Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2016-08-08Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, August 8, 2016 at 5:30 p.m. Agenda 1. Call to order and Pledge of Allegiance 2. Report of Tompkins County Legislature and Ithaca Common Council 3. Quarterly Report of the Board of Fire Commissioners 4. Persons to be Heard and Board Comments 5. 5:30 Public Hearing regarding a proposed local law amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270 Entitled "Zoning," to Revise Provisions Related to Solar Facilities 6. 5:30 Public Hearing regarding a proposed local law amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270 Entitled "Zoning", Regarding the Keeping of Domestic Animals in the Conservation Zone and the Keeping of Chickens in Medium Density Residential Zones a. SEQR b. Consider adoption 7. 5:30 Public Hearing regarding a proposed noise permit for Ithaca Beer outdoor music events on Thursdays August 11, 18, and 25, 2016 from 7 to 9 p.m., and on October 15th from 2 to 9 p.m. a. Consider approvalldenial 8. Discuss and consider approval of revised Fee Structure — Building Department 9. Discuss and consider approval of three-year Snow and Ice Agreement 10. Discuss and consider support for applying for a NY Prize Grant for the Micro Grid Phase 2 at the IAWWTF 11. Consider Consent Agenda Items a} Approval of Town of Ithaca Abstract b} Approval of Bolton Point Abstract c) Authorization to close the Town of Ithaca Sapsucker Water Tank Replacement Water Improvement Capital Project fund d) Authorization for sale of surplus items via auction — Public Works e) Authorization for disposition of surplus items — IT f) Consider appointment of William Highland to the Zoning Board of Appeals 12. Report of Town Officials and Committees 13. Intermunicipal Organizations 14. Review of Correspondence 15. Consider executive session to discuss collective bargaining negotiations TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Paulette Terwilliger, being duly sworn, say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, Ithaca Joumal: O ADVERTISEMENT/NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE OF ESTOPPEL O NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF PUBLIC INTEREST ORDER Local Law regarding keeping domestic animals and chickens In certain zones Local Law to revise provisions related to solar facilities Location of Sign Board Used for Posting: Town Clerk's Office 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Town website at www.town.ithaca.ny.us Date of Posting: August 2, 2016 Date of Publication: August 2, 2016 Jasmin Curo Deputylo Clerk STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS: TOWN OF ITHACA) Swor e,and subscribed before me this day of ',k- , 2016. 0 '1� � Public Debra DeAugistine Notary Public - State o4 New York No, 01DF6146035 oualified in Tompkins County My Commission Expires June 19, 20 tkiD l Le eia _ 0 1 IZI— Toym of llheca amending the Town of Ithaca h Notice of Public Hearings Code, Chapter 274 Entitled it Tthe Ithaca Town Board vdI 'Zoning.' h hold a meeting on August 8, to Revise Provleiorce Related F 2016 at Town Hall, 215 N. to Solar Facilit*s; v Bogs Street, Ithaca, NY be. at such time and place all per- h ginning at 5:30 p.m. with the sone Interested {n the pro- J following scheduled public posed local laws or permit T hearings regard in may be heard. Information on b Continued and new. a pro- sly of the above can be 11 posed noise perm far Ithaca found al 9 Beer outdoor music on www.town,ithaea,ny.us or by S Thursday from 7- 9p,m. - Au- contacting the Town Clerk's a gust 1 Ith. 181h and 25th. and office at 27V721. i an Oktoberfest an Saturday, Paulette Terwilliger October 151h from 2pm . 9 Town Clerk I, p.m. with a Ocmpa Band. 8/2/2016 lit dancing and cheering. n A proposed Ixal law amend- ing the Town of Ithaca Code. Chapter 270 Entitled 'Zon- S; ing'. Regardmg the Keeping to of Domestic Animals in the M Ccnservation Zone and the h[ Keeping of Chickens in Medi. At um Density Residential 8, Zones, and m A proposed Loaf Law cc e� of J -p H �2�;' TOWN OF ITHACA 182+ 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 \t Yost www. town .ithaca.ny.us Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk Phone: (607) 273-1721 pterwilliger@town.ithaca.ny.us Fax: (607) 273-5854 Town of Ithaca Public Hearing Notice Debra DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk ddeaugistine@town.ithaea.ny.us The Town Board will hold a public hearing at Town Hall during their regular meeting held on August 8, 2016 at 215 N Tioga St. beginning at 5:30 p.m. to hear public comment regarding: Continued/ New — proposed noise permits for Ithaca Beer outdoor music on Thursdays from 7- 9p.m. — August 11th, 181h and 25`h, and an Oktoberfest on Saturday, October 151h from 2pm — 9 p.m. with a Oompa Band, dancing and cheering. Requests for further information or to comment can be in person, via telephone, via email to townclerk@town.ithaca.ny.us or by postal mail. Thank you. Paulette Terwilliger Town Clerk 8/3/2016 Ithaca Beer Events Dear Board Members, I spent 18 months working with the Town to create PDZ ## 14. We had I 1 or 13 Public Meetings (I don't recall the exact number). In that PDZ, we discussed doing "Events" down at our location, which was written into the PDZ. In those discussions, I mentioned possibly brining Ithaca Brewfest down to our location. That event had 4000 people, was held at Stewart Park and ran for 4 hours on the Saturday of Labor Day Weekend. We had three bands and a full stage with sound. Never did we have a complaint from anyone in the area. We also discussed wanting to do an Oktoberfest and other events of up to 500 people on our back lawn here at Ithaca Beer. We were granted the ability to do Events as well as build a stage up to 2500 square feet, all as part of the PDZ. Last year we held 6 nights of music, with no complaints. This year we had one band that created a neighbor complaint. The Sheriff arrived, I met with him, and he said there was a complaint, but since the music did not seem unreasonably loud, he left and made the comment that if he wasn't working, he'd love to be here enjoying the band. I reached out to the Town Supervisor and Code Enforcer to address the complaint, which they, as it turned out, did not even know about. We discussed applying for a Noise Permit, that had we done so, we could have shown the Sheriff that we are in compliance. Again, this was our 7`h show with no Permit and no issues. Regardless of having a Noise Permit, the Sheriff could have asked us to turn down the music. I applied for the Noise Permits, which I was only granted 2 of 4. I understand that this was done to allow the Town to come and see how loud the music is, but I don't see how the Town is going to set a limit to the noise, outside of the subjective assessment by the Sheriff who would show up due to a complaint. Furthermore, if the music seems unreasonably loud to the Sheriff, then I'm going to be asked to turn it down anyway. If we set a decibel level with a Noise meter, it would require setting not only a level, but a duration of time at that level and it would have to be metered at the neighbor's house. I don't believe the Sheriff carry's a Noise Meter; so don't see how they would monitor that. I understand that there are neighbors complaining, but it should be pointed out that I went through an extensive process to create a PDZ allowing Events, prior to spending a considerable amount of money to build our new brewery. We created the PDZ with Public involvement as well. Now we should be able to follow through on what has been granted. Dan Mitchell, President A AA - 122 Ithaca Beer Dr. Ithaca, NY 14850 ph. (007) 273-0766 fax (607) 273-0815 www ithacabeer con -i Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board r, F Monday, August S, 2016 at 5:30 p.m. r_ MINUTES Board Members Present: Bill Goodman, Supervisor; Rod Howe, Deputy Town Supervisor; Pat Leary; Tee -Ann Hunter; Rich DePaolo; Eric Levine; and Pamela Bleiwas Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Mike Solvig, Director of Finance; Judy Drake, Director of Human Resources; Debra DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk; and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; .Tim Weber, Highway Superintendent 1. Call to order and Pledge of Allegiance — The meeting was called to order at 5:36 p.m. 2. Report of Tompkins County Legislature and Ithaca Common Council — No report. 3. Fire Commissioner's Quarterly Report (Attachment 1) Mr. Gilligan reported that they received a total of 2431 calls between January 1st and June 30th; this is slightly lower than the calls received in the previous two years, which numbered 2517 and 2472, respectively. He gave highlights from the financial summary. The department is fully staffed. The operating unit consists of four shifts, with I I firefighters, two lieutenants, and one assistant chief on each shift. The chief and deputy chief provide the administrative function and oversee the operation of the department. There are two additional assistant chiefs: the training officer and the head of code enforcement. Three additional firefighters are assigned to code enforcement. Approximately $2,819,390, or 46% of the operating budget, has been spent; that figure excludes benefits and debt service. A grant they received for $413,000 paid for new equipment, and training is underway. Plans are being worked out to relocate Station No. 9 in Collegetown. They have a few grant submissions out. There's an opening on the board of fire commissioners for a representative from the Town of Ithaca. He talked about the volunteer program: there are currently 13 volunteers and 4 provisional. An ad hoc committee is working on volunteer issues. Information sessions and presentations occur prior their meetings. 4. Persons to be Heard and Board Comments -- No one came forward to address the board. 5. 5:30 Public Hearing Regarding a Proposed Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270 Entitled "Zoning," to Revise Provisions Related to Solar Facilities Mr. Goodman stated that the board would hold the public hearing, but would not take action on this item because after scheduling the public hearing, it was discovered that we would need to make changes to the law. Accessory use needs to be defined and it was ambiguous whether or not a solar array can be on a parcel as an accessory, but not serve the primary use on the parcel. We're also still waiting for comments from the county under the GML. No members of the public wished to address the board. TB August 8, 2016 page i Ms. Ritter added that there was also a question about the front -yard setback for large-scale systems. Staff received additional comments from a number of individuals, some as late as that day. They received comments from the conservation board and from someone from Cornell's sustainability office, who had been involved in the Snyder Hill project Cornell installed. They also received comments from the town's sustainability planner, Nick Goldsmith, and from Darby Kiley, Town of Ulysses. The codes and ordinances committee will see this as a topic on their agenda on Monday. The county was planning to send a letter, but will hold off until after the COC meeting and any modifications to the law are made. Mr. Goodman said another public hearing will need to be held when the law is ready. 6. 5:30 Public Hearing Regarding a Proposed Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270 Entitled "Zoning," Regarding the Keeping of Domestic Animals in the Conservation Zone and the Keeping of Chickens in Medium Density Residential Zones Mr. Goodman opened the public hearing at 5:58 p.m. Cosmo, Town of Ithaca, is in favor of keeping chickens in the medium density zone because it's educational for children to learn how to take care of them and it's nice because they provide free food. Chickens are really nice as pets and they don't hurt anything. Ari, Town of Ithaca, is in favor of keeping chickens because it's fun to have pets and chickens give us good food that we eat almost every day. Jane -Marie Law said she appreciates how far this has come, and that people in the town who are interested in passing this legislation are working hard to get together groups of people to help educate people: they're working with the veterinarians at Cornell, with Agway, with nutrition specialists at Pool and Grain, and with local architects and planning communities at Cornell to help with builds so if the legislation gets passed, Ithaca will not be an embarrassment as some fear it might be, but rather a model of how to do this properly. The commitment from the people who have worked is firm and resolute that we will do our best to make sure it's done properly. Mr. Goodman closed the public hearing at 6:02 p.m. TB Resolution 2016-108: SEOR Proposed Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270 Entitled "Zoning". Regarding the Keeping of Domestic Animals in the Conservation Zone and the Keeping of Chickens in the Medium Density Residential Zone Whereas, this action is the enactment of a local law amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270 entitled "Zoning", regarding the keeping of domestic animals in the Conservation Zone and the keeping of chickens in the Medium Density Residential Zone; and Whereas, this is a Type I Action for which the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca is acting as Lead Agency in an environmental review with respect to the enactment of this local law; and TB August 8, 2016 page 2 Whereas, the Town Board, at its regular meeting held on August 8, 2016, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Parts 1, 2 and 3, for this action, prepared by the Town Planning staff; now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review, and Chapter 148 Environmental Quality Review of the Town of Ithaca Code for the above -referenced action as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Moved: Pamela Bleiwas Seconded: Eric Levine Vote Ayes: Goodman, Howe, Leary, Bleiwas, Levine, DePaolo Discussion Mr. DePaolo had questions about enforcement. He asked what will happen in the event that a neighbor finds the noise or odor of chickens objectionable. Mr. Bates said it would be handled as a complaint. We first have to notify the people that there's a problem or that they're in violation, and then we have to give people reasonable time to correct the issue. It will be a judgement call as to odor and noise. If the resident doesn't agree with the code officer's interpretation, they have the right to address the ZBA and appeal the decision. He doesn't anticipate that there will be problems. It will be on a case-by-case basis. There are a few residents right now who are keeping chickens in violation, but he has held off charging them with code violations until the outcome of this law. Once it passes, he'll go out and make sure they're meeting all the requirements. Mr. DePaolo said he was talking mostly about odor, saying it's not like someone can go out with an odor meter. Mr. Bates said the building code addresses odor, but that, too, is a matter of interpretation. In most cases, he asks the people when and where they are experiencing the bad odors, then he tries to visit under those same conditions. If he agrees that it's obnoxious, he'll tell the offender that they'll have to mitigate it; if he doesn't think it's obnoxious, and the person complaining doesn't agree, they also have the right to go to the ZBA. His response is not set in stone. He doesn't anticipate there being many problems because if the area is maintained properly, there shouldn't be a problem with odors. It will be on a case-by-case basis. Ms. Brock mentioned that the ZBA likes the law and was happy to see it because they've been the ones receiving the variance applications. TB Resolution 2016-109: Adoption of Local Law No. 8 of 2016 Amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270 Entitled "Zoning", Regarding the Keepinst of Domestic Animals TB August 8, 2016 page 3 in the Conservation Zone and the Keeping of Chickens in the Medium Density Residential Zone Whereas, the keeping of domestic animals in accessory buildings is not permitted in the Conservation Zone and chickens are not permitted in the Medium Density Residential Zone on lots less than 2 acres in size, and Whereas, the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals has granted multiple variances and/or special approvals over the past few years regarding requests to have chickens in the Medium Density Residential Zone on lots less than 2 acres in size, and Whereas, the Town of Ithaca Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan and Comprehensive Plan contain goals and recommendations that pertain specifically to exploring revisions to the Town Code to accommodate "home food production' in the Town, and Whereas, the Town Codes and Ordinances Committee reviewed and discussed proposed draft language and criteria that would allow domestic animals in the Conservation Zone and chickens in more locations in the Medium Density Residential Zone, and Whereas, at its meeting on July 11, 2016, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca reviewed and discussed the proposed local law and on July 11, 2016 adopted a resolution for a public hearing to be held by said Town Board on August 8, 2016 at 5:30 p.m. to hear all interested parties on the proposed local law entitled "A Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270 Entitled "Zoning", Regarding the Keeping of Domestic Animals in the Conservation Zone and the Keeping of Chickens in the Medium Density Residential Zone", 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, adoption of said local law 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 this local law, has, on August 8, 2016, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form Parts 1, 2 and 3, and Whereas, the Town Board finds that the new uses proposed for the Conservation Zone and the Medium Density Residential Zone further the health and welfare of the community and are in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan; now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts Local Law No. 8 of 2016 entitled "A Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270 Entitled "Zoning", TB August 8, 2016 page 4 Regarding the Keeping of Domestic Animals in the Conservation Zone and the Keeping of Chickens in the Medium Density Residential Zone," 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: Rod Howe Seconded: Eric Levine Vote Ayes: Goodman, Howe, Leary, Bleiwas, Levine, DePaolo 7. 5:30 Public Hearing Regarding a Proposed Noise Permit for Ithaca Beer Outdoor Music Events on Thursdays August 11, 18, and 25, 2016 from 7 to 9 p.m., and on October 15th from 2 to 9 p.m. Mr. Goodman noted that the permit for August 25th was not included in the packet that was sent out, but it had since been added. Mr. Goodman opened the public hearing at 6:16 p.m. Larry Salinger, 14 Peachtree Lane, said he had already provided written comments, but he wanted to address the application form. It doesn't incorporate all of the provisions that 184.12(D)(1-8) require. So he asked the town board to revise the form to incorporate those items in the statute that need to be addressed by the applicant. Mr. Goodman closed the public hearing at 6:17. Discussion Mr. Goodman said he and three board members went to Ithaca Beer in July to listen to the first band they were issued the permit for. He and Mr. DePaolo both had decibel meters. The reading was about 55 dB at the farthest point on the property. Mr. DePaolo said the decibel reading on the patio before the band started playing was about 75 dB. We don't have a numerical standard here. One would expect to get attenuation as we approached Peachtree Lane. He suggested that amplification facing the building isn't the most effective means of mitigating the sound. He thinks they're probably getting a considerable reflection off the building toward Peachtree Lane and that shifting it further toward the south would help. They'd be better off facing the music toward Route 13. His observation was that the unidirectional instruments that were facing away from the residences were less of an issue than the snare drum, which is omnidirectional. Based on that, he suggested, as an additional long-term solution, that they look into getting a portable band shell that would provide a barrier behind the sound source. He's played under them many times. Ms. Hunter wondered whether there's been any consideration given to the size of the groups or the composition. The impact of a harpist, for example, is different from a band with horns and drums. Mr. Goodman said they saw a 12 -piece brass band and he didn't find it too objectionable. TB August 8, 2016 page 5 Ms. Bleiwas added that they took a walk to the edge of the property near the houses, and they could hear the music, but it wasn't bone -shaking loud. It's not an unreasonable time to have music and it's not unreasonably loud. Mr. Goodman suggested that board members check out the music at the October event. Mr. DePaolo asked Mr. Mitchell whether he had looked into any kind of physical structure as mitigation. Mr. Mitchell said they had six events last year with no comments, and one this year that raised concern. The PDZ calls for a stage to be built for outdoor events; he's not sure whether it specifies music. If he's going to pay money to build a stage, it's going to be because they're allowed to hold musical events. So, yes, he's willing to work with the town if they're allowed to do this long term, but he's not inclined to build a stage if they're not allowed to have music. TB Resolution 2016-110: Noise Permit for Ithaca Beer Summer Music Events Whereas noise permits have been received from Ithaca Beer Company for live outdoor music, some of which may be amplified, on several date; and Whereas a public hearing was held on August 8, 2016, and notices sent to residences within 500 feet of the property; now therefore be it Resolved that the Ithaca Town Board grants a noise permit to Ithaca Beer for the musical events on Thursdays August 11, August 18, and August 25, 2016 and Saturday, October 15, 2016 with the following conditions: 1. All amplification will be strictly monitored to be at the lowest level necessary, and 2. Noise permits are valid Thursdays from 6:30 p.m. through 9:00 p.m. and Saturday, October 15th from 2:00 to 9:00 p.m. Moved: Pamela Bleiwas Seconded: Rich DePaolo Vote Ayes: Goodman, Howe, Leary, Bleiwas, Levine, Hunter, DePaolo 8. Discuss and Consider Approval of Revised Fee Structure — Building Department Mr. Bates said they've combined some categories, so now there are fewer. Electrical permits that are associated with other work being done will become part of the building permit, instead of being treated separately. We've increased the number of inspections for the electrical -only permit because we have found that the average for residential work was three inspections and for commercial work was four. This eliminates clerical staff having to keep track of how many inspections have been done, unless it's more than four. It also eliminates a lot of billing. The tent permit fee reflects how many inspections they're doing and how much staff time is actually used. Fireworks have been combined to one fee. People often understate the value of their projects, so TB August 6, 2016 page 6 by having each permit fee cover a broader range of improvement values, that will be less likely to happen. This also helps us with the bigger projects coming in. Ms. Bleiwas said the personnel and organization committee asked Mr. Bates to look at other municipalities, and he found that everyone does it their own way. Ms. Hunter asked if we have any sense of whether our code enforcement fees come close to covering the cost of the code enforcement function. Will we do a year-end analysis? Mr. Bates said he put together a per -permit scale of what it costs the town. He based it on a code officer's total pay, including benefits. For a demolition permit, we were getting $65 and it was costing the town $170 to do the inspections. We were getting a fee of $80 for reroofing and it was costing the town $201. We were getting $50 for decks and it was costing us $237. Residential renovations were $150 and cost the town $1210. The idea was to raise the fees to offset some of the costs. Mr. Goodman said it won't allow us to recover all our costs, but if we make the fees too high, it could discourage development and discourage people from coming in for inspections. Mr. DePaolo asked whether an analysis was done to determine whether the number of inspections related to a particular job is commensurate with those of other municipalities. Are we more stringent? Mr. Bates said it's based on state -required inspections. The new fees includes inspection and application review time, but not clerical time. Municity allows us to keep track. He's not sure other municipalities have a way to keep track of that. Mr. Goodman pointed out that a few months ago, we made some changes to our PDZ fees so we could collect reimbursement for the attorney time required to review those projects. He would like to look at other fees we can recover from developers when we incur a lot of legal time for review. We're not collecting as much as we're spending on fees for staff and attorneys. Looking ahead, we might be getting a lot more development in the town, so he wants to be prepared and not spend as many tax dollars as we have in the past. TB Resolution 2016-111: Amend the Town of Ithaca Fee Schedule Whereas, TB Resolution 2009-227 adopted the establishment and setting of fees by town board resolution; and Whereas, the Director of Code Enforcement has reviewed the fees established for the Code Enforcement Department and submitted recommended changes to partially cover the real costs of processing permits to the Town. These costs consist of; staff time to review, conduct inspections and administrative support; and Whereas, the Director of Code Enforcement has made recommended changes to the Personnel and Operations Committee; and TB August 8, 2016 page 7 Whereas, the Personnel and Operations Committee, at its April 20, 2016 and July 20, 2016 meeting, reviewed the recommendations of the Director of Code Enforcement and recommends modifying the Code Enforcement fees of the Town of Ithaca fee schedule to the Town Board; now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the attached Code Enforcement Fee Schedule, and directs the Director of Code Enforcement to amend the Town of Ithaca Fee Schedule to show these changes effective September 1, 2016. Moved: Pamela Bleiwas Seconded: Rod Howe Vote Ayes: Goodman, Howe, Leary, Bleiwas, Levine, Hunter, DePaolo 9. Discuss and Consider Approval of Three -Year Snow and Ice Agreement Mr. Goodman said that this is a three-year standard agreement we do with the county and the current agreement is set to expire in September. TB Resolution 2016-112: Approval of Three -Year Snow and Ice Agreement Whereas, the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County have contracted with each other for removal of snow and ice from County and Town roads since October 2002; and Whereas, the previous contract will expire on September 30, 2016; and Whereas, a new agreement for snow and ice removal from Town and County roads is proposed for a period commencing, October 1, 2016 and ending, September 30, 2019; and Whereas, the Tompkins County Legislature approved this agreement at its June 21, 2016 County Legislature meeting through Resolution No. 2016-134, whereby it authorized this agreement for a period of up to three years from October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2019; and Whereas, upon approval by the Town Board, and submission of the signed contract to the County, Tompkins County will pay the Town one installment of $3,032.58 and three installments of $3,032.57 through April 2017, for a total contractual payment of $12,130.29 for the first year of the agreement; and Whereas, the amount paid per mile will be adjusted each year by an amount equal to the percentage change in the County's per mile costs for snow and ice removal performed, comparing the two preceding winter seasons (October — September); and Whereas, each party to this Agreement may request a change to the level of reimbursement based on a formula taking in a comparison of the last two year average of the fixed payment with the payment that would have been due under a time and material basis; now therefore be it TB August 8, 2016 page 8 Resolved, that the governing body of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to enter into the proposed agreement with Tompkins County for the purposes of snow and ice removal commencing, October 1, 2016 and ending September 30, 2019, subject to the approval of the attorney for the Town. Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Tee -Ann Hunter Vote Ayes: Goodman, Howe, Leary, Bleiwas, Levine, Hunter, DePaolo 10. Discuss and consider support for applying for a NY Prize Grant for the Micro Grid Phase 2 at the IAWWTF Mr. Goodman said we got $100,000 from the state to do a Phase 1 feasibility study for the microgrid project, and the SJC hired Source One to do the study. Methane from the sewer treatment plant would run turbines and produce electricity to serve a microgrid that would service an area of the city around the treatment plant, including the high school, middle school, and some of the other buildings in that vicinity. Now that the study is done, we're eligible to apply for a $1 million grant for Phase 2, which would require a 15% match in order to move forward and prepare detailed construction documents and drawings. Phase 3 would get money from the state to build the microgrid. This resolution is to spend just under $50,000 to hire Source One to help us prepare the grant application for Phase 2. The county is probably not going to go forward with Phase 2 on their microgrid project at the airport. Our application might be more attractive without the competition of another local microgrid. TB Resolution 2016-113: Approval of Request for Funding for Consultant to Prepare Grant Application from Sewer Treatment Plant for NYSERDA NY Prize Micro Grid Phase 2 Whereas, the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility (IAWWTF) is a sewer treatment plant owned by the City of Ithaca and Towns of Dryden and Ithaca and governed by the Special Joint Committee (SJC), and Whereas, the IAWWTF has been leading a community wide exploration of using the plant as a resource for a distributed electricity supply platform for a local micro grid, and Whereas, SourceOne completed a NY Prize Phase 1 Feasibility Study that has been approved by NYSERDA and thus qualifies this project for Phase 2, and Whereas, the IAWWTF has received a proposal from SourceOne in the amount of $48,960 for assisting with the preparation of the Phase 2 application that must provide a detailed workplan for advanced engineering, and Whereas, the funding supplied by this resolution will be placed in accounts for City of Ithaca Capital Project 421J, and TB August 8, 2016 page 9 Whereas, the SJC voted on July 13, 2016 to recommend an amount not to exceed $48,960 to fund the proposed agreement with SourceOne, authorizing funds from the IAWWTF Capital Reserve Account and establishing CP 421J, and Whereas, the SJC recommends funding this proposal contingent upon action by all IAWWTF owners committing their percentage of reimbursement shares to the Joint Activity Fund CP421J as follows: Municipality City of Ithaca Town of Ithaca Town of Dryden Now therefore be it Percentage 57.14 40.88 1.98 Project Cost $27,975.74 20,014.85 969.41 $ 48,960.00 Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves the funding request from the SJC in an amount not to exceed $20,014.85 for the Town's share of the grant application proposal by SourceOne as detailed above, and further Resolved, that the Ithaca Town Board hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute any necessary agreement with SourceOne contingent upon approval by all IAWWTF owners, and subject to the approval of the Attorney for the Town. Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Tee -Ann Hunter Vote Ayes: Goodman, Howe, Leary, Bleiwas, Levine, Hunter, DePaolo 11. Consider Consent Agenda Items TB Resolution 2016-114: Adopt Consent Agenda Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the following Consent Agenda items: a. Approval of Town of Ithaca Abstract b. Approval of Bolton Point Abstract c. Authorization to Close the Town of Ithaca Sapsucker Water Tank Replacement Water Improvement Capital Project Fund d. Authorization for Sale of Surplus Items via Auction — Public Works e. Authorization for the Disposal of Surplus Computers and Computer Equipment L Consider appointment of William Highland to the Zoning Board of Appeals Moved: Tee -Ann Hunter Seconded: Rod Howe Vote Ayes: Goodman, Howe, Leary, Bleiwas, Levine, Hunter, DePaolo TB Resolution 2016-114a: Town of Ithaca Abstract TB August 8, 2016 page 10 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. 1009-1072 General Fund Town wide 30,765.16 General Fund Part Town 851.26 Highway Fund Part Town 26,681.52 Water Fund 8,033.94 Sewer Fund 2,835.29 Park Lane Water Main Improv — H 11 152,691.90 Risk Retention Fund 3,361.25 Fire Protection Fund 39,912.24 Forest Home Lighting District 134.45 Glenside Lighting District 56.41 Renwick Heights Lighting District 63.55 Eastwood Commons Lighting District 143.72 Clover Lane Lighting District 16.68 Winner's Circle Lighting District 56.63 Burleigh Drive Lighting District 56.44 West Haven Road Lighting District 168.93 Coddin ton Road Lighting District 100.87 Debt Service 1,800.00 TOTAL 267,730.24 TB Resolution 2016-114b: 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: 314-363 Check Numbers: 16667-16716 Capital Impr/Repl Project $280,342.17 Operating Fund $ 60,..187.64 TB August B, 2016 page 11 TOTAL $340,529.81 Less Prepaid $ 1,60 -.10 TOTAL $338,925.71 TB Resolution 2016-114c: Authorization to Close the Town of Ithaca Sapsucker Water Tank Replacement Water Improvement Capital Project Fund Whereas, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca authorized the Town of Ithaca Sapsucker Water Tank Replacement Water Improvement Capital Project Fund under Resolution No. 2015-056 on May 11, 2015; and Whereas, the Town Highway Superintendent/Director of Public Works and Town Engineer have certified the Town of Ithaca Sapsucker Water Tank Replacement Water Improvement project has been completed to the satisfaction of the Town; and Whereas, after satisfying all obligations and liabilities of the fund there remains a positive equity in the approximate amount of $80,593.00. Now, therefore, be it Resolved, after discussion with the Town Highway Superintendent/Director of Public Works this Town Board declares said project complete; and be it further Resolved, that the Town Board approves, authorizes and directs the Town Finance Officer to close the accounting and financial records for the Town of Ithaca Sapsucker Water Tank Replacement Water Improvement Capital Project Fund; and be it further Resolved, that the Town Board approves, authorizes and directs the remaining equity in the Town of Ithaca Sapsucker Water Tank Replacement Water Improvement Capital Project Fund be transferred to the Debt Service Fund for payment of principal and interest of the 2015 Public Improvement (Serial) Bonds. TB Resolution 2016-114d: Disposal of Surplus Vehicles and Equipment Whereas, the Town has received, or soon will receive, all of the replacement vehicles and equipment ordered as part of the 20I6 FIeet Replacement Program; and Whereas, the Public Works Department requests the Town Board to declare the following identified vehicles and equipment as surplus, obsolete, and no longer needed by the Town: • 2002 Sterling 10 wheel Dump/Plow Truck (Fleet #1) • 2008 Ford F-250 w/plow (Fleet #67) • 2011 Ford F-250 wlplow (Fleet #62) • 2013 Quality Steel Trailer (Fleet #Tl); and Whereas, the Public Works Department recommends the listed vehicles and equipment be disposed of by sale in a public auction, by sale in an "on-line" public auction, or be considered for "trade-in" on new vehicles or equipment ordered as part of the 2016 Fleet Replacement Program, as determined to be in the best interest of the Town of Ithaca. Now therefore be it; TB August 8, 2016 page 12 Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby declare the vehicles and equipment identified above are surplus, obsolete, and no longer needed by the Town; and be it further Resolved, that the surplus vehicles and equipment be disposed of by sale in a public auction, by sale in an "on-line" public auction, or as a "trade-in" on new vehicles or equipment ordered as part of the 2016 Fleet Replacement Program, as determined to be in the best interest of the Town of Ithaca; and be it further Resolved, that the proceeds realized through the sale of the surplus vehicles and equipment be deposited to Highway Fund account DB230, Cash Reserve - Highway Equipment. TB Resolution 2016-114e: Disposal of Surplus Computers and Computer Equipment Whereas, the Town of Ithaca maintains an inventory of computers and computer equipment used by Town staff to conduct the daily business of the Town; and Whereas, the Town staff will from time to time identify various computers and computer equipment which is surplus, obsolete and no longer needed to conduct the daily business of the Town and identify such equipment to the Town Supervisor for the purpose of receiving approval to dispose of such equipment; and Whereas, the Town staff has reviewed the probable proceeds to be realized from the public sale of the surplus computers and computer equipment and has determined that the costs to the Town associated with public sale of the identified computers and computer equipment will exceed the probable proceeds; and Whereas, the Town staff has determined that it would be unlikely to receive competitive proposals from public schools, public libraries, or other entities if the Town were to try to donate the surplus computers and computer equipment pursuant to the provisions of General Municipal Law Sec. 104-c; and Whereas, it is the recommendation of the Town Supervisor to seek the approval of this governing Town Board to declare that the equipment identified below is surplus, obsolete, and is no longer needed by the Town MAKE MODEL SERIAL NUMBER YEAR PURCHASED Computers HP Workstation xw4600 2UA9160SF4 2004 HP D500 6XZ1-JYFZ-TOGO 2008 HP dx2200 MXL7080B9T 2007 HP dc7800 2UA8270VN7 2008 HP dc7800 USH832003N 2008 HP DC5100 MXL5330Q4J 2005 TB August 8, 2016 page 13 IBM ThinkCenter KCCX2MC 2004 HP 500BMT MXL101217P HP PRO 3500 MT MXL418052K DELL OPTIPLEX3020 6XXWZ 12 HP Compaq dc7800 2UA8031BG8 HP Workstation xw4600 USH9050107 HP Compaq dc7800 2UA8270VN8 DELL Precision m6400 1V24VK1 DELL Latitude 978BD21 HP Compaq nx7400 CNU7041 KT9 PANASONIC TOUGHBOOK CF-30FTSAXAM PANASONIC TOUGHBOOK CF-19KHRAXAM Monitors Viewsonic VE170 Flat panel A09022700393 2004 HP TFT1501 Flat Panel CN2467B910 2005 Acer AL 1714 ELT 1809 2005 HP 1530FLAT CNP332B2S 1 2005 Compaq TFT 1520 Flat panel CN2467B928 2005 Printer HP Laser Jet 1020 CNBK403009 2006 Other Linksys (3) 2.4GHz 802.1 lg Wireless -G Access Point Model # WAP54G 2008 Accessories Cables (power, printer, USB) ? Mice/Keyboards ? Charges/Cases ? now therefore be it Resolved, that the Town Board does hereby declare that the computers and computer equipment identified above is surplus, obsolete, and is no longer needed by the Town; and be it further Resolved, that the Town Board finds that the transfer of computer software installed on the computers and computer equipment identified above would not cause a breach of a computer software license agreement or an infringement of a copyright; and be it further Resolved, that the Town Board hereby directs Town staff to discard and dispose of the computers and computer equipment identified above in the most economical and environmentally responsible manner currently available and consistent with the best interests of the Town of Ithaca. TB August 8, 2016 page 14 TB Resolution 2016-114f: Appointment of Zoning Board of Appeals Alternate Member Be it Resolved, that William Highland of 3 Renwick Drive, is appointed as the Zoning Board of Appeals alternate member for a term beginning August 8, 2016 and ending December 31, 2016. 12. Report of Town Officials and Committees Mr. Goodman said Orlando Iacovelli has decided he wants to get rid of the old house on Coddington Road. He's decided he's not going to subdivide the property and build rentals; he wants to build a single-family house for his son, instead. Mr. Goodman contacted John Lewis at Historic Ithaca to let him know the house is available. Mr. Iacovelli doesn't require payment; he just wants someone to move it. Mr. Goodman said Martha Robertson is trying to create a housing summit. She's thinking about having a keynote speaker on Tuesday, November 29th and on the next day having a day -long series of workshops and perhaps other speakers. He wanted to know whether town board members were intending to go to any more conferences that they were hoping to get reimbursed for. If not, he suggested we use $1500 from that budget line to pay for our spots in the housing summit. The county has authorized $2500 for it and will ask the city for $2500 and the Park Foundation for $40,000. The board members indicated they were not planning to attend any conferences. Mr. Goodman noted that there was a letter in correspondence from Mary Jo Eunice of Eunice Realty at East Hill Plaza. She's requested that the town take another look at our zoning ordinance requiring no less than 1500 feet from one drive-through to another drive-through. Mr. Goodman asked whether the town board wanted the COC or planning committee to revisit that issue. Many people have signed a petition asking for a drive-through at Dunkin Donuts. Mr. Levine is in favor of having a drive-through at the East Hill Dunkin Donuts. Ms. Bleiwas said the people working in the Cornell offices at East Hill Plaza would really appreciate a drive-through so they can get coffee on their way to work. Mr. DePaolo said the planning committee could take a look at it. Ms. Hunter said past boards clung rather firmly to the no drive-through idea to cut down on idling cars and to encourage people to walk more. Ms. Ritter said the current zoning ordinance would have to be revisited. She pointed out that the restriction doesn't apply to banks or pharmacies — it seems to have been aimed at restaurants. Ms. Brock reminded the board that the person who wrote the letter sued the town because the ZBA denied a variance allowing a drive-through, and we won — the ZBA's decision was upheld. TB August 8, 2016 page 15 Ms. Ritter reported that the Maplewood preliminary EIS was handed to the planning board and won't be released to the public probably until September. The Chainworks PDZ language is active, so there might be some movement on that project. 13. Intermunicipal Organizations Mr. Goodman reported that at the Bolton Point commission meeting, there were representatives from the City of Ithaca and Cornell, talking about the issues they're having with their water systems because of the dry creeks. Bolton Point is not planning to do anything now, except continue to sell water to the city while their treatment plant is being built. Cornell is worried because the students are coming back in a couple of weeks. If after August 19th, we don't get much rain, Cornell and the city will ask to sit down with Bolton Point and ask for help. We're producing as much water as we can right now. Our usage is up, and while we have a seemingly limitless supply of water in the lake, we're constrained by the amount we can treat each day. Mr. DePaolo asked whether we have any idea how much of that water is used for irrigation. Mr. Goodman said Bolton Point is contacting the large users to let them know what their usage is. EcoVillage has been told their usage is up. Cornell has put out directives and press releases requesting people cut back on their usage. Mr. DePaolo asked whether we have the authority to restrict certain types of water use. Mr. Weber said there's wording in the agreement at Bolton Point that defines emergency support and cooperation. This is above and beyond some of the definitions of emergency, because the request is that Bolton Point provide a significant amount of water for both of those entities to actually function. There are constraints within the way Bolton Point has been structured and also how the individual municipalities that are members of Bolton Point have been designed and constructed. So regardless of whether Bolton Point can produce the amount of water, getting the amount of water into and through the system to get to the city and Cornell has some inherent problems. The other issue is that both Cornell and the city have continued to expand their demand with very little effort as to the maintenance of their facilities. Part of that goes to the question of two dams that function as the impoundment for their water supply and the maintenance of dredging behind those. He recently heard that because of sedimentation and a number of slides into their reservoir, they have available about a third of what they were originally permitted for. So, part of the discussion is what those two entities are going to do for maintenance of their facilities and how they are going to plan for the growth that they continue to approve. Mr. Goodman said that at the meeting, Cornell said they have started to work with O'Brien and Gere Engineers to help them figure out what they can do in the short term and to talk about what the three systems can do collaboratively in case of future droughts. There is an emergency services agreement, and that's what we'll be working under if they need help in a couple weeks. They would pay for any water we supply them. TB August 8, 2016 page 16 14. Consider executive session to discuss collective bargaining negotiations and to discuss proposed litigation. Mr. Goodman moved to enter executive session at 7:07 p.m. to discuss collective bargaining negotiations and proposed litigation; Mr. DePaolo seconded. Ms. Hunter moved to reenter open session at 7:28 p.m.; Mr. DePaolo seconded. TB Resolution_ 2016-115: Termination of Sapsucker Woods Water Main Replacement Contract and Christopher Circle Water Main Replacement Contract Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby authorize the Town Supervisor to sign and serve on G. DeVincentis & Son Construction Co., Inc. notices of contract termination, in a form approved by the attorney for the Town, for the Sapsucker Woods Water Main Replacement Contract and the Christopher Circle Water Main Replacement Contract Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Eric Levine Vote Ayes: Goodman, Leary, Bleiwas, Levine, Hunter, DePaolo Adjournment On a motion by Tee -Ann Hunter and seconded by Pamela Bleiwas, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, v bebra DeAugis ine First Deputy Town Clerk TB August 8, 2016 page 17 Attachment #1 TB Meeting August 8, 2016 Board of Fire Commissioners Report to Ithaca Town Board August 8, 2016 old compressor that is used to refill the departments air tanks. The department has submitted two SAFER (Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response) grants. One is to support a volunteer/bunker program that would support equipment, physicals, and training for up to 20 new bunker/volunteers over a 4 year period of time. The total funding requested is $256,744 including funds for a part time program coordinator. The other grant was to add 4 additional career staff to the department for a 2 year period. The positions would be fully funded on the grant and require no reduction from current staffmg levels. At the end of the period the City would have to determine if the positions would continue to be supported on the department's operating budget. The amount requested is $634,016. Board of Fire Commissioners The BFC meeting agendas/minutes (dating back to October 1987) may be accessed from the Board of Fire Commissioner's section of the City Website at: http://www.cityofithaca.org/367/Board-of-Fire-Commissioners The Board is continuing to work on guidelines and procedures for recognizing meritorious service by career and volunteer members of the department. There is currently one opening on the Board of Fire Commissioners available to be filled by an individual recommended by the Town Board. As noted previously, given the Board's role in overseeing the operation of the department and the effort to increase the effective use of volunteer's in the department it would strengthen the Board if the individual appointed had experience/knowledge/skills in one or more of the following areas — human resources/workforce/volunteer recruitment/ working with volunteers/ organizational uses of social media/website developmentlorganizational development/Marketing/previous experience with the fire service. A priority for the position would be to seek an individual with the aforementioned skills, who would also enhance the diversity of the Board and reflect the community served by the fire department. The time commitment for a board member is approximately 1-3 hours per month. The Board meets monthly on the second Tuesday of the month at 4 pm at Central Fire Station. day of the month at 4 pm at Central Fire Station. Volunteer Program Development There are currently 13 active members of Volunteer Company No. 9 who serve the department. There are also four provisional members of the Company who are awaiting training to become active volunteers with the Department, One is expected to begin interior firefighter training later this month and 3 are scheduled for fire police training this month. An ad hoc committee consisting of 2 members of the Board (Commissioners Gilligan & Guttridge), Chief Parsons, Assistant Chief /Training Officer Tracy, plus Company 9 Captain, Dave Cornelius are working to address various volunteer issues including training, recruitment, Attachment #1 TB Meeting August 8, 2016 Board of Fire Commissioners Report to Ithaca Town Board August 8, 2016 The following is a summary of the Board of Fire Commissioners quarterly report to the Ithaca Town Board for the second quarter of 2016. Included with this report are: The Fire Chief s Report given at the July 12, 2016 BFC meeting. This includes the Fire Marshal's Report & Fire Prevention Bureau activity. • The department call activity reports for January 1- June 30. 2016. Total calls 2,431 (slightly lower than prior 2 years — 2,517 & 2,472). • The financial operations summary through June 30, 2016. Fire Department Operational Staffing (June 30, 2016). • As of June 30, 2016 the active Uniformed staff totaled 63 (1 Chief, 6 Assistant Chiefs, 8 lieutenants, & 47 Fire Fighters plus 1 Deputy Chief on per diem). In addition there is 1 Administrative Coordinator for a total of 64 personnel. • Two recruit firefighters (Mark Stillwell and Lucas Albertsman) are completing their in- house training and will be on shift duty in August. 2016 Budget —The total 2016 approved operating budget (excluding benefits and debt service) is $6,119,063. Expenditures as of June 30, 2016 were $2,819,398 approximately 46% of the department's operating budget. SCBA Equipment— The department received a Federal grant of $413,000 to replace its 15 year old SCBA equipment. There is a 10% local match requirement for this award. The units have been received. Training is currently under way for department staff on the use of the new equipment. The transition to the new gear should be completed over the next month or two. Station 9 (Collegetown) -Kingsbury Architects has submitted a second report on the feasibility of relocating the Collegetown Fire station to an alternative (2ad option) site on East Hill. This second study also reviewed the condition of the Central Fire station facility including the feasibility of expanding the station to accommodate the apparatus, people, and program storage from the Collegetown Fire Station for a short or possibly longer term. The draft report is currently under review by the Planning Department, engineering Department, and by the Fire Chief. Apparatus - The contract made with Seagrave Fire Apparatus, LLC to purchase a new pumper at a cost of $529,316 with additional equipment purchases the contract should not exceed a total cost of $550,000 was modified to include a second pumper to be delivered towards the end of the year or early in 2017. Common Council and the Town Board have authorized the replacement of this second pumper for this year. This pumper replace was originally scheduled for 2020 but due to significant corrosion of the frame on the 16 year old 2000 4 -Guys Spartan pumper it was determined to proceed with the replacement this year. Funds originally intended for the refurbishment of the 1989 Saulsbury Heavy Rescue truck ($450,000) will be redirected to fund the second pumper and the refurbishment project will be delayed. This Heavy Rescue truck is currently out of service awaiting a replacement for the vehicle's motor. Grants The Department has received a grant for $45,455 towards the replacement of the 20 year Board of Fire Commissioners Report to Ithaca Town Board August 8, 2016 and retention. Other Items & Items in progress 1 There has been an on-going issue with the CAD (computer aided dispatch) system used by the 911 Center. It appears that updates to both the software and hardware being made by the dispatch center will address these issues. 2 The Board is holding information sessions regarding departmental operations prior to the beginning of the formal monthly BFC meetings. These sessions provide an opportunity to learn more about specific areas of department operations such as organization of department into shifts, protocols for dispatching apparatus based on criteria established with County 911 center, EMS call response protocols, Hazmat operations, Code division work, Rope rescue operations, water rescue, equipment and vehicles used by the department, etc. In conjunction with these sessions, the Board is also discussing with the Chief the possibility of scheduling an annual or semi-annual session at the training center that would provide an opportunity to provide a live demonstration of the responses required by the department to emergency incidents. 3 Charter Review- the Board is continuing its discussion of the role of BFC. We anticipate working with the Board's Common Council Liaison Gearhart, the Common Council, and Town Board to develop recommendations for clarifying and updating the role of the BFC. 4 Resource recovery/False Alarm Policy — Currently on hold pending review with the City Attorney. 5 County Fire -Disaster — EMS Advisory Board— no new action on this issue. 6 Training Center Facility Project —no construction has been authorized due to the training site being located on land designated as City Park land. Respectfully Submitted, Bill Gilligan, Chair, Board of Fire Commissioners 2016 REVENUE SUMMARY BY ACCOUNT JUNE 2016 Revised Remaining Average REVENUE YTD REVENUE PCTCollected REVENUE Mthly Projected Fire Code Inspection 1565 $61,000 $42,426 70% $18,574 $8,485 $101,822 Home & Comm Services 2189 $100 0% $100 $0 $0 Public Safety Services 2260 $2,000 0% ---------- -----__�_._..,-- - $2,000 - $0 —.._....-_ ...._._ $0 Fire Protective Services 2262 $3,081,200 $1,020,000 33% $2,061,200 $204,000 $2,448,000 Rental of Real Property 2410 $11,000 $900 8% $10,100 $180 $2,160 Rental of Equipment 2414 $0 0% $0 $0 $0 Public Safety Permits 2550 $12,000 $7,750 65% $4,250 $1,550 $18,600 Fines & Forfeited Bail 2610 $500 0% $500 $0 $0 Minor Sales 2655 $100 0% $100 $0 $0 Sale of Equipment 2665 $0 $10,000 0% $0 $2,000 $0 Insurance Recoveries 2680 $25,134 251% -$15,134 $60,322 $10,000 $5,027 Other Compensation for Loss 2690 $50 0% $50 $0 $0 Refund Prior Year Expense 2701 , $200 $57 28% $143 $11 $136 Gifts & Donations 2705 $774,377 $70 10% $0 $14 $168 Gifts & Donations (12250) 2705 $20,000 Unclassified Revenue 2770 $600 0% $0 $0 $0 Home & Community Service 3989 $0 10% $0 $0 $0 $3,953,127 $1,126,337 28.5% $2,081,883 $221,267 $2,631,208 2016 a v M ` oA ap az 5o po °w nc Ea Q$ 51 o$ >� ma �$ M m 52 o Nh a �^ w 53 00 a^ bO 54 c �N t� a N >� og goes Wa^ SS a m� ar c^ ~ c 0 Q. x m m� a u _co m Admin 181,649 105 65.225 4,328 865 1,947 5,678 5.055 3.462 86,560 52% 95089 staff 4.822.264 110 123,239 188,377 22.666 1.175.107 706,864 44,768 91,892 2,352.913 51% 2,469,351 OverTime 370,000 125 6,537 2.395 2.047 128.942 11713 0 8,907 150,541 S9% 219,459 Furn 3 Fbdure3 0 205 0 0% 0 Office Equip 0 210 0 0% 0 Other Equip 9,000 225 1,058 1,058 88% 7,942 Telephone 17.000 405 4,207 3.072 7,279 S7% 9,721 Wife$ 85,000 410 35.415 35.415 587, 49.585 Clothes 122,700 415 2,115 19,252 21,367 83% 0:,333 Gas R On 710000 420 4,923 4,923 93% 66,077 Office Expen 14,300 425 4.124 0 4,124 71% 10,176 Contracts 25,000 435 5,166 2,340 7,506 70% 17,494 Staff Devel 23,675 440 6 6,459 946 7.411 69% 16.264 Travel 12,675 445 39 10,101 10,140 20% 2,535 Insurance 79,000 455 56,988 56,988 28% 22,012 PrgmSuppl 21,000 460 1,104 215 800 9,925 689 223 12,956 38%, 8,044 Rental 2,000 470 276 276 86% 1.724 Prop Ma IM 39,000 475 898 898 981/. 38,102 Equip Mand 140.000 476 44,937 44,937 68% 95,063 Equip Parts 75.000 477 14,286 14,286 81% 1.0.714 Bldg Malnt 8,800 480 2,820 2.820 687. 5.980 6,119,063 266,635 195,315 28,493 1,322,380 841,149 52,895 115,531 2,822,398 54% 3,296,665 2016 Accts JM0 CITY OF ITHACA 310 West Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5497 OFFICE OF THE FIRE CHIEF Telephone: 607272-1234 Fax: 607272-2793 MEMORANDUM To: Board of Fire Commissioners From: Tom Parsons, Fire Chief Date: July 12th, 2016 Re: Fire Chiefs Monthly Report to the Board of Fire Commissioners ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION Administration I ) Career Personnel Report PERSONNEL STAFFING LEVELS 1 Chief 1 Deputy Chief (per diem) 6 Assistant Chiefs 8 Lieutenants 47 Fire Fighters 63 Uniform Personnel 1 Administrative Coordinator Total employees as of June 30th, 2016 — 64 a) Vacancies • None b) Retirements: • None C) Hiring/Promotions • None Page 2 of 5 - Fire Chiefs Monthly Report July 12th, 2016 2) Budget Report a) 2016 Budget: Budget Summary — see accompanying report 3) County Communications and 911 Programs: a) Tompkins County has received a grant to provide two Mobile Data Terminals in each of the County's sixteen fire departments. The Mobile Data Terminals will be installed in our reserve Ladder Truck, and our new Duty Chief's Vehicle. 4) Grants and Donations a) In May, we took delivery of sixty-five new Self Contained Breathing Apparatus Units that were purchased from funding provided in the 2014 Assistance for Firefighting Grant Program. The AFG grant provided $413,000 in funding towards the $455,000 cost of the new units. Firefighters are being fit tested and trained on the new units this month. b) No Update: On May 20'h, 2016, I received word from U.S. Senator Charles Schumer's Office that the Ithaca Fire Department was the recipient of a grant under the 2015 Assistance for Firefighting Grant Program. In January, I submitted a grant application to fund the replacement of the fire department's breathing air compressor. The current compressor is 15 years old and nearing its end of use. We are approved to receive $45,455 towards the replacement of the compressor. c) No Update: On March 25", 2016, I submitted two grant applications to the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) program. The first grant application requested funding for a volunteer and bunker program. The grant would pay for equipment, physicals, and training for up to 20 new volunteer and bunking members over four years. If awarded the grant would also fund a part-time program administrator. The total amount requested is $256,744. The second grant application requested funding for four career firefighters. If awarded, the grant would fund salaries and benefits for four career firefighters for two years. After the grant period, the City would either pick up the cost for the four additional firefighters or eliminate the positions. The total amount requested is $634,016. There can be no reductions in staffing during the grant performance period. On May 4th,Common Council approved a resolution authorizing the Mayor to submit a letter of commitment to US FEMA outlining the City's understanding of the terms and conditions of the FY 2015 SAFER grant. 5) Collegetown Fire Station Page 3 of 5 - Fire Chiefs Monthly Report July 12th, 2016 The City has contracted with Kingsbury Architects to look at another location for an East Hill fire station on Maple Ave. They also reviewed the building conditions at Central Fire Station. The have investigated the feasibility of expanding the station to accommodate the apparatus, people, and program storage from the Collegetown Fire Station for a short or possibly longer term. Kingsbury has provided a draft report that is currently under review by the Planning Department, Engineering Department, and by me. A final report should be ready by August. 5) Apparatus a) Pumper Replacement — The City Common Council and the Ithaca Town Board has approved the replacement of a pumper for this year. The original order approved earlier this year has been amended to include a second engine b) Heavy Rescue — We are waiting on delivery of a new motor for the Heavy Rescue Truck. Last month the motor in the truck lost a main bearing. It was recommended by the City's Fleet Manager to replace the motor. c) Pumper and Ladder Truck Frame Maintenance — We have sent out two newest engines and our reserve ladder truck out to have the truck frames cleaned and repainted. As the result of our older engines suffering structural problems from corrosion, I have decided to have regular cleaning, inspections, and repainting of the frames our heavy apparatus. LIFE SAFETY DIVISION Fire Prevention Bureau 1) Code Enforcement Division: The following is a list of Activities for June 2016 - Complaints Received 15 Referred to the City Building Division 9 Referred to the Town of Ithaca 2 Investigated by the Fire Prevention Bureau 4 Inspections: 105 City Fire Safety & Property Maintenance 25 City - Permit Required City Fire Safety 20 Town Fire Safety & Property 13 City - Sprinkler Inspections 23 Page 4 of 5 - Fire Chief s Monthly Report City - Alternative Fire Protection Systems 2 City - Fire Alarm Inspection 20 City — Standpipe Hydrostatic Test 1 City - Standpipe Flow Test 1 City — Fire Pump Flow Test 0 City — Elevator 0 Permits or Certificates: 40 Operating Permit — Assembly Occupancy 20 Operating Permit — Hazardous Occupancy 0 Operating Permit — Lumber Yard 0 Operating Permit — Elevator 4 Operating Permit — Fireworks 0 Certificate of Compliance — Occupancy 4 Certificate of Compliance - Fire Alarm 8 July 12th, 2016 Certificate of Compliance - Fire Sprinkler 1 Certificate of Compliance - Fire Pump 0 Certificate of Compliance — Fire Standpipe 1 Certificate of Compliance - Alternative Suppression 2 2) Fire Investigation Unit: There was one fire investigation in June. The investigation was for a fire at 308 Linn St in the City of Ithaca. The cause of the fire was improperly discarded smoking materials on the porch. 3) Public Education and Special Events Public Education Events: 5 Fire Drills Witnessed: 1 Child Safety Seat Inspections: 2* *Not including five inspections performed during CSS training on 6/24/2016 OPERATIONS DIVISION 1) Emergency Response: See Quarterly Report Simultaneous Incidents in the first half of 2016: 427 out of 2431 Incidents (17.56%) Page 5 of 5 - Fire Chiefs Monthly Report 2) Emergency Management: No Report. 3) Mutual Aid Calls: Quarterly Report Support 1) Training Quarterly Report 2) Training Center Quarterly Report Volunteer Recruitment and Retention 1) Summaries of Service Hours: Quarterly Report July 12th, 2016 2) There are currently 12 Active Volunteer Firefighters and Fire Police 3) Requests from Company Members to become active: On new member has an application pending Ithaca FD Incident Type Period Comparisons Alarm Date Between (01/01/2016) and {06/30/2016} Incident Type 01/01/2016 01/01/201 01/01/2014 01/01/2013 to 5 to to to 06/30/2016 06/30/201 06/30/2014 06/30/2013 5 100 Fire, Other 4 6 5 111 Building fire 23 24 26 1: 112 Fires in structure other than in a building 0 0 1 f 113 Cooking fire, confined to container 10 9 12 1: 114 Chimney or flue fire, confined to chimney or flue 0 3 2 f 116 Fuel burner/boiler malfunction, fire confined 0 1 0 118 Trash or rubbish fire, contained 2 0 3 121 Fire in mobile home used as fixed residence 1 0 0 130 Mobile property (vehicle) fire, Other 0 0 0 , 131 Passenger vehicle fire 5 3 4 ! 132 Road freight or transport vehicle fire 0 1 2 f 134 Water vehicle fire 0 1 0 138 Off-road vehicle or heavy equipment fire 0 0 2 140 Natural vegetation fire, Other 5 3 2 , 142 Brush or brush -and -grass mixture fire 2 1 0 143 Grass fire 1 2 1 150 Outside rubbish fire, Other 2 0 3 , 151 Outside rubbish, trash or waste fire 3 4 8 154 Dumpster or other outside trash receptacle fire 2 1 3 160 Special outside fire, Other 3 3 0 : 161 Outside storage fire 0 0 1 170 Cultivated vegetation, crop fire, Other 2 0 1 : 221 Overpressure rupture of air or gas pipe/pipeline 1 0 0 231 Chemical reaction rupture of process vessel 1 0 0 240 Explosion (no fire), Other 0 0 1 : 251 Excessive heat, scorch burns with no ignition 1 4 1 300 Rescue, EMS incident, other 3 2 5 300lGorge Rescue, EMS incident, Ground Evacuation 0 0 1 3002Gorge Rescue, EMS incident, Low Angle Rope Assist 0 0 1 311 Medical assist, assist EMS crew 9 4 8 1! 320 Emergency medical service, other 32 14 36 2' 321 EMS call, excluding vehicle accident with injury 981 1045 966 93, 322 Motor vehicle accident with injuries 38 34 53 5� 323 Motor vehicle/pedestrian accident (MV Ped) 8 9 5 E 324 Motor Vehicle Accident with no injuries 16 21 13 11 331 Lock -in (if lock out , use 511 ) 1 3 0 33llLock-in / Knox Box Access Required 3 0 1 3312Lock-in / Force Entry Required 0 1 0 342 Search for person in water 0 1 1 350 Extrication, rescue, Other 0 1 2 352 Extrication of victim(s) from vehicle 2 0 0 07/08/2016 00:22 Page 1 Ithaca FD Incident Type Period Comparisons Alarm Date Between {01/01/2016} and {06/30/2016} Incident Type 01/01/2016 01/01/201 01/01/2014 01/01/2013 to 5 to to to 06/30/2016 06/30/201 06/30/2014 06/30/2013 5 354 Trench/below-grade rescue 1 0 0 3561Gorge Rescue, High -angle Extrication 4 0 0 360 Water & ice -related rescue, other 1 1 0 361 Swimming/recreational water areas rescue 0 0 0 363 Swift water rescue 0 1 0 365 Watercraft rescue 1 2 0 381 Rescue or EMS standby 0 0 6 400 Hazardous condition, Other 24 29 31 2, 410 Combustible/flammable gas/liquid condition, other 2 1 3 `. 411 Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill 5 6 6 412 Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) 38 28 43 4] 413 Oil or other combustible liquid spill 4 4 1 420 Toxic condition, Other 0 0 1 421 Chemical hazard (no spill or leak) 3 2 0 422 Chemical spill or leak 0 1 1 ] 424 Carbon monoxide incident 9 19 12 1( 440 Electrical wiring/equipment problem, Other 5 6 7 f 441 Heat from short circuit (wiring), defective/worn 2 4 2 442 Overheated motor 3 6 4 ] 443 Breakdown of light ballast 2 0 0 ] 444 Power line down 17 24 6 1: 445 Arcing, shorted electrical equipment 5 10 11 451 Biological hazard, confirmed or suspected 1 0 1 460 Accident, potential accident, Other 0 1 0 461 Building or structure weakened or collapsed 0 1 0 463 Vehicle accident, general cleanup 1 2 3 471 Explosive, bomb removal (for bomb scare, use 721) 1 1 0 480 Attempted burning, illegal action, Other 0 0 0 ] 481 Attempt to burn 0 0 1 500 Service Call, other 35 61 88 6" 510 Person in distress, Other 4 11 9 511 Lock -out 6 6 5 E 520 Water problem, Other 14 12 23 521 Water evacuation 8 2 18 522 Water or steam leak 10 11 22 531 Smoke or odor removal 5 2 1 540 Animal problem, Other 0 1 1 541 Animal problem 0 1 1 542 Animal rescue 0 1 1 550 Public service assistance, Other 3 10 8 1! 551 Assist police or other governmental agency 16 8 9 1' 07/08/2016 00:22 Page 2 Ithaca FD Incident Type Period Comparisons Alarm Date Between {01/01/2016} and {06/30/2016} Incident Type 01/01/2016 01/01/201 01/01/2014 01/01/2013 to 5 to to to 06/30/2016 06/30/201 06/30/2014 06/30/2013 5 553 Public service 5 2 4 554 Assist invalid 6 8 2 D 555 Defective elevator, no occupants 0 1 1 561 Unauthorized burning 5 7 5 D 571 Cover assignment, standby, moveup 0 1 0 600 Good intent call, Other 36 22 33 34 611 Dispatched & cancelled en route 6 7 4 , 6111Dispatched & cancelled en route - By Dispatcher 9 8 12 4 6112Dispatched & cancelled en route - By Bangs 150 119 88 12: 6113Dispatched & cancelled en route - By CUEMS 23 29 34 2! 6114Dispatched & cancelled en route - By CU EH&S 67 65 65 3! 6115Dispatched & cancelled en route - By IC Safety 52 49 32 3E 6117Dispatched & cancelled en route - By MA Dept 8 2 8 6118Dispatched & cancelled en route - By IPD 6 6 8 ! 6119Dispatched & cancelled en route - By Other Police 1 0 1 621 Wrong location 0 1 1 622 No Incident found on arrival at dispatch address 17 17 16 631 Authorized controlled burning 1 0 1 641 Vicinity alarm (incident in other location) 0 1 0 650 Steam, Other gas mistaken for smoke, Other 0 0 1 651 Smoke scare, odor of smoke 7 7 4 '. 652 Steam, vapor, fog or dust thought to be smoke 2 4 2 : 653 Smoke from barbecue, tar kettle 0 0 1 : 661 EMS call, party transported by non -fire agency 1 1 1 671 HazMat release investigation w/no HazMat 30 23 19 1, 700 False alarm or false call, Other 20 11 7 700lFalse alarm or false call, Other - Medical Alarm 44 41 21 2E 710 Malicious, mischievous false call, Other 2 5 2 711 Municipal alarm system, malicious false alarm 1 2 0 713 Telephone, malicious false alarm 0 0 0 714 Central station, malicious false alarm 15 19 18 3( 715 Local alarm system, malicious false alarm 1 3 2 721 Bomb scare - no bomb 0 0 1 730 System malfunction, Other 10 14 11 11 731 Sprinkler activation due to malfunction 9 7 11 733 Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 37 45 29 1" 734 Heat detector activation due to malfunction 3 4 3 735 Alarm system sounded due to malfunction 42 60 47 3E 736 CO detector activation due to malfunction 11 18 7 E 740 Unintentional transmission of alarm, Other 44 13 26 5; 741 Sprinkler activation, no fire - unintentional 9 18 5 1! 07/08/2016 00:22 Page 3 Ithaca FD Incident Type Period Comparisons Alarm Date Between {01/01/2016} and {06/30/2016} Incident Type 01/01/2016 01/01/201 01/01/2014 01/01/2013 to 5 to to to 06/30/2016 06/30/201 06/30/2014 06/30/2013 5 744 Detector activation, no fire - unintentional 32 60 114 110 745 Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 55 73 67 82 746 Carbon monoxide detector activation, no CO 5 6 10 6 812 Flood assessment 0 2 0 0 900 Special type of incident, Other 1 0 1 0 Totals 2431 2517 2472 2376 07/08/2016 00:22 Page 4 Ithaca Fire Department January through June 2016 Responses - Incident Type by District 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 c�h 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 g � ® ...�1► � � � .nom �{® - dry Oma„ O� O� 01 N C� ', % G � d o ■ Oth ■ Sea ■ Alaj ■Go( ■ Ser o Haz ■ EM, ■ Ove ■ Fire 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Ithaca Fire Department January through June 2016 Responses - Incident Type by Municipality Total City Total Town Outside Ithaca Municipality ■ Other • Severe Weather ■Alarms/No Fire ®Good Intent Call •Service Call E3 Hazardous Condition • EMS/Rescue • Overpressure/Rupture • Fire 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Ithaca Fire Department January through June 2016 Responses by Municipality Municipality ■ Outside Ithaca ■Town of Ithaca ■ City of Ithaca otal tib �i l l ud 1 L1 1 1 V 41 b b5l District Fire Rupture EMS/Rescue Condition Service Call Call Alarms/No Fire V Total City 38 3 703 97 89 283 503 Total Town 16 0 404 25 29 124 94 Outside Ithaca 11 0 1 0 1 9 0 Total 65 3 1108 122 119 416 597 1 0 0 0 4-" r_.1 . , 00 C'1 0 02 0� 0E ��lp 0; 08 G9, 2016 REVENUE SUMMARY BY ACCOUNT JUNE 2016 Revised Remaining Average REVENUE YTD REVENUE PCT Collected REVENUE Mthly Projected Fire Code Inspection 1565 $61-000 $42,426 70% $18,574 48,485 $101,822 Home & Comm Services 2189 $100 0% $0 '$100 $0 Public Safety Services 2260 $2,000 0% $2,000 $0 $0 Fire Protective Services 2262 $3,081,200 $1,020,000 33% $2,061,200 $204,000 $2,448,000 Rental of Real Property 2410 $11,000 $900 8% $10,100 $180 $2,160 Rental of Equipment 2414 $0 0% $0 $0 $0 Public Safety Permits 2550 $12,000 $7,750 65% $4,250 $1,550 $18,600 Fines & Forfeited Bail 2610 $500 0% $500 $0 $0 Minor Sales 2655 $100 0% $100 $0 $0 Safe of Equipment 2665 $0 $10,000 0% $0 $2,000 $0 Insurance Recoveries 12680 $10,000 $25,134 251% -$15,134 $5,027 —__.._..---............... -- $60,322 - ...__ Other Compensation for Loss 2690 ............. ;$50 _......._ - 0% __-. -- $50 $0 '$0 Refund Prior Year Expense 2701 ;$200 $57 28% $143 $11 $136 Gifts & Donations 2705 $774,377 $70 0%$0 _._..-...... $14 $168 Gifts & Donations (12250) 2705 $20,000 ... Unclassified Revenue 2770 $600 0% $0 $0 $0 Home & Community Service 3989 I$0 0% $0 $0 $0 $3,953,127 $1,126,337 28.5% $2,081,883 $221,267 $2,631,208 N O O- D l) 0 N 11 C i Hre Prevention 3 IIA ,� Ii d Bureau 12100 3 N Safety Section w w bc. m 12150 N W ;0 U ! V P LP A °ND m Budget pp. jOD14 Response Section I ! oo A mIUI- 12200 i N ! A O d Support Section N A A 46 (Wig � 01 U W O V 14 V N' fAi� gi }N},, s �O N � 8 o o � �n ir o Account CO 0, O W o. Ln o u, i � u� u, I c„ , c„ ("A1 � C � Numbers � a Emergency — Adm! nlstrallon 3 � 12300 r t , ! I o Planning 12050 i i m W ao p Tralning Bureau a 12350 0. 1410 NN o Lh N i Hre Prevention Ii d Bureau 12100 N Safety Section w w bc. m 12150 N W U ! V P LP Response Section I ! oo A mIUI- 12200 i N ! A O d Support Section N A A 46 (Wig � 01 U 1 2250 m NW .0 wW V V }N},, s �O N "I bo V O P CO 0, O W N U I r W A O i �+ Emergency Management 12300 r t , ! I o i i m W ao p Tralning Bureau a 12350 NN o o 1,0 I N IIII ,'� ,, N NNao N 0 A IV d j Zo OO I N N P O V (N/V� A �O 1 ;pop ;. (� (A '�, ;01ppl..� Expended N0 O P V O I QV. p I a OD I O P A W V U O tO W O O! W 0 Percent CD Remaining a � �ppSi � — ' , j3 : o op. � v o � =' , ' ,0 Balance O n •N a Qsm A i N �Cn P p a ,�" O (plop, ;o . � I i 0 - Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1- Project and Setting Instructions for Completing Part 1 Part 1 is to be completed by the applicant or project sponsor. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding, are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part I based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item, please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information; indicate whether missing information does not exist, or is not reasonably available to the sponsor; and, when possible, generally describe work or studies which would be necessary to update or fully develop that information. Applicants/sponsors must complete all items in Sections A & B. In Sections C, D & E, most items contain an initial question that must be answered either "Yes" or "No". If the answer to the initial question is "Yes", complete the sub -questions that follow. If the answer to the initial question is "No", proceed to the next question. Section F allows the project sponsor to identify and attach any additional information. Section G requires the name and signature of the project sponsor to verify that the information contained in Part 1 is accurate and complete. A. Project and Sponsor Information. Name of Action or Project: Amend Town Code Chapter 270, titled Zoning, regarding the keeping of domestic animals in Conservation Zone and chickens in the MDR Zone Project Location (describe, and attach a general location map): Properties located in the Conservation and Medium Density Residential Zones in the Town of Ithaca Brief Description of Proposed Action (include purpose or need): The proposed action includes adding language to the Town Code, Chapter 270, to allow the keeping of domestic animals as a new accessory use in the Conservation Zone, with specific criteria related to the setback for accessory buildings and the raising of fur -bearing animals. The proposed action also includes adding language to the Town Code, Chapter 270, to allow the keeping of chickens as a new accessory use in the Medium Density Residential Zone, with specific criteria related to number of hens (6), no roosters, coop locations, odors, conditions of the chickens, feed storage, and confining the chickens to owners property. The exact wording of the proposed language is described in the attached local law. Name of Applicant/Sponsor: Telephone: 607-273-1721 Town of Ithaca E -Mail: Address: 215 North Tioga Street City/PO: Ithaca State: NY Zip Code: 14850 Project Contact (if not same as sponsor; give name and title/role): Telephone: 607-273-1747 Michael Smith, Senior Planner E -Mail: msmith@town.ithaca.ny.us Address: 215 North Tioga Street City/PO: State: Zip Code: Ithaca NY 14850 Property Owner (if not same as sponsor): Telephone: varies varies E -Mail: varies Address: varies City/PO: Ithaca State: NY Zip Code: 14850 Page 1 of 13 B. Government Approvals B. Government Approvals, Funding, or Sponsorship. ("Funding" includes grants, loans, tax relief, and any other forms of financial assistance.) Government Entity If Yes: Identify Agency and Approval(s) Application Date Required (Actual or projected) a. City Council, Town Board, ®Yes❑No Ithaca Town Board July 11, 2016; projected public hearing on or Village Board of Trustees a. Do any municipally- adopted (city, town, village or county) comprehensive land use plan(s) include the site August B, 2016 b. City, Town or Village ❑Yes®No If Yes, does the comprehensive plan include specific recommendations for the site where the proposed action Planning Board or Commission would be located? c. City Council, Town or ❑Yes®Nc) ®Yes❑No Brownfield Opportunity Area (BOA); designated State or Federal heritage area; watershed management plan; Village Zoning Board of Appeals or other?) d. Other local agencies ❑Yes®No Cayuga Lake Watershed Management Plan e. County agencies ®Yes❑No Tompkins County Planning Department GML 239 review; no official approval f. Regional agencies ❑Yes®No c. Is the proposed action located wholly or partially within an area listed in an adopted municipal open space plan, or an adopted municipal farmland protection plan? ®Yes❑No g. State agencies ❑Yes®No Town of Ithaca Park Recreation and Open Space Plan 1997 h. Federal agencies ❑Yes®No Town of Ithaca Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan (2011) i. Coastal Resources. i. Is the project site within a Coastal Area, or the waterfront area of a Designated Inland Waterway? ❑Yes [Z]No ii. Is the project site located in a community with an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program? ® Yes❑No M. Is the project site within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area? ❑ Yes®No C. Planning and Zoning C.1. Planning and zoning actions. Will administrative or legislative adoption, or amendment of plan, local law, ordinance, nile or regulation be the ®Yes❑\n only approval(s) which must be granted to enable the proposed action to proceed? • If Yes, complete sections C, F and G. • If No, proceed to question C.2 and complete all remaining sections and questions in Part 1 C.2. Adopted land use plans. a. Do any municipally- adopted (city, town, village or county) comprehensive land use plan(s) include the site ®Yes❑No where the proposed action would be located? If Yes, does the comprehensive plan include specific recommendations for the site where the proposed action ®Yes❑No would be located? b. Is the site of the proposed action within any local or regional special planning district (for example: Greenway ®Yes❑No Brownfield Opportunity Area (BOA); designated State or Federal heritage area; watershed management plan; or other?) If Yes, identify the plan(s): Cayuga Lake Watershed Management Plan c. Is the proposed action located wholly or partially within an area listed in an adopted municipal open space plan, or an adopted municipal farmland protection plan? ®Yes❑No If Yes, identify the plan(s): Town of Ithaca Park Recreation and Open Space Plan 1997 Town of Ithaca Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan (2011) Page 2 of 13 14 C.3. Zoning a. Is the site of the proposed action located in a municipality with an adopted zoning law or ordinance. ® Yes❑No If Yes, what is the zoning classification(s) including any applicable overlay district? Conservation and Medium Density Residential Zones b. Is the use permitted or allowed by a special or conditional use permit? NIA; action involves changes in allowable uses ❑ Yes❑ No c. Is a zoning change requested as part of the proposed action? ® Yes❑No If Yes, t. What is the proposed new zoning for the site? The action will not result in new zoning; it involves changes in allowable uses in existing zones CA. Existing community services. a. In what school district is the project site located? Ithaca City School District b. What police or other public protection forces serve the project site? Tompkins County Sheriff Department, Ithaca College Public Safety c. Which fire protection and emergency medical services serve the project site? Ithaca Fire Department, Cayuga Heights Fire Department d. What parks serve the project site? The Conservation and Medium Density Residential Zones contain multiple Town Parks preserves and multi -use trails along with Buttermilk Falls State Park and Robert H. Treman State Park. D. Project Details D.I. Proposed and Potential Development a. What is the general nature of the proposed action (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial, recreational; if mixed, include all components)? b. a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? acres b. Total acreage to be physically disturbed? acres c. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? acres c. Is the proposed action an expansion of an existing project or use? ❑ Yes❑ No i. If Yes, what is the approximate percentage of the proposed expansion and identify the units (e.g., acres, miles, housing units, square feet)? % Units: d. Is the proposed action a subdivision, or does it include a subdivision? ❑Yes ❑No If Yes, i. Purpose or type of subdivision? (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial; if mixed, specify types) ii. Is a cluster/conservation layout proposed? ❑Yes ❑No iii. Number of lots proposed? iv. Minimum and maximum proposed lot sizes? Minimum Maximum e. Will proposed action be constructed in multiple phases? ❑Yes❑No L If No, anticipated period of construction: months ii. If Yes: • Total number of phases anticipated • Anticipated commencement date of phase I (including demolition) month year • Anticipated completion date of final phase month year • Generally describe connections or relationships among phases, including any contingencies where progress of one phase may determine timing or duration of future phases: Page 3 of 13 41 e. Does the project site contain, or is it substantially contiguous to, a building, archaeological site, or district ❑ YesEl No which is listed on, or has been nominated by the NYS Board of Historic Preservation for inclusion on, the State or National Register of Historic Places? If Yes: i. Nature of historic/archaeological resource: ❑Archaeological Site ❑Historic Building or District ii. Name: iii. Brief description of attributes on which listing is based: f. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for ❑Yes❑No archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory? g. Have additional archaeological or historic site(s) or resources been identified on the project site? ❑Yes ❑No If Yes: i. Describe possible resource(s): ii. Basis for identification: h. Is the project site within fives miles of any officially designated and publicly accessible federal, state, or local ❑Yes❑No scenic or aesthetic resource? If Yes: i. Identify resource: ii, Nature of, or basis for, designation (e.g., established highway overlook, state or local park, state historic trail or scenic byway, etc.): iii. Distance between project and resource: miles. i. Is the project site located within a designated river corridor under the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers ❑ Yes❑No Program 6 NYCRR 666? If Yes: i. Identify the name of the river and its designation: ii. Is the activity consistent with development restrictions contained in 6NYCRR Part 666? ❑Yes❑No F. Additional Information Attach any additional information which may be needed to clarify your project. If you have identified any adverse impacts which could be associated with your proposal, please describe those impacts plus any measures which you propose to avoid or minimize them. G. Verification I certify that the information provided is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name Town of Ithaca, William Goodman Date Signature1�� 5[J4�t,� l JStr�;yra.._- 'title Town Supervisor PRINT FORM I Page 13 of 13 Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 2 - Identification of Potential Project Impacts Part 2 is to be completed by the lead agency. Part 2 is designed to help the lead agency inventory all potential resources that could be affected by a proposed project or action. We recognize that the lead agency's reviewer(s) will not necessarily be environmental professionals. So, the questions are designed to walk a reviewer through the assessment process by providing a series of questions that can be answered using the information found in Part 1. To further assist the lead agency in completing Part 2, the form identifies the most relevant questions in Part 1 that will provide the information needed to answer the Part 2 question. When Part 2 is completed, the lead agency will have identified the relevant environmental areas that may be impacted by the proposed activity. If the lead agency is a state agency and the action is in any Coastal Area, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. Tips for completing Part 2: • Review all of the information provided in Part 1. • Review any application, maps, supporting materials and the Full EAF Workbook. • Answer each of the 18 questions in Part 2. • If you answer "Yes" to a numbered question, please complete all the questions that follow in that section. • If you answer "No" to a numbered question, move on to the next numbered question. • Check appropriate column to indicate the anticipated size of the impact. • Proposed projects that would exceed a numeric threshold contained in a question should result in the reviewing agency checking the box "Moderate to large impact may occur." • The reviewer is not expected to be an expert in environmental analysis. • If you are not sure or undecided about the size of an impact, it may help to review the sub -questions for the general question and consult the workbook. • When answering a question consider all components of the proposed activity, that is, the "whole action". • Consider the possibility for long-term and cumulative impacts as well as direct impacts. • Answer the question in a reasonable manner considering the scale and context of the project. 1. Impact on Land Proposed action may involve construction on, or physical alteration of, NO ®YES the land surface of the proposed site. (See Part 1. D.1) 1 "Yes ", answer questions a - j. 1 "No ", move on to Section 2. Relevant No, or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur a. The proposed action may involve construction on land where depth to water table is E2d ® ❑ less than 3 feet. b. The proposed action may involve construction on slopes of 15% or greater. E2f ® ❑ c. The proposed action may involve construction on land where bedrock is exposed, or E2a ® ❑ generally within 5 feet of existing ground surface. d. The proposed action may involve the excavation and removal of more than 1,000 tons 132a ® ❑ of natural material. e. The proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year D 1 e ® ❑ or in multiple phases. f The proposed action may result in increased erosion, whether from physical D2e, D2q ® ❑ disturbance or vegetation removal (including from treatment by herbicides). g. The proposed action is, or may be, located within a Coastal Erosion hazard area. B l i ® ❑ h. Other impacts: The proposal to allow domestic animals and chickens could result in new fences, mops or other ® ❑ structures to house the animals being located in the Conservation and Medium Density Residential Zones. I lowever, 'It is anticipated that these struchires all and involve minimal earth moving, vegetation disturbance or any other activity that would create erosion, exposure of bedrock, herbicide treatment, impacts to the water table, or any other ground disturbance. Page 1 of 10 1 RESET FORM 2. Impact on Geological Features The proposed action may result in the modification or destruction of, or inhibit access to, any unique or unusual land forms on the site (e.g., cliffs, dunes, ®NO ❑ YES minerals, fossils, caves). (See Part 1. E.2.g) 1 "Yes ", answer questions a - c. 1 "No ", move on to Section 3. Relevant No, or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur a. Identify the specific land fon-n(s) attached: E2g ❑ ❑ b. The proposed action may result in an increase or decrease of over 10% or more than a b. The proposed action may affect or is adjacent to a geological feature listed as a E3c ❑ ❑ registered National Natural Landmark. c. The proposed action may involve dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material Specific feature: ❑ ❑ from a wetland or water body. c. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ E2h 3. Impacts on Surface Water The proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other surface water ®NO ❑ YES bodies (e.g., streams, rivers, ponds or lakes). (See Part 1. D.2, E.21) 1 "Yes ", answer questions a - L 1 "No ", move on to Section 4. Relevant No, or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur a. The proposed action may create a new water body. D2b, Dlh ❑ ❑ b. The proposed action may result in an increase or decrease of over 10% or more than a D2b ❑ ❑ 10 acre increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water. c. The proposed action may involve dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material D2a ❑ ❑ from a wetland or water body. d. The proposed action may involve construction within or adjoining a freshwater or E2h ❑ ❑ tidal wetland, or in the bed or banks of any other water body. e. The proposed action may create turbidity in a waterbody, either from upland erosion, 132a, 132h ❑ ❑ runoff or by disturbing bottom sediments. f. The proposed action may include construction of one or more intake(s) for withdrawal 132c ❑ ❑ of water from surface water. g. The proposed action may include construction of one or more outfall(s) for discharge 132d ❑ ❑ of wastewater to surface water(s). h. The proposed action may cause soil erosion, or otherwise create a source of D2e ❑ ❑ stormwater discharge that may lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving water bodies. i. The proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or E2h ❑ ❑ downstream of the site of the proposed action. j. The proposed action may involve the application of pesticides or herbicides in or D2q, E2h ❑ ❑ around any water body. k. The proposed action may require the construction of new, or expansion of existing, D 1 a, 132d ❑ ❑ wastewater treatment facilities. Page 2 of 10 RESET FORM I. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ 4. Impact on groundwater The proposed action may result in new or additional use of ground water, or WINO ❑ YES may have the potential to introduce contaminants to ground water or an aquifer. (See Part 1. D.2.a, D.2.c, D.2.d, D.2.p, D.2.q, D.2.t) 1f "Yes ", answer questions a - h. If "No ", move on to Section 5. Relevant Relevant No, or Moderate Part I Part I small to large Question(s) Question(s) impact impact may may occur may occur occur a. The proposed action may require new water supply wells, or create additional demand D2c ❑ ❑ on supplies from existing water supply wells. ❑ ❑ c. The proposed action may result in development within a 500 year floodplain. b. Water supply demand from the proposed action may exceed safe and sustainable D2c ❑ ❑ withdrawal capacity rate of the local supply or aquifer. ❑ ❑ patterns. Cite Source: e. The proposed action may change flood water flows that contribute to flooding. c. The proposed action may allow or result in residential uses in areas without water and Dia, D2c ❑ ❑ sewer services. f. If there is a dam located on the site of the proposed action, is the dam in need of repair, d. The proposed action may include or require wastewater discharged to groundwater. D2d, E21 ❑ ❑ e. The proposed action may result in the construction of water supply wells in locations D2c, Elf, ❑ ❑ where groundwater is, or is suspected to be, contaminated. Elg, Elh f. The proposed action may require the bulk storage of petroleum or chemical products D2p, E21 ❑ ❑ over ground water or an aquifer. g. The proposed action may involve the commercial application of pesticides within 100 E2h, D2q, ❑ ❑ feet of potable drinking water or irrigation sources. E21, D2c h. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ 5. Impact on Flooding The proposed action may result in development on lands subject to flooding. m NO ❑YES (See Part 1. E.2) 1 "Yes ", answer questions a - g. 1 "No ", move on to Section 6. Relevant No, or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur a. The proposed action may result in development in a designated floodway. Eli ❑ ❑ b. The proposed action may result in development within a 100 year floodplain. E2j ❑ ❑ c. The proposed action may result in development within a 500 year floodplain. E2k ❑ ❑ d, The proposed action may result in, or require, modification of existing drainage D2b, D2e ❑ ❑ patterns. e. The proposed action may change flood water flows that contribute to flooding. D2b, Eli, ❑ ❑ E2', E2k f. If there is a dam located on the site of the proposed action, is the dam in need of repair, Ele ❑ ❑ or upgrade? Page 3 of 10 RESET FORM g. Other impacts: 6. Impacts on Air The proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source. ZNO []YES (See Part 1. D.2.£, D,2,h, D.2.g) If "Yes ", answer questions a -f If "No ", move on to Section 7. Relevant 6. Impacts on Air The proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source. ZNO []YES (See Part 1. D.2.£, D,2,h, D.2.g) If "Yes ", answer questions a -f If "No ", move on to Section 7. Relevant Relevant No, or Moderate Part I Part I small to large Question(s) Question(s) impact impact may may occur may occur occur a. If the proposed action requires federal or state air emission permits, the action may ❑ ❑ threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the Federal also emit one or more greenhouse gases at or above the following levels: government, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site. i. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide (CO2) D2g ❑ ❑ ii. More than 3.5 tons/year of nitrous oxide (N20) D2g ❑ ❑ iii. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon equivalent of perfluorocarbons (PFCs) D2g ❑ ❑ iv. More than .045 tons/year of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) D2g ❑ ❑ v. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide equivalent of D2g ❑ ❑ hydrochloroflourocarbons (HFCs) emissions Federal government, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site. vi. 43 tons/year or more of methane D2h ❑ ❑ b. The proposed action may generate 10 tons/year or more of any one designated D2g ❑ ❑ hazardous air pollutant, or 25 tons/year or more of any combination of such hazardous the Federal government. air pollutants. c. The proposed action may require a state air registration, or may produce an emissions D2f, D2g ❑ ❑ rate of total contaminants that may exceed 5 lbs. per hour, or may include a heat source capable of producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. d. The proposed action may reach 50% of any of the thresholds in "a" through "c", D2g ❑ ❑ above. e. The proposed action may result in the combustion or thermal treatment of more than 1 D2s ❑ ❑ ton of refuse per hour. f. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ 7. Impact on Plants and Animals The proposed action may result in a loss of flora or fauna. (See Part 1. E.2. m. -q.) mNO [—]YES 1 "Yes ", answer questions a - '. 1 "No ", move on to Section 8. Relevant No, or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur a. The proposed action may cause reduction in population or loss of individuals of any E2o ❑ ❑ threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the Federal government, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site. b. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by E2o ❑ ❑ any rare, threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the federal government. c. The proposed action may cause reduction in population, or loss of individuals, of any E2p ❑ ❑ species of special concern or conservation need, as listed by New York State or the Federal government, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site. d. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by E2p ❑ ❑ any species of special concern and conservation need, as listed by New York State or the Federal government. Page 4 of 10 RESET FORM e. The proposed action may diminish the capacity of a registered National Natural Landmark to support the biological community it was established to protect. E3c ❑ ❑ f. The proposed action may result in the removal of, or ground disturbance in, any portion of a designated significant natural community. Source: E2n ❑ ❑ Part I g. The proposed action may substantially interfere with nestingibreeding, foraging, or over -wintering habitat for the predominant species that occupy or use the project site. E2m ❑ ❑ h. The proposed action requires the conversion of more than 10 acres of forest, grassland or any other regionally or locally important habitat. Habitat type & information source: E I b ° ° i. Proposed action (commercial, industrial or recreational projects, only) involves use of herbicides or pesticides. D2q ❑ ❑ j. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ 8. Impact on Agricultural Resources The proposed action may impact agricultural resources. (See Part 1. E.3.a. and b.) &?]NO []YES 1 "Yes ", answer questions a - h. 1 "No ", move on to Section 9. Relevant No, or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur a. The proposed action may impact soil classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the Etc, E3b ❑ ❑ NYS Land Classification System. b. The proposed action may sever, cross or otherwise limit access to agricultural land Ela, Elb ❑ ❑ (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc). c. The proposed action may result in the excavation or compaction of the soil profile of E3b ❑ ❑ active agricultural land. d. The proposed action may irreversibly convert agricultural land to non-agricultural Elb, Ba ❑ ❑ uses, either more than 2.5 acres if located in an Agricultural District, or more than 10 acres if not within an Agricultural District. e. The proposed action may disrupt or prevent installation of an agricultural land EI a, E 1 b ❑ ❑ management system. f. The proposed action may result, directly or indirectly, in increased development C2c, C3, ❑ ❑ potential or pressure on farmland. D2c, D2d g. The proposed project is not consistent with the adopted municipal Farmland C2c ❑ ❑ Protection Plan. h. Other impacts: The ability of more residents to keep domestic animals and chickens in the Town vill help to ❑ ❑ recommendation in the Town's 2011 Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan to "Explore revisions to Zoning and other Town Laws (e.g., Sign Law) to accommodate farm stands, year-round farm markets, greenhouses, value-added product operations, home food production, U -picks, CSA, and agritourism sites" (Recommendation 1-d). Page 5 of 10 1 RESET FORM 9. Impact on Aesthetic Resources The land use of the proposed action are obviously different from, or are in W]NO []YES sharp contrast to, current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource. (Part 1. E. La, E.l.b, E.31.) 1 "Yes ", answer questions a - g. I "No ", go to Section 10. No, or Relevant No, or Moderate small Part I small to large impact Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur may occur occur a. Proposed action may be visible from any officially designated federal, state, or local E3h ❑ ❑ scenic or aesthetic resource. nominated by the NYS Board of Historic Preservation for inclusion on the State or b. The proposed action may result in the obstruction, elimination or significant E3h, C2b ❑ ❑ screening of one or more officially designated scenic views. b. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous E3f c. The proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points: E3h to, an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NY State Historic i. Seasonally (e.g., screened by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons) ❑ ❑ ii. Year round ❑ ❑ d. The situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed E3h to, an archaeological site not included on the NY SHPO inventory. action is: E2q, Source: L Routine travel by residents, including travel to and from work ❑ ❑ ii. Recreational or tourism based activities E l c ❑ ❑ e. The proposed action may cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment and E3h ❑ ❑ appreciation of the designated aesthetic resource. f. There are similar projects visible within the following distance of the proposed Dla, Ela, ❑ ❑ project: Dlf, Dlg 0-1/2 mile '/z -3 mile 3-5 mile 5+ mile g. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ 10. Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources The proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological ©NO ❑ YES resource. (Part 1. E.3.e, f. and g.) If "Yes ", answer questions a - e. If "No ", go to Section 11. Relevant No, or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur a. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous De ❑ ❑ to, any buildings, archaeological site or district which is listed on or has been nominated by the NYS Board of Historic Preservation for inclusion on the State or National Register of Historic Places. b. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous E3f ❑ ❑ to, an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory. c. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous E3g ❑ ❑ to, an archaeological site not included on the NY SHPO inventory. Source: Page 6 of 10 RESET FORM d. Other impacts: The proposed action may result in a loss of recreational opportunities or a nNO FIYES ❑ ❑ (See Part 1. C.2.c, E.I.c., E.2.q.) e. If any of the above (a -d) are answered "Yes", continue with the following questions Moderate Relevant No, or to help support conclusions in Part 3: to large Part I small i. The proposed action may result in the destruction or alteration of all or part E3e, E3g, ❑ ❑ of the site or property. E3f a. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource or may occur ii. The proposed action may result in the alteration of the property's setting or Be, E3f, ❑ ❑ integrity. E3g, Ela, E2h, E3d ❑ Elb Elm, Ego, iii. The proposed action may result in the introduction of visual elements which Be, E3f, ❑ ❑ are out of character with the site or property, or may alter its setting. E3g, E3h, C2a, EIc, ❑ ❑ C2, C3 C2c, E2 11. Impact on Open Space and Recreation The proposed action may result in a loss of recreational opportunities or a nNO FIYES reduction of an open space resource as designated in any adopted municipal open space plan. (See Part 1. C.2.c, E.I.c., E.2.q.) 1 "Yes ", answer questions a - e. 1 "No ", go to Section 12. Moderate Relevant No, or Moderate to large Part I small to large impact may Question(s) impact impact may occur a. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource or may occur occur a. The proposed action may result in an impairment of natural functions, or "ecosystem 132e, E 1 b ❑ ❑ services", provided by an undeveloped area, including but not limited to stormwater E2h, E3d ❑ storage, nutrient cycling, wildlife habitat. Elm, Ego, E2n, E2 ❑ b. The proposed action may result in the loss of a current or future recreational resource. C2a, EIc, ❑ ❑ C2c, E2 c. The proposed action may eliminate open space or recreational resource in an area C2a, C2c ❑ ❑ with few such resources. E 1 c, E2q d. The proposed action may result in loss of an area now used informally by the C2c, E 1 c ❑ ❑ community as an open space resource. e. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ 12. Impact on Critical Environmental Areas The proposed action may be located within or adjacent to a critical NO F� YES environmental area (CEA). (See Part 1. E.3.d) 1 "Yes ", answer questions a - c. 1 "No ", go to Section 13. Relevant No, or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur a. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource or E3d ❑ ❑ characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA. b. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quality of the resource or E3d ❑ ❑ characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA. c. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ Page 7 of 10 RESET FORM 13. Impact on Transportation The proposed action may result in a change to existing transportation systems. ZNO YES (See Part 1. D.2.j) 1 "Yes ", answer questions a - g. 1 "No ", go to Section 14. 1 "Yes ", answer questions a -f 1 "No ", go to Section 16. Relevant No, or Moderate Moderate Part 1 small to large to large Question(s) impact impact may impact may may occur occur a. Projected traffic increase may exceed capacity of existing road network. D2j ❑ ❑ b. The proposed action may result in the construction of paved parking area for 500 or D2j ❑ ❑ more vehicles. Dlq, D2k 132m, Eld ® c. The proposed action will degrade existing transit access. D2j ❑ ❑ d. The proposed action will degrade existing pedestrian or bicycle accommodations. D2j ❑ ❑ e. The proposed action may alter the present pattern of movement of people or goods. D2j ❑ ❑ f. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ e. Other Impacts: 14. Impact on Energy The proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of energy. W] NO ❑ YES (See Part 1. D.21) 1 "Yes ", answer questions a - e. 1 "No ", go to Section 15. 1 "Yes ", answer questions a -f 1 "No ", go to Section 16. Relevant No, or Moderate Moderate Part I small to large to large Question(s) impact impact may impact may may occur occur a. The proposed action will require a new, or an upgrade to an existing, substation. 132k ❑ ❑ b. The proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission 131f, ❑ ❑ or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two-family residences or to serve a Dlq, D2k 132m, Eld ® commercial or industrial use. hospital, school, licensed day care center, or nursing home. c. The proposed action may utilize more than 2,500 MWhrs per year of electricity. 132k ❑ ❑ d. The proposed action may involve heating and/or cooling of more than 100,000 square D 1 g ❑ ❑ feet of building area when completed. e. Other Impacts: 15. Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light The proposed action may result in an increase in noise, odors, or outdoor lighting. F-1NOW]YES (See Part 1. D.2.m., n., and o.) 1 "Yes ", answer questions a -f 1 "No ", go to Section 16. Relevant No, or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur a. The proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by local D2m ® ❑ regulation. b. The proposed action may result in blasting within 1,500 feet of any residence, 132m, Eld ® ❑ hospital, school, licensed day care center, or nursing home. c. The proposed action may result in routine odors for more than one hour per day. 132o ® ❑ Page 8 of 10 RESET FORM d. The proposed action may result in light shining onto adjoining properties. D2n ® ❑ e. The proposed action may result in lighting creating sky -glow brighter than existing 132n, Ela ® ❑ area conditions. small to large The addition of domestic animals and chickens have the potential to create a smal increase in impact may f. Other impacts: noise or odors. However, the proposed regulations include setback requirements r coops ❑ ❑ (chickens) and new accessory buildings (domestic animal). The criteria for keepin chickens in the ❑ care center, group home nursing home or retirement community. MDR zone also prulilbit Fousters and require the chiCkell Wups and es to 3e kept in a neat b. The site of the proposed action is currently undergoing remediation. and sanitary manner and must oe cleaned on a regular oasis so as to prevent offensive odors. 16. Impact on Human Health The proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure © NO ❑YES to new or existing sources of contaminants. (See Part 1.D.2.q., E.1. d. f. g. and h.) 1 "Yes ", answer questions a - m. 1 "No ", go to Section 17. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may cccur occur a. The proposed action is located within 1500 feet of a school, hospital, licensed day Eld ❑ ❑ care center, group home nursing home or retirement community. b. The site of the proposed action is currently undergoing remediation. Elg, Elh ❑ ❑ c. There is a completed emergency spill remediation, or a completed environmental site Elg, Elh ❑ ❑ remediation on, or adjacent to, the site of the proposed action. d. The site of the action is subject to an institutional control limiting the use of the Elg, Elh ❑ ❑ property (e.g., easement or deed restriction). e. The proposed action may affect institutional control measures that were put in place Elg, Elh ❑ ❑ to ensure that the site remains protective of the environment and human health. f. The proposed action has adequate control measures in place to ensure that future D2t ❑ ❑ generation, treatment and/or disposal of hazardous wastes will be protective of the environment and human health. g. The proposed action involves construction or modification of a solid waste D2q, Elf ❑ ❑ management facility. h. The proposed action may result in the unearthing of solid or hazardous waste. D2q, E 1 f ❑ ❑ i. The proposed action may result in an increase in the rate of disposal, or processing, of 132r, D2s ❑ ❑ solid waste. j. The proposed action may result in excavation or other disturbance within 2000 feet of Elf, Elg ❑ ❑ a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. Elh k. The proposed action may result in the migration of explosive gases from a landfill Elf, Elg ❑ ❑ site to adjacent off site structures. 1. The proposed action may result in the release of contaminated leachate from the D2s, Elf, ❑ ❑ project site. D2r m. Other impacts: Page 9 of 10 1 RESET FORM 17. Consistency with Community Plans The proposed action is not consistent with adopted land use plans. R]NO FJYES (See Part 1. C.1, C.2. and C.3.) If "Yes ", answer questions a - h. If "No ", go to Section 18. Relevant No, or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur a. The proposed action's land use components may be different from, or in sharp C2, C3, Dla ❑ ❑ contrast to, current surrounding land use pattem(s). Ela, E 1 b b. The proposed action will cause the permanent population of the city, town or village C2 ❑ ❑ in which the project is located to grow by more than 5%. c. The proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations. C2, C2, C3 ❑ ❑ d. The proposed action is inconsistent with any County plans, or other regional land use C2, C2 ❑ ❑ plans. C2, E3 ❑ ❑ e. The proposed action may cause a change in the density of development that is not C3, D 1 c, ❑ ❑ supported by existing infrastructure or is distant from existing infrastructure. D 1 d, D 1 f, ❑ ❑ character. Dld, Elb f. The proposed action is located in an area characterized by low density development C4, D2c, D2d ❑ Cl that will require new or expanded public infrastructure. D2j g. The proposed action may induce secondary development impacts (e.g., residential or C2a ❑ ❑ commercial development not included in the proposed action) ❑ ❑ h. Other: This proposed change in allowable uses supports a recommendation in the Town's 2011 figricultural and Law) to ❑ ❑ Farmland Protection Plan to "Explore revisions to Zoning and other Town Laws (e.g., Sign value-addeduct perations, home rooa procucnon, u -PICKS, UbA, ana agntcunsm sites trtecommenaation i -al. 18. Consistency with Community Character The proposed project is inconsistent with the existing community character. ©NO [JYES (See Part 1. C.2, C.3, D.2, E.3) I "Yes ", answer questions a - g, 1 "No ", proceed to Part 3. Relevant No, or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur a. The proposed action may replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures, or areas De, E3f, E3g ❑ ❑ of historic importance to the community. b. The proposed action may create a demand for additional community services (e.g. C4 ❑ ❑ schools, police and fire) c. The proposed action may displace affordable or low-income housing in an area where C2, C3, Dlf ❑ ❑ there is a shortage of such housing. Dlg, Ela d. The proposed action may interfere with the use or enjoyment of officially recognized C2, E3 ❑ ❑ or designated public resources. e. The proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and C2, C3 ❑ ❑ character. f. Proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape. C2, C3 ❑ ❑ Ela, Elb E2g, E2h g. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ PRINT FULL FORM I Page 10 of 10 1 RESET FULL FORM Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 3 - Evaluation of the Magnitude and Importance of Project Impacts and Determination of Significance Part 3 provides the reasons in support of the determination of significance. The lead agency must complete Part 3 for every question in Part 2 where the impact has been identified as potentially moderate to large or where there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action will not, or may, result in a significant adverse environmental impact. Based on the analysis in Part 3, the lead agency must decide whether to require an environmental impact statement to further assess the proposed action or whether available information is sufficient for the lead agency to conclude that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact. By completing the certification on the next page, the lead agency can complete its determination of significance. Reasons Supporting This Determination: To complete this section: • Identify the impact based on the Part 2 responses and describe its magnitude. Magnitude considers factors such as severity, size or extent of an impact_ • Assess the importance of the impact. Importance relates to the geographic scope, duration, probability of the impact occurring, number of people affected by the impact and any additional environmental consequences if the impact were to occur. • The assessment should take into consideration any design element or project changes. • Repeat this process for each Part 2 question where the impact has been identified as potentially moderate to large or where there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action will not, or may, result in a significant adverse environmental impact. • Provide the reason(s) why the impact may, or will not, result in a significant adverse environmental impact • For Conditional Negative Declarations identify the specific condition(s) imposed that will modify the proposed action so that no significant adverse environmental impacts will result. • Attach additional sheets, as needed. The proposal involves adding the keeping of domestic animals in accessory buildings to the list of permitted accessory buildings or uses in the Town's Conservation Zone. Domestic animals would be permitted, provided that any accessory building be at least 30 feet from any lot line and that there shall be no raising of fur -bearing animals, or kennels for more than three dogs over six months old. The proposed amendment to the Conservation Zone, as described above and in the attached draft local law, will not pose a significant environmental impact. The proposal also involves adding the keeping of chickens to the list of permitted accessory buildings or uses in the Medium Density Residential zone. Chickens would be permitted with specific criteria related to number of hens (6), no roosters, coop locations, odors, conditions of the chickens, feed storage, and confining the chickens to owners property. The proposed amendment to the Medium Density Residential Zone, as described above and in the attached draft local law, will not pose a significant environmental impact. The proposed amendments will address the continuous applications to the Town of Ithjaa Zoning Board of Appeals regarding variances andlor special approval to have chickens in the MDR Zone. These applications have been seRsWedCy approved by the ZBA without posing impacts to any neighboring properties. Proposals that do not meet the specific criteria listed in the proposed regulation, would still require variances from the ZBA. Determination of Significance - Type 1 and Unlisted Actions SEQR Status: © Type 1 ❑ Unlisted Identify portions of EAF completed for this Project: © Part 1 © Part 2 © Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, as noted, plus this additional support information and considering both the magnitude and importance of each identified potential impact, it is the conclusion of the Ithaca Town Board as lead agency that: © A. This project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. ❑ B. Although this project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, that impact will be avoided or substantially mitigated because of the following conditions which will be required by the lead agency: There will, therefore, be no significant adverse impacts from the project as conditioned, and, therefore, this conditioned negative declaration is issued. A conditioned negative declaration may be used only for UNLISTED actions (see 6 NYCRR 617.d). ❑ C. This Project may result in one or more significant adverse impacts on the environment, and an environmental impact statement must be prepared to further assess the impact(s) and possible mitigation and to explore alternatives to avoid or reduce those impacts. Accordingly, this positive declaration is issued. Name of Action: Amend Town Code Chapter 270, titled Zoning, regarding the keeping of domestic animals in Conservation Zones and chickens in the MDR Zones Name of Lead Agency: Ithaca Town Board Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency: William D. Goodman Title of Responsible Officer: Town Supervisor Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency: Date: Signature of Preparer (if different from Responsible Officer), Date: For Further Information: Contact Person: Michael Smith, Senior Planner Address: 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Telephone Number. 607-273-1747 E-mail: msmith@town.ithaca.ny.us For Type l Actions and Conditioned Negative Declarations, a copy of this Notice is sent to: Chief Executive Officer of the political subdivision in which the action will be principally located (e.g., Town / City / Village of) Other involved agencies (if any) Applicant (if any) Environmental Notice Bulletin: http:/iwww,dec.ny.govienhienb.l7unl Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Fees BUILDING PERMIT (projects other than the installation of heating units) Value of Improvement Fee $1 - $2,500.99 $50.00 $2,501 - $5,000.99 $60.00 $5.001 $10.000.99 $65.00 $10,001 - $20,000.99 $80.00 $20,001 $30,000.99 $150.00 $30,001 - $50.000.99 $200.00 $50,001 - $100.000.99 $300.00 $100,001 - $150.000.99 $600.00 $150,001 $250.000.99 $900.00 $250,001 - $350.000.99 $1,200.00 $350,001 $500,000.99 $1,600.00 $500,001 - $750.000.99 $2.000.00 $750.001 $1.000.000.99 $2.500.00 $1.000,001 - $2,500.000.99 $4,500.00 $2,500,001 - $5,000,000.99 $6,500.00 $5,000,001 - $10,000,000.99 $8,500.00 10,000,001 - $20,000,000.99 $10,000.00 Over $20,000,000.99 $0.60 per $1.000 value of improvement Installation of Heating Unit Heating Unit Size Fee Up to 185,000 BTU $50.00 185,000 to 1,000,000 BTU $150.00 Over 1,000,000 BTU $500.00 TENT PERMIT $50.00 SIGN PERMIT $100.00 ELECTRICAL PERMIT Residential N & 2 familv homes and associated structures) Application fee $100, includes 2 site inspections. Additional inspections and in -office time, $35 per 1/2 hour. Commercial Electrical Service Application fee $200, includes vehicle mounted generators. Inspection and in -office time, $35 per M! hour. Portable generator $50 for 1 visit, $70 per hour thereafter. OPERATING PERMIT Type of Buildina Fee Mobile Home Park $200.00 annually Multiple dwelling, 3 to 5 units $100.00/building Multiple dwelling, 6 to 10 units $150.00/building Multiple dwelling, 11 or more units $200.00/building Non -Residential use $100.00/building FIREWORKS Value of Display Fee $1 -$10,000 $150.00 $10,001 - $50,000 $300.00 Over $50,000 $500.00 WORKING WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT The fees set forth shall be doubled if work is commenced prior to the issuance of a necessary permit or if work exceeds work permitted by an issued building or foundation permit. BUILDING PERMIT EXTENSION The first extension shall be the greater of $50.00 or 50% of the building permit fee. Subsequent extensions shall be equal to the original building permit fee. FOUNDATION WORK ONLY The greater of $100.00 or 50% of the fee for the building permit, calculated on the estimated full value of the entire building. (Non- refundable and is not credited towards building permit fee.) TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY The greater of $100.00 or 50% of the building permit fee. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS $100.00 with letter from property owner requesting certificate. FIRE SAFETY INSPECTION AND RE -INSPECTION $50.00 for the first hour (1 -hour minimum), $30 per additional hour. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION Area, Sign, and Sprinkler Variances and Special Approvals -- $150 and Use Variance -- $250; $30.00 additional meeting; $50.00 additional public hearing. FILL PERMIT $100.00; additional fees apply if Zoning Board of Appeals and/or Planning Board approval is necessary. LETTER OF COMPLIANCE - $60 per letter Revised 03/07/2011, 0810812011, 1 011 71201 1, 0312012, 1212014, 12115/15 1(3 0f (38 Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Fees BUILDING PERMIT (projects other than the installation of heating units) Value of Improvement Fee $0 - $20,000.99 $100.00 $20.001 $100.000.99 $300.00 $100,001 - $350,000.99 $1,400.00 $350,001 - $750,000.99 $2,200.00 $750.001 $1.000.000.99 $3.000.00 $1.000.001 - $2.500.000.99 $5.000.00 $2.500,001 - $4.999.999.99 $6,500.00 Over $5.000.000.00 $1.35 per $1.000 value of improvement ELECTRICAL ONLY PERMIT Residential associated ONLY Application fee $150, includes 3 site inspections. Additional inspections and in -office time, $35 per 1/2 hour. Electrical Service Commercial Application fee $200, includes vehicle mounted generators. Includes 4 inspections. Additional Inspection and in -office time, $35 per 1/2 hour. Portable generator $50 for 1 visit, $70 per hour thereafter. TENT PERMIT $75.00 SIGN PERMIT $100.00 FIREWORKS Value of Display Fee $1 -$50,000 $300.00 Over $50,000 $500.00 Installation of Heating Unit Heating Unit Size Fee Up to 1,000,000 BTU $200.00 Over 1,000,000 BTU $300.00 O1;tTING PERMIT $200.00/building `'of Building Fee Mobile Home Park $200.00 annually Multiple dwelling, 3 to 5 units $100.00/building Mulf€plo dwelling, 6 to 10 units $150.00/building Multiple dwelling, 11 or more units $200.00/building Non-Resfdedtial use $100.00/building WORKING WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT The fees set forth shall be doubled if work is commenced prior to the issuance of a necessary permit or if work exceeds work permitted by an issued building or foundation permit. BUILDING PERMIT EXTENSION The first extension shall be the greater of $50 00 orR% of the builftpermit fee. Subsequent extensions shall be equal to the original building permit fee. .... FOUNDATION WORK ONLY The greater of $100.00 or 50% of the fee for the building permit, calculated on the estimated full value of the entire building. (Non- refundable and is not credited towards building permit fee.) TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY The greater of $100.00 or 50% of the building permit fee. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS $100.00 with letter from property owner requesting certificate. FIRE SAFETY INSPECTION AND RE -INSPECTION $50.00 for the first hour (1 -hour minimum), $30 per additional hour. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION Area, Sign, and Sprinkler Variances and Special Approvals -- $150 and Use Variance -- $250; $30.00 additional meeting; $50.00 additional public hearing. FILL PERMIT $100.00; additional fees apply if Zoning Board of Appeals and/or Planning Board approval is necessary. LETTER OF COMPLIANCE - $60 per letter Revised 03107111, 08108111, 10117111, 03112, 12114, 12115115, 4119116, 818116 I( of 38