No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2010-01-11 nor , Organizational and Regular Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, January 11 , 2010 at 5 : 30 p. m . 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Agenda 1 . Call to Order 2 . Pledge of Allegiance 3 , Supervisor's Report of 2009 and Outlook for 2010 4 . Consider appointment of new Town Board member (to placed on desks) a . Official Oath of Office administered to, newly appointed Town Board Member 5 . Report of Tompkins County Legislature 6 . Report of Ithaca Common Council 7 . Report of Fire Commissioners (written report) 8 . Report by Jay Franklin , Director of the Tompkins County Assessment Department 9 . 5 : 35 p. m. — Persons to be heard and Board comments (three minutes) 10 . 5 : 50 p. m. - 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 [2] [a-e] , in Order to Restore the Intergenerational Child Care Program at Longview a. Consider approval 11 . 6 : 00 p. m . — 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 a. Consider SEQR b . Consider approval 12 . 6 : 10 p. m. — 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 a . Consider SEQR b . Consider approval 13 . 6 : 20 p. m . — Public Hearing regarding the East Shore Drive Water Main Replacement Project a . Consider SEQR b . Consider approval of public interest order January 11, 2010 14 . 6 : 30 p. m . — Public Hearing regarding a Local Law providing for a Moratorium on Development in the Northeast Corner of the Town through April 12 , 2010 a . Consider approval 15 . Report on lighting at the Coddington Road Community Center 16 , Consider Approval of Regular Town Board Meeting Schedule 2010 a . Consider Study Sessions 17 . Announce appointment of Deputy Town Supervisor a . Acknowledge appointment 18 . Consider appointments to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board a . Consider alternate board member 19 . Consider appointment of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Chair 20 . Consider appointments to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals a . Board member b . Alternate board member(s) 21 . Consider appointment of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Chair 22 . Consider appointments to the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board 23 . Consider appointment of the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Chair 24 , Acknowledge Supervisor's Town Board Committee appointments (to be placed on desk) 25 . Consider Town Board appointments of Citizen Advisory Committees 26 , Consider Town Board appointments of Intermunicipal Organization 27 . Consider& appointment of Town Historian 28 , Consider Confirmation of Arrangements and Appointment of Attorney(s) for the Town 29 , Discuss 2010 Association of Towns Resolutions and Consider designation of 2010 Official Delegate and Alternate Delegate for the New York State Association of Towns 2010 Annual Meeting 30 , Consider Appointment of Highway Superintendent 31 , Consider Agreement for the Expenditure of Highway Monies 32 , Consider Appointment of Receiver of Taxes 33 , Discuss Policies and Procedures Manual January 11, 2010 34 . Consider Consent Agenda Items a . Approval of Town Board Minutes of October 19 , 2009 and November 5 , 2009 b . Town of Ithaca Abstract c . Bolton Point Abstract d . Voucher deadlines for 2010 e . Cash management and investment policies and procedures f. Designation of Official Newspaper g . Designation of Official Depositories of Town Funds h . Official Bonds of Town Officers and Employees i . Holiday Tree Pickup j . Appointment of Distribution Operator Trainee — SCLIWC k. Acknowledge Appointment of Deputy Highway Superintendent 35 . Report of Town Officials 36 . Report of Town Committees 37 , Intermunicipal Organizations 38 . Review of Correspondence 39 . Consider Adjournment January 11, 2010 Town of Ithaca Town Board Sign-In Sheet Meeting Date: Please Print your information to ensure accuracy in the meeting minutes Print Name Print Address e-mail IV 1i DAL , . 4 WCOM ec- m xt( /n - ii Lop Coe,� C' U ��' � �� w j/' !v(l� � � C6� 3 �" Pwej'� � � 'V �' •`F fC.: 1i/l /f• i? ! Cl'/ I4 %V; `.� . f 1 I L 1 r V (J , Ch \ ,,J TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I , Debra DeAugistine , being duly sworn , say 'th'at 1 1 am :the' First 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: r ADVERTISEMENT O NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS r Public Interest Order Subject to Permissive Referendum - owrioFlTliaca NOTICE OF East Shore Drive Water Main Replacement ProjectOPTioNOF, iPUBL1C,INTTEREST 5 ORDERa .+� �.;I SUB.IECT TO I Location of Sign Board Used for Posting . 4- -PERMISS EI..+rVE, ^ ' REFERENDUM [ Town Clerks Office stNOTICE IS HEREBY ��G hV ESN that at a regular 1 215 North Tio a Street a meeting 'ell d on the' 11th g � day- oE;-January:' 20t0,' the Ithaca NY 14850 Town Board of die'.Town s i of Ithaca, Nevi%4York duly adopted a P�� u�bli"c.. l�rest OO or man abst`raoi Hof Date of Postin I _ I O which follows, which O ) g ' der is subjectito ape,, i Date of Publieati n . sive referendun p 71. sintI 1 _ � — � � If to Town taw Article 7. I The Public Inte st Orderl h establishes 'a- Water it-- �` n ,prove, nt in the Town of:j D ra DeAu ine ! �ltaTompki s County ' g f New$Yoyrk, fo;be.known as I First 8puty Town Clerk To,o n of: Ithaca n `Shore Drive Water Jm- e�. . . provements asd. provi'd�esJ Y( for�;�_a maximum appr tion� '" o'n not exceeding , g. $2,5Q1 Kri funded STATE OF NEW YORK) ssuance of se sl bo ds of COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS • t. t e Town of Ithaca to s 9 lure in annual installments TOWN OF ITHACA) over a period not to ex �Y ceed forty years, such'�I I bonds to be paidf�rom as ibgton '- Rad and- East se en I' 6d, upon Shore Drive, and�dontinu- t- tit Swor to and subscribed before me this I' day of a�rcollected frbmthe ingnorth, alongEast:Shore A several lots and parcels of Drrdi e fl e Town of V 2010 , land in said Town of Ithaca Ithaca/Town of Lansing water system benefited muu iicipal boundary. The larea�which are : d eemed improvement also includes ben' a by saidd mprove- an B-inch Polyethylene wa- mm M-t Said benefited area ter main loop serving the consists of the ientire area lake houses from Number 6 t eoaTown of' Ithaca ex- 916 to Number 940, along ce aithe tarea`,contaiRil viith�multiple service lines Notary PUbIIC within 'tfie Village'of Cayu. serving 'the remaining �r.: e ga Heights., Said of houses in theTown ,along i Ithaca East Shore Drive East ShorerDnve TheIrn Wa�ter. mprovements in-' provement falsocludes `iNtultt4 � i PAULETTE NEILSEN IclucJe= the constructwn -theconstruction�ofapres r e and installation of approxi sure regulating sta� I ; Notary Public, State of New York mately 6,'006 feet of new consisting of, ,a pre cast • No. 01 NE6156809 r12-inc Ductile Iron Pipe concrete ' building tppS +i ' •r` tt water main alon 'the east sure regulating valves and " r- ` Y Cualified In Tioga County side of East Shore Dnve related piling to be locat- j- L ,% r- \,t IL Commission Expires December 4. ZQ Ico�mmencing from them ed on Remington Road, terseehon of Renwick-"end ancilla facilities � - , c, � G l;� � ,,�: t Place andE;; Lake Street, 1/16/2010 • : ; I then extending '- n rth to + r the intersection of Rem , i �•.. - - - -ds ' ,-� _ - f - mil,` t 'eta r''rr(If , . , , i ttt+ ` y TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION, I , Debra DeAugistine , being duly sworn , say that . ] am the . Deputy Town Clerk of the Towne of Ithaca , Tompkins County, New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the signil board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, Ithaca Journal: O A.DVERTISEMENT " OTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS TOWNOFITHACA ;t 38 NOTICE OF PUBLIC . HEARINGS `. it ; PLEASEh TAKE NO a to Consider Reduction in Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Fees ng TIGE ;u that the To ITT Board of the Town ofItfWV Pursuant to Town of Ithaca Code , Chapter 125, Titled Building 5 .•wiu hold, P,461,�4He , Construction and Fire Prevention , Sec. 125-7B (9)a 2 a-e , in Order to t mgs on 'the I A `day of Y� January Restore the Intergenerational Child Care Program at Longview ,;: 'Town Hall. 2 5 No th T - jr -Inn Street; Ithaca,` New d - Yor [o hear public coin:. Regarding Proposed Amendments to the 1993 Town of Ithaca a meat egarding the follow Comprehensive Plan Relating to Certain Environmental Studies of the Northeast Ithaca Area Conducted by the Town Board and `., 55 P:m Puna :, Hearing .2oConsidehRe Conservation/Open Space Recommendations for Lands in the I°` duction in Temporary Cer-;- Northeast Stud Area t tifcate of Cccupancy Study ;Fees Pursuant to Town of , a Ithaca Code Chapter , ef:, 125 Titled Building •Coffin a Regarding a Proposed Local Law Amending the Zoning Chapter of the struchon• and Fire Preve�n T• tion I Sec. '125-7& (9)a [2.1 Town of Ithaca Code to Add Preservation of Certain Drainage and ;rla e1, m'order to Restore Stormwater Retention Features to Conservation Zone Purposes the In tergenerational Ct e Care ? Program mat. Longview Regarding a Local Law Providing for a Moratorium on Development in d 600 p:m. PUbIiCr It, the Northeast Corner of the Town through April 12 , 2010 �_ Hearing ; ; Regarding P I- posed lAme III d In' ents? to y the 11993 Town of Ithaca Re Location of Sign Board Used for Posting . Comprehensive Plan LMg to Certain Environ d;.m,m9nntalt,` ..;Studies, of tho`, ;- Northeast. Ithaca Area:, Town Clerk's Office n : con 'ced by the Townl , aw '3t Board ( Street Conservation / 0'pen� I 215 North Tloga Street � `Spaoe `Recommends"lions: it At Lands'in the Nbrtheaste rT ,Ithaca , NY 14850 ddStudyArea it� R61'0 p.m Pbbhc IHe»g Regarding a Date of Posting : Decembers 2009 aped Local -, ,Law t Amending., the a Zoning Date Publicatio December 74 2009 it''' &aapter of the'r4To' OFT, e jithaca Code to Add Prea r, y3Ziwa ion of Certain'rDra11 - �. . :r_(age and_ Stormwat @r' Re, , te,h74,. Features r to ?.Coffin-;pi Debra DeAugi tine '. s' on Zone Purposes ,,- s.' , i Deputy Town C 6.20 P.m P"b�` P' Y ',.•,Hearing Regardinge a ��East , Shore Drive Water , n-1 ain Pfoject (see 'seepp'a` .{rate notice) - 44'1 STATE OF NEW YORK) hts P.m Puble COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS • r Hear W' , p°�� "e h Moratonum on Develop ment m the Nort heast ar TOWN OF ITHACA) f C of the Town , hrou�gh April 12 2010 I . Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of r ndividuals needing ass's Information regarding the t. lance should contact t e 200Q ,. public; hearing tops and ;- Town Clerks office within v copies of theSproposed 48 hours prior to° fhe time .LI Laws are on file and.. o the publid heanng; available for review in they" R i r•a-a+ Town ' Cle=rk s4 00 ffice at Debra DeAugistine { , ii,%w�n Hall dur, g- normal Deputy T w Clerk Oil 5 business hours, Monday . Dated December 22, fpthrough Friday, 8 00. a m 2009 Notary Public moo°P m _ L2�29�09 , ' PAULETTE NEILSEN Notary Public, State of New York No . 01 NE6156809 Qualified in Tioga County Commission Expires December 4. 201 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT � OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I , Debra DeAugistine , being duly sworn , say that . l am the Deputy Town Clerk of the Town iof Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , that the following notice has been duly poste6 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: p tsgals . 05o Legals,. I tsgals oso TOWN OF ITHACA said Town excepting with the provisions of O ADVERTISEMENT Order Calling therefrom the area con- Section 209-q of thq Public Hearig tained within the Village of Town. Law; NOW, THERE- ti NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS East Shore Drive . Cayuga Heights, and FORE, BE IT Wa ter Main WHEREAS, the proposed ORDERED, by the Town Replacement Project improvement consists of Board of the Town of Itha- l At a regular meeting of the water improvements ca, Tompkins County, Public Interest Order Calling Public Hearing for the East the Town Board of the set forth below, and in the New York, as follows: Town of Ithaca, Tompkins areas of the Town as set Section 1 . A public Shore Drive Water Main Replacement Project County, New York, held at forth below, and as more meeting of the Town the Town Hall, 215 North Particularly shown and de- Board of the Town of Itha- Tioga Street, in Ithaca, scribed in said map, plan ca, Tompkins County, New York, in said Town, and report presently on New,York, shall be held at Location of Sign Board Used for Posting : on the 21st day of De- file in the office of the the Town Hall, 215 North cember, 2009, at 4:30 Town Clerk: Tioga Street, in Ithaca, P.M., Prevailing Time. Construction and installa- New York, in said Town, tion of approximately on the 11th day of Janu- I Town Clerk's Office PRESENT: 6,000 feet of new 12-inch ary, 2010, at 6:20 P.M. , Herb Engman, Supervisor Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP) wa- Prevailing Time, to consid- 215 North Tioga Street 1 Bill Goodman, Councilman ter main along the east er the aforesaid map, plan Peter Stein, Councilman side of East Shore Drive and report, including esti- Ithaca , NY 14850 Pat Leary, Councilwoman commencing from the in- mate of cost, and the ; Eric Levine, Councilman tersection of Renwick question of providing the Tee-Ann Hunter, Council- Place and Lake Street, improvement, and to hear i woman• then extending north to all persons interested in i Date of Posting : December 22 , 2009 Rich DePaolo, Council- the intersection of Rem- the subject thereof con- ! ington Road and East cerning the same and to 1 Date of Pubi cati n . ecember 29, 2009 man Shore Drive, and continu- take such action thereon ' In the Matter of ing north along East Shore as is required by law. A Proposed -Water Inn- Drive to the Town of Section 2. The Town 1 provement in the Town of Ithaca/Town of Lansing Clerk is hereby authorized 1 Ithaca, Tompkins County, municipal boundary. The and directed to cause a New York, pursuant to Ar- improvement also includes copy of this Order with a Debra DeA istine ticle 12-C of the Town an 8-inch Polyethylene Notice of Adoption to be Law, to be known as the water main loop serving published once in the offi eputy Town G East Shore Drive Water the lake houses from cial newspaper, and also " Improvements Number 916 to Number to post a copy thereof on 940, along with multiple the town signboard main- ORDER CALLING service lines serving the tained by the Town Clerk, PUBLIC HEARING remaining houses in the not less than ten ( 10) nor STATE OF NEW YORK) WHEREAS; a map, report Town along East Shore more than twenty (20)„ and plan, including an esti- Drive. The improvement days before the day desig- , COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : mate of cost, have been also includes the con- nated for the hearing as . duly prepared in such struction of a pressure aforesaid, all in accord- TOWN OF ITHACA) manner and in such detail regulating station consist- ance with the provisions as has heretofore been ing of a pre-cast concrete of Section 209-q of the determined by the Town building, pressure regulat- Town Law. Board of the Townrof Itha- ing valves and related pip- Section 3. This Order Sworn to an subscribed before me this day of ca, Tompkins County, ing to be located on Rem- shall take effect immedi- New York, relating to the ington Road, and ancillary ately. l ZOOS . creation and construction, facilities, and pursuant to Article 12-C WHEREAS, the maximum The question of the adop- I of the Town Law, of water 'Proposed to be expended lion of the foregoing Or- system improvements to by the Town of Ithaca for der was duly put to a vote . be known and identified the aforesaid improve- on roll call, which resulted as the Town of Ithaca East ment is $2,500,000. The as follows: j Shore Drive Water Im- Proposed method of , fi- nancing and herein- after to be employed Herb Engman Voting Aye Notary PUbIIC after also referred to as by said Town of Ithaca j 'improvement,' to provide consists of the issuance Bill Goodman Voting Aye such water improvement of serial' bonds of said i including extensions, to Town of Ithaca to mature Peter Stein Voting Aye the present Town water in annual installments over period not to exceed for- P a Pat such water P at Leary Voting Aye PALILETTE NEILSEN system improvement to ty years, such bonds to be be constructed and Paid from assessments Eric Levine Voting Aye ; Notary Public, State of New York owned by the Town of levied gpon and collected i NO. 01 NE6156809 Ithaca, and I from the several lots and Tee-Ann Hunter Voting Qualified in Tioga County WHEREAS, said map, parcels of land in said Aye j COnVT11SSlOn EXpI(@S December 4 plan and report, including Town of Ithaca water sys- F estimate of cost, were tem benefited area which • Rich DePaolo Voting t prepared by a competent are deemed benefited by Aye f engineer, duly licensed by said improvement, so t� _ - the State of New York much upon and•from each The Order was thereupon f. and have been filed in the as shall be in just propor- declared duly adopted. - '_ • - office of the Town Clerk tion to the amount of the 1 " -)= of said Town, where the benefit which the improve- Individuals needing assis- ,• ` % -- t11' same are available during men't shall confer upon` tance should contact the !,l _ regular office hours for ex- the same, and Town Clerk's office within amination by any person WHEREAS, it is now de- 48 hours prior to the time or persons interested in sired to call a public hear- of the public hearing. the subject matter there- ing for the purpose of of; and considering said map, plan Debra DeAugistine WHEREAS, the area of and aterof eostnalndltheero- Dated: December said Town< determined to P . � , _ \ �° be benefited by said Town viding of the improvement; 22, 2009 " I �' of Ithaca East Shore Drive and to hear all persons in- 12/29/09 1I 1 � � ' tt < Water Improvements con- terested in the subject sists of the entire area -of thereof concerning the same, all in accordance $ o � Organizational Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, January 11 , 2010 at 5 : 30 p. m . 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 Changes Supervisor Engman stated that the Town Board would be voting to appoint a new town clerk at the meeting and requested that the appointment be added after Agenda Item No . 4 . He also noted that the new Town Clerk as well as newly appointed Town Board members would be taking the oath of office . Consideration of a resolution to appoint Peter Stein to the Comprehensive Plan Committee was added to Agenda Item #25 and Councilman DePaolo requested that Agenda Item #33 be struck from the agenda because comments from Staff are still being solicited and received . He suggested that the item be moved to the next Board meeting . Agenda Item No. 3 : Supervisor' s Report of 2009 and Outlook for 2010 Supervisor Engman submitted a written report (See Attachment # 1 ) He read the opening and his anticipated goals . Agenda Item No . 4b : Appointment of Town Clerk Supervisor Engman brought the Boards attention to the resolution considering the appointment of a Town Clerk. There was no discussion and a vote was taken . TB RESOLUTION NO. 2010w001 — Appointment of Town Clerk WHEREAS , due to the resignation of the Town Clerk , there is a vacancy in the full time appointed position of Town Clerk; and WHEREAS , the Interview Committee comprised of Supervisor Engman , Town Councilpersons Eric Levine and Patricia Leary and the Human Resources Manager, I nterviewed 6 candidates from the over 65 who applied for the said position ; and Town Board Minutes: January 11 , 2010 WHEREAS , the Interview Committee has determined that Paulette Terwilliger, possesses the necessary knowledge and skills to satisfactorily perform the duties of the Town Clerk position and therefore , makes the recommendation for appointment ; Now, therefore , be it RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby appointment Paulette Terwilliger as the appointed Town Clerk , effective January 11 , 2010 ; and be it further RESOLVED , this is a full time salaried position based on 40 hours a week position , at an annual salary of $56 , 500 , in Job Classification " P" , with full time benefits ; and , be it further RESOLVED , the said appointment is for a term continuing until the 1st day of January next succeeding the next biennial Town election to wit , January 1 , 2012 , MOVED : Councilman Levine SECONDED : Councilwoman Leary VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye . Motion carried - unanimous Councilwoman Hunter brought Paulette Terwilliger in to take the oath . Mrs . Terwilliger was sworn in as the Town of Ithaca Town Clerk . Agenda Item No . 4a : Oaths of Office Deputy Town Clerk Debra DeAugustine administered the oaths of office to ; Rich DePaolo , Town Councilman ; Tee -Ann Hunter, Town Councilwoman ; and Patricia Leary , Town Councilwoman . Supervisor Engman noted that the agenda stated the swearing in of a new Town Board member, but , the Town Board has not had a chance to go over the candidates and make a determination , so that will not happen later. He explained for the public that a new Town Board member needs to be appointed by the Board for Councilman Stein 's seat due to his resignation . He stated that the Board will be talking about the candidates later. Agenda Item No. 5 : Report of Tompkins County Legislature No Report Agenda Item No . 6 : Report of Ithaca Common Council No Report Page 2 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 Agenda Item No. 7 : Report of Fire Commissioners (Attachment #2 written report) No Report Agenda Item No . 8 : Report by Jay Franklin , Director of the Tompkins County Assessment Department Attachments # 3 Mr. Franklin introduced himself and thanked the Board for having him . He introduced Gary Bortz who is the property appraiser assigned to the Town of Ithaca . Mr. Franklin had submitted a packet with a lot of information for the Board . He is addressing the Board is a trial effort on his part to be more in touch with the municipalities . He asked the Board to let him know if there are meeting that they feel he should attend and that he had signed up for all the list-serves to try and keep in touch with what is going on in the County municipalities . Mr. Franklin gave an overview of his department and what they do . Tompkins County is unique in that they do the assessments for the County versus having individual assessors for each municipality . This saves the County' s municipalities $300 , 000 according to a recent comparison they did . He went on to state that the Department assesses at 100% or what you could sell your house for. There are exemptions and he sends memos out to the residents explaining these . There are 3 types of exemptions ; mandated , opt- in and opt-out . Important dates in the assessment and tax cycle are ; July 1 st of the prior year, this means that the assessments are based on what the market value was on July 1 st of the prior year. March 1 st is the taxable status date , this means that assessments are based on what is on the property on March 1 st . For example , if you are building a house and it is finished February 22"d , you are taxed for the property with the residence that year, if it is finished March 2"d , you are not taxed for the residence , just empty land . March 1 st is also the date that all exemptions have to be filed with Assessment . The Tentative Assessment Roll is filed on May 1 st and grievance day is always the 4th Tuesday of May. Grievance day is when a resident can contest their assessment . The Final Assessment Roll is filed on July 1 st and is the basis for school and town and county taxes . Mr. Franklin reiterated that he is always open to questions and requests from Board Members . He stated that they have a wealth of information at their disposal for the Board 's use . Councilwoman Hunter and Supervisor Engman stated that they had recently used the Assessment office 's public computers and found the information very interesting and helpful . Agenda Item No. 9 : Persons to be heard and Board comments Supervisor Engman asked the public to keep their comments to 3 minutes and reiterated that this is for any topic not on the agenda associated with a public hearing . Page 3 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 Scott Chatfield addressed the Board . He stated that he was a land- use planning and zoning lawyer from Marrietta , New York here on behalf of the Lucente 's . He had a procedural question because he was here for Agenda Items # 112 # 12 and # 14 and wanted to know if the Board was going to consolidate those public hearings or if he would have to repeat his comments 3 times . Supervisor Engman responded that what the Board normally does is wait until after the public hearings to determine if they have enough information to make a decision so he didn 't think he could answer that question . Mr. Chatfield responded that he thought all three were inter- related and affecting their property . Supervisor Engman thought they were three different topics and Mr. Chatfield responded that his comments would essentially be the same . Supervisor Engman responded that to make it clear, a statement should be made at each of the public hearings to make it very clear. Bill Sonnesthul addressed the Board stating that in many of these session when the Northeast comes up they end up talking about many things and thought it might help if the Board clarified what the specific point is so that the comments can be directed towards that . There was no one else wishing to address the Board . Supervisor Engman asked the Board if they had any comments or items not on the agenda . Councilman Goodman made the point that it is most useful to him if during the public hearings people comment to the specific issue at hand , not the general idea of opposing or in favor of rezoning certain sections of the Northeast because that is not on the agenda tonight . T Attachment # 4 — Agenda Item No . 10 : 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. 125-76 (9)a [2] [awe] , in Order to Restore the Intergenerational Child Care Program at Longview Supervisor Engman opened the public hearing at 6 : 11 p . m . and invited public comment . For the purposes of discussion , the resolution was moved and seconded . It was noted that the revised resolution was on the table with minor changes to laws that were cited . Councilman DePaolo had a question on how the issue was being characterized . He felt that it was being presented as though a fee reduction was needed in order to restore the childcare division making the assumption that if it is not , the childcare would not be restored . Mr. Bates stated that the childcare is up and running and what they are asking for is a refund . Councilman DePaolo suggested that the word " restore ' be changed to " refund" . Page 4 of 61 Town Board Minutes: January 11 , 2010 Supervisor Engman went back to the public hearing and invited the public to address the Board . Marc Macera , Administrator at Longview spoke from the audience stating that he did not have a prepared statement , but was available for questions from the Board . Councilman DePaolo asked for clarification on the wording he just noted . He asked if this would be an undue hardship . Marc Macera , Administrator , Ithacare Mr. Macera stated that they have limited resources and this taxes our budget when we have to pay municipal fees . Our partnership with Tompkins Community Action certainly taxes our budget and we have to spend more on municipal fees to continue doing what we' re doing , it has to come out of our operating budget , number one , and number two , with regard to the construction project that relates to the building expansion and renovation that occurred , that required a partial and temporary occupancy permit , causes us to pay fees for a 6-month permit which expired . That timeline was not in line with the one year, plus building timeline for the rest of the project , and this renewal , again as Herb alluded to the fact that this issue came up originally in May of last year, is simply to renew at the same fee , a program that's been up and operating , that' s been paid for, and there's no additional work , in terms of inspections or supervision that's required . So , it's a question of fairness and equity that's added to the issue of whether there is a financial hardship for Longview. Discussion followed . The larger construction project is still continuing but the smaller area needed to be occupied necessitating a temporary certificate of occupancy. This is the second temporary certificate of occupancy. Councilman DePaolo asked Mr. Bates for his comments on the process and issue . Mr. Bates stated that the original building application was filed in Fall of 2008 and they applied for the TCO in May of 2009 because they wanted to use the childcare part of the project . Because the applicant applied for a building permit for the whole project instead of two separate projects , they needed a TCO because the entire project wasn 't done . It was the applicant's choice to put the entire project under one building permit . Town Law states that the Code office can only issue a TCO for 6-months but the Board does have the option of extending that . Mr. Bates explained that because the whole project was not finished , Ithacare would have had to file for a building permit extension which would have cost $ 1 , 000 , but that was not charged because of the TCO being issued so they have already realized a savings . The choices are to renew the permit or keep the TCO going which makes them subject to these fees . Councilwoman asked if Ithacare received payment from Tompkins Community Action and Mr. Macera stated that it did not . He described the program as an intergenerational program involving the residents . Councilman DePaolo asked Mr. Bates if there was anything the Town may have done that contributed to the delay in the completion of the project . Mr. Bates stated there have been several items that have delayed the project due to code interpretations and mistakes by the contractors . More of the delay has been the weather. Councilman . DePaolo asked if the $500 fee they are requesting would cover the costs to the Town Page 5 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 and Mr. Bates responded that it would not . He gave a breakdown of what the costs would have been if they had renewed versus getting a TCO and listed the total number of site visits , review of correspondence and reports and entering notes . At the lowest rate of a Code Officer, the total is $ 1 , 960 since May , which does not include his time or clerical time . Mr. Macera responded that the issue is convoluted and this request involves only the childcare area , not the whole project . The childcare has not incurred extra visits , the project has . Supervisor Engman closed the public hearing at 6 : 29 p . m . Mr. Bates clarified that as a matter of procedure and policy that has been in place , once a temporary certificate of occupancy is issued ; no building permit renewal fees are charged . Therefore once he pays the TCO for the portion of the project , the whole project is relieved of the renewal fees . In a sense , the occupancy fee is the renewal fee . He stated that he is bringing this issue to committee to avoid future problems . Supervisor Engman asked for someone to move and second the resolution because he had asked for it before conducting the public hearing . Councilwoman Hunter noted that the resolution now read refund as discussed earlier. The motion was moved by Supervisor Engman and seconded by Councilman DePaolo who then moved to amend the resolution from $500 to $ 1 , 000 to provide some relief to the applicant and yet cover some of the costs incurred by the Town . Motion seconded by Councilman Levine . Supervisor Engman thought that in the interest of consistency they ought to stay with the $500 so he voted against the amendment . The amendment passed 5 to 1 . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2010=002 : CONSIDER REDUCTION IN TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FEES PURSUANT TO TOWN OF ITHACA CODE , CHAPTER 125 , TITLED, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND FIRE PREVENTION , SEC . 125=7 B(9) (a) [21 fa-el , IN ORDER TO REFUND THE INTERGENERATIONAL CHILD CARE PROGRAM AT LONGVIEW 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 January 11th at 5 : 50 p . m . to hear all interested parties on the proposed waiver of Temporary Certificate of Occupancy fees pursuant to Town of Ithaca Code , Chapter 125 , Titled , Building Construction and Fire Prevention , Sec . 125-7 B (9) (a) [2] [a-e] , in order to refund the intergenerational child care program at Longview; 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 fee reduction , or any part thereof ; Page 6of61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED , that the governing body of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve a reduction in the temporary certificate of occupancy fee to $ 1000 , pursuant to Town of Ithaca Code , Chapter 125 , Titled , Building Construction and Fire Prevention , Sec . 125 -7 B (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 : Supervisor Engman SECONDED : Councilman DePaolo VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye . Motion carried - unanimous Agenda Item No . 11 : 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 Supervisor Engman opened the public hearing at 6 : 34 p . m . and invited comment . The Public Hearing has been transcribed verbatim . Mr . Carr ' s- statement Attachment # 5 Bernard Carr, from Trusreal Environmental Specialists on behalf of Rocco Lucente . On behalf of Mr. Lucente , TES recommends that the Town Board not extend the moratorium and not approve the proposed ordinance to Ithaca Comprehensive Plan . TES has reviewed the LeCain and Glaze studies . These studies do not support the conclusions drawn . In particular, no federal or state listed endangered wildlife or plant species were recorded on the site by either TES or the LeCain or Glaze studies . The LeCain study lists several uncommon plant species . Plant species recorded by the study indicate "probably regionally scarce" or "probably regionally rare" . Not regionally scarce or regionally rare . All of these species were found in areas proposed for donation to Sapsucker Woods Sanctuary. All of these species are edge of range species . These are species that are at the edge of their range , so if they are uncommon in Tompkins County , it is because they are at the edge of their natural range . These species are common throughout New York State . The basis for the original moratorium was a letter from Nancy Ostmun and others . None of the wildlife or plant species mentioned in that letter were located on the site by the LeCain or Glaze studies . So the basis for making the moratorium was on a letter that the town study did not support . For example , no Virigian white butterfly was located on the site , no wood turtles or any of the mole salamanders . Page 7 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 Next , there is no basis for the Lucente land to be granted a moderate to high ecological value for the parcel south of Sanctuary Drive . Most of this parcel contains invasive species such as honeysuckle , garlic mustard and barberry and show past human disturbance with logging and agriculture . Bird species recorded on the site are common in suburban and rural areas . Species diversity will be maintained under the proposed development scenario . Wood Thrush is widespread and abundant in NYS . Blue Lane Warbler occurs is seccessional habitat and will not decrease due to this project . And most important , all wetland areas are avoided , buffer strips are provide to all wetlands , drainage features provided and designed by Larry Fabroni meet or exceed state standards and will protect existing wetlands . The majority of land owned by Mr. Lucente in the proposed conservation area would be preserved . Most significantly, 15 . 6 acres of land north of the Town water line immediately adjacent to Sapsucker Woods would be preserved and 18 acres south of the water line would be preserved . So with the development scenario of 30 lots , you basically would have 33 acres of land that would be preserved under Mr. Lucente ' s current plans . Habitat corridors exist under the current development plan and there are also existing wildlife corridors existing to Monkey Run from parcels east of Sapsucker Woods Rd . Conservation planning should prioritize unique local areas . There is no basis to restrict development of this parcel based on the LeCain Glaze reports . All development plans have avoided wetlands and provided a significant buffer to Sapsucker Woods . As a result , there is no need to amend the Ithaca Comprehensive Plan . Thank you . Christopher Lucente addressed the Board " I am Rocco's oldest son . My father has been building in this area for just about 60 years now and I don 't know of any other builder from that era that is still around or still alive . It' s interesting when I hear the oath that the Board Members took ; the oath specifically mentions defending the Constitution of the United States . It's always been my belief that we don 't seize land without due process and this basically amounts to a seizure . So , if you ' re sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States , it amounts to nothing more than a seizure . Gary Miller: I would just like to reiterate what I have said once before , and that is ; about the jobs that we have who work for Lucente Homes , I hope that this has been taken into consideration in you ' re decision . There are 25 — 30 people that this affects , and we are here tonight and we have been before , because we are afraid that we may not have a job . That' s what I came here to say tonight and I represent the employees of Lucente Homes who has been a long-time employer in the Town of Ithaca and I think has contributed much to the tax base and the employment of this town and this area . Thank you . Page 8 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 Attachment # 6 : Mr . Fabbroni ' s statements Larry Fabbroni , Project Manager: (spoke off-microphone for a bit) . . . I am not going to read this whole thing , so I depend on you at some point to read it all yourself : I wish to bring forward the full meaning record from the December 7 , 2009 Town Board meeting and in the record and to the record the complete subdivision plans and materials presented for final the Briarwood II subdivision approval on September 10 , 2007 . You should also enter into the record the minutes of all planning board meetings and staff review notes leading to the preliminary approval of the Briarwood II Subdivision , as well as all environmental reports and comment letters from our environmental consultants , TES and Stearns and Wheeler. This should also include all vitas of experts submitted . It' s hard to know where to start to object to the various matters on which the Town Board is seeking to take action tonight to target the land and prevent the project known as Briarwood II , which has received preliminary subdivision approval for 46 developable lots July 18 , 2006 , from proceeding . Some Town Board members have stated their desire to extend the moratorium to create a sense of urgency to both the land owners affected and the Town Board to reach some conclusion that represents a balance of developmental rights and conservation wants and needs . However, the parallel rush tonight to arbitrarily and capricious related actions to complete SEQR reviews and targeted changes in the Comprehensive Planning Zoning Code , will greatly compromise any constructive cooperative discussion moving forward . Even though you say it has nothing to do with zoning , comprehensive zoning changes are in every way related to the zoning change you discussed on December 7th . So , to say they are separate , I 'd say you are segmenting things more than anything else , maybe not on purpose , but that's what the net effect of it is . Agenda Item 11 A purports to resolve a negative declaration for the amendments to the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan based on a public hearing held on December 31St and tonight . A long environmental forum dated July 6 , 20101 At the December 31 , 2009 public hearing , after preparing a 15-20 minute presentation over a 9 hour period , I was informed at the beginning of the public hearing that comment will be limited to 3 minutes . Never in my 26 years of public service , on either side of the table , had an applicant , which we are by virtue of the issue affecting our pending our final subdivision hearing on hold since September 10 , 2007 , been limited in time to present facts to support his or her application . Nor do I believe your time limitation was or is legal . The environmental review process for the Comprehensive Plan change is being railroaded and not given sufficient time for review, and in particular, short-circuiting the following Town Code . Now, on the following pages , you will find many comments on that long environmental assessment form , which I obviously don 't have any time to go over, but I expect you to look at before you pass that long environmental form . If I gave John that form , he would laugh at me and run me through 2 months before he ever brought it to any board for review. I mean , this long environment form is a joke in terms of the way it's filled out . One important point you have to consider is alternatives to anything you do , and the alternative for sure is the subdivision we have proposed . The repercussions of your Page 9 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 actions and how it pushes development farther out and increases sprawl and doesn 't use the infrastructure that's available are all pertinent to this action . In short , you should read all of that . Again , I don 't have time to cover all the points , but moving ahead , you should go through your own Comprehensive Plan . You are ignoring your Comprehensive Plan . I have pages and pages of references here in the plan that you ' re ignoring , if you take this action . It is a well -though out document that was done by a plethora of people who have decades of experience with the Town from all different persuasions and points of view and you should pay attention to what it is before you go and change it , just based on the desire to obstruct this project . Your action to change the Comprehensive Plan to principally declare the remaining Lucente land is only suitable for conservation is without support of almost every section existing in the 1993 Comprehensive Plan from the Town of Ithaca . You seem to have little regard for that outline that clearly calls for balance in preserving the environment and satisfying development needs . The whole procedure from early December to change zoning and Comprehensive Plan is clearly directed to single out Lucente lands for rezoning to stop the development which received a full public hearing and planning process in front of the planning board from 2002 -2006 . Your political action to spot zone and then justify it through a single issue limited area examination to amend the Comprehensive Plan is without precedent , illegal and unethical . The basis you are defending on the Malone- McBroom drainage study and the LeCain reports are flawed . The LeCain and Malone studies , we complied with entirely in the submission we made on September 7 , 2007 . 1 think our environmental consultant just spoke persuasively to what' s wrong with the LeCain studies and that' s what you depend all of this action upon . I think you should at least do a peer review of those studies before you move forward to obstruct a very good , well -thought out and generous proposal to give 25 to 33 acres . We offered the 33 acres as part of the 30 lot subdivision . If this is pushed and shoved and delayed and costs that we 've incurred just mount up and then expect that we are going to be asking for 46 lots and only talking about the 25 acres . With that , I hope that you will just pause , and I wish you would not take any action on any of these items tonight , because I don 't know how we have a calm , cool open discussion on what the alternatives are if you just start to close in on what the options are that we are going to be talking about around the table ; that doesn 't seem like a fair lead into an open and honest discussion . Thank you . Scott Schofield : Good evening , Mr. Supervisor. I listened to Mr. Goodman when he indicated that there are 3 separate laws being proposed and that is absolutely and technically correct . However, all 3 are all inextricably interrelated , and as Mr. Fabbroni indicated , they all arose out of the subdivision that was approved by the Planning Board . The subdivisions went through the entire process , satisfied all of the requirements and obtained preliminary plan approval . However, there was opposition from the neighborhood , and that opposition translated into the adoption of a moratorium 21h years ago . I 've been doing land use planning and zoning for almost 35 years and Page 10 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 can tell you it's an extremely rare moratorium that . the courts allow to last 2 '/2 years , especially when one looks at the recitations that have been made in the previous renewals , what was supposed to be accomplished , in light of the fundamental failure of the supporting documentation . We ' re talking about amending the comprehensive land use plan , which is a precursor to the rezoning . Granted , this particular local law , as Item 11 , isn 't the rezoning , as Mr. Goodman points out . However, it is a necessary prerequisite step in order to be able to rezone the land from medium-density residential to conservation zone , essentially taking us to 7 acre minimum parcels . Whether that may or may not be a regulatory taking , I can tell you that the adoption of any one of these 3 proposals this evening . . . Well , let me back up . Two and half years ago , my client found themselves between Silla and Caribdis . The Silla was the adoption of the moratorium and the Caribdis was the problems associated with litigating immediately on what proposes to be a temporary moratorium . Two and half years later, we are in exactly the same place . Despite the development of the evidence that suggests that the underlying assumption for looking at this property is somehow environmentally unique , is fatally flawed . That sort of Demopolis is still however dangling over my client's head . I have been given very specific instructions and I ' m here to lay it right out for you so there is no question ; If either one of these is adopted before the echo in this room stops , we will be in court . We cannot tolerate any further delay. It will stop our project and that we cannot put up with . There is no rational basis for any of the assumptions that underlies your comprehensive land use plan . In my review of the rather voluminous documents , the thought occurred to me that , as I went through all of this stuff and all of the words put together in support of the positions advanced by those who would like to amend the Comprehensive Plan , that old gag about the real meaning of PhD came to mind . Just because there are a lot of words there , doesn 't mean they have any substance , and these words , in fact , don 't have any substance . When one talks about preserving flora and fauna , one has to look at that balance between the competing interests of the rights of a property owner and strong public policy that needs to be advanced . In terms of the preservation of endangered species and endangered plants , we have specific acts that have been enacted . They've identified threatened and endangered species , and where they are present , a whole new set of rules exist . Just because there are a lot of birds on the property, doesn 't mean there is a legitimate governmental basis for the imposition of regulations as onerous as these . We really recommend and suggest , and my client says that I ' m new to this , far newer than most of this Board , there 's been an evolution of discussions that have taken place outside of the formal planning board process with different modifications to the proposed original 40 lot subdivision . A number of which have reduced the lot size , increased the open space and sought to address the concerns , even though my clients didn 't believe they were legitimate , but because they were between Silla and Caribdis , Page 11 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 they had to do something to see if they could move it forward , but they've been unsuccessful at this point . I ' m told that there was even a proposal that this whole thing would go away if we would only reduce it down to 15 lots . Well , ladies and gentleman , it ain 't gonna happen . My clients have rights and my clients are going to stand up and fight for those rights , if we need to . We would far prefer to go through the process in accordance with the regulations and propose a reasonable development , but we don 't have an awful lot of choice . If any one of these things are adopted this evening that will set in stone , things which will allow us no retreat . That's the problem . You amend the Comprehensive Plan as proposed in this document tonight , you set the stage to the rezoning , and we have no choice but to challenge that . You establish the regulations in local law that's under # 121 same thing , let alone , the direct impact on our property of the proposed the moratorium . By they way, in the final note I ' ll simply say, I thought it interesting as I read through the description of the property being affected by this , no where is my client's name mentioned . We always refer to it by tax ID number, as if that means , somehow magically , that this is not all about the Lucente property ; it is , and everyone in this room knows it . There 's no sense in fooling around with it , and they have some rights that need to be protected , and they will be . Thank you . Hearing no more comment , the Supervisor closed the public hearing at 6 : 57 p . m . and turned back to the Town Board for discussion . He referred the Board to the proposed SEQR in front of the Board and the attached motion to accept it . Councilman DePaolo moved the motion for discussion and Councilman Goodman seconded . Councilman DePaolo asked for clarification of the EAF Part 2 , # 13 and # 19 . # 13 — Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces . The answer is "no" and he thought that was subject to interpretation and wanted someone to elaborate on that . Some of the proposed modifications refer to areas of the Town that were prioritized for conservation as far back as 1990 and this consideration clarifies some of the justifications for that . Discussion followed . Mr. Kanter stated that he answered the question not in regard to a specific development proposal but in regard to the actual Comprehensive Plan amendments which do not set any particular course of action for the Town . He stated that contrary to what they heard in the public hearing , the amendments basically update the Comprehensive Plan in terms of information that the town has obtained in recent years and basically updated the plan and basically does not predicate that the Town will pursue a conservation zone or other zoning . It reiterates the basic options that are in the Comprehensive Plan such as conservation easements and other similar things . He added that that is why he checked "no" on all of the items on the checklist , because the checklist is to indicate significant negative impacts . Page 12 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 Supervisor Engman asked about a wording change and whether it affected the legality of the SEQR and Ms . Brock stated that it did not . Councilwoman Leary summarized the way she understood the proposal by saying that the way she understood it , this was acknowledging the studies , and it doesn 't necessarily negate the other parts of the Comprehensive Plan that talk about the need for housing and things like that . Councilman DePaolo agreed saying that this was to clarify statements in the Comprehensive Plan referring to lands that may need to be conserved . Ms . Brock added that it is more than just acknowledging the studies because it does proposed to add to the list of areas recommended for conservation and some of the areas are in the study area . Discussion followed . Councilwoman Leary asked if this bound the Board to rezone some land . Mr. Kanter stated that it did not . Enter Closed Session Councilman DePaolo moved and Councilwoman Leary seconded moving the meeting to closed session to consult with counsel at 7 : 10 p . m . Vote unanimous . Return to Regular Session The Town Board returned to regular session at 7 : 38 p . m . The Board continues discussion on SEQR to the amendments to the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan . RESOLUTION NO . 2010-003 : SEQR : Proposed Amendments to the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Attachment # 7 WHEREAS , this action is the adoption of proposed amendments to the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan ; and WHEREAS , said proposed amendments include the following , which are described in detail on the attached narrative of " Proposed Amendments to 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan , November 16 , 2009 : ( 1 ) Amendment # 1 — add reference in Chapter IV Plan Synthesis , Section B ( page IV-5) to several environmental studies that were prepared by the Town regarding characteristics of the Northeast Ithaca area that identify existing drainage problems and important ecological resources in the Northeast area , and include recommendations for prioritizing at least some , if not all of the lands in the study area for conservation ; (2) Amendment #2 - update Chapter IV Plan Synthesis , Section J (pages IV- 14 and IV- 15) to include reference to natural storm water retention and water quality functions of "Conservation/Open Space Use areas and description of Conservation Zones that have been adopted by the Town as a tool to implement "Conservation/Open Space Use recommendations in the Town ; and (3) Amendment #3 — add clarifications in Chapter IV — Plan Synthesis , Section K (page IV- 16) regarding areas in the Town where "Conservation/Open Space Use" recommendations apply, including wetlands and woods in lands adjacent to Sapsucker Woods Sanctuary to act as buffers to the Sanctuary; and wetlands , woods and buffer areas east of Briarwood Drive and north of Birchwood Drive North ; and Page 13 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 WHEREAS , this is being processed as a Type I action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ( SEQRA) 6 NYCRR Part 617 and Chapter 148 ( Environmental Quality Review) of the Town of Ithaca Code , for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board is acting as Lead Agency and the only involved agency in conducting the environmental review with respect to the adoption of the above = described amendments to the 1993 Comprehensive Plan ; and WHEREAS , the Town Board , after holding public hearings on December 31 , 2009 and January 11 , 2010 , has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form ( EAF) , Parts I and 2 , for this action , prepared by the Town Planning staff ; RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and the implementing regulations thereof and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code for the above referenced action as proposed , for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts I and II referenced above , and , therefore , an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required . MOVED : Councilman DePaolo SECONDED : Councilman Goodman VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, nay; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye . Motion carried Consider Approval 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 Conservation/Open Space Recommendations for Lands in the Northeast Study Area Motion moved by Supervisor Engman , seconded by Councilman DePaolo for discussion . Councilwoman Leary thought they did not need the amendments because the current Comprehensive Plan allows for latitude to rezone if they want to and she was not comfortable with the new language . Councilman DePaolo stated that the current plan does allow for flexibility but he was comfortable with the language . He added that he felt the current Comprehensive Plan does allow for flexibility is already identified areas for conservation . Councilman Goodman stated that he wanted to do some more investigation and would therefore be voting against making changes now. Supervisor Engman spoke in favor of the resolution stating that they have a very good 1993 Comprehensive Plan but that the discussions over the past few months indicate that they can improve it and it simply gives the Board more options in terms of what they wish to do . Page 14 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 There was no further discussion and a vote was taken by roll call . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2010-004 : Resolution Adopting Proposed Amendments to 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan WHEREAS , the Town Board has proposed the adoption of proposed amendments to the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan ; and WHEREAS , resolutions were duly adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca for two public hearings to be held by said Town , the first on December 31 , 2009 at 10 : 02 a . m . to assure full opportunity for citizen participation in the preparation of such proposed amendments , and the second on January 11 , 2010 at 6 : 10 p . m , to hear all interested parties on the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan ; and WHEREAS , notice of said public hearings was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal ; and WHEREAS , said public hearings were duly held on said dates and times 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 amendments , or any part thereof ; and WHEREAS , pursuant to article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617 ("SEQRA") , and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code , adoption of said amendments to the Comprehensive Plan is a Type I action for which the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , acting as lead agency in an environmental review with respect to adoption of the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan , has on January 11 , 2010 made a negative determination of environmental significance , after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form ( EAF) Parts I and II prepared by the Town 's Planning staff , for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts I and II referenced above ; NOW , THEREFORE , be it RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts said "Proposed Amendments to the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan " , a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this resolution . MOVED : Supervisor Engman SECONDED : Councilman DePaolo VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , nay ; Councilman Goodman , nay; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, nay ; Councilman DePaolo , aye . Motion failed Page 15 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 Agenda Item No . 12 : 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 Supervisor Engman opened the public hearing at 7 : 46 p . m . and invited public comment . This section is transcribed verbatim . Larry Fabroni , Agent . In my packet . . . First I want to say that pages 2 -5 were a point- by-point critique of your SEQR form and I would hope in the future when I spend the time to do that , that it' s at least considered when you take action on something , not that I ' m disappointed with the outcome of the last vote . It' s kind of what I 'm talking about , if you want to create an open and exchange of information dialogue that you know, when you take the time to do this and try to engender a constructive conversation , so a little bit of respect for the time that' s spent . . . Back in my handout , I addressed 12a and 12b resolution #2010 ; the short form distributed for the meeting has neither the supervisor's signature nor a date on the form . . . Councilman DePaolo asked Mr. Fabroni to direct the Board to where he is in his packet , which he did . Something I didn 't say is ; I don 't know how you go from a SEQR form that's made out on the 6th to deciding to take action on the 11th . You know , most of the time it' s 30 days . I understand from reading your Code that you can short circuit that , but it's not usually done , so that you have some time to submit information . For example I could have gotten you all my comments on your earlier SEQR form had I had more than overnight to produce the comments , so think about that a little bit . It just doesn 't come across as any different than railroading . And my question here is you mention 3 , 150 acres in that short form , that , by my calculation is close to 15% of the Town acreage , how is that not a Type 1 action , is my first question . This zoning change is directed at the remaining ( inaudible) as evidenced by the reference to the Malone McBroom study . I have numerous times above stated , and by that I mean earlier, that that study contains errors and that in spite of that fact , there are design solutions to their expressed concerns that do not warrant a zoning change of the nature being proposed . Further, this is directed principally at the lands of Mr. Lucente and he should have the benefit of more details on the proposal . Otherwise the proposal appears as a sub-set of a zoning change to conservation that Mr. Lucente has already filed a protest petition for under Section 265 of Town Law on December 7 , 2009 . In other words , I ' m saying , are you beating around the bush by working in this zoning change that is going to apply to conservation zones and then come back a month or two later and decide , oh well , we ' re going to rezone Mr. Lucente 's land conservation and this is going to go along with it . That , in other circles , is known as segmenting when if I came in with a project in pieces and tried to do an environmental review on it , so , that' s the long and short . It' s again , what I said earlier, wish you wouldn 't take action on any of these things tonight because it just makes it harder for us to talk and compromise and reach some constructive outcome for everybody . Page 16 of 61 Town Board Minutes: January 11 , 2010 Supervisor Engman posed the a question , stating that the Board had heard earlier that there was no plan to compromise and the Town was going to get sued no matter what they did . He asked if he was . saying that there was still an open door to talk about the issue . Mr. Fabroni replied that if the Board did not take action on the items tonight , then the door is still open . If the Board does take action , then Mr. Chatfield made it very clear that if action is taken , the die is cast . Mr. Chatfield : Let me follow up . From my client' s perspective , there are two issues . The one , of course , is the economical cost of a delay. As this Board is well aware , as anybody that is in the development business is aware , time is money. An applicant may start with a proposal for X number of lots on a subdivision and simply as a result of economics , agree to a lesser number than he or she believes they are entitled to simply because they can get that approved in a timely fashion . What I indicated to you is that we have an approved 48 lot subdivision . Preliminarily approved by the Planning Board and that was done at a time when this parcel was zoned Unique Natural Area , or designated . The Planning Board went through an extensive review process , analyzed all of the issues , and pronounced that plan complied with the regulations of the Town and was okay . Now, I don 't have the knowledge that everybody on this Board does , but Mr. Fabroni has indicated to me that there have been several other modifications and proposals that have been informally presented because , there has been a moratorium in place , so there has been no mechanism to formally present those to the approving body, which is the Planning Board . I did not mean to indicate , and I don 't believe I did , that the Lucente 's are saying '48 lots or nothing . ' What they' re saying is ; if you take the actions that are outlined in the agenda this evening , those are steps inextricably related with setting the stage for upsizing the zoning to 7 acres which will make it impossible for us to do anything . If you go to 7 acre lots , this parcel is virtuously useless . As far as we ' re concerned , that amounts to the taking of the entire value of the premises and we believe , unreasonably and without rationale basis . The moratorium in place stops us from having meaningful discussions with the deciding body, the Planning Board . You know , we can do what we have done , which is kind of informally presenting them to anybody that will listen , ideas that will address the concerns , but we can 't get to the stage where we can obtain rights . That's the problem . This particular law that we are covering now; the one on drainage , we think it's ill advised , we think it's unnecessary . We think for a whole lot of reasons , including the fact that natural drainage facilities are , frankly not as good at controlling the legitimate concerns of the Board as are manmade . We know have the MS4 regulations , we now have siltation and erosion control regulations that very strictly limit runoff from propose developments to zero , post development . All of these things have to be complied with , there 's frankly no reason to impose these additional restrictions or additional limitations but for to form the basis for later on , down the road , getting into the rezoning of my client's property and thus putting us between the rock and the hard place . Page 17 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 So , Mr. Supervisor, what I was indicating to you was , that we have no choice , if any of these are adopted , with perhaps the exception of # 12 , but I defer to Mr. Fabroni on the technical aspects , that's just a matter of everybody says you can build anything if you can only engineer it well enough , so , I won 't say categorically that # 12 in and of itself , categorically means we' re dead . I can tell you that if # 14 is adopted , we ' re going to have to litigate , because we simply can 't wait another 4 months to get started in the process . Economical realities are economic realities . On the other hand , if the door is open , we are more than willing to sit down with the Planning Board , after consultation with your professionals , and see if we can work out a solution . But I can tell you that 15 lots , which is the number that was suggested over the holidays , doesn 't cut it . Economically that's not sufficiently viable . So , I hope that clarifies ; if anyone else has any questions about it . There was no one else wishing to address the Board at this time and the public hearing was closed at 7 : 55 p . m . and the matter brought back to the Board . Councilman DePaolo asked Ms . Brock a question regarding Mr. Fabroni ' s characterization of this as a Type I , stating that his understanding is that a Type involves some type of physical alteration to land exceeding 10 acres in size and he wondered if that was correct . Ms . Brock responded that there is a whole list of types of actions and under the Town 's law, and she was not sure what Mr. Fabroni thought applied . She stated that this action was not changing the uses within any zoning district , it is not changing the Comprehensive Plan , etc . , so she was not sure what he was looking at . Agenda Item No 12a SEAR The SEQR was moved for discussion by Councilman DePaolo , seconded by Councilman Goodman . Mr. Chatfield spoke from the audience to clear up what Mr. Fabroni meant . (verbatim ) I think what Mr. Fabroni was saying was that the first action was a Type I action clearly and on the second page of the regulations of SEAR , this is part and parcel of that , thus , has to be treated as a Type I as do all other things that will be considered segmented , if not treated under the same SEQR resolution . Ms . Brock responded saying that right now the only action before the Board is the proposed law to add certain wording to the purposes section of the Conservation Zone Article in the Zoning Code . The other action tonight that she thought he may be referring to is the consideration of a new moratorium in the northeast section of the Town which under SEQR is a Type II action that is no subject to any review under SEQR so she failed to see any segmentation happening . There was no further discussion from the Board and a vote was taken . Page 18 of 61 Town Board Minutes: January 11 , 2010 Attachment # 8 RESOLUTION NO . 2010=005m. SEAR : 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 WHEREAS , this action is the enactment of 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 ; and WHEREAS , said proposed local law would among other things amend Sections 270- 10 . A and 10 . 13 of the Town of Ithaca Code to add references to the importance of Conservation -zoned areas for their natural drainage features , the importance of considering poorly drained soils in planning for future development in Conservation Zones , and adding as a further purpose of Conservation Zones the preservation of natural stormwater retention and water quality functions ; and WHEREAS , this is an unlisted action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) 6 NYCRR Part 617 and Chapter 148 (Environmental Quality Review) of the Town of Ithaca Code , for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board is acting as Lead Agency in conducting the environmental review with respect to the enactment of the above -described local law ; and WHEREAS , the Town Board , at a public hearing held on January 11 , 2010 , has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form ( EAF) , Parts I and 2 , for this action , prepared by the Town Planning staff ; RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code for the above referenced action as proposed , for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part 2 referenced above , and , therefore , neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form , nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required . MOVED : Councilman DePaolo SECONDED : Councilman Goodman VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye . Motion carried - unanimous Page 19 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 Agenda Item #12b : Consider adoption of "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 Supervisor Engman brought the Boards attention to the next agenda item which was the adoption of the local law . Councilman Goodman moved the resolution and Councilman DePaolo seconded it . Discussion followed . Supervisor Engman thought the changes were very minor and dealt with natural drainage features that should be preserved . He did not consider it a huge change to the Town ' s zoning . Councilman Goodman added that these changes received unanimous support from the Codes and Ordinances Committee and he would like to add this language to the Conservation Zone as they look toward possible conservation zones in the Coy Glen area . There was no further discussion and a vote was taken . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2010=006m Resolution Adopting " 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 " 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 January 11 , 2010 at 6 : 10 p . m . to hear all interested parties on a proposed local law entitled "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" ; 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 , and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code , adoption of said local law is an Unlisted action for which the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , acting as lead agency in an environmental review with respect to adoption of this local law, has on January 11 , 2010 made a negative determination of environmental significance , after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form ( EAF) Parts I and II prepared by the Town 's Planning staff , for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part II referenced above ; Page 20 of 61 Town Board Minutes: January 11 , 2010 NOW , THEREFORE , be it RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts said local law entitled " 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 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 Goodman SECONDED : Councilman DePaolo VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye . Motion carried = unanimous Agenda Item No. 13 : Public Hearing regarding the East Shore Drive Water Main Replacement Project Attachment # 9 : Engineer ' s Report Supervisor Engman opened the public hearing at 8 : 01 p . m . , and hearing no comment , the supervisor closed the public hearing at 8 : 01 p . m , and brought the Boards attention to the SEQR resolution . Councilman DePaolo moved and Councilwoman Hunter seconded the motion for discussion . Councilman DePaolo reiterated his question regarding whether the size of the watermain allows for other municipalities to join up . He asked how many customers could be online . Mr. Weber stated that the size does not correlate with customers , but determines water pressure . The concerns in the area were for firefighting and better service to existing customers and would allow for future needs . Discussion followed . Mr. Weber stated that the 6 inch does not beet codes . Councilman DePaolo asked if the larger size would make anything possible that isn 't possible right now? Does it facilitate the expansion of residential housing? Discussion followed with Supervisor Engman stating the Town 's reasons for going forward with the project from the beginning and Councilman DePaolo clarified his question by clearly asking if question 5 was answered as an expansion instead of modification or alteration , would it make it a Type I . Ms . Brock stated that she did not think the change would precipitate it becoming a Type I . Subsequent development would have its own SEAR process . Councilman DePaolo proposed a change to #5 on the SEQR Part II to describe the project as an expansion instead of a modification . Discussion followed . It was noted that for that area , the possibility of new residences is very small . More discussion followed with Councilman DePaolo withdrawing his proposed wording change . No further discussion and the resolution was voted on . Page 21 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 Attachment # 10 TB RESOLUTION NO . 2010=007 : SEOR Determination — Establishment and Authorization of Town of Ithaca East Shore Drive Water Improvements WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Town Board has determined that the establishment and authorization of the Town of Ithaca East Shore Drive Water Improvements , as described in the Town Board ' s Order Calling Public Hearing dated December 21 , 2009 , is an Unlisted action , pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act , 6 NYCRR Part 617 , and the Town of Ithaca Code , Chapter 148 — Environmental Quality Review , for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board is acting in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to the project , and WHEREAS , the Town Board , at its regular meeting held on January 11 , 2010 has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form , Parts I and II , prepared by Town Public Works staff for this action ; now , therefore , be it RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part II , in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code for the above referenced action as proposed and , therefore , neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required . MOVED : Councilman DePaolo SECONDED : Councilwoman Hunter VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye . Motion carried - unanimous 13 b . Consider approval of public interest order Supervisor Engman moved and Councilman Goodman seconded the public interest order resolution . TB RESOLUTION 2010-008 : Public Interest Order File #) At a regular meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, held at the Town Hall , 215 North Tioga Street, in Ithaca, New York, in said Town , on the 1 lch day of January, 2010, at 6 : 20 o'clock P.M . , Prevailing Time. Page 22 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 PRESENT : Supervisor Councilman Councilman Councilwoman Councilwoman Councilman Councilman In the Matter of A Proposed Water Improvement in the Town PUBLIC of Ithaca , Tompkins County, New York, INTEREST pursuant to Article 12-C of the Town Law to ORDER be known as the East Shore Drive Water Improvements . WHEREAS , a map, report and plan, including an estimate of cost, have been duly prepared in such manner and in such detail as has heretofore been determined by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, relating to the creation and construction, pursuant to Article 12-C of the Town Law , of water system improvements to be known and identified as the Town of Ithaca East Shore Drive Water Improvements , and hereinafter also referred to as "improvement," to provide such water improvement including extensions, to the present Town water improvement, such water system improvement to be constructed and owned by the Town of Ithaca, and WHEREAS , said map, plan and report, including estimate of cost, were prepared by a competent engineer, duly licensed by the State of New York and have been filed in the office of the Town Clerk of said Town, where the same are available during regular office hours for examination by any person or persons interested in the subject matter thereof; and WHEREAS , the area of said Town determined to be benefited by said Town of Ithaca East Shore Drive Water Improvements consists of the entire area of said Town excepting therefrom the area contained within the Village of Cayuga Heights , and WHEREAS , the proposed improvement consists of the water improvements set forth below , and in the areas of the Town as set forth below , and as more particularly shown and described in said map, plan and report presently on file in the office of the Town Clerk: Construction and installation of approximately 6 ,000 feet of new 12-inch Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP) water main along the east side of East Shore Drive commencing from the intersection of Renwick Place and Lake Street, . then extending north to the intersection of Remington Road Page 23 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 and East Shore Drive, and continuing north along East Shore Drive to the Town of Ithaca/Town of Lansing municipal boundary. The improvement also includes an 8-inch Polyethylene water main loop serving the lake houses from Number 916 to Number 940, along with multiple service lines serving the remaining houses in the Town along East Shore Drive . The improvement also includes the construction of a pressure regulating station consisting of a pre-cast concrete building, pressure regulating valves and related piping to be located on Remington Road, and ancillary facilities, and WHEREAS , the maximum proposed to be expended by the Town of Ithaca for the aforesaid improvement is $2 , 500,000. The proposed method of financing to be employed by said Town of Ithaca consists of the issuance of serial bonds of said Town of Ithaca to mature in annual installments over a period not to exceed forty years, such bonds to be paid from assessments levied upon and collected from the several lots and parcels of land in said Town of Ithaca water system benefited area which are deemed benefited by said improvement, so much upon and from each as shall be in just proportion to the amount of the benefit which the improvement shall confer upon the same, and WHEREAS , the aforesaid improvements have been determined to be an Unlisted Action pursuant to the regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation promulgated pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, the implementation of which as proposed, the Town Board has determined will not result in any significant environmental effects ; and WHEREAS , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca duly adopted an Order on December 21 , 2009 calling a public hearing upon said plan, report and map including an estimate of cost and the question of providing water supply improvements to be known as the Town of Ithaca East Shore Drive Water Improvements , such public hearing to be held on the 11 `h day of January, 2010, at 6 : 20 o ' clock P.M . Prevailing Time, at the Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, in Ithaca, New York, in said Town, at which time and place all persons interested in the subject thereof could be heard concerning the same ; and WHEREAS , notice of said public hearing was duly posted and published as required by law ; and WHEREAS , said public hearing was duly held at the place and at the time aforesaid and all persons interested in the subject thereof were heard concerning the same ; and WHEREAS , it is now desired to authorize the improvement to be known as the Town of Ithaca East Shore Drive Water Improvements ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, as follows : Section 1 . It is hereby determined that it is in the public interest to establish said Town of Ithaca East Shore Drive Water Improvements and to make the water improvement hereinafter described and such water improvement is hereby authorized. The area hereby determined to be benefited by said Town of Ithaca East Shore Drive Water Improvements is all of that portion of the Town of Ithaca outside of the Village of Cayuga He Section 2 . The improvement consists of the water improvements set forth below , and in the areas of the Town as set forth below, and as more particularly shown and described in said map, plan and report presently on file in the office of the Town Clerk: Construction and installation of approximately 6 ,000 feet of new 12-inch Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP) water main along the east side of East Shore Drive commencing from the intersection of Renwick Place and Lake Street, then extending north to the intersection of Remington Road Page 24 of 61 Town Board Minutes: January 11 , 2010 and East Shore Drive, and continuing north along East Shore Drive to the Town of Ithaca/Town of Lansing municipal boundary. The improvement also includes an 8-inch Polyethylene water main loop serving the lake houses from Number 916 to Number 940, along with multiple service lines serving the remaining houses in the Town along East Shore Drive. The improvement also includes the construction of a pressure regulating station consisting of a pre-cast concrete building, pressure regulating valves and related piping to be located on Remington Road, and ancillary facilities . The maximum proposed to be expended by the Town of Ithaca for the aforesaid improvement is $2 ,500,000. The proposed method of financing to be employed by said Town of Ithaca consists of the issuance of serial bonds of said Town of Ithaca to mature in annual installments over a period not to exceed forty years, such bonds to be paid from assessments levied upon and collected from the several lots and parcels of land in said Town of Ithaca water system benefited area which are deemed benefited by said improvement, so much upon and from each as shall be in just proportion to the amount of the benefit which the improvement shall confer upon the same . Section3 . It is hereby determined that the estimated expense of the aforesaid improvement does not exceed one-tenth of one per cent of the full valuation of the taxable real property in the area of said Town outside of villages and, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of subdivision 13 (a) of Section 209-q of the Town Law, the permission of the State Comptroller is not required for such improvement . Section 4 . Pursuant to subdivision 6(d) of Section 209-q of the Town Law , the Town Clerk is hereby directed and ordered to cause a certified copy of this Order to be duly recorded within ten days of the date of adoption in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Tompkins, which when so recorded, shall be presumptive evidence of the regularity of the proceedings and action taken by the Town Board in relation to the aforesaid improvement. Section 5 . It is hereby further determined that all of the allocable cost of the aforesaid improvement shall be borne wholly by property within the Town of Ithaca water improvement benefited area, being the entire area of the Town outside of any village . Section 6 . This Order is adopted subject to permissive referendum. The question of the adoption of the foregoing Order was duly put to a vote on roll call, which resulted as follows : Supervisor Engman VOTING _Aye Councilman Goodman VOTING _ Aye Councilman DePaolo VOTING _ Aye Councilwoman Hunter VOTING _ Aye Councilwoman Leary VOTING _ Aye Councilman Levine VOTING _ Aye VOTING _ Aye The Order was thereupon declared duly adopted Page 25 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 Agenda Item No. 14 : Public Hearing regarding a Local Law providing for a Moratorium on Development in the Northeast Corner of the Town through April 1292010 Supervisor Engman opened the public hearing at 8 : 20 p . m . (transcribed verbatim) Larry Fabbroni : I will refer you to the last 4 pages of my handout . Mr. Lucente believes the moratorium has gone on long enough and an extension is necessary. If the intent is to have a fair and open discussion of a balance of environmental protection and development as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan for his remaining land in the Town of Ithaca . The only thing public hearings on Comprehensive Plan changes and zoning changes , held before some point of agreement or disagreement is reached , creates is a great mistrust of the Town Board outcome . By attempting to limit the development potential through these changes prior to discussing the merits or failings of proposals , you leave no other alternative but to decide the issues , including your actions here tonight , in court . Finding C is not completely accurate in that the area in the vicinity of Birchwood Drive north , Briarwood North , north of Hanshaw and west of the homes on Sapsucker Woods was always meant to be the wetlands that were first delineated in the 1990 's . Remember these maps you are pointing to were developed in 1993 and 1997 , like a park and open space plan , so , that delineation was done before that . Nothing more and nothing less , and more recently verified in 2003 . Finding D is pure conjecture , the issue of fragmentation has been fully examined by Michael Fishman of Stearns and Wheler and this information is included in the submittals as I asked to be brought forward to tonight' s record . Furthermore , a perfectly continuous and adequate wildlife corridor already exists , exiting the Lab of Ornithology land to the southeast , following a stream south of Hanshaw Road , to the Monkey Run area . The entire remaining Lucente property in the Town of Ithaca is unnecessary to maintain or establish such wildlife connection . Finding E is not applicable to most of the remaining Lucente lands in the Town of Ithaca . There is nothing environmentally sensitive or significant about the land south of the utility right away. Most of these wooded areas have been planted in the last 50 years , or severely logged in the last 20 years , or are dominated by invasive species . Findings G , H , I , and J concern the extension of the UNA- 106 from the boundaries of the Lab of Ornithology around 1990 to the south boundary of the remaining Lucente lands in 1999 . It turns out that the primary author, Robert Wesley, had no documented basis for this extension other than his friendship with one Candace Cornell . In February 2003 he asserted to me. that the UNA should not have extended south of Sanctuary Drive , as he was working from early 1990's photography in assessing 1999 boundaries . He later contradicted himself several times in joint letters with Osmond , but never appeared to defend his determination through the entire 2 -year moratorium period . Further, the letter he co-authored with Osmond and Whitmore , was later found to have no documented substantiation and was in the end , pure conjecture in terms of value for Page 26 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 conservation, based on the findings of - the LeCain study . In other words , even the LeCain study didn 't support their contentions . Further, the Lab of Ornithology does not consider this area essential to the long- range habitat for birds or supporting wildlife . Other mechanisms proposed in K are already identified , in that the 25 of 48 acres Mr. Lucente agreed to preserve in the plan given preliminary approval by the Planning Board . Item L is misleading . The new information , merely duplicated information , the Planning Board had available to them by the end of 2003 by virtue of our environmental consultant , TES , were in re-delineating the southern wetland and performing a 3-season bird study . Any other information presented by the public was not pertinent to the issue or less than expert information . Items M and N had no bearing on the Lucente lands in that the drainage design addresses all issues raised by the Malone and McBroom or Walter. What is pertinent is that Mr. Walter mentioned that he was impressed by the developer's drainage analysis ; he never should have offered a professional opinion of the drainage area to the south of the one he studied in detail . Even a layman can see that many events have disturbed the area he studied , such as the excavation of the ponds west of the Lab of Ornithology headquarters that did not exist in the 1930's . The expansive state wetland at the head waters of the study area , some of which was filled with impervious areas of the headquarters itself and parking areas . His pictures and comments also depict the run - off from the Cornell Office Park , south of Route 13 , prior to Cornell installing extensive storm water retention and control facilities . But in the end , his findings and conclusions have no bearing on the ability of Briarwood II to design appropriately for storm water run -off . The storm water plan has a currently approved Speedy's permit from DEC . The plan addresses all the issues raised by Malone and Bloom . He uses a higher level of run -off to account for the historical findings in the Walter study. Items O and P ; Mr. Lucente objected to the original moratorium and first extension clause , primarily by the possible deliberately slow execution of the LeCain contract in the fall of 2007 . He agreed to some subsequent extension to avoid the very hasty decisions on the agenda this evening that we felt would encumber our discussions and would lead directly to court . Items Q , R , S , T ; The LeCain study was completely available since the fall of 2008 , and to our knowledge there 's has been no further involvement with LeCain representatives since that time . The conclusion of the LeCain study are subjective and not supported by good science as set by state and national standards . They seem to be entirely biased by their strong connection to Robert Wesley and the Lab of Ornithology. Item Y : Instead of the Town Board using the end of the prior moratorium period to analyze and discuss the December 7 , 2009 and earlier proceedings , alternatives and submittals , you barreled ahead on the Comprehensive Plan changes as evidence by the Page 27 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 December 21 , 2009 Town Board proceedings with little public discussion among Board members and no attempt to interact through question and answering with the applicants or the public . Your time limit at the December 31 , 2009 public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan did little to forward any alternatives that would produce a balanced alternative in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan . Item Y , subparagraph 2 , seems in direct contradiction to the action proposed for action on the Comprehensive Plan this evening . If the interaction is to be sincere , this appears to be the cart way before the horse , as was the whole zoning change consideration of December 7 , 2009 . The moratorium has caused great economic loss to Mr. Lucente . The prolonged process and multiple public hearings instead of constructive work sessions directed at of solution have caused considerable additional and unnecessary expense . The Town can attempt to exclude itself from any of this expense , but Mr. Lucente reserves the right to recover expenses that the Town caused him to incur in legally attempting to use his land for its long established medium residential zone purpose . If you look at the drawing in the next to last page , you ' ll see where the state wetland is on the Lab of Ornithology lands , and all that land drains to the northwest and through the area where Professor Walter studied . The corridor that I mentioned actually comes from the same state wetland to the southeast and the Town of Dryden , directly down to into Monkey Run . If you look at the County assessment of the Fall Creek corridor and its connection to Sapsucker Woods , you ' ll see that that's what they recognize as the wildlife corridor to and from the Lab of Ornithology . So that's the basis of my saying that this land , while we 've attempted to respect your opinions in coming up with a compromise , have nothing to do with the wildlife corridor connection that's already in existence . Bill Sonnenstuhl : Thank you for the opportunity to address the Town Board on the new Northeast moratorium . My name is Bill Sonnenstuhl and I am the President of Northeast Ithaca Neighborhood Association . You are familiar with our position on development of the Northeast . The Neighborhood continues to support conservation zoning as a mechanism for balancing the property owners' right to develop their land and the neighborhood 's interest in conserving the ecological functions and features of those areas , and preventing further drainage problems in our neighborhood . Over the next few months , a moratorium will provide the Town Board with an opportunity to consider where the balance between development and conservation will be drawn . In that context , we support the moratorium and encourage the Town Board to engage in negotiations with all of the parties (Cornell , Nina , Mr. Lucente) to resolve the following issues : Conservation zoning of the proposed properties is not a new idea . In 1992 , the Town of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council conducted its open space inventory which examined 175 areas of cultural , historical , and ecological significance and rated these Northeast properties among the top 20% of the value . The Town 's 1993 Page 28 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 Comprehensive Plan proposes that they be conserved . In 1997 , the Park Recreation and Open Space Plan recommended conserving these areas . In 1992 and 2000 , Tompkins County designated it as a unique natural area . Over the last two years , the Town Board has commissioned two independent studies . Your hydrology study looked at Mr. Lucente 's property ; its principle conclusion is that the proposed Briarwood II development would create a high level of impermeable surfaces , generating heavy storm water run -off during peak rain events . In the proposed stormwater plan , basically the retention ponds , cannot be relied upon to prevent aggravating existing drainage problems downstream . Your ecological study looked at both the Cornell and Lucente properties ; your consultants recommended that the entire area be conserved . These studies show that the Town Board has taken great pains to act in a deliberate and considerate manner in thinking about how to balance owners and neighborhoods interests . In the context of the Cornell property, a proposed conservation law calls for rezoning the area north of Winston Court and south of Lansing Village line to conservation . This would provide a substantial buffer of approximately 600 feet for the Laboratory of Ornithology , which is a world class facility that draws visitors from around the world . As one Lab-of-O employee recently stated , the sanctuary is at a low level of sustainability and continued development of the adjacent land will eventually jeopardize it . The LeCain study in option 2 recommended a 300 foot buffer to protect the sanctuary ; Cornell proposes a buffer of 200 feet . We encourage the Town Board to negotiate with Cornell in order to arrive at a successful conclusion that provides the Lab of Ornithology a sanctuary with a strong buffer and permits its long-term sustainability as a world class destination in a much loved natural area . In the context of the Lucente property, the Neighborhood continues to believe that consistent with LeCain 's primary recommendation , the entire area should be prioritized for conservation because preserving the woodlands and wetlands would allow for better water retention and proposed engineering solutions . We also believe that trying to build medium -density housing in this small area fragmented by a number of wetlands is very problematic . Let me give you a quick example that may have escaped the Boards notice . In discussions about exempting the southern area of the Lucente property , which is labeled "Section One" in the LeCain study from conservation zoning and retaining its medium -density residential status . The eastern section of this section contains a small wetland (Section Two) . If one is serious about protecting small wetlands with a 100 foot buffer and also providing a biological corridor, this wetland presents a problem for a full build out of Section One . The rest of the property presents the same problem as one attempts to squeeze 3 lots into this fragmented area , or 48 . In negotiations with Mr. Lucente , the following issues need to be seriously considered . First , retention ponds raise a series of concerns . Retention ponds are inappropriate in any area designated for conservation and should be located outside of the area Page 29 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 designated for medium -density development . Putting in retention ponds requires clearing large areas adjacent to the pond , as well as the lands in which will the ponds will be situated , thus stripping of land of valuable woods that can actually retain storm water. Ponds also represent a hazard , particularly for young children . Retention ponds will impair the wetlands because run -off from the ponds will exit into the wetlands , disrupting the critical wet/dry cycles to which these ecological communities are adapted . Pond run -off also will be laden with salt and petroleum products from the roads and driveways and chemical fertilizers from lawns . These will not settle into the pond , but will rather be deposited into the wetlands and destroy plants . Ponds also require a great detail of maintenance and neither the developer, Cornell University or a third party who appears willing to assume the long-term liability associated with them . As tax payers , we also oppose the Town assuming the responsibility for them . In our estimation , a better solution to storm water would be to install modern bio- retention swales , create impervious driveways and roads , and water gardens to absorb and slow down water that is directed into the neighborhoods' open ditches . These are innovative solutions that would manage storm water by slowly releasing it into our ditches rather than into the wetlands . In any case , a new drainage system should not be piped . Second , the definition of clustering needs to be revisited . One possible solution would be for the developer to reconfigure for Briarwood II with tightly clustered units or townhouses . For example , it might be possible to build a cluster of townhouses in the southwestern corner of the area designated at Section One in the .LeCain study. This might permit some development while allowing the rest of the area to be conserved . Such a configuration would also preserve the wetlands in the southeastern corner area while allowing open space for a biological corridor. At the same time , such tight clustering would be another mechanism for managing stormwater by reducing the amount of impermeable surfaces . This example is one suggestion for thinking about how to balance conservation and development . I wanted to mention two other related concerns , briefly. In negotiations with Mr. Lucente , we think it' s important to put a priority on preserving the wetlands and biological corridor. Given that these wetlands have already been encroached upon and partially filled in , it would be appropriate to provide larger buffers around the remaining wetlands . Wetlands are an essential ingredient in effective stormwater management , and once damaged , cannot be easily replaced . Likewise , I want to emphasize the importance of preserving a strong biological corridor between the Lab of Ornithology and the Monkey Run unique natural area . This corridor is important for the preservation of plants and animals in these two areas . While NENA encourages consideration of these issues , we continue to believe that the best solution for the Lucente property is rezoning the entire property for a conservation zone , which would permit some development . In conclusion , I want to reaffirm the Northeast Ithaca Neighborhood Association 's strong support for the moratorium and to encourage vigorous negotiation with Cornell and Mr. Page 30 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 Lucente to develop a solution that balances the owner's interest in development and the neighborhood 's interest in conserving the areas ecology and preventing further drainage problems . Thank you . Bernie Carr : The last speaker spoke about the conservation areas and zoning . I ' d like to point out up here . . . here ' s the parcels owned by Cornell . Here is approximately 100 feet or 200 feet right here , this is what Cornell preserves , here 's the Lab of Ornithology, here's a large pond at the Lab of Ornithology. You can see the close proximity of this parcel to the Lab of Ornithology. However, this parcel has not been designated for conservation zoning under many of the LeCain recommendations . It' s kind of interesting to know that the unique natural area does not include this area in the southern portion of the property and has , according to the LeCain study, low ecological value . It's very important to note that most of the development is in this particular area . pointed this out in my original letter; it's highly deceptive to even mention the fact that this is a wetland . This is not a wetland by any definition of any state or federal agency or even any local agency. This is the opinion of the person who put this together. There are large piles of spoil material in this area and there is some vegetation in there that is indicative of the disturbed nature of it . So to make the point that this is a unique wetland area is a lot of bologna . I took a lot of time and effort to give Mr. Lucente and the environment a very good and fair wetland line and the one thing that's missing here is we have a waterline going all the way across here , but it's not even picked up in the ecological communities of your consultant . So , there were some serious errors in what was done in the LeCain -Glaze study. This is one of the reasons I have objections to what they brought up . The other thing that is very important to point out is , this entire property right here is proposed for donation to Cornell , to Sapsucker Woods . That's a pretty significant donation of land immediately adjacent to Sapsucker Woods Sanctuary . So I think you ' re getting a pretty good with what Mr. Lucente has proposed for a donation . Furthermore , when you look down here and you look at these areas that are wetlands , they are further protected , and unlike what the last speaker said , the detention ponds and the retention basins that are proposed , exceed the standards required by New York . It's a very good deal , in terms of development and I just wanted to correct the inaccuracies . Councilman DePaolo . The questions is , we . . . The Planning Committee was provided with a letter from the individual who was responsible for outlining the UNA , and the letter seems to indicate the that the UNA boundary , even though the drawing on the map was somewhat rounded and inaccurate , was to have gone down to the parcel boundaries near the southern area . Do you have that , or were you aware of that? Bernie Carr: I ' m aware of various changes over time of what is included in the UNA , and I ' m not aware of any statement that the UNA should go to the southern part of Mr. Lucente' s property. Councilman DePaolo : That's something that's going to need to be cleared up . Page 31 of 61 Town Board Minutes: January 11 , 2010 Bernie Carr: One thing that should be cleared up is the current boundaries of the UNA include four or five houses on Sanctuary Drive . Is it typical in Tompkins County to have a unique natural area where someone has a home? Because the boundaries of the UNA include homes . I ' m just asking you the question here . Councilman DePaolo : Let's turn that argument around . That's what being proposed right now , isn 't it? So , I really don 't understand what you are asking and it' s really not my place to be conversing with you . Bernie Carr: The current UNA includes homes within its boundary . You have copies of those maps . Councilman DePaolo : Right , and it' s not clear to me whether the homes predated the designation . I 'd have to find out . Bernie Carr: No it didn 't , no , they were already build before the UNA was designated . Councilman DePaolo : Well , again , that and the other issue about the southern boundary are issues are certainly things worth looking into . Adrian Williams : I just want to speak very briefly about this UNA issue , because it' s not really worth looking into again ; it's been clarified exhaustively. In fact , the letter you are referring to , Rich , was written to clarify those issues . So , I think that letter should stand as sort of definitive delineation of the UNA . Scott Chaffield : We ' re now getting to the "nut" of the whole thing . The representative from the Homeowners Association , Mr. Sonnenstuhl , I believe , very interestingly, only referred to one property , the Lucente property; he kept referring to the Lucente property. Councilman DePaolo : Verify that in the minutes , once he 's done . I 'd like to know whether that's true or not . Scott Chaffield : He talked about the fact that Cornell property was included , but when he started talking about the specifics of the issues , the only drainage issues , the only development problems , the only sanctuaries . . . look at the tape recording , you ' ll see that it' s only the Lucente property . In fact , let's take a look at Section 2 of your proposed moratorium law. There are 4 parcels described by tax i . d , number without reference . Two of them are owned by the Lucente ' s , one is owned by Cornell , and the other is the town park . I fail to understand why it is that you would want to impose a moratorium on your own right to develop on your own park . It seems to me that if you don 't want to develop on your park , don 't' . But be that as it may, the timing of this moratorium . . . Let me back up here . . . The only legitimate purpose for moratoria is the preservation of the status quo . That is the only legitimate purpose and the court of appeals has said time and time again , that moratoria are extreme remedies to be used only when you are faced with an imminent problem , you need to maintain the status quo while you look at Page 32 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 the problem . That's the fundamental purpose of moratoria . They are allowed only, but allowed only under very narrow, restrictive circumstances . Let' s look at the facts . While the UNA was in existence , while everybody knew about the wetlands that were on the premises , the Planning Board went through an exhaustive review process , including an environmental significance determination , and concluded that my client' s property could be appropriately developed in the way that they approved it . Now , this Town Board is the legislative body , but it has delegated the approval function for subdivisions to the Planning Board and it relies on the Planning Board 's expertise . The Planning Board , in turn , relies on the expertise of the Town Engineer and the Town Attorney to make certain that the determinations that they made are appropriate . If this Board and/or the Homeowner's Association felt that the approval of the Planning Board was inappropriately or improvidently granted , they should have appealed that determination and said to the court why it was that did not comply with the law . That did not occur. Indeed , we are 2 '/2 years later now, the representative of the Homeowner's Association says , well , you should put this moratorium in place because that will encourage a dialog between the Lucente 's . Between the Lucente 's and who? The moratorium by its terms , prohibits us from dealing with the Planning Board in anyway , shape , or form . It prohibits us from doing anything meaningful , anything to accomplish anything . When one looks at the proposed recitations , paragraph Z says , "the Town Board anticipates that its review and consideration of the information and documentation and other reports , plans , documents and other information related to the areas affected by the moratorium can be completed and legislation and revision of plans , if needed , can be properly adopted by April 12 , 2010 . " Where have we heard that before? Seems to me we 've heard that before in every extension of this moratorium that' s been adopted . All we need is more time . The very first moratorium said we could have this concluded in 6 months . Two and half years later, we ' re still playing the game . Now, the process , and by the way, when you look at finding AA and BB , you ' ll see the that a reading of the totality of the purpose of the moratorium make it clear that what you ' re doing is seeking to maintain the status quo so that you can put in place the zoning that Mr. Sonnenstuhl referred to ; the 7-acre zoning . As you know, you already have a protest petition filed against that . You know that that is going to result in litigation . The question is , if you really want to find and strike a balance here between the legitimate needs of government and the rights of the individual property owner, the process is to get it back in front of the Planning Board so that we can actually start working on it . Do you think that the Planning Board is going to approve this thing in 30 seconds? Our preliminary plat , under Section 276 , has already expired . We have to start over again . We have to obtain a new preliminary plat . We can 't get around it , unfortunately, that' s one of the costs of the delay so far. So , we have to start again . Do you so distrust your Planning Board that you don 't want to allow them to go through the process and apply the regulations that already exist to this property to see if a reasonable conclusion can be reached ? There use to be a phrase called " NIMBY" , you all are familiar with that one , but my preference is the one "BANANA" , have you all heard that? and that stands for: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone , and Page 33 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 that's what we 've got going on here . We 've got a Neighborhood Association that apparently has the ear of this legislative body and has convinced this legislative body that it ought to use its coercive power of government to completely stop any development of this proposal at all costs ; irrespective of the fact that your underlying reports have been completely debunked by other professionals . Not withstanding that you have taken 2 1/2 years and you still have not made step one . You ' re still holding up the process . If you want to resolve this issue , do not put this moratorium in place . We will make an application for preliminary plat approval ; we will get in front of the Planning Board ; you will have your opportunity to speak , as will the residents . Presumptively , it will get litigated when it' s all said and done , because if we have more than two houses on the property , the Neighborhood Association is going to sue . So , let's go through the process . Continuing to go through with this moratorium simply delays us without any reasonable expectation of a resolution that complies with any meaningful balancing between the competing interests of the property owners and the legitimate ends of government . Toward that end , it cannot be emphasized too greatly that this approval that occurred in 2006 by the Planning Board was not done in a vacuum ; it was not done with complete ignoring the environmental regulations ; it did not ignore the wetlands regulations , let alone all of our subsequent proposals . This was done after a thorough environmental review within the framework of the law. Now, I am just a country boy . I 've read the SEQR regs and I know what a critical environmental area is , because the law tells me how to set up a CEA , it tells me what a CEA is , and it tells me what restrictions apply when it' s a CEA . I never heard of a unique natural area , and then when I look at the underlying justification for a unique natural area , I find nothing unique about it ! It' s got trees , yeah . Well , I ' m here to tell you , that there are 20% more trees in this country today, than there were 100 years ago . Was that the result of the creation of UNAs every where ? Is the fact that a tree or a bird exists on a piece of land mean that it ought not be developed? When did we so abrogate the rights of community and the rights of individuals to have low and affordable housing , to the rights of rabbits and squirrels? Why aren 't white -tailed deer on the endangered species list? I ' ll tell you why , it' s because if you run into one with your car, you ' re going to be facing a $5 , 000 repair bill , that's why . But people like Bambi a heck of a lot more than they like bees . This has got the tail wagging the dog . If you don 't recognize that what you ' re engaged in here is an abuse and misuse of governmental power; a further step down that slippery slope to the derogation and elimination of individual property rights , you ' re completely missing the point . You ' re making it up as you go along to serve a constituency, and that's not the function of government , never has been . (Councilman DePaolo — Mr. Supervisor, I think the speaker's 10 minutes is up) It doesn 't surprise me , Mr. DePaolo , that you would know that . I 'm done , I 've said what I have to say and I think you know what my position is . If you put this moratorium in place , that is the line in the sand . If this moratorium is adopted , litigation will ensue , I assure you , and you will have to explain to your tax payers the hundreds of thousands of dollars it will cost you to defend it in a losing effort . Donna Lucente : I won 't take 10 minutes . I spoke once before about the whole concept of balance in sustainable development . I ' m going to address something Page 34 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 different , and that is , that somebody on this Board , a couple of meetings back , said that because you were elected to represent certain people and they elected you , that you were suppose to do their bidding . Excuse me , but a representative democracy doesn 't mean that you become political lackeys for certain people who happen to have a little more power than a few other people who happen to be more popular or have more money. Okay? It is your job , and I ' m not a politician . . ' I ' m sorry, I ' m getting emotional . The bottom line is , you are elected to represent . . , representation doesn 't mean you do what someone wants . What it means is you have a responsibility to educate your constituency . That obviously is not happening . And when I heard that you ' re extending the moratorium , and then someone said , "Gee , I don 't know , we have to check with county to see if we can do that . " Excuse me ! You people are backwards ! It's really clear to me , from someone who doesn 't serve on a Board that you lack a cohesive process with each other and you lack a respect for a due process . Thank you . Councilman DePaolo : I would just like the record to show that I ' m lacking respect for due process for less than minimum wage right now . So , there are a lot of other people in this room who are getting paid a lot of money to be here . I think that I speak for the Board when I say that we are conducting due diligence to the best of our ability and I appreciate your sentiments , and I just hope that you appreciate that these decisions are very difficult for us and we don 't take them lightly . Supervisor Engman closed the public hearing at 8 : 56 p . m . Agenda Item No. 14 a. Consider approval Councilman DePaolo moved the resolution . The motion failed for lack of a second . Supervisor Engman made the following statement : The moratoria that have occurred , the two extensions have been done with the concurrence and the agreement of the parties involved , all of the landowners , so we need to fully understand that . We thought that there was going to be an agreement for this further extension , and one of the landowner's have apparently decided not to do that . So I do need to point out that it has not been the arbitrary decision of this Town Board to make all those extensions for the 2 'h years and indeed during that period a great deal of information has been provided that we have spent a lot of time processing and trying to figure out . There have also been suggestions to , or resolutions to the situation that would not go along the lines that have more recently been suggested . So during that time there was a great deal of activity . It was not like these moratoria were passed and people sat and didn 't try to do anything ; it was not a delay tactic . I was deeply involved in all of the those discussions and I know the immense amount of time and energy that went into- trying to find solutions that would be amenable to everybody. It has just gotten to the point where obviously that is not going to happen and we need either to have somebody break out of their position or this Town Board will just have to make a decision and there will be some very unhappy people on one side or the other. Page 35 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 Agenda Item No. 15 : Report on lighting at the Coddington Road Community Center The Coddington Road Community Center has decided to re -sign with NYSEG for their light pole so there is no request . Agenda Item No . 4 : Consider appointment of new Town Board member Executive Session On a motion by Councilwoman Hunter and seconded by Councilman DePaolo , the Town Board moved to executive session at 9 : 02 p . m . to discuss the appointment of a particular person . Discussion followed . VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , abstain ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , nay . Motion carried Regular Session On a motion by Councilman Goodman and seconded by Councilwoman Hunter, the Town Board returned to regular session at 9 : 37 p . m . Board Members expressed their feeling that all the applicants were qualified and it was a very hard choice . They thanked the applicants for the work they currently do on behalf of the Town . Supervisor Engman nominates and Councilwoman Leary seconds appointment of Susan Riha as Town Board Member. TB RESOLUTION NO . 2010-009 : APPOINTMENT OF TOWN BOARD MEMBER WHEREAS , the resignation of Town Board Member Peter Stein leaves a vacancy on the Town Board ; and WHEREAS , the Town Board Members wish to fill this open seat with a viable candidate who meets all of the criteria and qualifications needed for a Town Board Member in the Town of Ithaca ; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby appoints Susan Riha to serve as Town Board Member through December 31 , 2011 ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that Susan Riha will immediately assume the duties of a Town Board Member. Page 36 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 MOVED : Supervisor Engman SECONDED : Councilwoman Leary VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye . Motion carried - unanimous Susan Riha was sworn in as Town Councilwoman by Deputy Town Clerk Debra DeAugustine . Agenda Item No. 16 : Consider Approval of Regular Town Board Meeting Schedule 2010 December 31 st was changed to December 30tH TB RESOLUTION NO. 2010=010m Set Dates for 2010 Regular Town Board Meetings BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves the following schedule for its 2010 Town Board meeting dates : Monday , February 8 , 2010 5 : 30 p . m . Monday, March 8 , 2010 5 : 30 p . m . Monday, April 12 , 2010 5 : 30 p . m . Monday, May 10 , 2010 5 : 30 p . m . Monday , June 7 , 2010 5 : 30 p . m . Monday , July 12 , 2010 5 : 30 p . m . Monday , August 9 , 2010 5 : 30 p . m . Monday , September 13 , 2010 5 : 30 p . m . Thursday, October 7 , 2010 5 : 30 p . m . Budget Discussion Monday , October 18 , 2010 5 : 30 p . m . (Monday, Oct. 11th is Columbus Day) Thursday, November 4 , 2010 5 : 30 p . m . Budget Discussion Monday , November 8 , 2010 5 : 30 p . m . Monday , December 13 , 2010 5 : 30 p . m . Thursday, December 30 , 2010 10 : 00 a . m . Year-End Meeting MOVED : Councilwoman Hunter SECONDED : Councilman DePaolo i Page 37 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous 16 a. Consider Study Sessions Supervisor Engman discussed the original purpose of the Study Sessions , that being for the purpose of having committee reports and he would like to make an effort to have the Chairs give an update at the Study Sessions . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2010=011 : Set Dates for 2010 Study Sessions Town Board Meetings BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves the following schedule for its 2010 Town Board study session meeting dates : Monday, January 25 , 2010 4 : 30p . m . Monday , February 22 , 2010 4 : 30p . m . Monday, March 22 , 2010 4 : 30p . m . Monday, April 26 , 2010 4 : 30p . m . Monday, May 24 , 2010 4 : 30p . m . Monday, June 21 , 2010 4 : 30p . m . Monday, July 26 , 2010 4 : 30p . m . Monday , August 23 , 2010 4 : 30p . m . Monday , September 27 , 2010 4 : 30p . m . Monday , October 25 , 2010 4 : 30p . m . Monday , November 22 , 2010 4 : 30p . m . Monday, December 27 , 2010 4 : 30p . m . MOVED : Councilman Goodman SECONDED : Supervisor Engman VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous Z Page 38 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 Agenda Item No. 17 : Announce appointment of Deputy Town Supervisor Supervisor Engman noted that he had announced via email to the board that Councilman Goodman had accepted the position and this was an acknowledgement of that appointment . 17 a. Acknowledge appointment TB RESOLUTION NO. 2010=0,12m, Acknowledgement of Appointment of Deputy Town Supervisor The Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby acknowledges the Town Supervisor's appointment of William Goodman as Deputy Supervisor to serve at the pleasure of the Town Supervisor. RESOLVED , as Deputy Supervisor, William Goodman , is hereby afforded all duties and responsibilities of the said position as prescribed by Section 42 of Town Law, General Municipal Law, and the Public Officer' s Law of the State of New York . MOVED : Supervisor Engman SECONDED : Councilwoman Leary VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous Agenda Item No. 18 : Consider appointments to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board TB RESOLUTION NO . 2010=013 : Appointment of Planning Board Member BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby appoints Fred Wilcox to serve on the Planning Board for a seven year term beginning January 1 , 2010 and ending December 31 , 2016 , MOVED : Councilwoman Leary SECONDED : Councilman Levine VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous 18 a. Consider alternate Planning Board member Councilwoman Riha noted that the Planning Board had voted on a resolution in support of Ms . Baer as a full member in the event of a vacancy. Page 39 of 61 Town Board Minutes: January 11 , 2010 TB RESOLUTION NO . 2010-014v APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATE PLANNING BOARD MEMBER BE IT RESOLVED , that the governing Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby appoints Ellen Baer as the Alternate Planning Board member to fill a term beginning January 1 , 2010 and ending December 31 , 2010 , MOVED : Councilwoman Riha SECONDED : Councilman Goodman VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous Agenda Item No. 19 : Consider appointment = Town of Ithaca Planning Board Chair Discussion followed . Councilman DePaolo supported Mr. Wilcox , but noted that sometimes he does not allow enough discussion at Planning Board meetings . TB RESOLUTION NO. 2010=015 : Appointment of 2010 Planning Board Chair BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby appoints Fred Wilcox to serve as Chair of the Planning Board for the term January 1 , 2010 to December 31 , 20101 MOVED : Councilwoman Leary SECONDED : Councilman Goodman VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous Agenda Item No. 20 . Consider appointments to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals 20 a. Board member TB RESOLUTION NO . 2010=016 : Appointment of Zoning Board of Appeals Member BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby appoints Ronald Krantz to serve on the Zoning Board of Appeals for a term of office beginning January 1 , 2010 and ending December 31 , 2014 , MOVED : Councilman Goodman SECONDED : Councilwoman Hunter Page 40 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous 20 b. Alternate board member(s) TB RESOLUTION NO . 20110-0117@ APPOINTMENT OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ALTERNATE RESOLVED , that the Town Board appoints Susan Mann as the Alternate Member to the Zoning Board of Appeals to fill a term of office beginning January 1 , 2010 and ending December 31 , 20101 MOVED : Councilman DePaolo SECONDED : Councilman Levine VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous Agenda Item No. 21 : Consider appointment of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Chair TB RESOLUTION NO. 2010=018m APPOINTMENT OF ZONING BOARD of APPEALS CHAIR FOR THE YEAR 2010 BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby appoints Kirk Sigel to serve as Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the term January 1 , 2010 to December 31 , 20101 MOVED : Councilman Levine SECONDED : Councilwoman Leary VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous Agenda Item No. 22 : Consider appointments to the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board TB RESOLUTION NO. 2010=0.19m APPOINTMENT OF CONSERVATION BOARD MEMBERS BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby appoints the following individuals to the Conservation Board for terms beginning January 1 , 2010 and ending December 31 , 2011 : Page 41 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 Diane Conneman 250 Strawberry Hill Circle #2 , Ithaca , NY 14850 Andrew Goodell 1249 Trumansburg Road Apt 1 , Ithaca, NY 14850 Anthony Ingraham 368 Stone Quarry Road , Ithaca , NY 14850 Kristine Shaw 209 Tudor Road , Ithaca , NY 14850 . MOVED : Councilwoman Hunter SECONDED : Councilwoman Riha VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous Agenda Item No. 23 : Consider appointment of the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Chair TB RESOLUTION NO . 2010=020 : APPOINTMENT OF CONSERVATION BOARD CHAIR FOR THE YEAR 2010 BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby appoints Diane Conneman to serve as Chair of the Conservation Board for the term January 1 , 2010 to December 31 , 20101 MOVED : Councilwoman Hunter SECONDED : Councilwoman Leary VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous Agenda Item No. 24: Acknowledge Supervisor' s Town Board Committee appointments Supervisor Engman passed out his list and went over his appointments . Discussion followed . Councilwoman Leary spoke regarding her appointments and the process and stated that there was not a lot of consultation with Members . She stated that they were told that they would be serving on the same committees , and she was not happy to be off of Personnel . She had been on Personnel for awhile and wants to remain on it . Supervisor Engman responded by stating that he had never said the committee appointments would be the same and that she had really wanted to be on the Planning Committee last year so he switched her. He also stated that he did talk to Members and he also wanted to have people on different committees so everyone learns different aspects . Councilwoman Leary responded that he had not talked to her at all and if he had , she would have expressed her preference for Personnel . She stated that these appointments took her totally by surprise . Councilwoman Hunter asked if these Page 42 of 61 Town Board Minutes: January 11 , 2010 appointments were up for discussion and Supervisor Engman stated that he would prefer that they try these and see how they work out . Councilwoman Hunter thought they were putting a big burden on Councilwoman Riha by giving her four seats and she also thought that Councilman DePaolo should still be on the Planning Committee, because he has worked so hard on it . Supervisor Engman reiterated that to make changes would be time consuming and would get bogged down . Councilwoman Leary responded that the committee appointments are supposed to be made with the agreement of the Board Member, as stated in the Protocol and Procedures Manual . She thought it was ununusual to have a new board member be a chair of a committee and she suggested that she come off Planning Committee and put Councilman DePaolo as Chair with Councilwoman Riha as a member. Ms . Brock looked at Town Law and stated that in Town Law, the supervisor has the authority to make committee appointments and in the Town Manual , it states that the Supervisor by tradition consults individually with Town Board Members , etc . . . and the Town Board acknowledges the appointments . Councilwoman Leary reiterated that she had been blindsided and with other people not being happy with their appointments , ti would be easily rectified . Supervisor Engman disagreed , stating that once you change one , others have to change and he reiterated that these are his appointments and went to move on . Councilman Levine spoke , stating that it is all about collaboration and it wouldn 't be moving people around . Make the changes and everyone is happy . Councilwoman Leary asked again why she was taken off Personnel and put on Planning and Supervisor Engman responded that he thought he was doing what she wanted because last year she really, really wanted to be on Planning . Councilwoman Leary said that was last year, this is this year and she thought he just wanted her off of Personnel because he wanted to be back on Personnel as a voting member. Supervisor Engman responded that he thought that until you sit down and try to do these assignments , you don 't thin about how complex they are when you are thinking of the Town and not the individual member's preference . Councilman Goodman suggested that they go with this and talk about it more at the study session . Councilwoman Hunter countered , saying that she thought they should go with Councilman Levine 's suggestion and put Councilman DePaolo back on Planning and put Councilwoman Leary back on Personnel . Councilwoman Riha was in favor of the change for continuity. Councilwoman Hunter asked if we really need Operations . Most things can go to SAC and Public Works Committee . Discussion followed with Supervisor Engman stating that he felt it was an important committee to keep because it allowed for staff to have a committee to bring things that did not fit elsewhere . Councilwoman Leary stated that . she would serve , although she felt it was a good place for a new member.. Councilman DePaolo made a statement , saying that it is unprecedented for a new member to take on chair duties and he had stated his objections to the Supervisor. He Page 43 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 stated that he had no alternative but to conclude that this constitutes a political realignment based on his contribution to the planning process . Not only is he no longer the Chair, but he is no longer on the Committee . In looking at the assignments , there is a new member with more schedule constraints on 4 committees and he is on one and he can only conclude that this is because he did not align with certain views on planning in the Town of Ithaca . Supervisor Engman explained his thought process stating that the Town was losing the Chair of Public Works and with Councilman Goodman becoming Deputy Supervisor, Councilman DePaolo was the most experienced to take the position . He added that last year he was chair of three committees and the Board felt that was too many and he had too much control and having a new member as chair of Pubic Works which has the largest budget and the most employees would be too much . Councilman DePaolo responded that Councilwoman Riha's resume shows that she has overseen million dollar budgets and has staff experience so it appears that her qualifications make her just as qualified as he and he would have still been a member and could have lent his expertise as a member. The resulting Town Board committee appointments follow: Personnel Tee -Ann Hunter (chair) Herb Engman Pat Leary (and Employee Relations — Judy Drake , chair; employee members to be elected) Public Works Rich DePaolo Bill Goodman Susan Riha Planning Susan Riha (chair) Rich DePaolo Bill Goodman Budget Eric Levine (chair) Pat Leary Tee -Ann Hunter (and Capital Projects — Herb Engman , chair) Operations Herb Engman (chair) Susan Riha Page 44 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 Agenda Item No. 25 : Consider Town Board appointments of Citizen Advisory Committees Changes were made . TB RESOLUTION NO , 2010-021 : Town Board Citizen Advisory Committee Appointments BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca makes the following Citizen Advisory Committee appointments for a term beginning January 1 , 2010 through December 31 , 20101 CITIZEN COMMITTEES Codes and Ordinance Committee Bill Goodman , Chair Pat Leary Eric Levine Fred Wilcox, representing Planning Board Kirk Sigel , representing Zoning Board of Appeals Eva Hoffman , representing Conservation Board Agriculture Committee James Baker Jenifer Bokaer-Smith/John Bokaer-Smith Nelson Eddy Claire Forest Jeff Hanavan/Kate Lunde Tom McMillian/Christine White George Sheldrake Jan Suwinski/Sue Suwinski Alan Teeter/Debbie Teeter Herb Engman - Town Board Liaison Comprehensive Plan Committee Herb Engman , Chair Pat Leary Tee -Ann Hunter Hollis Erb Dianne Conneman Joe Wetmore Stephen Wagner Dave Mountin Bill Sonnenstuhl Diana Riesman—Village of Cayuga Heights Representative David Kay—City of Ithaca Representative Page 45 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 Employee Relations Committee Tee -Ann Hunter Herb Engman Pat Leary " Employee members are elected by staff ; 2 representatives from each facility . MOVED : Councilwoman Leary SECONDED : Councilman DePaolo VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous Agenda Item No. 25a : Appoint Peter Stein to the Comprehensive Plan Committee Discussion followed regarding the status of voting or non -voting status . It was decided that Mr. Stein would be appointed as a nonvoting member and the change was made to the resolution . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2010=022 : Appointment of Peter Stein to the Comprehensive Planning Committee WHEREAS , Peter Stein served on the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Committee since its inception ; and WHEREAS , Peter Stein has resigned his seat on the Town Board by virtue of his election to the Tompkins County Legislature and is therefore no longer able to serve on the committee in his capacity as a Town Board representative ; and WHEREAS , Peter Stein has requested reappointment to the Comprehensive Plan Committee as a liaison with Tompkins County ; and WHEREAS , the chair of the Tompkins County Legislature has indicated approval of his appointment as liaison with the county ; and WHEREAS , the Comprehensive Plan Committee requested that the Town Board consider continuing Peter' s service on the committee ; and WHEREAS , it is the desire of the Town Board to bring an area-wide focus to its planning efforts , including its revision of the Comprehensive Plan ; and WHEREAS , Peter Stein 's continued service would provide continuity to the committee 's discussions , a unique skill set comprising strong statistical and analytical ability, and a direct link with the county that has heretofore been missing on the Comprehensive Plan Committee ; Page 46 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 NOW , THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca appoints Peter Stein to serve as liaison with Tompkins County as a non -voting member on the Comprehensive Plan Committee . MOVED : Councilwoman Leary SECONDED : Councilman Hunter VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous Agenda Item No. 26 : Consider Town Board appointments of Intermunicipal Organization Changes were made to reflect earlier changes to committee assignments . TB RESOLUTION NO. 2010=023m Town Board Intermunicipal Organization Appointments BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca makes the following Intermunicipal Organization appointments for a term beginning January 1 , 2010 through December 31 , 2010 : INTERMUNICIPAL ORGANIZATIONS Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization Rich DePaolo Herb Engman (alternate) Cavuqa Medical Center Rich DePaolo Human Services Coalition Al Carvill Ithaca=Tompkins County Transportation Council Policy Committee — Herb Engman , Pat Leary as alternate Planning Committee — Jonathan Kanter, Jim Weber, Susan Ritter as alternate Lake Source Coolinq Data Sharing Group Herb Engman Page 47 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 Pegasys Oversight Committee Rich DePaolo , Town recommendation to City Recreation Partnership Eric Levine Tee -Ann Hunter Special Joint Committee (Sewer) Herb Engman Rich DePaolo Pat Leary Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission Herb Engman Susan Riha Stormwater Coalition of Tompkins County Susan Ritter Darby Kiley , Alternate Tompkins County Area Development' s Economic Development Collaborative Jonathan Kanter Tompkins County Council of Governments (TCCOG ) Herb Engman Bill Goodman as alternate Tompkins County Joint Youth Commission Lorraine Moran 2 -year ( 1 / 1 / 10- 12/31 / 11 ) Dale Bryner 2 -year ( 1 / 1 /09 - 12/31 / 10) Eric Levine — Ithaca Town Board Representative 1 -year ( 1 / 1 / 10- 12/31 / 10) Rich DePaolo — Ithaca Town Board Representative 1 -year ( 1 / 1 / 10- 12/31 / 10) Greater Tompkins County Municipal Health Consortium Judy Drake Herb Engman as alternate Ithaca College Community Committee Rich DePaolo MOVED : Councilman Goodman SECONDED : Councilwoman Leary VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , abstain ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried Page 48 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 Agenda Item No . 27 : Consider appointment of Town Historian TB RESOLUTION NO . 2010-024 : Reappointment of Town Historian BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby reappoint Ms . Laura Johnson - Kelly, 48 Comfort Road , Ithaca , New York as Town Historian for the term of January 1 , 2010 through December 31 , 2010 , MOVED : Councilwoman Hunter SECONDED : Councilwoman Leary VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous Agenda Item No . 28 : Consider Confirmation of Arrangements and Appointment of Attorney(s) for the Town TB RESOLUTION NO . 2010-025 : Authorize the Town Supervisor to sign a contract with Susan Brock for Legal Services for 2010 BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca accepts Susan Brock' s Agreement Letter for Legal Services for 2010 ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Board authorizes the Town Supervisor to sign a contract with Susan Brock for Legal Services for the 2010 calendar year (January 11 2010 — December 31 , 2010) , MOVED : Supervisor Engman SECONDED : Councilwoman Leary VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous TB RESOLUTION NO . 2010-026 : Authorize the Town Supervisor to sign a contract with Guy Krogh for Legal Services for 2010 BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca accepts Guy Krogh 's Agreement Letter for Legal Services for 2010 ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Board authorizes the Town Supervisor to sign a contract with Guy Krogh for Legal Services for the 2010 calendar year (January 11 2010 — December 31 , 2010) . Page 49 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 MOVED : Councilwoman Leary SECONDED : Councilwoman Hunter VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous Agenda Item No . 29 : Discuss 2010 Association of Towns Resolutions and Consider designation of 2010 Official Delegate and Alternate Delegate for the New York State Association of Towns 2010 Annual Meeting TB RESOLUTION NO . 2010=027 : Official Deleqate for Year 2010 NYS Association of Towns Annual Meeting WHEREAS , the NYS Association of Towns Annual Meeting will be held on February 14 , 2010 through February 17 , 2010 in New York City ; and WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca is a member in good standing with the NYS Association of Towns and is eligible to have voting rights at the said meeting ; and WHEREAS , it is necessary for the governing Town Board to appoint an Official Delegate who will have voting rights on behalf of the Town of Ithaca at the said meeting ; now therefore be it RESOLVED , the governing Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby appoints Bill Goodman as the Official Delegate and Supervisor Engman as the Alternate on behalf of the Town of Ithaca at the 2010 NYS Association of Towns Annual Meeting . MOVED : Supervisor Engman SECONDED : Councilwoman Leary VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous Agenda Item No. 30 : Consider Appointment of Highway Superintendent TB RESOLUTION NO . 2010=028 : Appointment of Highway Superintendent BE IT RESOLVED , James Weber is hereby re-appointed as Highway Superintendent , for a term continuing until the 1St day of January next succeeding the next biennial Town election to wit , January 1 , 2012 , and be it further RESOLVED , the Highway Superintendent also serves at the Director of Public Works , Page 50 of 61 Town Board Minutes: January 11 , 2010 MOVED : Councilman DePaolo SECONDED : Councilwoman Leary VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous Agenda Item No. 31 : Consider Agreement for the Expenditure of Highway Monies Motion made and seconded . Discussion followed with Mr. Weber explaining the budget and process for the Agreement . TB Resolution 2010-029 : 2010 Aqreement For The Expenditure Of Highway Monies AGREEMENT between the Town Highway Superintendent of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County, New York and the undersigned members of the Town Board . Pursuant to the provisions of Section 284 of the Highway Law, we agree that moneys levied and collected in the Town for the repair and improvement of highways , and received from the State for State Aid for the repair and improvement of highways , shall be expended as follows : 1 . GENERAL REPAIRS . The sum of $ 135 , 000 shall be set aside to be expended for primary work and general repairs upon 8 miles of town highways , including sluices , culverts , and bridges having a span of less than five feet and boardwalks or the renewals thereof . 2 . PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS . The following sums are : The following sum of $37 , 000 shall be set aside to be expended for the permanent improvement of town highways , including paving , guide rails , etc . The following sum of $40 , 800 shall be set aside to be expended for the permanent improvement of Lois Lane to re-establish shoulders and an overlay of asphalt of . 22 miles of road . The following sum of $36 , 000 shall be set aside to be expended for the permanent improvement of Orchard Hill Road to re -establish shoulders and an overlay of asphalt of . 35 miles of road . The following sum of $305 , 000 shall be set aside to be expended for the permanent improvement of Warren Road to change drainage pipes , re -seed roadsides , and install a Purvis pavement walkway . Page 51 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 The following sum of $ 163 , 316 to construct a concrete walkway on the north side of Hanshaw Road from the Village of Cayuga Heights boundary to Salem Drive . Executed in duplicate this 11th day of January 2010 . MOVED : Councilman DePaolo SECONDED : Councilwoman Hunter VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous Agenda Item No. 32 : Consider Appointment of Receiver of Taxes TB RESOLUTION NO . 2010=030 : Appointment of Receiver of Taxes BE IT RESOLVED, Deborah Kelley is hereby re -appointed as Receiver of Taxes , for a term continuing until the 1St day of January next succeeding the next biennial Town election to wit , January 1 , 20120 MOVED : Councilman Goodman SECONDED : Councilman Levine VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous Agenda Item No. 33 : Discuss Policies and Procedures Manual Item was stricken from the agenda . Agenda Item No . 34 Consider Consent Agenda Board members requested that the. minutes , cash management and investment policies and procedures , designation of official newspaper, and designation of official depositories of town funds be pulled from the consent agenda . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2009-031 : Consent Agenda Items RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the resolutions for the following Consent Agenda Items : a . Town of Ithaca Abstract b . Bolton Point Abstract c . Voucher deadlines for 2010 d . Official Bonds of Town Officers and Employees e . Holiday Tree Pickup f . Appointment of distribution Operator Trainee - SCLIWC Page 52 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 g . Acknowledge Appointment of Deputy Highway Superintendent MOVED : Councilwoman Hunter SECONDED : Councilman DePaolo VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous TB RESOLUTION NO. 2010-031 as Town of Ithaca Abstract WHEREAS , the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for approval of payment ; and WHEREAS , the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board ; now therefore be it RESOLVED , that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in total for the amounts indicated . VOUCHER NOS . 7857 - 7889 General Fund Town wide 519017 . 00 General Fund Part Town 25 , 321 . 07 Highway Fund Part Town 41826 . 59 Water Fund 3 , 312 . 19 Sewer Fund 318599532 Warren Road Walkway 259 . 76 Trumansburg Rd Water Main Improvement 16 . 00 Fire Protection Fund 429005 . 75 Forest Home Lighting District Glenside Lighting District Renwick Heights Lighting District Eastwood Commons Lighting District Clover Lane Lighting District Winner's Circle - Lighting District Burlei h Drive Lighting District Westhaven Road Lighting District Coddin ton Road Lighting District Trust and Agency 137 , 02 TOTAL 1'4459790 . 70 Page 53 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 MOVED : Councilwoman Hunter SECONDED : Councilman DePaolo VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous TB RESOLUTION NO . 2010=031 be 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 : 1446- 1504 Check Numbers : 12078- 12136 SCADA project $ 11524 . 20 Operating Fund $ 76 , 598 . 00 Bolton Point Road Project $ 8 , 360 . 00 TOTAL $ 86 , 482 . 20 Less Prepaids $ (25 , 215 . 23) $ 61 , 266 . 97 MOVED : Councilwoman Hunter SECONDED : Councilman DePaolo VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous Page 54 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 TB RESOLUTION NO , 2010=031 c : Year 2010 Processing Vouchers/Invoices Deadline Dates WHEREAS , to facilitate an efficient and timely method for processing vouchers/invoices for the monthly abstracts it is necessary to establish a deadline for submission of vouchers/invoices by vendors , staff , and other service people ; and WHEREAS , the Accounting Department has determined that one week is needed to properly prepare the vouchers/invoices for approval of the Town Board at their monthly meeting ; now, therefore , be it RESOLVED , the Town Board does hereby adopt the following schedule for the year 2010 as the last date by all vendors , staff , and other service people to submit vouchers/invoices to the Accounting Department for presentation to the Town Board on the Abstract Date : Processing Voucher/ " For Abstract Date : Invoice Deadline Dates : Friday, January 29, 2010 Monday, February 8 , 2010 Friday, February 26 , 2010 Monday, March 8, 2010 Tuesday, March 30, 2010 Monday, April 12 , 2010 Friday, April 30, 2010 Monday, May 109 2010 Friday, May 28, 2010 Monday, June 14, 2010 Wednesday, June 30 , 2010 Monday, July 12 , 2010 Friday, July 30, 2010 Monday, August 9 , 2010 Monday, August 30, 2010 Monday, September 13 , 2010 Wednesday, September 29, 2010 Thursday, October 7, 2010 Friday, October 29, 2010 Monday, November 8, 2010 Monday, November 29 , 2010 Monday, December 7, 2010 Tuesday, December 28, 2010 Thursday, December 30, 2010 "Abstract date is synonymous with Town Board meeting date . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , vouchers/invoices must be submitted no later that 12 : 00 p . m . on the Processing Voucher/Invoice Deadline Date ; and it be further RESOLVED , any emergency or extraordinary vouchers/invoices will be considered as deemed appropriate by the Chief Fiscal Officer and the Budget Officer. Page 55 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 MOVED : Councilwoman Hunter SECONDED : Councilman DePaolo VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried = unanimous TB RESOLUTION NO . 2010-031 d : OFFICIAL BONDS FOR TOWN OFFICERS & EMPLOYEES BE IT RESOLVED , by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , that the Faithful Performance Bonds for the Town Officials and Employees for the year 2010 are approved as followed : Town Supervisor/Fiscal Officer $3 , 000 , 000 . 00 Deputy Town Supervisor $310009000 . 00 Budget Officer $3 , 0009000 . 00 Receiver of Taxes $3 , 0001000 . 00 Town Clerk $ 25 , 000 . 00 Town Justice , James Salk $ 25 , 000 . 00 Town Justice , David Klein $ 25 , 000 . 00 Highway Superintendent $ 257000 . 00 All Other Employees ( Per Person ) $ 25 , 000 . 00 Forgery & Alteration $ 55000 . 00 MOVED : Councilwoman Hunter SECONDED : Councilman DePaolo VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous TB RESOLUTION NO . 2010=031e : Holiday Tree Pick Up WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department picks up holiday trees for the residents of the Town ; now , therefore , be it RESOLVED , that January 19 , 2010 will be final day for holiday tree pickup by the Public Works Department , and be it further RESOLVED , that after January 192 2010 residents may bring their holiday trees to the Public Works Facility for recycling . Page 56 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 MOVED : Councilwoman Hunter SECONDED : Councilman DePaolo VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous RESOLUTION NO . 2010=031f — Ratify Appointment of Distribution Operator Trainee= SCLIWC WHEREAS , there is presently a vacancy in the full time position of Distribution Operator Trainee in the Distribution Department at Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission ; and WHEREAS , the General Manager, Distribution Manager and Human Resources Manager interviewed 2 candidates from the certified eligible listing available from Tompkins County Civil Service ; and WHEREAS , the said individuals have determined that Frederick Dean possess the necessary knowledge and skills to satisfactorily perform the duties of the said position ; and WHEREAS , Frederick Dean was appointed by SCLIWC at the January 7 , 2010 commission meeting ; Now, . therefore , be it RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby ratify the S . C . L . I .W . C . appointment of Frederick Dean as a Distribution Operator Trainee , effective January 4 , 2010 . MOVED : Councilwoman Hunter SECONDED : Councilman DePaolo VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried- unanimous TB RESOLUTION NO . 2010=031 g : Acknowledge Appointment of Deputy Highway Superintendent BE IT RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby acknowledges the appointment made by the Town Highway Superintendent , Eugene Redman is re - Page 57 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 appointed as Deputy Highway Superintendent to serve at the pleasure of the Town Highway Superintendent. MOVED : Councilwoman Hunter SECONDED : Councilman DePaolo VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous Discussion of pulled Consent Agenda Items . Town Board Minutes Board Member DePaolo had a question about the minutes November 5th in regard to the Traffic study. He felt that it sounded like he was against the study when in fact he was for the study. Ms . DeAugustine responded that she would check the tapes of the meeting . The November minutes were removed from the resolution . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2010-032 : Town Board Minutes WHEREAS , the Town Clerk has presented the minutes for the Town Board meetings held on October 19 , 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 October 19 , 2009 , MOVED : Councilman Goodman SECONDED : Supervisor Engman VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous Cash Management and Investment Policies and Procedures Councilman DePaolo questioned the phrase "as presented" because he didn 't recall seeing them . The resolution was a standing resolution and the P& P is on file in the Town Clerk's Office . Mr. Carvill explained the P& P and the phrase was changed to as filed in the Town Clerk' s Office" in the resolution . Page 58 of 61 Town Board Minutes: January 11 , 2010 TB RESOLUTION NO . 2010=033m, Cash Management and Investment Policies and Procedures for 2010 BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts the Town of Ithaca Cash Management and Investment Policies and Procedures for the year 2010 as filed in the Town Clerk's office , pending review and potential change by the Town Board . MOVED : Councilman DePaolo SECONDED : Councilwoman Hunter VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous Official Newspaper There was some discussion regarding the designation of the official newspaper and what the designation means . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2010-034 : DESIGNATION OF OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby designates the Ithaca Journal as the official newspaper for the Town of Ithaca for the year 2010 ; and , be it further RESOLVED , the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward a certified copy of this resolution to the Ithaca Journal. MOVED : Councilman DePaolo SECONDED : Councilman Levine VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary, aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried- unanimous Official Depositories of Town Funds Mr. Carvill discussed options and interest expressed from other depositories to be the Town 's depository. Page 59 of 61 Town Board Minutes : January 11 , 2010 TB RESOLUTION NO . 2010=035 : Designation of Official Depository of Town Funds BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby designates Tompkins Trust Company as the official depository for monies coming into the hands of the Town Supervisor, Budget Officer, Town Clerk, and Receiver of Taxes for the year 2010 ; and , be it further RESOLVED , the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward a certified copy of this resolution to the Tompkins Trust Company. MOVED : Councilman Goodman SECONDED : Councilwoman Riha VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous TB RESOLUTION NO . 2010-036 : Town Supervisor's Records Management Advisory Board Appointment BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca acknowledges the Town Supervisor's appointment of Eric Levine to the Records Management Advisory Board for a term beginning January 1 , 2010 through December 31 , 2010 , MOVED : Supervisor Engman SECONDED : Councilwoman Leary VOTE : Supervisor Engman , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye ; Councilman Goodman , aye ; Councilman Levine , aye ; Councilwoman Hunter, aye ; Councilman DePaolo , aye ; Councilwoman Riha , aye . Motion carried - unanimous Agenda Item No. 28 = Report of Town Officials (see Attachments) Written reports . Agenda Item No . 29 = Report of Town Committees No report . Agenda Item No . 30 - Report of Intermunicipal Organizations No report . Agenda Item No . 31 - Review of Correspondence No discussion . Page 60 of 61 3 '* Town Board Minutes : January 11 20.1 0 AgendaJtem No. 32 - Consider Adjournment Upon"a motion by Councilwoman Hunter and seconded by Councilwoman Leary, the k meeting was adjourned at 11 : 12 p . m . Respectfully Submitted , Debr ,DeAugis ne , Deputy Town Clerk Page 61 of 61 OF ,r Attachment # 1 1 /11 / 2010 N > TOWN OF ITHACA 18 21 215 N . Tioga Street , Ithaca , N . Y . 14850 ' �W Yo4 www . town .ithacamy. us Town Supervisor (607) 273-1721 , Ext 125 ; HEngman@town .ithaca. nv. us TOWN CLERK (607) 273- 1721 PUBLIC WORKS (607) 273-1656 ENGINEERING (607) 273-1747 PLANNING (607) 273- 1747 ZONING (607) 273- 1783 PAX (667) 273- 1764 Supervisor ' s 2009 Annual Report and 2010 Outlook 2009 was for me a year of unfinished business being addressed, surprises both pleasant and not, and steady accomplishment for the Town of Ithaca. Left unfinished when I took office in 2008 were the Fire Contract and Recreation Agreement with the City of Ithaca. Those long, hard, time-consuming negotiations were successfully concluded in 2009 . It was a bit of a shock to find out that the land at the sewage treatment plant that was supposed to be transferred in 1981 by the City of Ithaca to joint ownership with the City and the Towns of Dryden and Ithaca never happened. It was not surprising that negotiations were very difficult after the passage of 28 years, the lack of a good trail of documentation and fading memories . I am convinced that it was only the excellent relations and good will among the parties that led to a satisfactory, negotiated settlement. Also unanticipated was the threat of a lawsuit from NYSEG over the coal tar first discovered at the sewage treatment plant land in 1984. In stark contrast to the protracted negotiations over other issues an agreement to jointly defend against the possible lawsuit was reached among the Town of Ithaca, City of Ithaca, and Town of Dryden in little more than a month. Again, the superb relationship among the parties and the spirit of intermunicipal cooperation ruled the day. Dog control occupied more time in 2009 than I could possibly have imaged. I actively worked within the Tompkins County Council of Governments (TCCOG) to create a consortium of municipalities that resulted in a three-year agreement for dog control with the SPCA of Tompkins County. TCCOG was also the focal point of three other intermunicipal initiatives : gas drilling in the Marcellus shale, cell towers and the Health Insurance Consortium. In fact, the effectiveness of TCCOG - largely unrecognized outside the body itself - was the major pleasant surprise of 2009 . Internally, the premature deaths of Dani Holford and Don Tenkate were deeply felt by other employees . The outpouring of support and the ability of staff to cover the fine work 1 of these dedicated employees while replacements were sought were testaments to the character and talent of all our Town staff. 2009 also saw the reorganization of our engineering and public works functions , the hiring of a new director of Public Works, the hiring of a Deputy Town Clerk, and the resignation of our Town Clerk. More detail on all these points are provided below . 2009 ACCOMPLISHMENTS Neighborhoods o Significant progress was made on the Warren Road "Safe Routes to School" project. Construction is partially complete and will be finalized in the 2010 construction season . When the Hanshaw Road sidewalk is built, possibly also in 2010, a good portion of the Northeast will be able to walk to school, work, parks and to exercise. o Pine Tree Road from East Hill Plaza will be served by a new walkway connecting with the East Ithaca Recreation Way and Route 366 and the Cornell Campus . State funding was secured in 2009 and construction will start in 2010. o The Honness Lane walkway was extended and now connects Route 79 with Pine Tree Road and Eastern Heights Walkway and Park. o Forest Home will see traffic calming improvements — and make the neighborhood more walkable - because of state funding secured in 2009 . Plans are complete and construction will begin in 2010. o Money was sought under the federal stimulus funding for a walkway along Route 96 from the hospital to the City line, but the project was not chosen . o I developed an e-mail system to alert neighborhood associations of upcoming items of interest. Several of the excellent Town Board candidates (to replace Peter Stein) seem to have come from neighborhood contacts . o There have been vigorous debates in the past year over development on East, South and West Hills due partially to the improved contacts between the Town and the neighborhoods . o The first community garden was created on Town park land near Linderman Creek and was spectacularly successful . Many more people signed up for plots than anticipated and the resulting amount of produce was most impressive. Perhaps more importantly, gardeners from many different nationalities and walks of life had the opportunity to cooperate and celebrate our common humanity. We are most grateful to the Park Foundation for providing funding for a deer fence and for many agriculturally-related businesses for donating plants and services . - Intermunicipal Cooperation o The Fire Contract with the City of Ithaca was finally signed after a two-year period of intense negotiation . Since this contract is around $3 million per 2 year, it is a huge investment for the Town . Still , the Town will save approximately $60,000 per year compared to the old contract. o After 28 years an agreement was finalized with the City of Ithaca over ownership of the sewage treatment plant land. For reasons seemingly lost in history, the agreement to transfer the land to joint ownership never occurred and time had blurred the outlines of the amount of land involved. o Also related to the sewage treatment plant, the Towns of Ithaca and Dryden agreed to join the City in defense of a lawsuit over coal tar brought by NYSEG. NYSEG owned the land when coal tar was produced as a by- product of burning coal to power gas lights in the City. o After much debate, the City of Ithaca decided to rebuild its own water plant rather than join Bolton Point and its five municipal partners . I continue to believe this decision will cost both parties millions of dollars over the next few decades . o Based on my initiative, the Towns of Dryden and Ithaca developed a proposal to a foundation for funding to support sustainability efforts in both municipalities and to develop a model for other towns to engage in carbon assessments and setting climate protection goals . o I have been very active with the Tompkins County Council of Governments working on the following: 1 . The Health Insurance Consortium, which is anticipated to begin in early 2010. The beginning was delayed from January 1 due to the seeming disinterest at first of the NYS Insurance Department and later its involvement in the details of the new endeavor. 2. Cell towers, which will continue to expand as consumers take advantage of ever more electronic communications . TCCOG members are jointly attempting to see if common approaches can lead to more efficient and effective review for both the municipalities and the cell tower companies . 3 . Dog Control in cooperation with the SPCA. A consortium of TCCOG members has developed a standard 3 -year agreement and will now turn its attention to a census of dogs throughout the county. 4 . Gas drilling, on which both the TCCOG and the Town of Ithaca have taken very strong stances for environmental and residential protection. I participated in TCCOG sub-committee discussions on gas drilling with Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton, the Governor' s regional representative, Kevin McCabe, and Congressman Maurice Hinchey. Housing o Senior housing has become a focus for developers in the Town of Ithaca. Conifer completed a new facility near Linderman Creek and two other facilities have been proposed for an area close to Overlook and near the hospital . o Housing pressure in general continued in 2009 , with hundreds of units proposed throughout the Town . I have sought to consider housing projects in a manner that is both fair to the developers, mindful of the opinions of 3 neighbors, and in congruence with the Town ' s comprehensive plan and zoning. - Environmental Protection o The dock law was finally revised in 2010. o The stream setback law has moved closer to realization. o Planning for additional Critical Environmental Areas has begun . o Several resolutions were passed regarding the proposed gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale . o New walkways are being planned on all three hills in the Town of Ithaca. The ad hoc Trail Committee conducted and published a survey of residents living on three of the Town ' s major trails . o We have continued to protect Cayuga Lake through our joint ownership of the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission (Bolton Point) . o A new fence and walls amendment passed to make it easier for residents to construct deer fences . o The Town ' s second agricultural easement progressed with the receipt of a NYS grant for the majority of the cost. The Town annually sets aside funds to support the protection of lands in the Town of Ithaca. - Open Government o The Comprehensive Plan Committee continued its work, releasing a survey of Town residents conducted in cooperation with Cornell . A series of focus sessions on components of the plan were very well attended by residents and other stakeholders . Representatives of the City of Ithaca and Village of Cayuga Heights have been active participants . A grant was received from the state to develop an agricultural plan that will inform the comprehensive plan . The committee completed its review of the 1993 plan and is ready to start work on the 2010 plan . o As mentioned under Neighborhoods above, a new e-mail system of alerting residents to activities in the Town has been established. o Public hearings have been well attended and there have been increased discussion and debate on issues . o The Town ' s Board Committee structure completed its first year as a fully operational system and more Town Board members are chairing those committees . o Town Board members are engaged in issues at an earlier stage than in the past. o The annual budget has more information and in a more comprehensible format than ever before . We instituted a highway tax — and balanced that with reductions in our fire tax — so that the public can better understand where its tax money is being utilized. Internal Operations 4 o We had a major restructuring of our Public Works operations , eliminating engineering as a separate department and adding it to Public Works . We also hired a new PWD director, Jim Weber, who is an engineer. o We lost our Town Clerk through resignation and have conducted a search for a replacement. We also hired a new Deputy Town Clerk, Deb DeAugustine. o We concluded negotiations with our fist union, the Teamsters , at �our Public Works facility. o We added a traffic-control gate at the Buffalo entrance to the Town Hall to protect our employees and pedestrians from motorists using the parking lot for a cut-through to parking on Aurora Street for turning around in order to park on Buffalo Street. o The Town Board passed 260 resolutions in 2009 . 2010 PLANS The year 2009 demonstrated that predictions may well prove' off-base and circumstances will dictate how we will spend our time, money and efforts . Nonetheless , below are my anticipated priorities for 2010. 1 . The industrial nature of the Marcellus shale hydro-fracking process has the potential to affect this area beyond any other event since the clearing of the forests after the Civil War. The public investments in clean water, agriculture, the tourist industry, environmental protection, parks and recreation are at risk. Marcellus shale development will require the Town to determine how assertively it wishes to assume local control, particularly concerning the siting of gas wells, given the lack of regulations at the state and federal levels and in recognition of the power and money of the gas and oil industry. At the very least, we must protect our water supplies, our natural environment, our roads and the peace and safety of our citizens . We must develop highway access and protection legislation that includes payment by the gas industry for any damage done . We must make certain that hydro-fracking fluid does not endanger the operations of our sewage treatment plant, our water treatment plant, our ground water and the health of Cayuga Lake and its tributaries . 2 . We must complete a comprehensive plan that clearly delineates what kind of development, if any, the Town wants to have and where. Residential growth is the greatest challenge facing the Town over the long term. The comprehensive plan must provide guidance concerning not only the type and placement of residential development, but also how much and where we want agriculture and other commercial enterprises . The comprehensive plan must also address environmental protection, transportation, parks and recreation, sustainability, scenic views, and the quality of life for all our residents . 3 . The Town of Ithaca must come to grips with our lack of diversity in our workplace and on our boards and committees . We are not representative of the workforce 5 from which we draw our employees and volunteers and we must become more adept particularly at attracting people of color and the talents they bring to the job site. 4. We must pay more attention to the relations among our Town Board, staff and Town Supervisor and agree upon the most effective roles for each to play. Circumstances in the last year led to concentration on major issues to the detriment of good communication and cooperation . Effective management is a result of collaboration among all units of the Town rather than an imposition of a hierarchy that results in resistance and embitterment. The proper functioning of committees is key and will rely on the leadership of the chairs of the committees and the heads of departments to be fully successful . 5 . Development pressure will continue in 2010. We must make timely decisions based on our planning, zoning and careful consideration of new facts such that outcomes are both legal and fair for all concerned . 6 . There will not be substantial improvement in the budget picture in 2010. Low levels of sales tax and the inability of some of our residents to continue to pay property tax because of layoffs or forced early retirements will require the town to be cautious with expenditures and continue to look for staff and operational efficiencies . On the brighter side, the Town of Ithaca continues to be solvent and will likely not suffer the major layoffs and disruptions of services faced by many other municipalities . We receive very little state and federal aid, so do not suffer the same level of threat faced by those who depend heavily on such assistance. Our very low debt burden positions us well for emergencies and to respond to future needs . The Town of Ithaca can face the year 2010 and beyond with cautious optimism because of our talented staff, dedicated boards, financial security and supportive citizenry. Respectfully Submitted, Herbert J . Engman Town Supervisor 6 Attachment # 2 1 / 11 / 2010 To: Town of Ithaca Board From : Bill Gilligan, Town Representative on the Ithaca Board of Fire Commissioners Subj : Board of Fire Commissioners Report- December 2009 Date : January 11, 2010 Update on Fire Police and Volunteers in the Ithaca Fire Department Fire Police Report provided by Dave Cornelius- the Fire Police held a training meeting in November. Fire Fighter John Powers is working with the group on an on-going basis (along with Assistant Chief Dan Tier) . Firefighter Powers provided training to the group on use of the 800 mghz portable radio system - used for communication at all incidents. The next training for the group will be CPR training and scene accountability - this will be held in January 2010. There are currently 8- 10 active fire police volunteers. The group is still seeking radios to have available when working at a fire scene or accident . There are some additional equipment needs that are under review by the group. Most of the current fire police were active volunteers in the department for a number of years as interior or exterior fire fighters. One issue that the Board of Fire Commissioners will need to address in the coming months is the feasibility of recruiting new volunteers into the fire department and the role that these individuals can perform in the department. Relief Funds Vet Relief fund - there was a follow- up discussion about some issues related to eligibility to receive $ 200 from this fund more than one time . A letter was received from Bill Baker, as President of the Vet Firemen 's association- regarding this issue - basically questioning the interpretation of the City Charter as limiting the distribution to only one time . The BFC also briefly discussed reviewing the active Fire fighter' s fund (90K) in the City Charter and establishing some clearer criteria on handling requests from these funds. This will be a follow-up item at future board meetings. 2% funds Final item under old business was status on 2% funds from Town - the funds are expected to be received by the end of December or early in January. Per agreement that the town made with the Chiefs of Cayuga Heights and Ithaca Fire Department the funding will be split 50/50 between the two departments. It is expected that the portion coming to Ithaca will be distributed based on the method for handling 2% funds in the City Charter, BFC Bank accounts — Commissioners Gilligan and Hoard were authorized to have signature authority on the 2 accounts held by Tompkins Trust Company. These are the Donation fund and Equipment fund . Department Reports Chief Dorman gave the Chief's report and Deputy Chief Tom Parsons gave the Codes and Fire Prevention report . Various items were touched on under their respective reports — one of particular importance to the future composition of the career staff in the department is the effort to recruit women and under represented groups to sign-up for the firefighter exam that will be offered in March - deadline to sign-up is January 27th . Info is on the department's website . The Board of Fire Commissioners will begin discussions in January to identify long range issues that the Board should consider under its charge in the Ithaca City Charter. of To Attachment # 3 1 / 11 / 2010 �aa ♦ Department of Assessment R • s s r 128 East Buffalo Street Jay Franklin Inclusion through Diversity Irene Kehoe Director Assistant Director REAL PROPERTY TAX PRIMER FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS Tompkins County is one of only two county-wide assessing units in New York State. The switch to county- wide assessing occurred in 1970 as a way to provide full time professional appraisal services to the municipalities in the county. While not a cost savings measure at the time, based upon 2009 cost data, it is estimated to save the taxpayers of Tompkins County over $300,000/Year by consolidating the assessment function at the county level (as opposed to a municipal assessment structure). The assessment function is governed by the New York State Real Property Tax Law (NYSRPTL) . The NYSRPTL allows for local municipalities to adopt or opt out of various real property tax exemptions however the NYSRPTL does not allow the local municipalities to influence the valuation of real property. All valuation of real property is done is accordance with standards set by the New York State Office of Real Properties Services . These standards very closely mirror the standards set by the International Association of ssessing Officers and the Appraisal Institute. New York State Real Property Tax Law Section 305 New York State Law requires all properties in a municipality (except in New York City and Nassau County) to be assessed at a uniform percentage of market value each year. This means that all taxable properties in a city, town or village must be assessed at market value or all at the same uniform percentage of market value each year. State Law also requires the assessor to include the estimate of the market value for each property, the assessment for each property and the uniform percentage for all taxable property on the tentative assessment roll . Market Value = the price a willing buyer would pay a willing seller for a property in its present condition with neither buyer nor seller under pressure to act (such as career relocation, death of a family member, divorce, etc.) . A market value sale also is known as an arm 's length transaction . The Tompkins County Legislature has directed the Department of Assessment to annually assess property at 100% fair market value. Benefits of Annual Reassessment Each year, State Law requires assessors to sign an oath that the assessments in their municipality represent a uniform percentage of market value. The best way to ensure that assessments are consistently fair and equitable is keep assessments up-to-date annually. To encourage compliance with State law, New York State provides State Aid of up to $ 5 per eligible parcel to municipalities that keep assessments at Mail Address: Tel : 607-274-5517 128 East Buffalo Street Fax: 607-274-5507 Ithaca, New York 14850 assessment @tompkins-co.org http://www.tompkins-co.org/assessment/ 100% of market value each year. For special assessing units, uniformity must be maintained within each class . Aside from State Aid, the benefits of maintaining consistent market value assessments include : • Assessment Equity for Taxpayers - The longer it has been since a municipality has updated assessments, the more likely it is that some taxpayers are paying more or less than their fair share of taxes. Up-to-date assessments eliminate unfair assessments and the " sticker shock" that taxpayers experience when assessments are adjusted after years of neglect. • Local Control over the Equalization Rate - By maintaining assessments at market value each year, municipalities can consistently receive an equalization rate of 100. This eliminates shifts in school and county tax apportionment due to fluctuating equalization rates. • Improved Bond Ratings - In addition to State Aid, many municipalities are receiving improved bond ratings as a result of efforts to keep assessments current. These municipalities are saving tens of thousand of dollars each year (and, in some cases, much more than that). • Fewer Court. Challenges to Assessments - By keeping assessments up-to-date, municipalities are likely to have fewer tax certiorari cases . • Increased State Land Assessments - Because State land assessments are frozen at the year of the last municipal-wide reassessment conducted after 1990, annual assessments allow municipalities to make changes in market value that could not otherwise be captured. Definitions Tax Levy = the dollar amount a taxing jurisdiction needs to raise via the real property tax . Tax Base = the total taxable value of a taxing jurisdiction. Tax Rate = Tax levy divided by the Tax Base. Tax Rate = (Tax Levy) / (Tax Base) times 1 ,000 How does the assessor determine the Market Value of a property? The assessor will use the universally accepted three approaches to value to determine the market value of a piece of property. The three approaches are : COST APPROACH Typically used in specialty properties and new construction. The basic assumption is that no buyer will pay more for a property than for what they could build a similar property. MARKET The basis assumption is that a property will not sell for more or less than for what similar properties have sold . INCOME Typically used in income producing properties . The basic assumption is that the price an investor will pay for a property is directly related to the income producing capability of the property (but not the business which would occupy the property) . Department of Assessment 2 January 5 , 2010 Y How does the assessor decide which assessments to change and by how much ? In order to maintain a uniform LOA, each year your assessor will need to analyze all of the properties in the municipality to determine which assessments need to be changed. If assessments have been kept up-to-date each year, or if the real estate market has been fairly stable, it is possible that few assessments will need to be adjusted. My assessment was adjusted last year, and it' s been adjusted again this year. Why? Each year, State Law requires your assessor to sign an oath that the assessments in your community represent a uniform percentage of market value. The best way to ensure that assessments are consistently fair and uniform is to keep assessments up-to-date annually. To encourage compliance with State Law, New York State provides State Aid of $ 5 per eligible parcel to municipalities that keep assessments at 100 percent of market value each year. Does my town collect more taxes if it does a reassessment? It is not uncommon to hear property owners complain that their city or town is updating their assessments just so it can collect more taxes. Actually, a cursory understanding of the municipal budget process would dispel this misconception. Assessments are determined by the assessor. The assessor' s job is to make sure that all property owners are assessed fairly based on the market values (or a uniform percentage of the market values) of their properties . You can think of the total amount of taxes collected by the city, school district or county as a pie. The assessor does not determine the size of the pie — that is the job of city councils, town boards, school boards and county legislatures. The assessor' s job is to ensure that the pie is cut up fairly — that taxes are fairly distributed based on current market values. When a reassessment results in increased assessments due to rising property values, tax rates should go down proportionally. This is because the tax levy is now being distributed over a broader tax base. If tax rates go up or stay the same, it simply means that municipal and/or school budgets are going up . Press Alert: Tax rates are not good indicators of tax increases ! There is a tendency is to compare the tax rate for the previous year with the tax rate for the current year. In fact, tax rates are not accurate indicators of how much more a taxing jurisdiction is collecting in taxes this year. For that, you need to look at the tax levy. Tax rates are misleading because they are based on the aggregate assessments of each municipal segment in the taxing jurisdiction. If one city or town in the district has done a reassessment that year, that segment ' s tax teep te may drop drastically. Put another way, a municipality might increase assessments and the school could the tax rate the same and it would still collect more taxes . If you want to know if the school district, city, town, or county is spending more, look at the budget. If you want to know if it ' s collecting more in taxes, look at the levy. Department of Assessment 3 January 5 , 2010 ��•t OF Attachment # 3 1 / 11 / 2010 Department of Assessment • s s s 128 East Buffalo Street Jay Franklin Inclusion through Diversity Irene Kehoe Director Assistant Director Five Myths of the Real Property Tax Myth #1 - Assessors determine property taxes Typically property tax rates are set by school boards, town boards, village boards, and county legislatures, but not by assessors . Each board determines the total amount of taxes it needs to raise, and then divides that number by the total taxable assessed value of the jurisdiction to determine the tax rate. Your share of the tax is calculated by multiplying the tax rate by your property' s assessed value minus exemptions, such as STAR. Assessors are responsible for determining your property' s assessed value. In order to do this, the assessor estimates your property' s market value (the price it would sell for in the real estate market), and then applies the municipal level of assessment (LOA) to that market value . In many communities, the level of assessment is 100 percent, so a home with a market value of $90,000 has an assessed value of $90,000. Ina town with a level of assessment of 50 percent, the assessed value of the same home is $45 ,000. he assessor also performs other functions, such as processing exemption applications and keeping track of the local real estate market, but the assessor does not determine your tax rate. Myth #2 - Taxes are high because of assessments It ' s important to distinguish between taxes and assessments. If you feel your taxes are too high, you should take that up with the town board, school board, or other governing authority that is determining tax levies and setting the tax rates. If you feel your assessment is too high, there are administrative and judicial processes where you can seek to have your assessment lowered. Assessments should be based on market value, and if you feel your assessment is too high, your first step in confirming that is to determine your property' s market value. The best way to do this is to look at the sale prices of similar properties in similar neighborhoods . Myth #3 - NYState collects too much money through property taxes While New York State government receives no money from the real property tax, this stable revenue source is vitally important to the delivery of services to the state ' s citizens. Local governments and school districts collect the property tax, which is their largest source of revenue. That ' s one of the main reasons that property taxes and assessments are administered locally (rather than by the state) in New York. Mail Address: Tel : 607-274-5517 128 East Buffalo Street Fax : 607-274-5507 Ithaca, New York 14850 assessment @tompkins-co. org http://www.tompkins-co. org/assessment/ Myth #4 - Tax rates are good indicators of tax increases In late August, as the date for mailing school tax bills approaches, the tendency is to compare the tax rate for the previous year with the tax rate for the current year. In fact, tax rates are not accurate indicators of how much more a school district is collecting in taxes this year. For that, you need to look at the tax levy. Tax rates are misleading because they are based on the aggregate assessments of each municipal segment in the school district. If one city or town in the district has done a reassessment that year, that segment ' s tax rate may drop drastically. Put another way, a municipality might increase assessments and the school could keep the tax rate the same and it would still collect more taxes . If you want to know if the school district, city, town, or county is spending more, look at the budget. If you want to know if it ' s collecting more in taxes, look at the levy. Myth #S - A cap on assessments would lower property tax burdens Occasionally, a proposal is made to cap assessment increases at a certain percentage each year. Doing so would result in some property owners paying less than their fair share of taxes, while their bills are subsidized by other homeowners . Eventually, properties that are increasing in value more quickly would be underassessed, while properties that are not increasing in value as quickly would be subsidizing the tnderassessed property' s taxes. (Typically, in the case of residential properties, lower-valued homes increase in value slower than higher-valued homes .) Meanwhile the town, county and school district would continue to collect the same amount of taxes that they would if assessments weren't capped. A cap on assessments doesn 't result in less taxes being collected, it just redistributes the tax burden to the disadvantage of properties increasing in value more slowly. Department of Assessment 2 January 5 , 2010 Attachment # 3 1 / 11 / 2010 At Your assessment could increase , and your tax bill could decrease � Last Year This Year Your Assessment $ 100,000 Your Assessment : $ 105 ,000 (5% increase) Total Value of the Town : $50,000,000 Total Value of the Town : $54 ,000,000 (8% avg . increase) Tax Levy: $ 1 ,500,000 Tax Levy: $ 1 $ 00, 000 Tax Rate: $30 per $ 1000 Tax Rate: $27. 78 per $ 1 ,000 Your Property Tax Bill : $3,000 Your Property Tax Bill : $2,917 (decrease $83} Your assessment could increase, wr SIN and your tax bill could stay the same Last Year This Year �.. Your Assessment $100 , 000 Your Assessment: $ 105, 000 (5% increase) Total Value of the Town : $50 ,000, 000 Total Value of the Town : $54, 000,000 (8% avg. increase) Tax Levy : $ 1 ,500 , 000 Tax Levy : $ 1 , 542 , 855 (2.86% increase) Tax Rate: $30 per $ 1000 ' Tax Rate: $28. 57 per $ 1 , 000 Your Property Tax Bill : $3,000 Your Property Tax Bill : $3 , 000 jno change} _`N Your assessment could decrease, and your tax bill could increase IN � Last Year . This Year 3 Your Assessment $100,000; Your Assessment $95;000 (5% decrease) Total Value of the Town . $50,000; 000 Total Value of the Town : . :$47 , 500, 000 (5°lo avg. decrease) Tax Levy : $ 1 , 500 , 000 Tax Levy : $ 1 ; 542 ,855 (2.86% increase) Tax Rate: -$30 per $ 1000' Tax Rate: $32 .48 per $ 1 , 000 Your ProperEy Tax Bill : $1000 Your Property Tax Bill: $3, 085.60 ' ( increase $85.601 • For more information on the factors affecting your tax bill, talk to your school board, town board, city council, or county officials. • For more information on assessments, talk to your assessor. • More information is available online at: www.orps .state.ny.us n Attachment # 3 1 / 11 / 2010 City/Town/County Tax Levy Increase: 2004-2010 Tax Years City/Town .Tax Levy % Change % Change 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2009 - 2010 2004 - 2010 Caroline 889,605 1 ,0019217 11107,487 1 , 1201939 11143,299 11181 ,184 1 , 1682387 - 1 . 1 % 31 .3% Danby 1 ,023,887 11131 ,489 12249,470 1 ,311 ,880 11390, 135 1 ,411 ,458 114617168 3.5% 42.7% Dryden 846,790 9143241 958,525 995,836 1 ,0141425 1 , 197,323 11218,082 1 .7% 43.8% Enfield 163,010 165,063 167,335 1737056 169,847 174,942 1709942 -2.3% 4.9% Groton 11089,980 1 ,212,559 172539245 11264,984 1 ,298,737 1 ,3231575 1 ,332, 165 0.6% 22.2% Town Ithaca 1 ,052,475 12293, 174 1 ,712,903 1 ,74602 1 ,771 ,501 2,083,635 21853,263 36.9% 171 . 1 % Lansing 11420,226 17587,939 1 ,7552676 12837,447 11913,690 21214,810 21214,769 0.0% 55.9% Newfield 1 ,050,702 1 , 188,410 112270325 1 ,307,847 1 ,332,050 12310,347 19386,377 5.8% 31 .9% Ulysses 436,710 435,520 529,410 5771285 563 ,860 5392104 527,063 -2.2% 20.7% City Ithaca 11 ,726,954 13,5117816 15, 118,807 16,086,812 1628443932 17,489,527 18,230, 1741 4.2% 55.5% County Tax Levy % Change % Change 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2009 - 2010 2004 - 2010 Caroline 365,418 326,642 402,260 4740576 527,315 5532915 606,595 9.5% 66.0% Danby 6009235 541 ,664 6532970 745,599 799,388 830,547 896,661 8.0% 49.4% Dryden 40289,085 41425,602 4,389,453 4,651 ,289 4,8111452 41936,961 5,0731949 2.8% 18.3% Enfield 777,025 8972830 858,595 893,049 9192824 929, 172 964, 102 3.8% 24. 1 % Groton 750,045 832,834 814,252 848,489 893,810 978, 155 1 ,011 ,044 3.4% 34.8% Town Ithaca 6,270,219 6,749,771 6,745,652 73034,351 73246,079 71363,483 7,572,952 2.8% 20.8% Lansing 61588,910 61907,409 61831 ,458 7,0409513 7,2041460 71382,811 718059128 5.7% 18.5% Newfield 344,005 306,524. 3413464 420,516 4647340 392,943 532,273 35.5% 54.7% Ulysses 1 ,666,351 11854,276 1 ,961 ,906 21330,874 2,4179550 21496,754 2,581 ,730 3.4% 54.9% City Ithaca 61883, 123 7,365,987 7,536,440 81005,919 8, 197, 121 81494,308 818853166 4.6% 29. 1 % Totals 281534,415 309208,539 30,535,450 32,445, 174 33,4810339 342359,049 35,929,6001 4.6% 25.9% Sales Tax Used to Offset County Tax Levv 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Caroline 580, 000 5809000 510,000 500,000 480,000 540,000 517,000 Danby 608, 000 6089000 527,000 510,000 490,000 557,000 530,000 Dryden Enfield Groton 485, 000 485,000 485,000 500,000 500,000 450,000 450,000 Town Ithaca Lansing Newfield 1, 000, 000 1 ,000,000 900,000 880,000 8802000 11000 ,000 920,000 Ulysses 270, 000 270,000 215,000 City Ithaca Combined Tax Levy % Change % Change 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2009 - 2010 2004 - 2010 Caroline 1 ,835,023 1 ,907 ,859 2,019,747 21095,515 21150,614 212752099 2,291 ,982 0.7% 24.9% Danby 21232, 122 2,281 , 153 21430,440 2,5670479 296799524 21799,006 2,887,829 3.2% 29.4% Dryden 511352875 5,3391843 51347,978 52647, 125 5,825,877 69134,284 61292,031 2.6% 22. 5% Enfield 940,035 1 ,062,893 11025,931 1 ,066, 105 11089,671 1 , 104, 115 1 , 135,044 2.8% 20.7% Groton 29325,025 2,5309393 22552,497 2,6131473 2,692, 547 2,7511730 21793,209 1 .5% 20. 1 % Town Ithaca 71322,694 8,0421945 81458,555 81780,953 91017, 580 9,447, 118 1024262215 10.4% 42.4% Lansing 81009, 136 8,495,348 81587, 134 89877,959 9, 118, 150 9,597 ,621 10,019,897 4.4% 25. 1 % Newfield 21394,707 2,494,934 214682789 22608,363 21676,390 29703,290 22838,650 5.0% 18.5% Ulysses 21373,061 21559,796 21706,316 2,9081159 2,981 ,410 32035,858 311080793 2.4% 31 . 0% City Ithaca 18,610,077 20,877,803 229655,247 24,0929731 2520429053 25,9832835 27, 1152340 4.4% 45.7% Totals 519177,754 559592,967 58,252,633 612257,862 63,2732816 65,831 ,955 68,908,990 4.7% 34.6% N d O O O O O O (n O i m N J n M V O O i N i 0) B � N � r i N n O n i O (n0 O lM M (N 1 0 �_ O N lf) O ' N 00 O ((0 � i i n co O (n i c r c d 7 (0 N (0 x M 0 M 0 00 O O (!') M W (O O N (P) M Itt i M 000 O (co 000 ' M M O i 0 00 co 00 i i i N i i LL � i a`6i (no c L ° rn ` t9 a n 0) (A M UM) E , °— a V CO 00 LO LO v v I 0 co O (D N ' N M O i 0 r 00 O ' W co i r N d m y N �- .�. O O m N 0 M 00i a co O N LL ~ O LO L r LO co Cl (O N y M 00 O Ict (O y Ono 0) 000 d IA r (I1 Q V 0) V O N O r� C 7 M O O M m O M (n f� J > n v eO ° OCD co O N V (� N O N_ Y/ U)N N M (I1 Ill Q y V � M co n V O N N O M tt CL m 0 0 E ~ U Q ; N Q X 0 (D W H 0 00 N @ �+ CD CD E X T U = 0 N O CL E J (° Z H (n 5 U IL 0 (o ' ►- L O) (Dw = 0 �. o U >- o o N Z U F- N a (n (o n 0o N � O N J � M O � Cl Cl O N 0) N N r N (U d co 0 0 0 O O O O O Co O O O O M (O O (O O l0 0 0 L0 7 r� M O O O O O O O O r O M O r l0 to Kt In (� 0 0 0 Cp M r (0 O O O O O O O r N m V' (0 V• O V' r 01 M ' O N M (C•) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 () CM CN I� N 0o O r O N m O � � r 00 N 1� l0 O LO Co O D) � N r N (O M (A 01 O (A M (O l0 r N O N h 1% 0 C (M (O h M h r cD M V• h h .G M M (O M r 0 V' O E M r N x M M M N m V' N l0 (O (O m r 1Z V V N N N N (f) � N M r r co d LL m E o E r w 0 r 0) tT N m -ji Z a 0 C. M h q* 0 O N h M h (O M (O r N r M M M r N (0 I� r M (O (O O) t 0D (D 0) r (O P V M M M CO r co N N CO d' _ M M M M LL a L 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? Z Z O j z z z z j ? O L O CD + L (n co m w m m o 3 of rn E + L (D m O L +�+ O L L L w w w w w w L w 3 r N CT O U y L m N N 0 (U w w L v o@ L s @ ° O 0 Q 0- m L m 0) L m 3 3 3 3 3 3 m m a s 0 E c c o a> o n a v v v m m cu m c co o E ' a o m Z 0 0 LL U w W U3: co i� U n n U) U) n U) — — _ 0 = 0 W ^ o V r = F- LL' U) Q p r a+ r O r N r N M � (O (O h co O Cl r Q d F- W Z W O O c ctn m o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 W af U) Q 0 r0003 0U) 00000000000000 > > > Z U f• U) U 0 0 LL LL J J J J J J J J J (n f/) (n fn (/) (/) (/) (/) > 7 O N O r O O O LO N N � N N E cu a) V 1 C) C N M M M X M M R a � F D7 cr M M O O N E o) o) _ as a C r- co co Z E F- 4) X O O w Z as a) E M }L � pm r) 0) u L o 0 C V X ui ui o U) yM LQ IQ a co c 0 co co a, o 0 m LO LO p E ti > '17 _4 d o v 0) 0) m L6 ii m Fm co U) Q O r a) O f6 in jp co M d J > mo (D CV y M M y H Q N. U N N M a 0 E o IO CL d m O U U V @ L a <n z w T N U 0 O m m L N v O co M z W U °O N O N O1�- J (h T 0) C) C) N 0) N N T N E k d .. (9 M M M x v (a (0 (o F- N N E O O in a (a a o E �- x x w R m E LL 3 L N O N O O } V L X ) lx0 (co ((O O H N N . Q IL _ 0 a, o 0 c m o O a+ 3 M CJ I- ~ > N 3 y N N H LL H U) N a" N N m (0 p d O O d 3 O O f0 i V qq J > CY) M qt N N H d N y Q to O _ CD N V R IL T E v I- M d O a v m o E o 0 m CL u a z _ d � O fA d 0 co >m (D NU o CD L Attachment # 4 1 / 11 / 2010 Remarks for the Town Board on the Proposed Northeast Moratorium : 1 / 11 / 10 Thank you for the opportunity to address the Town Board on a new Northeast moratorium . My name is Bill Sonnenstuhl and I am the president of the Northeast Ithaca Neighborhood Association. You are familiar with our position on development in the Northeast. The neighborhood continues to support conservation zoning as a mechanism for balancing the property owners ' right to develop their land and the neighborhood ' s interest in conserving the ecological functions and features of those areas and preventing further drainage problems in our neighborhood. Over the next few months, a moratorium will provide the Town Board with an opportunity to consider where the balance between development and conservation will be drawn. In that context, we support the moratorium and encourage the Town Board to engage in negotiations with all of the parties — Cornell, Mr. Lucente and NEINA — to resolve the following issues . Conservation zoning of the proposed properties is not a new idea. In 1992 , the Town of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council conducted its Open Space Inventory, which examined 175 areas of cultural, historical and ecological significance and rated these Northeast properties among the top 20 percent of value . The Town ' s 1993 Comprehensive Plan proposes that they be conserved . In 1997 , the Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan recommended conserving these areas . In / 1999 — 2000 , Tompkins County designated it as a Unique Natural Area. Over the last two years, the Town Board has commissioned two independent studies . Your hydrology study looked at Mr. Lucente' s property . Its principle conclusion is that the proposed Briarwood II development would create a high level of impermeable surfaces, generating heavy storm water runoff during peak rain events, and that the proposed storm water 1 4 plan, basically the retention ponds, cannot be relied upon to prevent aggravating existing drainage problems downstream . Your ecological study looked at both the Cornell and Lucente properties . Your consultants recommended that the entire area be conserved. These studies show that the Town Board has taken great pains to act in a deliberate and considerate manner in thinking about how to balance the owners ' and neighborhood ' s interests . In the context of the Cornell property, your proposed conservation law calls for rezoning the area north of Winston Court and south of the Lansing Village line to conservation. This would provide a substantial buffer of approximately 600 feet for the Laboratory of Ornithology, which is a world class facility that draws visitors from around the world. As one Lab of O employee recently stated, the sanctuary is at the low level of sustainability, and continued development of adjacent land will eventually jeopardize it. The LeCain study, in Option 2, recommended a 300 foot buffer to protect the sanctuary . Cornell proposes a buffer of 200 feet. We encourage the Town Board to negotiate with Cornell in order to arrive at a successful conclusion that provides the Laboratory of Ornithology ' s sanctuary with a strong buffer and permits its long term sustainability as a world class destination and a much loved local natural area. In the context of the Lucente property, the neighborhood continues to believe that, consistent with LeCain ' s primary recommendation, the entire area should be prioritized for conservation because preserving the woodlands and wetlands would allow for better water retention than the proposed engineering solutions . We also believe that trying to build medium density housing in this small area fragmented by a number of wetlands is very problematic . Let me. give you a quick example that may have escaped the board ' s notice in discussions about exempting the southern area of the Lucente property, which is labeled section 1 in the LeCain 2 4 study, from conservation zoning and retaining its medium density residential status . The eastern section of this section contains a small wetland, section 2 . If one is serious about protecting small wetlands with a 100 foot buffer and also providing a biological corridor, this wetland presents a problem for a full build out of section 1 . The rest of the property presents similar problems as one attempts to squeeze 30 lots into this fragmented area. In negotiations with Mr. Lucente, the following issues need to be seriously considered : First, retention ponds raise a series of concerns . Retention ponds are inappropriate in any area designated for conservation and should be located outside of it and in the area designated for medium density development. Putting in retention ponds requires clearing large areas adjacent to the ponds as well as the land on which the ponds will be situated, thus stripping the land of valuable woods that can act to retain storm water. Ponds also represent a hazard, particularly for young children. Retention ponds would impair the wetlands because runoff from the ponds will exit into the wetlands disrupting the critical wet/dry cycles to which these ecological communities are adapted. Pond runoff also will be laden with salt and petroleum products from the roads and driveways and chemical fertilizers from lawns . These will not settle into the ponds but rather be deposited into the wetlands and destroy plants . The ponds also require a great deal of maintenance and neither the developer, Cornell University, or a third party appears willing to assume the long term liability associated with them . As tax payers, we oppose the Town assuming responsibility for them as well . In our estimation, a better solution for storm water management would be to install modern bio -retention swales, pervious drive ways and roads, and water gardens to absorb and slow down water as it is directed into the neighborhood ' s open ditches . These are innovative 3 d' solutions that would manage storm water by slowly releasing it into our ditches rather than into the wetlands . In any case, any new drainage system should not be piped . Second, the definition of clustering needs to be revisited. One possible solution would be for the developer to reconfigure Briarwood II with tightly-clustered units or town houses . For example, it might be possible to build a cluster of town houses on the southwestern corner of the area designated as section I in the LeCain study . This might permit some development while allowing the rest of the area to be conserved . Such a configuration would also preserve the wetland in the southeastern corner of this section while providing open space for a biological corridor. At the same time, such tight clustering would be another mechanism for managing storm water by reducing the amount of impenetrable surfaces . This example is one suggestion for thinking about how to balance conservation and development. I want to mention two related concerns briefly . In negotiations with Mr Lucente, we think it is important to put a priority on preserving the wetlands and biological corridor. Given that these wetlands have already been encroached upon and partially filled in, it would be appropriate to provide larger buffers around the remaining wetlands . Wetlands are an essential ingredient in effective storm water management and, once damaged, cannot be easily replaced . Likewise, we want to emphasize the importance of preserving a strong biological corridor between the Laboratory of Ornithology and Monkey Run Unique Natural Area. This corridor is important for the preservation of plants and animals in these two areas . While NEINA encourages consideration of these issues, we continue to believe that the best solution for the Lucente property is rezoning the entire property as a conservation zone, which would permit some development. 4 In conclusion, I want to reaffirm NEINA ' s strong support for the moratorium and to encourage vigorous negotiation with Cornell and Mr. Lucente to develop a solution that balances the owners ' interest in development and the neighborhood ' s interest in conserving the area' s ecology and preventing further drainage problems . William Sonnenstuhl President, Northeast Ithaca Neighborhood Association 206 Winston Drive Ithaca, New York 14850 5 Attachment # 5 1 / 11 / 2010 Bernard P. Carr Senior Environmental Scientist Vice President Terrestrial, Environmental Specialists, Inc. (TES) r 23 County Route 6, Suite A Phoenix, New York 13135 On behalf of Mr. Rocco Lucente, TES recommends that the Town Board not extend the moratorium and not approve the proposed ordinance to the Ithaca Comprehensive Plan. TES has reviewed the LeCain and Glase studies . These studies do not support the conclusions drawn . No federal or state-listed endangered wildlife or plant species were recorded on the site. The LeCain study lists several uncommon local plant species . Plant species recorded by the study indicate "probably regionally scarce or rare". All of these species were found in areas proposed for donation to Sapsucker Woods Sanctuary. All of these species are edge of range species . The basis for the original moratorium was a letter from Nancy Ostman and others . None of the wildlife or plant species mentioned in that letter were located on the site by the LeCain/Glase studies. For example, no Virginia white butterfly, wood turtles, or any of the mole salamanders . There is no basis for the Lueente land to be granted moderate-high ecological value for the parcel south of Sanctuary Drive. Most of this parcel contains invasive species such as honeysuckle, garlic mustard, and berberry and shows past human disturbance with logging and agriculture. Bird species recorded on the site are common in suburban and rural areas . Species diversity will be maintained under the proposed development scenario . Wood thrush is widespread and abundant in New York State. Blue-winged warbler occurs in successional habitat and will not decrease. All wetland areas are avoided. Buffer strips are provided to all wetlands . Drainage features designed by Larry Fabbroni meet or exceed state standards and will protect existing wetlands . The majority of land owned by Mr. Lucente in the proposed conservation area would be preserved. Most significantly 15 . 65 acres of land north of the waterline next to Sapsucker Woods would be preserved and 18 acres south of the waterline be preserved. Habitat corridors exist under the proposed development plan. There are also existing wildlife corridors to Monkey Run from parcels east of Sapsucker Woods Road . Conservation planning should prioritize unique local areas . There is no basis to restrict development of this parcel based on LeCain- Glase reports . All development plans have avoided wetlands and provided a significant buffer to Sapsucker Woods . As a result, there is no need to amend the Ithaca Comprehensive Plan . Attachment # &, 1 / 11 / 2010 To : Town Board From: Lawrence P. Fabbroni,P . E.,L. S . Re: Briarwood II Town Board Actions Date : January 10,2010 I wish to bring forward the full meeting record for the December 7,2009 Town Board meeting and in the record the complete Subdivision Plans and materials presented for Final Briarwood II Subdivision Approval on September 10,2007 . You should also enter into the record the Minutes of all Planning Board meetings and staff review notes leading to the Preliminary Approval of the Briarwood II subdivision as well as all environmental reports and comment letters from our environmental consultants, TES and Stearns & Wheler. This should also include all vitas of experts submitted. It is hard to know where to start to object to the various matters on which the Town Board is seeking to take action tonight to target the land and prevent the project known as Briarwood II which has received Preliminary Subdivision Approval for 46 developable lot July 18,2006 from proceeding. Some Town Board members have stated the desire to extend the moratorium to create a sense of urgency to both the land owners affected and the Town Board to reach some conclusion that represents a balance of development rights and conservation wants and needs. However, the parallel rush tonight to arbitrary and capricious related actions to complete SEQRA reviews and targeted changes in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code will greatly compromise any constructive cooperative discussion moving forward. Agenda item l la purports to resolve a negative declaration for the Amendments to the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan based on a Public Hearing held December 31 ,2009 and tonight and a Long Environmental Assessment .Form dated January 6,2010 . At" the December 31 ,2009 Public Hearing after preparing a 15 -20 minute presentation over a nine hour period, I was informed at the beginning of the public hearing that comment would be limited to three minutes . Never in my 26 years of public service on either side of the table had an applicant, which we are by virtue of the issue affecting our pending Final Subdivision Hearing on hold since September 10,2007, been limited in time to present facts to support his or her application nor do I believe- your time limitation was or is legal. The environmental review process for the Comprehensive Plan change is being railroaded and not given sufficient time for .review in particular short circuiting the following Town Code requirements. 148-4,F Determine whether applications, including all pertinent environmental documents, appear to be sufficient; and forward such application materials to the appropriate Town lead agency with a recommendation concerning environmental significance within a reasonable time to allow for review at the Town lead agency meeting at which the application is reviewed. 148-7,B All application materials shall be submitted at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the meeting of the lead agency at which the application is scheduled to be heard. Said time period may be modified by the designated person or department . The Full Environmental Assessment Form is flawed as follows : 1 . Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency is missing 2. Description of Action. The Milone and MacBroome drainage study complete with errors is repeatedly cited as some final standard for judging the sufficiency of drainage patterns in the northeast. No mention is ever made of the Lucente BriarwoodII September 10,2007 Final Subdivision Plans and Documents that complete respond to the Milone- MacBroome recommendations interjecting correct information where necessitated by the uncorrected nature of the consultant' s work. The LeCain studies are continually used as a basis for decision when they have not been fully evaluated for scientific relevance nor conflict of interest. The rarities cited in the ecological study as well as the designation of UNA all originate from the subjective work of Robert Wesley whose errors with others of speculation of value of the Lucente land are well documented. The conclusions reached by the aviary study are pure speculation not supported by scientific literature and further biased by all participants' direct connection with the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 3 . The preparer has taken it on himself to alter the form without an prior action by a town board. 3 . A. SITE DESCRIPTION The action proposed directly would impact the proposed approved preliminary subdivision plan. The changes then should evaluate this alternative action to that approved subdivision. The action will have a dramatic impact as related to suburban sprawl, location and use of existing utilities, increased travel to community services and employment, available transportation modes, density of development, housing affordability, housing supply and demand. To suggest that alternatives to Conservation and Drainage improvements have been completely addressed through this hastily prepared LEAF is false if only the lack of time for comment and discussion at the December 31 ,2009 Hearing is referenced. 1 . There are numerous parks, Salem Drive and Tareyton Park not considered under other. There a multiple medical/commercial offices just beyond the Cornell parcels not listed. The 200+acres already constituting the Lab of Ornithology holdings is not adequately identified as to scale. 2 . This is important to assess disturbed areas, wetlands, meadows,etc. and is grossly neglected particularly when assessing the after impacts of no-growth. For example, will any of the understory remain if left entirely wild to deer and other wildlife? 3 . Poorly drained does not correctly characterize the 48+Lucente acres. 8 . 62 acres have been identified as wetland and verified by the Army Corp of Engineers . Characterization of additional acreage as poorly drained is both false and not verified by conditions on the ground. 4 . It is pertinent that the depth to rock is 20+/-. Considering the highest and best use of land in the Town this is significant. Many areas in the Northeast, most of Lansing north to Asbury Road, has a fragipan but is only 24 feet to bedrock. Similarly, many areas of 8- 10% slopes in other areas of the town have fragipans and underlying rock strata within 04feet of the ground surface. It has everything to do with why medium density residential should have priority over low value or even marginal medium value local ecological rarities. 5 . No comment 6 . Form altered. 7 . Form altered. 8 . This is not properly completed. See comments above in Item 4 about depth to rock. Should be answered 0-20 feet. 9 . No comment. 10. No comment. 11 . Michael S . Fishman, Certified Wildlife Biologist, Professional Wetland Scientist, of Stearns & Wheler, wrote to me November 3 ,2004 in a letter provided numerous time to you that "Rare species identified in the report" (LeCain) "are only locally scarce (6 to 20 known occurrences in the Cayuga Lake Basin), and in all cases, rarity is due to the occurrence of the specimen(s) being at the extreme edge of their natural ranges. All of the locally rare species populations are secure at the state and global level." 12. Form Altered. 13 . Form altered. This should be answered NO. The land is POSTED and any use of the land for any purpose should be considered illegal and TRESPASSING. 14 . No Comment. 15 . The very beginnings of the Renwick Brook tributaries would better describe the small streams on the western edge of the site discharging from wetlands. 16 . 8 .62 acres were delineated by Bernard P. Carr, Senior Environmental Scientist, of TES, and svurveyed, mapped by Lawrence P . Fabbroni, NYSLS# 49682, and approved by Margaret Crawford, biologist, US Army Corp of Engineers. Any wetlands identified by LeCain. 16b.The delineated wetlands on Lucente parcel are 8 . 62 acres. I doubt the total acreage is anywhere near 15 +/- acres . This overestimation just distorts the need eto replan and rezone wholesale rather than incorporate conservation maeasures into a well balanced development plan. 17 . Form altered. Public utilities are in fact within the site in question. And it is very pertinent that sewer capacity exists for the site in question by virtue of a joint legal action taken by the Town of Ithaca and Mr. Lucente in the late 1980s, early 1990s versus the Village of Cayuga Heights. More recently the Town of Ithaca insured capacity for this area througha six year six municipal sewer agreement execuated in December 2003 . Similarly, water capacity exists through the town membership in SCLIWC . Again the fact that hookups are allowed for both utilities should be a major factor in evaluating the highest and best use of the land as townwide objectives for all factors contributing to a well thought out comprehensive plan are balanced and distributed without singling out one landowner. 18 . Form altered. 19 . Form altered. 20. Form altered. B-I strenuously disagree with excluding this section form the impact analysis. The action proposed will force alternative for providing infrastructure and services in the northeast area of the County that will "hopscotch" this are of the Town and as an alternative location to what is currently planned in the Comprehensive Plan should be fully evaluated. 25 . The current Comprehensive Plan published and available on Page VI-4 states "The planning Board shall determine and authorize all changes to be made in the Comprehensive Plan, including changes to text, maps, figures, and so on. " Even if enabling legislation has now given the Town Board the authority to make changes after adequate public review and comment, the existing procedure published by the Town still has that authority resting with the Planning Board. Therefore, all current actions by the Town Board if not illegal seem premature. At the very least the Town Planning Board should be an interested party and perhaps legally the Lead Agent. Zoning and Planning Information 1 . You are affecting the subdivision of the land by this action to support eventual conservation zoning. 2 . There is commercial zoning, public institution zoning, multiple zoning, and special land use zoning immediately adjacent to the area in question none of which are mentioned. 3 . This item is very pertinent and the present zoning potential. You are proposing a regulatory taking by your action and this should be fully detailed. 4 . You are taking this action to change the comprehensive plan to support your proposed rezoning to conservation under the recommendation of the LeCain Report and so stop the Briarwood Il subdivision. This should be clearly detailed. 5 . This will clearly show in combination with Item 3 what the regulatory taking is . 6 . This is clearly NO and presumes illegal rezoning action that has not occurred or been voted upon. 7 . Again commercial, multiple, special land uses are not included and are immediately contiguous to the area in question. 8 . No comment. 9 . This action will attempt to limit the already preliminarily approved Briarwood Il subdivision and therefore should be answered. In will make clear the Town action to limit the development whether legal or no 10 . No comment. 11 . No comment. 12 . Again limiting development on the Lucente lands will automatically lead to traffic generation on Warren Road north of Hanshaw and Hanshaw Road east of Sapsucker Woods that would not otherwise be generated and might be completely avoided with medium residential development in the area in question. Part 2 14 It seems inappropriate and self-serving that the same individual who prepares Part 1 of the LEAF is commenting in Part 2. Another example of the rush to action without complete thoughtful input and examination. 5 -6. I repeat my comments in Description of Action above. We have answered the Milone MacBroom analysis with constructive and preventative design proposals that will mitigate any existing area wide drainage concerns. The LeCain study is biased by a subjective local perspective too closely attached to individual involved with the Lab of Ornithology through regular employment or aviary associations. In fact the need for additional acreage let alone all the Lucente lands to protect the Lab of Ornithology is in direct contradiction to the stated opinion of the Director and Assistant Director when the original 25 of 48 acres was offered as part of the preliminary subdivision approval. 7-8 No comment 9 . There are no endangered species on State or Global list on the land in question. The opinions echoed in the LeCain report are biased local subjective opinions greatly tainted by the fact that the primary authored has been employed by Cornell University and is personal friends with neighbors who have misused and oppose the development of the remaining Lucente lands. 10- 12 No Comment 13 .This answer would appear to be YES given the Town' s opinion of need for open space . 14.No comment 15 .This answer should be YES . This decision will direct substantial increase in traffic in the Warren Road corridor north of Hanshaw, Road contributing to delays caused by more and more travel miles added to the north Warren Road leg of the Warren-Hanshaw intersection. 16- 18 . No comment 19. This answer should be YES . For sure "the Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. " In addition "Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use." 21 . This answer should be less. The fact that this action will prevent and economically viable Briarwood II development will lead to adverse environmental impacts as nothing will occur that will mitigate existing drainage . peak runoffs that have been expressed as a problem, unsubstantiated as they may be . The fact that we have spent the time and effort to mitigate these concerns even though that is not required as part of Briarwood II design and we are here objecting to your action should be qualified as public controversy. TB Resolution No. 2010 Your above resolution should not be adopted for the following reasons. 1 . Contrary to the WHEREAS clause that cites that the meeting on December 31 ,2009 was scheduled to "assure full opportunity for citizen participation in the preparation of such proposed amendments" and a subsequent whereas that "said public hearings were duly held on said dates and times at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf or in opposition to said proposed amendments", as the applicant for the Briarwood II subdivision and therefore a central figure in the proposed changes to the comprehensive plan I was limited to an initial three minutes and only notified of said immediately before my presentation. The disruption that followed made any presentation with a logical progression impossible at that meeting. This was both disrespectful to the many years and meetings that Mr. Lucente has attended in an effort to work a balanced development through with Town desires for more open space but may actually have been illegal. Further no change was made to the proposal as a result of comments offered by the two affected landowners on December 31 ,2009. 2 . To offer up a LEAF January 6,2009 with the intention of passing a negative declaration of same on January 11 ,2009 speaks on its own of the arbitrary and capricious nature of your actions. The comments I would have offered at the December 31 ,2009 meeting had I been given the time are as follow. You are not following an integrated and coherent process of recommending changes to the Comprehensive Plan by targeting specific properties for change due to an imminent proposal for development. You have had a Comprehensive Planning Committee meeting and reviewing matters for over a year with little or no time spent on the proposed major changes being proposed in the Northeast. This change is only being looked at in the context of Conservation of open space rather than a more appropriate evaluation of the best balance of land use types across the entire Town as was done in the thorough process that produced the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, the 1997 Park and Open Space Plan, and the 2004 Townwide Rezoning to effect these plans all of which concluded medium density residential development in combination with conservation of wetlands was appropriate for the lands in questions. This conclusion assuredly was reached because the land parcels in question represent in-fill development of sites currently fully served by infrastructure of water, sewer, gas, electric, multi-modal transportation alternatives, schools, fire protection, police protection, active recreational opportunities, community services and employment within three miles,etc. They represent the sites where green development and a minimum carbon footprint are immediately implementable. Your decision to change the Comprehensive Plan to emphasize Conservation over the entirety of the Lucente remaining medium density residential lands does not follow your existing Comprehensive Plan. Some and by no means all examples of your ignoring the existing plan follow (see your handout from the December 31 ,2009 meeting that I was never given time to fully discus: 1 . Regardless of what enabling legislation has been added to Town Law since 1993 the preamble to the existing published Comprehensive Plan say "WHEREAS, Section 272-a of New York Town Law presently specifies that the Planning Board is responsible for the adoption and maintenance of a Town 's Comprehensive Plan" On Page 2 the Town Board accepts the plan as "the Official Town of Ithaca Comprehensive plan." There is subsequent amendment or mention of Article 16 of Town Law or any other changes in procedure you are presuming. 21 In the list of acknowledgments it should be clear that many individuals with decades of involvement and knowledge and a comprehensive perspective of town resources and potential were involved in the planning process. It was not a cluster of individuals biased toward any conclusion to skew opinion away from balanced land use planning. There was a healthy mix of Planning Board, Town Board, general public, and development/land use professionals. The final product speaks for itself and served as a sound basis for the subsequent 1997 Park and Open Space Plan and 2004 Zoning Code updates. 3 . You will note in the Table of Contents that Comprehensive Planning involves "Goals, Objectives, and Recommended Actions for Housing and Residential Land Use, Managing a Built Environment, Conservation, Open Space, and Environmental Protection, Institutions and Institutional Land Use, The Economy and Associated Land Uses, Transportation, Public Utilities, Facilities, and Services" in collective balance. There is no place for the targeted political action against one land owner with the only remaining developable land in a highly desirable and affordable residential area of the town. 4. You should follow the advice on Page I- 1 of Chapter 1 Introduction. "It is presumed that the quality of life in the Town of Ithaca can be enhanced if a well-considered Comprehensive Plan is implemented. This enhancement would result from a philosophy of balance in growth and development. A central idea is that development and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive. The concept of balance is also inherent in many other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan." 5 . It is clear when infrastructure capabilites are addressed in the Comprehensive Plan on Page II-28 that development and utility capacity to serve same were envisioned on the remaining Lucente lands from statements such as Regarding water "Facilities are sufficient to support future demand from the small amount of remaining developable land." "Original water mains were constructed with cement-lined cast iron pipe, which is generally in good hydraulic condition." "The new main creates a loop in the system and will eventually provide water of Dryden and much of the northeast area of the Town." Page II-33 Regarding sewer "Sewer capacity in this area was designed and constructed to handle the area' s remaining development,potential." When the Comprehensive Plan Maps are overlaid showing Land Resources 1990, Slope Classification, Water Resources 1990, Public Transit, Pedestrian & Bicycle Routes, Public Water Infrastructure and Service Areas, Public Sewage Infrastructure and Service Areas, Institutional Facilities, Parks, Trails, & Open Space Reservations, and Tax Exempt Lands are overlaid, it is clear why,the few remaining parcels in the flatter more accessible northeast were envisioned for medium density residential development rather than additional open space beyond wetlands. It should be remembered that our approval process started in 2002 with the Town Planning staff and the 2004 Zoning also reflected exactly that for which our land is zoned. Conservation is contrary to our approved preliminary plat which would achieve the Housing and Residential Land Use objectives stated on PageIII-2 of the Comprehensive Plan " 1 . A variety of housing_styles_and_pattems_of development to meet the diverse needs of the community." Mr. Lucente has built multi-family (Winston Court), owner occupied four attached unit (Spasucker Wood Road), and with Cornell ' s proposed townhouse development, would complement all three land use types by completing his one and two family residences (some being attached duplexes. 2."Neighborhoods that are quiet, clean, and safe and that have low traffic, low vehicle speeds, and attractive landscaping." All of Mr. Lucente ' s subdivisions since 1950 fit these descriptions. Unlike projects like Linderman Creek and Overlook he lives in and in a way polices the community he has built. 3 ."Oppportunities for affordable housing." The northeast area of the town has traditionally been affordable to those in the middle income bracket. Many older re-sales can still be had (although instantly sold) for under $200,000. Mr. Lucente' s newer 2 family units built in the 1990s and 2000s have recently sold for under $ 175 ,000 per unit. You change to conservation does not follow the recommended actions to achieve the above goals "Ensure that adequate amounts of suitable land are zoned to meet housing needs identified by the Housing Plan" . • A 1 . "Encourage the construction if a range of housing types, styles, and prices to satisfy the diverse needs and desires of the community, including housing accessible to the handicapped." It is far easier to build accessible units in 1 - 1 . 5 % sloped areas served by transit and flat pedestrian routes than 8- 10% sloped areas where at best massive earth moving would be required to create flat terraced areas. You would enable better housing if positive effort was directed toward actions outlined on PagesIII-land 3 . e If you followed the objectives for Managing the Built Environment I do not believe we would be considering prioritizing only locally scarce ecological features as an excuse to promote the no-growth alternative. You should emphasize points outlined in the Comprehensive Plan on PageIIl-4 especially "Land use , development, environmental regulations which are in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. " "Criteria and guidelines for the various land ' use decisions made by the Town boards and officials." "Focus development to avoid sprawl" "Retention or creation of park, and/or public open space in conjunction with development" This does not say instead of development. "Efficient use of public infrastructure and facilities . " " Creative, efficient, and attractive plans and designs for all development, which are also compatible with or enhance their surroundings" "Well-designed physical and visual transitions between different land uses to Minimize conflicts. " By your proposed action you definitely are not following guidelines for various land use decisions in particular one listed on Page IlI-6 of the Comprehensive Plan "Streamline regulations and the development review process. Modify regulations For brevity, clarity, and ease of use, using graphics where appropriate . " Instead of working to make the Comprehensive Plan a useful outline and guide you are obstructing the whole reason for long range planning by proposing changes in reaction to a proposed development. Under Focus Development to Avoid Sprawl on Page III-8 by your proposed action you are not following "Give higher priority to identifying and weighing alternatives to proposed development than to examining measures to mitigate negative impacts. " And you are not Focusing"major developments in areas where adequate public infrastructure and facilities exist". If you even followed the objectives to improve the environment you would see our proposed approved subdivision plan as a "Fair distribution of the costs and benefits of open space. " rather than attempt a taking of land for conservation by spot regulation. Some additional study of how you hope to achieve open space objectives while promoting actions that will encourage more carpooling, bicycle and pedestrian travel, and use of transit will reveal the poor judgment in taking ordinary flat wooded parcels and removing them from viable developable land. Your action will not further objectives listed in the Comprehensive Plan such As "Limit extension of water and sewer services into areas not designated for intensive development except when required for public health and safety." "Give higher priority in the Capital Improvements Program to maintenance of public utilities than to construction extension of new utilities." Conserving an areas fully served or crossed by public utilities like Briarwood II and entertaining projects like Overlook and Linderman Creek on west hill where sewer conveyance capacity is limited is contradictory to the stated objectives. There is a benchmark statements in Chapter IV, Plan Systhesis, Pages IV- 1 ,2 that you would be well to heed " For example, some people feel that the Town should severely restrict development and preserve most natural areas and farmland. Others feel that government should make it possible to develop the entire Town, or at least make no restrictions. Ultimately, a balanced approach should be taken; the Town can respect different viewpoints and work to accomplish many objectives at the same time." "In some instances statements indicate the need for balance." "Having as an obiective the protection of natural resources, open space, environmentally sensitive areas, and unique natural areas does not mean that all open areas should be preserved, or that trade-offs cannot be made between these uses and other land uses." The desire for affordable housing provides another example of the importance of striking a balance. The Town is aware of the need to keep down or even reduce the costs of housing, both new and existing, especially as it examines new or revised plans and regulations." We believe this is why the remaining Lucente and Cornell lands were zoned for medium density residential ,as a result of the extensive public review in 2004. Nothing has changed in the interim to justify youV current action to suggest only Conservation is appropriate. "reduce the need for cars through the development of a more diversified transportation system that balances cars with bicycling, walking, and public transit." The likelihood of having these benefits instantly available to development in the flat northeast is far more likely than any other remote, sloped, or developing area. While nodes may be the answer to effect this objective more fully in the future the near term offers no such opportunities readily without enormous public capital investment. Trails, walkways, low volume flat streets are all options readily available in the northeast in an araRvery close to the center of - County population and its want and needs. The need for housing and the diminishing land with supporting infrastructure available for same as a result of the 2004 down zoning has been well documented by Cornell University in its presentation on December 7,2009. Our approved preliminary subdivision plan included 46 developable lots on 48 acreas. Your Comprehensive Plan states on Page IV- 14 " Housing densities would be in the range of 1 to 5 housing units per acre." Our proposal would be at most 2 units per acre and seems quite modest for an area that could cluster 3 . 5 units per acre. The ultimatum to accept 15 lots and at most 30 units was both insulting and well outside the range stated in your Comprehensive Plan. Conservation land was well represented in the Comprehensive Plan and many areas enumerated on PageIV46 "Conservation/ Open Space is shown for the Six Mile Creek corridor, the Cascadilla Creek corridor, the McGowan Woods west of Game Farm Road, woodlands on Hungerford Hill, a cemetery, wetlands in sapsucker Woods, the Briarwood wetland, the Cornell ,Plantations and Arboretum, and various steepslopes adjacent to Fall Creek and east of Cayuga Lake. Recreational lands include two golf courses." It seems the comprehensive plan recognized the importance of the Briarwood wetlands but did not feel on balance that conservation of the entire site was justified give the magnitude of higher value open spacebthat deserves conservation. The above list does not even —� mention Buttermilk Falls Creek, Enfield Creek, Lick Brook, Coy Glen, William Glen,etc, Again Page VI-4'states "The Planning Board shall determine and authorize all changes to be made in the comprehensive Plan, including changes to texts, maps, figures, and so on." This to my knowledge has not been amended and so I am not clear how the town board has decided to follow the amended Town Law enabling their involvement until the Comprehensive Plan is amended to reflect their wish to be the Lead Agency. Your action to change the Comprehensive Plan to principally declare the remaining Lucente land as only suitable for conservation is without support of almost every section of the existing 1993 Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Ithaca. You seem to have little regard for that outline that clearly calls for balance in preserving the environment and satisfying development needs. The whole procedure you have followed from early December to change the zoning and comprehensive plan is clearly directed to principally single out the Lucente land for rezoning to stop the development which received a full public airing in a planning process in front of the Planning Board from 2002-2006. Your political action to spot zone and then justify it through a single issue limited area examination to amend the Comprehensive Plan is without precedent, illegal, and unethical.. Further the bases you are depending on, principally the Milone-MacBroome drainage study and the LeCain reports are flawed. Milone-MacBroome contains many factual errors. Nonetheless Mr. Lucente' s Final Subidivision Plan submission of September 10,2007 fully addresses recommendations or issues defined in that report. The Town Board has continually ignored the opinion of its own engineers that the drainage design is sufficient and that the down stream neighborhood is already protected by the limited flow allowed by the culvert size between 107 and 109 Briarwood and the culvert under the utility right of way. between Salem Drive and Sapsucker Woods Road. The fact that the Town Board allowed one of its Engineers to be involved in the meeting to outline a fictitious $9.3 million drainage problem largely to promote the efforts of a candidate for the county board is both deplorable and probably illegal . But it surely is not reason to change the Comprehensive Plan to only allow conservation of the Lucente lands . The LeCain study repeatedly depends on the unpublished work of Mr. Bob Wesley, a local field biologist. Mr. Wesley, Ms Ostman, and Mr. Whitmore lost all credibility when in the summer of 2007 they wrote their speculative letter about scarce plants on the Lucente that either had not been seen for years or were not unusual and it turns out from Jon Kanter's investigation they had no field documentation to back up their suppositions. Mr. Wesley' s personnel estimation of rare species in Tompkins County has no standing in the profession at the State or National level. As a practical matter the locally rare species will all be protected by the the original set aside of open space approved by the Planning board in July 2006. Further the Director and Assistant Director of the Lab of Ornithology were satisfied that there current land holdings are enough to secure the wildlife the Lab depends on. They were a little taken back by the opposing neighbors declaring their cause "Save Sapsucker Woods". They informed us they were quite secure without the neighbors efforts. So how the ornithologists employed by LeCain and at other times by Cornell University can conclude based on bird listening posts that show very little variation of bird sitings from the Lucente lands to the Cornell lands to the longstanding observations within the Lab of Ornithology lands that all Lucente lands must be conserved is a mystery and certainly without any underlying facts or scientific bases. In fact many of the observation of habitat have been examined by our second environmental consultant Michael Fishman of Stearns & Wheler and found to be in error. Clearly not enough peer review of the documents contracted for drainage and the environment has occurred to test the validity of their observations and conclusions. 12a,b Resolution No 2010 . Short Form distributed for the meeting has neither the Supervisor' s signature nor a date on the form. The acreage listed affected is 3153 acres or over 15 % of the town acreage. So how is it not a Type 1 action? This zoning change is directed at the remaining Lucente lands as evidenced by the reference to the Milone-MacBroome study. I have numerous times above stated that that study contains errors and that in spite of that fact there are design solutions to their expressed concerns that do no warrant a zoning change of the nature being proposed. Further if this is directed principally at the lands of Mr. Lucente he should have the benefit of more detail on the proposal . Otherwise the proposal appears as a subset of a zoning change to conservation that Mr. Lucente has already field a PROTEST PETITION FOR under Section 265 of Town Law on December 7,2009 . Agenda Item 14a Mr. Lucente believes the Moratorium has gone on long enough and an extension is unnecessary if the intent is to have a fair and open discussion of a balance of environmental protection and development as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan for his remaining land in the Town of Ithaca. The only thing Public Hearings on Comprehensive Plan changes and Zoning changes, held before some point of agreement or disagreement is reached, create is great mistrust of the Town Board outcome . By attempting to limit the development potential through these changes prior to discussing the merits or failings of proposals you leave no alternative but to decide the issues including your actions tonight in court. Findings C is not completely accurate in that the area in the vicinity of Birchwood Drive north, Briarwood Drive, north of Hanshaw, and west of homes on Sapsucker woods was always meant to be the wetland as first delineated in the early 1990s, nothing more nothing less and more recently verified in 2003 . Finding D is pure conjecture. The issue of fragmentation has been fully examined by Michael Fishman of Stearns & Wheler and this information is included in the submittals I asked be brought forward to tonight' s record. Furthermore a perfectly continuous and adequate wildlife corridor already exists exiting the Lab of Ornithology land to the southeast following a stream south of Hanshaw Road to the monkey run area. The entire remaining Lucente property in the Town of Ithaca is unnecessary to maintain or establish such wildlife connection. Finding E is not applicable to most of the remaining Lucente lands in the Town of Ithaca. There is nothing environmentally sensitive or significant about the lands south of the utility right of way. Most of these wooded areas have been planted in the last 50 years or severely logged in the past 20 years or are dominated by invasive species. Finding G,H,I&J concern the extension of UNA106 from the boundaries of the Lab of Ornithology around 1990 to the south boundary of the remaining Lucente lands in 1999 . It turns out the primary author Robert Wesley had no documented basis for this extension other than his friendship with one Candice Cornell. In February 2003 he asserted to me that the UNA should not have extended south of Sanctuary Drive as he was working from early 1990s photography in assessing 1999 boundaries. He later contradicted himself several times in joint letters with Ostman but never appeared to defend his determination through the entire two year moratorium period. Further the letter he coauthored with Ostman and Whitmore was later found to have no documented substantiation and was in the end pure conjecture in terms of value for conservation based on the findings of the LeCain study. Further the Lab of Ornithology does not consider this area essential to their long range habitat for birds or the supporting wildlife. Other mechanisms proposed in K are already identified in the 25 of 48 acres Mr. Lucente agreed to preserve in the plan given preliminary approval by the Planning Board in July 2006. Item L is misleading. The new information merely duplicated information the Planning Board had available to it by the end of 2003 by virtue of our environmental consultant TES work in redelineating the southern wetland and performing a three season bird study. Any other information presented by the public was not pertinent to the issue or less than expert information. Items M&N has no/bearing on the Lucente lands in that the drainage design addresses all issues raised by Milone and MacBroome or Walter . What is pertinent is that Mr. Walter mentioned that he was impressed by the developer' s drainage analysis. He should never have offered a professional opinion of the drainage area to the south of the one he studied in detail. Even a layman can see that many events have disturbed the area he studied such as the excavation of the ponds west of the Lab of Ornithology headquarters that did not exist in the 1930s, the extensive State wetland at the headwaters of his study area some of which was filled with impervious areas of the headquarters itself and parking areas. His pictures and comments also depict the runoff from the Cornell. Office Park- south of route 13 prior to Cornell installing extensive stormwater retention and control facilities . But in the end his finding and conclusions have no bearing on the ability of Briarwood II to design appropriately for Stormwater runoff. The Stormwater Plan has a currently approved SPDES permit from the NYSDEC . The plan addresses all the issues raised by Milone and MacBroom. It uses a higher level of runoff to account for the historical finding of the Walter study. O&P Mr. Lucente objected to the original moratorium and first extension caused primarily by the possible deliberately slow execution of the LeCain contract in the fall of 2007. We agreed to some subsequent extension to a avoid the very hasty decisions -on the agenda this evening that we felt would encumber our discussions and lead directly to court. Items Q,R, S ,T The LeCain study was completely available since the Fall of 2008 . to our knowledge there has been no further involvement of LeCain representatives since that time. The conclusions of the LeCain study are subjective and not supported by good science as set by State and national standards. They seem to be entirely biased by their strong connection to Robert Wesley and the Lab of Ornithology. Item Y. Instead of the Town board using the end of the prior moratorium period to analyze and discuss the December 7,2009 and earlier proceeding, alternatives, and submittals you barreled ahead on the Comprehensive Plan changes as evidenced by the December 21 ,2009 town board proceedings with little public discussion among board members and no attempt to interact through question and answering with the applicants or the public. Your time limit at the December 31 ,2009 Public . � C H w \ V r H 4 CNN E J H a m ,� z m = w "rn m 7 V = a L a 0 = (j 4D w � .. E �. N G u y 3 d�d w V x » = a ® ®m )� DO 0 4) a) L° Q w � v r - r � � ra r i _ter „: rcd f n •'' .R it � z (D O C , U a •� • A 'I� .- 5 C � y c a i ; C W O J = O.: llJ 0 y [ Ln rn v m N .}Q t — C1 p. •4 C w N 0 M O . i �r° O O >. O - N N C 'O G N O C Q q s` C Lo LLI do r E Z (ts C • � `° C = 3 N S CL u E' er E 0 d •sit, ... c` O co ` , J aN > > o NYv ca I ca ca Art Dr - 1� ~ f � 4 E cc v C. cc co co Tell V, E Az in ca 0 co oU a / t- . • . . mmT N Go t Ll Ll CD ti( Z rn FZ .. a •.:a�„ ,`D . O ' � m p � Z K K C� \ F hearing on the comprehensive Plan did little to forward any alternatives that would produce a balanced alternative in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. Item Y subparagraph 2 seems in direct contradiction to the action proposed for action on the comprehensive Plan this evening. If the interaction is to be sincere this appears to be the cart way before the horse as was the whole zoning change consideration of December 7,2009. The moratorium has caused great economic loss to Mr. Lucente. The prolonged process and multiple Pubic Hearings, instead of constructive work sessions directed at a solution, have caused considerable additional unnecessary expense. The Town can attempt to exclude itself from any of this expense but Mr. Lucente reserves the right to recover expenses that the Town caused him to incur in legally attempting to use his land for its long established medium residential zoned purpose. r Attachment # 7 617. 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 may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal . knowledge of the environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three. parts: Part 1 : Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site . By identifying basic project data , it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3 . Part 2 : Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a projector 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. y THIS AREA FOR LEAD AGENCY USE ONLY DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Type 1 and Unlisted Actions entify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: Part 1 F,Part 2 . El Part 3 $pon 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. MC . 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 t l bas w � w�0ti. 19 9 3 Tw h d f l (:F A.A M ao,.r;vq, /-F- /Na- me of Action p J 7o w yt� I �D A Iii Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Naml of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Pesoonsibl.e Officer Lie, /4/ ignature of Responsible Officer in. Lead Agency Signakure of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) website Date Page 1 of 21 , 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 Iq q .3 ( a w h 0 ; / f/*Aao� Location of Action (include Street Address, Municipality and County) Name of Applicant/Sponsor ! p wK o�F /tAp4k 7a w h Poa nd Address Tf City / PO `� kA [A State Zip Code Business Telephone Name of Owner (if different) Address City / PO State Zip .Code Business Telephone Description of Action: 7r4,A ac`F� '�. ri P a0 A to tl^A (q q3 1-•,M . of / 7`7NACA 64. 6rQ4*4As ('vQ, av�v,�� ar-� � r� 'b-ad� '� �'�.. -(� aY(o�c0.od v�o, v-c�Y�`„a �"P►,o�:�4di9�^a,.o�.-.o�r 1f, �Q�r3 7- 0f f-�kcct Haw,", Nov, Ids 3-00tm 4 I KC.(64 � Cf� �} N, t�lw.p,t J. - 4d 4 W r'r. cRa p t--zQ . s7 -�,�,� / SkC �3/ }a sn u l �v/;�r-�rn, moo, ., 1 s fv,A.�as p ►. IC26�d � 't tz " r� a 04 m 2" t � �C S �F r v�R' r� Hnn r/~ okQ A F �l l �`d1 t 1' tLP, Q>'0$- ? 4Arma AHvk, - vo 6 (¢� oU i ep.pIP `Xa �, resort r � '��(�.da r� cm,,,. bYra►.s Kati»k �c aOi (0al�` S � c' �ho a 1(0 . la ►� �fS ri: //7 arr. QA -�'ett- W hZk � .i J 1a ` k I o�o�o� tt� as a l r`►„y� — G • saY•�°""""`( OPI-0\ Si°°`aZ. raa:ti ►,,.a�,s,,'r tt-o� C-3) 4 word w�a4 3 - &Jd c/a v �t cm ta,F r 71� I°/a„ sj rn�`G�1` / Sac, k " q t % A r-.e� h 71tiQ 7•u,y, w kQ*Q t-Vti=ku Vct h bp, lto � SVrP4 (kQ M WW\ to �/" qt^s/ 7' yl�- K' (av4s AJ wr4s r'h kv%,ds ca,,,f �i► - oYrr,�t �— Words Sa CvfvAt7 r�S es s�o� B r r- wa4 D r1 v� W� ,. , &A* )c 1 �f l of $ ry Q hj VP, /�/ar-t �. f�/7` fkaz2 a a-�� oN•2G-Q J �►,•�oti.� s Yb 79 l4�{3 Co,,�re � ,,,s 0r0-(a.7 '10 Y'\Jz syl\J-1 araq rah tXA /Y&t4A-eats7' cot -& Cr- aF 71A1 rew- , &Y\ tf� co, q cApi LeajL9�, tufty (A,l A 2 0 t4L 0444r-W r: LA J�7 a ► ao. t La 6`l,. Gvti'VVA>\"hzk / Sa�� tRSt Ir.c �� . Page 2of21 lease Complete Each Question-m Indicate N . A . if not applicable ) Saw�g- of 1112 ww'A+MW�aK* �sa0 1Qt/a7� 2 Ihst /�'orlr�al`� . SITE DESCRIPTION = � 7 a r�l�s sort' a .."{`' FAY �of° ti sw cQa. QS a � a K Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. °F ys�f Ass 1 . Present Land Use: El Urban E3 Industrial Commercial ;EJR%7deaiiAuaI (suburban) El Rural non-farm)) 4�a zk ' srA ) nForest a Agriculture Other ---- ScQoo w r 2 , Total acreage of eje; area : g3f� acres. 144 APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) acres acres Forested acres acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc .) acres acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) acres acres Water Surface Area acres acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces acres acres Other (Indicate type) acres acres �. sY 1yareA 't'h �ah �av�7 s; (� 1 ,,; �B� c� i oarsov. ,roil 3 . What is predominant soil type(s) Cb a . Soil drainage: . El Well drained .% of site Moderately well drained % of site . Poorly drained A e b . If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 . through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? acres (see 1 NYCRR 370) . 4 . Are there bedrock outcroppings Yes MNO . a . What is depth to bedrock (in feet) 41/14 5 . Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes : . 10% /00 % E110- 15% % 15% or greater .% g . Is S�e}s�4 a substantially contiguous to, . wl or contain a building, site, . or district, listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places? El Yes nNo 7 . Is cL us bstantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? El Yes ONO What is the depth of the water table? (in feet) (Fm��. M44CA of a CP, Is site located over a primary, principal , or sole source aquifer? ❑ Yes 15No 10 . Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing. opportunities presently exist in the project area? El Yes I 1W5No . Page 3 of 21 11 . Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? E] Yes No According to : Identi each species: ffWvkvkt` Tka V 'forf-3: sQ1rQWl 11ta,,n,� —YPA4�s ItU4 oll--Q I'O y -VCA rM 12 . Are there any unique or unusual land forms rojeLt-site? (i . e. , cliffs, dunes, other geological formations? Yes ko Describe: 13 . Is the elete�presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? RrYes n No If yes, explain : f(y rn VAS va, s/ a wc . 14 . Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? © Yes No 15 . Streams within or contiguous to, area : a . Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary _... . 16 . Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to /met area : b . Size (in acres) : � f� AcFaS Page 4 of 21 7 . Is the side served by existing public utilities? , Yes El No a . If YES, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? El Yes © No b . If YES , will improvements be necessary to allow connection? Yes El No 18 . Is the ske located in 6Y'es ricultural di nct certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304 ? No stVJ%7 19 . Is the4ke located in or substantial) contiguous to a Critical Environmental .Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? ® Yes substantially 20 . Has the site-ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? Dyes KNo . B. Project Description n///9 }. seC�c �A, `v ✓ 1 . Physical dim nsions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) . a . . Total conti ous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor: acres. b. Project acreage o be developed: acres initially; acres ultimately . C, Project acreage to r ain undeveloped : acres. d . Length of project, in m s : (if appropriate) e . If the project is an expans n, indicate percent of expansion proposed . f. Number of off-street parking aces existing proposed g . Maximum vehicular trips generat d per hour: (upon completion of project)? h . If residential : Number and type of h sing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially Ultimately i . Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure : height; width ; length . J . Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare proje t will occupy is? ft. 2 . How much natural material (i .e . rock, earth, etc .) will be remo d from the site? tons/cubic yards. 3 . Will disturbed areas be reclaimed 0 Yes El No N/A a . If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b . Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Yes El No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Yes No How many acres . of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? acres. Page 5 of 21 5 . Wi any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? Yes No 6 . If single ph se project: Anticipated period of construction : months, (including demolition) 7 . If multi-phase . a . Total number phases anticipated (number) b. Anticipated date o ommencement phase 1 : month year, (including demolition) c . Approximate completi date of final phase : month year. d . Is phase 1 functionally de ndent on subsequent phases? Yes © No B . Will blasting occur during constru ion? 0 Yes 0 No 9 . Number of jobs generated : during con truction ; after project is complete 10 . Number of jobs eliminated by this project 11 . Will project require relocation of any project or facilities? El Yes El No If yes, explain : ..... 12 . Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? El Yes %by a . If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, b . Name of water body into which effluent will be di 13 . Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? El Yepe 14 . Will surface area of an existing water body increase or ? El Yes 0 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? M Yes 0 No a . If yes, what is the amount per month? tons b . If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? Yes No C. If yes, give name location d . Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? E] Yes No Page 6 of 21 , " If S. a lain : 17 . Will the project involve the dispos I of solid waste? Yes EINo a . If yes, what is the anticipated ra of disposal? tons/month. b . If yes, what is the anticipated site Ii ? years. 18 . Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes No 19 . Will project routinely produce odors (more th one hour per day)? 01 Yes El No 20 . Will project produce operating noise exceeding t local ambient noise levels? LJ Yes No 21 . Will project result in an increase in energy use? Yes No If yes, indicate type(s) 22 . If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity gallons/min te . 23 . Total anticipated water usage per day . gallons/day, 24 . Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? Yes No If yes, explain : Page 7 of 21 25 , Approvals Required: . Type Submittal Date mr City own Village Board Yes ❑ No Io o,..� rQ�.ztve City, Town,Town, Village Planning Board ❑ Yes ❑ No City, Town Zoning Board ❑ Yes ❑ No City, County Health Department 0 Yes ❑ No Other Local Agencies ❑ Yes ' ❑ No Other Regional Agencies ❑ Yes ❑ No State Agencies ❑ Yes ❑ No Federal Agencies ❑ Yes 0 No C, Zoning and Planning Information 1 . Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? Mes ❑ No If Yes, indicate decision required : ElZoning amendment 0 Zoning variance 1KNew/revision of master plan ❑ Subdivision Site plan ❑ Special use permit ❑ Resource management plan ❑ Other Page 8 of 21 What is the zoning classification(s) of the srte? M,2.pfl'u #V^ �oS� A t' �n�' �D►� aczf. ZorSL 3 . What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? IV14 4 . . What is the proposed zoning of the site? N/,4 5 . What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? N 1I 6 . Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? Yes 0 No . .. . .. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a '/4 mile radius of proposed action? g . Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses with a Y4 mile? Yes 0 No If the proposed action is the subdivision of land , how many lots are proposed? 141 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 MNo 11 . Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection? ElYes No a . If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? 0 Yes El No 12 . _ Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? [:] Yes MNo a . If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic . nYes . 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 I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name Tow;,., lip l t*�co, Talciv� 466a yd Date L6 .020 /0 signature Title D i r- gF N h h c l " 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 M U PART 2 - PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency eneral Information (Read Carefully) ! In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question : Have my responses and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. ! The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2 . The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response , thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. ! The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question . ! The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question . ! In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumulative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a . Answer each of the 20 questions in PART 2 . Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b . Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. C. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box(column 1 or 2)to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided , check column 2 . If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example , check column 1 . d . Identifying that an Impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any . large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. e . If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider, the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3 . f. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change Impact on Land 1 . Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the project site? NO YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, ( 15 foot M Yes El No rise per 100 foot of length) , or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10 % . Construction on land where the depth to the water table 0 M 0 Yes No is less than 3 feet. • Construction of paved parking area for 1 , 000 or more El r Yes No vehicles . • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or ri r7 Yes DNo generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or El 0 Yes No involve more than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove El 11 Yes No more than 1 ,000 tons of natural material (i .e. , rock or soil) per year. Page 11 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact- Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change • Construction or expansion of a santary landfill . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Construction in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No E: 2 . Will there bean effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e. , cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc. ) O OYES • Specific land forms: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes [:] No Impact on Water 3 . Will Proposed Action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15, 247 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) KNO YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Developable area of site contains a protected water body. Yes ❑ No Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • a protected stream . • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water © Yes ❑ No ' body. • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland . ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 4 . Will Proposed Action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? ONO [] YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No area . • , Other impacts: ❑ ❑ Yes No Page 12 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change 5 . Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? ONO E] YES Examples that would apply to column 2 El Yes Q No • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not D Yes El No have approval to serve proposed (project) action. • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater El D Yes E1 No than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water El Yes No supply system . • Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. E] Yes 1:1 No • Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which D Yes El No presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20 , 000 gallons Yes El No per day. • Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into D El El Yes 0 No an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or El El Yes No chemical products greater than 1 , 100 gallons . • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without E El 1:1 Yes 1:1 No water and/or sewer services. • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses El 0 El Yes 1:1 No which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities . • Other impacts: El El E]Yes 0 No E�iw � S `� E"a �u��cb► . aft I 31 aao7 p VD (mss ►h 7`t9fisfWy A c- a...al rte' AWQ� (op - "Nj /Yo l -t kurt SoA d-r a tit Ifi 0k, -tzkarTh ►/wf � . car, s ► '� rr • P" I 47 rR.w.eJ so if is i&K /o/a K , , 'P1 ;a - Phl'H iAda .^7zt "o& [�Catn,� ��� �f"ov� ►v.0� Wl ' �"� �C2S P I'�'�� ' '`'r-pA V�ot-�3 'IDr �� /I+ 1M ac� t��"�1�0.� a 1 ( o(o al Spjojb+r. "t" -3 aoa2 t " ' " J Ex 'tee S�w�•-w�q'r'/(� Assess op lA., s Akt t �9f cwt kwrbul i ''Tri,A t�ywt#' o004& A � m, ✓l'^f , , r.rT o� � er e 7 ti �o 2 �sr Ao ,o, SpV�t " o to 401 o,,,' 7�, ow� wr tAr " fly. j-wt ( l *� a r-21�S �-� � �K c mil^ Page 13 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change 6 . Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? ONO El YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water flows E] Yes E] No • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion . El El IDYes E] No • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. El El Yes E] No • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated 13 0 Yes 17 No floodway. • Other imp acts: Q El E]Yes 0 No i K IMPACT ON AIR 7 . Will Pro osed Action affect air quality? NO YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1 , 000 or more vehicle trips in any Q El DYes 0 No given hour. • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton E] E] Yes E] No of refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs . per hour El 0Yes 0 No or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU 's per hour. • Proposed Action will allow an increase in the am_ ount of land E DYes O No committed to industrial use. • Proposed Action will allow an increase in the density of 0 El ❑ Yes No industrial development within existing industrial areas. • Other impacts: 0 Yes [] No IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8 . Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? N O 0 YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Yes No Federal list, using the site, over or near the site, or found on the site . Page 14 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. E Yes [:] No • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, El El E] Yes E] No other than for agricultural purposes. • Other impacts: E] Yes 0 No g . Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endang red species? NO YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident E El Yes El No or migratory fish , shellfish or wildlife species. • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of El ri M Yes ® No mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important . vegetation. • Other impacts: ® Yes 0 No i I^A6 sorry a I( 7-1.0 . 4 r ' 7`� ' IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES Liw '{lx 'f v-4k q6 Y; vv,4 avk �Ic'r_� 10 . Will Pr posed Action affect agricultural land resources? 1s� (q,,,'„� • '] �n �0 V Wt- w �r Y. &N O YES � rnc�inG�� 41. Qp �ii. rlr ! js2 tic kw� Examples that would apply to column 2 a5 r5' v wad o�N.6t gat y�F atr'" ' • The Proposed Action would sever, cross or limit access to cl Yes E] No ets' ova agricultural ,land (includes cropland , hayfields, pasture , vineyard , Bhgt-w�� orchard, etc.) bt• ,V Q I 8i�WQ • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of Yes No agricultural land . • The Proposed Action would irreversibly convert more than 10 Yes No acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2 . 5 acres of agricultural land . Page 15 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change • The Proposed Action would disrupt or prevent installation of ❑ [] Yes El No agricultural land management systems (e. g . , subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping) ; or create a need for such measures (e.g . cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff). • Other impacts: Yes El No IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 . Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources? ( If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20, Appendix B.) NO YES A"Wwak& El Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses , or project components obviously different Yes No from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural . • Proposed land uses , or project components visible to users of E] Yes No aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. • Project components that will result in the elimination or El El Yes Q No significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area . • Other impacts: ❑ El 1:1 Yes El No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12 . Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? NO YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or El El El Yes El No substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within El El Yes El No the project site. • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive 0 D El Yes 0 No for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. Page 16 of 21 • 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change • Other impacts: El El D Yes El No ' IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13 . Will proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future opens ces or recreational opportunities? DNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. Yes No • A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Yes No • Other impacts: D Yes Q No IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 14 . Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursua t to subdivision 6NYCRR 617 . 14(g)? DQ NO D YES List thh ---- ----- e environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA. Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action to locate within the CEA? El El Yes El No • Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quantity of the D D Yes El No resource? • Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the 9 Yes DNo resource? • Proposed Action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the D D D Yes El No resource? • Other impacts: Yes No Page 17 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 15 . Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? NO D YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or DYes D No goods . • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. D D DYes D No • Other impacts: D D El Yes D No IMPACT ON ENERGY 16 . Will Proposed Action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? JE[NO ® YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the D D DYes D No use of any form of energy in the municipality. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an 10 D Yes D No energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. • Other impacts: ® D DYes D No NOISE AND ODOR IMPACT 17 . Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? RN DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Blasting within 1 , 500 feet of a hospital , school or other sensitive ® D Yes D No facility. • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day) . D D D Yes D No • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the D D DYes D No local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a D D DYes D No noise screen . • Other impacts: D DYes D No Page 18 of 21 • 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 18 . Will Pro osed Action affect public health and safety? PNO [DYES • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of El 0 E]Yes 0 No hazardous substances (i . e. oil , pesticides, chemicals, radiation , etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission . • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" 17Yes El No in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc. ) • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquefied D 0 E]Yes E] No natural gas or other flammable liquids . • Proposed Action may result in the excavation or other El E]Yes E] No disturbance within 2, 000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste . • Other impacts: 0 E E]Yes M No IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 19 . Will Pro osed Action affect the character of the existing community? MNO El YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the El El []Yes No project is located is likely to grow by more than 5% . • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating El El ElYes El No services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. • Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or ❑ 0 r7Yes n No goals . • Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use. E]Yes 11 No • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, E]Yes ED No structures or areas of historic importance to the community. • Development will create a demand for additional community El Yes El No services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc. ) Page 19 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future El M Yes 0 No projects. • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. rl Yes El No • Other impacts: Q Yes E] No 20 . Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adversg environment impacts? NO ® YES If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If you Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Page 20 of 21 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 1993 TOWN OF ITHACA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ORIGINAL PLAN ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 21 , 1993) Amendment # 1 : Chapter W Plan Synthesis - Section B "East Hill Development - Advantages and Disadvantages" (page IV-5 ) Current Wording: Disadvantages : • increased traffic may lower service levels and have a negative impact on residential areas • potential adverse impacts to the Six Mile Creek Watershed, the Cascadilla Creek and Fall Creek corridors , and other environmentally sensitive areas • limits on water and sewer capacity in some areas Proposed Amendment (Delete current wording and substitute the following): Disadvantages : • increased traffic may lower service levels and have a negative impact on residential areas • potential adverse impacts .to the Six Mile Creek Watershed, the Cascadilla Creek and Fall Creek corridors, and other environmentally sensitive areas �.,}} • Y v v ;ai ,-4t ..1 ' , T 94 Ww- .P 1. .t i3 A thetT®wn Bo$ard contaracted for several env ois i x en taks`twdiesjmbe ,prep1ared rF-, I 1 ling sF �.• , 'MY•�Yk t d � 4. `x: 3yx .0 w� ^. k`f 4`w � � .C��` 'k G characteristics ®f ,the NortheastIthaca"�area; imcludmgp Drainage Study Evaluation ' > 06h`east Ithaca'` "r'e aced br ' Mi10h 1�I7ac�Brooni' � `c �JuIls 3 2007 Nod � 'p p . Y ( ' Y ); final` Repo 0 F A"a_ g e & 'Gi' � an Ec©logicalCo,'+ unities ,S r�veyand Assess ant of LandsAdjacent to Sapsucker I ,eCai�n EnMapronmental Services; �nc °� � '" Woods ,� re aced b 0 I Se = to = ber '3®, 2008 and Report of a Spnng110, "'Mr,-GUM, ds> and Other Faunal Ries®uyrg`c'es n $ 5 nds Adjacent to Sapsucker WoodsS , ,preparedby , ; CamEnvior®n i n ental Sery ices , �Inca (Septe ber 30, 2008),; f J eR These rep©rts mdieate a ;� l ong :®thewuhi�ngs - that her a exois ing� ' drainage proble sin bhe +N©rtheaststudy carehat�need t® beaessed , specialdraige< o`lutsions would be necessary �to acc® � o"d'a� addition_al deuopment m t ill ertheast� s udy area there are . y! y ,'3 • 4#f {{ � U �� nt' •�': portant erycological�res'ources�on ,at ole '1 parts of the Northeast study area; the i portant natural areas of the Sapsucker "WoodsSanctuar and theMonkey Run .Unique Natural Area are close °or 1 ` ediatelyadjacent¢ tstudy area, and at leas s�o e¢ iff not alil, of bhe lands ��+ mks � � Tom a',- in the study area should be priorirized f�®r7ic©nseruation ;with three ®pti®ns. for copse suggested by,.lth`e='LeCairiconsultant • limits on water and sewer capacity in some areas Amendment #2 : Chapter IV Plan Synthesis - Section J "Categories on the Anticipated Land Use Patterns Map" - "Conservation/Open Space Use" (pages IV- 14 and IV- 15) Current Wording : Conservation/Open Space areas indicate natural areas that should be protected from inappropriate development. They may contain wetlands , steep slopes, mature woodlands, or other natural features . Portions of some areas shown as Conservation/Open Space may be suitable for development. Individual site evaluation will be necessary to determine suitability for development. No specific densities have been determined. Instead, the Town will consider a number of mechanisms including performance standards . Clustering of development to non-fragile portions might allow site development at overall densities similar to that on sites without environmental constraints . Currently there is no zoning specifically for Conservation/Open Space Use. Proposed Amendment (Delete current wording and substitute the following): Conservation/Open Space areas indicate natural areas that should be protected from inappropriate development. They may contain wetlands , steep slopes, mature woodlands, woods or other wildlife habitat, natural' stormwater retention and water quality functions, or other natural features . Portions of some areas shown as Conservation/Open Space may be suitable for development. Individual site evaluation will be necessary to determine suitability for development. No specific densities have been determined. Instead, the Town will consider a number of mechanisms including performance standards, clustering, conservation easements , or zoning. Clustering of development to non-fragile portions might allow site development at overall densities similar to that on sites without environmental constraints . The "Town of Ithaca Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan", adopted by the Town Board on December 8 , 1997 , recommended the establishment of Conservation Zones as a tool to implement the "Conservation/Open Space Use" in certain areas of the Town . Subsequently, Conservation Zones have been adopted in a number of areas , including Six Mile Creek corridor, South Hill Swamp, Indian Creek Gorge and Lake Slopes , Sapsucker Woods Sanctuary, Eldridge Preserve, state parks and adjacent private lands adjacent to state parks as buffers . The Conservation Zone includes a very low development density (one house per seven acres) , utilizes clustering to preserve sensitive natural areas , and includes a number of other development restrictions and guidelines . Amendment #3 : Chapter IV Plan Synthesis — Section K "Description of Anticipated Land Use Patterns on East Hill" — "Conservation/Open Space" (page IV- 16) Current Wording: Conservation/Open Space is shown for the Six Mile Creek corridor, the Cascadilla Creek corridor, the McGowan Woods west of Game Farm Road, woodlands on Hungerford Hill , a cemetery, wetlands in Sapsucker Woods , the Briarwood wetland, the Cornell Plantations and Arboretum, and various steep slopes adjacent to Fall Creek and East of Cayuga Lake. Proposed Amendment (Delete current wording and substitute the following) : Conservation/Open Space is shown for the Six Mile Creek corridor; the Cascadilla Creek corridor; the McGowan Woods west of Game Farm Road ; woodlands on Hungerford Hill ; a cemetery; wetlands and woods in Sapsucker Woods Sanctuary and adjacent lands as buffers to the Sanctuary; wetlands, woods, and buffer areas east of Briarwood Drive and north of Birchwood Drive North ; the Cornell Plantations and Arboretum ; and various steep slopes adjacent to Fall Creek and East of Cayuga Lake . The 1997 Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan, Map 8- 1 — "Potential Zoning for Open Space and Purchase of Development Rights Target Areas" and the "Anticipated Land Use Patterns" map in Chapter IV of the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan are both hereby amended to reflect the above clarifications and changes. Indicates substantive wording changes DRAFT — November 16, 2009 Town of Ithaca Planning Department r=FZ '' + � �rX raj ° S� 4"F x y 1 § T { ar . ) � tl �pf lrLraY 11 '' 1 fix ``f\till 1 r re . � . r f I r y' Y 1 - A T Yif� l Y JA 1 'ik7 61Jtl vS. 7 � }J.t'_ a 4 1 ' {{ It ' ` ' 'h' _ j . • - tsh '�3• s warn ' 1 u .•' '.'• ' TA `„ �.rfr `. :5�` 11 1• rXXX,z v" �$ ' Iv,aY� q � �-- 5\li y♦ r All t,�) ,.1•c! s V`r.{ iFr t �} "� l : .. r t _ Z4i _ t� � .111fe I ■ pp r`•+ r 'P A i t51 i �s}('� 1,t F ] t � } S�: aq r yam * P. lAi r v '" ' tt '. t `tF fvt (1 S l`7Rr r{I�l..;}• r y Y. , . %,� i G,`i ii: . J , r b,. r r > r � . At ' f ti 1 fJ i �r� aka y1 f� y yri� eJ I1 r. _ (rt it- r m a wY`�': k4 7 jl '# r' - �� • vr }4 • r � 'S Jar Ir • 1�,+' T r 8 7 _ f 1 . . ` t > It If tyrTfr,V'>, a V Aya r. r` 1 iA • � � 1 �f R_4 A . • r ) Lrr •. _ r C 9591' Imo" f '� • :>r • r "' d �..f• S,i . �2 ill q k \ .: 1 p • } l ' • ' •ate_}"S`�`^ r F� 7'i' �✓ ,SM t a tF jr S r C.J } - ' at' 1{ •' 1 I 7 - ti � f rlr } .v 41.1 1 • i < ( t f r1t- • P . '� 1 >' rpt ldr V � r a I I y ♦ 4 r r'ti' hs b 6 It K - + ' • 1 i �- , �^; • ' > Fit, Y It."dam ° > ; s. •Ali All ltI i� ' `tol if 1 '• J., ,t . .' It k� ; •yr�-yr 4*t1'iS+a 1 —i- ! . _ x liWv 1 ' •' i € -as Ft` s { t tt- ^ Ft r �` ; t ,., ` ?• ��#(y�91 IIk .j }' i'}I ! 'I "'jrT xi r 1 ILL p4 JI It 1_ } r • \ i , ' Y� ctlrry i 7 I r ' 11 �. "; • 'r 1 lot ox lit J4 a . ,it I p r �rf r` 4 .� i ♦.�! 4l ill Alt D 'Itt lit It li ,,cr 1 {.�' Mitt il Ail f 'r ! x r ' 1 • I i' . / p 1 ftY( - Jilt ' 1� 1 `�.•i . vE�4 ' I1 Y ;,.lrl tl$ 1 !{ } � : :., �' • '• c ,:.:..._�, �Y I7 / p p f • � 1 � l I ' 16 !1W IL '-• II F 10b'1 fj.t x•.,� I x v � , '.It t, • • ,� +,- ,r� , { :I Eve 7 tt ` • P A rd it I t ;""5f} t • 4 •" 1 .z �r 4� 5 . r 1 ,. AI • a A l r S4 R 1 1 • IfT. c ' .Y � � � 3 ' `y rr It , , + . � • 1 11 tz_i'1 Iii• �`--L`id'.,.�;Y. � ■ L.-tt a1 F4-L '• 3 ' -r c t .s� r its All ILI tl I it • 1 j It till '� G r .} • ray 1� t •Ali 4": • i r4":a � �• I}1y Y 1 1. . 1.� 1 1 .r _ t �, `F �r r � •. a 151 I �r �I� XV t its 1 .i Yr:. i`; r r,•� 1r " it..."` r v _ �' x ] , • t;. 2 .,s l'.r' `tit.) ri?[ t y •�At it,lot Al • 1 S � r �2� x 1 W�i ]i : i I ./ r / ), 'rp �} 'K �{J v � = 3 1 .ilt � '. ab {{v �i � � �:�' 1 • J 1 r a°111 Tr r P I,. Sf .>} I I 1 � , p. ��� 1 ��� ���r .t � • -TT r �}. i� I « . I r � 1 � :�; I � 7� �� � 1 • � t f L � �'+l} a 11 { . 'P • Il � .w"•r y'•1' ' � yAvr ,t r rj I • A i I r 1 I > ��y�. S .,��„�.-s.'ZSr i♦ 1 . 1K i f �• r ��J� 'pro? cypri; r r 44t• r ATI -• {` 1 { 11a �i ��w!U .'` . •� r . t \ ��tl �. I l ft �. - 4-•.— It i 1 l tt r 1 r �;{trf Vtf IT I��r13�.'r '•tY ty i . t P.; 4, rS : `. .{ t fi �� y '+� t• if }i , 'fr itM.� i {i + `4i i .r y ..9 C {� -rr� Jit-ta lox 1 .• rr � ..f. {.L. Lr }f � - I y Ir' "ll n+l ��3 �''s`•,'e e 1 h' : , • s t m 7 Y r .� P It• IiV �°t.-rr I _ A, rc f ♦ ' {�. i t tl • � � .ifi �,�1�!���d tl YL:�S` 13 A t. : ? t .� V ^< rr ff T • S a t{ II . Y 4t 1 - q..� r „ M 1 : • tl • • r+� ��'� 1 + sE j. >h tY. -?Qt' 'yy� ( ' r itf `' � . � JlI r♦aye N JG _ iitl t • . ,yt� 1 r L YY S- �}r ' r 9'^r-4 R� t3 7 _�J Attachment # 8 98 8 0 8 8 8 Town Assigned Project ID Number Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY ONLY PART 1 = PROJECT INFORMATION ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) 4. Applicant/Sponsor 2. Project Name Local Law — Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Town of Ithaca Town Board Ithaca Code to Add Preservation of Certain Drainage & Stormwater Retention Features to Conservation Zone Purposes 3. Precise location (street address, road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map:) The zoning amendments affect Conservation Zones in the Town of Ithaca (see attached Zoning Map), Tax Parcel Number: N/A 4. Is proposed action: NEW? EXPANSION? MODIFICATION/ALTERATION? X (Amendment of Town Code) 5. Describe project briefly: (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other relevant items) : Enactment of a local law amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code to add preservation of certain drainage and Stormwater retention features to Conservation Zone purposes. The proposed amendments would among other things amend Sections 270- 10.A and 10.B of the Town of Ithaca Code to add references to the importance of Conservation-zoned areas for their natural drainage features, the importance of considering poorly drained soils in planning for future development in Conservation Zones, and adding as a further purpose of Conservation Zones the preservation of natural Stormwater retention and water quality functions. (Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.) aAmount of land affected: stially (0-5 rs) 3153 +/- Acres (6-1 rs) (>10 rs) Acres . How is land zoned presently? Conservation Zone 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? Yes NO If no, describe conflict briefly: N/A 90 Will proposed action lead to a request for new: Public Road? YES NO X Public Water? YES NO X Public Sewer? YES NO X 10. What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? Residential Commercial . Industrial Agriculture Park/Forest/Open Space Other. Please Describe: N/A 11. Does proposed action involve a permit, approval, or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal, State, Local?) YES NO X If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding: 12. Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval? YES NO X If yes, list agency name and permit/approval. Also, state whether it will require modification. I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/Sponsor Name (Print or Type): Herb Engman, Supervisor. Town of Ithaca + : Signature and Date: I d h I P V. J PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town; Use attachments as necessary) tvo es proposed action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.12 or Town Environmental Local Law? ES NO X If yes, coordinate the review process and use the full EAF. . Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6 YES NO X If no, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency, if any. C. Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: ( Answers may be handwritten, if legible) C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production and disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: See attached. C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources? Community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly, None anticipated. C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish, or wildlife species, significant habitats, unique natural area, wetlands, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: See attached. C4. The Town's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly: See attached. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly: None anticipated. C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-059 Explain briefly: None anticipated. C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy) Explain briefly: None anticipated. D. Is there, or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? YES NO X If yes, explain briefly: See Attached, E. Comments of staff X CB., other attached. (Check as applicable.) PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE ( To be completed by the Town of Ithaca) Instructions: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important, or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting(i.e. urban or rural) ; (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope, and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting material. Ensure that the explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately address. Check here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. X Check here if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND, provide on Attachments as necessary the reasons supporting this determination. Town of Ithaca Town Board _ Name of Lead Agency Preparer' s Signature(If different from Responsible Officer) Herb Engman. Supervisor ame & title of Responsible Officer In Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer DATE: nature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency PART II - Environmental Assessment — 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, A. Action is Unlisted B . Action will not receive coordinated review C. Could action result in any adverse effects on to or arising from the following: C1 . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels existing traffic patterns solid waste production and disposal , potential for erosion drainage or flooding_problems9 None anticipated. The proposed zoning amendments add references to the importance of Conservation-zoned areas for their natural drainage features, the importance of considering poorly drained soils in planning for future development in Conservation Zones, and add as a further purpose of Conservation. Zones the preservation of natural stormwater retention and water quality functions. The amendments are intended to add natural drainage and stormwater retention functions as important elements of Conservation Zones. These additions reflect recent efforts by the Town of Ithaca to incorporate natural drainage features and stormwater management considerations into the overall planning and development process, including the adoption of Chapter 228 Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control into the Town of Ithaca Code, the ongoing preparation by the Town' s Public Works Department of a townwide stormwater management plan, and the completion of a Drainage Study Evaluation of the northeast corner of the Town, prepared by Milone and MacBroom, dated July 3 , 2007. The amendments will give added recognition to natural drainage features and stormwater management in Conservation Zones, which will result in environmental benefits to natural areas. C3 . Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species significant habitats unique natural area wetlands, or threatened or endangered species? None anticipated. The references to natural drainage features and stormwater retention functions of natural areas that will be added to the purpose sections of the Conservation Zone recognize that the ecological values of certain habitats include the consideration of a number of elements, including the presence and diversity of plant and wildlife species, the existence of biological corridors, scenic resources and natural drainage and stormwater functions . The inclusion of these new references will help to ensure the protection of significant natural areas in Conservation Zones and will be a beneficial impact on the environment. C4. The Town' s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? None anticipated. The proposed amendments are consistent with and support the intent of the "Conservation/Open Space Use" section of the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, Chapter IV.J, page IV- 14. I 4 lit c: OUR BIB Ea jO� .. O•• / . , �POI� ° u 1 . ° Lo o P1 •;�� 11�� r � ` i © , �o+ uupull� ��� 1 .r PVC' � 11- I A' �v I��1 VR ag a0Q IA�I001110�-vaml e �� ' . s avvvl - Q , �� wan°I ouinm 111, rt Q1�11Y C J l ! / Mill I:rl� a Q as �w a0 �� o V• �rl.o � 1/ O © o /' / SLIT' 00°000°p°O�O°p ° �\ 0000pO-00 ° p 0000 000 e'.0 0 0 0°0 a 0 0000 00CPO Q I!I-III \'� �� ��•+�© °,.op°0 o°o°o°0 0 o°o o°a \ `� °000°0°0°0°0 , oo 1 1 000 000°0000 . o°o 0 0 0 0 ° ° 0 0 `. 0000 00°°0 ' • °0000 O°0 0°000 ° .� 0000 °00°0 0000° � o 00000 +l ., 000° °°ppppo 0 0 D o . U�OPan pL7� 11WIv UL /'y0 r IT. Vaed/ ,dL1lae.aar It O G ��I � /Q1.dv ji 1. p +111 a1Nb Qp a111� � �• � a y��Qi0ijldi �j %iml_..�no11M 0 000111 \� rQo 1m1p101111 C _ O�, "• ��p0�\aw�"�0� 1� I ` 11001,n11L1 !vlwln eou�O� ve00�0 O o ti �D 7 �� .11Y\ iO+� __ - _ On�O1111v a° :: cc Oi:• : U < 1 ( A•�• �� I- ull�• 7 000 \1n111 \1, �1�,/M f' ` Ivll! 6 ♦ nie oaf image 21 IF p i 0 ,.� vi • �I '/rjV 1 � b BIT z�:. OnmOV 1 11 •>�O .la . � a / Q .1 l ` � J \C� .. )i�i/ �a a � • _ o°Diane nu f ✓� l°v a 4 HU ri• •� a �.11 �°a I !•1111 o . � � o I 9 a• + r .O I of IIIjfPeilillo /+\+OY ©� p/ . �I .I 1�f� Idlnnnoo0 0 41 'I �rcfSS �+ I � 5; ) �� .al 1 0" _ � — �l � � I ❑_I nunnmmro � �. j ` j Q� I�III'I�1 �!.•1 ll"24unnon.nl "/� , .Iul of,11111 p . KID C is �00 O 175IL1111 sz� na 0t ld0 I .. ,� _ •. IT IL IF • 1 • • L • -r w Attachment # 9 ; . ENGINEER' S REPORT EAST SHORE DRIVE WATER IMPROVEMENTS TOWN OF ITHACA TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK MARCH 2009 100 INTRODUCTION The proposed East Shore Drive Water Improvement project is to upgrade the existing water distribution main from the existing tie-in at Renwick Place north to the end of the existing line in the Town of Lansing. This project was initially set up to include the Town of Lansing end of the existing water main. The two municipalities are working together, but it has not been decided whether Lansing will upgrade their water main at the same time as the Town of Ithaca or if it will be done at a later date. Plans including the update to both municipalities ' water systems will be sent to the Railroad and the State DOT for their approval and permits, but this project may be broken up by municipality for construction purposes . See Map East Shore Drive Service Area, 10 EXISTING WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM The East Shore Drive service area serves 82 residential customers , including the Lake Source Cooling building, the Cayuga Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Ithaca Visitor Center and Chamber of Commerce, Merrill Sailing Center and the ISD Boyton Middle School within the Town of Ithaca and 26 residential customers within the Town of Lansing. The service area uses 33 ,600 gallon of water per day. 3.0 WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES The current 6" water main is undersized and in excess of 60 years old and is overdue for repair and replacement. Currently, the age and condition of the existing water main in this area require a low pressure water source to prevent pipe breaks due to high pressure. Because of this , the water supply is currently provided by the City of Ithaca water system which ties in to the Town ' s system at Gibbs Drive. The current pressure in the water main does not provide adequate fire flow to protect the residences and commercial buildings along East Shore Drive , 4.0 PROPOSED WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS The proposed upgrade to the existing water main will allow the Town of Ithaca and Town of Lansing to feed water through the Bolton Point Remington Road water main which is at a higher pressure and can provide adequate fire flow . The connection to the City ' s system at Gibbs Drive would remain in case of future water supply emergencies , but would be closed off with a water valve for the majority of the time. The proposed project includes approximately 6 ,000 feet of new 12-inch Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP) along the east side of East Shore Drive with an 8-inch Polyethylene loop serving the lake houses from Number 916 to Number 940. These lake houses are currently served by a dead-end pipe and frequently have issues with stagnant water. By adding the 8-inch loop, these houses will s� be ensured fresh water: In addition to providing fresh water, the proposed upgrade will also provide adequate fire flow to the buildings along East Shore Drive . The 12=inch main will also provide a large enough conduit for expansion of the water main across to 'Taughannock Blvd. for future needs in Ulysses . See East Shore Drive Project Location Map . There are several site constraints that add difficulty to this water , main replacement. There are steep slopes and rock on the majority of the site, several large stream crossings , and gas , sewer, and other utilities on the west side of the road. These site constraints make it necessary to place the new water main in the same location as the existing water main, meaning that temporary above ground water piping will be necessary to provide water service to the existing customers . The construction of this water main will require specific phasing to ensure adequate water supply to customers during construction . Due to the location of the water main, we will be working in the Right of Way of both the Railroad and the State Road. Permits and inspections from both will be required. In conjunction with this project, the Remington Road PRV will need to be upgraded and the underground vault will be brought above grade for safe working purposes . The construction of a Control Building for the Remington Rd PRV will be bid out as a separate project, but will be closely related to the East Shore Drive Water Improvement project. Other requirements for the water main replacement include appropriate traffic control since one . lane will be closed. Also , a Full Erosion & Sediment Control Pollution Prevention Plan (Full SWPPP) will be required due to the size of the project and the close location to Cayuga Lake . 5.0 PROJECT COSTS The estimated cost for the East Shore Drive Water Improvement project construction is approximately 2 . 3 million in 2009 dollars , the Remington Road PRV will cost approximately 205 ,000 dollars , for a total cost to the Town of Ithaca of 2 . 5 million dollars , the project is projected to go to bid in 2011 . The Town of Lansing section of the water main will cost approximately $512,000. The Town of Ithaca will be working with the Town of Lansing to have this done in conjunction with our project. This project will cut maintenance costs of the existing water main by eliminating water main breaks . Also , the Town will be able to provide water through the Bolton Point system instead of paying for City of Ithaca water. The project will also provide adequate fire flow and fresh water for the residents and commercial buildings along East Shore Drive. See Attached Engineer' s Estimate. East Shore Drive Water Main . ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ENGINEERS Amount Spent CONTRACT ESTIMATE BIDDING PROCESS $ 31500.00 $ - CONTRACT ADMIN $ 51000 .00 $ - CONSTRUCTION $ 21004,915 .00 $ - CONTRACT DOCUMENTS $ 5, 000.00 $ - ENGINEERING DESIGN $ 75 ,000.00 $ - GEOTECHNICAL $ 15, 000. 00 $ 91150.00 INSPECTION $ 25,000.00 $ - LEGAL $ 51000 .00 $ - ROW ACQUISITION $ 20, 000.00 $ 21100 . 00 SURVEY $ 10,000 .00 $ - TESTING $ 10,000.00 $ - TOTAL COST $ - $ 29178,415.00 $ 11 ,250. 00 Remington Rd PRV $ 2049980.00 TOWN OF LANSING $ 511 ,582.50 Total Cost 2009 Dollars $ 218949977.50 Est Cost 2011 Dollars $ 31071 ,281 a63 -=' East Shore Give Service Area , t to flail SIR N • .-:::. t K ;iii. • J w VIP ..? ..:l t t i •. q r + r i .. a a w If OPM M. lit- t r .............. t IL ::,. 5iiiii:iiiE 1 r O if lj :: : '. : • + ! '� q •• . . _ �Ir '- 1\ � wt i:: ::iiis:: .. .. ........ . fir " ::: iii • r - . � '1 � . „ h r w s ...� . * . 4 # .. •■ if Al R LN If If I If a • 1 \ ♦ 1 i rif fill East Shore Drive Service Area J . ..• •_ . � ` '♦♦ it It itp e , _ ..c n ■■ ■- la it II Ir I - , a • ::itii-:iii: ::: •LYi: if F If if Fill } ' 77 � . .. :' isii.� i::i� R t � 1 t ■ Xe I 1 .......... . ..... I 111. i ...... . ... . . .. ! I I r . .. ..... . . ..... ` 10y 40P far ,. - . .... .. . . ii..i:iiiii; • IL " East Shore Drive ' roject . Location : N «P all ar It t r �r ww y . Y • r •. I f A qp IL + i s •\ + a p -- �' i • fir .;- IZ i� t t r ..� ♦ t a w Z, : a a , If I End. Pro ect > > % 1 ♦ �' Work Area �=F .rte ',. i, �t � � t � . . . •� w ` Z ,, •� t , t y If ti 1 •` ♦ \� . 41 IS r 161 �— • Pit s , ;: �; 4f i . ,� t s L '► i 49 it t i - ei Sx � s ' ■ z w � . . r r a `.�h \ � r l7i I- 0 IN u It • J { LL lg ': J a r `' i, "' c tit- . 't r ;: � '� K, • 7 ■ � ., �, � ,� - dd Y1 It Air " s r`"` r�i. . r=1 Y "L—'– _`i...-,–k ._. - - 1 S .\ �f j ♦ 1� + +. icy . T If If; i. +� . ♦ k'F + ) . y t o r • 1 of t 'rt r t Q{ 1 ■ ' LLLL'a�S t2 Ora i Y 's i 3 c � } ♦ � ■ f �1 Ij .�% iFa ) x r , ■ ♦ ' • "134 y ` � ' * w J, I Ir 11 41,' s 5 ta7talll"Probe}ct4 .�S � 9 : ,, M / . • / rT '� h WorkArea ,­i i �- + "► , 4 r "ti_ F ti ' k' nM tx µ ,. t I 1W t if s�ii t r � f I � �• A � 1 ! 1 a , .. � r .¢ ...• i 1 S al It 0 t % i ' ' r . ► ti r • e 1�. • rtI t Yr, 1 ( * A ,\ If I M f ' � F t. ; 617.20 Attachment # 10 PROJECT ID NUMBER SEQR APPENDIX C 002-2009 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM for UNLISTED ACTIONS Only SART 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) 14 1111 . APPLICANT / SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME Town of Ithaca East Shore Drive Water Main 3.PROJECT LOCATION: Town of Ithaca Tompkins Municipality County 4. PRECISE LOCATION: Street Addess and Road Intersections, Prominent landmarks etc - or provide map Remington Road to Town Line 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION : ❑ New ❑ Expansion Modification / alteration 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: Replace existing 6" Water line and services with a New 12" main and Services A&AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: 7 nitially .41 acres Ultimately .41 acres WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS? ❑✓ Yes ❑ No If no, describe briefly: 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? (Choose as many as apply. ) Residential ❑ Industrial ❑✓ Commercial ❑Agriculture Park / Forest / Open Space Other (describe) Lake Front, Educational and institutional 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (Federal, State or Local ) W1 Yes ❑ No If yes, list agency name and permit / approval: Tomkins County Health Dept, NYSDOT 11 . DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ElYes F71 No If yes, list agency name and permit / approval : i l AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT / APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? Yes ❑✓ No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE icant / Sponsor Name Creig Hebdon P . E Date: December 9 , 2009 i 1 Signature / If the action is a Costal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment 1. PART II - IMPACT ASSESSMENT To be completed by Lead Agency) A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.4? If yes, coordinate the review process and use th4FULL Yes I No B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617. 6? If No, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. 0✓ Yes No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, if legible) C1 . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic pattern, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: During Construction Traffic will be affected C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological , historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly: None anticipated C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: None anticipated Work is within existing road ROW and new water main will be in same alignment as existing . C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly: I.None anticipated Currently water in pro vement area is within Town boundaries C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly: See attached C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 -05? Explain briefly. None anticipated - - -- - - — - -- --- - _ -- - - - .._ -_..._ C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy? Explain briefly. [No anticipated D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA CEA ? If es, explain briefly: El Yes No E . IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE , CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? If yes explain: ED Yes 0 No PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS : For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial , large, important or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i .e . urban or rural ); (b) probability of occurring ; (c) duration ; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope ; and (f) magnitude . If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials . Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed . If question d of part ii was checked yes, the determination of significance must evaluate the potential impact of the proposed action on the environmental characteristics of the CEA. Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration . Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation , that the proposed actin WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide, on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting thi determination. Town of Ithaca p Name of Lead Agency Date Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) PART II - IMPACT ASSESSMENT To be completed by Lead Agency) A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.4? If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF. Yes 2✓ No B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6? If No, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. Yes No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, if legible) C1 . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic pattern, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: During Construction Traffic will be affected 2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly: None anticipated C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: None anticipated Work is within existing road ROW and new water main will be in same alignment as existing . C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly: None anticipated Currently Water inprovement area is within Town boundaries C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly: See at C6. Long term, short term , cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 -05? Explain briefly: None anticipated -' -- -1 - -- .. . .: . .. _._. __.. .__ . _. .. ._. ._ . ..._ 7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy? Explain briefly: =anticipated THE D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL AREA CAA MPAC TON la n bN flIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL F Yes FV/r No E. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? If es explain: Yes 0 No PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS : For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i.e. urban or rural ); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials . Ensure that explanatioris contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed . If question d of part ii was checked yes, the determination of significance must evaluate the potential impact of the proposed action on the environmental characteristics of the CEA. Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration . Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed actin WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide, on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting thi determination. Town of Ithaca p Name of Lead Agency Date Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) r� t i Short Environmental Assessment Form for . East Shore Drive Water Main Cont . . . C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposals actions ? The project will improve service and assure adequate fire flows to existing Town customers . Because the size of the main will increase from 6 inches to 12 inches , there is a potential for additional growth and development within the Town as allowed under current zoning . The increased size of the main will allow the Town and Bolton Point to connect to this main in the future allowing larger volumes of water to travel from Bolton Point through the Town system to other jurisdictions . When considered in the context of the entire Town public water system , however, the increase in size of this main in this location is not expected to have a significant impact on growth and development because it will primarily stabilize the existing flow and pressure for the areas existing customers . East Shore Drive Water Main ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ENGINEERS Amount Spent CONTRACT ESTIMATE BIDDING PROCESS $ 31500.00 $ - CONTRACT ADMIN $ 51000 . 00 $ . CONSTRUCTION $ 21004, 915 .00 $ - CONTRACT DOCUMENTS $ 51000.00 $ - ENGINEERING DESIGN $ 75,000.00 $ - GEOTECHNICAL $ 15,000 .00 $ 99150.00 INSPECTION $ 25 , 000.00 $ - LEGAL $ 5 , 000.00 $ - ROW ACQUISITION $ 20,000 . 00 $ 29100 . 00 SURVEY $ 109000.00 $ - TESTING $ 10 , 000.00 $ - TOTAL COST $ - $ 29178,415.00 $ 11 ,250. 00 Remington Rd PRV $ 204,980.00 TOWN OF LANSING $ 511 ,582.50 Total Cost 2009 Dollars $ 298949977.50 Est Cost 2011 Dollars $ 390719281 .63 • -�' East Shore G' ve Service Area N IT riiiciii � 1 ■ f ■ F � / � �► • IT + .dm OP w op 4p ld/_ y mac. s 1 ♦ 00 so TV x — r i At r : ' ::1[ L t i. ` t e . t . +w IT Z . I. I • o n . . - • i ii ii ii[. r I 1 ♦ V. A ♦ 1i�a L �► • IT dV 11 Ip It all 1p It at t-- ■. ` f ri East Shore Drive Service Area . , �� YA 'IT I It 4 It < 4 ♦ �! . �' : .. ! t O do . .: : $-- IT I IV TI It T III P, Ul i . � EEE : E::EEE :E::EdiiEEE: � -1 i e • �� s ::: : : .. y r `Of . .. ... . . . : k rEE. € ESE :. . C.4 �EiEi :i: ; E.E :: : ;3 1p East Shore Drive roject , Location N` N • a OV IN 1p • • •\ t t • r � rjn. MIS a � • ! Y � , `, • t i IF End _Project Work Area : ♦ �, a ♦ ' 400 � t �M 46 • �♦ WA `. • f 3 16 • IL • ` • w • w • w • Start Project Work Area r . 4f IN •_ n . ._ • � �` ( a t� •i i t If t • 4 oily OF IT�99 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 i Jonathan Kanter, . .C.F, (bU'/) 2'/J-114-1 Director of Planning FAX (607) 273-1704 Planning Director' s Report for January 11 , 2009 Town Board Meeting DEVELOPMENT REVIEW December 1 , 2009 Planning Board Meeting: Silvers Medical Clinic, 919 Elmira Road: The Planning Board granted Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Preliminary Subdivision Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Silvers Medical Clinic located at 919 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35- 1 -9, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 3 . 56 acre property into two separate parcels, with the +/- 1 .48 acre northern lot being developed for a dermatology clinic. The . clinic will include the construction of a +/- 3 ,200 square foot building, 15 new parking spaces, and new landscaping. Kimberly Silvers M.D . , Owner/Applicant; Michele A. Palmer, Agent. The Board granted preliminary approvals subject to either obtaining the necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals or modifying the plan to include consolidation of adjacent parcels owned by the applicant to conform to all lot and setback requirements . Tompkins County Biggs Complex Subdivision — Sketch Plan, Harris B. Dates Drive : The Planning Board reviewed a sketch plan for the proposed 3 -lot subdivision at the Tompkins County Biggs Complex located on Harris B . Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-3- 2 .22, Low Density Residential Zone 'and Planned Development Zone No. 3 . The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 37 .4 acre parcel into three lots, where parcel 1 is approximately 9.4 acres and contains the existing Biggs B Building, parcel 2 consists of approximately 27 acres of undeveloped land, and parcel 3 is approximately .92 acres and contains an existing building known as K-house. Tompkins County, Owner/Applicant. 2010 Meeting Schedule: The Planning Board approved its meeting schedule for 2010. Meetings will be held on the first and third Tuesday of each month, beginning at 7 :00 p.m. and ending by 10:00 p.m. Recommendation to Town Board Regarding Chair for 2010: The Planning Board unanimously passed a resolution recommending that the Town Board appoint Fred Wilcox as Chair of the Planning Board for 2010. December 15 , 2009 Planning Board Meeting: Holochuck Homes Subdivision - Draft EIS, Trumansburg Road (NYS Rt. 96) : The Planning Board held the public hearing on December 15 , 2009 to hear comments from the public and involved and interested agencies regarding the Holochuck Homes Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS ) and on the subdivision/development proposal. Written comments on the DEIS y � a will be received 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. CURRENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROJECTS/FUNCTIONS The following have been accomplished over the past month. Codes and Ordinances Committee (COC) : The Committee met on December 16 , 2009 and continued review of proposed revisions to the Conservation Zone provisions (these had been reviewed by the Planning Committee at the November 12`h 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 could require clustering of residential units in Conservation Zones (optional). The Committee also continued review of public comments received regarding the proposed Stream Setback Law, and approved its meeting schedule for 2010 (the Committee agreed to move its starting time to 7 : 00 p.m. and see how that goes and will continue to meet on the third Wednesday of each month, except for February, where the Committee will hold its meeting on February 24, 2010). The next COC meeting is scheduled for January 20, 2010 at 7 : 00 p.m. Tentative agenda items include continuation of review of comments received and possible revisions regarding the Stream Setback Law. Planning Committee: The Committee met on December 10'', 2009 to discuss a proposal by Salvatore and Rosalind Grippi to rezone their property on Trumansburg Road from Medium Density Residential to commercial. The Committee passed a resolution recommending to the Town Board to consider the possibility of establishing a new "limited historic commercial" zone to encourage use and maintenance of historic properties and to consider the possibility of such a zone for the Grippi property. This will be scheduled as a specific agenda for an upcoming Board meeting. The Committee also reviewed a draft response to NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) on the EIS regarding the Oil, Gas & Solution Mining Regulatory Program (Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling) and heard a report, from staff regarding the Draft EIS on the Holochuck Homes Subdivision. The next meeting date and agenda have not yet been determined, pending Town Board Committee appointments at the Organizational meeting. Comprehensive Plan Committee: The Committee met on December 17 , 2009 and continued review and discussion regarding the goal and objective sections of the 1993 Plan in Chapter III, focusing on "Transportation" and "Public Utilities, Facilities, and Services". The next meeting of the Committee is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, January 28 , 2010 at 7 : 00 p.ma to continue review and discussion regarding the 1993 Plan Goals and Objectives , continuing with 2 n "Energy & Climate Change", reviewing the "Existing Conditions" sections of the Plan update, and continuing with discussion regarding remaining focus group meetings. Conservation Board: The Conservation Board met on January 7 , 2010 and discussed 2010 work plan priorities, 2010 committee assignments, and the proposed Coy Glen conservation zone. The next regular meeting of the Conservation Board is scheduled for February 4, 2010. Trail Committee: The Committee cancelled its meeting on December 10, 2009 and will schedule its next meeting for sometime in January to follow-up on possible West Hill trails. ITCTC Joint PlanningLPolicy Committee: The Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC) Planning and Policy Committees met at their joint meeting on December 15 , 2009. The Planning Committee elected Sue Poelvoorde (Town of Ulysses) as its Chair for 2010 and Dan Kwasnowski (Town of Dryden) as Vice Chair for 2010. The Policy Committee elected Herb Engman (Town of Ithaca) as its Chair for 2010 and Dooley Kiefer (Tompkins County Legislature) as Vice Chair for 2010. Other agenda items included approval of the final draft of the ITCTC Long-Range Transportation Plan, 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 Cayuga Waterfront Trail and TCAT replacement bus acquisition), approval of a TIP amendment regarding ' bridge inspections, and approval of a resolution supporting the Route 96 Corridor Management Study. The next meeting of the ITCTC Planning Committee will be on Tuesday, February 16, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. Letter to DEC Regarding Draft Generic EIS regarding the Oil, Gas & Solution Mining Regulatory Program (Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling) : As a follow up to review with the Planning Committee and Town Board, Planning staff completed a letter to NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) with comments on the EIS regarding the Oil, Gas & Solution Mining Regulatory Program (Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling) and sent the letter to DEC on December 23 , 2009 (comments were due by December 31 , 2009). Grant Application to Park Foundation for a Sustainability Planner: As a follow up to the Town Board' s authorization to submit a grant application to the Park Foundation for a Sustainability Planner, Planning staff complete the application and submitted it to the Park Foundation on January 4, 2010. We will let the Town Board know as soon as we hear a response. 3 :A Town of Ithaca Codes Department Monthly Activity Report — October 2009 Category Description Entries Building Permit Inspection In the Field inspection tied to a building permit 98 Building Permit Consultation In -office or in-field consultation w/project managers 3 or contractors regarding building projects Building Permit Review Review and processing of building permits 59 Complaint New Investigation New complaint investigation 4 Complaint Follow-up Processing of complaints 110 Continuing Education Training , seminars, CEU 's 4 Fire Incident Investigation Fire Incident Investigation following dispatched call 0 Fire Safety/Operating Permit Fire Safety inspection for and/or operating permit . 2 Inspection Processing of notes and issuance of permit. Fire Safety/Operating Permit Processing of Fire Safety re-inspection notes and 0 Re-Inspection issuing operating permit/follow-up Legal Processing Order to Remedy, issuing Appearance 0 Tickets , and actual court appearances Meeting Attendance at Departmental meetings , Board 21 meetings, Committee meetings & Staff meetings, etc . Miscellaneous Counter service , phone calls not associated with an 86 active file . Stormwater Pollution 0 Prevention Plan Review Field Inspection/Report Zoning Board of Appeals Review and research of ZBA applications , 25 Addresses 911 All related work for address changes 0 0110612010 TOWN OF ITHACA 14 :43 :49 B2109 - B2113 Transaction Report For the period 12/01 /2009 through 12/31 /2009 Type Date Comment Name Quantity Fee B2109 LEP 12/04/2009 ECOVILLAGE % 09-033 1 35 .00 2, EP 12/ 14/2009 33 .-2-3 .42 EVANS-SHELDRAKE % 1 75 .00 09-071 3 . EP 12/24/2009 38.-3-5 HOLGATE, ALEX %8306 1 90.00 4. EP 12/11 /2009 42.- 1 -20 983 DANBY RD JBM CONST % 09-070 1 90.00 5 . EP 12/15/2009 44.4 -66 SAVAGE KOHM % 09-073 1 75 .00 6. EP 12/30/2009 24.- 1-32.4 LANG % 09-080 1 180.00 7 . EP 12/28/2009 OCONNELL % 09-052 1 105 .00 8 . EP 12/16/2009 240 STONE QUARRY RD PLEASANT VALLEY % 1 68 .00 09-074 9. EP 12/09/2009 RADEC % EP 09-026 1 70.00 10. EP 12/22/2009 71 .4 -66.2 BP 8524 RALPH VARN BLDR % 1 240.00 09-076 1 L EP 12/09/2009 111 KAY ST RICHARDSON % 09-069 1 75 .00 12. EP 12/23/2009 63 .4 -8.2 CCHP CENTRAL BLDG RICHARDSON BROS % 1 100.00 09-077 13 . EP 12/23/2009 63.- 1 -8.2 CCHP CONDENSER BLG RICHARDSON BROS % 1 100.00 09-078 14. EP 12/16/2009 TP # 70.40-29 EP# 09-075 ROCCO LUCENTE BP#8361 1 240.00 1EP 12/04/2009 ELECTRICAL INSPECTION COMM ROTH % 09-062 1 35 .00 EP 12/14/2009 KASONIC SHISLER % 09-015 1 35 .00 . EP 12/ 16/2009 1301 SLATERVILLE RD SPARKS % 09-037 1 35 .00 . 8 . EP 12/15/2009 2\8.- 1 -26.82 BP 8360 WHITE % 09-072 1 90.00 18 19738.00 B2111 19 . BP 12/07/2009 31 .-2-25 .2 VERIZON TOWER AIROSMITH % 8519 1 350.00 VERIZON 20. BP 12/24/2009 39.4 - 1 . 1 AVALON HOMES LLC 1 60.00 %8525 21 . BP 12/24/2009 19.-2- 18 FLUMERFELT, ROBERT 1 45 .00 %8526 22. BP 12/18/2009 41 .4 - 12.2 IC DORM ROOM HORNS % 1 200.00 8522 23 . BP 12/02/2009 54.4-48 INHS % 8517 1 70.00 24. BP 12/21/2009 33 .4 -4.2 INLET VALLEY HOA % 8523 1 70.00 25 . BP 12/ 10/2009 24.-3-6.2 LUFT % 8520 1 25 .00 26. BP 12/22/2009 71 .4 -66.2 RALPH VARN BLDR % 8524 1 700.00 27. BP 12/18/2009 70.41 - 18 REYNOLDS % 8521 1 35 .00 28 . BP 12/04/2009 39.4 - 1 .2 SHBC % 8518 1 35 .00 10 19590.00 29. BPE 12/08/2009 70.42=9 CONCANNON, PATRICK 1 50.00 %8226 BPE 12/18/2009 958 PINE TREE RD DEMO CORNELL % 8211 1 50.00 BPE 12/04/2009 41 .4 -30.2 IC PARKING LOTS % 8055 1 15000.00 BPE 12/28/2009 66.-3-3 . 15 LUTZI % 7039 1 212.50 4 1,312.50 . : 33 . TCO 12/15/2009 24.-3-4 CAYUGA PROF CENTER PETRILLOSE % 8478 1 100.00 34. TCO 12/31/2009 39.4 - 1 .2 SHBC CHALLENGE % 8442 1 50.00 Page: 1 Type Date Comment Name Quantity Fee 2 150.00 B2112 35 . FSI 12/07/2009 MONTESSORI % 09-033 1 95 .0 1 95. B2113 36. 01' 12/23/2009 47.- 1 - 11 . 3 CODDINGTON RD 1 100.00 COMMUNITY CENTER 37 . OP 12/31/2009 24.4- 14.23 OVERLOOK AT WEST HILL 1 850.00 1 38 . OP 12/31 /2009 24.-4- 14.24 OVERLOOK AT WEST HILL 1 850.00 2 3 1,800.00 Total for B Fund: 38 69685.50 Total Sales 38 69685.50 Page: 2 Town of Ithaca Codes Department Building Permits Received in December 2009 Date Recd CEO BP # St # Street Name Status 12/2/2009 Sw 8517 115 Pennsylvania Ave Google 12/4/2009 SW 8518 950 Danby Rd Pending - Google 12/7/2009 Sw 8519 651 Five Mile Dr Pending - Google 12/8/2009 AF 5179 213 Eastern Heights 12/9/2009 Sw 8520 1317 Trumansburg Rd Pending - Google 12/18/2009 KR 8521 211 Tareyton Dr Pending - Google 12/18/2009 KR 8522 127 Grant Egbert Blvd Google 12/21 /2009 BB 8523 167 Calkins Rd Pending 12/22/2009 KR 8524 1020 Hanshaw Rd Pending 12/23/2009 SW 8525 950 Danby Rd, Suite pending Wednesday, January 06, 2010 Page 1 of l v, Town of Ithaca Codes Department Building Permits Issued in December 2009 Date Last name Street Number Street Name Description 12/1 /2009 Evan Monkmey 1060 Danby Rd Reroof existing building 12/11 /2009 Martin 1442 Slaterville Rd Construct 24' x 24' garage w/ 8' x 6' connect 12/14/2009 Apt 1436 Hanshaw Rd Replace windows, storm door, insulate & el 12/23/2009 Emerson Hall 127 Grant Egbert Blvd install fire alarm dorm room homs 12/23/2009 Upvall 111 Kay St Kitchen & Bathroom remodel 12/28/2009 Towers Dining 121 Tower Skyline Dr Replace railings at Tower Dining Hall roof a 12/29/2009 Nicholson 145 Pearsall PI Ground mounted PV Array 12/30/2009 Vance 115 Pennsylvania Ave Replace windows, insulate, roofing and mis Wednesday, January 06, 2010 Page 1 of I Town of Ithaca Code Department Certificates of Occupancy Issued in December 2009 Date of BP BP # Last name Street Number Street Name 1 /9/2003 5935 EcoVillage 200 Rachel Carson Wy 6/2/2004 6176 Building Associates . 1301 Trumansburg Rd 7/9/2007 6915 Phase 1A 110 West Hill Cir 7/9/2007 6916 Phase 1A 111 West Hill Cir 7/9/2007 6917 Phase 1A 120 West Hill Cir 7/9/2007 6918 Phase 1A 121 West Hill Cir , 7/9/2007 6919 Phase 1 A 130 West. Hill Cir 7/9/2007 6920 Phase 1A 131 West Hill Cir 7/9/2007 6921 Phase 1 A 141 West Hill Cir 7/9/2007 6922 Phase 1A 151 West Hill Cir 7/9/2007 6924 Phase 1 B 311 West Hill Cir 7/9/2007 6925 Phase 1 B 321 West Hill Cir 7/9/2007 6926 Phase 1B 331 West Hill Cir 7/9/2007 6927 Phase 1 B 340 West Hill Cir 7/9/2007 6928 Phase 1B 341 West Hill Cir 7/9/2007 6929 Phase 1 B 351 West Hill Cir 7/9/2007 6930 Phase 1B 360 West Hill Cir 7/9/2007 6931 Phase 1 B 361 West Hill Cir 6/16/2008 8059 Sandra Londino 381 Stone Quarry Rd 7/15/2008 8088 Rasmussen 511 -6 Strawberry Hill Cir 7/15/2008 8089 Steh 521 -1 Strawberry Hill Cir 7/15/2008 8090 McGonagle 521 -2 Strawberry Hill Cir 7/15/2008 8091 Hunt 521 -3 Strawberry Hill Cir 7/15/2008 8092 Evans 521 -4 Strawberry Hill Cir 7/15/2008 8093 Williamson 511 -5 Strawberry Hill Cir 7/15/2008 8097 Bern 511 - 1 Strawberry Hill Cir Wednesday, January 06, 2010 Page I of 2 Date of BP BP # Last name Street Number Street Name 7/15/2008 8098 Potter 511 -2 Strawberry Hill Cir 7/15/2008 8099 Jameson 511 -3 Strawberry Hill Cir 7/15/2008 8100 Abbott 511 -4 Strawberry Hill Cir 9/22/2008 8160 Human Resources 391 Pine Tree Rd 10/31 /2008 8199 Miner 35 Dove Dr 11 /20/2008 8215 Hunter 107 Hillcrest Dr 5/28/2009 8299 Diehl 140 Bundy Rd 8/6/2009 8394 Salon 251 Culver Rd 8/13/20091 8411 Overlook at West Hill II 311 West Hill Cir 9/8/2009 8419 Chang 302 Salem Dr 9/22/2009 8428 Miller 102 Deerfield PI 9/22/2009 8442 SHBC Challenge Industries 950 Danby Rd 10/5/2009 8452 Engman 120 Warren Rd 10/26/2009 8460 Challenge Industries 950 Danby Rd 11 /2/2009 8501 Giligin 1224 Trumansburg Rd 11 /312009 8478 Center, LLC 1301 Trumansburg Rd, Suite 11 /13/2009 8506 Roth 1458 Slaterville Rd �_ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 Page 2 of 2 Network/Record Specialist Report January 11 , 2010 Website o Updates ■ Reorganization of Community Section ■ Added top menu "Documents" . Pages under this new section include Form , Maps, Minutes , Town Codes Environmental Impact Statements , and Educational Materials. ■ New " Updated Page Notification" feature added to Minutes page . Strictly a voluntary feature, ( no cookies are used to track web page visitors) ; a visitor to our website can enter their email address into a field on the Minutes page. When newly approved minutes are posted , an email is sent to the registrant notifying them of the posting . ■ "Town News" scroll replaced with "Quick Notes" on the homepage. ■ Town Board Gas Drilling Comments added to "Quick Links" on the homepage. ■ 2010 Board and Committee schedules updated . Network • Additional memory added to several client machines . • Although no equipment was budgeted for 2010 , the Town Supervisor and Recreational Specialist's computers need replacing as they no longer can function under the new specifications of our antivirus/antispyware software. These staff will receive computers that Network/Record Specialist will refurbish from older machines .that were replaced during 2009. Regular Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board, January 11 , 2010 Human Resources Report for December 2009 Personnel and Employee Relations Committees : Committee continued reviewing the discussions on a part time position for Codes and elected officials salaries . (See attached minutes) The Employee Relations committee discussed comments card topics of Smoking Policy and Vacation buyback being converted to sick time . No recommendations were made. Bolton Point's Personnel committee reviewed the preliminary results from their Employee Satisfaction Survey. Personnel — Civil Service : Two employees that were under probation were let go due to failure to pass probation . There was an active Distribution Operator Trainee (SCLIWC) civil service listing . The top three candidates were interviewed and one of the candidates accepted the position effective for 1 /4/2010 . We will begin in January filling the part time clerical position at PWF. The employees in the PWF union received their retro 2009 pay and have had their 2009 rate of pay changed to the contracted amount. Commercial Insurance ( Ithaca Agency — NYMIR Insurance Company) : Time has been dedicated to Bolton Point's change in insurance agency. We have received a quote from NYMIR for 2010 which is over $ 10 , 000 less than 2009 . Workers' Compensation ( Public Employers Risk Management Assoc — PERMA) : No new incidents to report. Health and/or Dental Insurance . The Greater Tompkins County Municipal Health Consortium board was notified that the consortium will not be able to go online on January 1st. There have been several meetings with the NYS Insurance Department regarding union representation on the board . Each municipality is working with their collective bargaining groups to see if they would agree to a labor management advisory board that would make recommendations on benefits provided . If a labor management advisory board is agreeable then the process will start moving forward again . The goal is the first quarter of 2010. The Town extended the contract with Excellus BCBS to continue providing the employees health insurance coverage in 2010. The negative with this is that the rates for family coverage are much more than what was budgeted under the consortium . Retirees have been notified of the different amount. Other Items : Al Carvill and I have been reviewing the proposals for a Deferred Compensation Administrator. - — Connie spent a great deal of time in December getting payroll changes into effect. Not only was there many changes due to the union contract, but it was also open enrollment for Flex spending , health , dental and life insurance . Submitted By: Judith C . Drake, PHR, Human Resources Manager EMPLOYEE RELATIONS COMMITTEE Monday, December 7 , 2009 , 1 : 00 to 2 : 00 pm Aurora Conference Room DRAFT NOTES Those present: Board Members: Pat Leary Staff Representatives: Paulette Terwilliger, Kristin Taylor, Joe Slater and Larry Salmi Staff Support: Judy Drake Others: Al Carvill 1 . Comments : None 2 . Old Business • Smoking Policy: PW reps felt it may become an issue if smoking is banned in the larger trucks , but not the passenger styled vehicles . TH staff was looking for no smoking allowed in all vehicles but the issue was the Jeeps and cars . Suggestion was to keep the current policy but defined that smoking is only allowed in the dump trucks or other heavy equipment. No smoking would be allowed in the passenger styled vehicles . Judy will present language at the next meeting . Staff requested that the smoking area to Town Hall be moved away from the employee entrance area and farther away from the building . Judy explained that this would be difficult as we have already deemed the front entrances as smoke free areas . 3 . Review of Suggestion Box Cards : Town Hall : Give employees option regarding "Vacation Buyback. " 1 . Actually buy back vacation time or 2. Allow employee to convert it to equal sick time. If employee converted the vacation to sick time, it would defer the cost and outlay of cash for the Town. Group discussed the idea just a little. TH Reps wanted to get more feedback from staff on the interest level of this idea . Judy did explain that the time would be converted from vacation (which is paid out if someone leaves the town ) to sick time (which would not be paid out if someone leaves the Town . ) This policy may work for those close to retiring if they haven 't maxed out their sick time . PW F : Suggestion: The men 's room needs an air dryer. Benefit: Less paper waste and mess. More hygienic, works better that the current TP being usedl Joe did prepare some cost analysis that compared the $ 510/ year spent on paper towels versus the $ 170 to purchase dryer and $ 108 for electricity per year. It was suggested to keep the paper towels , but also add a dryer for those who want to use it. Committee refers this back to the Highway Superintendent for follow up . Others topics discussed : Committee discussed the wellness program and paying for smoking cessation . 1 i 4 . Update on Policy Revisions : Judy explained that the Performance Review policy had some recommended changes by the Bolton Point Personnel Committee . Changes brought the policy up to date with the fact that performance reviews are not all done in July, but through out the year depending on the department. Driving Policy that was originally brought up at this committee has been edited by both the Town and BP Personnel Committees . Both policies were going to the Town Board for approval that day. 5 . Set meeting dates Committee decided to keep January' s meeting as the same date as the Town Board meetings . Committee members will be determined at that TB meeting . Judy will put out a call for nominations for committee members to represent Town Hall . Next meeting : Monday, January 11 , 2010 , 1 : 00 — 2 : 00 pm , Aurora Conf. Rm 2 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 . 29 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 . 48 Set meeting date for January. Meeting date was set by Tee Ann and Pat for Tuesday, January 5th at 4 : 30 pm . 54 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 . 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 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 Town. of Ithaca West Hill Community Garden at Linderman Creek 2009 Annual Report At this time last year I was completing what I thought would be a simple request to obtain a grant so the Town could establish a community garden on town owned and designated parkland adjacent to an affordable housing complex (Linderman Creek & the Senior Housing at Conifer Village) on West Hill. While plots would be available to the public at large, the goal of the pro- ject was to expand residents ' (targeting fixed/low income) accessibility to more sustainable and healthy life style practices. Pursuant to that grant request, the three top measurable outcomes ex- pected were : • Eighty 20 ' by 20 ' organic garden plots will be available to low income families to in- crease their healthy food options . • Eighty families will become part of a Community Garden Association to be assigned a plot. This association will determine rules for gardening activities providing opportunities for team building and developing leadership skills. • A minimum of two plots will be set aside specifically for youth whose families may not have an immediate interest or (may not) recognize the benefits of gardening . These plots will have volunteer leadership through Cooperative Extension (Rural Youth Services and/ or 4H), Lehman Alternative Community School or other community volunteer leader- ship. The actual outcomes were : • Seventy two 20 ' by 20 ' organic garden plots were available and eighteen 10 ' by 10 ' plots were available. Senior residents of Conifer Village were interested in smaller plots so some of the larger plots were divided into 10' by 20 ' to accommodate these requests. • A total of eighty six plots were assigned, with two new families requesting plots for next year. • Several meetings of a Garden Council occurred. As many as twenty of the aforemen- tioned families who proved to be some of the most effective and dedicated gardeners spoke little or no English, resulting in a need to revisit our approach in addressing a gar- den association. • An additional area 30 ' by 200 ' was designated as an area for communal gardening and permaculture. This was where three parcels, two of which have been turned over and are ready for next year, were actively gardened by individual youth. r The grant request included Ilie, following measurements of effectiveness , i „ I d ; s. ! I I P f ' i � ,F„ ! : • The first measure will'�b'etnumber of plots assigned by the second year:' IIt is anticipated ai, � _ that all 80 parcels will` be assigned. q I • By May 1 , 2009 rules for participation will be promulgated and initial plots will be made available. • By June 30, 2009 a garden governance association will be established with participation from participants. • Town staff will develop an evaluation process to gauge the success of the garden. Par- ticipants will be asked to complete an evaluation of their gardening experience. This in- formation will be compiled for the garden governance association to review. • Any issues discovered during the evaluation process will be addressed through the gov- ernance association. The results were: • Eighty six plots (including the three youth plots) were assigned the first year with two new requests for the 2010 garden season pending. Between 93 and 103 plots could poten- tially be available depending on requests for the smaller ( 10 ' by 20 ' ) areas . The number assigned for 2009 was higher than expected and there is the real possibility a wait list will need to be established for 2010 . • Rules and an application process were promulgated and provided to the fonder prior to the grant award via letter on February 26, 2009 . These rules and agreements proved ef- fective and will be reviewed for some minor clerical and possible fee changes . The first garden plot requests were taken on 4/ 11 /09, the ceremonial garden opening was May 1 , 2009 with the fence going up the week of May 11 - 15 , 2009 . Letters to initially interested gardeners went out May 12, 2009 with plot assignments . Many started soil preparation immediately once assigned. Assignments continued throughout the season with some in- dividuals taking plots as late as August when a plot was deemed abandoned pursuant to the rules. • Pursuant to the aforementioned letter of February 26, 2009 a garden structure was estab- lished. Unforeseen language issues have created the need to review the concept of garden committee/council . The proposed Garden Committee/Council' s Responsibilities were : : i • Identify needs of gardeners • Advocate for gardeners • Mediate any conflicts between gardeners • Identify garden needs • Delegate responsibilities • Develop relationships with community organizations to maximize the use of surplus crops - for example, donating surplus to Loaves and Fishes, or distributing within the Linderman Creek community Meetings with gardeners became venues for a variety of issues and did not evolve into an organ- ized structure representing the broader needs of the group . Focus interviews with gardeners con- ducted by staff led them to question the expectation of all the gardeners wanting to participate in such a group that concluded a representational group should be sought with occasional educa- tional and general informational topics offered to all . gardeners for participation. Staff is develop- ing proposed bylaws and applications for the Council/Committee to go out in the first 2010 mail- ing. • The Recreation and Youth Coordinator conducted focus group and individual evaluation meetings with over 10% of gardeners with at least one member of various identified groups (seniors, Russian/Ukrainian, Karen Families) . The results were overwhelming ( 100%) satisfaction with the effort. This is not to say there were not issues (most notably adequate water supply) but that everyone appreciated the opportunity and the manner in which the garden was operated. • A critical issue was water. Regulations governing the connection to a public water supply cause it to be cost prohibitive at this time. Staff has an interim measure to recommend addressing the issue that is supported by the Town Supervisor and is planned for spring 2010. Related to this is the Town' s long-term plan for developing the park and associated amenities, such as provision of public water supply and bathroom facilities . This report begins the process of identifying issues based on experience and includes recom- mendations for discu m ssions with appropriate government structures. This year' s rate of active participation in gardening by families qualifying for free plots due to income limit exceeded all expectations to the point of affecting projected income. Yet these families/individuals were often times the most committed gardeners. The organizations that were anticipated to partner with the Town of Ithaca were not the ones most needed to carry out this effort. Instead Tompkins Learning Partners and their ESL pro- gram was key, assisting with critical communication efforts . The United Way graciously agreed to accept donations on behalf of this effort opening the door for literally thousands of free plants from local growers at West Hill Organic and Early Bird Farms . The Assembly of God Church congregation, a Bostwick Road neighbor of the Town' s Tutelo Park, donated two days of community service at the garden establishing paths, mulching & laying land- scape fabric to protect the fence from weed growth. Expenses, funds and donations : o A grant of $ 10,000 was awarded from a local foundation for construction of the fence. o Expenses for the fence were : $ 10,014. 71 . o Sustainable Tompkins provided a grant of $ 500 towards the purchase of communal tools, seeds and/or plant sets . o Town appropriated : $5000 for related expenses of which $3 , 877 . 32 was spent, includ- ing $420 for rental of a portable toilet, as well as $ 3 ,437 . 32 on tools, materials for a tool cupboard, rentals of apparatus to prepare soil, seeds, plant sets, and organic pest controls . The town also provided use of an interim 500 gallon water tank which re- quired filling up to 3 times per week throughout summer. In addition to the grant in- come the Town received a contribution from Conifer of $400 and plot fees of $285 . o West Hill Organic Farm donated 12 trays of plants (plugs with approximately 100 plants per tray.) o Throughout the spring season Early Bird Farm gave literally carloads of plant sets that were picked up by staff and used by gardeners . o On July 6, 2009 alone donated plants were valued at $454 . 81 . A similar number of plants were donated on at least 3 occasions . o A conservative estimate of the value of donated plants would be $3 ,000 from private growers. o Water cost calculated at 1600 gallons per week x 15 weeks = 24,000 at a minimum charge of $42 . 50/ 10,000 would be $ 127 . 50 . Next year the rate will increase to $43 . 20/ 10,000 gallons and Park Maintenance recommends to the Town a purchase of a 1 ,050 gallon tank (current cost $ 875 .) o Volunteers from the Bostwick Road Assembly of God Church completed community service projects at the garden on June 11 and October 11 . Over 20 individuals worked diligently on each day for at least 4 hours at a rate established at $20 . 25/ hour the value of these efforts was $ 3 ,240 . Other Support efforts provided by Public Works: • Weekly site inspection and general coordination by 'park manager ($900) • Installed garden path, gate, & bollards/sign ($ 7770) • Initial site work and rototilling ($3550) • Hauled woodchips & compost throughout garden season as needed ($950) • Provided garbage can liners/ removed garbage ($100) • Coordinated port-a john delivery/ pick-up & servicing ($ 100) • Built & installed (2) benches ($400) • Coordinated purchase of acknowledgement plaques for benches & installed ($ 100) • Constructed & installed garden tool storage cupboard ($ 1250) • Picked up & delivered donated plant materials and weed control fabric ($ 100) • Coordinated volunteer group efforts ($ 100) • Assisted intern . with initial tool and supplies purchase and delivery to site ($ 100) • Provided fuel & safety can for rototiller ($ 100) • Re-filling of water tank —2 to 3 times per week for 15 weeks ($ 1800) • Provided (2) picnic tables for gardeners to use ($ 100) • Initial mowing of site and monthly mowing of path and areas around fence ($900) In Summary A 20 ' x 20 ' garden plot (400 square feet) can yield 600 pounds of produce in a six month grow- ing season. Pictures taken by Town of Ithaca staff show the West Hill Community Garden was still producing on December 2, 2009 . As ' the preceding email and the "Signs of Sustainability" award from Sustainable Tompkins for the garden project would indicate the Town has much to be proud of with this project. The Town began a "top down" process for the creation of this gar- den. The concern about this approach is obtaining the participation of gardeners . The amount of interest and active gardening by a diverse cross section of community members was impressive. The individual and social benefits are well founded and documented. It is clear this effort has benefited the lives of many and establishes the Town as a leader in "green" recreation (recreation that focuses on positive health outcomes — the "new" focus of recreational programs for progres- sive communities) . Community gardening brings benefits to individuals, families, neighborhoods and communities . Gardening is an active pursuit that yields fresh food which supports nutritional health and physical fitness. Learning to grow plants is mentally stimulating and adds to an indi- vidual ' s knowledge and expertise . Community gardening is a social activity involving shared decision making, problem solving and negotiation which increases these skills . The Garden suffered no vandalism. There were no complaints about lost produce. Seeds and tools were purchased and shared. With the exception of the apparent loss of a small garden cart, due to donations the garden ended the year with more tools than it started ! Again donated plants from local growers made this activity available to anyone willing to commit to the sweat equity required. On December 2 , 2009 when staff inventoried garden implements 30 plots were turned over ready for spring 2010 ; only 2 of these plots were plots where people had paid a fee to culti- vate them. Acknowledgements and review of activities : ! This project could not have happened without the coordination and cooperation of many people. The effort began as an idea of current board member and former Town Clerk Tee-Ann Hunter. Ithaca College therapeutic recreation major and intern Nic Tessoni appreciated the value of gar- dening as both a green and therapeutic recreational activity. As such he chose to complete his field work requirement assisting with materials needed to complete the site plan review process. Town engineer Dan Walker lead this process with the full support of Parks Maintenance Man- ager Rich Schoch who directed all of the activities outlined in efforts provided by Public Works. Whitmore Fence of Dryden, New York did an outstanding job of coming on site early and in- stalling a fence that addressed needs while in line with budget considerations. The site plan proc- ess has no less than 30 components which needed to be addressed prior to review which was de- layed from the original request date of March to April 7, 2009 . Without the planning board ap- proval the fence could not go up and without the fence the plots could not be cordoned off or other work required of public works to make site accessible. Conifer and the management of Lin- deman Creek, was most cooperative agreeing to easements and parking spaces to provide access to the garden. Thus a tremendous effort was made to launch the garden program. The Recreation and Coordinator led program efforts which included : o . Supervised student intern and work study student (Laura Komor) with develop- ment of time line, tasks and program objectives for project o Provided on going communication with finders and active solicitation of additional grant income to support project o Coordinated with Public Works Division on facilities aspect of project o Established rules for garden program participation o Conducted a garden summit for program planning purposes o Implemented a system for plot assignment and a registration process o Organized and managed a media campaign o Developed all necessary documents and communications o Led donation solicitation and procurement o Staffed community work efforts at garden o Planned and executed an opening event o Designed Town Hall lobby window display on project o Authored required articles and reports to support endeavor o Maintained role as primary contact for all aspects of garden program and day to day communications with gardeners and community members o Attended events such as the Green Carnival to promote the garden program o Participated in educational community events such as a workshop at Cornell Coop- erative Extension of the Late Blight Fungus and Garden educators meetings o Identified and solicited resources for gardeners as needed and recommended o Built community relationships for the support of the garden program Accomplishments . o 86 plots were assigned. Of these only 15 gardeners were required to pay a fee _thus 83 % of the gardeners were below 60 % of the area medium income. Many of the gardens most dedicated gardeners were from this group. At a December 2, 2009 site review and visual inspection confirmed only one gardener who paid a fee had actively maintained their plot through that date while at least 50% of the below income gar- deners were still actively gardening cold weather crops or had turned over their plots in preparation for spring, 2009 o Established relationship with Tompkins Learning Partners to facilitate communica- tions with non-English speaking gardeners o Obtained a commitment from a class at New Roots School to construct 3 cold frames for the garden program o Instituted a process of donation solicitation with United Way of Tompkins County o Forged relationships with local farmer growers for the support of the effort to provide healthy plant stock to garden participants o Instituted the Town of Ithaca as a leader in green recreation o Created a sustainable effective garden program to serve as a model for similar efforts i A thorough review of any effort no matter how successful results in recommendations for the betterment of the endeavor. As such the following list is being addressed in the appropriate for- mats and are listed here. Program planning is not a static process and to be successful requires the support of all aspects of the decision making process. Recommendations : o Review fee structure o Develop clear, cohesive system for plot registration with Town Clerk' s Office o Revise forms (include email) o Purchase large water tank to be placed inside of garden o Identify and establish a practice of row leaders to take responsibility for garden participa- tion o Create application & process (develop) bylaws for a representational garden council which will work with Town Staff o Reduce communal space o Establish a permanent on site garden plot designation system o Labeling communal space needs better o Purchase 4 ' rolls of landscape fabric to establish garden paths o Develop a specific job description for a garden manager o Create a management plan for communal areas (particularly important if permaculture is pursued) o Begin investing in quality garden tools o Label tools for identification o Replace missing garden cart (best means to convey buckets of water, especially for eld- erly gardeners) o Charge council garden with responsibility of organizing and implementing needed work activities Feedback from gardeners Mamie--I hope that the CCE meeting was useful for you. Personally, I think a lot of people lo- cally are really jealous of what the Town of Ithaca has accomplished behind your really great and productive work and that of Tee-Ann and your other supporters in getting the Linderman Ck, gardens off the ground and into such a successful and productive condition in just its first year. Like you said, lots of talk and not always so much action from some quarters, but you have done a yeoman's job with this project and you should be really proud of what you have ac- complished, especially given what you had to work with initially and the obstacles you had to overcome to get there. And having the student workers there over the summer made all of the difference in the world. Although the downtown and Cornell community gardens have both been around for a long time they are both really inadequate operations in many respects com- pared to the level of organization and effectiveness of the Linderman Ck. gardens. They have no staff and the overall maintenance and organization of both of the other two operations is abys- mal compared to what the Town has been able to assemble at Linderman Ck. I am very im- pressed ! I think you should get a big raise ! . I'm also happy that Sustainable Tompkins was able to help out with the small grant for tools and stuff. Sorry for the long rant, but I wanted to let you know how valuable I have perceived your services to be. I hope all goes well with your or- ganizational meeting next Monday. Maybe I can give some input another time. Have a wonder- ful day. Tom Tom Shelley 118 E. Court St, Ithaca, NY 14850 607 342-0864 tjsl@comell .edu Mamie, we just went out to look at the garden. Its beautiful. You said my email held my place on the waiting list but do you need anything else from me? Stephan We just returned from the garden - our whole family and two sets of grandparents and we all had lots of fun ! Just wanted to say thank you for making this possible. Do you mean that we can plant more than one plot? Because we could use another one . A question : can we put up a low net-like fence around our plot to protect from rabbits? Thank you very much ! Daniil . Hi Mamie, I received your letter and application for the community garden plot. I already turned one in to Monica , but maybe you didn't get it. My veggies ae ready to be planted . Do I just go choose a plot? I don't want a huge one, just medium sized . The garden is beautiful and the compost looks so earth -friendly and sustainable . Connie Stirling Hello ! : ) • Yes, someone contacted me yesterday. question , I ' m • going to send the money • but I have to wait till Friday because my comp is a Mac and • won't open your • documents so I have to go to the library to print it out. • I 'm going to send • $20 for a 20 by 20. I ' m VERY excited ! ! ! : ) > Thanks, > ~ Jenn > p. s > When will I know about the plot? Hello Mamie, My name is Abbey Pelot I am a resident at Linderman Creek Apartments . I had talked to Monica a couple of weeks ago about getting a 20 x 20 pot in the new Community garden and I was also wondering if I had to check in with you as well . I am super excited and hope to hear back from you. Thank you so much for this wonderful opportunity. Abbey I ' ve just returned from viewing the garden spaces at Linderman Creek. I 'm s0000 happy and excited to have the opportunity to once again get "down and dirty" ! ! I will bring forms and check to Town Hall tomorrow afternoon. Thanks again. Mary Chapman Appendix 1 Community Garden at West Hill Application Form i Name(s) : Address : Street City/Town State Zip Code Are you a Town of Ithaca Resident? Yes No If No, what town/city are you a resident of? Telephone number: (� Alternative telephone number (� E-mail address : Please indicate the best way for us to contact you : Desired plot size : 20 ' by 20 ' 10 ' by 10 ' Fee* : $25 $ 15 Please check the appropriate items : I am a senior citizen I am physically disabled This is my first year at this garden I am a returning gardener to the Community Garden I would like to be reassigned to my plot from last year (identify) I have gardened before at (where?); for how long? I would be interested in being a Row Leader Thank you ! * Fees are non-refundable. Financial support will be given for persons qualify with HUD guidelines : Income Limits : 1 Person 2Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person 30 , 180 34 , 440 38 , 760 43 , 080 46 , 500 49 , 980 531, 400 56 , 880 Appendix 2 Community Garden Member Agreement + Please read and sign the following Garden Rules : 1 . I will pay a fee of $ to help cover garden expenses . 2. I will have something planted in the garden by and keep it planted all summer long. 3. I will contribute a minimum of 2 hours to community work time on the garden during the growing season. 4. If I must abandon my plot for any reason, I will notify the Town Clerk. 5. I will keep weeds at a minimum and maintain the areas immediately surrounding my plot, if any. 6. If my plot becomes unkempt, I understand I will be given 2 week's notice by my Row Leader to clean it up. If I fail to respond, it may be re-assigned or tilled in. 7. I will keep trash and litter out of the plot, as well as adjacent pathways and fences . 8 8. I will participate in the fall cleanup of the garden. 9. I will plant tall crops where they will not shade neighboring plots . 10. I will pick only my own crops unless given permission by another plot user. 11 . I will not use synthetic fertilizers, insecticides or weed repellents . The Garden provides compost and manure for this purpose . 12. I will not bring pets to the garden. 13 . I understand that neither the garden group nor owners of the land are responsible for my actions. I THEREFORE AGREE TO HOLD HARMLESS THE GARDEN GROUP AND OWNERS OF THE LAND FOR ANY LIABILITY, DAMAGE, LOSS OR CLAIM THAT OCCURS IN CONNECTION WITH USE OF THE GARDEN BY ME OR ANY OF MY GUESTS . Signature Date 4 ' 20 ' 20 ' 4 ' 20 ' 20 ' 4 ' 20 ' 20 ' 4 ' 20 ' 20' 4 ' ` 20 ' # 1 #2 #3 #4 #5 # 6 #7 #8 TT H G F E D C B A T Children ' s & Communal Gardening Area (30 ' by 200 ' ) Plot Divisions Appendix 3 TOWN CLERK ' S MONTHLY REPORT . . TOWN OF ITHACA, NEW YORK DECEMBER, 2009 t O THE SUPERVISOR: PAGE 1 rsuant to Section 27, Subd 1 of the Town Law, I hereby make the following statement of all fees and moneys received' me in connection with my office during the month stated above, excepting only such .fees and moneys the application d payment of which are otherwise provided for by Law : A1255 9 MARRIAGE LICENSES NO. 09109 TO 09117 157 .50 3 MISC. COPIES 34.00 3 MARRIAGE TRANSCRIPT 50.00 TOTAL TOWN CLERK FEES 241.50 A1557 1 SPCA IMPOUND FEES 20.00 TOTAL A1557 20.00 A2194 2 NOTE CARDS - YOUTH PROG 20.00 TOTAL A2194 20.00 A2544 DOG LICENSES 402.25 TOTAL A2544 402.25 2109 18 ELECTRICAL PERMIT 19738.00 TOTAL B2109 1,738.00 B2111 10 BUILDING PERMIT 15590.00 4 BUILDING PERMIT EXTENSIN 1 ,312.50 2 TEMP CERTIFICATE OCCUP 150.00 TOTAL B2111 39052950 B2112 1 FIRE SAFETY INSPECTIONS 95 .00 TOTAL B2112 95.00 B2113 3 OPERATING PERMIT 15800.00 TOTAL B2113 1,800.00 B2115 1 SUBDV, REV, FINAL PLAT 140.00 2 SITE PLAN FINAL PLAN 600.00 2 ADD. MTG. FEE AGENDA PRO 60.00 2 ADD. MTG. FEE P.H. PROCE 100.00 TOTAL B2115 900.00 2691 1 FILL PERMIT 100.00 TOTAL B2691 100.00 TOWN CLERK' S MONTHLY REPORT DECEMBER, 2009 page 2 DISBURSEMENTS PAID TO SUPERVISOR FOR GENERAL FUND 683 .75 PAID TO SUPERVISOR FOR PART TOWN FUND 71685 .50 PAID TO COUNTY TREASURER FOR DOG LICENSES 58 .75 PAID TO AG & MARKETS FOR DOG LICENSES 9 .00 PAID TO NYS HEALTH DEPT FOR MARRIAGE LICENSES 202.50 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS 89639.50 JANUARY 5 , 2010 SUPERVISOR HERBERT J. ENGMAN STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF TOMPKINS, TOWN OF ITHACA I, , being duly sworn, says that I am the Clerk of the TOWN OF ITHACA that the foregoing is a full and true statement of all Fees and moneys received by me during the month above stated, excepting only such Fees the application and payment of which are otherwise provided for by law. Subscribed and sworn to before me this Town Clerk day of 20 Notary Public 01/06/2010 17 :43 :50 TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN CLERK ' S 2009 ANNUAL REPORT RECEIPTS 24 MISC. COPIES 280.75 1 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS 3 .00 4 NOISE ORDINANCE 250.00 5 SIGN ORDINANCE 337 .68 26 TAX SEARCH 130.00 4 POSTAGE 12.29 1 ' RETURNED CHECK- W&S 5 .00 1 ZONING MAP 1 .00 36 MARRIAGE TRANSCRIPT 380.00 117 MARRIAGE LICENSES 49600.00 3 DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP REG 60.00 3 NOISE PERMIT 150.00 10 SPCA IMPOUND FEES 330.00 15 COMMUNITY GARDEN PLOT 285 .00 11 PARK USE FEE 749 .00 36 NOTE CARDS - YOUTH PROG 359 .00 93 ELECTRICAL PERMIT 9, 180.00 33 ZONING BOARD MTG 3 ,300.00 256 BUILDING PERMIT 497735 .00 46 BUILDING PERMIT EXTENSIN 12, 123 .75 1 FOUNDATION PERMITS 500.00 2 CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 200.00 7 SIGN PERMITS 811 .53 22 TEMP CERTIFICATE OCCUP 247175 .00 2 FIRE SAFETY REINSPECTION 100.00 5 FIRE SAFETY INSPECTIONS 445 .00 45 OPERATING PERMIT 9,210.00 2 SUBDV. REV. INITIAL APL. 230.00 10 SUBDV. REV, FINAL PLAT 11420.00 3 SITE PLAN INIT, APL. FEE 500.00 16 SITE PLAN FINAL PLAN 6,555 .00 8 ADD. MTG. FEE AGENDA PRO 240.00 8 ADD. MTG. FEE P.H. PROCE 400.00 1 SPECIAL PERMITS 100.00 3 FILL PERMIT 300.00 8 PARK SECURITY DEPOSIT 450.00 6 COMFORT STATION DEPOSIT 600.00 DOG LICENSES 11 ,691 .00 TOTAL RECEIPTS : $1409199.00 ODISBURSEMENTS PAID TO SUPERVISOR FOR GENERAL FUND 15 ,294 . 23 PAID TO SUPERVISOR FOR PART TOWN FUND 119,525 .28 PAID TO COUNTY TREASURER FOR DOG LICENSES 1 ,492.99 PAID TO AG & MARKETS FOR DOG LICENSES 249.00 PAID TO NYS HEALTH DEPT FOR MARRIAGE LICENSES 29587 .50 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS: $139;149.00 rXica TOWN. CLE JANUARY 6, 2010