No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2009-12-07 y� - - - Regular Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board' ! ! Monday, December 7, 2009 at 5 : 30 p. m . f I k r a 215 North Tioga Street, , lthaca, NY 14850 ' AGENDA 1 . Call to Order i 2 . Pledge of Allegiance 3 . Report of City of Ithaca Common Council — 4 . Report of Fire Commission — 5 . Report of Tompkins County Legislature - 6 . Report of Town Historian — Laura Johnson Kelly 7 . 5 : 45 p . m . - Persons to be Heard and Board Comments 8 , Set Public Hearing to hear public comment on proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan regarding conservation zones 9 . Set public hearing to hear comment regarding a Local Law Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town Of Ithaca Code to Add Preservation of Certain Drainage and Stormwater Retention Features to Conservation Zone Purposes 10 . 5 : 55 p. m . — Public hearing to hear public comment regarding Local Law Amending Chapter 250 of the Town of Ithaca Code , Titled "Vehicles and Traffic ; by prohibiting parking north and west of the intersection of Troy Road and King Road East a . Consider adoption 11 . 6 : 00 p. m . - Public hearing to hear public comment regarding A Local Law Amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code , Titled "Zoning" , and the Official Zoning Map to Rezone Certain Lands in the Northeast Corner of the Town from Medium Density Residential Zone to Conservation Zone 12 . 6 : 10 p. m . - Public hearing - -= to hear public comment regarding the .East Shore Drive Water Main Replacement Project a . Consider SEAR b . Consider approval 13 . 6 : 15 p. m . — Public Hearing to hear public comment regarding establishing the administration of fees and charges in the Town of Ithaca a . Consider adoption of the following local laws : A Local_ Law Amending Fee Provisions in Chapter 100 , Titled "Adult Uses" , of the Town of Ithaca Code to Provide for the Setting of Fees by Town Board Resolution A Local Law Amending Fee Provisions in Chapter 125 , Titled `Building '. Construction and Fire Prevention" , of the Town: of: Ithaca Code to Provide for the Setting of Fees by Town Board Resolution A Local Law Amending Fee Provisions in Chapter 1153 , Titled "Fees" , of the Town of Ithaca Code to Delete Listed Fees -, and Provide for the Establishment and Setting of Fees by Town Board Resolution A Local Law Amending Fee Provisions in Chapter 173 , Titled "Lighting , Outdoor" , of the Town of Ithaca Code to Provide for the Setting of Variance Application Fees by Town Board Resolution A Local Law Amending Fee Provisions in Chapter 184 , Titled " Noise" , of the Town of Ithaca Code to Provide for the Setting of Noise Permit Application Fees by Town Board Resolution A Local Law Amending Parking and Fee Provisions in Chapter 200 , Titled " Parks and Recreation Areas" , of the Town of Ithaca Code to Prohibit Parking Outside Designated Areas and to Provide for the Setting of Fees and Security Deposits by Town Board Resolution A -Local Law Amending Fee Provisions in Chapter 205 , Titled " Property Maintenance" , of the Town of Ithaca Code to Provide for the Setting of Variance Application Fees by Town Board Resolution A Local Law Amending Chapter 210 , Titled "Sewer Rents" , of the Town of Ithaca Code to Provide for the Setting of Sewer Rents and Charges by Town Board Resolution A Local Law Amending Fee Provisions in Chapter 234 , Titled "Subdivision of Land" , of the Town of Ithaca Code to Provide for the Setting of Fees by Town Board Resolution A Local Law Amending Chapter 261 , Titled "Water Rates" , of the Town of Ithaca Code to Provide for the Setting of Water Rates , Rents , Charges and Fees by Town Board Resolution A Local Law Amending Fee Provisions in Chapter 270 , Titled "Zoning the Town of Ithaca Code to Provide for the Setting of Fees by Town Board Resolution b . Consider a resolution to adopt the fee schedule c . Consider a resolution to establish sewer rents in the Town of Ithaca Sewer Improvement Area 14 . Consider request from Longview to reduce temporary certificate of occupancy fees from $2 , 000 to $500 , and if necessary , set a public hearing 2 15 . Consider request from the City of Ithaca to waive the site plan) applicationland building permit fees for the Cayuga Waterfront Trail + 16 . Consider approval of a REQUEST TO GOVERNOR DAVID A '.: PATERSON to Withdraw the draft Supplemental Generic Environmental ImpadfStatement Related to Horizontal Drilling and High -Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop Marcellus Shale and Other Low- Permeability Gas Reservoirs 17 , Consent Agenda for the Town Supervisor to sign contracts for the following services : a . Tompkins County Area Transit (TCAT) b . Tompkins County Public Library c . Town residents' use of City Park Facilities (Cass Park) MOU d . Coddington Road Community Center e . Cooperative Extension f . Learning Web g . Gadabout h . Lifelong i . Human Services Coalition j . Community Science Institute (CSI ) — Water Quality Monitoring k. Legal counsel — Susan Brock and Guy Krogh 18 . Consider approval of SPCA contract 19 . Discuss vacancies and 2010 Town Board appointments 20 . Consider setting the organizational meeting of the Town Board for 2010 and start time , and discuss year-end meeting 21 . Discuss Town Board meetings for 2010 22 , Consider Authorization for supervisor to sign Forest Home Traffic Calming MOU with Tompkins County 23 , Consider Authorization to Amend the Contract with McFarland Johnson for Design and Engineering Services for the Forest Home Traffic Calming Phase I Project 24 . Consider approval of revisions to Performance Review and Employer Vehicle Policies 25 . Consider approval of an agreement for distribution of the 2% Fire Insurance Funds to the City of Ithaca and Cayuga Heights Fire Departments and authorizing the Town Supervisor to sign on behalf of the Town of Ithaca 26 . Discuss lighting at the Coddington Road Community Center 27 , Consent Agenda a . Town Board minutes 3 b . Town of Ithaca Abstract c . Bolton Point Abstract d . Extension of appointment of Darby Kiley, Planner , ; , 28 . Report of Town Officials J. q , l , ( 29 . Report of Town Committees 30 . Report of Intermunicipal Organizations 31 , Correspondence 32 . Consider Adjournment 4 ' f Regular Meeting of the Ithaca Town; Board . . .. � , � y Monday December 7 2009 at , 530i plm: 1 , „ � . 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Present : Supervisor Engman ; Councilwoman Leary; Councilman Stein ; Councilman Goodman ; Councilman Levine ; Councilwoman Hunter; Councilman DePaolo Staff: Debra DeAugistine , Deputy Town Clerk; Jim Weber, Highway Superintendent ; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning ; Bruce Bates , Director of Code Enforcement ; Judy Drake , Human Resources Specialist ; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town ; Alfred Carvill , Budget Director, 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 City of Ithaca Common Council No report . Agenda Item No. 4 — Report of Fire Commissioners No report . Agenda Item No. 5 : Report of Tompkins County Legislature No report . Agenda Item No. 6 : Report of the Town Historian Laura Johnson - Kelly, the Town Historian , reported that she and David George have published a book, Tompkins County, New York: Images of Work and Play, a signed copy of which she presented to the Town Board . It is available for sale at Barnes and Noble and through other local booksellers . The book will be available in the Town Clerk's office for people to borrow. Agenda Item No. 8 : Set Public Hearing to hear public comment on proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan regarding conservation zones A motion was made by Councilman Stein to set the public hearing for the first Town Board meeting in January, but after advice from Mr. Kanter, the motion was withdrawn in favor of discussing the topic later in the meeting . Town Board Minutes: December 7, 2009 Agenda Item No. 14 , Consider request from Longview to reduce temporary ;: :; , ;; ! !, !; certificate of occupancy fees from $2 , 000 to $500, ' and if inecessary, set a public hearing " , : , , L . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2009-223 : Set public "'Hearing ' to Consider ReductioN in Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Fees Pursuant to Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 125 , Titled Building Construction and Fire Prevention , Sec. 125-713 (9)a [21 fa-el , in Order to Restore the Intergenerational Child Care Program at Longview RESOLVED , that the Ithaca Town Board sets a public hearing for the 11th day of January, 2010 at 5 : 50 p . m . to hear comment to consider a reduction in the temporary certificate of occupancy fee to $500 , pursuant to Town of Ithaca Code , Chapter 125 , Titled , Building Construction and Fire Prevention , Sec . 125-713 (9) a [2] [a-e] , in order to issue a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, which would ultimately allow the restoration of the Intergenerational Child Care Program at Longview. MOVED : Councilwoman Leary SECONDED : Councilman Levine VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Goodman , nay; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye . Motion Carried Agenda Item No. 7 Persons to Be Heard and Board Comments : VERBATIM Susan Titus resides at Culver Road , West Hill . I ' m here to speak about the hyrdo- fracking that's threatening all of our lives , and just above me , not a '/a mile , is a large field that has been given rights to gas drilling . That field continues from Poole Road to Bostwick Road . About 3 years ago , Gretchen Herman and I came and spoke to you because she lives on Bostwick Road and we brought this picture to show you , because someone was going to build right next to her home , destroying her beautiful view. At that time , we started talking about protecting our scenic views . This field has been given up for gas drilling . Visualize a toxic industrial site . Every field on Bostwick has either been given up for gas drilling or it's right next to a field for gas drilling . Every single painting , I 've done up there . Brian , a wonderful painter from Pennsylvania , he has a show in our gallery downtown , it opened on Friday . There is gas drilling everywhere , where he lives . He is in the northern Susquehanna area of Pennsylvania . It says here , "They exhibit us to draw attention to the beauty and fragility of the land , especially in regards to the planned hydro-fracking in these areas . know you are busy, incredibly busy , but nothing is more important than this right now. I ' d like to pass something out . Also , something else that consumes me , is months ago , Page 2 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 the Town of Caroline sent information to every one about the hydro-fracking , and '. this month , the Town of Danby did the same , inform inol people: Everyday someonei says , to me , "What does fracking mean ?" So many people 'don 't . read the paper; they are not knowledgeable , and I so wish that the Town of Ithaca had sent something out to everybody . This past September, the little newsletter 'Said something about scenic views ; nothing about hydro-fracking ; nothing about protecting our wells ; and what about protecting our air? We have until the end of December, I ' m sure you are aware , to contact the governor. In today's paper, the terrible news about the radiation in the water that is drawn up from the hydro-fracking ; it is 10 , 000 times higher than drinking water standards . What are we going to do? Everywhere they have these hydro-f racking sites all over the country, the air is polluted , there is a horrible ozone that's formed and people are getting sick, and it will all settle down from around Ithaca and will come down and sit over the city and the water will get polluted , the lake will be threatened and what will we have left? Several people already have their houses up for sale . I don 't want to move , I love it here . Please do what you can to protect us . Thank you . Ms . Titus provided a document called "What should local governments do before the gas drilling starts?" (see attachment # 1 ) . She also held up her own paintings of the site to illustrate her comments to the board . Agenda Item No. 10 Public hearing to hear public comment regarding Local Law Amending Chapter 250 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled "Vehicles and Traffic, " by prohibiting parking north and west of the intersection of Troy Road and King Road East Supervisor Engman opened the public hearing at 6 : 01 p . m . and invited public comment . Hearing no comment , the supervisor closed the public hearing at 6 : 02 . Agenda Item No. 10a — Consider adoption TB RESOLUTION NO . 2009-224: Resolution Adopting " A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 250 OF THE .TOWN OF ITHACA CODE , TITLED "VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, " TO PROHIBIT PARKING NORTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF TROY ROAD AND KING ROAD EAST" WHEREAS , at its meeting on October 27 , 2009 , the Public Works committee heard a request from Tompkins County to amend the Town 's Vehicles and Traffic Chapter to prohibit parking north and west of the intersection of Troy Road and King Road East , 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 December 7 , 2009 at 5 : 55 p . m . to hear all interested parties on the proposed local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 250 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE , TITLED "VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC , "TO PROHIBIT PARKING NORTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF TROY ROAD AND KING ROAD EAST" and Page 3 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7 , 2009 WHEREAS , notice of said public hearing was duly , advertised in the Ithaca Journal ; and WHEREAS , said public hearing was duly held , on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law, or any part thereof, and WHEREAS , pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617 , it has been determined by the Town Board that adoption of the proposed local law 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 AMENDING CHAPTER 250 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE , TITLED "VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC , " TO PROHIBIT PARKING NORTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF TROY ROAD AND KING ROAD EAST 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 : 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 Carried - unanimous _Agenda Item No. 11 Public hearing to hear public comment regarding A Local Law Amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled "Zoning " , and the Official Zoning Map to Rezone Certain Lands in the Northeast Corner of the Town from Medium Density Residential Zone to Conservation Zone See : Map in Attachment 1a Supervisor Engman opened the public hearing at 6 : 06 p . m . and invited public comment . Note: Comments are provided VERBATIM, unless person spoke to written comments, provided as numbered attachments. Susan Riha , 109 Maplewood Drive : Ms . Riha provided a map to accompany her discussion (see attachment #2) . Page 4 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 appreciate the opportunity to address the Town Board tonight , once more, regarding rezoning the northeast corner of the Town of Ithaca . ! This corner of the town , with its flat topography and mosaic of upland forest wetlands , and very poorly drained soil is a critical hydrologic area , which naturally retains much of the water that would otherwise drain to the lake through the northeast part of the town . The map I am sending around , which was from one of the studies you commissioned , outlines two of the sub catchment areas and shows how the proposed development is located in the upslope sections . Building homes in this area will significantly alter this natural retention system . This area not only detains water, it retains it , and it will result in more water moving into neighborhoods located down slope . This storm water drainage system in these neighborhoods are already running above capacity. Too much water is running through open ditches and culverts that were designed to handle much smaller amounts of water than they are now receiving . Current plans for increasing the size of major storm water pipes along Hanshaw Road will not accommodate piping of storm water in these sections of the northeast . The recent drainage study undertaken by the town to assess alternative solutions , estimated that these could cost more than 9 million dollars . It is clear that there are extensive drainage problems in the existing neighborhoods in the northeast that need to be systematically, economically , and creatively addressed . Further development of this area that naturally retains water upslope will only exacerbate these problems and end up spending even more money. Failure in the storm water drainage system , not only negatively impacts northeast neighborhoods , but it also results in more sediment moving into Cayuga Lake . The Town of Ithaca and surrounding municipalities are responsible for reducing sediment floating into the lake , and in order to do this , it requires that the land be appropriately managed ; there's no way to manage water without managing land . Zoning is a main tool towns can use to affect this management . The proposal to rezone the Sapsucker Woods area from a medium -density residential zone to a conservation zone is a responsible action for the Town Board to take to decrease the negative economic and environmental impacts that development of this area will cause . A conservation zone in this critical hydrologic area , I think, strikes a reasonable balance between the need for development and the need for sound water management . Therefore , I urge you to support this proposal . Thank you . William Sonnenstuhl , 206 , Winston Drive : Mr. Sonnenstuhl is the president of the Northeast Ithaca Neighborhood Association ( NINA) . He provided a prepared statement (see attachment #3) . Patricia Page , 212 Muriel Street : Ms . Page handed out a prepared statement (see attachment #4) . Arno Selco , 311 Salem Drive : Mr. Selco provided a prepared statement called "What I Learned While Saving Sapsucker Woods . . . " (see attachment #5) Lawrence Fabbroni , project manager, engineer, and surveyor for the Briarwood II project . Mr. Fabbroni ' s prepared statement is provided in attachment #6) . He also Page 5 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 handed a protest petition signed by Mr. Rocco Lucente to the town: attorney , Susan Brock, who gave it to the ; deputy clerk for the official record (see attachment #7) Adrian Williams : I don 't have a resume for you or a big blue binder; but I do have some statements I would like to make . Late this summer, the northeast Ithaca neighborhood association put together several memoranda and submitted them for your consideration . I hope you 've gotten a chance to read those . One , looked at biological corridors and reviewed scientific literature , and another one did a review in comparison to the LeCain study to terrestrial environmental specialists , and Stearns and Wheler's peer reviews of LeCain . From the memo , terrestrial environmental specialists (TES) , I ' m just going to excerpt some things : TES , to our knowledge , has not conducted a detailed survey of the sight's vegetation and ecological communities , and the sight being the area of the LeCain studies , nor analyzed the woodlands ecological significance in the context of local landscape . The methodology employed by TES has been consistently narrow and limited in scope when they did some consulting for Mr. Lucente for Briarwood II , because phases of Briarwood I and II , as proposed in 2003 , were restricted to the southern parcel . Much of TES 's early field work was , likewise , limited to that area . In lieu of the detailed biological survey, such as LeCain produced , TES states , for example , that the southern part of the study "was open field in the 1950 's and has succeeded to Young woods and shrub habitat . There are no State designated wetlands onto this empty parcel . " LeCain , in contrast , inventoried eight different ecological communities in this area , ascribing to the sections a range of ecological value from low to moderate to high , as well as identifying several regionally scarce species . To ( inaudible) this assessment , emphasizes previous human disturbance , while being strikingly reticent about ecological value by declaring lack of state or federal regulatory jurisdiction . This conclusion in 2003 was reaffirmed by TES in 2007 . In the documents submitted to the Town Planning Board in the period before the moratorium . In 2008 , TES submitted a 5-page review of the LeCain study. This analysis by TES does not substantively challenge the inventory findings of LeCain , which were far more comprehensive than TES 's previous studies of the same sites . TES , nonetheless , claims that LeCain "does not adequately support the conservation priorities recommended . " This claim is made by implicitly challenging LeCain 's emphasis on local and regional context and land use history. To conclude , TES ' s pedagogical assertion that "the LeCain report does not adequately support the conservation priorities recommended" , is itself not substantiated by any field data or scientific literature . Their critique disregards the presence of any biological corridor, the need for adequate buffers for wetlands , and communities of high ecological value , and ignores local and regional landscape context . Instead , their position is based on an assumption that the only constraints on developments derives from state and federal regulatory agencies . I want to talk about Stearns and Wheler, which I have even more objections to . In November 2008 peer reviews of LeCain , Stearns and Wheler, analyze the Berg report and community survey report and strongly questions LeCain 9s recommended options for conservation . Stearns and Wheler take issue , especially with the findings and conclusions of the LeCain report . Stearns and Wheler dismiss the LeCain report's conclusion that the suburban development and forest fragmentation would threaten the two bird species on the Audubon watch list . Stearns and Wheler Page 6 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7 , 2009 claimed in the memo , emphatically, " None ofithese assertions:are scien'tifically : , i supportive on the assertions that were made by LeCain , that these : species' are of concern in this local context . " In fact , there is evidence in the scientific , literal ture supporting LeCain 's ;concerns about how fragmentation would affect the viability of the wood thrush . A study conducted by Weinberg and Roth in Delaware in 1998 , concludes , "Our results show that very small fragments should not be . viewed as suitable breeding habitat for wood thrushes or as substitutes for larger areas of intact forests . " In the context of potential housing development in Sapsucker Woods , LeCain 's concern seems appropriate . Stearns and Wheler's perfunctory treatment of the concept of edge affects , ends their casual claim that ( inaudible) actually increase biodiversity, which we again heard tonight , ignore the local landscape context , as well as the broader ecological complexities that result from forest fragmentation . While forest edges sometimes do increase biodiversity on a local scale , they can also reduce regional biodiversity by limiting the nesting capacity of forest interior-dwelling species which require large tracks of woodland for habitat , and increasing predation by edge- dwelling species , such as blue jays , crows and crackles . In our memo , we give you a number of citations that support this position . In the context of Sapsucker Woods , the obvious goal is to maintain as much continuous woodland as possible and conserve forest interior-dwelling species , so fragmenting the landscaping increasing "edge affects" would clearly be detrimental . LeCain , in the discussion of conservation priorities mentions the value of maintaining as much continuous woodland habitat as possible . Cow- bird contention . Stearns and Wheler claim that LeCain 's concerns about increased cow-bird parasitism is simply unfounded , but the LeCain report sights that the general consensus "Habitat fragmentation in its breeding range is thought to be a major factor in its decline and emphasizes changes in soil moisture levels and invertebrate populations as the main concern about wood thrushes , rather than the cow-bird parasitism . While TES and Stearns and Wheler submitted critiques of the LeCain study, their ( inaudible) do not withstand close scrutiny and do not substantively challenge LeCain 's recommendations . I encourage you to vote in favor of the proposed law , extending the conservation zoning in the northeast. Few of us have the knowledge and wisdom to ascertain the ecological significance of a parcel of land . Whether we own it , according to the tax roles , or happen to simply take a stroll through it on an autumn afternoon . For this reason , the LeCain study commissioned by the Town provides a valuable , informative , and independent assessment of these woods. It is as comprehensive as could be expected with sound methodology and recommendations following reasonably from its findings . Just as the ecosystems identified in the study are complex, so to do LeCain ' s recommendations defy a simple and easy translation . For instance , the low to high designations of ecological communities are based solely on their features and does not include the functions those communities perform . On a landscape scale , the following qualities and features discussed in the LeCain Study are inextricably linked : Ecological communities that have inherent value due to their maturity species richness and regional scarcity; the presence of regionally scarce species , which should be preserved along with the habitat ; the functions performed by ecological communities , such as buffering high value areas from external disturbance ; and enabling permeability and connectivity from Sapsucker Woods south to the Monkey Run area ; and the preservation of sensitive hydrological conditions . The complexity of Page 7 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 these elements , features , and functions ought to make clear ,why no precise line can delineate what ought to be preserved from what can be developed . We have all scrutinized the , maps in .the LeCain study and the color-coded maps by the planning staff , but a fundamental principle of ecology is that the map :is ,not the territory . Those maps make your decision seem more clean cut than it really is . In light of this , the cautionary principle is vital . LeCain ' s recommendations , given us three options , indicate what areas ought to be "prioritized for conservation . " It is important to note that their preferred option recommends all of the parcels in their study for conservation . The proposed law , therefore , is a compromise , far from a radical transgression , as some claim it would be . Moreover, LeCain does not make reference to what mechanism the Town Board might use to fulfill their recommendations . Prioritizing for conservation is not synonymous with conservation zoning . In deed , allowing development , as conservation zoning does , within areas prioritized for conservation seems contradictory. Conservation zoning is worth repeating does not preclude developments . It simply brings development to a scale closer to a scale the area can sustain , both ecologically and hydrologically. It exceeds to include so-called low value areas within a conservation zoning because doing so helps to limit development to an appropriate scale . On the other hand , if some of the low value areas are excluded from the zoning and they tame their medium density residential zoning , the aggregate effect could result in development on a scale that would undermine their efforts to afford this area protection . For instance , if section one is excluded from conservation zoning and remains medium density residential , the developer would be allowed approximately 30 lots , similar to his current proposal . In the past year, there have been hopes that an ideal solution might be found by the two landowners , Cornell University and Mr. Lucente , in the form of a land exchange that would enable the lab of ornithology to expand its borders , while allowing the developer to build houses on another parcel of land — Nothing came of it . While Cornell 's inability to complete a land exchange with the developer is regrettable , the university's objection tonight to a minimal constraint on their land adjacent to the sanctuary is , in my view , appalling and reveals how little they appreciate what they have in Sapsucker Woods . I encourage the Town Board to ignore their objections and do what the university is unwilling to do , ensure a [ inaudible] of a buffer to Sapsucker Woods . While I can recognize and respect Mr. Lucente's wish to develop his property in the northeast , I sincerely the woodlands and wetlands cannot sustain such intensive disturbance . Too much has been lost already . Too many residences downstream have overwhelming drainage problems . Too many wetlands in our county , both wooded swamps and smaller vernal pools have been filled in or degraded and periling the amphibians and other animals that rely on them . Too much habitat has been fragmented . Sapsucker Woods is an emblem of isolated habitats that are nearly surrounded already by housing , Route 13 and the airport . As the county' s natural features focus area project indicates , Sapsucker Woods is vulnerable to still further isolation . We heard from an official at the lab that these woods are at the low point of sustainability in terms of biodiversity . The biological corridor to the south towards Fall Creek must remain open and permeable . A quarter acre lot of Kentucky Blue grass opening up to Sapsucker Woods Road is not , alas , any reasonable person 's idea of biological corridor. This Board has been very patient with residents , hearing our concerns on numerous occasions over the past several years . Likewise , residents in Page 8 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7 , 2009 the Northeast , and other,.concerned citizens , have been :very . patient � with this Board , which has procrastinated on this issue long enough . AlthoughutheAecision ' may not please everyone , I ; hope all of you recognize the need to preserve these woodlands and wetlands and vote tonight for conservation zoning . r Michael Fishman , senior scientist from Stearns & Wheler: Mr: Fishman provided a map showing the area of Sapsucker Woods and Monkey Run . He -also provided his resume (see attachment #8) : I 've been retained by Mr. Lucente two years ago to review some of the reports prepared by LeCain Environmental . The first being the executive summary of an environmental assessment of lands adjacent lands to Sapsucker Woods , prepared in 2008 , and a report of spring survey of birds and other resources on lands adjacent to Sapsucker Woods , also prepared in 2008 , and a final report of an ecological community survey and assessment of lands adjacent to Sapsucker Woods , also prepared in 2008 . That should indicate that I was originally retained two years ago to provide some comment on the proposed development at the time . A part of our duties in the past year have been reviewing these reports . I ' m currently a senior scientist at Stearns & Wheler. I 'd like to address some comments to the reports that were prepared by LeCain Environmental on which I understand a portion of this decision to rezone the properties would be based . In my field experience , one of the things I do frequently is navigate my way across large tracks of open land . I have a great deal of experience with maps and compass and GPS navigation . In fact , I teach a course in it . I always warn people that a compass is an important piece of equipment ; you have to rely on it entirely and need to know that it's working correctly. I believe that using a faulty compass can lead to real disaster in finding your way , and I use that as a metaphor in this case for the scientific studies on which this decision may be based , believe they are , in fact , faulty. Scientific studies , by standard and by practice , within all of the sciences , have to be repeatable , have to be based on precepts accepted and supported by published documentation and studies . Inference from those studies is extremely limited by location and by the depth and amount of data that was collected . Extrapolation beyond those data and beyond those locations is improper in scientific fields and is unscientific . I would like to address two of the three reports I cited : The spring survey of birds and the final report of the community ecological survey. First , I ' d like to address the bird report on a number of issues that were raised in that report that believe are completely unsupportable and show the lack of quality of the conclusions drawn . I will say that I would like to recognize that LeCain 's methodologies are currently acceptable and appropriate for what they were studying , it's their conclusions that I question . The bird report raised an issue about habitat fragmentation . However, unfortunately, the term habitat fragmentation is incorrectly used in this report . Habitat fragmentation addresses , very specifically, the placement of impassable barriers that isolate wildlife populations ; do not allow them to move from one place to another; do not allow them to disperse and mix with other populations to maintain genetic variability. What they were actually referring to was forest fragmentation . Forest fragmentation is a very , very different ecological phenomenon . Forest fragmentation is simply the opening of continuous canopy in a forest , creating openings , creating small clearings and large clearings . Forest fragmentation does not result in the limitations on the movement of wildlife to the extent that habitat fragmentation does . It does , as cited in reports , result Page 9 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7 , 2009 in edge affects; or eco-tone affects , of day- lightingi land osoil , drying and increase in diversity intenvironmental conditions and habitat structure,: The LeCain reports indicate ! that the ,increase in ; edge affects would result in a 'decrease in , biodiversity of birds on the site, and that is in direct contravention of virtually every , general college text book you will ever read .. Edge affect is well-known amongst ecologists to create an increase in biodiversity in an area , primarily because it creates an increase in structural diversity of habitats . At an edge , you have a meeting of two different habitats and the creation of affectively a third . You , therefore , have three different habitat structures within a space that perhaps only one type of habitat existed before , and as a result , that habitat edge supports a much greater diversity of both plants and animals than any one habitat would , normally. Some of the edge affects also cited in the LeCain report indicate that the increase in edge affect would result in a increase in brown -headed cowbird nest parasitism on wood thrushes (Some of you might be familiar with the beautiful song that you hear about , sun down most nights in the summertime) , and are certainly found in some of the Sapsucker Woods area . However, this is an inference that we find very commonly in scientific studies , and it based entirely on research conducted in the mid - west , which is the core of the brown - headed cow bird 's general range . It has nothing to do with the northeast , which is the edge of this species range . Research that I cited myself and copies of the abstract and first page of that research , I ' ll submit to the record . The research was conducted in 1995 here in New York State . It' s a very common misconception that brown - headed cow birds invade nests on edges in the northeastern portions of the range . It is not supported , however, by Hahn and Hatfield 's study that was conducted here in New York State . They, in fact , found that parasitism concentrated significantly more often on ground nesting birds and low nesting birds , of which wood thrush do not fit. Higher rates of parasitism were found in forests' interior species in central New York. Parasitism was not significantly greater on neo-tropical migrants , like wood thrush , than on resident species . Parasitism was not higher closer to edges . Thus , the creation of more edge is not going to increase nest parasitism , which is recognized , incidentally, as a potential threat to the species . They also note that edge affects will be detrimental to wood thrush and blue-wing warblers ; wood thrush for reasons just cited , and blue-wing warblers for other reasons . They are on the Autobahn watch list , published in 2007 , as being of global conservation concern . I went to the Autobahn watch list and found that they are not listed as being of global conservation concern , but are of national conservation concern . It should be noted that the Autobahn watch list , while it does monitor declines in species populations , it has no relation to state or federal listings of special concern of rare or endangered species ; it has no regulatory requirement attached to it. According to Autobahn 's own listing from 2007 , the conservation concerns for these species include wood thrush and blue-wing warblers are highest in Connecticut , New Jersey, Ohio , Kentucky and Alabama . New York State is not mentioned . The population decline cited in New York State for the blue-wing warbler, is less than 1 % since 1966 , and is largely accredited to the fact that through natural succession much of New York State has changed from being shrub growth to being mature forest in that period of time . Blue-wing warblers rely on shrub growth for breeding and tend to not breed as much in mature forests , this is a natural process . There are also some statements in the bird report indicating that the development of this sight would cut off a natural habitat corridor connecting Sapsucker Page 10 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 Woods and the ! Monkey , Run , U & A . The aerial :photo , passdd , aroundJ ' indidates the existing; corridors addressed in this note . If you ! look) at the plans that Mr. Fabbroni . was showing prior to me , clearly shows that the centralilarea of that corridor 'are going to be maintained in all of the existing and proposed tplans , those corridors are not going any where . Not to mention the fact that much of the residential area , which is very well developed and well-aged , it's a well-established area; has a lot. of mature tree growth and I ' m willing to bet that bird feeder counts in the backyards of most of those sites would support virtually or match most of the bird lists you could get out of the entire Lucente property . There's a great deal of overlap and of those residential areas can act as part of the corridor. The community's report also raises several issues , which are interesting to consider when thinking about changing this whole area to a conservation land . Of the 81 acres considered in this report , it notes that 45 . 2 acres of upland , more than half the site , was rated as to low or low to moderate ecological quality. Including most of the northern hardwood forest noted on the site , there are cover-type maps on the wall that indicate where these areas are . I encourage you to look them over following the meeting . For roughly 4 . 5 out of 15 acres, almost of third of wetland , was also rated low to low-to-moderate ecological quality . In total , more than half of the total property was rated as low to low-to- moderate quality. Exhibit signs to prior disturbance including logging , agriculture or other development of some kind . Most of the site contains , and in some areas is dominated by non - native invasive species growth . This begs the question , why is this area being considered for conservation ? Portions of the site were identified in the report as primary growth or old growth , based on aerial photographs from 1936 . Central New York has been settled primarily since the Colonial period , there's plenty of evidence of early development in this area . No check was made of Sanborn fire insurance maps for land use maps or other historic land use documents when making this statement . Aerial photographs from 1936 were the only documents checked . Well , aerial photographs from 1936 don 't tell you what was happening 100 years prior, in fact , it doesn 't tell you 30 years prior to that . In 30 years , a forest of cover can develop . Therefore , there is incomplete data set there and an improper inference of conclusion . The report also indicates that there are rare plant species on the site that are probably locally uncommon . When looking at those species and looking at range maps for those species , we find that if they are locally uncommon , it's because they are at the very , very edge of their natural range , they simply don 't occur beyond this area to the north , generally speaking . All of the species sighted are secure , statewide and globally . There is no threat to their current existence . Based on our review , we fail to see a justification or defensibility of the author's recommendations to either prohibit development in its entirety, which was their first option , or for that matter, severely restrict development on the site , which were their other two options . The proposed conservation measures we 've seen in the most recent plans prepared by Mr. Fabbroni , include providing a very generous buffer for Sapsucker Woods , clustering of development to minimize disturbance of footprint , which is current practice in conservation planning ; keeping with the scale of local development , in other words , they are not coming in and building massive mansions in a neighborhood that doesn 't support that type of development , which helps to maintain a community character in the area ; and it minimizes the impact on protective natural resources , such as wetlands . In short , the proposed measures are reasonable , defensible and appropriate for the Page 11 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7 , 2009 property , inl question , and I believe avoid orminimize adverse environmental impacts . r With that, J can either take questions or step down. : . Bernard Carr , senior environmental scientist : :Mr. Carr provided an article from Conservation Biology titled " Parasitism at the Landscape Scale : 4Cowbirds Prefer Forests" (see attachment #9) : I 've been involved in delineating wetlands for 20 years . I 've done evaluations of property for endangered and threatened species all over the New York State . I 've worked all over the Northeast . As a private citizen , I ' m a member of many conservation organizations . I ' m on the Board of the Central New York Land Trust , and I evaluate property for acquisition . I 've seen thousands of acres of land in the last 20 years , high quality wetlands and forests and areas that are very poor quality. looked at Mr. Lucente's land in 1993 and did a delineation and believe my report from 1993 is part of the record . Subsequently, in 2003 we went back and re-delineated lands of Mr. Lucente and came up with another one on additional lands from what was done in 1993 . 1 took a serious look at the letters that were written in support of the designation of Mr. Lucente 's land being an important natural area and part of Sapsucker Woods sanctuary. When I first heard about it , I was quite surprised because the sanctuary was one U & A 106 , and all of sudden now Mr. Lucente 's property was almost wholly incorporated into U & A 106 . 1 reviewed the letters and the reasoning for expansion of U & A 106 , and one of the most significant factors was the presence of endangered and threatened species , in particular bird species , and they were talking Sharpshin hawk , Cooper's hawk and Red -shouldered hawk . We never found those nesting on the property . During the LeCain study, of which you commissioned to have copies of, none of those three species were ever recorded nesting on the property or in the survey. Furthermore , in the LeCain study, they talked about the importance of the property for bird species . One of the reasons I passed out the list from the breeding bird atlas ( I wish I could just submit to the record the entire atlas) because most of the species that were seen on Mr. Lucente ' s property are common four species in New York State . If we had a unique species , like a Goss hawk , or we had something rare nesting on his property, then you would have a valid concern in terms of a unique natural area . You don 't have that , and the LeCain study doesn 't show anything of it . One of the things that was kind of interesting to me was in the summary page they stated : "We observed only small differences in diversity and abundance when comparing parcels of land . So , basically there were three properties or three sections of land the LeCain study addressed , and the entire property that was owned by Cornell University, even though the diversity and abundance is the same in all three parcels is considered low in conservation value . So , only a very small portion of the Cornell property is going to be zoned for conservation , but right here in the summary , it says it's the same . This is one of the problems I saw in the report -- every where I looked , it was raising the quality of the habitats . I can 't underestimate the amount of invasive species that are in these habitats on Mr. Lucente 's property. I think a lot of people are familiar with the invasive species task force in New York State and how we are making major efforts in eliminating invasive species . When you take garlic mustard , honeysuckle , Japanese barberry, purple loosestrife , and mulitflora rose and put those in an area , which is considered to be moderate to high conservation value , to be polite , you are overemphasizing the quality of the habitat when these are the dominant understory Page 12 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 species ; w:e are finding on Mr. Lucente's property. , I .like .to characterize this as the lake- . . ;: Wobegone effect : . "all the women are strong ; 'all : the !men idtegobddooking , and all the . 11 : children are above average . " I think my summary - of what went: on in the evaluation of this property, is this property is above averagea based on the LeCain , study and it doesn 't:,, support it .: L In October 30 , 2008 , 1 wrote a detailed letter to Mr: Fabbroni sighting my disagreement with the recommendations that .were made , and I believe they are a part of the record . One of the last thing I ' d like to mention , and probably the most significant . This is a unique , natural area . When you look at the property : the property is crossed by a major water line that the Town put in . It's 15 to 20 feet in width . Everything north of that land directly abuts the Cornell Sapsucker Woods property. That's the area that's being proposed for donation to Sapsucker Woods . So the area that's closest to the Sanctuary is being proposed for donation . In the middle of the property is a large forested wetland . Not only is the large forested wetland in the southern portion of the property being proposed for donation , but the adjacent buffer areas around that forested wetland . The quality of that wetland — it's a red maple swamp — is considered to be high by the LeCain study. I kind of disagree with that , but I think it's immaterial . A high quality red maple swamp is normally affiliated with a major water body — streams — something major. This isn 't . What does come into that red maple swamp is a ditch coming off Sapsucker Woods Road . So , currently this wetland is already receiving water from a ditch . So calling it high quality just doesn 't fit the bill . I think it's really important to go back and mention one other thing . There 's been a lot of comment about drainage . In the 20 years that I 've been an environmental professional , I 've seen a lot of changes going on with drainage studies and with stormwater basins . Twenty years ago I was working for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in Annapolis Maryland . If anybody is from that area , you may know that they had the same stormwater practices and methods that we ' re now adopting in New York State . And we've learned from them , and we 've gotten better all along . So one of the things that's occurred is that we' re seeing better standards . So I think it's unfair to use concerns over the drainage and throwing this conservation issue as the major reason , because it just doesn 't support the facts . And that's all I 'd like to say. Thank you . Tom LiVigne , Director of Real Estate for Cornell University: Mr. LiVigne spoke to the points in his letter to the board (attachment # 10) Ori Avin , Parson 's Brinkerhoff: Mr. Avin provided spoke to prepared statement called " Evaluation of the Town of Ithaca's Proposed Zoning Action of Cornell University Land — Presentation to the Town Board . " He also provided a report he authored called "Evaluation of the Town of Ithaca's Proposed zoning Action on Cornell University Land . " (See attachment # 11 a and 11 b . ) Kimberly Michaels , landscape architect . She was asked by Cornell to evaluate the property in question and provide her professional opinion (see attachment # 12) . Betty Fabbroni : I ' m not an expert at anything and wouldn 't presume to comment on what the experts have said , you have all of their information , but I have been a lowly surveyor's assistant and I ' m pretty familiar with the neighborhood that Mr. Lucente has Page 13 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7 , 2009 b.uilt ,:la dl if any of you are familiar with it , you understandiwhy all of these people want , I to live therei and: why they want it to stay the same ; because it's a good neighborhood .' ' You isee grandmothers walking kids duringi then day; you see young mothers pushing strollers ; after school and on the weekends , you ! see kids on bicycles ; you see people walking to work ; it's a good place . The Lucentes live right there . They choose to dive in that neighborhood . A lot of people build and don 't live there , they don 't build where they want to live . They build for other people . He builds good neighborhoods . The experts told you how to take care of the drainage . They've addressed these other issues , but I was at a meeting at the town where people talked about nodes and this is where they wanted to go in the future , and this what you have already and this is what need seems to be , and I think you should really consider why people want to live there , because it's good and it's what we need . I think that it's been a long process and I 've been part of it all these years . The people involved really have the vision , it has been a long-term plan and that's what the Town is trying to do , you ' re trying to plan . Not just for the people who live there , not even for the next generation , but beyond , and you have to consider, is this really the right thing you ' re doing with conservationship . That's all . Annie Jacomo : I ' m a lifelong resident of Ithaca and I know Rocco Lucente in two ways : I was a tenant in one of his very well built homes on Briarwood Drive , adjacent to what is being referred to as some of the wetlands . He is an outstanding landlord and has built a very successful company. I know several people on that street , people who have not had water problems , so I don 't want you presume that everyone in the Northeast is facing these kinds of water problems . I 've also known Mr. Lucente my whole life and it' s bothered me a lot over this whole process to watch his character being assassinated . He was born here of immigrant parents , graduated from high school and devoted his whole career to building affordable homes for people here in Ithaca , and I knew a lot of those people , and if not for what they could buy on Murial Street back in the 60's or on Salem Drive in the 70 's , they never would have achieved their dream of owning their own homes . His character and ethics are beyond reproach , and I watched him in a very professional way deal with this and I truly believe that he is making decisions that are good for the town , not just good for Rocco Lucente . He cares about this community we live in . Thank you . Donna Lucente : Just to clarify, I married into the family several years ago , I ' m not a ( inaudible) or a part of the direct bloodline of inheritance . So , I have no financial interest in any selling of the land or assets . OK? I also , to put a context on my remarks , I want to emphasize that I am not a resident of Ithaca , although I love to come here and visit . I am a lifelong resident of Onondaga County , I grew up in Syracuse . I ' m not an expert witness . Conservation ? Who can argue with wanting conservation ? To me , sustainable development requires a paradigm shift from this 1970's anti-development mentality! We have to shift to something that promotes a balance . All forms of life , not just the birds , but human life , and something that is economically healthy should also be healthy for the total environment . So , I 'm going to encourage you to stop thinking in terms of either/or . . . development versus no development . That' s an outmoded paradigm thinking . This is not the 1960 's or 70's any more folks . OK? I also want to appeal to common sense . I ' m not a developer or a conservation expert , but I have to tell you that Page 14 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7 , 2009 t as a landowner, if I had enough property and .wanted to build a house right next to .mine', and someone told me , well , you have to be careful because of all these trees , and I said , OK , well then maybe I ' m not going to build over here ; I ' m just going to buildi on, part of this extra acre , and if that wasn 't good enough for you , I would say, you know what , then make mean offer that I can 't refuse . I own this property and it is my right to do. what I want with this property that I own and paid for. 1 As long as I ' m willing to P compromise and look at the whole surrounding area , you do not have the right to tell me that I have to keep my land ( inaudible) and continue paying taxes on it to benefit this town . You can 't have your cake and eat it , too . So , I ' m here to say that some common sense has to prevail . I see this as a person on the outside looking in and saying , what is really going on here? There is obviously more than one agenda . Thank you . Gary Miller, employee of Mr. Lucente : I have no credentials , but I can say this : Rocco has employed me for 38 years out of my 47 years working since I graduated from high school , and I never got a pink slip and never missed a day of work . There are several of us here tonight . Rocco employs a lot of people , several people . We all owe him gratitude because when he hires somebody , he doesn 't plan on laying them off, he plans on keeping them . So , to me , this means a lot . He ' s a good employer and brings jobs into the community . Here we have double digit unemployment in our country today and we' re worried about things that are not as important a human element . So , he ' s provided these jobs and will continue to provide jobs . He's been very loyal to us and that is why we are all here tonight , to support him in this matter. I think, really, that what I read in the papers , and what I heard here tonight , I don 't have a specialty in any area , I ' m a carpenter, but I really have my doubts about the validity of rezoning this area from what I 've heard tonight and what I 've read in the Ithaca Journal . I 've spoken my peace . Thank you very much . Make a good decision . Stephan Wagner: Good evening . I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you tonight about the proposed local law to rezone parts of the Northeast from medium density residential to conservation zoning . If I may, I would like to offer some considerations as to why I think the proposed law is sensible and well conceived , and why I believe it deserves your approval . Land use and planning for the area under the consideration have , until now, been woefully unmindful to the natural features and functions , and as consequence , have done great damage to the natural end , one might add , to the bird environment . The [inaudible] environmental proposal threatens to do more damage , still . I once heard this assessment by local hydrologists : The ecological significance and environmental limitations of this area were not properly taken into account when this area was zoned initially and inappropriately as medium density residential , when clearly it should have been zoned conservation . The survey [inaudible] as well as two town commission studies clearly indicates that this area differs from other parts of the larger area that were previously developed , and from other parts of the town that were zoned medium density residential . Our understanding of this area has indeed greatly advanced ; new information has become available that vastly enhances our ability to plan more appropriately for this part of town . As you know, certain portions of the Northeast have been considered for conservation zoning with the 1993 comprehensive plan and the 1997 open space plan , perhaps being the two prominent examples , and Page 15 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 the land vse maps are unequivocal in this respect and include the Cornell property. A plethora of new information had emerged that justifies extending the conservation zone ., southifrom lab of ornithology sanctuary . , Given what we know now , it would be . . irresponsible , in my opinion , not to act on ,this information ; the area is very. much in need , of protection . Why rezoning ? o It so happens that it is a tool that is available to :you , the Town Board , a tool that will allow you to fulfill LeKane's recommendations and the only tool over which you have complete control . In addition to having the means to bestow some protection on this area , you currently also have the opportunity . If you let this opportunity pass , or act on it only half heartedly so as to render protection ineffective , the area would once again be at the mercy of those who have shown a deplorable lack of sensitivity with regard to appropriate land use . Some of you have stated at previous meetings that drainage was your greatest concern and that you did not want see anything happen that would make that situation worse . You are currently left with a choice , or faced with a choice between a 30 lot subdivision and the rezoning proposal . urge you to think about the impact , the underground impact of development on such a scale of a 30 lot subdivision . With its clear-cutting , impervious surfaces , retention ponds , impact on wetlands and the like , the easement that would supposedly go along with the development would do little to protect the remaining open space , because the amount of development that you would have to entertain in order obtain the easement , would compromise the open space to an untenable degree , and in many places , would reduce nature to an ornamental role at best . You have exercised due diligence for hiring consultants and engaging in extensive deliberative process . You cannot be accused of acting arbitrarily and capriciously. The proposed law sensibly and appropriately translates the newly gained information into action . Your attention has been focused on the unique location and context . No precedent would be set by acting on your consultants recommendations . This unique set of circumstances precludes applicability to the rest of the town , and generally I would think requires evaluation on a case by case basis . The following point may seem like a technicality to you , but in my estimation is it crucial to be aware of it , as not to be under a misperception . Arian talked about this already, but I would like to reiterate it because much of the recent debate has suffered from this misunderstanding . The LeKane study never used the term "conservation zoning" ; it only employs the term "prioritizing for conservation . " LeKane specifies neither the extent nor the means by which to achieve this prioritizing for conservation ; it was deliberately left up to you . When considering the LeKane study and its three options , perhaps the most crucial realization is that prioritizing for conservation does not equal conservation zoning . The three options should not be seen as blue prints for possible conservation zones . To do so , I think we would fail to realize both the spirit and the intent of LeKane's findings and recommendations . This is particularly pertinent with regard to section one , whose hydrological buffer corridor function would simply be annihilated if it was exempted from the rezoning and retain its current medium density residential status and be developed or built out , accordingly. Again , this area is in great need of environmental protection . You are the only body that can afford this area meaningful protection in the form of conservation zoning , and I urge you to realize this opportunity. Thank you . Page 16 of 65 Town Board Minutes: December 7, 2009 a : - Adam Shay of Miller Mayer LLP : The idea is to plan and then zone toi, limplement your plan , : as opposed to zoning first and then later 'doing your planning . Two (things that 4I heard tonight hold to the factd that this might go: :inpthe wrong order. The: first was the ! decision prior to the public hearing at the beginning: of the meeting on when to hold your , comprehensive planning mode . Specifically, you , put it off to find out what 'your were . ' ' going to do tonight , which implies that the decision that's made here is going to answer the question to be debated later on , specifically, that it will be a rubber stamp to match the conservation zoning that you already decide on . The second , was the question that was asked of Cornell 's expert , which was , isn 't our last comprehensive plan out of date , given current events? If you go by what's in the current comprehensive plan , which we' re about to do , doesn 't match . There's a need for the type of housing precisely that's being proposed and you ' re proposing to change that and add conservation zoning to this area . If , in fact , the existing comprehensive plan is correct and the data can be relied on , you should do zoning to match that . If you ' re in doubt about that , if you think there have been events that change that , then you need to do the comprehensive planning first and then the zoning to match . To look at the whole motion of comprehensive planning is to look at the town in general , to change the comprehensive plan as it relates to this parcel to match this zoning, strikes specifically what you ' re not suppose to do with a comprehensive plan . Finally, only to make clear something that maybe was already clear, but Larry rushed over, that in filing his protest petition , Mr. Lucente seeking to exercise his right under Town Law 265 to a three quarter vote on the issue of rezoning , he is an owner of more than 20% of the land . Thank you . Hearing no more comment , Supervisor Engman called for a 10 minute recess . After the recess , the supervisor closed the public hearing at 9 : 42 p . m . . Agenda Item No. 12 Public hearing to hear comment regarding the East Shore Drive Water Main Replacement Project Supervisor Engman opened the public hearing at 9 : 42 . Hearing no comment , the supervisor closed the public hearing at 9 : 43 . Councilman Stein moved and Councilwoman Hunter seconded to adopt the SEAR . Mr. Weber explained that the project is being undertaken to increase the capacity and the reliability of the system to meet the expectations and demands of the currently served area and also to meet the Town ' s obligations to other towns that we supply water to or whose water is passed through our system . The project has two parts : 1 ) Due to deteriorating infrastructure , the main is no longer reliable and needs to be replaced ; and 2) there's a problem fighting fires at that part of town because of insufficient water pressure . The line could be replaced with a line of the same capacity , which would solve problem number one , but does not allow for future expansion . A larger pipe will provide the volume of water needed for fire flows . Page 17 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 There was discussion ; regarding � whether increasing, the availability of water might precipitate different land use patterns . k I . The line will go in the .same footprint . The east shore area is already highly developed along the lake shore , so unless Lansing expands , it will be highly unlikely there would be any more expansion of residential in the Town of Ithaca . A 12- inch main could , however, give water to areas it wouldn 't have provided had it been a six-inch main . Mr. DePaolo asked the attorney for clarification on the intent of C4 and C5 . The issue is not whether or not a pipe is more expensive to put in , it's about what happens to land use patterns as a result of having put in a larger pipe , regardless of how much it costs . Ms . Brock agreed . There should be a brief explanatory statement ; it shouldn 't just say no . Any potential for significant adverse impact would require a positive declaration , which would require a full AEIS . The supervisor agreed that it's a legitimate question and suggested getting the answer to that before voting on it . Mr. Kantor suggested that the engineering report must describe to some degree what the capacity is now and what it would be , and that would probably answer the question . Mr. Carvill agreed to the validity of the question because underwriters and bondsmen in New York will question the environmental impact on a project of this size . Mr. Engman stated that he did not think the Town Board ought to approve something without knowing why . He suggested getting the answers and putting it on the agenda for the December 21 st study session . Councilman Stein and Councilwoman Hunter withdrew their motion to adopt the SEQR . This topic will be postponed until the meeting of December 21 , 20096 Agenda Item No. 13 Public Hearing to hear public comment regarding establishing the administration of fees and charges in the Town of Ithaca Supervisor Engman opened the public hearing at 10 : 05 p . m . Hearing no comment , the supervisor closed the public at 10 : 05 p . m . Agenda Item No. 13a Consider adoption of the following local laws . TB RESOLUTION NO , 2009-225 : Resolution Adopting " A LOCAL LAW AMENDING FEE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 100, TITLED " ADULT USES " , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF FEES BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " Page 18 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 WHEREAS , Chapter100 ; Adult Uses , in the Code of the Town, lofilWaca . soecifies fees r for the Town 's issuance of various adult entertainment licenses , , and WHEREAS , because the specified fees were adopted by local ` law; they ! can be amended only by local law unless a local law is enacted authorizing the .Town' Board to amend them by resolution , and WHEREAS , the Town Operations Committee recommends that the fees be amended by resolution , because a resolution does not require all the procedures of a local law, and the Operations Committee further recommends fees be removed from the Town Code to save the expense of updating the Town Code whenever a fee is changed , and WHEREAS , the attached proposed local law incorporates these Operations Committee recommendations , 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 December 7 , 2009 at 6 : 15 p . m . to hear all interested parties on the proposed local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING FEE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 100, TITLED " ADULT USES" , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF FEES BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " , and WHEREAS , notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal ; and WHEREAS , said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law, or any part thereof , and WHEREAS , pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617 , it has been determined by the Town Board that adoption of the proposed local law 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 AMENDING FEE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 100 , TITLED " ADULT USES" , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF FEES BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " , 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 . Page 19 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7 , 2009 MOVED : : , Co.uncilrmanl Stein , r SECONDED : ii ; i: ; . . ,Councilman Goodman n I VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary;,- aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman fLevine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye . Motion Carried = unanimous TB RESOLUTION NO , 2009-226 : Resolution Adopting " A LOCAL LAW AMENDING FEE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 125 , TITLED " BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND FIRE PREVENTION " , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF FEES BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " WHEREAS , Chapter 125 , Building Construction and Fire Prevention , in the Code of the Town of Ithaca references fees in Town Code Chapter 153 , Fees , for various activities and services regulated or performed by the Town , and for the Town 's processing of certain applications , and WHEREAS , because the referenced fees in Chapter 153 were adopted by local law , they could be amended only by local law unless a local law was enacted authorizing the Town Board to amend them by resolution , and WHEREAS , the Town Operations Committee recommended that the fees be amended by resolution , because a resolution does not require all the procedures of a local law, and the Operations Committee further recommended fees be removed from the Town Code to save the expense of updating the Town Code whenever a fee is changed , and WHEREAS , at its meeting on December 7 , 2009 , the Ithaca Town Board adopted a local law titled "A Local Law Amending Fee Provisions in Chapter 153 , Titled "Fees" , of the Town of Ithaca Code to Delete Listed Fees and Provide for the Establishment and Setting of Fees by Town Board Resolution" , that implemented the Operations Committee's recommendations , and WHEREAS , the references in Chapter 125 , Building Construction and Fire Safety, to the fees formerly listed in Chapter 153 now need to be deleted and replaced with authorizations for the Town Board to set the various fees by resolution , WHEREAS , the attached proposed local law incorporates these changes , 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 December 7 , 2009 at 6 : 15 p . m . to hear all interested parties on the proposed local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING FEE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 125 , TITLED " BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND FIRE PREVENTION " , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF FEES BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " , and Page 20 of 65 Town Board Minutes: December 7 , 2009 WHEREAS , notice of said public hearing was duly advertised, 4in the, ,lthaca1 .Journal ; , and ; , WHEREAS , said public hearing was duly held on said dateiand time at�. the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law, or any part thereof; . and , WHEREAS , pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617 , it has been determined by the Town Board that adoption of the proposed local law 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 AMENDING FEE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 125 , TITLED " BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND FIRE PREVENTION " , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF FEES BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " , 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 VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye . Motion Carried = unanimous TB RESOLUTION NO . 2009-227 : Resolution Adopting "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING FEE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 153 , TITLED " FEES" , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO DELETE LISTED FEES AND PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND SETTING OF FEES BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " WHEREAS , Chapter 153 , Fees , in the Code of the Town of Ithaca specifies fees and charges for various activities and services regulated or performed by the Town , and for the Town 's processing of certain applications , and WHEREAS , because the specified fees and charges were adopted by local law, they can be amended only by local law unless a local law is enacted authorizing the Town Board to amend them by resolution , and Page 21 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 WHEREAS; the � !Town : Operations Committee recommends , that .the' various fees and i charges ;, .-be amended , by ; resolution , because a ; : resolution. : does not require all the procedures of a local law , and the Operations Committee further recommends fees and charges be . removed ifrom the Town Code to save. ithe expense of updating the Town Code whenever a fee or charge is changed , and 0 P ' WHEREAS , the attached proposed local law incorporates these Operations Committee recommendations , 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 December 7 , 2009 at 6 : 15 p . m . to hear all interested parties on the proposed local law entitled " A LOCAL LAW AMENDING FEE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 153 , TITLED " FEES " , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO DELETE LISTED FEES AND PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND SETTING OF FEES BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " , and WHEREAS , notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal ; and WHEREAS , said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law , or any part thereof, and WHEREAS , pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617 , it has been determined by the Town Board that adoption of the proposed local law 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 AMENDING FEE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 153 , TITLED " FEES" , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO DELETE LISTED FEES AND PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND SETTING OF FEES. BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " , 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 Page 22 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7 , 2009 VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , i aye ; ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman , Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine., i ayb ; Councilwoman Hunter; .aye ; . Councilman DePaolo , aye . Motion Carried unanimous TB RESOLUTION NO . : 2009=228 : Resolution Ado'pting " A' LOCAL L' AW ,AMENDING FEE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 173 , TITLED " LIGHTING , OUTDOOR " , OF THE , i, TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF VARIANCE APPLICATION FEES BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " WHEREAS , Chapter 173 , titled "Lighting , Outdoor, " in the Code of the Town of Ithaca references a fee in Town Code Chapter 153 , Fees , for the Town 's processing of certain variance applications , and WHEREAS , because the referenced fee in Chapter 153 was adopted by local law, it could be amended only by local law unless a local law was enacted authorizing the Town Board to amend it by resolution , and WHEREAS , the Town Operations Committee recommended that fees be amended by resolution , because a resolution does not require all the procedures of a local law, and the Operations Committee further recommended fees be removed from the Town Code to save the expense of updating the Town Code whenever a fee is changed , and WHEREAS , at its meeting on December 7 , 2009 , the Ithaca Town Board adopted a local law titled "A Local Law Amending Fee Provisions in Chapter 153 , Titled " Fees" , of the Town of Ithaca Code to Delete Listed Fees and Provide for the Establishment and Setting of Fees by Town Board Resolution" , that implemented the Operations Committee's recommendations , and WHEREAS , the reference in Chapter 173 ( Lighting , Outdoor) to the fee formerly listed in Chapter 153 now needs to be deleted and replaced with an authorization for the Town Board to set fees by resolution , and WHEREAS , the attached proposed local law incorporates these changes , 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 December 7 , 2009 at 6 : 15 p . m . to hear all interested parties on the proposed local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING FEE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 173, TITLED " LIGHTING , OUTDOOR " , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF VARIANCE APPLICATION FEES BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " , and WHEREAS , notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal ; and Page 23 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 , WHEREAS ; said) public hearing was duly held , oh said date and , time at the Town Hall, of ,,. r ' . 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 WHEREASt, 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 the proposed local law 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 AMENDING FEE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 173 , TITLED " LIGHTING , OUTDOOR " , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF VARIANCE APPLICATION FEES BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " , 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 VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye . Motion Carried - unanimous TB RESOLUTION NO . 2009-229 : Resolution Adopting "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING FEE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 184, TITLED " NOISE " . OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF NOISE PERMIT APPLICATION FEES BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " WHEREAS , Chapter 184 , Noise , in the Code of the Town of Ithaca references fees in Town Code Chapter 153 , Fees , for the Town 's processing of certain applications , and WHEREAS , because the referenced fees in Chapter 153 were adopted by local law , they could be amended only by local law unless a local law was enacted authorizing the Town Board to amend them by resolution , and WHEREAS , the Town Operations Committee recommended that the fees be amended by resolution , because a resolution does not require all the procedures of a local law, and the Operations Committee further recommended fees be removed from the Town Code to save the expense of updating the Town Code whenever a fee is changed , and Page 24 of 65 Town . Board Minutes : December 7 , 2009 WHEREAS , at its meeting on December 7 , ' 2009, ! the Ithaca Town Board adopted , a J local law titled "A Local Law Amending Fee P.rovisionS in. ; Chapter. 153 , Titled "Fees", of the Town of Ithaca Code to Delete Listed Fees and Provide for the Establishment and ' Setting of , Fees by Town Board Resolution" , : that implemented the Operations Committee 's recommendations , and WHEREAS , the reference in Chapter 184 , Noise , to the fees formerly listed in Chapter 153 now needs to be deleted and replaced with an authorization for the Town Board to set the fees by resolution , and the noise permit procedure formerly in Chapter 153 needs to be added to Chapter 184 , and WHEREAS , the attached proposed local law incorporates these changes , 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 December 7 , 2009 at 6 : 15 p . m . to hear all interested parties on the proposed local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING FEE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 184, TITLED " NOISE " , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF NOISE PERMIT APPLICATION FEES BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " , and WHEREAS , notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal ; and WHEREAS , said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law, or any part thereof , and WHEREAS , pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617 , it has been determined by the Town Board that adoption of the proposed local law 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 AMENDING FEE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 184, TITLED " NOISE " , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF NOISE PERMIT APPLICATION FEES BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " , 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 . Page 25 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7 , 2009 MOB ° QED : . , ;Co,uncilman Stein SECONDED, : 1 . Councilwoman Leary P 1 1 4 d i , VOTE : . . Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye ; Councilman Stein*, aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye . Motion Carried - unanimous TB RESOLUTION NO . 2009-230 : Resolution Adopting " A LOCAL LAW AMENDING PARKING AND FEE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 200, TITLED " PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS" , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROHIBIT PARKING OUTSIDE DESIGNATED AREAS AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF FEES AND SECURITY DEPOSITS BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " WHEREAS , Chapter 200 , Parks and Recreation Areas , in the Code of the Town of Ithaca specifies fees and charges for certain activities and services for persons utilizing the Town 's parks or trails , and WHEREAS , because the specified fees and charges were adopted by local law , they can be amended only by local law unless a local law is enacted authorizing the Town Board to amend them by resolution , and WHEREAS , the Town Operations Committee recommends that the fees and charges be amended by resolution , because a resolution does not require all the procedures of a local law , and the Operations Committee further recommends fees and charges be removed from the Town Code to save the expense of updating the Town Code whenever a fee or charge is changed , and WHEREAS , the Operations Committee further recommends the addition in Chapter 200 of a prohibition against the parking of motor vehicles on grass , and WHEREAS , the attached proposed local law incorporates these Operations Committee recommendations , 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 December 7 , 2009 at 6 : 15 p . m , to hear all interested parties on the proposed local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING PARKING AND FEE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 200, TITLED " PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS" , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROHIBIT PARKING OUTSIDE DESIGNATED AREAS AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF FEES AND SECURITY DEPOSITS BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " , and WHEREAS , notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal ; and Page 26 of 65 Town Board Minutes: December 7, 2009 WHEREAS , said public hearing was - duly heldilon : .saidl,date and time at the Town Half of: the Town of Ithaca and � all parties in attendance 'were permitted an% .opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local - law , or::any part thereof, and . : WHEREAS , pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review ' Act ("SEQRA") and its implementing regulations ' . at 61i NYCRR Part 617 , it has, been determined by the Town Board that adoption of the proposed local law 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 AMENDING PARKING AND FEE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 200, TITLED " PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS " , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROHIBIT PARKING OUTSIDE DESIGNATED AREAS AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF FEES AND SECURITY DEPOSITS BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " , 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 : Councilman Leary VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye . Motion Carried - unanimous TB RESOLUTION NO . 2009=231 : Resolution Adopting " A LOCAL LAW AMENDING FEE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 205 , TITLED " PROPERTY MAINTENANCE " , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF VARIANCE APPLICATION FEES BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " WHEREAS , Chapter 205 , Property Maintenance , in the Code of the Town of Ithaca references a fee in Town Code Chapter 270 , Zoning , for the Town 's processing of certain variance applications , and WHEREAS , the referenced fee was actually listed in Town Code Chapter 153 , Fees , and Page 27 of 65 I Town Board Minutes : December 7 , 2009 WHEREAS , because the referenced fee in Chapter , 153 : was adopted : by , local law, it . " could be amended only by - . local law unless a local , law was enacted authorizing, the Town; Board to amend it by, resolution , and ' I WHEREAS , the Town Operations Committee recommended that fees be' amended by resolution , because a resolution does not require all the procedures of a local law , and the Operations Committee further recommended fees be removed from the Town Code to save the expense of updating the Town Code whenever a fee is changed , and WHEREAS , at its meeting on December 7 , 2009 , the Ithaca Town Board adopted a local law titled "A Local Law Amending Fee Provisions in Chapter 153 , Titled " Fees" , of the Town of Ithaca Code to Delete Listed Fees and Provide for the Establishment and Setting of Fees by Town Board Resolution" , that implemented the Operations Committee 's recommendations , and WHEREAS , the reference in Chapter 205 , Property Maintenance , to the fee in Chapter 270 needs to be deleted and replaced with an authorization for the Town Board to set fees by resolution , and WHEREAS , the attached proposed local law incorporates these changes , 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 December 7 , 2009 at 6 : 15 p . m . to hear all interested parties on the proposed local law entitled " A LOCAL LAW AMENDING FEE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 205 , TITLED " PROPERTY MAINTENANCE " , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF VARIANCE APPLICATION FEES BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " , and WHEREAS , notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal ; and WHEREAS , said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law, or any part thereof, and WHEREAS , pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617 , it has been determined by the Town Board that adoption of the proposed local law 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 AMENDING FEE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 205 , TITLED " PROPERTY MAINTENANCE " , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROVIDE Page 28 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7 , 2009 r . .FOR THE SETTING OF , ,;,VARIANCE APPLICATION : FEES BYi` ! OWN ' BOARD, kip RESOLUTION " , a copy of which is attached 'hereto and ' made a part'. Pof ithis1resolUtiont, 61 and itlis 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. i 1 p MOVED : Councilman Stein SECONDED : Councilman Leary VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye . Motion Carried - unanimous TB RESOLUTION NO . 2009-232 : Resolution Adopting " A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 210, TITLED "SEWER RENTS" , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF SEWER RENTS AND CHARGES BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " WHEREAS , Chapter 210 , Sewer Rents , in the Code of the Town of Ithaca specifies sewer rents and charges for the use of the Town 's sewer system , and WHEREAS , because the sewer rents and charges were adopted by local law, they can be amended only by local law unless a local law is enacted authorizing the Town Board to amend them by resolution , and WHEREAS , the Town Operations Committee recommends that the sewer rents and charges be amended by resolution , because a resolution does not require all the procedures of a local law , and the Operations Committee further recommends sewer rents and charges be removed from the Town Code to save the expense of updating the Town Code whenever a sewer rent or charge is changed , and WHEREAS , the attached proposed local law incorporates these Operations Committee recommendations , 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 December 7 , 2009 at 6 : 15 p . m . to hear all interested parties on the proposed local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 210, TITLED " SEWER RENTS" , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF SEWER RENTS AND CHARGES BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " , and WHEREAS , notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal ; and Page 29 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 WHEREAS , said ; public, ,hearing was duly: held . on said date and time at the. Town Hall of the Town of. Ithaca ,and.iAll 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 , 1 , L WHEREAS , pursuant . to: , the New York State Environmental ' Quality Review Act ("SEQRX) and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part . 617 , it has been determined by the Town Board that adoption of the proposed local law 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 AMENDING CHAPTER 210, TITLED "SEWER RENTS" , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF SEWER RENTS AND CHARGES BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " , 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 : Councilman Leary VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye . Motion Carried - unanimous TB RESOLUTION NO . 2009-233 : Resolution Adopting " A LOCAL LAW AMENDING FEE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 234, TITLED " SUBDIVISION OF LAND" , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF FEES BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " WHEREAS , Chapter 234 , Subdivision of Land , in the Code of the Town of Ithaca references fees and charges in Town Code Chapter 153 , Fees, for various activities and services regulated or performed by the .Town , and for the Town 's processing of certain applications , and WHEREAS , because the referenced fees and charges in Chapter 153 were adopted by local law, they could be amended only by local law unless a local law was enacted authorizing the Town Board to amend them by resolution , and WHEREAS , the Town Operations Committee recommended that the fees and charges be amended by resolution , because a resolution does not require all the procedures of a Page 30 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 local law, and the. i Operations, . Committee further irecommended:l .fees and, charges :be f i removed from the. Town Code to save the expense of updafiing i the :own Code whenever a fee or charge is changed , and �� : . � , .: �. WHEREAS , at its meeting on December 7 , '2009 , the Ithaca Towne Board ;adopted a local law titled "A Local Law Amending Fee Provisions in Chapter 153 , Titled "Fees" , of the Town of Ithaca Code to Delete Listed Fees and Provide for the Establishment and Setting of Fees by Town Board Resolution" , that implemented the Operations Committee's recommendations , and WHEREAS , the references in Chapter 234 , Subdivision of Land , to the fees and charges formerly listed in Chapter 153 need to be deleted (except for the Chapter 234 reference to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") fees in Chapter 153) , and the Town Board needs authorization to set the fees and charges by resolution , and WHEREAS , the attached proposed local law incorporates these changes , 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 December 7 , 2009 at 6 : 15 p . m . to hear all interested parties on the proposed local law entitled " A LOCAL LAW AMENDING FEE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 234, TITLED " SUBDIVISION OF LAND" , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF FEES BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " , and WHEREAS , notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal ; and WHEREAS , said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law, or any part thereof, and WHEREAS , pursuant to SEQRA and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617 , it has been determined by the Town Board that adoption of the proposed local law 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 AMENDING FEE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 234, TITLED "SUBDIVISION OF LAND " , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF FEES BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " , a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this resolution , and it is further Page 31 of 65 Town" Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 RESOLVE D ' IthatlthelTown Clerk is hereby authorized ari'dldirected, to. file . said ; local law I i with the Secretarytof, State as required by law: j : d h : !Y MOVED : Councilman Stein PI SECONDED : Councilman Leary VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye . Motion Carried — unanimous TB RESOLUTION NO . 2009-234 : Resolution Adopting " A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 261 , TITLED "WATER RATES " , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF WATER RATES , RENTS, CHARGES AND FEES BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " WHEREAS , Chapter 261 , Water Rates , in the Code of the Town of Ithaca specifies water rates , rents , charges and fees for the use of water through the water system owned , operated and maintained by the Town and/or the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission , and WHEREAS , because the specified rates , rents , charges and fees were adopted by local law, they can be amended only by local law unless a local law is enacted authorizing the Town Board to amend them by resolution , and WHEREAS , the Town Operations Committee recommends that the water rates , rents , charges and fees be amended by resolution , because a resolution does not require all the procedures of a local law, and the Operations Committee further recommends water rates , rents , charges and fees be removed from the Town Code to save the expense of updating the Town Code whenever they are changed , and WHEREAS , the attached proposed local law incorporates these Operations Committee recommendations , 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 December 7 , 2009 at 6 : 15 p . m . to hear all interested parties on the proposed local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 261 , TITLED "WATER RATES" , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF WATER RATES , RENTS , CHARGES AND FEES BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " , 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 Page 32 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 WHEREAS ; pursuant to the . New York State Environmental : Quality : Review Act ("SEQRA") and its: implementing regulations at 6 NYCRRiI Part ; X617 ,:. it has been determined by the Town Board that adoption of the proposed local law , 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 AMENDING CHAPTER 261 , TITLED "WATER RATES" , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF WATER RATES, RENTS, CHARGES AND FEES BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " , 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 : Councilman Leary VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye . Motion Carried — unanimous TB RESOLUTION NO . 2009-235 : Resolution Adopting " A LOCAL LAW AMENDING FEE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 270, TITLED "ZONING " , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF FEES BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " WHEREAS , Chapter 270 , Zoning , in the Code of the Town of Ithaca ( i ) specifies fees and charges for various activities and services regulated or performed by the Town , and ( ii) references fees and charges in Town Code Chapter 153 , Fees , for various activities and services regulated or performed by the Town , and for the Town 's processing of certain applications , and WHEREAS , because the fees and charges in Town Code Chapter 270 and Chapter 153 were adopted by local law , they can be amended only by local law unless a local law is enacted authorizing the Town Board to amend them by resolution , and WHEREAS , the Town Operations Committee recommended that the fees and charges be amended by resolution , because a resolution does not require all the procedures of a local law , and the Operations Committee further recommended fees and charges be Page 33 of 65 u Town Board Minutes : December 7 , 2009 i rem'oved: 1 Jrom the d Town ' Code to save the expense of updating the : Town Code i whenever ,a fee or charge is changed, and : '. i . ri nr 11 P WHEREAS , at its meeting on December 7 , 2009 , 'i1he Ithaca Town Board adopted a local law titled . "A Local Law Amending Fee Provisionsiin Chapter 153, Titled " Fees" , of the Town of Ithaca Code to Delete Listed Fees and- Provide for ' the Establishment and Setting of Fees by Town Board Resolution" , that implemented the Operations Committee's recommendations , and WHEREAS , the fees and charges in Chapter 270 , Zoning , need to be deleted , the references in Chapter 270 to the fees formerly listed in Chapter 153 need to be deleted (except for the Chapter 270 reference to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") fees in Chapter 153) , and the Town Board needs authorization to set the fees and charges by resolution , WHEREAS , the attached proposed local law incorporates these changes , 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 December 7 , 2009 at 6 : 15 p . m . to hear all interested parties on the proposed local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING FEE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 270, TITLED "ZONING " , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF FEES BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " , and WHEREAS , notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal ; and WHEREAS , said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law , or any part thereof , and WHEREAS , pursuant to SEQRA and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 6175 it has been determined by the Town Board that adoption of the proposed local law 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 AMENDING FEE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 270, TITLED "ZONING " , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTING OF FEES BY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION " , 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 . Page 34 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 I MOVED : r. ! 1 ! Councilman Stein : I : 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 Carried — unanimous Agenda Item No. 13b : Consider a resolution to adopt the fee schedule TB RESOLUTION NO. 2009-236 : Resolution Establishing , Setting and/or Revising Town Clerk, Building , Zoning , Planning , Public Works , Permits, and Other Fees and Charges WHEREAS , the following chapters in the Code of the Town of Ithaca specify or reference fees and charges for various activities and services regulated or performed by the Town , and for the processing of certain applications : Chapter 153 ( Fees) , Chapter 100 (Adult Uses) , Chapter 125 ( Building Construction and Fire Prevention ) , Chapter 173 (Lighting , Outdoor) , Chapter 184 ( Noise) , Chapter 200 ( Parks and Recreation Areas) , Chapter 205 ( Property Maintenance) , Chapter 234 (Subdivision of Land) , Chapter 261 (Water Rates) , and Chapter 270 (Zoning) , and WHEREAS , because the specified fees and charges were adopted by local laws , they can be amended only by local laws unless local laws authorize the Town Board to amend them by resolution , and WHEREAS , the Town Operations Committee recommends that the various fees and charges be amended by resolution , because a resolution does not require all the procedures of a local law , and the Operations Committee further recommends fees and charges be removed from the Town Code to save the expense of updating the Town Code whenever a fee or charge is changed , and WHEREAS , the Operations Committee , upon receiving recommendations from Town department heads and after completing a review of Town fees and charges , recommends increasing certain fees and charges for permits , licenses, services , applications and other matters , and WHEREAS , at its meeting on December 7 , 2009 , the Ithaca Town Board adopted local laws , effective January 1 , 2010 , amending the Town Code chapters listed above by ( 1 ) giving the Town Board the authority to establish , set and revise fees and charges from time to time by resolution , and (2) deleting the listed fees and charges and their methods of computation from the above Code chapters , and Page 35 of 65 f r : Town Board Minutes : December 7 , 2009 WHEREAS , the Town Board wishes to exercise � its' 'authority -, under the Town Code , i richapters ; aisted above to establish , set andblreAse: fees ' 'and . ,charges by resolution, ii ! I 1 ; ieffective January! 1 ; 2010 , and !: d I , P . 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 proposed resolution 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 establishes , sets and/or revises the following fees and charges , effective January 1 , 2010 : 1 . Town Clerk: Licenses and Searches The following fees are established in the Town of Ithaca for licenses and searches : A . Fee for marriage license together with certificate of marriage issued in conjunction with marriage license pursuant to §§ 15 and 14-a of the Domestic Relations Law : $40 . B . Certificate of marriage pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 14-a (2) and amended certificate pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 14-a (5) : $ 10 . C . Marriage transcript (duplicate certificate of marriage) : $ 101 D . Tax searches : $ 10 for one-year search . 2 . Town Clerk: Freedom of Information Law Except when a different fee is otherwise prescribed by statute or by this or another resolution , local law , or ordinance adopted pursuant to statutory authority, the following fees shall be charged by the Town Clerk for the provision of copies or other items ( i ) pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law, or ( ii) pursuant to any other law, rule , regulation or resolution where no other fee or charge is specifically provided : A . Copies and record reproduction generally. ( 1 ) The Clerk shall upon request make a copy or copies of any record that is made available and which can be copied on the Town of Ithaca copying equipment upon the payment of $ . 20 per page after the first five pages (first five pages free) of a letter- or legal -size document . All copies of pages larger than 8 1 /2 inches by 14 inches up to 11 inches by 17 inches shall be at $ . 25 per page . Page 36 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7 , 2009 (2) -The charges for : any .other record shalli be the : actual cost, of reproducing such , , .il record as described herein . In determining the . actual : cost of reproducing , a record , the Town may include only: 1 . . (a) an amount equal to the hourly salary attributed to the lowest paid Town of i Ithaca employee who has the necessary skill required: to prepare a copy of ; the requested record ; (b) the actual cost of the storage devices or media provided to the person making the request in complying with such request ; (c) the actual cost to the Town of engaging an outside professional service to prepare a copy of a record , but only when the Town 's information technology equipment is inadequate to prepare a copy, if such service is used to prepare the copy; and (d) preparing a copy shall not include search time or administrative costs , and no fee shall be charged unless at least two hours of Town employee time is needed to prepare a copy of the record requested . A person requesting a record shall be informed of the estimated cost of preparing a copy of the record if more than two hours of a Town employee' s time is needed , or if an outside professional service would be retained to prepare a copy of the record . B . Postage . If the requestor requests that copies of documents be mailed to the requestor there shall be added to the costs of copying the actual postage costs for documents heavier than one ounce ( up to one ounce free) . This provision for reimbursement of postage costs shall in no way obligate the Town to mail any documents . Such mailing shall be in the sole discretion of the Clerk . C . Certification . The Town Clerk shall , upon request , certify that a copy of a document or record prepared pursuant to the provisions of the preceding subsections is a true copy. D . Receipts . The Clerk or any other person at the Town receiving funds pursuant to any of the foregoing subsections shall give to the payor a receipt for the amount paid and maintain duplicate copies of such receipts for the Town records. 3 . Town Clerk: Miscellaneous Fees The following additional fee is established in the Town of Ithaca : A . Checks returned : $ 15 per check. 4. Building and Foundation Permit Fees Page 37 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 A . Building permit fees shall be computed on the basis of .the value of the improvement : ! P 11 to be :constructed as follows : Value of Improvement ! Fee $ 1 to $2, 500 . 99 $50 $2 , 501 to $5 , 000 . 99 $55 $5 , 001 to $ 10 , 000 . 99 $60 $ 10 , 001 to $20 , 000 . 99 $75 $20 , 001 to $30 , 000 . 99 $ 100 $30 , 001 to $50 , 000 . 99 $ 150 $50 , 001 to $ 100 , 000 . 99 $250 $ 100 , 001 to $ 150 , 000 . 99 $425 Value of Improvement Fee $ 150 , 001 to $250 , 000 . 99 $650 $250 , 001 to $350 , 000 . 99 $800 $350 , 001 to $500 , 000 . 99 $ 1 , 000 $500 , 001 to $750 , 000 . 99 $ 1 , 500 $750 , 001 to $ 1 , 000 , 000 . 99 $2 , 000 $ 1 , 000 , 001 to $2 , 500 , 000 . 99 $42000 $2 , 500 , 001 to $5 , 000 , 000 . 99 $62000 $5 , 000 , 001 to $ 101000 , 000 . 99 $8 , 000 $ 10 , 000 , 001 to $20 , 000 , 000 . 99 $ 10 , 000 Over $20 , 000 , 000 . 99 $ . 55 for each $ 1 , 000 of improvement value ; minimum fee $ 12 , 000 B . The fees set forth above , as applicable , shall be doubled if work is commenced before the necessary permit ( building or foundation ) is approved , or if work exceeds that permitted under an approved foundation permit . C . The renewal fee for the first renewal of a building permit shall be the greater of $50 or 50% of the original building permit fee . The renewal fee for each subsequent renewal shall be equal to the original building permit fee . D . The fee for the issuance of a foundation permit shall be the greater of $ 100 or 50% of the building permit fee , calculated on the estimated full value of the entire building . The fee is not refundable and is not credited against the fee for the building permit for the entire building . 5 . Certificates of Occupancy Page 38 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 A .: Jhe .fee for the issuance. of a temporary certificate :. of occupancy related to -a building permit shalh be the greater of $ 100 or 5.0% of the ibuilding i permit fee , unless reduced or ! . waived pursuant to § 125-7 . B (9) of the Code ofithe Town 1of Ithaca , B . The fee for the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for an existing building shall. be . : . $ 100 . f C . There shall be no additional fee for the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy related to a building permit . 6 . Operating Permits and Certain Inspections A . The fees for the issuance of an operating permit required pursuant to Town Code Chapter 125 , Building Construction and Fire Prevention , shall be as follows : ( 1 ) Fees for uses other than multiple residences : $ 100 per building . (2) Fees for multiple residences shall be as follows : (a) Three to five dwelling units in each building : $ 100 per building . ( b) Six to 10 dwelling units per building : $ 150 per building . (c) Eleven dwelling units or more per building : $200 per building . B . The fees for other inspections by a Code Enforcement Officer required by state law or other regulation , such as required annual inspections of areas of public assembly (fire safety) , shall be $50 , plus $30 per hour after the first hour for the time the Code Enforcement Officer spent traveling to make the inspection , making the inspection , and preparing any related documentation and certifications relating to such inspection . The fee for a reinspection shall be $50 , plus $30 per hour after the first hour. C . The fees for the issuance of an operating permit required pursuant to Town Code Chapter 270 , Zoning , § 270-97 . K for a mobile home park shall be as follows based on the number of mobile homes then located in the mobile home park: Number of Units Operating Permit Fee 1 to 4 $25 5 to 9 $50 10 to 24 $ 100 25 to 49 $200 50 to 100 $400 Ifi Over 100 ( No . of Units) times ($4) Page 39 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 : ! D .: If an inspection is beingd .conducted by a Code Enforcement Officer: ,forJhe issuance ! � i of , an operating. permit at ; the same time as. ; an i inspection is being conducted : tforrfire safety purposes by the same Code Enforcement, Officer to meet the requirements ! for inspections of areas of public assembly , the cost of the operating permit shall be added to any fees that may be payable for such other inspection . 7. Sign Permits The application fee for a sign permit shall be $50 , and in addition thereto the sum of $2 for each square foot of area of such sign . 8. Signs Posting Public Notices on Applicant's Property Fees for signs containing public notices an applicant is required to post on property that is the subject of certain actions , as specified in Town Code Chapter 270 , Zoning , § 270- 237 , shall be as follows . There shall be no fee for the first sign . If additional signs are required , the applicant shall pay a nonrefundable fee for each subsequent sign or replacements thereof of $3 per sign . 9. Fee Schedule for Zoning , Subdivision , Zoning Board of Appeals, and Development Application Fees The Fee Schedule for zoning , subdivision , Zoning Board of Appeals , and development application fees is as follows : Application Type Fee Initial application (sketch) : 1 to 10 new lots * $ 100 (without new roads or public utilities) All others $ 100 , plus $2 / lot Preliminary plat : 1 to 10 new lots * $ 100 , plus $20 / lot (without new roads or public utilities) All others $ 100 , plus $40 / lot Final plat : 50% of preliminary plat fee Plats / Replats whose sole purpose is to No charge dedicate land for public use Page 40 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 it Plat reaffirmations . ; , ; ; $ 100 , plus , $5 Mot,I Site Plan Review : Initial application (sketch) $ 100 + : ' k Preliminary site plan : Estimated Project Cost $ 1 to $ 10 , 000099 $200 $ 10 , 001 to $25 , 000 . 99 $250 $25 , 001 to $50 , 000 . 99 $300 $50 , 001 to $ 100 , 000 . 99 $350 $ 100 , 001 to $250 , 000 . 99 $400 $250 , 001 to $500 , 000 . 99 $500 $500 , 001 to $ 1 , 000 , 000 . 99 $750 $ 1 , 000 , 001 to $2 , 500 , 000 . 99 $ 1 , 000 $2 , 500 , 001 to $5 , 000 , 000 . 99 $ 19500 $5 , 000 , 001 to $ 1090009000899 $29000 $ 10 , 000 , 001 to $20 , 000 , 000 . 99 $29500 Over $20 , 000 , 000 . 99 $32000 Application Type Fee Projects with interior work only $250 Final site plan 50% of preliminary site plan fee Rezoning/Zoning amendment $ 175 , plus pertinent site plan fees Special approval/special permit $ 100 Area and use variances $ 100 Interpretations (Zoning Board of Appeals) $ 100 Sign review ( Planning Board) $ 100 Sign appeal (Zoning Board of Appeals) $ 100 Additional meeting fees and fees for board actions not listed above : Agenda processing $30 Public hearing processing $50 Page 41 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7 , 2009 Note : * Numbenotiots is the number .that would exist afterisubdivi'sion .? 10: Fill Permits Fill permits shall be issued only upon the payment by the applicant : for. same of the following fee : A . There shall be a fee of $ 100 for a fill permit issued by the Town Highway Superintendent/Director of Public Works or his/her designee pursuant to Town Code Chapter 270 , Zoning , § 270-217 . Additional fees , as specified in Town Code Chapter 153 , Fees , § 153-2 and/or in the Fee Schedule set forth in Section 9 of this resolution , may apply if Zoning Board of Appeals and/or Planning Board approval is necessary. 11 . Noise Permits A . The application fee for a noise permit shall be $50 . B . The application fee for more than one but no more than six noise permit applications submitted simultaneously by a single entity , representative or agent thereof , for events occurring at a single address within a consecutive six-month period , shall be $ 100 . No two six-month periods shall overlap . 12. Adult Entertainment Licenses A . Every application for a new adult entertainment business license shall be accompanied by a $300 nonrefundable application and investigation fee . B . Every application for a renewal of an adult entertainment business license shall be accompanied by a $200 nonrefundable application and investigation fee . C . Every application for an adult entertainment business employee license (whether for a new license or for renewal of an existing license) shall be accompanied by an annual $ 100 nonrefundable application , investigation , and license fee . 13 . Parks and Recreation Fees The following fees and deposits are established for the purposes of utilizing the parks or trails of the Town of Ithaca : A . Fees . Activities reasonably expected to directly or indirectly involve the following number of persons and requiring a permit shall have the following fees : ( 1 ) Five to 49 persons : $25 . (2) 50 to 99 persons : $50 . Page 42 of 65 Town Board Minutes: December 7, 2009 (3) 100 or more : $1100 .: B . . Security deposits .1i , A1 .11 deposit of $ 100 is required far, groups of 25 : or, ,more.-I , persons . 11 P C . Key deposits . A key deposit of $ 100 is required for use of thelTutelo Parkl Comfort Station , regardless of the size of the group . 14. Water Rates and Charges A . The following water rate schedule and charges shall apply for the use of water and for the purposes set forth in Town Code Chapter 261 , Water Rates : WATER RATE SCHEDULE Effective January 1 , 2010 The rate charged for water consumption shall be $4 . 32 per 1 , 000 gallons . This rate is equal to $3 . 23 per 100 cubic feet . The foregoing rate will be the rate charged for all regular quarterly bills sent on or after January 1 , 2010 . Actual or base consumption may occur prior to January 1 , 20100 Notwithstanding the foregoing rates , the following minimum base charges shall be applicable to the meter size indicated below for regular quarterly bills issued on or after January 1 , 2010 . The table below also shows the amount of water consumption that is permitted before the minimum base charge would be exceeded : METER SIZE BASE MINIMUM ( INCHES) CONSUMPTION CHARGE ( in Gallons) 3/4 10 , 000 $ 43 . 20 1 309000 $ 129 . 60 1 - 1 /2 45 , 000 $ 194 . 40 2 90 , 000 $ 388 . 80 3 140 , 000 $ 604 . 80 4 200 , 000 $ 864 . 00 6 3509000 $ 1 , 512 . 0 Page 43 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 Multiple ;Housing and mobile home parks of over i2 : dwealting units', 1 using a master : . meter, will be computed as follows : The quarterly master meter reading will be divided by the number of dwelling units and the water charge will ' be figured on this number as if the unit was individually metered .. The water charge will then be multiplied lby the number of units on the master meter ; and this will :be the. billing rendered . If the calculation of the water consumed per ' tlwelling f unit is less than the allowable consumption for a three-quarter inch meter, then the billing will be calculated by multiplying the number of units on the master meter times the minimum charge for a three-quarter inch meter (e . g . , if there were 20 dwelling units on the master meter, and total water consumption shown by the master meter was 100 , 000 gallons , the billing would be $864 . 00 (20 units times $43 . 20) rather than $432 . 00 ( 100 , 000 gallons times $4 . 32/1 , 000 gallons) ) . The water application fee for each new application for water service shall be the charges for new water connections charged by the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission including application fees , meter charges , service tap fees , inspection fees , accessory materials , installation costs , and any other fee or cost charged by the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission for connecting new water services . An annual charge for each fire protection main serving a fire suppression system will be billed along with the first quarterly water bill of the calendar year. The annual charge for this service shall be $20 . 00 per diameter inch of the pipe supplying the fire suppression system or such other amount as is charged by the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission for such systems . The pipe supplying the fire suppression system is the pipe needed to supply the fire suppression system , installed downstream of the system control valve . B . In addition to any other charges due to the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission or the Town , there shall also be due to the Town a charge of $25 for disconnecting and a charge of $25 for reconnecting water service where water service has been disconnected pursuant to Town Code § 261 -4 for failure to pay water rates or other charges . Be it further RESOLVED , that this resolution shall take effect on January 1 , 20100 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 Carried - unanimous Page 44 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7 , 2009 Agenda Item;, N'o1 , 13c: .j Consider, a resolution to establish SeWer� rents �6, they Town i of Ithaca Sewer, ImprowementiArea 1 11 11 ; I � f i ' L TB RESOLUTION NO. 2009-237 : Resolution Establishing Sewer , Rents in ! the Town of Ithaca Sewer Improvement Area ' , ; 1 1 ' ' WHEREAS , Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 210 (Sewer Rents) , Section 210-4 , titled "Sewer rents , " lists sewer rents and their methods of computation for all users connected to the Town -wide sewer system , and WHEREAS , because the sewer rents in Chapter 210 were adopted by local law, they can be amended only by local law unless a local law authorizes the Town Board to amend them by resolution , and WHEREAS , the Town Board prefers to amend sewer rents by resolution , because a resolution does not require all the procedures of a local law , and the public is still assured of an opportunity to comment through public hearings on proposed sewer rent amendment resolutions as required by New York General Municipal Law Section 452 , and WHEREAS , at its meeting on December 7 , 2009 , the Ithaca Town Board adopted a local law, effective January 1 , 2010 , that amends Section 210-4 by ( 1 ) giving the Town Board the authority to set sewer rents and charges from time to time by resolution , and (2) deleting from Chapter 210 the listed sewer rents and their methods of computation (because sewer rents will be changed by resolution and will no longer appear in the Town Code) , and WHEREAS , the Town Board wishes to exercise its authority under the Town of Ithaca Code and New York General Municipal Law Article 14- F to establish and impose sewer rents and charges by resolution , effective January 1 , 2010 , and WHEREAS , the sewer rents and charges to be imposed by this resolution remain unchanged from those currently listed in Town Code Section 210-4 , 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 December 7 , 2009 at 6 : 15 p . m . to hear all interested parties on a proposed Resolution Establishing Sewer Rents in the Town of Ithaca Sewer Improvement Area , 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 resolution , or any part thereof ; and Page 45 of 65 ( Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 i WHEREAS , pursuant to the New York StatbI : ,Environmental - , Quality Review Act ("SEQRA".) , and its implementing regulations at . i6 . ' NYCRR : Part 617 , iti has been determinedi by the, Town . , Board that adoption of lthe:: proposed resolution is a Type II action because it constitutes " routine or continuing agency administration and management , not including new programs or major ireordering of priorities that may affect the fenvironment ;" 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 establishes and imposes the following sewer rents and charges for use of the Town of Ithaca sewer system , effective January 1 , 2010 : ( 1 ) Effective January 1 , 2010 , there is hereby imposed a sewer rent payable by all users connected to the Town -wide sewer system at a rate of $2 . 20 per 1 , 000 gallons of water consumed . (2) In addition , and notwithstanding the foregoing rate structure , there shall be a minimum base charge for regular quarterly bills sent on or after January 1 , 2010 , in the amount of $ 17 . 60 . (3) Multiple housing and mobile home parks of over two dwelling units , using a master water meter, will be computed as follows : The quarterly master water meter reading will be divided by the number of dwelling units and the sewer rent charge will be figured on this number as if the unit was individually metered . The sewer rent will then be multiplied by the number of units on the master water meter and this will be the billing rendered and the amount payable . If the calculation of the water consumed per dwelling unit is less than the amount that would be permitted before exceeding the minimum sewer rent set forth above , then the billing will be calculating by multiplying the number of units served by the master water meter times the minimum sewer rent set forth above [e . g . , if there were 20 dwelling units on the master meter, and the total water consumption shown by the master meter was 100 , 000 gallons , the sewer rent payable would be $352 . 00 (20 units times $ 17 . 60) rather than $220 . 00 ( 100 , 000 gallons at $2 . 20 per 1 , 000 gallons) ] . (4) The charges set forth above shall be effective with respect to bills rendered on or after the effective dates set forth above , even if the measurement is for consumption prior to the above effective dates ( i . e . , any bill rendered on or after January 1 , 2010 , shall be calculated at the rate of $2 . 20 per 1 , 000 gallons even if the sewer use occurred prior to January 1 , 2010) . (5) In the event a property is connected to public sewer, but is not connected to a water meter, and is a not a one- or two-family dwelling , the quarterly sewer rent shall be based upon estimated water consumption as reasonably determined by the Town Engineer based upon recognized methods of estimating typical Page 46 of 65 Towni Board r Minutes : , December 7, 2009 consumption for the type of facility involved (e : g : , gallorns per day per bedroom) . ; ,: , ; If such property, is a one- or two-family dwelling ; .the sewer 'rent shall be $37160 . Be it 'further RESOLVED , that this resolution shall takeieffect on ,January 1 , 2010 . ilk 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 Carried - unanimous Agenda Item No. 8 : Set Public Hearing to hear public comment on proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan regarding conservation zones TB RESOLUTION NO . 2009-238 : Consider Setting a Public Hearing Regarding Proposed Amendments to the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Relating to Certain Environmental Studies of the Northeast Ithaca Area Conducted by the Town Board and Conservation/Open Space Recommendations for Lands in the Northeast Study Area 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 31st day of December, 2009 at 10 : 20 a. m . for the purpose of providing full opportunity for citizen participation and input in the preparation of proposed amendments to the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan relating to certain environmental studies of the Northeast Ithaca area conducted by the Town Board and the conservation/open space recommendations for certain lands in the Northeast study area , pursuant to Section 272-a of New York State Town Law ; and it is further RESOLVED , that at such time and place all persons interested in the proposed amendments to the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan 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 DePaolo Page 47 of 65 f I i Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 i�i lJ a I � I (ill . l` I if ! — J 1 111 , I i i .I 4p VOTE: i : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary aye ; Councilman Stein , ' . i aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman, t ! Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo ,t aye . Motion Carried Unanimous Agenda Item No. 9 : Set public hearing to hear comment regarding a Local Law Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code to Add Preservation of Certain Drainage and Stormwater Retention Features to Conservation Zone Purposes TB RESOLUTION NO. 2009-239 : Consider Setting Public Hearing Regarding Proposed Local Law Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code to Add Preservation of Certain Drainage and Stormwater Retention Features to Conservation Zone Purposes 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 11th day of January, at 6 : 10 p. m . for the purpose of considering a proposed local law amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code to add preservation of certain drainage and stormwater retention features to Conservation Zone purposes ; 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 : 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 Carried Unanimous Agenda Item No. 15 : Consider request from the City of Ithaca to waive the site plan application and building permit fees for the Cayuga Waterfront Trail RESOLUTION NO . 2009-240 : REGARDING A REQUEST BY THE CITY OF ITHACA FOR WAIVERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD APPLICATION FEE FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND BUILDING PERMIT FEE FOR THE PLANNED SPUR OF THE Page 48 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7; 2009 i, . �CAY,UGA , WATERFRONT TRAIL LOCATED i WITHIN JHIE ` TOWN OF ITHACA . THE , CHAMBERIOF: COMMERCE SITE. 904 ' E"ASTt SHORE ( D��RIVE � ' ! ! !' � � � ' ' !� + ����'lIk I I I IJ � �`�� WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Town Board has receive' 6a request, from Mayor Carolyn i ' c Peterson ; Mayor of the City of Ithaca , in a letter dated; November 13 ,' 2009 , to waive the application fee for site plan review and the building permit fee for the planned Cayuga Waterfront Trail spur located within the Town of Ithaca at the Chamber of Commerce site at 904 East Shore Drive ; and WHEREAS , the City of Ithaca is proposing the approximately 50 foot long trail spur through the Chamber of Commerce property within the Town of Ithaca to connect with the main Cayuga Waterfront Trail ; and WHEREAS , the Cayuga Waterfront Trail , including the spur at the Chamber of Commerce site will be a public works project to be owned and maintained by the City of Ithaca and open to the general public for use and enjoyment of the Cayuga Lake waterfront area ; and WHEREAS , Section 153- 10 . 6 . 14 of the Town of Ithaca Code indicates that zoning , subdivision , SEQRA , ZBA , and development application fees . . . " may be waived in whole or in part , or may be modified , by the Town Board for good cause shown . Such cause may include , but is not limited to , an extreme hardship to the applicant in paying for all or a portion of the review fees , the benefit to the general community that would be provided by the proposed project , or other unique or special circumstances which would warrant , in the judgment of the Town Board , such a waiver" ; and WHEREAS , the fee for site plan approval for the proposed trail spur would be $200 , and the building permit fee for the trail spur would be $35 ( based on the estimated project cost of approximately $3 , 000) ; and WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Town Board has reviewed and discussed the request for a waiver of the site plan application fee and building permit fee at its regular meeting on December 7 , 2009 ; now therefore , be it RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby finds that in this case , the Cayuga Waterfront Trail and trail spur located within the Town of Ithaca would provide a benefit to the general community; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes a waiver of the $200 fee for the City of Ithaca's application to the Planning Board for site plan approval , pursuant to Section 153- 10 . 13 . 14 of the Town of Ithaca Code ; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca [waives] [does not waive] the $35 building permit fee . Page 49 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 ! 1 ' wMOVED : ;' Councilwoman Hunter! i i : : lI� � � ' :' , SECONDED : Councilman Goodman i I ' „ ' VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, nay; Councilman Stein,. aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye . Motion Carried Agenda Item No. 16 : Consider approval of a Request to Governor David A. Paterson to Withdraw the draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement Related to Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop Marcellus Shale and Other Low=Permeability Gas Reservoirs TB RESOLUTION NO . 2009-241 : REQUEST TO GOVERNOR DAVID A. PATERSON to Withdraw the draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement Related to Horizontal Drilling and High=Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop Marcellus Shale and Other Low=Permeability Gas Reservoirs WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca , a community in Tompkins County with a population exceeding 19 , 000 , is wholly located above a portion of the Marcellus Shale formation , a low-permeability rock formation estimated to contain reserves of natural gas; and WHEREAS , recent technological developments including horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing have enabled energy exploration companies to potentially exploit this resource in New York State , including the Town of Ithaca ; and WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca recognizes the need for interim energy sources as our state and country transition to widespread economical renewable energy use ; and WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca recognizes that , if properly regulated , the development of natural gas resources in New York State could present some communities and residents with financial benefit ; and WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca also realizes that the aforementioned potential financial benefits could easily be offset by unforeseen and preventable damage to the Upstate economy, including the tourism , wine , agriculture and education industries, should development of natural gas resources be allowed to continue in a largely unregulated manner; and WHEREAS , land- use planning in the Town of Ithaca is guided by a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance ; and WHEREAS , in addition to residential , commercial and industrial zones , the Town of Ithaca is also comprised of sizable areas either prioritized for conservation or unsuitable for surface disturbance , including 3 , 161 acres of Conservation Zone , 4 ,295 acres of Unique Natural Areas , 502 acres of NW I or NYSDEC wetlands , 1 , 072 acres of State and Town parklands , 2 , 128 acres of hydric soils , 4 , 642 acres of Agricultural Districts , 9 , 557 acres of undeveloped forest, brush and meadow, and contains lands in excess of 15% slope totaling 18% of its total land mass ; and Page 50 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 r ' WHEREAS , , ! through the Comprehensive Plan , Iprodess ; Town of iIthaca residents ' have overwhelmingly identified environmental protectionfas atop priority for consideration in land=•used and growth management policies ; and i I WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca has historically taken an a'dtive : role in the citing and permitting of development within its borders , including the proliferation of industry; and WHEREAS , it is generally recognized that NYSDEC has assumed de facto citing and permitting authority related to the exploration and extraction of natural gas; and WHEREAS , Town of Ithaca taxpayers have expended millions of dollars developing , maintaining and protecting clean drinking water sources , and water resources from Six Mile Creek, Fall Creek and Cayuga Lake within the Town of Ithaca supply water to an estimated 50 , 000 people ; and WHEREAS , Town of Ithaca taxpayers have expended millions of dollars developing , maintaining and upgrading advanced wastewater processing facilities including biological processes that are not designed to treat fracturing fluid and wastewater from natural gas operations ; and WHEREAS , the process of hydraulic fracturing involves the use , retention and disposal of millions of gallons of fracturing fluid and wastewater that is high in dissolved solids and contains toxic and radioactive materials , some of which are not subject to public disclosure requirements; and WHEREAS , there are no requirements for closed , above-ground storage facilities , nor pre- treatment requirements , for the fracturing fluid and wastewater generated during the fracturing process ; and WHEREAS , the United States Environmental Protection Agency may be preparing to undertake an investigation of the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on the environment; and WHEREAS , there have been hundreds of reported spills , fires and contaminated water supplies related to conventional vertical well drilling in New York State , and surface contamination related to the retention and disposal of fracturing fluid and wastewater from natural gas operations ; and WHEREAS , staff resources of the NYSDEC Division of Mineral Resources , Bureau of Oil and Gas Regulation are dangerously inadequate to manage current drilling activities in New York State and , so , are not sufficient to handle the widespread proliferation of deep well horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing ; and WHEREAS , the proposed fee structure related to permitting new wells would not provide finances adequate to staff NYSDEC to the degree necessary to process and manage an onslaught of new and more complicated drilling operations, thereby potentially creating a taxpayer subsidy for the oil and gas industry; and WHEREAS , there is no strict liability requirement for natural gas drilling waste releases by energy companies , potentially shifting the financial burden of remediating contamination related to drilling and extraction to taxpayers ; and Page 51 of 65 1 Town Board Minutes : December 7 , 2009 i , WHEREAS , New York State's! Spill ' Remediation', Fund trnay only be available rforr 'emergency,I ' responsre relatedrto oil spills , excluding 'emergencies, related to natural gas ; and : f l ! i rr. � ,WHEREAS , reporting requirements for uncontrolled ' oil and gas releases : are: currently in, sufficient and could be made similar to those for leaking underground storage tanks ; and WHEREAS , according to NYSDOT , New York State and Tompkins County reportedly contain the same alarmingly high percentage (37%) of structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges; and WHEREAS , the widespread development of natural gas resources in New York State would involve the regular transport of heavy equipment and routine hauling of large volumes of hydraulic fluid and hydraulic fracturing wastewater over state , county and municipal roads and bridges, creating potentially dangerous conditions and a financial burden for taxpayers ; and WHEREAS , foreknowledge of the citing of industrial facilities related to natural gas development is critical to acquiring an understanding of future road usage for bonding and planning purposes, and no such advance notification requirement exists ; and WHEREAS , a comprehensive analysis of the statewide impacts of natural gas development utilizing a "full build-out" scenario has not been done ; and WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca has a responsibility to preserve and protect its natural resources, water resources , infrastructure , and residents' quality of life . NOW , THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Board hereby requests that the Honorable David A. Paterson , Governor, withdraw from SEQRA review the Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement On The Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program- Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling And High- Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs, as the aggregate protection provided therein is inadequate to safeguard the public health , environment and economy of New York State . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca requests that no new permits be issued for horizontal drilling and deep well hydraulic fracturing until the aforementioned and following regulatory issues are addressed : 1 . Allow municipal control over permitting , citing and certain construction and operational parameters in accordance with a municipality's land- use regulations and local laws . 2 . Require closed storage and pre-treatment of fracturing fluid and wastewater from natural gas operations . Prohibit surface storage and surface disposal of fracturing fluid and wastewater from natural gas operations . 3 . Require complete public disclosure of fracturing fluid and drilling wastewater constituents . 4 . Require independent baseline water quality testing of potentially impacted public and private drinking water sources , financed by energy companies . Page 52 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 rill i , � ,l ' Z .; M from private ,andate setbacks fr p e and, public : water, sources that are adequae' Ito protect • them from uncontrolled releases of as and hydraulic fluid , which , I 9 Y according to , NYSDEC historical spills data, can migrate thousands of feet in minutes! +. 6 . Impose strict reporting requirements for uncontrolled oil and gas releases consistent with New York State Navigation Law, 7 . Impose strict financial liability on energy companies for environmental remediation costs. 8 . Allow access to New York State's Spills Remediation Fund for emergency clean -up related to natural gas drilling contamination releases . 9 . Create a permit fee structure to finance adequate staffing at NYSDEC and training of local emergency response personnel . 10 . Require energy companies to post performance bonds or acquire pollution clean- up insurance prior to initiating site work. 11 . Require disclosure of development plans far enough in advance to allow for planning and bonding for bridge and roadway use . 12 . Conduct a comprehensive analysis of statewide impacts of natural gas development, using a "full build-out" scenario based on the maximum allowable wells per acre . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that a copy of this resolution shall be sent to Governor Paterson , NYSDEC Commissioner Grannis , State Senators Winner, Seward , and Nozzolio , State Assembly Speaker Silver, State Assemblywoman Lifton , Chair of State Senate Committee on Environmental Conservation Thompson , Chair of State Assembly Committee on Environmental Conservation Sweeney, State Attorney General Cuomo , U . S. Representatives Hinchey and Arcuri , U . S . Senators Schumer and Gillibrand , Mayor of Binghamton Matthew T. Ryan , New York State Association of Towns and Municipal Officials and Clerks . MOVED : Councilman DePaolo 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 Carried Unanimous Agenda Item No. 16a : Approve Agreement as to Costs to Defend ' a Lawsuit against the City of Ithaca Regarding the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility Site Page 53 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 TB RESOLUTION NO t 2009=242 : Approve 'Agreement As to Co'st's' ;to Defend' ar: i ; Lawsuit Against the , City of' Ithaca Regardi'ng 'the 'Ithaca Area' fWa'i§teWdter+ i 1 � ; Treatment Facility Site WHEREAS , the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility ( IAWTF) occupies a site comprised of approximately 12 acres , partially bounded by NYS Route , 13 , Third Street Extension , the so-called "Steamboat Landing" site leased to the Ithaca Farmers Market and Cascadilla Creek, in the City of Ithaca ; and WHEREAS , the City of Ithaca acquired the easterly portion of the site (approximately 9 acres) from New York State Electric and Gas Corporation ( NYSEG ) in 1959 ; and WHEREAS , in approximately 1927 , NYSEG had constructed on that property a coal gasification plant , which was operated by NYSEG until approximately 1932 ; and WHEREAS , a by-product of the coal gasification process was coal tar, which substance was originally and for many years used for various commercial purposes ; and WHEREAS , coal tar is now recognized as a substance that can be hazardous to human health , a fact that was not generally known in 1959 or for many years thereafter; and WHEREAS , following its acquisition of the property from NYSEG in 1959 , the City of Ithaca expanded its municipal sewage treatment activities on to a portion of the site (the City's original facility having been located on Franklin Street , to the east of what is now NYS Route 13) ; and WHEREAS , in the 1970s , when the City understood that its plant would need to be upgraded and further expanded to meet new standards and to increase its capacity , discussions were commenced with the Towns of Ithaca and Dryden (then customers of the Ithaca plant) about the possibility of shared involvement in the construction and operation of a new and expanded treatment facility; and WHEREAS , following extensive negotiations about ownership and cost-sharing , and investigation into the possible design and cost of a new plant , the three municipalities entered into an agreement , dated December 22 , 1981 , committing themselves to the construction and operation of a jointly-owned plant ; and WHEREAS , among other things , the agreement provided that the City would receive from the Towns financial credit for contributing the property for the site of the new plant (consisting of the 9-acre parcel acquired from NYSEG and a portion of other lands to the west , acquired separately and previously by the City) and that the plant and its site would be jointly owned by the three municipal partners ; and WHEREAS , amended versions of the partners' agreement (executed in 1984 and 2003) assume that conveyance of the property into joint ownership had already occurred ; and Page 54 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7 , 2009 WHEREAS , for unknown ', tons , title to the plant , 8iteapparently, was ineverloffiei'ally ' I � i : - conveyed to the partn!ership,,i a fact : thatwas discovered by the City; in� �-1996 .and again in 2008 when it was reported to the partners ; and WHEREAS , the Towns of Ithaca and Dryden have indicated their interest in having: .the ' conveyance of the real property effectuated as intended by the parties in 1981 , and the City has indicated its willingness to do so ; and WHEREAS , following the execution of the 1981 agreement , the partners proceeded with final design , construction and operation of the new plant , for their joint benefit; and WHEREAS , in July 1984 , in the course of deep excavation associated with this construction , near the easterly boundary of the site , a material later identified as coal tar was encountered , which discovery was immediately reported to the New York State 'Department of Environmental Conservation ( NYSDEC) and NYSEG , and which material was then handled and disposed of (by NYSEG ) pursuant to instructions from NYSDEC ; and WHEREAS , in 1994 , NYSEG entered into a Consent Order with NYSDEC ( Index # DO- 0002-9309) under which NYSEG agreed to investigate and remediate coal tar contamination at 33 former coal gasification sites in New York State , including the IAWTF site ; and WHEREAS , on October 14 , 2009 , the City was served with a Summons and Third- Party Complaint , joining the City as a third- party defendant in a lawsuit ( NYSEG v. FirstEnergy Corp . ; FirstEnergy Corp . v. City of Ithaca , et al ) brought in federal court under the Comprehensive Environmental Response , Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) , seeking apportionment of and contribution for the costs of coal tar remediation , at various sites and among all potentially responsible parties ( including the City of Ithaca, by virtue of its ownership of the site in question , since 1959) , and similar joiner of the Towns , by FirstEnergy or NYSEG , is a possibility ; and WHEREAS , the partners' 1981 agreement (and subsequent , amended versions) provides that "in the event any liability is asserted against any of the Parties hereto arising out of the construction , operation or maintenance of the Treatment Plant , the parties shall be jointly and severally liable for the defense and payment of any such claims" and that " liability shall be apportioned among the Parties in proportion to the interests of each Party in the Treatment Plant or in accordance with such other methods as the Parties may agree ; " and WHEREAS , the parties wish to support each other as much as possible in the defense against unfair claims regarding contamination caused by others , to minimize the cost to their constituents of this litigation and to create in advance a rational and collaborative means of handling this situation ; Page 55 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7 , 2009 - RESOLVED , othat the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca accepts the' .attached - agreement with1h'e .City of Ithaca and ' the Town , of Dryden and +authorizes the :Town Supervisor to sign1lie agreement on behalf of the Town of Ithaca ., 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 Carried Unanimous Agenda Item No. 17 : Consent Agenda for the Town Supervisor to sign contracts for the following services : TB RESOLUTION NO . 2009-243 : Authorizing Supervisor to Sign Annual Contracts RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes the Supervisor to sign annual contracts with the following service providers . a . Tompkins County Area Transit (TCAT) b . Tompkins County Public Library c . Town residents' use of City Park Facilities (Cass Park) MOU d . Coddington Road Community Center e . Cooperative Extension f . Learning Web g . Gadabout h . Lifelong i . Human Services Coalition j . Community Scienceolnstitute (CSI ) — Water Quality Monitoring k. Legal counsel — Susan Brock and Guy Krogh 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 carried - unanimous Agenda Item No. 18 : Consider approval of SPCA contract TB RESOLUTION NO. 2009-244 : Authorizing Supervisor to Sign the Contract with the SPCA for Dog Control Page 56 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 : RESOLVED,; �Ahat � the , ; Towm Board of the Town ofl � ' :Ithka, ', : he,rdbyi, i�authorizES theii Supervisor tq sign fthe contract. with the SPCA. fork animal controlis' ervices : in : 201 O ! . � MOVED : Supervisor Engman SECONDED : Councilwoman Hunter VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye . Motion carried - unanimous Agenda Item No. 19 : Discuss vacancies and 2010 Town Board appointments The Town Board agreed to postpone the discussion of Town Board appointments until the Town Board Study Session of December 21 , 2009 , Agenda Item No. 20 : Consider settinq the organizational meeting of the Town Board for 2010 and start time, and discuss year-end meeting TB RESOLUTION NO . 2009-245 : Setting Organizational Meetinq for 2010 RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will hold its organizational meeting at Town Hall , 215 N . Tioga Street , Ithaca , New York on January 11 , 2010 beginning at 5 : 30 p . m . 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 carried - unanimous Agenda Item No. 21 : Discuss Town Board meetings for 2010 The Town Board agreed to postpone the discussion of the 2010 Town Board meetings until the Town Board Study Session of December 21 , 2009 , Agenda Item No. 22 : Consider Authorization for supervisor to sign Forest Home Traffic Calming MOU with Tompkins County TB RESOLUTION NO . 2009-246 : Authorizing the supervisor to sign the Forest Home Traffic Calming MOU with Tompkins County Page 57 of 65 r Town Board Minutes : December 7 , 2009 RESOLVED , that All Town Board of the Tow"wn �, 6f . Ithaca hereby authorizes the + r Supervi'sor,`ito � signlithe7raffic Calming . Memo of ! UrYderstandimg ' witfi� Tompkins County, � : : subject .to. th'e approval of the attorney for the town: ; .it 1 MOVED : Councilman Stein ; 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 carried - unanimous Agenda Item No. 23 : Consider Authorization to Amend the Contract with McFarland Johnson for Design and Engineerinq Services for the Forest Home Traffic Calming Phase I Project TB RESOLUTION NO . 2009=247m, AUTHORIZATION TO AMEND THE CONTRACT WITH MCFARLAND JOHNSON FOR DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE FOREST HOME TRAFFIC CALMING PHASE I PROJECT WHEREAS , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca on June 11 , 2009 , authorized a contract for engineering services for the Forest Home Traffic Calming Phase I project with McFarland Johnson located in Binghamton , N . Y . for an amount not to exceed $42 , 800 . 00 ; and WHEREAS , during the design of the project the scope of work was modified for conditions and project requirements that were identified as a result of field conditions and public input , along with comments from the Tompkins County Public Works Department ; and WHEREAS , McFarland Johnson has identified additional work that was required to provide a design that will meet the goals of the project ; and WHEREAS , McFarland Johnson has requested a contract amendment including additional compensation in the amount of $5 , 000 . 00 ; and WHEREAS , the Town Director of Public Works and Town Engineering Staff have reviewed the proposal to amend the contract and the request for additional compensation and have determined that the amendment is justified ; RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to sign the Amendment to the contract agreement ; and be it further RESOLVED , that the Town Budget Officer is authorized to transfer $5 , 000 from account H2-680 . 203-Construction to H2-5680 . 201 -design MOVED : Councilman Stein Page 58 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 SECONDED : Councilman DePaolo I I ill I VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye . Motion carried - unanimous Agenda Item No. 24 : Consider approval of revisions to Performance Review and Employer Vehicle Policies RESOLUTION NO. 2009=248 : Approval of Revisions to Performance Review and Employer Vehicle Policies WHEREAS, the Town Board adopted the Performance Review and Employer Vehicle Policies as part of the Personnel Manual that was approved in November of 2002 ; and WHEREAS , the revised policies shown below have been reviewed , edited and recommended by the Town 's and Bolton Point's Personnel Committee ; General Information Section 9) PERFORMANCE REVIEWS The Town/Commission believes that a performance review system can help the employer identify and correct performance problems, plan employee career development, assess readiness for transfer or promotion, and improve productivity by communicating goals and expectations to employees. Written performance reviews will be completed annually icy for all employees based on a pre-determined schedule agreed to by the Department Head and Human Resources Manager. New employees will be evaluated after three months of service and again prior to six months of service . The employee's immediate supervisor and/or Department Head will complete the performance review and will meet with the employee to review the evaluation together. Employees are entitled to add additional information or remarks to the evaluation . Evaluations will be kept in the employee's personnel file in the Human Resources Office. Miscellaneous Section 3) EMPLOYER VEHICLES Only authorized employees are allowed to drive company vehicles, and authorized to take them home for legitimate business use. The personal use of the vehicles except for commuting to and from the work site is not permitted , except for side trips that are reasonable and will not significantly extend the mileage of that trip. Non-employee passengers are not allowed in company vehicles, unless they are being dropped off or picked up in the course of traveling to and from work. Department Heads or the Human Resources Manager may allow non- employee passengers with prior approval under some circumstances. Employees who are provided a vehicle to commute to and from work are being afforded a taxable fringe benefit. A "personal use value" is determined by multiplying the days the vehicle is used for commuting in a quarter by $ 1 . 50 per trip or $3. 00 per day. The personal use value is Page 59 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 4 !; r:swbject to,i FICA (Social Security and Medicare) , th�erefore,r will Abe included in - the annual ] , , 141 , 1 ,gross , wages :, reported in box 3 and 5 on the annual : W-;2 statement.: Under the Tax, Reform Act d . ofp 1984 the Town elects not to withhold Federal or State incomellax on the personal use value. Employees must maintain records of the days the :vehicle was not used for commuting , so that adjustments can be made to reduce the personal use value for that quarter. . If an employee terminates employment before the quarter-end deduction is made, a record of the days the vehicle was not used should be forwarded to Human Resources Office as soon as possible so adjustments can be made in the final paycheck. Now, therefore , be it RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve of the recommended revised Performance Review and Employer Vehicle Policies ; and be it further RESOLVED, the Human Resources Manager is directed to update the policies in the Personnel Manual , MOVED : Councilwoman Hunter 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 carried - unanimous Agenda Item No. 25 : Consider approval of an agreement for distribution of the 2% Fire Insurance Funds to the City of Ithaca and Cayuga Heights Fire Departments and authorizing the Town Supervisor to sign on behalf of the Town of Ithaca TB RESOLUTION NO . 2009-249 : AUTHORIZING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE 2% FIRE INSURANCE FUNDS TO THE CITY OF ITHACA AND VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENTS WHEREAS , there has been duly established in the Town of Ithaca a fire protection district embracing all of the territory of the Town except the Village of Cayuga Heights , and WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca has deemed it desirable and in the public interest to contract with the City of Ithaca and Village of Cayuga Heights to provide fire and emergency services ; and WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca receives from the State of New York a portion of funds from fire insurance coverage of Town properties commonly known as 2% money, and Page 60 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 i, , ( WHEREAS ; the Town !, of Ithaca desires to allotate ith.e' 12% .:'money on 'a legal and equitable �lpro rata basis between the parties !of; the ! second part based on the number of: active paid and volunteer firefighters , and WHEREAS, in the past allocations to the two , fire department's were not . based on a proper and equitable basis (see chart attached as an appendix) NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED 1 . That for the years 2008 , 2009 , 2010 , and 2011 any 2% money received by the Town of Ithaca shall be divided equally between the two fire departments , and 2 . That for the year 2012 and beyond there shall be negotiated among the parties a methodology to determine the numbers of active paid and volunteer firefighters for each fire department so the 2% money can be allocated to those parties on a pro rata basis . If no agreement on the methodology is reached , the Town of Ithaca shall unilaterally determine the numbers of active paid and volunteer firefighters for each party. The Town 's determination shall be based on information provided by the parties during the negotiation process . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Supervisor is authorized to sign the agreement . MOVED : Councilwoman Hunter 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 carried - unanimous Agenda Item No. 26 : Discuss lighting at the Coddington Road Community Center The Town Board agreed to postpone the discussion of reported lighting problems at the Coddington Road Community Center until the Town Board Study Session of December 21 , 2009 . Agenda Item No. 27 Consider Consent Agenda Councilman DePaolo noted that he did not read the minutes , and would therefore abstain from voting on the Consent Agenda . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2009-250 : Consent Agenda Items Page 61 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7 , 2009 RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca" hereby lapp roves and/or adopts the I . resolutions for , the following Consent Agenda; Items : i , a . Town Board- Minutes b . Town : Board Abstract c . Bolton Point Abstract d . Extension of appointment for Darby Kiley, Planner 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 , abstain . Motion carried TB RESOLUTION NO . 2009-250a : Town Board Minutes WHEREAS , the Town Clerk has presented the minutes for the Town Board meetings held on September 14 , 2009 and November 9 , 2009 to the Town Board for review and approval of filing ; now therefore be it RESOLVED , the Town Board does hereby approve for filing the minutes of the meetings held on September 14 , 2009 and November 9 , 2009 . 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 , abstain . Motion carried TB RESOLUTION NO . 2009-250b : Town of Ithaca Abstract WHEREAS , the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for approval of payment ; and WHEREAS , the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board ; now therefore be it RESOLVED , that the Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in total for the amounts indicated . VOUCHER NOS . 7628-7743 Page 62 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7 , 2009 General Fund Town wide ' 250,694: 06 General Fund Part Town 571593:50 . . I Highway Fund Part Town 74, 796.25 Water Fund 42 ,229.54 Sewer Fund 17,003.204 Hanshaw Rd Water Main Improvement Warren Road Walkway 6, 981 .69 Trumansburg Rd . Water Main Improvement Risk Retention Fund 1 , 310. 00 Fire Protection Fund 2539627 . 12 Forest Home Lighting District 215. 11 Glenside Lighting District 82.80 Renwick Heights Lighting District 114.33 Eastwood Commons Lighting District 216. 63 Clover Lane Lighting District 26. 30 Winner's Circle Lighting District 69. 89 Burlei h Drive Lighting District 89. 90 Westhaven Road Lighting District 303 . 06 Coddin ton Road Lighting District 178 . 85 Trust & Agency 601002.00 TOTAL 765 , 534. 23 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 , abstain . Motion carried TB RESOLUTION NO. 2009-250c : 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 governing Town Board hereby authorizes the: payment of the said vouchers . Voucher Numbers : 1373- 1445 Check Numbers : 12005- 12077 Page 63 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 SCADA Project $ 3 , 797 . 98 Bolton Road Project $ 691"91668 . 72 Operating Fund $ 1569554 . 90 TOTAL $ 230 , 021 . 60 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 , abstain . Motion carried TB RESOLUTION NO. 2009=250d : Extending Appointment of Planner Through 2010 WHEREAS , Darby Kiley has worked for the Town of Ithaca as a Planner, since her appointment on March 3 , 2008 ; and WHEREAS , Ms . Kiley was appointed to a temporary two year appointment for 2008 and 2009 as it relates to an increase in workload because of the Comprehensive Plan revisions ; and WHEREAS , the Director of Planning has determined the need to maintain Ms . Kiley' s appointment through 2010 , due to the continued work on the Comprehensive Plan revisions , and WHEREAS , the expense and extension of the temporary position was discussed and included in the adopted 2010 Town of Ithaca Budget ; Now , therefore , be it RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the extension of the temporary appointment of Darby Kiley, Planner through December 18 , 2010 ; and be it further RESOLVED , this extension of appointment does not cause a change in Ms . Kiley's job classification , hourly wage or benefits . MOVED : Councilman Stein SECONDED : Councilman Levine Page 64 of 65 Town Board Minutes : December 7, 2009 VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye ; Councilman Stein ; .; aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; NCouncilwoman i Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , abstain . Motion carried, Agenda Item No. 28 = Report of Town Officials No report . Agenda Item No. 29 = Report of Town Committees Written reports . Agenda Item No. 30 = Report of Intermunicipal Organizations No report . Agenda Item No. 31 = Review of Correspondence No discussion . Agenda Item No. 32 = Consider Adjournment Upon a motion by Councilman Goodman and seconded by Councilman Levine , the regular session of the Town Board Meeting was adjourned at 10 : 53 p . m . Respectfully Submitted , Debra DeAugistine , Deputy Town Clerk Page 65 of 65 Town of Ithaca Town Board SLee Sign-In Sheet A D Meeting Date: �� �Q j oa / Please Print our information to ensure accuracy in the meeting minutes J nA l 1 � c e rAa , Print Name Print Address a-mail ee� _ 1, ST f KT avk v\ `� U &r � � . bu/l � ►C ads loo l ll�. YO am ta • Eqokom aM41 M 7t9r OW qO/e 6�M � -CJ Y� .C�� v' (/'� `� . W \ "�C�Eh\X "' � �� ��rCcv✓ ^� �-'SGh.. . W h-�c �C\� U `-�-. acct) LCfC, 60 " GAi!� WUI�9 CQC / /devil a ✓k 1 Yf1re, /�►� / G 6e?C'1. /i3 4wiGn Jc (��. f e ., c�, zz� „r � �J 303 ! r 20 � v d15 e "al �A rk/ S4A cd 5 ,4 v" 6 , � �t, l G`vlVj � 6 �l � � ` o� .. 5 �r �,�/ ✓lam S C11 I.� /gY. �G� /' G*�l °i r /�`\ 2c; 'f Vwi4 Dr w6.tm � � 1 cee- vie AA D uvv � pie X17 'S < T5 K3 ILUG FCA mar �) c � � � TL berrl oj�Lvvl 11(x. . � o6 4� / TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I , Debra DeAugistine , being duly sworn , say that I am thei Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County, New York that the ! following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, Ithaca Journal: ADVERTISEMENT: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS : A Local Law Amending Chapter 250 of the Town of Ithaca Code , Titled "Vehicles and Traffic , " prohibiting parking north and west of the intersection of Troy Road and King Road East A Local Law Amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code , Titled "Zoning , " and the Official Zoning Map to Rezone Certain Lands in the Northeast Corner of the Town from Medium Density Residential Zone to Conservation Zone . East Shore Drive Water Main Replacement Project Local Laws Establishing the administration of fees and charges in the Town of Ithaca : Location of Sign Board Used for Posting : Town Clerk's Office 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Date of Posting : November 25 , 2009 Date of Publication : December 1 , 2009 Debra DeAu ' stine putt' Town Clerk Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA) S� Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of CeO 2009 . Notary Public PAULETTE NEILSEN Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 NE6156809 Qualified in Tioga County Commission Expires December 4, 20LO Legals 050 gals• -, 050 I also., 05.0, „ egals sa O5U TOWN OF ITHACA struction and Fire Preven- er Rents', of the Town of NOTICE OF PUBLIC tion', of the Town of Itha- Ithaca Code to Provide for Debra DeAugistine HEARINGS ca Code to Provide for the the Setting of Sewer Deputy Town Clerk F Setting of Fees by Town Rents and Charges by Dated: e PLEASE TAKE NO - Board Resolution Town Board Resolution November 25, 2009 TICE that the Town Board 12/1 /2009 s of the Town of Ithaca, will A Local Law Amending A Local Law Amending _ _ F, hold Public Hearings on Fee Provisions in Chapter Fee Provisions in Chapter the 7th day of Decem . 153, Titled 'Fees', of the 234, Titled 'Subdivision of ber, 2009, at Town Hall, Town of Ithaca Code to Land', of the Town of Itha- 215 North Tioga Street, Delete Listed Fees and ca Code to Provide for the Ithaca, New York, to hear Provide for the Establish- Setting of Fees by Town . public comment regarding ment and Setting of Fees Board Resolution the following: by Town Board Resolution A Local Law Amending 5:55 p.m. - Local Law A Local Law Amending Chapter 261 , Titled 'Wa- Amending Chapter 250 of Fee Provisions in Chapter ter Rates', of the Town of the Town of Ithaca Code, 173, Titled 'Lighting, Out- Ithaca Code to Provide for Titled 'Vehicles and Traf- door , of the Town of Itha- the Setting of Water fic,' prohibiting parking ca Code to Provide for the Rates, Rents, Charges north and west of the in- Setting of Variance Appli- and Fees by Town Board l tersection of Troy Road cation Fees by Town Resolution and King Road East Board Resolution t A Local Law Amending 6:00 p.m. - Local Law A Local Law Amending Fee Provisions in Chapter . [ Amending Chapter 270 of Fee Provisions in Chapter 270, Titled 'Zoning', of the I the Town of Ithaca Code, 184, Titled 'Noise', of the Town of Ithaca Code to Titled 'Zoning,' and the Town of Ithaca Code to Provide for the Setting of Official Zoning Map to Provide for the Setting of Fees by Town Board Res- I Rezone Certain Lands in Noise Permit Application olution ! the Northeast Corner of Fees by Town Board Res- the Town from Medium olution A resolution to establish Density Residential Zone sewer rents in the Town of to Conservation Zone. A Local Law Amending Ithaca Sewer Improvement Parking and Fee Provi- Area , 6: 10 p'm . - East Shore sions in Chapter 200, Ti- p Drive Water . Main Re. tled "Parks and Recreation Information 'regarding the placement Project Areas', of the Town of public hearing topics and I Ithaca Code to Prohibit copies of the proposed { 6: 15 p.m . - Local Laws Parking Outside Designat- Local Laws are on file and and a Resolution Estab. ed Areas and to Provide available for review in the lishing the administration for the Setting of Fees and Town Clerk's Office at of fees and charges in the Security Deposits by Town Hall during normal I Town of Ithaca: Town Board Resolution business hours. Monday ! through Friday. 8:00 a.m. A Local Law Amending A Local Law Amending to 4:00 p.m. j Fee Provisions in Chapter Fee Provisions in Chapter 100, Titled 'Adult Uses', 205, Titled 'Property Main- Individuals needing assis- of the Town of Ithaca tenance', of the Town of tance should contact the Code to Provide for the Ithaca Code to Provide for Town Clerk's office within i Setting of Fees by Town the Setting of Variance 48 hours prior to the time I Board Resolution Application Fees by Town of the public hearing. Board Resolution A Local Law Amending tl Fee Provisions in Chapter A Local Law Amending 125, Titled 'Building Con- Chapter 210, Titled 'Sew. YY ! 3110Y ww. �a cr" "W l. . . eJ ✓ ... ... .. .. , yl \._a I . V1 . . l.I iiVV cgs £ J .,' .�;{i J� i . £ �. 'SL .e'er � �,�� a F.✓ Z. it � - • • • • • i • • • • • • • . • • - • • '� 111 ell 11 '� 1 111 - • ! • , • • - '� 11 111 - • ! • • d n. ~ S fir IN N4, Attachment la < J± - ; 3 Portion of Tax Parcel No . 73- 1 -2 . 2 ( Y IL tj 1 V I r Pte ' .1 It It iL IN 1 { �I Y U) Out - r fir ; V . � o 1s° _ Tax Parcel No . �� � y 7 7 z 47 �� � -k � 73- 1 -8 . 22 FZ 'A.; (�'.. 3 � �ls� ,l" � 1 �. ... _J "rani Ni . { ii s nctua r _ • t F a ' 4. J, 3 S �++ C' ✓, 1 �� � �• � f r, 1 , �� 4 �, C• �Y' . / �y 7 " f VIC It IN I tI ` J�.i '�'9r' � - •c� . � � �> _.�-Jr---•--, �-'..J - ` ; ^l 1f1 1 � �4.'�� . C- r. Y c fin; tiJ y c fi 1. *ft 1 �$$ ,� . r" UUU Y fir- 0 1 ....-.r'�M/ c- ti IN >�ll TGfi1Ot `� � , . to I - Tax Parcel No . eft . ar �r I �.. ® 6 ti - k o _ �n Y� r ' 70- 10-3 .5 � [ � .. Q 1j EXHIBIT A - Proposed Conservation Zone °Y Muncipal boundary p, Existing Conservation Zone � ' t ti NN- Lj Proposed NE Conservation Zone Extension ` If 160 320 640 960 N ' ' � Y Feet Map Produced 11 /16/09 I� t- �P �s 2 , Attachment # 2 4�,-„�1rfi �.�. ,.,,t ♦y. .a b. �•.i'Ff } < .t ak.t :,d�',♦t 1a �a y}""��•• "t\1i.'ti? 'S 5~Zyr1 .V•` , � � + Lr�r'b'^ o' f\h'' . Z'y^#'3 tSr .y` '- it 4. - '~ ^- Legend / .* ,,. > a �' ` 3 i Ya, t�' ' t2a f� 1 .L '-r s �.Y>� '*♦ 4'i �;,•• Y'`.ti' t/ pl �l ,.t i. t y � rr4a _vJ r a� s, } h�� ` ' , 5 • i } � w sY� Watercourses 1. y t ~ P ���i" - S J r w ?11+s'3�^� ,. •�•• tbM1. } Ay r��N >n ',� ♦ f k Z �4 . i M 5� 4, . Watersheds p yal r 11 3 i r j�. 3r u• C7 'C F' 4 ♦ r \ 4`.f to i 1 Y p �s ti't ♦ Yy 1 �7 i ' <o � ) i'�, # t k i ^' 4 r , „ Proposed Parcel Boundaries yob y - � '�yX<rt,.}rr I r Xrl S< .c � ., i wcSls ?•r �'' t { ;. , . f ' _ It, ` '� . ',; � � ti , r � t� h °y i �' Proposed Sediment Basins i� ha ram - , �P 1R t ��• � �sq.�� •, � V^ O l a � 1 "♦4 4 � ' a a � y .:rr,$r' TFr{(+�� ( r ( K.y 2 ,W� :gyp -0 `,` � ,, tL \ .a, .':. 3-GS • , cfit,', y,, ♦S +J' 1r•Yx � An,Y�a�f l yy'- •< .•.\, > ! �. S '.. t $ ,.�, n y+ 'n.. '- rcer�:`++.ac -a, , i x t . l „b.- -`? r . C..7 S n" \y v ,y 'R ;C:- 3 �`J� y l "? J4S t - •�'•i '.3 � ti 4�'°" G i C`� ' �4,� ..d" c i a, ?.. •�� t .^x,` a .' e i t� r L . L9 'u ti• + Yp ) �7 .�. T �y.. s' K 1., if , .^ Ik :E * '.. ( , 4 r ( � ..�, s ` ! _ y,\ ) l4 y,-•. f yC. 1. ,`�e'i,,.i r. 1."4 T ' t S, 'A a ..� y _• etr ryy* )y�{ xS � k M 2 4 �{ $� 4 n t . . „iggA�;}ti y� " ' > �; '� '. ./ %•rbsft.�\< \ Y. R< '. �y,�' ri' � .CaC hr i}" e I( XSf` ♦ l_ ,a: a4.51a. �'- ,F,� ,i. .111 y} jrt1•L� i, t\W �a ,� Cy « r d i+ o. 6 1' R. 1 ' y ..Y4 , � Y+t,f\i j� C .yt{,y �` } t•-. � s ,9.. ., r Qy.,� c-?t ' t : r c 'fit > \n✓: ,s „� ;� : W,;r, r }'r ..;.�ti'�4 t � � Y 1 j !+�^Y `K♦ 1f " � t ♦a,.l 'i .� \- u - �,'1` ♦ E` ( '•R {`C ' r 7' d c= `.fin 's in Y ` t \C S r :+. `•„c'C.:,' �S.Ja d C'r 'r!' < av•i It v. 6 z wi R. . c �. b `a`s tt °.' s ?^. , L ' . 't* . s`;. +, a :`7" �,, ' r\ n .. lr .- ♦ 'a "t ,f. ;a C \ • S . ;(!-r. 1. . yt; �, :. `.,.'+ • ,.`r"}:� r''( ;.e• �� �'+. � . ♦ <, s l � A Sa ' IA� l x i.i l-n\ , .: � �°- .�.y 't }y .f I I ft' ` hY' n•_. Y. . c Iii w \'� � Yt. .ue3J+—"" '<',' ,} 1Ei y... as r �'r.� s M to :y:�e f JJ>^1t i� •!> aka. 6 P-. �. g•'� � � ; 7,'� i Zi ,N x ♦'- :l �t�U , . a .1 � :. - .� ,. 'Sf `Y i`k.} �,'yivXL �. ° \ <1` r �,'yy'f 9 - 2 ' I ,kt ♦1 ;-ic , . J'6' 3� .Nd - C'� ', ,. L, 1 il, ' . tf ,t '�k }b ,�? tar f t ' ; C ` ;h F e " 91• `� o w 0 *. G 1 ,< ri ! v - �' <" r r 'R - .. � , i •.� Str s a'v > ,. v- w ;;c�t:' � � �,�hr t^Z '`•r : .i i, 'G . } ,•c ,.'�R- a< rJ»� i ., F O . 3 a ' . C 1 41Vi: o> \C F` c - • " ._cr i 1 f _ aU ♦? ) 4 \ yw f'i rL , . '� . i_ > •+� y:-•'`'w r. -, : {�F,,� . ..�J Tom ..: x �»n;. '- . f y J2 x . .gib ^t`••}.:JT y�, y' {-� \ ^.: > ' 'f a p� c ✓i' .Ri fr C \I �qYr t 4 �.4. Y •� Ia �J • i ,.(Tl'. � y, 31 ai .- { a 6' .� A to 1,? Yt C 't' R �•1 *xJ `,y' 'S\.• L��y. ,!' Pea, r ran j♦'V .I r y. . .= l t <1 � 1'\ ;' c _�°.1. d ` s• y , "� �•. s� t"3>' Q 'l• FYI' \.- .` t S;.V r x� ,.. .�",c,� ty' `.1u s t'� �. i �>. 1, . ` V11 F t �," A,f i� L III' ff � < 1 ^ �. 7` \ - a, t` V rc � \III � Y § i � 2`i A .: 3 a a 1 $k Y�t �♦ u� V .�� -• ^.. _ - '�v -7 ' jar .5 �. .^.�,- • •• o°- >,ia "t •� r 7i� t 0. �_ rt . .Q t . r .. ' 0 � nr co ` ..� 4\ +'C.` a a ! c 7,i c . Ir ,1 $ 1 {r "y' F r ..J t ,,,�a ..1 <�- rc.: \ : ? �q { (� �,' s.•4, I. tom. pT&�t C IU t , t?,�I \ � - ' �4 y+, 'a rj' 1 G? x`` �•R '` < aa� ti 'x*Na l� yk xya 'Nc�� l9` t 1 '� f � 'i,SS A� i ' � �t�'`���'1 � �. `1 TZ. 4" �y 1;� t .,��� r \ ��` t ' � ai• • �1 ` � ,..x,._ .�,s5 �'-% . `� s �siT�� � '�' , , •? "�\ ' , - i # 'sG�., ?': fir { fi. n { . li o a, x ,Q,• (� Y _ . � _ i � =, !4 1 J . L 'h.'� , > � , .d' '��i l d��.,"p a �� t � tq( . Qw �S 9sSVv� 4 � g1 bPQ �YT;� nr u k r m� fl ,ti:, y {` rif oy LoI. . Kt 4a;\" 7ji j , t ,y y-°'•. '! ;,Yx�� T� ';C,"�� {f t_ Ii , is '4 � ♦y 2f .ice\'Sh � LY�� ` t"'�`�W'15� 11y_ 1 90 %� ` ' �fi,yt ,1--- a ` . 3+ �e , ,1 ? , � + . . l � i t' a9' : 4 ! Y C^ a t T ,r-c` `+, i Paa TC eP,1C o hsl � C p r � G7tl Rell � ' � 1 f G} 'lt { � rV rr Jr\tr` ", F � Crir� ' : 5: vv Lill r i I x a 4., f U S~ 1'.. t { Fr ,t ' _ « ' - .--•- """•` ,`c C-> 1'. AK } ` I �._..-.+'.+* ¢' ' V 2 ..pro T t v x �+. , T. l -, r _T 'k2 "f~ 1/)� _'� y�Ky Sc C f .A A ye If I. '1�-' .- - �.r +e! 3 Y -' III, V If -.4 `>�+ r �.. ..t 7 I� r � - � J vrt- • 4. Ta�•''IS ( (" e � � . 9.e` > sl t . ft`y " `'3r'f_' ♦ m ff� a S f :cs yx1 r.' .. .r }, a- , ,� . 'Ci �,1 k.�*?4 ,J vs r !{ Fs ..0 i-�'— ' � �.,, fit' � �y ,1, �r _ �--- �� 8- F �✓��a,_. anr.4 ., r `.' � .�` � �� � ��t�tf�1 r ty fi �`.� .. , I��cV' Cr Fi`� a , - , -�. . . ,. 1x _� � Y �. �� � . rc iv � i or� i ry i �sl: . r j �a �'.(N yw I +a�• z 1 r �'�( 'a �. w �' \ 1t� l I ! rP. ? a as a r T - a^ ' '1•,G- „ , , ?l. 1 , y , I.:.-+- ' lb y e'� �i1...1+• � � 1 � � "'b.� r � � Fv S _ � j . 1 � y a r ''.'�J,- 1 ��' t� �t' { •� t •� e'be °�. � . III r 3 Cc � , .r�- a l rj" 1 F " o l� ' Jr a Ft 41" eSY?, \ t r '� W, lQ � • yx f ♦ ..r ' O i 4t {C� 11`` -t r•� `l t -� Cy +" - '. ➢ '4_ c r ,.. - a rF`i d" y ` �!� '^ If `k 4 V a •, . 1t'! ` $�+ �(a r#t yam" yy?' T` "'3'{yi, I, la .,�.1 •, F.. ,w^ ~ ; ? r . .� y y , Watersheds delineated With the use of ` G ✓� ArcGIS 9.2 and available III contour lines Engineering, LOCATION: La{utscape Architedure Ithaca, 7y,T and EnvinnunI Science Watershed Map Ithaca, NY 0 MILONE & MACBROOMm Realty Drive MMI#: 3190-01 N DATE: SHEET: Northeast )Ithaca 06/29/07 Cheshire, Connecticut 06410 MXD: H:Fig3.mad (203) 271 -1773 Fax: (203) 272-9733 Storenwater �IaBflageIIYleYlt SCALE: Figure 3 www,miloneandmacbroom.com SOURCE: NYS GIS Clearinghouse Drainage Study 1 :6,000 Attachment # 3 COMMENTS TO THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD : DECEMBER 7 , 2009 Thank you for the opportunity to speak in favor of rezoning the remaining undeveloped lands in the Northeast. I am the President of the Northeast Ithaca Neighborhood Association (NEINA) and am speaking in support of the proposed law which would rezone the remaining Lucente property and the northeast portion of the Cornell University property adjacent to the Lansing Town line . I have reached this decision based on the Town Board ' s due diligence in studying the property and considering various options . I have also reached this decision, after many meetings this fall with members of the Town Board, representatives of the land owners — Mr. Rocco Lucente and Cornell University - and, NEINA. The crux of the matter goes back many decades to when the properties were zoned as medium residential . With changing times , we have learned more about the geology and ecology of the area and its relationship to development. At the same time , federal, state , and municipal laws have been implemented to protect fragile ecological systems . In this context, the 1993 Comprehensive Plan allowed for the possibility of rezoning these properties from medium density to a conservation zone which would permit very low density — 1 house per 7 acres . Here I should like to take a few minutes to recap the history of what has occurred with. particular reference to Briarwood 11 . First, I should like to draw your attention to something that has been stated repeatedly . Mr. Lucente and his agents often claim that the area for the proposed Briarwood II development was open pasture when Mr . Lucente bought it. This is not correct. Indeed, vast areas of the Northeast and neighboring Lansing and Dryden were pastures . But, two areas consistently appear in areal photographs as wooded . These areas comprise what are now the Laboratory of Ornithology ' s sanctuary and the woods immediately south of Sanctuary Drive, where Mr. Lucente proposes to build Briarwood II . The LeCain report has a photograph from 1938 showing this . It has been 3 1 /2 years since the Town Planning Board hastily decided to go ahead with preliminary approval of the Briarwood II development. We believe that the Planning Board might have decided differently had it required a full Environmental Impact Study before making its decision . We made several efforts to get the Town Planning Board to reconsider but were unsuccessful . The Town Board has paid attention to our concerns — lack of neighborhood participation in the development process , serious drainage problems in the. Northeast that had been exacerbated by the Briarwood I and Sanctuary Drive developments , the area' s undeveloped ecological importance for the Lab of O ' s sanctuary and for deterring further drainage problems . The Town Board struggled to help us find a solution and two years ago declared a moratorium on building in the Northeast and undertook its investigation into whether the current conservation zone should be extended to include the remaining parcels of undeveloped lands there . It also commissioned a drainage study . It is worth noting that the Town paid for these studies and was very careful to instruct the consultants that it was looking for an unbiased report. So , here are the facts that you paid for : • The drainage report found that the Northeast does have serious drainage problems . It estimates that solving the problem would cost as much as 9 . 3 million dollars i and recommends a series of solutions, including constructing underground concrete bunkers to act as retention ponds . While the study does not attribute blame , the underlying cause of our drainage problems is due to the soils found here . • The Milone and McBroom study looked at the hydrology of the proposed Briarwood II development area. It documents that the area is composed of soils that are particularly dense and impermeable , causing water to run off in sheets and flood areas to the west . It found that the existing proposal for Briarwood II would increase impermeable surfaces (e . g . , roofs, driveways, and roads) which would increase the runoff in these poorly draining soils. It also concluded that the existing proposed engineering solutions would not be adequate to control the runoff in periods of heavy rain and would likely cause damage to the existing wetlands . • LeCain and Werier conducted a study of the flora and fauna of the area and provided several options for the Town to consider for conserving the area. Its preferred option is to conserve all of the undeveloped lands in the Northeast. Its underlying logic is that preserving the existing wetlands and woodlands would be beneficial to wildlife and , if left intact, would help alleviate drainage problems caused by the poor soils in the area. This fall , there have been a number of meetings and many discussions about the Lucente and Cornell properties . The Town Supervisor and Planning Department convened a meeting with Mr. Lucente and NEINA to discuss a revised sketch of Briarwood II for 30 houses . NEINA convened a meeting of the property owners and 3 members of the Town Board . Representatives of Cornell University included Mr. LaVigne from RealEstate , Mr. Gutenberger from Community Relations, and Mr. Eldermire from the Lab of O . Mr. Lucente was represented by his agent, Mr. Frabroni . That meeting explored a number of initiatives, including the possibility of a land swap . But those initiatives went nowhere . The planning committee has held several meetings focused on these properties, explored various initiatives and initially recommended to the Town Board that the current conservation zone be extended to the remaining Northeast properties . Meanwhile, side talks have continued, including a compromise proposal for 15 houses in the proposed Briarwood. II development that was rejected . Two weeks ago representatives from Cornell met with representatives from NEINA. Cornell stated its opposition to any conservation zone on its property, its intention to retain the option of building as many as 85 duplexes sometime in the future which is far more than the 30 or so we expected, and its willingness to sign a conservation easement for a 200 foot buffer to protect the Lab of 0 sanctuary . This is the second time this fall that the neighborhood has come out to a Town Board meeting to express its concerns . Earlier this fall , the neighborhood turned out in large numbers to hear the Town ' s drainage report as well . I really hope this meeting will be the last to deal with the question of extending the conservation zone . Since the LeCain study was completed, the Town has implemented 2 more moratoria, giving it time to consider the facts and pursue other initiatives for conserving these lands . The Town cannot be accused of rushing into judgment or lacking due diligence in this process . At the same time, no other acceptable alternatives appear left on the table . In that context, I encourage you to support the proposed law. It allows for very low density development while also preserving the wetlands and woodlands, which are essential for retaining storm water, slowly releasing those waters into the neighborhood, and preventing further drainage problems . It will also provide a much needed buffer for the Lab of Ornithology and will protect the biological corridor between the Lab of Ornithology and Monkey Run . William Sonnenstuhl President, Northeast Ithaca Neighborhood Association (NEINA) 206 Winston Drive Ithaca, New York 14850 iw Attachment # 4 C ; Public Hearing Statement - December 7, 2009 - Patricia Page There are usually just three main regulatory factors that - through our federal and state laws - regulate land development : • Our Local Zoning • Stormwater Management requirements • Presence of Wetlands These are three critical elements that determine whether or not a particular development is considered appropriate and allowable. This is a case where these three factors intersect, but at this point, do not align. We have stormwater management issues and we have wetlands, but the zoning does not reflect these realities . It has already been acknowledged by the Town that the NE has severe stormwater problems . To believe that the three proposed retention basins and a few rain gardens thrown in will prevent this proposed development from worsening these existing drainage problems as well as creating new drainage problems on the new lots is unproven, unsound and risky. The NE Neighborhood is not "against" retention basins . There are locations where they are appropriate. However, this location is not appropriate. This is a fragmented, long narrow piece of property. Three retention basins will be sandwiched between the house lots and right up against the wetlands, negatively impacting both. We ' ve talked about the damaging impact on the wetlands : • Clearing a large area of trees right up to the wetlands ; • Redirecting and robbing the wetland of the water that sustains it; • Runoff containing soluable salts from roads and sodium chloride from lawn fertilizers being released into the wetlands ; • In a flooding event, water that is untreated and full of silts and other pollutants, moving over the spillway and directly down into the wetland, which is one of the best ways to destroy a wetland . The negative impact of the retention basins on the new houses is obvious - Three very large holes that are eight feet deep with 4 feet of water inside a four foot high berm all around - thereby very difficult to monitor for safety - within a short distance from both new and existing homes . In our opinion - that is a liability issue for the Town that we as taxpayers do not want to take on. Fencing the basins would be worse, however, as the three sets of fences would have to be extensive, at least 6 ' high, and fragmenting this fragile biological corridor even more. The fact that who is going to maintain these basins has been passed around like a hot potato is further evidence that this is not the appropriate place for them . From the EPA maintenance requirements you can see that the maintenance requirements are high. No viable or realistic plan for this has been set forth, particularly based on previous experience. Overall , this potentially 60-unit development is being shoehorned into a relatively small , leftover piece of property that is not suited to this type of development. Therefore, it is time to bring the zoning into alignment with the realities of this property and vote for conservation zoning. EPA Website : http ://www . epa. gov/owm/mtb/wetdtnpn.12df WET DETENTION PONDS : OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Wet detention ponds function more effectively when they are regularly inspected and maintained . Routine maintenance of the pond includes mowing of the embankment and buffer areas and inspection for erosion and nuisance problems (e. g. burrowing animals, weeds, odors) ( SEWRPC, 1991 ) . Trash and debris should be removed routinely to maintain an attractive appearance and to prevent the outlet from becoming clogged . In general , wet detention ponds should be inspected after every storm event . The embankment and emergency spillway should also be routinely inspected for structural integrity, especially after major storm events . Embankment failure could result in severe downstream flooding. When any problems are observed during routine inspections, necessary repairs should be made immediately. Failure to correct minor problems may lead to larger and more expensive repairs or even to pond failure. Typically, maintenance includes repairs to the embankment, emergency spillway, inlet, and outlet; removal of sediment; and control of algal growth, insects, and odors ( SEWRPC, 1991 ) . Large vegetation or trees that may weaken the embankment should be removed . Periodic maintenance should also include the stabilization of the outfall area (e . g. adding rip-rap) to prevent erosive damage to the embankment and the stream bank. In most cases, sediments removed from wet detention :ponds are suitable for landfill _:. disposal . However, where available, on- site use of removed sediments for soil amendment will reduce maintenance costs . Attachment # 5 Ithaca Town Board Public Hearing December 7, 2009 Arno Selco What I Learned While Saving Sapsucker 'Woods. . . . 1. That empirical data contained in extant documents support the claim that Sapsucker Woods will not allow development without causing a detrimental impact to current adjacent properties. 2 . That the neighbors in the northeast demonstrably and overwhelmingly are opposed to future development in Sapsucker Woods but are willing to accept option #2 as stated in the Le Cain Report, including the Town Board's modification, as a compromise so long as that development does not include retention ponds. 3 . That the cost of maintaining retention ponds, the oversight required to make sure the ponds are maintained correctly, the danger of injury and drowning that these ponds threaten, the possibility of the retention ponds draining the nearby wetlands and/or overflowing into the wetlands renders the retention ponds unacceptable . 4. That Cornell University never officially agreed to accept portions of Sapsucker Woods owned by Rocco Lucente and to maintain the ponds in return for the donation. In fact, Cornell has refused to accept this donation because its Risk Management office has determined that allowing these ponds to be installed on property that would become theirs would constitute a liability to the University. 5 . That if retention ponds were to be installed in Sapsucker Woods, it has never been made clear who would maintain them, who would pay for their maintenance, and who ultimately would be liable for any damage, injury, or death caused by them . The northeast neighbors are adamantly opposed to their tax dollars being used to maintain these ponds. 6 : That the retention ponds are large and that they and the thoroughfares that would have to be built to install and maintain them would necessitate clearing and occupying areas intended for conservation, thereby reducing the sizes of the conserved areas. Page 2 7 . That the locations of the retention ponds as shown on the submitted site plan are in close proximity to the proposed houses and the wetlands, rendering the ponds a threat to the safety of those who would occupy the houses and to the functioning of the wetlands. 8 . That there is no guarantee that the retention ponds will work as intended . 9 . That housing developments create impermeable surfaces such as roofs, driveways, and roads that increase runoff and downstream impact. Furthermore, such developments reduce the amount of natural areas that facilitate water infiltration . 10. That the soil in Sapsucker Woods is not suitable for development because it does not facilitate efficient drainage . It' s interesting to look at an aerial photo in the Le Cain report and observe that all the land around Sapsucker Woods has been cultivated, while Sapsucker Woods is thick with trees. This shows that Sapsucker Woods has not been cultivated or developed for many years, and more than likely has never been cultivated or developed . It is reasonable to assume that this is true because the soil will not support cultivation or development. 11: That the northeast historically has had drainage problems. There is a map that shows the drainage problems experienced by current residents. The Town of Ithaca recently conducted a study of drainage problems in the northeast and estimated that fixing those problems will cost an estimated $9 .3 million . It is likely that additional development will increase the cost of fixing . the drainage problems in northeast Ithaca . 12. That the neighbors in northeast Ithaca are land owners and tax payers. Combined, they own a considerable amount of land and pay a considerable amount of taxes. Should Mr . Lucente receive approval to build houses in Sapsucker Woods solely because he owns that land and pays taxes on it? The disadvantageous impact that development will have on the neighbors should be a determining factor in rezoning Sapsucker Woods as a conservation area . 13 . That new development does not necessarily increase the tax base . The public services required by new houses and new residents are expensive . In addition, development that causes damage to current houses can lower the value of that housing. On the other hand, a nearby conservation area could raise the value of current housing. 14. That Sapsucker Woods has been designated a Unique Natural Area . 15 . That the Town Board commissioned the Le Cain Report that recommends that the entirety of Sapsucker Woods be prioritized for conservation . r Page 3 16 . That the Le Cain report is specific to Sapsucker Woods and is not meant to serve as a precedent for prioritizing any other property for conservation . 17 . That the areas of Sapsucker Woods that the Le Cain report terms "low value" is "low value" only in relationship to other Sapsucker Woods areas. "Low value" in the report is not meant to mean "without value" or "suitable for development." The so called "low value" areas could become "high value" areas if left alone . In addition, the so called "low value" areas buffer the " medium value" and "high value" areas and are important components of an efficient, natural drainage system . 18. That houses that are built in so called "low value" areas could experience their own drainage problems and increase the drainage problems in current homes in the northeast. I Attachment # 6 COMMENTS DELIVERED TO TOWN BOARD IN SUPPORT OF A MIXED DEVELOPMENT/PRESERVATION USE OF REMAINING LUCENTE LANDS IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA I am Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E.,L. S ., project manager, engineer; and surveyor for the project that has become know as Briarwood II since it was first presented to the Planning staff in the fall of 2002. Tonight, you have rushed to consider a rezoning of all of Mr. Lucente' s remaining land to a Conservation Zone to stop a project that has already received Preliminary Subdivision Approval of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board. This puts Mr. Lucente in the unusual position of still wanting to develop a positive compromise for all in contrast with a rezoning that would be an arbitrary and capricious action necessitating an extensive and prolonged defense tonight. Accordingly we must also present a record of the rights we have to use our land in accordance with the laws and plans legally controlling development in the Town of Ithaca. In your packet you will find two alternatives that would propose reducing the approved Preliminary Subdivision 46 developable lot layout to 30 developable lots. Each of these alternatives includes many features which over the past two years you have requested be included in a well balanced development particularly given the heightened board and neighborhood interest in preserving ecologically valuable open space and associated wildlife corridors in perpetuity. Under each of these alternatives, Mr. Lucente would donate approximately 33 acres of the 48 acres to whomever would assume the ownership and stewardship of the land including stormwater facilities. While this would most logically be owned by the Lab of Ornithology, the ownership of the 33 acres and the stormwater facilities could be with the Town with maintenance funds generated through a fairly routine drainage district formation and annual tax charge, similar to lighting, water, or sewer districts. The two alternatives allow for a roughly 15 acre undeveloped area immediately adjacent to the Lab of Ornithology .with the additional 18+/- acres extending down through the middle of the project to the southernmost wetlands and surrounds. This will afford a continuous vegetated area from the current Lab of Ornithology to the south and then east into the Town of Dryden connecting to the southeast to the Monkey Run area of the Fall Creek corridor. This will strengthen the already strong connection from the Lab of O lands through the Meadowlark and Cardinal Drive areas to the woods east of Freese Road to Monkey Run. The open space can additionally be secured for all time under either alternative through conservation easements. The 1 /3 reduction in lots and proposed 25% oversizing of stormwater facilities in combination with storm drains and slow release underground basins to drain roadway subbases, house footer drains and roof drainage underground will substantially reduce the footprint, forest disturbance, and impervious surfaces necessary to develop the 30 lots. Many similar proven and sufficient stormwater facilities. exist throughout the Town in compliance with Town, NYSDEC, and USEPA requirements. These designs will stand on their own merits in assuring the same pre and post peak runoffs. Existing downstream peak runoff concerns are separate from the current subdivision considerations but can be immediately further mitigated with Town authorization with simple collaborative control actions at the exit to the southernmost wetland and at the Town installed culvert under the northern water and sewer utility right of way. With more than 60% of housing in the town single and two-family residences, the need and the appropriateness of additional housing as outlined in the Town Comprehensive Plan and matching the land use of the adjacent homes in the most desirable area of the Town to live should be self-evident. The area is fully served by transit, public sewermains and sewer capacity, public watermains and water capacity and roadways with minimal congestion or traffic delays. The area is within reasonable walking and biking distance of employment, schools, recreational and passive open space, medical services and shopping. With the general population trend toward life fitness the flat terrain of the northeast represents almost unlimited opportunities for outdoor walking, biking, running, skiing, sports, and hiking opportunities that collectively would be much more difficult to aggregate for all age groups in most other remaining areas of the Town. The less distinctive ecological 15 acres, if not most of the remaining Lucente lands, are prime residential land and have been recognized as such for the past 55 years of comprehensive planning and zoning in the Town of Ithaca. Your targeted action to invalidate the Preliminary Subdivision Approval obtained from the Town Planning Board for 46 lots in July 2006 is in contradiction of the existing Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan and Zoning of the Town in existence in the time period 2002-2006 that the Briarwood II approval evolved through extensive public discussion and refinement with the Planning Board, through the time 2006-2007 that we perfected the design to address the Planning Board conditions and further recommendations of the Milone-McBroome drainage study, and for that matter to this day. To attempt now, with inadequate procedure and erroneous information, alter the zoning ordinance to stop the approved plan and then in a backwards way alter the comprehensive plan to correspond with your action is against established procedure for providing a long range blueprint for land use and zoning well established in law, the pertinent standing documents of the Town, and the history of development of the Lucente lands. Your actions then can only be viewed as punitive, illegal, and directly targeted to the injustice of Mr. Lucente and his bonifide vested property rights. It is also not clear how you have assumed the legal role of the Town Planning Board in review and refinement of land subdivisions and comprehensive planning. While the Town Board has a perfect right to refine and alter recommendations of their appointed boards, there is a well established procedure in law to prevent such actions from being fueled by the sentiment of the day or factors unrelated to the development at hand. You should in any action consider the established comprehensive plan, zoning, and master plan for this land. In 1954 the Town enacted zoning that envisioned residential zoning in this area of the Town. Through a number of amendments through the 1950s and early 1960s the residential areas were furthered refined with R- 15 for minimum 15000 square foot lots envisioned for parcels and remaining farmlands in the northeast portion of the town of Ithaca that soon after become Mr. Lucente' s lands. After subdividing and developing several areas in the 1950s and early 1960s, e.g. Christopher Circle, west and east sides of Warren Road, a portion of the east side of Muriel Street, Rose Hill, Tareyton, and Winston Drive and Winston Court, Mr. Lucente presented a Master Plan to the Town in 1965 for the remainder of his holdings to the east Town of Ithaca line or present day centerline of Sapsucker Woods Road which was refined and accepted by the Town Planning Board. This master plan is on file in the old town filing systems as Map 399 . Many knowledgeable major contributors to the framework, constancy, and success of town development including Mr. Desch, Mr. Liguori, Mr. Phillips, and Mr. Wiggins were a part of that review considered progressive planning for its era. Mr. Lucente followed this plan created by Carl Crandall; P.E. , an engineer/surveyor renowned for his work in the Ithaca area including the layout of much of Cayuga Heights. This plan was used in considering the layouts and drainage patterns for subsequent final subdivisons on Salem Drive, Birchwood, Maplewood, Sharonwood(now Sycamore), Pinewood, and Briarwood. It was even followed in the late 1960s to grub out Briarwood Drive and the north-south road to the east greatly expanding the wetland later regulated by the 1972 Clean Water/Clean Air Act. Through every iteration of Town of Ithaca comprehensive planning and accompanying zoning through the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, the balance of Mr. Lucente' s land was viewed as prime medium density residential land. The Planning Board and Town Board met in multiple sessions to consider comprehensive planning issues throughout the 1970s and 1980s. The Town and Mr. Lucente even jointly litigated against the Village of Cayuga Heights 1987 moratorium to preserve the right to have public sewer available through the Town-Village contract to develop the remainder of the Lucente land. The subsequent effort during Supervisors Raffensperger and Whitcomb tenures to establish a progressive comprehensive plan under the Chair of David Klein with many major informed participants, e.g. Ed Austen, Carolyn Grigorov, Stephen Smith, Gerry Weisburd, etc. still recognized the remaining northeast land with the parallel sensitivities of preserving wetlands as the balance that should be struck for the remaining Lucente lands in the Town of Ithaca. Eventually, the corresponding zoning was much discussed and implemented publically under the leadership of Supervisor Valentino and Councilperson Russell with the decision to continue to zone the remaining Lucent lands medium density residential. By then Mr. Lucente had already started to develop the revised master plan from 2002-2004 with the Town Planning Board that would strike a proper balance of development and conservation and the 2004 zoning town wide amendment just reaffirmed the direction and considerable investments Mr. Lucente was undertaking to fully delineate wetlands, conduct environmental reviews of fauna and flora including a three season bird study, coordinate specifics of development and donation of 25 acres with the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, and other related engineering and surveying tasks. Mr. Lucente continued to follow the path outlined in the Comprehensive Plan to a Preliminary Subdivision Approval of 46 developable lots and accompanying 25 of 48 acres of open space. The public unsatisfied by the complete public airing of expressed concerns in Town of Ithaca Planning Board Public Hearing after Public Hearing from 2002-2006, approached Town Board members to interfere in the process by declaring a moratorium. The Town Planning oard recommended against the moratorium. The Town Conservation g g Committee declined to offer any opinion reflecting their disagreement with a moratorium as well . Nonetheless, the Town Board declared the ensuing moratorium based on erroneous information provided by Wesley et. al. against all long standing comprehensive planning deliberations of balance and fairness for development of the remaining Lucente lands and perhaps nothing more driving it than unlawful politically targeted action against an individual who along with providing the bulk of housing in the .Town of Ithaca outside the Village of Cayuga Heights in 59+ years of commitment to the middle and lower income needs, has gathered a band of detractors who as stated to me do not like him or who feel he has realized enough reward for his initiative. Neighbors everywhere have a longstanding tradition of opposing development in their backyard, especially those like the Collura-Cornells' abusing and using Mr. Lucente' s land illegally for their own unsanctioned purposes; but, you, as an elected body, still have the obligation to deal with the facts and avoid recrimination and basing your deliberations on favoritism. As mentioned I would like to reiterate on record that this project has a Preliminary Subdivision Approval for 46 developable lots and associated open space. We have submitted all materials requested by the Planning Board in July 2006 as of September 10,2007. Staff review of those documents has indicated to us that one small undeveloped Lab of Ornithology drainage area north of the Lucente property must also be shown in the drainage calculations, some more specific language on preservation of trees 6" or larger in diameter in conservation areas would better highlight the requirements, and a more complete detail for the raised pedestrian crosswalks would be helpful. In addition, we are prepared to take responsibility for the stormwater facilities through a letter of credit (a bank' s hold on cash on deposit) insuring proper maintenance pending the formation of a drainage district to fund and insure the same maintenance. In short we are ready to proceed to Final Subdivision Approval. Your action to rezone all the land to Conservation in spite of the assessment of your field biologists and ours that much of the land is of low value ecologically particularly in the disturbed areas, areas more recently disturbed, and areas with fragile evergreen stands is arbitrary at best. There is a lack of science and logic in your action beyond the . inconsistency with your own established laws, planning documents, and longstanding zoning. Your staff and the Planning Board asked that a revised. master plan be developed prior to approving the 12 lots in the middle of the remaining Lucente lands for which we originally sought approval. We were basically directed, coerced, however you want to characterize being forced to develop a master plan with sufficient lands given to the Lab of Ornithology to satisfy the Planning Board. We agreed if the total parcel was planned and all lots approved and reached this point in July 2006. To now have the same staff recommending that 100% of the land be zoned Conservation seven years later shows no regard for professionalism or common decency and is at best hypocritical. I wish to enter into this record the minutes of meetings held by the Planning Board from 2002-2006. I also enter into the record the complete application for Final Subdivision Approval submitted September 10,2007 including a 32 drawing set of details suitable for construction of all infrastructure improvements related to the 46. developable lots. These plans include modifications suggested by the Milone-MacBroome drainage study which you are now citing as a reason for the Conservation rezoning. In spite of the fact that this report has a number of errors that the Town scope did not allow time or money for correction, the September 10,2007 Final Subdivision submission represents several meetings with Town engineering and Planning staff to incorporate the suggestions that would address the recommendations that would improve the design for the subdivision in question. We also "reviewed the comments of Dr. Walter and determined they are more pertinent to the areas of the existing Lab of Ornithology that has been extremely impacted by development in the Lab lands itself and points west and also does not account for many recent effective mitigation measures instituted in Cornell office complex to the west. In any event trying to apply his conclusions to a totally different drainage area where preservation of all wetlands is part of the plan was poor science at best. So your action to base the rezoning on drainage problems that can be overcome by standard good design ignores once more that fact the Town engineering staff has twice independently modeled and reviewed our design and conclusions and concurred that our approach issufcient and a Best Management Practice of current designs. We have a NYSDEC SPEDES Permit from the State for the Strom Water Pollution Prevention Plan . The Corps of Engineers has approved our delineation of 8+ acres of wetland which will not be disturbed and which should put an end to false characterizations that the balance of the 25 acres being donated under the approved Preliminary Subdivision Approval is somehow undevelopable and worthless land or not a generous gift and beneficial to protecting the wetlands themselves. There is now some reference to existing drainage problems, which you have repeatedly stated are separate, as the reason Briarwood II cannot go forward and as a reason for rezoning 100% of the remaining Lucente lands to Conservation. The ability to develop the current subdivision should be based on Best Engineering Management and Design Practices and not on existing drainage problems beyond the control of Mr. Lucente. Just the same we have listened intently to the problems the neighbors have expressed and examined the drainage survey of the Town and believe there are simple solutions to many problems. , some caused by the Town actions, that can be implemented as an alternative to the $9. 3million fear solution hypothesized. Once again I will point out that the Town diverted flow from the Briarwood I and areas to the east down either side of Maplewood Drive ditches. It should be no surprise with the former drainage ditch-waterway, shown on the approved Subdivision Map for Birchwood and Maplewood and operational at the time I left the Town in 1986, blocked or filled in to the rear of Birchwood and Maplewood that the Town survey shows soggy back yards as there is no longer a drainage way that once existed there. It would take a talented bulldozer operator like Charles Hurlbut, a retired Town Highway employee, all of two days to reestablish that drainage way on easements the landowners might provide. Rich Schoch, Park Superintendent, could immediately reseed and mulch the area disturbed. For all the time we have spent going over and over this, I would even be willing to provide the easement map and take care of removing and replacing the rear property pins and pipes gratis. This solution involves no piping unless the property owner at the Pinewood end desired to make this improvement. The culverts and ditches on Maplewood would return to their former function of draining the road, the front yards, and selected footer drains without surcharging. The flows handled along Salem Drive north of Birchwood would be greatly reduced and more able to deal with the uncertainties of snow melt pointed out numerous times by Professor Meyburg. In short it would solve the problem permanently at far less cost and inconvenience than the prototype experiment that has led to making the $9. 3 million hypothesis into a neighborhood reality and fear that no one can afford. Government officials should always be seeking partnerships, progress, and solutions for the general public rather than further sowing the seeds of discontent that have a life of their own. There are many other individual problems that are either the accumulation of 30-50 years of deferred maintenance on individual homes or a reflection of the improvement of building methods and materials over Mr. Lucente' s 59+ years in the business of providing homes most of the middle income and lower income can rent or own. Footer drains were open clay tile french drains many times with roof drains connected to them in the 1950s through early 1970s, then came perforated plastic flexible or solid pipe, and now fabric wrap perforated plastic corrugated pipe. None of these is the ultimate answer so recently better builders like Mr. Lucente have gone to installing redundant backup sump pumps with separate discharge lines so if and when gravity systems get over taxed or plugged a fail safe separate system will automatically activate. Some neighbors who are the ninth owner since construction have complained about Briarwood II drainage plans and cite existing rivers running through their crawl spaces who live no where near the project or the two drainage ways there from only to find out their house drains were plugged from 30 years of tree debris draining off the roof or soil plugging old french drains. Others, blocks to the west, blame their yard drainage problems on Mr. Lucente when he neither developed their lot nor built their house and the problem could be readily solved by devising a cooperative solution among neighbors. Government officials should be encouraging collaborative solutions and this kind of neighborly dialogue, along with Town staff possibly offering alternative engineering solutions to be privately acted upon, instead of fanning the flames of discontent and promoting empowerment of controlling others rights. The Town may ironically have created the stormwater peaking problem in the early 1990s that people in the Tareyton and Muriel Street areas repeatedly have spoken about. When the utility right of way across the northern part of the Lucente lands in question was cleared of a 30 foot wide swath of trees and raised 2-3 feet above the natural ground by the Town, additional inundated wetland was created both north and south of the utility right or way. The culvert placed under the right of way fill while controlling the large storms north of the right of way serves to inundate the area to the south so that heavy rains would have an uncontrolled peak (a flowing off the lake phenomenon) directly impacting the peak for any storm starting with the ditch behind Salem and along the Davis-Selco sideyard on Salem Drive and all the way down to Muriel Street. A simple solution would be to put a control structure on the utility right of way culvert that would greatly restrict the peak runoff from the manmade wetlands to the north of the right of way without any long range impacts. In short there are simple solutions to improving existing drainage concerns if the real objective is to solve them as opposed to using them as obstacles or reasons not to proceed I with new areas and present day better thought out designs. Briarwood II designs should not be confused with the need to improve past situations with modern day analysis tools, materials, and methods. The new designs should be judged on the best information of the day. There is a recognized ecological profession with established State and National criteria for rating the value of natural features and whether humans can coexist in the same space. Your consultants and the basis of their conclusions do not follow accepted norms but are instead self-serving to their employer or affiliation with the Cornell University Lab of Ornithology. Mr. Robert Wesley a well known field biologist, seems to render a opinion of the moment which he further refuses to test or defend in a public setting and so his work should be considered unprofessional in the sense that he attempts to be the author . and the last word. The fact that he told both Mr: Lucente' s engineer and environmental consultant in 2003 that changes were in order since he missed the Sanctuary Drive development in his 1999 UNA work for the County and then took two years to change his mind and two more years to coauthor a letter with major errors of speculation of rarities existing on Mr. Lucente land. That he had never visited the property nor had anything factually in the way of work sheets to substantiate his speculation should at least make you question the ensuing dependence of Mr. Warrier, your consultant, on Mr. Wesley' s private rating system for Tompkins County. Our environmental consultants will elaborate on McCain' s errors, weaknesses as measured by industry standards, and poor and biased local support for the rash conclusion to zone all land Conservation. As generous as some of these local preservationists have been with their time over the years, the damage they have done by their self serving actions, wild speculation, and lack of accessibility and your unquestioning embracement of same are actions that may warrant extensive financial restitution for harm done to the project progress and livelihood of all concerned. In the end you have targeted Mr. Lucente for your disgraceful actions, a man who has spent the last 59+ years of his life in the northeast section of the Town of Ithaca building homes in the style of the day, employing experienced craftsmen, providing an opportunity for people to be homeowners or renters by building what they could afford. He has had people employed continuously for over 40 or 50 years. He had rented a home to a former school teacher for 40 years. He has built the section of the town people most desire because of its proximity and short travel distance to everything. It is the closest development area to the center of county population so any notion that you can provide for the needs of housing in other areas of the Town is only second best to what Mr. Lucente has continually offered in the Northeast. He has been a successful transitional element for many people emigrating to the USA, has financed many individuals first home, and deserves much more respect and thanks than your arbitrary process has shown him. If you treated he and other local lifelong people who are struggling to make the Town of Ithaca' s housing stock better one-half as well as the billionaires who come to town with their Linderman Creeks and Overlooks, etc., and leave all the ensuing project problems to the town to solve, it would be a vast improvement and economically wiser. But you must stand tall at times to do the right thing for the town stability. Some of you need to sto p disguising your actions to single out and stop Mr. Lucente ' s project just to g satisfy your supporters in the neighborhood many of whom have just gotten too used figuratively and in some cases literally considering his adjacent land theirs. There is a majority of you who can still bring progress and stop the subterfuge and refuse to submit to political bullying. I close as advised by including my credentials as an expert in these matters. In brief, I come from two generations of home builders whom I had the opportunity to work for seven years through high school and college. We built some of the finest homes in Northern New Jersey but the footers drains were not any more refined than those that are failing 40 years later here. I had the great opportunity to be the first full time professional of the Town of Ithaca in 1974 helping Walt Schwan, Noel Desch, Shirley Raffensperger, Barbara Holcomb and others to build Bolton Road and a water plant and system, numerous park and trails, a joint sewer plant, devising the first and updated Park and Open Space Plan, a 10 year highway improvement plan, .implement sewer extensions in Forest Home, Glenside and three other existing highly landscaped neighborhoods of the Town. Later in my career I was fortunate to be in a position to improve the Cornell Water Distribution system as Senior Civil Engineer. Under Mayor Gutenberger I also was able to direct and implement reconstruction of numerous streets in the city in the late 1980s including Cliff Street and Elmira Road. And finally under Mayors Nichols, Cohen, and Petersen, I spent my last 13 years in public service upgrading the water and sewer systems in the City of Ithaca. The virtual creation of a modern interceptor sewer system through the City for the benefit of both the City and Town is no small reason why you, the current Town Board, have the choices to develop the Town wherever and whenever you wish today unlike many other New York cities with failed infrastructure. I sincerely thought when I took on this task for Mr. Lucente and he reached the generous point of offering 25 acres to the Lab of Ornithology, I could add it to my lifetime of achievement for the Town. I can only assure those of you that are courageous enough to stand up for what is balanced, logical, aesthetic and economical will some day experience the joy of your accomplishments that I do every day. There is always something new to learn everyday but my journey makes it a little easier to sort out public concerns that can and should be remedied from disguised obstruction and entitlement. The only thing your rezoning Mr. Lucente' s land completely to Conservation will do is destroy seven years of effort to bring conclusion to what the outcome will be for the land bordering the Lab of Ornithology to the south. Instead by attempting to be overbearing beyond your police powers you will throw the hard work and generosity of many all away and the question of finality will be out there for some other Board to have a whim that does not match yours or force Mr: Lucente to legally prevail on the 46 lot subdivision approval. t.'. , i .`ZP,� v�D��+., ,fit + � r �ri.'� le ; i � '� �.. � n ' a . l� �\ �. i+ k , a��t F, �C,; Y i•' 1 i� 1 ,rt � .i � - � u .7" �'' � C ' 'jj. 1 \i �. "'444 ♦ 1 ��, Y `t } .c:.y+ LSi�'.�~ � l� t' Y ♦ /^ r ft � � tr � t y6. � +': t :{ C1 1i. 1 " _ t :y.' �t t' Tt � �.�`f�,r { i. �)' i � TV' ; �. 1A F� n r v •r � _ r °- f 4.� . . „FrF'i'.r. ono- ; .. . . t . , W `'t` ±T F4 Y ' 6 C Y .f A/ uy:'� '4 r �a { , r ,T , >/ MJ� . . ' .• -.t t fiV '"{` N/ r : 1 •� ` f_ 'i o . ' a'� n. �" id+v'•' t a '�r 4„F 1 ,� rr� - rIn d'n .p - T• t. .% � � mss. '.;. !$ ` 4n1.,. YY� •� F}i 'v' 1 �J L� •S. 1 �' y r ,D -� t r. '° `'" �� ��•y: . ` •` *t If o r`TTlt ' .Ile - �. 0'10 `iY`Y � , f 'F �F ��r-7�Y �,. .� � ♦ } �• ���/ .} ��L�� ��.. • _ --S4i�Gb�' ,�� M>" � t �, - � • F r F ter,{ ,a ,. .5 ' ^ F �-m6sa IOU Wo y��t' 0 �• �`p 1� _ Z 7J.. u' y� ♦ ,Y.. J f'"'� ' Arl IT • • '+3 .�4 *-7111 k , CA '.`!'ti' �"w _ 1' „tX +H ' M r a . t 4f ' i r � IS J 01 �' y,� .ac Ohl °t eS /yam :: IIr � la� r`ri ,ee _ —" :.c y . Id I e . t' nktt H rr " „ i� •yfn i a �. W pt ♦ 0 I L. .. n •o `rl Op 7 �1�'y�,h r w, • � o t. t �� - >' t a• ji. 7�tay pt :[ts ••�i .y ell t fit Vft / , a•�M1}3{�C•"-�'t 94��},�� 'yIk . 0 _ rr/1 "(S'§ . r J' o°I YC /' �c 1 '{ Ya , • ( i " ' Fct fil l•' r. Y -� f �G" n1'.1 ' t a 7a ♦.y� i' �(�.�'. 0� ' 7 � t ! 1}�y$ rr ..t•e' �A!•:7 • r �� Y HZYr , 1, Y gxti Mrt 4 r �r. . r lot 4'! 14 w ' .' 1 r 7 r r ° IVI C.t,�j r�� r .• {R F4YY �.° � �rt A� 4 Q� Y✓,� 'N L2 f 1 fw�O .j i • dIA a. 8.u. n )o 1 9p P-17, _ I F � ef "+6 � ' v � 3a��� ��.0. I�� � a , �- � Q'�7zfi % YK bi`(� • f YXdi K � 1 i '.M`' Vo,(•T��' {�L��. �N7/_� ��/I'�!D�17/� r -'i6- • -Nil t a y � '� 1 ' `� AI it , I , ._. ° 1� / F _ •` '' f r I b �tP q t7I \y1 , r `vR , , ? .JaGyiFiroy r l `� 1 / - • t It ') '� —+21t•';. L.u•w.�� a ,�-�it+n 9 t :0 , 11i� I .. vF t^ k 1"• ,� '4 ` j . J p , 7y�- , ° „ \ t • lfi, 1 • I w _ - �_' I�ii!� to r h �. i tit ,I ,. t' nt .. , , tr ff .uc� ,.�, k1f � f � � C ° AS. l '4+!k'?s;- I , /� '7.4 . I I -t , . ` 1/ [ie!"5.'J'C.f1t!.'F'•r�•ras'r^ � ,y; 1 r r yt J^ G I , 9 t t, k, 1 t� 1 ' , 4 t •. p 1 It fit 1r , rI� 51 y C +�I , ' Y Pn ky �{ nA { ,,. �,� k ` �4 r IJ' �'�,. : /� ' J , f r � i5 � .y IV p Pik .• \ , � , ,�'.,� . ',r ,` .. ii ' 1 t,!-. fnr ` , r c { k E d r 'd. . - 1 ',elj�lh� ttlV ,!'� ar 1 'V�+!y ,9 qVII A It tVIA .AM �' • 'I' ( . 1 �r `..y , Q'�1. . . V r • !" � t e 1 k'}'Ar, fir Mrp� .r , r 'r , 1 irk *S. ! � '`�r� ff1��4,�. /� • ut. /- Mp. C�` ,. t^p. . arM /�51� �;. n�, 11 S� � �il �� r�1 'Ay ��y�.lt }. � - i • �.t�. at }, , .fl Y } I ' i?' ,,, (• �?. g, } �� 11.. v1 1 ti� ` �� rr tt ' ,1•', k - It ,i` . 'i • 'ls a ' .t rt �, �, rr S. L . ., . ` . v ,,�/t `� J'♦ C v q iy, 7�FF� , r,� aq v , X71AV,*`., I; • : 'GT��:.• -'vB ` � .�`�. � ��t r! a L {'. ` `*a•)}.', `, ?y2 {,�' , (t {' �� 1f Fad 55 / ' I • •.1 l •` 3. 5� n �5 r' 1 J' �, as . l, /• J `U.j�, rif(if! atd tj 4 s�' � ^. . - _ . � •`� �. Tt � , �C.SI it E > � 'b� Mf' l ) -to r 1 > T' ° + > [ 1 T �• •__ . r . .y, 1�. - # , fit a" ,Iy �Inr 0. . . R1 `(1 u. fi ti rt1T .Yq 5 +It rr + q y' y t i'I' y, . 4t.� � t7 �h� ( I S I ti r ' ' • • ,` 4.fr — .,1 �.r'/' l:' a ^ J t � •• 6 $�k• 1 %tl'.!+'3`+ 1 ° ' J '( I `v. Y {k'yr 'f • :s y9 IVA I.:r✓ �J `'—a•\�.�...y., .� t �itl i �! "• r ' r 1 . .it1 f R 4 t! 1 _ of `,✓., Z�_ 'v I.P. ri'. t ; t ' ,:; , e1 /'s • .' ii _'_7 ' !T : ,,p7i `' �" _ 5 . 1 . :fit/ St. r .j�•7 �I,.� . . j,rjv Fyp�t�' rd`Q r .•��✓�!(�� ' y r '� �1 1 i � � � � �!� �� (ice� t • m _ 1f � "3 f % f S� .ri r n � ti ' t�� � 1+ � u , r,�. :tJM /iI . f �f L sr✓ `� ` '_"- ' _ {f� "v` I \ �r ~ ' - �'` •--:• r "'7 `i� t , r Of 1l I Y ' yt ki /J • ...+r.' '• ,+,.aoh e I r 7 �r f 17 4 i ,.�Q , _ 1``...' l \. �a � r�r{� ,` .. r`. •. r) • { .y f �` :- - t'.S� ,.r �rf�' � t�$' , 1. y .y e II III .: l,` ' ? l" , d : ' \ ''4 * Pity pt� rt °•' 1 Jr , floo 11 1' 1 Mi a r + r�lk°` 1 f _ 4t'.J r . p.. 1 ` •k 11 T �. kT II , r 7�, fk 1 . ` , ` ,� e �(♦ p .a- ` Qf ;.: �: + � t �A•+4�r r e 1 AA ? r r.:1 / , ( ! i r r • r . n J t t 1 � ' \ 's'�T ; ' f!'�.. ( .f, 1 IF "l�•�/ ,� / Iry ` yrr{. �* ..�{A. 1 n l tl � r J•,' µ 1 r f , �/trr t '/ . r s `y t o., •1 ,,,�,t• i •�._ swlr , f Jrlf3 $ 4j 141. jtt 1 '1 Y ; �, 1 , t " � , � f ;4 �t . � i 9 s :.��i ! ' � . .—} t�u ,• — {t'�+�iiry,y I •.ru..� •� � , ,t , IA 0 IV IN I VL If T. i t , IV kk It It If 1 J'.•4.� �. 4'4t r ^ i ° �. �4IP ota � +} t t � A�r�,. fk 41, .r. . Ali rk , �f. rl :�l y; ''Yl� * f .rfr� : r. MtPv ,• 1{ S � y �'r11 it .fie L !>; 'a ' i �( tC f •T: r h - 1 .7 ` .fir',' . . , IV t .' Yi1 gyp a. , kYy ~t y � ' Pit t ' pt t Ay / t I : . Rl, 1 Milt ,;�� I�, I , r7 ." /. . 14))ll�' •tee . I .r ' ¢, f Tr •y I 11 {� k r ' 2 1 r b � 1 .I. • etr It , . • r, r .. r• b ✓ 155 ( r rl' '" a y A i•/ , r .aa,.. .,. ?f.'F, m. _ ...x Jt=1. .eP'haa�: " - '11 11Z ` .1�+.•l�a' r Y ^' ' 1I.:t APJ 'fir #! ":,F"C: Y aRat.'i� Ole r:+ r .�1 AM �`` �1 Y. ,<yr - • r _ { Q y �G.x{ � h X r s h'r+ ,{y r a °1fr (a Lam` }j r + n:. 73 2 yam l;7c n L { ' . 1 • w ri 1.�; Yt, La~ �n 'i r 1.F� sY Yf� E � X54cq< ( str i,'s � W, i'S ix: �wlr ♦ Sit Shy ,rF {•t.'a r rt• ` f �l r.. `'mac &d1a :{+•! 'v N3 ^ � Y . J f F9 aA+•+' Cr,"F 1 t 4+�6"t•.'�,, r ti i. (,! f �y V L • r � ,• /y "M�t )V `•+ may \�CC a Try' t lY'� IC"f /1.•. �' ` )a �:Vpy��y •♦.(c r :..: 4� A. ..►r\ '71:X .' J •. In > 5` a 1 i? Y ai $ (a �. . ' ` 6 y' <V� k s� i fe V` ZI , FM i., ag ,r _ -ls-... .v� 4" ," `�'� - ' r-' S'K �'1�- • s �..Y{i 1 •� . �a�-. � •..: e+� n may{ t �. " .....gy\pp{., r� ,j"yy��.T�.tauf • ic. , ' .Srr ;:VI 1l 1.7 ; ' I:..Fa.3rta ra :. p .-r,� yti , �♦j a }. ,'yt _ rj{•.�. / r ♦ ..`I-'Yt zz �. ♦ 11. i'r { y� ! a is a �. t •ry+'SrSS ..>, � t ♦: r L� - I< ,7 � �,�. . . ylr{ 1 y ti i fi a 0 .r +_ Jt}f .� �, .'4' ',•. . i11 .� ' ti"�f t: i.: . i { y kA c ? It r \ 1 '1^.il•'° f ' ��.aYe� ♦ 13. f •l t r { a ••d.-'�.< { 1. y.reo to � tti { )'' 3.'0 1'1 V•.. " - . • r r•Y - r � pps / +. }}��� y�.��y+ j}/ ?' f� ty • 74 ( er \ rf 'J>. ua(W WiJ Y FI 1 ,y '•�lx ` • �ayr ,�. �``'�' .'jyw.'�{ : et) i rr � . w <yr . Ii` y :x F J . . , y\'Lw• r-6i � i Yf'/I - ri- r r t a:: L . 1 r � L, :r . r �y t-•:, 4 �j� �r , !�'` '+ta•` ar {' JC�q.f��Yh �e. �j• -r.''• �'wL�' . a J f 5f y r '` a %. 31GCr•1a"7+�SF t �7[}/�t/�Pay �.2•G' y L y�.•��.t. .. rh . J IF / Y 1 - 4 S at v .s. t 3. tY\► ' YR Y' �ap r. w t '♦ it r /1 nr )1 { k i1 l '• i'/d e r C ad '. r ? a a � Y fSA tYA '• � �•1 k j ' r �MI►Jy '4 � t , ' R r v 1; L j 2 z?- •� v }�. tt+FL�' ►. at J Arlr . '.. �.�'� ✓ff< : , c/4a�} �..�r ''v l.. frT..'{ ti , -r ». r.:. [ •1<. ♦ r f\r y �.y i 9•Yr.. p. h• .��d t 1 ^ - "'rt 1+'4 •`jam. r+ a rir 'rt ry`r W. < *+ 71 r - r t „ ^/ ' J !/ I.YI r'/ JS.tr•Y ., '4 (y r7LK { K ,t ky! r —Y.,Lr . 1 h < .♦r t : �.v; "IIANI -W. X: - �;�.st,,• Y r.._ y�F . �`-JSa.✓ _ .,� � �1� rf � > IT WIT rL Mir t 'fl } .0 t'. ._ , c { Y:s,fi<� r� ' y n :;aGt. +{#O: o aw�a...a1 +• iyr .. .F •% r r 1 a : IYI '� r r0 r T r IC V AY ` •dam r '♦} S� � � � j,r��IaY rtC - .%� _..c" .ire 7 � V a. x " r ♦ 44' ���_ i 1Sa >1 '•, _ Tr'/ate' v +'M' 111111 't.•r� 4'_R. Y ye � itt f ^' $ a �'Y".` a r H \ r All lll }� { tt/e �txe r.• .+f . / \. {4'r_ ([ r 'j//� A� JP,01 I F, r�; J • c: � ?t ` '� 3 ' iA0.. R`J - �R^y r � .?��J yr� � } •!� y r � ,y" r• "a" IID�.rtA s�; � � {:�',��� - ,,... i ac+'•lJ r` Z r i�t r'1'�_ �'( Jr^ r l d 'r' LJ' \ �' �� ^Wit pp �' �=2s r� f p• i4� `} i�i.'.Y,'�..r." r�*; r..eSe.-� � � �l �`J 1 { ! � �,`y • R < + „ T Jets/' �.�i.�.<� }S� txy � . > � 1 a Ji .A •tk•., f ,� It ^' J.. 4 ' rK rage L or s all -71 lk u " h _ f . -.. _ .. : a _ ..1 - n, � . rte ` Pic PA S' '�• ` '6 �. '.. Rough Ouffine of Sq=cW Wks, - . . Note that there FS ito Sapsucker Woods ond ... p - - k R �fAl z t J na a location of Frog Barn x - f a : _ (Lane's old property .o om '9MW ReoPcriy - Nanshaw Road 'z k. _ F T 4 .a J�� •.s �L� � � t yip {".� �i ' { p7g4, I Pr 3 le MAI��yy1y'yyy - ll +. + Saturday, November 17, 2007 America Online : Fabbroni CORNELL LABORATORY of ORNITHOLOGY 159 SAPSUCKER WOODS ROAD • ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850- 1999 OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR John W. Fitzpatrick Phone: ( 607 ) 254-2410 Fax: ( 607 ) 254.2345 Email: jwf7®comell.edu 31 August 2007 To : Ithaca Planning Board From : John W. Fitzpatrick, Director, Cornell Lab of Ornithology As you know, we have been in discussion with Mr. Lucente for several years about a possible, significant donation of forested property to Cornell University, to be annexed and managed as an addition to the Sapsucker Woods nature preserve . We understand. that this donation has been envisioned in conjunction with Mr. Lucente ' s simultaneous planned development of new residential units bordering the gifted property to. the south. With respect to forested property now bordering the Sapsucker Woods preserve, our mission obviously dictates strong preference that, in an ideal world, no additional development occur. However, when any development does occur, we consider it vital. to the sanctity of Sapsucker Woods that such development be ecologically and hydrologically responsible, carefully monitored, and significantly buffered from direct impact on the existing Sapsucker Woods preserve. The proposed gift of 25 acres by Mr. Lucente would in fact represent a significant ecological buffer. Without any doubt, incorporation of these 25 acres into Sapsucker Woods would enhance the long-term ecological well-being of our existing preserve far more than would any scenario involving development or other use of those acres. As we have expressed to Mr. Lucente, we are willing and grateful to accept the gift, and would manage this tract in perpetuity according to the same ecological values we apply to the existing preserve. • A MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATION FOR THE STUDY AND CONSERVATION OF BIRDS • Y rAn� ° v'e,�G,''i5 o fill ' rCrar pr r t to t I' JYt W .r „ rr !, , k' 9 L � ap�}g1t'r �yY.�' 1••1 A�, .� it• J ,� Y 'Ark"'.•'Stf�Xl d-y , t"IP$ 1 1 ti 1 . .. - t� v ^hF" S,uJ ityr ra" nr t t1: i w S,y .••I":' rt IN e une 4 a 'r 4�...Y.�` IN .J +�+,! "YiiP t y'• ji ' f:y +ouC� rr. t , ITV t li ah ° � � , 'tlrty 1S w ti tof v . ' I� •r t i, J1 , 1 '.1 i t"tr: " Q ypt `ty:l, ,t }q}. ifN lK.h ,✓y i !P IN { eke-YWY i S t # tt N III Vii! 41 $ V�?►t L . t 'U (• rP ,+ ) X44 F r E A '�I ji a pN a1,'p Y' i ,•, r al:i V+ yW VW v °''.Il►xt '+' .ir. rx�(} ,di 1 .'!ry L . lttS N1, �`•.. '�1 ;i"� lr l'^. 1ra,fl 'k Ir 4 1.i , � , 1 f, FFFTµ' t'r•1ijp " yk fir , ^ tt '�,. . +. nfr.�J$li, It N ,�f5•t1Lrhyyl'9{I,,,f,rrJ��t , f` t Q.0 }" a .L slt�rr 2� E.�h rPr, y y r'S ytAf ar .r: r hew .1J r r rri$f ,7yt `t7 i h'Ni .T '4,'3'r' ycelr`�{t� t,5>� ' .t .r _ ^�i• a vs£t ) ( t, r%,m �4 ��2ti v a• '. l,�y,�yy f At' ' .>~a. , .�. Y ; rq I Into '�. Prk4" i � ` `1= yx. pP gltt "tty .•:Idh FM'r� y IF I t, t >. ° AL" If4V ®. J',e}` d1i r° ilk ?. IF s 1 J r Mat,]. k J� ':Yty •7 IF S7 r +s.+ ,, ant_. I r , ,. i'.° rgJaYw • .�' { L rE 1 ir( . t ". r7 y, C J J i ✓ .�b� i 1 }r 7 IN J al IVlok ir>, YI5 ; tiM1 . , r 'M. AN , N. mid it ' SS •1' �n r e a µ � � .., .r_i.Y¢S t �•.r trsa tl r • ! , , ✓ �t y di > I a {yf r - ,' ♦f C' 1 , R J - .� Y PJ ntaY' ! tx'Z Ill YS r r Its M _ .. IN �t o ,r ,-� t m 4 r r y°J §t t• ��I4�C4, r _ I } rk�l IN'yJ r �: p wY� ,t _� .r 't`a r d'' u t + 1 saY4 r/�. IIIfI. . 1 y�� : Itr :. =i"` t .r r." Wil f'. t wli'1(�5✓'1ynr o. ' I P 1 f< .0 r rr� n + " w r >; f °C . 1 t �' iYSr lit .S f �31 1 .1N ��y n Rr, � J r U _� 1 ( 411$ �,�( �II ��iirytiMi r 1 &, y,u a +YwPf� rA� nih °+� �}'Jq w S � J .3 I 4r fir.•r ' .4' f r f 9 k J - , gI'r�.�,�i'-il {jZv 1 , ry11 ' J r r+ YI.. I i ' s Ii Sl1 ' R. PD$ r ri a 1, d r, 1 >, i 111. n •w R �aJl' J >ti h rt / S,1 r y ti f w ly + ^ }r.r rs '' iy,l l Mlfp-' . :�, xr ( ^a , , t I (tryp Y CI 1 iKul n Jf" L M,LP' ♦ + + ° i qln y« , TIV,Vly . �' t(.. Lrr ! W, w " v 1si ;y lti I w Kt IFNI . ✓ _; Y ,: ylY it wyy ro t5 eJ ':S K.rW4+ to ,ti 1 1 1 r r Ir <>~'tt"i ' 4irf� YR , '# x SIV it r y� A{�t '� J t 1 $ ' ,�r, ,4 f � r,CIIIN ld IT c t `'-I3F m [ a 1. 11b 0 p51 k .h ! 4 Il n �I+ �5 l� � i'�v '1"fi' L'd`n R .7�1 �i4rr�y, { ' � 1 ^' • . rU d . 41p1f 9 Ar s� - �� - ' - t�+l�l' ytj!`, lv� +i7al� C ..;>`l'�. $J', ra Nt 17 1 IF rr as' a l ,µ+ �Ik �VY e 1 YM1i>u(F� wN1 Yr Ar'� r . �1 LC' • } A. 1 1 . 1JrS S' I r+: *'P.tI, ry. l C . . , H L$,,ctd ° 1'tWe P�tY(.au r.ry )te�t +t'•,.y"?. y . �'i i e (� r " pry c - at t 6 1�7rP r t�it'�� ?' -'�;x !� > `' .n , tl �e+ilh•�A '°T} Yyf,Py.lirN n �� r ✓�itr Ml' rill W hlr, rS1 1 � y��I^c� O'`�yy/a �t .. may` i y} f I � _. .4 � n�W: rl ti ,rte 1 ` ✓ ' af115rif Y N i i i f '1 .7s '� ° ^,01 " +' % .�y}^'T tl + 1 •� 1, st v .S ".55 j ' j. 41i� A74 7 rl F•t " N ( 19 A .171L '1 Or Yy ,j,,r��tt,r��� r'n'A` II if I VF y /� `i P, P! r 1 J R J # N $ r f rz l i '!`..}. 1 r s,L I , ` lA v,l 1i{M 5 ,.11 i f 4 ✓ .y 1�P r 1 �,t 1 i�1 dl , i t + t +If � s ? 1 .+ —h rli L L l5 > `(°I 1 4ji 1 9Ti� N I ' rJlc' !, AJ IS Skh $ tl4 R( CI;y}K�' t 'w `ri I I'21 r III e" "'' ,J t rr•,. / �y� { 'k t+.a. ,d ..j, ,? t r $!x 4) v t , r. , t li�r >4v -�1 4 u It y��? K; Se tjw✓%fA r rr p t{�t v_ 36 nk tY '�' ` li'Po`�'1yy1rI �2 �1udA /tl^,J, y�° r'!F ?'�° "• ,,lT'3 IN V` }l y`a �f i t itil Lt JJPW y�x ... i♦. r� $It III tkI 1 �' tM M /i.( ',•� tf3 !. Il;t,'{�an f! � r.r �i' ji _•' °�w�'d"}�ry� ,y , . FIX a. rtpYyjr f ( C✓iFt7 rl� r �,f„rygG A 0 ¢ w . u°r{AS `µ , � 4 ,rYI , ,�rrrr rt� t« i 41` 1 a r1i ry4hL ! v far: V Gihl t, ` t .,Stf,1 r:llJlrtt t a ytY 1 - (r , 4R� o IV ' 41nj } I �IlLIV Ali r r tiy! �« r : . d!! 9� :'F��' .' "• � � rk tO'G. ,{r /l a0ltit4 n � tl �A T I i1"1�l IJr1 - •+ ° " pv g { I atr( AT 4 y tL� N S�yktAr..>, (t Vs.' `1*rsl r �e1g5r557 t .E p . dl h�t+1, r fa''fl"'+ t+J{r�'•r+N'r�rtMl ,lfi�Py r�•.If oJh \ rcJt ,e+l "'1 k1� wepi < .k yi ,Yp1 v I J7 2 , P �Pt,j�t� rNlr T1k 17i , tf tGF t1�"''�iIy91�}r It 4J FIN; 4 :✓':. `R� M 4y� Ij avf$r1V it } 'Evt llt4i �, �It Y I r r tkk4 ^s •',a°, zr ;>f fi JtAk,.•�e Xttl Pih;('t�M lr � i ) I ' f 4id$tI {r��lv` t 1 fr'1fT2 '� ,. n p f'd 4 a 1 F d ,nf t I L 4f+"i ,t m• r ' a�nAJ u4r F .Tir q fr r L' ( wts P T, 1p , t ' n+�;a CI , AfJI I 'pP �t�"1 d 'f 1tdn 1 i rcf99,�'4ix yy L r `,r°�?. 1Yt. :{:1 # , ( A INLkI `a 9gti l4llilt^a , `�JI!$Y+ °iSil . .r,^f ' i�` "t§•`P .P ' ap;; . tI 1 . r§ k�'1 al4Y+d``ara pt uln"^'�`.Nio$•u. tfi`t� �?,• qt'�,� §: � �^�,'7,t��rr/tttlt¢ i "Jltp+n ,`1rSr'1$? r`f' y I1 . tri 1H +T y`Y 7r. � 'e' ,a. ' yt t?✓{ {n,lf . .F"Zt w ul1p r , JrII (c11 a'rt•1 Yt N xrt Irtir tr. j>J '1 �,1 '. i alt C +ty,'u + !' `� if , �rl(r j� r"t�l �' k� r.,�' /t, t'4v 9?1,' rtn ,},; "l3rS r ii, '7; a'f�•,'�1`�i" . . �¢e , y 'YL � f4t1 I Mr } A F D" Y✓! i - y��3 'is t N•a"•'Ren q{a Yr±,Jr�,!(°`PL t,l- a1f Jnr Jr• jy fLc tMAh . `s• (ir • ` y rS � X t J . �li;Ufr SFr § . 1r °d mu aye 11. H n 1 3rr :t r, � a fatiY I JJ v ,per fir'-✓� , 1�Zrll :t SOt is Ai h I P8"� 9f ,�49t r r ` # tl�('tr Ianl JJ•�lui.'"1^Y„3•k 41 SAie n '1 Y l '}� (4V t art n « rIFJI 't OFF I . �. d 22)iw re rt `WY 'r W 1 �lrel 9 In fE (ax„4rJ � #' y , 1. f ;r. ' 't .r la Isi to fit J t t L .: (�(t+$4r [ ! f t)1'�rfW � w; '!” 1n 'J �(R�yY 1.7fpFnlr § Irl + )7" G�✓ na 1 ry91F' +$IIr a '1 , J 2'} q 't i r fi -r 4f' y 11 Tb VA`$J%( !•' 111 l it t. ilk;. i 1i f ­,'r t ' , v' r C rA �. YN 5 r 9 u d }47 ` �'. µ . t N�p/' d. 1 �:, 3 y 1' ��''t; ; L . h ) $ k f t! l• c'l/ ' fia r fir 't ' Y �.-yW ,+ a�,��, I ? 1�ir V < r.P�,qq S4(i5 ,. ,S rY^J41rC1,I EfAJt '� rF.Si l3ft ' � Jm tA _!M0 F;r lY � 4 , t ;�tt� r15'r`;•z% ey ,( !v 't' � ''t lJ l' h� 4�i- ' Fit s .n t : i 1 r i^ S D t ` U 1. ,j f� M r 7 , ( Y • 1.; '^ t 1 , PY'� y tf 4h4 rt. r, YT A T;f ! � 8T1^ + r }r in;. 19i P I ' :'• . fr L,d vgA Lr $ IN I I IF P ' : 1 p r I y 3 Iv k n t 1 G x 4,. 1 � ° r ..�`••> 1t '� rx>Y. ��). . r1 f An, 11 1 .v_# t r i - l. U�. NO I i1 I ;1 (IF kyd t ' r ex 1 tgid - w ° , t ' lv , ' IJ �, fr9 { Y IY� }44� yr rq 1J 1 6 lM1 SYJ Ail J-1. FIN i ! YI fir ! !) A• }r/4 S(r,{d�.�i 1I'F I4 eL' .pl f W, tt2141. t ! r "^? � > ' i"u f , � t SI t ,. 4Y{�9�1"J a�Jj '.W w(dr!^ , !�! 'tt11 \ YS?i t� , 1 °hl'j4 r7f{$ }t r`'+ r % r 1..�..i AI 'f�ir �sP .e � 1v. 4 ..S' tYxil NV � l aY ;1171 r i l, 1 j L h tnjb f illrl .-vil c G h 1141 ' tl� }i r �11 r 4r^' . ;��' �.fal t1t , ♦ J ?Py 1 ° .fx 'H„i '"°�r`2 ', J s' t i s u It ' c P Itz } , r { P^>j 1 . t+ (4 !f<°^(4. y.�. 4 y 4p.yr S r ,Y�w ySf{ IL i fib:.✓- rp ! e w I I iI t - ra 4Y u`. t i 1� ; L �` t1(`,r , " )(1 ' , v i rEl 'U 4 � ' �''t7 ilml IF h 6 ,( • n r1� a4 , , Ir r `� k v 't * tq ite`t Vt •w , 41 rrt 71 � Ix l I a !!'. Y" I Rye. �. r l� In ,,u 4' I F rt i _a Ird Itl rol lV j l t j ,51 tF µt - J J$ ' th , n . AS, �N rf i. . 7 1r J x41"v It } 7r YT$ a @q., R`I,,,'>)rF ♦�iyi»rr fi^ k : ifs, ° r � d x S1t st . r �� (�IGrr P” >'IrSfJa ,I r S srltl. �`'T�F,,t�Jt� `>`� ° n aJa'.ht ♦� ht is�` r1 ifs x('J r '�\ t { '} 2"' tyt x f• 4,r Vr fl � t1. n• u r / °tf t ?J�l+ lr C h r ?2�r•IJ y' rT-' S `a1 r _ Yli ' '1 % fft�1' �kF t 'Sr ,1(� F1k Iii:' ° , 1 �� h tkl ,• hr4h�f c i u i � ::y ,AU r✓ v 1 z fJ, r d - 't`k ) e 1 (, } v ) d ♦ ° u, rs' 1 t '. 1 t4 - 'c'zY, frs 1 ' x :•y! ,•'. •m, { , It. u .i �k IN I a i,iii i . t t+" e.+,f• t`'p1 v•" "� r ., ' .µSr...1 :�.un p . B;fr!; .w 1 i , 111 • . • ' 1 11 • 1 • • �?. t e r t },x� { �•'�J's'` ,� ,�� k it 4t . . k 500 1000 It feet k It VA Ir- WA It .• + 4 m rr dd LI a a� e ftw IV I i n ate¢i L, l IV- It OW XT Pic— oiVAd y a ,€ i y r•q " : •. �- drt. ?r ` - x•' ' 'r y', 4 � '' �9,-Kd,+.�.v�•p 'i�7+. . ..�^ , .� e .@s} l ,� rs•'; t . . �:, i[f3q�1 � �A ry � r , r t^a'. r � r •^�l (! �� . .M6 4 , f t • t*' •w,y /SI It LAP 4 jr W }i•,1�, t• j �M (I � kos '..,� F # �7L •' ,(d1. . •' Y at . r T J• � w b� ,=n F t rr• y 'tj+ f l_ •s*., ,� -fir ;r" /f+Y r ' �k ; s I a _ 1 "� r z w_ r X 1 nn ..�;. .� rf% '4r 2•a,•_�. a: {k S .iuy�� VM � 11 may; o I • ' MA rr We lee 4 of / ,r MOROI fee 43r pp r f/ ✓ n I / A � " � j j�//j/!//�r/ P � �%4'j •4'!✓.'/.%rr u4 L. I:. y R/., Ike//jar % /� kit aai- ., Y Y /1 • ® 1 1 11 Y ✓; — , / ,� ;,/ U/0 ' 111, �•. AWd 3A18 W3"1V IF is ANVod '/ �/ NA All ARE ISO lee my, /'i// , y,. ,. I On IM % •' j /ji', ' -�- el , ell el 1 1 1 1 i ivLll�1 b`i� NO3, - Dc3 Z 3 ,� I. bZ• Z8 S � � i Tl(/) w .A ro l%C7 T Z > w w ? . v ZS'Sb N ru ON ro °N afo 169'OL T S9�S0 r� \ . ' � 3 j o 99 S 06 Ln dd pp * � 4. 1I9'62Tp`s. 3 ,EI, b2, Z8 S , , z l • � a \ �QS Ul ru A / y z O ` .p Z - rU cn O O ���...///��ll O \ ` _ o O Ui w O rrl N u A A -4 O o l (l f'7 <? �-O N O o , O !1N3W.3Sb3 NC7I1 d ` 1. T ul 11 11 If ai r s �� I alp? /,, 'r Ile If l� i VI If 11 XX OR rz 4 If ow it - [� .'ice/`j� ✓ //��;j ���T�j j// ./ ' 5 r. •r. • / /i/op ai�iiri, Y / Y Y . Y y ; • n ITT I ( jj�jl//�j . . !�I� � I I / . u . l 1 - I ;r $j I. I gyyr. .INK gill AZI NIXII I Y' .ii i vill /// ,/ +rr n. •1 , /Cr/ may >ti + 3 'k%'ui `vr'i"`a'"'u'i� %yY ii)�j%F�'��+ n�J•, .�. Q JJ I F 1 1 J4� ` • - �,.�, © I Y Y Y . • ♦1 11 1 [. Y IDS Awl , NMI 4 Y • Y `III, �_�-����=-��� . ... a. . IV •ham. ✓ t'sV '/ tiS >drf OA % IV OMNI Mul O / OA WHO MOW or / 940 / / MOWN RD VILLAGE OF L ANTICIPATED LAND USE PATTERNS LLSA rr�n . . . . PL jLAGE OF ST GA HEIGHTS LAND USE Recreation HM RD Conservation/ Open Space 61 • Rural® ■ - Suburban Residential Urban® Residential Commercial/ General Business Public/ Institutional Limited Industrial CORNELL CA UNWERSITY 1 i 1 j - Note .z No areas of NOCHELLST or shown WILD P,9.AMALL PL ANT 1A V I y, \1 - J HMGHTSDR ttUlNi{'?:L 0.5 1 0.5 - :NGY):eliW; gr+: i1gIl2F��1/SJ . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1991 i I OF 1 TOWN • • ` - } C ' ' � - 18, 21 � . • IT I MAP DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 2001 TOWN OF DANBY i Village of Cayuga Heights. The Village of Cayuga Heights service area is served by the Cayuga Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Village sewage collection system is the oldest in the Town and is owned and maintained by the Village. Northeast Ithaca. The Northeast Ithaca sewage collection system is served by the Cayuga Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant. The oldest sanitary sewers in this area were constructed for the Northeast Sewer District in 1965. Extensions were made as the area developed. The collector sewers in this area generally are in good condition as shown by the results of an infiltration and inflow evaluation conducted in 1989, which included video inspection of many sewer lines. CAn inventory and maintenance program has been initiated, with maintenance of sewers and manholes being performed as- needed. Sewer system capacity in this area was designed and constructed to handle the area's remaining development .potential. Eastern Ithaca. The capacity of the Town sewer system in Eastern Ithaca is designed for the full development potential of the area. The only limitation currently is the transportation capacity in the City sewer system. The Town and City are evaluating and preparing plans to alleviate this limitation. The southern part of this service area includes the East Hill commercial area and the Ellis Hollow Road area. This area drains to the City sewer system at the Mitchell ilD Street monitoring station. Sewage from Forest Home and the Dryden Road (Route 366) area Is transported to the City sewer system via lines owned by Cornell University. The Forest Home portion of the sewer system was constructed in 1979 and includes 8" gravity sewers, five pump %stations, and five force mains. The system is in good condition and the pump stations operate effectively. Sewage is pumped into the Cornell gravity sewer system on North Campus, flowing through a monitoring station on Thurston Avenue as it enters the City sewer system. Cornell-owned sewers also transport Dryden's sewage to the City sewer system via a Varna pump station. Southeast Ithaca. The initial sewer system in this area was installed in 1970 (old Slaterville Road Sewer District) and has been expanded as individual developments have been constructed. The principal nonresidential sewage flows in this area are generated by Cornell's Baker Institute. These facilities will require monitoring under the Federal and State industrial pretreatment regulations. Capacity of the Snyder Hill Road portion of the system is adequate for the development potential in that area. Capacity of the Slaterville Road sewer is adequate for current loadings, but a proposed major increase in sewage flow would necessitate a capacity analysis and a determination regarding improvements. The possible creation of a sewer district in the Town of Dryden will require an analysis of transportation capacities and determination regarding ' the allocation of capacity. Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan September 21, 1993 Page 11 - 33 o Z w �D IL Z Z ° > rc ¢ a W m ° Z� I � a O W ¢ N ? U O �g Q ' y � L . a I• M QFQ W {.' W ; zz � z Vi I z cF � U N J y « R ¢ Q ZJ� m d~1 Q rq< co 41 .J W U m ~ OZUH @ >p7 m a vi tad O a O C � Z $ M .. Yd ® WVWO u a o� W 1p" W C) cma ¢ a a sa CL an mSo � V tow N = f va N3QANQ m kni tl3tlN1I j0 1 Af lee ul •4 Z: a S 0 J' r' J• _ O ll 1 UIU . W F • l alt am zr y o• � •d %� ° 3 z a �I °`• � o Io •.. V3VHI .f0 NA01 Vb 1 � N i04 c i �� / f ° N, ! j 00 it Q JN3 NA01 . . _ . � _ .•: _. . v' WQ OS • pC — as a W i Y¢ c Eoa =E- = W �3ci ¢ o J ¢ Q o '� c_ + ( � }QW Q > Q Z ° W U yy Z �mv ■ g cc C L�L 0 05 Q Z m Q {y¢y{..��.. mF m ¢ � 2YRZC __ ❑ W �e an n � z V Y $ r R�O t J J ? O W W W ? Q LL fQ f m ° n§ W ■ C } / � a _ o_r V V+ Lls W¢f 0 U. 2 w Z a Q < Q = G 60 6W d �¢ c `aSS O W = mW JQW 'oo � oag ° OOn W � as€ � ° $ € Za ocoZ '` 3r2 e � W � g d� LLM O A. ? a � i � • ■ � O8 � a � � 1 e a ! \ N3QA10 Ij•! 1 . . . . . .or s:. 33• .:: J \ O \ f J A\ Y I6• Q UI U Q• Q Q • S• U a S - Q _ f W f F v \ 2 Y F J 4 4 ❑ ❑ 4 I 4 i!}iJ:iRv: ❑ Z O " - s T U Q H I ❑ H U IF .f is}j•''. )p i *xi /l 7 GF 5. F ........:... : Sr v.K?a.i• v.Y.a 'N N *y Ki T J h. 4 ❑ >< W / J �� '}X l3IlN3 30 NA01 4W l • j.. .+ + r"a z Z r- N Z Q N a a ' Q a ° gQ 3 ° a � z 4 a z i° W aura. = WaW Wa O z W V 0 LU F ¢ LLI M Z Z ~ 0 NW FW U Q Q3 WW W ��yWW 3W r WZ ru W W E Z Y N L6 Q W FU N t W �U 4i co (7 O J 'L 'i Q = E � � 0 In W aN goa�i ,�> NW 3a Zo o .° Z = IL Z m ■ ° } U N U =aww •JaaRW a ¢ W M- Q . p N J 3 ° Q W mwo 3 t31-N > O?ifN 31- a NN Rio Sm a u :� m ZOL. ac� Z : aZQv/ ■ a e m s8 w V 1- ar � e e o _ i . . _ . . _ . . _ N3QAaa d0 NAM $I . . . _ . . _ . . _ . . _ . . . . _ . . 7 V3VH1.1 M N 1 1 s i r- Yl n 55 •k /' p` W 4 1 � x I 1A 4006 • Q �t � ,fir Y u w� iAr uy W � F �b �yt � �✓ 1 alt I a �I4 � Flo . a > F•u 1 / o•3�z a ( r '° All vowil u NA _ . . . N � a • 111 � I 0 . oj31 i o 4 � J/! � l r � 1 / � � a•� i J } �mz =•z co 4n NAQ Ql3I�N3 M NMN1 ! µ F Ile if . . 4A \ ♦ P f IL Ile `Q If I Rw lib co z 41< r '� •. ,. f �Alr . <.,-¢ . .11.,.1 �l�I� ' /� • ([i�). /t •- Vi 1 � j \ y •''I'1•"1•, ! �— ¢ ' `\ a/ • '\ '•., a - ' V-Z / ..J � . / / � JA Vt toll It oil 40 Cie IF le IC a • Y Y 1 1 1 1 r 1(..._.� T F� 14•?�Y \ _ rTr t f � jry y� � Rm •� � � 11 �st'h i3 5Ev �' \Is t :: >�C`®rP Y d1J t t E L "L J . qY •1 vg awl 4w RIM EARN Fm p - �'y �"_may 1 ����_I�■,� '"'� �, 0 �)+� ,u1 VO r� .��ov��■ X111 ` �iiii111 l■ ��'"' �� t1 \ r . f Fj Fes'all MEN INS F rJ Sit h Tl �. t ♦ t � � ha'3, epd ; . r ?:L� a F- t (' �d v '>, C.i b • fyv _1 +! tl . � ' �/�$ t i \ Iil .. �r.��R, � iF -A,�. � �T, 3 J �✓" � �1 � � ) � `.'L�TI ,\ Y Uf� •. F, rl _ .r ��!- -�-� 5' � �v.zl `t\\ �:.;,-.--. � y` \• rh.'.-'t ��� 1r h•� �/ z I�� DL �t .Y �f � V tL I ' � f �` I v Ifi ! a 2 .���e�lr� °{������� r.✓�C. L' tnr )�,a n �t 1 l ? � � -� �a• u'� >: �.,rxr, r; \'� 3 .. 1-1¢li x` � �' � � i�ti,�� � y.-^+may fl� � c�' > r�;) i kG " 3„._,N en .t_t�a.uu� "�i:Y ., �..P2�1 o�99Se��.`!�''�ill �� � i1....���lfwi+��� •-J� s, e_.. >'S r SKIM_ fall • / i ��1 q Ij l 94 a /V '► i► 00000 ►,y ..� oC► AM .1r, oo .► o o . /• is O°• 4v WW .► q► . ► .► .► .► .► .► .T .► .► ,.► .i �► .► 1► .► 1► .► .► .► .► .► .) � .► .� .► .► ► . .► A► .► .(r, ::o�► .► .► .► .► ./ 1► �► OAF ► �► d\ �' /� ,�►1►�►�►9►�►�►���i /iii► ►•R,i�►�►/1►�►�►<\"�:o'►►\�\\ � , t mr ►r1►�►t►►r.►r�l►�i ►t►t►t►'�►M►atA\�;,•io ;\\; ► .► •I► .► . ► .► .► .► .► .► .► .r .► 1k . ► .► .► A �C•; .► Apt w"llp 4w A •1�►p.'►!i►li►Fij i►i► ►'Q►i►�►i�._► '�_.:a on-.....�0 i►iiiiii`�i!i►iiii== iiiii:i ► i►i►i►iii►'� %,i!ri►il �► ►G►i►i��' !'i►�� St 44P M qw- .► .► i .► �► .► .► .► ... /► .�► .►''1► '1► //► t► .► .► .► .► �1► 1► .I► ► .► .► •i► •1► .► alp � /. � ��►i►�►�i ►i ►iii►i 24 v ►1►►1i fll U4 09 w NO ��� t► `I► .► .► .► . ► .► d► .D .► .IIp;� .► . \ �"y y ��� ,� ■rte IMAS tri n � � nn � a; � ° w2 m Pool ►� fD IOU CL 411i tri x � x 0 0 D O 0 d FQ In gg ors �- a pro Pro rA ►` fD fD V r• p f9D S d n O 5) Poo 0 Pot O Drainage Evaluation area Ma # 1 p BROWN RD EXT NRD ARROWO D - � o 0 0 0 0 0 - ° o / ° n ul 13 0 0 o o d 0D 5 - . ood [Alp 0 0 0 4 ° o LQ p 19 9 a Q o a o p q d MEADOWLARK RD o o o b !a O o rf B ED cl C2 ED 0 [ CARDINAL DR 121 I= 4 a 2:l a � Q P o Q a ^ ❑ O 60 oc�30o CP I, c7 O • a o p a _ - o U 0 53 ogo �1 a 47 a e p Q C� a 0 b o nwCZ1 6 o � p D d 0 � Q ❑ � o � [� o d 66 6 Q o Q D Eo T FN 9 rage 1 of j Subj : Briarwood II Subdivision Date : 12/ 16/02 4: 31 : 22 PM Eastern Standard Time From : JKanter@town. ithaca. ny. us (Jonathan Kanter) To: fabbroni@aol. com ('fabbroni @aol. com CC: DWa1ker@townJthaca , ny. us (Dan Walker), SRitter@town- ithaca. ny. us (Susan Ritter), MSmith @town . ithaca . ny. us (Mike Smith), fred. wilcox @verizon. net ('fred. wilcox @verizon. net) Larry : After looking through the materials you submitted for the Briarwood II Subdivision , and discussing with the Engineering and Planning staff, it looks like it would be appropriate to start off at the Planning Board with a sketch plan discussion to bring the Board up to speed on the overall remaining lands of Lucente, how the proposed * 12 new building lots fit in with the overall plans for remaining development, how road connections will work, how the wetland fits in , how the overall requirements for parkland set aside might work, what• the drainage characteristics of the area are, etc. We would suggest scheduling you for a sketch plan discussion at the January 7th Planning Board meeting before proceeding with preliminary subdivision approval . This would mean preparing some additional more general map(s) of the remaining Lucente lands , similar to what was presented to the Planning Board in 1993/94 ("Lucente Lands Master Plan" ) , also showing the boundaries of the delineated wetland . It would be helpful for the sketch plan/master plan to show conceptual future lot and road layout as now planned (assuming that it may not be what it was in the 93/94 version ) . To subsequently proceed with preliminary subdivision review, we will want to get some additional material/information from you , such as , but not necessarily limited to , the following : ( 1 ) We note that no drainage/stormwater analysis was submitted . Dan and Sue will want to see a drainage analysis of the site development, taking into consideration the future development potential and drainage characteristics of the surrounding , remaining lands of Lucente . You should plan to discuss this with Dan and Sue fairly soon . (2 ) The subdivision plat should show the entire Tax Parcel (70= 10-3 . 5) , not just the proposed 12 building lots . (3) It is possible that the Planning Board may want to see some analysis of the plant ecology of the site and surrounding area , since it is located within UNA 106 Sapsucker Woods. There will have to be some evidence that no unique/rare species or habitats will be negatively impacted by the proposed development. (4) The Planning Board will have to make overall decisions regarding whether there is a need for parkland created by the proposed Monday , December 16 , 2002 America Online : Fabbroni Page 2 of J residential development of the remaining Lucente lands . A decision was deferred in conjunction with allowing the Sanctuary Woods Subdivision to proceed , but 1 suspect that the Board will want to decide on this matter now. If so , the Board will want to see more information regarding possible lands that would be set aside for parkland or may want to consider the possibility of using the fee-in-lieu-of parkland provision in the Subdivision Regs. In regard to the proposed triangular parcel that is proposed for donation to Cornell for the Sapsucker Bird Sanctuary , how was this parcel size and configuration arrived at; has Cornell been asked if they would accept this land ; if the Planning Board and Cornell agree to this , this would actually be an additional subdivision out of Tax Parcel 73- 1 -8 . 2 , which would require a separate subdivision plat - but let's get the Planning Board 's reaction before proceeding with those details . (5) The Board will most likely be very interested in seeing more information regarding plans for protecting the wetlands, and how future plans for developing the remainder of the site relate to the wetlands . The above are some of the things that come to mind initially , and that the Planning Board would want to hear about at the sketch plan discussion (obviously not all of the details would be available at sketch plan ) . Please give me a call when you get a chance so that we can discuss the above, and work on an overall time schedule for approvals . Thanks ! Jon Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca , NY 14850 (607)273- 1747 FAX: (607)273-1704 jkanter@town , ithaca , ny. us -----_-------_ Headers --------- ----_-------- Return- Path : <JKanter@town . ithaca . ny. us> Received : from rly-xf01 . mx. aol . com (rly-xf01 . mail . aoI corn [172 . 20 . 105 . 225]) by air-xf05 . mail . aol . com (v90 . 10) with ESMTP id MAILINXF51 - 1216163122 ; Mon , 16 Dec 2002 16 : 31 : 22 -0500 Received : from ithaca1 .town . ithacamy. us ([209 . 4 . 91 .62]) by rly-xf01 . mx. aol . com (v90 . 10) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXF12- 1216163057 ; Mon , 16 Dec 2002 Monday , December 16 , 2002 America Online : Fabbroni January 12,2005 " f JAN 13 2003 E ��- Mr. Jonathan Kanter, AICP ' Director of Planning Town of Ithaca . i : 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Re:Briarwood II Preliminary Subdivision Submission Dear Mr. Kanter: Attached as requested please find the Master Plan for much of the lands owned by Mr. Rocco Lucente in the general area of the twelve lots for which he is currently seeking subdivision approval. A second phase to the current request is hypothesized at your request south of the delineated wetland which would extent Birchwood to Sapsucker Woods Road. A third phase is hypothesized at your request as an extention of Sanctuary Drive to a connecting road terminating at Birchwood Drive North on the south end. Open space for each phase is shown contiguous to the Cornell University Lab of Ornithology lands. At Mr. Rocco Lucente's state in life he does not anticipate acting on any of these subsequent phases and offers them merely in response to your request for a general idea of how things might unfold should his life be abnormally extended. Sincerely, . Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E.,L.S. xc. Rocco Lucente TOMP%INS : 'COUNTY NL YO r 1 or slightly alka lane The sails m thus association re Langford and Erie soils are not stony'soils but conta __ re "lieavy l;m _for high yields of legames and .other numerous fragments of loeal shake and sandstone and a As Classed , as channery . . Typically, these soils are silt 10 = angford Erse assoeuon (LE) and are d over bedrock 3 but m a few. areas t �P . .. (� } depth to bedrock isles than 30 inches:: Laord sow This association consists of moderately well drained ` . have a :grayish brown surface soil; a yeIlowislt '. ron and soMewhat poorly drained, naechum-textured soils' on per subsoil, and a mottled,. dense, compact fragipan as t- rolling to moderately steep topography; These low-lime. Met part of the subsoil , Erie :soils .are grayish broy solos, w}uch are iineffixim : in potassium:-supplying power; : in color. They are ,mottled: fromthe plowed layer: dog are dominant in two areas'`in the'north 'central'and noith= and the dense pan is close to the surface. . h 'east parts of ,the county along`` the Cayuga County:line: . Langford soils generally are good for: crop s.:when well They developed nn glacial till thatvvas depos . . ., .. ground managed. E.Tie soils are fair, considering the pre=en �. mor%m The to ph 9 is generally mild. The mod choice crops; lime; fertnlizer, and management'pracrs _ - erately well dralnedord soils, which occupy 40 .per- Slow internal. dra�mnaagge hunts the use of Erie ' and Eller: cent of` the association, are the most egten.4ve.: They are. . soils : 'Drainage can be impproved by means of' iiraui on the rounded ridgetops Slid steep slopes. The somewhat type diversion terraces and in some places by mead= et poorly>_ drained Erie soots: account for :30 percent. of the oppen ditches; Diversion ditches on Erie soils make it € A association and are. `generally smoother and more nearly: sible .to plant oats 7 to 10 days earlier in spring; Conn level The poorly drained an, very 9 poorly drained Ellery str�ip croppping and diversion terraces. also are well st_ed tY. and Alden sails occupy flat areas, swales? and depressions to Langford soils. And. make up about 25 percent of tie association The well= Vigorous new crop varieties, adequate: ]'mina and few drained Valois soils and other. soils of minor eatent.make. lizing; and improved: management practices have in re`x . up about 5 percent of the association. . About 5'percent of tended to minimize the disadvantagesof the Wets t the county is in this .association acidity; and low natural fertility of these: soils llloder 9.All of these soils; except possibly Alden soils; have a to high: yields : of many crops can :be obtained if crols strongly expressed fragipan (hardpan) The pan in wise] selected and properly managed (see current Langford soils is 15-:to 24 inches below the surface, that in of "t ornell Recommends for Field FIav p Erie soils is 12 to 18; inches below the surface, and that in tures of adapted varieties of al#alfa, tall birdsfoot tree Eliery soils, 12 to 15. inches: These pans''are dense 'enough and timothy.: are suited to fields that consist of both Lam to seriously restrict root penetration and air and water ford and Erie. soils: Adappted varieties of' alfalfa are vement: suited to Langford sods ; biidsfoot trefoil 'grows.:very jz ee / *40, 64ts � o,�r ` goo ° . GIQcIOj ° TIII \\\I r � o ti -- � Shale and Sand e pp/ '. ,.., .'—4 S-.i .�`-` .� _ ' -�i� '^- --r• '� ,r �� T` ��. "- _ - --r :: ,�-�Tom: .--._:- �-���-•' �`r � .-... ,�,.Lr'<-" � - ,��---� -. -- _. 1Xf�y/ . : . re 3.Typical cross section of southern Tompkins County soils, consisting mainly of low-lime and very low-lime soils with a frame, 733-02?.- 5_2 T • I r • ne-+ rr� TUN r\ — JrlLr- I IVUIVIOLK lb r. ::. t 'fib•" i r s. rt EbB La h 4 . e Yy i ;r:= �� � -�„ l.Yw � y�� 5 yu I ! F,- � r4`,�♦Ty � -' n .:� 4 yl �-. ` ' ��[.Y ' } ., F '. y . : t 5��>•.Sy.K`r�. a,, 'k ° Jr `•i r y ru -�# � 4 � �'�. , -" � .�� rS EI A � !rlr- � � a i.aE - "�X �' �'.' � .t �c q ,.♦",- _ _ 14 � F. s-s"'i � �---�2' -a;•r ". r r •� i �" 'S s is T t ;rFL �. '..�' v � 4 - : a•r _ � :^)fit _ ..r �a:' � .. A; '_ f ■(j � .r•: '! r �"iQ . r �' • � _x... d 'A✓" �:; ,7i'a �s,:. ! ` s' QrE t � �.ii ' "L!�. i �'I;,' T � 2%"TL' ;� � ��5� s.' °4,_i"�+�'+ � a �+�•9 K4� v `+ � _y f.'ir �' r � ,�;^.. ♦ �'. 1. - . ' ttr %�" � .; .. � _ � } -�• —« - v.�v6r 3 ,--. � � rx \r ± mod '�` :��♦ i • La Fr �o�✓\fir � '� - � :xr�' � e �+ti � y. :« s :. s h, a `'. �b$ t+u1 •,gat s3'��'i fi'.. 3 /a. y .s-' �'� � - . La F •�t; a) _'. - s \" 7� a`sa ' � r',�>�' �i ... c 1 x 3t'rK , . f+ �y S4 t L8 t � { .�� � a-} • ti r 'iz L P � '. r ' '+�� }s* r � r? �'xr, ),d" +t:' ;%: y "�^`y � °4d. y ate_.: < � r` < + , � _� � o � al_ y __.`` fs � _ r s • �, �:.GN r - s � 4 Y ' 4 ♦ r£153 ,s 3' a_C a ti S.ss%•` , f;•F�� � ti ± y •�' � `��h'14r � k r a ,�, L7, _ ' _ . �r a• q ♦ 'dQ i e_a:�p r 7 •F4 " r U es Yg� \ r 7w ♦ c B K ' -: /rdA ` ,ro'r. . -^,--•�, y - °� r � r .3 m � � � ��` \ -1 _ fir" � .; `� ��� `��� � C s tin J-UTKR 1p S�pnk4S, ' ttt r, 4.1 . ,(5.. �' a._ 3. / � ./ ':: [:. j•�i . ���'- �. __.2.5 / : ' f /.' Ii( 5000 Fee ' 1VG SOIL SURVEY SERIES 1961 , NO, 25 TAWX 14.=lnterpret¢tions o f engvneeriny Suitability as source of— Soil name ' and Soil features symbol that affect engineering Topsoil Granular material fill material Highway _ location Highway e i t Embankment Building Kendaia silt loam —� foundations foundations ( Ka B). Kndaia: Unsuitable__ Rendaia and Lyons Unsuit' gendaia: Generally silt to able, good, y good Seasonally (Kn A ) Lyons: Lyons: good Sol ndi" water tab high Generally$ ode- Generally mod. fair; when • sea- g slopes sub- strength for era rin h be stony may be sea- t afficability. ject to seep_ high em. bearing and wet sonally wet. g Pacity, n _ in natural Surface ma- sloughhmdg. bankments. ble com state.$ terial may be where assn- sibility1f unsuitable. ciated with KnA : high Erie soils, a water table.$ Langford c ry Unsuitable__ bea ipa nt y silt loam La B Unsuitable__ Good- - - _ La B3, La - Generally good Sub La C3 . grade ma soil , frog be wet • y uate ode- Generally,bons; fragi_ slopes quote y' mod_ Pan at depth ject,tto see strength for b Grin high of 12 to 18 age above cp high em' inches; sea- bankments. Pac gneeg_ii_ sonall fragipan. Bible com- trafficabiiloor Pressibility.7 ity. Lansing gravelly Unsuitable__ silt loam (LbA , Unsuitable__ Good_ _ _ _ _ _ LbB, j bB3, LbC, Genii coy good Variable soil LbC3 . �- material in Generally reds- Generally _ bons. ,F LbC3 : rela- small strength for bar high tively sisal- shall ow high em- low over cuts may en- Pacciityg en gli_ ima silt loam bedrock. may bed- baiikments. gible coui_ (LMA , Lm6, Unsuitable__ Unsuitable__ rock.$ PTessibility,r Lm83 ). Good; bouldery era Genll in places, y good Generally good soil condi- tions. condi- Generall y ode- Generall _ k bons. bons, strength y high R gth for eratel g high em- beanng ca- bankments. Pacity; negli- gible corn- LordstowII Chan_ Unsuitable__ pressibility,7 nery silt loam Unsuitable__ Good; shallow n D ' LnC3, over bed_ Shallow over Shallow Ln D, Ln E)• rock. bedrock. bedrock over Adequate High be ; arias seepage just strength for capacity; g. above rock. high embank_ beroc n- ments. countered in Lordstown soils most excava tions; IIegli_ (Lo F). Unsuitable Bible eom_ Lordsto Good; shallow Shallow over Pressibility.7 and Ovid so�ilseT, over bed- Shallow over =` shallow and ver rock. bedrock. bedrock; Adequate High bearing shallow (Lt6, y seepage just strength for capacity; LtC). above rock, h embank- bedrock en- menu. countered in most e$ca- Lyons silt loam y vations; neg. (L )_ Fair; may Unsuitable__ ligible com_ be stony Good when May have pressibility.7 and wet dry; may be highly or- High water Generall y in natu- seasonally table; slopes y ode- Generally mod state.a wet; surface game surface subject to quate eratel material soil; poor strength for bearing tiafficabilit seepage and high em- may ca- y be un- y sloughing.$ pacity . low See footnotes at end of table, suitable. men low com r P essi- bility.6 7 FI ' 96 SOIL SIRvEY SERIES . 1961 , N09 25 TABLE 14.—Interpretations of enyinm - le Suitability as source of— Soil features that affect engineering Soil name 1 and symbol Topsoil Granular Fill material Highway Highway cut Embankment Build in material location conditions foundations foundat Ellery, Chippewa, Ellery : Unsuitable__ Good when Fragipan at Subgrade gen- Aden: mucky Generally and Alden soils Good to dry; maybe shallow erally wet; surface ma- mffigoherbate3 (EcA) . poor, wet in nat- depth. slopes sub- terials ; Chippewa: ural state. Alden : mucky ject to generally capacity Per; surface soils ; seepage and adequate wet for le chap- long periods sloughing.b strength for periods vf'r ne y_2 of poor high em- time; neg Alden: trafiieability, bankments. gible con pressi- . . Good to bility 6 7 depth of M inches ; may be wet in natural state.2 Erie channery silt Unsuitable__ Unsuitable__ Good__ ___ _ _ _ _ _ Fragipan at Subgrade may Generally Generally (loam Ebb, Eb63, depth oeM2 be wet; adequate moderately (loam bB. E to 18 inures ; slopes sub- strength for high bearii long periods jest to high em- capacity;; . of poor seepage and bankments. negligible trafficability. sloughing. compressi= bility 6 7 . . Erie-Ellery Chan- Erie : un- Unsuitable__ Good__ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ Fragipan at Ellery : sub- Generally Generally nery silt loans suitable. shallow grade very adequate moderatel (ErA) . Ellery depths. wet. strength for high bear variable.2 Ellery: un- Erie: season- high em- capacity;;. suitable ally wet ; ments. negligible: surface ma- slopes sub- compresd- terial; long ject to bility:87 periods of seepage and poor traf- sloughing_ ficability. Fredon silt loam Fair, es- Good 2 . . _ _ _ Good ; may be High water High water Generally ade- Generally (FdB). cept wet in natu- table; poor table ; sub-. quate moderate] where ral state ; traffica- grade sub- strength for low bear* gravelly.2 highly erodi- bility, ject to moderately capacity ; ble if sandy. differential 'high em- low com- frost heav- bankments ; pressibilit. ing; slopes may be subject to underlain by seepage; un- bottom stable below sediments.' water table. Fresh water marsh Unsuitable__ Unsuitable__ (2)_ _ - - - - - - - - - - Permanently (1)- - - - - - - - - - - - (8)- - - - - - - - - - = — (' )- - - - - - - - (Fm). wet; proba- bly unsuita- ble for foundations. See footnotes at end of table. III.% Imp t •T•'r y.. ��. w.ss;r'.,t" Yj �"C 'f'Lx . 7f .! s•SZ'�JIC•.'C� • s ^7y*r. Y �v.a}' y •�' ♦ �i<.1 i •�.ef.- ./ ° wt ; V! i ice- s r +11M .A�. aMH r�R7�'ry]�,{(.. -(`fin ♦ ' a� � . J'ti •. I Y ",y w-v ,y,r"r--.. .. � • f M b4.'h1 T �`Z .>A,,�� I I, . 4 LNe;y•] +�i .f I ' ,J 'n Y ;"rlk�+�. rtP }�tr ° TIlT J �+ � •t �� v}I.t _ %ir ' .'ll ill t t • i •r ""�� rt'A• V, I I'd v:•, t;7.st°'�• �: } ; F•u� F L • W ri e 1 �. x "(v t ro• i 1 v . k }' \ ` ?.aa iS>f • �'! a 1'-r -• ' r� R ij ++ I'dr, ♦ 1 a • 1 } r sit t r ' -1 �.tJ, Y F ¢ 5'! :Y' - ♦ ! ,r " t j4 dodo I I doll IV I i 1�,>` y '�'xF I •1 � « a ! V I' �. r mr i� S. _ _ • Ana • -. Gr`.�'e odd .# Sy r y` u.? Id 11-64 11 1 .+ :ay I , ~ • � , .`e� lj 1ri Af 1 N �t� +�•F I. 44 1 �, s�•._sy{. tr �y1 'T` YrP > . .. cy- �,r.. .. .��v'JI +a ' Ar Z.` V '1`_'•` .rl'.vFTt"l' J«• x`s•�` , ' ; 'Af}yr lrfl. Y e « . .,r• . ` ,;, �^l`}'2"ONE II V, 1■� A + „nu .� 1 -.V,v�,�'1 !. • u. v K ca � a . vJ pppp a• ,/ .r' (� y K 1 r . ' .• �. xf( i}?' v fyi: ' ::�jV ' r : r .. • , fl I.Izom ::n�t!•.1"'�f,5_.1,[�F .',J"4 if •<..•:e' }' : �rf + l� :, 'F -. •'S �.M f pp -r 1 .^rr+ :/,ay"-" 'r y :Y.z « j_ _ oJ• �"'-... • t ' . SI n to,fa c r `1 �. �frr 14 1 1. go � :�+sF _5 •, Y(• • r 1� r rf' r i fir„ i'Sjb&� �•.. Q �� _•v��i. '^ +7�°�7 t . .61 R r . 1 i1'' v r .. . .�+JC y1. 1d � ? 1 t �" { • r a t: i t t r K ' h. rMi�(y�r•a[' +"`�j{ F.c d v I ! }. ' e { tr fa �1�J► . �.� •v � F'1:� 1 �� :x L� '+j tR ! : . �. > ate« vs wryf „��. , � ` >•VC: t• - �,r ,+ ♦ •� �: r_ „ r• v � �F Y � .N ; . . • • a. Str, 1^It` '�Ry` �/' *mil �S '�`..pr c� 1 +vl ,. s , Rry NI It.w a:ay.f 4 (y<�,v,- y �- ry Y +• �j` '� do ar InL a 1 w f 1. j w JY Fyw✓(. r y..e . ♦ . rl 'lf- � �` ' '' 4 . a .,.rte i F ♦ - .k 10. I'd Jt f 1'i i r� _ . I "ft-i� J .. 1'< +, d a}asl. cy .tom T +V ,I In '.. ' v I lt*OI.1 I, s I I .rY ./Js• ,♦r f I J . +. f a M +t" 1�. L t. +•.c�y�tZ/" ►_ r Y NMI a�L ? rt. Y x a. , w . 1 �JS 1 fd. .:+ .-v-: '1l •. ;1';ff do old I''. J ,N 7•�. Aw t ': « � fI *1 Ty .a t 1 �( 'rf a^n J � J, .�'a „ f '.1.V '1 NN R ✓ YX r • ! « t r :5 /. lr' r. f a� 'V .1 'Fe'1° : » �.,1{•y .. a t � III<rC r!< r •� -Y+ Lj s J asa X r r -rY >�� ��1.'f'•T yfo `"P�<•f ,?l ^ •f IVI,Ido i If;N A tr r.. v. r •l+ �f.� y +.'w♦ys 'a •-• 4 >4ry<Sn t°rl ,+ t .l' • �; -r+y� -l��I �?s �: J.ti, v�r�r-Z Y 7. IV..4f.. ''. Y4 . .zt L s b^^ ` dj; ✓. ., ✓;w . Y W I .1 ed t: } �fe Sa �`: "�•fit 1 + '?` ♦ : ' y� r I WI door old Id"I 'YjII� i�+.SfA(.'.f'- iR•fe^ tK7't w �•JAjj p- 1 '«r� ,y•Rr-..t� 4"' r. r ' •�.1.; ♦ tl � �Y R- sl IV 'X-" � � r• '�Y r7 � 1x1 K�� Yr /'� b v'eI•Lt a 't r f•�•y',�i a:•.S Y f i/ °_ i • • � 1 ail t a3$# �i Fi iNr. .' 'ete °� "• � ^ AaJ lr I r' .Y ` = s � '. i`�' • SSW J .,.' /� Y �•t w �.'� [�� � •n' • may ' 1 J 41 W. a , a "` r .J.... f..�.:•.r ry it:..a . i .- � . 1 ''- v r+, .."lY.ti:! IPTS' a wv SfC . .�f-.a..n H yt; N Z SQOOM � N �' � �+ Jns Q Z W Q Q 3 « ad n I l./ 932 0z O� W O O %0 � ^ W wj 31N o I•j V N3Hd31S ¢ � Q' �° x � 0 T O � WN w ° 7� �� JN Zm _ A %0 (� NN 1 o A .1 tc fc »+q nLVn sawn d3x�nSyys . � 31N3.n1 � ' a N I ` N3Hd31S <£2219I b d.b'H1fi NmD.L Or N3Hd3 j S X'kr ell 31N -i � N3Hd 3n _ kk M 31 S � Q 31N3Jn3 z N3Hd31S t r ,� S • •' N n Oi i N3Hd31 S i N i i U . n 4'1 � b ;Z 02 W • ,S Y _ a M _ Q �W \ all f U v CO > Li Li Li w� '-- (969/8b 3 b) \` x 1N3.n1 03.021 C3 < • " y O a A U ^ ^ 1 ¢ n (969/ wM LJ u o ^ 31N3. 0 00a W pW \0 � w % m ob OD ZLi rnm OUV pvV . �._1v (L' Jv W U ¢ co J V � J Lo LQ Z Z (969/866) `¢ j 31N3.n10..021 Q � � M � bI �yg � J gj� 0\ O Z %0 CD •t W f-1 CF �Fo 3 U MASTER PLAN _ SCALE R .LUCENTE ,Di2�03 10=200' LANDS DESIGNER, EVELOPER T" wA REVoI6SIOoN3S' LFABBRONI R.LUCENTE . CON" 2_Q6_p3 "was MV4AXV reset 9cv M MID 31 . CORNELL UNIV LAB OF ORNITHOLOGY 2 1 lip SANCTUARY DRIVE DR VE PARK 27 28 29 . 30 31 BIRCHWppD DRIVE N. r _ 32 q 38 37 , C 36 35 341r 9th 33 q (440/696) LAMM ftmoam .Rocca ` 3 ( (U q OL ees�°iau'R+crsH i A9 cco 3 t Y G' a M 11) E 6 ) (448/696) 96) LUC(97C1� �c xco [ Racm ON 9DBIRCHWDOD DRIVE MASTER PLAN SCALE R (LUCENTE DATE EPm 1'=20' LANDS 1-12-03 SAPSUCKER WppDS SANCTUARY "�«ewe 10m°roec m 10�2�0 R W yy� W IF � To SAPSUCKER WppDS SANCTUARY �Eer • �atvE WETLANDS 9 k' a W W jyZLa`n LLCENfE (7�,a Raccu SANCTU n SALEM DRIVE ARY DRIVE PARK y=k .EXPANDED a . LUC rE (44 or M n N+fn }lam zC G 7� Y1yZ- � L f �� Jtl ✓�3Y � . DIRCHWp0D DRIVE No , �V;A rej 41c t626g6u1 ROCCO O HARRY NwSNq iN [ Sp Q (614.367, O , W r Q (L REKA RrNocw ao Lylys , t66 e,°lccuer ..aTE "6%, 3 Q "CCU (6d6`.°7)7wE`L' Nul a 6sn6, x VLROCCOiE (L y VETLANDS LROCCO t1Raccs% ROCCO P L� 90 ROCCO LIIEEN OCD DRIVE O (L: f r ' MASTER PLAN SCALE R)LUCENTE DATEI i•=zoo' LANDS 1-12-os minv�v ' A88fIRQ w . •r FU TURF LAB ORNELL UNIVER L%t„*a "cm OF ORNI 7Hp OC Y 3 2 1 SANCTUARY DRIVE SALEM ME DRIVE «• , PARK bJ „Jv 6 R 27 28 29 30 y 8 31. BIRCHW00D DRIVE N, 8 MA raim O 32 �,) =44 /,(u 38 37 36 35 �' Qf N 34 1 33 a L o0 r„a s%) 3 �Op W 3 ,`6, Y u,eiSL � P Y y \ a "cm � W Lo t,( �kEM[ �O 1. tNe/6%I N, Ego WCEN{Eft . . NCO �CCO rem r P. r4�cQ�� if I DRI - �`n � iiiur� r 1 . . . 1 dI ", %//�/ „���.�/iii�iv. � pry✓ "� i %% /�� -N Igo in XOMM, VINKINITA Ell I ; ; arm P4, fd /r0 !o /iii off •.. III /� �r �� y' � ��.��r , �� o / Y m TO : Town of Ithaca Planning Board FROM: Environmental Review Committee (ERC)/Conservation Board DATE: March 7, 2006 RE*. Lucente Briarwood Subdivision Project and Biggs Building Demolition Project Lucente Briarwood Subdivision. On February 24, the ERC of the Conservation Board toured the site proposed for subdivision development by Rocco Lucente. We commend the applicant for his proposed donation of 25 acres to the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. However, we do have concerns regarding the proximity of lots 71 , 72, 58, and 53 to identified wetland areas. In particular, the ERC has concerns regarding the limited buffer area between these lots and the identified wetland areas, and would like to ensure that construction activities do not adversely impact these wetlands. Biggs Building Demolition: In addition, the ERC has reviewed the proposal for demolition of the Biggs building by Cayuga Medical Center. The ERC would like to encourage reclamation of any period hardware or .fixtures from the building that could be reused in other. settings. Submitted by, Melissa Anthony Lenore Durkee Susan McCutcheon Jon Meigs Larry Sallinger R :r Supplementary Engineer' s Report Briarwood II Subdivision Town of Ithaca May 18 , 2006 General . The project now encompasses the entire remainder of land owned by the applicant Rocco Lucente in the Town of Ithaca . Of some 47 . 5 +/ — acres being developed 25 acres will be donated to the expansion of the Lab of Ornithology of Cornell University . This unprecedented partnership will ensure the responsible stewardship of these lands forever. Mr. Lucente now anticipates developing 47 lots and both building homes and selling lots . Soils This wooded site has been filled in the 1960s on the south perimeter and logged in the central and northern areas in the 1980s . Undisturbed soils are Langford Channery Silt Loam and Erie Channery silt loam . Bedrock was encountered when Briarwood was constructed at 20 feet deep . The wetland areas are a perched water table retaining surface water. Sewer Sewers will be SDR 35 PVC mains with minimum 4500 psi precast concrete manholes as detailed on the town standard drawings and details . Sewer profile drawings are included in the detailed drawing submittals . Eight inch sewers will be more than sufficient for the small extensions proposed in three distinct areas . Wafer All watermain extensions will be eight(8 ) inch Ductile Iron Pipe Class 52 with appurtenances as specified by the Town of Ithaca . All extensions will either complete . looping with the construction on Birchwood Drive North to the tank site and Birchwood Drive to Sapsucker Woods Road or strengthen the grid at the end of Sanctuary Drive . These added loops between the Christopher Circle pump station and the Sapsucker Woods Tank will improve circulation and fire flow in the Birchwood/ Briarwood neighborhood . - The flow in any hydrant should easily yield 750 GPM at 30 psi with the tank five feet or more below the 1159 overflow because of the flow from two directions maximizing flow and minimizing friction losses to the hydrants . Highway and Traffic It is expected that 26 of the 47 new residences will utilize Salem Drive to come and go from Hanshaw Road based on the shortest route theory . This would mean about 41 dwelling units . The remaining 21 residences or approximate 35 dwelling units would be expected to use Sapsucker Woods Road to come and go from Hanshaw Road and State Route 13 . Each dwelling unit would average about 10 vehicle trips per day according to ITE trip generation tables for the density and area of development . This might be mitigated somewhat by the transit service that has been reliably provided to the area since the 1970s and more recently expanded by TCAT . So 76 units could be expected to generate about 760 additional vehicle trips per day at total project build out . Studies conducted by the author in the mid 1970s and a traffic count conducted especially for this project on November 2003 and December 2003 supplemented by traffic counts provided by town staff for a period in June 2004 all support a figure of 9 to 10 % of the daily traffic occurring in the Northeast during the morning and afternoon peaks . So this leads to an estimate of . 1 x760 = 76 vehicle trips in the morning and afternoon peaks . The traffic counts taken at Muriel and Hanshaw , Salem Drive and Hanshaw , and Sapsucker Wood - Freese Road — Hanshaw Road were very low and reflective of the low density in the general area . A maximum AADT of 6000 vehicles per day was predicted for the section of Hanshaw west of Muriel with declining values as you proceed east and traffic enters or leaves Muriel , Salem , and Sapsucker Woods Road . There are no delays to traffic presently attempting to enter Hanshaw Road indicative of a level of service A . The small increase of 41 vehicles exiting or entering Salem or 35 vehicles exiting or entering Sapsucker Woods will be easily accommodated because the gaps available along Hanshaw Road are numerous . At 546 cars in the peak hour . an average of 7 seconds gap is available . In fact this is even more like double that figure if you consider that most often queues of 2 to 4 cars pass along Hanshaw during the peak traffic period . A figure of 24 hour AADTs is submitted to illustrate how little the numbers would change from existing at total build out . Because of the alternatives of SR13 and SR366 from the east to the primary destinations of Cornell , the Ithaca CBD , and the Lansing commercial district traffic outside of this development is not expected to increase along Hanshaw Road . Highways will be built with covered ditches on the extension of Sanctuary Drive and Birchwood Drive North ( now Beechwood Drive ) . A paved asphalt walk will be constructed along Birchwood Drive North ( Beechwood Drive ) to Briarwood , over the existing storm culverts along the highway shoulder on Briarwood Drive proceeding south to Birchwood Drive . The walkway will be built east out to Sapsucker Woods Road on the south side of the Birchwood Drive extension that will also have dry ditches and be built in accordance with the latest Town Highway cross — section and specifications . Open Space As mentioned the Lab of Ornithology will accept the donation and management ( they are currently reviewing standard Town of Ithaca maintenance agreement ) of some 25 acres of open space including all the wetlands delineated most recently during the wet season of 2003 . The Salem Drive Park will be expanded a modest 0 . 1 acre as town staff stated a preference to minimize any increase in parkland . Some of this will provide . better access to the north end of the existing park and a possible pedestrian way to replace the existing east — west utility easements . We have made every to clear u eve reasonable effort p the discrepancy ancy caused by utilizing early 1990s aerial photography to outline UNA 106 . In the absence of a correction promised . by the original author our consultant TES has documented the reasons this matter should be laid to rest through a review and correction . A meeting with the County and subsequent correspondence suggests that there is no process for appeal or review at present and the town is left and authorized to use the UNA designation as guidance only to explore environmental issues . The wetlands delineation , bird survey , and subsequent materials and evidence of our efforts to clarify the matter stand on their own merits . These factors along with the Lab of Ornithology owning and managing the south wetland and buffer area should be enough to move on responsibly . Most all of the south area being subdivided was a fill area in the 1960s ironically with some of the fill being excavated for the 1965 master plans of roads where the wetland eventually was principally manmade . Drainage Extensive modeling has been done in collaboration with town staff to minimize maintenance concerns , maximize retention to mitigate downstream historical problems , and to satisfy State and Federal regulations . The concept of quality ponds in areas outside of the wetlands is shown . The wetland east of Briarwood Drive will have an outlet structure in the existing ditch at the back of the Briarwood lots with a minimal dike constructed outside of the wetlands . Similarly a control structure will replace the very north end of the existing culvert under the east — west utility dike . These two features will allow substantial stormwater flows to be held back to dampen peak runoffs: The impact on the wetlands because of the extensive hummocks and variable level of seasonal perched water is assessed by our wetlands consultant TES , Corps of Engineers and NYSDEC representatives to be neglible if the wetland is utilized for short term detention . A complete model and report will be submitted for review before and as a part of Final Subdivision review . The stormwater plan will be submitted to NYSDEC as a 60 day review and the Corps of Engineers will be asked for a letter of non —jurisdicition ( no fill within a wetland and temporary detention after quality treatment) before Final Approval . Respectfully submitted , P CO A. awrence P . Fabbroni , P . E . , L. S . `, Fabbroni Engineers & Surveyors =`�P,R®FES�gyQ� 1 Settlement Way Ithaca , New York 14850 607 - 2572198 ; 607 - 3510940 ; e — mail Fabbroni @aol . com ' 1 BEFORE AFTER Wetlands Meadow Roads Lawn Water Forest Homes Walks Meadow 0 . 20AC Now Town Utility ROW . 20AC 0 . 40AC Now Town Utility ROW . 40AC 0 . 55AC part Birchwood ROW Rds. 35AC . 20 AC Already cleared 1 . 85AC Under Canopy 1 . 85AC 2. 00 Under Canopy . 2AC 5 . 00AC+/- Wetlands. 8 . 0 AC+/- 8 . 0 AC Unve etg ated v 0 . 08AC End of Sanctuary Rds . 08AC 0 . 30AC End of Birchwood N. Rds. 15AC . 15AC 1 . 62AC Under Canopy/Fill Areas 1 . 62AC 2 . 00AC+/- Forested 1 . 97AC Rds. 2 . 27AC 2 . 55AC Homes2 . 55AC 1 . 25AC Drwy1 . 25AC 0 . 15AC WalksO . 15AC 1 . 75AC 1 . 75AC(ROW) 24 . 83AC 4. 83AC 19. 7AC 32 . 5 AC Totals 8 . 0AC . 20AC 6 . 8AC10. 80A2AC19 . 7AC 47 . 5 AC Grand Total 47 . 5AC Grand Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESENTLY AFTER COWL. Meadow , 5AC 0 . 20AC Forested 32 . 5AC 19. 7 AC Wetland 8 AC 8 AC Water Surface Area 2 AC Unvegetated 2AC Roads,buildings,other paved surfaces 6 . 8 AC °Termstrial Envlr ® nmEntal Eclalists , Inc . 23 COUNTY ROUTE 61 SUITE A. PHOENIX, NY 13135 (315) 695-7228 FAX (315) 695-3277 E-MAIL: tesinc @alltel.net April 24, 2006 Mr. Lawrence Fabbroni, P . E. , L . S . Fabbroni Engineers & Surveyors 127 Warren Road ...Ithaca, New York 14850 Re: Briarwood Subdivision, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York TES File No . 1491 Dear Larry: As requested, Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. (TES) has evaluated your proposed stormwater plans for the Briarwood subdivision. Based on our discussions, the subdivision plan has been developed to maximize upland forest border. This upland forest and wetland areas will be donated to the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. The Town Planning Department has raised an issue regarding the new SPDES II stormwater regulations regarding stormwater quantity and quality. In regard to stormwater quantity, plans are to use existing wetland areas to retain water in two of the five sub-basins . The quantity of water will be retained for a maximum of 24 hours and would result in a water level increase . of 0 .90 feet in the larger forested wetland and a maximum water level increase of approximately 1 .4 feet in the wetland swale and the emergent wetlands . . This . temporary change in water depth will not change the existing character of the wetlands . In regard to water quality, forebays will be used to slow the discharge rate and provide water quality improvement. Forebays should be planted with vegetation that would be tolerant of flooding conditions. If water depth will be greater than two feet in the forebays, narrow-leaved cattail (Typha glauca) and a submerged aquatic plant coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum) could be used. Methods to improve water quality include using an existing ditch to impound . water before its discharge into the wetland. We would recommend that the ditches that connect to forested wetland be seeded with a mixture of local native wetland grasses . This will improve the removal of nutrients from surface water flow. We would recommend mannagrass (Glyceria striata) and wood reedgrass (Cinna arundinacea) . In any location where a channel or swale will be constructed we would recommend that it be designed to serve as an infiltration trench or biofilter as described in the New York a-. EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED CONDITIONS CONDITIONS CONDITIONS CONDITIONS CONDITIONS 01MIDIT S 1 -YR EVENT 1 YR EVENT 10 YR EVENT 10=YR EVENT 100 YR EVE14,- 4d-YR EV r DESIGN (2.3" RAINFALL) (23" RAINFALL) (3.9" RAINFALL) (19" RAINFALL) (5.5" RAINFALL) (5.5" RAIN,ALL) POINT (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) ( (DP) (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) DP-1 733 CFS 4.03 CFS 24.98 CFS 16.44 CFS 31 .14 CFS 18938 CFS DP-1 2.607 AF 2.886 AF 8.129 AF 8.776 AF 14.921 AF 15.924 AF DP-2 1 .33 CFS 332 CFS 5044 CFS 8.64 CFS MOM 14.43 CFS - DP=2 0201 AF 0.208 AF 0.654 AF 0.529 AF 1`9218 AF 00891 AF DP=3 7.62 CFS 0.480 CFS 28.86 CFS 2.47 CFS 48.40 CFS 5.98 CFS DP=3 1 .349 AF 0.700 AF 3.953 AF 1267 AF 79079 AF 6.460 AF DP-4 0.34 CFS 0051 CFS 1 .38 CFS 1 .30 CFS 2.69 CFS 2.15 CFS DP=4 0.046 AF 0.025 AF 0.150 AF Q.064 AF 0.280 AF 0.108 AF DP=5 0.19 CFS TO DP=3 016 CFS TO DP,3 01 Q7 FS TO DP4 DP=5 09018 AF 0.57 AF AF c v 0 � W C7 � Q Pr n m � m ° 0 X a cn m W 4 R n 0 a �o D ' my ® m m 0 v U1 o -, A m CL �p EF v o 2, co -a 3 i omo 4� C me ocr c � 0 n CD M == Cn n o o (A) (A P 1 3 6 v got t W 3 i c n m M(D Q iU O Cl) n � r =' n m C4 Q m n n M=36 00 a m m _ OD Q 0 ® m Q, -a d o � O Q10 O '0 ID to to 3 4 Cf) o m �, n X p .a rn m .� w N N O �< 17u n , CD Z CL 0 W O y 3 Na N O Cl) .0 N ,^ N (Name of Enti(iJ Stormwater Maintenance Agreement _ (ddle) OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPORTING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of 2004, by and between the TOWN OF ITHA.CA, a municipal corporation with offices at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York (the "Town"), and the Name of Entity, and Address WITNESSETH: WHEREAS , the (Name of Entity) received final site plan/subdivision approval for (X) from the Town' s Planning Board by resolution number 20OX-XX dated XX on tax parcels x-xx at (specific address) in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; and WHEREAS , such Approvals were granted conditional upon the maintenance of the approved stormwater facilities, submission of an annual stormwater inspection report, and an agreement with the Town regarding the same; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the granting of the Approvals and in furtherance of the public purposes of providing adequate storm water retention and maintenance, the parties agree as follows : 1 . Construction of Drainage Facilities. The (Name of Entity) agrees to construct all of the storm drainage facilities shown on the respective plans submitted for the Approval, copies of which are on file in Town of Ithaca offices. Without limiting the foregoing, the (Name of Entity) agrees to construct (a) The (identify type of stormwater facility approved, i.e. drainage pond) located substantially as shown on the (name of site plan/subdivision drawings facility is identified on) ; and (b) All associated pipes, mains, drains, outlet and inlet structures, manholes, and all other drainage related facilities and structures, whether above or below grade. All of such facilities (referred to in this Agreement as the "Drainage Facilities") shall be constructed in accordance with good engineering practice and to the reasonable satisfaction of the Town' s Director of Engineering. ' 2. Maintenance of Facilities. The (Name of Entity) agrees for itself, its legal representatives, successors and assigns and any other persons or entities who obtain title to any portion of the properties on which any of the Drainage Facilities are located, to operate and maintain the Drainage Facilities to insure that the Drainage Facilities continue to function for their intended purpose and as designed. In furtherance of such obligation, and without limiting the obligations set forth in the preceding sentence, the (Name of Entity) agrees to follow the maintenance plan for regular and recurring maintenance of the Drainage Facilities as submitted for the Approval and set forth on (name of document and name of Engineer who prepared it) submitted with the application Page 1 of 4 1 (Name of Entity) Stormivaler Maintenance Agreement — (dale) materials for the Approval . Iri addition the (Name of Entity) shall perform such other maintenance as may be reasonably required by the Town' s Director of Engineering in order to assure the continued operation of the Drainage Facilities as intended and designed: The (Name of Entity) shall perform all of the foregoing maintenance and any other maintenance reasonably necessary to keep all Drainage Facilities functioning, in a good and workmanlike manner, at their own expense. 3 . License to Town. - The (Name of Entity) hereby grant to the Town a license to enter upon its property or any portion thereof for the purposes of observing and inspecting the Drainage Facilities at any time and from time to time as may be deemed appropriate, necessary or desirable by the Town, the Town' s Director of Engineering, or the Town Director of Building and Zoning or similar officers of the Town. If as a result of such inspections maintenance deficiencies are found the Director of Engineering will notify the owner of the property upon which the deficiency is found in writing, and the owner shall cause needed repairs to be made within 30 days of such notice, or within such earlier period designated by the Director of Engineering if, in his reasonable judgment, the deficiency is of a nature that threatens significant damage to the affected facility or downstream property owners if not earlier repaired. If the owner fails to complete the repairs to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering within the 30-day or lesser applicable period, the Town reserves the right (but does not have the obligation) to have the repairs made and will charge the owner for the cost of such repairs. The (Name of Entity) or the then owner of the property agrees to pay for such repairs within 10 days after demand for same. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if an emergency exists requiring immediate action, the (Name of Entity) hereby authorizes the Town, its officers, agents, contractors and employees, to enter upon the property and effect emergency repairs to the any portion of the Drainage Facilities in the event of a threat to the safety of the Drainage Facilities or properties adjacent to or downstream of any portion of the Drainage Facilities, the cost of such repairs to be reimbursed to the Town within 10 days of demand for same. 4 . Contest of Bills. In the event the Town makes repairs and issues a demand for reimbursement, and the owner of the property on which the repairs were made (hereafter the "Responsible Owner") disputes either the need for the repairs or the cost of the repairs, the Responsible Owner, in lieu of paying the amount demanded shall, within 10 days of receipt of the demand, deliver to the Town Clerk at the Town offices a Notice of Contest stating that the need for the repairs, or cost, or both, is in dispute and concisely stating the basis for the dispute. Failure to of claim that the bill is not justified. If the Notice serve such a notice shall be deemed a waiver o y J of Contest is filed, the Town shall, within thirty days of the filing, arrange for a hearing before the Town Board which, based upon any relevant materials presented by the Director of Engineering and the Responsible Owner, shall within 10 days of the hearing issue a resolution determining the dispute, file a copy of such resolution with the Town Clerk, and arrange for delivery of a copy of the resolution to the Responsible Owner, within five days after such filing, at the address for such owner shown on the latest real estate tax records available to the Town, .or, if the (Name of Entity) is the then Responsible Owner, at the address for the (Name of Entity) set forth at the outset of this agreement. If either the Director of Engineering or the Responsible Owner disagree with the resolution, either may bring a proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules of the State of New York, provided such proceeding is commenced within 30 days of the filing with the Town Clerk of the decision of the Town Board. Failure to institute such a proceeding shall be deemed an agreement with the decision of the Board. Page 2 of 4 (Name of Entity) Stornnvater Maintenance Agreement — (date) 5 . Addition to Taxes. In the event the Town makes repairs and the Responsible Owner fails to reimburse the Town for the cost of said repairs within 10 days after the demand for same, or, if contested by the proceedings set forth above, fails to so reimburse within 30 days of the final decision on the contest determining the amount due to the.Town, the (Name of Entity) hereby agrees and authorizes the Town to add such unpaid repair expenses to the tax bill for the tax parcel on which the repairs were made, to be payable, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of making of said repairs, as part of the tax bill issued in January of each year and to be treated as an unpaid tax and collected as an unpaid tax if not paid with the Town and County tax bills when issued . The unpaid expense may be added to the bitl issued in the January next following the final determination of the validity of the expenditure, or the bill issued the next year after the January following such final determination (e.g. if the final determination of the validity of the assessment of the bill is made October 1 , 2004, the amount may be added, with interest, to the tax bill issued in January of 2005 or the tax bill issued in January of 2006) . This right of assessing the unpaid bill as a tax shall be effective even if the property of the Responsible Owner would otherwise be exempt from real estate taxation. The Town may, at its option, instead of adding the amounts to the tax bills, bring an action against the Responsible Owner for payment. In any action or proceeding brought hereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable costs in prosecuting or defending any action, including reasonable attorneys fees. The prevailing party shall be determined by the court determining the matter. Prevailing party shall mean a party which is awarded substantially all, or all, of the amounts or relief demanded by the party. 6 . Annual Inspection Report. The (Name of Entity) shall submit an annual stormwater inspection report to the Town' s Director of Engineering on or before the first day of October of each year, with the first report being submitted the first October following the issuance of the Building Permit. Such reports shall, at a minimum, include the location of the property, owners contact information, summary of completed inspections and results of such inspections, and a summary of any maintenance activities or corrective actions undertaken. Annual reports shall be signed by the owner or other legally responsible party, and shall attest to the accuracy of the information provided in the report. Failure to submit the annual reports, or submitting inaccurate reports, shall, without limiting the remedies otherwise available to the Town, constitute a condition of non-compliance with the site plan approval and shall be deemed a violation of the Town' s Zoning Ordinance and shall be subject to enforcement as such as outlined in Section 2808 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 68 of the Town Law. 7 . Representation as to Authority. Each of the persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties represents that he or she has full authority to execute the same on behalf of his or her party, and that by his or her execution, the party for which he or she is executing this Agreement is fully bound by its terms. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement the day and year first above written. Page 3 of 4 (Nmne of Entity) Storurnvater Maintenance Agreement - (date) TOWN OF ITHACA By : Catherine Valentino, Supervisor (Name of Entity) By: STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF TOMPKINS : ss. : On the day of in the year 2004 before me, the undersigned, personally appeared personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual(s) whose name(s) is (are) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the individual(s), or the person upon behalf of which the individual(s) acted, executed the instrument. Notary Public STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF TOMPKINS : ss. : On the day of in the year 2004 before me, the undersigned, personally appeared personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual(s) whose name(s) is (are) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the individual(s), or the person upon behalf of which the individual(s) acted, executed the instrument. Notary Public Page 4 of 4 2 �bt. W qv up Sc . . I . . . .. . . � AL 1 �� --2-►- -!�-�_�-e- - _ _ _- -_--- -9� ®.QO_�_F ._. - . - _ - - -�,.j- �mod'_ _ - . . . . LCD J PE . _ _ l ;-S ... 9 av o LF — ! , Z av �� = goo . _--. _.__ AO V'G C vtv t ptit S `t-liw .- -.. -- -- - --- -- - - - s _ 2. . - - � . - __ _ . _� D- --0-0-0_cam. .._ -- 3 �� 9-�-o-�G . . . .. . . . . . : C VOW d - Preliminary Cost Estimate Improvements For Briarwood 11 2587 ft . 8" Watermain & Appurtenances @$60/ft . $ 155220 1772 ft. 8" Sewer Main & Apputenances @$50/ft. $ 88600 2883 ft. Highway & Paving @$ 100/ft. $288300 5766 ft . Storm Culvert, Underdrain & Backfill @$ 40/ft. $ 172980 3 Quality Control Ponds @ $ 15000 $ 45000 I Detention Facility @ $30000 $ 30000 2 Stormwater Control Structures @ $ 10000 $ - 20000 2831 ft. Walkway @ 15/ft . $ 42465 Subtotal $842565 Contingency $ 84260 Total $926825 Please note developer will construct most improvements with skilled employees some of whom have worked for him for over 30 years . Lawrence P . Fabbro-ni, P .E. ,L. S . OWNERS CERTIFICATION LETTER Mr. Fred T. Wilcox III, Chairman . Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Mr. Wilcox: This is to certify that I/we, the undersigned, am/are the owner(s) of the property at ,®4 C, of"J�g / B - ,� ; - �'�✓/� y(� �)qAl 7 �F� y , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel(s) No. l3 - 4 — 3e - " �' for which an application for subdivision and/or si a plan approval has been submitted to the Planning Board; that I/we have caused the land to be surveyed and the site plan to be prepared and/or land to be divided; that I/we agree and guarantee to construct the project and any required infrastructure elements in the manner presented by the finally approved site plan and/or divide the property as shown on the finally approved subdivision plat and all related application documents; and that I/we make any dedications indicated on the final site plan or final subdivision plat. /i©c w w Name (print) Signature Date Name (print) Signature Date Name (print) Signature Date Name (print) Signature Date Surveyor's Certificate I hereby certify to the Town of Ithaca that ( 1 ) the plat represents a survey by me, (2 ) the plat is a correct representation of all exterior boundaries of the land surveyed and the subdivision of it, (S ) all monuments indicted on the plat actually exist and their location, size, and material are correctly shown, and (4) the requirements of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations and New York State laws relating to subdividing and su been complied wi ?E Lawrence P . Fabbroni P .E L.S. 002 . , CORN -ELL LABORATORY of ORNITHOLOGY j I59 SAPSUCKER WOODS ROAD • ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850- 1999 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR Scott Sutcliffe Phone : ( 607 ) 254-2424 Fax : (607 ) 254-2435 Email: sas10®comell .edu February 28 , 2005 Mr. Rocco Lucente 120 Briarwood Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Rocco . In a recent conversation with Larry Fabbroni, I was pleased to learn that we are still on . track in working with you to preserve the wetlands property contiguous to Sanctuary Drive . Lab staffer, Ron Rohrbaugh (you met him once here at the Lab) recently met with Larry and the Town Planning Board staff and he reiterated our desire to preserve the properties as we discussed in meetings almost exactly one year ago . As always , we look forward to working with you , Larry, and the Town of Ithaca in bringing this project to conclusion to everyone ' s benefits t wishes , Scott Sutcliffe SS : Iem xc: Larry Fabbrom • A MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATION FOR THE STUDY AND CONSERVATION OF BIRDS • c� �J O 1 35� S-q MoRWiNG l� vkIC� 7 f rrk'#Oa f 6 ' lA' Fr��,�n°� vvv 68 m X' 7Je 40 oRAIIX C A 33 4001"© 00 'v �e 6 v 4 F R�vi>tic � �_ x76 3� �•� � sv�l �' P\ CD Ayo 7JI 0 IV, to Q0 144 TC 684 S'7711 wFochz OF 7600*� /V� Q 815=p no 3 0 xt - _ - i fw� � ��-�1 3 � � _ � E to 4 13 9 3 I ►: f , 344 CP Ii r i 4 , 0 o i i A 344 74 P K eel3 ' 96 'r p�� � iol F 9 i 830.4 I .� Lot I ; . Q 1 f 0 9 � i n i*1jq1VSHHty o 5 /l / ,F %U zi --7, �Uuj rlo �� ,�yra ORIVIN t46 , li 1 E� zo ) H 7000-7 / 1 P6 �r - 730 35' � to 8"16:LAJ 6 -� a a S3 _o _ � 60000 1419b T ado o C� / � tr �3a�54 3. 0 16 . iro g 1 420-16 6 ° 4 � l 70 f Rk PCB --r�-'-f�g�� I �� .� .� � .�►- �c, � car � 6 © Rt o 34 , � � 13J fly =/ F � �. � off; � 6 3 33 140 / .ff5 CN 349 7 430 416� oklcv L-N US 4 I 36 166 © 7 4A 4j i � C h 49 Iz DJ /0 MD7 W7M C /` y � /® C)©( a � Z�' q644 16 2 FWk7 > OL -fit \ /go /90 44 709119 d W O M M p p r Ill .O N f0 o (a � f a 1 .0 It ° L o u� '� CD c 0o m m o v M o U m a J.,%s ri _ j K � (. . g=, q k : '. - e t , t: 's i n5 may ,I 1 y 1 4 f .'. I �a ( �. . . i 't : 9 1 I . x ° + ? _ ' > ! '%d O M O O N M 'I e �'- Ets 1'h- c-` to �f . CO ' M M r Co Co I` O '. Co GOON M l'r(A m M N' r' e-, N tn.; i` O M f� 'tom , 00 ti N O : N' O t3) �h N' Co .T,I it d a � r �- r �' rr ? N �'• �- rr N a a> N 1.c OF= ° o z o► z o c `O C �n V , ,. ; - r `� ^ 4 d N C7 ' to N �- CU N Cfl d' O ti d' '` M J. to ti d' d 3 O C37 CO r Cp r M r �: r, r M.' LO l(') Cfl �.< W 00:; CO 00 : O , O,' CO 'mil '� L " e- =N : CD °1. O c C L U i r . F OD ; to C7 N N 07 CSC c� N •' a0 Q M r- . oD N ` N Co ,' t O h* . , O%Nom; �: Nd- OOo000) OODNdS . CDI� CflNN �- CV o It 5 ' f I 35 - y T I. R , �� VI t.L Z F t `I c P i :j I Y 4 . S '+n fjq O Z � I ' Ur, , i . '' ,�Y pc Y Spli LL I A ` y < }TL J I n :' . 1. 4 h . —It . �O a%C r h s 1 } t H . } '� (n i . to 1. s . I . " . t I lit r , IT i , ° o � .I 1, . OOO ; OO . 00 � �O : OC ' OO ? ODOOOeO' sma 'W E Qo . 0000,. 1 . L o� ao` or� oo ; oov000 o LS' v � : N M d t!t 0 � 00 +:'M'< O � ;. � , N M" d' u . Cfl 1` a0 Q I O r. H i n It m 0 0 0 0 O �'O•. O O O O ; �- �- O O . O OA O O O O O t :, � . N.14 0 O O _� s; d It,IT, d vN . � . I I m y , tq O * .. J. d qqt N O ' yz O) cn o "O m C) 3 m rLa� >:: to ^c O O ..0 J I _ iV, 4 Y st,m ' 1 in '. C ; W s 41I ; M t :; t t z l i I i j S i ?y silk. - . f ; i ' � i i j e '' 9 j fit; ( 3 I 1 t i 3 ( 3 Is I i E i . 1 o .x< S # S I � .'. � �:m ✓. 1 yl1L '- ` y, �O c� fn ao�0 1'7 N d ' OD Cp `: N O .: t� C1C) M 1 I co M - E� sC. CO 'O O 't- �- t0 Ef3 M Co 1 ,r r- M : C10 (� M LCD : N M d E[3 '. ti CD N CQ p) d CY3 1`11� � cv � ` MNNNNNN ;. MMMNi- r M% C — 11 �` O } _ c0 ; IIIIIIII Z t; Z o a U F C t ffl- N = `-Is a Mti; ON ; Cfl `M �tt`4MtL} ; MCO ' NMr- : rNt� d COCONMtfl: M �4.CVr: CO N' M Cfl ; N .N ' M O M : N t[) :kQ O _r L d d' r O irss U)si� U t tf) co- NN " N M ; 00N; d MO . � OCflCEOCo '. M1AMIf) OMCam: O 1. I;sZ c oc �, '�- t [) : O C� O r . I - N O N O' N a (fl d M N co M 1. �— r ; y r r— r , r r r r : N : C1) , CO C y '. r: e ' ca I L k > . I t 1-4 q U " ." z , i o Ls 11 5 . t !t w O 4: :' 1 III O s li 4 p 3 a o g000000a� 0000gOOOOO' oo ' 000 © a c%o oOOOa0000O ' a, aooOOOOaoaoo o Is. �° C7 Q r N M ' d LQ; CO � 00 di O 1� . N ch . if3 c0 [� O =CA O F- n II m a O O a O O ; O O: O )" � �- , O O Q O O O O O , 0 c- .. �• O d Is E Q N F- m - m aD e�i o o° I a rn lq� M O � F °0 9 II f 44 I. i 1.< i tr ,1.i C ,1.Oe of I. . I a k U r i i : t �a 1.'V^ S VI j I F i i . i . i Y ' ` ;11 ; . ? ( - ?j'.E i # oY f ,II. _.t z '� f 4 ` f Iii i ?.■ , j 'L .1 I t - {l. .,J..- .n -.'`lf i . . �4 1.11 7. m ° M00 ; NO': ON ; OO ` rti ' tiM � .MCh4°? o� OO � � o� N I.E NMOCaCO1�- : 000N -COto d u7 � COd aOCONN I r. �' � � e- N0 ' NNNNNNt'r3 . eh 'MNrr dO 11 0 .Ipll,P m � "li,I.I .I ; .L " I I . , '..:lTl 'L � 1 jr4lt,�Tl,z r . r . r I I I ,L Z O Z U ! LO U (U 1-- N ; d tAC�' N [+ tAr � d' . NOd rOrMfGOd} t- r ;9OO � �tM: � o T""" N 1� N,; LO tfl ;: r d' r M3 M :M N L O (fl . CO N N l: �_ tn N NNr: rr : c .r- N N N lf7 c -1 -1 U a IL lvll�ll Co tf� O �; Sri �; Co Lo,< O ti M N N N O ;� O ;c0 O (*3 t- N r- tf?. N 'Co O � O N• O ; M N :tom r O (` Lf) d ,: II ` { y %�11 .Ill fi C '1. U t »L tta.tt .: I y . . .i ...... T. ..: V O , ,, U ` { " Q tt';TL 1. ff _ i - 1 I. L1 .: r CL o � o, 00 : 000a0000 � oo ` 000000000 � o O : 000O ; of00000aoo . a0000 , oOOa; o I. ° Qr' NM' d Ei> . . I` f. lNMd' Itf) CD � o0Q3OT-; � L I ..il�� � m0000soo ': oaoo; t- `- °oO ; 0000 ` o . " I r it �, � � o _ a%f . ., �-l.%. ,. IT . Ill. � -`_,­l,­ -* * 1 Or . ­ Il4 ft J ~ . � y , I m m W CLM I I . r. . . �.,.r - 1. I 'L r . ; , L I �:: :I . ,: .I .%I.I l r r ' 9 " r) o °o rn OD N y " - n o m 0o w o c I .: o m o = 8 V u ) , %;� v, " I I,I :�*�-, ,e % I III rjio�� I I � I� i o 0 rr U :, m . III .: t t 1 5 ` i . y i. a { i f wil I is v { ' � i ma _ :_ m - S . � :. .: a r t; C cc E W .: � N M ct I r *CO ' M 1` M 1` r' =I co O ` CO d CO : N C * ti 'ti N 'O: M 0) co r r. r M O 00 r- N , N d ? LO uO.'. I% O1. r- M i0 � `:O d ;rm UD r' N " t N; N N N �N ; N N M M N : ;r' r �- � � N ; _t%%C_ 1.IMM Z 0�- 0)C w 0 y y 'tj f I. I F- C N L U 10 d CO I r' d"_ CO cM, to Lfl . N O r' 'C o- : ti ti O d3 M to .t r r =�f M CO; GO 0 r 'N . (� NO MM N ' M r-'' M N : O M O : [7p I` dtr r: CA ii. N CV N r r � : r I r + � r r ..': N N I. C C (6 U Ma0NO . r- eM ; ONrh'' OiCONiCO1C) M .,% CAO : COMO ';Otoo.iri. �.; M CO N CA O CV: r' d Co, M N : CD> 1` �C? N 'N' �o r%r V— r_ r I' I ,,, " �N r' O Ill it,r. r (` a> d I.C I. C L Ua 1 . .. ..r. A• . � /. C 41�� aF t ..�,¢� 1 3 ; f (.. t t :F n It" a 41, — CL p � O OsO : O O : (D , I O O" 2 .O O O O .. . II I O O . I co c E o 000t00000000a0000a . 000000; o t.�.� LMW Q � ; N ? ` d' �' CO a(�. ; CO O . O r ' r N M �fi tA . CO GO O O r-: U 11 I O : O OIOO O O O ; r r- kO ,.O , O O O O ! O O O O r• ' r• ~It- � O i14�+ 1 0. f1 I. •� - Ni f r15 it N r ` r sk . .it J 7 'lam t �' ,{tl�fnss: t L 3 p g S 4!1 1 4F �5' d v t1° ".: is mn+ "T .t Ga`nth .ar~�^p� VI Q .. . .c.: j ni.,.Y: v . r,.. .,. . . i . ...a ..1:[4 _ , 6 . t+d. Cv v to o N k.CO O O N co Q' N 0.%O i:.✓ ` O O' to O N 00 C� _ U r 4 m 'u I y � I { .% , i i I t , K J, I . r r 5 11 . ul4 :. ea` Ilri V,I , r �r :i ,1 `i, , ,Y . ' . 2. F �+ d o Cfl �r': IpC .L r" d' 03tL) 'NO :MOMCpp.."r: ` N d r O �- OO � N; N ' MOM ;COOMI` c1 (� NMtiMd Otiti . c0 Q cc E r -�. N :N N : N N N N � r co 1.O C I— Z O H Z f6 O U U O C co ui F' N t p, Inh•: MdN �fi00tt� � Oti :'ONNch - 00omd at� M � � c-; r . O^; ti , O O LV ;tV . N r r O1 tf) 1� d ,M C7 CV .'T W% N� r ' r r r — _% , ' � lA C C C U rI - N N �— c0 c0 d d ,M M M Co ,1y M tD r N O , ti a0 �-: CO% �— rt , LL � N= cocO ° O � NNr- — NaOtir.. d 'd Co mcV 11 y: r ,.r r ' r =, � CD E r4% %mffi C ' � t :. . � Sr - T C r ,y U ` N. i v r Y w r , 0 x `L A _ - ' ca c 0. o g o 0 0 0 0 : o O o 0 0 o g o o Q 11 . o 0 o O o coo Q 0 ooa ; 000 � oo . 00a *00000000co00 0 11 CD U Q c-z N M d ,1fl CO [�- 00 tom. C7 r '. r', N Ch '� ?[t3 Gfl 'ti Co O O �e=. ~ L n mOO ; 000O . O0 : OQ `: �- �- O000OOO .00Or- r, 11 O �- .. N.+ .J 3 r q. f1.. - C_ 'z } . /''� 9 Y r t� v v i I ` j 1'Fltmt m . : AM ,iM Y4 ,F 41 m N I r 11ce1 ;. y a., i s;' .i..d... y ' ��/Q/�. 9Y 44 x � ::. u• § L i�. uS.2Jti n{,..h5 _ . V) 0 arts}._.l . . . .. qcr e led o °o rn 1.co N " d l , I O . C 'i ¢h co O RJ O C i ".III O N O C i i -I I'll.'O Ma' ` , t ' J \11(j ( , t FS S CO/I 3 "fj fail .S i ;, F ,i.I el. l t \ 1 j t j 1 i ' t I. t , % Z i' § j i r i ni l : ' p 4 l - i .i,tl : ° P. I tr C as o 4 # * co Co r 1� 'O O 'ih- N S� O .. We 1n R E co o ct P- � o cU CO d - d' co rn � �If P.A � � NN > NM :MM :MNY' a N d } � Z C Z U ~ LO V O C ree c0 w ft6l F— � N p, . . x # ` : * MMN . O `N � cG d' EDM ` 000001f) �.11 M.. d N ; N .;d L[1 O . ti d .M N ;r: CO N e- ; r r ;r r -I ` ` N CO N � � C I 11.1 C .a _ W U I { ,. , e .. , d . . .. a 'C e. I; L • "' i II , : * = I �c : � OOO :OO - Ol..' (prr � O \1. %r* C7 � . tit.c- O .) r- fDd CpMtV< t- O qree _ r Lo qi .d. r /Q� i %L 7tx ' ^11 3 J _,1 lI .5 III � l.ia\e U � J ^1 d i .. y . a. :< _ A e HIV..11 t( 1 � 1 at, ' C 7"i m 7 N _ i* :far. file f 0 is y µ i li3- V .J S 4.1 i:': �.. 3y I E o . O' O O O O'; O O O O `, O O ; � II O O d O CO O O O O' .OLV6 ' We O 0 0 ; 0 0 ' O C) ; 0 0 . 0 0 O O : O O O O O O C� O 0 � N 11 vv ¢ `�' NC+7' d LOCO1 d0Ot. Or �' s-3N :M �f it) COi + CO � OT' 1— i 1 .If n � N OO : 000OOOJ, OO ` � 'TO ` O� O ' OOOOOOO � . . O : .1 _� CO"a N r co F N " J 7 r . l i It r ,,4 11. m +� .I " I If Page 1 of 1 _. . . _ . :Subj: Unique Natural Area ,Date : 8/7/03 2:22:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time 'From: bcarr dreamscape . com To: frw2a- cornell . edu Sent from the Intemet (Details) Bob - I wanted to follow up on our phone conversation of last week. Thanks for agreeing to send me a copy of the correspondence related to a change in the Unique Natural Area designation on lands owned by Rocco Lucente in the Town of Ithaca . Bernie Carr TES (315) 695-7228 Thursday , August 07 , 2003 America Online : Fabbroni I I I j I t a j i i I 1 I - J I � I O 1 { I I W I I a1 1 � I O � v M i 1 � /''� w l O O O O N ca U CCa a A c--I Co i 0) 0) '� O U U O 4- 0 �4 O O d.0 cc CL co '~ 0 � 3 C 7 Q CL 00) (DE0 OarZ A L E Ltoc 'aN � o � N c6 i� � ° N33oo0 -0 � �' c ca 3 m > ao co M � g 0 0 = crnQ o m W a�i � � � W � cu o m o >1 c c6 c -- ; a� o o a� � � O — ° v � CD N o c Q o cv = Ld > � ao mZ 3 c a`oi W No c n- � s °o vas � •co r o Z .r E a� o (D 3 = 2 ,00 co N -a c co Cr a -a -o ( o ac°i E rno o EUqu� 3 0 >' 'z ns C o c � � Q c 0 � � o ° co- o I D) Q) CL � c00 0 a)d N - O N O N V 0) C) of O V V NNZ L OC O OL � N C1 to co y.. i C O ` O Z N C C 00 V �, O O H = O I O O OMB Et ca OYN O ?i p 0 = O N C to C 0 1 L V O N Ussl O E L O' O c am +L+ c 0 R to c t Co 0 , ' I N O O V C �' ++ S t�6 O V E O m d N L O O f6 O A V ` �C 7 T d N V i C N O — N U CL N N 3 M N CO N N (�6 co O a � C L N O � caL T C + . O OH a' iLL. r .0 U- +- LL N NU E (u w 'C 3 � U ca -5 ) . . �' C c6 Co = O` +. . . 7 d .o O L O O ca N co O = a) O a O N N y N N �, U m L C O O C O co) E N Q O w V m cL ~ C c � o O m O MM to co OZM p = O +-' U iTm O m O - mY E fCaL C V C > E o m (D o � v > m E = c n 3L oL `o cs ai ' Z• o o c nU v :r �, s a ° o a> m — . . O O NI LM U NWT- o o y — p I tLI— U (AfA A A A A A A A A A A A (1) 0....lL . _ _i J E m .Mi lL h fn CO A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A M a 0 • A A r� w a) O U -r•I Q) Ln a o 0 mU o C N cc p • L Q) C 0) O cc r I N U >1 N C L . C � I 0 C) N C L p C O O C C O _co w a� 0 L jaL .L. 0 C 0 N U 7 a) m O m D 3 a3 C � N L . . p .r Co N L C O L N N '— O ca N c0 0 Q ca O `p• C -v .0 C U O L E L .r Q � ' L O C ° O C ?i U — L O = 0. 2 w U C 0 f— C Z O C C � C O C Q p U L � 0 (IS 0 CCU ME � +- 0 r. '0 p p O — a) .- ;r) �O O " cOLF m a)L p C O W C n N p Q N Z N -O u1 C Q O 0 0 L C O `� U N 0 -0 (D °' m N O D U N E .� c 3t O Z O C 0 .. N m rt / n E > L n c o 0 0 � 0 .0 4) � . NIL- a � cm =3 m_ o as 0 rn a) a) c_ s — ca N � '- 0 � 0 OOL C a) p) O >' O E c - a 0 N " � < > in ° " >+ C m :3 >4 a) Z+ °o mQ Y c � a NW a) a) oY 0 0 m � � o c .� N as 0 > ay ao w0 O v) E m a) 'N I C Y + . a7 O Y V a) a) . U(D 0 d .L. L 'a O 0 N c c c a? E ccu o 0m � � 0 0L � m ` ° > a) � � y ti cl > t° °� M0S. u pp0 � � 0 0 pt:: wa) ao 2o3 $ V. :- Co ED 0� rn m can ° c �' 0) o � N >' v ai o > Q CL Y 0 L . U rn Z ° �' aNi om EA U -aim m m ° � � a>i U � o' � � � °io � 2acic0i � vEW � CL 4) M � aCa� oy � 3:0 � � 0 mWM Lrn a3 yL Q- > ma ° 0NL ° 2L c rn0 m o ca 3 c ° •o W2 a mPCCI f- � no- F- (OCnmEt— � wcL 3 iiN � vca� Y � W n n n n n n n I A n n n n n n n n n n n n n n A n n n n n A A A n n A n n n A A n n n n n n n n n n n n n A A n n n n n n A A n n n n n n n A n n n A n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n TErmstrial wo onvironmEntal SpEcialiss , inc , 3 COUNTY ROUTE 6, SUITE A, PHOENIX, NY 13135 (315) 695-7228 FAX : (315) 695-3277 E-MAIL: tesinc @alltel . net March 2, 2005 Mr. Edward Marx, Director Tompkins County Planning Department 121 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Re : Lands of Mr. Rocco Lucente/Sapsucker Woods Bird Sanctuary UNA- 106, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York TES File No . 1491 Dear Mr. Marx : On behalf of Mr. Rocco Lucente, Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. (TES ) is requesting a formal modification of the boundaries of Unique Natural Area (UNA)- 106, Sapsucker Woods Bird Sanctuary. TES conducted environmental investigations in 2003 on lands owned by Mr. Lucente (Figure 1 ) . These investigations were conducted at the request of Mr. Larry Fabbroni, P .E. ,L. S . , Project Engineer for Mr. Lucente, in response to the designation of Mr. Lucente ' s property as Sapsucker Woods Bird Sanctuary UNA- 106 . We have included a copy of the 1990 boundary of Sapsucker Woods Bird Sanctuary UNA, then called DR- 54, (Figure 2) (Tompkins County 1990) . The expanded 2000 designation of Sapsucker Woods Bird Sanctuary is shown on Figure 3 (Tompkins County 2000) . An aerial photograph of UNA- 106 provided by your office is shown as Figure 4 . Please note that the limits of LTNA- 106 include numerous homes and 'a street (Sanctuary Drive) . An additional aerial photograph shows forested land located west of UNA- 106 which is also contiguous to Sapsucker Woods Bird Sanctuary, but is not included in the UNA (Figure 5) . UNA Criteria for Inclusion TES reviewed the reasons for inclusion of lands in the Sapsucker Woods Bird Sanctuary UNA4 06 . Mr. Edward Marx March 2 , 2005 Page 2 The following reasons cited for inclusion of lands into UNA- 106 apply only to Sapsucker Woods Bird Sanctuary: Important teaching site Designated natural area/preserve State designated wetland Birding site Quality example of plant community Scenic/Aesthetic Recreational value An existing pedestrian trail runs through the site Diverse fauna Field Investigations TES conducted environmental investigations in 2003 on lands owned by Mr. Lucente in order to determine whether the land south of Sanctuary Drive merited inclusion in an expanded UNA. This parcel is separated from Sapsucker Woods Bird Sanctuary by Sanctuary Drive and the homes along both sides of the street. TES conducted a breeding bird survey on the land owned by Mr. Lucente south of Sanctuary Drive. TES determined that there were no Cooper' s hawks (Accipiter cooperii), sharp-shinned hawks (Accipiter striatus), or red-shouldered hawks (Buteo lineatus) breeding in this area. TES investigated whether there were any unique plant communities in the area owned by Mr. Lucente south of Sanctuary Drive. This area was heavily logged in the late 1980s to early 1990 's . The extreme southern portion of the area designated as UNA- 106 was partially filled in the 1960s and early 1970s and consists of young, early successional tree species . TES concluded that there were no unique plant communities in this area. TES did identify a forested wetland community within the center of this southern portion. However, its character was typical of seasonally flooded wetlands in New York State and it is not a state-designated wetland. After the request of the Town of Ithaca to provide a master plan for all future development, (an exercise Mr. Lucente had once already completed in 1965) , Mr. Lucente expanded the scope of the TES field investigations to include land he owned to the west, adjacent to and contiguous with Sapsucker Woods Bird Sanctuary. TES conducted a wetland delineation on these additional lands . The uplands in this parcel also were logged in the late 1980s to early 1990 ' s . Mr. Lucente ' s land is private property, and does not afford an important teaching site or recreation values . There are no pedestrian trails through the property. Mr. Edward Marx March 2 , 2005 Page 3 Request for Boundary Change In 2003 , Katherine Borgella of your staff directed Mr. Larry Fabbroni to speak with Mr. F. Robert Wesley of Cornell Plantations regarding the designation of UNA- 106. Mr. Wesley was one of the principal investigators who were contracted by Tompkins County to update the UNA 2000 Inventory. Mr. Wesley made the statement to Mr. Fabbroni in February 2003 that the portion of UNA- 106 south of Sanctuary Drive would not have been included in the UNA if he had been aware of the subdivision along Sanctuary Drive (Figures 2 and 4). TES agrees with the statements from Mr. Wesley to Mr. Fabbroni (and subsequently to TES) that lands south of Sanctuary Drive should not have been included in UNA- 106 . Only wood lots owned by Mr. Lucente have ' been included in the revised UNA, while forested lands owned by others west and north of Sapsucker Woods Bird Sanctuary are not included in the 2000 revision (Figure 5) . It appears that the addition to UNA- 106 of lands owned only by Mr. Lucente was based on incomplete information. All lands owned by Mr. Lucente, and all the residential areas within the UNA boundaries should be excluded from land identified as Sapsucker Woods Bird Sanctuary UNA- 106, and the boundaries should accurately depict only lands owned by Cornell University. In the Introduction to Tompkins County Unique Natural Areas (2000) it states "It is important to continue the process of adding and deleting sites to the inventory when warranted. " Deleting the land owned by Mr. Lucente within UNA- 106 is warranted, because it does not meet the criteria for inclusion as a UNA: To . date Mr. Wesley has not responded in writing as promised to Mr. Fabbroni and TES . This delay is complicating the approval by the Town of Ithaca of a revised master plan a version of which has been mutually agreed to by Mr. Lucente and Sapsucker Woods Bird Sanctuary. On behalf of Mr. Lucente, TES respectfully requests that the Tompkins County Planning Department formally implement a procedure to process requests that lands be added to or deleted from UNAs . TES requests that you adopt measures to amend the UNA maps, and that lands owned by Mr. Lucente be removed from the Sapsucker Woodst Bird Sanctuary UNA- 106 . Sincerely, TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS, INC. Bernard P. Carr Senior Environmental Scientist BPC/dmm Enclosure cc : R. Lucente L. Fabbroni 0 •, 1 TOMPKINS COUNTY r a IT I w AIRPORT x ` . 4 1, — _ _ Tie ` . Yt • r I Tl Tllk Tlp lllk d=1 — • Y: _ rr, czm J ■ `. , . .. Tower �. ! a.., pool " o ost } P ' 11S1I1g °0oriic Sal ` . 0 . rte ' .•�i �. - ._�. � ' i' �� Y — . `` `.` - @82 i t � :� .. o. Aa�. , 1 •r ' ,i tofu \ `. - 109.9 . . . . J039 t • 1'�.. .. ,� , Trailer tas . Park . ' 1 �' ✓ • . . DR RD VAS , ® 10 2 Q _- --_ _•_ •-_ --•- Jk- r / . ® r bsta ...- 1 ♦� cl /076 m 1 �... .. eWilt o ° • a ;) Gs � • ir, TT Ivfiddlc i 1 i €X2 41 r t •' -� -' . �Otiheasl: ° ' - ab � ?` �` ', Q . . �`� . • t09 �LOtRVEiI 'i , file, a>< . - , .' `� �• 4 .: :-Q z 2 • Lands Owned by • ROAD -- - ~' Q ° s - _ Rocco Lucente �- �u , '• I - t t • . , - " • • _._ r /095 t G Y • 98 I - Eas Cay t uga , rBfOVe ;, 1 Golb Cam• _ ,it Heights _, �• 11 i , Co rse _ t. dd Till rook / " : I . - .. .. 1 a ."1• If ! - ' ." v -m OTWUN j \ ` - ROAD 6 @1 , GoIE, t - - - e 1. • • . • , C Golf _ - ' ° 12 a . Course. 3 a ( 5115 Tr- I 1 - 9 , LL • � _• I 1 161 o fly Magnetic - `� {� Goll'Course Wjj Sta ;: . .r. t1 � 933 I / ' •. • • ' / ?7 , its r 1 t2i EE� Pork a 2 `�°�/Ro r Foresl Home C R , be` t I961 906 O .. railer i ! •5 , Ail 0 1000, 2000. Figure 1 . Site Location SCALE ,• = 2000' NYS DOT Topographic Map NORTH Ithaca East Quadrangle 1996 OUADRANGLE LOCATION TES Prepared by TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS, Inc. - file: LUC-1491\1491 fgl-revised.dsfl 2-17-OS (I ! j .i I \ Vk} yp '. Taw\ 41 1 it it Too / C ' . ' ' / 1•i \ \N �\\' \ \, \',U � j`( � 1 + /�1r JI / '40., /1 (lit � \ To II \ ; y f/Jl 1 too Wt } I /,^ % ( (r( T - } ( U •\ 1 '`i 1141\��\ ` f)tl� ll/fir ' } 1 v, \� :` '` 1 ( � . —'gin u� Of oI no If In I SO no SO 1 +,- "� - � i r •\ . . ,1l v N l �•-`-�� . 'C1 111 V--. • 'i. i, i , {, ( i:- ,i"n`l Ito 0. IT / � •\ . . 11• • r q', " q . L"10r7 ♦ li. r"^fy : 1 tiC 0 ITT too IT I M4 'II Af - '• p- ,iM f . , • \. u+ :0� • c�„ \, . _ `� �' i1 D�Oj � 7 • •" •'�`Q2i'� vo, No,/^L on i� tt . , I�' • . 1 • • ' ( 1� iii\ • ^••� ' ` ' _ 1�✓� "�I. �Vk..� - t.: - 1 I n• ' MYFfSN VN , 1 tiv •f N `' C j �. � ' ` _ 1 K • ' ll. T,,JJ i ) r J t. �•1 , of -ii of of I (Uh O � •fif'`v .. _ . } j `F f(\` J:.`:• , tid?'i ' " L^��.1 — ` for N • . IT .� 1 f 4a ,I yu c of 0 IT 0 AT I It r 1 p / r1 .1 I h Ilrfr • '\ Q� cc Of ' :va rw� oboes d 1 � ' (' j f '' If Of JIF or 000 all ft Ot 00 0 rl l r f . ,No e•- ., r\ t • I `�% - O•01 / I ,"�. . ' fly r ` • i W / � ' •,N� a 1-• I IR ry / J _ _ � /.• ?I/ �: V • -'a- i :, a ( /`i �Sl•II \1 • i �• W (t•r.1■ bb VM .r. i •� r w / Inu- / - � ,. _. ..T (� , / J� r ` ) �J , } ' r�'p a♦J� .t•1 �.r' Oi` �• • , f 1 i I•� .Y t. N3d1 ._ V, ,ill.+ • „,,' f \ r —oil ia. • ° . 1 r 1 0 �0, / Y1 ii••"oo �r • • I{II • • •/ , '% k ter: �.'- I r I p LL oo V to � ••- - I •-.. - - ' �1 �• • •/f i ,f. y-��/�� ,`�_' 1 1'r, /� N i I ' ( 'J',C�r \�+ 1 • ,• •; r•S •I�iJ•' �Y / ./-(.//�/• w x`.11 f �. Y'.I ;706.y1�11 ■.~' / f '14I`�At, t�on f ^• . ._ ✓ '.t'0 1 J • nr'G .. ,/ �.� YYY •! r V( .47� i . //(f �' 1'..d 1 / tp�rZ ' ,,-'-�'� :T,� tl_ f I � ' ,._ � — \\ iff•A ' - r / t' � •� IL�{; ' .• •. . • its .• �: � • I' f •�1 : ) i r J. . •� • 7� • •J;� /f • ♦ `: r,J /i!I \ `l� • ' ' • • •• W �r I r • •• f • �I:I . r�• � J (74 0.2 �/4� r\� /� • .- • l S �I y.`, 5 , ��� LL To do% *Ito cf- "'ll f } 1} ,r te-'fC ../\ ,' , ' `I• ' �• nll: ..�• G ` a h/(•.f d r, , l � • ' •! I . I • �� � • �t,7�w ,1 f d; . • a. zL;-., "� ( z' ' i • • , J / f Ll 1x ::. a . J �. 1 ; _; ` iy i • I I\ /J(''' I ( . t; ` 1 l r.Vf m �',(fI %l y t ! •rr� 7 in r. , t . < " !� l � � � :i- I • l / +M.''',f \/ ' ` �' 1'♦ ` fin\ . . a �1Q'•r,L ( �- f fi�cf (d : I • • • � • Ir l� r•f ra�)J/ ( 1 •� {YF.t f Y/�• _ �� o L/u 1 • v�•`Y ' t I •.' 1•e / • eo • .• •• /i f' 1/ l�_ � _ .� • Vv t • . .� / 1., •• � t li to 00000 O-Z� YY � ' N� •`, • J • // • l \ � I��YwKi' /. <' /V / \ ` pp ♦ i''� ..f'1•. � r.:Y To .:) . / • � z'I/ ,�" t n, ` I�l••i . . ' i ' •f . d -• L1 • �•. v. t`. \ .•d "l�'r f�' M1 //t /.�r�` A Eaa::. ` ��JJJllo"A�pkin� ,Coun_ty DEPARTM°ENsO ' PL ` NING ,1'� 1 Eat„Cou�i Street 1I-thaca, eXark ?14850 Edward C. Marx, AICP - 0 Telephone (607) 274-5560 Y ri " Fax (607) 274-5578 Commissioner of Planning �= ) July 27, 2005 Mr, Bernard P. Carr, Senior Environmental Scientist Terrestrial Environmental Specialists 23 County Route 6, Suite A Phoenix, NY 13135 Re : Lands of Mr. Rocco Lucente/Sapsucker Woods Bird Sanctuary UNA- 106, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York (TES File No. 1491 ) Dear Mr. Carr: . 81 am formally responding to your request for a modification to the boundaries of Unique Natural Area (UNA- 106), Sapsucker Woods Bird Sanctuary, The Unique Natural Areas Inventory is a project of the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council ' (EMC) . The EMC is a voluntary advisory board to the Tompkins County Legislature for which the Planning Department provides staff support and assistance. The inventory was first created in 1974 and updated in 1990 . and 2000 . The UNA Inventory is meant as a land use planning tool to guide municipal decision-making about development on environmentally sensitive lands. It is not a legally binding document. In addition, time and resource limitations govern the amount and accuracy of the data provided in the inventory. Over time the landscape can be altered or degraded in such a way that parcels no longer retain the same level of environmental significance that led to their identification as UNAs. The inventory should always be used as a first step in municipal decision-making. If a parcel is located in a UNA, the local municipality should request additional on-site observations prior to making development decisions. The EMC has discussed adopting a formal process to add and delete information from the inventory and a timeline for updates . I have delayed a formal response to your request in the hope that I might be able to explain that process, but as of this date the EMC has not yet made any final decisions . In the absence of a formal process for updating the document we are unable to make any amendments at this time . 697, 20 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly. manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action maybe significant is not always easy to answer. . Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the .environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis . In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance: The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process . has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action . lli Full EAF. Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts : Part 1 : Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data , it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 31 Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. it provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3 : If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the .impact is actually important. THIS AREA FOR LEAD AGENCY USE ONLY DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Ifentify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: Part 1 El Part 2 o Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate) , and any other supporting information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: ® A . The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. © B . Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared. * C. The . project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared . * A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Name of Action Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer nature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) Date website Page 1 of 21 ' a PART 1 =-PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form , Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3 . It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance, Name of Action �— 4467�sogb u to )4 3 � �C hS � l (31 Location of Action (include Street Address , Municipality and County) _ a7"%45>/ �S Q� 81jeci ooD ,��QIC /LSO Ic td OeO ON 0SN101V 91 Name of Applicant/Sponsor _ 62 0 Qjs� /Pt 4 1) ���� l Address Q / pjz2 d © City / PO �G7 !� C State Zip Code Business Telephone ��` � �© 9154 Name of Owner (if different) Address City / PO State Zip Code Business Telephone Description of Action: Opt Page 2 of 21 ease Complete Each Question-- Indicate N . A . if not applicable SITE DESCRIPTION Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas . 1 . Present Land Use: El Urban Industrial Q Commercial ,Residential (suburban) Rural (non-farm) Forest El Agriculture Other 9 2 . Total acreage of project area : acres. PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION . APPROXIMATE ACREAGE acres �.�f3 � acres Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultu(al) "nacres 1. 7 acres Forested acres acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24 , 25 of EC L) $ acres acres Water Surface Area acres _ acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) _acres Roads, acres buildings and other paved surfaces acres acres Other (Indicate type) 3 . What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? / y! a. Soil drainage : Well drained % of site Moderately well drained �J % of site.El Poorly drained dSQ.% of site ed, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land b . If any agricultural land is involv Classification System? acres (see 1 NYCRR 370) , 4 . Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? El Yes No a . What is depth to bedrock (in (feet) 5 . Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: [10- 10% E110- 15% % ® 15 % or greater %. 6 . Is project substantially contiguous o, or contain a building , site, or district, listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places? Yes No 7 . Is P ro•J ect substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? Yes ONo What is the depth of the water table? (in feet)_ . Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? E] Yes No hell fishing opportunities ortunities presently exist in the project area? Yes 10 . Do hunting, fishing ors ZNo Page 3 of 21 11 . Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? E1Yes"'***0No Accordin to: E-1 - -4 IdentiLl each s ecies: . . . ... . ..._ 12 . Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i .e. , cliffs, dunes, other geological formations? E]Yes to Describe: 13 . Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? ® Yes to If yes, explain: i 14 . Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? E] Yes o 15 . Streams within or contiguous to project area : a . Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary OPk4A/40 7;Q 16 074 161 . Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area : 77Z 11Y W � bo 3 5C&7E b . Size (in acres) : Ar i3 Page 4 of 21 i6 s the site served b existing public utilities? Yes a No El 7 , I Y a . If YES, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? . Yes No b . If YES , will improvements be necessary to allow connection? KAI Yes El No Pal 18 , Is the site located in ffYes icult al district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304 ? No 19 . Is the site located in or substantia(I�ontiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? ® Yes No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? Yes No . B , Project Description 1 , Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriat�e)J. a . Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor: " acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: acres initiallycres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped: acres. Q F' 7"� -5' i• d . Length of project, in miles: 04 if appropriate) ` odi ,pCGr �n� V'U e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed . % t f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing proposed g . Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour: ld (upon completion of project)? h. If residential : Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially V Ultimately `-� ORV I? 16 I . Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: height; _,,�C7 width; length . j . Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 3o 1 Pr 2 . How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? d tons/cubic yards. 3 . Will disturbed areas be reclaimed Yes El No F1 N/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b . Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Yes ® No c . Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Yes l No vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? / acres . ve 84 , How many acres of g Page 5 of 21 _ r 5 . Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? Yes MNo 6 . If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction :Zza months, (including demolition) 7 . If multi-phased: a . Total number of phases anticipated (number) b . Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 : month year, (including demolition) c. Approximate completion date of final phase: month year. d . Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? Yes No 8 . Will blasting occur during construction? El Yes No 9 . Number of jobs generated: during constructionq 0 after project is complete 3 10 . Number of jobs eliminated by this project y 11 . Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? El Yes ._I No e If yes, explain : 12 . Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? Yes gNo a . If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc) and amount b . Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13 . Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? Yes No . Type 14 . Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Yes No If yes, explain : 15 . Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? Yes > o 16 . Will the project generate solid waste? Yes No a . If yes, what is the amount per month? /e tons b . If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? TRYes F7 No c. If yes, give name 5440 W4W QPC14/Ty location CO?j e/ d . Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? OYes No Page 6 of 21 if yes, explain: 17 . Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? Yes No a . If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? l74L tons/month . b . If yes, what is the anticipated site life? /o years. 18 . Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ® Yes U4No 190 Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Yes No 20 . Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? Yes k\J No 21 , Will project result in a.n increase in energy use? M -Yes No If yes, indicate type(s) CS CC/VS72qU C7/© A /7,!C#1va1\1JO SAS /t '�?TRIC 22 . If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity . gallons/minute. 23 , Total anticipated water usage per day���ap gallons/day . 24 . Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? El Yes , No If yes, explain: Page 7 of 21 25 . Approvals Required: Type Submittal Date City, Town, Village Board Yes ®i No 10RA //l hi-/Q ✓ City Town; illage Planning Board Yes No City, Town Zoning Board El Yes El No City, ounty ealth Department •Yes i No © J-- . Other Local Agencies D Yes El No Other Regional Agencies Yes �� No AtYS.��`C State Agencies Yes No Federal Agencies El Yes 1:1 No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 . Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decisioh? Yes ® No If Yes, indicate decision required : ElZoning amendment El Zoning variance New/revision of master plan Subdivision ElSite plan Special use permit Resource management plan El Other Page 8 of 21 What is the zoning classifications) of the site? _ 3 . What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? Bau 6 WTS .. c vs.. ... calve _ . - ....... 4 . What is the proposed zoning of the site? ?' L _ rZ 417714 1 /Y (3/f' JJ O M b S Hy RCS1 � C O � !f/_ P jC,# / tAY //ol� S _.. . __ ._ . .................__. .:_...... ._. ....... ................ ..._... ... ....... _.... ._.......... . __ .. ................. ... ..... 5 . What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? Elm _ d. . 6 . Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? Yes El No What are the predominant lend uses) and zoning classifications within a Y4 mile radius of propose action . . JR0e� r' olil. s Pk IUh,I d A9 G! -- � �� of aRw� �� c� � Zvi k1F� a� a�' � L a�' S °� � c 07 cAD Ox s . . ... ._ ..... .. g , Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses with a Ya mile? Yes No + If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? A / / a . What is the minimum lot size proposed? © © � Page 9 of 21 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? Yes No 11 . Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection? Yes El No a . If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? Yes No 12 . Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? Yes No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic. E] Yes M No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them . E. Verification certify that the information provided above is true to the best of m-yy knowledge. . Applicant/Sponsor Name /C0420- o Date Bl 4' Cab Signature ylv��tioo Title � bN If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. Page 10 of 21 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Approved 7/18/2006 REGULAR MEETING FILE TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD DATE - TUESDAY, 3UNE 20, 2006 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK PRESENT Fred : Wilcox, Chairperson ; Eva Hoffmann, Board Members George Conneman, Board Members Tracy Mitrano, Board Member (7 :29 p . m .); Larry Thayer, . Board. Member, Rod Howe, Board Member, Kevin Talty, Board Member (7 : 10 p . m . ) ; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning ; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town, Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering (7 : 34 p. m .) ; Susan. Ritter, Assistant . Director of Planning ; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk. EXCUSED Christine Balestra, Planners Nicole Tedesco, Planner. OTHERS Maria and Joseph Salino, 1070 Danby Rd; Mariette Geldenhuys, Attorney, Millicent Clarke-Maynard, 111 Birchwood Dr; G . [Ezra , 110 Birchwood Dr; Dave Auble, 111 King Rd W; Jacquelyn Nelson, 106 King Rd We Larry Fabbroni, 1 Settlement Way; Rocco Lucent, 120 Briarwood Dr; Andrew Houtenville, 116 Pinewood Dr; Mancang Dong & ] ingzhen Guo, 102 Pinewood Pl ; Gary and Fran Bergstrom, 113 Birchwood Dr; Rick Couture, 104 Westhaven Rd ; Carl Sgrecci , 1130 Trumansburg Rd; Robert O'Brien, HOLT Architects; Lawrence Berger, Lama Real Estate, Brian . Howell, Birchwood Dr; Erik Whitney, 409 Auburn St; Bernie Carr, Syracuse; Scott Sutcliffe, Cornell University; Janet Howe, 109 . Birchwood Dr; David Collum, 1456 Hanshaw Rd ; Charles Evenmeyer, 206 Sapsucker Woods Rd.. CALL TO : ORDER Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7 :02 p. m . , and accepts for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca: Journal on June 12, 2006 and June 14, 2006, together with the properties under discussion, .as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and/or agents, as appropriate, on June 14, 2006 . Chairperson Wilcox states the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control . 1 SEQR Briarwood 50- Lot Subdivision, Sanctuary Dr., Birchwood Dr. North, and Birchwood Dr Chairperson Wilcox Ladies and gentlemen of the audience, let me just fill you in a little bit on procedure here . Normally we would begin with the environmental review. Should this board make a negative determination of significant environmental impact, the application would be considered complete : We would then move on to the subdivision and open the public hearing . and give you a chance to speak. It is my belief this evening that many of you are here and would like to probably provide this board with some input on environmental issues specifically drainage in that area and you may have some other concerns as well . So time permitting, and again, I don't know how long this will take . We will give the applicant a chance to make their presentation . . Please sit and listen . The board will have a chance to ask questions and should we get close to or near a vote on the environmental significance, we will then give the members of the public a chance to make a brief because L believe you all have something to say. Should we make that determination of negative significant environmental impact, we will then move to the public. hearing . You will then have another chance to speak as part of the public hearing . So you will have the opportunity to speak twice this evening if you feel that it is important and you have something to say with the environmental review. Later on should we get to the subdivision, then your comments can be about the size of the lots . or the connection of the roadways or other things, which have to do with the subdivision . So that is how we will proceed . Very good . Larry Fabbroni, 1 Settlement Way I am representing Rocco. Lucente, who is in the audience this evening . I also have part of the design team . I have Erik Whitney, who did the . stormwater modeling for this project and Bernie Carr, the Vice President of Terrestrial Environmental Systems, who did the wetlands delineation and has made recommendations as to . different` biofilters and is dealing with the Corps of Engineers and we are all collectively dealing with DEC on this project. So I will ask the two of them to present their respective parts of this as I go along . I am happy to be here tonight, I hope, in a way that we think we have come with answers to . questions we've discussed in the past with the board . Things that are of concern to the neighborhood and have had a lengthy and very positive interaction with the staff to come back with what we . present to you tonight. The project, just. a little history, I see one or two new faces hereon the board, and as the Town Attorney. Back in 1965 Rocco thought he was forward thinking and had a master plan for this area that would have seen 90 lots going in this area that we are considering tonight. Tonight this proposal is for 47 lots. The other three . lots mentioned are the small addition to the Salem Drive Park, the large parcel adjacent to the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, and the other wetland that we were very familiar with in the central part of Z this site . I also might mention that since the last time you sent me off to collaborate with Cornell, tonight we have the Associate Director . and one of his staff here should you have some questions for them as things proceed as it relates to the area we are tending to donate to Cornell . I will speak more later on in my presentation about the maintenance agreement and how we propose to turn that over to Cornell and still assume responsibility for certain construction aspects of the drainage scheme that we proposed to you . But for the benefit of the public and everybody's. refreshment, I am going to get up now and speak from the map just briefly to describe the project. The . project again is 47 lots. Those who Five in the area and not as familiar with the area, this Birchwood Drive that comes up from Salem Drive just shortly after you turn off of Hanshaw. This that . we are proposing to rename Beechwood Drive at the suggestion of the Town. because again, that 1965 master plan envisions this road encircling all around so it was currently named North Birchwood and Birchwood . We thought in time it. would be less confusing to rename this northern segment into its own name . So the extension of that into a cul-de-sac with 12 lots on it is proposed in the . . center of the project. The extension of Sanctuary Drive and at the suggestion of the Town staff since we submitted this we would have Sanctuary Drive as the name of the street that went all the way through to this North Birchwood or Beechwood Drive and this short segment here that is the dead end would be the Lucente Way segment. All together again there are 47 lots, all which are above the minimum requirement for the R45 zone. The thought coming back, the staff had a strong opinion that this connection through to North Birchwood was needed to have adequate circulation in the area considering the fact that we were not going to extend out a road to Salem Drive between the south=going . . . ( not audible) . . . residences . The only thing that would remain up in that area is the grass path that exists along the Town's utility right-of-way, which would be just relocated enough through a 20 foot strip to come out to the. road and into the park area eventually. We have been over this with the Cornell people and they think that would be in keeping with whatever they eventually decide to _do in extending ` a trail out from the existing trail system in the sanctuary. Along with this project, a lot of discussion went on about pedestrian ways beyond that one that goes along the utilities . This project proposes to have essentially a walkway from the park, down the west side of this new road, along the north side of Beechwood Drive covered ditch, along the shoulder of existing Briarwood Drive and then along the new extension of Birchwood . Drive . Initially it would be separate from the roadway itself behind a grassline ditch and then as we have less area to deal with in. the curve area it would become more along the shoulder again, to come out to Sanctuary Woods. The thought was that Sapsucker Woods is the bus route and the park is another destination . Again, as the sanctuary evolves their plans over the years that pedestrian way could proceed to the north through an extensive series of walkways that are off road . So that was the rationale . The dead end being a low traffic area didn 't warrant the sidewalks as much as putting one on the existing Briarwood Drive. The project will generate traffic. We did a traffic study not too long after we last saw you . I think it is fair to say that the results of that study verified that the , traffic loads in the area are very modest, even for the development that has occurred up Muriel Street and Salem Drive . I presented my figures. We did this study in .a period of time when classes were fully in session, the weather was good for that time of year, there was no snowstorms occurring on the day we did the study. I mean it's a . little bit of a tight walk to do a traffic study in Ithaca and have all the classes in session, not an exam period, not on some kind of a break by either Ithaca College or Cornell . So no none of those things existed at the time that we did . that study. I . estimated 'Ahat .the peak hour traffic was about 10% . I saw some data in what went out that a Town had done a subsequent study on Muriel and Salem Drive and said maybe 13 or 14% . If you . study the numbers, you will see that the difference is probably in the . standard deviation . So we . are. all sort of saying the same thing . I based some of my conclusions on an . extensive study I did in the. northeast back in the 1970s where the peak hour traffic was 9 to 10 % . Even if you add and used the worst number I would tell You. in all truth double these numbers and they wouldn't have an impact on the intersections there . I hope you got a chance to look at some of that material . We sort of used a technique known as the shortest route and that is how I estimated how many people might come out at Salem Drive and how many . come out at Sapsucker. People are pretty smart. There . are no delays now, but if there happened to be 2 minute delays on Salem Drive then some more people would filter over to Sapsucker Woods because there are no delays there or vice versa . So it would sort of balance itself out overtime . The new connection between Sanctuary Drive. and North Birchwood was . of some concern historically as we discussed it, but I think in the end people had chose to come through the neighborhood and go to the Sanctuary that way and vice versa .. It will reduce ` the traffic on Salem Drive in one sense and it will add to it if other people .come through . The net effect I'm trying to say would be zero because it is not a very convenient cut through . You have to go through a lot of turns and stops, which we will talk about. I made a suggestion that the North Birchwood to be Beechwood, Salem Drive intersection be a 3-way stop . It is currently just . a stop coming out of North Birchwood . I . know some of the materials said it was a 2-way stop . The confusing part of it is. that Salem Drive turns directions and it is like a through road . There is no stop An either direction . I had a feeling it was dangerous to pedestrians, . if r nothing else the way it is configured . So if you had a 3-way stop you might not have people coming through, as quickly on Salem Drive and everyone would have a fair chance to assess who is coming from a different direction . It is a little confusing to new people. The people who live there are very familiar with one one-way stopping when you stop at the stop in the opposite direction not stopping at all, but that is not a good situation for the long term . We would entertain other all -way stops if it is felt to be necessary for the walkway as I described it at what would be Beechwood and Briarwood r and Birchwood . That is pretty much at your discretion if that is what you feel you would like this project would provide it. There has also been some discussion . of either colored pavement or some kind of raised pavement where the walkway crosses Beechwood and where it crosses Birchwood down at the other intersection . Either one of those of ideas . We certainly would like your feedback on either or, or none of those ideas as far as the walkway is concerned . That covers the pedestrian aspect . of it. The soils in the area are a perched water table . There are . a lot of new people in the audience tonight. It is no secret to them that the water lays on the surface in a wet season . It doesn 't really percolate down through the ground . The notion that there is a water table that supports a wetland is not true . The water is down 20 feet below the surface in this particular area of the Town . So it is caused more by what you would call perched water table and a fragipan in the soil conditions . So the soil down about 2 or 3 feet is very' dense and doesn 't let water pass through it either direction . So there are . wetlands there, . which I will let Bernie Carr speak more to his work and identifying those . We are preserving all the wetlands . 1 There is some idea that a very extreme edge of the wetland here, less than 5,000 square feet, I would tell you, might get filled by virtue of building this road here . My intention was not to do that and the way that the profile of the . road is developed there, the wetland would be beyond the embankment for the road there . So I thought I would make mention of that: . When my two associates are done with their presentations I will talk more about the maintenance. agreement with Cornell and some of their understandings that we . have with Cornell : We're attempting to sort of bring together all the ideas . The ones that you have thrown out at us, the ones that staff has, that the DEC mandates and turn it into something constructive where in the end now after a lot of back and forth and constructive conversation, we . are basically going to have these retention areas that act as biofilters and become wetlands that can support added wildlife habitat as opposed to just something we had to do because the State told us we had to do it. We have - a good example of what you can do with what the Sanctuary did with their expansion . So the, road you ride • in from Route 13 you see some wetlands and similar types of facilities that we are proposing that they developed and they're all very positive in terms of their outcome .and how people have received them as habitat for wildlife . I think' the added circulation gives the Fire Department less problems in terms of getting in and around the area- and actually enhances the existing access to different areas. It was the choice . really of the staff that we not add as much to the Salem Drive Park as we . had said in the past. . By virtue of that more is as . part of the . donated area to Cornell . This donation is one of the largest ever made in the Town of Ithaca . I hope you all realize that. It would add roughly 10% to the lands of the Lab of Ornithology. It is, I think, a great step forward in terms of our discussion and really the generosity of the developer and what he wants to accomplish here . In the twilight of his 50 years of work in the Town a lot of people have a lot of opinions they have to offer about Rocco, but he has lasted 50 years . He served the middle class pretty well in the Town of Ithaca and I think those things are worth noting in terms of his intentions at this time . . He has not gotten any younger in these 4 years we have been perfecting this project and I think with those thoughts, the water system is one thing that I would mention r and Dan can probably agree that there is a lot of looping that we are accomplishing with this project that will strengthen the whole system in terms of how water passes from the Christopher Circle pump station to the Sapsucker Woods tank and then flows back into the neighborhoods and provides fire protection . So we haven't compromised that at all with these cul-de-sacs . because the end of every cul -de-sac ends up in a water main connected either to the tank site or to another main line in the area . The sewer is more than sufficient in the area to serve things. Rocco and the Town had gotten the right to sewer a long time before the recent sewer , agreements, but the sewer is all available, public sewer is available . . So with that I would like Bernie Carr to come up and briefly talk to you about our conversations with the Corps of Engineers, DEC, his history with delineating the wetlands. Some comment about the UNA. I hope the materials we presented to you beat that to death. well enough to know a mistake was made . I mean Cornell told us when we got into conversation with them . that if you _ look at the 100 foot . width left between the Sanctuary Drive development and the Northern edge of the Briarwood , you couldn't really even' consider it a wildlife corridor any more . So the notion that it is all connected is pretty weak. But . Bernie did the bird the study as you might remember and has more knowledge in ecology than I can ever pretend to have . So let me ask him to come up . Bernie Carr, Syracuse NY I work for Terrestrial Environmental Specialist and we conducted a wetland delineation for Rocco Lucente back in the early 90s when he was first considering 12-unit subdivision . Subsequent . to . that wetland delineation . there was a request from the Town that we redelineate the wetland since it had been 5 years previous. So . we went back and redelineated the wetlands . They , changed slightly over that 5-year period . Those wetlands were surveyed and added to a survey map that you have a copy of in the submission . Subsequently we delineated other wetlands north of Sanctuary Drive in association with the development of another master plan for the subdivision . We have suggested several plantings for the biofilters and the infiltration trenches for the subdivision to try and add some natural plantings rather than just having a hard riprap surface . For example, any place where there is going to be rock riprap we would recommend willow species, willow waddles . So using these natural plantings we feel it has a much better improvement than a typical engineering design . Subsequent to these suggestions that we provided to Mr. Lucente, we have contacted the Army Corps of Engineers, which have jurisdiction over all wetlands in New York State. Basically our questions were two-fold . One whether or not the subdivision as planned would result . in any jurisdiction on their part and whether the use . of the wetland areas for the 100-year storms or for a 1 -year storm would have any affect on the wetlands and the current condition that they are in . We have sent a letter to the Corps of Engineers along with our delineation report, a complet& copy of the drainage report and large scale plans for their review. We have also had discussions with the New York State DEC in regards to the new SPDES program in terms of water quality and water quantity. Basically it was their opinion that an extended review period for the stormwater plan be conducted and as long as good management controls are . implemented during construction, they didn't see any problem with the design as configured . Those are the basic items that we worked on for Mr. Lucente . One other. item . We also conducted a bird survey in 2003 and the purpose of that was to determine whether any endangered, threatened or rare bird species nested on Mr. Lucente's land . Also there was a concern about whether Mr. Lucente's Ian. d should have been included in the expanded Sapsucker Woods Unique Natural Area . One of the things we found was when the Unique Natural Area . was reconfigured, they included Sanctuary Drive subdivision . So there were 10 or 15 homes that are right in the middle of this Unique Natural Area . I think it just surprised me that you would consider private single family homes in the middle of a Unique Natural Area and we had subsequent discussions with Tompkins County on why that was conducted and why they made that determination . It was our professional opinion that the area south of Sanctuary Drive shouldn't have been included in the expanded Unique Natural Area . If you would look at the map that is provided by Tompkins County, you would note that there are many areas of forested areas north, east and west that are not in the Unique Natural Area . So it seemed like they expanded the Unique Natural Area only south on to Mr. Lucente's property and didn 't include other lands that . were contiguous to the Unique Natural Area . So they didn 't seem to have a really good ' reason for the expansion . I guess that is basically the items that I addressed . Mr. Fabbroni You will have a chance to ask questions, obviously, but I would like Erik to come up know . Erik is doing the stormwater modeling . With the new State regulations, there is no other alternative but modeling most things. This being a pretty complex project in that the drainage goes in many different directions we basically sought out one of. the few experts in Ithaca on the subject. Erik Whitney, 409 Auburn St For a development of this sort, the State requires us to look at both the water quantity and the water quality issues. Where we looked at this site, we . looked . at the. points where the water is currently flowing off the site . Those are generalized . You can see them in DP 1 , DP 21 31 41 5 . Those are just an abbreviation for Design Point and that is where there is an existing flow coming off the site. Our mission was at each of these points, post development, after the proposed development goes in that the water flowing to those design points, to those areas, is less than or equal to a volume of the predeveloped rate of flow coming off and of a quality equal to that. We had several means of doing that and what we first looked at was putting in a . number of large ponds to attenuate the volume . Those didn't really fit the site well . They require taking down quite a few of the existing trees. So we got to looking at the two existing wetland areas and making use of those to impound temporarily and outlet over a 24 hour period the stormwater volumes. In extensive talks with the staff and the DEC before using these wetlands, there is some interest in making sure or assuring that the runoff from the development and the new in impermeable areas added by the road roof was of a quality nature that . wouldn't disturb the wetlands as they area So what was proposed and right now this is just in schematic on this map, but the staff has a little bit more detailed design, were a number of basically water quality biofilters, small ponds surrounded by an aquatic bench with plantings on the inflow channel and on the outflow channel a wet channel with also more plantings in them . Each of the prefiltrations or quality basins before the flow goes into the wetlands would contain what the State calls a . water quality volumes plus it would contain the volume of the 1 -year storm coming off the area it is proposed to serve . It would contain that volume and release it gradually over a 24-hour period . into the wetland . Now as you see on the plans, both the wetland to the north .have a 3 foot height berm,. a gentle berm proposed to be constructed . around - them with an outlet that would regulate the flow over 24 hours after the storm out of those : I have the exact numbers here .. I'm going to take a minute and look them up, but they are a typical one-year storm that we propose to use the southern wetland. and, surcharge it roughly over an area of 1 .4 acres to a depth of 4 inches. That will be out-letted in . a controlled fashion over 24 hours such that that temporary surcharge will not be : present at the end of 24 hours. Most of the trees and standing vegetation there wouldn 't . have wet feet, for more than that 24-hour period. . In the north area , for a similar one-year storm, we are looking at surcharging an area roughly 2 . 1 acres with 8 inches for a. 24- hour storm . This would not only take care of the volume. requirement. for. the new impermeable surface area added by the 47 lots, but it would also is large enough in volume to address all the other previous development along Sanctuary. Drive and along Sapsucker Woods Road . Both on the Dryden side and on the Ithaca side because there are some previous flow problems with quantity coming off that site . So we looked to address some of the existing problems as well as . the additional flows created by the impermeable surface area added by the new proposed development. For each and every, one of the design points that you see up here the model posted all the flows both in rate of runoff were less than or equal to the current existing runoff and with the flows that were coming out of the wetlands that were impounded at . the design point one here in the . northern wetland, the design point 3 in the wetland you see in the middle, they were very substantially . less than the existing flows now because of the substantial volume that we were able to retain in . those. It is our understanding from DEC if the Corps of Engineers gives us the jurisdiction and okay to do that, then they are not going to have any problem with us using the existing wetlands to provide the quantity control in lieu of establishing large ponds to do. such as long as we provide the quality control going into those wetlands before . hand .. There are two points here which basically take the . area tributary to the Beechwood . Drive, which by means of the grades and topography we couldn't slow, otherwise we would have to flow uphill to get to the other means of treatment. Along those roads were proposed what we call a dry swale . It is an underdrain swale with 3 a feet of filtering material and below that will be a 15 inch pipe bedded in lots of uniform size stone to provide ample void volume to pond . or store the water temporarily underground and the catch basins where you normally along a roadside pipeline would have outlets in them to control . . . (not audible) . . .of some sort designed to control the outlet flow from that rate to the predeveloped rate of runoff from that area . That is the case for the south -most leg of Birchwood Drive for just a short area . You see here in design point 4 for about an acre our total and what you see here . for about two . acres total along the cul-de-sac proposed at Beechwood . So. all and all ,, the post development runoff from the total site is attenuated quite a bit from the existing by what we propose . There are two ponds on the north that we propose to run into wetland that in talks with Larry with the Sanctuary. They had some . . :they favored a system where we might be able to bring the. :. because of the topography we could actually bring those along the east boundary where the back. lots . ditch across lot 58, 59 and 61 to the only traditional pond we have located on the site because there was no wetland impoundment to regulate the quantity. So . what 'we are looking . at is upsizing this pond slightly to accommodate these two ponds and putting in back lots grass ditch line that would bring this flow along the eastern or western boundary down in the back . lot 61 into the main pond there. Mr. Fabbroni — The net result of that is that we would. be able to eliminate those two quality ponds because they would be incorporated into the first chamber in that larger facility: . Let me just finish up here on a couple of . key points . One is that Cornell has reviewed the standard maintenance agreement of the Town and they're comfortable with that maintenance agreement. What we are anticipating.% right now. is that the developer would turn over all of that land to Cornell once we got through these approvals and in turn then we would have a license that we would review with the three of us basically, but the developer would have . a license back to go into Cornell lands and construct these facilities and have certain maintenance responsibilities during the construction period so that in the same way that the Town wants the facility turned over complete for the future, Cornell wants the facility complete to maintain . So all that has been talked about in concept and generally speaking that is what we have been talking about. That we would donate all the .land to. them right off the bat. We would get . a license back to enter the land and satisfy our obligations that come . out of this . approval . That generally speaking ' we are expecting . . . we were constructing we would be maintaining . that facility for 3 years or so because the construction period is the period when it is most likely to need maintenance . Again we feel in this flat terrain the amount of erosion we have seen over the last 25 years and to come now that we are doing it in a more controlled fashion is going to be pretty minimal . If we are careful with our drainage and erosion plan, we shouldn't leave Cornell a lot of maintenance and they will more use these as ecological 1 features. to their overall plan, these areas. So in concept, that pretty much what we bring to you tonight. There were some other considerations . There was one lot where the wetland pokes into . the back of it. We would be giving you a conservation easement to go along . . .that would go along . with any deed that got transferred on that lot. We've preserved the back end of three lots on Briarwood in a similar fashion and that has been successful for the . last 17 years so something similar to that conservation easement that we arranged with the Corps of Engineers back then what we would . propose 1for that one lot. Again, we have no problem with the T-intersection up at Sanctuary . Drive and what would be then just the dead end would be the Lucente Way and Sanctuary Drive would . carry through . I think that basically the only question I have as , we get down . the line, i had some questions when we get into the subdivision discussion about just one item in the . . _ proposed resolution . Thank you . Chairperson Wilcox — All set? Thank you . I think what I would suggest is that the two gentlemen come up and join you, one . of you bring a chair. That way we have all three available because I'm sure we'll have questions for all three of you back and forth and you . can Justin some way figure out how to move the microphone back and forth so we can pick you up . Eva , we'll let you go first. Board Member Hoffmann — Thank you . I have a few questions to" start with just to clarify what Mr. Whitney just talked. about using that map that is up there . I was looking at the map that we were provided with and some of those ponds look. like they are in different locations and they are of different configurations than what we have on this map, which is called the Master Plan . Mr. Fabbroni - What you have is the. proposal . What that map depicts is a feature for a drainage area . What you have and the information on that map is the most current information . Board Member Hoffmann — Oh, so . that one is not updated that you just showed? Mr. Fabbroni — That is correct. That - was more to show you where the different drainage areas are . Those heavy lines that separate the different drain carries are exactly the same, but the exact design is what you are looking at. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, so where there is a very large circular pond indicated just north of the Salem Drive Park. it shows just one big pond there, but here on our map it shows one big one and right east of it a small one . Is that what we see here? . Mr. Fabbroni — That is the preliminary design . What . you are looking at is the more accurate. map : Board Member Hoffmann - Also there is the pond, which is here located in the corner of lot 72 . It looks like it has been moved to between lots 70 and 67 . Mr. Fabbroni — These shown on the subdivision map are the same thing you are looking at. We just brought that map because we thought it would be the easiest to understand how the area is split up into many different drainage areas. Board Member Hoffmann — But I also have another question . Mr. Whitney explained to us about the low berm , three-foot high berm, along the western boundary of the wetland to the north . I can see those lines there, but then there are some similar lines, which look like they are in the back yards of the houses that are built on the east . side of Briarwood Drive and my question is, is that berm going to be built across the back yards of those people who already live there because they don't exist 'now I take it. Mr. Fabbroni — They are in back of the homes that exist there . That is correct. Board Member Hoffmann — . And they will be built . on the land that is. owned by the people who live in those houses? Mr. Fabbroni — Mr. Lucente owns all of those lots . He owns all of that. Board Member Hoffmann — Oh . Those are all rentals? Mr. Fabbroni — That is correct. Chairperson Wilcox — And they are not part of this subdivision . Mr. Fabbroni - That is correct. Board Member . Hoffmann — Right, but they are something new that is going to be built on, something that was part of an . earlier subdivision then, which has puzzled me a little bit. Okay. So that is clarified then . Thank you . Chairperson Wilcox — Who wants to go next? George? Board Member Conneman — Larry, I wondered if you could clarify. I understand that the Environmental Review Committee looked at this and raised some questions about some lots that seem to be very adjacent to wetlands, 58, 71 , 72, and 53 . Do you want to comment on that? Mr. Fabbroni — The drainage and erosion plan will have a full perimeter of silt fence to protect the boundaries of those lots that are being developed aga.inst any intrusion of any erosion into the wetland . What Eric was describing where we would eliminate those two ponds is in the same area. So once we saw that concern we started talking I amongst ourselves and then more recently with Cornell about eliminating those . So we are actually talking about having a ditch along that boundary that would bring the runoff from those developed lots back to the larger pond that Eva was just speaking . of earlier. I could show you on the map a little bit. Board Member Conneman — Could you do that? Mr. Fabbroni — They are talking about these three lots most north here . So not only are we `looking at eliminating these quality ponds that were in that same area of concern, but putting a drainage ditch along the perimeter of these lots and back to where we would handle the quality and the .quantity aspects in this facility here . Board Member Conneman — An open ditch I would assume? Mr. Fabbroni — Yes . Board Member Conneman — Okay. All right. Board Member Hoffmann — There is also lot 53, which is . . : Mr. Fabbroni lot 53 is the one I. mentioned we would have the conservation easement on that area of the lot . that was delineated as a wetland . That lot is 200 feet deep in terms of the depth . Board Member Thayer . — It sounds like they have done their homework as far as the drainage goes, but I would like to hear it from Dan as to how he feels about it and also the public has some problems that already exist up there and will these be ratified with this . Chairperson Wilcox He's looking at you . Mr. Walker -- . Yeah : In the whole area of Salem Drive, Maplewood, Birchwood, Pinewood, there has been a lot of excess water coming down because over the years the swamp was drained and it means the water has to ' go some place. This will reduce the amount of water that flows through those ditches in the peak . flows and help to reduce the flooding problems. that do occur down there now. Board Member Thayer So you are pretty satisfied with the way with the way it is working out? Mr. Walker — Yes : Basically they are going to hold a lot of that water that flows through immediately during the storm, is going to be gradually released . So it will still flow through the same ditches, but over a longer period of time and at a very reduced flow rate . IZ Board Member Thayer — I expect that some of the public is here because of some drainage problems and I was just wondering about that. Mr. Walker — Well , the whole area is very wet and very flat. . The nature of the wetland is that the water drains off very slowly from right now . There is a long-term continuous flow that happens in a lot of the drainage patterns up there . That long-term flow won 't be changed . It will still occur over a long period of time and that is how the drainage system has been designed and we would be making some . improvements to correct some problems where we can . Board Member Mitrano — Fred, I had a question of the gentleman from Syracuse. I just. wanted to see if I understood well what you were saying . You said when you initially did your assessment, was it this row of houses that was of some curiosity? Mr. Carr — No . It was to the north . In terms of the unique natural area , that was included in the unique natural area . Those homes . Board Member Mitrano — So what was your assessment? That maybe at that time that wasn 't . such a good decision or that in subsequent research you understood better why that decision had been made. Mr. Carr — I never really fully understood why it . was made: . At one point Mr. Wesley had told Mr. Fabbroni that if he had known that Sanctuary Drive had been built, he wouldn 't have included the area south of Sanctuary .Drive in the unique natural area . Well, our first assessment was, well why would . it be considered unique, so we did a breeding bird survey and we followed common techniques used in the .fields . We also did a winter nest survey just to see if there were any raptor nests in the vicinity. So we walked that thoroughly. Then we did a breeding bird survey in that area . Basically what we found_ was common L species that are found in the area . Breeding . throughout this property. So there wasn't anything that would say. . . like for . example a red- shouldered hawk or a cooper's hawk of special concern that was nesting in there that would make it a unique area . Board Member Mitrano — So at this point, it doesn 't demonstrate. any deleterious affect on more rare species? . Mr. Carr - That is correct. Mr. Fabbroni — In addition to that, the Sanctuary people have had the benefit of seeing that bird study and they agree with how it was done and pretty much they affirm what was in it. Board Member Mitrano — Thank you . 1 � Board Member Howe — You probably made this very clear, but I was just curious about the south wetlands . Is that also being donated? Okay. Then I think I followed where you said the sidewalk was going to be accepted . Did you say that there was also going to be a sidewalk out Sanctuary Drive? Mr. Fabbroni — No . Board Member Howe — Okay. Just a loop around then? Mr. Fabbroni — From the park down to Birchwood and then out to Sapsucker Woods Road . Chairperson Wilcox . — Eva, go ahead . Board Member Hoffmann — Where do the buses go? The public buses . Where do they go in this area , . which roads do they use? Mr. Fabbroni — They go down Sanctuary and Hanshaw. I think. . . Chairperson Wilcox — I doubt they go down Sanctuary. Mr. Fabbroni - I'm sorry. They go Sapsucker Woods Road and Hanshaw and I think there are a certain number of runs up Salem Drive and around .. Muriel Street during the day. I'm looking at the staff. Mr. Kanter — I think. . . I don't know first hand, but I've heard people say it does go down Muriel and over to Salem . So I believe that is correct. Mr. Fabbroni = I think that is . during the peak time . It's not every hour that they go up all they . way into the subdivision there. The regular run that runs every hour comes down Sapsucker Woods Road and Hanshaw. Board Member Hoffmann . — Because it seems to me that when one looks at sidewalks and where they are, one should see that they connect up with a public transportation system . I had a question about the wetlands and the Lab of Ornithology. There was a very . brief . statement in the papers we got from somebody at the. Lab of Ornithology saying that it looks . good and things are moving along , but have they actually. indicated that they want to accept these donations? Mr. Fabbroni Yes. Board Member Hoffmann — Is there any letter to that effect that you have to show us? Mr. Fabbroni — I don 't have a letter, but I have a person here who could probably tell you . Board Member Hoffmann — Well , it would be good to hear from that person then , I think, but there might be other questions before then . Board Member. Talty — I have a question . Chairperson Wilcox — Kevin . Board Member Talty - With the slower. disbursement of water, is there an issue with any type of mosquito? Negative impact on . the area? It seems to me there would be more standing water for a greater period of time, even though it is going slowly. Mr. . Fabbroni — Well, there will be, but if you consider the nature of , the whole area . already, I think the fair answer is that . it is not going to be a noticeable difference . There are mosquitoes there and I'll tell you that first hand . Board Member Talty — I was just wondering with more water would it impact the breeding of the mosquito or would it be more breeding; I should say. Mr. Fabbroni — Probably some, but the area east of Briarwood , for instance, now is under, water all the time in one area . There are areas up in the northern area that are under water all the time . . So again, yeah, there will be a little more, but its not going to be like there isn 't any and then suddenly people are going to notice it. In a wet year there is a lot of mosquito breeding there . Board Member Talty — Okay. Board Member Hoffmann — I have a question about a technical thing that was in papers and you talked about, but I still didn't understand what it is. Could someone explain what a dry swale is? Mr. Whitney .— A dry swale is a gentle grassed ditch, which has underneath it permeable material , gravel , with a layer of organic on top as like a biofilter, topsoil and below that is an underdrain system, a perforated pipe, which will when the water enters the swale and the swale is at a gradual enough slope, and there are occasional check dams along this swale, raised . areas such that a flow from a one year event will percolate down through the porous material and through the topsoil as an organic filter and eventually into the collection pipe . Where the dry swale is proposed for this subdivision, we have added a feature for storage, basically a uniform size stone and the void volume they are in and the 15 inch diameter pipe are such that we can store the entire runoff from the one year storm that will perk down through that to meet the, what the State calls the Channel Protection Vine, or the CPV, which they require to retain an outlet over a 24 i 1 } hour period . So there will be structures in the catch basins and the roadside drainage there that will facilitate that 24-hour drainage period for the material that has filtered down through the bottom of that .dry swale and the organic filter on top . Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Let me try to say it again and see if I understood. They are gentle swales with grass in them, which will presumably carry some of the water, if it comes really fast, slowly along, but at the same time some of that -water is . percolating down through the soil into a pipe that leads it away at a controlled rate . Bute then you also having something additional to help store that water, are those the ponds? Mr. Whitney - This is a case where we couldn't get a pond in and we're along side a pond and there is no area for the pond . So essentially we . put a uniform size material stone in the ground and . that is . above the line of the underdrain outlet and what happens is all the voids between those stones fill up . It is underground so you can't see it. Picture marbles in a jar and then pouring a glass of water in that jar. There , is substantial volume between the marbles. This is the same . concept with the clean stone . The entire volume for the runoff of a one year storm is stored between the uniform stone in the void volume, about 40% of the volume of the total storm flow is roughly is available for water storage if the stone size is, uniform material . Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. I think I am getting it. Chairperson Wilcox — Eric, while you have the microphone, tell me about DECs role right now or clarify DECs role . You mentioned DECs role . Here is my take. You have proposed to DEC a rather unique way of dealing with stormwater runoff. Though you put a positive spin on it in your presentation, my take, is DEC has not approved it and it could be 30 .days, 60 days, 90 days before DEC comes back and says either this is acceptable or its not. How does that work? Mr. Whitney — Yeah, we have talked with both region 8 representative, Paula Smith, and . region 7 representative, Ellen Hawn, and both of them are the same opinion .. Basically if the Corp of . Engineers gives us permission in the form of having the jurisdiction to do this in those wetlands, use them for temporary quantity attenuation and we can meet DECs requirement to attenuate the quantity of the . flows coming off the site to that of existing or less than . DEC won 't have any problem with it if . the Corp of Engineers goes along with that. The lady from region 8, Paula Smith, indicated that she had seen such done and although it had taken a long time to deal with the Corp of Engineers to get that,. she had seen it done . The lady from region 7 indicated that she hadn 't seen it done in region 7 . Mr. Carr — I would like to say one thing . In a typical subdivision what we see is that the trees are cleared and these large detention ponds are built to hold a 100-year storm event. In this particular case they are using smaller ponds and using the existing f� wetland . I think it is much preferable to upland forested buffer or border rather than making these huge detention ponds that you see all over the landscape . So it is my professional opinion that you have a better product by keeping the woods as intact as possible. and keeping just those one-year storm event ponds built on the site . Chairperson Wilcox — The issue I am struggling with is, I'm getting a little bit ahead of myself here, the issue I'm struggling with is should we complete our environmental review, what whoever, whether it is the Army Corp of Engineers or DEC comes back and says no this doesn 't work. Obviously you would have to change the stormwater detention plans. My immediate concern is that I am being asked , to decide whether there are significant environmental impacts with a system, which hasn 't been approved . That is the issue that . I am struggling with right now myself that we really don't know whether, or at least I don 't know, I shouldn 't say we, I don 't know yet whether they system will be approved and whether it has the potential to work. Yes I have heard Dan, thank you very much, and I appreciate your professional opinion and I appreciate the professional opinion of the gentleman out there . I would also like to have more professional opinion, frankly, not that I am discounting anybody who is here. Mr. Walker — Well, you have to understand a little bit of the State's philosophy on their general permit for stormwater management on construction sites and subdivisions. They have the standard design book, which basically includes a couple dozen practices that are. tried and true and one of the main practices for stormwater detention` are the large ponds. So if you do everything directly by the book, which are good measures. . . Chairperson Wilcox — You get a signature . Mr. Walker — And it is easy for them to review it because they look in the book and its fine; but these are somewhat unique sighted to the sites solutions . They are still storing a volume of water. The main environmental impact could be the _impact on the vegetation in the wetlands and I believe that has been addressed to show the . short duration of flooding is not going to adversely impact them . Because it is not ' in . the standard book, they can 't just automatically take their rubber stamp and say okay you. did it the right way. That is why they have up to a 60-day review period for site- . specific designs . Now they may very well say this is not in the book, not accept it and send it back. Then there will have to be a significant amount of discussion with them to show that the engineering is good and will work. The big pond practice, you dig out a 3 acre pond and you take all the water from the site, could work up there, but you would take down all the trees and if you had to stay out of the wetland, you would lose lots, too . But the way the topography is up there, its distributed so you can 't get all the Water running one place as shown on the watershed map . There are from outlets from this lot that goes up north onto Salem Drive and there are outlets that go down further south onto Birchwood . So as flat as it is, the water can 't go all in one place . So you could build 3 or 4 larger ponds in there that are standard, but you would probably do more damage to the trees in the area than you would with the proposed methods Chairperson Wilcox Thank you . Mr. Fabbroni — That was our stance, Freda That we could do what would amount to the 5 day review route for almost all of this project, but it would be more damaging to the woods. So our first choice was to do what made the most sense to everybody and would accomplish the objective of going above and beyond what just this. project required . In other words, deal with some of the existing problem as well by the way we are going . And we had the observation and opinion of a lot of different people that because of the way the wetland developed and the way trees are that this temporary inundation is not going to have any impact on the quality of the wetland . So we have done a lot of work with the biofilters and we have talked to Cornell and they. want to be involved in the final selection of plantings for the aquatic shelves and. there are a lot of positive things . We have met with DEC . Once we got to the point of .having the Corp being the end of the road, Bernie talked to the . Corp . . We don 't have a , signed letter back, but we have already submitted to the Corp what you are looking at to get that letter back. So I think we brought it to the point where . we could come to you and discuss preliminary approval . I mean we still didn't .know .what the board thought about the project and the layout and everything . There is a lot. You can tell from the resolution that is offered that there is a lot of design that has to be perfected now to submit to the. State for the 60-day . review. When would we . talk . to you? Before we ever talked .to you and got some discussion and some affirmation of. the project. It's a little bit of a chicken and egg think. I think what I am trying to say is that we have done a lot of work in the 3 or 4 last months to answer your question to our satisfaction that we are going on a positive route and there isn 't some dead end .. We have a verbal from the Corp at this point, but they have to see the materials and study 'them and do their due diligence before we get the letter back. Chairperson Wilcox — You have a gentleman from the Lab of Ornithology with you? Questions? Board Member Howe — .lust tell me the benefit of the southern wetland since its . not contiguous and maybe just speak in general to your support. Scott Sutcliffe, Associate Director of the Lab of Ornithology I 'maybe should . start by saying we first approached Mr. Lucente about: 15 years ago about adding the property that is to the north to the Sapsucker. Woods Sanctuary and we went back and forth for many years 'on that. When Larry first came forward with the plan a few years ago, several of us from the lab met with him, walked in the field, looked at the property and then suggested that the wetlands property in total be given to the Lab of 0 . Of course I would like the whole property, but that is not possible . And so to delineate the wetlands we looked at the wetlands sections . that were delineated and said we would like to accept those as an. addition to the sanctuary. We walked the property several times . We met with Larry many times and we would really like to make this collaboration between Larry and his and the Lab of 0 so they are in a sense designing the wetland sedimentation basin in the same manner that we design the new wetlands that are to the north of the new building at the Lab of Ornithology. They both ,act as buffers and maintain water levels . They also act as environmental purifiers if you will , cleaning the water before it moves downstream . We have found that the similar designs . we have placed in the Sanctuary, the new designs, are working very well to date . They are only 3 years old and. we would like to have final say of what they plant and. how they plant in these new wetlands that they are producing . Does that answer your question, Rod? Board Member Howe — Yeah . I mean how would you use . . .would you actively use this. . .would there be access to the southern wetlands or are you just.. . ? Mr: Sutcliffe Yes. We have, as Larry has designed, the Lab of 0 has two access points to that wetland . . We don 't know how we will manage . it. We have already talked about possibly putting an observation platform in the middle of it or something like that, but we really haven't thought that far ahead . As far as the northern piece of the property goes, that is contiguous to our existing 100 + acres on the west side of the. road and I imagine that in a fairly short order we will connect our trail system,. which is contiguous to that piece right into that new piece, but we haven 't designed , trails as of yet or boardwalks: Board Member Mitrano = I wanted to go back to what you were referring to, Fred, is there technically a procedural confusion that we have here or is it more of a matter of curiosity given the particular design that the applicants have applied to this wetland?. In other words, are we meeting before there is a designation . by the DEC in such a way that it does leave us in abeyances to how and whether we should decide? And maybe the Town Attorney would know given her expertise in environmental law. Ms. Brock - Well , you can . do your SEQR on the proposed project so it would be on the project as it has been described tonight. If for some reason either the Army Corp of Engineer or DEC decline to give their approval. and they need to modify the project, then that modification would need to come back to you and you would have to do another SEQR review looking at the project as it is presented to you in a modified form . . Board . Member Mitrano - In another words, may I make the assumption that the applicant has gone forward notwithstanding the fact that we do not have a determination from the Corp or the DEC because they want to get started on the project, but our determination this evening is subject to those determinations. Ms. Brock - Both the SEQR determination and if you make a determination on the preliminary subdivision approval that would also need to come back to you for modification as well because the project has changed . Board Member Mitrano — But you would therefore recommend that we just go ahead and proceed this evening rather than waiting for any determination before we make any decision whatsoever. Ms. Brock — Well , you can legally go ahead, whether you want to or not is really your decision . Board Member Mitrano — Very good . Mr. Fabbroni — We have to come back for final for one thing and there are other things in the resolution as far as Health . Department approvals and whatever. So in the best. set of circumstances . 60 to 75 days is going to take care of all that stuff and. we are going to know a lot more at that point, but its not like you sent us off to do something that is beyond modification at that point. Board Member Mitrano . No . I understand . I just wanted to have a clarification as a procedural matter. So is the assumption correct that you have come forward not withstanding the fact that we don't have determinations from these offices because we . want to proceed with development in knowing that there may have to be modifications if determinations are such that would require them before final site plan approval . 40 Mr. Fabbroni The simple answer . to that is yes. The point you give preliminary approval then a lot of expense is incurred to perfect the design . and that is sort of the thought that there ought to be . some indication of what you feel about the project before we go to that next level of doing final designs . Board Member Mitrano — So fair enough . You are willing to take the risk. Mr. Fabbroni — Excuse me? Chairperson Wilcox — You are taking the risk that the DEC/Army Corp will provide you with the permits you need . Mr. Fabbroni — That is correct. Chairperson Wilcox — You. are assuming that risk. Mr. Carr — I would like to address that question . Generally under the SEAR process and preliminary site plan approval, SEQR is complied . with and preliminary site plan . approval is received by the Town prior to the preparation of the documents for SPDES, too. So that is generally the last thing that is done in .the development plans for any subdivision or commercial enterprise in New York State . It is typical that the approval from the DEC for the stormwater is the last thing that is done. I think that you are in , order to follow preliminary site plan approval for. what has been proposed . . Zo Mr. Kanter — The only difference here is that we are dealing with jurisdictional wetlands, not DEC jurisdictional , but Corp of Engineers jurisdiction unless the recent Supreme Court case changes that. Board Member Conneman — Larry, let me ask the question a different way. You are going to do nothing on that property until you get approval from . . . ? Mr. Fabbroni — That is correct. Board Member Conneman — 60 days from now nothing has happened unless, in fact, you get those approvals . Chairperson Wilcox — He is not going to have our approval . Board Member Conneman — But if you had our approvals, even that and then it turns. . . Mr. Fabbroni — We couldn 't. We have to have that approval from the State or they can fine us $25 ,000 a day is the penalty, even if we wanted to do something . Ms. Brock . — And even if they were to get preliminary and final subdivision approval at some point; they still could not begin to do anything on the property until all the conditions of the final subdivision approval are met. They won 't be able to get a `building permit from the Town until all of the necessary conditions have been met. Board Member Howe — Are we still thinking we . are getting to Ithaca College? I see they are still out there . Board Member Mitrano — I agree . Chairperson Wilcox . — Can we get through the environmental .review, potentially and then . . : Board Member Howe — Are you going to open that up to . . . ? Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah . I'm going to give the public a chance to speak. Board Member Howe — I imagine a lot of people are going to speak. Do you still think we are going to get to Ithaca College? Chairperson Wilcox — I expect that a lot of people are going to speak, but I will try to keep their comments to a minute or two. Board Member Talty — I think what Rod is saying it might be more of a courtesy to go out and advise them . � i Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah . I went out before and they are aware of the situation . Mr. Kanter — Do you want me to go follow up and say that it is not looking good? Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah . When I went out before I advised them that we were running a little long . Another option by the way, not that the applicant and the agents want to hear it, we could proceed through the environmental review, either accepting that there is no significant environmental impact or making a determination that there is . Assuming that we made the determination that there isn 't, we could , then reschedule the public hearing for another meeting and then go through the sketch plan for IC since that should not take a long time : Board . Member Howe - Although, a lot of people .. . Chairperson Wilcox - I understand .. Let's . . . on the other hand" it's getting late . They may . want to go home and come back' and do a public hearing at 7 : 30 or 8 :00 p . m . , not a public hearing at 9 : 30, quarter to 10 . So having said that, the gentleman from the Lab of Ornithology is up here . Do we have any additional questions for him? Board Member Howe — He answered my questions. Ms. Brock — This really . isn 't . a legal question , but I just wanted to make sure that I heard you correctly that the type of stormwater facilities being proposed here in terms of these four bays and using the wetlands to store the water, that is actually the type of system that the Lab of. Ornithology. built and is using . Is that correct? Mr. Sutcliffe - I can't say that exactly because I haven 't seen their final plans, but as we talked and collaborated to date, we are moving . along that line. . So, no, I haven 't seen their final plans, but what we have talked about is a plan similar to what we have done to the north of the new lab . Mr. Fabbroni That would be the . four bays, is what he was talking about earlier. The four bays, as we are proposing . with the aquatic bench and the plantings before and after are almost identical to what they did up there. The stormwater retention for the quantity is sort of the sticking point we are talking about. We can either build the second chamber for that wherever we had one of those four bays or we can use the wetland, as it is well suited for the temporary stormwater retention as long as we build the dykes outside of the wetland . That is what our understanding is with the Corp . As long as we build these dykes outside of the delineated , wetland then we can use that area for temporary inundation and as we get that word back, you will have that in writing before we do any final approvals or anything . In the mean time we will work out a more collaborative planting plan . The Lab of Ornithology was just concerned that whatever plantings we do are compatible with the plantings that they have done. That we don 't end up with one species of plantings somehow being injurious to whatever they have already. So that would be more native plantings is what we are talking about tonight. Board Member Hoffmann — One more thing , in the second part of the environmental assessment form on page 1 at the bottom , it talks about whether the action would result in a physical change to the project site and it says, "'the amount of the disturbance of the land is based on the assumption that many of the parcels would not be completely converted to lawns, but would retain some woodland in the backyards .. The applicant anticipates that at least 25 feet of woodland would be retained on lots with 150 foot depth, which is the minimum depths size allowed, and greater for lots with longer depth . " Now is there any way to guarantee that this will happen . That there will not in fact be that most of the trees cut down in the backyards and converted to lawn . Mr. Fabbroni — I don't know if we've ever come up with a way to guarantee that, but certainly if you . put that in your resolution as what the presumption of your action is, it speaks for itself. I mean that is a conversation that Susan and I had as far as what is realistic in terms of. the building site and the part of the lot that doesn't need to be . disturbed to carry out that program and still have some lawn around the house . So that is where that all came from . . It is a best estimate and it is something that we have to follow through on as a commitment back to you . Board Member Hoffmann — Well , I don 't like to work with assumptions like that if I don 't have to and so I think if it would be possible to build in some . kind of. . . I don 't know if an easement would be the right thing in a case like this, but some way of protecting the woodlands in people's backyards from being converted into lawns . Mr. Walker — We have put deed restrictions on lots in other subdivisions . Saponi Meadows we put a deed restriction that they couldn 't disturb 50 feet next to the stream in the back of the lots . So we can actually have that drawn into the deed for each lot and have the restrictive covenant. Just like our zoning has setbacks from side yard and rear yard setbacks. It's the same type of line and then as people come in for building permits we enforce that. Now, will that guarantee that nobody is going to go out there at midnight with a chainsaw and cut the trees down? No, but at least the people know . about it and it becomes an enforcement issue for the Town . Board Member Hoffmann — The reason I think it is important is to protect the wetland , which is something that we have been trying to do. So if that could be built into our resolution . . . Ms. Ritter - Eva , are you mostly concerned, then, about lots that have backyards that abut the wetlands more so than another property behind them ? a3 Board . Member Hoffmann — I am mostly concerned about .the wetland and I think we have more reason to do it when it comes to the wetland . Ms . Ritter - Just wanted clarification . Okay. Board Member Hoffmann But if there . is a good reason to do. , it other places, too, because of the . drainage problems in this area, maybe we should consider that as well because the trees certainly help to the water from running . Mr. Fabbroni — You could specify a certain diameter tree that had to be left. Chairperson Wilcox Or a buffer, 25 foot zone or something like that. The public has been very, very patient and I say we give them a chance to speak. Board Member Thayer — Good idea . Chairperson . Wilcox Ladies and Gentlemen , you have been very quiet . and very patient, and we appreciate it. I know it is getting late and as I said before, this is not the public hearing,. but it. is an opportunity to provide your comments on the environmental review. Raise your hand, I will call . on you . We ask that you give us your name and address. Keep your remarks relative short and to the point. and we would be most interested to hear what you have to say this evening . Andrew Houtenville, 116 Pinewood PI I have two concerns, stemming primarily from the increase in traffic on Birchwood North that are implied with the connection and with the development of the cukde-sac. The intersection of Salem and Birchwood North , as Mr. Fabbroni . had mentioned, would need serious consideration . A . 3-way stop sign would . likely be needed if this was approved . I have a consideration of the driveways that are on that area and the increase in traffic. My second concern., based on the traffic flow, is increase,,,Js the pedestrian traffic to Salem Park, which was addressed also by Mr. Fabbroni . He was incorrect that there is a 31 bus that travels hourly to the area and now the new 44 and 45 bus travel to down Salem Drive on weekends : So there is a heavy degree of traffic. That said, people are not going to take the bus to get to Salem Parka Salem Park is populated by children . They will take the bus to get to the new loop that the Ornithology Lab would be putting in and that raises my concern with if there is a trailhead put in towards Salem Drive that there would be parking issues with that regard and what kind of parking issues does this create in the neighborhood . I am concerned about the fact that there is a 45-degree turn driving directly towards the park. So as individuals travel . west on Sanctuary Drive, they are traveling directly towards the park and there is a 45-degree turn . Living near the 2 45 degree turns on Salem Drive, while people are very nice, people travel fast. That is my primary concern . I have two young children that will travel to that park and the population . . .the a � traffic of pedestrians to that park is not only from the proposed area , but of the existing area of Salem Drive, Birchwood , Sapsucker, Briarwood , Maplewood and so forth . So there is a real concern over traffic . I only have one comment regarding the wildlife issues. A statement was made that the wildlife corridor, the concept that the .wildlife corridor is . laughable . I have no idea why that is an issue, but I think the reason why it is laughable, if it's not the width . I . have no idea about the regulations of a width of a wildlife corridor between the two natural areas, but it's a laugh because people use that. Vehicles use that as a traffic area and it has been basically decimated by vehicular traffic. Thank you . Janet Howe, 109 Birchwood Dr I am a walker and I walk that area several times a week for exercise . I know coming along Pinewood there is drainage, like an open sleuths box extending from Briarwood . down to Pinewood that always has water running it. It is :open . There is nothing covering it. It is just a wooden box about 2 feet wide . Where the water goes, I think now, they did some pipe work under the road and I think that is where it goes . I would also like to. say that behind our house they're on . a rise, but down at the foot of the hill there is always a damp spot and often an creek running through there . Every time more houses have been added up Birchwood North, there has been more water coming down there . I don't know where that comes from . I am glad to hear that all of this may be controlled by the new plans and storm sewers and I hope they will be effective for the existing area that is there . Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, ma 'am . Yes, ma 'am . Millicent Clarke- Maynard, 111 Birchwood Dr I basically have two real concerns . I , am not opposed to people spending money to build whatever they want to build . On the other hand, Lhave lived in the neighborhood on .Birchwood Drive for the past .12 years and it has been a very peaceful and caring neighborhood . . . My concern is traffic, . not only am I walker, I ride the TCAT bus. I am very familiar with the area . Very familiar with it. I am very concerned about the traffic, particularly at night. Although Mr. Fabbroni said something about the traffic being modest, it is. far from being modest and I teach and like to go to bed . at night, after 10 o'clock and. it just seems like there is a lot of traffic zooming up and down on Birchwood Drive, increasingly heavy traffic. Particularly when the students are gone in the summer months, there seem to be people who have motorcycles who race up and .down . When they finally put that stop sign, just like an accident waiting to happen . My bedroom is right in the front of my house so I wake up quite often and quite frequently at night because of the zooming up and down the road . I hope you would consider the traffic patterns on Birchwood Drive because it is very important and the congestion of more housing being built in the area . Another concern I have is the drainage problem . We do have a drainage problem on Birchwood , particularly when it rains I know I have a drainage problem . I live right next door to 109 and that has become an utmost concern to me . So I hope you take into consideration these two things . Thank you . Gary Bergstrom, 113 Birchwood Dr I'll keep my comments brief .because they build on the previous two . My concerns are in the area of traffic flow across Birchwood , especially. Is the intention to hook that road up to Sapsucker Woods Road , but more importantly I am mostly concerned about the drainage problems . We have substantial drainage problems there . . Surface water following heavy storms and I hope what I heard here tonight I can believe, but . we were told similar things to trust in when the Briarwood housing development was put in there. I have lived in that house since 1987 and the increase in the surface flow and drainage problems has increased dramatically since the Briarwood houses were put in and we were told very similar things in that period of time. So I am a little bit skeptical and would like to be reassured . Thank you . Greg Ezra„110 Birchwood Drive I have been living on the road a long time; about 20 years. So I have been certainly aware of the problems associated with the increasing development of the wetland so I would just like to again, very briefly, re-enforce some of the comments that have been made . Drainage is .a major issue . and continues to be a major issue . What I have heard tonight, . which I was not aware of any of the details at all is very interesting . Several things strike me . Everyone has been talking about planning for one-year storms. What about a 5-year, 10-year- or a 25-year storm? Where are we going to be when we have huge amounts of water trapped behind these earthen berms? That is the first issue . The second is we talk about insuring that the rate of outflow is limited to that which it has historically been . The rate of outflow currently with the Briarwood development is very high and has overwhelmed the local drainage channels on several occasions. We had a very scary incident at the end of last year where there were still leaves left in the drainage channels . There's this conduit that somebody mentioned previously that runs to the middle of Pinewood where all the water from the Briarwood Development is channeled through. I do not know whether this corresponds to DP3 or DP4. I see that there is going to be no change in that general patent, which is all the water is . going to go down there . It's then split down Birchwood and Maplewood . What happened was we had a bunch of leaves swept through the pipes and blocked .the pipes in Pinewood . All of the water that was pouring in from the Briarwood had nowhere to go and it rose up to the surface . Literally the whole neighborhood was in danger of inundation . Mr. Dong 's house and lots were nearly flooded out. It was a very scary moment. The Town of Ithaca people were there at night; late into the night and they had to come in the following morning to sort out the mess. The water hadn't gone down by then . This was prior to all this. So I worry very much about the .stability of the system . Just a few leaves messed up all these plans and planning for a longer term . The traffic is certainly a problem . I will just defer to what other people have said . Perhaps more can be said on that when the subdivision is approved . Another interesting point that was made was . the possibility of mandating a certain . percentage . of lots to be retained as wooded areas .. I find that idea very interesting and I like that. I would just like to make the comment that just as a resident that striked me very much about the Briarwood development is the extent to which the lots have essentially been clear-cut. I do not understand the necessity for that. When there was discussion about the sidewalks on Hanshaw, there was an aerial photograph of the area shown at the public display at the Dewitt School and . it was very apparent that the Briarwood development was essentially and empty rectangle in the midst of a wooded . area. When Mr. Lucente and his construction people go into a lot they essentially clear-cut it. For what reason, I don 't understand . The trees have been progressively removed from the . area . So I would like to request that the Planning Board do whatever you can to insure that we have a reasonable degree of foliage left. Mancang Dong, 102 Pinewood PI I am at the corner of Birchwood . I live there for 10 years and have had several times problem with the flood . I . think that people already addressed that. I just have. one . question . I don't know what kind of house they are going to build . If they ` are the . same house as in Briarwood, the one house has two families because . ., (not audible) . . . So if the same house builder is 50 families, should that be 100 families. I think the traffic should consider 100 and not 50 if a similar house. I'm not sure what kind of a . house . Is it single-family house or it's . a similar house in Briarwood? You think it is one lot, but actually , 2 families live there . That is just my question . . David Collum, 1456 Hanshaw Rd I think Eva asked the question . How do we know? So when they say that the water will drain off, okay, how do we know? When they say there is going to be 25 feet of trees, how do we know? . There has been a history here . Fights have been breaking out over this development since the 60s . I've got boxes of paperwork from people . . There is a contempt of court charge against Mr. Lucente for ignoring what he was told to do . I was. here for the last debates on this. It turns out that there is no mention of the fact . that the houses would be 100 percent rentals. The best I can tell they are . 100 percent duplexes, if I had spotted that I would have begged not to let that happen . Now if you look audience, there are no renters. They don't care . They're not here . So what I would like to know. is how can we be assured that he is not going. to build 100 percent duplexes? I was intrigued by the claim that they want to protect the trees. There was some comment in there . about how the trees were young and the two interest me in light of the fact that they went up and took chainsaws to all the big trees, took them all down . This is how they think. So what I want you guys to do is ask the question. How do you insure that what they say are going to do they are going to do? It is. my suggestion that they are going to do what they want to do once they get you to give them the approval . So I beg you to get it in paper. . I can 't believe that they didn 't show up with a letter from the Lab of 0 . How you could possibly show up at this meeting and say I don 't have a letter , from the Lab of 0 . I begged the Lab of 0 to get it in writing . I beg everyone to. get everything in writing because there is a history here of doing what you want once you get the approval . Thank you . Charles Evenmeyer, 206 Sapsucker Woods Rd I work at the Lab of Ornithology. I was just hired as the manager of the visitor's center and of Sapsucker Woods. So I just got brought into this very recently. I do rent on Sapsucker Woods. Chairperson Wilcox - Are you here on your own? Mr. Evenmeyer - I am here on my own . I thought I needed to at least be clear about sort of there is no conflict, just so. you know. I, too, have some concerns just about traffic that I wanted to mention . Because I live on Sapsucker Woods, I live a little bit a way from these areas that are necessarily being developed where they are putting in new roads, but just in the time I have . lived there over the last 8 months, 10 months since the, road has been resurfaced, since there. . .there has been a lot of changes just on Sapsucker Woods Road that have lead to a lot higher speeds of people traveling and what seems to be a lot more traffic and a lot more people using it as a cross-through to get from 13 over to Hanshaw . I agree with the last speaker about how can you know. How. can you know- that anything is going to happen? I just wanted to temper that. I just wanted to give my view that that also needs to be tempered with the fact .that nothing in life is known . . The President can say . he is going to do something before . he gets elected . He can. put it in writing . Once he gets elected, it . doesn 't mean it is going to happen . . So. I think what he said is right. If we want to make sure this is developed according to some plan, I agree we need to make sure that happens, but also . I think it needs to be tempered with some realism about the situation . That's all . Thanks . Jingzhen Guo, 102 Pinewood PI I have one concern. I know. a lot of people have other concern for the traffic, I ,do too, but one more . concern . I want to . know. We live on the corner of Birchwood, but I know Mr. Lucente said they would have built a pond in the new area when they build the house, but my concern is from the Birchwood east to. the west that is not really .a hill , but like this way. So even they build a . pond, how can the water catch on the top and go down to the west of the site . Chairperson Wilcox — Can you point on one of those maps where you live? Ms . Guo — I live right here .. This is my house here . This is Birchwood . Last winter, the water halfway to my driveway, halfway to my yard because the water is at this site is higher than my house this way. So this comes down to our house and then Birchwood all the way down . Even they build ,a pond, the water still go down to the west. They build a pond, how can they catch the water from . the high place . Chairperson Wilcox — You don 't see how it can impact you at all or make it any better for you? Ms . Guo — Yes, because it goes down this way. Thank you . Brian Howell, Birchwood Dr I just have a question for the first gentleman who made a presentation here . He referred several times to receiving approval or understanding from Cornell . Cornell is a big place. A lot of people have different responsibilities. I wonder, could it be determined whether he was simply talking to the Ornithology Lab, or civil engineering, or plant science or who at Cornell . . . Chairperson Wilcox How about we'll ask him when everyone in the public has had a chance to speak? Mr. Howell — Good . Chairperson Wilcox — We won 't have to ask him. Larry will step right up and tell us. Anybody else? Fran Bergstrom, 113 Birchwood Dr I just want to emphasize that there are a number of children in the neighborhood . : So I am concerned about the safety of the children . As far as the buses, they are not allowed to stop at each child 's house any more. So the kids. have to congregate on corners and a lot of parents do take their kids because they are so concerned about the traffic now, but this is something that needs to be addressed . The safety of the small children . Mr. Houtenville - I actually didn 't get a chance to speak at the last meeting and I wanted to say that I actually liked that plan better because it did not have the pass- through between Sanctuary Drive and Birchwood North . I think that that pass-through, if . it all . can be avoided , should . I understand that there are fire access. concerns with cul-de-sacs, however I think a 45 degree turn right in front of a playground, which is going to be populated by children is unwise although there is prior existence, I think, in the Town over by Gaslight Apartments . There is a nice little playground that no kid uses . There is never a kid in that playground and it's probably because it is right on the turn, right across from . Phil Danker Soccer field . Chairperson Wilcox — In the Village of Lansing . Thank you . Larry, do you want to address the question of the Lab of Ornithology and who you have been speaking with? Mr. Fabbroni = You may remember or not remember when I was here 3 years ago, we were having this conversation about who talks to who . So I went away and engaged both the Lab of Ornithology director, assistant director, the assistant director of real a � estate . Those are the two key departments that have been involved . More recently, the legal department has been involved in looking at the maintenance agreement and the licensing . that I referred to earlier. So I guess the comprehensive answer to the question is we have been dealing with the director and assistance at the Lab of Ornithology, the assistant director of real estate, Tom Livigne, and one of the members of legal counsel of the University, Stephanie Seckler. Those have been primary actors . Ron Roarback who managed the trails fora while was a key member involved and that comment . by that wildlife corridor. He made the comment that in the most ideal circumstances it would be 500 feet wide . . We have been able to . keep one down to the Salem Drive that is at least 200 feet wide . The comment . was that that southern area was cutoff at the time . Sanctuary Drive and the northern lots in the Briarwood . subdivision went in . So there was only 100 feet left at the point we were discussing the two being tied together. A lot changes over 50 years of a person's life and business. If you look at where we came in with this proposal to begin with. 4 years ago; I would like to say you can . recognize the differences in terms of what is being offered to be left open and so that . is a partial answer who will never. believe that what . we are proposing to you, we will . follow through on . Everybody learns from what they have done in the past. Those who point out what has happened in the short-term with. the Briarwood subdivision ought to look at the area just to the west on an aerial photograph . . if you look at a 1954 aerial photograph of Maplewood , Pinewood , Birchwood, you 'll see an open field there . When you drive up through those lots today that Mr. Lucente owned a lot of those properties for a good length of time before he sold them, it is a totally relandscaped area. You would never believe that was an open farm . field : Board Member Conneman — That's a monologue . . Not an, answer to the 'question . The question , do you have any letter from Cornell that says this is the greatest thing in the world? You have made tremendous progress and I admire what you have done and what Mr. Lucente has agreed to give to the lab, but it would be helpful if you had a letter that says something about this. Just because you talked to everybody, you . can 't believe Cornell until it is in writing . Believe me. Mr. Fabbroni I . believe I could have a. letter next week. I certainly would have a letter before you made any final approval . I have every reason to believe from everybody I've talked to that they will accept this donation and that we are well on our way to working out an agreement as to this interim period where we have obligations . to the Town to make improvements and they . will have centuries of obligations beyond that. Chairperson Wilcox — What's your pleasure guys. Board Member Talty - I have a question to the woman who came up here with regard . to the drainage issue . Would DP3 or DR be a current resolution for this area on drainage? Would that . assist her drainage problem in this area? 3v Mr. Fabbroni — It should help her out. If I could point out on the map . DP5 for one comes back through an existing ditch along the backside of the property . For DP5 would . bring back to this pond before it goes into the wetland . This whole area here that I could imagine in an uncontrolled fashion right now because of what she pointed out, this area has been estimated and comes up sharply, if you look at the profile of the road we bring it up gradually, we bring this drainage from this side of the road through a culvert down to this pond . So this whole are here drains, and this area, drain to that pond . ' A large part of this area right now in a very wet condition or a sudden event like we had at the end of February or the beginning of March we had a heavy rain storm, on a wet situation instead of that flow going down right passed her house now, it's going to go to this retention facility and through the wetland and through . this control structure here: The other point that was made is there are designs for the one-year storm and there are designs for the ten years storm and the hundred year storm . You will see design figures and we already submitted the runoff numbers on it so we are not just focusing on the one-year storm . This retention is for a hundred year storm as well . When you get to the larger storms you have to provide for overflow because you can 't design for the greatest catastrophe ever, but iC is certainly going to . improve the situation that people talk about through this sluice way. And one lady talked about , through the tie ditch and as far as the debris there are trash racks that trap the trash . and let the water through more effectively than the traditional open-ended pipe . As the one gentleman pointed out quite rightly, Ithaca there is a sort of Russian roulette to open ditches every February and March .. Is it . going to thaw slowly? Is it going to . happen all over night? Was it a heavy snow pack? So you have to sort of, we've gotten better and better with these orifices and these control structures and protecting against ice just blocking the whole system up . The first debris that comes down in the spring blocking the whole system up . You know, with the existing open ditches you still sort of have a Russian roulette . Will water flow under the ice or will the ice collapse and plug the whole system? If you have an answer to that then you 're in the wrong business. Board Member Talty — Larry. could you comment for the folks in the audience on exactly the data that you gave us, the rainfall data, for what a one-year, ten-year, one hundred year. . . Mr. Fabbroni - I'd like Eric to speak to that. Mr. Whitney - From historical rainfall data they've assigned the one-year storm frequency 2 . 3 inches over a 24-hour period . Ten year storm frequency in Tompkins County 3 . 9 inches of accumulation over a 24-hour period . A hundred . year storm 5. 5 inches of accumulation over a 24- hour period . That describes the storms as far as the total volume over a 24-hour period . Board Member Hoffmann — A couple of people brought up the question of what kind of houses would be built. One-family or two-family so therefore how many residents there � l would be coming in with these new houses . I know we got some figures in the papers that we got, but perhaps I could ask you Larry to talk about that for the benefit of the people who asked the question . Mr. Fabbroni — Our best estimate is 50 % one-family, 50 % two-family: Now how did we arrive at that? Currently, interestingly enough we are building one-families again . It's pretty much a market dependent thing . When the interest rate is down people can afford . one-families . If the interest rate goes up the people who traditionally in the middle . class which this neighborhood has supported well for forth years can 't afford a $ 300, 000 home without a second unit in the building to rent. Mr. Lucente, maybe he doesn 't want to admit to everybody, but he's . 75 years old now he won't be renting fora whole lot longer so people who are concerned about these not turning over and being sold, i think are thinking about Mr. Lucente 20 years ago . He made a pretty good living of rental, sales of homes after 15 years and he's still successfully in business fifty years later, but Eva our best estimate based on the fluctuations in the market and the interest rate is we project that half of these lots would have two families and . half would have, one-families. The current design for the two-family, again to speak to some other issues, is an up and down split foyer as opposed to a side by side type. of arrange which Briarwood pretty much was which would lead. to less footprint on every. lot as . far as the space that a building . would take up if it was two-family. But as I say, currently the homes being built are one family right now. Chairperson Wilcox — For the record , the zoning allows two-family houses on every lot. Board Member Hoffmann — When you 're talking about the rental houses that I think you said are going to be sold? Is that right? Mr. Fabbroni - Traditionally after 15 years Mr. Lucente has put his houses up for sale . If you look at what is going on on Meadow Lark and Cardinal as an example, which are not in the Town, you would see what I'm talking about. A lot of those homes have . been sold in the last 5 years after he rented for .15 years, but he can speak for himself, but at the age of 75 he's not going to be .renting these new houses he's building for 15 years. Board Member Hoffmann — There's nothing wrong with rental houses . We need some of those too, but there's for instance that whole row of. houses that belong to Mr. Lucente along Briarwood Drive that I asked you about before and there's some other occasional ones that say Lucente including quite a few of them that say Steven Lucente on Sanctuary Drive . Now do you know anything about those? Mr. Fabbroni - I know about Rocco's in particular. Most of those rentals are either to families are graduate students with children . He prefers to rent to that particular segment of the market because they are more stable, they don 't turn over from year to year. Traditionally the graduate students come in for three or four or five years and if you go up and down that street you 'll see children in the yards and some verifications of what I 'm saying . It's not what we all sort of fear is a total student neighborhood . I mean he as a rule does not rent to undergraduate students in that neighborhood . Steve Lucente is a total separate operation from Mr. Rocco Lucente. They have very little interaction between them . I think I stated that three years ago . They are father and son, but Steve and his wife run their own business pretty independent of anything Rocco does. So he owns those buildings on Sanctuary Drive and more recently he sold , he himself has sold three of those and has another few up for sale . So they're currently, if he follows through on his plan he'll have sold about half of those to ,owner occupied situations . Chairperson Wilcox — They are huge buildings. Mr. Fabbroni — Now if I can offer an opinion almost too big for. the lots in that case. . Board . Member Conneman - The comment about traffic, I think everybody out here, if you build one family homes you may have one or two . cars. If. you build rental homes you may have multiple cars. Did you take that into account when you . said the traffic didn't make much difference, it wouldn 't be much more? Mr. Fabbroni - Yes, I projected 76 units on the 47 lots so that would take that into account, which means each one of those additional units you project an additional ten trips a day for. Chairperson Wilcox . — Is it our please to go on for another ten minutes . or. so? Okay. Normally we end at ten . Okay. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, if we can answer questions and things like that, but I think it's too late , to try to make a decision tonight. Board Member Conneman — Larry, I also have a question about deed restrictions. Susan may want to comment on this, but it is possible to put deed restriction in terms . of whether you can have a buffer zone and so on and so forth, and those can be enforced . I don 't know about anything to do with trees, but you can have deed restrictions. Mr. Fabbroni — You can and we do on three of the lots. I mean not to go into the whole history of the wetland and the remediation on the Briarwood . project, but there's three lots there where that kind of a restriction exists in the deed for the lots . It's been very successful and held up for seventeen years without any threat whatsoever, so it can be done . 33 Board Member Howe — Because of the traffic issues I see in the environmental assessment form it mentions that we could explore the possibility of incorporating traffic calming measures and I would want to see that explored fully. Chairperson Wilcox — And those traffic calming measures which we could look at as part of the actual subdivision and. the layout of the roads could mitigate, it could mitigate, it can 't prevent people from speeding . That's enforcement . and other things, but that would help . Mr. Kanter — It could help primarily with safety. Chairperson Wilcox — And we could talk about the connecting of the roads. That was actually something that went back and forth between Larry and staff and even I was asked . to contribute my I opinion and I felt safety was important and having the roads interconnect. There is certainly another point of view about having more cukcle-sacs. Mr. Fabbroni — .I have a submission I made in January.. . Chairperson Wilcox - Absolutely, and we changed it on you and I understand . . I talked to Susan and we kicked it around, they kicked it around, she asked my opinion . . . Ms. Ritter — And we also looked at the minutes from 1993 and that was a .direction that was: . . Chairperson Wilcox — , , . suggested by this Board . Board . Member Talty I have a question on a variety of 90-degree turns throughout Town of Ithaca, Lansing, whatever. I know some of the 90 degrees they were talking about earlier and my question is I don 't see guardrails anywhere . . Is there a reason . . why there isn 't a short section of guardrail . for these 90-degree turns? That's my question, . to anybody. Mr. Walker — It's not warranted for the speeds. Board Member Talty — Is that it? But can we mandate for the Planning that they put one in ? Mr. Walker — No . It's up to the Highway Superintendent for safety issues. Board Member Talty — Because I'll tell you a lot of, like where George lives over on St. Catherine's, there's a deadly 90-degree turn . there because of the trees that grow up and the playground over in Lansing through the apartments. It's the same thing and just think that a guard rail, although I'm not a big fan of how they look, it certainly would be a great safety add to. any neighborhood unless they are going to change how 3 � the 90 degree turns are because they come into them quick, .they slowdown, and then they accelerate out of them . So if you want to protect . children I think that may be something that we should explore with that gentleman . Mr. Kanter — Yes . I was just thinking since that portion of the road is going to be a new road there may be some way of designing that curve to be safer, not necessarily a guard rail but something built into the system . Board Member Talty — I don 't think that they should necessarily have . to change that 90 degree turn to incorporate a different type of style and wreck a lot of the lots through that area, but I do think that traffic calming, a guard rail , things of that sort could certainly be incorporated to assure the public of the. safety of their children . Chairperson Wilcox — What's the. pleasure of this Board? Well let me see, I'll move the SEQR .motion . as drafted, how's. that. .Board Member Talty — I'll second it. Board Member Hoffmann . I feel we need time to discuss . everything we have been presented with , both in paper and verbally. Chairperson Wilcox I have a motion and a second . Changes? You all set? I always know to look at the Town Attorney: Ms. Brock Alright. Because this is a , coordinated environmental review and you 've contacted the other involved agencies and they've agreed that the Planning Board be the lead agency we need to make sure that this review covers all aspects of . the proposal not just this Board's action tonight, which is preliminary subdivision approval so- I wanted to add in the first whereas clause references to all of the roads that are being built because I think right now it's just really referencing two of them and in fact there is going to be a little bit more which the Town Board is going to end up having to approved . Ms. Ritter. — Lucente Drive for instance? Ms. Brock — Right. So I have some language . About halfway down in paragraph one it says proposal involves connecting Sanctuary Drive with Birchwood Drive North and connecting Birchwood Drive with Sapsucker Woods Road . I would add to that, I would get rid of the word "and right before the word ''connecting Birchwood Drive with Sapsucker Wood Road", put in a coma and says, 'extending Birchwood Drive North to the east and creating a spur to the north off Sanctuary Drive". And then I believe we probably should also add a reference to, no, we've already got that. 3S Paragraph two in the "whereas" I would revise that to read, "this is a type. I action for which the Town of Ithaca a Planning Board has indicated it's intent to act as lead agency in a coordinated environmental review with respect to the above referenced proposal ". And the effect of that change will be to incorporate all of the proposal not just- the subdivision approval . . Chairperson Wilcox — Also the eventual, should it get that far, the review by the Town Board for the acceptance of the road . Ms . Brock = Right. Acceptance of the roads, acceptance of the parcel that's . being added to the park, the conveyance of the property to the Lab of 0 and that type of thing . Paragraph four in the "whereas" clause, a similar change so that it reads "the Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the above referenced proposal ". And another change similarly in the first " resolved " clause, just substitute the word "proposal for "action " at the very end where it says " review of the above described action". Just make that " review of the above described proposal and this will make it clear that your environmental review is covering the . entire project. Board Member Hoffmann — I'm lost. Where is this last part? Ms. Brock. Just the first " resolved " clause, the last word , in that resolved clause, "action", strike the word "action" and insert the word " proposal Because . the word action , somebody might read that to mean what it says at the . very beginning of . your resolution, which . is "this action involves consideration of preliminary subdivision approval " and we don't want this to be just for the subdivision approval, we want it to be for the entire proposal . Board Member Conneman — What word to you substitute? Ms. Brock — ° Proposal ". Chairperson Wilcox — Just so the members of the public are still here, . we're still doing the environmental review. I don 't know what will happen in the next three minutes, but if we should make a determination that there is not a significant environmental impact then we will invite Mr. Fabbroni and the representative back at a later meeting to be determined to then actually take up the subdivision review. That will not happen tonight for sure . Kevin, are those changes acceptable? Board Member Talty — Yes . Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. I have a motion and a second . I have Eva 's opinion that it's too late in the evening to vote . Board Member Hoffmann — And we don 't have time to discuss some of the things that we have heard and additional things we've heard both from the applicants and from the people in the audience, which I think are relevant. Chairperson Wilcox - I think I have 4 votes. Board Member Howe — Isn 't it true that a lot of the. issues though can be dealt with in the subdivision approval? Board Member Hoffmann — That's what I don't know and that's why I don 't like to vote on it. Chairperson Wilcox - T have a motion and second,. Please raise your hand, all those in - . favor. Four. All those opposed . Two opposed . There are no abstentions. . The motion is passed by a vote of four to two . We have made the determination that there is no significant environmental impact. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-063: SEQR, Subdivision Approval, Briarwood II 5040t Subdivision, Extensions to Sanctuary Dr„ Birchwood Drive X. and Birchwood Dr„ 4Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 7040-3,5 and 73-14,22 WHEREAS; 1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed 50-lot subdivision located along new extensions to Sanctuary Drive, Birchwood Drive North, and Birchwood Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax. .Parcel No. s . 70-10-3. 5 and 73-14. 22, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing the +/- 47. 5 acres into 47 residential parcels (averaging 0 4 acres in size) with two parcels totaling approximately 25 acres to be donated to the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, and one small parcel to be added to Salem Drive Park. The proposal involves connecting Sanctuary Drive with Birchwood Drive North, connecting Birchwood Drive with Sapsucker Woods Road, extending Briarwood Drive North. to the east, and creating a spur to the north off Sanctuary Drive. The project also includes the development of stormwater management facilities and walkways. The project is anticipated to be completed over a 10- year period and result in a development of one and two-family dwellings Rocco Lucente, Owner/Applicant; Lawrence P. Fabbrom, P. E., L.S., Agent, and 2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has indicated its intent to act as Lead Agency in a coordinated environmental review with respect to the above-referenced proposal, and 3. The Planning Board, on June 20, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, plans entitled plans entitled "Master P/an " dated 1112103 with most recent revision 1121106, and three sheets entitled "Subdivision Plat" one dated 1 121106 and revised 5111106, one dated 1121106, and one dated 10128102 and revised 01 -21 -06, and a drawing entitled "Typical Town or Ithaca Highway. Cross-sections" dated 1116106, four sheets entitled "Water & Sewer Plan & Profiles" dated 5111106, 11110102, and. two dated 1116106, and four sheets entitled "Highway Plan & Profile °, dated 1116106; 10128102, and two dated 5111106 and "Standard Water Details dated 4111106 and revised 1110103, and "Standard Sanitary Sewer Details" dated 9110102, all prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, PL.S., and other application material, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the above-referenced proposal, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, having received no objections from other Involved Agencies, hereby establishes itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above-described proposal; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED; That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on information in the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I and for the reasons set forth in the Environmental Assessment Form . Part II referenced above, in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review. Act- for the above referenced action as proposed, and therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required, and that a notice of this determination will be duly filed and published pursuant to the provisions of 6 NYCRR Part 617. 12. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YES: Wilcox, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: Hoffmann, Conneman. ABSENT& Mitrano. The motion was declared to be carried. FILE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES .� JULY 18, 2006 ATE 9 l •. • 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET ITHACA, NY 14850 PRESENT Fred Wilcox, Chairperson ; Eva Hoffmann , Board Member; George Conneman , Board Member; Tracy Mitrano , Board Member Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe , Board Member; . Kevin Talty, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning ; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town ; Creig Hebdon , Assistant Director of Engineering ; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning (7 : 52 p .m . ) ; Mike Smith , Environmental Planner; Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk: EXCUSED Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering ; Christine Balestra , Planner; Nicole . Tedesco , Planner, OTHERS Peter Trowbridge , Trowbridge and Wolf; Adrian Williams and Mary Plowe , 108 Sapsucker. Woods Rd ; Robert O ' Brien , HOLT Architects ; Rick Couture , Ithaca College ; Linna Dolph and David Dunbar, 1457 Trumansburg Rd ; Margaret . Rumsey, 110 E Buttermilk Falls Rd ; Larry Fabbroni, 1 Settlement Way; . Erik Whitney, 409 Auburn . St; Bernie Cams 210 Parish Ln ; Scott Sutcliffe , CU Lab of Ornithology; Brian How, 109 Birchwood Dr; ? 311 Salem Dr; Gerald Davis , 309 Salem Dr; David Collum , 1436 Hanshaw Rd ; Eileen Gravani , 203 Salem Dr; Mary ? 108 Sapsucker Woods Rd ; Stephan . Wagner, 112 Sapsucker Woods Rd . CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7 : 02 p . m . , and accepts for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on July 10 , 2006 and July 12 , 2006 , together with the properties under discussion , as appropriate , `upon the Clerks of the City of . Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County : Commissioner of Planning , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public. Works , and upon the applicants and/or agents , as appropriate , on July 12 , 20061 Chairperson Wilcox states the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled , as required by the New York State Department of State , Off, ice of Fire Prevention and Control . PERSONS TO BE HEARD Chairperson Wilcox invited any member of the audience wishing to address the Board on matters not on the agenda to come forward . There was no one present wishing to . . address the Board . 1 PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of for , the proposed f 1 . locate, on new extensions O ► Town of Ithaca Tax . arce - . an -1 8 . 22, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing the MINIVE 47 . 5 acres into 47 residential parcels (averaging 0 .4 acres in size) with two parcels totaling approximately 25 acres to be donated to the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, and one small parcel to be added to the Salem Drive Park. The proposal involves connecting Sanctuary Drive . with Birchwood Drive North , and connecting Birchwood Drive with Sapsucker Woods Road .. The project, also includes the development of new stormwater management; facilities and walkways . The. project is anticipated to be completed over a 10-year period and result in a development of one and two-family dwellings . Rocco . Lucente, . Owner/Applicants Lawrence P . Fabbroni , P. E . , L. S . , Agent. Chairperson Wilcox reads the public . hearing notice at 8 :02 . p . m ., . and invites . Mr. Fabbroni to address the board . Larry Fabbroni , 1 Settlement Way . Lawrence Fabbroni . I live at 1 Settlement Way, Ithaca ; New York. . , We are . here to present the subdivision again that you reviewed the environmental report for about a month ago . This project is , as we've stated , 47 lots in the area that it would extend Birchwood Drive out to Sapsucker Woods Road . . Extend what is now. North Birchwood to a dead end . We propose renaming that particular street to Beechwood ., Years ago , in 1965, when a master plan was approved , . these roads once went around and connected . So that is the history North Birchwood and Birchwood .: At this point it is more confusing than anything and the. staff suggested we rename . North Birchwood . The project also includes the connection of Sanctuary Drive, from Sapsucker Woods Road through to Beechwood , passing by the park and a small .cul-de-sac that would be named Lucente Way. The other 3 parcels beyond the 47 lots , there is ' one large parcel in green that would be donated to Cornell University that is adjacent to the Lab of Ornithology. There is another acreage , about 8 acres , in the center of the project to the south that would be. . donated to Cornell Lab of Ornithology: There is a small , almost triangular area that would square off the Salem Drive Park. . That describes the 50 . parcels that we are . proposing tonight. As part of the project, we . studied .. the soils . like [ have mentioned several times to you in the past that the groundwater table in this area, even though people think of it on the surface , its 20 feet below the, surface . . There is a perched water table that creates .this south wetland and the wetlands to the north . The wetlands .to the north are long drainage ways as well . There is a drainage way through the. middle of this , but for the most part the perched . . . the fragipan of the soil is down about 2 or 3 feet is what trapped the water on the surface : When we put the sewer, years ago, in Briarwood we didn 't encounter water in the trench down to 20 feet deep . 1 As part of this project the water main would be extended out from the end of Birchwood to Sapsucker Woods Road . The water main would be extended to the end of Beechwood and through to the tank site so that would be looped . The water main would be extended off the end of Sanctuary and back around to an existing Town water main that comes through from Salem Drive to Sapsucker Woods Road . The sewer, just in simplicity, would extend itself off of existing sewer lines at adequate grade to serve all the land . The traffic was something that years ago you asked me to address . I did a traffic study. The traffic volumes in this area are pretty minimal in the peak hour and when you add the roughly 760 vehicles a day or 76 vehicles in the peak hour. It still maintains all the intersections at a level of service A. Level of service A, those not familiar with the terminology, is the highest, best level of service . Level of service E would be toward break down . Some of what you see at times in the City. So I think it is safe to say in the total build out you will still have the same quality of life pretty much that you have today as it relates to the traffic. We addressed a number of issues along the way. I will have Erik speak to the drainage issues , which were , as you know from the last meeting , the largest concern of the neighborhood and what we have been working with the Town , but in general we will design for this project so that the before, and after is the same . In addition to that, we are working with the Town to retain additional. stormwater to try and mitigate some problems . the Town and the County have experienced down stream . Basically, we have quality catchmen areas . In the southern end .of the project we have three of them and the stormwater retention would be by a type that would be built in the rear of the properties that Mr. Lucente owns on Briarwood to form a . dyke and to retain a substantial amount of stormwater. . Up to the north , Erik can describe in more detail , which we have now, this facility. Since the last time we saw, we have eliminated the two additional small areas that were right adjacent to the wetland . We didn 't even like how close they were to the wetland . So we worked out a way to have a ditch around the perimeter of these lots and serve all the quality and stormwater retention in a dual chamber facility here , which we will show you more detail on in a minute . We have also talked to staff since the last meeting to try and pin down some traffic calming issues and pedestrian issues . At this point what we are proposing is a separate walkway along Birchwood on the backside of the ditch all the way out to Sapsucker Woods Road . We are proposing widening the shoulder 3 feet on Briarwood and striping pedestrian lane on that for two reasons . It is a low volume street . I wish I had my . camera . I went to pick up Rocco for the meeting and kids were playing ball in the middle of the street. . So am trying to say to you , as we discussed it with staff, there wouldn 't be much reason for people to go back and forth on this street even after the cul-de-sac is built. There is more of an east/west flow in terms of what the desire lines are . So after we labored over discussion for quite a while we decided that a wider shoulder on that existing street with a stripe delineating the ' separation seemed to make the most sense to everyone including the Highway Superintendent. The walkway would be on the . . . over the . . . cover the ditch on the north side of Birchwood and then be separated from the road on the west side of this extension on Sanctuary Drive and it would extend around to the end of the project which was an addition from the last time . Before we had it terminating in the park. Jon Kanter and others suggested that this walkway be extended here for the chance that pedestrian ways and other things might be developed along . Sapsucker Woods someday up to the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary can speak to their own future plans , but in our conversations with them they have talked about extending the trail system out. And as far as the park some day, we have allowed for the continuation of the soft pedestrian way from Salem Drive through to this Lucente Way dead end , which the people now use in a casual manner. We also discussed color asphalt crossings at the intersection of Briarwood and Birchwood , Briarwood and Beechwood , and Lucente Way and Sanctuary Drive . Those three crossings. The County seems to have found colored asphalt, which Fred Noteboom , for one would prefer over a . different . surface for maintenance reasons and continuity pavement. That pretty much summarizes the things that we talked about. Where we have hydrants , we talked about creating a bump out where actually the landscaped area would come. up to the edge of the pavement rather than have a shoulder that continued through there .. That seemed to be a logical point because the municipality required access to the hydrant anyway and it would sort of create a little , throat in .terms of discouraging speeds . I think it was at least the opinion by the majority of the group that the curves on this particular road would be . another factor that controlled the speeds . The dead end , obviously, or this. curve : . . there had been some discussion of a guide rail here but we . talked about separating the walkway sufficiently from the road and I think this counted that particular need . As far as the buffer and sort of enhancing it on the rear of the properties; the resolution identifies the rocks that border on these green areas . There was some suggestion that the trees in the rear 25 feet of those lots be controlled somehow. My , suggestion is that anything .4 inches or larger be basically preserved . That would also allow us where we have rear diversion ditches to meander amongst the more substantial trees and accomplish the drainage purpose while preserving those trees. that are most proximate and . critical to the border area . . ) think at that point I would like Erik . to describe in more detail the north facility that I . spoke of. This will all be perfected with Creig and Dan as we move along :to final subdivision , but I know it was of particular these retention facilities work. At this point I will have interest to a few of you just how t p Erik describe that to you then I will come back. Erik Whitney, 409 Auburn Street Erik Whitney , 409. Auburn Street, Ithaca . I won't too deep into. the technical stuff that engineers love , but basically this project is the textbook solution from DEC . Here is a standard design from the DEC design manual : The whole purpose of the retention I ond is two-fold , to attenuate the quantity of the water flowing off the site to less than or equal to the predevelopment condition and to retain a quantity of water for. a period of time to ensure the quality. This pond is designed to hold what they consider the entire water quality volume , which is roughly . 2 inches of rainfall over the entire surface area collected and . flown to the pond and it will be retained permanently. That is the volume in the pond below the overflow structure . The overflow structure is in three components , what they consider a one-year storm component, which they call the CPV volume and that volume is the runoff from a one-year storm or 2 . 3 inch storm and that would enter the pond and come up to a certain level and flow slowly out through an orphace . The orphace sized to release that storm over a 24 hour period , thus giving the water time precipitate out even the fine solids to settle those out and at the same time have some retention time for quality treatment in the wetland area . It flows through the center of the pond . . . here is a one on four slope , which is rather general and right at this water level , you go to a one on ten slope and that is the area they want to have planted with aquatic vegetation as a filtering and nutrient uptake mechanism. So there is about a 15 foot stretch of one on ten slope and what that does, is it goes from . at the very . water's edge from zero inches deep to 18 inches deep and that provides- a good footing for most of the aquatic vegetation to grow and those are the .depths they like . So the area that is hatched up . here in the little vegetation symbols is a wide bunch that surround the whole pond for a width of 15 feet and the 4-bay for a width of about 10 feet and the reeds and various vegetative materials that I guess the Cornell Lab of Ornithology is going to recommend to us and Terrestrial Environmental Systems is going to recommend some indigenous species to plant there . The tube chambered pond here that you see is what they call 4-bay, which is about 4 foot deep , in this case. 5 foot and one of those . . . (not audible) . . . weir. In the 4-bay is the heavy materials that might run off the site , the sands , the silts would settle out before . they plug up the pond proper. In the pond is where the main treatment takes place. On the outside of the pond you will see a 12 foot wide mowed area on top of the berm . There will be access for maintenance and , cleaning as required .by the DEC to have . a 12-foot wide berm at the top . Then the third overflow that is designed into pond, is what they consider for a 10-year storm. The fourth overflow point is what they consider for a . 100 year storm . There is a weir and . this weir and spillway becomes active in a serious storm event . of 5 . 5 inches or greater. Other than that, the 10-year storm. would pass out an overflow structure , which is similar to a catch basin grate arrangement with a debris rack on top of it. Any questions on that? Chairperson Wilcox — I have a question . We haven 't seen this chart before , have we? Creig , have you seen it before? Mr. Hebdon — I just saw it right before the meeting . I took. :a look at it: Chairperson Wilcox — Can you give me an idea of when you first saw that chart? Roughly, when you first saw it. Mr. Hebdon — 5 o'clock. Chairperson Wilcox — What is your initial reaction to it? Mr. Hebdon — It is pretty much right out of the DEC design manual and it looks like it is going to do what they say it is going to do . It has the four components that DEC requires for each of these types of ponds and that is before they put in . the other area for detention . So they are cleaning everything up and then it is going into the other areas . Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Thank you . Mr. Fabbroni — We understood that you wanted us to perfect this for . final , subdivision , but rather than waive our arms around we sort of Chairperson Wilcox — . No . I understand . I just wanted to make sure that 1 gave. Creig the opportunity to say here is how long I have seen it and what my .initial reactions are . Board Member Conneman - Is there some evidence that DEC has that it works? I 'm not an engineer, but . . . Chairperson Wilcox - Creig ; you want to . . . Mr. Hebdon This has been under development now for quite a while and in particular in the Rochester area they have . been using these things for 10 or 15 years now and they seem to work really well on -those four : levels . And that is where these.. . . you see the QSF is . 100-year that is for flood protection . channels for a 100 year. storm : . They . . came up with these numbers from scientific . information that they got while building these. They have it to the point now where they are pretty well under control exactly what it is you need to do and they have the formulas and stuff. . I mean it is quite a big , thick book that . you have to work through each separate and that it. . . obviously I will have to take this information and. go back :. and sit down and go through the book and make sure that all the numbers add up , but my initial reaction is that Erik usually brings it in and the numbers usually add up . right. So I would say thati this is going "to do what it is supposed to . do : Mr. Fabbroni - I think , George , because of the Chesapeake . Bay, I ;think you would find . the State of Maryland sort of had a heads up on everybody, and. they've had a manual that I think if you looked up the New York State manual and you looked . at .the Maryland manual from 1990 , they. look very similar. in some ways . So there . is a track record . there of these filtering mechanisms . Bernie Carr is also here , I might mention if you have some questions about the vegetation or the wetlands delineation or any of those sorts of things. . We delineated the wetland again . It was delineated back in the early 1990s and there was a very small addition to the wetland as a result of this delineation . I have mentioned in the past that this particular delineation was done in one of the record years . , .one of the wet years on record. So it should be a pretty conservative in .terms of more extensive delineation of wetland than any other year you might choose to do it in . There are a few things that come up continually that I thought I would present a little information on and hopefully put them to bed . One I would like to show you . . . I 've handed this out before , : but the middle of the photo represents the area to the west of what we are talking subdividing , which was once a hay field . It also shows the southeast corner of the area where 1 Sapsucker Woods and Hanshaw Road intersect was an open field . It shows an open field up where . Sanctuary . . . where Sanctuary Drive is at this point. There have been a lot of conversations every time I am in here about how bare lots are . I would like to present you some pictures tonight . . . these pictures will represent . : . the pictures I just handed out represent the old areas of Birchwood , Maplewood , Sycamore , Meadowlark, Cardinal and Sapsucker Woods Road that Mr. Lucente developed over time . You can sort of draw your own conclusions on the landscaping that you see there . Some of these areas , as I say, were hay fields before he began or open fields . I think they speak for themselves .. In contrast, I have some pictures . of Winthropr Drive , Simsbury, Blackstone, that area of the Town where you can . make some comparison to areas that were developed in the same time frame and what they look like landscape-wise 20 , 30 years out Another thing that always comes up is , what do we intend to do with these lots . We have outlined . our best projection . of one and two family homes in terms of the number of one and two family . homes we might have in the traffic report and it is everything allowed by zoning , but there is some notion that Mr.. . Lucente has rented these houses forever: He owns one house at this point on the old part of Birchwood , Maplewood , and Sycamore and it's a retired schoolteacher who doesn't want to leave Ithaca and has rented the house from him for 25 years . He owns three houses on Cardinal Drive and Meadowlark , which he built every house that is on ,either one of those streets . He owns three or four houses along Sapsucker Woods Road . So I only mention this . . . maybe it is not even germane to what we are saying , but there has been a lot .of talk about what he owns and the rest of what he owns and rents on Briarwood . He rents mostly to professional families or graduate student families . As I say, there are many, many children in a neighborhood . . I just brought that up . . . Board Member Hoffmann — Larry, can I interrupt you for a second ? While. we are looking at this , could you tell us what it is we are looking at again ? Mr. Fabbroni — If you turn the photo around I will tell you . If you look at the center of the photo just above the. east/west road , that is the east/west road . That center area used to be a hay field and is now where the old part of Birchwood , Maplewood and Sycamore lie . Board Member. Hoffmann — But lets identify these roads . This is Hanshaw Road . Mr. Fabbroni — That's Hanshaw Road . Board Member Hoffmann — Salem Drive? Mr. Fabbroni - That's Muriel Street, Board Member Hoffmann — And what is this one? Mr. Fabbroni — That is Sapsucker Woods Road . Board Member Hoffmann - Okay. Thank you . Mr. Fabbroni — Salem Drive is not on that map . Board Member Hoffmann — And what year was this done? Mr. Fabbroni - 1954 . Board Member Hoffmann — And while we are at it, you mentioned :that this wetland delineation on .the map there was done in . a particularly wet year. - What. year was that? Mr: Fabbroni - When did we do the first one , Bernie? Mr. Carr - The first time was 1993 and then we did it again in 2003 : Board Member Hoffmann — So this is from 2003 that we are looking at. Mr. Fabbroni — That is correct. . Mr. Carr — Yes . Board Member Hoffmann - Now I . . . (not audible) . . , ::Mr: Fabbroni - I ' m sorry. So just some facts that you might be interested in -He also tells me that he has planted 100 trees in the Briarwood neighborhood this yearand that is consistent with. what he has done for 60 years , which is go in and reforest areas that were disturbed , largely because it was necessary to set the house at . a certain elevation and grade around it. Susan has asked us in the staff meetings to promise to plant one tree per lot. That is not a big promise based on what I am telling you . So we are very happy to make that promise . The engineers asked us to .change . the final design to drain to the center of the cul-de-sac at the end of Birchwood . We have been through your resolution and . it looks pretty thorough . The only question I have in the whole resolution is where it says you can 't have building permits until all the . roads and the park are dedicated . Are we . expected to give you a staging plan the next time around and would hope that there is some understanding that the first road is built and we can building permits on the first road , we don 't have to have all the roads dedicated . .. The way it read right now, it sort of suggests all the roads and the park are dedicated and it would be kind of uneconomical to go in and build all the roads before we started one building site. : A lot of these sites already front. . . I mean a lot of these future lots already front on . a street so that is the one item of all that we would like more discussion about. Chairperson Wilcox — As the questions come flying at you from staff, I ' ll just ask . . . or, from board members , just move the microphone amongst you so that we can both amplify you and record you . Who wants to go first? Kevin ? Board Member Talty — I just have one quick question on the pond . Is the maintenance a regulated thing or is it as needed ? Mr. Fabbroni Well the way the Town has it set up , there is a maintenance agreement that would be signed by the way we were talking , Cornell basically would become the owner of the open spaces and then they would execute a license back . with Mr. Lucente for the period of construction and stabilization , but then that maintenance agreement would be between . Cornell and the Town . That would ensure the continuing maintenance of those facilities and there is a standard agreement that the Town has forwarded to us to Cornell and they have reviewed and they' re pretty much on board with it so you' ll see . that all agreed to in the final analysis here . Ms . Brock - And Kevin , the Town Board is looking at a revised version of that so within the next month or two there will be a revised version . Sothis would be something that Cornell would need to agree to sign and that . would actually be a condition right? Ms . Ritter — Correct. Ms . Brock - I think it's . a condition . Ms. Ritter . — It is : a condition. . So there would be a- maintenance plan that's submitted now that's acceptable to the Director of Engineering and then . that maintenance plan is incorporated into . the agreement, which Cornell , if they take ownership of the facility, would then sign with the Town . Mr. Fabbroni — I ' m sorry, I failed to mention Scott Sutcliffe is here . He is the Assistant Director of . Lab . or Ornithology and you should have a letter in your possession now. Chairperson Wilcox There was a letter on the desk when we came in . Let me just ask , in general that agreement essentially says Cornell is responsible for maintaining the storm water facilities and should they fail to maintain them , then the. Town has the right and obligation and the ability to do it themselves . Something to that effect. Ms . Brock — Yes and the ability to go in . And there is actually an easement that would be and right of way , which would be deeded to the Town to give them the right to enter to do any necessary inspections and maintenance should Cornell fail to do it and in the agreement and also a local law that the Town Board will soon be considering as well . The Town would have the right to put a lien on the property if they are not reimbursed for. their expenses and that expense would then be added to the tax bill for the property even if it's a property that's normally not subject to tax. There is a special tax that can be assessed for recoupment of the Town's expenses , so we are trying to cover all the [ I bases here and it's working its way through the Town Board and should all be finalized within the next few. months. Board Member Talty That's great. Great foresight. Chairperson Wilcox — Eva go ahead . Board Member Hoffmann - I just want to ask a question about these pictures . You said they speak for themselves , but I would like to hear you tell us what your point is .. And should also add that 1 . lived from 1965 to 1969 on the corner of Salem Drive and Hanshaw Road . and .it was an open field in back of the house along . Salem Drive on the eastern side of Salem Drive when I lived there and I am familiar somewhat with that. area , so now tell . me what the point is of showing us these pictures. Mr. Fabbroni — My point was there were no . trees before he started and it's a well- landscaped area and he is responsible for most of. that landscaping : If you look how mature it is , it's taken 20 , 30`,40 years to mature . Most of that . landscaping in that area just wasn 't planted yesterday. That's my point and he is doing the same thing in the areas that he has cleared and I 'd say the most accused of clearing in these proceedings and so the point is if you follow the logic even the newer areas if you pay close attention to those shots on Briarwood , you ' ll see many, many trees with animal guards planted in all those yards , some of which are the 100 trees he planted this year on his own in that neighborhood , and that's as simple as the point is because it's come up continually and people seem to have, a different impression . Now if you go over to Winthrop Drive and Simsbury and those areas that were also farms , then they speak for themselves too . There is a lot less vegetation that went on Board Member Connemara — When were the pictures taken on Winthrop and Simsbury? Mr. Fabbroni - Today. Board Member Conneman. — .What? Mr. Fabbroni - Today. Board Member Conneman - Wells I don 't think so , because 1 live up there ' .. Mr. Fabbroni - They were taken today. . 1 have the receipt from (inaudible) for . the photography: Board Member Conneman — Thank you . Board Member Hoffmann — You' re making a . point that that open field has been built on and planted and there are growing there now. But that area that we are talking about now is the area on this map , which is. to the right of that, which is all wooded in this map . Mr. Fabbroni — That' s correct. The point is that Mr. Lucente has, cared about the landscaping and reforestation . That's as simple as the point is if I am making the point clear, then I 'd say we should move on because I have presented it poor then , but I think it's obvious to me when I ride down those streets that were once hayfields , they are not hayfields anymore , they are very mature neighborhoods with mature forests surrounding the houses and the person who built them planted those is the point. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, but most people do that and I think if you. look at the area just north of Hanshaw Road , let's see, how do I describe it, the old farm just to. the east of current Salem . Drive , it's just the second house from Salem Drive on this map and that whole area to the east of that old farm was not built in this photo . It's been built now too , probably not by Mr. Lucente and that . has trees. That area is full of trees too and most people plant around their houses so I don 't think that's unusual . Mr. Fabbroni — . Most people do , but again it was just to answer a point. If it . didn 't answer the point, then I am willing to say I failed . Board Member Conneman — 1 ' m not sure what point you ' re answering , but let's go on . provided the Board with a couple of letters that I got from people in the area and I will , they convey two thoughts , including a couple of phone calls I got, Larry, and they relate to two issues . One is drainage and another is traffic. As you know; I voted against the SEQR the last time , because I didn't think that we had sufficiently tackled those issues . First of all , I don't know, I ' m sorry Dan isn 't here , Creig , and you ' re stuck with answering my questions , but it seems to me I don 't know whether we really looked at the environmental impacts of this development and the drainage . If you go up there when it's wet, it's wet. The neighbors complain about the fact that there are lots of instances where water runs down the street, road and everything else : My question is can we guarantee that this project will not have a detrimental effect on the neighbors . I mean . are there drainage proposals and if so , how do we guarantee that that doesn't happen ? Mr. Hebdon — All I can say is that based on all the calculations and the way they are re- doing the drainage up there , the amount of water coming off the area behind Briarwood Drive , is going to drop . The volume that comes off the , they' re putting in a new v-notch weir, so instead of having a wide open pipe where that thing just comes . pumping out of there , it's actually going to be retained for a length of time . What you are going to end up with is instead of having five feet of water coming down through the ditch side , you ' re. going to have two feet of water. But instead of having five feet of water for five hours , you' re going to have two feet of water for ten hours to try and keep that peak flow down and that's where all the erosion and sediment is going to get picked up and carried is with that velocity of that peak. We are trying to reduce the velocities and reduce the amount of water that comes through the system all at once and they' re pre and post is Their ost-develo ment is going to be significantly lower than what it is now. p p g g significantly lower. They are also taking and doing all the clean up in these four bays and these ponds before the water is put into the existing drain system or into those wetland areas . So everything is coming off in the existing , the new proposed . system will be going through these various ponds and stuff and being cleaned. up before it's put into the other part of the system . Board Member Conneman — I wish we could guarantee that: - Mr. Hebdon — You know if you get a 500 year storm and this is all designed for a 100 year storm like its supposed to be , you know it's like down in Conklin , I wish they could guarantee the river is never going to flood , but you can 't make those guarantees: All can say is they have gone through used all the formulas and equations that. the DEC requires . They, have used all of the data that we know of and have done what they are supposed to do . Board Member Conneman = Do we have a letter from the DEC that says that? Mr. Hebdon = DEC puts that back on us . Board Member Conneman — Okay. The second question I have deals with traffic. I don 't know where you got your numbers from Larry about traffic. . If you have renters , you are likely to have more traffic -.than if you have single-family homes . Would you agree with that? Mr. Fabbroni — Yeah , but overall we have projected ten vehicle trips per day: ' Board Member Conneman - I don 't care about vehicle trips . I want to . know if .vehicles are parked in the yards , because' that's where I would begin . Mr. Fabbroni — Well I think I made the point the last time George andr for the benefit of the audience that wasn 't here and may be amongst those asking the question , we have projected . the standard number that for this density of development is in the national handbook and then we did not project any reduction due tor the transit that's available in the area so if you follow me 1hrough all of that, : the numbers we use were conservative . . . Board Member Conneman . - Obviously, these came out of a book. They are not real numbers . Is that right? Mr. Fabbroni — No but, if you look at, we went and we counted traffic at the intersections and if you look at ther number of homes , including apartments and other things in that neighborhood , the numbers we used are more conservative than what actually was occurring in , already occurring in the Hanshaw, Tareyton , Rose. rHill , Winston Court, Salem Drive neighborhood , so there is always what if, what if, what if but we were responsible in terms of using a number that would be more than you are experiencing already for. the dwelling units against what was coming out of Salem Drive and Muriel Street. We counted traffic morning and afternoon in a typical day and ] mentioned the last time that's when this school is in session , there is no snow storm occurring . Board Member Conneman — Have we seen those numbers? Mr. Fabbroni — Oh yes . They are in information you had for the last meeting . Board Member Conneman — I don 't recall , but anyway . Mr. Fabbroni — And you also had information from the Town of counts were made by both the County and the Town that also showed the. numbers were in that range so I am always happy to answer any of your questions , but we were conservative is what I am saying . Normally , we would project 10% at least of that given the population might use transit, we didn 't. We loaded it all on the traffic network and we still had a level of service A, you know Hanshaw Road would carry .about 6 , 000 vehicles a day even in the build out. Hanshaw Road could carry 10 , 000 vehicles per day the way it' s built, even before it' s rebuilt. Board Member Conneman — I wouldn 't want to see that, 10 , 000 vehicles a day . . Mr. Fabbroni I wouldn 't want to see it either, but as an . example , the area North Triphammer, just north of the corners , has carried 13 , 000= 15 , 000 vehicles per day on that little two-lane stretch for 15 . or 20 years , so I guess my only point is I am not making the numbers up , these are things we learned in traffic engineering and transportation planning and . . . Board Member Conneman ' If you go up to Salem and Muriel and the other streets up there , it seems to me there is a lot of traffic . . 1 am concerned about kids on the road . am concerned about traffic calming and so on and so forth and I don 't know whether the traffic calming devices that have been suggested are sufficient. I really don 't know because traffic is pretty fast up there . Mr. Fabbroni — I could only depend on collective opinion of staff, which represented two or three different opinions , but we tried to include all of those concerns in what mentioned to you a few minutes ago. Board Member Thayer — What were the intersections? Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on , hold on . George , are you done? Board Member Conneman — That's okay. Board Member Thayer — What were the intersection traffic calming devices? You mentioned it Larry, but I don 't recall , you were going to change the color of the asphalt for crosswalks? Mr. Fabbroni — Staff wanted the crosswalks delineated at those three intersections , which it seemed there would be a pedestrian vehicle conflict. Also , having the sidewalk on Birchwood , which would be the main crosswalk out to Sapsucker Woods behind the ditch as opposed to adjacent to the road and that would sort of give a sense with the way we have to build those dry ditches over narrower pavement. You also have curves on that particular stretch that would slow 99 % of the people down , I mean you heard the last time from a lady who spoke to , there is always one , but there is always. one in every neighborhood , we can 't design for that . . . Board Member Hoffmann — Can you just clarify something about the traffic on Hanshaw Road for me? I think you said it has now 6 , 000 cars , 6 , 000 trips , I forget the word. per day. Mr. Fabbroni - It doesn 't now, but at the build out , we showed west of Muriel Street, believe , where we might get a two-way traffic. Right now it might be in the 5 , 500 range based on the counts that the County provided us with . Board Member Hoffmann - That's west of Muriel Street. Mr. Fabbroni — Right, we are kind of, you know if you picture the highest accumulation from all of this because some of this traffic would come out Sapsucker, . some of this would come out Salem , theoretically it . could divert a few cars ,. but very few from Muriel Street that originate from say Winston Court . now. They may use Muriel Street instead of Salem . Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, so the figure anyway is for that general stretch of -Hanshaw Road . It's not for the whole length of .Hanshaw Road : . . Mr: Fabbroni — Not down by the Corners . . .. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, I would think there. would be much more traffic there. Mr. Fabbroni - Not on Hanshaw going . into . the corners, but the collective traffic in the Corners because of the other road I mentioned . The major route is North Triphammer and Pleasant Grove and to a lesser extent Triphammer; North Triphammer, Ms . Brock — I am good . I am . ready for the public hearing . Chairperson Wilcox - Anybody else have . questions at this point? Board Member Hoffmann — I guess l have a question about the letter, which we just got when we came here this evening , which essentially says that the Lab of Ornithology at Cornell , they have negotiated with you and Mr. Lucente about accepting the two wetland parcels, . but there is no final , decision yet about whether the property will be accepted . That depends on what the University Counsel 's Office , the Cornell real estate office , if I read . this correctly, .that's all , think about it. Mr. Fabbroni — I ' ll let Scott speak to that. My interpretation of that . is we have final details on the drainage facilities to work through , both with you and the state and we need to get the letter back from the Corp of Engineers . We have written to the Corp , we expect the letter back, so those fine details need to be accomplished before we can sign a final agreement with Cornell and I ' ll let Scott speak to the rest of your questions. Mr. Sutcliffe — Thank you , I am Scott Sutcliff from the Waterbrook Road in Trumansburg , the associate director at the lab . It' s our intent to accept the property as a gift as Larry has indicated this evening , pending the: considerations that we outlined in the second paragraph of that letter and that's standard practice for Cornell , to dot the is and cross the is before we say a final yes to acceptance of a propertyo . So it is our intent to accept that property as a gift to the Cornell Lab or Ornithology .as an addition to the sanctuary . Ms . Brock — There is a condition in the draft resolution too that addresses that issue . Chairperson Wilcox — All set for now? Any staff wish to make. any comments at this point?. None . Let's give the public a chance to speak. Bob Chang . is in the back corner right? :I would guess that we are going to ask you to come back. at our second meeting in August. We still have the public hearing to be held and give the public a chance to speak and then if time is left, this Board will- then consider the subdivision in front of us . We would like to end at 10 : 00 . Sometimes we go to 10 : 15 , 10 : 20 . You are welcome .-to stick around hoping that maybe either we come to an impasse and stop and end early or we get close to 10 :00 and we make a decision pro or con and we will try to squeeze you in , but I can 't guarantee you and I know you were told that in . advance , so I thank you for your consideration . Ladies and gentlemen , once again , this is a public hearing . We will ask you to come to the microphone , have a seat, give us your . name and address , and we will give you an opportunity to speak. As a general rule , we do not put time limits on our speakers . We think that works best. On the other hand , . if you begin to ramble on or get off subject, I will interrupt you and ask you to either get back on the topic or to conclude your remarks as appropriate . So having said that, I will ask you to raise your hand , I will call upon you in some random order, and we will be very pleased to hear what you have to say this evening . So having said. that, who wants to go first and I remind you , you all can 't go last. Brian How, 109 Birchwood Drive My name is Brian How and I live at 109 Birchwood Drive with my wife and we have lived there for 12 years . , The house is owned by our daughter, Sara Howe , and her husband, . James Alexander: I am concerned about the impact of this development o n t he nature of the northeast area in general , on pedestrian safety, on' water damage , and they share my concerns. And , it's not here , but I should say that this was prepared before tonight's presentation , so I have learned some that I would change if .I had this opportunity to do so . As I understand it, the proposed development, if authorized , would permit the construction of about 50 new homes on street or streets parallel to and west of Sapsucker Woods Road . If recent experience is any guide , I am looking at what the developers put up in recent years , these structures will consist each of a large building with four bedrooms . and two bathrooms in front, an apartment building with two bedrooms and one bathroom . I am sure most of you have driven down Briarwood or sanctuary because of the importance of this project. I 've seen those buildings , they are almost identical . There are about 20 on Briarwood Drive and next to it, front door painted a little different color or something like that, but basically the same . On Sanctuary Drive there are another dozen or so . These are substantial buildings . There have been recently two offered for sale on Sanctuary Drive for just under $400 , 000 each . Simple arithmetic would say that 50 times 400 , 000 are $20 million . So you are dealing with a big project here and I think you folks have a lot of responsibility as to how that's going to turn. out. This brings me to my first concern . It's not likely that many of these buildings will be owner occupied . My observation of residents on Briarwood suggests that mostly will be rented by students at Cornell or other young transient couples . This is why I have to revise something because what I wrote here is while many tenants will have good intentions, it's likely that pressures on time and money could. prevent them from maintaining the properties adequately, including replacing trees that are moved or damaged during construction . I have learned tonight that there are plans to put a lot of trees in here and that's great. Where we live ; the house was constructed 40 years ago and a number of elm trees .were planted in the depression behind our house presumably to soak up the water and those .have sprouted over the years and now we have . the problem that they are falling down .and. we have to take them away at a considerable cost, anyway. Most of the earlier homes in this neighborhood where I live are owner occupied and well maintained . But I think it is too bad to add another 50 large rental buildings to the 30 or so already here. on Briarwood and Sanctuary Drive and the large apartment buildings at the end of Salem . Could not the buildings be scaled down to . become more affordable. housing for more permanent residents and maintain the character of the neighborhood ? My second concern is for pedestrian safety. This has also been discussed quite considerably and I have some comments about that later.. Currently, many young adults walk ' back and forth on Birchwood Drive and other roads in the area to Cornell or work and children to the Dewitt Middle School . Most go and come first thing in the morning or in late afternoon or evening to catch buses at the corner of Salem and Birchwood or Salem and Hanshaw or to wait for school buses . That is we lookout of our window drinking coffee in : the morning and see people walking . by from 6.: 30 .to : 8 : 30 or so in the morning and coming back at 4 : 30 or so to 7 : 00 at night. For much of the year, this is . before sunrise or after sunset when snow plowed back requires walking on the road . Birchwood Drive at present has no streetlights , not a darn streetlight on the whole , there is one on Salem near :the end of Birchwood , but it's at the end of Birchwood , so none of that light shines down Birchwood. It's very dark and a :very dangerous situation . Many people will be walking on the roads if this project goes through . We need better lighting and sidewalks and I am glad to hear sidewalks are proposed , whether the project goes through or not. Hanshaw Road is going to get a much=needed sidewalk and Birchwood Drive and other roads in the area need sidewalks even . more . Thirdly, water damage , wetlands are being violated . As a resident I know that even the moderate rainfall creates something of a havoc in our area , ditches fill up , drains become plugged with debris , lawns become lakes and some basements . are flooded . The Town . Highway Department has spent considerable time trying to cope with this situation , especially at the corner of Birchwood and Salem and along Klinewood Road and Birchwood North . But I think we .certainly need independent professional evaluations of the plans to deal with independent, with the potential additional flooding that might result from this development, as well as the impact of increased traffic in the area and although they are well-intentioned not just accept the plans of the developer. It seems to me with the size of the project you are facing , you need to have somebody that can come in independently and take a look at these things and advise you on them because as I said .earlier, you have a great responsibility. Thank you very much for your attention . Chairperson Wilcox — Can we have a copy of that? Mr. How — Sure . Chairperson Wilcox — Kevin , could you get the copy. Thank you very much. Mr. How — As I say, I kind of modified it a little bit based on this . Chairperson Wilcox We have you for ,the record , but l think it's important to have this as well . Thank you sir. Arno Selco , 311 Salem Drive am Arno Selco , I live at 311 Salem . Drive . My name is on the map right here . . I won't take up a lot of your time . The most important thing I have to say has already been covered and I appreciate this gentleman 's bringing it up again . .I came to the last hearing . I have . been to every hearing on this project and we had quite a lot of rain right after the last hearing and the ground around my house was super-saturated and so I am very concerned about the effect of these 50 news homes on. the drainage . I appreciate all of the work that has been done , the presentation has been very, very impressive , but have the same question that you were asking and that is what guarantee do we have that the drainage will improve if these 50 homes are constructed . That' s my main . concern . I also wanted to say something about I think it was called casual use of the area between my home and the Amato's home . That property is private property by adverse possession , I brought this up before and my neighbor, and [ . have been very generous in terms of allowing people to use that property and I am curious ,what Cornell 's plans are once they take possession of the wetlands . there . Thank you . Chairperson Wilcox — We' ll get through the public hearing and we' ll see if they want to respond to that this evening . This gentleman and the woman he is with . has been here since 7: 00 , very patient, we appreciate it. Thank you sir. Adrian Williams , 108 Sapsucker Woods Road - I would like to reiterate the concerns about traffic, especially on Sapsucker Woods Road . A couple of months ago they re-paved the road and since that time , the traffic has been noticeably faster on the road and I think considerably less safe for pedestrians and bicyclists and I think the development that has been proposed tonight would only exacerbate those problems given that I live on Sapsucker Woods Road , that's what am most familiar with . I am concerned about the large swath of woods and wetlands that is being proposed to be developed . In particular I would .like to bring up the fact that this area has been designated a unique natural area as I understand it, by the Town of Ithaca and . I would like some more clarification on what that exactly entails and how that would affect the Planning Board 's position , but I would . like to . bring that up again . I . understand that it was raised last meeting and it's true that Sanctuary _ Drive cuts across that . unique natural area , but I don 't think we should neglect that designation just because of the fact that Sanctuary Drive is there and given that the:. homes on Sanctuary Drive . were decidedly unnatural . I also would like. some assurance if this proposal goes through that all of the houses are not - monotonous . in size and architecture given that several decades have passed since Sapsucker Woods- Road . has been developed . There is still a degree of monotony . just going down the street and am concerned that will continue with this new development: Thank you :. . Chairperson Wilcox— Thank you sir. Gerald Davis , 309 Salem Drive Hello my name is Gerald Davis . I live at 309 Salem Drive, next door to - Mr. Selco , who spoke a moment ago and I have been to a few of these hearings I think all , of them , and I was here a month ago and have been paying attention tonight. I basically come to watch and listen and discover the outlines of this development plan and I just as you did tonight, J saw the map depicting the drainage pond for the first time tonight. . I don't know if I am allowed to get up and. point .a spot on the map : . ': Chairperson Wilcox — Please do. We won't pick you up very well, but go ahead . :` Mr. Davis - ( Not speaking in front of the microphone) I hope this doesn 't come across as parochial , excuse me , because I . think you ' ll extrapolate my observations to .the rest . of the plans , but there's the tank , which ] am seeing for the first. time with the pond . Mr. Selco lives here and I live here and you ,can see there are wetlands behind our home and if you take a look at the City map , you will , find that, there is ae ditch that runs between the Davis home and the (inaudible) homes here . Myself at 309 and the (inaudible) at 307 . That ditch actually is the headwaters of Renwood Brook,. you follow it down and it becomes a brook, so it's initiated right herein this wetland -and wherever it comes. from upstream . Now I am looking at this pond and l have heard it described in terms of its general function and I see what looks like a spigot or some kind of a drain up here in what looks like the northwest corner, but L don't know if that means that's where the water discharge . I am just looking , and referring from the map that I see . What I want to indicate tonight is that we have lived here for 19 years and in the course of the 19 years , we have had two events in which the drainage ditch . between our house and the (inaudible) during heavy rains , the water. level has risen and l am not enough of a hydrologist to know whether it has risen and stayed as high as it did for as long as it did because it can 't drain through the pipe that runs under Salem . Drive and eventually into Renwood Brook or because the ground is super-saturated and it just has nowhere to go but up . I don 't really understand ; but in both of these events, during the 19-year period , after heavy rains , water came up the pipes and into our basement and we had three inches of water, . so we have installed . systems through the years . Now, as I say when I take a look at this map , what I may be seeing , and I would have to hear more , is that water from a large portion of the proposed development is going to go right into that same ditch and I have heard some numbers and some statements today about what percentage and how long . I don 't know if the system works or not and I am not here to say just don 't do it. What I am here to ask is that people take a very, very close look at how this thing is supposed to work , where it's supposed to drain , how much water will be involved . Simple statistics says on the two events I am talking about are something like a ten-year rain , but who knows . The previous owner reported a number of such events to me , but I don 't know how many and during the course of the number of years , am saying two events in 19 years . And again I just want to extrapolate , I don 't understand the whole system , I don 't know where all water is intended to go , but this seems to me a point of particular importance because this is where I see the drainage ponds , I know where that ditch is , I know where the pipe is that goes under the road and we have had flooding here before and I just want to draw your attention to that and ask that and ask you to look very carefully at our system . Thank you . Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you sir. David Collum , 1456 Hanshaw Road feel like I am beating a dead horse here . A couple things come up . There is a softness to the data still . It still exists . I am impressed with his skills to see a map at 5 : 00 and assure us by 7 : 30 that it's all going to be okay. I really want you to think hard about what you are going to do if Cornell says they are not taking the land and I will tell you why, because you got landlocked wetland that's going to have real water on it and if you can round up the Cornell attorneys and get them to sign a piece of paper that says we will take the plot of land of no value with standing water that's in the . middle of a residential neighborhood and we will maintain it and - we will take legal responsibility for . drowned children or anything else , then you 've found a bunch of fools . There is no upside. There is no way that an attorney who is worth anything is going to say yes to that. Now I do think they' ll say yes to the stuff that's contiguous with Sapsucker Woods ; but what are you going to do about that landlocked piece and my concern is always that it's sort of long after the dust has settled and .you say wow close enough . The next thing you know, the Town has it and the next thing you know, we are taking care of it with our tax dollars and I would love to see details of this . I appreciate the Lab of Ornithology's gains on this , my wife works there , did work there . I don 't want to shut that down , but I think Cornell will not accept that: I don 't think Cornell is going to take all of the land and what are you going to do , what are you guys going to do? . I did a little map according to one statement about . what Hanshaw Road could take ; it was something like seven cars a minute , 24 hours a day. This is the kind of softness in the numbers . I .paid a real estate attorney to look into this issue and they said you guys do have the power to restrict double occupancy in rentals and things like that and really do and I would gladly pay to have them write the resolutions if you guys would listen , would actually pay to have a wetland expert come in and tell us whether or not the drainage plans will work. If you guys will listen , but I don't want to flush money down a rat hole , so it is a bit .of perverted system that the Town really doesn't have the money to do these kind of delineations : I don 't expect you guys to be writing checks to wetland delineators , so what we have to do is .get the guys who want to build on the land to do the delineation . Call me silly, but I am guessing Mr. Lucente went and found guys who would tell you what he wanted them to tell you . This is not new, this is town politics . So , I hate coming here , I have been a bunch of times and as I said , one of the earliest visits aerial photos from the 30s show that the entire . neighborhood , everything that's been built over 'there is on a wetland and every time they build , they then declare what's left to. smaller, but the aerial photos are very clear. Farms plow fields, they can and leave stuff untouched that they can 't and that wetland was enormous in its heyday:. But it's too late now, that's clearly water over the dam as they say. So please do pay attention to the one at Cornell and Susan maybe you can tell me why Cornell would say yes . Just give one little shred of insight as to why a Cornell lawyer would say . sure we' ll take ponds in residential neighborhoods and take full responsibility for them . Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you very much . I am sure we' re not done yet. Eileen Grivani , 203 Salem Drive Hi I am Eileen . Grivani . I live at 203 Salem . Drive . It's the corner of Salem and Birchwood . North and I would just like to address the traffic. issue. My driveway is about 20. feet from the stop sign . It's really hard. when I . back out in the morning . There are cars coming fairly quickly. You . wouldn 't think that they might not be because of the stop sign , but they really wiz by. My kids call that stop sign an optional stop because people don 't run it, but they pause and then they go . I am. really, concerned : I have two. older kids , so' I am okay, but I am concerned about the kids who will be going to the park because there are a lot of pedestrians , there's a lot of kids riding bikes, through that area and I really don 't think the colored asphalt is going to slow people down after living there . that long and watching them . So I am just hoping that you have some other, or that you look at it really carefully and you come with some other ways to slow traffic down there okay. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you . Sorry I was talking to Carrie here . Who would like to go .next? Yes ma'am : . Mary Plow, 108 Sapsucker Woods Road am Mary Plow., .: I live at 108 Sapsucker Woods Road . I have a few different concerns actually; three main concerns and I ' ll be brief. One is we really enjoy Sapsucker Woods sanctuary, we are members of the Lab or Ornithology and we partly moved to the area for that reason . The sanctuary seems to be becoming less of a sanctuary for animals and people because of the traffic noise that's very audible pretty much wherever you are in the woods there and it's not just Sapsucker Woods .-Road traffic, but it's also the air traffic and all of that. And though the sanctuary might be enlarged because of this development, I think the . traffic, everyone spoke to this , will be increased and the traffic noise will be increased so when you ' re in the middle of the woods wanting to have a peaceful walk or hoping the animals will have a peaceful place to live, it will be much noisier with some unnatural traffic noise. My second concern is that we really like living on Sapsucker Woods Road , although the quality of life is decreasing throughout, we have only lived on that road for one year because of all of the traffic and the people speeding . I would say most of the cars going down the road are definitely quite a bit over the speed limit so that's another concern . My last concern is the woods right behind our house and they would be totally decimated by this project. We are the second house in from Hanshaw Road on the left side of Sapsucker Woods Road and we have enjoyed many different bird species in the woods behind the house who also come to our bird feeders , great crested fly catchers , yellow belly sapsuckers , quite a few birds , mammals and you know, just tearing that all down will really make me not want to live there anymore and it's a very sad thing to think about. Thank you . Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much . Anybody else? Would anybody else like to speak this evening ? Yes sir. Stefan Wagner, 112 Sapsucker Woods Road A number of thoughts that have crossed my mind and I will try just to : mention a few of them . One is I , don 't know if this sounds too philosophical at. this stage because the process is pursued by some so aggressively, but I am_ wondering why does there have . to be ,a development in this very spot? There is so many areas in and around Ithaca where if you develop them , you would do far less damage . , . Why is it that this very area needs to be developed , which is one of the. most precious in all of Ithaca? . Why? Why do we have to tear something down only to plant some token vegetation or. some trees afterward , which is never the same , which is a caricature of what it was like? Why can we not leave nature and animals alone on what is already an incredibly curtailed area because of previous development? Why do we have to violate nature by, I mean , this : area is woodlands and wetlands and I. can tell you from a personal perspective what having a house on wetland means because we. have experience in the last few years that we have lived there , but this area is clearly unfit to �be built on . Now why go to all this length to try to come up with things that have not been proven to impose that, .to make your development work when really , when you look at nature and the conditions that exist that people have had to deal with for decades now, simply .tells you don 't touch me , this is not where you should consider building . Why is land owned so you own the right to destroy it? Birchwood Drive and Sanctuary Drive are prime examples . can only reiterate ,what other people have said about the experience , the simple experience of going there at night. You know. when I take walks there at night I have always wondered for how long would this be left alone and it's curious to me that if the issue of what Mr. Lucente apparently owns in terms of rental property along those roads , because I do think that a matter of personal greed and a certain inevitability that . the development is supposed to have , I think that it is an issue even though people may not want to see it raised . But why does this development machinery have to get to work in this very area? The thought occurred to me , the . principal of eminent domain is invoked right, people own something and they think they will own it for life or be able to bequeath it to their children and so on and then someone claims the principal of eminent domain , takes it away from them and compensates them for that. Why is that principal for instance not invoked here? Instead , well you may own this. land , but clearly this land is far too precious to be. torn down and be replaced by the kind of developments that you have put up before . Why don 't you go out to some open field? I mean it seems to me absurd that . you attract people by saying come and live in the woods , come and live in this nature preserve only to raise it completely, and l mean really raise it, put up extremely monotonous housing and . then as I said plant some token trees . When I look at previous developments by Mr. Lucente in this area , especially along Sapsucker Woods Road , which I believe is the first one , the poor quality of the architecture and the poor material quality just strikes me and [ thought to myself well if someone proposes , someone has done this and he proposes to do more of this , except only in the 80s style or 90s style or (inaudible) , would anyone let him? would say maybe you should look into something else , so even though this process has already, has been moved along and you ' re sort of asked to consider various. details , I don 't see there's any inevitability in this . . I wish you had let me say the greatness to consider not to let any of this take place, not a scaled down .version ; not some partial raping of the woods , but just let them be realized that you have. something precious and when you look at, I was looking at the architectural history of Ithaca neighborhoods and I realized. . how many crimes that have been committed . Beautiful buildings have been torn down , they have not been destroyed by anything like a fire or , other natural catastrophes, but they've simply been torn down out of insensitivity because people just didn 't realize the value or a row of houses on a street , (inaudible) deprived of one important element and to me if this development were to take. place on Sapsucker Woods Road , it would .feature on that list of architectural crimes against nature that can take place in the community. - The problem is development is always seen as I said before as something inevitable as if it had to take placer And I think it doesn't. . It . can take place as well where it is less damaging , but that's all the thoughts ], can think of now. Thank you very .much . Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you sir. Anybody else? There being no one else , I will close the public , hearing at 9 : 24 . Thank you very much . Okay we've got some questions that we will try to respond to , try to keep my notes here and we will do the best we can . Larry and other agents want to come forward . Creig you want. to talk about the drainage structure , the water detention structure first, because I saw you as the question was being asked , you were nodding your . head , making some notes , and shaking your head , things like that? There was a question about the particular. . . . Mr. Hebdon — Yes . The pond at Salem Drive when you said I got it at `5 o'clock tonight, so one of things I will be looking at is what the pre and post and .what it's supposed to be doing with what's going down . through that. Like I said , I haven't had a chance to take a look at the numbers yet and see what's going down the ditch line between those two houses , but it's definitely one of those things that we are going to have to take a look at. That is what was happening before and what's happening now . and are we helping it, are we hurting it, what are we doing ? Chairperson Wilcox - Go ahead keep going. Mr. Hebdon — I am trying to look at all of the . . . Chairperson Wilcox — Reference was made . . . if you would , would you go up to the center map . There was reference made to a structure as part of the detention area and the gentleman was wondering if that was an outlet. Mr. Hebdon — Oh , this right here . Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah . Mr. Hebdon — Yeah . That is the weir that comes out of the pond . That's the 100 year storm flood protection and that's the multiple that Erik talked about earlier.. There is an outlet out in this area . Where . . . ( inaudible) . . . I haven 't checked numbers yet . . . (inaudible) . . [Mr. Hebdon was away from microphone] Board Member Talty — Just on that point, so what you guys said before about controlling the water and the rapidness that it leaves the detention pond , so it would be a longer period of time with less water, correct? Basically? Mr. Whitney — Yeah , the rate of flow coming off the site will be less than or equal to the rate pre-development: In this case , . if we do some of. the impoundment around the existing wetland area , take care of some of the existing flows there; it will be less than the pre-developed . We aren 't changing the . location where the water comes off the site , we are maintaining the existing drainage patterns and will be extending the period of the flow and lessening the. rate of the flow with these structures . Board Member Talty — So your professional opinion is that these folks in and around that general area that he pointed out before don 't necessarily need to worry a majority of the time . That the rate of flow of the water will not increase the probability of the flood in and around their homes . Is that correct? Mr. Fabbroni — One thing we failed to point out in the original presentation was this pond , the intention of this pond is to as Erik says, the pre-development and the post- development run-off should be equal . However, what we didn 't mention was there's a culvert under the utility right of .way here and it's our intention . to build an impoundment where additional waters are detained above and beyond what's required for the development. In other words , this facility right here is what's required by the state for what's being developed . There' s no water being diverted from any place that isn 't already coming this way. So in essence , as far as development is concerned , the pre and the post by everything we know, from the numbers we have worked with , will be the same , the rate of run-off will be mitigated over a longer period of time for certain storms , but this facility here would impound more storm water. In other words, it should greatly improve. the situation , the pre-situation , and I know we've covered a lot of ground , but this is what we've had , indications from the Corp Engineers that we can do this because we are doing it outside of the wetland , but what happens is we back the water up into a triangle of the wetland area here . You know if you 've lived there that you have keep the ditch behind all of these properties so we' re not really, we think this will be highly successful even if that dyke somehow overflowed , it has a spillway essentially built there already, but I just want to point out we talk about the catastrophes and the 500 year storms and all that , but this should help greatly with what you 'd experience for thirty years . Board Member Conneman — Is that above ground ? Mr. Fabbroni = No , it's above ground . In other words , you know from living there that this right of way now sits up a little higher than the ground , so it starts to form its own dyke so along the north edge of that area the utilities. would be south of there . There will be a 3 or 4-foot dyke that would be (inaudible) in this triangle some of which is wetland , some of which is not, just temporarily. The intention is that over 24 hours , the water would then come out at a slower rate , but I am pointing out that that in particular would reduce the normal flow that you have seen before we ever started to do' anything . This facility here is meant to deal with the lots that are now being developed that naturally flow in that direction . Based on our observation , based on the topography shot, we' re not herding water from someplace else to this location .. Now, what you see . coming by here comes through the woods and to that ditch and down between the two homes . Board Member Mitrano — Is that net of what you just said vary that there's gonna be. less water there? Mr. Fabbroni — Less . Board Member Tait y — That overflow pipe at 10 : 00 ' on that circle , where. does that go , does that go in this ditch that that gentleman . is talking about? Mr. Fabbroni — That goes there , but again the intention is the -net is zero, but in addition to that that other area would impound a substantial amount of storm water . that are currently isn 't impounded at .all . Board Member Mitrano — And Craig the gentleman who spoke very eloquently about his ` home and then the headwaters of all these. other little waterways , that's all correct? Mr. Hebdon = I am not sure if it's the headwaters of the creek. I :haven 't really looked at it that closely for that. Mr. Fabbroni — I think he is correct. Board Member Mitrano - And so , is this . an area that irrespective of this development' might be worthy of attention by the Town in order to see whether there is the appropriate drainage for the runoff for it? Sounds like there is something . . . Mr. Hebdon Okay, so you' re saying that if this development does not happen is it something that, yeah we could put a different type of, like he's got in there , the berm , and that type of stuff to try and slow the water and do that type of stuff. Board Member Mitrano - Right, okay . Chairperson Wilcox — Alright. Many comments about pedestrian safety and I think we will get back to those because I think we are going to continue to discuss safety. There are numerous questions about structures to be built , their size , their cost, someone asked did not all the houses look alike? There was the issue of tenure . It be owner renter, gonna look to the Town attorney right now. Briefly summarize what this Planning Board can and cannot do when it comes to tenure and architectural design . How's that? Ms . Brock — Tenure? Chairperson Wilcox — Owner renter. It's a census bureau term . Ms . Brock - Okay . . Board Member Howe — And maybe also the issue of whether we can limit the size , just for the general public. Whether they can have the small income apartments and Chairperson Wilcox — I know the answer but I want, : . Ms . Brock — Well , I hope it's the same answer I am . going to give . Chairperson Wilcox ;.- Yeah , let' s hope so . Ms . . Brock — Your subdivision regulations do not give you the ability to. restrict the number: of the types of dwelling units beyond what the zoning ordinance says you can . , do . This is medium density., residential zone . The zoning ordinance permits one family dwellings and two family dwellings , so under your subdivision regulations, as I read them , you . don 't have. the ability to say these cannot be two-family dwellings because the zoning ordinance says that's permitted in this . zone . The one exception is if this were a cluster subdivision, then you have that ability. The same holds true for appearance . If this were a cluster subdivision , then there are design standards and you are given the ability to regulate exterior characteristics . Because this isn't a cluster subdivision, we look to the rest of the subdivision regulations and. there is no mention in here of your ability to regulate exterior characteristics . Chairperson Wilcox — Or the renter? Ms. Brock — Really, the same thing . . There is nothing in your zoning ordinance that . makes any distinction when it describes a family. When you look at who a family is to see who can live in a one family or two family dwelling , there is nothing in the definition of family that describes rentals , except if you have a large number of unrelated people living together claiming they are the functional equivalent of a family, they need to be renting from a period longer than an academic year. But other than that, there is nothing there , . I mean if you have a group of related people who want to come in and rent, there is nothing in the ordinance that gives you the ability to say you can't have renters . Again , if this were a cluster subdivision , you might have .a little bit more leeway on that as well But this isn 't a cluster subdivision . Board Member Mitrano - Susan , I have two questions , . one is related to this last point.. Do we have the authority to require something to be a cluster subdivision ? So , someone comes to us with a plan that is not clustered . What's the . scope of our authority? Mr. .Kanter_ — I ' ll give a preliminary answer and the answer is . yes you do have the authority and that would normally happen five years ago when this application first came to the Board . Board Member Mitrano — I see: Board Member Howe — Does that mean you can 't bring it up at a later time if you didn 't bring it up five years ago? Mr. Kanter — Well , I think it would be difficult to bring it up at this point when the Board has made an environmental determination of no significant impact. Yes . Board Member Howe - That's what i thought. Board Member Mitrano — Because the, clustering - is related to the environmental impact or just as a matter of process? Mr. Kanter - Absolutely. One of the reasons we are using clustering is to preserve significant natural areas and open space .areas . Debatable whether that is being done through other means in the subdivision , it is to some degree , but that was not raised as a significant issue during the SEQR process . Board Member Mitrano - So , just for the sake, of my edification , if we could turn the clock back five years , is there any criteria by which we would have to evaluate and operate_ to request a clustered subdivision or is it. . . there is criteria . Is it then environmental ? Mr. Kanter — 1 think it's in our subdivision regulations , as well as in Town law, which enables towns and villages to do that. Board Member Conneman - What information for the future , if we had not passed the SEQR , we would be in a different position . Is that right? Ms .. Brock Yes I think so . Mr. Kanter — I think it would have been in a different position if five years ago you had the number of sketch plans that came before the Board had raised that issue . Ms . Brock — Well , your regulations say at the time of preliminary approval shall be determined _whether or not the subdivision to be considered shall be a cluster design . So I think legally you could have done it even at this late date . Board Member Mitrano — Just repeat that. Ms . . Brock At the time of preliminary approval , which is what's under consideration now, preliminary subdivision approval . Board Member Mitrano — I just want to be sure I understand what you are saying . Just say it again , Susan so I understand it. At which time and at what time are we now? Ms . Brock — Well we are considering preliminary site plan approval and the regulations say at the time of preliminary approval it shall be determined whether or not the . subdivision to be considered shall be a cluster design . Board Member Mitrano — And that time is right now?. Ms . Brock It is , but given the fact that the environmental review has already been done on. . a non-cluster design , I think that you would now be in a difficult decision to demand that this be reworked to be a cluster design . One of the purposes for cluster design is to preserve open space. and so . you relax the lot size requirements , . allow the homes to be put closer together so that large contiguous areas of open space can be preserved . If you ' re thinking about it that way, in a way they' re doing that .and I don 't is it half the land that is going to be donated to the Lab of Ornithology,. but they' re not consequently taking the benefit that they could get, which would be to put more houses on smaller lots . They are still following the lots size requirements . Mr. Kanter - Actually I think many of the lots are larger then the 15 , 000 square foot minimum of the zone . - Board Member Mitrano - So even with a cluster design , we might have lots of questions. about space , wetlands , architecture , design , etc. Ms . Brock - I mean I think what it really comes down to is are you comfortable. with the wetland delineation . I mean , do you feel that that was appropriately done or not? Board Member Mitrano — That was my second set of questions actually that I said : Is there a legal definition of wetlands? Ms . Brock — Oh sure . Board Member Mitrano I know you have expertise in environmental law. Is there a simple way to characterize that definition ? Ms . Brock — Well , it's never simple and the way wetlands are delineated . changes over. time as the Army Corp of Engineer manual changes, but there are three characteristics that you look at. You look at hydrology, you look at the type of soils. and whether they are hydric soils , . which indicate soils which are typically saturated for some period of time , and you look at vegetation and whether the vegetation that's growing is the type that's typically associated with wetlands and it doesn't have to be cattails . . It can be certain types of trees that tend to be found in wetlands as well'. And in terms. of the hydrology component, I am not sure what the exact current definition is . I am sure that somebody here can tell us exactly, but and it's moved around over time , but it's typically the water is within so many inches of the surface for a certain period of .time during the growing season every ,year. And if that water exists at that level for that period of time during the requisite period , then the hydrology component would be satisfied., So there is three things you look at. Typically you want to find all three factors are present. Board Member Mitrano - I see and is this entire area, do you know whether it. is a wetland according to this definition ? Ms . Brock — 1 have no idea . I haven 't been on the properties.. I haven 't walked it and even I had , I don't have the necessary expertise to make that determination . Mr. Fabbroni - I would like Bernie to speak to his work on this , project, if you will : Bernie Carr, 210 Parish Lane, Syracuse Mr: Carr For, the record my name. . is Bernard Carr, 210 Parish Lane ; .Syracuse , New York. I worked on the . original delineation back in 1993 . 1 re-delineated the wetlands in 2003 . The wetlands were slightly larger and I am talking less than 100 square feet. think we did an adequate job , a very good job at delineating the.. wetlands . I don 't think that if you hired another consultant to come out and re-delineate the wetlands , as was suggested by one of the speakers; that the. line is gonna change: The Corp of Engineers or the DEC at any time can come, out and examine the. boundaries and make a determination and we've made a request to them to examine the boundaries : We . visited the wetlands with Susan Ritter and one other person from the Town in the past and there was no objections raised at that time with staff in terms: of where the wetland boundaries were . Board Member Mitrano — Okay, and maybe we have talked about this before at three or four meetings , and sometimes it's hard to keep all the facts straight, so essentially my question in asking all of this and that is very interesting information , is are the proposed structures on anything that is legally considered a wetland . Mr. Carr - No . There are no structures in wetlands and matter of fact there is a buffer area is provided around all the wetlands . J Board Member Mitrano - I see . Mr. Carr — And there is no direct wetlands impacts in terms of filling in wetland or putting a structure or road on a wetland . Board Member Mitrano — Okay, thank you . That was essentially my question . Mr. Fabbroni - And they are not landlocked. They have frontage on a road , all the wetlands . Board Member Mitrano = And is the land being prospectively donated to the university regarded as a wetland by all of these definitions? Mr. Fabbroni - Roughly eight acres of the 25 are wetlands . The remainder of what's being donated is modified woods . The other thing I might mention , as an observation of Bernie's professionalism is he did the delineation in 1993 . 1 followed after as a land surveyor and surveyed all his little flags as if I was surveying your lot. Now all of those flags were gone when we came back in 2003 and it's pretty amazing if you compare the two how he went around and put new flags in without knowing where the old ones were and how close they were to the boundaries . So I mean that at least indicated to me that his identification of the three factors was pretty consistent. Board Member Mitrano - I am not even questioning that, Mr. Fabbroni . I was just trying to establish whether there was any construction on the wetlands , which I think you have answered . Thank you. Ms . Brock Can I just follow up with a question . So you don 't anticipate needing to apply to the Corp for any kind of wetland fill permit? Mr. Carr - No . What we did is we submitted the wetland delineation report for the Corp of Engineers to review it. We also submitted the drainage plan that was prepared for them to review also . The purpose of that is to get a letter of no jurisdiction from the. Corp of Engineers for the project, meaning that ,there is no wetland impact from the project. Ms . Brock — Do you anticipate that they will come on site themselves? Mr. Carr - Generally they do and it's only a question of time when they do it in their schedule . If the Town wanted it quicker, the Town could make a request to the Corp and it would be quicker than if I do it personally just because of how busy they are with reviewing boundaries and processing permit applications . Board Member Conneman — But you don 't have a letter today? Mr. Carr - No sir. ti Board Member Conneman — Okay. Ms . Brock - But we could be it in a condition that the preliminary site plan approval is conditioned on receipt . of a letter from the Corp stating they don 't have jurisdiction ' and that there would be no structures placed in wetlands . Board Member Mitrano — That sounds like a good suggestion . Chairperson Wilcox — We gave them a full size set of plans . Board Member Mitrano - Sounds like it's not a problem , but it sure would be a nice I to dot. Board Member Howe - While we are talking about wetlands, I would like , this question actually came up last time and I have been curious why the Lab would be interested . in this other parcel cause it's not contiguous , It has very limited access ; . so I would like to hear, . . Chairperson Wilcox — Is the gentleman still here from the Lab? Board Member Mitrano No . . He left. Board Member Conneman Susan , one of the Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on . Hold . Board Member Conneman — Sorry. Mr. Carr — It was my understanding that the Lab . was interested in . it because they wanted to keep the wetland intact and that the donation was also including and upland buffer. So it's not just being a wetland , it's gonna be the woods surrounding it and was being donated to the Lab and that was . the important part and I think the idea of having that green space in the center is a deposit . : . one other item was mentioned about the unique natural area . . It made no sense to me that the county changed the boundaries of the unique natural area the last time around . It didn 't make any sense , because they , avoided wooded areas that were outside of Mr. LucenteIs land and they also drew the boundaries of the unique natural area over the existing on I think that's Sanctuary It made no sense to draw a boundary of homes that were already built out there and saying it's unique natural area . There was existing homes and there were sewers . and water and all . those structures were already . there . And . they told us on several occasions that they were gonna retract that statement and they never did . I .think it was a mistake : Board Member Mitrano — So in other words given the boundaries , whether they are correct or not, given whatever map exists , no homes are being proposed to be built on what they have demarcated as unique natural area , true or false? Mr.. Carr - Well , unique natural area includes most of Mr. Lucente's property and also includes existing homes on . Sanctuary Drive . Board Member Mitrano - Most of his property that's under proposal here? Mr. Fabbroni - No homes are in wetlands of any kind . Board Member Mitrano - I am not talking about wetland now. Mr. Carr - She's . . . Mr. Fabbroni - You asked earlier, I am just distinguishing the two things . No homes are in any wetlands of any kind , nor are any structures in any wetlands. of any kind . However, the homes are in unique natural area . The unique natural areas, as we have said , we did diverge study, we did a number of studies to show that that should not have been extended number one . It's also just we have a latter which you would see in your packet from the last meeting from the county , the Director of Planning , that said it's just a suggestion , it's not, in other words, you don't need to exclude development. in a unique natural area . We just have to address all of the issues . We addressed the bird issue . We have addressed the fact that Sanctuary Drive was there incidentally Mr. Lucente did not build Sanctuary Drive , nor does he own any. of the properties on Sanctuary Drive while we speak of that. _Board Member Mitrano - Mr. Fabbroni , I just want to ask this gentleman , . : . Mr. Fabbroni I 'm sorry. Board Member Mitrano - . . . some factual questions and we can maybe go to persuasion later, but, so this unique natural area is inclusive of some of the land in this proposal? Mr. Carr - Yes , and 1 included a letter in the packet the last time around showing the mapping of what is in a unique natural area . Board Member Mitrano - Okay. Thank you . Chairperson Wilcox - Essentially all of the land proposed for this job is in a unique . natural area . That's the U &A 106 is currently delineated : Larry made reference to something that Ed Marx wrote . I ' ll just read it, the U &A inventory is meant as a land use planning tool to guide municipal decision making about development on environmentally sensitive land is not a legally binding document. It's our decision is what the county is saying . It's a tool for us to use one of the many tools to determine whether this is area that should be developed or not or to what density. Board Member Mitrano - May I ask a couple of other questions? Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely. The floor is your. Board. Member Mitrano — To your knowledge , as they say in court, have there been any other proposals by any developers , towns , municipalities, not-for-profit organizations to take all of this land and put it in some type of trust reserve contingency for environmental conservation ? Mr. Fabbroni — Your question is related to this project? Board Member Mitrano — Yeah, this land right here . Mr. Fabbroni To my knowledge , this is one of the largest .gifts to a nonprofit : . . Chairperson Wilcox — You ' re not answering the questions . Larry . . . . Mr. Fabbroni — I 'm sorry. Chairperson Wilcox — Repeat it. Board Member Mitrano — In sum , has there been any other, particularly from some not for profit or conservation minded organization to purchase all of this land . Mr. Fabbroni = No . Board Member Mitrano — Thank you . I ' m all set. Chairperson Wilcox — We've covered the U &A. We've covered the architectural stuff. We've got to go back and look at pedestrian safety a little bit more , covered the structures , the cost . . . someone mentioned streetlights : My assumption is interested in streetlights, you need to go to the Town Board and request a lighting district. Right? We as the Planning Board , I don 't think it had been authorized through zoning regulations to require street lighting . . . Mr. Kanter — Well 1 believe the subdivision regulations do allow consideration of adequate lighting , although typically that has not been done by this board ,. but if the board felt that lighting was an important issue , you could require it and it . could be paid for through the formation of the lighting district. Chairperson Wilcox . . . . of a lighting district and the tax that then goes along with it, Mr. Kanter - But again , that is , I don 't know if there are . any existing lighting districts in this Northeast area : Mr. . Fabbroni — Forest Home . Mr. Kanter — But it would be interesting , I don 't think it would be necessarily wrong or a bad idea to do it in an isolated area of a broader community. There are some just several blocks of residential areas that come to the Town Board and ask for streetlight: Board Member Mitrano — Is this a cost benefit question though ? Are some people going to be concerned about light pollution ? Chairperson Wilcox — Of course . The other issue is , is that I think the person who spoke was talking about the need for lighting in an area that has already been subdivided and which is not part of the actual subdivision that's in front of us . Then we get into that whole issue of the jurisdiction of this board and what parcels we have jurisdiction over. And the parcels are the ones that are in front of us , not the neighboring parcels . Mr. Kanter — And if the residents of that established area are interested in street lighting they could petition the Town Board to formulate a lighting district . Chairperson Wilcox — Eva , go ahead . Board Member Hoffmann — I thought that the. Town everywhere has a street light wherever there are streets that intersect each other and I assume that's true up in this area , too . Mr: Fabbroni - That's correct. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Board Member Mitrano — You know, I don 't think that's true just as a matter of conversation on , say, Chase Lane and La Grand or even Chase Lane and Kay. Board Member Hoffmann — There are not streetlights at intersections there? . Board Member Mitrano — I don 't think so . Mr. Fabbroni — I would be surprised if there wasn 't one at every intersection . That's. pretty much what the Town pays for. And then there's two lighting , districts that I 'm aware of. Glenside and Forest Home . Chairperson Wilcox — Clover Lane has a lighting district, for example . Mr. Kanter — There are actually about 8 or so around Town in different areas . Board Member Mitrano — Okay, I ' ll table that conversation . Chairperson Wilcox — The gentleman who spoke near the end very eloquently about do we have to build here . That's something we as a board have wrestled with before . My position is pretty clearly, the owner of .the land has the right to build as granted to them under the zoning ordinance . The zoning ordinance restricts what they can build , how big it is to some extent in terms of lot coverage . How close they can get to the lot lines . But as the owner of the land they have an inherent right to build something that's consistent with. the zoning and is approved by the board . Yea , it might be nice to have this land . purchased under some method that would conserve . it. Or the neighbors purchasing the lots behind them .- Potentially another way to conserve some of the land is the potential that the neighbors could , should the subdivision go through , I should say that . of course , that the neighbors could purchase the lots behind them and in affect preserve some of the land . The question was well put before this board I thought. Board Member Hoffmann — There are occasions when we can restrict a person rfrom building on a piece of land if it is too steep and it would . cause terrible erosion . Chairperson Wilcox — Correct. Board Member Hoffmann — Which would affect land - beyond . thiSr particular parcel or if as in this case there are wetland areas. We wouldn't permit. building on the wetlands, but that's not true in this case . Board Member Thayer , — But they are not building on the wetland . Chairperson Wilcox — Town Attorney , the question was :asked about what will . . we , meaning the Planning Board , do if Cornell won't take the land and I believe that the resolution as drafted addresses that: Ms . Brock - Prior to final site plan approval , Cornell needs to submit a letter or they need to submit a letter signed by Cornell stating that Cornell agrees to accept ownership of the facilities and maintenance facilities . So if that condition isn't met, then they aren 't entitled to final site plan approval . Board Member. Mitrano - They aren 't entitled to? Ms. Brock — They aren 't entitled to final site plan approval Chairperson Wilcox — Final subdivision approval . Ms . Brock — I ' m sorry. Subdivision . Board Member Conneman — Where is this? Ms . Brock — Let's find it. Its i . Board Member Hoffmann I was actually wondering , Susan , while we are on that point if one couldn 't add something about that letter we are expecting from Cornell about accepting the donation . Some language about that in the same category' . Mr. Kanter — I think i . is written . . . it doesn 't cover the full donated lands . . It talks really specifically about- stormwater facilities . So I think it could be broadened out to talk more about the lands proposed for donation . Chairperson Wilcox — I clearly get the sense that that needs to be part of the subdivision and if those lands are not donated to Cornell then . . . Board Member Mitrano — We need to know what is going on . Chairperson Wilcox — Then . we potentially go back and start again or do something different. Board Member Thayer - Right. Chairperson Wilcox — Susan , you are all set with that for now? We are getting ahead of ourselves a little bit. Do we want to talk about pedestrian safety? I think they have come back and offered some changes here with regard to sidewalks : Yellow stripping on one particular road . I think you said which road , Larry. Mr. Fabbroni — Briarwood . Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you . Yes . Board Member Howe - I think that . needs to be more . . . (not audible) . . . Susan, in your memo , it sort of implies , . . is this still an ongoing discussion ? It talks about trees maybe being. used . Ms . Ritter — When I wrote the memo , we had yet to meet with Fred , Dan , staff and . Larry. Chairperson Wilcox — Which Fred ? For the record , which Fred ? Ms . Ritter — Fred Noteboom . Chairperson Wilcox - Who is the? Ms . Ritter — Highway Superintendent. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you . Ms . Ritter — . After that we did meet with Larry and he has now presented a lot of those elements that were suggested to be implemented . Board Member Howe — I would like to see more proactive traffic calming measures . Board Member Mitrano — .Such as? Board Member Howe I am not sure that I can throw out which would be most appropriate , but I think that different colored asphalt isn 't enough . I would . like to see more proactive measures . Board Member Conneman — The City of Ithaca on Buffalo Street has raised areas . That slows people down . Board Member Talty — I ' m not a big fan of those because , in. my opinion , we live approximately 6 months of the year in the winter. I have yet to see , because they are so new, what the impact has been on the plows when they go over ,those because know when l go over them , even if you go over at 10 , .15 mph , there is. still and impact. can tell you that the plows are going over it at 15 mph when they are going . through and the impact on the machinery, now granted safety is safety, but I just don't, think that that is a . :. . an unproven . , . Board Member Mitrano — Don 't they have raise plow signs for that kind of thing ? Board Member Talty — For the middle of the street; not for the ones that are curved right in the middle of the intersection . Board Member Mitrano -- Well , maybe they need to put them in there: Board Member. Talty - Or some of the crosswalks that are raised because when they go and . make .theirswing around , they don 't stop . So traditionally, like manhole covers and things of that sort that is when they raise the plow or the wing I should say. . : So I don 't know what the answer is to that particular thing . I tell you what I . am also not a fan of is taking the road and making it narrow because I ' ll tell you , I don 't seethe cars on some of these streets slowing down because it is supposed to be traffic %calming .. They are going just as fast and they are getting a . little bit closer to. . the other, cars or the pedestrians depending on which side they are talking. about: So I don 't know what the answer .is , but l don 't think those are two of the answers. Board Member Thayer - I agree with the raised intersection . ; Up here [9 don't think it is appropriate . It is on Buffalo Street because of the .schools : Obviously we don 't have that. problem here . I don 't know the answer either, but I think that colored. asphalt is . definitely better than nothing. Board Member Talty — That's for sure . Board Member . Hoffmann — Except that you don 't see it in the winter. Board Member Thayer = No . That's true . What are you. going to do? Board Member Mitrano - I ' ll vote for. . . Board Member Thayer — Every intersection has that problem . Board Member Conneman — It's not the schools , Larry , it's the kids . Board Member Thayer — Well , true . Board Member Mitrano — So's Trix, Board Member Talty —. And the other thing with narrowing the. streets , the bicyclist never uses the sidewalks . So where are they going . Ms . Ritter — Can 'l speak to that? I think we have learned a lot in our transportation committee . . We have had a lot of research provided and there is evidence showing if you narrow the pavement, that people do : slow down ` and . when you are . in a neighborhood that should only be 30 mph , 35 mph , the bicyclists would be in the same lane as the cars essentially. Then you have a separate sidewalk away from the road where the pedestrians would go . I think there is enough evidence to show why roads make people feel like they can speed . Wide , straight roads are much different than narrow roads and the proposal that has been made is. to narrow the lanes down to 10 . feet and actually . have false pavement where you can actually grow vegetation right up to the road so it is still stabilized with asphalt, but apparently you can grow grass and that is what Fred Noteboom told me . Board Member Talty I am still very suspect of the whole thing . I think that if you have got 10 speeders , you may: eliminate 8 , but.. . . Ms . Ritter — You are going to have speeders. and people who behave poorly everywhere : Board Member Talty — I just don 't think that you have enough area to get out of the way. .I think that whether you face traffic when you are walking or you are riding with traffic . I ' ll tell you what kills me is the bicyclist in the middle of the road . It does because if I'm . ,going 15 they are going 5 . And the other thing , I got about 3 , 000 pounds on them . Chairperson Wilcox — Maybe more . . Board Member Talty - Maybe more . So I just don 't think . . . the statistics may be there . . and I understand that appreciate what you are saying , but ultimately. . . I mean I grew up on a 4-lane highway in Buffalo . Union Road . I don 't know if anyone is familiar with Union Road . : . Board Member Mitrano — I know Union Road , Board Member Talty — But it is 45 to . 55 mph and there just is not enough time to get out of the way. Ms . Ritter — That's the difference , Kevin . When you are on a road . . . I mean Hanshaw Road is not being built so that bikes and autos are in the same lane because the speed is high you are segregating them . You have pedestrians on sidewalks . You have the bicyclists on the shoulder, and then you have the cars . This is a neighborhood where people should be driving 35 . It is a fairly curvy road on Birchwood Drive so people should be driving slowing and you shouldn 't need : a separate shoulder. That is. the latest . thinking . Board Member Talty — That is the ideal world . That is true . Board Member Conneman - Kevin ; I think Judd Falls Road , when they . . . the Town was very clever how they narrowed that and people go slower there because I go down it all the time . People go slower: I think there is evidence to that: .Board Member Talty - But Pine. Tree is also narrow and people zip through there . Right? Board , Member Hoffmann — Yes . Board Member Talty - I mean you take your life into your own hands if you walking at, 8 o' clock or 5 o'clock. Mr. Kanter — That is actually an ideal road for . a traffic-calming plan . . I am sure the Town will work with the County to try to get something like that done because that road really needs it. Board Member Mitrano — I would be willing to vote for all three. things . The painting , the raised and the narrowing of the road . Board . Member. Hoffmann — Well , I would like to suggest that the applicants leave tonight with some homework . to do in trying to come back with suggestions for us for. how they can implement traffic calming in this area and then give a choice of different alternatives to work with : Mr: Fabbroni — The staff met . . . l mean I asked fora meeting immediately after the last meeting . The staff met and they gave me their collective opinion . What I offered to you tonight was that collective opinion . You know, if you have added suggestions , we are more than happy to add those. Its just for us , it is a moving target because it is so new to everybody here . So if you want the crosswalks raised and colored , we're happy to make them .raised and covered : If you want the bikeway along that is adjacent to the shoulder marked more , we are happy to mark it more . You know what I mean ? You don 't have : . , basically a subdivision ordinance with a section that says this is what we want. So I have . offered to . make the road narrower where the hydrants are because the Town needs access to the hydrants anyway so it is a logical place to narrow the throat down and sort of accomplish what you are saying without having it a continuous . . . (not audible) . . . impediment. What Susan mentioned on Birchwood . that Fred Noteboom i wanted the grass to give that soft affect up to the edge of the pavement, we are saying that is what we will do . So I ' m not arguing with you Eva as much as saying I brought the collective opinion in what you asked for back tonight without any exception . It is a little hard to know what the direction is from there on this . Board Member Hoffmann Larry, could you repeat what you said about where the roads would be narrow? Did you say hydrants? Fire hydrants? Mr. Fabbroni - Where hydrants are , yes . . There would be on both sides , there would be a curblike affect right up to the edge of the pavement so when you ' re riding along the road , you are going to feel that narrowing affect right up . . : Board Member Hoffmann — And it would widen out again . after that? Mr. Fabbroni — Well , they are except on the road where we have the grass up to the edge of the pavement because there is gravel under it . It will have that feeling with the grass without a curbed affect. I can show you more specific detail at the final stage of all those and we can decide to add to them or subtract from them . Mr. Kanter - That was the idea that all of those details would be shown prior to final subdivision . Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely would have to be : Board Member Thayer - Yeah . Board Member Howe It may be that we just missed some of what you said before on some of the traffic calming . So I missed the part of the narrow road before . Board Member Thayer — I did , too . Board Member Hoffmann — I did , too . Mr. Kanter — Larry, do you have an idea where the hydrants .are located ? Could you show approximate locations? Mr. Fabbroni — I have them on the drawing there . Mr. Kanter — Could you quickly run through about where those are? Ms . Ritter — I think particularly it was the one on Sanctuary Drive that we had talked about because thatwas a straight shot. Mr. Fabbroni — You already have a hydrant right here on Sanctuary Drive . Then you have another hydrant right here . One hydrant is one block to the east of the end of the" . (not audible) . . . then there is another hydrant that is just east of what will be Lucente Way and Sanctuary Drive intersection . Then there is one more right here , another hydrant. There is another hydrant right here where the walkway comes into Lucente Way on that particular layout. On this layout, there is already a hydrant right at the end of the existing street. Chairperson Wilcox — Which existing street? Mr. Fabbroni — At the end of what will be . Beechwood Drive or North Birchwood , right in front of lot 27 . Board Member . Howe - Fred, I just want us to decide what we are doing about time . I am throwing a major conference that starts tomorrow and I am getting nervous, for 200 people for the next 3 days so I am getting pretty. tired . I just want to decide collectively, are we . . . what is our timeframe here? Board Member Mitrano — Is the remaining question traffic calming measures? Board Member Howe - Or are there other issues as well? Board Member Mitrano — Right: I agree . Chairperson Wilcox — I think collectively, I don't want to speak for the board , . but I think' we have touched upon all the issues in some depth , except for traffic calming . Traffic calming I am kind of hearing that we want more details . Details that we can look at in order to come to a final determination . The question would be do we want those details now in order to consider that for preliminary, or do we condition. preliminary on seeing those details and modifying them as appropriate before final : Board Member Conneman — Have we solved the interpretation of the drainage? I mean don 't know. Chairperson Wilcox — That is a question for each of you to decide . Again, that . Ms . Brock — There is also the issue of the vegetated buffer and how to resolved that because they had some suggestions for changing our,. . . (not audible) : Chairperson Wilcox — That is correct. That's correct. And we have a list of the lots impacted in the resolution , but . no resolution ; but again , those are the sorts of things where we can want to see it now before we think about preliminary or we can grant preliminary subject to another condition . The resolution has numerous conditions as drafted already. . I don't have a sense of the board right now. 1 don 't want to go past 10 : 30 anyways. Mr. Fabbroni — Hydrants . There are hydrants roughly every 500 feet to make it simple in your mind . The other thing that I would just say to what you were just saying is there is huge expense in going through this process with the State and drainage and we can't go anywhere without a final approval on this project. So I mean one of the things of giving us your sort of affirmative action at the preliminary phase is so that we can leap into that next level . Chairperson Wilcox — Larry, we know don 't care about that, Larry. Its just like we don 't care about when people say oh we are going to create more taxable property and up the tax base . We don 't care about that either. We are here to make a good decision and we don 't . want to delay you unnecessarily , but we are here to make a good decision . Board Member Mitrano -Well , just to put something out there , I ' ll say I am satisfied with the drainage . I would like to see all three calming measures incorporated into . the plan and maybe I need to hear a little bit more about the vegetation issue before I know whether that is . . . (not audible) . Board Member Hoffmann — And what about sidewalks or walkways . Board Member Mitrano — Well , we do have sidewalks already. Chairperson Wilcox — They have been proposed in certain locations . Sidewalks in some locations and areas adjacent to the road in others . Board Member. Mitrano — Yeah , I was . already assuming that was a done deal . Board Member Thayer — That is done : Chairperson Wilcox — Again , we haven 't seen the details . We have been given the explanation . We will certainly condition anything on the details . Board Member Talty — Following Tracy's footsteps , I am fine with drainage . I think the applicant has done a great job . I think the Town staff has done a great job as well , especially the Engineering Department with regards to that. Traffic calming measures ; am not a fan of narrowing the roads . I would be amicable to the other two steps , however. So I am ready to proceed based upon those. Board Member Conneman — I am not satisfied with the drainage and I think you need more detail - before you approve this. Board Member. Howe — I certainly want the Engineering staff to have more time to look at some of the drainage issues just to feel comfortable . I think I am comfortable, but want to hear. . . I mean you didn 't have much time to really look at what was presented tonight. Board Member Hoffmann — And my feeling is that even though final sounds like the decision , which is the one that is important, it is really this one , which is the important one . So we shouldn 't hasten into this one . a. Y a ss , —_`'rte —=`-- ��� O., a."�, 5�p+t ) ALL. 'or ILL au ��' �t}p Fy C • ..;yJ S+ J' Io, t M 1� �r.�', �f r ° x ! +q�`'�`� , ,• F `� \ y LI ILL. -LLLI t i y < ^ti .+ tom �� f Kam' �� w s�. ' ° min. ♦. " I�`�,�`. i AT ooL9oIL♦r i��cp ♦�v . QR .r •t 1 r r ,..� ter` ' ..%. \ } r •`x a 1 j� •��Y ,,y;r ° ' t. . i'll ` a^ ♦ w s ? ��l s vwj 'R �rf.f`. 4'*} } ya - k , ? �:l> +Z �► . pj '.a.'. I, �.��?� + x} #'N -� h I'X ' .1.iG 'r . _ ;rT moo A- ], �. .. ,1 _ .� 1 IV n �� �>+yac� k l . t��° Fort. w' ` t >Cox pv v N-a, _r. > � �,.A o h , .� far �.}�� • � raj �, Ff o Sr S ^ > y�y�dtryxL", a . to ttiQ•Tia`t r ✓1��+'ry`',Fg�i 'M .3'' I , fs}i'! '� i rr� � '�'� Y 4 riY. ,da, i r rrt y ILL.LILL ALI • �4•`� Y�.�+�3 ' , t{ A p n i!F`�41.0 S' a •1 ,n`" '>Y F �t. t l e V f 9 L �,ti .ik. > Zell? in. o' +. n ki 1 V q � ?{.v� fi '�v" _ e e x r r y. a, Fr .. �'+ 3tfP.� r 1•V �Nt.�+ " rtG¢: 7vieS�4 Y } 'N` $ 'J�j.l `"s y-r;af �l4 {c� „n. " {Im-4., L. k sly +w *$�,�, + �3i - ~ L,, LI tia j u s � t�P�h d a - tiffs V �Y' , \w 3 f 4 9" Y"•r; 3 ,t ,�r yy �pu77 3 a a :o-. �a 1. �d•�Y':.�+ ^ Loot,�,�., � rtc 1Lt� ,�C9�i`L moo) J] ; © �> °v o ` tr nZ tFT ' t�' 01 R 6 ' ..�:t� Sy 5 " �r, -•i l.� ' ,� o r. }, Y.il ?} li r n -. ;5 i d' .e'+'. ILL ILL, " (, `J l a.1 .+ d t�a��''F �d NS 'l r` 1 A ILL ,- ° t, � t x \i y4 wrx \ Y \q # ice E. •+. L �a Vol, ,--�, e .) ✓a` ay [ w t KKSs �. ,�i w¢e ,. iY :+1�[w 1 oL rd . .:F ® - 44{i, �, \tC'WV ` ®�� ` '� •' k >'}yt s ";LI. err 4F cif } �® ' , ., ��.�J \ y'�L,r'�`�x5�•� �.. •` L. �' 'tQy3a ` > : ' Q k o, • > y u'` _ti. f r Iolo, 4.,.I, y e J, F n rRL't e � ha 1 , .� v-r LL � r � `F , ` Io ,k 0 200 400 Feet n , ILL (�� ',±f' E a• , . oil . . dt <<C,•� /� �' ' ,• 'SSG �� r � } r it &• yam . .Mat yam, i 16 `J K��i•'� ��t + `i��+it����� AVIL :- �r +�•' dP-(SIT,,'_, Tim _ _ .� 4.17 tita^ir• N�a.G� 11 e • • . • • e e e ' • • • . _ 1 ' - e e \ \ I 1 • t 1 - 1 S { 4 - f l . I � 1 t 1 • ` � rt 1dF 11 3 � . �- Ia w' y syy xvf r 5 1 • - 1 l ! x n I \ I -, .• Yf i ry x°, sitl p ti Y i z „i 4: ;" 5 a - • 1 - e 1 ` - � s lay _ " I 1 . •, 7 .� ♦ is i .. \ I ! : 1 - / 1 1 1 1 N �ln� 'r III Y 1 � r• � r � - e F. . .. R 1 111 I t t 1 1 1 1 • - 1 i • I - �\ 11 p 1p f1l, 11 all,0 10 lL All- 4 IVI dr- \ - ! _� w _ I - I 1 u • _- - - 'Stream' . — µ h - 11 1 - I - t . - 1 - e a s e i• t t � € J ;Y r fi. xfil eat►ug groI ... ..stet • January 21,2007 ` Mr. Dan Walker, Director of Engineering Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, New York 14850 Re: Briarwood 11 Subdivision Drainage Plan Dear Mr. Walker: Attached please find the draft drainage reports and design drawings for your review and comment It is the developer's intention to considerably exceed the requirements for EPA/NYSDEC quality and quantity retention requirements for the subdivision so that there is no doubt that these improvements will not only satisfy the Planning Board stipulation to match pre-development and post development runoff rates but actually reduce post development runoff rates. Please take some time to thoroughly review these draft documents and feel free to make any suggestions or markups for improvement to coincide with Town improvement efforts in the downstream neighborhood or request any clarification of the modeling or quantification. As mentioned in some meetings leading up to this submission our intention is to provide at least 120% of the required retention even after conservative (higher than normal) runoff assumptions. You will begin to grasp our intended effectiveness by looking at a project cumulative peak pre-development 10 year storm runoff rate of 25.66CFS versus a post-development rate of 9.85CFS. Similarly for a project cumulative peak pre- development 100 year storm runoff rate of 51.15CFS there is projected to be an post-development rate of 43.47CFS. One of the unusual factor of safety features of the design is that the 100 year overflow weirs will not become active in the I00year storm event. We have attempted to blend the holding facilities into the natural landscape and minimize velocities in any weir overflow by widening the weirs. The final planting plan for the acquatic benches is under review by the Lab of Ornithology personnel and the town Planning staff and will be incorporated into the final subdivision submission. We hope for your comments to move forward with final design documents in a couple of weeks if possible. We are available for any meetings or consultation that would help clarify our design approach to you, the Planning Board, and the Town Board. We will then incorporate and as appropriate revise the documents as par of the more all encompassing Final Subdivision submission projected for some time in March. Mr. Lucente has also expressed his collaborative interest in installing a flow arrestor on lot 6 of Briarwood I where runoff now exits that existing phase of development and utilizing natural landscape opportunities on properties he owns to retain additional runoff beyond the subdivision requirements to complement Town ongoing efforts to address storm water runoff concerns. Very truly yours, . Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E.,L.S. Project Manager 1 Settlement Way Ithaca, New York 14850 607-2572198-0;607-3510940-F;email Fabbroniaaol.com xc. Jon Kanter, Director of Planning Peter Stein, Chair Public Works Committee Hon. Catherine Valentino, Supervisor Fred Wilcox, Chair Town Planning Board September 1,2007 . Mr. Dan Walker, Director of Engineering Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, New York 14850 Re: Briarwood II Subdivision Drainage Plan Milone MacBroom Revisions Dear Mr. Walker: Attached please find the draft drainage reports and design drawings for your review and comment These revisions incorporate the six minor changes your office had requested in the January 2007 submission . The design and the changes you and your staff had requested were reviewed by both the NYSDEC and your independent consultant Milone and MacBroome. After providing the additional information requested to NYSDEC we were advised to submit the NOI for the design to Albany. Permit NYR ION189 was issued July 18,2007. The revision also incorporates many conservative changes as most recently recommended in the Milone and MacBroom drainage report commissioned by the Town Board of Ithaca and as discussed with you and staff several times since the July Town Board meeting. It is the developer's continued intention to considerably exceed the requirements for EPA/NYSDEC quality and quantity retention requirements for the subdivision so that there is no doubt that these improvements will not only satisfy the Planning Board stipulation to match pre-development and post development peak runoff rates but actually reduce post development peak runoff rates. In addition every reasonable attempt to reduce the increased volume of runoff has been incorporated by oversizing the rentention facilities and routing discharge through the wetlands and hydraulic points of constraint after quality treatment As stated in the report the developer is also willing to revisit the original design that would store additional runoff temporarily in the wetlands to protect the downstream neighborhoods if the Town were to support our application to the Corps of Engineers and NYSDEC. With the misinformation the public initially conveyed to those agencies there was no way this innovative approach could proceed on a reasonable timetable of review. In addition, the developer is willing to • incorporate in Briarwood II and retrofit the 20 Briarwood I properties he currently owns with rain gardens and rain barrels to further approach a net zero volume increase and bring existing green design sustainability concepts to Ithaca Please take some time to thoroughly review these draft documents and feel free to make any suggestions or markups for improvement to coincide with Town improvement efforts in the downstream neighborhood or request any clarification of the modeling or quantification. Our continued intention is to exceed the required retention even after the highly conservative antecedent moisture condition III (AMC-3) runoff assumptions now incorporated into the design. The design incorporates the design points at the Salem Drive 36" crossing and at Maplewood and Pinewood as you and your staff requested to incorporate the entire upstream drainage area and better. evaluate the downstream neighborhood impacts. As expected the 15" culvert running east-west between lots 17 & 18 of Briarwood I and the 18" culvert the Town placed under the utility right of way east of Salem drive backlots ultimately control the peak runoff now and in the future. A sensitivity analysis of both drainage paths loading additional runoff on the sub-drainage areas resulted in the same two points of constraint.and peak flow no matter what the loading. A reasonable assumption for the reported localized problems of neighbors downstream is that with the 30 to 40 year useful life of clay tile open joint french drain footer drains, associated plugging, collapse, and root intrusion they now require maintenance to continue to be effective. In some cases where water has been rerouted from behind Maplewood and Birchwood properties to Maplewood ditches check valves may have to be installed to prevent the reverse flow of water in the footer outlet to the drainage ditch that formerly only drained half the road, lawns, and footer drains. The complaints about soggy lawns and standing water can be eliminated with better contouring of the lawns and every so little addition of topsoil. In any case the development as proposed will only improve the overall drainage system in the downstream areas. The meandering streams on properties further to the west con be improved with bank revetment and check dams to fill the areas back in and slow the erosive velocities. This project being in one of the flattest areas of the glacial deposits in the town will cause little if any erosion and can be a valuable prototype for planning drainage improvements in areas of the town more sloped and so subject to erosive velocities areas where the depth to bedrock is even more shallow than the much discussed glacial fragipan that dominates much of the town soil profile. Once again we have attempted to blend the holding facilities into the natural landscape and minimize velocities in any . weir overflow by widening the weirs. The final planting plan for the acquatic benches is listed in a table in the pond details and has been review by the Lab of Ornithology personnel and the town Planning staff. We hope for your comments to incorporate with completed final design documents shortly. We are available for any meetings or consultation that would help clarify our upgraded design approach to you, the Planning Board, and the Town Board. Mr. Lucente has also expressed his wish to work collaboratively with all Town agencies to address storm water runoff concerns. Since the control facilities are all expected to be constructed within the first two construction seasons there will be adequate time to make further adjustments and improvements, especially once the Town resumes total control of regulating stormwater runoff, under the maintenance phase of the project whose build out is projected at a minimum of ten years. This is a unique opportunity to make substantive improvements for the benefit of the downstream neighborhoods while having an enormous factor of safety within which to effect simple improvements and enhancements at discreet control points that we hope is fully recognized by those truly searching for positive change in balance with the environment. Very truly yours, Lawrence P. Fabbrony P.E.,L.S. Project Manager 1 Settlement Way Ithaca, New York 14850 607-2572198-0;607-3510940-F;email Fabbroni(rdaol.com xc. Jon Kanter, Director of Planning Peter Stein, Chair Public Works Committee Hon. Catherine Valentino, Supervisor Fred Wilcox, Chair Town Planning Board DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY r LV� D6 - BUFFALO DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS NIAGARA STREET BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14207.3199 REPLY TO March 14, 2008 Regulatory Branch SUBJECT: Jurisdictional Determination for Department of the Army Processing No. 91 -988- 13 Mr. Rocco Lucente Lucente Homes 506 Warren Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Mr. Lucente: I have reviewed the wetland delineation map you submitted for a 48-acre parcel referred to as the Briarwood II Subdivision , located north of Hanshaw Road, in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York. I am hereby verifying the Federal wetland boundary as shown on the attached wetland delineation map. This verification was confirmed and will remain valid for a period of five (5) years from the date of this correspondence unless new information warrants revision of the delineation before the expiration. At the end of this period, A new wetland delineation will be required if a project has not been completed on this property and additional impacts are proposed for waters of the United States. Further, this delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of the Corps Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site identified in this request. This delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended. If you or your tenant are USDA program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resource Conservation Service prior to starting work. Based upon my review of the submitted delineation and on-site observations, I have determined that Wetlands A, S, T and U (totaling approximately 8.62 acres) on the subject parcel are part of a surface water tributary system to a navigable water of the United States as noted on the attached Jurisdictional Determination form. Therefore, Wetlands A, S, T and U are regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Department of the Army authorization is required if you propose a discharge of dredged or fill material in these areas._ 2 Regulatory Branch SUBJECT: Jurisdictional Determination for Department of the Army Processing No. 91 -988- 13 Finally, this letter contains an approved jurisdictional determination for the subject parcel . If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331 . Enclosed you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and Request for Appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal the above determination, you must submit a completed RFA form within 60 days of the date on this letter to the Great Lakes/Ohio River Division Office at the following address: Mr. Mike Montone, Regulatory Review Officer Great Lakes and Ohio River Division CELRD-PDS-O 550 Main Street, Room 10032 Cincinnati , OH 45202-3222 Phone: 513-684-6212 In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal under 33 C.F.R. part 331 .5 , and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by May 12, 2008. It is not necessary to submit an RFA to the Division office if you do not object to the determination in this letter. Questions pertaining to this matter should be directed to me at (315) 704-0256, by writing to the following address: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 7413 County House Road, Auburn, New York 13021 , or by e-mail at: margaret.a.crawford @usace.army.mil Sincerely, 4V)0'J Margaret Crawford Biologist Enclosures 1 w9 c o o -° c of d m « c n Wes .. N a. O O O N Y U co O N N n a mo O c c N li C d J O J ° .� T O � d O m ° " U T m G d FL o a s E m W o J 3 / N v � a cy o J CL W N L E O C d -0 d L J U) ao o e a) o a � 3 3a = g o m o 2 a c y C i 3 LL w mw O( 0 Y J O� O O C0 O N .� 'O G) C O z l d ` m z T H r o) CL m LL C 4 U 0 �� (C24/91i m C 41 7 U ` : t �0 -V NACU td E ° .a O C O t CL - w. y� N C N _\ OU a Q„D N Q a u ham*+ 'mou i I - c b 31 r _ ILN3 ; � j oa J N � M � m � . N N 4 O L 0 -O N C p J N C O n W « m to m yi t] d O U w J _p li vi C d J O O l a LL H � T p y = N , U n FL O c ` N O N m : N 3 a o 9 n Q) 2 s CL o ' a y ym � � r 0 E o ` � o' er A o W m r E ac do yet J cn ap o E d a � � ; a <° c cc 2 c m c 0 • � w mW m LL ,� QF/QZf r^ l � sQaoM 213NjnsdyS C\ y o 0 ?, H a � a ° � w d fq H U m r� aaanu ° N MCu j I 7 U C ° �o w+ct a 1 M . op = d � I N AR L I ' Wadi i i +( a w � w;ad' 3nI21Q QOOM21yI21 Li a a 0 3 X 1 U u .IURISUIC'I'IONAI. UI':1'I'RMINATION Revised 8/13/04 U .S. Army Cotes of Engineers DISTRICT OFFICE: Buffalo FILE NUMBER: 91 -998- 13 PROJECT LOCATION INFORMA'T'ION: State: NY County: Tompkins Center coordinates of site (latitude/longitude): 42.474216, -76.453654 Approximate size of area (parcel) reviewed, including uplands: 48 acres. Name of nearest waterway: unnamed tributary to Renwick Brook Name of watershed: Seneca River JURISDICTIONAL DE TERMINATION Completed: Desktop determination Q Date: Site visit(s) ® Date(s): 9/20/06 Jurisdictional Determination (JD): Q Preliminary 1D - Based on available information, ❑ there appear to be (or) ❑ there appear to be no "waters of the United Stales' and/or "navigable waters of the United States on the project site. A preliminary JD is not appealable (Reference 33 CFR part 331 ). ® Approved JD — An approved JD is an appealable action (Reference 33 CFR part 331 ). Check all that apply: Q There are "navigable waters of the United States" (as defined by 33 CFR part 329 and associated guidance) within the reviewed area. Approximate size ofjurisdictional area: ® There are "waters of the United States" (as defined by 33 CFR part 328 and associated guidance) within the reviewed area. Approximate size ofjurisdictional area: 8.62 acres. Q There are "isolated, non-navigable, infra-state waters or wetlands" within the reviewed area. El Decision supported by SWANCC/Migratory Bird Rule Information Shcet for Determination of No Jurisdiction. BASIS OF JURISDICTIONAL. DETERMINATION: A. Waters defined under 33 CFR part 329 as "navigable waters or the United Stales': Q The presence of waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. B. Waters defined under 33 CFR part 328.3(a) as "waters of the United Stales': ( 1 ) The presence of waters, which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. Q (2) The presence of interstate waters including interstate wetlands. k❑.Q (3) The presence of other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), muciflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate commerce including any such waters (check all that apply): ❑ (i) which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes. - ❑ (ii) from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce. ❑ (iii) which are or could he used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce. (4) Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the US. ® (5) The presence of a tributary to a water identified in ( 1 ) — (4) above. Q (6) The presence of territorial seas. Q (7) The presence of wetlands adjacent'- to other waters of the US, except for those wetlands adjacent to other wetlands. Rationale for the Basis of Jurisdictional Determination (applies to any boxes checked above). If the jurisdictional water or wetland is not itself a navigable water of the United States, describe connection(s) to the downstream navigable waters. If B(I) or B(3) is used as the Basis of Jurisdiction, document navigabiliiv athd/or interstate rouunerce connection (i.e., discuss site conditions, including why the waterbotty is navigable and/or how the destruction of the waterbody could affect interstate or foreign commerce). If B(2, 4, 5 or 6) is used as the Basis of Jurisdiction, document the rationale used to make the determination. If B(7) is used as the Basis of Jurisdiction, document the rationale used to mike adjacency detenminaion: Four wetlands were delineated on the 48 acre site, designated as Welland A (4.69 acres), 110,11 acres), T (3.76 acres) and U (0.09 acres), totalling 8.62 acres. Wetland A is a 4.69 acre forested wetland. An intermittent tributary flows through the full width of wetland A. into a culvert, and continuing west off-site. The applicant has indicated that this culvert resurfaces and becomes a tributary to Renwick Brook. Wetland T is a 3.76 acre wetland in the northern portion of the site, mostly forested. This wetland is also associated with a separate mapped tributary to Renwick Brook flowing west through the adjacent subdivision. Wetland S is a 0.08 acre wetland that continues off-site to the north, and is part of Welland T, according to the applicant. The aerial photographs support this conclusion. Wetland U is a 0.09 acre wetland that continues to the north off-site, and joins with tlhe off-site portion of Wetland T. Far these reasons, all four wetlands were found to he part of a surface water tributary system, as they are all contiguous with unnamed tributaries to Renwick Brook. Renwick Brook flows into Cayuga Lake, a navigable waterbody. Lateral Extent of Jurisdiction: (Reference: 33 CFR parts 328 and 329) Ordinary High Water Mark indicated by: High Tide Line indicated by: ❑ clear, natural line impressed on the bank ❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ the presence of litter and debris ❑ line shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ changes in the character of soil ❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ destruction of terrestrial vegetation ❑ tidal gages ❑ shelving ❑ other: ❑ other: Q Mean High Water Mark indicated by: ❑ survey to available datum; ❑ physical markings; ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types. ® Wetland boundaries, as shown on the attached wetland delineation map and/or in a delineation report prepared by: Terrestrial Environmental Services (TES) Basis For Not Asserting Jurisdiction: Q The reviewed area consists entirely of uplands. Q Unable to confirm the presence of waters in 33 CFR part 328(x)( 1 , 2, or 4-7). i+ Headquarters declined to approve jurisdiction on the basis of 33 CFR part 328.3(a)(3). Q The Corps has made a case-specific determination that the following waters present on the site are not Waters of the United Stales: ❑ Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, pursuant to 33 CFR part 328.3. ❑ Artificially irrigated areas, which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. ❑ Artificial lakes and ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. ❑ Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. ❑ Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to constriction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States found at 33 CFR 328.3(x). ❑ Isolated, intrastate wetland with no nexus to interstate commerce. ❑ Prior converted cropland, as determined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Explain rationale: ❑ Non-tidal drainage or irrigation ditches excavated on dry land. Explain rationale: ❑ Other (explain): - DATA REVIEWED FOR JURSIDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (mark all that apply): ® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant. ® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant. - ® This office concurs with the delineation report, dated October 2003, prepared by (company): TES ❑ This office does not concur with the delineation report, dated , prepared by (company): Q Data sheets prepared by the Corps. Corps' navigable waters' studies: Q U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ® U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 Minute Topographic maps: Ithaca East Quad U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 Minute Historic quadrangles: ct U.S. Geological Survey 15 Minute Historic quadrangles: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey: Tompkins County National wetlands inventory maps: Ithaca East Quad ® State/Local wetland inventory maps: Ithaca East Quad Q FEMA/FIRM maps (Map Name & Date): ® 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (NGVD) ® Aerial Photographs (Name & Date): ® Other photographs (Date): Advanced Identification Wetland maps: ® Site visit/delennination conducted on: 0920/2006 Applicable/supporting case law: 0 Other information (please specify): 'Wetlands are identified and delineated using the methods and criteria established in the Corps Wetland Delineation Manual (87 Manual) (i.e., occurrence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology). 27-he term "adjacent' means bordering, contiguous, or neighboring. Wetlands separated from other waters of the U.S. by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes, and the like are also adjacent. Sapsucker Woods Bird Sanctuary T. of Ithaca, T. of Dryden,.T: of Lansing,. V. of Lansing UNA-106 Plant Species Although substantial effort was made to identify significant plant species on this site, it is possible that additional rare orscarce species exist that do not show up in this report. A field check is always recommended prior to modifying the landscape. Detailed information regarding each species' rareness and status may be found in Appendix D. For up-to-date information on species, contact the NY Namral Heritage Program (518-783- Rarity: ( Key: No checkmarks indicate that no species fall within those categories.) ❑ Global - At least one plant species designated as rare or scarce at the global level by The Nature Conservancy is found on this site. ❑ State - At least one plant species designated as rare or scarce at the state level by The Nature Conservancy and the New York Natural Heritage Program is found on this site. ❑ Local - At least one plant species designated as rare or scarce at the local level by the Tompkins County EMC and the Cornell Plantations is found on this site. Legal Status: ❑ Federal - At least one plant species desianated as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Department of the Interior is found on this site. ❑ State - At least one plant species designated in New York State as endangered, threatened, tare or exploitably vulnerable is found on this site. Significant Plant Species Inventoried on this Site: Scientific Name Common Name Global/State/Local Rarity Local Comments State Legal Status None known Animal Species . The UNA Inventory currently does not contain much specific data regarding animal species (and very little regarding rare or scarce species) on UNA sites. Therefore, this data should be viewed as preliminary and incomplete. A field check is always recommended prior to modifying the landscape. Detailed information regarding each species' rareness and status may be found in Appendix E. For up-to-date information on species, contact the NYNaturat Heritage Program (518-783-3932). Animal Description: Abundant bird fauna is present, including both resident and migrant songbirds. The site is nationally famous for its bird population. Rarity: ( Key: No checkmarks indicate that no species fall within those categories.) ❑ Global - At least one animal species designated as rare or scarce at the global level by The Nature Conservancy is found on this site. ❑ State - At least one animal species designated as rare or scarce at the state level by The Nature Conservancy and the New York Natural Heritage Program is found on this site. , Legal Status: ❑ Federal - At least one animal species designated as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Department of the Interior is found on this site. ❑ State - At least one animal species designated by NYS as threatened or endangered is found on this site. Animal Species Inventoried on this Site: FederaUState Scientific Name Common Name Global/State Rarity Legal Status Comments Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered Hawk G5 S4 MBTA ST PIF Species of Concern Aecipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk MBTA SUn PIF Species of Concern Page 290 New York State Department of. Environmental Conservation vision of Water . Am 9 hreau of Water Permits, 4th Floor 5 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-3505 NOW one: (518).402-8111 Fax: (518) 402-9029 Website: www.dec.state.ny.us Alexander B. annis Commissioner 7/18/2007 Rocco Lucente, Lucente Homes Rocco Lucente 103 Salem Drive Ithaca NY 14850- Re: ACKNOWLEDGMENT of NOTICE of INTENT for Coverage Under SPDES General Permit for Storm _Water Discharges,from CONSTRUCTION - . ACTIVITY General Permit No. GP-02-01 Dear Prospective Permitted: This is to acknowledge that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Department) has received a complete Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage under General Permit No. GP-02-01 for the ginstruction activities located at: iarwood II Subdivision rchwood Drive Ithaca NY 14850- County: Tompkins Pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) Article 17, Titles 7 and 8, ECL Article 70, discharges in accordance with GP-02-01 from the above construction site will be authorized 5 business days from 7/9/2007 which is the date we received your final NOI, unless notified ditlerently by the Department. The permit identification number for this site is: NYR 1ON189 . Be sure to include this permit identification number on any forms or correspondence you send us. When coverage under the permit is no longer needed, you must submit a Notice of Termination to the Department. This authorization is conditioned upon the following: 1 . The information submitted in the NOI received by the Department on 7/9/2007 is accurate and complete. 2: You have developed a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that complies with GP-02-01 which must be implemented as the first element of construction at the above-noted construction site. Activities related to the above construction site comply with all other requirements of GP-02-01 . — NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION REGULATORY FEE DETERMINATION UNIT v Boa 5973 GPO . New York, New York 10087-5973 INVOICE NUMBER : 2521000760000 INVOICE DATE : 09/08/2008 MAIL TO : LUCENTE HOMES PAGE : 2 103 SALEM DR ITHACA , NY 14850 ATTENTION : ROCCO LUCENTE BILLING PERIOD : 01/01/2008- 12/31/2008 »» 2008 STATE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PROGRAM FEE - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DAILY SPDES FACILITY DISCHARGE FEE ID NO FACILITY NAME AND LOCATION CATEGORY (MGD) AMOUNT R10N189 BRIARNOOD II SUBDIV GENERAL 0 . 0000 $ 50 . 00 INITIAL AUTHORIZATION FEE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FUTURE SPDES DISTURBED IMPERVIOUS ID NO - - - - - - - - FACILITY NAME AND LOCATION - -ACRES -ACRES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - R10N189 BRIARWOOD II SUBDIV 21 . 0000 7 . 2000 3 , 210 . 00 2008 TOTAL STATE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PROGRAM FEE : 8 3 , 260 . 00 < Invoice Number 2521000760000 continued on page 3 > 9 � eei ' . .h' 0 • e y soYhf we.yi JM"y_ _�I �j 1 F ___✓_ _i �_— _ _ rrr I 6 h �•� add !� irl. 1.. Y„ 1.3 4 F� dI nit .4 1 141; It pp a I � I r na 14 1 ° - I .44 l s . A 61 ffT 8° arr , s•r I o M •1 �. Y . .✓e! - • I ♦t is a .: . yr • Lc , rr n� i1r y s.r e< I' 041 - F J I °I v lie-ow I a cos. jg� ' Las � 9uc ©Q _ - ® n5JON, If TII If ME If T _ �r '� ' I �,-a �� � �. rF rc '° a-sv�1 .4' `�� e:•Q �{ '1r.S � 1 r If i ' : �.._ -c•rtax z> -• c "'" , ° -c r .�.t r , <.t ^+ k'tyy3J�'° �fKLLLL �dr� - '-^ ? i-' 'f e "+�-°' -•a'4^`Y .r( is O y '�'_1 n i t ItK'� ttp.' f'r�c.1% It le tow . r 'C - i � .• �'� n rr' � r*•'ee* . T-".�' :a .'4"Px F�7 f'�'� �•� IrY Sri I `f '. .a.klya - r a •' . [, a .. t- o ,•T t r NYC .�. i^If,`t to a F s—.' 3 ... 'f'' •- P 1 i +i r4 .lct o .... F i "r P 1�'y'- fr� Y _ y _ rr I.- If I r >. U Gf C y�� ) Y F °'ti�c r �/ -s w- y t ''" la n r{• c ASS'y wt } `" r�'3iy � nc R (y� 7 _ {y ' �M� > SItIt tr.�,�yC�ic r � ^� l_� III I, nR,`y, �>r3,'wF fk+ Y,t ; Yry ` II JS rl r Nil a'i v . 4y+i t •. `1b ' U ( , r •�. 'Nth 'UVL.ly } „� Tt i t_•1 + r �.Y • ! r 11 U LJ 4 v tZ 1' -x�(p If•• Fn y ter 't r 'r \" t :sue ' ; v' 1� 4 . al�> , S '. .'J r• � Y \' ; ? . \ ,y� rte 3 1 `�bf l If Yf,' ; i J. ' IC "' -.'4i_ 'a v 1 a ;o tY�. j°'we. 1 . • ' -o . .a,,[. ..I rpt`. %,'. ti tv ��ti rTp1 � '\ \ ,�� llr (N rn If wIff �I It ' 11. t 1 NP VI q }lff 01 �- , I1Y , �• f� } YR ati ` CIE Se 411 r1 s vI 17V fI t" qt rA � y` � # 1i? r14` L ,.� � r, •' 1 . d� s. 1� rr� +2 x 'Y �l{A �,,. + .y� . b � it a�)y�r � �S I All IS Lr�- tYf � ~ 5 �'�.� 4 (' y' . • ,dr � j'{rc It n�1f41Ri,.� 4' 1 It`t „ m M (• 11 ti t II ac r IA, �Y;` � t [ ' • w� ..f�_'1- -1r sl1 � �i. If If u '. . . 4ttYa!SY,�4`Cr T 1�ynr.,Y 1 a M�i 1• t I;+S;:'t t 'T 1. to I It It ./Lt4 e i V I P p • e _ If If I ..�f"i �� �1 r- nr� � �• %Ff STS yY,I X1[4 /:� 1��t �'1 t) 1 �� � .JY q, Ilk if I I p, , l. v i .I( y'rl / V r, t �, ' [ , y J ' 'r Xr� { 1 y p • ' ( I / .�y rt rf' JJ.l 1, " l f}.��✓ . ri•• r - n t vS ' �1(4t (} � l � • ^ � ' � � ° �`afit �d' t fif la r . n ., lr \ '1.' I « • {q 1 �, i ,fr arr� ryy \jr r ' i 1 f •' ..: • I :.�I if] . }s , t �5 ' ' ', .if% /� . . - •/t';, {�� u�gtf,irQ ,>� � n� 4tY It r, { O /� .F �. COY �' ` � l f ,h Y3 � �D� cif ,•�' y', {�ly , ii . a11�$( �� r, ,C , ) ' �� iF •.1', ✓ 1 S'F .T >• A� + _ : , k ilc �!iz •} Y /I }: :1}I C r/i ' "F� . . , t' billy If ^ n.:,i. [ ,. t r Y - reef ► 'b• •��ti 1�t Q �K rj� �'t �.} � f ~ . ` 7wh` 'Y _ w � \wyh ul � t,Yt t ♦3�, [r '!Yr r , -f -. 1 _ • `>\ ` I $tyh. 4 47' .Ji. '+' 1 " {�.�, I ?`yr�y�,,',,J.�� t V4.��ttr. 1 ?� 5 •tl�� t fit .. ♦ M �1 �. • 11 \ a, . .\ fyV 1, < ty. . zrry.t i t c. ��' ' -r ✓ I a 'Lt I tiA.` 1 ,T t A"`r• ' tiSdG�}.: !. f.," 'Y y- f !.'a r •�` 5 . .`� C '' :, i ' r•, .� ✓ t,r 1,�.,.� •, / a ` � n/'� ll r.7r , !' i L f � . `� S tifV' •4 t R7 ".a .q{1 , . 'I I } a Ys� .{ ii ! ' } aC+ / � ✓ . C i ./.1 r ♦ � .. � � ! j� �S yl �ir/C r ,1 ..��ry �iy � � '4' °; y ; s a. — _ . • ,1 it �'' - I rff S ., "^�/` -•r"�' r , ' �J� fCe '. : fsa .. 1 y i,,,{ // f5S EI, f�.,r F # rr' ' Yn�S- . - ! r •{. iff 1 f �(•y\ x 1 1 y 5� j ✓l'.11 ,t.X. n, . , I a :P �� Ir r I I P4�.r 'S-/ t `�ii�1+ r ! r i'F' uiF,'.�� . {x \�r✓`. 1 h./1 , fny,)1'{1 i . 'r. fit: f. rt '' f x :'•c•:. b 5'4 i�. ,�+, y "'Ftil'. �I ,a'(1iX°'17 � i t X� ! 1 • ) It _ • - - - - { x x�, t E. �[- Wx ti i a;<l ' �� At t•F'iSa t a Y' vP_ •. /(Sa 'fy t Y�61 ,�t�y �� �'' •k� yqf ` -:->�,c=�.�"�"�:.! II r A ! F _ p •.i 111 rh.}'.� � .. (r��{t� f;ry, . i , i i .{�r. - f+ ; 1 : ✓y y ^ rf, F • ^ j I I^. t 1;,' }+Y%� a i!}'^ i r \ J i. ` i Nw,' if f(Yli yltl' 1 wi _ ?.+.. W t nr ` t �5 r• o i iyN (7ft I ! t• }.� { rw� It ,/ ' , 1,i "5 !NP / r t It f r r 'y r.t• f� fh7�e,] rf ,+fir Y tC rs�+ (i •• J. ,.. �5 r I �i J tl i -,%I, `/ o �y >.�". t! .4`X, �.3 � ' -' VL r� �' f. l, Ia,'f ' ti,r �1r �Ny lU�' I ^R (t� . r _ i {rr t t�yfL �•.'i�L ; ii Cu +'• / rl j{ ,, ri yfa [+� '+� � �k 1 � i` f 1 y3 Imo ; %Z x 7 \ti'.�t'`� � Y td. i1 `i t ky,r . } • � d )�i�i �t 11 1�` � ✓ yjd it < J Y j tf i j 4 '• }• °gyp . �. , r , f , Jy .-,1/• t. 'I t( 1' C d v' wY / -! ' ' Jyr i.i 115 `.A ✓ Z •r, ,•O~{�i. j , /�' - 4 � f !• t/ti Y `1 i f' f u m � � � � j'xr`7>} ✓�6�,� ' r _ - `.$" �l� >, / dn•Jd'l .. a � T _ tJ y'u If `V Well fR 'y ' rl r rr+�xst . �/ 7} I r`N,.Y Si�%1Iif+'�t} f� ."� 'y I _ ' ' w .. l 7 1 '+l ,r,�p•;I:Lrr�^�rlN'I k ,- 1 ;. `, - - ` r T ', . may +. t ?' l t( i , h R.LL ti a• fi�'+ 'i .Y �' yk rh"14 . a" ,.L- !! . fir °� W �i "'2' 1'1 1 , t 1rlQ� 11 c r r OIff,.t n7C �, _/ , �•t•.Y VY r� ' .,. •tT� - �1, rtiy{l�LL7 f ( rn✓ �}.I•' \.. rj Irv. ' t r v 'LC ff , '/r S,t Y / �n I I If i x "c` yf ' ^ ;. . } r 1 , . ; ' • ',1 i ,;/ r ,'� r (1 If f tilt r h r , Svt+ '1 r - ,i .tee , •. / '��L I/.'✓,/ m' -✓ .w pIlI IL IN III- If -.t /' ; ' _j • ; r' _ I ,. I ty .[ `r - 1 . '. .t 1 I t / C I 1 r ?, I { 1 �! ilyy} /, :'S r I' 'I a' { �•��. 1 , r � ' . f� I+ ,I / AI 1 r ' , ' t l( • �, • , , s alt y . ' ?, . ;, � o 1 , , ' t6 ' f ' it It ll 'it" It If I 1 If t to• C �a t - ,� y N) 41 k j1,.Q a • I . ��\ -• �a.-1 /.�7` iyk 'rfq1 t li 1 iIlk; '7{I} ; I It'' � :1. 1lf I , ,� 'Ar `, r 11 s ,� , It ♦ � y 1 tN y � Vol 'G �,� h "", Is V V �<��.'��t � AJi;�..� ,tl � ( \Tti it ��,,`•6�{ ,'A�i�t(' (� .,� r ' l5k1V tCSeJ + � 1 t 1 i ,.lrrl4�+aF�'41�1 'Iktl,�i•; � ' • £ , V.r .' -a Oil .. - � _ •i� 0\ 13% fir, CCLCCL......� t.T . + + fl - 47 l ' y11 +11'N FtV0} T'� 4 a j � ir1 '. ih`' Nfi1ytli'!!` .It / + ' All 1 ` rt `♦1 � �n- 1 Ls`?�" , �•, •� i rSCt,Z I AI t f" , ` 1. 1 "; ( \'f y`r CTJS! \ ffl y n p '� • lr-1 // ,. �� /. + , 1{1.` 1'I Y NCI ` rt \ 1 }v '• . 'CUlf? \y \ ' , 'f+��r• I� r . .1F a t t ly If { f ^ 3! 1 1 -ty' \''. ( r ,L if • r•' a •I { Sri; 1 r f It I If If It 1 11 1 ■ .'..:�,�,I. 11; 4 1 Ift M I :� I n.' y 4 I ;� ker p . an Ifl, e. �' x ` .Y a F a' v f� al 1{ y )^1 3 i :. S t fS.+3kTSy,Z�� a K \ f S "v r t l X44} .fCxi4'� `i" 3 3J )i I � ��ry, {o f i t\ `''` ';<, ". . �I '*�r"s "a" `• w" ,, n' _ �:; - _ t �,.lr? a , _4 'r'a, ,t;_ .mss 's ) s a F 2 . ail 5. I b. '2 x. y is . • � 1E,va J P W r 1�< t .j x d 4 { V x a k 1 b 3 A - -S - �. 1 3 ` -� T l / 4 x t ff 1 �y t cry = n� y ✓ h, its ! s R s v �yS{^tl q" }Kt ! + r < 3t t tai f k+j, t =i 3 a s nc+ ti,., , , k 1FA ^-1 . *. v r ' -V Y Y6T . �R� xrct "' i, ,: x?�} '�-aG�} S,n k �`-a4c l3\ } 1 v t }r s xpi 4`� /. s rFr j a � : t : i 1 . n -% H i.. .$ A . [4�D ' I � S�PS�CKER T aka } ° - � ! 1 1 1 l 1 1 f4 rz t Y a A(y` Ia y"S ,5 ,a- - r x d sa. s A es }.akyrs _ sz eR h., y a 'L ? 3 f"i " fes 3 ` - — fax s=r & g swl .€k'i c y Ne �¢ 5 is E � " ,� # � �, � . �tH Sonnenstuhl, a member afi the Save Sapsucker Woods organizat►i?n, stands oustde his�enreScutda `; :. �. r w� " e9 concerned aboett drama a pr}ghleins f7 oirt ,prop��o,ps� es! housing; development #o Sa'' �' �'' � t �+..: XxY �✓rt '.-3:i�",FC�a ' ` .- �'t�i+-�... +-n§ 5 � . 3f ,C '3" "I.'ies.-ts2�-i+Y SIX tivS +:i�4 � z _ . 7" s PonSds, not v zet�ands, will be used to manage starm�vatex 0 resLide Sts � ?c Ted N r 1 19 IT By Jennie Daley Town Engufeer Dan alt er �.; 1�lK%ldaley @rthacaloumal cam 't, y � to " ' .� F they haven et loumal Staff d* . , water k# 19 theirt \ -�. said ,. �,y ownstorm ' '- %s© mentplan but have been ma1C i" . "` MA&A=bevel > a ., �i- ` s't opershave ; , 3 ing progress on it, "and are par ' w can . `, ie ',,£ ,M" substiCutedretenttonpondsfor i3 " f3' _ ticularlyfocnsedontbenortheastz S hens e� k � T're . - TT wetlands as the A. p� Q�^;P� ' L9 -- , " _. ofto rest ent who has [}{ } tbe , JlQ to W31G{�I.tVVi 4` S^ r • < - -0 v� j {t •RM + 't g � x F It is 'm the towns northeast, new5development, felt that the ,eT theproposed Sapsucker Woods <u where the development is pro- , new play does little toaddress : r `r. lmusg aevelopment ; 1{ storm to his }T. Posed, concerns. . ,L.that waterseems L TL TL The proposal from owner j r� T be the biggest challenge, often "The; buffer zones are still =G �"'� . RoccoLucentemcludesfourre= ;x I' roblemswithbasement clean ��� P ", y inadequate, lie said tenhonponds,threeoftliemuew � aw�w,� e sine floodings and wet;yards `These minor revlsiozis, would each with two stages of filtra' months ago and informed them Bill Sonnenstuhl has iiQed is o e or nothing to -*reserve 14 ,tton.Thepondsarebu tto1.9 a 1.DEC regulations do not �'sdeveloymentadtacent ese wetlands from the en= ��?I . e L.tually release stormwater into allowstormwatermanagement . tothe nslnce ofttusegcessiveand " e the wetlands: facllttes`to be located in either �� and said he ;has• a r e— stream insensitive develo meat " Creating the ponds floes not stateorfederalj�uisdic tionalwet- tbatninsthroughamrnerofone• , stormwatermanagement< ` % ce the mtmbex of expected lands,"DECspokespersonDiane of his CMWl aces and has had proposal needs ' approval from f r L. es to be liuilt but does re= V� Canton said via e-mail Pro ems Waterseepinl;ut) the DEC, .which has not!yet re- ,1.the size T- four of the pro The consultant, Larry ,from the ground and getting m ceived :;plans for evaluation, . .L. P I mod 11 . Z/4 ed 501ots Fabbroni, said they have aban to the insulation. Carlton'said 1'he entire devel <" = n Ritter Jonathan Kanter Monday, July 30 , 2007 5:27 PM o : Cathy; 'Herbert Engman ( E-mail)' ; 'Jeff Cowie' , 'Pat Leary 'Peter Stein (E-mail); 'Sandra Gittleman ( E-mail)'; 'Will Burbank (E-mail )' ; 'Eva Hoffmann; ' Fred Wilcox'; 'George Conneman' ; ' Hollis Erb' ; 'Kevin Talty; 'Larry Thayer; 'Rod Howe' ; 'Susan Riha' Cc: 'brock @clarityconnect.com ' ; Susan Ritter; 'dyk2 @cornell .edu; 'mcw42 @cornell .edu'; 'frw2 @cornell .edu' Subject: Meeting With Mark Whitmore and Robert Wesley Regarding Sapsucker Woods UNA-1 .06 To Town Board and Planning Board : I met today with Mark Whitmore and Robert Wesley to discuss their letter of April 27, 2007 that was addressed to the Town Board and Planning Board regarding the Sapsucker Woods UNA-106 (Nancy Ostman, the other author of the. letter is out of town until the end of August/beginning of Sept.) . The purpose of the meeting was to try to clarify some of the information provided in that letter and obtain more details on some of the authors' observations in the letter. The following is a brief summary of the points discussed at the meeting, which focused on these questions : 1 . What criteria were used to identify the revised UNA boundaries in the 1999-2000 UNA update that was done by the County EMC , and why were the Lucente properties added to the 1999-2000 UNA revision? Robert's recollection is that there were no specific criteria used to revise the UNA, but that the extension to include the Lucente parcels was probably related to the presence of the wetland , more specific mapping techniques that were available since the original apsucker Woods Sanctuary: UNA designations , and the need to buffer the lands protected in the S 2. Where specifically within UNA-106 were the scarce plants, birds of special concern and other species cited in t e letter observed ; were those species specifically observed/ reported as being present on the Lucente perties? I asked whether any of the scarce plants listed in Table 1 on page 2, the 3 hawk species listed on pa9e 3 in the Sighting Report, the other birds of special concern listed in the Sighting Report, the wood turtle listed on page 3, threatened birds listed in the Sighting Report, or the West Virginia white butterfly mentioned on page 2, were :obsenred reported specifically on lands owned by Lucente. The response for all of these was very general and not conclusive . Robert specifically said that he does not know if any of the scarce plant species had actually been observed on the Lucente lands . Robert and Mark also could not say whether any of the other species . referenced above had been observed on the Lucente lands . When I indicated that the Town is looking for further documentation regarding specific locations of bird sightings and the other wildlife and plant species noted , Robert and Mark indicated that they have no documentation that would provide any information beyond what was included in the letter. Mark said that he would contact a local expert (Bob. Darion) to see if there is documentation regarding sightings of the West Virginia white butterfly. . The . result of our discussion is that it remains unclear where these species were. observed , and there appears to be no clear documentation as to whether any of these species were observed on the Lucente properties . If such documentation is required , it was agreed that the Town would probably have to hire an independent consultant to conduct an inventory and evaluation specific to the Lucente properties . [Note : If the Town Board decides to do this , such a study would have to be conducted before plants lose their foliage in . the fall .] 9 . What is the significance of the plant species listed as scarce (Table 1 on page 2) and the birds of special concern (Sighting Report attached to letter and referenced on page 3 of letter)? Robert indicated that he had prepared a report regarding rare and scarce plants in Tompkins County, and that si would send me a copy, but that the report does not specify where plant species are located . Robert added that the designations of 'very rare", "rare" and "scarce" are based on number of occurrences of the plant species in the Cayuga Lake Basin (not by individual plant but by sites where the plant has been observed) . The designation of "scarce" indicates that between 6 and 20 occurrences of a species have been observed in the Cayuga Lake Basin . [Note : Table 1 on page 2 lists scarce plants that have been found in UNA-106 (the one very rare species has not been seen recently) .] Mark also indicated that Jillian Liner; who works for. Audubon New York, and is stationed at the Lab of O . , might have more information regarding the significance of the designation of "birds of special concern"; but that their understanding, as stated in the Sighting Reports , is that the designation is a warning indicator that birds so designated should be monitored , but that current information does not tify listing these species as endangered or threatened (refer to the list of these species on the Sighting Reports). 0bert and Mark indicated that in addition to the information in their letter, they are concerned that a change in hydrology d drainage of the Lucente site that could result from the Briarwood II development could adversely affect the ecological abitat of the UNA. We all agreed that predicting the impacts of changing hydrology on the ecology of a site is a very difficult thing to do, and that experts would only be able to speculate on this . 1 CHRONOLOGY OF BRIARWOOD II WORK written L.FABBRONI,P.E. ,L.S . 9-2001 Boundary and Topo Survey for 12 lots (27-38) that would extend east From Briarwood and North Birchwood. 10-2001 Continued Boundary and Topo Survey for 12 lots(27-38) 2-2002 Combined Survey information from 2001 and surveys of remainder of Town of Ithaca lands done in mid 1990s 3-2002 Combine all surveying information from past for Briarwood II 3-2002 Field Survey topo and boundary back lot Sanctuary, Salem, Cornell lands 3-2002 Prepare computer file for Briarwood II & in details 121ots(27-38) 3-2002 Prepare Briarwood 11 base map 4-2002 Prepare subdivision map for Briarwood 11 - 12 lots(27-38) 5,6,7-2002 Prepare subdivision map with complete field topographic information 7-2002 Prepare subdivision map - 121ots(27-38) with complete metes and bounds and acreage 819-2002 Complete subdivision map-Briarwood 1142 lots(27-38) 10-2002 Water & Sewer Design Detail Drawings 12 lots (27-38) 10-2002 Finalize Subdivision Plat 12 lots (27-38) 10-2002 Road Design Detail Drawings 12 lots (27-38) 11 -2002 Water & Sewer Profile Drawings 12 lots (27-38) 11 -2002 Drainage & Erosion Plan 12 lots (27-38) 11 -2002 Engineer' s Report 12 lots (27-38) 11 , 12-2002 Environmental Assessment 12. lots (27-38) 12-06-2002 Submittal Briarwood U 12 lots (27-38) to Town of Ithaca for review 12- 18-2002 Town Conference with staff. Would not consider 12 lots (27-38) in the middle of the 48 acres unless a master plan for remainder was presented and approved by planning board 1 -2003 Master Plan 1 drawn up for total 48 acres remaining showing three parcels adjacent to Cornell Lab of Ornithology and the wetlands in the south parcel and an addition to Salem Park all to be reserves as open space. 1-21-2003 Master Plan I rejected by-Town Planning Board. More discussion and project development with Cornell Lab of Ornithology encouraged. Even though 12 lot subdivision largely out of area of interest it was not reviewed other than to request a redelineation of the wetland shown as defined by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists (TES)mi 1993. 2-2003 Develop . Master Plans 2 & 3 for 48 acres for discussion with Town staff 2-2003 Conference with Town staff as to how to proceed with project. Decision to contract with TES and delineate all wetlands on the 48 acres and conduct a three season bird study to produce a more complete analysis than was available in the backup supporting UNA 106 designation. 2-2003 Contact TES, tour land, discuss redelineation of 1993 work and delineation of remaining wetlands on Lucente lands as well as three season bird study to better quantify habitat. 2-20-2003 TES conducted winter survey for raptor nests G� 2-25 -03 Discussion with Robert Wesley one of the County authors of UNA 106 description. In summary, he said "If I had had current aerial photography at the time the 2000 update of UNAs was done and saw the addition of Sanctuary Drive during the mid-ninties I would not have included any area south of Sanctuary Drive in the UNA 106" 3 ,4-2003 TES remarked the wetlands east of Briarwood 55,2003 TES marked the wetlands north of North Birchwood, east of Salem, south of Cornell Bird Sanctuary 5-22-2003 TES conducted breeding bird survey 5 ,6,7-2003 Survey and Map Wetlands east of Briarwood and north to Cornell Lab of Ornithology property line. Tranmitted mapping to TES 7-30-2003 TES conducted breeding bird survey 8-2003 Draft Wetlands Delineation Report from TES 9-2003 Layout 12 lots (33-38)nearest wetland to show separation to Town Conservation Committee 7 10-2003 Final Wetlands Delineation Report and Bird Study from TES Fall 2003 Numerous contacts with Robert Wesley to attempt to obtain clarification of the UNA 106 matters by TES 10-23-2003 Submission to Town Planning Board requesting a hearing to review Revised master plan, wetlands study, bird study, and other issues addressed since January 21 ,2003 meeting. 10-29-2003 Comment of Assistant Director of Planning, Sue Ritter, to Planning Board 1144-2003 Meeting with Planning Board to Discuss Revised Master Plan; Develop Environmental Review for entire project, do a traffic analysis, SUMMARY make more of an effort with Cornell University Lab of Ornithology to reach agreement on open space set aside or sale adjacent to Bird Sanctuary 11 =11 =2003 Meetting with Lab of Ornithology administration to discuss land trade that Cornell Real Estate had not been able to move forward, our current plan for estate lots and the possible sale of same to the Lab. The possibility of donations were also mentioned. 11 -2003 Complete boundary survey for Phase H Briarwood 1124-2003 Traffic count and study of Hanshaw & Sapsucker, Hanshaw & Muriel, and Hanshaw & Salem in AM 12-01 -2003 Cornell appraisal of five estate lots by Kenneth V Gardner II of North East Appraisals 12-02-2003 Traffic count and study of Hanshaw & Sapsucker, Hanshaw & Muriel, and Hanshaw & Salem in PM 1 -08-2004 Appraisal of estate lots by C. Clay Burruss of David Long Appraisal Company for Mr. Lucente 2004-2005 Series of meeting to reach agreement with Cornell Lab of Ornithology to donate 25 acres with Cornell taking over maintenance responsibility after initial construction and lot sale period 3-28-04 Survey additional topo in wetland area 649-04 Survey additional topo for Briarwood 11 8-07-04 Survey additional topo at end of Sanctuary 9-03 -04 Survey additional topo outlet of wetland 9510311512-2004 Revise Subdivision drawings(total 47 lots) 243 -05 Survey additional topo 5-2005 Subdivision drawing modifications 9910, 11 -2005 Revise Subdivision drawings(total 47 lots) 1 -2006 Revise Subdivision drawings(total 47 lots) 1-24 4006 Submission of Preliminary Subdivision Plat for Town Review 1 ,2,3,4,5-2006 Staff Review and Request for Changes of Preliminary Subdvision Plat 3 -2006 Consultation w. Town staff and stormwater modeling 3 ,4-2006 Consultation w. NYSDEC Region 8 representatives(Region 7 representative ill and not able to attend NYSDEC seminar in Rochester) 5-2006 Meeting w. NYSDEC Region 7 stormwater representatives 5-2006 Revisions to stormwater modeling and report 547-2006 Resubmission of Preliminary Subdivision Plat w. Town staff changes For Town Planning Board Review 644 4006 Briarwood II Planning Department Memorandum- Sue Ritter 6404006 Planning Board Review of Preliminary Subdivision Plat, SEQRA Approval 7-18 4006 Planning Board Review and Approval of Preliminary Subdivision Plat 9-20-2006 Survey Briarwood grades 9-2006 Tour site with TES and Army Corps of Engrs. representative 9-2006 Stormwater modeling revisions 124006 Attend Town Northeast Drainage Meeting 1 -2007 Stormwater modeling revisions to further meet NYSDEC regs 1 -2007 Meet with Town Engineering staff to discuss drainage report and Town staff modeling of the northeast area. 2 4007 Attend Town Board Meeting to request meeting with Town Public Works Committee(PWC). Told by Councilman Stein no need to meet with PWC just work with Town Engineer 3-2007 Town Board hosts neighborhood complaint session and rejects Town Engineer endorsement of sufficiency of Briarwood II drainage plan. 54007 ' Town Board hires independent consultant Milone-Macroom to study northeast drainage and review Briarwood II drainage plan 5-2007 Meeting with NYSDEC Region7 stormwater representative, Ellen Hahn 5-2007 Stormwater modeling revisions to further meet NYSDEC checklist 54007 Meet with Milone-MacBroom representative describing project 54007 Attend Town Milone-Macbroom Northeast Public Meeting 7-2007 Attend Town Board Meeting to Review Milone-MacBroom Report 7-2007 Meet with Town Planning staff to discuss Milone-MacBroom recommendations. In answer to direct question Town Director of Planning, Jon Kanter, stated no agenda item concerning rezoning of Briarwood II lands had been on any committee agenda to date. 7-2007 ' Meet with Town Engineering staff to discuss Milone-MacBroom Recommendations. Engineers recommended changes to act on. 8-9-2007 Pictures taken of Cornell/Collum rear boundary 6 foot high solid barrier fence with two unauthorized gates into adjacent Lucente lands. Brush and tree waste from illegally clearing 10 to 20 feet into the Lucente property was photographed as left lying on Lucente property. 8-13-2007 Town Board for first time publically proposes Local Law with 270 day moratorium for Briarwood II lands and some adjacent Cornell lands with a very open Town Board discussion about concluding the moratorium by rezoning Briarwood II land a Conservation Zone. The moratorium matter was referred to the Town Planning Board and Town Conservation Board for a recommendation. 8-2007 Stormwater modeling revisions completed to address Town Milone- MacBroom Drainage Report and Town Engineers suggestions. 9-2007 Final Subdivision Plat Changes to reflect latest drainage design changes 94-2007 Stormwater drainage changes and reports submitted to Town Engineering for review and comment. 94-2007 Town Planning Board Recommends Against Moratorium after Presentation by applicant and dissident neighbors 9-6-2007 Town Conservation Board Declines To Bring Resolution Supporting Moratorium to a Vote after presentation by applicant and dissident neighbors . Several board members speak to the reasons a moratorium is ill advised given 25 acre donation to the Lab of Ornithology and the nature of the project being proposed. 940-2007 Submission of Final Subdivision Plat drawings meeting Town afternoon Planning Board July 18,2006 contingencies 9-10-2007 Town Board ignores negative recommendation of Town Planning evening Board and Lack of action by the Town Conservation Board and passes Local Law for 270 moratorium to study drainage questions and ecological questions that have already been answered as part of the multiyear review the Briarwood H project has undergone. Lawrence P . Fabbroni , P . E . , L . S . Education BSCE 1970 University of Dayton , Civil Engineering MSCE 1972 Purdue University , Civil Engineering Professional Development President American Public Works Association NY Chapter 1993 - 1994 Water Environment Federation 1993 — Present American Water Works Association 1993 - 2005 FEMA Emergency Management 1963 - 196941979 N . Fabbroni & Son Custom Home Builders Mason tender and framing carpenter. In 1979 acted as general contractor to complete two $ 500 , 000 + homes under construction at time of owner' s sudden . death . Professional Experience 1970 Port Authority of NY & NJ Design and estimating of paving and corrosion remediation to tunnel and bridges facilities including expansion joints and suspension cable encapsulation for George Washington Bridge , repaving of Goethals and B'ayonne bridges , etc . 1978 — Present Fabbroni Engineers & Surveyors ( Ithaca . N . Y : Principal planner, infrastructure and building designer, surveyor, and construction manager for major residential subdivision and apartment projects Summerhill Apartments Phases 2 & 3 ( 108 apartments - 10 buildings ) Town of Ithaca Forest Home Highlands ( 16 lots ) Town of Ithaca Briarwood I & II ( 72 lots ) Town of Ithaca Lansing Trails 1 ( 50 lots ) Village of Lansing Whispering Pines II , III , IV , & V3 ( 37 lots ) Town of Lansing 3 Water District Extensions Town of Lansing Site Planning & Engineering New Verizon Bldg . Town of Lansing Client Representative Warren Road Sewer Distirct , Town of Lansing Upland Estates ( 8 lots ) Village of Cayuga Heights Peregrine Hollow ( 44 lots ) Town of Dryden Designs for numerous single , two family homes , and small apartment buildings Small water system 33 apartment units Town of Newfield 1974 - 1986 Town of Ithaca Engineer Owner' s Representative for construction of SCLIWC ( Bolton Point ) facilities ( Bolton Road , plant and tank site preparation , transmission main ) Planned , designed , constructed miles of water and sewer Extensions throughout town ( e . g . Forest Home , Glenside , West Hill , South Hill ) Designed and constructed fuel loading facility for new Town Highway Maintenance facility Provided professional liason with NYSDEC and USEPA on environmental issues related to sewer discharges , sewer operation and maintenance , etc . Owner' s representative for construction of new Ithaca . Area Wastewater Treatment Plant including chemical handling facilities Design and contracted for removal of lead paint and recoating and repainting of nine potable water reservoirs Managed planning , building and zoning , and highway functions of the Town Managed design and construction of nine Town parks Managed and designed numerous drainage improvements throughout town ( retention ponds , stre am remediation ) Performed transportation surveys and designed long range transportation and traffic engineering improvements Reviewed all development proposals and designs for Zoning Board of Appeals , Planning Board , 'and Town Board 1986 - 1990 City of Ithaca Assistant Supt . DPW Owner' s representative for City / Town on remediation of coal tar with contractors and NYSEG at new Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant . Managed Streets and Facilities Division , a 150 employee maintaining City highways , bridges , parks , buildings , parking garages , trees , commons , etc . Managed major reconstruction of city highways ( e . g . Cliff Street , Elmira Road repaving , etc . ) 1990 - 1993 Senior Civil Engineer, Cornell University Designed remediation of Cornell elevated and ground storage tanks . Reviewed consultant designs for separation of stormwater and sewer building discharges . Supervised construction of quality/ quantity stormwater retention facilities . Designed and managed construction of major water and sewer extensions to University system Acted as civil engineering team member on major , chilled water and central steam system projects 1993 - 2005 City of Ithaca Asst . Supt . DPW Water & Sewer Managed 50 employee division responsible for water and sewer plant 24 hour operation , maintenance and construction of 70 miles of water and sewer mains each throughout the City Principal staff responder to third party spills , hazardous waste discoveries , and sewer discharge issues throughout the City . Principal planner/ designer/ construction manager for sewer interceptor and collection system ( five miles + ) to eliminate sewer bypasses and overflows . Principal planner/ designer/ construction manager for large diameter watermain and distribution main improvements ( five miles + ) to improve fire flow and support development . Attachment # 7 TOWN LAW §265 PROTEST PETITION TO : THE CLERK OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA The undersigned, Rocco P . Lucente, being owner of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 73 . - 1 -8 . 22 (23 . 34± acres) and Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 73 .40-3 . 5 (23 . 34± acres), which two parcels constitute more than 20% of the land area included in the proposed change of Zoning under consideration from Medium Density Residential to Conservation Zone, hereby protests said proposed change such that the provisions of §265 of the Town Law (copy attached) shall apply and require the approval of at least three-fourths of the members of the Town Board as specified in said law. Dated : December ?, 2009 ROCCO P . LUCENT 120 Briarwood Drive Ithaca, New York 14850 H:\3018\050\PROTEST PETITION to Town Board.doc RETRIEVE BILL Page 1 of 1 § 265 . Changes . 1 . Such regulations , restrictions and boundaries may from time to time be amended . Such amendment shall be effected by a simple majority vote of the town board , except that any such amendment shall require the approval of at least three - fourths of the members of the town board in the event such amendment is the subject of a written protest , presented to the town board and signed by : ( a ) the owners of twenty percent or more of the area of land included in such proposed change ; or ( b ) the owners of twenty percent or more of the area of land immediately adjacent to that land included in such proposed change , extending one hundred feet therefrom ; or ( c ) the owners of twenty percent or more of the area of land directly opposite thereto , extending one hundred feet from the street frontage of such opposite land . The provisions of the previous section relative to public hearings and official notice shall apply equally to all proposed amendments . 2 . Amendments made to any zoning ordinance ( excluding any map incorporated therein ) adopted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be entered in the minutes of the town board ; such minutes shall describe and refer to any map adopted in connection with such change , amendment or supplement and a copy , summary or abstract thereof ( exclusive of any map incorporated therein ) shall be published once in a newspaper published in the town , if any , or in such newspaper published in the county in which such town may be located having a circulation in such town , as the town board may designate , and affidavits of the publication thereof shall be filed with the town clerk . Such ordinance shall take effect upon filing in the office of the town clerk . Every town clerk shall maintain every map adopted in connection with a zoning ordinance or amendment . http ://public . leginfo . state .ny .us/LAW S SEAF . cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDAT. . . 12/7/2009 Attachment # 8a 0 low \ 1 -'{ ._ '�YY .t"r - F- ^ ✓ , f W �G 4 1 ti 1 . Awn� %.1�r t i t°}.rY.t 5. f ('t' '�R� �' w �. 4i U « '' . ' I m `3 a `�t' �' �r �f fa -j , 5• � �y�,- la . ab.."Mi � '�� • _a � _ � + " , O ? .f �.litt'r "Y' .-=--' - .-z - r 5 � �: O •J as r `Jy �. . ! ? " �3 >P . � . , t 1 � (/per k !tl $Jf+yr.a �•It .t: n �JY ' f r `j{' 1 'r '$Q � t ,• `� ' a, f '.r,,b� y1w�.A"/ Qr"fs }'il ` i D + ' .o F S �l �v i- I `> roo C: L �J}�� z y ` r� � � iT + pa O h X4+°. C* �# l^ 1 !p ✓ ��MJ f �Y '� p r -I /�11�� L ., r s S � 3 . ♦ '� q. ,,tryr y �pr 8` yid g�"4 .+'e ,.2+ I F .A t : .L"� � ti O O CD J ` . � •. } t � A y O � < ' 6r Yr4 s -gi-y1�j�R A +f� Vk jjP I fi .,Y r i s +.t `t M 'fM'}`y' r 3 4 i r 3 e � q f n It ?r 4 i th (1 P ^ 7 0 �, 1 TA ! ; 9yws m 0 �. + c >rpo ° # '° "rt.J>"Q C' oft s$r ! i � I top ,//j��u �/O� l^V t, e P ,y i J. . �( ,y �mw �/ h' `�'I y1 `y} yi - k�U W V Q ` i( C e �. 'R N RR ak 2� S A� �OS O" �L. 5 � .._..�.��IT��' 1 ! f It «' kK P- r ) 1 s.'� -O y f, s.,. $e✓ { n i .fu+ 4-�� a(a� +C� vi #lg ] }°' A`�C � fir . _ CD Q ,, � o @ (n i f 4{.<. yti,S' r y�'mi!� i ytP . .., . a r ogys i * X; m �• v ri" ° J•w v yvT'. S �_'�€¢} r rf k:. , '+ 8 -.,,m''%4 r bt #• 4 t J� ,} c} a 1✓^ .JP# Y`� k - .� r 8 �r y :.r} 1 tz, � aaps C`7 ,`r y �'ji R € ♦ ,. .' or Io O dr _�4 t�!}fi *"<..1 y r .'�+- Cy??ggp' O O Q' k 4 ¢'lo�M �Y 'v ^.7 v i� '7✓ J'7J.- 1 , t O s hy ,] tfr - a ng o i rr' �0/� 4 J" .1 / r '!�'���y '+_ °( 1 *''�4''.+]� � A.A.. �./r '�y}[��l,' y�'"kfi / `.• F. Rt1�1r-. {6/ FY 01 + 04 ". If € + W �� � L `� t`r�+ � �, • s,.. r � F , 4� ) a #f Via. J f S Y �..s,"+ __ , r noI V `. •, r 'y'M( 4 `' It 'lam.} ' 8y{'pd �i Y / a E�, r• +mod i'} y ?, j "f `x! r � o .R`T3 {1 f ,. � y!� �+ fI TL l Cd db. ®°a �•p/ .. _ dr Ssi r•k * $ ' .x }{ �3°< C . t ;r� 2'-5 `�i'' ea.:,.," �P".. ' `Y Lot.j� �9" ',; �pIf € i - rn z �-`• t � H; r i,ayr-RIL t ! Gr°Ib r m y O r f i ,. F Lji + rrof�Jv-.sq � � • so rn i ' �t e i + t r ' e I `III < � ' 1 , ` , e7' ` ..;Yj'ti� , '` =.7?'1 � j; �q I" ,. t 71�yr) .r n ;o I S+ �,ftt 1 'f t Kry'+` N 3 T�T r { . . ? `�' ..!i,3'F'!:r >,�S�.vrA +r'I'.t,+ 4 - e py�' 4 O 7 .J1/ ' s ,K}€iart t 3 CD ID z z N, F ' 2" > , N O m /y�/y�� �I i ,L ' C'"' a _o ¢ a" .1 " x ' p O 7 90 go Mr ,I r ' Y o+ € 4 � �! t: ' , V�. .s. . t t J< `- t4 +c < -«r It CnM r ) ♦ � 4- I r t" 6 �qI 1 r�r r 1 r JdvO f (l1 "�'. I , 1 ', r rf r1 'PS" 'L too, •♦''. - ,♦`\, 9� .^'t 7 '� t Y . (A7 / }+ r )g, • ,•"It o .y-� 'x�' f fxFY € rt°t ., ♦ 4 'g�F s i t�'i trot r tiY t- !.f r x - ;Fe .t.. Y t' r t Z , e�_ *,-'•.+'''�- + ' {��`1 4- rof•�,,�r° s.rt ' c pry t M e� + "1F +D1 .'$ .w..t fb _ i `{r r k a" ° °•�,y . •r+✓d ' rii' .r A �S Ll b 6 A �< f zr ( ♦ 'r C frlt' r � n t �L ' p '- Zraj r ( � N . it.<*t' O r' « AY H' It t< ire .. e a ' IA, of ® ' Ft ' � v . o + x Cfir c) r o-Io F Z < • -rT - '1 t to vI a ^ M Y G , r y � . V4 11 to t1j :A ' C {} 5 {rt y�, �s It O rI C J1/ �I Z rs _ a -- 1�; i � l v t '.P u r A ti .. �� r r 4 •i r- ?. / "} �p('^''lY _ . 1 }r :� . A� i � -s.Ri 5 rf i ( f swi > r rt' € �yw, Q f . t >i? l °,��� Vir° : 's < c x, k t.., ` to m ® W �y� <NQ-o`ov Ju N.y Y of y 9 ��T d� PH C v' c MI 4 r L b yk3r° AVI fits rf °HSI yA1 r.n 4 a r } 2w ! e 'iY } r �f =t a '.h�fi 1,14 1 i ...'4.r's ✓- .� J M m'J Cl) M ;y^a der ?'r Gr 4' } , ^S� zi } ty Ytt '�3i V �; f ir,�. k � . '+ t}.. y r , n- T ® ct �} .Sayf. ,�r ! € ' ..� 75Y qLl 04,4 "{ .'�' "y < 11 �' iu } c -,Sf: €n'ra' fi ' It M s�`•r n/2i .C�h tV Rt .P"t. �.�''.�, ,F.' # ` "r ..j c;' ��j ` t" p 3 ♦ r1i° ..cite JIFS ��' "+ 3 At t? It 1 + S` . td °C i`is iaF yY Z ® ' r dr. oIk t;'� Rb,o tins SN +.V; Ir t'Y `ter 4 J 1 r € � r • ,Kf ��� (,F .1 dy j �""j V+ b' €( S r t ! f'° •- •-_•-^ ia- r t'4. °1,„ r y�i iii "r w.3 r .. :i r } '' E ' _«" Io �.i ".}�v ". '1.'ti' r u� i '` 'i,. t-ft� >, ♦' H! r' i`F-) "� ' '''"� `,, i � ' � �♦ r ' ' • t g f D !77 p �7YYr F } J p 9 /r g ; •f� sa L F ry ^` t Y SY r d A a r P a <k y �GGG 2 / 1 „ t� ! / f f d fC 7''"fan1 h:: r 2r c -r o . f F 5f k C ry ` i iF r e �/ .�`tv ,f iP ha .+ v` �{ Jf' S' �fpt ?. 6tx d lltJ,/ r'Ur'Y, p+• ' f flx'Y f/ Z Z N •�r rH ;�.£r ��Y7 �� I ..Jr, 1e •+S r� ��3-S`' l ' �. j.+� E � �v"„"+' * !3 y-,�tt ri ryi�i. '.; � ry!« ��;/{ n •,• / ® ty. '�' t :ti z i°' t ° 1 Ft x ✓y r}�tir"f ,. J� !' t' _ / yt y . - t {,M1y Jt 4 �. . " i°"? r. .—t•' �' l e too .--•� �€ •�J, i�f�,>S'. r . fz '6'�``'S � .ti, ��v„'P-� '� . �iLu.lg. � t'«-�^..t1s '�'c ° � H°` t $J,. r X��,-C§ � �r�T:'i... °��.k ,,.?^+'fs+ ,- � �I' � JSTOR: Conservation Biology, Vol. 9, No . 6 (Dec . , 1995), pp . 1415 - 1424 Page 1 of 2 Attachment # 8c This is the first page of the item you requested. Hide full citation Parasitism at the Landscape Scale: Cowbirds Prefer Forests D. Caldwell Hahn and Jeff S. Hatfield Conservation Biology, Vol. 9, No. 6 (Dec., 1995), pp. 1415- 1424 (article consists of 10 pages) Published by: Blackwell Publishing for Society for Conservation Biology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2387187 Parasitism at the Landscape Scale: Cowbirds Prefer Forests D. CAUMELL HAHN AND JEFF S. HATFIELD Peoluaent Wildlife lt"�n'1) I :etlie6 National Wnhgdcd r-n lac. hunt, \"121171111, 1 f,\.A . entail ealdwrll ltahn?nhs.Jan Abstract: lamina/mxWr r.{vmimrlhnr of/wwsNirm (wfrt-ms r f-nmrnllxndexi f(lu0inh r?tohthnu mr) n•nvlhr! Jx hn+grnnms prrasifisrn nrhs reruns ilk- mnsafr U/ a fnnst and a.mvhthvl fdd/fea h7 mmrmmitirs /eta ftev fear arru(t• to nufdlru fnuulr. .\'rte• )add, err Jrnind n e(yn/ftrmnfp• hf¢I+rr pattilf4m rum in tot'fnr- a•,rinrfr•nar ann h=ill• in M inl nrslr, /i epv'irs) than not f/a• iprhs in rim, oriJim red arul nnrrfy f+trf fir4a and edge In - 3,OfneaN l5 rpm's;i2_fsd. rrnresti S& p c 0O'al//. (wmh(rdr lnrrrAt•rl a Internet- 11ra)Joa far. es/ staled et an to ben lower fradilhnhd than elm,rh s there anrilola - in ad/orrm tdrl-decd and ev(ar hnhfrols. ?be \ frdtsd and nodf)M srmll' tartan n err havfrr! Ina i11,ryNl/ar hjer7marip onto SS;Y If nater and nmonfilaw nunn"Ufa "So 011har, tirri j% need lbrre fang Owl/mu•aled futraulde Iaehila ha• rte 4arnh. li /hems p.nsl4Rv atnittnitiun 14 per alnlan+ pdirma n'HY/IaYf JuNY rtapY if rot Iw1 htnl pennittrrn limit nndrt6ftll allb /y(tM" {� desrdmvl in afh•rYi,'ramF (///aamsifirnr eras ulaaY'nfram•AS(l'niJinnfhvnon• aneo Un grtnmd-aM 4..n•nr Y- ' { Ing (Preen xi I at) fa rtv sprhs than an nnlYfiraa- and Ingharrhng sprigs forests :• I m; itn/x errens 299.i'M; p = r/,eij9i): (2n /aerasltam feria and aign/pnndll' grrumr "n ,\'tiro/dad ndgwnf s(arirs that rm 1 iJaxlatnrmnr nr(Qnnrt and nsiWnls; f-i) eta• plragUear rear /tic, ma hagfnn Ire raw tflaw n. n(te", axd (f) tin•lhawdfion Awl etas tau' nn rrnarn/Print a/mlewr (sarlr "s WTaal 71arnah) Phan orre esp+rienoYd high pen asffism leer// !" the Madmrsf. Fort on u numfoinrnd INTV4Y?it%- thse rhda serjz�f •sf that tint hnh exbReft ra - gloual m(/erenrts tit hal and tbtdfat tar; fix- target LAW ennuminal oaf a /m#/rldnr' n)ahanl p+plrhrtmm It uryrre eth leave tar dot, habaapt• pall':"rte/a l atllstapeu'Irh'shnrhl l+r used in rhslgnl+{Q n.nhinl i rodhli hear. 4nrah•1y awsr hnal pPothole of r!)arnmoti. PJrJiltl OA Cron JIJ dr Paiujc: laricn•na iJ dr rmdhthrva are+• hu'iJ het octanes R4, ft: din itiWMWIe a rvaha the lowd"Afe Ar her pannmt the /xantaJnrml de ,N,eNxhnt% atar, Irv•Ar: macs A, fare sitisnrn h•ta•nllterlt'Ilat to thoraxes A. ran rnnNlhn de Metaou r _I' nnminrAmJes daa'iadeas It ramplt (it- IIP fhl r i Err ten tsrmlla da•dru mlra air cl nn+dmh) fie thherhsa, :Lem• )earl•, erunntwmra ono film de purevitlnu slgnofhxaneruxenh• nun relief .w At tworinaldad ild amaha del lbs/tre in = .401 nirhu; l7 es/rrrin) yam rn Gu asprhs dr he ttunpfs arllvuontn r Cdr far /hind" (0 = 128 o ddew /S ryMaha) /,{!.�., rs 6. M- 1) G h tablf. MaWtlaf1% alrr aavrdld mt Praha mtnhans de oeaque dr / era) hr, atin armmlU sae egarhs hm&pvhu hwilahr hooky re cnnnnwhrn dlrpmibler am hti Nfulats air het wpoil eta trdivie oorm P dr fro barks. Ito ama d- earn. dkt ,fel bdyrm y tW etenepr eaahIn kiedirmha awn Ix.tab tai do tan Intent,allies ev.n c Svc tie rtdweliars laenrrn r nernesidua nrmp r dirdhadeo a W agrlradlant,grmyas hvherue-)'arfn de a'ohtihlt. Ito epeeprornivi tie nn am. wente far oru)dr pave AIUW thins tea /hecdrnen dr ke Iatlnnrrs de twruaoiunn drrefno del h,.sotlrr Mild color. one alprhe del jafnasitfsnm th• ,\ht4 ahnn ate rime 4 furdrOaannn loan has pdrrmis ah•.aar1ho r" tuna nykawc, (1) el iarnUlfa'nla raw amnnt";eimilitatlrmraYnm "hit a a voindAa art eilaYhi' drf Ihl.4tat• aJYr anhtaa a Intel at,•/ meiny a haJae alnlna ("hold I mi. yin• area adleovois other, anhhrrt it ahunn rrnvlfary rdtar fastsS lut//.ff.0 19. 1% 29d/M p = Q(09.k (2i of p r"ithemn eta fur sfgedfh'arh•mnenh• onawr rn his Mertes migratarlta ntYr- rnfph'alts title eta hil etti m(graftmias tin norm dfstanrhay ra-Shdrnhs; ({) ha taa tie penWtfunu nu fur mast after air he nhha a•nanms it hi: brdad•s y l•1) N nhrl de/alradriamfe fur man hay .•a a frrha aspevies del lawartir Qbr afamJaka trwtha ahf blaittel. qrm total alive n/erlts ate (xlnlatlisnrn rn rt rrer/1• nm- 1 Arpr halmearedhe(r c, )Y'/is m'i" Imanrn rip nrn•,a'rnl (*xrarra+ l'), IT" i W75 .m-rn.a.a. tl1. 1 1 WI Ire/-1Ih {'.AnM1' 4. Y.. b. l1n rttlrl 10•n Parasitism at the Landscape Scale: Cowbirds Prefer Forests, by D. Caldwell Hahn and Jeff S. Hatfield 1995 Blackwell Publishing. Abstract Landscape-scale examination of parasitism patterns of Brown-headed Cowbirds (Molothrus ater) revealed heterogeneous parasitism rates across the mosaic of a forest and associated old-field communities. In a two-year study in Dutchess County, New York, we found a significantly higher parasitism rate in the http ://www jstor.org/pss/2387187 12/2/2009 Attachment # 9a BERNARD P . CARR Vice President Senior Environmental Scientist Mr. Carr has extensive expertise in the fields of wetland science, botany, ornithology, and herpetology. He has conducted over 300 wetland investigations for a wide variety of proposed actions . As a result, Mr. Carr has experience delineating state and federal wetlands; assessing wetland functions and values; preparing permit applications; developing and negotiating mitigation plans; preparing wetland creation and restoration plans and water budgets; and monitoring created wetlands during both construction and post-construction phases. Mr. Carr's botanical and ornithological expertise has been employed on several comprehensive ecological assessments performed by TES, including preparing vegetation cover maps and descriptions, determining the presence of rare, threatened, and endangered plants, conducting standardized breeding bird surveys, and conducting bog turtle surveys. Education M. S . Water Resources Management-Hydrology/State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry/ 1999. B . S . Environmental Science/State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry/ 1987 . Awards and Certifications Certification of Completion, 24 Hour Health and Safety Training Course for Hazardous Waste Operations, 1992. U. S . Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Training Wilderness First Responder Charles Brady Scholarship Rosamond Gifford Scholarship Project Experience Government Projects • Delineated wetlands for a correctional facility project in Fulton County, New York. • Monitored wetland creation for a municipal client as a settlement condition with the U. S . Army Corps of Engineers. • Delineated wetlands at Schodack Island State Park, which included delineations on 300 acres of freshwater and tidal wetlands . • Negotiated a mitigation plan for wetland disturbance with the NYS DEC , Corps of Engineers, U. S . Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S . Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, and New York Department of State. TES, inc. 12/07/09 Bernard P. Carr • Supervised the planting of cordgrass in a wetland restoration project for a U. S . Naval facility in Annapolis, Maryland. • Obtained a federal wetland permit for the construction of a correctional facility in upstate New York. • Conducted wetland delineations on numerous recreational facilities for local governments in eastern and western New York. • Provided technical assistance in preparing a wetland permit application to the Corps and the NYS DEC for a hiking trail. Performed endangered and threatened species investigations and located rare plants and ecological communities on a peninsula in the Hudson River, Airport Projects • Conducted an endangered species study for an airport expansion in St. Lawrence County. • Delineated wetlands on a proposed airport expansion project in northern New York. • Participated in an endangered species study for a proposed airport expansion in Dutchess County, New York. • Conducted a wetland delineation based on federal and state wetland regulations for an airport expansion project in Cape May County, New Jersey. • Principal investigator for an endangered plant survey in southern New Jersey. Commercial and Industrial Projects • Developed a bald eagle monitoring plan and prepared a planting plan for a vegetation screen to shield a bald eagle nest from a commercial development in central New York. • Prepared an individual permit application for an expansion of a commercial development in Rensselaer County, New York. • Conducted Phase 1 bog turtle surveys on numerous sites in central and western New York. • Prepared testimony for a public hearing and scoping session in Monroe County, New York. • Conducted an endangered species survey for a commercial development in Chautauqua County, New York. • Co-authored a wetland delineation report and obtained a federal wetland permit for the construction of a recreational facility in Tompkins County, New York. • Participated in a planning study for a commercial development in Monroe County by evaluating the presence of federally regulated wetlands. • Prepared an environmental impact statement for a proposed hospital in Oswego County, New York. • Evaluated the potential for commercial development of a parcel in Dutchess County, New York. • Prepared a wetland enhancement plan in compliance with a NYS DEC settlement agreement for an asphalt plant in the lower Hudson Valley. • Monitored and evaluated the adherence to an erosion and sedimentation control plan at an industrial construction site in central New York. • Coordinated wetland creation efforts with the US FWS at a site on Pillar Point, Jefferson County, New York. TES, inc. 12/07/09 Bernard P. Carr • Delineated wetlands on a 150-acre parcel for industrial expansion in Canandaigua, New York. • Developed a mitigation plan which included donation of funds to acquire a riverine wetland associated with Nine Mile Creek, Onondaga County, New York. • Delineated wetlands for a proposed commercial center in Otsego County, New York. • Assessed the potential for federally regulated wetlands on a proposed golf course in Onondaga County, New York. • Coordinated a wetland investigation that involved wetland filling on an industrial site in southern New York; met with state and town officials to review the wetland boundary. • Obtained federal and state wetland permits for several commercial developments in Jefferson County, New York. • Evaluated parcels of land along the Oswego River for federally regulated wetlands for the purpose of building a marina. • Prepared a wetland delineation report for a 175 -acre commercial parcel in Orange County, New York. • Developed a conceptual nature trail design for a commercial property in Orange County, New York. • Collected breeding bird data on a proposed industrial development site in Oswego County, New York. • Participated in field studies of wildlife and endangered species in northern New Jersey. • Examined several sites in St. Lawrence County, New York, for the presence of wetlands. • Collected baseline data at a wetland creation site in Onondaga County and monitored the success of a wetland created in Orange County, New York. • Supervised wetland construction at a wetland creation site in central New York. • Assisted wetland planting efforts at wetland creation sites in Broome, Orange, and Onondaga. counties, New York, Electric Power Generation Projects (fossil-fueled) • Principal investigator for wetlands, endangered species, and wildlife study for a gas-fired electric generating facility in Suffolk County, New York. • Conducted preliminary environmental studies for proposed generating facility in Sullivan County, New York. • Was the principal inspector of compliance with erosion and sediment control plan during the 2 '/z year construction of a co-generation facility in northern New York. Electric Transmission Projects • Performed an endangered species and wetland study on an electric transmission right-of- way in Suffolk County, New York. • Collected plot data and delineated wetlands along an electric transmission line right-of- way in central New York. • Examined the site of a utility substation to determine the presence of federally regulated wetlands. • Co-authored a report on land use along an electric transmission line right-of-way in Oswego County, New York. TES, inc. 12/07/09 Bernard P. Carr Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Projects • Participated in a breeding season study of Northern harriers at a transfer station facility in St. Lawrence County, New York. • Established and conducted a breeding bird census on a 900-acre potential landfill site in northern New York. • Delineated wetlands for a landfill expansion in western New York. • Conducted bi-annual monitoring of submerged aquatic vegetation and plant community changes at an ash landfill in northeastern Connecticut. • Prepared several endangered plant species lists for candidate landfill sites in New York State. • Conducted a wetland delineation on a 1 , 500-acre proposed landfill site in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania in accordance with Pennsylvania and federal wetland regulations. • Prepared a vegetation cover map and plant species inventory for a hazardous waste site. • Participated in an avifauna study evaluating the effectiveness of a bird deterrent program at a transfer station in Atlantic County, New Jersey. • Functioned as the principal investigator for the siting of a waste-to-energy facility in western New York. • Reviewed available literature and contacted regulatory agency personnel to determine the likelihood of Botrychium rugulosum occurring at a hazardous waste site in Herkimer County, New York. • Participated in wildlife surveys at a hazardous waste site in Oswego County, New York. • Conducted a search for a plant listed as threatened under Pennsylvania law on a proposed landfill site. • Coordinated field collection of floral and faunal data on a Superfund site in Ohio and was principal author of the report. • Collected migratory and breeding bird data at a candidate landfill site in St. Lawrence County, New York. • Collected vegetation and wildlife data for a 1500-acre Superfund site in Illinois and performed an endangered species evaluation. • Evaluated wetlands at numerous parcels in Horseheads, New York for an EPA Superfund cleanup . • Evaluated a solid waste facility in northern New York and developed a wetland creation planting plan. • Prepared a wildlife inventory at a Superfund site in northern New York. Highway and Bridge Projects • Delineated wetlands and conducted an endangered species study for a 3-mile NYSDOT ROW in central New York. • Conducted several wetland investigations for road and bridge crossings in Genesee and Monroe counties. • Supervised wetlands flagging and data collection on a 5-mile ROW for a highway expansion project in Wayne County, New York. • Conducted an endangered plant species survey and prepared a list of fauna for a proposed highway project in Onondaga County, New York. TES, inc. 12/07/09 R Bernard P. Carr Mine Projects • Delineated federal and state wetlands at a proposed quarry expansion in Genesee County, New York. • Delineated federal and state wetlands at several quarries in Dutchess County, New York. • Conducted a field investigation and assisted in writing the biological section of an environmental impact statement for a proposed quarry in central New York. • Conducted wetland delineation studies at a proposed quarry in Ulster County, New York. • Negotiated with the NYS DEC regarding wetland issues associated with a mining permit application. Pipeline and Fiber Optic Cable Projects • Conducted an intensive study of wetlands along a proposed waterline in Monroe County, New York. • Served as principal delineator of wetlands along the 175 -mile I- 87 right-of-way from Albany to the Canadian border. • Served as principal delineator in a 60-mile transmission line corridor from Yonkers to Poughkeepsie. Residential Development Projects • Conducted a Phase 1 bog turtle survey on a proposed residential development in Dutchess County and participated in a Phase 2 survey of the site. • Prepared a vegetation inventory and conducted a preliminary endangered species study for numerous residential subdivisions. • Authored numerous wetland delineation reports and obtained both New York State and federal permits for proposed housing developments throughout New York. • Obtained an individual permit from the Corps of Engineers for a residential subdivision in Onondaga County, New York. • Conducted a wetland delineation for a proposed retirement community in Cayuga County, New York: • Participated in a wetland investigation for a housing subdivision in Albany County, New York. • Conducted an endangered and threatened species investigation for flora and fauna on a 1 ,200-acre parcel on eastern Long Island. • Conducted a stream assessment on a tributary to Skaneateles Lake and prepared permit documents for reconstruction of a stream bank. • Obtained numerous nationwide permits for residential subdivisions in central New York. Scientific Research Projects • Research topic for a Master of Science degree: Evaluation of a created wetland in Central New York. • Planned and supervised wetland restoration in a tidal creek. TES, inc. 12/07/09 Bernard P. Carr • Participated in a breeding bird census that evaluated the effects of logging on songbirds in Essex County, New York. • Participated in habitat evaluation and inventory research projects for hooded mergansers, red-shouldered hawks, and broad-winged hawks. • Assessed a wetland in southern New Jersey for the presence of the endangered plant species Helonias bullata. • Prepared a database of New York State Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants by county of occurrence for use by TES staff. • Assisted in the development of an automated system to compile wetland delineation sample plot data. TES, inc. 12/07/09 BERNARD P. CARR (Addendum) Presentations and Papers Evaluation of Wetland Habitats for Songbird In the Adirondacks — New York State Wetlands Forum, April 2007 . R. Davis, J. McAuliffe, P. Hummel, E. Glaza, and B : Carr. Integrating Habitat in Near-Shore Dredging and Capping Plans — Fourth International Conference on Remediation of Contaminated Sediments, January 2007. Plant Quiz. New York State Wetlands Forum, Fall 2004. The Ups and Downs of Tidal Freshwater Wetland Creation Schodack Island State Park. New York State Wetlands Forum. March 2003 . Wetland Case Studies after SWANCC within the Buffalo Corps District. New York State Wetlands Forum. April 2002 . Baumgartner, C .A. and B .P. Carr. 2001 . Preliminary Checklist of Breeding Birds on Schodack Island State Park. The Kingbird 51 ( l ): 453 -459 . The Technical Aspects of Wetland Construction: Developing a Municipal Wetland Mitigation Bank. NYS Association of Towns Annual Meeting and Training Session. New York, New York. January 2001 . A Flora of Schodack Island State Park. New York Flora Association Newsletter, June 2000. Evaluation of a Created Wetland in Central New York — EPA Wetlands Regulatory Workshop, Atlantic City, New Jersey. November 1999 . Organized a technical session and served as moderator - Endangered Species and Wetlands - New York State Wetlands Forum, April- 1999 . Developing a Wetland Creation Plan - American Water Resource Association, Salt City Chapter. December 1998 . Organized a technical session and served as moderator - Best Management Practices for Construction Activities - New York State Wetlands Forum, - March 1997 Monitoring Requirements for Created Wetlands. The Forum, Volume 3 , Number 1 , Winter 1996. Basic Steps In Developing a Vegetation Planting Plan for Created Wetlands - New York State Wetlands Forum, April 1995 . f Attachment # 9b The SecondAtlas of BREEDING BIRDS IN NEWYORK STATE Edited by KEVIN J . MCGOWAN and KIMBERLEY CORWIN f t i Sr r`'• 1 ^ !/r `f�f JP �Irit, r _. ��,., Y � . yV� .r th.. . V N � .: ,r . >, t r lY � '. � ' .e.�f • � � ��` .j J , a.o:• . rf n y c„r.4 OJPB 2005 a a t 'V t . fr f . Y f+ se r COMSTOCK PUBLISHING ASSOCIATES a division of CORNELL UNIVERSITY PRESS Ithaca and London {Jt � f , ► 14 a Eastern Wood- Pewee r, t I'M K� < Contopns wens ;a ; ` '`n KEVIN J . MCGOWAN `u{ � ` r ' ; Eastern astern Wood-Pewee is one . iF Nr of the characteristic birds of - ' the eastern deciduous forest. It ; breeds from southeastern Sas- y katchewan eastward to Nova Scotia and southward to central Texas and northern '[ Florida. It breeds in all types of wood- lands, deciduous as well as coniferous. r It prefers rather open forests but can be '� : � � ,�. • ry found in areas of closed canopy (McCarty 4F - Ir 1996) . It forages primarily in the middle part of the understory up to the lower canopy, higher in the trees than the Least "t =� ' + : ` ` ; t x ` 14 and Acadian flycatchers but lower down {j than the Great Crested Flycatcher (Mc- 4 1A Carty 1996) . The pewee does not appear to be affected by forest fragmentation _R j and can be found along forest edges , in clearings, and in subur- According to Breeding Bird Survey data, Eastern Wood- Pewee f ban areas (McCarty 1996) . As a bird of open forests the Eastern numbers have been decreasing steadily and significantly at 1 .8 Wood-Pewee population may have declined somewhat with the percent each year since at least the 1960s (Sauer et al . 2(i(J5) . BBS YI, clearing of the forests in NewYork in the early 19th century, but data for NewYork show a significant decline of 2 . 1 percent per - would have benefited by the subsequent regrowth. This species year, with a decline of 3 . 7 percent per year in the Adirondacks tol 1 was able to adapt to the changes in landscape brought about in (Sauer et al. 2005) . Populations are decreasing throughout they the 19th century, and it remained common throughout all parts pewee's range, but it is not listed as of special concern anywhere + of the state (Rathbun 1879 , Short 1893 , Reed and Wright 1909 , The maturation of forests in NewYork and the Northeast niay: .{ '. Eaton 1914, Bull 1974) . Its numbers decreased around NewYork be negatively affecting pewee populations, as the canopies closer City with the increasing spread of urbanization (Cruickshank and create less desirable habitat . Another potential cause of de A. 1942) , but some pairs still remained (Bull 1964) . cline is the overpopulation of white-tailed deer in the eastern z The first Atlas results showed the Eastern Wood-Pewee corn- forests, although this explanation would not apply to the Adiron- �i' mon throughout New York State, missing only from the most dacks . In areas with high deer density, the intermediate canopy q urban areas of NewYork City. It was more sparsely distributed is disturbed by browsing, affecting the foraging space of the fly- i in the Central Adirondacks, Adirondack High Peaks, and west- catcher (McCarty 1996) . The widespread decline of the pewee , f ► ern Appalachian Plateau . Contra Sibley ( 1988i) , no effect of ag- across its entire range raises the possibility that the causes are not."± I '1' I ji r riculture was obvious, and gaps in western NewYork may have on the breeding grounds but rather on the wintering grounds in reflected coverage, as many empty blocks contained apparently northern South America , much as for other species wintering in It appropriate woodlands . The second Atlas survey revealed only the same area , such as the Canada Warbler. The Eastern \C4rod- : (� a few differences in distribution . Again the species was found Pewee is still a common and widespread bird, and Atlas methods throughout most of the state, but significant declines in the Ad- are not well designed to detect changes in the population of such ` fj irondacks were apparent. Overall the number of blocks with re- species . Nevertheless, declines are apparent in the area of }ire%n i I : If 4iJ: :. cords of the pewee decreased only slightly, but in the Adiron - ously lowest concentration , the Adirondacks, and it is in these dacks the number of occupied blocks declined by 22 percent. areas of perhaps marginal habitat that one might expect to detect;: Changes in other parts of the state were small, although an 11 changes first . It will be interesting to see how the distribution percent decline on Long Island could be real . No gaps were ap- changes in the next Atlas project. I parent. in the western Appalachian Plateau . p � h i i • 34'• r r' f, F� i�• III I • • . • ; � „~ . , .ttry • • • ■ +7 rj Fi �P. of - `■,; ti "I7+ r c 'i c. � • • • ii M, o- ' iP ■ v, Yr t � ■ / S ; .. • 2 rr5 � l f J r• ■ • r Is v i3 .1 . n ns .t. it iT ■ ■ , . ,.. r - ,� ¢ ' �3 _ � F�•t r. � .■ •■ I Iva .�� v,~•F. hi !:; ` .c ^SS { -.. rl ■�S a ib3 ■ . • v, di 1 €� t" t� J •F 7r'r , s ^ pal . z �✓! +` ■ 4 ,.. .■ I / 4 ea x a �[ +Fj xl t F �`} I ■ t, _,11 ■ 'i 4x • r � 61 bt `� <. • ~ a !i ' t �I . J 'a:■ i FwF� f i 5;1� a ..�*�. . •vl ■ 11i. k/>5 ,I it '' J nz /� ■ • :ls � - . , ''b • r rh', S . ° , � pp a '+^e L'. ''-'■ <t■{! ■ rXi' ,�' Yk7 } r'T 't . �':A3?t 51 •e... :L • tip. ;.•e n ES i: .< aShc ■ Y�ded-3 ■■ i. ■tt n: %,i L 1 < Z l ■ _ d ..SCI • :�r,t 'uf L■'1*+ •r p1, ,f 4 } v { nt � 6 • a, T. t;' �" �+�' Iy: ; �.-� e' a `l a M■ k CS op IV s_� • ■°gig _.Y ;"� L �� • • • �W. ..yU., lFtjl � �• • fyyn � n � ■'. h fyyf LL C�yMryya ('- t 1 . i� 3 .S- ra .yttc ` r m • R f3 t-'' r + , a $` it ''£tfNgg,T rN' � ,� t ry yti4 •�a 'i%4i. xP 1� r ?tdl �, • r,t{ 4{r� ty341: +z`%ii✓, $ -a* `p'�`:'y'LL ,j�"�r{ i-. . '(4Y y .� r t 1 't fv -lsvy t �.t,A. F •L'�tl ! . • �- 'Sl ,'� .'r< i < Iro✓ aN 1 � - s 5 � Y! ° s � . s+ / T ` i , �.`4�i tr • i h -rz ' y .k'Y9 M ) •3 �q °, .r >r � �")`tiv �t �. '} 7 >t � ��ad t ' s. ft�, G i �tde "�'� � t � �nfV�t '! f'x""b • • • • Nk= Fil N f 4 �Y f� f� L' t ` at 1 `G •>� [ Y � S ,L � t ZS,. � fl ) y 5 2 � {� • I { x�,� • • A 1' a ?c +s 'k 1 . k A� cj }A .17 }}��<} Y$ hi qi d �ml 4 >• t .T �;, ,(• ¢+YS rvn .y 'off �fai 'ir L+`Ur"+; 44A. ♦stt ! 1 .. j 1 }5 it F' ; } ^ '+■ Yy {`t , iy�('` + y ,:>r<t � �xzf rt `at" + I�, - i?p'Ii"' + t, -f�i ta.���r,fx � c *�rt ��`�- n� 'k • n� � ' � " " {� `i{� � ■ .et,' .,�: • 1 ; , i } 3 i N.y,, � '{e P -AT j ,� -»�<, rTt `y�[• pr � } � , ' � .J ,• S y� aF�SfS$:, � • • , +` V ' •. ' 1' @ /� °tl �''"`[•�,'t Ki �t 1£5I m1 �(; � s}' ' N"tl 1 � i�r ysti � '� � q e{' F i F.. "-ttl4 ., +. a -d v�"'C..L1 r_ �nt•2. 34.,, Uufl eY 5`- ,�,h.:zti . . G.Y . 4,� .�° , { s4;.i �{ }'Z't �,T,,� : A �'l�, v ��,i .r�1'{i: ff s L U � , ,1 id r; The first Atlas reported the Red-eyed Vireo as breeding across Red- eyed Vireo the entire state, in all ecozones . It was the eighth most common; Vireo olivacetts species reported. It was missing only from scattered blocks and`;; the heavily urban areas of NewYork CimThe second Atlas stir`, I' KEVIN J . MC �iOWAN vey revealed little change for the Red-eyed Vireo, with a slig}it increase in the total number of blocks with records , movin `' g LIP to the sixth most reported species. Again , the Red-cued V>reps. he Red-eyed Vireo is one of the most common and was found in all ecozones . Small gaps in its distribution occurred - cx vocally 'conspicuous birds of the eastern forests . It breeds in the heavily agricultural area where the Great Lakes Plan dtps from southeastern Alaska eastward to Newfoundland, into the Finger Lakes region (mostly Yates County) , the most ur11, r .J and from Canada southward to Oregon , Idaho, South ban areas of NewYork City, and central Suffolk County - `:; Dakota, eastern Texas, and Florida. It breeds in deciduous and Breeding Bird Survey data show that Red-eyed Vireo nut %'M mixed deciduous-coniferous forests and is most abundant in the bers have been increasing survey-wide since 1966 at a rate of 1 :2 .y ,. t, forest interior (Cimprich et al . 2000) . It does not require mature percent per year (Sauer et al . 2003) . Only in the Western $$5 F forests but can be found in alder thickets, aspen groves, and urban Region , where the species is least common , does a nonpon 1 ,:. areas and parks with large trees. As an interior-forest bird, it was Live trend exist. BBS data for NewYork show an even Stronger_ ' probably abundant .before European settlement in NewYork, de- positive trend, with a yearly increase of 2 . 3 percent (Sauer et aI ; creased in numbers with the loss of forests in the 19th and early' 2003) : Because the Red-eyed Vireo is already a common and 20th centuries, and increased again along with the regrowth widespread species, Atlas methods cannot detect much change of forests across the state. DeKay ( 1844) listed it as common Found in 96 percent of all blocks, it has little room for an throughout the state, and almost no author has disagreed with crease. The continuing maturation of forests and the loss of farm``-y. that assessment since. Cruickshank ( 1942) thought that its pope- land in NewYork favor the Red-eyed Vireo. Althougli urbaniii= ; lation was declining in heavily settled areas around New York tion should negatively affect it, the vireo seems tolerant of some? City, but Bull ( 1964) considered it very common in the, same urbanization and is able to survive in a wide variety of habitats_ _ region. ::1LE - K tg rY t e, � + a `{. r' r. ! � � .��h °� 1 7m 1 ; 374 ti �. ell IN,r � � • � • � � • � ' "°S � � saw .., i ® • • • • Ss < } W1 ;a Y • • �tl P • KA 5; a sA t� � ' C',^3 i+ 4F I 3z II; t ��,• .- ;' .W 8 • • ; : . i�` wl le, a r Ito s Y r ` � � v :o � � a ■ w it 01 14 n mj . m ri a t4 ;.B. a'f,dF 9t w It RIV r ( r {y 13 95 A t 3 as ■ �• =3 UrAu. t c 1 1 1 • � �,T` t h � 't "tilt Off. �^J + c t`.a r is .F t ♦ a 'k',y S' KIM - �Y � SS �,. .p3.gYy�•°x� i`i�rut'"1l�ts'(�€3 E��Z' `3 ,y��t �. s t ° L hT= t g' a., � C�'ft y' �. e rY' Frtri t •'`'s'-�'S yi e 3;r g $� • = ' • • �` "� '�.'�� a�;�4-u � r� ' M?'`� '�� aY t } • a �� �t`y{`�r� .+yak' ` F� y !Jt If�,n�" �`�•�'s'a�'vy ,'S '�'�' . +c ��e�� s�'� ��� �� g��4tt��.+6 ���'f4 �4k.Fi 13 3 h #. *� �'t°� f�t`�'i f^�' t 1Xt �,�� ylr n ` G��',t�� ��� • • • • ;911 ' a,-Sh'� 'yy�t Y°r% 5 °+.s 7 ?.'+"E.7'� "x' 6ir, "v ply,,, +tr 7 x ��s�yy $v '�kii'✓'i rt 4v S r ``� a T �" Y" '+Lj. s ullf mss. �i � • • aJ''R + ``edCiSy ' t �a5t»�..'td ��'d 9q��.bq+. 4 F $£ �• f$ '¢ 3>: Gs`a`" — 'p8^IFF -'> 7t€ 'L'' g' r� ' "�«'tw+' 's `�'f" :. �'i �& r ^" '". ` Mill w �. r �"bY t w �•i b S '�,r�� `i{ WY. � g�a l`5 9e. nu:. ' .tit' �4 �i} T��`s,�+F? �+r �� � R°��, . rf`•(.h "�F �y`����t �r { j '.:b� t « .Jj f ,..'.- S`a�it yµ �"�y� F ' • r�'4' i.° t, ti 4 Y 'ay4 :' r°'.'1y.i pH �i y�" ✓' "�� ' 1CA� fii �i�;�VR�{���y��. .�tit't�yk.m r+tf�y� g���� 8 _ yyk A gam; p �• IY" P'•'R il �~• t Ilf.. 4 a:s•.o' t tw� 4 el t . 1 Y •a-1 E Y L�4,I' Haines et al . (2002a) showed that acid rain was related to the'; Wood Thrush declining probability of nesting; by the Wood Thrush across i range . At 45 sites in four regions of New York (including 15 .n, yloeiehla 11'lilSt01111t1 the Adirondacks) , Haines et al . (2006) also showed thatWoode$` �Z� Thrush breeding attempts were negatively correlated with acrd RALPH S . HAMES AND JAMES D. LOWE rain—caused leaching of calcium from the soil and declines to the numbers of calciuin-rich invertebrates needed during breed he haunting, flute-like tones of the Wood Thrush are ing. The thin ; low pH soils of the Adirondacks may parikitt familiar sounds in New York's eastern hardwood for- larly sensitive to the effects of acid rain (Schoch ?OU_ , NYSDEC ; i ests . The Wood Thrush is found throughout North 2005a) . Certainly the patterns of high acid rain (011inger et al America east of the Great Plains, from Minnesota and 1993) and mercury deposition (Miller et al. 21105) in the western Quebec to eastern Texas and northern Florida . It breeds in de- and central Adirondacks appear to correspond with loss of occ ,-;4 , L r ciduous forests with a high canopy, a well-developed understory pied blocks. It is likely, however, that these declines are the result and leaf litter layer, and some moisture (Roth et al . 1996) . His- of nniltiple influences on this thrush (Hamel et al . 2006) , rathe torically, the Wood Thrush was nearly ubiquitous in New York , than one cause alone. ,• _ only " absent in higher mountains" (Bull 1974) . Because the observation of only one singing individual '- 'is�. The first Atlas map showed the Wood Thrush distributed necessary for a block to be counted as Possible breeding for a; y� widely across the state, missing only from scattered areas in the species, the Atlas methodology, while good for addressing dis Adirondacks and much of the New York City area . The second tribution , is not good for assessing abundance. If the number of-h Atlas results revealed a similar distribution but an overall decrease any abundant bird in a block is decreased by half, there still are-' of 7 percent in the number of blocks with breeding records . many individuals in the block , and the probability of detecting_ Most of the decrease occurred in the Adirondacks, where the one would be high. This means that local population sizes have number of occupied blocks declined 34 percent . Losses in the to decrease by a very large proportion until the species is rare - Central Adirondacks and Western Adirondack Foothills were es- enough to miss with a high probability. Then the block is no W^ pecially prominent. longer marked as possible breeding, because a singing individual Populations of the Wood Thrush are declining in most re- cannot be found . Because the declines in the Adirondacks were is a Species of Greatest severe and concentrated in a small area, the Atlas methodology �� gions across its range (Sauer et al . 2005) . It Conservation Need NYSI)EC 2005x) , and Partners in Flight could detect them while missing smaller trends statewide Then ' listed it as a Bird of Conservation Concern (Rich et al . 2004) . next Atlas project, however, may find any fewer blocks occu, m From 1966 to 2004 , WoodThrush populations declined 1 . 8 per- pied by the Wood Thrush across the state. cent per year range-wide, based on Breeding Bird Survey data t (Sauer et al . 2005) . In New York the species has declined at 3 . 1 percent per year (Sauer et al . 2005) since 1980 . This �+ - statewide average masks even larger re- 4 gional declines, including a shocking s ° 5 . 7_ percent annual decline in the Ad- irondacks (Sauer et a1 . 2005) . Several studies have postulated mechanisms be- hind these population declines (Don- ovan et al . 1995 , Hoover et al. 1995 , a*= Holmes and Sherry 2001 , Donovan a ` dd dddd and Flather 2002 , Driscoll et al . 2005) , € including loss of habitat on the win- e eeeeee tering ground (Rappole and McDon- ald 1994) , over-winter mortality (Rap- pole et al . 1989) , acid rain (Hamel et al . 2002a , Haines et al . 2006) , and mercury deposition (Hanes et al . unpubl . data) . These postulated mechanisms, how- al ever, are unlikely to have caused pat- terns such as the loss of occupied locks b concentrated in the Adirondacks . ' i 448F: ' # / ♦ c t a• l � x., r ■ •" 'RT y . Vol It ip If law rev r ■ �• ■ FF qg if ,. ■ ■1 ,a .• ■ ■ �. .d ■ ■ ' 1 a : b Or ■ . . is it y • �• . . � . t e . ., i . i s yk �� � - .. i4 i l ■ ;t ■ ■ ■ t , t ■ (1.. ■ t t ' "� S '{ "iX .V 4 :nt ■ ■ _x - ■ it [•A■ ■ - r ■. 1�■■•� I 'Y tTi ,3 i s (,y4 • • • ' �• '� i •� 4 ! i it ;3 1 1 • S r � > 1 } ° ��fi, .�ht f ■tee �" •k � sal ti •� -� ■ .� y1 t �,.�' � X22 ■ ■ j . xr r. iTy' Ifs.- drr rd t _ u. � ri Olil ,rid if ,F a : .� r { ■ j"3 a ■ trk�,X17 1 , 4 10 ff n 1 j 'E 1' Y u ( if f `tit , ( .!� >♦ I r y% T - 4Y lr r n s( L 4� " r> - t iJ : • t ✓� t sr. t �. L i( s 1Wr {11f. • • ?J_ +- ( r d Y+t : t34 0 a a tat �• �� i� `rf r. •='•l1 n * 4 Y t T {Fr a y �r ; Ii f rY ,�i■ `�q'" ;r i1 st°}f � ep� jt Stl +r 1 rte 5 1 ry r Si : r ° y l •1� �_si' r-1 fi 'd • • • • i ( t 0 9� 1 r AS t ` tMY : � � { lYt(•. t S-1 f': ;?, 11 eyl {S{ L S� t , i 1 �' V t f l * t i < y A e 1 + SF 4 1 �"l�tr1 3•�� .1 R.. 9 1 ( La • d X i > t v t lr 0341 • • • Y �1 t ■r 4 2 JAL 715. e t l• < { t 1 ( y s 1 i44 t1 *r ,`�A . ( 1° { � 1 • t° � -1'`A4 zt `j, � . . r ' t .,at• a ref i }, +v t tea, " %� tit n _ r ' � : t t, ° r Ij ,s i s� n "i�,� i fs t iii ♦ �� _ l ° i # i tie l• L d 3 t '2 r� ( r " r t • .� 3..- t l ✓ v t - af+ � � n { � t !- i ° ry w e s � r � k .e Y n .s d _a *::fit {nd f.- 1„ 1 T aP'. P t yt 1 Lx }i 'iii r s • . t r r 6 ,r. �- .. 4{ 1. . ,tiny , 9. i, kd t - ■ r a ..+ • ?e+v � thL r idirt. L. .go t if xf •r t ,, {titer ' 7 irl 4 if X • • • � • • • at 4' x ,l .S yt kilt u . a' r, j 2` I. YS 'S r q L� r .� Srfl ®tlt i� �t 7 ri ; i 1 1 l 1 : 1 • 1 11 • 11 d 1 � ,; :, since the 1980x , following movement into the same area by thee Blue -winged Warbler Golden-winged Warbler between the 1970s (Bull 1974) and th4 1980s (Confer 1988c) . Though both species nest in successional=, a Vermivora piru>fs habitat, the Blue-winged Warbler prefers habitat with more trees;: (Confer and Knapp 1981 , Gill et al . 2001 , Confer et al . 2003) JOHN CONFER _}aa It is possible that the Blue-winged Warbler expands into an arm;, later because it prefers later stages of succession . he Blue-winged Warbler is primarily yellow with gray The second Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas also found a slightu wings and white �Nringbars but no blue. Further, it eats increase in Blue-winged Warbler numbers (Bird Studies Can;;t , caterpillars, not worms, and it does not particularly ada et al . 2006) . Breeding Bird Survey data show the Blue= ' like pine trees. This species probably originated in the winged Warbler population declining m the northern Atlan- Ozark Mountains and the southwestern Appalachians (Gill et tic states (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5) , althoughY',I al . 2001 ) ; it now is found from the Midwest to southern New no significant trend exists in New York (Sauer et al . 2007) . Ti e England. It breeds in dry, early- to middle-successional habitat Blue-winged Warbler population declines to much of its range 1 We and in swamps with a high density of shrubs (Gill et al . 2001 ) . correlate with the loss of habitat from reforestation and forest More than a century ago, the Blue-winged Warbler began ex- maturation (Brooks 2003) . Partners in Flight put the species, ., ., panding into the footprint of the original eastern deciduous for- its Watch List (Rich et al . 2004) . ..tip..., . ... � 4 . est by using abandoned farmland (Gill et al. 2001 ) . It continues Where their ranges overlap, intrusion of the Blue winged to expand northward , now often using clear-cuts and abandoned Warbler into the Golden-winged Warbler's range is followed pastureland. This species was once rare in New York with fewer by the decline and sometimes the extirpation of the later spe than a dozen cited records from 1844 to 1909 (DeKav 1844 , Gi- cies (Gill et al . 2001 ) . In New York, as noted, the Blue winged ` rand 1844 , Rathbun 1879 , Short 1893 , Reed and Wright 1909) . Warbler was generally absent from the Great Lakes Plain in they Eaton ( 1914) called it common only on Long Island and the early 1970s (Bull 1974) and 1980s (Confer 1988a) . The Golder lower Hudson Valley. It reached central New York by the 1940s winged Warbler was widely distributed in this area during tliaV ? and was established there by 1960 (Confer 1988a) . time (Bull 1974, Confer 1988c) . However, as the Blue-w•inged: � , . .. In the first Atlas map, the Blue-winged Warbler was shown to Warbler expanded into this area between the first and second At be common across the state from the MohawkValley southward . las periods, the Golden-winged Warbler numbers declined . pre'X� a Me It was scarce in the highlands of the eastern Appalachian Plateau cipitously. Perhaps the Blue-winged.Warbler causes this decline,M. n and hybridization (Confer et al . 2001 , Con and parts of the Great Lakes Plain and missing from the greater by competitioferi S` NewYork City area. In the 20 years between the two Atlas pert- 2006) . „ , _.I tee, ods, the Blue-winged Warbler contin- � sec- tied its northward expansion . The sec- ; �gf and Atlas survey found it occurring 1 � ' 1 ._ 4 me statewide, even reaching the north- s. 3 eastern portion , albeit in low density. `^ tF & � ! ' Le Although there might have been some decline in= ° the southern portions of the state, the number of blocks over- 3 all with Blue-winged Warbler in- creased .17 percent. It retrains absent _ Ir ~ ^ y .�. from a few regions with a scarcity -- ` ei f5 - of disturbance habitat, notably at- eF '+' eas with intensive agriculture, exten- j• y �. ,1 � t , � a y� r - „ � sive forest cover, or high human den- -. ' sity. Throughout the last century, the , �< Blue-winged Warbler followed the kjS lee ,/ e A2 miv Golden-winged Warbler northward, ,� �� r tiaf' Syr'` ' era 5 but lagged behind by about 40-36 ` ; _ , me y� el, JOY 71 kVY t Me km (23-33 nai) and 13-25 years. This 1 - � reele situation continues today, with expan - eer I i G !R lion of the Blue-winged Warbler into , . . ,.. �' , . . ,� / � Jf `t � , Y . c' parts of the Great Lakes Plain , Indian lee m It River Lakes, and St. Lawrence Plains ' 46 firti 9X��+: 6 Rwk try Vii'. 1A : I �r �4 5 { ' •R ! ` Hey 11 If AR � A1 A 17 qq ■ p ■ :� LM,vi••� 1� • r. � ,c�t3• gg r����e' v0. � ' j� 1�' ' [ At� s�" �� . . � ■ 6� L' J FLT• "i .i ! Call [ � 'v �!'t•t f. � u 4y. 4 IIX• a PJ� ■ ""3 ! x' MEN lot ip 4A Ai ' y x , 1 ■ ; ■ �. ' 1 • • . i r . � :J L 1 . i;. :r 4f r at If ' ! �a . • . • •rl � at r' _4. vlk, ++t An 5 `'C i n/L�.�y� k "` -� L' ' a bII � a' • • i'Alm Yisret `-'•{ a• , rye.%, • dam ¢ �LS�_ �a rt: s {{.L ..�! 5 Jxl'�1 L ' f a' -�'■■ • A rY �!l' .. y,: • S ¢ ,�aN� � k d� 3 � 9■ ■i Ptf r ■ ci nA'.� 15:; r :.�' E7'i•p c . p•yTr'2w.. t Y� { al , a 1 x ■f :r. 3' . ti "VaL'. • �$"� 1 : 1 • 1 111 11 L through localized disturbance and succession ( Lowther et Yellow Warbler 1999 , Mitra 1999) . Dendrvica pelE.'ChIQ Breeding Bird Survey data show no change inYello�s Warblet„xlr ' populations across the continent or in New York from 1966 tom:_ SHAIBAL S . MITRA 2005 , even within the dynamic Adirondacks region , although 'a - decline in the last 25 years is statistically significant for the who' s ; state and the north Atlantic states (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-Y?;1 he Yellow Warbler breeds from Alaska and Newfound- vice Region 5) (Sauer et al. 2005) . Abundant and wider rea , land southward through the northern two-thirds of the Yellow Warbler is rarely mentioned as a species of conser=? the United States, locally in the arid Southwest, and vation concern . Comments by Griscom ( 1923) , Cruickshart'O' throughout Mexico 's central plateau , with additional 2) and Siebenheiler ( 1981 ) concerning population reduc populations in the Caribbean and along the Atlantic and Pa- tions as formerly rural areas became urbanized near New York' ci tc coasts of northern South America (AOU 1998) . Although City stand out against more numerous statements emphasizing-A`.” ' . n . this warbler thrives in disturbed and early-successional habitats the species's ubiquity and familiarity. Time will tell how tolerable P 4' and probably benefited from European settlement, the early ac- the expanding urban and suburban environments of the futureerI counts of DeKay ( 1844) and Giraud ( 1844) imply that this spe will prove, even for this relatively adaptable species. Additionally; cies has long been among the most familiar birds in the state. as is true for all Neotropical migrants, the future of New York's ,A Eaton' ("1914) called it common throughout, except in parts of breedingYellow Warblers depends not only on land-use patterns „ `K the Adirondacks and Catskills, and Bull ( 1974) noted it only as here but also on conditions thousands of miles away. Iioulet I` .r a widespread and adaptable breeder. The Yellow Warbler uses a al .'s (2006) continent-wide study of migratory connectivity F h g ranging Y FxI, .y wide variety of breeding habitats ran in from maritime shrub- the Yellow Warbler, which included analyses of feather Samples_",i, thickets to the margins of marshes , swamps, ponds, and streams, collected from birds banded in Monroe and Suffolk counties r; to upland gardens, orchards, and old fields (Bonney 1988h, Mc- affirmed that the Yellow Warbler breeds in northeastern North t� h Kinney and Parkes 1998) . Sites near water are almost always oc- America but winters primarily in South America . fi� �R • - cupied when adequate shrubby vegetation is present, whereas x + occupancy of upland sites is more localized , with many unoccu- x pied sites at least superficially similar to occupied ones . t; a' _;?� x During the first Atlas survey, the Yellow Warbler was g ' 1 found statewide, absent only from the highest elevations } f and most heavily forested portions of the Adirondacks, 4v the Catskill Peaks, and the most densely urbanized y :a" ;' , a �i portions of New York City. The second Atlas sur- vey results showed that little had changed; in fact, the number of occupied blocks was nearly the same for each Atlas period, although many blocks were occupied during one period but Ff x F ,4 ®R, not the other. Both gains and losses appear concentrated in the same high-elevation , heavily forested regions where consistently ' unoccupied blocks were most prevalent. It seems likely that the unusually dynamic pat- tern of block occupancy in these regions is 1 g J an artifact of sampling associated with lose breeding densities, rather than some unique pattern of disturbance and reforestation . In- , i deed, Enser ( 1992) attributed unoccupied At- las blocks in Rhode Island's forested interior to low breeding densities documented by in- � y '^ � i '� • r' dependent surveys. In most of New York, a g1l. y ? X 5 km survey block is more likely re- to s ` . lain occupied, even as the distribution of lo- 14 er a s J 1 -al breeding sites changes with the appear- ance and disappearance of appropriate habitats 480 v�T :: ia. :n j �J V A .5 °t k• .. N p! r 11I 1 . • . • • t ■ • � ■ wp 111■ . . kdw ' � tit I. t if ff it �f 1 It rrr F7 i•4 t, t f,. • • • •I isti; 1!lJ• n • 1 ` I� r ■ Y i� w I It ■ it NJ mt Mill { f . _ ■ to ■ _. ■■� 11., re , _. ■ p F.e III;' t ' ■ ; C ■ is t J? ■ i.:y. ■ d: ' tf l a :7 ■ i T w #, .� ■ ti .'d 1 �, ^.#� ■ lJ 4 t :a L «7 4 j C 4r m 1 Rct It! ititi , 4^ N Y! Ef ■'^ i G fil • 1,�� t 1 4Y.ts s .. tti IIN 11 • 'Lef��y ;�� l�L"'■ � L 1 Y tai ., :b� �t'f. � C�� ¢. •y t ' Y ; t TCii Y } X,•. J �• 'x '!�?y VA � �C T A. A'rt t.w� Cs �>F, +4 !- e •.t f v it it tr �N 2�*v yt11 t n �c•y 1 .% i Y 3<' r w �: { sue' . v7 ` j{ fi '� o T, 1`• X q.2 '� +t ..5 h'11� `a IF off v { S y ad -•3 a. A Lr}^ Ce�� CY^S t�.{tl s "l >.w�.�'s��..IL � • • • •it IF " ■ aT e. F 1I .z�,¢ x-+H, t M1• .: ��� 1 PS Sk.�1 {�1f .1j.ILL : � `I"CS 7yY T f # : tr 3.1 A 1t : 3 ,1fgg",, ' *t1 a A�' t1,y 'm' t'}g6J`•{ ��}}} ' • d Ir _v ;:+:r `• tF a F �l<i tt ri •.=t „ +_-� 1 }uY t .r ayx s'[.§rytS > $?a4y ' 'i�} 1rR • c2!y- hdE ``tt , ' � {' 9 v t 4ASf' L } Edu ! il � 4 - : '{ eSt • ,a -{ q �I`sr 3�'� t n t �. ! t r ti s.J�' +. �• $�:F3� u � �,� � r ,ri u... +`F z".$ 3� b sYq r'?9 �+a-a s• s:,ys 'e`e}`Nr= R '' ,�,},� }L'l p Y "Y� + 7 °r � frL,''wZ `�"*Nt` , u 7s'F f� . Yf ,K,h• t C ,t = } j,�li nt "t e;,` `sb bs �' 'I$�,47� " 'sls 4r 3'� r X56-' n`L T � ''-r r. i P I t xi L l i •a, s x T3 1 41e s r fiLSiGGi 1p tiY �y 12r{ j-R t L Elf y"•� 5��;;,t— ! _.Gs' �{ �$ r .A • K. ro1 +1is t'il� 15"f�1 � vt N^ .;�'ryf G.y"�y�Jr r"�'� '�� •��$, � f It Ir limit f�;,6 rY' w r V < , (,� ! r RaA 4 rr•+. •,+ s "f. , , r` rx+�, d;t ,,,.J',y 1.y .)v..;:;:_k «r '�}"� x!°..� .'�'sia:.t� �'�•��i• ,�^EI�y°yy'�-{ :��f s. tad .4 t. , 1 /f g 1 : 1 • 1 111 / 1 �5' f+u t -Ts it u> i. i the Mohawk Valley, and the heavily urbanized areas of N " ( , Ovenbird e`� Y°rk City and western Long Island. The Ovenbird was one fro ` ` m, SetllYliS AIlYOCCl�I1lICI Bronx, New York, Kings, and Queens counties, but Borne were still found on Staten Island. The second Atlas data showe h d t ' { KEVIN MCGOWAN Ovenbird again as widely distributed across New York State, 71 J . with a 9 percent increase in the number of blocks with breeds .rte. f records. This increase resulted in the filling of gaps in the ng � 1 small , inconspicuous, but noisv bird of the forest hawkValley, Eastern Ontario Plain, and eastern Drunilin . 11esplte floor, the Ovenbird is one of the most characteristic some increases, the Erie-Ontario Plain remained the largest `' �p4 _ i birds of the eastern forests . It breeds from extreme in the Ovenbird 's distribution . Decreases in the number of oc f southeastern Yukon eastward to Newfoundland, and cupied blocks were noted in the Hudson Highlands , Manhatta ` n . - . r southward to Wyoming, Nebraska, Arkansas, and Georgia (Van Hills, Triassic Lowlands, and Coastal Lowlands, perhaps suggest � i Horn and Donovan 1994) . This warbler nests in mature decide- ing the extent to which the New York urban area has expanded a .. ous and mixed deciduous-coniferous forests . It prefers climax since the first Atlas period, but perhaps resulting from a dcerease � forests, usually with a canopy height of 16-22 in (52-72 ft) and in Atlas coverage in the area this time. a canopy closure of 60-90 percent, and requires 100-885 ha Although the Ovenbird population showed a slight sis;nrfi ti ;r1 (247-2 , 187 acres) of continuous habitat to breed successfully cant increase across the entire range of the Breeding Bird Survey1' " (Van-Ho'r'n and Donovan 1994) . The Ovenbird was undoubt- since _ 1966, the trend for the last 25 years is flat (Sauer et al C, edly common and widespread in New York before _European 2005) . BBS data for New York show significant increases, a colonization . Reduction in the amount of forest land probably pecially in the last 25 years , at a rate of 1 .5 percent per yearx ' C led to restrictions in its range, although early authors considered (Sauer et al. 2005) . The second Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas rem it common wherever forest was remaining (DeKay 1844, Gi- ported no change in Ovenbird numbers in the province overall, raud 1844, Rathbun 1879 , Eaton 1914) . Beardslee and Mitchell but an increase on the Northern Canadian Shield region and a , w ' Y�.! f ( 1965) listed it as a common migrant through the Niagara Fron- decline in the southernmost region (Bird Studies Canada et al a G tier but found it nesting only in the more heavily wooded tracts 2006) , where BBS data also show a slight but significant de cline =� : of this region. Bull ( 1974) noted that it was common across the in numbers over the last 25 years (Sauer et al. 2005) . With a ro s 1 K 1 state in deciduous and evergreen forests . bust population and a continuing maturation of the state 's forests, 3 3. t ,1 The first Atlas map showed the Ovenbird to be common and the Ovenbird should remain a common bird in New York State a :., y widespread throughout the state. The only significant gaps in its through the next Atlas survey period. _. ' distribution were in the heavily agricultural Great Lakes Plain „ ¢- it f n I 'f 9 a qs. i hl � i ax=z . P S18 4 of to h T ■ # l. 7. ■ 1 I I • . . • to v • ■ Y !� Y • ■ ; ■ to to > . to to , I ■ f' - ■ 1 t ham. to � ni • ■ ■ f s ' 1 r■ •At o. ■ . ■. ■ ■ r (• �x' • ■� t It of, to it I or I ax c. ■ It It r� p j ■ . ■ ■ ■ . ■ It oo,r IVA ;, ■ — k� . .. It It oo �l a : ■ Y ` d? • ■ y � il; if h �.. i •to r i_ ■ , , zP; III ■ / ' ' ■ a � -P ■ �C , �- � rIt- It I. L to 11 Itoo . , Lot or to tt if z t to to lot j { . .rd to It pp too I; i . r r n • ', Sa . ■ _�, tt, c , . . M� r i,.. . • or 1 �y'§1 �� • �� t .k ' • kz to #F • ■� • r r — •— x ■ v It 'It It itz j' , J to, • • It 11 oto or to _ to to r Edo i y / 4 ti y }k' i` A. or It I 1V it tt Y; ' T,k l`l✓y Rose- breasted Grosbeak r� PheucticusJudovicial'uts ° T KEVIN J . MCGOWAN jr 1 f � a "#i IF he Rose-breasted Grosbeak is a colorful vi- - '� I 1 % '/' ( ! s"i' brans songster of forests . It breeds from south- "I " � � '`' r`•'`' '� �:�. ,� 1 ernYukon southeastward to northern North \ d „s� f Dakota, eastward to Newfoundland, and southward to Nebraska, New erse , and in the moue- rF tains to northern Georgia (Wyatt and Francis 2002) . y ,CA It prefers deciduous and mixed deciduous-coniferous r woodlands, second-growth woodlands , orchards, sub- urban parks, and gardens (Wyatt and Francis 2002) . It r. j A_ - I is especially fond of the shrubby boundary of woods at r i+ l << streams, ponds; `tiiafshes, roads, or pastures (Wyatt and IF Francis 2002) . As a bird of forests , the Rose-breasted . 14 4FI Grosbeak was probably common throughout most of New York before European settlement, although its - � •+ �� • ' �,�� preference for younger woods and edges might have rte. .! . kept its numbers modest.With the removal of the for- ests, its population likely declined, only to rebound f RX with the decrease in agricultural land and increase in �.. ? reforestation. DeKay ( 1844) mentioned it as breeding -3> in the western and Atlantic regions, intimating that it was not common . Giraud ( 1844) considered it not very common on Long Island, where it was confined to the woods. Most subsequent authors deemed it common and local changes in distribution between the two Atlas periods `- lot around the state (Rathbun 1879 , Merriam 1881 , Short .1893, could easily result from differences in coverage rather than real Reed and Wright 1909) . Eaton ( 1914) called it widespread and changes in occurrence, especially in the remote and difficult ar- : 1 ? t common through most of the state, except for the lower Hud- eas of the Adirondacks , but several of the new gaps there were son Valley and the Coastal Lowlands. Griscom ( 1923) said it was quite striking. confined on Long Island primarily to the northern shore . Bull Breeding Bird Survey data show a slight declining trend in : . n ty ( 1974) continued to call it widespread but rare on Long Island. Rose-breasted Grosbeak numbers survey-wide since 1966 , and The Rose-breasted Grosbeak was found distributed across especially since 1980 (Sauer et al . 2005) . Trend graphs show a nearly all regions of the state during the first Atlas survey. The significant increase in counts extending into the early 1980s ti�l- ZX distribution was somewhat sparser in the Adirondacks and on lowed by a significant decline. BBS data for New York show Iii-a � Long Island . It was missing from most of the southwestern part roughly the same pattern of a general , but nonsignificant, in- ?�" i of Long Island. Bonney ( 1988e) noted that its presence on Staten crease followed by a significant decline (Sauer et al . 2005) . The r Island, the lower Hudson Valley, and much of Long Island repre- second Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas reported a significant de- Yc sented a slight range expansion and perhaps indicated increased crease in Rose-breasted Grosbeak populations across the prov- abundance. Any expansion was not continued into the second ince but a significant increase in the southernmost region (Bird I Atlas period, and overall the number of blocks with records de- Studies Canada et al . 2006) . A decline in Vermont based on cell - clined, slightly Although the grosbeak remained common across sus plots in mature forest was attributed to maturation of the for- near ly all of the state, occurrence declined at least slightly in est (Holmes and Sherry 2001 ) ; this explanation might be appli- most ecozones. The largest declines were in the Coastal Low- cable to the New York trends as well . The first Atlas results could ;ti'" lands, Manhattan Hills, and Adirondacks. The grosbeak was not represent an all-time peak of Rose-breasted Grosbeak n umbers I seen on Staten Island and was much less common on Long Is- in the state, with a large presence of second-growth forest . As � land's southern shore, although it was still present. Blocks re- the state 's forests continue to mature, the grosbeak may swell stay ii porting grosbeaks declined by 19 percent in the Adirondacks, common but at lower levels than before. ' J1 and larger gaps were apparent there this time. Relatively small it 578 ' # r 1 , fin � Y r It YY t, ■ AY di.l , •tfi �� 1: to u1 � a .7 h T$.. " y� 1 • .•e ■ ■ . ■ ■ is r ` :i r ANN R i '.`i a ., . , .. � ( .:■.,x j■ � L2 is � � 11 � • �■•x ■� , 4 ■ ,f ,ti ■ C'ri fi .E, t f • r . t 'r_ _�, ■ C 7 ,r ':'7� -e �i t; . -a ■: if yte F. -r• 4 x ,•, S.r s ,'! t ( t ■ �. NO IN a =e ■ ■ ■ ■ cop ■ k , J r;+xd b b B W 4 V 22 } rdi i A :a ■ 1■ y ■, � }�'- a etieii 6f( ��r, M ■ } t+.x a • �. :x CA ,.,■ § u h+s r.:..-*, s �, 'tam° St ,4�� .t H■ Grp} pi I 6t :rv' '• tom ' q, Pk � � .tirt a vi y yy I] k f_ ,-^ �fJYt '� QM wi fT-• th •°Y� vg a (C' LQ r b3:�, v, t . • • � - ..��t x e ly F• }�•• .trJk �a�'e�r- p y��,- 1%74 may' jpa' pd�4,°¢x¢: -.l cry{ i +f � �y �. # z�lzgyx r�,j� ' d • • • • ; %' ■ aft, t -p c . ]+ f. ....nF � ■' L s3 f' `Z ' , r �C r , '. Er' di n Y s7 u s a : dl 1 t_ 4 - � C`r � r' . Ys i r ,r?, r y� ?'s 7 �- � !� aI �l`1 11 ''mss fw �,¢2 i�M nJ � � '1-.1 n• i • F," �_ r � x �r6 Jr k J rt �r pie•'*':a d.7��' �■■!e �'� u�p���' '�'��kd �`%Rt��J,�'�l• �,.f y.�'���,� �1 '• i 4'+1'r m ,� Y} 4Q " 6¢ Kt s r--� '�� ;,�r1 J.R .1. 6�T y�`'6 . -0� rC .mac d+� L ,t`i?� E -s rz r- .- S„,✓� �. �.5,�.� �'r f' _`�'"S�3h �` i t - ,�t• � .:�� ��a H�3R � � J"-•- - '� {6 {.� t 1��� r f t ttk x ly} } � � � 2"' ri� k 4ty,�i�"'�rj +r'.r� M*� • sy � .:. h _ • t, Xa ■ Q „r . 5�t�7Ft 9s � L"t if ;S .+L .tipJw , � ¢ L ' s34 '' !F'sar i 1p »'Y k�k����L��S�)• ���3,y�P3a,�+� �h �j t�1 `Yl� ff��� Ci r�Sn{ � !��, � q� ^.�Afi'�����n� �T �w?y2. i i - �`}- a v. s ....4md3. r. , .{�.>Za�`w' •xn '1` f}' : ..1 ` �#i y,rri t2+I— 'lta�iy'�`+('� '�j�- 5,1. •,.� F�.�,�,',,, � LS fir ' 4. • • � . • • • cara'•2 »'i aka �.a�z„t'dl, , r � Fa f t n,� .,•'dam- �t ;, . . ¢ . . ; r ” yY ` �k Vild'r ' a ✓.. �, {v r +,q, t �ls"6 e- +eyv �Y ^� R >. t n t, �yin°t" 3 CT.i C±4 o It,+9g+',,,, .. J h' . , •P ; ``. I .a)} i '•o �s'c-;J s 4.`7 ! r`F,d r `"" w�g r' :rit{Y �#" '`e�,T, t g ;'1 & n l a ^` -:1 § 4 ,•%Itt4^tU Fi. k' : '.•.a F 1.d: ?E '1 ♦ Kb ^ m. z x�..r t7r I ar 'ice � ? � •sa �d! } � y y { f W � , tr Irt+f ; � `r ; r , A4r'� CS -. t r Si [ r ry S Idd,d IM t S ,�Y� � -t ' .1 ,,�p�p+��� ,(rR s . r. ,•. .. «... ,fir;*'^-"L > °°.� d; w.....ua 4 , y,�,,,}, u' hh,._ 1 '.' SY r,/[�� .• L °CF�yw `x YeL. �r3'"S C 3v '� ` '-aa� �.r -: rj;' µpr i r .i (•��r-(" q z s I.w a•rp [}}'"}]t�,�,,dY - ,,nn� i. � I 'y/ +.5 ;.' \�f s T �-.: >4.•Trh w s.<.�P a. y� jr �¢Y 7 ;•. � a r � la�'} H`: ° e :m'�: .:rz-•_a VV ;x :eR6t �`-��^ ' H"'�4C�.Fx � a t \ F /yta4' ^ - � h 4 t z `vdtr } ♦ ,q k r` If A "' 4 r"D . h. s ♦ tb r..d-d CY ya �(, r r.Crk rc•r r "}' 1 fir. L ,,.;.r ""°' !" ._ ,,s• ' ' L ' .y " ,w t f , , .1`_ .•' 1 �` yr; It �� § r''�rt r_yti . f , � •'� . 'py at e.,- 3 " _v ic.� i '� . t,t # ' . r '` ' II a l r , r• ,q } l t C S K�rTd Td- u .tk: 1 { P.,l .r � �.:- s t) `' � 1 { - a 9 '•`` 't§ .4J4; _ �r (- r ;f :'u`�"n ` Y )Y` fir.` X 1. , J ty'IT�jfL� r .. .d.{Itz.l7 . r T a -e "Xit l,•�,+"LC sry is - za.° 7`i rM" .. m- ri •awi 'Y '4 t ,y iv.da dCd Vy .F-t{ t 6 .}Y i ' • +r A - ,•q,e ( t 3 A eF g r +-xy`'Jr. r - _ hR x - ° ES - z aa. . �. �'^ t M,'Ar .-a .: q(i��tg[c r�* 3` ••a }' b„ a*YY y, • ',,•r Y ti„y . ,~r. r .8� µr '�°i .. 6 z Aa°'*' i� 'S✓3 : t Fr 1. y t, - i` i 33�fi A 1r4q 1 "y -<'f.. wz P C F {api�1 III 'r al x Q. .• V P'a.+ K ..Y`aa. 5C` V„' rl a > '.'""' "Idt r`.'$ rc 14••; i 1 r /: w 4 'y Id . i �� i'I s F rn. fl �' a-y, I 1 '�.r r :* tai• & `>•"', ;�- 'a' t Yt s•• 7 :; •i\_ /B'77•.`. dddr\ 1 I a. 1 i W^gyp s(y ..'1r .Ai t. N rx J 5-t t n lit t.3' �.{° Sri t _ r t ri.; / 'TI 9r • �. s /Tjt1.1 r+l r, �, titi' Y r• yr rz: IV r •Ii-II ° ' � 210 ars ? ° a '!m �...,...�.. .y.�.���f, td „ ,,iW7 -' jell r7 a' 4.I4.• •t a � 1, it/' {t Kti"� •�� • •a �. i x"�jz �Ya Y' r i !7 r r l rf'��-w. .Idd ♦J 4� `P•}{^• F, tL`^ }t.. . °irs •3 't s 3 • _,.{ $' .y_ 'i ..z� r ♦ arx. t a �± s - � y ^t�,.,.r�.����} r . 9 l!. •, yl. . P'+ re 1'- „3• LaR � ' a s c.., } ^.!r .Ty_ { ; 'S2 ^41f'Y. } -a, d 1-S r4- CIO A A .- +.7,a- rR'a., a a' *Cw - °� V ° $ r+' 4 /•+ 4-4 1.p "FA n .. 7} 6X r� ^+r >a� wyd c rt s'F[.: r •„ .t• � It Y a ' i' ' G - � jS 1d 'trc 9:ar > ti°3g " 6 .� � - u - , c �. fy r 3, '� 'I a .+ ,r y 1. > / zr, . 1f M yT °"r Z" al.Via i. 'Sq a ' !a r a -vino A, ib3 . I ty •. S t;7. d Y r, , 7 �r°yy . , r chi IT 11 `'^ ,;,) {[a ,T1i ' +-�.v +i t' °f iu} ' r c r °a i r Q l� fi+ t' - .1 6-. it � : .fltL r ,I.. r "' . , j *Ir a ',a .L. r +. S it t '� _ •! y 5y a? C. ` ro (o r- , . .: " �r IT Z ".!'{ r` . r �'� KC y,,, :i r try / r k ; • b.•-r -. r IT y�{rx Jr t`:Y t lr x : ttn . a 7 r krga 4 S LEI L { t ce _I. f � Z�~ � i f 1 .. ��ATi i1� - 4}� Cr rte+.'. j `t9•I 1 . ° a� r 'A � n .t` �', i A Zd .. R t r r. �� � ,sr :.I . Y` 'I "' . tti. did It k? •..IY c l c3Sr ,+ z , $ x ptl, :v "> $ . Y 4` t ' y _ It Jljp r_0 III III v { 1 4 y +1,.e 'C:.' q'+1 *` _ r r }r i ropy i ^ .+- ✓ t It +dl _ ` w +IT `._-§ n.rrb •a«,+ v..sw ^`' v y q � r.+• '> v a. 3" t3'... x.,S v�.r } r ` t '• ' ! 1`',1' i r (t "?" i (( a rT /-L `r t^i. f N{ ,,may O `e5 °t " •R G a? . ,Q' p .}} P fin � 4 4 -'Z.j y ; t .MM. 1 .7 }'�.r ,'1- �q _'3{ d(i,'� y`+ >1, t - ./, 1 � \ t y T" r l - r Ili � rAFY IT-'!i 1 "T. i 1 O ♦ k la 3 K r 4 }'. VITO 1 ti _ .k r ' .fit t 4 .rt 4 � I ✓ " L.. r� ;ti 4.t^. - r r . ^a'T r �< c `� , � } �r ,!1, r \ "' ' � � c . du. �{ � + n. t k .' t _ ,{ = t =•t ,�, sr •o• a°v{ x r I - �¢et t/}t . i t 0...4.. '^ v- �vt �', ". t a C 'i t D �.a f; 4 Jt` a , r r r 3 : ` 'i .q •vYr >.r )E' rG 3 f^ a e. f ,y { ,~ . a, A `[ i `t 31 {: > ,p - .r ,.,, a jra t 'h r�i� L /r v4v .art a "'995 ! LS s --st '��1` r t i � '. 11 9. k� � y S.�.w� r'II + ¢ [b { � If ({ :, r t r r, � 1 Iv I5[ tr r j� , ! t� w a I t X ���•••'rrry 'ewtiivFFFF �" y'J n L {r'� .' " } s1 r �- i+ 'd° tt3` �r r ` t_ + 1I r l' 111? "11 ( .. ' S .- r � }I- `;,k. '` 3i rFa�1 {`' sa rr 1 ..r �' -_7 ,-..y'i Ad rt t't rt ! - t •vZ6 ° �i 1 -« m.a s,y�.,�f`=_ 1 { -3 Ir ~ .rGc'S' `5s �,�,y+ f "aB ,�er>Vr +z a}w ( f r:r Y., ah ?t fl ♦ t!.i �,, Tay �} -b� }?tl% 'rte v, ,r '1. E {+° ri J �' 4r rJ {w~vm. Jr - A s+ 21 �` ` .' 4r. p A �4 a'a `/ .-Ift iK a *` `'�� vry�tT j . ; 1 � �' � r .`+EY1 �..:• � � � ��i �� �- y Add -4 .44T CI , , r.� Oil � . < C . t1.I y r`{y Ji ��e�- t{ rt�i - I �- �'^r: 1 1N h^t' � o� fir` �•S t rrr I,. RI>„ �1 rt\, �c'�i.. IL� .iY v' i. I ') vfrl : ` > q t''! 4 1 rF CAL - Tl �.� tbA: y `�-� T F >y 'S XY s .fi ,a -' C h �. j,� �, r I j ^, -1 } ry! I�... �' R6 a ,. i - iI •.^S� ,)i �iii,�`il• . � rYYC r �� �i .� t'(:"� r ; 'I rk r��p Yy' t + t1 mJt� 9.t r t 1 t: ` ._ �al�� +.. +`.- �` * 'x_ } 'r}l� : t'\ / r ,x.1.1 tr 9LrJU '` rid i 1 ';• w 2, . ^• i, laift � g+-"'� ' -s. >.' I�' S �'S.1_'� r,s -v�. i t.L \ tx, j i a✓ f .+e ra ,Tr nwn t Ib s A J 6r .; P [.�Lt IT I i jv' F L... .S, +t r Ke c '(4 ; '` 1 , ra mss+• 1 y ' ^ _ A�I IT a. r ar III , r"r"� ,r4 ,r� 9"' At'� r`. . r a Y°�'t i �3,t�i 71 "�` '-�/ :.lt r j` ! C t'%i `t�i�I.�a r :.k r . D ,t.• u{ d y _ r y { .:jty k ^ .R 4 1 t •y r �l r/' {' .K+ `l . U /• fi,1 }r.bi Vql t .£ r f;.E. 4 f y .r Y• IJ �. ' t 4 fie' . . �r 1rr nl`�ra*.3y�, ;�t� It . r '„';..i i 'LV) 1 t '^Ttlr r / , .IT I 'y r . y } y. 1 '•9if ` JC •° L f P xt , rt ; t r fsti / �,v.t "gym. : III. {3• ^. , � SG_ A^ r- P y �, F y .t u r. . ;jI t.±....8�r ? t 's3 P % t Y t �.r 1 ^ f L I I >wsc'r:. ^ ° .1 Mkt d1 *, t r•-rltb•r y r. . r! tirii1'`",�r rr y. ,*-.R.+�4 11 : `. iN.'� a r ��:� . ah' j.i "�1. y .•, 1 r .rid rf / r ark' ''- G � S•7 e r tfi�r .' ) �` � �r1 i i t1 w � R jP.. ' ;. IT 1.,,iy { . 4 a� f °t x ?, L L rd .t vIT mr ' w' `(w { r L 19 ,I . r,l 4 i .f 5 i i .1 �� �. lr '3yF'Vey i ,.,jj, r,IT, I P w tk l .. 1 h {�,`^ (i ✓ +r.+ a t ?. )'1 / i , 4 t Y, t14 a kL .• M } ; y:< cua t I IT i .. A , u+ . 1 X C w fl1 Y. J't ; .A IT -.VT 'll "jy1)y{> 'yym:.-.,,t r n. 1'r �� f .� pa { f Y +^' urn -a f r 4 1 • d t M , F 1y t'�(.1 Tdot , t _x { y t % Fy,y Itt y ,r,i . If !7',y � slut 1918 0� x. i /- .; �7'- ry„ '^ �� R ) \:I dddd� yr r'k�' '�< C / H l' t ru t z - z #, { t. d!7'- L rm v t Tn,F1arr;} r (.c i fT's'w r .il eY . . d ,} -t I . '. . ^I I la, i - mil r. M1 ; 'y' �r�1r�„wy .at e•• . v 2 t :• ' ° / x ?, � [''k/ a _ { r8 J 'q / _,.a+ t'a r° "� r� F e It " a' 4 i .. b •+��r r:/ � mft , + r.•r ° v }} (iY' },y'j 5F` �1� ,j."Itt .:c 7 �.:. , 1 : + y v � ! s y N4 �..F �,`•v am+kaamazaa aagrCD S "r• 3y'- 7tv.r .ii yjN�? +�• .. ,rl. EWC, �tt k, L 1 A w re .� C r i :Gr , siw�,wsu - {{ .- e .{. 1 ,.^ //r/r 'a"i +"Y) /� j f ^, .l4krrGt d, TV ��'ha 19. p,. t{ v / Q j 1, ,dA / a, .` Tt ' , t 'r/� �'J�.'f `N, t _ ♦ 1 J a'- 'q IAC IdI fd '. ! t' M' Y Y . , SL' s If �Y .°.-. - D°: S°.r-^. {.. ,a ( 3IFF'�1 {1r . ['� //r •. CMS . Y ...'/h' +^ t h .}IS - , r:. /� A .rpa+.y:rry w wJI B,n' ti, r. - kviromo ad eaacvxxeva I _ I I IT •I . r}y,�,Jyr' � ✓ w . )At a t .`^' •� / ' B r r E a . . r > . r I " 3 ° r ,- i T f F �' ! G "ij.�.,:, AB� . 3 f s , r ;. . s ,v` e y ? ; r t 7 v (. d 4 f r L r / a yr ' ai Y (, 11 `r I :� i . { r t 3 # r 11 , : 3 .S s ry y F s i r I ,rj tm ;L .- .,j• >✓ J n r+• 't r y 7 i $ :a ?' k i il{ /' J` '� - - 1 �ti ,:rc -s- x T "r+• y : 1 r; .1}, Y ,. r t r - I r '� l i'j /r� a rF PI".t i :s YrD4i j / �( ` t r ' a'•.' h r F t� i .. e ; Y`+'} ' li 1I L t r r t, >->' ' �. `, �7` 'd✓=I, I � s ,4,,-,,,_4_r,, b' a..wvo- I T yy .ft qu , un t� A. h ; / �*pti tr r•a,.v.v,.•av,�F r rIx 1 r ; - r T- I 2' �a t u ..F p42 6�ir #1 Y' rj{ . 1< -erftL ..? t't L? t ltrb_ k ri ';+tty*-t pe'3y..`}.._ c { { frt• c' 'I h t \� .�• f! "s9x I ( w y'jlyy)!..yfe^ G `ii . III' .ri { t r a, . a s Fj l t tt z' r V' r ' ;'TE-." >; /P� } ": r i f f/ I;- ,� e"` $ t i t.M. s, r<ot 4e113.Lt ,t' +1,'6 +• y y. ` e .' y d/ r 1 ..IT'jk •�.°e„t ' fi�r� f1)i. r a r . t tY "S� �tJ `• Sr•✓P{i c ,-r I IT t {'fir . ` :�ff' _ •ry l' / _ Y ; TP f. IT f f : . 1. I tt1J �`�y tt (). 3+ 9 i H r r r s - s b / x 2 7s$} y a �, / _ r/ k v -�.. _ ..4. { .k c., tPC tR CT w Y iylk_J �(ylA,. '�I :M r r i ✓ I, ti'j� {!� .. �`Y+. II , r ,t r rrt'� * S,{�11 r^' I{ //.�/{/ J� } 4 ,{IT If,_ ' ,- ,; S t c r . L r P7�Ix•-ata. C-Lt y2 d / J` . . �°Pe' .-f .:F g .fir. /' /, i ' � iE •-°a _ : �! Y /t r ;ITT;�� qr. .:• .' ,a sue- .A11.1 I Lrn r Ga+t • 1 1 �G r y}- �r r Y:..,( V�- T t ITj I 2 - .i! ♦ f %{ .- IT✓ ✓n r22r11 4t t{.. ro a 1 s +w, -1 . I C s� (5 ; J r Y. ors >, x 'ry rc �, r. t a„g.._ 3¢tt .:1 _ �. /j _.G+..' F ., kfk A' !� .F�¢�` DErt "7 / .3{ Lp$ t ,t tv^a 4 Jz a - :'nW r y hFr_T' S,rt'.'zt Y' Sfl.. /( JA IT�` r 'r'^ r't I.-, µ ti Td ET I°39 a j a zi ' 1` I ti � '_ d i. . u ^lµ � �,Y, � 41, f/ ; y� a f�l V. .+ ' r; ') t a1 .� -a•+' r t o f`/[ t. 1, c , r} . * . . {{ .'e. t'�. . r'I ' /,( d - ,Fi` sad; iI iv r 1 >� 1'r. * C �`?! L'i 17t .. . { a3•.^. -rte.- t -1F•p .. -' I + &'y , r TA _ i r ¢ 'K �a. . .�r, Lti a H t,y I � ti K. : tc . .r 1'•T . - r �i r t . Jtd r Id } .a, a� ( .. t .rz Tg,\: r^Yr.'.J^ f-. J' > } '{ r+ ±+a f y)ii1 C ; r f .11 x fs}' .l'.I IT C```i£££aa' •r3` y r i 1 1 t' _ 4 ¢`Fir r• . dl r : { fC d'�!e tt r k �\ rf i r •� r '' 1L, a 4r+ F9r ' i{ ? 't r ✓� r {e .t- ; �Y �.�.� +.IT I,,> { 7f ♦ •S y_.>y 1LyI " S t •, iH L rH IIIII,--v x b y .+f '} , 3 i `} 1 1% I I III 11,Dt > Jt V. mS n • 7,T�- {r t.f. a`^ r1 / Ji'aF Id, w j � %r J_5 •a 6 r 4 )r 0I 7 ' J ! ; a/Ira 3 f J > yaiv 'f� a {.�Tr r r _ `a` t ? > 3 T At `?u d fr t It-r / y Ir r.Idd, r 1 II I � 1 ` +I , y �itik ! '� y� III 1 rN' -",.t?^ ?r f t Yit tr f (Idd s / If kt4 1 r i! itz+I * -4�,t j i.. '" r A` - xs ,d t (j} a*iIL �'� II� t a r ^ r V ," < ry • rn L'� LP ,�� 3. �� T. bt 2r . n ,I .. t I IT> air a`. e ".- . V, " {. , ( ,k } d* , QI. . " D - ! '(g t _ a. ' ' �5c. N tt, .�.5 "''.ae : Bar t y.. '� -+ ryn ,k �', x TSWt' + '`< "} ,d/ . ( .. r IT 11 IT r J'j a x 4 ^ r,,. . •r Sd. N c- - J{ j -S'' SCI yam` .4D !r fe �Y 4i - - I r "t III /.19 .r, -a', -: - ."3a.- / n r� � la'tx p�r'�d S ..c^35 11-'C a'�.jf -ixyy✓,��z y '.r+r� •'f r F -drAt Y t L j �a \ tS'. .1 s�r # 'rt"°[- -1 , ;I . �T'• Y at J I { 1 4", . a1 { A. Ya VS 1 tF -It" '�{C, y'� " ' ,/' '.1 I x �} '�.,1A� l s i'� nA/� i � L 'S.- -i . it J.. 'i ?`s'r, tIA �...f'L•; t ' tr , srtiy + T" Y f _ •I ;"' zd L:. < .� ` ,•r ", af, - �'� ' r'"'S r. a - kxu . ; r, Dk. Lw� IT c-t s w s e°"""` V a`'...- �r +�y-. +ir a 1 '`Yt ' a ,3`` a t•,. ' far .' f t ..Id Y' -3{ y Tr'A. J.s l "4 V >7. ` MsA'� `s'>'.' k !F lu"G. xr� .SSS.r a - f 5 _ r IT 1 r dli Y. r " , . +-.,�+•=y.._wiT . H" 3 £. 11 itri 7 fi .�1h9`rn1Y1114=1 -a �.d`� ; > 1' ' f G 1I ` .ifr r . } V'#I L4 . ±' .F7 a s { y. ^'r} c g't-•.••} Ml.t$�(, +, `;' t. ' t`r8'r^„ta + f .' 1: t , r `a IT� t I } . .� e l` rr � Y' 1 ` r , ter'-`I I-i� CC,- y Y• B'+a "�' v t tt ' t . t.(.ti./ rj If PIT t ti d� ..!.I o4{✓'` - 5t$ t �.hy' Li"r•fW {•ga, T#t vF.11l a+ t/ ?ea *(�'L �'s 4 {' 1"] ,rY < 1 ✓ a, i w Si` v ` 'I` )r .. �' e 't ' ' rt' W.W , r $ , ^ r 4 a R trr°S.. > n � ;� e t s` r * r;; }{, tr �y rs� rl trJr"." tp ^� # ,.'F•hl;•:At IT III I'' rah''+ 'S" '7 `,< o- xrT u: {�`i1+ '::' tt'�k-Jcam`aS" 1. dt ' K • ' �' ' t, } .` _...." ' p , S ,� "' y 1; ...> wY1'j" l x, 1 ♦? 2 f" ud „ a.}. r '.s xk J { r1P } ul tw ;.!✓r( vyr ,_4 tl' , as '1` v ` '�. y .A y',`,� ,T 3 t T sA"t 5 ' r t x "r• { aw s a C. d, {+ { y iW7i' r 't 2 A1�q.� . �^ £'tjY' ,�r �FEE n 4 ' +JV #ffi`^R K 'v� -t nry 1T t''p,+'". i�ay' 'ti> +, C et t t'atr` h2yPi r•,�'WIT,� � ' ,•"' r (mot > 7:}i,t+S'7 '6 ,` `"` , .-t%%tau:�+.l{=r:s •i .}`.": '• {�e ' i I 11 J' .r<+� �.trr7rS 7 I ° . :;4 '' ;todky} rcv.4a `A•k. & ,ir 'Rs, . ".3.3�.. ti d" I $ p• r s. fr r• r r "T ti i` . 1 ZIh r /�y :� '�'''�Th' t ° '•tt.-y i. �y'rr'- .? .E` 4 r �Y ," s '�•.il? V eM` t la M F r ." Y T 1..•v 1 •f N; 4"3y 3 ` f. ICJ yY .ay"� + hx tµx. . '� P rf'r If L41 �!fi• V+7S• �h A. � a . f. 1 _" VA �'i 4 ! b `,�j.'^+�( ;• y,qty- � Lr„i-,:•LL' i.n, ryv"+�y',r,T+:, rYTaS vi,F��,S lli YSrCi `.' _ g . , 'A e'"y xg i"t'�a. y. 4�'� \ „ R�maim V j�12� Ci "1 hsa,f f y r' '1a.'t° ,�{,,d 'LcYT,t,. I i + *ti'.T r .:.$i 4l.r,Lt~ y�LSl� x j F a n I . �ttSGld���htr` e ^ { � �` - r � z � � � 3 � )E� = a� i1j,", • a� jy r' n 1 k^ f' 1 _ r ry ` rv.. 3 t ) •- d_A4 rt (fir^rYu1Ny Mr, f I W.lo' I.. " r ,... g 4 P 'b" 1 L l yiR,S.Yrt dVJ `�+dL+ 2t K• t- ,++Lt'. {[ ,f. � Todd ,1Jt,/l -mac ♦ ter• Yt r "' 0 At, < 3"'tj S cZrW"A, `^x'rJ-` ,�,,.�3 I t'D+ ^f `^V' �•F� a ✓-' '� r` { . r; .. I .Q 7K Ii Idt" 1_. 'Ej \{ 'j1 r 'Y. J L' V )P$..ts+- rn ! ' R 4 .kr. Cd T .� t'Di''� 'J ar u I I -Vd, '1L' ie_d.'L a +•i j •1. Y j ITt III Ad^' a ..�".a, y ' y,kl � { ,. r -$rte-� �a•=- .l'�_ , S Y„ a _ •°Y}qi-swB i 'may ti f.'! r _ t;Na' tN}i � +'I �.r, {+y.� L J s �.r{I t" t� 3 . I g:t. T,iT ,.�gx r y, rt - t �- �'lr , j I ^J y_,+ rP r• v {• X } t )r rr, tt`t ....u, .fit• SJ ' ✓. J r�i/ t `t. ,Y1� „r. %s 'f IrId f_T" g F�.i1l'•7'i y r, ;..a' : : .✓. w!. V ~��rr KK 1 L r � rvi PL i _ 5 �. p 7 J I ^r.-.w'- t i "SaT%yr.}„a _ riI . Asia._./rr __ 3 �i°._. �L-.'..::._ rw. . . bA w b a 0 `0 U 0 c a 3 ° o � U �+ Q O � C O � � N co y W a. 0 Q a r - uS . 4 Ll�c gm U Um tu wuu„”, '1I1A 111 is •;��{{{ µ 111nni uunK'4u ., s� C ♦�V�1°iii 4q P. � rv<Ai� < . y • � �� � A� � 4� � IF liq %1p a❑ �� .. 04-a mi w �� • � %O. o " c MOP ' r �,�■� 'Cj� � � ° ;� '0 + -1111\ ,... . , , ,� � -- r~� ,viii: rr - q0 i t k�v L , d MOP 11-1 1 n1' �' Ewe 6 � _ J � �- tt o1 u. IkII l ff ir — — °_ j . n I �-'��� �� �'� Joao �� .��F• [: .L_ � �� ��] .�� u.�l al DunLr�O�.—.J _ - Figure 2 : Residential Land Use Context j "'�..�!� l AL_� Q :L.��--� gam-; �'°" � ., Tow'h+ 'y. � . •�7 e 7 b -� LASING d CIA IN Ci i ♦ ;. - TTT `;. . . CLAGE OF 4 ,ALE �VU LY E ` of IL I .1 a d j _, r t, T4 D YDN • a JI opl a 4 L HTS ' ur 40 T It IN LLLLLLL i � r w ! , ` '_ ~ • 1F it - s i f, f , , a. s r � - y '• .w D ' � p3 rfiRO I N C A .;.- • ��F - "'mil-rv- ` 3 PAileRadlusofSite - High=Density Residential LoNhDonsity Residential A,�unicipal 'Bounda,ries M Medium=tensity Residential 0 -0 ' r z M�i� Source: Tompkins County Land Use and Land Cover Data, 1999 An Evaluation of the Town of Ithaca' s 3 Proposed Zoning Action on Cornell University Land Figure 3 : Number of Employees by TAZ, 2000 V., TO.WN ;OF GROTO , zo VILLA E. . REE11IL i[f •N OF ULYSSES k t'' ri t " S � b GI:LLA A tl I , Iy . RYDEN " 4rl, 41 w�"rti5-.� �- . ., eFA W 'OF-E ` Y � t f ) r " , y MW*QF. C 1ROl1 aik r N F. of p finent16 zdo 6- jrA ir.L; - 4pi< M 5bi - 109D - irn1 ** 2qO 79ii ,twi N Prapertj Q ±•hlile.Patr4, ef,5 m ninaai Bauicrc . 0.0.37!0'.75 1.5 Mllei 1 4, � ..� Source: Tompkins County 2000 Employment by TAZ Files An Evaluation of the Town of Ithaca' s 4 Proposed Zoning Action on Cornell University Land Figure 4: Public and Private Facilities I i i TOWNTOWN i 1 0 � w wwrrw �s r � Ni • OF LANSING � ,t • ` * � � " � . � � ;I. - m TQ , iris I �♦ * _ •_--- "10% my 'Sheriff i � �►, Mor'ttessorl i wire .9 fire " 5c f I I It Department r ; VILLAGE } DcpD+xmenr t* CAF LAN-SIN.Gi : r c� Ithaca, . if Ithaca unity r I M Child Wirt .De'�Itr E : mYlJCA- 1 - -i ` ,Nohcheasc . f T01NN OF � HEIGHTS , *; ES r< tayu ag 860.6n. n i ► t p 6 i I ; r TOWN OF, -Al fTHACA C` t:ES t � h� ` Early'Child �- at - t r 0.5 i Miles Property We Meuse tJnjr ('sire - flet it - Health I'll es i Educational C alits Religious in RMJ. 42-Mile RO0 ;1 Source: Tompkins County GIS Files An Evaluation of the Town of Ithaca' s 5 Proposed Zoning Action on Cornell University Land ' 1 1 III MTFI 1 1 I I I Iw INS 5v — ■ el , 1 g tee, s i . h o i „ (excluding Figure 6* Existing (1990=2007) and Projected Housing Units in the Town of Ithaca 1 11 and ProjectedMousing 1 1 11 . ,r, , .;. , . ... . . 1 • . 111 . . 111 n as • • 1 2WO 2010 .2020 2030 Source: " 1 Census, 2000 Census, 2007 2030 Tompkins County 1 • Parsons and Brinckerhoff Evaluation An of • of Proposed Zoning Action on Cornell University Land f Ir .;, . . i 1 111 � • - 1 � 11 1 1 1 . 1 I11 r� r t QFI - 42% r? r ( •s°:AI �Y , r r C LEGEND Data r. i LI , , Decennial y , k a Income r .k grour r r ` -* • ► `� I • 18636...29818.I r-�I 2981800,44726 I I , 111 111 - • • • • ^"q , . 3 ,` x. y. K ^+'{InR Ca T R]sR!C►� i�h¢� ICY f�T+ AN 'r-L +Y p f .♦♦♦{ kh �$'r a. � s�GSaWI a". Q u 'o 3, 6 ss a -n+. TM i h7�J Lt f G\ . a i , } € lr �. •.WP c-. `f..�'- � k J. Ft`1 a�scC �a:t W'!h 1 ��. s.a � l�.n �', ii. � °'(\ P\� V Uj O a N L Cd 11J N? V r" co At t:t3'lLo IV% w b G 4A TIM . k PC Ut Q a O. Ott e a "� 8 8 wo f W ti Lei 0 w r u � u v, go CpLO sr.'scAr •,t rq� Qlrp. JYr � fV , � r? 51 � r4- 'T �fI4 sl rY ;G � z . ` IV, O Cd ItL _ T . � N 4 -^ Tir1l1 'c U CO 1,tttq dr,y 0C # a O SL pt cl oU a o � O O U � Q 0 IZ m .Its p v m ^C! tit r3 It f2 0 b PC t _ p low Q 0- Figure 10: Zoning Questions by Municipality 1 2 3 d 5 6 Municipality Accessory Higherdensity Multbfamily Mixed use? Restrictions on Deristry hdiising? consistent with multi-family? water infrastructure? City of Ithaca Partial / Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Torn of Caroline Yes NO Yes Yes No No Town of Danby Yes No No Partial Yes . Partial Torn of Dryden. Partial NO. Yes partial Pal 6af f No Partial f No. s Town of Enfield Yea' No Yes Yes No No Toren of Groton Partial No No Partial ! No Partial No TG+r�n Of`IINa:2 Partial J Yes No Partial i No Partial f No Paitial7 Yes . Partial Ti*Wof Onsing Partial No No Partial Yes Partial Torre of f fawfield Yes No. Yes Yes No Partial f No Town of Ulysses Feriiai No Na. Partial t Yes Partlal �Paniiil Village of Cajvga Heights No No Yes Partial Pattiil.t Yt;3 Yell Village of Dryden No . No Pt,rtiid Patlial. -Yes . Ya8 Village of Freevilte Partial No, Nn • Yes Paitial` Partial; i rage n rotors Partial No Yes Yea PartiolF Yes Yes Village of I onsing Yes. No- Partial Partial' Yes Yes Village of lmiansburg Yes, No No Yes Partial I No Yes Source: Tompkins County Housing Needs Assessment Appendix II, Zoning and Vacant Land Analysis, 2006 An Evaluation of the Town of Ithaca' s 10 Proposed Zoning Action on Cornell University Land C • ) • e TOWN OF TOWN OF ULYSSES- vi, • Y r • TOWN OF DRYDEN _l x�u k�kn e 0 ` 4 do � 55ggF z. s,x 'ex's 7 Fr N 3 � r ) kidT tF ty x w.old S+ rte`- a 1 - ,. ,y,,, q t^ i ✓ `+ x,'vq �( fjn 'r4 y `, qd•"°3 '� d r5 J n"^',4 y pia w � 5 All ,•t "x'r m } w k r ;y �p i ) 1 : '2 Ss. � —' d� '` F S 1 � ,get I 5 ,y.11 k ¢ a} a� u•k' r �.`fii3¢'N �k tJ J I rr�.. °?szt�' J ^ �+' , i � aa # ua�' ` .,. ,��5r 10 1 yr }Y� g an Sraf, 3xkI dr^�. s 3 'x Sz y< kj 3 & x - ✓r. F✓r+G'� A I, wr zfT�i �� .,� uk.. s p^hr t } "AI C� a ,� 'S 3 kr t dIll$ a yy � > - �s gg xr 4'1h 1Yy a..kh Z �� 'h k &. Y F Y "L YI pau 4 1 S 16 P FYI b' rF` ❑ p [} 1�1,y� �y���� s . sky ) rvl�y $ tyy,+*t sl �" i"�/✓ d IN{ 3 �° t ` �nE ag . ,� v ari{r Ywa{14' xs. xyv § r r1' rrr Rni�u 'ids. ` Id *t Yea x � # .i '1 y` :a ; u ��' �+` © � ' • ^r 9�3r`� �r °�� �zr s' � k�dv y ' i �T'w 7f'�s s� "Idd s x • ray ° $' Y �,«. 4 a ' - >'` t raS : 3 b • i �, 3d IIdd d jC d y & f � y a, N W p a a . �r a Q - _� ova ®A ° O • , . 4 n ¢ ' p CD ° D ��6 G a a '' as O O . ° '` � O N cd 4 _ Cd �+ 8 O C2D n t d gtij �1 a t Q ° p I ij _a 0 1 A D g O z L OA a p . e as s. d I< • • i � J�` JA b � ; D � J` Q 9 ` I DO 0 COI) rA 7 � rA t rr . . . p a cC E ,r O o U a $ O sail � Q 40 m us � e �nne � v W 0' 1 1 ( In . � o Qa ! 1 1 ' II ,n r . . e ' le w All 14 4 �i�.4i{ 5 t •. 1 � � � T � ?i"yam' } � , t fX ♦ / w .•' �`L �. sr i.. `fit 'ee Fee t It f 7• 4 y max . ..TTZzb L � VOW zv } : b IFR"I_(I� �7 /� # FYI • - V Ig gFmW ly Leff Fee le fie i >.n. Iy t 4FIF may" • "' ea / -S aq' 5{ \ ••{ '�-,}� 7, 7 w '"— 'w! y 4 I §1j�j�jllTTy[,'' �� -A { L \ �'°f ♦ A •Y "� ' r yr 1 - ..w 4$ - ".c x f x.� � s ,'I✓'s i • w j, i� h r *� • 3 ` [ri�S�IF 1 " v yy.+c .e� a T-_� _ gg n' v. ,t A� & a. FBI'. ,, I"� 53 �► ►, i 1.,, Y y na- !.. - i 1 II 1 I I Northeast Vi i b. •. I I . . 1 / 1 leg W#7.TiTZ.Cmilff ly 1 • I I I Management Study Drainage 1 � � • � , A � � 1 1 • � 1 � 1 1 1 • � . Sapsucker 11uoo'ds,=� Figure 14* Sections, North Parcel rte. . T '�r. 13 28 I p v � - Map 5: Sections, north Oarcel LO .rte r., `��i ,, . �• �, � ` ' . . . -. Woods,Sou rce: Final Report of an Ecological Communities Survey and Assessment of Lands Adjacent to Sapsucker • 11 : Evaluation An of • of Proposed Zoning Action on Cornell University Land \� _ 1E.9 c UA IL { ; �, cr wal Lv cc CIO TOM . rz . : r � s • ~ ' ��► - CA CO f CD :\ � . e' . { f iCD - rA ti Y Wit CK r �2c3q NCL blZm 4c mg ;god E116 Z Lj 4C H15161 Li Li WOW UWZ t (7w , . . VNIN OF or - 1 r;r r C o .f. i'.:r•7F. 1 t. 1 . v. -•a • . yr 4\ )r at �I K r �7 a . , a aY1 ro fj t' �� • A* 4 �'`tf♦� 'vP:r dfi�Dl /%� Oar . a ; frO- rr rir IY 11 <. . o- A W . TIC VCo rCa .Ja •�� � • �9raS'el VOW%C:f4'tM!ihiR rYare itYi r . ir: .- <r .or .'.;+tlita."Ld�r, .. . u!%l/ Ualla I� a, .y� UA yr,a • I a 44'11 p At Ifiil rah!W fi�fi Cik arar Ma Y1) f�fi� +raR Sa IY4.Y(. I' +a \� Ef � h 4artru�ra� irEr4 ra�)�4rar9Fr«;*� • '�>ar ilt w k a ia1'a<ar rlaa r*-*r . br•S0.aIl rr/11 n 1 h rho a.4om.rr;r,a <f a hi a3 , •.tJr Y104 ar { �rtf4la t r�YaaaiJ1rr r�ii-JYi�tR�a.r ir1�.S<�Y.Y�.aa .� / . � .Rlfir . `ay . ♦r .1 IJ1111 V, w r. `�sy�rLr �'+; ��� �� 7•ri.Jirl. ra;F ha��`aG isl�i��11 �' 7i'*.^4F� 6a*;E���aYa�Et! �iJ!i :frJ1.!<��I�� <� ICr�Y.rarifitr .4R aSra�'::�Ir rrr°pia i� 7� ow iJ::Q I, H � /� Jt\\Sl+\1�,J'� t �v\`•r .M , it Ii.- ar it fy 1 �..• �ia� .f�1� tr� i±R� LGr� 1%)ari1 r1i1�1Y;C�iC 1. At uarayDrar<l arriir l.. � a�e' JCraaC al r ,r nL . l.j Ilt1 t : \ , 5f ��tyM QLL aYt Ir ♦ a? a yr .r ifiril <r4� J, • i t \l t\n`}I1 t \4+ ,Ir \ a • aru er arai i aC c�6b lad -_ �'f. . . < .+ .'Iirara�r .i r�k�• /,�r . ``�l \I��.dd1 ` ,\ 14 \•� . aR < y[ 1 \ \� � . a s +64 lAA!"e1f..it CA.t� U� tlttl\ , Nutt N \, t , , ,r arAfi 5. Y , \\\ ,� i, t V .�, �1k l� E � .[a G)aral lr�a4 < ,C1� / 1' ♦t arais�aC"fi ra`ri�� . .re ari . . aY a.• aRnafiar �Y , Y�,}. � � ut •s . . .♦ 11r Ir n Gr E. .. ♦ ar ♦ 4r L ,• 1 !ir<'aC r":ih''1dY.+vim : fir<! [%y// 1\"t\ \�Abl\'1r���r�Gr�i� r4�railr<F. �iri�riJiiry��r . r rtiriRa G)<Gra i0�r1!'� ilir4ri� �'��I�%/I • vr'S• \ t - ��\ . ,{1 . x.�t tt yr 1h .ICa it arvru f �>. a. • a. .. aY . ,r .r 1 0 �`a t tn+.\: \ t "\ :'\tl v� �Q y,•�i O oar.SIC it 5 rid4il/ia�:toalr � tiCrii}Y1 11�1111VV11 tr it n 1` \ \� li� F a tl fi:,s aY aY .Y .. .\ i r r r . � IIR� ar/u'.. .n r tr • itti: ��r'tliisai ais<ri iara ra�Jirl Y< ai�,�+ aii a�iiiri � : { �'. 5t ��1�. �'i <1YErae rii i,r'1'a fl ha�r�<!�:'4�Oi'G�h rarrl� r � '�/� �I ira 4�llr��I��%jiI k\\ � }� \\ ty� i1W' a6a F. r E:NAR ar9AA�6d.d� 4afi A4J � , as `Y � / •ff� r♦y�Or � I 1 // �' •, �� I •r � ,1 Iz W yk . . l z F NJ. a4 + 997 N Li RJR r 1 OPER OR C .� ��!•.s P Z V1 iit ' "No IjIR,f Yat el+tl AY!'fR wre+ @ . ki pmq cc OR O Y ,�Ga spa M1��—•+�—"��ya$tl tl'°k'* •` ' '.tl' N icy*° � 7 N �fm s 9r NOW 0,, OXON m tl s • � 8 ps�y Y 0 Rw,ara R .. al 0 x so 41 i # ti • stir to 'm.._. ' • ' �.6M *" . Cd R i s'7k.'A:u�`,tl1'+acam RON ! e "` 4 r« to k �` ,� +} p bQ y.MtYRN , tl O M. Cd rn W p., p d a A •4 Figure 18: Approximated Existing and Future Water and Sewer Service Areas a �j ti r L R�r ; IJ --E7,�. ; ); 5 ! tk v a BB - 34 gi t r E.`iiming lValcT Nt.;vlcc ATen t ximing SL%vLT Scrivice ATca RxIStirtg Nfunic pal Server and Water Service Areas mTmsc d WaILT Scivict Arai Proposed_ Sewer Service Area Source: Tompkins County 2004 Comprehensive Plan An Evaluation of the Town of Ithaca' s 18 Proposed Zoning Action on Cornell University Land : ti✓/ Attachment # 8b STEARNS & WHELER C & CLIENTSIPEOPLEIPERFORMANCE MICHAEL S . FISHMAN , CWB , PWS Associate/Senior Wetlands and Wildlife Scientist Education OVERVIEW OF EXPERIENCE : B.S. (1988) Natural Resources Major Mr. Fishman has more than 22 years of experience in conducting wildlife and (Wildlife & Aquatic Sciences) botanical inventories (including surveys for numerous rare, threatened, or Cornell University endangered species); freshwater (inland) and tidal wetland delineations, College of Agriculture And classifications, and functional values assessments; design of mitigative measures to Life Sciences, Ithaca, NY offset unavoidable impacts from development; environmental impact assessments M.S. (Anticipated 2010) for proposed land use projects; federal, state, and local environmental permitting; Environmental and Forest and preparation of wildlife habitat management and enhancement plans. Mr. Biology Fishman has worked in academia, the government regulatory sector, and in both the State University of New York non-profit and consulting sectors. His work has spanned 25 states on sites ranging College of Environmental up to 25 ,000 acres in size . Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY; Thesis topic: WETLANDS: Conducted numerous wetland delineations and functional values Landscape Scale Habitat assessments, usi Definition for Indiana Bats ng the Federal ( 1987 and 1989) and New York State Delineation Manuals, and a variety of assessment methodologies. Successfully Professional Development defended delineations before U. S . Army Corps of Engineers and Interagency Coursework: Technical Evaluation Panels (USACOE, USFWS, and NRCS). Also designed • 40-hour Federal wetland mitigation areas to mitigate for unavoidable impacts to wetlands . jWetland Delineation Monitored construction of wetland mitigation areas. Experienced in Course identification .. of wetland vegetation (hydrophytes), hydric soils, and wetland '-) Wetland Plant hydrology and hydrologic cycles. Identification • Comprehensive Wildlife WILDLIFE AND BOTANICAL INVENTORY. Performed extensive wildlife Management and and botanical inventories and species richness surveys on federal lands for Planning NEPA compliance, and on private lands for development planning. Included surveys for birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, plants, aquatic invertebrates, Certifications fish, and rare/threatened/endangered (RT&E) species. The first private Certified Wildlife Biologist consultant trained, experienced, and licensed in NY State to perform federal Certified Professional protocol surveys for federally endangered Indiana Bat. Wetland Scientist #1274 • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: Assessment of potential OSHA HAZWOPER 40-Hour impacts to natural resources from proposed development. Includes preparation Certification of environmental impact assessment reports for permit applications, environmental impact statements (EISs), short and full environmental Memberships assessment forms (EAF and FEAF) under New York' s State Environmental The Wildlife Society Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and Environmental Reviews (ERs) under NEPA . Society of Wetland Scientists ENVIRONMENTAL .PERMITTING: Preparation of local, state, and federal The New York State Wetlands • freshwater and tidal wetland, coastal zone management, and planning and Forum (Board of Governors) zoning permit applications. Application reports include the identification of proposed impacts, analysis of design alternatives, and the design of mitigation Northeat Bat Working Group techniques to reduce environmental impacts. Services include presentation and I defense of wetland delineations and permit application packages at regulatory agency and public hearings . i Michael S . Fishman, CWB, PWS ( continued ) "Osprey Productivity On Long Island 1978- 1987 : A Decade Of Stabilization" technical paper presentation at Federation of New York State Bird Clubs ' Annual Meeting, Rochester, NY, 1990. "Osprey Productivity On Long Island 1978- 1987 : A Decade Of Stabilization" technical paper co-authored with M. S . Scheibel in Kingbird 40( 1 ), 1990 The Northern Spotted Owl : Study and Status" lecture delivered to Great South Bay, Moriches, and North Fork chapters of the National Audubon Society, Long Island, NY, 1990 . �3 12 Attachment # 10 l -- - • �� � � �ma �� ® — , Real Estate Department Cornell Universi "" "'°""` - -��y Ithaca,, NY 14850 rive .ve."-" tom, 4.'V U�� 11 t. 607.266.7866 DEC ® 4 2 U ' fwww.re.omell.edu TOWtd CF fT :,®° � COME Ffr FOEAQQ �T December 4, 2009 Hon. Herbert Engman, Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York, 14850 Re: Proposal to rezone portion of Tax Parcel # 73 - 1 - 2 . 2 Dear Supervisor Engman, A portion of Cornell ' s tax parcel 73 - 1 - 2 .2 has been included by the Town of Ithaca in a proposal for rezoning several parcels from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Conservation Zone. Cornell has long identified this parcel for residential purposes, most likely median income-range workforce housing, and believes strongly that it is in the best interests of the Town of Ithaca to have the entire parcel continue to be zoned MDR. The overarching purpose of this letter is to propose an alternative that would assure you that the goal (which we share) of a conserved area of reasonable size closest to Sapsucker Woods will be realized, and that the zoning is compatible with Cornell ' s goal of median income workforce housing. We believe that the parcel, without being divided into two different zoning districts, is capable and well suited to meet both goals. You will see that this letter is divided into four sections . The first, by way of background, will describe the Cornell concept for development of the parcel as housing. In the second section we will summarize the reasons Cornell identified parcel 73 — 1 - 2 .2 for eventual residential development. Third, we will describe the undesirable consequences of rezoning a portion of the Cornell parcel . The fourth section will describe the alternative we are proposing to you and the Town Board. 1 . The existing Cornell concept for development criteria of the Cornell parcel : o Compact residential development that meets a largely unmet demand in Ithaca ; for more diverse housing types, with maximization of open space, and avoidance of sensitive areas and particularly the easternmost 200 ' of the parcel where it adjoins Sapsucker Woods . For instance, a planned unit development at the density that MDR allows (one unit per 15 ,000 SF or i approximately 3 conventional lots per acre) would permit clustering development in the least sensitive areas . o Residential development that is sensitive to the scale and massing of housing in the surrounding neighborhood. A detailed site analysis would help ensure that open space and buffers with neighboring parcels are optimized. o Rustic, naturalistic landscape that works with the existing setting and is sensitive to site features such as the small wetland area north of the present location of the park area. o A set-aside 200 ' in depth along the easternmost edge of the parcel/westernmost edge of Sapsucker Woods to be reserved for little or no development. Walking trails similar to what exist there now are envisioned. The Director of the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology has walked the 200-foot-wide area with me and we are in agreement that this, coupled with the other development criteria we will follow, is a sufficient buffer for Sapsucker Woods in this location. o Open spaces and landscaping that maximize the use of naturalistic plantings by planting native and non-invasive species to be consistent in character with the Sapsucker Woods . Any maintained lawns and hardscape would be minimized or work in concert with the overall site landscape. o Access and egress from an extension of Arrowwood Drive, off Warren Road. A road through the site could provide a northerly outlet for the neighborhood located to the south, through a connection with Tarrytown Drive. o Relocating the existing park area within the site with access to the park maintained for the benefit of the surrounding neighborhood. o Walking and bicycling facilities as well as a bus stop included as part of the development to facilitate connections with existing walking, biking, and transit networks located in close proximity to the parcel . o Energy-efficient, green building and landscaping practices . o Imposing the requirement on residents of the housing development that dogs must be on leashes and cats must be indoor cats, because of the adjacent Sapsucker Woods bird sanctuary. 2 2 . Why the parcel was identified for median income workforce housing: o The Town of Ithaca' s Zoning Ordinance identifies this area for medium density residential development, which is a density well-suited to housing for wage-earners in the median income range. o The County Planning Office in its Affordable Housing Needs Assessment for Tompkins County, completed in August 2006, identified a housing shortage of some 4,000 units in the coming decade, half of them for below median to median income residents . The subsequent Housing Strategy for Tompkins County was based on the findings of the Affordable Housing Needs Assessment and recommends strategies to locate and promote affordable housing. We understand that the Housing Strategy was endorsed and supported by the Town Board by a resolution dated July 9, 2007 . o The 2006 Tompkins County Economic Development Strategy, adopted by the Tompkins County Legislature in October 2006, further identifies the need to "increase and diversify housing supply" as one of three top economic development goals . o The parcel is in close proximity to existing and future employment centers, as well as to community services and amenities such as schools, childcare, medical offices, recreation, shopping, transit, pedestrian trails, and the airport. o The parcel is in an area that has been identified by the County Planning Department as a ` development focus area' where there is potential for infill development in close proximity to all the above-mentioned community services and amenities . Cornell ' s development concept for the parcel is consistent with the principles of the County' s Comprehensive Plan and emerging national and international trends for sustainable, smart growth and mixed-use communities that are well connected to transit and employment. o Infill development within this area would enable transit connections to be strengthened, including those to the Cornell campus, thereby reducing sprawl, the loss of habitat in other areas that comes with sprawl, future traffic congestion, and dependence on single occupancy vehicles, to name a few of the benefits . 3 . Undesirable consequences of rezoning a portion of the Cornell parcel to Conservation Zone: o Rezoning 6 . 9 acres (out of the 30-acre parcel) to a Conservation Zone does not permit the entire area of the parcel to be counted toward the overall permitted density of a cluster-style development, thereby reducing the 3 number of units that can be constructed and the incentive for doing a planned unit development. o A reduction in the acreage that is designated MDR would reduce the number of units over which the cost of site amenities, infrastructure, and green landscaping practices could be spread. The result would be increasing the cost of the units, possibly out of the range of the median income workforce for whom they are intended. o At 30 acres, the concept for this housing is already on the small side for developments of this type. A further reduction would make it more difficult to attract quality developers who are willing to invest in the fixed-cost infrastructure and amenities we will require and that a larger number of units would support. o Some Cornell land, such as this parcel, has been owned for a long time, "land banked" for future use. Cornell has been paying real property taxes on this parcel while holding it for responsible development that will benefit the community at large, as well as Cornell ' s interest in attracting and retaining employees 'in staff and faculty positions. It has been zoned for residential use for decades . Its ecological value is rated "low" (23 acres) or "low to moderate" (5 . 1 acres) , with the balance not rated. Its ecological value seems to be the only value that was investigated prior to proposing it for rezoning. Wholly absent is any other planning analysis showing why its residential value - the use for which it has been earmarked for decades - should suddenly have become any less of a priority than its ecological value. This is not comprehensive planning. And it is a real deterrent to an owner' s long range plan for responsible future use if a lack of development makes it a target willy-nilly for placing it in a conservation zone. o The Town-commissioned studies make it clear that by itself, the land would not warrant a change to Conservation zoning. It does not drain into the neighborhood to the south and its ecological value is not high. Its sole reason for inclusion is its value for buffering the adjacent parcel that is part of Sapsucker Woods . Yet Cornell owns both parcels, removing the argument that a buffer is needed, especially when Cornell has had a long- standing internal policy in place that the easternmost 200 ' of this parcel (and of those parcels to the north, to NYS Route 13 ) closest to Sapsucker Woods ' s western edge would not be developed. o Cornell also has concerns about the changes in regulations for Conservation zones that are now being studied in committee, but we reserve comment until the appropriate hearing. 4 4. Alternative to rezoning Cornell ' s land : Cornell is willing to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the Town of Ithaca to confirm a permanent set-aside to preserve an area 200 feet in width along the eastern-most edge of tax parcel # 73 - 1 - 2 . 2 where it adjoins the Laboratory of Ornithology. Some time ago Cornell ' s concept plan for eventual development of the entire parcel identified this 200 ' depth for a permanent undeveloped area to provide protection to the adjacent Sapsucker Woods. As mentioned above, walking paths similar to what exist now and perhaps other naturalistic features that are compatible with and similar to the features currently found along Sapsucker Woods trails (benches, etc. ), would be the extent of any additions to the set-aside area. We understand that as part of the eventual plan for development of the balance of the parcel, some legal mechanism such as a deed restriction on this 200-foot width would be required. Ultimately it would be internally assigned to the Laboratory of Ornithology (as would the buffer extending northward, to NYS Route 13 ) . I recently met with the Director of the Laboratory of Ornithology, John W. Fitzpatrick, to walk this area and discuss the ecological versus housing values of this particular parcel, which he said lies peripheral to the more ecologically important portions of Sapsucker Woods. He agrees that the MOU we propose is a sensible compromise between two important priorities of Cornell and the Town of Ithaca, and would not jeopardize any of the ecological values of Sapsucker Woods . Dr. Fitzpatrick has seen and approved this letter. Thus, the permanent set-aside described in the MOU would be part of the site plan for tax parcel # 73 - 1 - 2 .2 . Under such a proposal, the entire acreage in tax parcel # 73 - 1 - 2 . 2 would remain zoned MDR and remain available to calculate the maximum allowable density of the parcel . Recognizing that an actual plan is sometime off in our future, I am not suggesting the MOU would bind the Town Board or the Planning Board to the future approval of a plan. The only subject of the MOU would be the permanent 200-foot set-aside. It is our hope that a planned unit development (with this permanent 200-foot set-aside), featuring a. clustered configuration and meeting our other criteria described above would be the sort of plan that we would present for that future consideration. When the Final Report of an Ecological Communities Survey and Assessment of Lands Adjacent to Sapsucker Woods dated September 30, 2008 , was published we noted in the Recommendations section that Option 2 calls for 300 ' and Option 3 for 100 ' in this location. The distance of 200 ' we have long been assuming for our planning purposes is halfway between these two recommendations. As that Final Report pointed out in making its recommendations, there are many planning priorities and needs besides a conservation priority. Cornell believes the planning priorities and needs for housing and responsible infill development are vitally important to the Town, to Cornell University, and to the region. Luckily, this is also a case in which such planning priorities and needs can be accommodated on this site in a reasonable balance with an ecological priority -- without compromising the accommodation of either, and without dividing the parcel into two zones . i 5 We welcome and look forward to the opportunity to discuss this matter further with you. Sincerely, Thomas P . LiVigne cc. . Jonathan Kanter Sue Ritter Susan Brock At Cornell : Mina Amundsen, University Planner Shirley Egan, Associate Counsel John Fitzpatrick, Professor & Director Laboratory of Ornithology John Gutenberger, Director Community Relations Stephen P . Johnson, Vice President Government/Community Relations Kyu Whang, Vice President Facilities Services 6 Attachment # lla Parsons 100 South Charles Street _ = Brinckerhoff Tower 1, 10` Floor Baltimore, MD 21201 -2727 _ Main: 410-727-5050 --100 Fax: 410-727-4608 Y"RS@ Evaluation of the Town of Ithaca ' s Proposed Zoning Action on Cornell University Land — Presentation to the Town Board Uri Avin, FAICP, of Parsons Brinckerhoff, December 7, 2009 Introduction and Summary Findings Good evening. My name is Uri Avin and I am with the planning and engineering firm of Parsons Brinckerhoff. Cornell University has asked me to review the proposed rezoning by the Town of Ithaca of a portion of its lands in the northeast area from Medium Density Residential zoning to Conservation zoning as well as related amendments to the Town' s Zoning Ordinance and 1993 Comprehensive Plan. By way of my own background, I am an urban planner with 38 years of experience which include a decade in the public sector and 28 years as a consultant. My work includes the development of numerous comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances throughout the United States. This work has been recognized through 22 state or national awards for excellence and in my being honored as a Charter Fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners. I have published and lectured across the US on land use, growth management and transportation planning and have also taught these topics in several graduate planning programs. I serve on the editorial boards of the Journal of the American Planning Association and of the standard planning textbook The Practice of Local Planning. I have also served on the Board of the National Center for Watershed Management. As part of my review, I visited the area and reviewed a wide variety of data and planning and environmental studies for Tompkins County and the Town of Ithaca. Based on this review and my own analysis, it is my professional opinion that it is inappropriate to designate the Cornell site as a Conservation zoning district and that such a rezoning is not supported by the Town' s current comprehensive plan, even under the currently proposed plan amendments for this area. Instead, it is my professional opinion that the CP supports continued zoning for medium density residential development. Moreover, the proposed amendments to the CP for the Conservation/Open Space descriptions dilute rather than enhance the purpose and clarity of the Conservation concept. I will now provide some detail to support this opinion. The following is a summary of key points from a much more detailed Report to Cornell which you, the Board members, have also received. The site is appropriate for residential development My conclusion that the Cornell site is most appropriate for residential development is based on five key points of reference: • The 2003 Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan • The Goals, Objectives and Actions of the Town' s 1993 CP • Regional and Town level Smart Growth planning principles Over a Century of Engineering Excellence A' 1 • Housing needs • Multi-modal transportation principles and needs I will say a few words about each of these five reference points . The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan This Plan sets a high priority on housing availability and affordability combined with job/housing proximity which is consistent with the site' s current zoning. Another plan priority is improving traffic through the better proximity of jobs, housing, transit service and bicycle and pedestrian travel modes . These are very important transportation options in a county with a major university and colleges, where 40% of residents do not commute to work by car and where as many as 17% of the population walk to work. The question of housing supply that is close to work is especially important within the Town of Ithaca because less than 10% of the Town jobs are actually filled by residents of the Town. To address this problem, the Plan urges "compact, higher density development patterns" and infill development, exactly what this site provides The Town of Ithaca 1993 Comprehensive Plan The Town ' s Plan has numerous goals, objectives and actions supporting the use of the site as currently zoned. The Plan sets an overarching Housing and Residential Land Use goal which is "To promote the availability of diverse, high-quality, affordable, and attractive places for people to live". Under this goal there are several objectives and recommended actions that directly relate to the subject site. Below are just a few : " l . A variety of housing styles and patterns of development to meet the diverse needs of the community. . . . b) Ensure that adequate amounts of suitable land are zoned to meet future housing needs identified by the Housing Plan . . . d) Encourage the construction of a large range of housing types, styles and prices to satisfy the diverse needs and desires of the community. 3 . Opportunities for affordable housing" . . c) Ensure that a portion of the Town ' s undeveloped, residentially zoned areas have lot- size requirements that do not preclude affordable housing. Under the oal of Managing the Built Environment is the following objective : g g g " . . . 4) Focus development to avoid sprawl" In the light of the commitments made by Cornell for an environmentally sensitive plan for the subject site, one especially relevant Action from the Comprehensive plan listed under the objective on the protection of natural resources is the following : "Support private sector efforts to protect significant environmental areas and coordinate these activities with the Town ' s comprehensive planning program where applicable" The 1993 Plan includes a long list of progressive Actions to implement the affordable housing objective. But because very few of these actions have yet occurred, available parcels with conventional MDR zoning like the subject site are extremely valuable, especially when they are conveniently accessible to employment, services, amenities and transit. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 2 Attachment # 8b STEARNS & WHELER E" CLIENTS I PEOPLE I PERFORMAN cE MICHAEL S . FISHMAN , CWB , PWS Associate/Senior Wetlands and Wildlife Scientist Education OVERVIEW OF EXPERIENCE : B.S, (1988) Natural Resources Major Mr. Fishman has more than 22 years of experience in conducting wildlife and (Wildlife & Aquatic Sciences) botanical inventories (including surveys for numerous rare, threatened, or Cornell University endangered species); freshwater (inland) and tidal wetland delineations, College of Agriculture And classifications, and functional values assessments; design of mitigative measures to Life Sciences, Ithaca, NY offset unavoidable impacts from development; environmental impact assessments M.S. (Anticipated 2010) for proposed land use projects; federal, state, and local environmental permitting; Environmental and Forest and preparation of wildlife habitat management and enhancement plans. Mr. BioloU Fishman has worked in academia, the government regulatory sector, and in both the State University of New York non-profit and consulting sectors. His work has spanned 25 states on sites ranging College of Environmental up to 25 ,000 acres in size. Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY; Thesis topic: WETLANDS: Conducted numerous wetland delineations and functional values Landscape Scale Habitat assessments, using the Federal ( 1987 and 1989) and New York State Definition for Indiana Bats Delineation Manuals, and a variety of assessment methodologies . Successfully Professional Development defended delineations before U. S . Army Corps of Engineers and Interagency Coursework: Technical Evaluation Panels (USACOE, USFWS, and NRCS) . Also designed • 40-hour Federal wetland mitigation areas to mitigate for unavoidable impacts to wetlands . Wetland Delineation Monitored construction of wetland mitigation areas. Experienced in Course identification of wetland vegetation (hydrophytes), hydric soils, and wetland • Wetland Plant hydrology and hydrologic cycles. Identification • Comprehensive Wildlife WILDLIFE AND BOTANICAL INVENTORY. Performed extensive wildlife Management and and botanical inventories and species richness surveys on federal lands for Planning NEPA compliance, and on private lands for development planning. Included Certifications surveys for birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, plants, aquatic invertebrates, Certified Wildlife Biologist fish, and rare/threatened/endangered (RT&E) species . The first private consultant trained, experienced, and licensed in NY State to perform federal Certified Professional protocol surveys for federally endangered Indiana Bat. Wetland Scientist #1274 • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: Assessment of potential OSHA HAZWOPER 40-Hour impacts to natural resources from proposed development. Includes preparation Certification of environmental impact assessment reports for permit applications, environmental impact statements (EISs), short and full environmental Memberships assessment forms (EAF and FEAF) under New York' s State Environmental The Wildlife Society Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and Environmental Reviews (ERs) under NEPA. Society of Wetland Scientists ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING: Preparation of local, state, and federal The New York State Wetlands • freshwater and tidal wetland, coastal zone management, and planning and Forum (Board of Governors) zoning permit applications. Application reports include the identification of proposed impacts, analysis of design alternatives, and the design of mitigation Northeat Bat Working Group techniques to reduce environmental impacts. Services include presentation and defense of wetland delineations and permit application packages at regulatory agency and public hearings. i 1 f Michael S. Fishman, CWB, PWS (continued) WETLANDS : • Certified Professional Wetland Scientist # 1274, Society of Wetland Scientists, since 2000 • Trained in the 1987 and 1989 Federal Manual for Freshwater Wetland Delineation in 1990 by Ralph Tiner and Peter Venemann (originators of the methodology). Included 40 hour course in vegetation, hydrology, and hydric soils . • Trained in New York State Manual for Freshwater Wetland Delineation by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation staff, 1990. • Completed jurisdictional wetland mapping for NYSDEC Region 1 , including identifying wetlands from infrared aerial photographs, ground- truthing and delineating hundreds of wetlands, and responding to public comments regarding NYSDEC ' s wetland mapping program for the final mapping findings statement. • Identified, classified, and delineated hundreds of freshwater wetlands in CA, CT, GA, IN, KS, MA, MD, MN, MO, NC, NJ, NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, TN, TX, VA, WA, WI, and WV • Delineations have bee reviewed and accepted by U. S . Army Corps of Engineers, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, numerous local conservation and inland wetland commissions, and by the Minnesota Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), which includes representatives from U. S . Fish & Wildlife Service (botany), U. S .D .A. Natural Resources Conservation Service (soils), and the U. S . Army Corps of Engineers (hydrology). Assessed Functions and Values of more than 100 wetlands using the following methods : o Highway Methodology, New England District U. S . Army Corps of Engineers o Minnesota Rapid Assessment Method o Method for the Evaluation of Inland Wetlands in Connecticut o Wetland Baseline and Monitoring Evaluation Procedure • Developed many wetland mitigation plans to offset anticipated impacts to wetland functions and values from proposed land use projects; included grading to establish hydrology, and planting plans to establish native wetland vegetation. r • Developed and wrote a Wetland Master Plan for the Town of Provincetown, MA. Plan included functional values assessment and management recommendations . 2 < < Michael S . Fishman , CWB, PWS (continued ) WILDLIFE: • Certified Wildlife Biologist, The Wildlife Society, since 2004 • Conducted hundreds of flora and fauna inventories on sites ranging in size up to 25 ,000 acres. • Identified .and classified habitat and ecological cover types per Ecological Communities of New York State (Edinger, et al., 2002), and per New . England Wildlife: Habitat, Natural History, and Distribution (DeGraaf and Yamasaki, 200 1 ) • Inventory methods used include: o (Random) Visual Encounter Survey o Point Count Survey o Sign Search o Point-Transect/Point-Intersect/Point-Quadrat Survey o Call-Playback Survey o Opportunistic Bird Sighting Technique o Federal Protocol Phase I and 2 Bog Turtle Survey o Federal Protocol Indiana Bat Mist Net Survey o Live trapping: Sherman traps, mist nets (birds and bats), harp traps, minnow traps, bal chatri and Verbail traps (hawks and owls), pitfalls, noose rod (owls), sweep net, kick net (aquatic macroinvertebrates), electroshocking (fish) o Spotlighting o Family-level Biotic Index (FBI) for water quality o Acoustic Sampling for bats (Anabat II) • Specific experience with the following state or federal listed special concern, threatened, or endangered species surveyed or studied in the field: Piping Plover Least Tern American Oystercatcher Northern Spotted Owl Barred Owl Short-eared Owl Sharp-Shinned Hawk Coopers Hawk Northern Harrier Osprey Peregrine Falcon American Kestrel Savannah Sparrow Henslow' s Sparrow Brown Thrasher Bog Turtle Wood Turtle Blue Spotted Salamander Jefferson ' s Salamander Tiger Salamander Checkered White Indiana Bat Small-footed Bat Red Bat • First private consultant in NYS to be licensed and approved by NYSDEC and USFWS to conduct Federal Protocol Surveys for Indiana Bats • Invited author of an article on the Endangered Species Act for the New York State Bar Association' s Real Property Law Journal. 3 r y Michael S . Fishman , CWB , PWS (continued ) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: • Four years experience working in the NYSDEC Bureau of Environmental Protection — included reviewing environmental impact statements and full environmental assessment forms (FEAF) for technical accuracy and compliance with State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) • Assessment of potential environmental impacts (including impacts to wetlands, wildlife, vegetation, threatened and endangered species, cultural resources, and visual resources) for more than 100 proposed development projects. • Peer review of environmental impact assessment reports prepared by others for municipal environmental regulatory commissions (Towns of Ridgefield, Kent, Milford, Winchester, and Norfolk, CT, Queen Anne' s County, MD, Cazenovia, Fayetteville, New Rochelle, and Wappingers Falls, NY) • Preparation of wildlife, wetland, vegetation, and noise and visual impacts sections of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). • Preparation of Full Environmental Assessment Forms (FEAF) and coordination of SEQRA process (declaration of lead agency, determination of significance, preparation of negative/positive declarations, preparation of EISs) for private and municipal projects. • Preparation of Environmental Reports (ER) outlining potential impacts of federally-funded water quality improvement projects, in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). • Preparation of Coastal Area Impact Reports for Connecticut Coastal Area Management (CAM) permits for private, commercial, and utility development in the Coastal Zone. PERMITTING : • Federal: Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 (Discharges into Waters of the U. S ./Nationwide General Permits (NWPs)/Programmatic General Permits (PGPs); CWA Section 401 (Water Quality Certification); Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act (Dredging/Excavation in Navigable Waters) • State: CT: Inland Wetlands and Watercourses; Tidal Wetlands; Coastal Area Management (CAM), Flood Damage Certification. NY Freshwater Wetlands; Tidal Wetlands; Stream Protection ; Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers . MA Inland Wetlands and Waterways; Programmatic General Permit Authorizations ; MN Inland Wetlands. WI Inland Wetlands. • Local : CT and NY local inland wetlands permits; planning and zoning permits; local flood damage prevention permits. 4 l 1 Michael S . Fishman , CWB , PWS (continued ) WORK HISTORY: 1998-Present: Stearns & Wheler, LLC, Environmental Engineers and Scientists Cazenovia and Suffern, NY and Trumbull, CT Offices Associate/Senior Wetlands & Wildlife Scientist • Environmental Consulting for private, corporate, government, and municipal clients throughout the U. S . • Projects include water & wastewater treatment plants and distribution/collection systems, oil/gas pipelines, landfills, residential/commercial developments, golf courses, dams, hazardous waste site remediation, and environmental violation resolutions . 1996- 1998 : Svoboda Ecological Resources, Inc. Excelsior, MN and Marietta, NY Senior Wetlands & Wildlife Biologist, Manager of NY Office • Environmental Consulting for private, government, and municipal clients throughout the U . S . • Projects included residential and commercial developments, hunting preserves, transportation projects, and educational projects 1994- 1996 : Wildlife Habitat Council Silver Spring, MD Senior Wildlife Biologist and Principal Wetland Scientist • International Environmental Non-Profit Organization — prepared wetland and wildlife habitat management plans for major corporations worldwide • Projects included chemical plants, corporate headquarters, coal, gold, sand, and silica mines, quarries, landfills, oil refineries and terminals, golf courses, ski resorts, steel plants, gas pipelines, power plants, and hydroelectric dams • Clients included Amoco, BFI, Monsanto, DuPont, U. S . Steel, General Electric, Motorola, New York Power Authority and many others 1990- 1994 : New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureaus of Wildlife and Environmental Protection Stony Brook and Ithaca, NY Fish & Wildlife Technician I • Completed regulatory wetland mapping for Long Island; • Performed field work (delineations and investigations) and reviewed permit applications for wetland regulatory program ; • Conducted preliminary reviews of Environmental Impact Statements and Full Environmental Assessment Forms 5 R 4 Michael S. Fishman, CWB, PWS (continued ) • Conducted wildlife and fisheries surveys, including RT&E surveys; 1989: Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Blue River, OR Research Assistant, Northern Spotted Owl Research Program • Conducted demographic, productivity, distribution, and prey ecology research on Northern Spotted Owls; 1986- 1988 : Cornell Lab of Ornithology Ithaca and Islip, NY • Research Assistant, Cornell Homing Pigeon Research Project • Research Assistant, Colonial Waterbird Monitoring Program • Research Assistant, Cooperative Nest Monitoring Program 1986: U.S. National Park Service Fire Island National Seashore, Fire Island, NY Laborer — Trail and Boardwalk Construction 1985- 1986 : Center for Marine and Environmental Studies (C.M.E.S.) Bethlehem, PA Research Assistant, Freshwater Clam Research Project 1985 : New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Regulatory Affairs, Stony Brook, NY Environmental Analyst Intern • Traced land ownership through tax records for notification of affected landowners about freshwater wetland regulatory program. 1985 : Rutgers University Field Research Program Fire Island, NY Research Assistant, Barrier Beach Vegetation Study 1984 : U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Long Island Refuge Complex Shirley, NY Youth Conservation Corps Laborer • Maintained trails through three National Wildlife Refuges VOLUNTEER ACTIVTTIES 2001 -present: Instructor, Becoming an Outdoors Woman (BOTf) Program, NY Taught waterfowl hunting and identification, outdoor cooking and fish & game cooking at women-oriented training program sponsored by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 6 Y. J Michael S . Fishman, CWB, PWS (continued ) 2001 -2003 : Onondaga Audubon Society Board of Directors, Syracuse, NY Served as member of the Board of Directors and Public Relations Officer of one of New York State' s largest Audubon Chapters 1997 — present Ducks Unlimited Committee Member, Syracuse, NY Work with Ducks Unlimited at the national, state, and local level to raise money for Ducks Unlimited programs . Average fund raising of ±$20,000 per year. 2000-2001 : Crusoe Conservation Center, Montezuma Wetlands Complex Savannah, NY Gave guided public tour of newly acquired wetland forest complex and proposed wetland restoration area. Assisted in preparation and presentation of public education programs . 2001 -present NYSDEC Bat Hibernacula Surveys and Radio Telemetry Project Williams and Barton Hill Mines, Ulster and Essex Counties, NY Assisted the NYSDEC in surveying known Indiana Bat hibernacula, and in testing equipment and capturing and marking Indiana Bats for a radio telemetry dispersal study. Trained NYSDEC staff in survey methods. 2000 : Montezuma Monitoring Avian Productivity & Success (MAPS) Montezuma, NY Assisted with mist-net capture and banding of songbirds for national avian population monitoring program. 2000 : Clark Reservation State Park, Jamesville, NY Guided a public tour of newly acquired state park lands, including large wetland complex, at the request of park personnel . 2000-2001 : Finger Lakes National Forest Indiana Bat Survey Hector, NY Assisted the U. S .D.A. Forest Service and NYSDEC in federal protocol surveys for Indiana Bats on National Forest lands for an EIS for proposed oil and gas exploration. 1999 — 2000 NYSDEC Wilson Hill WMA Annual Goose Drive Massena, NY Assisted with annual Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) capture and banding for productivity and migration monitoring. 1996-present Cornell University Alumni Career Link Ithaca, NY Provide career counseling to students interested in working in the natural resources field. .a Michael S . Fishman , CWB , PWS ( continued ) 1997 : Lime Hollow Nature Center Cortland, NY Volunteer Naturalist Instructor for wetlands and wildlife programs 1995 - 1996 Times-Mirror Magazine 's Golden Eagle Environmental Awards Washington, DC Served as a judge of environmental management programs at ski resorts throughout the U. S . for Times-Mirror Magazines ' most prestigious environmental award. 1989- 1992 : Volunteer Lecturer Various Locations throughout NY Lectured and delivered slide presentations on federally-listed rare, threatened and endangered species, including Northern Spotted Owls, Least Terns, Piping Plovers, and Ospreys to various school and non-profit organizations (Audubon chapters, etc.) 1984- 1985 : Hawk Migration Association of North America Field Surveys Long Island, NY Volunteer hawk migration counter. 1983 -84 : New York State Breeding Bird Atlas Project Long Island, NY Volunteer Bird Atlas Surveyor and "Block Buster" PRESENTATIONS/PUBLICATIONS/SENVIINARS/RESEARCH: "Using GIS to Develop Municipal Greenprints", presentation at the New York State GIS Conference, Lake Placid, NY, October, 2009 . "Bats of Green Lakes State Park", presentation to general audience by request of the public education program staff at Green Lakes State Park, August, 2009. "The Art and Science of Significant Nexus Evaluations", coauthor of presentation at the Society of Wetland Scientists ' Annual Meeting, Madison, WI, July 2009. "White Nose Syndrome: What We Know So Far", invited presentation to the community of Rosendale, Rosendale, NY, March 2009. "A Comparison of Bat Surveys at the West Point Military Reservation Pre- and Post-White Nose Syndrome", primary author of poster presented at the Northeast Fish & Wildlife Conference, Lancaster, PA, April, 2009 . "Habitat Use by a Female Indiana Bat at an Urban-Rural Interface in Central New York at Multiple Spatial Scales", primary author of poster presented at the Northeast Natural History Conference, Albany, NY, May 2008 . 8 Michael S . Fishman , CWB, PWS ( continued ) "Taking the Highway Methodology on the Road", joint presentation at the New York State Wetlands Forum Annual Meeting, Seneca Falls, NY, April 2008 . " Summer Habitat Selection of the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) in Central New York, USA", presentation at the New York State Wetlands Forum Annual Meeting, Seneca Falls, NY, April 2008 . "Indiana Bat Emergence Studies Continued: The Jamesville 2006 Release", invited presentation at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the New York State Wetlands Forum, Lake Placid, NY, April 2007 . "More Than Mitigation: Renewal and Reconciliation in the Rockaways", invited presentation at Human/Nature: A Symposium on Reconciliation Ecology, sponsored by the Catskill Institute for the Environment at SUNY Oneonta, October, 2005 . " Saving Your Project From the Endangered Species List", invited article in the New York State Real Property Law Journal, 33 (3 ), Summer, 2005 . "Living With Uncertainty: The Indiana Bat in New York", invited presentation at the New York State Wetlands Forum Annual Meeting, Glens Falls, NY, April, 2005 "The Endangered Species Consultation Process", invited article in the New York State Real Property Law Journal, Spring, 2005 . "The Endangered Species Consultation Process", invited presentation before the Erie County Bar Association ' s Environmental Committee, Buffalo, NY, January, 2005 "Bats of New York", invited lecture for the Field Biology Class at Cornell University' s Natural Resources Department, Ithaca, NY, October, 2004, 2005 , 2006, 2008, 2009 "Functional Values of Accidental Urban Wetlands", paper presentation at the 25"' Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists, Seattle, WA, July 2004 . "Man Cannot Live On Soils Alone — The Importance of Using a Multiparameter Approach for Wetland Delineation", paper presentation at the 25`h Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists, Seattle, WA, July 2004. "Unique Wildlife Values of Small and Isolated Wetlands", paper presentation at the 25`h Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists, Seattle, WA, July 2004 . "Inventorying and Protecting An Urban Wildlife Oasis", paper presentation at the Northeast Natural History Conference VIII, Albany, NY, May, 2004 . 9 N i Michael S . Fishman , CWB, PWS (continued ) "Taking the Highway Methodology on the Road", joint presentation at the New York State Wetlands Forum Annual Meeting, Seneca Falls, NY, April 2008 . " Summer Habitat Selection of the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) in Central New York, USA", presentation at the New York State Wetlands Forum Annual Meeting, Seneca Falls, NY, April 2008 . "Indiana Bat Emergence Studies Continued : The Jamesville 2006 Release", invited presentation at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the New York State Wetlands Forum, Lake Placid, NY, April 2007 . "More Than Mitigation : Renewal and Reconciliation in the Rockaways", invited presentation at Human/Nature: A Symposium on Reconciliation Ecology, sponsored by the Catskill Institute for the Environment at SUNY Oneonta, October, 2005 . "Saving Your Project From the Endangered Species List", invited article in the New York State Real Property Law Journal, 33 (3 ), Summer, 2005 . "Living With Uncertainty: The Indiana Bat in New York", invited presentation at the New York State Wetlands Forum Annual Meeting, Glens Falls, NY, April, 2005 "The Endangered Species Consultation Process", invited article in the New York State Real Property Law Journal, Spring, 2005 . "The Endangered Species Consultation Process", invited presentation before the Erie County Bar Association ' s Environmental Committee, Buffalo, NY, January, 2005 "Bats of New York", invited lecture for the Field Biology Class at Cornell University' s Natural Resources Department, Ithaca, NY, October, 2004, 2005 , 2006, 2008, 2009 "Functional Values of Accidental Urban Wetlands", paper presentation at the 25`h Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists, Seattle, WA, July 2004 . "Man Cannot Live On Soils Alone — The Importance of Using a Multiparameter Approach for Wetland Delineation", paper presentation at the 25 `h Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists, Seattle, WA, July 2004 . "Unique Wildlife Values of Small and Isolated Wetlands", paper presentation at the 25`h Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists, Seattle, WA, July 2004. "Inventorying and Protecting An Urban Wildlife Oasis", paper presentation at the Northeast Natural History Conference VIII, Albany, NY, May, 2004 . 9 U N Michael S . Fishman, CWB, PWS (continued ) "Piping Plovers and Playgrounds — Planning for Human Use and habitat in a Unique Urban Redevelopment Project" — paper presentation at the 60`h Annual Northeast Fish & Wildlife Conference, Ocean City, MD, April 2004 "Ecology and Conservation of Birds" — contributed paper session moderator at the 1001 Annual Conference of The Wildlife Society, Burlington, VT, September 2003 . "Using Simpson' s Index To Quantify Wetland Diversity: The Plusses And Pitfalls Of An Interdisciplinary Approach" paper presentation at the 240, Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists, New Orleans, LA, June 2003 . "Lessons learned in the public trust: a case study" paper presentation at the 58`h Annual Northeast Fish & Wildlife Conference, Portland, ME, April, 2002 "Protecting Adjacent Uplands as an Alternative to Traditional Wetland Mitigation" presentation of paper at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists, Chicago, IL, May 2001 "Corporate Restoration and Management of Wetlands in Urban Environments" presentation of paper at the 22"d Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists, Chicago, IL, May 2001 "Urban Wetlands: Viable Habitats or Backyard Wastelands" co-author of presentation made at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists, Chicago, IL, May 2001 "Managing, Maintaining, and Dredging Non-Tidal Ponds : Dredging Case Studies" presentation at the 1999 Fisherman' s Forum, Riverhead, NY, January, 1999 "Corporate Habitat Area Mgmt. Programs to Become the Rule Rather Than Exception" article in New York Real Estate Journal. February 26-March 16, 1998 . Pg. 14D. "Resource Protection" essay and resource list for students. University Microfilms, Inc. , 1997 "ISO Comes to Enviro . . . Quality Program Has a Growing Foothold" article in The Business Record. 17(24), 1997 "The Importance of Monitoring and Documentation in Wetland Mitigation Projects" presentation at Working With Wetlands and Wildlife Workshop, Houston, TX, January 1997, and Atlanta, GA, March, 1997 "The Grass Isn't Always Greener" article in NRMCA Dispatcher (Newsletter of the National Ready Mix Concrete Association, January 1997 10 Michael S. Fishman , CWB , PWS (continued ) "Habitat Management, The Environment, and Community Relations" presentation at National Aggregate Association 's Northwest Regional Community Relations Conference, Bellevue, WA, November 1996 . Conference Developer, Moderator, and Director of, Working With Wetlands and Wildlife Workshop, Chicago, IL, June, 1996 . "Managing Deer on Corporate and Private Lands" panel moderator at Wildlife, Environment, and Business Symposium, Washington, DC, November 1995 . "Individual Species Management Practices for Wetlands and Ponds on Mining Sites" Volume 2, Number 4 for Habitat & Mining, 1995 . "Environmental Risk Assessment of the Kensington Mine" presentation and case study published in the proceedings of the Second Annual Wildlands Conference: Risks, Regulations, and Resolutions, Dearborn, MI, May 1995 . "A Selective Cut Above" article about selective timber harvest in Wildlife in the News 7( 1 ), March 1995 . "Individual Species Management Practices for Wetlands and Ponds on Mining Sites" Volume 2, Number 4 for Habitat & Mining, 1995 . "Environmental Risk Assessment of the Kensington Mine" presentation and case study published in the proceedings of the Second Annual Wildlands Conference: Risks, Regulations, and Resolutions, Dearborn, MI, May 1995 . "A Selective Cut Above" article about selective timber harvest in Wildlife in the News 7( 1 ), March 1995 . "The Value of Natural Landscape Management on Corporate Campuses" presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Landscape Architects, Portland, OR, March 1995 . "A Rose By Any Other Name" article about invasive species in Wildlife in the News 6(4), December 1994. "Wetlands 101 : An Introduction to Wetlands, Their Values, and Functions" presentation at and abstract published in proceedings of Vision 2000: The Path to Sustainable Development Symposium, Baltimore, MD, November 1994 . "Wastelands to Wetlands" article about the history of wetland conservation in Wildlife in the News 6(3 ), September 1994 . Group Facilitator at Village of North Haven Deer Management Citizens ' Advisory Council, North Haven, NY, 1993 . Michael S . Fishman , CWB , PWS ( continued ) "Osprey Productivity On Long Island 1978- 1987 : A Decade Of Stabilization" technical paper presentation at Federation of New York State Bird Clubs ' Annual Meeting, Rochester, NY, 1990 . "Osprey Productivity On Long Island 1978- 1987 : A Decade Of Stabilization" technical paper co-authored with M. S . Scheibel in Kingbird 40( 1 ), 1990 "The Northern Spotted Owl : Study and Status" lecture delivered to Great South Bay, Moriches, and North Fork chapters of the National Audubon Society, Long Island, NY, 1990 . 12 � a Attachment # 10 add UNI Real Estate Department _. b-°7 15 Thornwood Drive ® ® Cornell Universi "" —° -=M==� Ithaca, NY 14850 ctc t. 607.266.7866 nEC 0 4 20og , fww66orn w.re e ll.edu ©W : I 1 c®SEA ENFOpCEMENT December 4, 2009 Hon. Herbert Engman, Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York, 14850 Re: Proposal to rezone portion of Tax Parcel # 73 - 1 - 2 . 2 Dear Supervisor Engman, A portion of Cornell ' s tax parcel 73 - 1 - 2 .2 has been included by the Town of Ithaca in a proposal for rezoning several parcels from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Conservation Zone. Cornell has long identified this parcel for residential purposes, most likely median income-range workforce housing, and believes strongly that it is in the best interests of the Town of Ithaca to have the entire parcel continue to be zoned MDR. The overarching purpose of this letter is to propose an alternative that would assure you that the goal (which we share) of a conserved area of reasonable size closest to Sapsucker Woods will be realized, and that the zoning is compatible with Cornell ' s goal of median income workforce housing. We believe that the parcel, without being divided into two different zoning districts, is capable and well suited to meet both goals . You will see that this letter is divided into four sections . The first, by way of background, will describe the Cornell concept for development of the parcel as housing. In the second section we will summarize the reasons Cornell identified parcel 73 — 1 - 2 . 2 for eventual residential development. Third, we will describe the undesirable consequences of rezoning a portion of the Cornell parcel . The fourth section will describe the alternative we are proposing to you and the Town Board, 1 . The existing Cornell concept for development criteria of the Cornell parcel : o Compact residential development that meets a largely unmet demand in Ithaca ; for more diverse housing types, with maximization of open space, and avoidance of sensitive areas and particularly the easternmost 200 ' of the parcel where it adjoins Sapsucker Woods. For instance, a planned unit development at the density that MDR allows (one unit per 15 ,000 SF or approximately 3 conventional lots per acre) would permit clustering development in the least sensitive areas . o Residential development that is sensitive to the scale and massing of housing in the surrounding neighborhood. A detailed site analysis would help ensure that open space and buffers with neighboring parcels are optimized. o Rustic, naturalistic landscape that works with the existing setting and is sensitive to site features such as the small wetland area north of the present location of the park area. o A set-aside 200 ' in depth along the easternmost edge of the parcel/westernmost edge of Sapsucker Woods to be reserved for little or no development. Walking trails similar to what exist there now are envisioned. The Director of the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology has walked the 200-foot-wide area with me and we are in agreement that this, coupled with the other development criteria we will follow, is a sufficient buffer for Sapsucker Woods in this location. o Open spaces and landscaping that maximize the use of naturalistic plantings by planting native and non-invasive species to be consistent in character with the Sapsucker Woods . Any maintained lawns and hardscape would be minimized or work in concert with the overall site landscape. o Access and egress from an extension of Arrowwood Drive, off Warren Road . A road through the site could provide a northerly outlet for the neighborhood located to the south, through a connection with Tarrytown Drive. o Relocating the existing park area within the site with access to the park maintained for the benefit of the surrounding neighborhood. o Walking and bicycling facilities as well as a bus stop included as part of the development to facilitate connections with existing walking, biking, and transit networks located in close proximity to the parcel . o Energy-efficient, green building and landscaping practices . o Imposing the requirement on residents of the housing development that dogs must be on leashes and cats must be indoor cats, because of the adjacent Sapsucker Woods bird sanctuary. 2 2 . Why the barcel was identified for median income workforce housing: o The Town of Ithaca' s Zoning Ordinance identifies this area for medium density residential development, which is a density well-suited to housing for wage-earners in the median income range. o The County Planning Office in its Affordable Housing Needs Assessment for Tompkins County, completed in August 2006, identified a housing shortage of some 4,000 units in the coming decade, half of them for below median to median income residents. The subsequent Housing Strategy for Tompkins County was based on the findings of the Affordable Housing Needs Assessment and recommends strategies to locate and promote affordable housing. We understand that the Housing Strategy was endorsed and supported by the Town Board by a resolution dated July 9, 2007 . o The 2006 Tompkins County Economic Development Strategy, adopted by the Tompkins County Legislature in October 2006, further identifies the need to "increase and diversify housing supply" as one of three top economic development goals . o The parcel is in close proximity to existing and future employment centers, as well as to community services and amenities such as schools, childcare, medical offices, recreation, shopping, transit, pedestrian trails, and the airport. o The parcel is in an area that has been identified by the County Planning Department as a ` development focus area' where there is potential for infill development in close proximity to all the above-mentioned community services and amenities . Cornell ' s development concept for the parcel is consistent with the principles of the County' s Comprehensive Plan and emerging national and international trends for sustainable, smart growth and mixed-use communities that are well connected to transit and employment. o Infill development within this area would enable transit connections to be strengthened, including those to the Cornell campus, thereby reducing sprawl, the loss of habitat in other areas that comes with sprawl, future traffic congestion, and dependence on single occupancy vehicles, to name a few of the benefits . 3 . Undesirable consequences of rezoning a portion of the Cornell parcel to Conservation Zone : o Rezoning 6 . 9 acres (out of the 30-acre parcel) to a Conservation Zone does not permit the entire area of the parcel to be counted toward the overall permitted density , of a cluster-style development, thereby reducing the 3 number of units that can be constructed and the incentive for doing a planned unit development. o A reduction in the acreage that is designated MDR would reduce the number of units over which the cost of site amenities, infrastructure, and green landscaping practices could be spread. The result would be increasing the cost of the units, possibly out of the range of the median income workforce for whom they are intended. o At 30 acres, the concept for this housing is already on the small side for developments of this type. A further reduction would make it more difficult to attract quality developers who are willing to invest in the fixed-cost infrastructure and amenities we will require and that a larger number of units would support. o Some Cornell land, such as this parcel, has been owned for a long time, "land banked" for future use. Cornell has been paying real property taxes on this parcel while holding it for responsible development that will benefit the community at large, as well as Cornell ' s interest in attracting and retaining employees 'in staff and faculty positions . It has been zoned for residential use for decades . Its ecological value is rated "low" (23 acres) or "low to moderate" (5 . 1 acres), with the balance not rated. Its ecological value seems to be the only value that was investigated prior to proposing it for rezoning. Wholly absent is any other planning analysis showing why its residential value - the use for which it has been earmarked for decades - should suddenly have become any less of a priority than its ecological value. This is not comprehensive planning. And it is a real deterrent to an owner' s long range plan for responsible future use if a lack of development makes it a target willy-nilly for placing it in a conservation zone. o The Town-commissioned studies make it clear that by itself, the land would not warrant a change to Conservation zoning. It does not drain into the neighborhood to the south and its ecological value is not high. Its sole reason for inclusion is its value for buffering the adjacent parcel that is part of Sapsucker Woods . Yet Cornell owns both parcels, removing the argument that a buffer is needed, especially when Cornell has had a long- standing internal policy in place that the easternmost 200 ' of this parcel (and of those parcels to the north, to NYS Route 13 ) closest to Sapsucker Woods ' s western edge would not be developed. o Cornell also has concerns about the changes in regulations for Conservation zones that are now being studied in committee, but we reserve comment until the appropriate hearing. 4 4. Alternative to rezoning Cornell ' s land : Cornell is willing to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the Town of Ithaca to confirm a permanent set-aside to preserve an area 200 feet in width along the eastern-most edge of tax parcel # 73 - 1 - 2 . 2 where it adjoins the Laboratory of Ornithology. Some time ago Cornell ' s concept plan for eventual development of the entire parcel identified this 200 ' depth for a permanent undeveloped area to provide protection to the adjacent Sapsucker Woods . As mentioned above, walking paths similar to what exist now and perhaps other naturalistic features that are compatible with and similar to the features currently found along Sapsucker Woods trails (benches, etc.), would be the extent of any additions to the set-aside area. We understand that as part of the eventual plan for development of the balance of the parcel, some legal mechanism such as a deed restriction on this 200-foot width would be required. Ultimately it would be internally assigned to the Laboratory of Ornithology (as would the buffer extending northward, to NYS Route 13) . 1 recently met with the Director of the Laboratory of Ornithology, John W. Fitzpatrick, to walk this area and discuss the ecological versus housing values of this particular parcel, which he said lies peripheral to the more ecologically important portions of Sapsucker Woods . He agrees that the MOU we propose is a sensible compromise between two important priorities of Cornell and the Town of Ithaca, and would not jeopardize any of the ecological values of Sapsucker Woods. Dr. Fitzpatrick has seen and approved this letter. Thus, the permanent set-aside described in the MOU would be part of the site plan for tax parcel # 73 - 1 - 2 . 2 . Under such a proposal, the entire acreage in tax parcel # 73 - 1 - 2 . 2 would remain zoned MDR and remain available to calculate the maximum allowable density of the parcel. Recognizing that an actual plan is sometime off in our future, I am not suggesting the MOU would bind the Town Board or the Planning Board to the future approval of a plan. The only subject of the MOU would be the permanent 200-foot set-aside. It is our hope that a planned unit development (with this permanent 200-foot set-aside), featuring a, clustered configuration and meeting our other criteria described above would be the sort of plan that we would present for that future consideration. When the Final Report of an Ecological Communities Survey and Assessment of Lands Adjacent to Sapsucker Woods dated September 30, 2008 , was published we noted in the Recommendations section that Option 2 calls for 300 ' and Option 3 for 100 ' in this location. The distance of 200 ' we have long been assuming for our planning purposes is halfway between these two recommendations. As that Final Report pointed out in making its recommendations, there are many planning priorities and needs besides a conservation priority. Cornell believes the planning priorities and needs for housing and responsible infill development are vitally important to the Town, to Cornell University, and to the region. Luckily, this is also a case in which such planning priorities and needs can be accommodated on this site in a reasonable balance with an ecological priority -- without compromising the accommodation of either, and without dividing the parcel into two zones . 5 We welcome and look forward to the opportunity to discuss this matter further with you. Sincerely, f Thomas P . LiVigne cc. . Jonathan Kanter Sue Ritter Susan Brock At Cornell : Mina Amundsen, University Planner Shirley Egan, Associate Counsel John Fitzpatrick, Professor & Director Laboratory of Ornithology John Gutenberger, Director Community Relations Stephen P . Johnson, Vice President Government/Community Relations Kyu Whang, Vice President Facilities Services 6 Attachment # 11a Parsons 100 South Charles Street — - - — Brinckerhoff Tower 1, 1d Floor Baltimore, MD 21201 -2727 Main: 410-727-5050 — 100 Fax: 410-727-4608 YEARS® Evaluation of the Town of Ithaca ' s Proposed Zoning Action on Cornell University Land — Presentation to the Town Board Uri Avin, FAICP, of Parsons Brinckerhoff, December 7, 2009 Introduction and Summary Findings Good evening. My name is Uri Avin and I am with the planning and engineering firm of Parsons Brinckerhoff. Cornell University has asked me to review the proposed rezoning by the Town of Ithaca of a portion of its lands in the northeast area from Medium Density Residential zoning to Conservation zoning as well as related amendments to the Town ' s Zoning Ordinance and 1993 Comprehensive Plan . By way of my own background, I am an urban planner with 38 years of experience which include a decade in the public sector and 28 years as a consultant. My work includes the development of numerous comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances throughout the United States. This work has been recognized through 22 state or national awards for excellence and in my being honored as a Charter Fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners. I have published and lectured across the US on land use, growth management and transportation planning and have also taught these topics in several graduate planning programs. I serve on the editorial boards of the Journal of the American Planning Association and of the standard planning textbook The Practice of Local Planning. I have also served on the Board of the National Center for Watershed Management. As part of my review, I visited the area and reviewed a wide variety of data and planning and environmental studies for Tompkins County and the Town of Ithaca. Based on this review and my own analysis, it is my professional opinion that it is inappropriate to designate the Cornell site as a Conservation zoning district and that such a rezoning is not supported by the Town' s current comprehensive plan, even under the currently proposed plan amendments for this area. Instead, it is my professional opinion that the CP supports continued zoning for medium density residential development. Moreover, the proposed amendments to the CP for the Conservation/Open Space descriptions dilute rather than enhance the purpose and clarity of the Conservation concept. I will now provide some detail to support this opinion. The following is a summary of key points from a much more detailed Report to Cornell which you, the Board members, have also received. The site is appropriate for residential development My conclusion that the Cornell site is most appropriate for residential development is based on five key points of reference: • The 2003 Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan • The Goals, Objectives and Actions of the Town ' s 1993 CP • Regional and Town level Smart Growth planning principles Over a Century of Engineering Excellence A' 1. • Housing needs • Multi-modal transportation principles and needs I will say a few words about each of these five reference points . The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan This Plan sets a high priority on housing availability and affordability combined with job/housing proximity which is consistent with the site ' s current zoning. Another plan priority is improving traffic through the better proximity of jobs, housing, transit service and bicycle and pedestrian travel modes . These are very important transportation options in a county with a major university and colleges, where 40% of residents do not commute to work by car and where as many as 17% of the population walk to work. The question of housing supply that is close to work is especially important within the Town of Ithaca because less than 10% of the Town jobs are actually filled by residents of the Town. To address this problem, the Plan urges "compact, higher density development patterns" and infill development, exactly what this site provides The Town of Ithaca 1993 Comprehensive Plan The Town ' s Plan has numerous goals, objectives and actions supporting the use of the site as currently zoned. The Plan sets an overarching Housing and Residential Land Use goal which is "To promote the availability of diverse, high-quality, affordable, and attractive places for people to live". Under this goal there are several objectives and recommended actions that directly relate to the subject site. Below are just a few : " 1 . A variety of housing styles and patterns of development to meet the diverse needs of the community. . . . b) Ensure that adequate amounts of suitable land are zoned to meet future housing needs identified by the Housing Plan . . . d) Encourage the construction of a large range of housing types, styles and prices to satisfy the diverse needs and desires of the community. 3 . Opportunities for affordable housing" . .c) Ensure that a portion of the Town ' s undeveloped, residentially zoned areas have lot- size requirements that do not preclude affordable housing. Under the goal of Managing the Built Environment is the following objective: " . . . 4) Focus development to avoid sprawl" In the light of the commitments made by Cornell for an environmentally sensitive plan for the subject site, one especially relevant Action from the Comprehensive plan listed under the objective on the protection of natural resources is the following: "Support private sector efforts to protect significant environmental areas and coordinate these activities with the Town ' s comprehensive planning program where applicable" The 1993 Plan includes a long list of progressive Actions to implement the affordable housing objective. But because very few of these actions have yet occurred, available parcels with . conventional MDR zoning like the subject site are extremely valuable, especially when they are conveniently accessible to employment, services, amenities and transit. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 2 Regional and Town Smart Growth Planning principles This accessibility is particularly evident when one views the Cornell property in its area-wide context and against the Smart Growth Planning Principles that the Town ' s current CP Committee has embraced in its recent vision statement. The Cornell site is an infill parcel within the largest, most compact and continuous area of medium density residential development in the Town and the surrounding area. The subject site is also extremely accessible to employment opportunities. A three-mile radius from the site includes an astonishing 52% of all jobs in the City and Town of Ithaca and in surrounding towns and villages. Within a two-mile radius, the site has ready access to important non-work destinations such as shopping, schools, day care, churches, health facilities and fire and police stations. Many of these destinations are within walking and biking distance. The northeast ought to be the priority area for meeting future housing demand. This area is the most established in the Town and houses more than 1 /3 of its residents. It is also the area best provided with schools and other services, including transit, water and sewer. From a municipal cost-effectiveness perspective, the northeast is the most logical subarea to build out. Housing needs In 2007 the County adopted a housing strategy based on an extensive Housing Needs Assessment. This Assessment projected a County-wide need for about 3 ,900 affordable units by 2014. Based on a capacity analysis of each municipality this strategy suggested that the Town of Ithaca should absorb from 500 to 1 ,000 of such units by 2014 . It is evident from my analysis of Town-wide Incomes and Housing Values that Cornell ' s property is in the ONLY area of the northeast where moderate income and related housing costs actually match up. This analysis underscores the importance of preserving the current supply and future opportunities for affordable housing in this area. Based on prior studies, projections and trends, I have estimated the Town ' s housing growth at approximately 1 ,900 units over the next 20 years. This housing demand of an additional 1 ,900 units translates into about 2,400 acres of land, using the conversion formula of the 1993 CP . How does this compare with actual supply? We have a good answer to this question from a parcel-by- parcel analysis by Tomkins County in 2006 that focused specifically on vacant parcels that were appropriately zoned, were free from environmental constraints, and were located within 200 feet of existing or planned water and sewer. This analysis identified a supply of 836 acres for the Town of Ithaca. This supply of 836 acres is only one third of the Town 's need for 2 ,400 acres -- a significant shortfall by any standards. Any further loss of land for housing, as is now proposed in the Town' s rezoning action, represents a significant loss. In this regard, it is worth noting that over the last decade, about 420 acres of MDR zoned land have been downzoned by the Town of Ithaca and rendered unavailable for medium density housing. This loss of residential capacity equals approximately 1200 units removed from"the marketplace. This represents about 15 years of town-wide growth potential that has been lost through rezonings, all in the most affordable and commonly available medium density range. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 3 A Multi-modal transportation principles and needs The striking proximity of the subject site to numerous job opportunities stands in sharp contrast to the reality of a very scattered workforce which fills the jobs in the Town. In fact, less than 10% of Town residents work in the Town of Ithaca. Most of the Town ' s workforce comes from far and wide. Many of these out-of-town workers must travel by car to work. The subject site, by contrast, is very accessible to in-town jobs by transit, biking and walking. Increasing the ratio of resident workers in the Town by providing appropriate in-town housing will make commuting patterns more sustainable. Let me next address my second contention that the site is inappropriate for designation as a Conservation district. It is important to examine this point at both the Town level and the regional level . The site is inappropriate for designation as a Conservation district The 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, in relation to the objective of the "Protection of natural resources, selected open space, environmentally sensitive areas, and unique natural areas", includes seven criteria under mechanisms to protect environmentally sensitive areas as part of an amended Zoning Ordinance. These criteria and are reviewed and addressed in detail in the statement presented to you by Kimberly Michaels with TWLA. In sum, 6 of the 7 criteria do not apply to the subject site. Only one, concerning "mature woods", partially applies and not in any meaningful sense. As our review of the Inventory maps on the 1993 CP and the 1997 Open Space plan and the reviews in the LeCain Survey and other experts who have submitted statements demonstrate, the subject site possesses none of the listed conservation protection criteria or features eU r se. There is value in setting aside, as Cornell has proposed to do, a reasonable strip along the eastern most edge of the parcel as a buffer to Sapsucker Woods — but this is something any sensitively designed development on the parcel should and would do . Being on the northeast edge of the Town and adjacent to two other jurisdictions, good planning practice and common sense require viewing the subject site in its regional context. An analysis of current plans and zoning for this larger area that includes the Village of Lansing and Town of Dryden reveals that the existing open and undeveloped character of the area is, in reality, planned and zoned for a very different future. There are substantial zoning designations north and northeast of the site for future business, light manufacturing and commercial land uses. The site, in reality, is part of an emerging commercial/mixed use node of moderate intensity. In closing let me comment on some aspects of the Town ' s proposed Amendment language to the CP . Specific comments on Proposed Amendment language Proposed amendments to the current Plan ' s description of the Conservation/Open Space designation add to the list of elements that such areas may contain "woods or other wildlife habitat, natural stormwater retention and water quality functions". All these new descriptors are so generic that most, if not all, of the undeveloped land in the entire Town would fall under these PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 4 headings . These items dilute rather than enhance the purpose and clarity of the Conservation concept. Amendment #3 adds language to the 1993 Plan ' s Chapter IV to include "wetlands and woods in Sapsucker Woods sanctuary and adjacent lands as buffers to the Sanctuary. . . " The inclusion of "woods" (an undefined term) is vague and generic and covers a multitude of areas of no established ecological value. There is, as has been noted, a lack of any sizable or ecologically significant woodlands on the subject site. In addition, the two wetlands identified in the LeCain Survey are too small, isolated and removed to act as buffers. The proposed amendment of the current Zoning Ordinance language in the "Purpose" section of the Conservation Zone includes language on such areas ' "importance for natural drainage features" and the addition of "poorly drained soils" to their characteristics. As noted earlier, the level topography of the subject area contains no important natural drainage features like swales or streams . Regarding poorly drained soils it should be noted that the 1993 CP actually shows the subject site as consisting mostly of prime or important agricultural soils . Conclusion In conclusion, it seems clear that the recent studies undergirding the rezoning initiative were not comprehensive planning studies of Cornell's land and its surrounding context. This is precisely the kind of policy driven action that should require intensive study and that is why rezoning so much land is listed as a Type 1 SEQR action, i.e. one which carries with it the presumption that it is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. This intent is defined in the broadest sense to include human and community resources which "should be given appropriate weight with social and economic considerations in determining public policy, and that those factors be considered together in reaching decisions on proposed activities" . By contrast, the work done in support of the current actions do not, for instance, consider housing demand and supply, accessibility to jobs and services, infrastructure, transportation, and so forth. It only looked at a narrow set of data and at a narrow set of considerations instead of at the whole range of data and all the planning considerations that must go into a Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance amendment. The examinations to date have only reviewed a narrow set of data and considerations instead of evaluating the whole range of data and all the planning considerations that must go into a Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance amendment. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 5 Attachment # llb Evaluation of the Town of Ithaca ' s Proposed Zoning Action on Cornell University Land Report Prepared by Uri Avin FAICP Parsons Brinckerhoff December 7 , 2009 Table of Contents Introductionand Summary Findings.............................................................................. 3 Organizationof the Report .............................................................................................. 4 The site is appropriate for residential development. 4 The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 The Town of Ithaca 1993 Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Regional and Town Level Smart Growth Planning Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Housingneeds . . of 01 1116 * 6 * 4 00 * 1 11 11 11 1116604 * 0009 * 8 . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Multi-modal transportation principles and needs . 11 The site is inappropriate for designation as a Conservation district ......................... 11 TownLevel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Regional Level . . , , 64 00 . . . . . . . . . . . see * * . . . . . 0 14 Specificcomments on Proposed Amendment language .............................................. 14 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 16 Author Biography . . . . . . see * 9 * * 16 ReferencesConsulted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 17 List of Figures Figure 1 : Town of Ithaca Zoning Map Figure 2 : Residential Land Use Context Figure 3 : Number of Employees by TAZ, 2000 Figure 4 : Public and Private Facilities Figure 5 : Town of Ithaca Public Sewer and Water System Figure 6 : Existing ( 1990-2007) and Projected Housing Units in the Town of Ithaca Figure 7 : Median Income in Relation to Housing Affordability, 2000 Figure 8 : Housing Value in Relation to Affordability, 2000 Figure 9 : Vacant Land Analysis Figure 10 : Zoning Questions by Municipality Figure 11 : Tompkins County Affordable Housing Degree of Zoning Support Figure 12 : Where Workers in the Town of Ithaca Live, 2006 Figure 13 : Watershed Map Figure 14 : Sections, North Parcel Figure 15 : Anticipated Land Use Patterns Figure 16 : Potential Zoning for Open Space and Purchase of Development Rights Target Areas Figure 17 : Comparative Zoning in Vicinity of Subject Site Figure 18 : Approximated Existing and Future Water and Sewer Service Areas Report on Town of Ithaca Rezoning of Cornell Land by Uri Avin FAICP of Parsons Brinckerhoff 2 f ' Evaluation of the Town of Ithaca ' s Proposed Zoning Action on Cornell University Land Introduction and Summary Findings Cornell University has asked me to review the proposed rezoning by the Town of Ithaca of a portion of its lands in the northeast area from Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning to Conservation (C) zoning as well as related amendments to the Town ' s Zoning Ordinance and 1993 Comprehensive Plan (CP) . As part of this assignment, I visited the area and reviewed a wide variety of data and planning studies (see attached bibliography of materials reviewed) . Based on this analysis, it is my professional opinion that it is inappropriate to designate the Cornell site as a Conservation zoning district and that such a rezoning is not supported by the Town ' s current comprehensive plan, even under the currently proposed plan amendments for this area. Instead, it is my professional opinion that the CP supports continued zoning for medium density residential development. The subject site ' s and the CP ' s emphasis on appropriately located housing, especially affordable housing, that precisely match this site ' s location and accessibility, are important factors in my findings. So, too, is the fact that the subject site does not meet the CP or zoning ordinance criteria for a Conservation designation or zone. Moreover, I contend that the proposed amendments to the CP for the Conservation/Open Space descriptions dilute rather than enhance the purpose and clarity of the Conservation concept. It seems clear that the recent studies undergirding the rezoning initiative were not comprehensive planning studies of Cornell's land and its surrounding context. This is precisely the kind of policy driven action that should require intensive study and that is why rezoning so much land is listed as a Type 1 SEQR action, Le one which carries with it the presumption that it is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. This intent is defined in the broadest sense to include human and community resources which "should be given appropriate weight with social and economic considerations in determining public policy, and that those factors be considered together in reaching decisions on proposed activities" ' . By contrast, the work done in support of the current actions do not, for instance, consider housing demand and supply, accessibility to jobs and services, infrastructure, transportation, and so forth. It only looked at a narrow set of data and at a narrow set of considerations instead of at the whole range of data and all the planning considerations that must go into a Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance amendment. Support for this zoning change is being backfilled by hasty, narrowly based revisions to the CP , leaving all the other conclusions of the CP intact and still in conflict with and unsupportive of this rezoning. In short, it appears that the proposed zoning change is wagging the CP dog instead of the other way round. 6 NYCRR part 617 . 1 (d). Report on Town of Ithaca Rezoning of Cornell Land by Uri Avin FAICP of Parsons Brinckerhoff 3 Organization of the Report This report is organized around two basic statements 1 . The site' s current zoning for residential development is not only appropriate but also is desirable from a planning perspective and supported by the CP 2 . Conservation zoning district designation is inappropriate for this site and such rezoning is not supported by the current or the proposed amended CP , This report cites a number of documents and my own analysis to prove these two core statements. I then offer a number of comments on the specific amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance language that accompany the proposed zoning action. The site is appropriate for residential development. The site is currently zoned MDR (see Zoning Map, Figure 1) . Maintaining the site' s current residential zoning is warranted because of its consistency with : • The 2003 Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan • The goals, objectives and actions of the Town' s 1993 CP • Regional and Town level Smart Growth planning principles • Housing needs • Multi-modal transportation principles and needs The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan This Plan stresses housing availability & affordability and job/housing proximity which is consistent with the site 's current zoning Central to the County Comprehensive Plan' s vision is a future where housing needs, including affordability, are met. The county has expended much effort to address housing affordability. Another plan priority is improving traffic through the better proximity of jobs and housing, transit service and bicycle and pedestrian travel modes. These are very important transportation options in a county with a major university and colleges, where 40% of commuters (in 2000) did not travel by car to work (vs. 25% nation-wide) and where as many as 17% of the population walk to work. . The question of housing and of job/housing proximity is especially important within the Town of Ithaca, which is largely a bedroom community and where (as of 2006) less than 10% of the workers filling jobs located in the Town of Ithaca actually live in the Town z . To address this issue, the Plan urges "compact, higher density development patterns" (e. g. p53 ) and infill development. 2 U.S . Census Bureau, LED Origin-Destination Database (2ud quarter 2006) Report on Town of Ithaca Rezoning of Cornell Land by Uri Avin FAICP of Parsons Brinckerhoff 4 The Town of Ithaca 1993 Comprehensive Plan The Town 's Plan has numerous goals, objectives and actions supporting the use of the site as currently zoned A number of key sections of the 1993 Comprehensive Plan ( 1993 CP) support this assertion. The 1993 CP presents a series of goals, objectives and recommended actions, arranged by seven categories which "constitute the heart of the Comprehensive Plan" (pp. IV- 1 ) . The categories start off with Housing and Residential Land Use and Managing the Built Environment. Many statements in these sections support the use of the site as Medium Density residential (MDR) zoning. Under the single, overarching Housing and Residential Land Use goal of "To promote the availability of diverse, high-quality, affordable, and attractive places for people to live" (p. 111-2), two of the four objectives listed relate to the subject site, as do several of the recommended actions under each of these objectives : " 1 . A variety of housing styles and patterns of development to meet the diverse needs of the community. . . . b) Ensure that adequate amounts of suitable land are zoned to meet future housing needs identified by the Housing Plan . . . d) Encourage the construction of a large range of housing types, styles and prices to satisfy the diverse needs and desires of the community. (p. 111-2) . . . 3 . Opportunities for affordable housing" . .c) Ensure that a portion of the Town' s undeveloped, residentially zoned areas have lot-size requirements that do not preclude affordable housing. (p. 111-3 ) Under the goal of Managing the Built Environment is the following objective: " . . . 4) Focus development to avoid sprawl" Under another objective ("Well-designed physical and visual transitions between different land uses to minimize conflicts") is the following action: " . . . .a) Require buffers (landscaping, distance, topography, vegetation) to minimize conflicts but allow sufficient design flexibility." (p. 111-8) In addition to these citations, the Plan is filled with statements that consistently support the use of lands like the subject site for residential development as well as the use of the Northeast area for further residential development. Under the "Opportunities for affordable housing" (cited above) is a long list of Actions to implement this objective including incentive zoning mechanisms, set asides for affordable units, design flexibility, co-housing, and streamlining development review (pp. III-3 -4) . Because very few of these actions have yet occurred, available parcels with conventional MDR zoning like the subject site are extremely valuable, especially when they are well-located relative to employment, services, amenities and transit. 3 The 1993 CP calls out three main subareas: West Hill, South Hill and East Hill. Thus East Hill included the northeast. We generally refer to the Northeast area in this Report to avoid confusion unless referring to a statement in the CP that requires us to use the term East Hill. Report on Town of Ithaca Rezoning of Cornell Land by Uri Avin FAICP of Parsons Brinckerhoff 5 t There are explicit references throughout the Plan to such concepts as "Focus major developments in areas where adequate public infrastructure and facilities exist" (p. III-8) or "Consider the costs and benefits of development as part of the project review" (p. III- 9) . In the light of commitments made by Cornell for an environmentally sensitive plan for the subject site, one especially relevant Action listed under the objective on the protection of natural resources is : ■ "Support private sector efforts to protect significant environmental areas and coordinate these activities with the Town ' s comprehensive planning program where applicable" (pIII- 10) . Regional and Town Level Smart Growth Planning Principles The site 's current zoning supports established Smart Growth principles of compaction, contiguity, infill, accessibility and infrastructure maximization Planning principles that the Tompkins County Plan and the 1993 Plan both recommend are that future residential development be compact and contiguous, close to jobs and shops, and takes advantage of existing infrastructure and services. As the following maps show, the subject site more than meets these basic criteria. Figure 2 presents the site in the context of the larger area' s residential development pattern. It is within the largest, most contiguous area of medium density residential in Town and region and stands in sharp contrast to the typical stripping of roadways by home sites. Furthermore, Figure 2 shows how more infill in this northeast area would further implement the compact/contiguous planning principle. Figure 3 places the site within its regional employment context. The subject site is extremely accessible to employment opportunities. The areas in color are Traffic Analysis Zones for which data is collected for travel modeling 4 . A three-mile radius from the site includes an astonishing 52% of all jobs in the City and Town of Ithaca, the Village of Cayuga Heights, the Town of Dryden, the Village of Lansing and the Town of Lansing. 5 Figure 4 shows the site in relation to important non-work destinations such as shopping, schools, day care, churches, health facilities and fire and police stations . Again, the site' s ready accessibility, within a two-mile radius, to a wide range of public and private facilities and services is very evident. Many of these destinations are within walking and biking distance. 4 Because the Zones differ so much in size, the coloring can appear deceptive. For example a small number of jobs may be spread over a very large area but be concentrated in only one small part of it, in reality. Conversely, a dense area of jobs, such as in downtown Ithaca, may be concentrated into a small zone. 5 The map is based on year 2000 data in Traffic Analysis Zones in the Tomkins County travel demand model. Report on Town of Ithaca Rezoning of Cornell Land by Uri Avin FAICP of Parsons Brinckerhoff 6 The 1993 CP (pp. IV-5 through IV-7) documents the advantages and disadvantages of the 4 subareas of the Town to receive development. As Figure 5 shows, the northeast is (and was) an area where both sewer and water service are in place and sized to handle future growth. The same could not be said of potential residential growth areas in each of the other 3 subareas where sewer and water supply issues loomed large. East Hill (as defined in the 1993 CP to include the northeast), was and still remains the area of the Town best served with sewer and water. Overall, the northeast area is the clear winner both in terms of its strong advantages as well as its lack of severe disadvantages. The East Hill subarea, so defined to include the northeast, ought to be the priority area for meeting future housing demand. This area is the most established in the Town, housing more than 1 /3 of its residents. It is also the subarea best provided with schools and other services, including transit. Other subareas lack many costly public services such as schools . Consequently, from a municipal cost-effectiveness perspective, the East Hill subarea is the most logical subarea to build out, . Housing needs Strong housing demand and need and an insufficient current supply reinforce the importance of retaining the subject site in MDR zoning This report addresses housing needs first from the different perspectives of demand and supply and then matches up these demand and supply results to provide insights into the demand for properly zoned residential land that zoning must accommodate. Housing Demand: Starting from a 1990 base of around 4,420 housing units (excluding the Village of Cayuga Heights), the 1993 CP forecast an increase in 1 ,230 units by 2010 . This increment, which accounts for declining household size and vacancies, would have yielded a total of about 5 ,650 units in 2010 (excluding Cayuga Heights) . The American Community Survey (ACS) census data for 2007 provides a housing unit estimate of about 5 , 83 06, slightly above the rate estimated in the 1993 Plan . Using the known dwelling unit counts for 1990, 2000 and 2007 we have, therefore, extrapolated future housing demand to produce a planning horizon 20 year forecast for 2030 of around 7,740 units. This is an additional 1 ,900 units over the 2007 numbers. Figure 6 graphs this trajectory. There are several housing studies more recent than the data in the 1993 Comprehensive Plan, of course, but all with a much shorter time horizon than 2030. Over the past 5 years several County-led studies quantified demand to 2014 with an emphasis on affordable housing. In 2007 the County adopted a housing strategy with an extensive Housing Needs Assessment that projected a County-wide need for about 3 ,900 new, non-student housing units (owner and rental). by 2014. Based on a capacity- by- municipality analysis, this strategy suggested that the Town of Ithaca should absorb from 500 to 1 ,000 of such units by 2014, "including balanced growth on East, West and South hills concentrated in a 6 This number, which is calculated to exclude Cayuga Heights, is estimated by the ACS as somewhere within the 2006-2008 timeframe. We use a middle point of 2007. Report on Town of Ithaca Rezoning of Cornell Land by Uri Avin FAICP of Parsons Brinckerhoff 7 nodal pattern to be determined by the Town" (p3 ) . (The City of Ithaca and Town of Lansing were allocated the same targets) Housing Supply: After assessing the pros and cons of where growth should occur and before presenting the Plan map, the 1993 CP calculates the actual buildout capacity of the Town based on then-current zoning and land use designations. The analysis (Table IV- 1 on page IV-8) appropriately accounts for land already developed, allowable densities, and typical loss of development yields from roads, open space or topography and adds yields for accessory apartments . The analysis finds that about 21 ,000 additional homes could be built in the town, based on then-current zoning, with 44% of this supply in the LDR (then the equivalent R-30) category and 27% in the MDR (R- 15) zoning categories. The Plan concludes that there is a huge supply of residentially zoned land compared with the demand of 1 ,230 additional homes that it assumed by 2010. Note that the Plan ' s analysis of supply was based on then-current zoning. The Plan does not recalculate the actual supply of units that might be yielded if the 1993 CP, which is more constraining than the then-current zoning, were fully implemented over time. Plan ' s approach to housing supply: Because of the large supply of land assumed above, the 1993 Plan Map, called Anticipated Land Use Patterns, does not, therefore, seek to add additional residential capacity beyond current zoning. Because of this presumed oversupply of available land, the Plan also seeks more protection of lands from development : "Those who can imagine saturation do not relish the thought of having all or even a substantial part of the Town ' s open space, environmentally sensitive areas, and farmland replaced by residential subdivisions and attendant development. Such sprawling development, which is seen as being more likely without changes in policy, would probably come at significant cost to the community" (p IV-8/9) . The Plan ' s text for the anticipated land use patterns and categories therefore urges that "future housing development (be) focused into areas currently served or anticipated to be served by public sewer and water systems" (p . IV- 10), that prime agricultural land be protected and that a new, lower density Rural Residential district and a Conservation/Open Space District be created. Such statements are typical of all the analysis and language in the Plan and reinforce the benefits of further utilization of current MDR- zoned parcels, especially infill parcels such as the subject site. Updating and matching housing supply and demand: Matching forecasted demand with current supply in terms of acreages rather than just units is an exercise directly relevant to establishing the Town' s vision of the future as basis for an update to the 1993 Plan. Indeed the draft Vision Statement from the Town ' s Comprehensive Plan Committee of January, 2009, echoes both the 1993 Plan ' s goals and the County' s 2003 Plan : "The Town wants its growth to be more sustainable and coordinated, focused in areas where appropriate services are available and can be provided efficiently, and planned in a way that is attractive, environmentally sensitive, and provides access to amenities where residents live, work, shop and play. . . . . . Residents of all Report on Town of Ithaca Rezoning of Cornell Land by Uri Avin FAICP of Parsons Brinckerhoff 8 income levels and backgrounds should enjoy a choice of housing and transportation options, including easy access to transit, walkways, interconnected parks and trails, and safe neighborhoods . . . " The wealth of mapping evidence provided to date should make clear that the continued retention of the subject site as an MDR zoned property is consistent with this vision. But exactly how important, in the scheme of things, is the retention of such relatively small infill parcels to the balance of residential supply and demand? As the discussion and analysis below demonstrate — it is very important Snapshot in 2000 : Figure 7 shows Income for the Town and Figure 8 shows Housing Values for the Town. . The numerical cutoffs in the legends of these maps have been selected to correspond to standard thresholds for housing affordability. It is evident that the subject site is in the ONLY area of the northeast where moderate income and housing values match up (the light blue area) . This analysis underscores the importance of preserving the current supply and future opportunities for affordable housing in this area. Current housing supply in acres : It turns out that the County' s 2006 Housing Needs Assessment Study included a vacant land analysis by the County Planning Department that was parcel based and relied on the extensive GIS data available county-wide 8 . This analysis was broken out by City, Town and Village and appears to furnish the best, up-to- date information on land supply. Because the County study focused on more compact or higher density development opportunities, its criteria for sorting candidate lands are particularly relevant to the Town of Ithaca' s planning goals . The County analysis focused specifically on vacant parcels that were zoned for residential or mixed use development, were mostly free from environmental constraints, and located within 200 feet of existing water and sewer (or W&S proposed within 5 years). The analysis acknowledges that it underestimates supply because it does not account for under-developed parcels. Figure 9 presents the findings — 836 acres for the Town of Ithaca on 191 parcels. Strikingly, this represents 43 % of the County' s entire acreage in the Table that provide for more compact housing. How does this number compare with the forecast demand? Current housing demand in acres : Earlier in this section, we estimated 20 year demand for the Town (an accepted timeframe for comprehensive plans) at around 1 ,900 units. How should this be converted to acreage? It turns out that the 1993 CP faced this very question in converting its anticipated demand for 1 ,230 units by 2010 into acres. It assumed a future average density of 3 units per acre (about that of the MDR district), added 25 % for roads, parks and open space and then multiplied this by three to accommodate reasonable choice among sites and a moderate level of competition. 7 Note that this data is for 2000, from the last census, and that income and values may have changed in parts of the town since then. Table on page 41 of Appendix II, Zoning and Vacant Land Analysis, Tompkins County Housing Needs Assessment, Tompkins County Planning Department, May 30, 2006. Report on Town of Ithaca Rezoning of Cornell Land by Uri Avin FAICP of Parsons Brinckerhoff 9 Applying this same approach to the forecast of 1 ,900 units yields a demand for of 2,375 acres [ ( 1 ,900/3 ) * 125% * 3 ) .] . Looked at this way, the demand of 2 ,375 acres is almost 3 times the supply of 836 acres of appropriate lands yielded by the 2006 County study-- a significant shortfall in supply. Because of this land supply deficit, each and every infill opportunity of MDR-zoned land is an essential resource in providing for future housing, especially for more affordable housing. Any diminution of such resources is a significant loss. Housing supply as zoned over time: Although Plans provide vision, direction and policies, zoning controls housing production. Given the Town ' s regional importance as a potential supplier of housing, its zoning posture on facilitating more compact housing is important. The very small amounts of vacant HDR (High Density Residential) or MR (Multiple Residence) - zoned land in the Town put the spotlight on the workhorse of Medium Density Residential, the zoning of the subject site. The 1993 CP called for numerous innovations in planning and zoning for housing (e.g. pages III- 5 through III-7) . Only very few of these have been implemented over the past 15 years, highlighting the importance of available MDR zoning. In comparing the prior 1997 zoning map for the Town to the current zoning map, one finds that over this time period about 420 acres of MDR zoned land were downzoned and rendered unavailable for medium density housing 10 . This incremental outcome is very important since it equates to some 1200 units taken out of the marketplace. This represents about 15 years of town-wide growth lost through rezonings, all in the most affordable and commonly available medium density range ! Zoned housing supply in the regional context: As part of its 2006 Housing needs Assessment, the County evaluated the degree to which each municipality' s zoning code supported affordable housing (Appendix II, p16- 19 addresses the Town of Ithaca) . Its criteria for affordable housing, however, also apply to the production of all moderate or higher density housing. The County-wide summary table, included as Figure 10, shows that the Town falls into the low range of performance. Interpreting these results and mapping them, as in Figure 11 , shows the striking difference between the mid-range performers in the southern half of the County vs. the low range performers in the northern half of the county and the standout high performance of the City of Ithaca and the Village of Lansing. The relative lack of incentives for compact housing types evident in this regional snapshot reinforces the importance of supporting retention and development of MDR infill parcels. Demographic and fiscal implications for housing need and growth: Ithaca shares in the non-standard age pyramid of the area featuring atypical bulges because of the student population and the large elderly population. More than most places, these populations 9 Before district names were changed to the LDR, MDR terminology but after a large C zone swathe was applied to the Six Mile Creek/South Hill Trail area. i6 This is the net loss figure since about 40 acres were added. Most of the MDR (or R- 15) went to C zoning, some to Ag, and some to LDR. Report on Town of Ithaca Rezoning of Cornell Land by Uri Avin FAICP of Parsons Brinckerhoff 10 will drive housing preferences and there will be an increasing market for minimum maintenance, smaller lot homes. The market for this housing type bridges many income levels and also appeals to higher income residents, especially if more flexibility regarding this housing type is introduced into the ordinance. With a small job base, the Town is unusually dependent on sales tax revenues. It is important to note that sales tax revenues for the Town are allocated based on population, not point of sale. Consequently, more residential growth, especially where services already exist, is a net plus for a municipality. This too supports maintaining the entire subject site as MDR. Multi-modal transportation principles and needs The site as MDR helps rebalance commuting imbalances and supports current investments in transit The striking proximity of the subject site to numerous job opportunities, shown in Figure 3 , stands in sharp contrast to the reality of a very scattered workforce which actually fills the jobs in the Town. In fact, less than 10% of Town residents work in the Ithaca according to 2006 Census data. Almost 14% of the jobs located in the Town are filled by workers who live in the Cityl 1 . The remaining three-quarters of the Town' s workforce come from far and wide. Figure 12 shows this diffuse pattern where 56% of the people who work within the Town ' s live within Tompkins County and the remainder in other Counties. These out-of-town workers must travel by car to work. The subject site in contrast is very accessible to in-town jobs by transit, biking and walking. Increasing the ratio of resident workers in the Town by providing appropriate in-town housing can therefore change employment commuting pattern to a more long term sustainable one, The subject site is very well served by several bus routes and adding new residents in the northeast will increase the cost-effectiveness of current transit service. The site is also close to a proposed bike trail that connects the area to the Cornell campus. Above-average proportions of bike and walk commutes are therefore extremely feasible. The site is inappropriate for designation as a Conservation district Two scales of analysis--the Town level and the regional level .—support this statement. Town Level The 1993 CP, under the key Chapter on Goals, Objectives and Recommended Actions, includes several important references to Conservation, primarily in the Conservation, Open Space and Environmental Protection category where they are found under the first objective - ("Protection of natural resources, selected open space, environmentally sensitive areas, and unique natural areas") . Among the relevant actions are : " By way of comparison, almost 22% of the City' s residents work in the City. Report on Town of Ithaca Rezoning of Cornell Land by Uri Avin FAICP of Parsons Brinckerhoff 11 "a) Support private sector efforts to protect significant environmental areas and coordinate these activities with the Town ' s comprehensive planning program where applicable e) Consider establishing and maintaining a Conservation Easements Program . (p. III- 10) j ) Investigate mechanisms to protect environmentally sensitive areas as part of an amended Zoning Ordinance. The following areas should be considered for protection : ( 1 ) Areas of Special Flood Hazard as defined by FEMA . . . (2) New York State Freshwater Wetland Areas as defined in Article 24 of the NT State Environmental Conservation law, as well as those delineated by the Town; (3) Areas where slope, soil, depth to bedrock, or vegetation indicate potential erosion problems; (4) Critical Environmental Areas designated by the Town Board or other local or State agency. . . (5) Important stream corridors, to be delineated by the Town; (6) Mature forests, to be delineated by the Town; (7) NY State Health Department Public Wellhead and Watershed Protected Areas." (p III- 11 ) Balancing these conservation desires against the strong commitment to appropriately located housing, especially more affordable housing, with regard to the subject site depends in a large degree to determining to what extent the subject site conforms to the criteria for protection listed above as well as to other statements on conservation areas found in the 1993 CP . Using the Maps in the Inventory section of the 1993 CP and other sources, and applying the criteria for conservation areas cited above, shows that the subject site does not meet 6 of the 7 criteria at all and one only very partially. An full evaluation of these criteria is included in the evaluation and statement submitted to the Town Board on behalf of Cornell University by Kimberly Michaels, ASLA, of the firm TWLA. It should be noted that the "mature forest" area on the 1993 CP that is applied of the subject parcel is actually a planted pine area, not natural to the area, per the LeCain Survey and per historical aerial photographs. The definition used in the CP of a "mature forest" is very general and loose and does not go to environmental value or correspond with definitions of ecologically mature forests as discussed in other statements submitted by TWLA on this rezoning matter. If the CP definition of mature forests was applied broadly to the Town then a great deal of the undeveloped lands in the Town would be subject to this "constraint" . Report on Town of Ithaca Rezoning of Cornell Land by Uri Avin FAICP of Parsons Brinckerhoff 12 Some of the characterization of Cornell ' s site in the Town ' s 1993 Comprehensive Plan stems from inaccurate data and analysis. For instance, it places the drainage divide in the wrong place, as running east-west through the top third of the site, suggesting that drainage from the bottom two thirds of the site might affect the residential areas south of the site. In fact, as Figure 13 shows, the drainage divide occurs along the southern property of parcel 73 - 1 .2 .2, well removed from the portion of the site targeted for rezoning. To the degree, therefore, that drainage impacts on the residential areas south of the site are of concern, the actual watershed divide renders this concern moot for the subject site. Furthermore, the wetlands suggested on the Water Resources Map turn out, upon detailed examination by the Town ' s consultant, LeCain, to be very small, discontinuous and of marginal value. Figure 14 , taken from the Town-commissioned LeCain Survey of 2008 , shows one small area (area #31 on the map), a "shrub swamp" of 0 . 8 acres, which is rated as having "low to moderate ecological value" (Table 1 , page 7 of the LeCain Survey), and lies outside the targeted rezoning area; there is also another tiny (0. 1 acre), man- made, shallow emergent marsh (02), also of low to moderate ecological value, and also outside the targeted rezoning area. Map areas #25 and #26 on Figure 14, the areas targeted for downzoning, are described in the LeCain Survey as of "low" (#25) or "low to moderate" (#26) value, with no plant rarities. Section #25 is called a maturing, planted, non-native forest dominated by non-native species . Section #26 is similarly classified (p. 28) . An edge of Section #26 has some mature trees in a hedgerow which are within a 200 foot wide buffer the University has committed to preserve. As noted earlier, neither of these areas warrants the accepted ecological designation of mature forests, which is how Section #25 is characterized on the 1993 CP Land Resources Map, Figure 4 in the Plan. Although the Town ' s 1993 CP Anticipated Land Use Patterns Map, Figure 15, showed a portion of Cornell ' s parcel 73 - 1 -2 .2 (the subject site) in a Conservation/Open Space category, the Plan Map was not corrected after Cornell representatives pointed out that the western fence line enclosing the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology' s Sapsucker Woods was on the eastern line of parcel 73 - 1 -2 .2 . It is worth noting also that unlike many Comprehensive Plan Maps, this one is called an "Anticipated Land Use Map" rather than the "Future Land Use Map" which gives it a more tentative and qualified role than a prescriptive one. The Plan itself notes that the map " . . . is not suitable for site-specific planning and is not intended for that purpose" (p. IV-9) and that "It is not a proposed zoning map." (p. IV-9) . The Plan text notes that the Map itself was prepared from the various inventory maps that depict various constraints and opportunities for development. The 1997 Open Space Plan carried over some of these inaccuracies. The Town ' s 1997 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan, on Map 8 - 1 , Potential Zoning for Open Space and Purchase of Development Rights Target Areas, here included as Figure 16, repeats the 1993 CP Map general designations on the Cornell site as part of "Areas Recommended for Conservation Zoning" in the map legend. The text, however, is silent on these northeastern sites and only generally describes the intent of Map 8 - 1 as follows : "These conservation zoning districts as envisioned would be applied to areas of Report on Town of Ithaca Rezoning of Cornell Land by Uri Avin FAICP of Parsons Brinckerhoff 13 extremely steep slopes, significant woodlands, wetlands, and larger ravines and stream corridors (p. 61 )". As our review of the Inventory maps on the 1993 CP and the 1997 Open Space plan and the reviews in the LeCain Survey and other experts who have submitted statements demonstrate, the subject site possesses none of these conservation protection criteria or features . As the LeCain Survey indicated, there is some value as a buffer for Sapsucker Woods, a value Cornell has already acknowledged in its concept design criteria for development of its parcel . Regional Level The site is part of an emerging commercial/mixed use node The site is inappropriate for a Conservation designation in its own terms and in terms of the Town ' s plans and analysis, and this condition is strongly reinforced by viewing the site in its larger, regional context. Being on the northeast edge of the Town and adjacent to two other jurisdictions, good planning practice and common sense require an analysis in all directions of the subject site' s regional context. The future character of land use in this context will be determined by how existing forces for growth are further channeled by zoning patterns. These growth forces include the regional access of US 13 , the airport 1 mile away and several well- established employment concentrations - Figure 17 shows the larger area' s zoning in the Town of Ithaca, Village of Lansing and Town of Dryden using a legend that approximately matches these zoning districts with those of the Town of Ithaca for clarity. What is immediately evident is the very substantial extent of the business, light manufacturing and commercial designations north and northeast of the site. Residential designations in Dryden to the east complete the picture. Analysis of current plans and zoning reveals that the existing open and undeveloped character of the area is, in reality, planned and zoned for a very different future. Future plans for the significant northward extension of sewer and water in the Village and Town of Lansing, shown in Figure 18 from the 2003 Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, underscore this northward trajectory of growth, the consistent and dominant feature of the County Plan. Although such a future does not, of course, preclude or negate land development practices that are environmentally responsible, the overall character of the area is one of extensive development for moderate intensity industrial, commercial and residential uses . Specific comments on Proposed Amendment language These comments reference and follow the sequence of the Amendments proposed in the Town of Ithaca' s memo dated November 16, 2009 . Report on Town of Ithaca Rezoning of Cornell Land by Uri Avin FAICP of Parsons Brinckerhoff 14 A new item in the Plan ' s Chapter IV on East Hill subarea "disadvantages" section (the subject site in the northeast is part of what the Plan designates as the East Hill subarea) is proposed that references the Drainage Study by Milone and MacBroom and the LeCain Environmental Survey. Both these sources have already been cited in this report to note that that ( 1 ) the subject site does not relate to drainage problems identified in neighborhoods in the vicinity because of its watershed divide and (2) the subject site is described as of low or marginal ecological value in the LeCain report. Proposed amendments to the current Plan' s description of the Conservation/Open Space designation add to the list of elements such areas may contain the items "woods or other wildlife habitat, natural stormwater retention and water quality functions". All these new descriptors are so generic that most, if not all, of the undeveloped land in the entire Town would fall under these headings. These items dilute rather than enhance the purpose and clarity of the Conservation concept. There is also the insertion of "clustering, conservation easements, or zoning" mechanisms into the same section which goes on to describe the zoning concept first mentioned in the Open Space Plan of 1997 and than enacted as the Conservation Zone. As pointed out earlier, the Cornell site does not meet the criteria for the original Conservation District, and the District' s proposed redefinition is too broad to be defensible. Cornell has already voluntarily committed to conservation goals superior to those of the proposed legislation through its site planning. Amendment #3 addresses the Plan ' s Chapter N Synthesis on -anticipated land use patterns on East Hill and adds language to include "wetlands and woods in Sapsucker Woods sanctuary and adjacent lands as buffers to the Sanctuary. . . " As noted earlier, the inclusion of "woods" (undefined) is vague and generic and covers a multitude of areas of no established ecological value. Also noted earlier was the lack of any sizable or ecologically significant woodlands on the subject site. The two very small wetlands that were identified in the LeCain Survey do not, in any way, act as buffers to the sanctuary. Conversely, Cornell has proffered a 200 foot deep buffer along the subject site boundary with Sapsucker Woods as part of its development concept for the site under current zoning. Proposed amendment of the current Zoning Ordinance language in the "Purpose" section of the Conservation Zone would include, in section A, language on such areas ' "importance for natural drainage features" and the addition of "poorly drained soils" to their characteristics. As noted earlier, the level topography of the subject area contains no natural drainage features like swales or streams and has no particular importance regarding drainage beyond that of any ubiquitous, vacant, young, maturing or aged successional forest. Regarding soils, it should be noted that the 1993 CP, figure 12 , shows the subject site as consisting mostly of prime (classes I & II) or important (class 111) agricultural soils, relatively positive attributes for Town soils. . Report on Town of Ithaca Rezoning of Cornell Land by Uri Avin FAICP of Parsons Brinckerhoff 15 Conclusion The proposed zoning change on the Cornell site is an action supported by neither the environmental characteristics of the site nor the intentions or specific objectives and actions of the current Comprehensive Plan. Conversely, retention of the current MDR zoning on the site is fully consistent with the facts on the ground and the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted plans and studies. Report on Town of Ithaca Rezoning of Cornell Land by Uri Avin FAICP of Parsons Brinckerhoff 16 Biography of Report Author Uri Avin FAICP is an urban planner with 38 years of experience which include a decade in the public sector and 28 years as a consultant. He works for Parsons Brinckerhoff, one of the world ' s oldest, largest and best-regarded infrastructure and planning consultants. He leads the firm ' s U. S . practice in Regional Growth Management. His work includes the development of numerous comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances throughout the United States. This work has been recognized through 22 state or national awards for excellence and in being honored as a Charter Fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners. He has published and lectured across the US on land use, growth management and transportation planning and has taught these topics in several graduate planning courses. Mr. Avin has served on the editorial boards of the Journal of the American Planning Association and of the standard textbook The Practice of Local Planning. He has also served on the Board of the National Center for Watershed Management. He is currently affiliate faculty at the National Center for Smart Growth at the University of Maryland. Report on Town of Ithaca Rezoning of Cornell Land by Uri Avin FAICP of Parsons Brinckerhoff 17 References Consulted 1 . Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, 2004 2 . Tompkins County Housing Needs Assessment and Appendices, 2005/2006 3 . Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan 1993 4 . Town of Ithaca Open Space and Recreation Plan, 1997 5 . Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, 2004 6 . Village of Lansing Zoning law, 1984 7 . Cornell Master Plan, 2008 8 . Executive Summary of an Environmental Assessment of Lands Adjacent to Sapsucker Woods, 2008 , LeCain Environmental Services 9 . Drainage Study Evaluation, 2007, Milone and MacBroom, Inc. 10 . Review of Reports prepared for the Town of Ithaca, October 30 and November 3 , 2008 , Terrestrial Environmental Specialists 11 . Ecological Review of the Proposed Briarwood II Subdivision Properties, November 21 , 2007, Stearns and Wheeler 12 . Briarwood II Plans submitted for Lucente property to the Town Board, August, 2009 13 . Town of Ithaca proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments, 2009 14 . Letter to Town Board of Ithaca by Larry Fabbroni P .E. , regarding the Briarwood MII Moratorium, April 4, 2008 Report on Town of Ithaca Rezoning of Cornell Land by Uri Avin FAICP of Parsons Brinckerhoff 18 Attachment # 12 /1001 West Seneca Street, Suite 101 ML, . Ithaca, New York 14850 T R O W B R I D G E t: 607.277. 1400 & WOLF f: 607.277.6092 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS LLP www.twia.com December 7, 2009 Hon. Herbert Engman Town Supervisor, Town of Ithaca Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York, 14850 Re : Proposal to rezone portion of Tax Parcel # 73 - 1 -2 .2 Dear Supervisor Engman, Cornell University has asked me to review the relevant studies and reports and provide my professional opinion regarding the Town Board' s proposal to re-zone a portion of Cornell ' s Medium Density Residential property in the Northeast neighborhood as Conservation district. I am a licensed landscape architect, a LEED accredited professional, and a principal at Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architects here in Ithaca. Sustainable design is one of my areas of expertise. I 've lived in Ithaca for over twenty years, and have designed and shepherded many built projects in this town. Cayuga Medical Center, our local hospital is a site you are likely to be familiar with. I have been the Landscape Architect for CMC ' s projects for the last seven years . My work at the hospital has been selected as an exemplary case study for the Sustainable Sites Initiative, and achieved a silver LEED rating, with the further distinction of being the first medical facility in New York to do so. Detailed site design includes innovative sustainable construction techniques including the use of bioretention to manage stormwater, installation of a green roof, and the first porous pavement parking lot installed in Ithaca. My investigation began with a field visit to see the context, the properties involved, and the neighborhood and included a review the extensive documentation related to this zoning proposal. This includes the documentation of Mr. Lucente ' s plans for development through the years, Town Planning Board and Town Board meeting minutes regarding this topic since 2006, the Ecological Communities Survey and Assessment of Lands report provided by LeCain Environmental Services for the Town, the Drainage Study Evaluation provided by Milone & MacBroom for the Town, the response letters by Stearns & Wheeler and Terrestrial Environmental Specialists to the Town' s assessments, the Town Comprehensive Plan, the Town Open Space Plan, the Town ' s Zoning Ordinance, Tompkins County Planning documents, the Tompkins County Housing Assessment, and of course, the neighborhood concerns, which are articulated through public meeting minutes and their online blog. These documents do not S support downzoning Cornell ' s parcel to a Conservation district. Evaluations of several key points are included, below. The LeCain report reveals none of the Cornell property contains areas of high ecologic value. The Cornell property contains no endangered plant species, no threatened plant species, no rare plant species, and no locally rare plant species . The Cornell property contains no primary forests. Its current state was created by human activity: agriculture and a planted spruce grove . The Cornell property contains no steep slopes, gorges, significant views or other natural resources of note . As classified by the Town ' s consultant and the New York Heritage Ranking system, the land type there is common, abundant and "demonstrably secure". The LeCain report evaluated the areas to be rezoned as poor and marginal quality dominated by invasive plant species. The two wetlands on site are small, isolated, and contain a narrow range of species variation. One is specifically noted as manmade as a result of construction activity. The Cornell property contains no federally endangered or threatened birds, no state endangered birds, no state threatened birds and no state special concern birds. While two species spotted on site are on included in the Audubon Watch List, this is a nationwide list and not a protective designation. One of the species, although in decline nationally, has experienced a 17% increase in population in New York State. Cornell' s property will not offer connections between open spaces. The LeCain report increases the ecological value rating for areas that have the potential to serve as a wildlife corridor, specifically noting the possibility of connecting Sapsucker Woods and Monkey Run through other parcels included in the study. The Cornell parcel abuts Sapsucker woods to the east, but does not afford a connection to another natural area or open space. Cornell ' s property in this location is in a context of a residential neighborhood to the south, Route 13 and the business and technology park to the north, and community services to the west. Cornell' s property does not drain to the existing neighborhoods. The impacts of storm water in the northeast neighborhood have been a consistent concern whenever development is discussed in this area of town. Properties in the neighborhood experience wet yards, basements, and occasional flooding. The Town of Ithaca also commissioned a Drainage Study Evaluation . In this document, the watershed boundaries were mapped (a watershed is a term used to describe an area of land where all of the water drains to a common destination) . E2of5 MA The Cornell parcel is in a separate watershed from other developable parcels and the existing neighborhood between Sapsucker Woods and Hanshaw Road. What this means is that water from Cornell ' s property here does not drain into the neighborhood and therefore, runoff on this parcel cannot, by definition, impact the existing neighborhood drainage conditions. The area slated for re-zoning does not fit the criteria listed in the Town's Comprehensive Plan as areas that should be "considered for protection". • The property is not in a flood zone. • The property does not contain NYSDEC or USACOE mapped wetlands . There are two unmapped, isolated wetlands outside the boundaries of the proposed zoning change. One is the result of a man-made low spot. The other will be incorporated into future open space and landscaping design on the property. • The property does not contain soils that are subject to erosion problems. • The property is not in a CEA or UNA. • There is no important stream corridor on site . • Except for the gridded rows of human influenced Spruce plantation, the property' s forested area is successional, and described by the LeCain study as ` young ' and ` even-aged' . While the definition for mature forest included in the Comprehensive Plan is noted as "30-foot trees", this does not necessarily indicate age, nor does it address issues of diversity, understory, native vegetation or forest quality. By their nature, invasive species can grow faster, outcompete and colonize an area pushing out other, more desirable trees . The definition has the potential to qualify successional lots covered by a narrow range of young, quick-growing invasive species as worthy of conservation. • There is no indication that the property is in a state or federal identified Wellhead or Watershed protection area. Cornell is offering the use of finer-grained tools for site-specific development. The LeCain report argues for the value of areas that are adjacent to Sapsucker Woods specifically noting the potential for buffering this natural area. While I agree that the provision for open space buffering is an important component to consider during the planning for development of this parcel, I cannot support the conclusion that conservation zoning is the appropriate tool to use for it. The Lab of Ornithology and its lands are Cornell ' s own property and a prized resource of the University into which sizeable investments have recently been made . Cornell has described its site-sensitive design approach including a permanent set-aside in the form of a 200-foot buffer where the MDR-zoned parcel is adjacent to Sapsucker Woods. In order to assure the Town of its intentions, Cornell has offered a MOU describing this 200 400t buffer on the parcel . 1 3of5 � . The Town should consider sustainable development as a way to meet all goals for the property. The case has not been made that the Cornell land proposed for Conservation rezoning is of high ecological value or importance. The land types here are common, full of invasives, and, as noted by the LeCain report, of "low ecologic value" . Its adjacency to the current Conservation zone of the Lab of Ornithology influences this parcel ' s site design and layout. It' s not a question of needing Conservation zoning, it ' s a question of where and how to develop . Closing this area off to development pushes that development somewhere else, potentially farther away from jobs, services, utilities and sustainable transportation. One must consider the ecological costs of encouraging sprawl in our community. Adding the Cornell land is actually weakening the case for Conservation districts . If it is really about ecological value, then it seems sensible to stick to outstanding, high quality areas for conservation zones. Including low quality areas in this zoning change makes the action look more like an attempt to stop development than an honest look at significant ecological resources in the town. The fact is that the Northeast is one of the most compact, organized multi-use areas in the town of Ithaca. Neighborhoods, shopping, public transportation, jobs, medical care, child care, natural areas and recreation all co-exist there with easy walking, biking and transit access . Allowing for contiguous development and infill on the Cornell site is a very sustainable move. Pushing development to the edges or beyond of areas of existing resources increases the need for roadways, services and infrastructure. It decreases support for the use of public transportation, and increases the amount of land resources used per person — in other words, it promotes sprawl. Rezoning Cornell ' s parcel when it is in an area of the town that has all the infrastructure set up to sustainably support it makes no sense — and is downright paradoxical when an ecological argument is used to justify it. Several Town Board conversations have included numerous acknowledgements that conservation zoning is a "blunt instrument" the town is using as "a last resort" to "keep the pressure on" another developer. There is absolutely no need to utilize this strategy for the Cornell lands. Cornell is not proposing to construct on this parcel to the boundaries of the Sapsucker Woods natural area. It is committed to sustainable development strategies that cluster housing, maintain open space, protect sensitive areas, develop native landscapes and provide appropriate buffers. Cornell will include a no-build zone in its future development of this parcel and is willing to sign a MOU to this effect. An agreement of this type with Cornell is the best mechanism to achieve all the goals set for this parcel . It provides better protection than a conservation zone and allows for smart and sustainable development. 4of5 In summary, I cannot find any justification to re-zone Cornell ' s property as conservation. The environmental analysis does not support it. The stormwater analysis does not support it. Language in the Comprehensive Plan regarding evaluation for conservation zoning does not support it. Thoughtful and sustainable planning strategies do not support it. Cornell is a responsive property owner that is committed to sustainable site-design and willing to permanently provide a suitably-sized buffer between future development on the parcel and Sapsucker Woods . In my professional opinion, when you look at the studies performed and the history of the circumstances to date it is clear that factual evidence is lacking to support a decision to re-zone Cornell ' s property as a Conservation zone. Sincerely, Kimberly Michaels, RLA, LEED AP Principal, Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architects CC : Members of the Town Board Jonathan Kanter Sue Ritter Susan Brock Tom LiVigne, Director, Cornell Real Estate 1LMA 5of5 ja 1y OF Ir TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 Jonathan Ranter, - Director of Planning FAX (607) 273-1704 Planning Director' s Report for December 7 , 2009 Town Board Meeting DEVELOPMENT REVIEW November 3 , 2009 Planniniz Board Meeting: Holochuck Homes Subdivision, Trumansburg Road (NYS Rt. 96) : The Planning Board continued review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Holochuck Homes Subdivision and determined that the DEIS is complete and adequate to begin the public review and comment process. The Planning Board also scheduled a public hearing for December 15 , 2009 to hear comments regarding the DEIS from the public and involved and interested agencies and set the timeframe to receive written comments until January 5 , 2010. Copies of the DEIS have been distributed to involved and interested agencies and are also available at Town Hall, the County Library and on the Town' s website (www. town. ithaca.ny.us). The proposal involves the construction of 106 +/- town home type units in a clustered neighborhood development with two entrances proposed from NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road). The development will be concentrated on the west side of the property closest to NYS Route 96, zoned Low and Medium Residential, with more than half of the eastern portion of the property, mainly zoned Conservation, remaining undeveloped. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation proposes to acquire most of the eastern portion of the property in conjunction with development of the future Black Diamond Trail . Holochuck Homes LLC , Owner/Applicant; David M. Parks, Esq. , Agent, November 17 , 2009 Planning Board Meeting: Cancelled CURRENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROJECTS/FUNCTIONS The following have been accomplished over the past month. Codes and Ordinances Committee (COQ : The Committee met on November 18 , 2009 and reviewed proposed revisions to the Conservation Zone provisions (these had been reviewed by the Planning Committee (see below) at the November 12th meeting and forwarded to Codes and Ordinances for further review) . Proposed amendments include adding definitions for biological corridors, woods/woodlands, and wetlands ; strengthen provisions regarding tree clearing and earth moving; and would require clustering of residential units in Conservation Zones. The next COC meeting is scheduled for December 16, 2009 . Tentative agenda items include further review of proposed Conservation Zone amendments and continuation of review of comments received and possible revisions regarding the Stream Setback Law. ToNw v It y uniipiire�ty € Re o Planning Committee: The Committee met on November 12`h, 2009 to discuss proposed amendments to the Conservation Zone provisions (see description under Codes and Ordinances Committee above) . The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled for December 10, 2009 at 4: 30 p.m. Tentative agenda items include an update on the status of maps and narrative regarding natural features in the Town that could be impacted by gas drilling and discussion regarding a proposal by the Grippi ' s to rezone their parcel (Hayts Chapel and Schoolhouse) on Trumansburg Road, Comprehensive Plan Committee: The Committee met on November 19, 2009 and continued review and discussion regarding the goal and objective sections of the 1993 Plan in Chapter III, focusing on "Public Utilities, Facilities, and Services". The next meeting of the Committee is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 7 : 00 p.m. to continue review and discussion regarding the 1993 Plan Goals and Objectives, continuing with "Public Utilities , Facilities, and Services" and "Energy & Climate Change". The Committee and staff held a Focus Group meeting on Ecology/Environment on November 10, 2009 . Notes of that meeting will be discussed with the Committee and later put on the web site. Several additional focus group meetings are in the planning stages . Conservation Board: The Conservation Board met on December 3 , 2009. The next regular meeting of the Conservation Board is scheduled for January 7 , 2010, Trail Committee: The next meeting of the Committee is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, December 10, 2009 at 11 :00 a.m. (this will be a combined meeting for November and December) to follow-up on possible West Hill trails . ITCTC Planning Committee: The Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC) Planning Committee met on November 17 , 2009. Agenda items included a discussion regarding the final draft of the ITCTC Long-Range Transportation Plan that will be completed by the end of this year, an administrative action to amend the dates of several projects on the TIP (Transportation Improvement Program) to adjust dates and schedules of projects (including the Forest Home Traffic Calming Phase I project), and a discussion regarding the process for updating the TIP (which is uncertain because of the pending extension of the federal transportation bill). The next meeting will be the Joint Policy/Planning Committee meeting on Tuesday, December 15 , 2009 . Farmers ' Meeting/Agricultural. Plan: A meeting with farmers in the Town of Ithaca was held on November 17 , 2009 to discuss results of the farmer interview process that was conducted as part of the Agriculture Plan that the Town is preparing with the technical assistance of Cooperative Extension. The interviews included an inventory of farm operations in the Town and identified issues and opportunities for farming in the Town. The meeting included a group discussion focusing on priorities and strategies for the Agriculture Plan that will be an element of the Comprehensive Plan Update. 2 Regular Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board, December 7, 2009 Human Resources Report for November 2009 Personnel and Employee Relations Committees: Committee continued reviewing the Town Clerk job descriptions, job classification and wage structure. Other discussions included the Deputy Town Clerk's hours , sick bank for an employee, referring 2 policies to the Board , beginning discussions on a part time position for Codes and elected officials salaries. (See attached minutes) The Employee Relations committee did not meet in November. The Year End lunch vote was tallied and the Boat Yard Grill was the winner. Invitations will go out in December. Bolton Point's Personnel committee reviewed the preliminary results from their Employee Satisfaction Survey. Training and Development: Discussions with Tompkins County, City of Ithaca and the Town began regarding the 2010 Brainteaser program . The Town annually puts in $300 per year toward this program . Personnel — Civil Service: Negotiations team met with the Teamsters and came to tentative agreement on a contract. Teamsters met with the unionized staff November 10"', where the staff voted favorably on the contract. The Town Board also voted favorably on the contract November 23rd. Since that time we have been moving forward on getting the contract signed , card checks done by the staff and preparing for the retro payment for 2009. Commercial Insurance (Ithaca Agency — NYMIR Insurance Company): I spent several hours working on the Bolton Point's insurance agency RFP. Paul Tunison and I met with the top two agencies as a means of evaluating their services. The Commission will be voting on our recommendation December 3 . The annual paperwork regarding the Town's renewal has been submitted to Ithaca Agency for review and submission to NYMIR. Workers' Compensation (Public Employers Risk Management Assoc PERMA)a The Town received the 2008/2009 payroll audit results from PERMA. A total of $ 12,000 in premium was returned, in which over $9,000 went back to Bolton Point. Health and/or Dental Insurance: The Greater Tompkins County Municipal Health Consortium voted not to provide a Dependent to Age 29 rider, but to stay with the state mandate coverage. The consortium has been receiving updates as to the status of the NYS Insurance Departments' certification . There have been new issues arising in the interpretations of the representation of unions on the board . Depending on the interpretation of the Attorney General the weighted voting model may need to be changed in the Inter- municipal Agreement. Other Items: An additional employee has submitted and been approved for incremental medical leave under the Family Medical Leave Act, due to a family member's health condition . Al Carvill and I have been reviewing the proposals for a Deferred Compensation Administrator, Submitted By: Judith C. Drake, PHR, Human Resources Manager Town of Ithaca Personnel Committee Monday, November 30 , 2009 Draft Notes Present: Members : Tee Ann Hunter, Pat Leary, Peter Stein , Staff Support: Judy Drake Others attending : Bruce Bates 1 . Comments . • Bruce requested the opportunity to begin discussions regarding adding staff to the Code Enforcement Department. The request is for a part time position , maybe 30 hours a week or less . The reasoning in part is, due to the electrical inspection change that occurred this fall . Bruce advocated for an employee doing the electrical inspections rather than a independent contractor doing them . Other work that would be included is fire inspections and operating permit inspections . Both are revenue based work, so part of the expense of the position would be offset by additional revenue collected that is not currently being collected . After much debate the committee requested further information to be discussed at the next meeting . Bruce needs to provide the committee with the number of operating permits and fire safety inspections that need to be done each year. The revenue that would be earned by on time inspections . Detail the true cost to the town and the real minimum number of hours the position would need to be . • Judy reported out that there have been 50 resumes received to date for the Town Clerk position . The committee stressed the importance of getting the search committee meeting scheduled . 2. Consider referring revisions to Performance Review Policy to Town Board. Committee reviewed the policy as edited by Bolton Point's Personnel Committee . Committee changed sentence on new employees in two ways ; "should" to "will" and added "again" so the sentence reads : New employees will be evaluated after three months of service and again prior to six months of service. Committee voted unanimously to refer policy to the Town Board , 3. Consider referring revisions to Employer Vehicle Policy to Town Board. Judy commented that the changes made at the October meeting were discussed with and accepted by Bolton Point's Personnel Committee. Committee voted unanimously to refer policy to the Town Board . 4. Set meeting date for January. Meeting date was set by Tee Ann and Pat for Tuesday, January 5t' at 4 : 30 pm . 5. Discussion regarding Elected Officials Salaries. During the budget process it was discussed that the salaries for elected officials should be studied prior to the 2011 budget process . Judy passed out a summary of the 2007 wage survey for the positions of Town Supervisor, Town Board members , Justice , Planning Board and ZBA members. r Pat suggested that the salary be representative of a living wage , since the Town is a Living Wage Employer. The assumption is that the Town Board works half time based on the 30 hours per week full time status under the state retirement system (60 hours per month . ) With the basis that the Living Wage with no health insurance is $25 , 189 then at half time the Town Board should be closer to an annual salary of $ 12 ,595 . Pat also explained that the Town Supervisor should not be less than where the Town Clerk was just moved to ($60 ,000 job rate . ) This position has to be at an amount someone other than a retiree could live on to make the time devotion this position requires . One concern expressed was to have a salary for elected officials that would encourage a diverse selection of the residents to want to serve on the board . Peter argued that increasing the salary won 't change the number and kind of people who want to run for the positions . Tee Ann disagreed , explaining that the salary is not enough for someone to pay a baby sitter, so they can attend all the meetings. Peter suggested a citizens committee to be the ones to look into elected salaries , as it is too awkward for the elected officials to be raising their own pay. Pat requested a history of the salary rates for the elected officials . Have they only been growing at the COLA rate each year? Peter requested that a few of the higher paid towns on the survey be surveyed as to the make up of their boards . Do they have on retired residents or people still working on the board . This agenda item should be added to the next agenda for further discussion . Meeting adjourned at 6: 10 pm . Next meeting : Tuesday, January 5 , 2010 at 4: 30 pm DEPUTY, TOWN CLERK' S MONTHLY REPORT TOWN OF ITHACA, NEW YORK NOVEMBER, 2009 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 : k A1255 5 MARRIAGE LICENSES NO, 09104 TO 09108 87.50 3 MISC. COPIES 25 .00 I SIGN ORDINANCE 32.00 1 TAX SEARCH 5 .00 3 MARRIAGE TRANSCRIPT 30.00 TOTAL DEPUTY TOWN CLERK FEES 179.50 A2544 DOG LICENSES 621 .43 TOTAL A2544 621943 B2109 16 ELECTRICAL PERMIT 19605 .00 TOTAL B2109 19605.00 B2110 3 ZONING BOARD MTG 300.00 TOTAL B2110 300.00 B2111 18 BUILDING PERMIT 23980.00 7 BUILDING PERMIT EXTENSIN 900.00 1 TEMP CERTIFICATE OCCUP 23000.00 1 FIRE SAFETY REINSPECTION 50.00 TOTAL B2111 5,930.00 B2113 2 OPERATING PERMIT 150.00 TOTAL B2113 150600 B2115 1 SUBDV. REV. INITIAL APL. 100.00 1 SITE PLAN FINAL PLAN 500.00 TOTAL B2115 600.00 DEPUTY TOWN CLERK' S MONTHLY REPORT NOVEMBER, 2009 page 2 DISBURSEMENTS PAID TO SUPERVISOR FOR GENERAL FUND 800.93 PAID TO SUPERVISOR FOR PART TOWN FUND 81585 .00 PAID TO COUNTY TREASURER FOR DOG LICENSES 107 .55 PAID TO AG & MARKETS FOR DOG LICENSES 33 .00 PAID TO NYS HEALTH DEPT FOR MARRIAGE LICENSES 112.50 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS 9,638.98 DECEMBER 4, 2009 SUPERVISOR HERBERT J. ENGMAN STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF TOMPKINS, TOWN OF ITHACA I, Debra DeAugistine, 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 Deputy Town day of 20 Notary Public AtENDA # .L TOWN OF ITHACA LOCAL LAW NO. _ OF THE YEAR 2009 A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 270 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE, TITLED "ZONING", AND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO REZONE CERTAIN LANDS IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE TOWN FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE TO CONSERVATION ZONE Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as follows : Section 1 . Rezoning of Lands. Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code, titled "Zoning," is amended by: A. Rezoning Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels 70- 10-3 . 5 (24. 16 +/- acres) and 73 - 1 -8 .22 (23 .34 +/- acres) from their present zoning classification of Medium Density Residential Zone to Conservation Zone; and B . Rezoning the northeastern portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 73 - 1 -2 .2 , which northeastern portion is 6 .9 +/- acres, from its present zoning classification of Medium Density Residential Zone to Conservation Zone. C . The areas to be rezoned from Medium Density Residential Zone to Conservation Zone are denominated by yellow shading as "Proposed NE Conservation Zone Extension" on the map attached as "Exhibit A" to this local law Section 2. Amendment of Zoning Map. The official zoning map of the Town of Ithaca, effective April 1 , 2004, as amended to date, is hereby further amended by rezoning the lands described in this local law in the manner set forth in this local law. Section 3. Partial Invalidity. 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 4 Effective Date. This local law shall take effect upon publication of the local law or an abstract of same in the official newspaper of the Town, or upon its filing with the New York Secretary of State, whichever is the last to occur. November 16, 2009