 3 5 1 _ 21 ------ - -- -- ---- TTO Completed 13 16 5 . _ -. - - -. _ - _. - - -- 7 -- - -- - -- _ 34 26 36 16 14 J 18 9 187 ... __ Trips for TTO 13 16 6 - -.L. .. _ - -- . - - - . -- _ _-. - . - 35 27 41 16i 16 17 ' _ 9 196 -pecial Patrols - 4 _ _.. - - - - - - - 16 4 27 61 20 15 19 , 51 4 Tix Delivered 34 36 13 , 94 54 74 - 881 _ 1501 52 361 6310 _ - Trips to Deliver TIX 23 7 68 __ _ 34 591 74I - - 115 ' 371 34 - - - -- -- - - Trips for complainant to sign - - - - - ( -- - - - ------- _ . 451 TIX Trips for Voluntary 6 Statement � r--- --- - -�-- --- --- - -- -- -- - --- -- -- - -- - -- -- Humane Investigations - - - -- 6 -- -- - ----- ri 10 67 34 45 15 34 24 17 297 Trips for Humane Inv. - - -- - - - - -- -.- Bat Calls --- - -- - - - - 1 -- - - - - - - - -- -- Livestock Calls - -- - -- - - - 1 L- - 2 - - - 1 Trips to Set Traps _ 4 5 - _ _. _.. - .. 31 _ 4 Health Dept Wildlife - -� - -- --� - -- Humane Wildlife 2 - .. _3 -_ _._ ._ - - i - -- -- --� _.. - i 0 l - - - Cornell Transport - --.. _._ ._. - 1_ -- -- _-- Humane/Public Assistance 4 - 2 - 3 - - - - --- 31 2 Tompkins County SPCA 2008 Dog Control Operations Budget Animal Control Personnel Humane Officers $ 92 ,000 3 FTE humane officers/investigators, including fringe 24-hour emergency staffing $203400 120 hrs/week on call x $2 . 50 x 52 weeks plus active time pay (400 hrs/yr x $ 12/hr) Total Personnel $ 112,400 Program Expense Cell phones $ 3 ,000 Vehicles $ 1800 maintenance, fuel, insurance and repairs Equipment $21500 traps, catch poles, muzzles, transport kennels, uniforms, etc . Training $2, 500 peace officer school, state conference Total Program Expense $267000 Animal Sheltering and Care Shelter staff $381272 4, 160 hrs/yr x $ 8/hr plus fringe (kennel techs 2 FTE) Animal supplies $ 111825 cleaning, food, dishes, laundry, bedding, etc. Medical $48 ,013 veterinary services & supplies, emergency and in- shelter Facilities $243112 utilities, building and grounds, equipment and repairs, refuse collection Total Animal Sheltering & Care $ 1221222 Administration Personnel $27,986 licensing, reception, statistics, monthly accounting and reporting ( 1 FTE) Administrative Services $ 3507 workers comp, benefits, office supplies, telephone, postage, liability insurance, oversight and management Total Administration $ 63 ,673 TOTAL $3247295 4/24/2008 OF 1P ° 99 TOWN OF ITHACA = 215 N . Tioga Street, Ithaca , N . Y. 14850 www. town.ithaca.ny.us � W .j04 TOWN CLERK 273- 1721 PUBLIC WORKS ( Roads, Parks, Trails, Water &Sewer) 273- 1656 ENGINEERING 273- 1747 PLANNING 273- 1747 ZONING 273- 1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 PRESS RELEASE For more information : Contact Karen Billings , 607-273- 1721 DATED for release - Friday , May 30 , 2008 TOWN OF ITHACA IS HALF WAY THROUGH ITS DOG COUNT The Town of Ithaca is now at the halfway point in counting dogs residing in the Town , which gives residents just one more month to get their dog licensed and to participate in the town ' s contest. According to Deputy Town Clerk Carrie Whitmore , "the contest is such a bonus to our residents . Let' s face it, dogs have to be licensed , it' s a matter of course , but adding a contest with a prize at the end is like frosting on the cake :" Carrie added that local vendors and service providers have been very generous . Cornell Companion Hospital ; Ithaca Grain & Pet Su pp I • Pampered Pets ; Claws & Paws ' Agway and the American Red Cross have each donated some very nice gifts ; "the generosity of these merchants is extraordinary , " said Carrie . Vendors and service providers are encouraged to make donations to this gift basket through the month of June . Please contact the Ithaca Town Clerk' s Office at 607-273- 1721 or drop off donations at Town Hall , 215 North Tioga Street , any weekday between 8 a . m . and 4 p . m . The lucky winner will be announced at 2 : 00 p . m . on July 15th in Town Hall , and the gift basket will be on display in the Town Clerk' s office after the 4th of July holiday weekend . Residents are encouraged to get their dog licensed before June 30 , 2008 and take part in this terrific contest . ` v IB Monday, June 2, 2008 1 THE ITHACA JOURNAL 0 o sea's census . contest c®nt ° u Canine count scheduled meration on May I and will is to be mailed abrochure ask- eral vendors and service continue it through June 30, ing dog owners to license any providers have donatedprizes, to conclude on June 30 Like all municipalities in unlicensed dogs. Dog owners Among them are.the Cornell Tompkins County, the town can either mail in a form that . University College of From Journal Staff Reports contracts for dog control serv- will be included in the VeterinaryMedicinecompan- ices andbases its contract pay- brochure or visit the town ion animal hospital; Ithaca ITHACA — The town . of ment in part on the number of clerk's office in person at 215 Grain and Pet Supply, Ithaca is halfway through its- dogs in the town. in addition, N. Tioga St. Pampered Pets,_ Claws and census of dogs in the town but the census is intended to help In the contest, town resi- . Paws, Ithaca Agway and the isstillofferingresidentsachance make sure owners have their dents are asked to guess the ; America Red Cross. to participate in a contest for a dogs licensed and up-to-date number of dogs in the town. The winner will be an- cache of dog-oriented prizes. on their rabies vaccinations. According 'to Deputy Town nounced at 2 p.m. Tuesday, The town started the enu- Every resident of the town Clerk Carrie Whitmore, sev- July 15 at the town hall, 0 TOWN CLERK' S MONTHLY REPORT TOWN OF ITHACA, NEW YORK MAY, 2008 TO THE SUPERVISOR: PAGE 1 Pursuant to Section 27, Subd 1 of the Town Law, I hereby make the following statement of all fees and moneys received by me in connection with my office during the month stated above, excepting only such fees and moneys the application and payment of which are otherwise provided for by Law : A1255 15 MARRIAGE LICENSES NO. 08019 TO 08033 262 . 50 7 MISC. COPIES 33 . 56 1 TAX SEARCH 5 .00 5 MARRIAGE TRANSCRIPT 50.00 TOTAL TOWN CLERK FEES 351 .06 A1556 1 SPCA CONTRACT 25 .00 TOTAL A1556 25.00 A2544 DOG LICENSES 21013 . 56 TOTAL A2544 29013.56 B2110 3 ZONING BOARD MTG 300 .00 TOTAL B2110 300.00 B2111 29 BUILDING PERMIT 35, 585 .00 1 BUILDING PERMIT EXTENSIN 50 .00 2 SIGN PERMITS 112 .90 2 TEMP CERTIFICATE OCCUP 41000 . 00 1 OPERATING PERMIT 200 . 00 TOTAL B2111 399947.90 B2115 1 SITE PLAN INIT. APL. FEE 100 .00 3 SITE PLAN FINAL PLAN 11950 .00 1 ADD. MTG. FEE AGENDA PRO 30 .00 2 ADD. MTG. FEE P .H. PROCE 100. 00 TOTAL B2115 29180.00 TOWN CLERK ' S MONTHLY REPORT MAY, 2008 page 2 DISBURSEMENTS PAID TO SUPERVISOR FOR GENERAL FUND 25389 . 62 PAID TO SUPERVISOR FOR PART TOWN FUND 421427 . 90 PAID TO COUNTY TREASURER FOR DOG LICENSES 211 .44 PAID TO AG & MARKETS FOR DOG LICENSES 30. 00 PAID TO NYS HEALTH DEPT FOR MARRIAGE LICENSES 337 . 50 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS 459396.46 JUNE 3 , 2008 SUPERVISOR HERBERT J. ENGMAN STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF TOMPKINS, TOWN OF ITHACA I, KAREN BILLINGS , being duly sworn, says that I am the Clerk of the TOWN OF ITHACA that the foregoing is a 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 Month of May — Board Report June 9, 2008, Meeting Roads : • A road crossing pipe on Williams Glen Road was replaced . • We began work on our storm water project at Simsbury Drive . This is a major project which will take most of two months. • Lawn repairs from snow plow damage, water main breaks, and related road work were completed . • We provided trucking for the Town of Lansing and hauled equipment for the Village of Cayuga Heights . • Numerous signs were installed . We also pulled out several old sign posts and drivers which were no longer needed . • We began working on the storm water project on Tudor Road and Sharlene Drive mid-month. This project will take several weeks to complete . • Several sections of roadway were ditched on Williams Glen Road, Sesame Street, Alison Drive, and Orchard Hill road . • Gravel and stone was hauled in for projects, including pug milling shoulder material and material for cold mix paving. • Several temporary workers were given safety training and orientation before starting work this month. Interviews were conducted and the rest of our seasonal staff was hired . • Our tub grinding contractor ground up the brush and wood chip pile on May 191h. The Village of Cayuga Heights is paying half the cost of this service . • Roadside mowing was begun May 19th . We will do the initial pass around the whole town first then go back to mow further. • A rabies clinic was held at the Public Works Facility on the evening of May 21St. Our staff set up tables and chairs, cleaned out the small truck bay and Gail helped on the evening of the clinic . • Our new backhoe was delivered . • We continue to do traffic counts . Parks, Trails, and Preserz.ies ■ Weekly site inspections and garbage removal . ■ Mowing and grounds maintenance. ■ Plantings at Pew Trail, Winner' s Circle Trail, and at the Coddington Road entrance to the South Hill Recreation Way were installed . We also prepared the site and delivered the tree for this year' s Richard Fischer award . ■ The park site near Saunders Road was cleaned up from our work on Ridgecrest Road . We york raked and hydro-seeded the area and have blocked it off so it will not be used as a dump site or staging area in the future . ■ We spent several days working on repairs to parts of the South Hill Recreation Way in preparation for the Finger Lakes Runner' s Club annual Rec Way 5 & 10 K race on Memorial Day weekend . ■ Daily field preparation at Valentino field continues during the Little League season. We rented a core aerator and did the entire field . Water: ♦ Restoration was completed at the water main break behind Penny Lane . A large area had to be repaired. ♦ Inspections continued at the Trumansburg Road and Hanshaw Road water line installations . ♦ The Engineering Technicians assisted Tompkins County with survey work. ♦ A water main break on Danby Road was repaired . ♦ Arc/ GIS training at Cornell was attended by several staff members. Sezi7er: ► (153) Dig Safely New York mark outs were performed . ► A sewer service was located for a resident on E . King Road . ► The sewer main on Woolf Lane was inspected with our video camera to diagnose a problem. ► Weekly sewer pump station checks were done. Tune Projects 1 . Continue working on Simsbury Drive and Tudor Road / Sharlene Drive/ Eastern Heights Drive storm sewer work . 2. Continue park, trail, pump station, and roadside mowing . 3 . Finish spring lawn repairs . 4 . Continue Valentino field preparation for Cal Ripken League play. 5 . Ditching work along several trails . 6 . Prepare roads to be paved . ghk Town Engineer' s Report for June 9, 2008 Town Board Meeting EARTH FILL PERMITS Enforcement activity is continuing on tax parcels 26 . -4-2 , 26 . 4. 3 . The property owner has submitted a plan and application for a driveway and crossing of Williams Glen Creek. The Town Engineer has reviewed the plan and has asked for additional supporting documentation prior to processing the application. Enforcement Activity is continuing for excavation and fill in excess of 50 cy for Tax parcel 56. 44 . 22 . The Owner has prepared revised subdivision plans and the Planning Board has approved the proposed restoration plan. The Plan has been reviewed by the Zoning Board and a fill permit has been approved. The work on the remediation plan including planting of trees and permanent cover is underway. WATER PROJECTS Trumansburg Road Water Main Replacement The water main is now in service and the contractor has completed all water services to the new main. Final punch list work and site restoration is being completed. Hanshaw Road Water Main Replacement The Main is in service and all service connections have been completed. The Contractor is completing final punch list work and site restoration. East Shore Drive Water Main Replacement Preliminary design is underway for the replacement in the Town of Ithaca and a section of water main on East Shore Drive in Lansing. The engineering department will develop an agreement to be reviewed by the Public Works Committee before bringing it to the Town Board for approval to do this work for Lansing at their cost. SEWER PROJECTS Joint Interceptor Sewer Projects The Town Engineer is reviewing the 5 year capital plan for interceptor sewers with the City of Ithaca Staff. The City of Ithaca has issued a construction contract for renovation and upgrades to the sewer flow monitoring stations located at the city/town line. Work on the project will start as weather conditions permit. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT The Town Engineers staff has completed the evaluation of the drainage surveys that were sent to all residents and properties in the northeast area of the Town of Ithaca. Response to the survey was very high with over 400 surveys returned of the 620 survey letters sent out. The engineering staff used the ArcGIS software to map the reported problems and a report and preliminary work plan to address the drainage concerns was presented to the Public Works Committee in May. A public meeting to report on the evaluation and proposed plan of work was held May 28 at the Northeast School , Approximately 50 residents attended and additional comments and input was received. TOWN ENGINEERS REPORT 6/9/2008 The next phase of the process is to obtain more detailed information regarding the topography and drainage around the buildings in the area. The Town Engineers staff has grown for the summer by the addition of 5 interns from Cornell . The interns will be working in the field gathering survey data using the Town' s GPS and Surveying equipment and then mapping the data. This information will be used to develop a plan to help correct the identified drainage problems. Technical assistance will be provided to individual property owners with site specific drainage problems and the Town will also be looking at solutions to drainage problems that impact multiple properties. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WESTVIEW SUBDIVISION The Engineering staff is monitoring the sediment and erosion control program for the site. The Phase II additional erosion control measures have been installed and are functioning. CONIFER VILLAGE (Linderman Creek Phase 4) Building Construction is nearing completion and a temporary Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for part of the building. Sediment and erosion controls are being monitored as final site work and landscaping is being completed. The road has been completed to Town specifications and the letter of credit will be released after the few landscaping and punch list items are completed. HOLLY CREEK Engineering staff is continuing to monitor the Storm Water Management system . Town staff has received the record drawings for the improvements and draft deed for Holly Creek Lane has been provided to the Town Engineer and is being reviewed by the Attorney for the Town prior to acceptance of the road and utilities . COUNTRY INN & SUITES Sediment and erosion controls are being monitored for the site. Final restoration and landscaping of the site needs to be completed prior to issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy. Site work and temporary seeding was sufficiently completed to allow issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy in time for the IC and CU graduation weekends . CORNELL COMBINED POWER AND HEAT PROJECT AND SERVICE YARD IMPROVEMENTS The engineering staff has reviewed the stormwater management plan for the project and is monitoring the sediment and erosion control measures . Excavation of the site and installation of temporary retaining walls is underway and foundation work is anticipated to start. The Gas Main required for supply to the site is nearing approval by the state Public Service Commission. CORNELL ANIMAL HEALTH DIAGNOSTIC CEN'T'ER The engineering staff has reviewed the stormwater management plan for the project and will be monitorin the sediment and erosion control measures . Town Engineer's Report June 9, 2008 Daniel R. Walker Page 2 6/3/2008 Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Monthly Report 5/1 /08 Until 5/31 /08 Building Permits ,BP # Date Value Description fee category 8007 5/1 /2008 $2 , 500.00 Demolish garage $25.00 miscellaneous 18010 5/1 /2008 $5,000.00 Remove and recover roof on existing $35.00 miscellaneous structure I I 8008 5/1 /2008 $ 1 ,000 .00 Demolish outbuilding $25 .00 miscellaneous i 8006 5/1 /2008 $21 ,500 .00 Demolish single-family home $70.00 miscellaneous i 8011 5/1 /2008 $8,424.00 Replace roof covering on existing house $45.00 renovations to and garage residential 8009 5/1 /2008 $2 ,963.00 Remove and Replace EPDM roof $35.00 renovations to residential 8014 5/2/2008 $7,753 .00 Add electrical outlets for carts $45.00 business 8012 5/2/2008 $77000.00 270 square foot exterior deck $45 .00 additions to i residential I 8013 5/2/2008 $ 13 ,050 .00 Tear off and recover roof on existing $60 .00 renovations to structure residential j8016 5/6/2008 $7,672 .00 Install roof on house and porch $45 .00 renovations to residential i 1 8015 5/6/2008 $2 ,400.00 Change use to liquor store from $25.00 business Laundromat j I 8023 5/6/2008 $4,800.00 Demolish lab Q $35 .00 miscellaneous I 8022 5/6/2008 $200 .00 Demolish poultry shop $25 .00 miscellaneous I 8025 5/6/2008 $33,000.00 Grid tied roof mounted photovoltaic $ 100 .00 renovations to j I system residential 8026 5/6/2008 $2 ,530 .00 Reroof existing structure $35 .00 renovations to residential j I 8028 5/6/2008 $403,000.00 Renovations to Administrative offices $850 .00 business j I 18027 5/6/2008 $69233.00 Install roof on rear of house $45.00 renovations to 1 residential I 8019 5/6/2008 $ 100 .00 Demolish chicken coop $25.00 miscellaneous j I 8017 5/6/2008 $ 100.00 Demolish chicken coop $25.00 miscellaneous Tuesday, June 03, 2008 Page 1 C Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Monthly Report 5/1 /08 Until 5/31 /08 -...------ -- - - - — --- --- - - – --- -------- -- 8024 5/6/2008 $4,500.00 Renovate a bathroom $35.00 renovations to residential 8020 5/6/2008 $200 .00 Demolish double chicken coop $25 .00 miscellaneous I I 8021 516/2008 $ 100 .00 Demolish storage shed $25.00 miscellaneous i 8018 5/6/2008 $ 100 .00 Demolish chicken coop $25.00 miscellaneous 8029 5/12/2008 $9,390 .00 Re-roof existing structure $45.00 renovations to i residential 8030 5/12/2008 $20 ,000 .00 Replace existing windows on 14th Floor $550.00 business i 8031 5/12/2008 $200 ,000 .00 Replace existing windows on 14th Floor $550.00 business 8032 5/13/2008 $200,000 .00 New single-family home with attached 2- $550 .00 new single-family car garage homes i 8035 5/14/2008 $25,000 .00 Tear off and replace existing siding $70 .00 renovations to residential 8033 5/14/2008 $500 .00 Convert single-family raised ranch into 2- $25.00 conversions of use family residence i 8034 5/14/2008 $5 ,000 .00 Move partition wall and change lighting $35 .00 business and ventilation 8037 5/19/2008 $237,000 .00 Interior alterations $550.00 business I I 8038 5/19/2008 $ 18,432 .00 Level 2 alterations to mercantile space $60.00 business it 8036 5/19/2008 $2 ,300,000.00 Modify and upgrade private electrical $2 ,000.00 business substation i 8041 5/21 /2008 $ 1 ,000 .00 8' fence $25.00 miscellaneous I 8040 5/21 /2008 $7,400 .00 Reroof existing structure $45.00 renovations to residential I 8039 5/21 /2008 $7,900 .00 270 square foot deck less than 3 feet $45.00 additions to above natural grade residential j I 8042 5/23/2008 $ 107000 .00 Demolish greenhouse $45 .00 business I I 8043 5/23/2008 $26,675.00 Construct 8 foot high fence $70 .00 business j i i 8044 5/23/2008 $35,000 .00 Install 336-sq ft roof mounted phtovoltaic $ 100 .00 renovations to j system residential i I, Tuesday, June 03, 2008 Page 2 Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Monthly Report 5/1 /08 Until 5/31 /08 8045 5/27/2008 $3,000.00 Enclosed existing open deck to create $35 . 00 renovations to unheated seasonal room residential 8046 5/28/2008 $20,000 .00 Construct 252-sq ft room addition $60.00 additions to . residential 8047 5/2912008 $7,093.00 Construct 72-sq ft front deck less than $45.00 miscellaneous 30-inch above grade 8048 5/30/2008 $90 ,000 .00 456 square foot indoor pool addition $200.00 additions to residential i li Totals $3,757 ,515.00 F $69810.00 Certificates of Occupancy BP # Address Description CO Temp 7099 332 Coddington Rd Reroof existing single-family home 5/2/2008 ❑ 18014 189 Pleasant Grove Rd Add electrical outlets for carts 5/6/2008 ❑ I 6984 121 Larisa Ln New single-family home with attached 5/9/2008 ❑ j garage 16857 313 Sunnyview Ln Add layer of shingles over existing roof 5/13/2008 ❑ covering i 6856 315 Sunnyview Ln Add layer of shingles over existing roof 5/13/2008 ❑ covering 7038 144 Burleigh Dr Repair foundation wall 5/13/2008 ❑ 8013 11 Dove Dr Tear off and recover roof on existing 5/14/2008 ❑ structure 6677 211 Park Ln New 3 bedroom single family with r 5/14/2008 ❑ finished walkout and 2 car garage i j7058 200 King Rd E : Convert 2 family into a 1 family 5/14/2008 ❑ i : 7036 200 King Rd E Add fire sprinkler system to two-family 5/14/2008 ❑ home 6645 1100 Danby Rd Country Inn & Suites hotel (58 rooms) 5/15/2008 ❑� I I 18033 325 Blackstone Ave Convert single-family raised ranch into 2- 5/16/2008 ❑ family residence 6844 950 Danby Rd Construct partition wall between Suite 5/16/2008 ❑ 104 and Woodworking Shop and other i nnn, ,nnnninc 8010 496 Five Mile Dr Remove and recover roof on existing 5/16/2008 ❑ structu re 7072 162 Lexington Dr Remodel kitchen 5/16/2008 ❑ i i Tuesday, June 03, 2008 Page 3 D Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Monthly Report 5/1 /08 Until 5/31 /08 117050 950 Danby Rd Replace exterior windows in cafeteria 5/16/2008 ❑ i 6900 1017 Trumansburg Rd New three-bedroom , single-family home 5/23/2008 ❑ 7070 109 Kay St 12' x 20' garage addition 5/23/2008 ❑ 7075 44 Dove Dr Replace rear exterior deck 5/23/2008 ❑ 7015 201 Harris B Dates Dr Renovate 1 st floor 5/23/2008 ❑ I 6655 123 Iradell Rd Contruct detached 2-car garage 5/28/2008 ❑ i 116808 200 Conifer Dr 3 story multiple residence (72 units) 5/29/2008 ❑� 16808 200 Conifer Dr 3 story multiple residence (72 units) 5/29/2008 I 6808 200 Conifer Dr 3 story multiple residence (72 units) 5/29/2008 16808 200 Conifer Dr 3 story multiple residence (72 units) 5/29/2008 ❑d 6997 10 Apple Blossom Ln Addition to single-family home 5/29/2008 ❑ 7087 131 Salem Dr Repair damage to sun porch caused by 5/30/2008 ❑ tree branch Complaints Date Address Complaint Type Disposition i 5/4/2008 121 West Hill Cir fire Other I 5/9/2008 Sunnyhill Ln property maintenance Pending I ' 5119/2008 correspondence Other 5/6/2008 correspondence Other I 5/20/2008 Danby Rd fill Pending 5/28/2008 131 Salem Dr affidavit Other 5/30/2008 West Hill Cir property maintenance Pending 5/27/2008 correspondence Other i 5/27/2008 Hayts Rd water/sewer/septic Other 5/29/2008 136 Compton Rd water/sewer/septic Other ; I 5/23/2008 920 Coddington Rd water/sewer/septic Other 5/23/2008 225 Pennsylvania Ave property maintenance Pending I I � Tuesday, June 03, 2008 Page 4 Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Monthly Report 5/1 /08 Until 5/31 /08 5/28/2008 131 Salem Dr affidavit Other L.- -- Existing Building CO Field Visits Building Code 90 Complaint/Investigation 7 Fire Safety 5 Fire Emergency 0 Total 102 s Tuesday, June 03, 2008 Page 5 0610312008 TOWN OF ITHACA 11 : 38 : 10 B2111 - B2111 Transaction Report For the period 05/01 /2008 through 05/30/2008 Type Date Comment Name Quantity Fee B2111 L BP 05/02/2008 30.-2-8 POST, JANICE 1 45 .00 2 . BP 05/02/2008 68.- 1 - 1 . 2 COUNTRY CLUB OF 1 45 .00 ITHACA 3 , BP 05/02/2008 33 .-2-2 JACOBS, PAUL 1 70 .00 4. BP 05/06/2008 61 .- 1 -8.49 JD FERRO ROOFING 1 15 .00 5 . BP 05/06/2008 71 .- 1 - 11055 XU, KAI 1 35 .00 6. BP 05/06/2008 39.- 1 - 1 . 2 SOUTH HILL BUS . CAMPUS 1 35 .00 # 104 7 . BP 05/08/2008 71 . - 1 - 11 . 58 MCMAHON 1 25 .00 8 . BP 05/09/2008 31- 1 - 11 SAMPSON, MICHAEL 1 45 .00 9 . BP 05/ 12/2008 33.-3-8. 15 FULLER, THOMAS 1 35 .00 10. BP 05/12/2008 41 .4 -301, 30.4 IC DILLINGHAM 1 4,000.00 11 . BP 05/ 13/2008 62.-2-1 . 121 CAYUGA PRESS 1 60 .00 , 12 . BP 05/13/2008 46.- 1 - 14 DESCH, NOEL 1 45 .00 13 , BP 05/ 13/2008 31-3-83 SCHNEIDER, JEFF & KRIS 1 100.00 14 . BP 05/ 14/2008 70- 10-32 KAN, EDWIN 1 25 .00 15 , BP 05/14/2008 57.- 1 -7.4 PARR, SKIP 1 70 .00 16. BP 05/ 15/2008 61- 1 - 11 DILLMAN HILL FARM 1 70.00 DEER FENCE 17 . BP 05/ 16/2008 67.- 1 -8.39 THOMPSON, MATT & 1 45 NANCY 18 . BP 05/ 19/2008 63 .- 1 -5 , -8. 1 CORNELL UNIVERSITY 1 2,000. 19, BP 05/ 19/2008 21- 1 - 11 . 132 HAMMOND, JON 1 350 .00 20 , BP 05/20/2008 54. -7-46 NELSON, MIKE AND KIM 1 60.00 21 . BP 05/21 /2008 67.- 1 -10.2 -10.4 CORNELL ANIMAL 1 195205 .00 HEALTH DIAG 22 , BP 05/22/2008 25.-240 HARTSUYKER, KAREN 1 850 .00 23 . BP 05/27/2008 41 .- 1 -30.4 ITHACA COLLEGE 1 15000. 00 24. BP 05/27/2008 43 .44 ITHACA COLLEGE 1 70.00 25 . BP 05/27/2008 19.-2-7 PRINCE, CHRISTOPHER & 1 1 ,000.00 BRENDA 26. 13P 05/28/2008 70. 40-1. 136 GRECO, JULIE & ERIN 1 25 .00 HALFPENNY 27 , BP 05/28/2008 45 .4 -71 ALLEN, GLEN 1 200.00 28 . BP 05/28/2008 63 :- 1 -59 -8. 1 CU - UTILITIES 1 61000. 00 DEPARTMENT 29. BP 05/28/2008 31 .-2- 10 POWERS INSTRUMENT 1 60.00 29 359585.00 30. 13PE 05/ 14/2008 41 -2- 10 NAMGYL MONASTERY 1 50.00 INSTITUTE 1 50.00 31 . OP 05/02/2008 68.- 1 - 1 .2 COUNTRY CLUB OF 1 20 ITHACA 1 20 . 32 . SP 05/08/2008 27.- 1 -13 . 17 CONIFER REALTY 1 84. 00 33 . SP 05/08/2008 24.4 -34. 1 WILLIS, JUDITH 1 28 .90 Page: l Type Date Comment Name Quantity Fee 2 112.90 4. TCO 05/15/2008 37.-1 - 17. 1 COUNTRY INN & SUITES 1 12000.00 635 , TCO 05/ 16/2008 27.4 - 13 . 12, - 13. 17, - 13. 18 ITHACA SENIOR LIVING 1 39000.00 2 4;000.00 Total Sales 35 399947.90 Page: 2 0610312008 TOWN OF ITHACA 10:48 : 27 B2110 - B2110 Transaction Report For the period 05/01 /2008 through 05/30/2008 Type Date Comment Name Quantity Fee B2110 L ZBM 05/05/2008 31-2-3 . 1 GUTTMAN AND WALLACE 1 100.00 2 . ZBM 05/ 19/2008 33 .4 - 11 PHILIPSON, RACHEL 1 100 .00 3 . ZBM 05/27/2008 ERUV SIGNS CU HILLEL ERUV PROJECT 1 100.00 3 300.00 Total Sales 3 300.00 Page: l OF I T�9 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING DEPARTMENT D 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N . Y . 14850 = 18 21 .k. onat an Kanter, - Director of Planning FAX (607) 273-1704 Planning Director ' s Report for June 9 , 2008 Town Board Meeting DEVELOPMENT REVIEW May 6, 2008 Planning Board Meeting: Wetlands Protection in Tompkins County : The Planning Board heard a presentation regarding Wetlands Protection in Tompkins County by Nick Schipanski representing Tompkins County Water Resources Council . Cornell University Plantations Greenhouse Demolition, 1 Plantations Road : The Planning Board granted Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed demolition of the Cornell University Plantations Greenhouse located at 1 Plantations Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 67- 1 -6 , Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves completely removing the existing greenhouse building and regrading the site to match the surrounding area. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Hal Martin, Cornell Plantations Project Manager, Agent. Recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding the proposed Small Wind Energy Facilities Law : The Planning Board issued an affirmative recommendation to the Town Board regarding the proposed Small Wind Energy Facilities Law, with suggestions to incorporate modifications regarding the color of facilities and removal of facilities that are no longer in use. May 20, 2008 Planning Board Meeting : Cornell Transportation-focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t-GEIS) : Cornell distributed copies of the completed draft t-GEIS to the Planning Board and discussed a schedule of review. The first step in this process is for the Planning Board to determine whether the draft t-GEIS is adequate and complete for public review . The Board will continue review and discussions regarding the t-GEIS over the next several meetings prior to considering whether to accept the t-GEIS as complete. Ithaca College Athletic & Events Center, Ithaca College Campus Near Coddington Road Entrance : The Planning Board adopted its Statement of Findings for the proposed Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center (Overall Project) located on the eastern side of the Ithaca College campus near the Coddington Road campus entrance, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . ' s 41 - 1 -30 .21 41 - 1 - 113 41 - 1 - 12 . 25 41 - 1 -24, and 42- 1 -9 . 2 , Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of +/- 300, 000 square feet of indoor athletic facilities including an indoor 200M track with practice/game field, Olympic size pool and diving well, tennis courts, rowing center, gymnasium, strength and conditioning center, and floor space for R Town of Ithaca Planning Director 's Report { June 9j'2008 Town Board JVeetirig large indoor events . Outdoor facilities include a lighted artificial turf field, a 400M track with open space for field events, and lighted tennis courts . The project is proposed in several phases and will also include the construction of +/- 1 ,002 parking spaces (687 displaced spaces and 315 new spaces), relocating overhead power lines, constructing a new loop road, walkways, access drives, stormwater management facilities, lighting and landscaping. The Planning Board then granted Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Phase IA of the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center, which includes the field house, a rowing facility, weight training facilities, the aquatics center, a landscaped plaza, six outdoor tennis courts, and an all-weather turf field with seating and lighting. This phase will also include new and expanded parking facilities, new roads and walkways, new and expanded stormwater facilities, and new lighting and landscaping throughout the project. The Planning Board also granted Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Remote Parking project as part of Phase IA of the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project, located on the Ithaca College campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . ' s 41 - 1 -30. 2 , 41 - 1 - 115 41 - 1 - 12 . 21 41 - 1 -24, and 42 - 1 -9 . 2 , Medium Density Residential Zone. The Remote Parking project includes the expansion of parking lots identified as C-Lot, F-Lot, S -Lot, and Z-Lot. The expansion involves replacing spaces that will be lost as part of the Athletics and Events Center and will include new stormwater facilities, landscaping, lighting, and walkways. Also included is the relocation of the existing overhead NYSEG electric transmission wires to an underground duct bank. Reviews for Zoning Board (ZBA) : Three applications for the Zoning Board were processed since the May report, resulting in three variances granted with conditions, as follows . May 19, 2008 ZBA Meeting: GRANTED - APPEAL of Reed & Greta Dewey, Owners/Appellants, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-71 (C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct an addition to a home located at 203 Roat Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 71 -5 -3 , Medium Density Residential Zone (MDR) . The proposed addition will encroach into the required 15 -foot side yard setback for structures in the MDR Zone. GRANTED - APPEAL of David Mountin, Owner/Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article XXVII, Section 270-223 and Article IX, Section 270-71 (C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to erect an 8- foot tall deer fence within the side yard setback of a residence located at 738 Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28 - 1 - 28 . 222 , Medium Density Residential (MDR) Zone. The proposed fence will encroach into the required 15 -foot side yard setback. Town Code also limits the height of fences within a setback to 6- feet in height. GRANTED - APPEAL of Robert Hilton, Owner/Appellant, James A. Bryan, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article XXV, Sections 270-205 and 270-208 , Article VII, Section 270-47 (F) and possibly Section 270-47(C), of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to convert an existing unheated sunroom to create habitable space in a residence located at 940A East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 18 - 5 -3 , Lakefront Residential (LR) Zone. The residence is an existing non-conforming structure located on an existing non- conforming lot. The proposed conversion will increase the existing non-conformities and will 2 Town .of Ithaca Planning Director 's Report ,.June -912008 Town Board Meeting t. 4 further violate the 25 -foot minimum required setback from the shoreline and possibly the 20-foot required side yard setback for structures in the LR Zone. The ZBA determined that no variances from the requirements of the Flood Damage Prevention Law, Chapter 157 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to make a " substantial improvement to a residential structure" where the lowest floor is not elevated above the base flood elevation, were necessary. CURRENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROJECTS/FUNCTIONS The following have been accomplished over the past month . Codes and Ordinances Committee (COQ : The Committee met on May 21 , 2008 , The Committee completed its follow-up work on the draft proposed local law regarding proposed Lakefront Residential Zone amendments after they were referred back to the Committee by the Town Board with a request to review the comments that had been provided by the West Shore Homeowners ' Association. The Committee also continued discussion regarding the proposed stream buffer law and scheduled a field visit on June 5 , 2008 to look at examples of streams . The next COC meeting is scheduled for June 18 , 2008 . Tentative agenda items include continuation of review of the proposed Stream Buffer Law . Other possible items to consider for upcoming meetings include consideration of amendments to the Zoning provisions regarding fence height and setback and amendments to Chapter 221 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding Signs . Planning Committee : The Planning Committee met on May 8 , 2008 and discussed a draft proclamation, as revised by the Committee, regarding a proposed Eruv and forwarded a recommendation to the Town Board to consider adopting the revised proclamation. The Committee also discussed the "future park" parcel next to Montessori School on East King Road. The next regular meeting of the Committee is scheduled for June 12 , 2008 , Comprehensive Plan Committee: The Committee met on May 29, 2008 and discussed options for a possible residents ' survey, the SEQR process for a Plan update with a Generic Environmental Impact Statement being a strong possibility, a possible public information meeting/open house (possibly to be scheduled in September 2008 ), and a possible orientation tour of the Town (possibly to be scheduled in July 2008) . The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 7 : 00 p .m . Conservation Board : The next meeting of the Conservation Board is scheduled for June 5 , 2008 . Agenda items will include committee reports and updates, continuation of discussion regarding possible revisions to language in the Conservation Zone, and consideration of a recommendation to the Town Board concerning the Stormwater Sewer System and Surface Waters Protection Local Law. Route 96 Corridor Management Study: The Route 96 Corridor Study Technical Review Committee met on May 12 , 2008 to discuss final details of Technical Report # 1 , livability benchmarks and methodology to assess impacts on livability of the alternate development scenarios, and the scheduling of the next Steering Committee meeting (tentatively scheduled for June 26, 2008 at 10 : 00 a.m. ) to receive the draft of Technical Report #2). 3 Town of Ithaca Planning Director 's Report 1 11 Jurie '9;-2008 Town Roard Meeting Carrowmoor Draft Local Law : Follow-up meetings were held with the developer on May 6`h and May 29`h, 2008 . The main issues being worked out include the median income housing provisions and infrastructure sequencing as it relates to phasing of the development. West Hill Trail Committee : The Committee met on May 14, 2008 to discuss the status of contacting property owners through which potential trails connecting into the City could go . Several interested residents attended the meeting and indicated willingness to help with the process of identifying possible trail r-o-w ' s . Several parcel maps of the West Hill area have been developed by Planning staff to help identify potential trail corridors. The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for either Tuesday, June 10` ' or Wednesday, June 11 `h, 2008 . 4 i Regular Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board , June 9, 2008 Human Resources Report for May 2008 Personnel and Employee Relations- Committees : The Personnel Committee reviewed the recommendation for the Director of Code Enforcement position . The committee discussed contracting with the IFD for the fire inspections . Committee agreed this is a good idea and created sub committee of Herb and Peter to work out the details of the agreement with the IFD . Comm ittee `discussed the employee satisfaction survey recommendations . (see attached notes ) The Employee Relations committee primarily discussed the volunteerism policy. (see attached notes ) Safety Committee : May meeting was cancelled . Bolton Point: Every other Monday morning I work from the Bolton Point facility, which has been greatly appreciated by the staff. I have been working with Bolton Point's Personnel Committee on the acceptance of our recently passed Information Technology policy, which was approved of at the May meeting . Work has begun on the . 2009 employee wage and benefit budget. I am continuing to work with the committee and management group on their results from the employee satisfaction survey. A meeting was held the last week of May to educate and solicit support for a focus group . Training and Development: I attended a training session in Albany, sponsored by the NYS Public Employment Relation Board on the Taylor Law. I also attended (and worked as one of the committee members ) the SHRM of Tompkins County conference titled "HR : Leading Strategically. " The morning of the picnic from 8 - 11 am will again be an all employees training session . Details for this session are being worked out with TC3 as the contract agent . Personnel — Civil Service : Time was spent working on the union negotiations and attending meetings . Time was allocated to work with PWD regarding seasonal recruitment and placement . Every year the PWD hires 6-8 seasonal laborers to assist in completing the summer workload . Two seasonal this year are being used solely in the Parks unit to mow and such . Recruitment process for the Director of Code Enforcement was started . Resumes are being accepted through June 20 , 2008 . Interviews were scheduled with the three candidates interested in the Alternate Zoning Board of Appeals position for June 2nd . Commercial Insurance ( Ithaca Agency — Selective Insurance Company) : No new claims to report. We were billed additional premium due to changes in the replacement costs for the Public Works facility and Town Hall , Workers' Compensation ( Public Employers Risk Management Assoc — PERMA) : Time was allocated to working on the workers' compensation renewal and premium allocation . The experience modifier was lowered from 0 . 79 to . 77 , due to just a few injuries with no lost days of work . The member discount also went up from 23 . 3 % to 26 . 6% , due to the work of the safety committee and employees dedication to a safe working culture . There were 2 new claims filed in May. Both cases were muscle strains and both resulted in lost days of work. Both employees are back to work at this time . Unemployment Insurance : There is currently one seasonal employee claiming on the Town . Health and/or Dental Insurance : I continue to attend the committee meeting of TCCOG on the Health Benefit Consortium . The sub-committee has been interviewing consultants to take on the second and third phase of the contract. The committee will be recommending a consultant to TCCOG to consider at their May meeting . Submitted By: Judith C . Drake , PHR , Human Resources Manager i TOWN OF ITHACA PERSONNEL COMMITTEE Wednesday, May 79 2008 4 : 30 - 6 : 00 pm Aurora Conference Room DRAFT NOTES Members present: Jeff Cowie , Chair, Peter Stein and Pat Leary, Others : Herb Engman & Judy Drake 1 . Committee member comments Pat asked for a correction to the April notes. Agenda number 5 change the word "apprehension " to "skepticism" regarding a project of establishing a mission statement. 2 . Discuss recommendation regarding contracting with IFD for fire inspections Peter is not ready to make a recommendation yet as he is still waiting on a proposal from IFD. There is more to work out with the City on how this would impact the fire contact and the calculation for the Town 's share of the fire protection. Committee does recommend contacting with the IFD for the fire inspections, pending successful negotiations of a contract. Peter and Herb as a subcommittee will work with the IFD to work out the details. Once that is worked out they will bring back a recommendation for the Personnel Committee to review for a recommendation to the Town Board. 3. Discuss creation of a director level code position (recommendation from . Operations Committee) The committee reviewed the proposed job description for the Director of Code Enforcement. There were just a few grammar changes along with removing "minimal" before the word supervision by the Town Supervisor. Under Typical Work Activities wording such as "Receives and resolves complaints from the general public regarding code enforcement" was to be added. There was general discussion regarding the needs of the organization and why the Operations Committee recommends this level position. - , Judy put the job description through the point factor rating scale to determine where the position should be put on the Job Classification Listing. Judy recommends an S level based on the points received. The position would be classified as salaried at 40 hours per week. The pay range would be between $63, 897. 60 and $77, 064. 00, which is the hiring minimum to job rate for the current S classification. Committee agreed to recommend to the Town Board at the May 12th meeting the creation of the position. 4. Discuss Class S wage comparability study Mistakenly the agenda said Class A. See graph Peter presented regarding Class S wage comparison. Peter suggested that the current Job Rate for the S class be raised because the current number is less than the comparison group, but probably less than what the three current positions are making. After discussion the committee decided not to change the S classification job rate at this time. 5. Discuss Best Companies employee satisfaction survey analysis . Judy passed out a list of recommendations and read through them. The recommendations will be discussed in more detail at future meetings. Judy expressed the need to discuss them more with the members of the Employee Relations Committee. 6. Consider Closed Session to discuss the personnel history of a particular employee(s) . .( if needed) - Not needed. Next meeting : June 4 , 2008 f Draft June 2 , 2008 EMPLOYEE RELATIONS COMMITTEE Friday, May 9 , 2008 , 1 : 30 to 2 : 30 pm PWF Conference Room DRAFT NOTES Members Present: Pat Leary, Peter Stein, Susan Ritter, Dani Holford, Larry Salmi, Paul Tunison. Absent: Jeff Cowie, Peter Middaugh, Don TenKate Others attending: Judy Drake, staff support, Chris Balestra, Kristin Taylor 1 . Member comments and concerns Notes from April meeting accepted with cola changed to COLA. The Consumer Price Index for March 2008 (released April 96, 2008) was handed out, but not discussed. Judy did explain to Pat that the numbers the Town uses includes "All items" not the number that reads "All items less food and energy. " The CPI- W changed 4. 3% for the time between March 2007 through March 2008. 2 . Discuss Volunteerism policies Judy passed out a draft policy taken from what was discussed at the January meeting and other companies ' policies. Pat wanted to know why Election Inspectors weren 't included. Judy had explained that she didn 't feel comfortable with it since they are paid to be an election inspector, so didn 't qualify as volunteer. Pat felt there was a problem with the draft policy if the Town is going to make a statement of encouragement, but not back it up with time off. Need to be able to have time off without use of personal or vacation time, because that is telling staff how they can use their fringe time. Volunteer Firefighter and Emergency Medical Services Leave (VF-EMS)part of the policy was discussed. Dani questioned whether any VF-EMS were paid? Kristie said none in the local area are paid, but might receive a gas stipend for meetings. It was agreed there would be no limit of use on this policy as it is tied to emergencies. Peter requested a report annually on the number of hours used though. There was discussion and examples used to see how this policy would play out. Kristie stated other policies cover if there is a fire outside normal working hours. It was decided to add in Cornell's policy on emergencies prior to the start of the shift. "In the event that a volunteer firefighter and/or emergency medical technician is required to respond to a working fire or emergency during the 8 hours immediately preceding the start of the employee 's shift, the employee will receive compensatory time off during the upcoming shift equal to the actual time spent in resolving the emergency or fire. " There was discussion about the compensatory time, and what that meant. Judy to draft wording in the draft policy. Volunteer Time Policy was discussed further. Pat stated she didn 't think it was right to say how an employee can use their fringe time, so we should not require them to use Personal or Vacation time. Attendees felt the policy doesn 't give the employees anything that they don 't already have at this time, so why have the policy. Judy expressed her concern that we are not a corporate business that needs to look great to community, we are the community or public entity that looks for volunteers. Pat suggested 8 hours of time off with pay to be used for volunteering as "other" time. Discussion about the 8 hours and maybe that was too much or too little. Attendees talked about current practices for volunteering, and that it is presently occurring on their own time (nights & weekends) or by flexing time. Some volunteer work may be determined to be job related and therefore, wouldn 't fall under this policy. Peter summarized with what was clear at this point. Clear that the employee should chose where they want to volunteer without the Town approving. f Draft June 2 , 2008 Clear that the supervisors should allow flexible schedules to allow employees to volunteer during their regular shift. It was not clear whether the Town should pay for the time (using other time) or if an employee would need to use their personal or vacation time. Pat wanted to talk more about the Election Inspectors and that they should be paid. Discuss more at next meeting. Blood Donation Leave to be discussed further at next meeting, but again most of group felt the 3 hours in the law should be paid time. If they continue to give blood then that should be on their time. Tickler items for future meetings : ■ Employee satisfaction survey Next Meeting : Friday, June 13 , 2008 1 : 30 — 2 : 30 pm (Town Hall , Aurora Conference Room ) r Q � � Hi�Jls%� a >r/� 5 �5is�a�T AIA14 ,o,�oGs/N6 r5 ilNli�Yit/.D. •4. �.Qovt- sio.ut .. E'f kSAaJGt ► L J"It3W4jgz.�-I l Av515 r4oU 4x44 Alg r X Notj FiAJ4)L 44 77 $ 3Q '7744- C' r rte} k577 c ?c k161QAZ _e�Nt> Ar t*15 RICEW6t) 13y C, � �� . i c �,t3c'z o_KJ_ > { I �� ,2 [ao.J�» i2_ . i _ <AZ v'.ac erES_. 13Y rh't> -rQ i ok'.ye.� a%c dre F, y� .6�a sl�r� .4a3v r�v�o p a z .p.._a c?TGIJ Cke A01. T Drz ! -l�.ti7' e.� T• T!r ./� rs .Zv _ c f 9%4� s1.l iZ � .Q��D�v ��a ej 7`0 . lAf. L�� Jy �5v.��cr d.- 9ir - � P `Ne . _ �74.� . �s e. J Gtr , gib .% use C60 VO4,5 104) 1-okor4s .Caw -.4A),.p Tie_ 43�.�N �,ijy- i� �v C ,er CoT, �T ru � orTo�vS � 164 uA) 51 Lot S %f1AC )o,71kz rV4el�IA4C.. 0,0 ?A;f,41V /I/ 2,00E , - T2� i�J,N� 4YO,Q 07 A610€c7.5. OX JAE;e vrC4Lr Agenda Item # 22b Please Review the enclosed vouchers and place your initials next to your name below Please Name Initial Supervisor Engman Councilwoman Leary Councilman Stein Councilman Goodman (!J 9 Councilman Levine Councilwoman Hunter 1�-- - L REGULAR MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD MONDAY, JUNE 99 2008 TB RESOLUTION NO. 2008- b: Town of Ithaca Abstract WHEREAS , the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for approval of payment; and WHEREAS , the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board ; now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in total for the amounts indicated . VOUCHER NOS . 5307 - 5442 General Fund Town wide 146 , 344 . 58 General Fund Part Town 125063 . 00 Highway Fund Part Town 943917 . 44 Water Fund 60 , 977 . 63 Sewer Fund 91701 . 44 Debt Service Trust & Agency 500 . 00 Trumansburg Rd . Water Main Improvements Hanshaw Road Water Main Improvements Risk Retention Fund 1 , 615 . 23 Fire Protection Fund 328 , 662 . 39 Forest Home Lighting District 226 . 95 Glenside Lighting District 88 .45 Renwick Heights Lighting District 121 . 68 Eastwood Commons Lighting District 226 . 81 Clover Lane Lighting District 27 . 57 Winner's Circle Lighting District 71 . 79 Burleigh Drive Lighting District 94 . 42 Westhaven Road Lighting District 320 . 92 Coddington Road Lighting District 189 . 25 TOTAL 656 , 149 . 51 ~ P` Agenda Item #22c Please Review the enclosed vouchers and place your initials next to your name below Please Name Initial Supervisor Engman Councilwoman Lear Councilman Stein Councilman Goodman Councilman Levine Councilwoman tiunter P r ad a .� REGULAR MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD MONDAY, JUNE % 2008 TB RESOLUTION NO . 2008- c : Bolton Point Abstract WHEREAS , the following numbered vouchers for the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission have been presented to the governing Town Board for approval of payment ; and WHEREAS , the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board ; now, therefore , be it RESOLVED , that the Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers . Voucher Numbers : 254 - 304 7 Check Numbers : 1083 . 10928 Operating Fund $ 61 , 421 . 05 1998 SCADA Capital Project $ 998 . 70 2003 East Hill Tank Project $ 59105 . 00 TOTAL $677524 . 75 MOVED : SECONDED : VOTE : Special Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Tuesday, June 17 , 2008 at 5 : 00 p . m . 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 1 . Call to Order 2 . Pledge of Allegiance 3 . CONSIDER A HOME RULE REQUEST TO THE NYS LEGISLATURE TO AMEND THE NYS NAVIGATION LAW IN RELATION TO RESTRICTIONS AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION AND LOCATION OF BOATHOUSES , MOORINGS AND DOCKS 4 . Consider Adjournment a of Regular Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Tuesday, June 17, 2008 at 5 : 00 p . m . q 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Present Herb Engman , Supervisor; Pat Leary, Councilwoman ; Eric Levine , Councilman ; Bill Goodman , Councilman ; Rich DePaolo , Councilman . Excused Councilman Stein , Councilwoman Hunter. Staff Karen Billings , Town Clerk. Others None present Call to Order Supervisor Engman called the meeting to order at 5 : 02 p . m . By a motion made by Councilwoman Leary and seconded by Councilman Goodman the Pledge of Allegiance was dispensed with and Supervisor Engman proceeded to introduce Agenda Item no . 3 . Consider a Home Rule Request to the NYS Legislature to amend the NYS Navigation Law in relation to restrictions and regulations relating to construction and location of boathouses , moorinas and docks and asked for a motion . Councilwoman Leary moved and Councilman DePaolo seconded . Supervisor Engman called for discussion ; hearing none Supervisor Engman called for a vote . Motion approved . TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION NO , 2008- 139 : HOME RULE REQUEST TO THE NYS LEGISLATURE TO AMEND THE NYS NAVIGATION LAW IN RELATION TO RESTRICTIONS AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION AND LOCATION OF BOATHOUSES , MOORINGS AND DOCKS RESOLVED that the Town of Ithaca requests enactment of a Special Law by the New York State Legislature to amend the NYS Navigation Law in relation to restrictions and regulations relating to construction and location of boathouses , moorings and docks by the town of Ithaca . MOVED : Councilwoman Leary SECONDED : Councilman DePaolo VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye . Motion approved . A brief discussion followed regarding the NYS Legislature ' s vote on Assembly Bill # 11593 and Senate Bill # 8544 and that this Resolution , along with paperwork , must be sent via next day air to arrive at the LOB in Albany by Thursday, June 19 , 2008 in order to be included in this vote . Hearing no further discussion , Supervisor Engman called for a motion to adjourn . Motion to adjourn : Moved : Councilman Levine Seconded : Councilwoman Leary Meeting adjourned at 5 : 05 p . m . Respectfully Submitted by, Karen M . Billings To C k