HomeMy WebLinkAboutCB Minutes 1997-01-16t.__. `�i-
TOWN OF ITHACA
CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 16, 1997
ADOPTED 3/6/97
PRESENT: Chair Phillip Zarriello, Eva Hoffmann, Lois Levitan, Richard Fischer.
ABSENT: Jon Meigs.
STAFF: Geri Tierney (Planner), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner).
GUESTS: John Yntema, Kara Hagedorn, Barney Unsworth, Frank Baldwin.
Chair Phillip Zarriello opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
o Richard Fischer noted the new Town Historical Markers.
o Information about the Environmental Bond Act issue was provided.
o Chair Zarriello reported on the Citizens Advisory Council for the Veterinary
Waste Incinerator.
o The Full Environmental Assessment for the CU Lake Source Cooling Project will
be available soon for the Conservation Board to review.
o Assistant Planner George Frantz mentioned the meeting between the Town Planning
and Engineering Departments and Ithaca College regarding the addition to Ford
Hall. Ithaca College has submitted a formal application for the Ford Hall
project. The Planning Department will pass information to the CB for review, when it
is received. No additional information on the parking lot has been received yet.
o Eva Hoffmann stated that the Planning Board had a sketch plan presentation by
Ithaca College, which included all the plans for the projects in the future and
the parking lot. Ithaca College was asked to provide more details to the
Planning Board. The Planning Board echoed the CB concerns about potential
drainage problems.
There was a brief discussion on the parking lot issues at Ithaca College.
o Chair Zarriello presented a writeup of the Conservation Board history.
o Lois Levitan noted that she saw a newspaper report that a potential developer approached
the Town Board at their last meeting, and asked for more information. George Frantz gave
a brief description of this project, which is a potential proposal for low income family
housing units on the Ceracche property located on Mecklenburg Road.
o Assistant Town Planner Frantz presented the working draft of Park, Recreation,
and Open Space Plan to this Board. Mr. Frantz mentioned some of the revisions
of the Plan, costs and possible funding mechanisms (bonding, partnerships,
purchase of development rights).
The Plan examines the Town's assets and needs for growth, and outlines a
strategic plan for meeting the Town's need for parks and recreational
facilities. Implementation of this Plan depends upon the Town's growth;
the need for parks facilities would reflect development in the Town.
The plan identifies multiple small neighborhood parks, and 3 community parks
that are approximately 15 to 20 acres in size that could accommodate baseball
and or soccer fields intended to serve a wider area than the neighborhood parks.
The Plan also identifies natural areas that would be considered for future
Conservation Zones. Costs for incorporating 25 percent of the Town area
into Conservation Zone were described.
o The report by Nancy Ostman and Bob Wesley on the South Hill Swamp was briefly
reviewed. The CB will ask Ostman and Wesley for a more detailed inventory of South
Hill Swamp during the next growing season. The information provided indicates the
Town should seek a designation of a DEC regulated wetland from the State because the
Ostman/Wesley report indicates that the wetland is larger than 12.4 acres.
o Potential new members to the CB introduced themselves and gave a brief
summary of their interests to the CB.
John Yntema became interested in the Conservation Board because of the Ithacare
project. He would like to be involved in activities of the Town of Ithaca.
Barney Unsworth's interests are in bikeways and recreational areas. He would
also has an interest in natural areas preservation for wildlife.
Kara Hagedorn interests are in Open Spaces and Greenways. She would like to
see sufficient buffers established around the State Parks for wildlife.
Frank Baldwin interest are similar to interests of other new members.
o A motion was made by Ms. Hoffmann and seconded by Mr. Fischer to approve the
1997 Schedule of the Conservation Board with a few date changes.
AYES - Zarriello, Hoffinann, Levitan, Fischer.
NAYS - None.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
•;nfx ffx f:.v;.•^:4}:^:.},w,,.::�;!nY:}}}}:??{: Y:6'fr%:r4}}i}:!4}}}i:Ffitxr.�{!?!-}i'fri:'}::/-r!:
�: :•�vv:: fvvv .v xf v.v:.•x:v:.v:.wxvv: nvffx{.;v{•v.}•;�y,?rfr•r??.}:{:r-�:;v+fh}:.}}}}:•}:?{•ii}•::.};xy:?�;q.v. .x r:
...w, n .. f.. r�. t . ..a......f ..,}r: :...: ::•#Y+r •`?!a: /. {f??. ...fit.: •r::::::::::•:: ...,. rf?.r.G:<:::}•.•#�%:xs
rfr..::: n....: ..... r. v:}.....vnr. n:: ;•.:.. r........ f.•w:•- .. f.... Yir :!.:::.�f irr?w::::: F.•F.v:: x::::::::: .::•}.:.:':::.: x ....:.......... n.....::. rr ......f
.. ... . .. .......rri...... r.............. . . ... f...: :.:• .... .. ...... .. ...N. �...............................:..:?.f.:..:....::f ...rt il:x:: v: m::::::: !.}}w::: w:::: ::?v::::::::: }::: }:•} ri.�f':::::.
n.r... r. •• ....::: -:-:::::: x:• f :r .....: n`-:.ri:::::::: -: • :r ::?:v: m:::::: -: rr:....:...... xn...... r: rvr::w:. rte.:::... +r: •vv-:. ?;`
:..v:::::::..r. r... rrxn. r n.. ......{ { ........... % .: r . f ............... f x: -.Yi: n::.:.v ....
................. ........%nv:-. ....... :r ..... ..:....... /. r..... .r. ... f.{.: :.:: w.....•...:}::w:-.::::::-}}}}}}:::w:;;}}Y: •::.}}'rf:{.}}y�Yy'v'-}" f
:. f ......:.::: . .:$r.r rf :riJ.w:::.•fi.. . ..1.......:r.{!-:m•:fi.:.::::..-1.:vn.:.:.ff,+,{n..y.....:::.:.J. f..f.: f�{i<}-i: :if�r:i::?i iiY.f:Yf
:.:!!v: n.r f: }}:•}}{/fv}}.r•:: Y'- rr: fi f•}<}}i}x'-}ri.�i"?Sf•Y.•:+fi+!'f.? .............................:. }: f.^Y.ryi:. % .:!
...r r xr. ..:f+...... r .+fv:??!4:::::: r: r.?•:::: ?^}.+i
r::::::•.............../f/} %::+:r{?:%:.;r-.:.. rr s?.. rrrr.....rF. •:x:::::f:r+::::::--::::::
:: ...: .::. .....::::.... ..... r .... r: :::•/.... r ........ .�Y;i:�ii is+:....--- •rrF...:.........;; ....:..r:::::. :f /•.:....................................: f. f /• •.
vrf.+;{rr?......::::!:/.. r:!�:: •r }fry f ..f r :,!}.. ?•:t: r.Y•ii::�?•}fi<rf::
'.: : r ..:::... :.::-. /. F.--:::- :f .. r ::: r:::::::::-rJ{•Yrrrr...n•.i}:-}YrY4rr�•:i-:-}:-:::: : r .. r.......... r..r ................. r r: • rf.{?.}:-}Y: }:•}:6}•ri.?'s:�..... r......... ..
fi. fv: / r :FF{{+x•-:.!t-v: •:: - .frq ff} I�r...r x ...:: .. :r.. • +r} :-rfv:Yfiffffirr: w:::.fw: v: v:::::.::::::n.:... r... .
.. /...:. F.rr .a, r }... r/, ..!-:+r {. •r..:::::: !+•-:rx:rr. {}. .f...•f+..x..v-..:...'rw"r ....... r.f-:::.vf.; f.5 .. } {
::::::.v:::::.:�:r,.t::.vrtCwL}:C:::•�,-Y lei::+f.{;:fritvrx:Y.,r.:.,:}.•::-raf»:-r...rx:N/.::r:::..:.-t.•v::w.vt,:�..r-{.frrf'}:c:f:::r.r....:..:::•::.:.....,:Y::::::::.::::::.aorv:iiiY::trr:;fx.;.::.:::f }::v: x::..?rxr: rc
TOWN OF ITHACA
CONSERVATION BOARD
7:30 pm, Thursday, 16 January 1997
............ ................... .. .............. ..... :..i: x: :• - :::........r •:: v:: :•:: •v:.vr : ....:::v.•r w:::::q;: r{:r:r.}}i}}:?.}}'-f:b}:?+i:•}i}i}}}}}iY::-}1•
•:frFv: -:{h.•:::.?rff ...ri: rY.}:.}}}}}}}}:{{•}:•}Y::f: f..::::.}'-}'-J.•:/.+m}frfe{xi:v:},.}fJ6f:.}Y..v: frr/.v:.v::... /... r:
'f.:•:::..: {. + f ??{ :.; r :.vxx r: ..... x... f%rrriv r.:.v...r}f.................. J.r. }f r.
..... x. r. f.:i .. }'%nf r+riry}}}}F:: r. r: f� :�. x: ?..... ........ /.: •. x........nn................:.....n.m:::.nn.................. r.....: x.. n:.......... /.•i}}}}:!v:}ii4:::: rs: x::::::::::::::.:: }: r.•:::
r::: :r... .::.?•x:: n.:t:..:::::::::•.... r..+.•�... n......r.................n.n...........................................................v ..:.; ..... r::: x: •v::.v:n, .x:::::::
•; fx •... �:+i:..r..; r:....-. :r. rn.:�.. •. rrxxr x: w:::::::::::: r:::¢}•xf:::.::::w:::::.::................r ...............: :....... r.n...
.... n... �i. ... r-n:.::::::::•:iiri+:}}+vv?f}}}.....}:::w:::r:.nx:::•}}: �....... f... n .................. ................:...:::.:: .,............fvv:::::::: :v: }r} f r.; ...:
.................... %...:..... ... .......... .:::::::::: r.. .x:::::::: ::v...n. :.:.::::::::::::::::::::::: x::::::.::.. r...n :.:::::::::. •... r. .::v :::........ x:: r:: r: r::::::::::':::::::::: r.. x:v
...........:.......... .... .f. .................... ..... .. . .. .... . .........m::r v: w:::: •:::..::::::::::: :xv::r•.v::::: x: w:::::.v::: rr:x::::::.:v:::::.vrriiY:}}}:.i�}:v::::::: :•:: x::::::: ::v...
{vf:•f•!-:f::vf.•J%r{r.-: {.:.:v::::......n f...... ...f}..; .; v....vvv.. .::f v. {•}%
...................... r....m.r..v..•v.; ............... n.y r.::::n ...:...... r.:4::: xrr.• :+::v:::::: n.. ..............::::•:
:nr$n.........n: .:: f'fiY'•Yf;;{{-}}::}}};f:}•: •fv i}:v::-}}}}'-}:4}"{!?-•:
r:::: ::::::::::::::::::: v::: w: .:x: x:::::::.:v ........ :..f.•::::::: rr..:r •::: v:......... ri:G:4:•}i':{+•}}::•}} :•:....... n........ r.r .......... of J,+/..J. n.}'-}•-: -.. J `
..-......;r.:;:;::.,..,..n.f..n.. J�`ir i ..... ......... .. r.. v. r:xm:r: rn?v:/.•.v:x:x:::.+fvxrf.•rrxxvi::x:r:.v:.......xx.r.x.n.:.::x}i.•x:x.:x:::.v:... r. r...n.........:....:n..n:r
.:::..::........-:. f.:: x::.v:x:::.?v.:v: f.•.v:':: :v:!•::: xF' w::::Jf.�/.w::::.v.•: nrrW:n+m}}i}}}}Y..
Town Hall Board Room
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
(Handicap -accessible entrance ramp on West side of building)
(607) 273-1747
AGENDA
7:30 pm 1. Election of Pro Tem Chair for Today's Meeting
7:35 pm 2. Persons to be Heard
7:40 pm 3. Member Concerns
7:45 pm 4. Coordinator and Chair Reports
7:55. pm, 5. Committee Reports
8:05 pm 6. Items for Discussion
a. Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan - 12/10/96 Draft
b. UNA Conservation - South Hill Swamp Report
9:00 pm 7. Business
a. Elections
b. Approval of 1997 Schedule
C. Formation of Subcommittees
d. Approval of minutes from 11/7/96
9:30 pm 8. Adjournment
CB Members:
Phil Zarriello Richard Fischer
Eva Hoffmann Lois Levitan
Jon Meigs
File Name: cA28p1a&cb\01-16-97.agd)
AL
OF I T
TOWN OF ITHACAC(DPY
1 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
Y
TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783
FAX (607) 273-1704
MEMORANDUM
To: Cathy Valentino, Town Supervisor
From: Phil Zarriello, Chair, Conservation Board
Date: January 17, 1997
Subject: Conservation Board Appointments
The Conservation Board (CB) has received five applications for the four
positions that are currently available. We are pleased to have the interest
of highly qualified candidates and feel that all would make an excellent
addition to the Conservation Board. The applicants' resumes and/or letter of
interest are enclosed for your review.
Unfortunately, we have one more applicant than we have available
positions at this time. Barney Unsworth has graciously volunteered to serve
as an associate member, so we would like to recommend the other four
applicants (Frank Baldwin, Kara Hagedorn, Elizabeth deProsse, and John
Yntema) for appointment to the Conservation Board.
Thank you for your consideration.
71
envisioned for the parks proposed in this plan are examples of improvements that could be donated to the Town
of Ithaca. The estimated cost of these and other components is estimated to be $475,000. The "friends of the
parks" citizen groups proposed in Chapter Five could serve an important role in coordination any Town parks
gift program.
Grant Funding
Although the opportunities for the acquisition of state or federal grants have been greatly reduced over the past
several years, the use of such sources for investment in park infrastructure should not be ruled out. With an
agressive approach to grant acquisition, the Town of Ithaca could safely assume that between 20 and 25 percent
of future park and recreation improvements would be funded with outside money. This represents between
$670,000 and $840,000 in outside funding.
With adoption of this Plan, the Town will be in a very competitive position with regard to obtaining grant
funding. First, as funding for state and federal grant programs has been reduced, more and more programs have
begun using evidence of sound planning for community park and recreational needs based on nationally accepted
standards as a major criteria in the review of grant applications. This Plan has used the National Recreation and
Park Association standards in order to ensure the Town's competitiveness in this regard.
Second, this Plan, if implemented, will provide the Town of Ithaca with a pallette of ready to build park projects
which can be matched with appropriate state or federal grant programs. Table 5-2 provides the basic
programatic and design parameters of several future parks for which the Town already owns the land. This is a
very important element in the effort to acquire outside grant funding. Since 1990 the Town of Ithaca has
actually had to forego participation in a number of grant programs, including ISTEA grants for construction of
much needed bicycle/pedestrian facilities, because it lacked projects that were "ready to go."
By developing preliminary designs and gaining community consensus regarding the design of those parks now,
and by including on an annual basis adequate funding for capital improvements, the Town can position itself to
quickly respond to grant opportunities such as future ISTEA grants.
Bonding Large Capital Improvements
An option open to the Town for spreading the cost of some park projects over many years is to borrow money
through bonds. This option could be useful when the Town develops one or more of the larger capital projects
proposed in this plan, such as the community parks. By using bonds to finance the projects, the Town could
spread their costs over a ten, fifteen, or twenty year period.
An example of a project for which the Town of Ithaca may use bonding to finance park improvements would be
90
the larger components of the proposed Inlet Valley Park Complex listed in Table 5-1. These components -- the
baseball and soccer fields, tennis courts, comfort stations, and road and parking facilities -- represent an
investment of $400,000.
If financed through a fifteen -year bond, at 7% interest, the annual debt service payments could begin at $50,000
per year for the fust seven years, but drop to $35,000 by the twelfth year, and to $28,000 the last year.Z
The cost of interest for bonding the above improvements would add approximately $225,000 to the overall
project cost. Moreover, the annual debt service generated by such a bond would consume up to one-half of the
Parks Department annual capital improvement budget proposed earlier in this section.
However prudent use of bonding does provide the Town flexibility in implementing a capital improvements
program. One specific benefit is that the use of bonding for larger projects would allow the Town to compete
effectively for large grants. In the instance of the Inlet Valley Park Complex, a Town commitment to fund
$400,000 or more of the estimated $750,000 cost of the project could make a grant application for the remaining
$350,000 very competitive. Even when taking into account the cost of bond interest, the resulting bond/grant
package would actually reduce the total cost to the Town of Ithaca of developing the park by $100,000.
$750,000 + $225,000 bond interest - $350,000 grant = $625,000 net cost to Town.)
User Fees
User fees dedicated to offsetting the costs of developing and maintaining municipal parks are a widely accepted
source of revenue in communities across the country. Locally the City of Ithaca collects user fees for use of the
three City owned pavillions 1 at Cass Park and 2 at Stewart Park). For pavillion rentals in 1994, the City
collected approximately $14,000.00.
The City also collects fees from various sports leagues, primarily to cover utility and maintenance costs
associated with use of the athletic fields. In 1994, approximately $15,000.00 was collected from the Ithaca
Amature Softball League, the Over 30 League and the Seniors League. Additionally, development of athletic
facilities as proposed in this plan, will then become available to the general public. Fees may be charged for the
use of thease facilities similiar to what the city is currently charging.
s While a 20 -year bond could result in lower annual bond payments after the first five years, the cost savings in terms of
interest between a 15 -year and a 20 -year bond would be approximately $48,000.
Sl
Intermunicipal Partnerships
Joint partnerships with other municipalities are another potential source of revenues for park and open space
development. Currently the City of Ithaca and several surrounding municipalities in Tompkins county have
entered into a recreation partnership two year pilot program. The purpose of this partnership is to provide
residents of partner municipalities with access to the full range of Ithaca Youth Bureau programs at member
rates and to two year pilot program and Town have a commitment with each other to jointly develop the
projected bikeway between the South Hill Recreation Way at Hudson Street and Buttermilk Falls State
Park.(Table 5-2)
Another opportunity partnership with the City of Ithaca exists on West Hill. The proposed West Hill
Community park is immediately adjacent to the city. Moreover, the City of Ithaca West Hill Master Plan
recommends that that park serve the northern portion of the West Hill neighborhood.
5. FUNDING OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION
To fund the proposed effort to preserve its agriculturally and ecological important lands through a purchase of
development rights (PDR) program the Town would require an investment of an average of about $240,000 per
year over the next two decades. This amount would cover the cost of development right acquisition and
associated closing costs of such a program. It also assumes a 100 percent participation rate amongst eligible
property owners over the life of the program. To fund the proposed purchase of development rights program,
the Town of Ithaca should establish a special 21st Century Open Space Fund dedicated to implementing the
proposed program.
The reason for using "21st" century is simple: the investment by the Town in purchasing the development rights
to its agriculturally and ecologically significant land resources now, on the eve of the 21st century, will benefit
Town residents well into the 21st century and beyond. It will provide as a legacy to future Town residents many
of the wide expanses of open space, the scenic vistas, and unique natural areas treasured by residents of today.
The 21st Century Open Space Fund could be funded through a combination of Town appropriations and
private donations. The recommended mechanism for implementing the 21st Century Open Space Fund is a
combination of dedicated sales tax and property tax revenues.
The actual purchase of some of the development rights, particularly in the first two years of the program, will
have to be financed through the floating of bonds. This approach would give the Town the ability to acquire the
development rights to a large proportion of the elligible lands within the fust two to three years of the program,
�(L
when interest is expected to be highest. In the following years, the level of purchase of development rights
activity is expected to be much reduced -- one or two easements covering 100 to 150 acres per year. This
expectation is based on the experience of similar government-sponsored PDR programs in Massachusetts and
Pennsylvania.
While the average annual outlay for a PDR program is projected to be about $240,000, though, in some years
program costs are expected to be significantly higher, especially during the second through ninth years of the
program. This is due to the expectation that the greatest outlays for development rights purchases will be during
the fust several years of the program. Annual program outlays are expected to peak at about $315,000 in the
third year, and drop to below $240,000 in the eleventh year.
Generating Revenue for the 21st Century Open Space Fund
One of two recommended sources of funding for the proposed open space fund is the additional revenue stream
generated by the increase in the local sales tax from 7% to 8% in 1993. The Town of Ithaca allocated the
additional revenues generated by the increased sales tax to a special capital fund. Over the past three years,
these additional sales tax revenues have averaged approximately $200,000 per year.
This additional sales tax revenue has been earmarked for construction of a new Town Hall, scheduled for
completion in 1996. Beyond 1996, however the Town of Ithaca could allocate these revenues toward a purchase
of development rights program.
The full $200,000 in sales tax revenues would be needed for years two through thirteen of the program. After
that, in year fourteen the need would drop to $100,000, and to zero dollars for the remainder of the program.
Total amount of sales tax revenue required by the PDR program is projected to be $2,500,000, to be allocated
during the fiscal years from 1998 through 2010.
The second source of funds would be a 15 mil ($0.15/$1,000) increase in property taxes. The additional
revenues generated -- an estimated $105,000 based on the total value of taxable property in the Town of Ithaca
in 1995 -- would be dedicated to the proposed 21st Century Open Space Fund. The term of the additional 15
mil levy would be 20 years, or through the year 2017. During that time, it would generate approximately $2.1
million in revenues.
The cost of this additional tax levy would be about $22.50 per year for the average Town homeowner.
163
Table 9-4 summarizes the proposed purchase of development rights program. It illustrates how revenues from
the 21st Century Open Space Fund can be utilized to supplement the sales tax revenues in the early years of the
program. At the same time the Fund balance would increase to a peak of $630,866 in 2010, assuming interest
earnings on the balance averaging 3 percent per year. After 2010 the Fund balance, with the annual 15 mill
levy, will be able to support the PDR program to its completion.
Table 9-4. Projected Costs and Revenues for Purchase of Development Rights Program.
(An example of how it could be accomplished)
Year
Projected
PDR
Purchases
Projected
Bond
Payments
Total
Annual
Outlays
Sales
Tax
Revenues
Property
Tax
Revenues
21st Century
Fund
Balance
1997
$1,000,000
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
1998
$500,000
$130,000
$130,000
$200,000
$105,000
$175,000
1999
$125,000
$190,800
$315,800
$200,000
$105,000
$169,450
2000
$125,000
$184,500
$309,500
$200,000
$105,000
$170,034
2001
$125,000
$178,200
$303,200
$200,000
$105,000
$176,935
2002
$125,000
$171,900
$296,900
$200,000
$105,000
$190,343
2003
$125,000
$165,600
$290,600
$200,000
$105,000
$210,453
2004
$125,000
$159,300
$284,300
$200,000
$105,000
$237,466
2005
$125,000
$133,000
$258,000
$200,000
$105,000
$291,590
2006
$125,000
$118,100
$243,100
$200,000
$105,000
$362,238
2007
$120,000
$113,900
$233,900
$200,000
$105,000
$444,205
2008
$120,000
$109,700
.$229,700
$200,000
$105,000
$532,831
2009
$120,000
$105,500
$225,500
$200,000
$105,000
$628,316
2010
$120,000
$101,300
$221,300
$100,000
$105,000
$630,866
2011
$120,000
$97,100
$217,100
$0.00
$105,000
$537,692
2012
$120,000
$92,900
$212,900
$0.00
$105,000
$445,923
2013
$120,000
$88,700
$208,700
$0.00
$105,000
$355,600
2014
$120,000
$84,500
$204,500
$0.00
$105,000
$266,768
2015
$120,000
$100,300
$220,300
$0.00
$105,000
$159,471
2016
$120,000
$104,700
$224,700
$0.00
$105,000
$44,555
2017
$0.00
$98,400
$98,400
$0.00
$105,000
$52,492
2018
$0.00
$32,100
$32,100
$0.00
$0.00
$21,967
TOTALS
$3,700,000
$2,560,500
$4,760,500
$2,500,000
$2,100,500
-------
* Includes interest earnings on fund balance calculated @ 3.00% per year.
$Y
Note that the projected rates of development rights acquisition (Column 2) should be considered average rates.
In some years the level of acquisition activity may fall below the projected level. This is especially possible in
the fust few years of the program. Should the target rate for any year or series of years not be met, however,
the funds should be carried over for future use.
There may also be years in which the number of landowners who wish to participate in the program, and the
value of the properties offered for easement acquisition, exceed the Town's funding resources. The state
purchase of development rights program in Massachusetts has established criteria for evaluating which properties
receive priority each year. Such a system should be set up in the Town of Ithaca. In years in which there are
more properties than can be accommodated by the program, those which score lower in any one year would be
processed the next year.
Landowner Participation Rate
The above projections for the cost of a purchase of development rights program assume a 100 percent
participation rate by landowners over the course of the program. The participation rate by landowners will most
likely be the primary variable in the total cost of the proposed program. Since it would be a voluntary program,
not all landowners are expected to take advantage of it.
In areas where there have been government-sponsored PDR programs in place for five or more years,
participation rates have vaned significantly. However the state funded program in Massachusetts is approaching
a 100% particiapation rate by owners of targeted lands in a number of towns. The program there is approaching
its twentieth year, and has protected approximately 40,000 acres of land.
The Town of Ithaca should strive to ensure a 100 percent participation rate in its program. Although less than
full participation would result in reduced program expenditures, the end result. would be a patchwork of protected
and unprotected lands. This would be especially true if the participation rate were 50 to 66 percent or less.
Cost of Development Rights vs. Cost of Public Water and Sewer Infrastructure.
As expensive as the above-described initiative may seem, its cost is well below what the Town of Ithaca could
pay to extend public water and sewer to the areas being considered for PDR. Indicative of the savings possible
in terms of reducing the need for future expenditures for public water and sewer infrastructure is the existing
Drew subdivision at the western edge of the Town. Because of water quality problems residents of the area have
petitioned the Town Board for an extension of public water to the area.
The cost of extending public water to this isolated development, which would serve approximately 70 homes, is
estimated to be nearly $2 million. Were the Town able to purchase the devlopment rights to the approximately
Yr-
150 acres on which those home sit, prior to their construction, those rights, at today's values, would total about
$150,000.
6. CONCLUSION
The estimated investment necessary to fully implement the recommendations of this Plan over the next two
decades is $6.93 million: $3.4 million for new parks and bicycle and pedestrian linkages, and $3.53 million for
a PDR program. Table 9-5 summarizes the anticipated costs for the various components of this plan. This figure
represents the cost, in 1997 dollars, of the
Table 9-5. Anticipated Costs of Implementing Plan, by Plan Component.
Plan Component
Estimated
Cost
Capital improvements to existing and future parks
$1,600,000
Bicycle and pedestrian path development
$1,800,000
Cumulative park operation and maintenance costs through 2017 *
$2,300,000
Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program (acquisition)
$3,530,000
Administrative costs of PDR program through 2018
$400,000
* Total cost, including costs for existing parks and bicycle/pedestrian paths.
proposed land acquisitions, capital improvements and purchase of development rights needed to create the park,
recreation and open space system envisioned in this plan. Of this $6.93 million investment, the Town of Ithaca
can expect to fund between $5.8 and $6.0 million, with the remaining $1.1 to $1.3 million coming from grants
and private contributions. In addition to the above investment, the Town can anticipate a commitment of up to
$2.3 million over the next two decades to maintain its public park and bicycle/pedestrian path system, and up to
$400,000 to administer a PDR program.
Altogether the cost to the Town of Ithaca of implementing and maintaining the park and open space system
envisioned in this Plan, over the next twenty years, is expected to be between $8.3 and $8.5 million. While this
is a substantial sum of money, on a per capita basis it tuins out to be a modest investment. This Plan envisions
an expenditure by Town taxpayers of an average of $25 to $26 per resident for the next twenty years. In return
this and future generations of residents will enjoy the benefits of a comprehensive park and open space system
that would provide adequate facilities to meet their recreational needs, and preserve the agricultural and unique
ecological and scenic resources of the Town of Ithaca.
Town of Ithaca Conservation Board - History and Accomplishments
Town Board Resolution No. 25 on February 12, 1990 established the Town of Ithaca Conservation
Advisory Council (CAC) under the auspices of New York State Guidelines for the formation of
Conservation Advisory Councils. Shirley Raffensperger was the Town Supervisor. The first meeting of
the CAC was held on March 1, 1990 and chaired by John Whitcomb, who as a member of the Town
Board was instrumental in the creation of the CAC. John continued to chair the CAC for two terms and
later successfully ran for Town Supervisor.
The CAC was established to assist Town staff and other Town boards to preserve and protect natural and
scenic resources of the Town. Three subcommittees were established at the initial CAC meeting; (1)
Agriculture -- to assess the state of agriculture and methods to ensure its sustainability, (2) Environmental
Review -- to review and comment on the environmental significance of proposed development, and (3)
Parks, Natural Areas, and Stream Corridors -- to protect natural areas and water quality. The CAC was
also charged with developing an Open Space Inventory to map and characterize all undeveloped land in
the Town.
After completion of the Open Space Inventory, the Town Board redesignated the CAC as the
Conservation Board (CB) by Local Law No. 4 on April 12, 1993. The purpose and powers of the CB
remained the same as the CAC, except the CB is mandated to provide environmental review of actions
received by other Town boards as specified by Local Law No. 4. Thus, to fulfill the mission of the CB,
the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) remains an essential subcommittee.
In addition to the ERC and the subcommittees already mentioned, a number of other subcommittees have
existed and/or continue to be active depending on the interest of the CB. These include:
► Scenic Views Committee - to identify and protect public scenic views and viewsheds,
► Parks and Greenways Committee- to identify needs and possible locations for natural and
recreational parks and linkages between natural areas,
► Environmental Atlas and GIS Committee - to computerize and expand on the information
contained in the Open Space Inventory, and
► Tree and Shrub Plantings Committee - to sponsor and plant trees and shrubs in public areas and
encourage plantings on private lands.
The efforts of the various CB Committees have created a dialog to develop Town policy on: Stream
Corridor Protection, Wetland Protection, Storm Water Management, Viewshed Protection, Steep Slope
Protection, and Pesticide/Herbicide usage by the Parks Department. In addition, the CB has written
many award winning reports recognized by the New York State Association of Conservation Councils:
► Six Mile Creek: A Heritage to Preserve (1992 Special Achievement Award)
► Open Space Inventory (1992 Special Achievement Award)
► Planning for Agriculture in the Town of Ithaca (1992 Special Achievement Award)
► Wetland Guidelines (1993 Educational Award)
► Coy Glen Biological Corridor - Draft (1994 Research Award)
Past and Present Members:
James Ainslie#
Richard Couture
James Baker
Monika Crispin"
Celia Bowers
Christiann Dean
Melinda Boyar
Richard Fisher
Jeff Caster"
Janet Hawkes`
Candace Cornell'
Eva Hoffmann
* Chairs # Associate Members
Dooley Kiefer
Lois Levitan
Ruth Mahr
laura marks
Jon Meigs
Elizabeth Mulholland
Mary Russell
Loren Tauer
Cheryl Smith
John Whitcomb'
Philip Zarriello'
TOWN OF ITHACA
126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783
FAX (607) 273-1704
TO: - Conservation Board Members
FROM: Geri Tierney, CB Coordinator G
DATE: 9 January 1997
RE: CB Materials
Greetings. Enclosed please find materials for our January 16th meeting. Please note that the
12/10/96 draft of the Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan that we will discuss at this
meeting was sent to you in mid-December. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz will join
us to participate in the discussion of this Plan. Additionally, the minutes from the 11/7/96
meeting scheduled to be approved at this meeting were distributed with last month's packet.
We recently received the enclosed report by Nancy Ostman and Robert Wesley "Inventory
South Hill Unique Natural Area" and supplemental report 'Plant Community Types of
Tompkins County." Be advised that the report refers to a map which is not reproducible, but
which will be on display at our meeting.
I've also enclosed resumes and/or letters of interest from four Town residents interested in
filling our vacant CB positions. They will be joining us at this meeting to learn more about
us. Barney Unsworth is also interested in joining the CB and will attend this meeting, but
was unable to send a resume in time for our mailing.
As always, please call me at 273-1747 if you have any questions.
CC: Frank Baldwin
Elizabeth deProsse
Kara Hagedorn
Barney Unsworth
John Yntema
Inventory South Hill Unique Natural Area
Nancy Ostman and Robert Wesley, December 1996
Introduction and Methods
We visited the South Hill properties in and adjacent to the Unique Natural Area (UNA)
between the 11th and 17th of November 1996. We walked the properties, noting the
vegetation types, searching for rare species and rare ecological communities, and verifying
quality of areas included in the UNA. We noted locations of wetlands, exposed bedrock and
very shallow soils, and mature forests (see Map ). We looked at aerial photographs (1936,
1938, 1962, 1980, and 1991) to confirm the history of vegetation and land use patterns. We
refined the boundaries of the Unique Natural Area and outlined areas with distinct
vegetation and land use history. These areas and the locations of rare and scarce species
we found are shown on the map and described in the text below.
We looked at topographic maps and analyzed aerial photographs stereoscopically to
determine drainage patterns and look for flat terraces and basins. We later confirmed
these features with field observations of surface topography and drainage patterns.
The majority of the information we present here is newly generated. Data for the part of
the UNA along King Road constituting the Cornell Natural Area and the Ithaca College
property is taken from other studies done for Cornell Plantations and Tompkins County
Planning Department and EMC.
Findings
We were very impressed with the quality of the vegetation on parts of the properties we
had not visited previously. Most striking to us was the discovery of previously unknown
areas of pitch pine -scarlet oak barrens and woodland. There are several areas with mature
and old-growth forest that have very large old trees. A study of aerisd' photographs
confirmed the boundaries of the sites that have always been forested. .
We found a number of places that should be searched again in the spring and/or summer.
Although there were only a few rare species that we could recognize at this time of year,
we did find a rare sedge, Carex complanata var. hirsuta, in several locations. Our ability to
find and identify rare plant species was, in November, severely limited. We found several
locally rare or scarce species at this time. Carex complanata var. hirsuta is the only state
rarity we found at the site.
Species
Local Rarity Global Rarity State Rarity
Aronia arbutifolia, red chokeberry
scarce
Aronia melanocarpa, black chokeberry
scarce
Carex complanata var. hirsuta, sedge
scarce G5 S1
Carex folluculata, sedge
scarce
Carex glaucodea, glaucous sedge
rare G5 S1
Carex incomperta, prickly bog sedge
rare
Nyssa sylvatica, tupelo or black gum
scarce
Quercus coccinea, scarlet oak
scarce
Lyonia.ligustrina, maleberry
rare
Pinus rigida, pitch pine
scarce
Platanthera flava, tuberculed orchid
scarce
Pyncnanthemum tenuifolium, mountain mint
(may be introduced)
scarce
Scirpus verecundus, woodland club -rush
rare
(found here on other visits, not visible at this time of year)
Malus coronaria, American crabapple scarce
Hedyotis caerulea, bluets scarce
Linum uirginianum, yellow wild flax scarce
Viola ftmbriatula, ovate -leaved violet scarce
Several rare Ecological Communities are found here.
Ecological Community Local Rarity Global Rarity State Rarity
Perched swamp white oak swamp rare G3G4 S1S2
Pitch Pine -heath barrens rare G4 S4
Pitch pine -oak -heath woodland rare G3G5 S2S3
Conclusions
The presence of so many rare plant species and rare ecological communities suggests that
more rare and scarce plant and animal species will be found with further investigation.
This UNA is one of the top two UNA's in the Town of Ithaca (the other is Coy Glen). No
other UNA in the Town comes close in quality to these two. Further, these UNA's are
among the top ten in the county in terms of quality. The biological importance of South
Hill should not be underestimated.
Impacts from adjacent properties are to some degree limited by the fact that most adjacent
properties are downslope from the Unique Natural Area. For the most part adjacent
properties are also isolated hydrologically from the UNA. A buffer will be needed to protect
the UNA. A zone 100 feet wide surrounding the UNA where no structures or excavations
are permitted may be adequate to protect the physical features of the landscape. In order
to protect the unique biological features of this site, it will be necessary to limit herbicide
and pesticide use, invasive plantings, and free ranging pets in the neighborhood.
All of the land that is upslope of the UNA is found south of King Road. Unfortunately,
recent reconfiguration of the drainage of King Road has sent surface runoff downslope
along King Road rather than under or across it. As a result, South Hill Swamp may be
deprived of an important source of water. We cannot evaluate the magnitude of this
impact at this time. On the other hand, pollutants, contaminants, and future development
south of King Road will no longer impact the swamp via surface water drainage.
The whole hilltop is characterized by remarkably shallow soils. The areas of exposed
bedrock or very shallowly covered bedrock are extremely fragile. Any development or
activity on these areas is likely to be destructive of those areas and also the UNA as a
whole. The integrity of the rims of the very shallow basins is extremely important.
Excavations near or at the rim that alter surface or bedrock contours will alter the
hydrology of the entire basin and thereby the vegetation. Rare animals such as the Prairie
warbler, associated with the rare ecological community, and rare bees associated with
some rare plants could well be exterminated.
There are also some very steep slopes on the site. These areas are subject to the usual
concerns regarding development on steep slopes, and erosion concerns may be exacerbated
by the very thin soils. However, these slopes are not the most vulnerable part of the
natural area in 'terms of their biological resources.
Descriptions of areas shown on map
1. Successional northern hardwoods.
2
Southwestern edge of Ithaca College property.
Species present on this site include scarlet oak, white ash (Fraxinus americana), red
maple (Acer rubrum), American crabapple, deerberry (Vaccinium stamineum), and
blueberry (Vaccinium spp.).
This unusual community is on a seasonally wet and dry plateau. This site is very
flat and to the west there is a bedrock rim, beyond which there is a steep slope
dropping to the west. Almost all of this site was cleared and plowed for agriculture,
perhaps unsuccessfully.
This site needs to be inventoried further because there are some scarce and
uncommon plant species present and it exhibits physical characteristics suitable for
the pine barrens community types.
2. Pitch pine -heath barrens
Ithaca College property
This site is on the western rim of a plateau. Dry site species include maleberry and
pitch pine, scarlet oak, red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and red maple. American
crabapple is also present. Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) is found in areas
cleared for agriculture in the past.
This site is very shallow to bedrock and is similar to a shale barrens. Most of this
area has been cleared in the past. Hedgerows and rocky open areas exhibit less
disturbed vegetation. This is an open site with a high cover of shrub species.
This site need further investigation because of its barrens -like characteristics.
3. Pitch pine -heath barrens
Ithaca College property
Pitch pine and scarlet oak are the dominant species.
This site is the most typical of a barrens community, which is a rare community
type. This is a very open, sloping ridgetop site which was been cleared for
agriculture. It is very shallow to bedrock and appears to be very sterile. There are
herb -dominated openings. This is a likely site for the prairie warbler.
This is a high priority site for further investigation. Future field work should
include an inventory of bird species.
4. Pitch Pine -oak-heath woodland
Ithaca College property south of the Ithaca College Water Tower.
Scarlet oak and pitch pine are the dominant species. Red oak (Quercus rubra) is
present.
This stand is nearly a barrens it is so dry and open.
This site should be revisited.
3
5. Successional northern hardwoods
Ithaca College property surrounding and north of Ithaca College water tank.
Dominant species are white pine (Pinus strobus), red maple and pitch pine.
This area lies on a relatively flat terrace. It appears to have been cleared for
agriculture. The physical site characteristics here appear to be conducive to the
return of a pitch pine -scarlet oak barrens or woodland community.
6. Appalchian oak -hickory forest
Ithaca College property
Dominant species include white oak(Quercus alba), red oak, red maple, black birch
(Betula lents), white pine, hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) and black cherry (Prunus
serotina).
This is an old-growth forest on a very steep slope. Some trees are very large and old.
Bedrock is exposed in places. Parts of the site have been used as stone quarry in the
past.
7. Successional northern hardwoods.
Ithaca College property
Pitch pine, red maple, and white pine are the dominant species.
Pitch pine becomes less abundant and white pine more abundant southward. The
soils likewise appear to be deeper. Carex complanata var. hirsuta, a state rarity, is
found near an old hedgerow. These forests are growing on land that was plowed,
however, the species composition is rather unusual. It is reverting to a Pitch pine -
oak heath woodland.
This site needs to be revisited in the spring.
8. Tree plantation
Ithaca College property
This is a small Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) and red pine (Pinus resinosa)
plantation. Red maple is present.
9. Perched swamp white oak swamp.
Ithaca College property
Swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor) is the dominant species in about half of this
area. Red maple, shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) and trembling aspen (Populus
tremuloides) are also abundant. Aspen is more prevalent in the area that has been
plowed in the past.
This is a locally rare community which is also rare at the state level. This is a
shallow basin on a flat terrace. Seasonally there is standing water here. Aerial
photographs show that some large swamp white oaks were already large in 1938.
Most of the site has never been plowed, but may have been grazed.
4
This rare community needs to be investigated further.
10. Successional northern hardwoods.
Ithaca College / Lenora Monkemeyer
Dominant species include trembling aspen, red maple, and white ash. In the herb
layer Carex complanata var. hirsuta (a state rarity) and Hedeoma pulegioides,
American pennyroyal, are found here.
This forested site has small trees. It is a flat site with shallow soils that are
seasonally extremely wet or dry.
This site should be searched further in the spring.
11. Appalachian oak -hickory forest
Dry northwest -southeast running ridge and shallow valley on Lenora Monkemeyer
property extending onto Ithaca College property.
Shagbark hickory, red oak, scarlet oak, white oak, red maple and white pine are
dominant species. Chestnut oak (Quercus montana) and pignut hickory (Carya
glabra) are present. Fire scars can be seen on the bases of old trees. The shrub layer
has deerberry and highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum). There is much
Carex pensylvanica (a sedge) in the herb layer.
This is a section of old-growth forest. The vegetation on the rocky ridge is open.
There is a small, low-lying wet meadow adjacent to the forested ridge.
This site should be searched again in the spring for rare herbaceous plants. Robert
Wesley has found Scirpus verecundus near here in the past.
12. Appalachian oak -hickory forest
Ithaca College property on both sides of pipeline.
Large, old trees of red oak, white pine, shagbark hickory, white oak, pignut hickory
and red maple are abundant. Very large old tall pitch pines are present on the west
side of the pipe line. Hemlock is present on the slope east of the pipeline.
This area has always been forested. This area is the best example of old-growth
forest in the UNA. On the west side of the pipe line the land is nearly flat. The land
to the east of the pipeline slopes to the north and northeast.
13. Appalachian oak -hickory forest
Ithaca College property, the wedge between power lines.
White oak is a dominant species on the nearly flat terrace near the pipeline. Other
dominants are pignut hickory and shagbark hickory. A few white pine and red
maple are present.
This section of old-growth forest has been logged heavily at various times in the
past. However, a canopy of old trees remains. This area is shallow to bedrock.
Further east, red oak and white ash become more abundant as the soils get deeper.
5
14. Appalchian oak -hickory forest
Ithaca College property, north of the power lines and east of the pipeline.
Dominant species include red maple, red oak and white pine. Toward the south end
of this parcel, shagbark hickory, pignut hickory, red hickory (Carya ovalis) and
white oak are quite abundant.
Based on historic airphotos, this area appears to have always been forested. It looks
to have been heavily cut in the past, so much so that it closely resembles a post -
agricultural forest. A number invasive weedy species have gotten a foothold here,
the worst of these are Lonicera xbella, honeysuckle and Ligustrum obtusifolium,
Amur river privet. Much of this area is quite steeply sloping. At the base of a steep
slope is a flattish wet terrace characterized by groundwater discharge.
15. Successional northern hardwoods
Ithaca College property
White pine is often the dominant species with red maple and white ash. White ash
is more abundant on seasonally wet areas on the slope. Sugar maple (Acer
saccharum) and red oak are more abundant on the upper slopes. Patches of shrub
thicket are present.
This stand is on fairly steep north facing slope. This forest is growing on previously
cleared and plowed land.
16. Appalachian oak -hickory forest
Old growth oak woods on slope below eastern water tank
Dominant species include white oak, red oak, shagbark hickory, basswood (Tilia
americana), and red maple. Nyssa sylvatica, black gum, a locally scarce species, is
found in a seepy area on the lower slope.
This is a fairly steep north-northeast facing slope. This is a section of old-growth
forest. Very nice large old trees are found here. These trees may be among the
oldest and largest in the UNA. There are two flatter terraces on the slope which are
seasonally wet. White ash is common there.
17. Successional old field
NYSEG power line
Dominant species are common old field weeds and ericaceous shrubs.
This power line is an important refuge for shade intolerant pine -barrens species.
Bluets (Hedyotis caerulea), a locally scarce species is abundant here.
This area should be revisited.
18. Pitch pine -oak -heath woodland
Ithaca College property, north lip of the main basin.
Pitch pine is the dominant species. Other dominants include scarlet oak, white pine,
sugar maple, and red oak.
C.1
This woodland community is rare locally and at the state level. This area is rather
flat at the north edge of the basin. The site has been cleared in the past, but not
plowed. It is shallow to bedrock and seasonally wet and dry.
19. Appalachian oak -hickory forest
Southeast corner of Lenora Monkemeyer property
The forest is dominated by oaks, hickories, white pine and red maple. The
understory is sparse with small ericaceous shrubs, such as blueberries (Vaccinium
spp.) and deerberry (Vaccinium stamineum).
This very small tract is old-growth forest on very thin soils. The forest canopy is
fairly open.
20. Successional northern hardwoods
Tree plantations
Lenora Monkemeyer property.
This area dominated by white pine and red maple. Japanese larch (Larix kdempferi)
and other conifers have been planted. Scattered scarlet oak and pitch pine are
present.
21. Successional old -field
Northeast corner of Evan Monkemeyer parcel
Common old field species, most of these being European weeds, are found here, but
Pycnanthemum tenuifolium, narrow -leaved mountain mint is also present.
There is a small, seasonally wet meadow immediately south of the hedgerow. This
area should be investigated for other rare or scarce species typically associated with
the mountain mint.
22. Appalachian oak -hickory forest
Ithaca College/Evan Monkemeyer/Lenora Monkemeyer Hedgerow
Dominant species include scarlet oak, shagbark hickory, pignut hickory, red maple,
chestnut oak, American crabapple is found in the Lenora Monkemeyer hedgerow.
The species composition is likely to be representative of the original vegetation of
the site. Largest trees are in northern part of hedgerow. The site is rocky and
shallow to bedrock. The area east of the hedgerow on Ithaca College is steeply
sloping in places.
This remnant should be investigated further for herbaceous species.
23. Pitch pine -oak -heath barrens
Cornell University property and private property near the original Cornell 6 acres
Common woody species include pitch pine, red maple, scarlet flak, and white pine.
Other woody species include chestnut oak, sassafras (Sassafras albidum), and white
oak. Small trees and shrubs include a number of rare and uncommon species, and
including black and red choke berry (Aronia melanocarpa and A. arbutifolia),
wintergreen (Gaultheria procumbens), Malus coronaria, Lyonia ligustrina, and
winterberry (Ilex verticillata).
This is a very open woodland with areas of exposed bedrock. It is a core area of the
natural area and has many rare species, including Linum virginicum, wild yellow
flax, and a rare variety ofAntennaria fallax, pussytoes.
24. Perched swamp white oak swamp
Along the gas line, on both Ithaca College and Cornell University lands.
The dominant species is swamp white oak and red maple is common here.
Dominant shrubs are arrowwood (Viburnum recognitum) and highbush
blueberry. Carex folliculata, a locally scarce sedge, is found here.
The site is seasonally very wet. It is hummocky and the hummocks are mounded
with Sphagnum mosses.
25. Appalachian oak -hickory forest.
Northern parts of Cornell University and Ithaca College parcels along King Road.
Dominant species include red maple, white oak, white pine, shagbark hickory, and
red oak. Also present is scarlet oak, black cherry, white ash, pignut hickory, red
oak, and mountain maple (Acer spicatum).
This is forest that has always been forest but it appears to have been rather heavily
cut at some time. Soils are thin and much of the forest is seasonally wet.
26. Pitch pine -heath barrens
Western edge of Ithaca College land along King Road
Common woody species here include pitch pine, scarlet oak, and red maple and
chestnut oak. Shadbush (Amelanchier intermedia and A. arborea) and ericaceous
shrubs are common.
This barrens is located on the exposed rocky rim on the south hill basin. The site is
very shallow to bedrock and dry. Trees are small and stunted. The community is
open with small areas of grassy barrens.
27. Pitch pine -heath barrens
Cornell University land, north of King Road
Dominant species are sedges (Carex normalis and C. scoparia). Buttercup
(Ranunculus acris), common cinquefoil (Potentilla canadensis) and blue-eyed grass
(Sisyrinchium spp.) are common. Hedyotis caerulea, bluets, a locally scarce species
is abundant here. Low shrub species are common and include deerberry, blueberries
(V. corymbosum, V. angustifolium and V. vacillans), and dwarf cherry (Prunus
susquehannae), a locally rare species. Also present are gray dogwood (Cornus
racemosa), and arrowwood.
This is a disturbed and perhaps unusually wet version of this community. It is an
open, seasonally wet meadow which may in time revert to a more structurally
typical barrens community.
E:3
28. Appalachian oak -hickory forest
Mostly Cornell University land, the northernmost part.
Dominant species include white oak, shagbark hickory, pignut hickory, and pitch
pine. Trembling aspen and Amelanchier intermedia, shadbush, are common.
Ericaceous shrubs dominate the understory.
This rather open forest is on very shallow soils with exposed bedrock. The trees are
not large but likely are very old. The land was forested in 1938 and there is no
evidence of past logging. It is likely that the trees are severely stunted because of
the poor soil conditions.
29. Successional shrubland
Cornell University and Ithaca College lands near King Road
This rather dense shrub thicket is dominated by viburnums and gray dogwood.
Goldenrod (Solidago spp.) is abundant in small openings.
30. Successional old field
Cornell University land near King Road
This area is in a very disturbed, successional, state. It probably was and probably
will return to Pitch pine -heath barrens.
Common species include Galium mollugo, white bedstraw, Anthoxanthum
odoratum, sweet vernal grass, and Hedyotis caerulea, bluets and Solidago junceac,
early goldenrod. Shrubs include gray dogwood, and arrowwood.
9
Plant Community Types of Tompkins County
Nancy Ostman and Robert Wesley, June 1995
(*Adapted from C. Reschke, 1990 and C. L. Mohler, 1991)
We have selected the following community types to describe the vegetation of Tompkins County based on
the extensive research and community descriptions published by Carol Reschke and Charles Mohler and,
occasionally, our own field observations. For the most part, we have followed the community types named
and described by Reschke because her list is more comprehensive than Mohler's and is used statewide.
Whenever appropriate, we noted the comparable community type described by Mohler. We used these same
community types in the Tompkins County Unique Natural Areas report.
Our list is notably shorter than Reschke's, in part because we included only those community types found in
Tompkins County. To simplify the list and the process of categorizing vegetation we have combined several
of Reschke's community types into a single type when we felt differences between the types was small,
unimportant from a natural areas perspective, or when several similar community types are commonly found
together or grade into one another. In doing so, we have given the vegetation is e a new name and noted
beneath it as subtypes the community types described by Reschke. -
Occasionally, we felt that the differentiation of community types and descriptiens of Mohler added
significant clarity to a larger community type described by Reschke. In that case, we have noted Mohler's
community types as subtypes of the larger Reschke type. We have added to Reschke's list a type described
by Mohler (Pine -hemlock forest) that we believed to be distinct from any type described by Reschke.
Finally, we have added a subtype of our own to describe a locally uncommon variant of Chestnut oak
forests.
Unless otherwise noted, all of the numbered names of community types and subtypes on the left of the list in
are the names used by Reschke. The community type names noted on the on the right of the list are the
comparable type name used by Mohler. The global and statewide rarity codes ( center of each community
header line) follow Reschke. We have added the local rarity codes ourselves, based on our experience in
evaluating the vegetation of Tompkins County.
Community Type (After Reschke) Rarity codes Community Type (After Mohler)
Appalachian oak -hickory forest G4G5 S4 L4 Mixed oak fo.-est
Hickory -white ash -oak type
This is an upland communities with more than 60% canopy cover of trees and less than 50 % rock outcrop or shallow soil
over bedrock. A hardwood forest that occurs on well -drained sites, usually on flat hilltops, upper slopes, or south and west
facing slopes. Dominant trees include one or more of red oak, white oak, and black oak. Mixed with these oaks, are one or
more of pignut, shagbark, and red hickory. Common associates are white ash, red maple, and hop hornbeam. Small trees
include flowering dogwood, witch hazel, shadbush, and choke cherry. Shrubs and ground layer flora are diverse. Shrubs
include maple -leaf viburnum, blueberries, red raspberry, gray dogwood, and beaked hazelnut.
Perched swamp white oak swamp G3G4 S1S2 L2
This is a swamp forest that occurs in a shallow depression on a forested hillside where there is a locally perched water table.
The swamp may be flooded in spring and dry by late summer. The dominant tree is swamp white oak, which may form a
nearly pure, but open canopy stand. In better drained areas the canopy may include scarlet oak, white oak, red maple, white
pine, and pitch pine. Scattered ericaceous shrubs are present in the open understory and ntclude black huckleberry, highbush
blueberry, lowbush blueberry, and pinkster. The ground cover may be sparse. (South Hill, Bull pasture ponds)
Pitch pine -oak -heath woodland G3G5 S2S3
This pine barrens community occurs on uplands with shallow soils over bedrock with numerous rock outcrops. It is
structurally intermediate between a shrub -savanna and a woodland. The canopy typically is stunted, with dwarfed trees.
Dominant species are pitch pine with white oak, red oak, scarlet oak, and black oak. White pine, quaking aspen, and big -
tooth aspen may also be present. The tree canopy has 30-60 % cover. The shrub layer includes heaths such as huckleberry
and blueberries (Vaccinum corymbosum, V. myrtilloides, V. stamineum). The two Pine Barrens types are similar and may
form a mosaic on one site.
Community Type (After Reschke) Rarity codes Community Type (After Mohler)
Pitch -pine -heath barrens G4 S4
This pine barrens community occurs on well -drained infertile, rocky soils. Structurally, the community is a shrub -savanna.
The canopy is more open and low shrubs are more abundant than for the woodland type. Pitch pine and white oak are the
most abundant trees, and these form and open community with 30 to 60% cover. Scarlet oak and black oak may also occur
in the canopy. The shrub layer is dominated by heath shrubs such as Gaylussacia baccata, Vaccinium angustifolium, and V.
myrtilloides. The shrub layer may be quite diverse and found in patches in openings within the tree canopy. Characteristic
groundlayer species are wintergreen, wild sarsaparilla, Canada mayflower, cow wheat, wild strawberry, moccasin flower,
Pennsylvania sedge, and bracken fern.
Successional northern hardwoods G5 S5 L4 W. pine -r. maple -w. ash -poplar type
This is an upland communities with more than 60% canopy cover of trees and less than 50 % rock outcrop or shallow soil
over bedrock. A forest that occurs on sites that have been cleared or otherwise disturbed. Dominant trees are usually two or
more of the following; red maple, white pine, white ash, gray birch, quaking aspen, big -tooth aspen, and, less frequently,
sugar maple. Tree seedling and saplings may be of more shade tolerant species. Shrubs and ground cover species may be
those of old -fields. In abandoned pasturelands apples and hawthorns may be present in the understory.
Successional old field G4 S4 14 Successional old field: Rag weed type
Successional old field: Goldenrod -aster type
A meadow on sites cleared, plowed, and then abandoned. The ragweed type occurs on fields 1 to 3 years after last
cultivation.; ragweed, daisy, Queen Anne's lace, crab grass, golden foxtail, and chickweed are common. The golden rod
subtype occurs 3 - 15 years after last cultivation. Dominant species are perennial composites: goldenrods and asters. Other
herbs include timothy, orchard grass, smooth brome, bluegrasses, quackgrass, sweet vernal grass, evening primrose, Old-
field cinquefoil, wild strawberry, and hawkweeds. Shrubs represent less than 50% cover but include gray and silky
dogwoods, arrowwood, raspberries, sumac, and eastern red cedar.
Successional shrubland G4 S4 14 Viburnum -gray dogwood type
A shrubland with at least 50% cover of shrubs that occurs on agricultural fields 10 - 25 years after abandonment, following
other disturbance, and especially on sites with restricted drainage. Characteristic shrubs include gray dogwood, raspberries,
hawthorn, serviceberries, chokecherry, sumac, nannyberry, arrowwood and buckthorn. Herbs are of those of old -fields.
Seedlings of white pine, red maple and white ash are usually present.
Tree plantations (Ostman and Wesley)
Conifer plantation, Pine Plantation (Reschke) G5 S3 L3L 4
This is a community created by human activities, or are modified by human influence so that the substrate or the community
is substantially altered. A planted stand of hardwood or conifer species, usually for timber purposes. Usually a monoculture,
but they may be mixed stands with two or more species.
Resources .
Reschke, Carol. 1990. Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program,
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, 700 Troy -Schenectady Road, Latham, NY 12110-2400.
96 pp.
Mohler, C. L. 1991. Plant Community Types of the Central Finger Lakes Region of New York: A Synopsis
and Key. Proceedings of the Rochester Academy of Science, Inc. Vol. 17: No 2, pp. 55-107.
4
Colle and Baldwin , Pine Tree Road
John Whitcomb, Town Supervisor -
Ithaca, New York
Dear John Whitcomb,
We are writing you to propose the construction of a bike path through
the Baldwin and jointly -owned Colle - Baldwin property in the town of Ithaca.
The four of us have discussed this and agree that it is a good idea.
Our idea is to by-pass the steep part of Snyder Hill Road with a
bike path , so that bicycles can safely go from Eastern Heights to Pine Tree
and Snyder Hill roads .
A map is enclosed, with the proposed path marked in solid red , with
possible path ( pending approval by neighbors) marked with a dotted red line.
We would give a permanent easement for a 40 foot right of way , with 50 feet
where needed
Our understanding with George Frantz is that a fence would ' be
constructed whereever the bike path causes problems along the way, and that
gates will be put in the fence if requested. For example, the Baldwin sheep
are near the proposed trail , so a protective fence would be needed there .
There are a total of 5 road right of ways which cross the proposed
trail . These should remain valid in case of later construction . If the trail should
need to be moved after it is built , to allow development this should also be
an option
We would like to propose the path be called the William and Hannah
Pew bike trail , as suggested by George Frantz. We hope you will build the
bike path, and we will do whatever we can to help it succeed.
Sincerely yours,
Susanna Colle
Roy Colle
121 Pine Tree Road
Blythe Baldwin
Frank Baldwin
149 Pine Tree Road
P. S. We are very concerned about bike saftey on Judd Falls Road at and near
the under - pass just south of route 366 . We hope that the road will soon be
widened there I In the meantime , please act to lessen the chances of a severe
accident there .
We suggest at least :
1 - Signs to warn cars about the narrow road at the under - pass
2- A shoulder on the road , so bikes have some place to escape cars
3- Improving the road itself , so bikes can ride on it
Thank you for considering our suggestions
Site Visit Report: Frank and Blythe Baldwin
Date: August 14, 1996
Visitors: Betsy Darlington
Owner's Address: 149 Pine Tree Rd., Ithaca 14850
Property location: Behind many properties on Pine Tree Rd., Snyder Hill Rd., and Snyder Hill
development
Tax Parcel: - - 7.2; ( - - 11.2 maybe) Assessed value:
# acres: 22.9 ac. (and 26.78 ac.?)
This is a lovely, sloping property, with young forest, and fields that are reverting to brush and forest. One
large field is mysteriously remaining in grasses (mostly one particular grass). Perhaps it's an area with
clayey soils that was compacted by grazing and/or farm machinery, and this grass is the only thing that has
been able to grow there?
Lehdr;d the Baldwins' houselot is a small pond and a small sheep pasture for their 3 adult sheep
and a lamb. The Baldwins own the 22.9 -acre parcel, and share the 26.78 -ac. piece with Roy Colle. He and
the Baldwins might split that piece so the. Baldwins can include it in the conservation easement, or he might
be willing to have the easement cover that whole piece, too. Frank will be talking with him further when he
returns to Ithaca.
Mr. Colle mows wondertiul paths through the property (both parcels), and the whole neighborhood
is permitted to use them. A number of people over the years have told me about this wonderfully quiet,
wildlife -filled area behind their homes, and the generosity of the owners in leaving it as a natural area for
the neighborhood. It would be a great asset to the community to have it protected permanently.
Awhile ago, the Town and (lie Baldwins were working out a possible bike trail route around the
edge of the wild area, but the Town didn't get the funding. Now Frank is having second thoughts about the
idea anyway, fearing disruption to (lie abundant wildlife and intrusion into their backyard (the trail would
have gone very close to their sheep shed and pond).
Species noted:
atrowwood
basswood
shagbark hickory
white oak (one lenge
one)
ash
honeylocust
white pine
sugar maple (one
large one)
staghorn sumac
gray dogwcKA
honeysuckle
blackberry
wild grape
goldenrod
chicory
teasel
milkweed
pokeweed
thistle
wild bergamot
(Monarda)
avens
enchanter's
nightshade
Queen Ann's lace
7 J QIN;'
001\'2
bladder campion
sensitive fern
goldfinch
song sparrow
yellowthroat
wild turkey (?)
--B. Darlington,
8/14/96
S✓
Baldwin CE --Pine Tree Rd.: 8/22/96
1. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Easement to:
a) Ensure that, except as provided herein, the Property will be retained and managed forever in a
natural and scenic condition, thus protecting significant natural habitat for wildlife and plants; and scenic .
views of the Property from surrounding areas and distant hills;
b) Prevent any use of the Property that will significantly impair or interfere with the conservation
values of the Property;
c) Protect the quality of surface and subsurface waters.
Grantors intend that this Easement will confine the use of the Property to such activities as are consis-
tent with the purpose of this Easement.
2. Rights of Grantee. To accomplish the purpose of this Easement, the following rights are conveyed to
Grantee by this Easement:
(a) To preserve and protect the conservation values of the Property;
(b) To enter upon the Property at reasonable times, in order to monitor Grantors' compliance
with, and otherwise enforce the terms of this Easement, provided that such entry, whenever practic- able,
shall be upon prior reasonable notice to Grantors, and Grantee shall not unreasonably interfere with Grant-
ors' use and quiet enjoyment of the Property; and
(c) To prevent any activity on or use of the Property that is inconsistent with the purpose of this
Easement, and to require the restoratioA of such areas or features of the Property that may be damaged by
any inconsistent activity or use, pursuant to paragraph 5 (Grantee's Remedies).
3. Prohibited Uses.
(a) Except as provided under Reserved Right (a): Commercial or industrial activity;
(b) Except as provided under Reserved Rights: Placement, construction or enlargement of roads,
parking lots, billboards, buildings, permanent camping accommodations, mobile homes, or other struc-
tures;
(c) Tree cutting except as necessary under any activity permitted under Reserved Rights. Any tree
cutting must be in accordance with Prohibited Use 3 (g);
(d) Except in Area A shown on the attached Sketch: grazing of domestic animals or tillage, -
(e) Dumping or disposal of wastes, refuse, or debris on the Property, except for plant or animal
materials generated on the Property, and disposed of at least 200 (two hundred) feet from any wetland,
stream or other body of water, and in a manner consistent with the purpose of this Easement;
(f) Mining or any other alteration of the topography, including, but not limited to, the excavation
or removal of soil, sand, gravel, rock, sod, oil, or gas, except as may be required in the course of any
activity permitted herein;
(g) Any use or activity that causes or is likely to cause significant degradation of the land from a
natural condition or significant sedimentation or pollution of any surface or subsurface waters;,
(h) ' Any manipulation or alteration of any stream or wetland on the Property;
(i) Except as provided under Reserved Right 4.1 (aa : ivision of the Property into two or more
parcels;
0) Any use of the Property and any activity thereon which is inconsistent with the purpose of this
Easement.
4. Reserved Rights. Grantors reserve all rights accruing from their ownership of the Property, including
the right to engage in or to permit others to engage in all uses of the Property that are not expressly pro-
hibited herein and are not in conflict with the purpose of this Easement. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, Grantors reserve the right to:
(a) Within Area A shown on the attached Sketch, and consistent with the purpose of this Ease-
ment: Engage in agricultural uses in accordance with ecologically sound and sustainable agricultural prac-
4
tices and in accordance with a farm conservation plan prepared or approved by the District Conservationist
of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service or the County Soil and Water Conservation District
(or successor agencies) or the Grantee. Except as prohibited under Prohibited Use 3 (d), "agricultural
uses" that shall be permitted are: pasturing, breeding, and raising of livestock; breeding. and raising bees;
maple sugaring; planting, raising, harvesting, and producing agricultural and horticultural crops and prod-
ucts; sale of, and appropriate roadside signage for, crops and products harvested and produced on the
Property;
(b) Within Area A: Construct, repair, replace, or enlarge nonresidential structures directly related
to permitted agricultural uses, provided said structures (in the judgement of Grantee) are located in a man-
ner which will minimize the impact on wildlife habitat, waterways, and scenic views from public areas;
(c) Build or enlarge ponds, wetlands, or shallow water impoundments, to enhance wildlife habitat;
(d) Construct unpaved access roads (not to exceed 12' in width) as may be needed for any agricul-
tural activity permitted herein;
(e) Engage in, and permit others to engage in, recreational uses of the Property, including, but not
limited to, skiing, hiking, and hunting that neither require nor produce significant surface alteration of die
land, and that are consistent with the purpose of this Easement;
(f) Maintain and/or create foot trails;
(g) Maw Area B, shown on the attached Sketch, as needed to keep this area open, but no more
than once a year, in late summer of early fall;
(g) Cut Christmas trees for personal use; cut firewood for use at one single-family home, provided
said cutting is in accordance with ecologically sound forest conservation practices and on a sustained yield
basis; cut trees to remove a hazardous condition.
4.1 IN ADDITION, the Grantors may, after providing thirty (30) days written notice to Grantee:
(aa) Sell, give, lease, or otherwise convey the Property or portions of the Property, subject to the
terms of this Easement. However, if title to only a portion of the Property is conveyed, a stewardship pay-
ment shall be made by Grantor to the Grantee of 10% of the fair market value excluding any structures;
provided, however, that, in the event of foreclosure of a mortgage lien on the Property, said payment shall
be subordinate to said lien;
(bb) Construct a lean-to or other open-air shelter, not to exceed 200 *** sq. ft. in footprint, said
structure not to be serviced with public utilities.
4.2 IN ADDITION, provided use is consistent with the purpose of this Easement, Grantors may
engage in the following uses and practices, subject to the written approval of Grantee.
Any structures shall be located and constructed in a manner which will minimize their impact on wild-
life habitat, waterways, and scenic views of the Property.
In accordance with these provisions, Grantors may:
(aaa) In a location and according to a plan approved in writing by Grantee: Construct a recreational
pedestrian and/or bicycle trail;
(bbb) Cut or girdle trees as may be needed to protect or improve the health of the forest and pro-
mote its development as an old-growth forest, provided said cutting is according to a written plan ap-
proved by Grantee or prepared by a forester approved by Grantee. Said trees may be sold.
Wherever herein approval of Grantee is required, such approval shall be granted or denied in Grantee's
sole discretion.
DRAFT
Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Minutes
7 November 1996
Approved: / /
Present: Chair Phil Zarriello, Richard Fischer, Lois Levitan, Jon Meigs, Cheryl Smith
Absent: Eva Hoffmann, Loren Tauer
Staff: Geri Tierney
Guests: Anne Pitkin
Chair Zarriello opened the meeting at 7:30 pm.
No persons appeared to be heard. No members brought up concerns.
Coordinator Report
Coordinator Geri Tierney updated the CB on the outcome of Mr. Carlton Baker's
request for guidance from the Planning Board last month, regarding tax parcel 58-1-14.2.
Approximately seven acres of this 12.7 acre parcel fall within the Conservation Zone (which
requires a 7 -acre minimum lot size); the City of Ithaca has approached Mr. Baker with the
desire to purchase approximately 4 of these 7 acres, to be preserved as parkland. Mr. Baker
inquired whether he could still develop one house on the remaining 3 acres, if he sold 4 acres
to the City. The Planning Board responded that they could not provide a specific
recommendation without more specific information about future plans for development, but
did advise that clustering any development on this site might be a good option.
Ms. Tierney also reported that she and Lois Levitan attended the Conference on the
Environment sponsored by the New York State Association of Conservation Commissions and
Environmental Management Councils. She attended interesting sessions on GIS, integrated
pest management, SEQR review, and groundwater protection, and presented materials from
the conference to the CB for their perusal.
Chair Report
Chair Zarriello reported that plans were underway to contract Nancy Ostman and
Robert Wesley to undertake an environmental study of the South Hill Swamp UNA, as per
discussion at the 10/13/96 joint meeting of the CB and the Planning Committee (PC). If the
Town Board approves a resolution to hire Mr. Wesley and Ms. Ostman at the 11/12/96 Town
Board Meeting, work should start immediately. Once this study is complete, the CB will
contact DEC to request re-evaluation of this area as a state regulated wetland.
Chair Zarriello also reported that Tompkins County has proposed a revision of
regulations governing septic leach fields within the County. The proposed revisions weaken
these regulations to EPA -based minimums, which may be insufficient particularly on
leachable soils. The EMC has discussed this issue, and objects because these proposed
revisions are not based on scientific criteria. Unfortunately, the CB has missed the official
comment period on these proposed revisions, but should still register a comment.
Committee Reports
CB Chair Zarriello asked whether the Environmental Review Committee had
commented formally on the Ithaca Estates Sketch Plan. ERC member Jon Meigs replied that
no formal comment had been written. Coordinator Tierney indicated that no further action
will happen on the Ithaca Estates project without another opportunity for ERC review, but
that it would be appropriate to add a formal comment to the file now in preparation for the
next round of development review.
UNA Conservation
As soon as Town Board approval is granted, Nancy Ostman and Robert Wesley will
begin the survey of the South Hill Swamp UNA. In the meanwhile, this group will consider
appropriate boundaries to the Coy Glen UNA. Chair Zarriello has submitted a digital
topographic image of the Town and a technical report on Riparian Forest Buffers to the CB
coordinator, which may help this effort. Lois Levitan remarked that protection of the Coy
Glen UNA should move quickly due to the pending, second phase of development at nearby
EcoVillage. As the EcoVillage site intersects just a small portion of this UNA as drawn by
Tompkins County, protection of this UNA may or may not affect plans at EcoVillage.
Comments on 1996 Park and Open Space Plan
Chair Zarriello asked for comments on the first part (the Analysis) of the Park and
Open Space Plan presented by George Frantz at our October meeting. Several members
voiced concern that the Plan's focus on both biological corridors and active recreational areas
was confusing. Phil Zarriello and Lois Levitan suggested that these two types of open space
be linked more closely together if they are to exist in the same document; Jon Meigs thought
they should be addressed in separate reports. Lois Levitan reiterated some the written
comments she submitted two weeks ago, specifically that she found the vision insufficiently
clear, the analysis section needs to be pared down, and that the Town is not the most
meaningful unit for analysis of park needs and supply.
CB members with substantial comments who have not yet submitted them in writing
will attempt to do so as soon as possible for incorporation into the evolving document. Also,
George Frantz will attend our December 5th meeting to present the plan's recommendations
and discuss the CB's comments on the first section.
New Projects for 1997
The group discussed new projects for next year. In 1995, the group drew up a list of
potential projects. The group debated whether they wished to create such a list for 1997, and
how wide a scope these projects should cover. Lois Levitan feels that the group should focus
tightly on their mandate to advise the Planning Board regarding development and open space
issues, and should perhaps take on one relevant project in addition to development review.
Other members of the group indicated that their time for CB projects was limited. The group
decided to draw up a new list, using the 1995 list as a basis.
Membership Reorganization
Cheryl Smith submitted a letter to the Town Board indicating she will not renew her
CB membership when it expires next month. The CB will be sorry to see her go, but wishes
her well in her new pursuits. The terms of Eva Hoffman and Loren Tauer are also expiring
next month, so they must write to the Town Board and indicate whether they wish to renew
their membership. With the vacancy created by Cheryl, there are now three vacant positions
on the CB. The CB will pursue new members by issuing a press release to the local media,
writing directly to potential members, and perhaps hosting an open house with bagels. The
CB will identify potential new members from attendance lists of local environmental
meetings, such as meetings on the proposed incinerator; the CB will also contact students at
Ecology House for potential members and collaboration on projects. CB members should
review the draft letter and press release for new membership and return any comments to
Coordinator Tierney by next Thursday, 11/14/96.
As no current members are willing to chair the ERC, the entire CB will review
development proposals as a group until new members are recruited. The planning staff
should circulate all mandatory and potential review materials only to Phil Zarriello; he will
decide what warrants additional review.
Approval of Minutes
Minutes from the 9/19/96 and 10/3/96 meetings were unanimously approved with
minor changes.
Chair Zarriello adjourned the meeting at 9:30 pm.
(File Name: c.\28plan\cb\11-07-96.min)
Notes from Conservation Board Meeting
5 December 1996
Present: Chair Phil Zarriello, Jon Meigs
Absent: Richard Fischer, Eva Hoffmann, Lois Levitan, Cheryl Smith, Loren Tauer
Staff: JoAnn Cornish, Geri Tierney
Guests: John Yntema, Yolanda Marion, Amy Spencer
A quorum was not present, but an abbreviated meeting was conducted focusing on two
pending development review projects: the Teeter subdivision and the Ithaca College Sketch Plan.
First, the group considered the Teeter two -lot subdivision. A. James Teeter has applied to
subdivide a +/- three acre houselot from his +/- 53 acre farm. The group noted that this parcel is
located in the agricultural zone, and examined the three acre lot's proximity to the "Creek Gorge"
designated as UNA IT -25. The houselot is adjacent to the "Creek Gorge", but should not significantly
impact the UNA. The group found no significant environmental concerns associated with this
subdivision.
Second, the group considered the Sketch Plan for Planned Construction Projects at Ithaca
College. Planned construction projects over the next three years include an addition to Ford Hall, a
new fitness center, a new building for the school of Health Sciences and Human Performance, and two
new parking lots. Plans for a new physical plant building are also mentioned in this Sketch Plan. The
group expressed two environmental concerns:
1) The larger of the two proposed parking lots (designated as U lot") is planned to be built
upon a very steep, wooded slope. Construction of a parking lot in this location would require
significant clearing of an erodible slope and probably blasting of bedrock. Additionally, the
east end of this proposed lot would not have easy access to the campus, because of the slope.
The group considered whether a parking garage in that area might be more appropriate.
2) Environmental concerns might arise from the magnitude of construction in such a short
period of time, depending on how the construction is staged. These concerns included
sediment erosion control during construction, parking for construction workers, and equipment
trailer parking.
Phil Zarriello and Jon Meigs will visit the site to better assess the situation and return comments to
Planning Staff prior to the 12/17/96 Planning Board Meeting.
Visitor John. Yntema attended the meeting as a potential new CB member. He is an engineer
by training, and has environmental work experience. He will submit a letter and resume for the
Town's consideration. Another potential new board member, Kara Hagedorn, will attend our January
meeting.
Our next meeting will be Thursday, January 16th 1997 in the Town Board Room. At that
meeting, we will adopt our 1997 schedule and elect new officers.
(File Name: c:\28p1anNcb\12-06-96.min)
TOWN OF ITHACA
126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783
FAX (607) 273-1704
TO: Conservation Board members
FROM: George R. Frantz, AICPGRD
DATE: December 11, 1996
RE: Draft Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan.
Attached please find a complete, reformatted version of the Park, Recreation and Open Space
Plan working draft update. It includes the inventory and analysis portions of the Plan that
were distributed earlier this year, as well as the finished Plan recommendations, Plan costs,
and recommendations on how to pay for those costs.
A number of comments have been received regarding the organization of the original draft.
In response we have separated the inventory, analysis and recommendation sections related to
open space resources from those related to parks and recreation. Under the new format
Chapters 3, 4 and 5 focus on parks and recreation; Chapters 6, 7 and 8 focus on open space.
In Chapter 9, "The Costs and How to Pay for Them", the two aspects of the Plan are
combined again.
The inventory and analysis portions of the draft Plan you have already received and reviewed
correspond to Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 of this version. They have been revised somewhat
since you last saw them, however aside from the reorganization no major changes have been
made.
Chapters 5, 8 and 9 are new.
Please bear in mind that this is a working draft and as such contains numerous typos and
inconsistencies in formatting and typeface. For instance, some of the table and map reference
numbers may not have been revised to reflect the new Plan structure. These, and the typos,
etc. will be taken care of in later formatting stages.
Please give me a call at 273-1747 if you have any questions.
xc: Cathy Valentino, Town Supervisor